Insiders versus Outsiders: Exploring the Dynamic Relationship Between Mission and Ethos in the New Testament 9781463235901

Citation preview

Insiders versus Outsiders

Perspectives on Philosophy and Religious Thought 14

Perspectives on Philosophy and Religious Thought (formerly Gorgias Studies in Philosophy and Theology) provides a forum for original scholarship on theological and philosophical issues, promoting dialogue between the wide-ranging fields of religious and logical thought. This series includes studies on both the interaction between different theistic or philosophical traditions and their development in historical perspective.

Insiders versus Outsiders

Exploring the Dynamic Relationship Between Mission and Ethos in the New Testament

Edited by

Jacobus (Kobus) Kok John Anthony Dunne

9

34 2014

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2014 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2014

‫ܕ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-4632-0257-6

ISSN 1940-0020

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Insiders versus outsiders : exploring the dynamic relationship between mission and ethos in the New Testament / edited by Jacobus (Kobus) Kok ; edited by John Anthony Dunne. pages cm. -- (Perspectives on philosophy and religious thought, ISSN 1940-0020) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4632-0257-6 1. Identification (Religion)--Biblical teaching. 2. Bible. New Testament--Criticism, interpretation, etc. 3. Church history--Primitive and early church, ca. 30-600. I. Kok, Jacobus (Kobus), editor of compilation. BS2545.I33I57 2014 225.6’7--dc23 2014010749 Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ..................................................................................... v Acknowledgments .................................................................................. vii 1. Insiders versus outsiders: Exploring the dynamic relationship between mission and ethos in the New Testament—an introduction ...................................................................................... 1 Jacobus (Kobus) Kok 2. Inclusivism and exclusivism: A study of two trends in the Old Testament ....................................................................................... 15 Pieter M. Venter 3. Inclusivity as the essential nature of the Gospel ........................... 49 Ernest van Eck 4. Mission and ethics: sensitivity to outsiders in Matthew ............... 85 Marius Nel 5. Exploring a common background of Paul and ‘John’: Mission and conversion .............................................................................105 Athanasios Despotis 6. Doing Good to All: Perspectives on Mission and Ethics in Galatians .......................................................................................145 Jacobus (Kobus) Kok 7. Mission and Ethics in 1 Corinthians: Reconciliation, corporate solidarity, and other-regard as missionary strategy in Paul .............................................................................179 Jacobus (Kobus) Kok v

vi

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

8. ‘Holding forth the word of life’: Philippians 2:16a and other references to Paul’s understanding of the involvement of early Christian communities in spreading the Gospel ...........211 Christoph Stenschke 9. Mission and Ethics in the Epistle to the Hebrews: Faith means Perseverance ....................................................................239 Rob van Houwelingen 10. Insiders or Outsiders? The use of the term ‘βάρβαρος’ in the Acts of the Apostles: A Problemanzeige ......................................261 Ronald H. van der Bergh Index of Biblical References ...............................................................283 Old Testament .............................................................................283 New Testament ............................................................................284 Index of Modern Authors ...................................................................291 Subject Index.........................................................................................297

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This book is a result of the ‘Prestige FOKUS Project on Mission and Ethics in the New Testament and Early Christianity’ under the guidance of Prof. Jacobus (Kobus) Kok at the University of Pretoria in South Africa. This volume is a follow-up volume to the book Sensitivity to Outsiders: Exploring the dynamic relationship between mission and ethics in the New Testament and Early Christianity (edited by J. Kok, T. Nicklas, D. T. Roth, C. M. Hays, 2014) with Mohr Siebeck in the WUNT II series. Some sections/perspectives in chapter one have appeared in the introductory chapter of the aforementioned book, and where applicable, indicated as such. Acknowledgment is hereby given to Dr. Dieter T. Roth (University of Mainz) with whom I have co-authored that chapter. A significant feature of this book is the making of several articles originally published in Afrikaans available to an Englishspeaking audience. Some of the chapters have previously appeared as journal articles in local South African journals. In the footnotes of those particular chapters, reference is made to the journals where it first appeared. We thank the editors of these journals (Prof. A. G. Van Aarde [Hervormde Teologiese Studies] and Prof. Chris L. De Wet [Journal of Early Christian History]) for permission to use those articles again in this book in a slightly revised or translated version. We would also like to give acknowledgment to Dr. Melonie Schmierer-Lee for the kind and professional way she went about the process of having the book evaluated and accepted for publication and typesetting the manuscript. Amidst her own busy schedule, she spent many ‘after hours’, which goes beyond expectations. We thank you for going the extra mile(s).

vii

1. INSIDERS VERSUS OUTSIDERS: EXPLORING THE DYNAMIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MISSION AND ETHOS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT—AN INTRODUCTION Jacobus (Kobus) Kok UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA ABSTRACT1 In this introductory essay I reflect on why a study on insiders versus outsiders as well as the dynamic relationship between mission and ethos is necessary. Secondly, a brief overview of the contents of the book is provided. The following terms need to be briefly defined for the sake of clarity: In this essay Mission is understood from the vantage point of the missio Dei—God has a mission and those who believe are called to take part in this mission through their words and deeds (cf. John 17:19); Identity is a complex term but basically relates to the understanding of self from a vertical and horizontal level. Early Christian identity was influenced and transformed in the first place from a vertical level. In other words, the sense of self revolved around a new identity that was found in God (cf. 1 Thess 1:7–9; Phlp 3); Ethos refers to the lifestyle of believers, or the way the group acts out its identity; Ethics is seen as the systematic reflection on the Some of the perspectives/information in this essay also appeared in revised form in Kok & Roth (2014:1–20). 1

1

2

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

relationship between identity and ethos, or why we do what we do. When we systematically reflect on the latter question, we are engaged in ethics (see Van der Watt 2006:v–viii).

DETERMINING BOUNDARIES: CHRISTIANITY AS A MOVEMENT WITHIN JUDAISM The question about the construction of boundaries in early Christianity, that would determine who exactly insiders and outsiders were, has many different components. One such component deals with the relationship between the Christian movement and Judaism. In the beginning phases, the Christian movement was still part of Judaism. In other words, it was a revival movement within a more established movement. 2 Some scholars go so far as to argue that it is simply anachronistic to speak of the earliest Christfollowers as being ‘Christians’ because the term was coined much later (see Kok & Roth 2014). The term ‘Christian’ (Χριστιανός) appears in texts many decades after the death of Jesus and apostles like Paul (cf. Acts 11:26; 1 Pet 4:16; cf. Ignatius of Antioch in Mag. 4; 10.1). Reference to the term ‘Christianity’ (ὁ Χριστιανισμός), appears only in the second century CE (cf. Ignatius of Antioch in Mag 10.3 & Rom 3.3) (see Kok & Roth 2014). Certainly Jesus was not a ‘Christian,’ but a ‘Jew’ 3 from the beginning until the end of his (earthly) life. Jesus most probably did not intend to bring/create a new religion. Similarly Paul was a ‘Jew,’ from birth to death (Frey 2012:57–96). Paul’s conversion was not a conversion out of Judaism, but a conversion within Judaism. For this reason Judith Lieu (2004:1) rightly asks whether it can be determined when exactly the Jewish followers of Jesus and the earliest believers who converted to this inner Jewish movement actually became ‘Christians’? We know now that by the second century (cf. The Epistle to Diognetus 1), Some scholars refrain from talking about Judaism as a monolithic entity or as a ‘religion’ during the first century. In this regard see Nongbri (2013:25). 3 The term ‘Jew’ here does not imply that we think of Judaism as a monolithic entity, or that there was an idea of a nation state at that time. The plurality of ancient Judaism(s) is also acknowledged. 2

INTRODUCTION

3

Christ-followers could refer to themselves as a ‘third race’ or ‘new race’ (cf. Diogn. 1; καινòν τοῦτο γένος) alongside Greeks and Jews. However, for the most of the early second half of the first century this was not the case. During that time, the Christ-following movement as such, was closely linked to Judaism4 (see, e.g., Becker & Yoshiko Reed [eds. 2007] as well as Nicklas [2014]). In recent years, some scholars have begun to question the received view of the so-called ‘parting of the ways,’ arguing that there is sufficient evidence from late antiquity to illustrate that there was not a simple ‘clean break’ with Judaism (cf. Becker & Yoshiko Reed [eds.] 2007). Yoshiko Reed (2007:189–232) proves that in documents like the Pseudo-Clementine literature, Jewish Christians expressed their identity in Jewish terms: For, contrary to our understanding of early Christian selfdefinition as inextricably tied to supersessionism, triumphalism, and antinomianism, some late antique authors and communities appear to have accepted Jesus as a special figure in salvation-history, without seeing this belief as inconsistent with Torah-observance and/or the continued validity of God’s eternal covenant with the Jews. (Yoshiko Reed 2007:189)

Examples like the Pseudo-Clementine literature that date from a later stage in history, show that the boundaries between ‘Christianity’ and ‘Judaism’ were not always so clear-cut. This tendency challenges us to rethink the nature of early Christian identity construction and the boundary creation that would determine the relationship between ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders.’ Furthermore it needs to be taken into consideration that the construction of identity is a gradual process, and in that sense a dynamic one. Social boundaries are not fixed or static entities, but fluid and permeable. In the face of new contexts, identity often has to be re-defined. In dialogue and With reference to ‘Judaism’ we are not of the opinion that it was a self-contained ‘fixed’ religion, but acknowledge the fact that it consisted out of many different groups with internal differentiation (see Nongbri 2013). 4

4

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

encounter with others, identity is also challenged. One example in early Christianity was the rise of Gnostic tendencies which challenged ‘proto-orthodox’ Christians to (re)formulate their Christology. In the process, boundary lines were created. In the face of these tendencies, and in dialogue with it, the ‘proto-orthodox’ Christians had to (re)formulate their identity in new ways, and in the process they also had to construct new boundaries. Michael Wolter (2009:129) argues that every group will have inclusive and exclusive social boundaries. Inclusive social ethos refers to behaviour that is shared with the rest of society/outsiders and leads to a group being integrated with society. Exclusive ethos refers to behaviour that is not shared with the rest of society, and functions as identity markers to the inside. On a social level, Judaism was a ‘religion’ that drew strong boundaries between insiders and outsiders, something that became a challenge for early Christfollowers like Paul who held more inclusive views (cf. Gal 2). As the Christ-following movement gradually developed its distinctive sense of self, and developed into a movement in its own right, it had to clearly construct its identity and boundaries. When a group is in the process of determining who ‘we’ are, it necessarily will have to determine who ‘they’ are. A particular group ‘exists by virtue of there being an out-group’ (Michael Hogg [quoted by Trebilco 2013:2]).5 Typically in group dynamics, as Social Identity Theory has illustrated, Group ‘A’ would often vilify Group ‘B,’ and stereotype both themselves and outsiders. This is called social categorization and social differentiation. The challenge the early Christmovement had to grapple with, was how to not only construct identity to the inside, but also determine the boundaries to the outside, and how outsiders should be labelled. Implicitly this comes down to a sociological process of identity formation, boundary creation, and the establishment of inclusive and exclusive social ethos.

Trebilco’s paper does not indicate the exact source; however, in the paper Hogg (2001:56) is indicated. 5

INTRODUCTION

5

SENSITIVITY TOWARDS OUTSIDERS FROM THE VERY START From its earliest beginnings the Christian movement seems to have been a dynamic missionary movement of converts who have turned their lives radically around (1 Thess 1:7–9) (cf. Meeks 1993:18). At least this is how Paul seems to have represented it. In his first letter to the Thessalonians, which is perhaps the earliest Christian document we possess, Paul presents his view of the group, namely, that they have ‘turned to God, away from the idols, to serve the living and true God’ (1 Thess 1:9) (my translation). However, this radical turn was perhaps not always so simplistic in nature. Recent perspectives on Dialogical Self Theory 6 illustrate that people can hold multiple identities at the same time, and that in cases of ‘conversion,’ for instance, it is not always possible to speak of a ‘clean break’ with the identity(s) that preceded the convert. In many New Testament texts we find evidence that the believers often struggled with their ‘previous’ life/frame of reference, and to some extent still were not so certain about what elements could be left intact and which ones they should completely break with. In fact, even within the same community of faith there might have existed different points of view. One example is 1 Corinthians 8, where we clearly see two different lines of thought regarding the issue of meat offered to idols. One group felt that it was no problem to eat meat that was sacrificed to idols. The other group experienced the matter as a serious point of concern, and they abstained from eating such meat. In his letter Paul then addressed this difficulty and provided the community of faith with some advice. Interestingly enough Paul makes it clear that whatever they choose, they should do it in such a way that they do not think only about their own needs, but in their choice think about the result it would hold for others. If what they decide to do will have a negative impact on the faith of others, they should refrain from those actions. It is interesting how Paul resolves the crisis between two opposing points of view by creating a third alternative which holds at its core Cf. the work of Hubert Hermans on the Dialogical Self Theory (cf. Hermans & Hermans-Konopka 2010). See Kok & Roth (2014:1–20) for more perspectives and examples. 6

6

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

a view of sensitivity to others or outsiders (see Kok & Roth 2014:1–20). It seems that the early Christians were motivated to illustrate sensitivity to outsiders/others from the very start—even to such an extent that one’s own needs and freedom were sacrificed for the sake of others. The question could be asked whether these believers might have been motivated to show sensitivity to outsiders from a ‘missional’ perspective? In many texts, this seems to have been a probability. One example is 1 Peter 3:1, where the author encourages women to show exemplary behaviour, with the purpose of eventually7 winning (cf. κερδηθήσονται) their husbands over to the movement. Some early Christians, like the author(s) of John, believed that God had a plan (John 3:16) and that he had sent his Son to reveal truth and light (John 1:1–18) to humanity, and that believers are called to be sent as Jesus was also sent from the Father (John 20:21; καθὼς ἀπέσταλκέν με ὁ πατήρ, κἀγὼ πέμπω ὑμᾶς). The Gospels present Jesus as a person who was especially sensitive to outsiders (e.g. Luke 15:1–22) and that behind that sensitivity there existed a missional motivation (e.g. John 4:1–42). The apostle Paul, in one of his earliest letters, calls on believers to do the good towards all (Gal 6:10), to show true ‘Gastfreundschaft,’ which according to Hahn (2002:106), is to be seen as a value that comes from the remembered Jesus who accentuated love towards all, even one’s enemies (cf. Matt 5:48). In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 8 and 11) Paul emphasized the fact that believers should conduct themselves in such a way that outsiders might not get the wrong impression. In fact, it is through this expression of exemplary conduct/ethos that people should come to faith (1 Tim 2:1–4). Later on in the Pauline tradition, this value was accentuated even more, as we see in the way bishops should behave. When the congregation must choose a bishop, they should carefully consider whether this particular person has his own house in order, and whether he has a good reputation, being above reproach, in the eyes of outsiders (1 Tim 3:1–7). Hahn (2002:377) states it well: ‘Der Episkopos muss sich in seiner eigenen Familie bewärt haben, er darf “Aussenstehenden” (οἱ ἔξωθεν) keinen Anstoss bieten […].’ In fact, an important charac7

Κερδηθήσονται appears in the future indicative passive.

INTRODUCTION

7

teristic of a bishop is that he must be temperate, sensible, dignified, a good teacher, and also particularly hospitable—a friend to strangers (φιλόξενον). Hospitality is a value that creates a warm space for outsiders, and transforms them into insiders; it is motivated by an ethos of giving for the sake of others (cf. also 1 Tim 5:10 for widows). The word ξενοδοχέω (1 Tim 5:10) is made up of ξένος (outsider) and δέχομαι (to receive)—someone that illustrates an ethos of hospitality towards outsiders or strangers. The same was true for the deacons (cf. 1 Tim 3:8–13) whose lives should not give any offence to outsiders. The author of Peter (1 Pet 3) encourages his readers to illustrate exemplary ethical behaviour that essentially flows forth from their identity, in such a way that their behaviour could become a form of witness to unbelievers. In sum, it is clear that for the early Christians, there existed a dynamic relationship between mission and ethos/ethics, with a prominent degree of sensitivity to outsiders.

DRAWING AND TRANSCENDING BOUNDARIES The early Christian material reflects the ebb and flow of inclusivity and exclusivity. On the one hand the early Christ-followers illustrated a sensitivity to outsiders, but on the other hand they often drew clear boundaries between insiders and outsiders. Early Christianity was not a ‘free for all and everything goes’ movement. To the contrary! Early Christians often used language that created a perception of outsiders. As mentioned above, inclusive ethos refers to behaviour that the group shares with society, while exclusive ethos points to ethos that is not shared with society (Wolter 2009:129). Exclusive ethos draws boundaries and deals with the distinctive identity of the group. In the language the early Christians used to refer to themselves, one can see the way that boundaries were created in a process of identity formation. 8 Paul Trebilco (2013) illustrates how the See Kok & Roth (2014) for the same line of thought and some more examples. There we have also discussed the value of Dialogical Self 88

8

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

linguistic creation and usage of terms like οἱ ἂπιστοι (the unbelievers) and ἁμαρτωλοί (sinners), for instance, instantly created boundaries between insiders and outsiders (cf. also Kok & Roth 2014). Such social categories are (socially) constructed by people in a given context and group. The fact that one can point to a certain coherent group like οἱ πιστεύοντες (believers) in 1 Corinthians 14:22, for instance, by implication means that there will be an ‘outgroup’—the ἂπιστοι.9 The vault line revolved around the criterion of ‘faith’ (Trebilco 2013:3). This shows that the early Christfollowers labelled outsiders inter alia in a ‘natural’ process of intergroup differentiation (Trebilco 2013:2). In the development of a religious movement it is rather interesting to investigate the way in which a group comes to the point that they can determine inclusion or exclusion by means of terms like ‘belief’ or ‘faith.’ First of all, it implies that the author or group knows what the content of the ‘faith’ is and that they have developed those boundaries that determine when someone would be labelled as part of the in-group or not. This suggests some communal consensus and minimum criteria or boundary markers which must have been in place. Theory as heuristic model/theory that could help New Testament scholars to explain the way that early Christian identity construction took place. 9 Hogg, M., Social Categorization, Depersonalization, and Group Behavior, (http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id= g978 1405106535_chunk_g97814051065355). Hogg states: ‘Groups exist by virtue of there being out groups. For a collection of people to be a group there must, logically, be other people who are not in the group (a diffuse non-ingroup, e.g., academics vs. non-academics) or people who are in a specific outgroup (e.g., academics vs. politicians). In this sense, social groups are categories of people; and just like other categories, a social category acquires its meaning by contrast with other categories. The social world is patterned by social discontinuities that mark the boundaries of social groups in terms of perceived and/or actual differences in what people think, feel, and do. Clearly, any analysis of group behavior should, to some extent, rest upon an analysis of categories and of social categorization processes, and of the social relations between categories (intergroup relations).’

INTRODUCTION

9

The nature of the social dynamics and context of a group would also determine the strategies the group or its leader would use to strengthen their identity. The situation in 1 Thessalonians, would differ greatly from a later document like the gospel of John in which the separation between the Christ-followers and a certain form of ‘Judaism’ seems10 to have been more developed (cf. John 8:44). In 1 Thessalonians the outsiders are labelled as being (unbelieving) gentiles, while in John’s gospel the (unbelieving) ‘Jews’ are labelled as being the explicit out-group (cf. John 8:44). It is therefore important to plot the New Testament documents over a space-time continuum in order to see the way the Christian movement developed its distinctive sense of self over time and in different contexts as it developed from a ‘religion of conversion’ into a ‘religion of tradition’ (Wolter 2012:49–69). Secondly, since early Christianity was not a monolithic movement, but polyphonic and diverse in nature, it would also be important to study the plurality of early Christian movements and the way they went about the construction of identity and social boundaries. However, in this book we will not be dealing with these particular questions (see Kok et al., 2014).11 This book aims to address this research question with a focus on the New Testament. Scholars from around the globe have been invited to contribute chapters from their respective fields of speciality.

OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK In chapter 2, Pieter Venter engages with inclusivity and exclusivity in the Old Testament. Venter argues that the Old Testament illustrates that both inclusivist and exclusivist trends are present. Drawing on Van Ruler’s insights, Venter argues that the New Testament inherited the debate between two opposing stances from the time of the Second Temple. After their return from exile, the Zadokite See the sections above where the problematic nature of the ‘parting of the ways’ is referred to. 11 In Kok et al., (2014) sensitivity to outsiders in the New Testament and in literature of the second century is discussed. 10

10

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

priests propagated an exclusivist identity for the Judeans. According to Venter, their perspective was based on the programme of Ezekiel 40–48. This is particularly illustrated in the literature of Ezra–Nehemiah, the Priestly Writing, and Jubilees. But on the other hand, the Old Testament also witnesses to a more inclusivist approach, as seen in the books of Jonah, Ruth, Trito-Isaiah, and to a lesser extent also in some parts of Numbers and Joshua. Venter concludes that both exclusivist as well as inclusivist trends are present in the Bible, and that perhaps the church could draw from both lines of thought in a postmodern context. Ernest Van Eck (chapter 3) argues that inclusivity was a value that belonged to the heart and very nature of the gospel. In antiquity, group identity was based on cultural ethnicity. Groups used their ethnicity to define and delineate themselves as unique. Ethnicity was determined by characteristics like family (kinship), name, language, land of birth, myths of common ancestry, customs, shared historical memories, phenotypical features, and religion. Based on their ethnic identity, the Jewish temple religion as well as law-abiding Jewish believers in the early church, and in some of Paul’s congregations, argued that people from other ethnic groups should be excluded from the presence of God (temple religion), the Christ-followers (Acts), or the church (Paul). In contrast to this, Jesus, Acts, and Paul proclaim an inclusive ecclesiology: ethnicity should not determine whether one could belong to God or be part of the congregations of the Christ-followers. Van Eck comes to the conclusion that the New Testament bears witness to an inclusive ecclesiology with a missionary intent. Next Marius Nel (chapter 4) reflects on mission and ethics in Matthew. In order to understand the Gospel of Matthew in regards to its sensitivity to outsiders, Nel firstly clarifies what is understood by the reference to the community of Matthew, before he surveys the different relations to insiders and outsiders that are reflected therein. The complex interchange of insider and outsider relationships that had occurred as a result of the ministry of Jesus, is thereafter investigated along with Matthew’s relationship with formative Judaism on the one hand, and gentiles on the other. In the concluding section Nel argues that a reinterpretation of the Torah by Jesus, as presented by Matthew, resulted in the reorientation of the Matthean community’s ethics from being focussed on holiness, as was common in Jewish sects in Formative Judaism. This led to

INTRODUCTION

11

their emphasis on the separation from others, and to an ethic focussed on righteousness, and it is this ethic—based on righteousness—that forms the foundation of Matthew’s sensitivity to outsiders. Athanasios Despotis (chapter 5) tackles the relationship between Paul and John. In his essay Despotis refers to the controversial issue of the current New Testament research concerning the relationship of the Johannine literature (except the Apocalypse) to Paul. Although several attempts have been undertaken for the comparison between both authors, mainly in terms of theology or the history of tradition, it has not yet been compared from a missional perspective. Accordingly, in this essay, Despotis explores the relationship between the Pauline and Johannine writings from this perspective. Kok (chapter 6) investigates how the concepts identity, ethics, and ethos interrelate, and how the ethics of the Pauline communities in Galatians functioned against the background of the missionary context of the early church. Kok argues that the missionary dimension originated in the context of the missio Dei, and that God called Paul as a missionary to be taken up in the latter. The missionary process did not end with Paul, but was designed to be carried further by believers who should be missionary by their very nature. Kok investigates how the transformation of identity (the understanding of self, God, and others) leads to the creation of ethical values and how it is particularised in different socio-religious and cultural contexts in the development of the early church (for example there is an implicit missionary dimension in the ethics of Paul in Galatians). It is argued that those who want to speak of ethics should make something of mission, and those who speak of mission in Galatians, should speak about the role of identity, ethics, and ethos as well. In his second essay, Kok (chapter 7) examines the dynamic relationship between mission and ethics in contexts of conflict and change in the Corinthian correspondence, as well as the role Paul played as reconciling leader. The early Christian writers like Paul wanted to instruct and shape communities of faith. Paul was especially concerned with the maintenance and growth of his congregations and also with the social and ethical boundaries between the community of faith and the ‘world.’ In the article it is illustrated that within the Corinthian congregational context there existed

12

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

several conflict situations, and that much of it was a result of diversity within the congregation. Diversity is a fact of life and reality of the church. In Paul’s vision for unity and reconciliation, and in his attempt to address the factionalism in the Corinthian congregation, he would in all cases ground his practical solution in a theological identity construction. Paul focuses on corporate solidarity and unity and urges the congregation to find their fellow brothers and sisters in times of conflict by means of ethical reciprocity and otherregard, a matter in which he is also an example, typical of other philosophers of his time—but with a significant difference. At the end it became clear that Paul’s ethical advice had a missional dimension, in the sense that the conflict management should take place in such a way that God is honoured and that Jews, Greeks, and fellow believers will see that the way this community handles conflict is different to the way the ‘world’ would do it, and that in the process, even more might be saved. Christoph Stenschke (chapter 8) postulates that in the past several scholars have argued that, perhaps surprisingly, the Corpus Paulinum does not charge churches or individual Christians to be involved in actively spreading their faith. Recently, some studies have argued persuasively that one such charge is to be found in Philippians 2:16a. The expression λόγον ζωῆς ἐπέχοντες should not be understood as ‘holding fast to the word of life,’ but rather as ‘holding forth, that is presenting the word of life (to others).’ This article briefly summarizes the arguments for this understanding of ἐπεχεῖν, places them in the wider context of references to congregational evangelism in Pauline literature, and argues that this larger portrayal supports understanding ἐπεχεῖν as ‘holding forth.’ Rob van Houwelingen’s essay (chapter 9) reflects on mission and ethics in Hebrews. In terms of lifestyle, the first Christians were, according to the New Testament, in constant interaction with their non-Christian environment. This was even so when that society responded critically or dismissively against Christians, in van Houwelingen’s view. An important question is how dynamic was the relationship between ethics and missionary awareness? This chapter charts a biblical-theological quest through the Epistle to the Hebrews, a New Testament letter addressed to Jewish-Christian readers who were called upon to refocus their lives in a time of crisis. The writer of this letter encourages them to look in faith to

INTRODUCTION

13

Jesus Christ, the superior high priest in heaven, this being a hint for future readers who also desire to persevere in a time of crisis. In the final article, Ronald H. Van der Bergh (chapter 10) seeks to highlight the problematic nature of the interpretation of the term βάρβαρος in the Acts of the Apostles (28:2,4). Van der Bergh is of the opinion that in the ancient world, this term could function as an ethnic and linguistic marker to designate another people group as being the ‘other.’ In taking the nature of the term into account in the context of its appearance in Acts 28:1–10, some hitherto unsolved problems in the Acts narrative are identified. Van der Bergh challenges the reader to understand the term within its original context as a starting point for future studies.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Becker, A.H., & Yoshiko Reed, A., (eds.), The ways that never parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Fortress Press, Minneapolis. Frey, J., 2012, ‘The Jewishness of Paul’, in O. Wischmeyer (ed.), Paul: Life, setting, work, letters, pp. 75–96, T&T Clark, London. Hahn, F., 2002, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. Hermans, H. J. M. & Hermans-Konopka, A., 2010, Dialogical Self Theory: Positioning and counter-positioning in a globalizing society, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kok, J., & Roth, D.T., 2014 (forthcoming), ‘Sensitivity towards outsiders and the dynamic relationship between mission and ethics/ethos: An introduction’, in Kok, J., Nicklas, T., Roth, D.T. & Hays, C.M., Sensitivity towards Outsiders: Exploring the dynamic relationship between mission and ethics in the New Testament and early Christianity, pp. 1–20, (WUNT 2), Mohr Siebeck Tübingen. Meeks, W., 1993, The origins of Christian morality, Yale University Press, New Haven. Nicklas, T., 2014 (forthcoming), Lines of contact—lines of distinction: Second Century ‘Christian’ perspectives on the ‘parting of the ways’, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. Nongbri, B., 2013, Before Religion: The history of a modern concept, Yale University Press, New Haven. Trebilco, P., 2013, ‘Creativity at the boundary: Features of the linguistic and conceptual construction of outsiders in the New

14

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Testament’, paper presented at the SNTS meeting, Murdoch University, Perth, 23rd–26th July, pp.1–13. Van der Watt, J. G. (ed.), 2006, Identity, Ethics and Ethos in the New Testament, pp. v–viii, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin. Wolter, M., 2009, Theologie und Ethos, (WUNT 1.236), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. Wolter, M., 2012, ‘The development of Pauline Christianity from a “Religion of Conversion” to “Religion of Tradition”’, in D. P. Moessner, D. Marguerat, M. C. Parsons, & M. Wolter (eds.), Paul and the heritage of Israel: Luke’s narrative claim upon Paul and Israel’s legacy, pp. 49–69, T&T Clark, London. Yoshiko Reed, A., 2007, ‘”Jewish Christianity” after the “Parting of the Ways”: Approaches to Historiography and Self-Definition in the Pseudo-Clementines’, in A. H. Becker, & A. Yoshiko Reed (eds.), The ways that never parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, pp. 189–232, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

2. INCLUSIVISM AND EXCLUSIVISM: A STUDY OF TWO TRENDS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT Pieter M. Venter UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA ABSTRACT1 The identity of the church can be either inclusivist or exclusivist. Van Ruler’s theocratic theology views the church as being an inclusive community in service of God’s kingdom. According to Van Ruler, however, the church also shows a unique character based on its relationship with Jesus Christ. Although the church can take many forms, Van Ruler’s opinion is that the Christian church could be advised by Old Testament Israel in this regard. This study shows that both inclusivist and exclusivist trends are present in the Old as well as the New Testament. The New Testament inherited the debate between these two opposing stances from the time of the Second Temple. Returning from exile, Zadokite priests propagated an exclusivist identity for the Judeans. Their viewpoint was based on the programme of Ezekiel 40–48, as is illustrated in the literature of Ezra–Nehemiah, the Priestly Writing, and Jubilees. On the other hand, indeed there was an inclusivist approach as well, as is depicted in the books of Jonah, Ruth, Trito-Isaiah, and even 1 This article was originally published as Venter, P.M., 2009, ‘Inklusivisme en eksklusivisme: ‘n Studie van twee tendense’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 65(1), Art. #314, 10 pages. DOI: 10.4102/hts.v65i1.314 and reused here in translated and slightly revised form by permission of the journal Hervormde Teologiese Studies.

15

16

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS Numbers and Joshua. The conclusion of this study is that both exclusivist as well as inclusivist trends are present in the Bible. Although the church does not have any other option in the present postmodern world but to be primarily an inclusive community, it should also show some form of exclusivism.

INTRODUCTION We cannot ignore the context of the church when we reflect on its character. For quite a long time the church adopted an exclusive posture towards outsiders, neglecting the need to be inclusive of others. Today the world is moving away from exclusive communities. Cultural imperialism fell into disfavour with the rise of postmodernity. Along with this trend, criticism increased against Christianity’s claim to universal authority, its triumphal attitude, and its exclusivist stance. The era of Christianity’s dominance gave way to a pluralistic society in which no religion can claim a privileged and exclusivistic position. This development has provoked the church to rethink its position in the world and the form in which it should operate. Issues to be addressed include the apostolate of the church and its missionary activity in the present world. In turn this increasingly necessitates reflection on inclusivism and the relationship with the ‘other’ (see Park 2003:79–80). In a time of multiculturalism and religious pluralism the church is challenged to rethink: [h]ow Christians can maintain integrity while they affirm their mission to witness to God’s grace through Christ to the world and at the same time to genuinely embrace the reality of God’s freedom to dispense grace to whomever God wishes and in whatever way God chooses. (Park 2003:5)

In the present situation it has therefore become imperative to rethink the church’s identity in terms of ‘inclusivism’ and ‘exclusivism’. This article deals with these two concepts from a view of the Old Testament, and in the process, the Old Testament scholar Van Ruler will be a major interlocutor.

INCLUSIVISM AND EXCLUSIVISM

17

VAN RULER Van Ruler’s contribution The Dutch theologian Arnold Albert van Ruler (1908–1970) reflected on the relationship between the church’s identity and its apostolate. There are two reasons why his work is of importance in this regard. Firstly, he developed his theology on the apostolate in a time when Europe had already started to develop into a post-Christian society. Van Ruler’s view on the apostolate was mirrored in 1951 in Article VIII of the erstwhile constitution (‘Kerkorde’) of the then Netherdutch Reformed Church (‘Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk’). Although this constitution was eventually replaced by a newer edition, Van Ruler’s apostolate theology and general theological statements are still valid in the present theological debate in the Netherlands and in South Africa. The second reason for the importance of Van Ruler for this study is his continuing influence on theological research. This can be illustrated by the symposium held in May 1995 in Utrecht, Netherlands—25 years after Van Ruler’s death—to raise interest in his work as one of the greatest theologians of the Netherlands. It is also of interest that most of the papers read at this symposium— edited by Gerrit Klein and Dick Steenks (1995)—dealt with Van Ruler’s view on the apostolate. An evaluation of Van Ruler’s view on the apostolate should take place against the larger background of his view on theocracy. This article will therefore aim to formulate Van Ruler’s ideas on the apostolate from the available publications and try to understand it within the larger context of his work. Focus will also fall on Van Ruler’s understanding of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, and the way he used it to outline his view of the church’s apostolate. In general, Van Ruler saw the identity of the Christian church as essentially inclusive. Therefore, he stressed the inclusive tendencies found in the Bible, indicating the importance of the Old Testament in particular for the present identity of the church. As the Old Testament also contains obvious elements of exclusivity, Van Ruler paid attention to both tendencies as we will see. Finally, I indicate in this section what Van Ruler can contribute to the debate on inclusivism and exclusivism in the church’s endeavour to understand its identity and missionary activity under the present circum-

18

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

stances. All of this comes back to Park’s observation above (Park 2003:5), which could be rephrased in a question: how will the Christian church maintain its unique identity but simultaneously witness to God’s mercy for all of mankind? Van Ruler’s perspective on mission Van Ruler developed his ideas on the apostolate in conversation with Hoekendijk, Kraemer, and Van Leeuwen. In his Theologie van het Apostolaat (1953) (Theology of the Apostolate) he investigated apostolate from an eschatological, predestinarian, pneumatological, and anthropological perspective. In Van Ruler’s (1953:15) view, mission is ‘…de proclamatie van het rijk van God als rijk van Christus in elk nieuw volk en in elke nieuwe tijd’ (the proclamation of God’s kingdom as the kingdom of Christ under each new nation and in each new time period). However, this includes more than the mere proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. God’s kingdom is much more comprehensive than this. God is concerned with, and his kingdom embraces, the whole world. God’s kingdom also moves with leaps and bounds through the history of the world. It also takes many forms. Therefore (‘Daarom’), said Van Ruler, gaan haar ook de ogen open voor de betekenis van het Oude Testament, achter en rondom het Nieuwe Testament, en voor het volk Israel, de synagoge en de staat in Palestina—alle ook momenten en gestalten in Gods rijkshandelen met de wêreld (her eyes are opened to the importance of the Old Testament, in interpreting the New Testament [at the back and around the New Testament], and the people of Israel, the synagogue and the state in Palestine—all of them moments in and forms of the dealing of God’s kingdom with the world.) (Van Ruler 1953:16–17)

The apostolate has to take place within this larger context. Since the church is centered around God’s Word and is a liturgical community, it is an instrument in the expansion of God’s kingdom. These ideas were formulated by Van Ruler as follows: De kerk, de christen, de zending is nooit meer dan het karretje, het vehiculum, waarop het Woord van God—het geschreven, het kanonieke, het israëlietische Woord—zich voortbeweegt

INCLUSIVISM AND EXCLUSIVISM

19

van de ene mens naar de andere, van de ene tijd naar de andere, van het ene volk naar het andere. (The church, the Christian, and the mission, are never more than a tiny car, the vehicle, on which the Word of God—the written, canonical, Israelite Word—moves forward from one person to the next, one time to the other, one people to the next.) (Van Ruler 1953:24)

The church is called to serve in the same way in which ‘Jezus Christus zelfs in zijn heersen alleen maar dienaar is en dat de kerk er alleen is terwille van de wêreld’ (Jesus Christ remains a servant even in ruling, and the church exists only because of the world) (Van Ruler 1953:32). Plaisier (1995:80) interprets this statement as service to the kingdom, living according to the gospel, and not service to the world from an external gospel. This is what Van Ruler saw as the essential characteristic of the apostolate. In his mind, the apostolate is an integral part of being church—‘integrale deel van kerkwees’ (integral part of church existence) (Van Ruler 1953:20). The apostolate is ‘haar wezen’ (her being) (Van Ruler 1953:20). It is like yeast permeating every aspect of church activity. Seen from pneumatological and anthropological perspectives, this means that God’s strange Word is so internalized in humanity through the work of the Holy Spirit, that it becomes humanity’s ‘geweten, de con-sciëntie, het mede-weten en medeoordelen met God’ (morality, conscience, the knowing and co-judging along with God) (Van Ruler 1953:24). Because God permeates ‘de grote strijd der volkeren om een politieke, sociale, economische en culturele vormgeving van het leven’ (the struggle of nations for a political, social, economic, and cultural form of life) (Van Ruler 1953:20) with his kingdom, it follows, as seen from an anthropological perspective, that the work of the Holy Spirit is manifested in the experience of man. Salvation is to be converted into daily existence. God’s kingdom becomes reality in the existence of the individual and the society. When the Bible is echoed in one’s life, and when that person freely turns the Bible’s message into something personal, then something happens; a tradition is created. And this represents the next step in the advance of God’s kingdom in the world. This was the way in which God made his presence visible among the people of Israel. This is also the way it eventually reached its

20

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

highest form in the life and work of Jesus Christ. After that it found material and historical form again and again. Plaisier (1995:80–81) formulates these ideas of Van Ruler as follows: ‘Het Woord van God schept culturen. De Geest vormt allerlei gestalten van het rijk, zoals de kerk, de staat en de bevinding.’ (God’s Word creates culture. The Spirit creates various forms of the kingdom, such as the church, the state and experience). For Van Ruler (1953:40) this means that through the apostolate: [t]elkens nieuwe vormen van christendom ontstaan, dat de jonge kerken hun eigen belijdenissen zullen moeten hebben, dat de catholiciteit der kerk o.a. ook haar nationale karakter insluit, dat er in deze zin gesproken zal moeten worden van een pluriformiteit der kerk in de volkeren, landen en continentenen, van de relativiteit, het historische karakter en het realiteitsgehalte van de waarheid: een abstracte, absolute waarheid is er niet; er is alleen het handelen en het spreken Gods en dat wordt telkens nieuw en telkens anders beleefd. ([t]ime and again new forms of Christianity are formed, so that the young churches will have to formulate their own confessions, so that the catholicity of the church inter alia includes a national character, so that there will have to be spoken of the pluriformity of the church in these terms among peoples, countries and continents, of the relativity, historical nature and reality contents of the truth: an abstract, absolute truth does not exist; there is only the acts and word of God which is experienced anew and differently in each new situation.) (Van Ruler 1953:40)

Van Ruler (1953:46) is therefore of the persuasion that the apostolate links with God’s truth, and that it permeates ‘alle dingen van het individuele en gemeenschappelijke aardse menszijn in de tijd’ (every form of individual and societal earthly human existence within the context of time). Plaisier (1995:78) contends that ‘niet alleen de bekering van individuen […], maar dat het gehele leven en de hele samenleving het object van de zending is’ (not only the conversion of individuals […], but also that of all of life and the whole community forms the object of mission). The law and the prophets of the Old Testament show that the living God is interested in all of human society. He wants to establish his kingdom in

INCLUSIVISM AND EXCLUSIVISM

21

all of life with all its social, economic, ethical, juridical, cultural and politic nuances (see Van Ruler 1953:45). Van Ruler (1953:45–46) argued that what was accomplished in the apostolate in structuring society, is not to be seen as a mere haphazard by-product of the proclamation of the gospel, but as belonging essentially to the scope of the apostolate itself (cf. Van Ruler 1953:45). Plaisier (1995:79) therefore summarizes Van Ruler’s ecclesiology as follows: Het is echter duidelijk: de verkondiging van de kerk geschiedt midden in de wereld, zij is een bij uitstek open gemeenschap. (It is clear: the preaching of the church takes place within this world, it is par excellence an open society). (Plaisier 1995:79)

Plaisier (1995:84) remarks regarding Van Ruler’s apostolate theology: ‘Hij heeft velen de ogen geopend voor datgene waarvoor de kerk dient te staan: een vanzelfsprekende missionnaire dienst.’ (He opened the eyes of many to what the church stands for: which is namely obviously missionary service). To this Jongeneel (1995:91) adds his appreciation of Van Ruler’s apostolate theology that it was also aimed at the Christianisation of culture. After all, the corpus christianum has a cultural commission as well. Against the background of the postmodern move towards pluralism and multinationalism, Jongeneel points out that Van Ruler’s apostolate theology will not fit in a non-Christian world and in a situation where the Christian church is in a minor position. In Jongeneel’s (1995:85–94) critical opinion, Van Ruler’s apostolate is also too Eurocentric. In his essay on ‘De kerk is ook doel in zichzelf’ (The church is also its own object), written in 1966, Van Ruler (1978:53–66) discussed the problem of the world and church and the place of the church within the world. He kept to his viewpoint that the church is an instrument in the spread of God’s kingdom, but as it exists in this world, there is also a characteristically worldly and individualistic aspect of the church. For Van Ruler (1978:55) the Christian inclination towards Israel in the church means that the church should be an instrument in the eventual salvation of the world so that the world can become what it should be before the Triune God. In this eschatological development, everything is to be an instrument: the

22

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

elected people of Israel, the Old Testament with its law and prophecy, Christ and his work here on earth, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and his continual immanence, the way of the apostolic word among nations and countries, the tradition in its multiple forms, and the Christianising influence of the church in the life of state and society (see Van Ruler 1978:55–56). The salvation in Christ should be manifested, and must ‘omgezet worden in menselijke, geleefde levenswerklijkheid’ (be converted into man’s experience of real life) (Van Ruler 1978:57). This viable form of the church in the world should be ‘steeds gemarkeerd [werd] door de bijzonderheid van het apparaat van de verlossing’ (characterised by the peculiar apparatus of salvation at all times) (Van Ruler 1978:57). Therefore, what is important is not the human aspect of the church or worldliness per se, but rather its role as an instrument of salvation within the reality of the world and its development of an identity in line with the salvation the church received. Centred in the person of Jesus Christ, the church has to find its characteristic identity in the human form. The church has an institutional character, but one that ‘in wezen verwikkeld blijven in de apostolische traditie waarin de representatie, de tegenwoordig-stelling van het heil geschiedt’ (essentially remains attached to the apostolic tradition in which the salvation is represented and manifested) (Van Ruler 1978:57). The salvation of God is brought to this world and this implies that the church will also be an institute in the world (see Van Ruler 1978:58). The church is anchored in the tradition. It represents a stage in the advance of the apostolic word in the world. The metaphor Van Ruler (1978:58) used for the church is that it is ‘een tent op de kermis van de leven’ (a tent erected in the fair of life). It is unique, but stands among many other tents in the world. However, in this tent something is to be experienced, something that does not exist anywhere else, namely, salvation and redemption. The church as an apostolic institute does not have any purpose on its own, does not exist for itself, but stands in service of its apostolic calling, and has a unique form. Van Ruler (1978:59) remarks: [d]e gestaltelijkheid van Jezus is door de Geest vertolkt in een stem, de stem van de apostolische boodschap en de institutaire kerk is in haar gestaltelijkheid draagster van deze boodschap ([t]he ‘creatureliness’ of Jesus is rendered by the Spirit in a voice, the voice of the apostolic message and the institutional

INCLUSIVISM AND EXCLUSIVISM

23

church in its peculiar form is the one who conveys this message). (Van Ruler 1978:59)

Against this specific background Van Ruler (1978:60) concludes ‘dat de kerk óók doel in zichzelf is’ (that the church is also in some ways an object in itself). The church has to be true to its calling. It has to be a factor in life in its own right, even having some power and authority in public life (see Van Ruler 1978:65). The confession of its members, their hymnologic activities and liturgical experiences indicate uniqueness directed inwardly. According to Van Ruler (1978:65) the idea of selfless service to the world is not sufficient to represent the true character of the church and its activities. The other side of the apostolic character of the church is its individual character and its exclusiveness. Being an instrument in the progress of God’s kingdom in the world, the church also has an exclusive character. The background of Van Ruler’s view Van Ruler’s reflection on the apostolate should be understood within the larger context of his theocratic theology. The main issue in Van Ruler’s theology is the kingdom of God. The kingdom embraces much more than that found in the scriptures. There are more forms of God’s kingdom than those presented in the Bible. Forms of the kingdom can also be found in the synagogue, the people, the state of Israel, the society, the culture, the political economy of Christianized people, the heart, the conscience, ‘de prediking en het sacrament, het ambt en de gemeente, de kerkorde, de liturgie en het dogma’ (the preaching, the sacraments, the church offices, the church’s constitution, the liturgy, and the dogma) (Van Ruler 1969:55). The clearest description of Van Ruler’s (1969:63) theocratic view can be found in his formula that God’s kingdom ‘loopt de cultuur binnen en de maatschappij en de staat’ (permeates the culture, the society, and the state). His idea of God’s theocracy is comprehensive and relates the church to the totality of existence. According to Graafland (1995:53) Van Ruler intends to indicate the relationship between the application of salvation in the heart of the individual, in the larger world, and the culture in which s/he lives. This is the reason why Van Ruler used the metaphor of the sower.

24

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

God sows his salvation abundantly in the field of the world throughout history. However, the seed falls in different areas and takes different shapes. This elicits the question of the relationship between these different forms, or, in terms of Van Ruler’s metaphor, between what is sown, or, what he called in historical terms, the leaps and bounds of God’s kingdom through history. This also includes the question of the relationship between the two leaps or forms of God’s kingdom in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. Van Ruler’s advice to the mission inclined the Christian church to consult the forms that God’s kingdom took in the Old Testament and to apply it to the manifestation of God’s kingdom in the present world. In Part One of his ‘Theologisch Werk’ (Theological Work) (1969:134–144) Van Ruler addressed the issue of ‘De betekenis van de Mozaïsche wet’ (The meaning of the Mosaic law) (originally written in 1947). According to Van Ruler, the law has kerygmatic, existential, functional, and material significance. Under ‘material’ he understood: [d]at het met name de mozaïsche wet is, waaraan wij de grondlijnen en het materiaal hebben te ontlenen, wanneer het in de agressiviteit van de kersteningsarbeid er om gaat, de wereld christelijk in te richten: een ‘christelijke’ staat draagt uitgesproken oudtestamentische trekken. ([it] is in particular the mosaic law from where we can borrow the fundamentals and the material needed, when it is the purpose in the aggressive missionary work to organise the world in a Christian way: a ‘Christian’ state bears distinct Old Testament characteristics.) (Van Ruler 1969:134)

All of human life, or existence, including issues like marriage, sexuality and property is represented in the Torah. If the society intends to be Christian, it has to apply the Mosaic law to everyday life. However, this is a ‘pneumatieshistoriese handeling’ (pneumahistorical act) (Van Ruler 1969:143), not a mere literal continuity. To understand more closely how Van Ruler used the Bible in his construction of his theology, especially his apostolate theology, chapter 2 of his Theologisch Werk Deel I (Theological Work Part One) (1969:46–99) is to be consulted. Of importance here is his ‘‘Methode en mogelijkheden van de dogmatiek, vergeleken met die

INCLUSIVISM AND EXCLUSIVISM

25

van de exegese’ (Method and possibilities of dogmatics in comparison to exegesis) (1969:46–99). Being a dogmatic scholar, he pointed out that dogmatics is able to go further than traditional exegesis, because exegesis is concerned with the scriptures, while dogmatics is linked to tradition and contemporary reflection. This implies: Men kan maximaal van de dogmaticus vragen, dat datgene wat hij biedt een schriftuurlijk karakter draagt, dat wil zeggen: mede gevoed en bepaald wordt door wat de Schrift ons aan gegevens, en woorden biedt. (One cannot ask more from the dogmatic scholar than that his presentation has a scriptural basis, that it is partly presented and determined by what scriptures present regarding data and words.) (Van Ruler 1969:65)

Van Ruler saw the discipline of Biblical Theology as the summary of the results of exegesis (see Van Ruler 1969:73). However, the witnesses of the biblical authors to God’s history with his people are full of contradictory statements and therefore will have to be reworked for the church ‘om althans enig houvast te hebben voor haar prediking van God en zijn rijk’ (to get any hold whatsoever on God and his kingdom in her preaching) (Van Ruler 1969:56). He called these contradictions ‘leerlijnen’ (guidelines for teaching). In the ‘openbaringsverhaal’ (narrative of revelation) (Van Ruler 1969:80) presented by the authors of the Bible these ‘teaching guidelines’ can be found. They can be compared with the veins in the body. Some of them can swell and become very prominent. But it should be remembered that here are also: [d]uizend andere aderen zijn, die rustig hun werk doen, maar door geen enkele omstandigheid opzwellen en daarom verborgen blijven. In de bijbelse theologie loopt men nu het gevaar, de aandacht helemaal te bepalen bij die min of meer toevallig dik geworden aderen en van de andere, de onzichtbare, geen flauw vermoeden te hebben. ([t]housands of other veins functioning quietly not being aroused under any circumstances and staying hidden. The danger in biblical theology is to concentrate only on those haphazard prominent veins not even paying the slightest attention to those other invisible veins.) (Van Ruler 1969:80)

26

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Although Van Ruler warned against it, he himself made a specific choice for the historical material to form the outlines of an ‘openbaringsverhaal’: [e]r werken belangrijke theologische gedachtengangen, niet alleen in sommige uitspraken, maar ook in de hele opzet van althans sommigen boeken, met name in die ‘historische’ van het Oude en het Nieuwe Testament. ([i]mportant theological thoughts were at work, not only in some pronunciations, but also in the overall framework of some of the books, in particular the historical [ones] in the Old and New Testament.) (Van Ruler 1969:77)

He called the multiplicity of theological thoughts ‘divergerende mogelijkheden, de vele leertypen of ‘theologieën’, welke in de Schrift worden gevonden’ (divergent possibilities, the many teaching guidelines or ‘theologies’ to be found in scriptures) (Van Ruler 1969:82). He accedes that contradictions do occur—even ‘kolossale spanningen’ (colossal tensions) (Van Ruler 1969:82). Between the Old and New Testament there are also ‘verscheidenheid tussen de diverse schrijvers, boeken en eventueel bronnen genoeg. Daar zijn we zo maar niet overheen’ (ample variety between the diverse authors, books and even sources. We cannot deny that) (Van Ruler 1969:82–83). The canonnical nature of the Bible indicates that one or another type of unity exists between the two Testaments. Scripture formed a unity in Van Ruler’s mind—‘zij het een organische eenheid, waarin de dingen groeien, zodat er ook van voortgang— van de geschiedenis en van de openbaring—in de Schrift gesproken kan worden. Maar het is een echte eenheid’ (be it an organic unity, in which parts of it were growing, so that one can speak of progress—in history and in revelation—in the scriptures. But it is a genuine unity) (Van Ruler 1969:91). One can also suppose that ‘grondgedachten’ (basic ideas) are present everywhere indicating this unity. In fact one should endeavour to formulate this unity. This should be done by: de ene schriftplaats met de andere schrifplaats, vooral de duistere met de duidelijke, te verklaren. Men doet het ook door de ene schriftplaats met de andere gelijk te breien. Men harmoniseert naar vermogen (exegeting one scriptural passage in terms of another, especially the obscure ones with the clearer

INCLUSIVISM AND EXCLUSIVISM

27

ones. It is also done by equalling one passage with the other. One harmonises according to one’s possibilities.) (Van Ruler 1969:91)

Van Ruler picked out those historical guidelines from the Bible which suited his constructed revelation narrative. He was very much aware of the different types or theologies in the Bible, but gave obvious priority to those ‘veins’ that could be used for his theocratic theology. He was willing to harmonize different and even contradicting passages, but it was always done according to his overarching theology of the kingdom of God. He very often referred to the Old Testament with its concrete examples to picture the apostolate as the continuation of God’s kingdom and to depict the earthly character of the Christian church. His receptivity for alternative forms of God’s kingdom, linked to his missional orientation for the Christian church, indicates his preference for inclusive tendencies and information that can confirm the inclusive character of the church. This raises the question whether Van Ruler abused the Old Testament by ignoring one of its ‘swollen veins,’ the tendency towards exclusiveness. This was after all a problem also present in New Testament times. It was present for a long time before it ceded to an ostensible inclusive orientation in the New Testament itself. The conflict between an inclusive and an exclusive orientation, however, is still with us, even in the postmodern Christian church. The Old Testament can contribute much more to the reflection on the identity of the present church than Van Ruler did.

THE APPARENT PREFERENCE FOR INCLUSIVITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT The tension between exclusivism and inclusivism was important during the history of the Second Temple (516 BCE–70 CE) as well as the early Christian church. The early church had to find its own identity amongst different trends and traditions. Although the real circumstances were much more complicated than the New Testament indicates, the view is held that Jewish Christianity in Jerusalem, with its orientation towards the Torah, was inclined to a particular type of particularistic soteriology in direct conflict with the Pauline section of the Christian church with its inclusive, universal soteriology (see Park 2003:76). The so-called Jerusalem faction fol-

28

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

lowed James and Peter with their particularistic and exclusivist Jewish-Christian view against the non-conditional integration of nonJewish Christians. According to the Jewish-Christian faction, anyone was allowed to join the church on condition that he was circumcised according to Jewish customs. This view was held even after the Bar Kochba revolts and Hadrian’s ban of all Jews from Jerusalem (132–135 CE). By the second century of the Christian era this view had disappeared from history. Paul’s view got the upper hand and started to marginalise the particularistic Jerusalem view becoming the characteristic stance of the budding Catholic church. Over the course of history the naïve idea gradually developed (see Park 2003:2–3) that all of Jewishdom was particularistic and all of Christianity was inclusive. In reality, particularism and inclusivism existed next to each other in the early Christian church. The issue of non-Jews (the socalled ‘heathen’) and their membership in the religious community was a Jewish problem already existing for a long time when Christianity emerged as a movement. When Christianity came into being, initially as a branch of Judaism, this issue of membership was introduced as well. An indication that this was an issue already in the earliest Christendom can be seen in the contemporary discussions of the concepts of ‘neighbour’ and ‘stranger.’ Powery (2008:134– 144) points out eight instances in the New Testament where reference is made to the commandment of Leviticus 19:18 (to love your neighbour as yourself): Mark 12:31; Matthew 5:43, 19:19 and 22:39; Luke 10:27; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14, and James 2:8. In the gospel of Matthew the commandment is linked to Jesus; in the older gospel of Mark it is found only once; in Luke it is quoted by a law expert; James refers to it only once and Paul twice. Ateek (2008:158–159) explains that this law should be understood within a sociological context. To be a harmonious family and society it was of great importance ‘that people who were related maintain strong bonds of love towards each other. Such a practice ensured not only the peace but also the unity, solidarity, and strength of the community.’ It was therefore the attitude required of the ‘in-group.’ However, it did not address the attitude towards the ‘out-group’ or the ‘other.’ The New Testament never refers to the other commandment in verse 34 of Leviticus 19 to love the stranger, the ‘other,’ as well. It can be deduced from Hebrews 11:13–16 that by the end of the first century CE the idea of the neighbour was used

INCLUSIVISM AND EXCLUSIVISM

29

as ‘a means of self-identification that both underscores the Christian community’s present predicament and anticipates their eschatological hopes’ (Powery 2008:143). The idea also started to evolve that the stranger was ‘one of us.’ From this can be deduced that there was more than one view on the ‘stranger,’ and that development occurred in both the in-group as well as the out-group regarding this concept. Park (2003:ix) refers to this issue as two parallel viewpoints existing next to each other: ‘the gospel of the circumcision and the gospel of the uncircumcision,’ or the ‘Torahbound gospel’ and the ‘Torah-free gospel’ (see Gal 2:7; Park 2003:2). Both views held that God’s salvation is to be the cornerstone of the church. Park (2003:2) remarks, ‘Theologically as well as historically, both the gospels were still within the purview of Judaism.’ The difference was to be found in the way the faithful society had to follow to become part of God’s grace. Was one to be incorporated into an existing group, or was the group to extend outwards and form a new group? Especially in Paul’s ministry this became an urgent theological problem. Park (2003:37) deduces from Galatians 2:7 that both views were found at the Council of Jerusalem. The gospel of circumcision and the universal soteriology of non-circumcison were both accepted, but referred to different sections of the church. Peter was assigned to the circumcised and Paul from Antioch to the non-Jews and uncircumcised. Park (2003:28) relates the opposing views to the main Pharisee factions of the late pre-Christian and early Christian era. Hillel’s school was universally and inclusively inclined, while that of Shammai was particularistic and exclusivistic. Paul’s teacher Gamaliel belonged to the universal inclined group of Hillel. Paul was therefore educated according to a universally inclined religion. Hillel followed the traditions of Deutero-Isaiah and Jonah. This guided Paul to work on a universal scale having an inclusivistic character. This stance became the main characteristic of the expanding Christian church.

THE OLD TESTAMENT: EXCLUSIVE AS WELL AS INCLUSIVE As remarked above the dispute between exclusivism and inclusivism was inherited from the earlier stages of the Second Temple era. Socio-economic and theological factors played a major role in the conflict. After the exile, claim to authority and say over traditional Judean territory played an immense role. In the same way that the

30

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

concept of ‘inclusivism’ is linked to issues like gender and multiculturalism today, the concepts of ‘inclusivism’ and ‘exclusivism’ was linked to contemporary issues at that time as well. These concepts mainly deal with the way one sees oneself in the context of a specific time. These two concepts ‘reflect two different ways of viewing oneself and others, which may apply to a far greater realm than religion’ (Park 2003:9). Exclusivism in the Old Testament From the sixth century BCE to the rise of the Hasmonean House in the second century BCE, the Priestly House of Zadok was in command. During the Persian and Hellenistic reigns they were the leaders of the post-exilic society. They represented the Judeans who returned from the exile and were in direct conflict with the Judeans who remained in the country during the exile. Aided initially by the Persian authorities and later on by their alliance with the Hellenistic powers, and still later by their link with the Seleucids, they remained in a position of supremacy. Grant-Henderson (2002:119) refers to this as ‘a power struggle between groups who have different theological bases.’ It can be deduced from 1–2 Maccabees that their exclusive policy had a large influence upon society and was the dominant theology even into the Christian era. The legacy of the House of Zadok can be found in the books of EzraNehemiah and the Priestly Writing (a hypothetical source that became part of the eventual Pentateuch; see Kogler 2008:602–603). The Zadokites used strategies for obtaining social and religious management which they learned as a minor faction during the exile. They used these strategies to control the people who stayed behind and their neighbours (see Boccaccini 2002:82). They proposed a new order to which everybody in Judah had to conform. They propagated a new Jewish identity under the name of ‘children of the exile’ (Ezra 4:1; 6:19–21; 8:35). Those who did not join the rebuilding of the temple were excluded and banned from the cultic society of Jerusalem. Those who did not go into exile and remained behind (the so-called ‘people of the land’; Ezra 4:4–5; 6:21) were denied all authority by these people who saw themselves as the descendants of the House of David and the Levites. The Zadokites ‘unceasingly and persistently defined the boundaries of cosmic and social structure; rules and regulations were enforced to

INCLUSIVISM AND EXCLUSIVISM

31

restrict or control interaction and avoid trespassing’ (Boccaccini 2002:73). Zadokite exclusivism was not something new. Already during the reign of David and the following period, theology and political ideology was based on particularism and exclusivism. Depending on one’s view regarding monotheism as either a later or earlier phenomenon, Park’s (2003:12) view can be of interest: ‘The fundamental logic of Jewish particularism is based on monotheism and election, which were the two major features of Jewish theology.’ This ‘logic of Jewish particularism’ should be understood against the background of history and tradition. Traces of this view can be seen in the Priestly Writing (see reference above). Creation is depicted there as a coherent mechanism of ‘graded holiness’ (Boccaccini 2002:74) consisting of an orderly and fixed hierarchy of living creatures, places, and times. The borders of this creation should never be permeated because it will disturb the balance of the creation. This fixed system is related to a strong particularistic view. Another document in this regard is the book of Ezekiel. In Ezekiel 40–48 a political and religious program for Zadokite rule in Judah is proposed. This document originated in the Babylonian exile. It expects a whole new dispensation in which the pre-exilic Judaism will take a whole new direction in the future. The descendants of the priest Zadok will rule and see to it that all expectations spelled out in the program will be realised. Still more important is the narrative found in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Both books end with an exclusivist rejection of any marriage with a non-Judean person. The Zadokite movement propagated purity at the temple and in daily life. In the same way that the priests were to remain pure by not marrying, it was expected that the lay people would also stay pure by not marrying any person who does not belong to their ethnic group. The priests were the custodians of these rules and claimed authority and control over the people. The expectations in Ezra and Nehemiah are to be understood within the contemporary situation. As so often in their past the returned Judeans’ survival depended on the intact vindication of their identity, the continuation of their religion and the undisturbed worship of God (see Grant-Henderson 2002:116). Evaluated from a religious and social perspective the Zadokite measures can be seen as a process of ‘cultural revitalization’ (see Venter 1995:725–729). The Judean community after the exile was a small

32

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

provincial unit with a peculiar administration in the Persian Empire with only restricted power. They stood under Persian rule but had to uphold their own identity within this political situation. They had to deal with the consequences of the exile, economical bankruptcy, political submission, and tax obligations to a foreign nation while living in their own land. On top of this they experienced cultural dissonance between their religious beliefs and the circumstances under which they had to live. Their traumatic experience of the exile and the political circumstances in the large Persian Empire totally changed the society and their self-esteem. Their leaders were very much aware of the past of the group and the demands set upon the religious community. They wanted to keep their traditional identity, but simultaneously adapt to totally new circumstances. They had to learn how to be dependant as people, but independent as a religious group at the same time. They were estranged from their cultural heritage and cut off from their spiritual roots. Under these conditions a cultural transformation, a radical change in ethos, and a restoration of traditional values and symbols had to take place. Of importance here was the way in which the post-exilic Judeans identified with Israel of old. In solidarity with the sins of the past they confessed their guilt and re-dedicated themselves to the service of God. In this way an old ethos was re-activated under new political subordinate conditions (see the penitential prayers in Ezra 8; Neh 1 and 8). It was therefore a time of continuity as well as discontinuity. Their disobedience to God’s commandments in the past was the cause of the catastrophe of the exile. Their status as God’s elected people came into discredit. Against this background the religious community aimed to re-instate their future identity in terms of the God with whom they stood in relationship in the past. One way of regaining their identity was to identify with the commandments of God. Having returned from the exile, God’s law was to become the norm again. Ways had to be found under new circumstances to obey that law. The drastic measures in Ezra and Nehemiah were aimed at giving form to the essential characteristics of the Jewish community, their theology, and the meaning of their rich and variegated traditions. To optimize the fulfilment of the law, control of society was required. Hard and fast rules for everyday life were needed, like rules for marriages and those outlining the boundaries of the group.

INCLUSIVISM AND EXCLUSIVISM

33

Park (2003:13) sees these measures as ‘a resurgence of particularism’; a ‘particularist policy’ reflecting the reality in Judah during the fifth century BCE. Those who remained behind and those who returned had different and conflicting political aims. Someone was needed to bring political stability in this small Persian province. According to Park (2003:13–14) the returnees under leadership of Persian procurators like Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah had a clear advantage above the people of the land who remained behind. Their particularistic policy in the form of control over inter alia marriages was intended to control those who mixed with the Samaritans. This was a ‘noticeable socio-political motivation’ (Park 2003:14). The conviction that Israel was elected and called to be holy, also played a role in their exclusive identity. What this exclusivity comprised, is spelled out in the commandments in Leviticus regarding the relationship with non-Israelites. The command in Leviticus 19:18 to love one’s neighbour should be understood in terms of holiness. Israel is called to be a holy people. In the book of Leviticus there is an ongoing fluctuation between cultic purity and impurity. The laws in Leviticus are intended for people who live under everyday profane circumstances, but are quite aware that they are living in the presence of the omnipresent God. To be holy and to be dedicated to God in everything one is doing, was the main characteristic of God’s people. God’s love for his people demands from them to love each other as well. This love does not imply, as is generally accepted at present, kindness against each and every person. In the book of Deuteronomy this concept is understood in terms of the covenant with God. It was very much influenced by the Near Eastern terminology of covenant dealing with the relationship between two parties. It is not in the first instance an emotional matter, but rather an expectation that one treats everyone else properly and fair (this is what is intended in Matt 18:15–20; see Kaminsky 2008:124–125). The term ‘fellow-countryman’ in Leviticus 19:17–18, and even the reference to the ‘resident alien’ in Leviticus 19:33–34, is to be understood against this background. This positive attitude towards the ‘resident alien’ does not cancel the non-Israelite’s foreignness. Although the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26) demands the foreigner to honour Israel’s cultic customs, and even allows them to take part in these cultic rites, ‘resident aliens remained distinct and are at some

34

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

disadvantage’ (Kaminsky 2008:124). The commands guarantee their human rights, but they remain ‘resident aliens’ without equal rights. According to Ateek (2008:159), Leviticus 19:33–34 links the issue of the neighbour to the matter of property rights and citizenship. Although the fair treatment of other people includes the foreigner, they were never allowed to have property rights in the land. Ezekiel 47:21–23 goes even further than that. Both Leviticus and Ezekiel have their provenance in the time and circumstances after the exile. Both of them struggle with the problem of ownership in the land. When they returned from exile the Judean exiles did not return to a land that was empty. It was occupied by those who stayed behind and by foreigners. Since the land was given to Israel as their inheritance, the returnees claimed that it was their estranged property. The text of Leviticus shows a willingness to view these foreigners who occupied the land as resident aliens, but not as co-owners of the land. Ezekiel shares the idea that the land belongs to Israel, but proposes a more pragmatic approach (see Ateek 2008:160). Ezekiel declared that all aliens who had already lived in the land for one generation would be fellow-citizens. They should be allowed to own land as well. Kaminsky (2008:127) indicates that Israel’s idea that they were a royal people entailed that not only the king, but also every member of the people was responsible for the well-being of others, including the inferior section of the population. While it may be tempting to label Israel’s conception of itself as a priestly people distinct from other nations as a regressive and elitist notion, one must reckon with the fact that this very feature may have given birth to the Bible’s unique insight that Israelites of all societal strata bore responsibility to create a just society in which those most marginalized were neither neglected nor abused. (Kaminsky 2008:127)

Continuing along this line, Kaminsky puts the idea of exclusivism in another perspective. It is usually accepted that Israel’s unique election implies that all non-Israelites and non-Jews are the enemies of God. However, there are three factions (see Kaminsky 2008:130): those who were elected, the ‘anti-elect,’ and the ‘nonelect.’ The ‘anti-elect’ were groups such as the Canaanites and the

INCLUSIVISM AND EXCLUSIVISM

35

Amalekites (see Deut 7; cf. 25:17–19), who were God’s enemies and had to be destroyed by Israel. Most of the people of the world are indicated as ‘non-elect’ in the Hebrew Bible. ‘These non-elect peoples were always considered fully part of the divine economy, and, in a very real sense, Israel was to work out its destiny in relation to them, even if in separation from them’ (Kaminsky 2008:131). Another view on particularism can be found in Strawn’s (1999:73–92) view on holiness. Strawn (1999) sees holiness as a central idea in Israel’s theology. However, as he points out, ‘the manifold ways that the concept of holiness is appropriated is diverse and dependent to a large degree on different geopolitical, sociological, and/or theological situations’ (Strawn 1999:75). There are ‘different appropriations or mentalities for holiness’ which are ‘limited, time-bound manifestations or mechanisms by which holiness is enacted and lived out’ (Strawn 1999:75). There are resemblances but also prominent differences between the endeavours in Ezra-Nehemiah for self-assertion and economic stability as expressions of holiness and the forms the Jesus groups used for holiness. Strawn calls these fluxional forms the ‘X-factor.’ There was always a communicative function behind these different forms. In essence holiness indicates separateness. Holiness can take many forms. It can take the form of the wide variety of forms in Leviticus, the clothes of the priest in Numbers, or even Jeremiah’s celibacy. Whichever form is used, it is always the answer to the proper form to be used at a certain time and the communication of that choice. The instructions in the Holiness Code (Lev 19–26) tied the people of Israel together as God’s people, worshipping him in whichever form was available to them. Their way of doing separated them from all other peoples. The repetitive phrase ‘I am the Lord’ indicates that these forms were not used for their own sake, but to communicate their relationship with the Lord and proclaim his holiness. Passages like Deuteronomy 6:20–25, Ezekiel 24:15–27, and Jeremiah 16:1–13 are all directives with ‘a sociological function that is communicative, perhaps one might even say missiological if not evangelical’ (Strawn 1999:79). As a matter of principle ‘transgenerational value communication’ (Strawn 1999:79) indicates that holiness as separateness is a communicative strategy that entices new questions. Strawn (1999:79) even thinks that the communicative function of these directives for holiness and separateness was ‘part and parcel of the divine economy and plan.’

36

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

During the time of the Second Temple (516 BCE–70 CE) the reflection on identity developed quite a bit. Identity was primarily seen as a matter of relationship between different groups. A whole spectrum of ideas can be indicated. It was a matter of ideological conflict between theocracy and eschatology, universalism and exclusivism. The tension between these different viewpoints increased with time and even took extreme forms. An example of an extremist position can be found in the book of Jubilees from the middle of the second century BCE. The author(s) were in dialogue with the Moses tradition (Mosaic or Zadokite Judaism) as well as the different apocalyptic traditions. Like in the case of the books of the Maccabees, a development towards explicit and exclusive monotheism was also present here (see Venter 2003:981–988). The author(s) warned against attacks on the readers’ identity from inside as well as outside. People called ‘Canaanites’ and ‘Philistines’ assault them physically, murder, and oppress them. The largest threat comes from inside on a cultural religious level. It takes the form of alliances with foreign people. Sexual intercourse and mixed marriages especially presented a danger for their identity. Others wanted to break down traditional barriers and to intermingle with God’s people. This would bring along impurity and was to be avoided at all costs. In Jubilees 8–9 it is apparent that Genesis 10 is rewritten. Geographic-ethnological traditions, a heptadic chronological scheme, and the idea of demarcated holy space are used here to indicate the border line between the ‘pure elected generation’ and the ‘impure heathen nations.’ The offspring of Seth-Noah are totally separated from all other peoples. Demarcated boundaries and allotted places are indicated to distinguish the real Israel and all other nations. The identity of the Judeans is to be found in this total separateness. The triad of chronology, identity, and spatiality is used in the book as the matrix for the exclusive identity of Israel (see Venter 2008:649). This exclusive approach was the dominant theology during the time of the Second Temple, but definitely not the only view. It was in conflict with the approaches followed by minor groups who were not in the same position of authority.

INCLUSIVISM IN THE OLD TESTAMENT An inclusive tendency is found in the Old Testament as well. The hypothesis used by Grant-Henderson for inclusivity is as follows:

INCLUSIVISM AND EXCLUSIVISM

37

[t]hat the offer of salvation is to all people, who if they choose to respond will receive the same benefits and responsibilities as the Israelites and who will be included in the worshiping community. (Grant-Henderson 2002:xx)

Rules on how to treat the foreigner are found in Exodus 23:9 and Leviticus 19:33–34. Foreigners are to enjoy certain privileges among the Israelites, but are excluded from full social rights and participation in the religion. 1 Kings 8:44–47 states that God will answer the prayers of non-Israelites. Although non-Judeans are not the subject of the book of Jonah—rather the subject is the behaviour of a disobedient prophet—it depicts God’s mercy for those not belonging to Israel. Isaiah 19 and 25 witness to God’s universal authority over all peoples. In Trito-Isaiah (Isa 56–66) and the book of Ruth, non-Israelites are accepted as full members of the religious society. Although an inclusive approach was formulated for the first time after the exile, the idea had a long history already. Park (2003:14) sees ‘a continuing voice of universalism at significant places in the Old Testament.’ Signs of this can be found in the post-exilic books of Ruth and Jonah. Lindeque (2001:101) remarks that books like Rut, Jona, Job, Prediker, Ester, Judit en Tobit is geskryf vanuit die standpunt van die vroom lede van die inklusiewe groep en kan onderskei word van die nasionale geskiedenis, wette en profesieë wat deur die eksklusiewe groep versamel is. (Ruth, Jonah, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Judith, and Tobit were written from the view point of the devout members of the inclusive group and can be distinguished from the national history, laws and prophecies collected by the exclusive group.) (Lindeque 2001:101)

He includes the first part of the book of Daniel (Dan 1–6) as well as the narrative of Joseph (Gen 37–50) in this inclusive list. Along with this we can remark that God is depicted as the Creator of the cosmos and of all humanity in the first chapters of Genesis. It is only from chapter 12 onwards that Abraham and his offspring are separated from the rest of humanity, but then as those through whom all the peoples of the world will be blessed (Gen 12:3). God

38

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

is always the universal God who used nations to punish his elected people, but also used Israel as an instrument to save the nations. Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah are the clearest examples of this trend. When the monarchy came to an end in the exile and the Zadokites were no longer in a position to operate at the temple, prophecy also came to an end. The whole social and political infrastructure collapsed. However, the message of the prophets was continued: In the early Second Temple period, Third Isaiah and Ruth still testify to the vitality of the prophetic movement faithful to the heritage of the Davidic monarchy, and to their opposition against Zadokite exclusiveness. (Boccaccini 2002:88)

The Zion theology carried the heritage of David’s monarchy and stood in opposition to the exclusive Zadokite theology. It kept the expectation alive of a new Zion and a universal messiah that would come. Deutero-Isaiah (Isa 40–55) represents a change in the traditional idea of election. In his reflection on Israel’s election this anonymous prophet/group indicates that Israel was not elected so that they would be the only ones saved, but rather that they should be the instrument God would use to bring all nations to himself. Kaminsky (2008:31) links this idea to the role the creation plays in the document (Isa 40:28, 43:14–21, 45:5–8 and verses 18–19). According to Kaminsky (2008:31) it was the text of Deutero-Isaiah ‘along with certain late texts from Trito-Isaiah that build upon Deutero-Isaiah’s insights, [that] begins to make room for those who wish to join themselves to God’s people (e.g., Isa 56 and 66).’ The metaphor used in this regard is the ‘light to the nations’ (Isa 42:6 and 49:6). This phrase became the central symbol for universalism in Judaism as well as Christianity. It stands in direct conflict with Zadokite particularism. For Park (2003:13) this was ‘the beginning of the tension between particularism and universalism in the history of Jewish thought.’ Although Grant-Henderson (2002) agrees that there is some affinity between Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah, she distinguishes between them. The status awarded to the nations differs between Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah. She thinks that Isaiah 40–55

INCLUSIVISM AND EXCLUSIVISM

39

uses a form of nationalism rather than universalism. The prophet expected the restoration of the people of Israel. The reaction of the nations indicates the power and honour of God. According to Grant-Henderson (2002:76) there is no indication in DeuteroIsaiah of ‘a concept of coequality for the nations and the Israelites, and most times the status of the nations is quite vague.’ What is of importance for this study is her differentiation between universalism and inclusivism. Trito-Isaiah (Isa 56–66) is framed by a prologue in Isaiah 56:1–8 and a final section in Isaiah 66:17–24. Grant-Henderson finds the central ideas of all of Trito-Isaiah in these two sections. Isaiah 56–66 was ‘created as a unity with the express purpose of advocating the inclusion of foreigners over and against the proclamations of Ezra/Nehemiah and Ezekiel’ (Grant-Henderson 2002:1). It is ‘a considered apologetic on behalf of a group of people who accepts and includes foreigners within their community’ (Grant-Henderson 2002:59). They were sympathetic to those who settled themselves from surrounding nations in former Judean territory. They were even willing to accept them as integral parts of the community and marry them. They even allowed foreigners to become priests and Levites in their land. This brought them in direct confrontation with the ideas of Ezekiel and Ezra-Nehemiah with their claim to total exclusivism and ritual purity. The message of Trito-Isaiah was blasphemous in the eyes of the Zadokite priests. Grant-Henderson (2002:31) puts it even stronger: ‘They are a group that not only contends with the strong words of Ezekiel and Nehemiah, but also has the Torah against them (Lev 26:14–45; Deut 23:1–8).’ We do not have ample information on those who remained behind in the Judean area during the exiles of 598, 587 and 582 BCE. We do know that cultic activity was continued in and around the destroyed temple (cf. Lamentations). Priests from a lower rank than those who went into exile took it upon themselves to continue God’s worship. One of the results of these circumstances was that they had to be more lenient in following God’s commandments, as people from the surrounding areas started to settle themselves in the former Judean area (see Grant-Henderson 2002:32). This penetration included foreigners and castrated people—people against whom Ezra-Nehemiah warned the religious community and were excluded from worship at the former temple.

40

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

The prologue in Isaiah 56:1–8 stands in direct opposition to the contemporary understanding of God’s law in Zadokite circles. God’s reign is extended here to everybody who keeps the Sabbath and the covenant with God. Even the castrated were included in the religious community. Whoever believes in Israel’s God is part of his people. The writer of Isaiah 56–66 had to call on an ethic of righteousness and faithfulness to make a claim for these people to remain within the community. Thus, although the Law might have condemned them, if people lived according to the righteousness of God and followed it as a principle, then foreigners and eunuchs were to be treated in the same way as Israelites in the community (see Grant-Henderson 2002:140). Boccaccini (2002:103) groups the book of Jonah with the books of Ahiqar, Proverbs, and Job as part of, what he calls, ‘Sapiental Judaism.’ This wisdom movement opposed the covenant monism of Zadokite Judaism. Jonah does not deny covenant theology, but rather stresses ‘God’s freedom to use unexpectedly the covenant as God likes’ (Boccaccini 2002:110). According to Park (2003:16) influence of Deutero-Isaiah can be indicated in Jonah. Park is of the opinion that the book’s final redaction coincided with Chronicles. What is of importance in Jonah is the role it plays in the debate between universalism and particularism. GrantHenderson (2002:106) remarks that Jonah does not refer explicitly to Ezra–Nehemiah, but ‘the message contained within it certainly confronts the actions proclaimed against foreigners in Ezra/Nehemiah.’ The author of Jonah explicitly favours inclusivism. His main character is ‘a caricature of a Jewish particularist’ (Park 2003:14). In Park’s (2003:16) mind the book shows: [t]hat, just as Nehemiah and Ezra advocated an exclusivist and particularist ethos in trying to reconstruct the Jewish nation/religion with the temple as its center and the Torah as its constitution, there were wisdom teachers whose horizon was more international and universalistic. (Park 2003:16)

While Jonah witnesses to Yahweh’s freedom and universal power, the book of Ruth shows how David’s Moabite ancestors became part of the Judean community (see Grant-Henderson 2002:107). In

INCLUSIVISM AND EXCLUSIVISM

41

Jonah and Esther, Judeans operated in foreign areas. In Ruth it is a foreigner from outside who lived in the Judean community— probably in agreement with the situation in Isaiah 56–66 where foreigners come to the Judean area (cf. the use of the Hebrew term nkry for foreigners). In Trito-Isaiah foreigners are accepted because of God’s righteousness, even when the Torah traditionally rejected them. Ruth is a Moabite widow who married the Israelite Boaz and gave to her Israelite mother-in-law the offspring she missed. She is accepted by the Israelite community because she was willing to believe in the God of Israel and to worship him as her God. The books of Ruth and Trito-Isaiah are the only passages in the Old Testament that deal with the inclusive status of foreigners in the Judean society. Grant-Henderson (2002:91) indicates three possibilities for reading the book of Ruth: ‘[a]s an apologetic against Ezra/Nehemiah around 400 B.C.E.’; as support of the Levirate marriage in a time it became a problem, or as a eulogy on Ruth’s inclusion in the Judean community because of her example of faith. In whatever time it was written, Grant-Henderson is of the opinion that it was intended to present the tradition of David’s Moabite great grandmother. Its purpose is to remind those who oppose the inclusion of non-Judeans of the history of their great king David and his descent—‘If David’s ancestor was a Moabite and faithful, surely it is acceptable in the fourth century B.C.E. to marry a foreigner who is faithful to YHWH’ (Grant-Henderson 2002:97). While there is no indication of any rejection of Moabites in Ruth, Ezra-Nehemiah rejects any engagement with Moabites. Jeremiah 48 explicitly rejects the Moabites. What is propagated in Ruth stands in direct opposition to the contemporary views of the Torah. Grant-Henderson (2002:98) advises the readers of Ruth to pay attention to ‘what might be the social situation which prevailed in which a book was originally intended and the later canonical situation when it was accepted into the canon.’ An inclusive attitude is also found in some other passages of the Hebrew Bible. It can be seen in the way Israel understood themselves in those books that are not obviously inclusive. It can be seen in the appreciation of non-Israelites like the daughter of Pharaoh (Exod 2:5–10), Job, Ruth, the sailors with Jonah, and Moses’ father in law, Jethro (Exod 18). All of them are included in Israel’s tradition, ‘intimately bound to Israel’s conception of how

42

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

God lovingly interacts with the world’ (Kaminsky 2008:131). Israel did not see their election as something that happened at the expense of others, but rather as something that occurred for the benefit of others. Room was left in Israel’s idea of particularism for non-Israelites to be included on condition they were circumcised (Exod 12:48–49). Even the foreigner was to be treated as one of the inhabitants (Exod 12:48). Raymann (2005:23) understands the phrase ‘holy people’ in Exodus 19:4–6 to indicate ‘a display people, a showcase to the world of how being in covenant with Yahweh changes a people.’ The reason for their existence as the people of God was to be an instrument of the Missio Dei. They are ‘above other nations, in service of all nations.’ Israel lives among the nations, but they exist because of them. Biblical books like Joshua and Numbers also show an inclination towards inclusivism. Douglas’ (1993) commentary on Numbers links the contents of the book to the circumstances in Israel after the exile. The book propagates inclusivity in support of those who remained behind in Jerusalem during the exile and were threatened by marginalisation. In a review of her commentary, Douglas (1996:69) repeats the idea that the book of Numbers was written as ‘[…] a tract against the government’s exclusionary policies […].’ According to EzraNehemiah the Persian authorized leaders propagated ethnical purity and unmixed ancestry. Taking into mind the literary artistry of Numbers and the way in which rules for purity were re-written, Douglas (1996:69) concludes that: ‘[T]he priests were legislating for a plural society.’ Douglas (1996:69) links this to Deutero-Isaiah: ‘Their law book could support Isaiah’s prophecy that all the nations will be proud to serve the Lord in Jerusalem (Isaiah 49.22; 66.18– 21)’ In his doctoral thesis on Joshua, Lindeque (2001:64–77) concludes that an obvious resemblance can be found between the books of Joshua and Trito-Isaiah. From this agreement he concludes that both Joshua and Trito-Isaiah are to be read against the background of the time following the exile (Persian–Hellenistic era). The exiles who returned were authorized by the Persians ‘vir die herbou van die tempel en die herstel van die Dawidiese koningskap’ (for the rebuilding of the temple and the recovery of the Davidic monarchy) (Lindeque 2001:83). In the process they followed an exclusive line of thought. The section of the population who did not go into exile formed their opposition. They forged

INCLUSIVISM AND EXCLUSIVISM

43

relationships with the surrounding nations and therefore followed an inclusive line of thinking. They held a theocratic stance. According to Lindeque this clash between exclusive and inclusive views can be seen in the tension between ideals and reality regarding leadership, people, land, keeping of the law, and relationship with other nations in the book of Joshua. He states, ‘Die ideale van die eksklusiewe denkrigting word as onbereikbaar en onrealisties voorgestel, terwyl die standpunt van die inklusiewe denkrigting deur die Josua-vertelling gelegitimeer word’ (The ideal of exclusivist thinking is depicted as unattainable and unrealistic, while an inclusivist way of thinking is legitimised in the Joshua narrative) (Lindeque 2001:85). This conflict is related to the distinction between tribes who received land on the eastern side of the Jordan River and those who got land on the western side (indicating the Hasmonean time). Joshua is also connected to the Levite priests who opposed the Zadokite priests holding an exclusivistic view. In the book of Joshua, outsiders like Rahab and the Gibeonites are welcome. The unity of the nation is also stressed. Jerusalem does not function in the book of Joshua, rather centres like Gilgal, Ebal, Shiloh, and Shechem do. All of this indicates that the book received its final form after the exile, probably during the late Persian era. During this time the old Zion theology was revived in an exclusivistic trend holding the view that the society of Jerusalem was the real people of Yahweh. All other groups were marginalised, including fellow Israelites who did not go into exile. Against this exclusivistic view found in Ezra-Nehemiah stood the alternative inclusivist view that all belong to God’s people. This alternative view is reflected in Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah, Jonah, and Ruth. Joshua also formed part of the alternative inclusivist view. Lindeque (2001:115) comes to the conclusion that the book of Joshua can be seen in its final form ‘as ‘n kontranarratief op die eksklusivistiese standpunte van die na-eksiliese Sionsteologie’ (as a contra-narrative to the exclusivistic view of the post-exilic Zion theology). It was in contest with the exclusivity of the erstwhile Zion theology and propagated decentralisation or religious authority. Those responsible for this contra-narrative ‘was dus waarskynlik ‘n gemarginaliseerde, na-eksiliese profetegroep wat in konflik met die godsdienstige elite van die Jerusalemse tempel verkeer het’ (was therefore probably a marginalised, post-exilic group of prophets

44

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

who stood in conflict with the religious elite of the Jerusalem temple) (Lindeque 2001:117).

CONCLUSION In this reflection on the identity of the church and its relationship with others who do not belong to the church, attention was paid to subjects like apostolate and mission. It was indicated that these are related to the issues of inclusivism and exclusivism. Van Ruler studied these subjects in his theology and understood them within the context of the kingdom of God. He was therefore used as a starting point of a study on exclusivism and inclusivism. Van Ruler’s theocratic approach saw the church as an instrument that God uses to establish his kingdom in the world. In Van Ruler’s view (see Van Ruler 1969:63) God’s kingdom enters the culture, the society, and the state. In this process the church has to focus on the world. It is therefore in essence an apostolic community that enters the world. Because God’s kingdom moves by leaps and jumps through the history of the world, the church in its human configuration will have to take on different forms in different times under different circumstances. For Van Ruler the church has the character of an institute as well. While directed to the world, serving as an instrument of God’s kingdom, it should also have a unique church-internal character in this pluriform world. Next to its overarching inclusive character there will also have to be a type of exclusivity as well. The church can take on many forms. In the Bible Van Ruler found a pneumatic-historical resemblance between Israel and the Christian church. There are obvious correspondences with the Old Testament in the church. Van Ruler very often returned to the Old Testament to indicate the concrete character of the form of the Christian church. Being a dogmatic scholar using a revelation-historic model, he focused on the historical material of the Old Testament in which he found ‘grondgedachten’ (basic ideas) of the ‘openbaringsverhaal’ (revelation history). He is very much aware of different theologies in scripture, but he gave priority to those ‘veins’ that could substantiate his theocratic theology. He read the Old Testament mainly in terms of his overarching theology of God’s kingdom and gave preference in his inclusive-inclined thoughts to the information that could enhance the inclusive character of the

INCLUSIVISM AND EXCLUSIVISM

45

church. This called for a study of other perspectives found in the Old and the New Testament. It is obvious that particularism (seen in this study as identical to exclusivism) and inclusivism existed next to each other in the earliest Christian church. It was a very old problem that existed in Judaism even before the time of the New Testament. Christianity started out as a branch of Judaism and inherited this problem from the older Jewish context. Even in the New Testament women and slaves were excluded from membership of the community and did not belong to the religious community. The social-theological debate on the ‘neighbour’ characterised the church of the first century CE. It was only during the second century CE that the Pauline inclusivity became dominant in the Christian church due to his missionary activities. The issue of being either exclusive or inclusive was central to the debates of the society of the Second Temple (516 BCE–70 CE). Social factors and theological traditions played a large role in these discussions. During a time of rebuilding, having returned from the exile, the house of Zadok was in command. Looking for a new form of identity they followed the program Ezekiel 40–48 proposed. This was a system of holiness with strong particularistic characteristics which marginalised all who did not agree with their ideology. Their ideas were formulated in the traditions reflected in Ezra-Nehemiah and the Priestly Writing. This type of exclusivistic thinking can inter alia be found in the different strict rules for marriage and those intended to regulate who belongs to the religious community and who are excluded. The continuation of these ideas is reflected in the pseudepigraphic book Jubilees. The experience of those who remained behind in Judah during the exile and who had to live next to infiltrating non-Judeans, gave impetus to an inclusive approach. This continued a universal view that saw the Lord as creator and as God of all nations. It led to a more lenient attitude toward strangers. While the books of Jonah and Deutero-Isaiah stressed the universal power of God that included non-Israelites, the books of Ruth and Trito-Isaiah also clearly propagated the inclusion of non-Judeans in the religious community. Such inclusive tendencies can also be found in postexilic books like Numbers and Joshua. Van Ruler’s theocratic approach is valuable in a postmodern time when the church has to reflect once more on its identity. Un-

46

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

der the present circumstances the church has no other choice than to be inclusive and missionary orientated. However, within the context of the Old Testament especially, the church will have to be exclusive in a qualified way as well. Serving God and his kingdom in this world the church is to bear an individualistic character based upon his confession that Jesus Christ is the Saviour of the world. In terms of Van Ruler’s (1978:58) metaphor, the church will have to be ‘een tent op de kermis van de leven’ (a tent erected in the fair of life) in which something is experienced that cannot be found anywhere else. In both Testaments inclusive as well as exclusive voices can be heard. Each of these views will have to be studied in a biblicalscientific, literary-historical, and traditional-theological way to provide the present church with guidelines. Grant-Henderson (2002:ix) warns against ‘an unreserved inclusivity.’ Inclusiveness holds both privileges as well as responsibilities in store. Each community will have to decide upon its own identity with regard to boundaries and contents. In the Trito-Isaiah material the demands of the Torah for law and ethnical identity were dissolved, but immediately replaced by the demand to be obedient to God’s righteousness by keeping the Sabbath and upholding the covenant. In contrast to a rigid exclusivism the church will have to follow a qualified inclusivism based upon ‘an ethic based on righteousness, justice and love’ (Grant-Henderson 2002:141).

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ateek, N., 2008, ‘Who Is My Neighbor?’, Interpretation 62(2), 156–165. Boccaccini, G., 2002, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An intellectual history, from Ezekeil to Daniel, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Douglas, M., 1993, ‘In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers’, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 158, JSOT Press, Sheffield. Douglas, M., 1996, ‘Review Colloquium, Introduction’, Religion 1996(26), 69–89. Graafland, C., 1995, ‘Bevinding en cultuur bij A.A. van Ruler’, in G. Klein & D. Steenks (eds.), De waarheid is theocratisch - bijdragen tot de waardering van de theologische nalatenschap van Arnold Albert van Ruler, pp. 42–54, Callenbach, Baarn.

INCLUSIVISM AND EXCLUSIVISM

47

Grant-Henderson, A.L., 2002, Inclusive Voices in Post-Exilic Judah, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN. Jongeneel, J.A.B., 1995, ‘De apostolaatstheologie van A.A. van RuIer, in contrast met die van J.C. Hoekendijk’, in G. Klein & D. Steenks (eds.), De waarheid is theocratisch – bijdragen tot de waardering van de theologische nalatenschap van Arnold Albert van Ruler, pp. 85–94, Callenbach, Baarn. Kaminsky, J., 2008, ‘Loving One’s (Israelite) Neighbor: Election and Commandment in Leviticus 19’, Interpretation 62(2), 123– 132. Klein, G. & Steenks, D. (eds.), 1995, De waarheid is theocratisch – bijdragen tot de waardering van de theologische nalatenschap van Arnold Albert van Ruler, Callenbach, Baarn. Kogler, F. (ed), 2008, s.v. Priesterschrift, Herders Neues Bibellexikon, Bibelwerk, Linz, 602–603. Lindeque, G.C., 2001, ‘Die boek Josua gelees teen ‘n na-eksiliese agtergrond’, DD-thesis, University of Pretoria. Park, E.C., 2003, Either Jew or gentile: Paul’s Unfolding Theology of Inclusivity, John Knox, Louisville-Londen. Plaisier, B., 1995, ‘Enige gedachten over de actualiteit van de apostolaatstheologie van A.A. van RuIer’, in G. Klein & D. Steenks (eds.), 1995, De waarheid is theocratisch – bijdragen tot de waardering van de theologische nalatenschap van Arnold Albert van Ruler, pp. 76–84, Callenbach, Baarn. Powery, E., 2008, ‘Under the Gaze of the Empire: Who Is My Neighbor?’, Interpretation 62(2), 134–144. Raymann, A., 2005, ‘The polarity between ‘am and gôy for an understanding of ‘People of God’ in the Old Testament’, Theophilos Revista de Teologia e Filosofia – Ulbra: A Journal of Theology and Philosophy 5(1/2), Jan./Des. 2005, 3–28. Strawn, B.A., 1999, ‘The x-factor: Revisioning biblical holiness’, The Asbury Theological Journal 54(2), 73–92. Van Ruler, A.A., 1953, Theologie van het Apostolaat, GF Callenbach, Nijkerk. Van Ruler, A.A., 1969, Theologisch Werk Deel I, Callenbach, Nijkerk. Van Ruler, A.A., 1978, ‘De kerk is ook doel van zichzelf’, in A.A. van Ruler, Verwachting en voltooiing: Een bundel theologische opstellen en voordrachten, pp. 53–66, Callenbach, Nijkerk.

48

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Venter, P.M., 1995, ‘Die aard van die geloofsgemeenskap in Nehemia 9’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 51(3), 720– 731. Venter, P.M., 2003, ‘Intertekstuele aanduidings van die wêreld van die boek Jubileë’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 59(3), 957–989. Venter, P.M., 2008, ‘Space, time and group identity in Jubilees 8-9’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 64(1), 631–650.

3. INCLUSIVITY AS THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE GOSPEL Ernest van Eck1 UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA ABSTRACT In this chapter a social-scientific approach to ethnicity is used to analyse the relationship between the different groups (ethnicities) encountered in the Gospels, some of Paul’s letters, and Acts. In antiquity, group identity was not based on ‘race’ or ‘nationality,’ but on cultural ethnicity. Groups used their ethnicity to define and delineate themselves as unique. Based on their ethnic identity, the Jewish temple religion argued that people from other ethnic groups should be excluded from the presence of God. In Acts and in some of Paul’s congregations law-abiding Jewish believers also used their ethnicity to exclude Christ-followers from the congregations of believers. In contrast, Jesus, Acts, and Paul proclaimed that ethnicity should not determine whether one could belong to God or be part of the congregations of the Christ-followers. For this reason, it can be argued that the New Testament bears witness to an inclusive ecclesiology.

DIFFERENT GROUPS (ETHNICITIES) IN THE NEW TESTAMENT The Gospels, Acts, and the letters of Paul frequently refer to different groups of people. In the Gospels Jesus often comes into This chapter originally appeared as Van Eck, E., 2009, ‘Inclusiviteit as evangelie’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 56(1), Art. #304, 10 pages. DOI:10.4102/HTS.V65I1.304. 1

49

50

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

conflict with groups such as the Pharisees, teachers of the law, Sadducees, and the elders. Each of these groups was a part of the Judaism of first-century Palestine. Jesus also had his group of followers which consisted of the disciples and many others—most of whom were probably Jews.2 Furthermore, he came into contact with a Greek woman from Syrian Phoenicia (Mark 7:26) and a Canaanite woman from Tyre and Sidon (Matt 15:21–22). The Samaritans (e.g., Matt 10:5; John 4:7) and Greeks (e.g., John 12:20) are also mentioned as groups encountered by Jesus during his ministry. Different groups can also be distinguished in Acts: ‘gentiles’ (Acts 11:18; 13:48; 15:7), ‘proselytes’ (Acts 13:43), Greeks (Acts 11:20), people who ate food sacrificed to idols (Acts 15:29), and the Jews (Acts 11:19; 12:3; 14:2). These different groups can probably be reduced to two groups—(law-abiding) Jewish believers (Acts 11:2), and non-Jews who repented (Acts 11:18) or received the word of God (Acts 11:1). In the letters of Paul reference is especially made to two groups—the Jews and the non-Jews (e.g., Gal 2:7–8; 3:28 [Jews and Several New Testament scholars argue that the terms ‘Jew’ (ʾΙουδαιος), ‘Jews’ (ʾΙουδαιοι) and ‘Judaism’ (ʾΙουδαίων) are anachronistic when used to refer to the Jews (people) and ‘Judaism’ (religion) in firstcentury Palestine (see e.g., Pilch 1997:119–125; Esler 2003b:63–70; Duling 2005:125–143; Cromhout 2007:2–5). According to Pilch (1997:119–125), the Greek words ʾΙουδαιος and ʾΙουδαίων should be translated with ‘Judean’ and ‘Judeanism,’ for these were the names accepted by the Israelites during the Second Temple period (520 BCE–70 CE). The origins of the terms ‘Jew’ and ‘Judaism,’ on the other hand, date back to the sixth century CE when Rabbinic Judaism came into existence. Esler (2003b:63) points out that it was the custom in antiquity to associate people or ethnic groups with their place of origin; thus, people of Judea would have been known as Judeans. Although this interpretation is accepted, in what follows the terms ‘Jew,’ ‘Jews,’ and ‘Judaism’ will be used. When the terms ‘Jew,’ ‘Jews,’ or ‘Judaism’ are used they are intended to refer to Judean(s) (‘Israelite[s]’ who lived in Judea), in other words, to people who can be associated with Judeanism—both religiously and culturally-ethnically (i.e., ethnic ties with Judea and associated with the temple in Judea [Jerusalem]). 2

INCLUSIVITY AS THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE GOSPEL 51 Greeks]; 1 Cor 1:24; 10:32 [Jews and Greeks]). Philippians 3:2 hints at a group, probably Jews (Judeans), who insisted that the believers in Philippi (probably non-Jews) should be circumcised. In 2 Corinthians 11:21–23 we encounter a group who opposed Paul’s work in Corinth; a group who considered themselves apostles and whom Paul describes as ‘Hebrews’ and ‘Israelites,’ descending from Abraham. In Romans 14–15 Paul describes two groups in the congregation as ‘strong ones’ and ‘weak ones’ respectively—probably referring to non-practising Jews and law-abiding Jews.3 These two groups are also referred to in 1 Corinthians 8:4–13.

CULTURAL IDENTITY An introduction to ethnicity What were the identities of these groups? The concept of ‘identity,’ according to Holland et al. (2003:5), can be defined as ‘a concept that figuratively combines the intimate or personal world with the collective space of cultural forms and social relations’ (emphasis added). Lieu (2004:12), in turn, is of the opinion that identity has to do with ‘ideas of boundedness, of sameness and difference, of continuity, perhaps a degree of homogeneity, and of recognition by self and by others.’ These definitions of identity show that the identity of a group, in essence, is tied to what may be called ethnicity.4 The congregation in Rome consisted of non-Jews (Rom 16) and Jews (Rom 1–3; see esp. Rom 1:16 and 3:9). Romans 14 and 15 describe these two groups in greater detail: those ‘who are strong (in the faith)’ (Rom 15:1; NIV) who argued that one is allowed to eat anything (e.g., meat; Rom 14:2, 21), can drink wine (Rom 14:21), and that all days are of equal importance (they probably did not keep the Sabbath; Rom 14:5) and those ‘whose faith is weak’ (Rom 14:1; NIV), arguing that one is not allowed to eat meat, only vegetables (Rom 14:2), not allowed to drink wine (Rom 14:21) and that a certain day (probably the Sabbath) is more important than the other days (Rom 14:5). Due to limitations of space, the conflict that raged within the congregation in Rome will not be discussed. 4 The word/concept ‘ethnicity’ was coined in 1942 by sociologist W.L. Warner and was taken up in the Oxford English Dictionary as a noun for the first time in 1953. The noun is derived from the Greek word ἒθνος 3

52

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Ethnicity in general is ‘a form of social identity, referring to a collectivity of individuals who ascribe to themselves and/or by others, a sense of belonging and a common cultural tradition’ (Cromhout 2007:82; emphasis added), ‘[it] is about cultural differentiation […] concerned with culture […] both collective and individual, externalized in social interaction and internalized in personal selfidentification’ (Jenkins 1997:165; emphasis added).5 Ethnicity thus has to do with cultural differences—hence the term ‘cultural ethnicity’6 which is commonly used in studies on the differences between groups.7 (ἒθνη in the plural). Available literature shows that the term ἒθνος originally was used to describe groups (e.g., men, women, or the citizens of a town). In ancient Jewish literature the word is used to designate groups of people (‘nations’) in a neutral way—sometimes as a reference to the Jews (Judeans) as a group (e.g., 1 Macc 15:1–2). The term ἒθνος/ἒθνη gradually came to be used as a (sometimes negative) description of outsiders (people who were not part of one’s own group), while γένος came to be used as a reference to one’s own group (Duling 2009:1–2). Compare with regards to the latter Paul’s statement in Philippians 3:5 where he refers to himself as an Israelite by using γένος. 5 According to Brown (2000:311), Mead (in 1934) was the first sociologist to be of the opinion that the social identity of an individual was determined, among other things, by the identity of the group to which the individual belonged. Social Identity Theory (a subdivision of sociological psychology) was developed by Henri Tajfel (1982, 1986), a Polish Jew, and later by John Turner (1999). Social Identity Theory studies the relationship between an individual’s self-understanding and his membership of a group, and shows that an individual’s self-understanding is deeply influenced by the characteristics of the collective to which the individual belongs. This is especially the case in collective cultures such as the firstcentury Mediterranean culture. When a specific collective group starts to exhibit specific characteristics, a specific self-understanding and behaviour becomes stereotypical of the group, and all groups who do not exhibit the same specific characteristics is negatively stereotyped (Esler 2002:186– 187). 6 Most studies on ethnicity show that the term can be understood in terms of the attributes of a specific culture and how that culture differs from other cultures. According to Barth (1969:13–14), ethnicity refers to

INCLUSIVITY AS THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE GOSPEL 53

the social organization of cultural differences, and De Vos (1975:9, 16) describes an ethnic group as a group of people who have certain traditions in common with each other, traditions that differ from those of other groups with whom they are in contact. Roosens (1994:84) holds that ethnicity has to do with shared origin and cultural traditions. Nagel (1994:153) argues that factors such as language, religion, appearance, descent, and regionalism play a determining role in the ethnicity of a specific group, while Smith (1986:32) describes ethnic groups as ‘named human populations with shared ancestry, myths, histories and cultures, having an association with a specific territory and a sense of solidarity’ (see Cromhout 2007:82 for a more detailed description of some of the abovementioned perspectives). 7 Some anthropologists argue that it is more appropriate to use the terms ‘race’ and ‘nationality’ to indicate the differences between groups. The term ‘race,’ however, cannot be applied to the differences between groups in the ancient times (e.g., in the time of Jesus and Paul), as it is a modern term which has only been used since the eighteenth century. Originally (during the Middle Ages) the notion existed that that there were three distinguishable races according to the three sons of Noah: the Semites (Shem—Asians), the Hamites (Ham—Africans), and the Japhethites (Japheth—Europeans). During the sixteenth century the term ‘race’ was used to refer to descent, and gradually came to include factors such as physical characteristics, culture, and even nationality. The eighteenth century saw the development of the theory of biological evolution which proceeded from the presumption that different species of homo sapiens could be distinguished from each other by paying attention to the differences in people’s physical appearances (e.g., the shape of the skull, skin colour, and hair texture) which would have developed in certain isolated areas. The result of this theory was a three-fold racial typology: the Mongoloids, the Negroids, and the Caucasians. In the Euro-American and Euro-African contexts this distinction implied the superiority of the Caucasians. This theory was recently discarded by biologists and anthropologists as pseudoscience, due to its lack of scientific credibility. Immigrants, for example in cities, often make up different groups based on language, land of birth, customs, religion, and diet, and not on the differences in physical appearance which developed in certain areas (Duling 2008:1; 2009:2). This however, does not mean that race does not exist as a social, political, and cultural reality. The term ‘nationalism’ is also a modern phe-

54

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

The two most important theories with regards to ethnicity are primordialism and constructionism. Primordialism makes a distinction between cultural primordialism and sociobiological primordialism. Cultural primordialism is built on the conviction that individuals who belong to a particular group experience a natural deep-seated affection towards other members of the group—‘feelings that they believe are “natural”, sometimes even “sacred” and have always been there’ (Duling 2009:3). This feeling presents itself especially in times of rapid social transformation when groups usually draw clear boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ Shils (1957:130–145) and Geertz (1963:108–113) point out five characteristics of such groups: family, territory (homeland), language, (cultural) customs, and religion. These five attributes are constructed culturally, hence the term ‘cultural primordialism.’ Sociobiological primordialism, in turn, proceeds from the claim that certain tendencies in human behaviour—such as altruism, aggression, and criminality—are passed on genetically (Van der Berghe 1987). Constructionism, on the other hand, can be understood as a reaction to cultural primordialism. Barth (1969:13–14), the father of constructionism, agrees with cultural primordialism that identifiable cultural attributes such as language, dress, and diet (which he labels as ‘cultural stuff’) are important in shaping ethnicity, but do not create a particular ethnicity as such. Groups use these cultural attributes to describe themselves as a group in order to be distinguishable from other groups in their immediate social surroundings. Thus, the key to understanding ethnicity is not ‘cultural stuff,’ but rather the organization of cultural differences. Ethnicity is not a given. It is not inherent, fixed, and unchangeable; rather, it is chosen, fluid, and changeable—something which is continuously connomenon. Nationalism did not exist in the times of Jesus and Paul, because nations—as we know them today (with anthems, citizenship, and voting rights)—simply did not exist (Duling 2008:2). The following remark of Gelardini (2009:3) can be noted in this regard: ‘Since words like “nation,” “nationality,” “nationalism,” and particularly “race” seems to carry narrow and sometimes ideologically loaded modern concepts into ancient sources, “ethnicity” enjoys a good reputation among scholars today.’

INCLUSIVITY AS THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE GOSPEL 55 structed in new contexts and in relation to other groups. Ethnicity is about ‘social boundary making’ (Barth 1969:14).8 Ethnicity: A social-scientific model The above the five attributes which, according to Shils (1957) and Geertz (1963), are employed by ethnic groups in the process of ‘social boundary making’ already have been referred to. Schermerhorn (1978:12) lists three further attributes also used for this purpose: tribal affiliation, nationality, and phenotypical features. 9 Barclay (1996:404; 2007:99–112) is of the opinion that ethnicity is determined by a combination of two specific factors, namely a common ancestry and (cultural) customs, while Cohen (1999:7) argues that the religion of a particular group is sufficient as the distinInstrumentalism, social psychology, and ethno-symbolism can be seen as modifications, expansions, or a further development of Barth’s constructionism. Instrumentalism holds that ethnic groups construct their identity continuously in order to promote their socio-political self-interest (Varshney 1985, in Duling 2009:3). Social psychology emphasizes the memories (myths) that are created by ethnic groups (which depict them as superior to other groups), and the negative stereotyping of other groups in order to depict them as inferior (Horowitz 1985, in Duling 2009:4). Ethno-symbolism, in turn, is concerned with the idealized past of an ethnic group which is expressed by the narratives (myths) about the group being a ‘chosen people’ and its ability to survive against all odds (Armstrong 1982, in Duling 2009:4). 9 It is important to take note of the fact that perceivable physical differences (phenotypical differences, derived from the Greek word φαίνω [to appear]) were not understood in the ancient world to be genetic differences. The modern-day understanding that phenotypical differences are genetically inheritable under certain environmental conditions did not exist in the ancient times. The dark skin colour and dark, curly hair of Ethiopians (e.g., Acts 8:27), were attributed to the effects of the sun, while the lighter skin and hair colour of the Europeans were ascribed to little exposure to the sun. Phenotypical features were also associated with certain character traits: due to their smaller limbs, faces and eyes, Corinthians (people from the region of Corinth) were regarded as narrow-minded and bitter (Duling 2009:6). 8

56

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

guishing factor between different ethnic groups; he therefore prefers the term ‘ethnoreligiosity.’ Mason (2007:457–512), in turn, contends that social boundary making takes place on the basis of (cultural) customs, laws, traditions, and religious rituals, which all serve as ‘ethnic-identity boundary-markers’ (Mason 2007:469). Finally, Hutchinson and Smith (1996:6–7) claim that ethnicity is determined by six factors: a name designating a particular ethnos, common ancestry, a shared history (shared memories), a common culture, ties with a native country, and an awareness of communal solidarity (see also Esler 2003a:43–44). By comparing the different theories of ethnicity with the concept of ethnicity as reflected in available ancient texts, Duling (2005; 2009) comes to the conclusion that the following nine features (as suggested by primordialism) can be used to construct a social-scientific model according to which cultural identity within antiquity can be studied (see Duling 2005:127–128; 2009:4–7):  Family (kinship): in the Mediterranean world the family to which one belonged was probably the most important factor in determining cultural identity (Malina 1986:152; 1989:131; Hanson & Oakman 1998:7; Taylor 2002:577).10 The New Testament often refers to a person with the expression ‘A, son of B (son of C),’ the masculine bloodline. James, for example, is described as ‘James son of Zebedee’ (Mark 1:19), and Jesus as ‘the son of Joseph’ (John 1:45). The expression also occurs in the genealogies of Jesus (Matt 1:1–17; Luke 3:23–38).11 Malina (1989:131; emphasis in the original) describes the pivotal value of the family in the Mediterranean world as follows: ‘In […] the […] Mediterranean world […] the centrally located institution maintaining societal existence is kinship and its sets of interlocking rules. This results in the central value of familism. The family or kinship group is central in societal organization; it is the primary focus of personal loyalty and it holds supreme sway over individual life.’ 11 The importance of this marker can be seen especially in cases where people are labelled negatively. Jesus, for example, says to the Jews who do not believe in him that God is not their father and ‘You belong to your father, the devil’ (John 8:42, 44; NIV). 10

INCLUSIVITY AS THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE GOSPEL 57 





A name by which an ethnic group is known: in Matthew 15:22 Jesus meets a woman who is described as a Canaanite; the title of Jesus written on the cross read ‘the king of the Jews’ (Matt 27:37); the Sanhedrin is described in Mark 15:1 as ‘the Council of the Jews’ (NAV); several texts refer to the Jews as a group (e.g., Acts 6:9; Gal 3:28; Rom 2:17; 3:1); the Israelites are often referred to as a group or people (e.g., Rom 9:31; 11:2); there are a number of references to the Samaritans (e.g., Matt 10:5; Luke 9:52); Paul is referred to as a Roman citizen in Acts 22:26; and Philip met an Ethiopian on the road between Gaza and Jerusalem (Acts 8:27).12 Native country (homeland/land of birth): the Greeks, Romans, and Israelites often identified groups by their country of origin (Hall 1997:47); Simon is said to be from Cyrene (Mark 15:21); the woman whom Jesus meets at the well is from Samaria (John 4:7); Mark 7:24–31 refers to a woman from Tyre and Sidon; Israel was convinced that they were living in the ‘promised land’ (Gen 15:18–21; Deut 6:10); and Jesus is often referred to as ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ (e.g., Matt 21:11; Mark 10:47; Luke 24:19; John 19:19; Acts 22:8).13 Common ancestry (and/or myths about it): the genealogies in Matthew 1:1–17 and Luke 3:23–38 are examples of this ethnic marker, as well as the expression ‘children of Abraham’ (e.g., John 8:39; Rom 9:7; Gal 3:7). Another example of this marker is the Old Testament’s description of Israel

Herodotus referred to the Persians, Egyptians, and Libyans as barbaroi, and the Romans regarded the Greeks and the Egyptians as inferior (Duling 2009:6). From this it is clear that names were used to depict one group as ethnically superior to other groups. 13 Josephus, the ancient Jewish historian, sometimes identified certain groups by referring to their country of origin (Duling 2009:6). A person’s country/land of origin was also sometimes used to judge a person negatively. In order to depict Jesus negatively, he was called a Samaritan (from Samaria; John 8:48), and Galileans were from ‘Galilee of the Gentiles’ (Matt 4:15; NIV). 12

58

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS







as the descendants of the ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (e.g., Exod 3:16; Deut 1:8; Jer 33:26).14 (Cultural) customs/traditions: the Jews, for example, had certain customs and traditions which distinguished them from other ethnic groups. Examples of these are endogamy, beards, the tradition of the elders (e.g., Mark 7:5), and clothing (Mark 12:38).15 Language: Acts 2:6–11 refers to several native languages (those of the Persians, Medes, Cretans, Arabians, and Elamites) which point to different ethnic groups. The Jews spoke Aramaic and their Scriptures (the Tanakh) were written mainly in Hebrew. Paul, for example, points in Philippians 3:5 to the fact that he is a Hebrew (he was thus also competent in the Hebrew language) from the tribe of Benjamin, and therefore also an Israelite (Jew).16 A shared history (shared memories): the Jews often reminded themselves of their liberation from slavery and the exodus from Egypt (Exod 13:3; 16; 20:2), the covenant God made with them, the land promised to them (Gen 12:1–3), and God’s providence during their wanderings in

According to Herodotus, ethnic groups such as the Egyptians, Romans, and Greeks often traced their origins back to the gods and heroes of their ancestors (Hall 1997:41–43). A similar example is found in Exodus 3:16 in the expression ‘the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’ (NIV). Affluent Greeks sometimes paid the temple priests to fabricate genealogies that could raise their social status (Hood 1961:1–15, in Duling 2009:5). 15 The Greek poet Anacreon (sixth century BCE) mentions, for example, that the Dorians could be recognized by their characteristic clothing (Hall 1997:38). 16 The Greeks regarded other ethnic groups as babblers because of their language (barbaroi; Geary 1999:107–129, in Duling 2009:6), and the Egyptians labelled other ethnic groups who were not able to speak Egyptian as ‘other-tongued’—to mention only two examples indicating that language served as a marker of ethnicity in the ancient world. 14

INCLUSIVITY AS THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE GOSPEL 59





the desert (e.g., John 6:49). These memories served to strengthen and uphold their ethnic identity.17 Phenotypical features: perceivable physical differences also served as a marker of ethnicity in the ancient world (however, see footnote 8 again). The apparent noticeable darker skin colour and darker hair colour of the Ethiopian who went to Jerusalem to worship (Acts 8:27) made Philip realise that the man was of a different ethnicity. Religion: in the Mediterranean world religion was imbedded in the familial and political institutions (see Malina 1986:86; 2001:36). ‘Religion as a sphere apart, that is, separated from other cultural, social, and ethnic discourses, is not conceivable in antiquity’ (Gelardini 2009:5). The Jews had several religious practices which distinguished them from other ethnic groups. The following serve as examples: circumcision (e.g., Luke 2:21; Exod 13:1); clean (kosher) foods and purity laws (e.g., Mark 7:1, 15); Sabbath laws (e.g., Mark 2:24; John 5:10; 9:16) and the law of Moses (Josh 8:32; Matt 1:19; Luke 2:22); fasting (e.g., Mark 2:18); feasts (e.g., the Passover [John 2:13] and the Feast of Tabernacles [John 7:2]) and religious dress (phylacteries around the head and tassels on their garments; e.g., Matt 23:5).18 Both the Romans and the Jews believed that they were God’s ‘chosen people.’ The Romans claimed that they were chosen by the gods, especially by Jupiter, to rule over ‘an empire without end’ (Virgilius, Aeneas 1.278–279; Seneca, Duties 2.26–27; see Carter 2006:7). The Jews in turn based their claim that they were God’s chosen people

Duling (2009:6) aptly remarks the following in connection with the memories and history of the Greeks and Romans: ‘The Greeks had Homer’s Iliad; Romans had accounts of the founding of Rome (Plutarch, Lives of Romulus). Greek and Latin historians wrote to reinforce ethnic identity.’ 18 The Romans, in similar fashion to the Jews, upheld religious and other practices which distinguished them from other ethnic groups. Examples of these are myths about gods, the veneration of ancestors, vestal virgins, feasts, parades, and games (Neils 1992, in Duling 2009:6). 17

60

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS (Ps 78:61; Isa 43:20) on their deliverance from slavery in Egypt and the gift of the promised land (Herzog 2005:127).

In applying the above social-scientific model, Duling (2009:5) points out that a certain ethnic group does not have to have all of the above-mentioned features in order to be regarded as a separate ethnic group. Family, shared history (memories), and a land of heritage are in most cases universal to different ethnic groups. It should also be remembered that the identity of a particular ethnic group is fluid, depending, for example, on changing circumstances and new contexts (constructionism). It is also possible for a person to have more than one ethnic identity: Saul (Acts 9:1), a Jew from Tarsus, was also Paul, a Roman citizen by birth (Acts 22:28). In conclusion, Duling presents several ancient texts which indicate that the above-mentioned ethnic attributes were indeed used to distinguish between different groups’ ethnicity.19 Duling (2009:7) lists the following texts as the basis for his suggested model (markers of ethnicity are added in brackets; emphasis in the original): For there are many great reasons why we [the Greeks—name ] should not … [desert to the Persians—name], even if we so desired; first and foremost, the burning and destruction of the adornments [religious practices] and temples of our gods [religion], whom we are constrained to avenge to the utmost rather than make pacts with the perpetrator of these things, and next the kinship of all Greeks in blood [ancestry] and speech [language], and the shrines of gods [religion] and the sacrifices that we have in common [religious traditions and customs], and the likeness of our way of life [cultural customs], to all of which it would not befit the Athenians [name] to be false (Herodotus, Histories 8.144.2 [ca. 440 BCE]). For the ethnos [ethnicity] of the Armenians [name] and that of the Syrians [Arimaeans—name] and Arabians [Erembians—name] betray a close affinity [ancestry], not only in their language [language], but in their mode of life [cultural customs] and in their bodily build [phenotypical features], and particularly wherever they live as close neighbors [land] … And, too, the Assyrians [name], the Arians [name], and the Aramaeans [name] display a certain likeness both to those just mentioned and to each other (Strabo, Geography 1.2.34 [ca. 17–23 CE]). 19

INCLUSIVITY AS THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE GOSPEL 61

JEWISH ETHNICITY: AN EXCLUSIVE GOD A complete account of all that Jewish ethnicity entailed in firstcentury Palestine is not possible here. 20 A concise account of the essence thereof will, however, be sufficient for our purposes. Several aspects that determined Jewish ethnicity have already been referred to above. With regards to the familial institution, the family to which one belonged was one of the most important determinants of Jewish ethnicity/identity, as the family was the dominant institution in the first-century Mediterranean world. Male bloodlines were important in determining ethnicity and status, and this points to (among other things) the paternal and hierarchical aspects which were typical of the Jewish ethnos. The appellation of this ethnic group, ‘Jews’ (Judeans; ‘Israelites living in Judea’), was a second marker of ethnicity. The name ‘Jew’ referred to a person who can be associated with Judeanism, both religiously and culturally-ethnically (ethnic ties with Judea, and associated with the temple in Judea [Jerusalem]).21 Further, regarding land of origin, the Jews lived in Palestine (the ‘promised land’) and had a common ancestry (descendants of the ancestors and children of Abraham

These are the sons [ancestry] of Shem [name], by their families [family], their languages [language], their lands [land], and their nations [ethnicity] (Gen 10:31, NKJV). The non-priestly primal history, as it is recounted in Genesis 1–11, was probably put in writing between 500 and 400 BCE). 20 For a description of the factors which determined Jewish ethnicity in Palestine during the first century, see Cromhout (2007:117–230). One of the valuable aspects of Cromhout’s work is his use of non-canonical sources to support his description of Jewish ethnicity in first-century Palestine. Cromhout (2007:67–115) also presents an encompassing sociocultural model with which Jewish ethnicity in first-century Palestine can be studied—a model that deserves to be considered. 21 The Jews are referred to as an ethnos in several texts in the New Testament—sometimes by those who are part of the Jewish ethnos (Luke 23:2; John 11:19, 50–52), and sometimes by people who belong to a different ethnos (Luke 5:7; John 18:35).

62

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

based on God’s covenant). 22 In addition, the Jews upheld numerous (cultural) customs/traditions which distinguished them from other ethnic groups (e.g., endogamous marriages, male beards, the tradition of the elders, and wearing specific clothes) and had Aramaic as their language (of which numerous transliterations are found in the Greek New Testament)23 and Hebrew (the language of the Torah). Concerning shared history/memories, the Jews often reminded themselves of their deliverance from slavery and the exodus from Egypt, the covenant that God made with them, the land that God promised them, and the law that God gave them. They saw themselves as God’s chosen people with whom he had formed a covenant, and this fact gave the Jewish people a collective identity and made them conscious that they were different from other ethnic groups (Cromhout 2007:119). They also upheld various religious practices which clearly distinguished them from other ethnic groups; circumcision was one of the most important of these. Other religious practices included eating only kosher foods, observing purity laws, sacrificing, keeping the Sabbath (the Sabbath laws), fasting, observing certain feasts, and wearing religious apparel (phylacteries around the forehead and tassels on their garments). Finally, the temple served as the most important religious symbol, expressing Jewish ethnicity most prominently.24 As religion in first-century Palestine was imbedded in the familial and political (and economical) institutions, the religion of the Jewish people had a much greater influence on determining their ethnicity than only through the few aspects mentioned above (see §2.2). Religion formed such an integral part of Jewish ethnicity that the Jewish people could even be described as an ethno-religious ethnos (Cohen 1999:109). The Jewish people of the Second Temple See in this regard the following remark by Cromhout (2007:121): ‘To be a child of Abraham is to have an elevated status, that is, to have the glorious status of being a Judean (Jew—EvE).’ 23 See for example Mark 5:41; 7:34; 11:9; 14:36; Matthew 5:10, 22; 6:24; 27:6, 46; John 8:29; 20:16. 24 In accordance with Duling’s social-scientific model of ethnicity there are eight features (excluding phenotypical features) that indicate Jewish ethnicity. 22

INCLUSIVITY AS THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE GOSPEL 63 period understood God in terms of his holiness (e.g., Lev 19:2, NIV: ‘Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy’).25 God’s holiness was evident in his capacity to bless or to judge (Douglas 1966:48–57). His blessing involved the creation of order, of which creation itself was regarded as God’s greatest blessing ever. Through his creation, God established order by separating day and night, dividing the week into working days and a day of rest, creating birds, animals and fish in their ‘proper/genuine’ forms (not crossbreeds, such as a mule), separating land and sea, allocating a specific place to each living being (e.g., fish in the water and birds in the sky), and appointing man to rule over God’s creation (hierarchy). God’s creation thus established a specific order with regards to time, space, people, and status. As Neyrey (1991:277) puts it: there was ‘a place for everything and everything in its place.’ God’s holiness was order, and to be holy as God is holy (Lev 19:2), meant that God’s order had to be replicated in a society which reflected God’s holy ordering of his creation.26 In Judaism the temple (as the axis mundi)27—the central religious symbol of the Jewish ethnos—served as the embodiment of God’s holiness (Neusner 1979:103–127; Neyrey 1991:277). In order to replicate God’s holiness, certain regulations were laid down that determined which animals could be sacrificed (no crossbreeds or animals with defects), who were allowed to bring the sacrifices (only holy priests of a certain bloodline), who were allowed to take See also Exodus 15:11; Leviticus 10:3; 11:43–45; 20:7–8, 26; 21:8; Psalm 99:3, 5, 9; 111:9; Isaiah 6:6; 65:5; Amos 4:2. 26 See also the following remark of Neyrey (1991:273): ‘By imposing order, people are attempting to define themselves. Chaos, the complete absence of order, was a terrifying concept, for it implies that there are no patterns, no identifications, no rules, no structures. […] People, then, seek to find order […] to define themselves. […] By erecting imaginary and/or real lines, people define “my” or “ours” in relation to what is “yours”' and “theirs”, which is the function of city walls, fences, boundaries, and the like.’ 27 Axis mundi is a term referring to the centre of the earth—the place where divine and human meet, in other words, the place where the divine is present on the earth. 25

64

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

part in the sacrifices (only Israelites without blemishes or defects), where the sacrifices were to be made (only in the temple), as well as the appropriate times and occasions on which the different sacrifices were to be made (e.g., on feasts). In this way the command to be holy as God is holy found expression with the temple serving as the central and dominant religious, political, and economic symbol of Judaism.28 This understanding of holiness, as it is reflected by the purity laws of the temple, determined in essence who were welcome in God’s presence (in the temple) and who were not. Only Israelites (without blemish or defect) were allowed to enter the temple to bring sacrifices; women were not allowed to enter the temple (only into the courtyard of the women); children were excluded, as well as those who were labelled as socially unclean. People with blemishes or defects were not holy/whole like God (the so-called ‘sinners,’ e.g., the blind, the lame, hermaphrodites, lepers, 29 and men with damaged genitals) and were not welcome in the temple, as well as those who were regarded as permanently unclean (e.g. tax collectors30 and prostitutes). These ‘sinners’ were viewed as people Gelardini (2009:3) aptly summarizes the above when she describes Judaism as a ‘specific religious system […] belonging to the Jews, the Jewish people or nation or an ethnic collective, and belonging to Judaism as a cultural identity […] is mostly understood as a specific religious system.’ 29 Lepers were viewed as people who did not respect boundaries and were therefore reckoned unclean. The skin was the boundary for body fluids. The body fluids of lepers were outside their bodies, and lepers were seen as a symbol of chaos (disorder). For this reason they were considered unclean and grouped with the socially marginalised. 30 The negative attitude towards tax collectors in the New Testament lies on various levels: 1) The Jews saw the tax collectors as traitors, because they collected monies from locals on behalf of Rome; 2) tax collectors often came into contact with unclean items and unclean people; 3) tax collectors were regarded as thieves for they claimed more tax than they were authorized to take (for this reason they [together with shepherds and public officials] were also not allowed to witness in a court); and 4) tax collectors handled money that bore an imprint of Caesar’s head. This was considered as violation of both the first commandment 28

INCLUSIVITY AS THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE GOSPEL 65 who could not come into God’s presence (for God is holy and whole), and were therefore not welcome in the temple. In summary, a particular understanding of God (his holiness) led to discrimination against certain people. God was only present in the temple. He was holy and whole—an exclusive God—and only those who were holy and whole fitted him. Only Israelites (Jews) were welcome, and then also only those of them who were ‘holy’ or ‘clean’—an exclusion of persons based on ‘divine sanctioning.’ God was holy and whole, and only those who were ‘holy’ and ‘whole’ as well could come into God’s presence. Finally, a number of cultural values can be highlighted that, although they were universally applicable in the Mediterranean world, also gave expression to the Jewish ethnos. The dominant cultural value (pivot) of the Jewish ethnos was honor and shame.31 A person in the first-century Mediterranean world was always imbedded in the paternal family (i.e., in the honour of the head of the family, the pater familias; Malina & Rohrbaugh 1992:377). The Jewish ethnos was thus predominantly masculine. The first-century Mediterranean world did not know the concept of ‘an individual,’ and selfhood was always oriented towards ‘the other’ (dyadic).32 (Caesar was worshipped as a god) and the second commandment (that one was not allowed to make images; Exod 20:4). They were thus considered to be permanently unclean. 31 Malina (1981:27–29) describes honor and shame as the dominant value of the first-century Mediterranean world as follows: ‘Honor might be described as socially proper attitudes and behavior in the area where the three lines of power, sexual status, and religion intersect. […] Honor is the value of a person in his or her own eyes (that is, one’s claim to worth) plus that person’s value in the eyes of his own social group. […] Honor is a claim to worth and the social acknowledgement of that worth. […] When a person perceives that his or her actions do in fact reproduce the ideals of society, he or she expects others in the group to acknowledge the fact, and what results is a grant of honor, a grant of reputation.’ 32 ‘Mediterraneans are what anthropologists call “dyadic”; that is, they are other-orientated people who depend on others to provide them with a sense of who they are’ (Malina & Rohrbaugh 1992:113; emphasis added).

66

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

The individual was imbedded in the group (the family and the ethnos) to which he or she belonged. People in the first-century Mediterranean world were thus strongly group-oriented, with a frame of reference which was always focused on the group. ‘I’ always included a ‘we’; ‘me’ was always part of a greater ‘us’ (Malina & Neyrey 1991b:74). Dyadic personality was in principle also agonistic, that is, persons who were not part of one’s own group were always judged negatively: people with a different ethnicity were automatically regarded as enemies, and people with the same ethnicity, but who were, for example, not part of the village (strangers), were viewed as potential enemies (Malina & Neyrey 1991a:32).33 Lastly, brief reference can be made to table fellowship in the Jewish ethnos: due to the importance of cultic purity, people only ate with others of their own kind (i.e., clean only ate with clean). From the above it is clear that boundaries were important in the Jewish ethnos. A person was either part of the in-group or not. There were, however, some members of the in-group—the unclean or the socially ostracised—who were not acceptable to others in the in-group. Cultic purity was the norm and determined (subsequent to the requirement that one had to be male) whether a person could come into God’s presence or not. It was possible for someone outside the Jewish ethnos to become part of Judaism, but that person had to become a Jew—usually by circumcision— before it could happen. The Jewish ethnos was clearly exclusive; God after all was an exclusive God.

JESUS: GOD IS INCLUSIVE Contrary to the temple and the Judaism of his time, Jesus understood God in terms of compassion. His view of God is expressed in Luke 6:36 where he paraphrases Leviticus 19:2, ‘Be holy because The agonistic nature of the first-century Mediterranean world, and thus also of the Jewish ethnos, is well expressed by the following Mediterranean proverb: ‘Me against my brother, me and my brother against our cousin, me, my brother and my cousin against our enemies’ (Malina 2001:46). 33

INCLUSIVITY AS THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE GOSPEL 67 I, the LORD your God, am holy’ (NIV), as ‘Be merciful (οἰκτίρμονες), just as your Father is merciful (οἰκτίρμων; NIV).34 Jesus thus replaces the temple’s understanding of God that centered on his holiness, with an understanding of God that centered on his compassion/mercy. Jesus, in other words, replaces an exclusive God with an inclusive God (see, among others, Cupitt 2001:58). Jesus’ understanding of God, because of God’s compassion, is firstly revealed through the way in which he dealt with the purity laws of the temple. With regards to space, Jesus often went to places outside the ‘holy’ borders of Israel (e.g., Samaria [Luke 9:51–56]; the Decapolis [Mark 7:31]; Caesarea-Philippi [Mark 8:27]; and the region of the Gerasenes [Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26]), and he also interacted with people from a different ethnos within the borders of the ‘holy land’ itself (a Greek woman from Syrian Phoenicia [Mark 7:26]; a Canaanite woman from the region of Tyre and Sidon [Matt 15:21–22]; the demon-possessed man from the region of the Gerasenes [Mark 5:2]; and a Roman official [Luke 7:1-10]). Jesus even praised the faith of a Roman official (Matt 8:10)35 and a Canaanite woman (Matt 15:28), and used a Samaritan in an example to teach the temple elite about love for one’s neighbour (Luke 10:30–35). Jesus also continually interacted with those who were socially marginalized (unclean [not holy, not whole]) according to the purity laws of the temple: the lame or disabled (Luke 5:17–26; Mark 3:1-5; 7:31–35), the blind (Luke 7:21; Mark 8:22–25; 10:46–52), the sick (Luke 4:38–40), the demon-possessed (Luke 4:31–37; 8:26–39; Matthew’s version reads: ‘Be perfect (τέλειοι), therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect’ (τέλειός; Matt 5:48, NIV). ‘Perfect’ here probably refers to behaving in a consistent manner as it is expressed by some of Jesus’ sayings in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:3–48), especially those in Matthew 5:43–47 where Jesus teaches that one should love your neighbour as well as your enemy. God is perfect, for he lets the sun rise over both the evil and the virtuous, and he causes it to rain on both the evil and the virtuous. To be perfect as God is perfect thus means to love without exception (i.e., to love consistently or without discrimination). 35 ‘I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith’ (NIV). 34

68

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Mark 1:32–34; 9:17), the leprous (Mark 1:40–42), and the so-called ‘sinners’ (tax collectors [Mark 2:13–15]; and prostitutes [Matt 21:31–32; Luke 7:37–50]; see, among others, Armstrong 2001:26). With regards to the latter, Jesus said to the chief priests and the elders that it will be the tax collectors and prostitutes who will enter the kingdom of God, rather than they (Matt 21:23, 31). Jesus also often interacted with women, who—according to the Jewish ethnos—were regarded as mere possessions36 without honor and of low status37 (e.g., Matt 26:10; Mark 5:25–34; 7:25; 14:3; Lukr 13:11; John 4:7; 8:3–11), and he welcomed them in his circles and among his followers (Luke 8:3; 10:38; Bailey 2008:194–195). Women were also often used as characters in Jesus’ parables (Matt 13:13; Luke 15:18).38 It is interesting that the genealogy of Jesus, as it is given in Matthew 1:1–17, contains the names of women who either had bad reputations (Tamar and Rahab) or were non-Jews (Ruth, a Moabite). The same can be said about Jesus’ attitude towards children (Mark 9:33–37; 10:13–16).39 He even touched dead people (considered the most unclean of all; Luke 7:11–17; 8:49–56) and used unclean spit to heal a man who was unable to hear or speak (Mark 7:33). Jesus also did not obey the temple’s ordering of time; he ignored the Sabbath laws (Mark 2:23) and healed a man with a ‘shrivelled hand’ on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1–5). Jesus also did not observe the days of fasting (Mark 2:18). He had a similar attitude towards the purity laws about food (e.g., Mark 6:35–44; 7:1); he often ate with tax collectors and sinners (Matt 9:10–11; 11:19; Patterson 2004:41). It is in this regard (to eat clean [kosher] food with clean For example, see Matthew 18:25. For example, see Mark 5:35. 38 In Luke 15:3–31 Jesus tells three parables in which two men and a woman play the same role (recovering something lost); Jesus thus regards the two genders as equal in status. 39 Children had virtually no status in the patriarchal family. The status of juveniles was the same as that of slaves. Orphans were the symbol of absolute vulnerability, and to call an adult a child was seen as utterly humiliating (e.g., see Matt 11:16–17; Luke 7:32; Malina & Rohrbaugh 1992:336). 36 37

INCLUSIVITY AS THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE GOSPEL 69 [ritually undefiled] people) that Jesus criticized the ‘tradition of the elders’ (Mark 7:8). Moreover, Jesus criticized the temple (the central symbol of the Jewish ethnos) harshly. The Gospels contain numerous negative statements made by Jesus regarding the temple, the temple personnel, and the temple system (e.g., Matt 23:16–22; Luke 13:34–35; 19:41–44; 21:20–24). By forgiving people their sins (Mark 2:9), Jesus basically declared the temple and its sacrificial system obsolete. Later, with his ‘temple act’ in Jerusalem, Jesus declared that the temple had become a ‘den of robbers’ (Matt 21:13), instead of being a house of prayer to all the nations (πᾶσιν τοῖς ἒθνεσιν ἒθνος). Thus, according to Jesus, the temple could not belong to the Jewish ethnos only.40 Jesus also did not regard Jews as the only children of Abraham (Isaac and Jacob), neither did he view all Jews as Abraham’s children. Instead, he argued that all—including Jews— who did not live according to the will of God, were not Abraham’s true children (Matt 3:9; Luke 13:28; John 8:33, 37, 39–40), and he viewed other people—those who were not acknowledged by the temple system as Abraham’s seed—as the children of Abraham (e.g. the disabled [unclean] woman [Luke 13:16]; those from the ‘east and west and north and south’ [i.e., non-Jews; Luke 13:29; see also Matt 8:11]; and Levi, the [unclean] tax collector [Luke 19:9]). Jesus also questioned the dominant cultural values in the Judaism of his time. Regarding honor as a dominant value, Jesus was a shameless person in the eyes of the Jewish religious leaders for he interacted with unclean people and did not obey the purity laws of the temple. To have compassion for others was more important to Jesus than being an honourable person according to the temple system. Finally, he was also critical towards the familial institution of his time.41 Several other texts in the gospels depict Jesus as making the presence of God available to people not being part of the Jewish ethnos (see Matt 18:8, 21; 21:43; 25:32; 28:19; Luke 2:32; 24:27). 41 See in this regard Luke 14:26–27//Matthew 10:37–38; Mark 1:16– 20//Matthew 4:18–22//Luke 5:1–11; Mark 10:29–30//Luke 18:29– 30//Matthew 19:28–29; Mark 8:34//Luke 9:23//Matthew 16:24; Mark 6:1–6//Matthew 13:53–56; Mark 3:32–35//Luke 8:20–21//Matthew 40

70

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

It is clear from the above that Jesus basically questioned every single aspect of the Jewish ethnos. At least seven of the features that determined the Jewish ethnos (according to Duling’s model; see §2.2) were not regarded by Jesus as determining whether or not a person may come into the presence of God, namely, family, name, land of birth, common ancestry, (cultural) customs/traditions, shared history/memories, and religious practices. It was especially the temple—and the boundaries drawn by the temple in order to exclude some people—that suffered severe criticism. God was not a God of holiness, but a God of compassion. This compassion was available to all people, including those who were part of the Jewish ethnos but who were considered unclean, and those who were not part of the Jewish ethnos. The scribes and the chief priests thus had reason to call Jesus ‘one who was inciting the people’ (Luke 23:14; NIV).

PAUL AND ETHNICITY Ethnic conflict in Philippians, 2 Corinthians, and Galatians Paul’s letters to the Philippians, Galatians, and his second letter to the Corinthians all contain references to conflict between two groups—probably between law-free non-Jewish believers and lawabiding Jewish believers who kept to the ‘works of the law’ (circumcision, purity laws about the eating of food, and the keeping of the Sabbath). The conflict in Philippians is about the demand of the law-abiding Jewish believers (‘those men who do evil’; Phil 3:2, NIV) that the non-Jews (proselytes) should be circumcised (Phil 3:2). The law-abiding Jewish believers argued that people (believers) can only be children of God if they are circumcised (‘put […] confidence in the flesh’, Phil 3:3, NIV). In short, one had to become a ‘Jew’ before one could be a child of God. The conflict in Galatians is first and foremost also about circumcision; the law-abiding Jews—‘people […] trying to pervert the gospel of Christ’ (Gal 1:7), ‘certain men […] from James […] who 12:47–50; Luke 12:51–53//Matthew 10:34–36 60//Matthew 8:18–22.

and Luke

9:57–

INCLUSIVITY AS THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE GOSPEL 71 belonged to the circumcision group’ (Gal 2:12; NIV)—were of the opinion that the non-Jewish believers had to be circumcised (Gal 5:11). Thus, they claimed that one had to observe the law of Moses in order to be saved (Gal 2:16). However, the conflict that took place in Antioch referred to in Galatians is also about another matter—the purity laws pertaining to the consumption of food. Some of the Jews did not want to eat with the non-Jews (Gal 2:12–13). With regards to 2 Corinthians we have no information that enables us to determine the nature of the conflict in the congregation. What we can glean from the text is that there was a group of ‘apostles’ who questioned Paul’s apostleship. They are described as ‘Hebrews’ and ‘Israelites’ descending from Abraham (2 Cor 11:22). From this we know at least that they were Jews. In brief, the conflicts in Philippians, 2 Corinthians, and Galatians were probably ethnic in nature because circumcision, the purity laws about the consumption of food and the keeping of the Sabbath were all markers of identity of the Jewish ethnos (Duling 2009:7). It comes then as no surprise that Paul uses his own ethnicity to deal with the conflict in the above-mentioned congregations, and also employs ethnic language to address these conflicts (Duling 2009:8). Philippians: Ethnicity does not count anymore As already mentioned, the conflict in Philippians centred on the demand of some in the congregation (the law-abiding Jewish believers) that the non-Jews (proselytes) had to be circumcised. Behind this request lay the conviction that being a child of God overlapped with Jewish ethnicity since circumcision was the most distinguishing characteristic of the Jewish ethnos. It is interesting that Paul makes use of his own ethnicity (things of the flesh) when he defends himself against these people: Though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless. (Phil 3:4–6; NIV)

72

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

According to Duling (2009:8), Paul’s defence emphasises five markers of Jewish ethnicity: cultural (religious) customs (circumcision), common ancestry (ἐκ γένους Ἰσραήλ),42 name (Benjamin), language (Hebrew), and religion (law of Moses). Paul can therefore claim that he too belongs to the Jewish ethnos. What is more, his attributes (ἄμεμτος) make him much more of a Jew than they are (ἐγὼ μᾶλλον; Phil 3:4). These external things, this life in the flesh (ἐν σαρκί)—things which he previously regarded as advantageous—he now regards as a loss (Phil 3:7) and rejectable (Phlp 3:8): ‘[…] his main point is that as a Christ believer this ethnicity no longer means anything’ (Duling 2009:8; emphasis in the original). Against that which had been of benefit to him, he sets those things which are of benefit to him now: to know Christ Jesus, his Lord (Phil 3:8, 10); to gain Christ as his only possession (Phil 3:8); to become one with Christ (‘to be found in Him’), because he believes and can therefore be saved (Phil 3:9); to experience the power of the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Phil 3:10); and to share in Christ’s suffering (Phil 3:10). Ethnicity (cultural customs, common ancestry, name, language, and religion) is thus replaced with a single asset— Christ.43 Everyone who is not willing to do this, says Paul, ‘looks out for his own interests, not those of Jesus Christ’ (Phil 2:21; NIV). Another reason why circumcision is unnecessary is because Christ-followers have already received the true circumcision (περιτομή), that is, the privilege to worship God through the Spirit (Phil 3:3).44 Those who believe in Christ have already experienced Paul’s use of the term γένος is in this case a typical example of using the term to refer to one’s own group (see footnote 3 again). 43 See in this regard the following remark made by Nebrada (2009:34–35): ‘Paul’s appeal in Phil 3:5–10 radically supports the view of an all-encompassing and universal Lord above ethnic differences […] the radical to identity is drawn to their identification with Christ, who in the form of God, abased himself and took human form, becoming a slave.’ 44 The circumcision required by the law-abiding Jews is described by Paul as κατατομήν, which, in essence, means ‘emasculate,’ while he describes the true circumcision through the Spirit as περιτομή, meaning ‘to cut around,’ which is what circumcision is in reality. An emasculated Jew42

INCLUSIVITY AS THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE GOSPEL 73 this community with the Spirit (Phil 2:1), and therefore Paul calls upon them to be one of mind in love, spirit, and purpose (Phil 2:2). They are to serve each other like Christ who took on the form of a slave (Phil 2:7).45 He prays that their love may increase in knowledge and insight, so that they will be able to discern what is truly important (Phil 1:9). With the latter Paul is probably referring to the external things (the things of the flesh), to the circumcision that was regarded as important by some in the congregation (Phil 3:3)—things that were not really important. As Christ-followers (Jew or non-Jew) they now belong to God through Christ (Phil 1:1), all have experienced the comfort in Christ (Phil 2:1), and they are now brothers and sisters of each other (Phil 1:12; 3:1, 13, 17; 4:1, 8, 21; see Nebrada 2009:35). They now belong to an inclusive, figurative family in which ethnicity is not the norm, but love and faith are (Bartchy 1999:68–78). To be ‘in Christ’ does not obliterate ethnicity; it is simply not important anymore. Faith (Phil 3:9) and community through the Spirit (Phil 2:1) are the norms—not a specific ethnos. That was, according to Paul, the new reality in Christ (Hoover 2004:14).

ish person in the first-century Mediterranean world was deemed permanently unclean and could not come in the presence of God. By using this term Paul thus wants to show that their insistence on circumcision (κατατομήν) will actually keep them from the presence of God. The true circumcision, in contrast, will lead to community with God through the Spirit. 45 Personal change (e.g., changing one’s ethnicity) was regarded in the Mediterranean world as utterly negative. Paul clearly changed: for the sake of Christ, he—as believer in Christ—no longer regarded his ethnicity as important. To justify his status change, Paul uses the example of Christ (Phil 2:6–7) who exchanged his divine status for that of a slave (Malina & Pilch 2006:312). In the same way Paul became a ‘slave’ of Christ (Phil 1:1). With this, Paul not only justifies his own status change, but implicitly also calls upon those who are still clinging to their Jewish ethnicity to sacrifice their ‘statuses’ for the sake of Christ.

74

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

2 Corinthians: He who wants to boast, should boast in the Lord As indicated above there was a group of ‘apostles’ in Corinth who were probably Jews. These apostles placed an emphasis on ‘the flesh’ (2 Cor 10:3; NKJV), waged the war ‘according to the flesh’ (2 Cor 10:3; NKJV), judged themselves according to their own criteria, and compared themselves to each other (2 Cor 10:12). What then is this criteria in which the ‘apostles’ boast by making use of weapons of the flesh (2 Cor 10:13, 15)? The answer to this question is probably to be found in Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 11:22–23 (markers of ethnicity added in brackets): Are they Hebrews [language]? So am I. Are they Israelites [name]? So am I. Are they Abraham’s descendants [common ancestry]? So am I. Are they servants of Christ? […] I am more. I have worked much harder […]. (2 Cor 11:22–23)

One criterion that was so important to these ‘apostles’ was clearly their Jewish ethnicity (flesh). Paul here uses the same argument as in Philippians 3:4–6; his ethnicity is by no means substandard to that of the ‘apostles.’ Ethnicity, however, is a ‘standard of this world’ (κατὰ σάρκα; 2 Cor 10:2, NIV) determined by external things leading to pretentiousness (2 Cor 10:4–5) and giving no one a reason to boast. Paul too would have been able to boast about those things. Besides, he also meets the requirements for that which they regard as so important. He too can use their criteria to argue that he belongs to Christ (2 Cor 10:7). However, human attributes such as a certain ethnicity are not important. On the contrary, the latter does not strengthen the congregation, but breaks it down (2 Cor 10:8). The things that truly matter are humility and friendliness (2 Cor 10:1), to increase in faith in Christ (2 Cor 10:15), to be obedient to Him (2 Cor 10:6), and to destroy (ethnic) strongholds (2 Cor 10:4) with the powerful weapons of God (2 Cor 10:4)—the gospel of God (2 Cor 11:7). He who wants to boast, should boast in the Lord (2 Cor 10:17), not in external attributes. Galatians: All who believe are children of Abraham There were two reasons for the conflict in Galatians. First, there were law-abiding Jews, propagators of the circumcision (Gal 2:12), who argued that non-Jewish believers had to receive circumcision

INCLUSIVITY AS THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE GOSPEL 75 (and had to keep the law of Moses; Gal 5:11) in order to be saved (Gal 2:16). Second, some of the Jews did not want to eat with nonJews (Gal 2:12–13).46 Thus, ethnicity played a divisive role also in Galatians.47 Unlike in Philippians and 2 Corinthians, Paul does not use his Jewish ethnicity to solve the conflict in the congregation of Galatians (nevertheless, he still refers to his Jewish ethnicity; see Gal 1:13 [‘my previous way of life in Judaism’] NIV; Gal 1:14 [‘my contemporaries in my own nation’ and ‘the traditions of my fathers’] NKJV; Gal 2:15 [‘Jews by birth’] NIV). Paul received a new identity in Christ, for he came to faith in Christ (Gal 2:16) when God appeared to him (Gal 1:15–16) and called him by grace. This faith in Christ (and not the keeping of the law; Gal 2:16) is what saves the believer and lets him share in the cross of Christ (Gal 2:19) and in the Holy Spirit (Gal 3:2). What is more: through faith all are children of Abraham (Gal 3:7). It is thus not by reference to his Jewish ethnicity (as in Philippians and 2 Corinthians), but by means of referring to his own new identity in Christ that Paul makes the believers of the congregation (Jews and non-Jews) aware of their new identity. Abraham was justified because he believed (Gal 3:6); therefore the children of Abraham are not those who can be linked to Abraham through descent, but those who believe like Abraham believed (Gal 3:7). Paul takes this matter even further: the seed of Abraham (τῶ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ; Gal 3:16) is not the ‘descendants’ (τοῖς σπέρμασιν; Gal 3:16) of ‘Some Jews were afraid that non-Jews never would be totally free of idolatry as long as they had not converted fully to Judaism. While eating together, the Jews would thus be implicated in idolatry. On the other hand, some non-Jews had no patience with Jewish dietary regulations’ (Tomson 2005:3). 47 In this regard see Galatians 2:14 (NIV): ‘You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?’ Barclay (1988:239) is therefore correct when he states: ‘The problem here is not legalism (in the sense of earning merit before God) but cultural imperialism—regarding Jewish identity and the Jewish customs as the essential tokens of membership in the people of God.’ 46

76

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Abraham, but one ‘descendant,’ namely Christ (ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐφ’ ἑνός˙ καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου, ὅς ἐστιν Χριστός; Gal 3:16). The descendant of Abraham is thus not ethnic Israel, but Christ himself (Duling 2009:9), and all who believe in Christ (like Abraham believed) are children of Abraham. For this reason it does not matter whether someone is a Jew or a Greek—all are one in Christ (Gal 3:28). Buell and Hodge (2004) formulate Paul’s argument above as follows: Paul establishes a kinship for gentiles with Israel that is based not on shared blood but on shared spirit … an identity marked by a privileged sign of fixity: inclusion in a lineage. Paul constructs a myth of collective identity for his gentiles; they can trace their beginnings not only to their baptism into Christ but also to their ancestor Abraham. (Buell & Hodge 2004:245–246)

Taylor (2002), in turn, explains it in this way: ‘Christocentric identity is defined “through faith in Jesus Christ” (διὰ τῆν πίστεως ἐν Χριστᾡ Ἰησοῦ—Gal 3:26) and the adoption into God’s family, with status as children of God and Abraham superseding previous criteria of identity.’ In Christ it is therefore no longer important whether you are circumcised or not (Gal 5:6). Circumcision means to give up one’s freedom in Christ and to become slaves to the law again (Gal 2:4). God does not judge by one’s external appearance (Gal 2:6). The things of real importance are faith in Jesus Christ (Gal 2:16; 3:26) that finds expression in deeds motivated by love (Gal 5:6), to be united with Christ through baptism (Gal 3:27), and to be led by the Spirit of God (received through faith; Gal 3:2–3; 5:16; see Hays 1996:33). These things determine the identity of the children of Abraham.

ACTS Acts is another text in the New Testament in which the issue of Jewish ethnicity is prominent. We find repeated reference to the law of Moses (Acts 6:11, 13, 14; 21:21, 28; 25:8), the (holy) temple (Acts 5:25; 6:13, 14; 21:27, 28; 24:6; 25:8), circumcision (Acts 7:8; 11:13; 15:1, 5; 21:21), Jewish customs of the elders (Acts 21:21; 26:3; 28:17), the Jewish ancestors (Acts 3:13, 25; 5:30; 7:12, 32), the Jews as a people (Acts 10:2, 22; 12:11; 21:21, 28), the country of the

INCLUSIVITY AS THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE GOSPEL 77 Jews (Acts 10:37, 39), the covenant (Acts 3:25; 7:8; 26:6), and the exodus from Egypt (shared memories; Acts 13:17). The question of whether non-Jews could also, like the Jewish believers, share in the gifts of God (Jesus Christ, baptism, and life; see Acts 11:17), surfaces for the first time in the account about Cornelius,48 recorded in Acts 10–11.49 While Peter was in a trance he saw a large sheet coming down to the earth, and it was filled with unclean food (Acts 10:11–12). Peter refused to eat from it— despite a command from the Lord to do so—for it was unclean according to Jewish purity laws (Acts 10:13–14). Nevertheless, God declared the food clean three times, and when the men sent by Cornelius arrived, God commanded Peter to go with them and ‘[d]o not hesitate’ (Acts 10:20). The Greek text here reads μηδὲν διακρινόμενος, which actually means, ‘without making distinction (between two possibilities).’50 In essence, the Spirit’s command to Peter is to go without making distinction between so-called clean and unclean food and people (Acts 10:28). However, when Peter arrived in Jerusalem, he was ‘criticized’ (Acts 11:2; NIV) by the (Jewish) apostles in the city, for he visited and even ate with people who were not circumcised. As the Greek text here reads διεκρίνοντο, it means that the apostles actually expected Peter to distinguish between clean and unclean food and between circumcised and uncircumcised. Peter, however, defends himself by referring to the command of the Spirit to not make a distinction (μηδὲν διακρίναντα; Acts 11:12) between these things. The crux of Peter’s defence is that it is their word against God’s, and that they could therefore not argue with him any further.

Take note of the clear description of Cornelius’s ethnicity in Acts 10:1–2 with regards to land of birth (and religious traditions, namely, the eating of unclean food). 49 The insights of Baker (2009:5–8), among others, were used in what follows 50 See Louw and Nida (1988:364), who formulate the semantic meaning of διακρίνω as follows: ‘to judge that there is a difference or distinction.’ 48

78

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Although the Jews were content with this answer and praised God for also bringing non-Jews to repentance and giving them life (without being circumcised; see Acts 11:18), the ethnic differences between Jew and non-Jew did not disappear, as is clearly evident from Acts 15:1. The question of whether non-Jews should be circumcised in order to be saved (i.e., in order to become Christfollowers), led to a heated debate between Paul (and Barnabas) and the apostles of the congregation in Jerusalem (Acts 15:2). After they discussed the matter, Peter gave a speech in which he set out God’s command in very clear terms in Acts 15:9a: καὶ οὐθὲν διέκρινεν μεταξὺ ἡμῶν τε καὶ αὐτῶν (‘He [God] made no distinction between us and them’, NIV). This insight—that God makes no distinction between Jew and non-Jew based on ethnicity—is finally employed in Acts 15. In the speech by James (Acts 15:13– 21) it is argued that God himself had begun to gather a people (λαὸν)—a term that was used mostly in connection with the people of Israel51—unto himself from among the gentiles (ἐθνῶν; a term that was used to refer to people who were not part of one’s own group; see again footnote 3). God does not exclude, he includes.52 Indeed, the prophets had already said that long ago (Acts 15:15).

CONCLUSION In light of the present study one thing is clear: an exclusive ecclesiology, based on ethnic (cultural) differences, is simply not possible according to the New Testament. The Jewish ethnos, with a specific understanding of God, excluded people of other ethne as well as those of the same ethnos who were not holy or whole. Jesus, with his understanding of God as a God of compassion, crossed these borders. In word and deed Jesus persistently carried the message: ‘God is an inclusive God.’ Paul, in continuity with Jesus, proclaimed the same message without exception: ethnicity is replaced Compare inter alia Matthew 2:6; Acts 12:11; 13:17. Kee (1997:140) is of the opinion that the central theological theme in Luke-Acts is that God’s people includes all humans: ‘God shows no partiality to any single group […] the invitation to share in the life of his people extends across all humanly defined social lines.’ 51 52

INCLUSIVITY AS THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE GOSPEL 79 by faith in God (Phil 1:1; 2:1), and true circumcision is the privilege to worship God through the Spirit (Phil 3:3). To boast in ethnicity as a criterion is to live in the flesh (2 Cor 10:2); it leads to pretentiousness (2 Cor 10:4–5) and breaks down the congregation (and the church) instead of building it up (2 Cor 10:8). The descendant of Abraham is not ethnic Israel, but Christ himself, and whoever believes in Christ (as Abraham believed), is a child of Abraham. For this reason it does not matter whether someone is a Jew or a Greek; all are one in Christ (Gal 3:28). Acts, the story of the earliest church, follows this trend; God does not make distinctions between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ All are part of God’s people—whether God’s people is understood as the invisible or the visible church (with different denominations and churches). In a nutshell: an exclusive ecclesiology can in no way be justified according to the gospel. Ecclesiology is deliberately separated in the New Testament from any ties with ethnicity. Naturally, faith is always expressed through culture and language. Language and culture (and ethnicity, as described above), however, remain only the vehicle for the gospel at a specific place and time. Nevertheless, the temptation to equate ethnicity with the gospel itself—as it happened in Paul’s congregations—is everpresent. Yet, ethnicity cannot be the criterion if ‘all are one in Christ.’ Of course this does not mean that a person has to forsake his ethnicity in order to become part of God’s people or a certain church or congregation; ethnicity can simply not be used as a principle for exclusion, neither a specific understanding of God which even excludes those who are near to you. Indeed, Jesus was clear about this. He proclaimed a God who gives life, enriches lives, and surprises people with his presence. He proclaimed a God of compassion—a God who invites and includes. He proclaimed a God who brings healing to the human condition. He told about a God who opened people’s eyes, literally and figuratively. He proclaimed (2 Cor 10:2) a God who broke through all barriers—regardless of how important they were to some—and who considered every individual valuable (Macnab 2004:111–115). This is, among other things, what the church—as the church of Christ—must proclaim in word and deed. In fact, the gospel is inclusive.

80

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

BIBLIOGRAPHY Armstrong, J., 1982, Nations before nationalism, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Armstrong, K., 2001, ‘Suggestions for a second Axial age’, in K. Armstrong, D. Cupitt, R.W. Funk, L. Geering, J.S. Spong & fellows of the Jesus Seminar (eds.), The once & future faith, pp. 19–32, Polebridge Press, Santa Rosa. Bailey, K.E., 2008, Jesus through Middle Eastern eyes: Cultural studies in the gospels, IVP Academic, Downers Grove. Baker, J.C., 2009, ‘Expanding the boundaries: A socio-theological; reading of the inclusion of the non-Judeans in Acts 15’, paper presented at the meeting of the Context Group, Buffalo, New York, 19–21 March 2009. Barclay, J.M.G., 1988, Obeying the truth: A study of Paul’s ethics in Galatians, T & T Clark, Edinburgh. Barclay, J.M.G., 1996, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE), University of California Press, Berkeley. Barclay, J.M.G., 2007, ‘Constructing Judean identity after 70 CE: A study of Josephus’ Against Apion’, in Z.A. Crook & P.A. Harland (eds.), Identity and interaction in the ancient Mediterranean: Jews, Christians and others. Essays in honour of Stephen G Wilson, pp. 99– 112, Phoenix Press, Sheffield. Bartchy, S.S., 1999, ‘Undermining ancient patriarchy: The apostle Paul’s vision of a society of siblings’, Biblical Theological Bulletin 29, 68-78. Barth, F. (red.), 1969, Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of cultural difference, Little, Brown and Company, Boston. Brown, R., 2000, Group processes, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Buell, D.K. & Hodge, C.J., 2004, ‘The politics of interpretation: The rhetoric of race and ethnicity in Paul’, Journal of Biblical Literature 123(2), 235–251. Carter, W., 2006, The Roman Empire and the New Testament: An essential guide, Abingdon, Nashville. Cohen, S.J.D., 1999, The beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, varieties, uncertainties, University of California Press, Berkeley. Cromhout, M., 2007, Jesus and identity: Reconstructing Judean ethnicity in Q, Cascade Books, Eugene. Cupitt, D., 2001, ‘Reforming Christianity’, in K. Armstrong, D. Cupitt, R.W. Funk, L. Geering, J.S. Spong & fellows of the Je-

INCLUSIVITY AS THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE GOSPEL 81 sus Seminar (eds.), The once & future faith, pp. 51–64, Polebridge Press, Santa Rosa. De Vos, G., 1975, ‘Ethnic pluralism: Conflict and accommodation’, in G. de Vos & L. Romanucci-Ross (eds.), Ethnic identity: Cultural continuities and change, pp. 5–41, Mayfield, Palo Alto. Douglas, M., 1966, Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo, Praeger, New York. Duling, D.C., 2005, ‘Ethnicity, ethnocentrism, and the Matthean ethnos’, BTB 25, 125–143. Duling, D.C., 2008, ‘Race, ethnicity, and nationalism’, unpublished cameo. Duling, D.C., 2009, ‘Ethnicity and Paul’s letter to the Romans’, paper presented at the meeting of the Context Group, Buffalo, New York, 19–21 March 2009. Esler, P.F., 2002, ‘Jesus and the reduction of intergroup conflict’, in W. Stegemann, B.J. Malina & G. Theissen (eds.), The social setting of Jesus and the gospels, pp. 185–205, Fortress Press, Minneapolis. Esler, P.F., 2003a, ‘Social identity, the virtues, and the good life: A new approach to Romans’, BTB 33, 51–64. Esler, P.F., 2003b, Conflict and identity in Romans: The social setting of Paul’s letter, Fortress Press, Minneapolis. Geary, P.J., 1999, ‘Barbarians and ethnicity’, in G.W. Bowersock, P. Brown & O. Grabar (eds.), Late antiquity: A guide to the postclassical world, pp. 107–129, Belknap Press, Cambridge University Press. Geertz, C., 1963, ‘The integrative revolution’, in C. Geertz (red.), Old societies and new states, pp. 108–113, Free Press, New York. Gelardini, G., 2009, ‘Religion, ethnicity, and ethnoreligion: Trajectories of a discourse in German-speaking historical Jesus scholarship’, paper read at the conference Neuestes vom Neuen Testament: Wie plural, kontrovers, normativ sind die antiken Impulse für die moderne christliche Existenz? (Internationales Neutestestamentlertreffen), Evangelische Akademie, Tutzing, 12–14 June 2009. Hall, J.M., 1997, Ethnic identity in Greek antiquity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hanson, K.C. & Oakman, E., 1998, Palestine in the time of Jesus: Social structures and social conflicts, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

82

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Hays, R.B., 1996, The moral vision of the New Testament: A contemporary introduction to New Testament ethics, HarperCollins, New York. Herzog, W.R., 2005, Prophet and teacher: An introduction to the historical Jesus, Westminster John Knox, Louisville. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D. & Cain, C., 2003, Identity and agency in cultural worlds, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Hood, R.T., 1961, ‘The genealogies of Jesus’, in A. Wikgren (ed.), Early Christian origins: Studies in Honor of H. R. Willoughby, pp. 115, Quadrangle Books, Chicago. Hoover, R.W., 2004, ‘The art of gaining & losing everything’, in Jesus Seminar, The historical Jesus goes to church, pp. 11–30, Polebridge Press, Santa Rosa. Horowitz, D., 1985, Ethnic groups in conflict, University of California Press, Berkeley. Hutchinson, J. & Smith, A.D., 1996, Ethnicity, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Jenkins, R., 1997, Rethinking ethnicity: Arguments and explorations, Sage, Thousand Oaks. Kee, H.C., 1997, To every nation under heaven: The acts of the apostles, Trinity Press International, Harrisburg. Lieu, J.M., 2004, Christian identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman world, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Louw, J.P., & Nida, E.A., 1988, Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament based on semantic domains. Volume 1: Domains, National Book Printers, Goodwood. Macnab, F., 2004, ‘Preaching the new faith’, in Jesus Seminar, The historical Jesus goes to church, pp. 105–121, Polebridge Press, Santa Rosa. Malina, B.J., 1981, The New Testament world: Insights from cultural anthropology, John Knox, Louisville. Malina, B.J., 1986, Christian origins and cultural anthropology: Practical models for Biblical interpretation, John Knox, Atlanta. Malina B.J., 1989, ‘Dealing with biblical (Mediterranean) characters: A guide for US consumers’, BTB 19(4), 127–141. Malina B.J., 2001, The social gospel of Jesus: The kingdom of God in Mediterranean perspective, Fortress Press, Minneapolis. Malina, B.J. & Neyrey, J.H., 1991a, ‘Honor and shame in LukeActs: Pivotal values of the Mediterranean world’, in J.H.

INCLUSIVITY AS THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE GOSPEL 83 Neyrey (ed.), The world of Luke-Acts: Models for interpretation, pp. 25–65, Hendrickson, Peabody. Malina, B.J. & Neyrey, J.H., 1991b, ‘First-century personality: Dyadic, not individualistic’, in J.H. Neyrey (ed.), The world of LukeActs: Models for interpretation, pp. 67–96, Hendrickson, Peabody. Malina, B.J. & Pilch, J.J., 2006, Social science commentary on the letters of Paul, Fortress, Minneapolis. Malina, B.J. & Rohrbaugh, R.L., 1992, Social science commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, Fortress, Minneapolis. Mason, S., 2007, ‘Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of categorization in ancient history’, JSJ 38, 457–512. Nagel, J., 1994, ‘Constructing ethnicity: Creating and recreating ethnic identity and culture’, Social Problems 41(1), 152–176. Nebrada, S.R., 2008, ‘Have this in mind’: A socio-scientific reading of Philippians 2:5–11, unpublished PhD-thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria. Neils, J., 1992, Goddess and polis: The panathenaic festival in ancient Athens, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Neusner, J., 1979, ‘Map without territory: Mishnah’s system of sacrifices and sanctuary’, HR 19, 103–127. Neyrey, J.H., 1991, ‘The symbolic universe of Luke-Acts: ‘They turn the world upside down’’, in J.H. Neyrey (ed.), The world of Luke-Acts: Models for interpretation, pp. 271–304, Hendrickson, Peabody. Patterson, J.P., 2004, ‘If you give a mouse a cookie … What the quest holds in store for the church’, in Jesus Seminar, The historical Jesus goes to church, pp. 31–42, Polebridge Press, Santa Rosa. Pilch, J.J., 1997, ‘“Are there Jews and Christians in the Bible?”’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 53(1&2), 119–125. Roosens, E., 1994, ‘The primordial nature of origins in migrant ethnicity’, in H. Vermeulen & C. Govers (eds.), The anthropology of ethnicity: Beyond ‘ethnic groups and boundaries’, pp. 81–104, Spinhuis, Amsterdam. Schermerhorn, R.A., 1978, Comparative ethnic relations, Random House, New York. Shils, E., 1957, ‘Primordial, personal, sacred and civil ties’, British Journal of Sociology 8, 130–145. Smith, A.D., 1986, The ethnic origins of nations, Blackwell, Oxford.

84

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Tajfel, H., 1982, ‘Social psychology of intergroup relations’, Annual Review of Psychology 33, 1–39. Tajfel, H., 1986, ‘The social identity theory of intergroup conflict’, in S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations, pp. 7–24, Nelson-Hall, Chicago. Taylor, N.H., 2002, ‘Conflicting bases of identity in early Christianity: The example of Paul’, in A.J. Blasi, P.A. Turcotte & J. Duhaime (eds.), Handbook of early Christianity: Social science approaches, pp. 577–598, Altamira Press, Walnut Creek. Tomson, P.J., 2005, Presumed guilty: How the Jews were blamed for the death of Jesus, Meinema, Zoetermeer. Turner, J.C., 1999, ‘Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories’, in N. Ellemers, R. Spears & B. Doosje (eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content, pp. 6–34, Blackwell, Oxford. Varshney, A., 1995, Ethnic conflict and rational choice: A theoretical engagement, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Van den Berghe, P.L., 1987, The ethnic phenomenon, Praeger, Westport.

4. MISSION AND ETHICS: SENSITIVITY TO OUTSIDERS IN MATTHEW Marius Nel UNIVERSITY OF STELLENBOSCH ABSTRACT In order to understand the Gospel of Matthew in regards to its sensitivity to outsiders this article firstly clarifies what is understood by the reference to the community of Matthew before it surveys the different relations to insiders and outsiders that is reflected therein. The complex interchange of insider and outsider relationships that had occurred as a result of the ministry of Jesus is thereafter examined along with Matthew's relationship with formative Judaism and Gentiles. In the concluding section it is argued that a reinterpretation of the Torah by Jesus, as presented by Matthew, resulted in the reorientation of the Matthean community’s ethics from being focussed on holiness, as was common in Jewish sects in formative Judaism, and which had led to their emphasises on the separation from others, to an ethic focussed on righteousness. It is finally argued that it is this ethic based on righteousness that is the foundation of Matthew’s sensitivity to outsiders.

INTRODUCTION It is in the Gospel of Matthew amongst the Synoptic Gospels that the emergence of a new community, with a distinct mission and ethic, is the most explicit. Matthew did not only write his Gospel for this community, that he refers to as ‘the church’ (cf. the use of ἐκκλησία in 16:18 and 18:17), in order to describe the mission of Jesus for them, but also to address their own context (cf. Bartlett 1993:75). For Matthew the escalating conflict between Jesus and the Jewish leadership, that had resulted in Jesus making a clear distinction between those who had accepted him and those who did not during his lifetime (12:46–50), reflected his own community’s 85

86

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

conflict with formative Judaism (cf. Hagner 2008:172; Sim 2012:62).1 The continuing conflict with formative Judaism has important implications for assessing the Gospel of Matthew’s sensitivity to outsiders as Matthew attempts to both delineate the boundaries of the new Jesus-centred community amidst fierce opposition, and to justify their mission to all nations (28:19–20). This dual aim is evident in that it contains, not only some of the most polemical (and thus insensitive) rhetoric in the New Testament (cf. 23:1–39),2 but also an openness to others. This openness consists of more than a mere sensitivity towards outsiders for Matthew since he writes to a community actively engaged in a mission directed towards outsiders.

THE MATTHEAN COMMUNITY In order to understand the Matthean community’s sensitivity to outsiders it is important to clarify what is understood by the community of Matthew. Did this community, for example, consist of a single community in a specific context or of a number of different communities facing similar challenges? Can we, in other words, assume that the outsiders in regards to the Matthean community comprised a specific group in a fixed locale, or were they different groups living across a whole range of localities with which the Matthean communities had varied relationships? Richard Bauckham (1998:9–48) has in this regard challenged the common assumption that the Gospels were each written for a specific community that had little or no contact with other Christian communities, or a sense of participation in a broad Christian movement. He instead states that Matthew may have lived in sevThe rhetorical strategy of including the Gospel’s audience among the people being taught by Jesus is apparent in a number of proleptic sayings attributed to him (e.g., 5:11–12; 7:15–23; 10:18; 13:18–23; 18:5, 15– 20) that seem more relevant for the readers of Matthew than for the audience within the story (Ulrich 2007:68). 2 In his discussion of the Gospel of Matthew and anti-Semitism, Nolland (2008:154–169) comes to the conclusion that while the Gospel itself does not fall into the category of being anti-Semitic, the Wirkungsgeschichte thereof unfortunately testifies to its use in this regard. 1

SENSITIVITY TO OUTSIDERS IN MATTHEW

87

eral different and geographically distant Christian communities over the years it took him to compile his Gospel (Bauckham 1998:36). If Bauckham is correct, 3 it would mean that Matthew was not only addressing the relationship between his own isolated community and outsiders in their unique context, but rather that of a number of Christian communities within the broader Roman world. In this regard Ulrich (2007:76–77) has argued that the evidence of conflict between the Matthean community and formative Judaism in the Gospel of Matthew4 does not need to be interpreted as indicting a conflict that was limited to a specific geographical area. A more likely assumption, according to Ulrich, is that the author of Matthew expected conflict in multiple cities between the followers of Jesus and the diaspora Jews as is narrated in Acts. 5 The Matthean community could thus have been comprised of a number of small groups meeting in different locales that were experiencing similar challenges (e.g. conflict with formative Judaism and a growing influx of Gentiles). While it is impossible to ascertain if the thesis of Ulrich is correct, the similar picture that emerges from Acts does give some validity to his suggestion (cf. Burridge 2007:195).

The argument by Bauckham that the Gospels were written for a broad audience has been challenged by a number of scholars. Sim (2001:9, 16) has, for example, objected to his neglect of internal evidence, while Carter (2000:560) has argued that he ‘seems to confuse [the Gospels’] subsequent effect with their initial focus.’ 4 For example the Gospel's polemical characterizations of Israel’s leaders and its pointed contrasts between ‘their synagogues’ and ‘my assembly’ (4:23; 6:2,5; 9:35; 10:17; 12:9; 13:54; 16:18; 23:6, 34) (Ulrich 2007:76). 5 The promise that Jesus will be present ‘where two or three are gathered’ in his name (18:20) implies, according to Ulrich (2007:76–77), that the Matthean assembly in any given location could be small. The adverb οὗ (‘where’) allows for a movement meeting in many different locations and thus could envision a movement similar to, and in competition with, the synagogues that were present in every Greco-Roman city. 3

88

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS Although the precise locale and nature of the Matthean community is uncertain, it is clear from the Gospel of Matthew that it made the fundamental social distinction common to first-century Mediterraneans between insiders and outsiders. Matthew metaphorically classifies people in terms of their relationship with Jesus as either wheat or chaff (3:12), good or bad trees (7:16–20), good or bad fish (13:47–48), wise or foolish maidens (25:1–13), and sheep or goats (25:31–46). For him there is no ambiguity. People were either for or against Jesus (12:30), either insiders who understood the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, or outsiders who did not understand them (13:11). There is no middle position possible. Therefore, even insiders who no longer adhere to the ethics of the Matthean community are to be expelled (18:15–17b) and their status changed to that the archetypical outsider, the gentile (18:17c; ἔστω σοι ὥσπερ ὁ ἐθνικὸς καὶ ὁ τελώνης). Matthew’s sensitivity towards outsiders therefore does not consist in the removal, or even the blurring, of the dividing line between insiders and outsiders. His community, whilst sensitive to outsiders, actively maintained the boundary separating them from outsiders. Metaphors utilised by Matthew in order to contrast his community with outsiders also depict a community that was aware that while the maintenance of the boundary between them and outsiders was not easy, it was vitally important as they were living in a hostile word (cf. Malina & Neyrey 1988:12–13).6 While Matthew metaphorically describes his community as sheep living amongst wolves (10:16), and as wheat growing amongst tares in a field The metaphors describe the members of the Matthean community as the few who are chosen out of many who were called (22:14); those who enter through the narrow gate that leads to a way that is hard, while many go through the wide gate which leads to a road that is easy to travel but that ends in destruction (7:13–14); and the obedient sons who work in their father’s vineyard in contrast to other sons who although they said they would, did not (21:28–31). These metaphors testify to a community that considered itself to be a minority living in a hostile environment that had to be reassured that they were in the right and would thus be rewarded by God for their faithfulness. 6

SENSITIVITY TO OUTSIDERS IN MATTHEW

89

(13:24–30), he however does not propagate a withdrawal from the world, but rather an active engagement with those in the world. In contrast to other factions within Judaism (e.g. the community at Qumran), the Matthean community did not adopt a policy of vicinal isolation (cf. Elliot 1995:92). Instead, it strove to share the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven with others, as Jesus had not instructed his followers to conceal the mysteries of heaven forever. 7

NEW BOUNDARIES To further understand Matthew’s sensitivity towards outsiders it is important to note that the Matthean community consisted of insiders who in the past would have been considered to be outsiders (the gentiles) in regards to the people of God, and that those the community now considered to be outsiders (Jews hostile to the Matthean community) were previously fellow insiders of the people of God. The Matthean community originated as a Jewish faction interacting with other Jewish coalitions (e.g., the Herodians and Sadducees) and factions (e.g., the John the Baptist faction) during the lifetime of Jesus, its founder. After the death of Jesus and under changing social conditions, the Matthean community gradually beJesus had commanded the disciples to publically proclaim in the future what he had taught them in private by using two idioms in 10:27 that acknowledged their privileged position as the first, but not the sole, recipients of the knowledge concerning the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven referred to in 13:10–17 (Nolland 2005:435–436). Even though during his earthly ministry Jesus’ teaching of the disciples had to be done privately by using cryptic language (ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ and εἰς τὸ οὖς), it would be openly spoken of (ἐν τῷ φωτί and ἐπὶ τῶν δωμάτων) and proclaimed before kings and governors through the preaching of the Church after his resurrection (10:17–18, 27–28). In this post-Easter period God himself would be the active agent (ἀποκαλυφθήσεται and γνωσθήσεται are divine passive verbs) who would, through his disciples, reveal the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven to all (Hagner 1993:285; France 2007:402–403). The mysteries of the kingdom had to be proclaimed to all, even to outsiders, in order that they could also become insiders who share in the intimate knowledge of the kingdom of God. 7

90

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

gan to adopt the identity of a Jewish sect that was increasingly dissociating itself8 from its Jewish parent body (Kea 1994:583; Elliot 1995:76–78). The result was that those who in the past had been considered fellow-insiders in regards to Israel, were now outsiders in regards to the Matthean community. For instance, in Matthew 12:38–42 Jesus teaches that former outsiders (Nineveh and the Queen of the South) have been transformed into insiders as they had repented at the preaching of Jonah and had accepted the wisdom of Solomon. The people of the Jewish towns of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum will, however, discover that they are not insiders in the kingdom of God, but outsiders, as they had rejected the preaching of Jesus. They will, therefore, not be exalted to heaven but cast down to Hades (11:23; καὶ σύ, Καφαρναούμ, μὴ ἕως οὐρανοῦ ὑψωθήσῃ; ἕως ᾅδου καταβήσῃ) (Malina & Neyrey 1988:12–13). Matthew makes it clear that all Jews who did not accept either the message of Jesus during his own ministry, or the proclamation of the church thereof in his age, were now to be considered to be outsiders who would not enter into the kingdom of God. The ministry of Jesus had thus, as was described by John the Baptist, 9 made a clear distinction between those who would inherit the kingdom of God and those who would not (Malina & Neyrey 1988:12–13). Those who reject the message of the coming kingdom of God by Jesus will find themselves on the wrong side of the judgement of

Matthew’s views on the need for sacrifice (5:24; 8:1–4; 9:13), the relevance of the temple (12:6; 21:12–17; 26:61; 27:40), and the shift in the focus of Jesus’ mission from Israel to the gentiles (cf. 10:5 and 15:24 with 28:19) testify to this process. 9 John the Baptist described Jesus in 3:12 (οὗ τὸ πτύον ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ διακαθαριεῖ τὴν ἅλωνα αὐτοῦ καὶ συνάξει τὸν σῖτον αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην, τὸ δὲ ἄχυρον κατακαύσει πυρὶ ἀσβέστῳ) as a boundary maker with a winnowing fork in his hand ready to clean his trashing floor. The result of the ministry of Jesus would be that the wheat (believers/insiders) would be put into the granary, while the chaff (unbelievers/outsiders) would be cast out and burned in the furnace (Malina & Neyrey 1988:12). 8

SENSITIVITY TO OUTSIDERS IN MATTHEW

91

God.10 Even Jerusalem, the city of God, which had been invited by Jesus to come ‘inside’ as a chick under a hen’s wing, had refused and thus remained outside and desolate (23:37c–38; ποσάκις ἠθέλησα ἐπισυναγαγεῖν τὰ τέκνα σου, ὃν τρόπον ὄρνις ἐπισυνάγει τὰ νοσσία αὐτῆς ὑπὸ τὰς πτέρυγας, καὶ οὐκ ἠθελήσατε. ἰδοὺ ἀφίεται ὑμῖν ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν ἔρημος). The new boundary that had resulted from the ministry of Jesus11 impacted all relationships. It split sons and fathers, and daughters and mothers, as family members ended up on different sides of the boundary of the new community formed around Jesus (10:34–35) (Malina & Neyrey 1988:12–13). The relationship between the Matthean community and outsiders who previously had been co-insiders of a large part of the Matthean community due to their common Jewish provenance, and outsiders who have always been outsiders (gentiles who did not believe in Jesus) differs significantly. As the Matthean community was increasingly distancing itself from mainline Judaism it was almost impossible for these two groups—whom each considered the other to be an outsider—to reconcile, since the crux of their conflict was precisely over how forgiveness and reconciliation could be achieved. For Matthew’s community forgiveness of sin was not obtained through sacrifice but Jesus’ atoning death, and was not It was not only the correct confession that was required. If they did not live according to the ethics of the kingdom they would be expelled (7:23; 18:15–17). Those without a wedding garment at the king’s banquet would be ‘cast out into the outer darkness’ (22:13). The wise will enter into the bridegroom’s house for the feast, while the foolish will remain outside (25:1–13). The ‘sheep’ will be welcomed ‘into eternal life’ while ‘the goats’ are told to ‘depart’ and to ‘go into eternal punishment’ (25:46). 11 While Matthew often depicts Jesus teaching in the synagogues and to the crowds following him, the five discourses, which form the core of Jesus’ teaching in the Gospel, are addressed primarily, and in most cases exclusively, to his disciples (cf. 10:1; 18:1 and 24:1). Although Jesus addresses the parables in chapter 13 to the crowds (13:1–3), it is ironical in relation to this public discourse that the privileged situation of the disciples is most evident, in that the explanations of two of the parables (13:18–23, 36–43) are given only to the disciples (France 1989:270–271). 10

92

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

mediated by Jewish brokers (the temple, priests, Pharisees etc.) but by Jesus and the church. In this fierce conflict over how forgiveness and reconciliation should be mediated, neither forgiveness nor reconciliation was possible. As can thus be expected, the Gospel of Matthew displays a distinct lack of sensitivity towards Jewish outsiders (cf. Burridge 2007:194–196; Wills 2008:101–132).

AN INCLUSIVE COMMUNITY? An important theme in the Gospel of Matthew, parallel to the theme of continuing conflict with formative Judaism, is its anticipation of the creation of a new community that would include all the nations who in the past had been considered to be outsiders in relation to the people of God. Jesus is, for example, often confronted in Matthew with the lack of faith of a number of Jews, after which their unbelief is directly contrasted with ‘others’ (possibly gentiles) who will respond with faith (cf. 8:10; 11:20–24; 12:38–42; 21:43). People from these nations would become insiders because they had accepted the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus (both his own preaching and the proclamation about him by the Matthean community).12 The precise way in which this would occur is, however, not always clear in the Gospel of Matthew. During Jesus’ earthly mission in Matthew he had, for example, restricted both his mission, and that of his disciples, to Israel (‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel’—10:6; 15:24). He also explicitly forbade a mission to the Gentiles and the Samaritans (10:5). It is not only Jesus in Matthew that is depicted as being against any mission to the gentiles, but the gentiles themselves do not always respond positively to it. The Gadarenes, for example, had asked Jesus to leave their territory (8:28–34). Gentiles are also often depicted as actively involved in

Simon the Cananaean and the cross-bearer Simon of Cyrene (Matt 10:4; 27:32) are examples of outsiders who are described as becoming insiders in the Matthean narrative. 12

SENSITIVITY TO OUTSIDERS IN MATTHEW

93

the persecution of Christians13 as it is not only Jesus who is delivered to the nations who mock, scourge and crucify him, but is it also envisioned that the Matthean community would be persecuted by Jews and Gentiles alike (Senior 1999:9). Jesus even predicts that his followers will be hated by all nations because of his name in 24:9 (Τότε παραδώσουσιν ὑμᾶς εἰς θλῖψιν καὶ ἀποκτενοῦσιν ὑμᾶς, καὶ ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου).14 Matthew himself does not always exhibit a great deal of sensitivity in his description of gentile outsiders. To the contrary, some of the references to gentiles are offensive to modern sensibilities.15 For instance, Jesus refers negatively to the culture, and even religious practices, of gentiles (Senior 1999:9). He depicts gentiles as inhospitable, since they only greet their own brothers (5:46–47), as always materialistically seeking food, drink, and clothing (6:31–32), and as praying by repeating empty phrases (6:7–8). Even the Canaanite woman, who became a model of faith and who caused Jesus to cross ethnic boundaries, is addressed by Jesus with insulting and stereotypical language (15:21–28; cf. v.26 especially—ὁ δὲ According to Sim (1995:39) the Christians and Jews were both historically actively persecuted by gentiles, who could not distinguish between the two groups. 14 According to Saldarini (1994:69, 76) references to gentiles in Matthew are peripheral to its narrative and main characters; in other words, although gentiles are present in Matthew’s vision they are on the edges of the Jewish world. Matthew therefore downplays a number of interactions of Jesus with gentiles that are present in Mark’s Gospel. He virtually disregards the missionary journey of Jesus into the gentile territory of Tyre and Sidon and Decapolis on the eastern side of the Jordan as it is described in Mark. In the story of the Canaanite woman (15:21–28) the Matthean Jesus does not even seem to enter into the territory of Tyre and Sidon as in Mark. It is, however, a question if gentiles could be anything but peripheral considering that the narrative world required by Matthew is that of Jesus’ mission which was largely confined to Galilee (Senior 1999:13). 15 It is important to note that Matthew does not stereotype all gentiles as positive or all Jews as negative (Sim 1995:25). Saldarini (1994:68– 69) also notes how Matthew portrays gentiles in a diverse manner. 13

94

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν οὐκ ἔστιν καλὸν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων καὶ βαλεῖν τοῖς κυναρίοις). Matthew also teaches that those who are expelled from the Matthean community should be treated as a tax collector and a gentile (18:17; ἔστω σοι ὥσπερ ὁ ἐθνικὸς καὶ ὁ τελώνης) implying that gentiles could themselves have been treated with a certain disdain.16 Matthew does, however, have a number of texts that do refer to the eventual positive involvement of gentiles in the ministry of Jesus. In two revelations concerning the end-times, Jesus declares that the gospel will be proclaimed to ‘all the nations’ (24:14; πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν) and ‘the whole world’ (26:13; ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ). Matthew, thus apparently expected the gospel to be proclaimed to a diverse audience of nations throughout the known world (Ulrich 2007:69–70). Matthew also described several gentiles who exhibit faith in Jesus during his ministry, such as the magi (2:1–12), the centurion of Capernaum (8:10), and the Canaanite woman (15:28). Their faith anticipates the commission of the resurrected Christ at the end of the Gospel (28:19) that commands his disciples to go to all nations.17 The Matthean community would thus have to be sensitive to gentile outsiders.

It is not possible to make a distinction between the redactional and traditional material in Matthew as if only the first reflect the viewpoint of Matthew. All material that has been included in his Gospel reflects his perspective (Senior 1999:9). 17 It is an ongoing debate amongst scholars if the mission to all nations (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη) in Matthew 28:19 includes a continuing mission to Israel or if it excludes it. Is Matthew 21:43 (διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἀρθήσεται ἀφ ὑμῶν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ δοθήσεται ἔθνει ποιοῦντι τοὺς καρποὺς αὐτῆς)—where the care of a vineyard is taken from its present tenants and handed over to another nation, which will produce fruit—an indication that the mission to the nations supersedes the mission to Israel (Senior 1999:7)? Or is it only an indication that the mission of Matthew’s community has shifted from those unresponsive to the Gospel to those—from the nations and Israel—who do respond with faith? Sim (1995:44) argues that while the Matthean community recognised the legitimacy of the mission to both Israel and the gentiles it only 16

SENSITIVITY TO OUTSIDERS IN MATTHEW

95

This sensitivity towards outsiders is especially evident in regards to the Roman Empire, as Matthew urged his community to be extremely sensitive in interacting with its representatives. They are to walk a second mile if commanded to walk a single mile (5:40–41), to love their enemies (5:44), and pay their taxes to Caesar (22:21). Whereas Jesus, John the Baptist and the Matthean community engaged the leaders of Israel in open conflict, the Matthean community apparently refrained from engaging their Roman oppressors in a similar manner. In this regard it is surprising how positively Matthew depicts Roman soldiers. Jesus says, for instance, in reference to the centurion whose servant had been ill, that ‘in no one in Israel have I found such faith’ (8:10), while after the crucifixion it is a centurion who confesses that Jesus was the Son of God (27:54; Ὁ δὲ ἑκατόνταρχος καὶ οἱ μετ αὐτοῦ τηροῦντες τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἰδόντες τὸν σεισμὸν καὶ τὰ γενόμενα ἐφοβήθησαν σφόδρα, λέγοντες·ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς ἦν οὗτος). It could be that the events of 70 AD had convinced Matthew that resistance against the Romans was not only futile, but also dangerous, and that his community had to be more sensitive in their dealings with the functionaries of the Empire than, for instance, with representatives of various Jewish groups.

SENSITIVITY AND SEPARATION The Gospel of Matthew testifies to a community involved in dynamic process in which outsiders (Gentiles) had become insiders (full members of the Matthean community), and insiders (who had been fellow members of the people of God) had become outsiders. The question thus arises as to in which way the Matthean community was uniquely sensitive to the needs of outsiders that had resulted in a sizeable number of them joining the community? The question in regards to the sensitivity of Matthew is especially pertinent as it is usually described as the most Jewish of the Gospels (Burridge 2007:193) and that Judaism was in the ancient world associated with the separation from others, and not for their engaged in the first. There is, however, no compelling evidence for such a conclusion in the Gospel of Matthew.

96

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

sensitivity towards them. Judaism was a religion that did not conform to pagan society since the Jews understood that their vocation as the people of God meant that they should keep themselves apart from the surrounding nations as a witness to the one Holy God (cf. Ferguson 2003:512–513). The maintenance of a strict boundary between insiders and outsiders was, therefore, of the utmost importance. An elaborate purity-based social system was developed to separate the people of God from all impurity, and by necessity also from all who were considered to be impure (Brower & Johnson 2007:xviii). An active mission to those who did not already adhere to the Jewish Holiness code would thus have been almost impossible (cf. Luz 2005:205).18 The precise nature of the purity required of Israel was a disputed issue in Second Temple Judaism. Different Jewish groups were in conflict with each other over the correct understanding of what it meant to be the holy people of God. The Essenes, for example, separated themselves from the whole of Israel and the pagan world, and the Pharisees attempted to live a holy and separate life within Jewish society, while groups like the Herodians had no qualms about engaging with the pagan Roman Empire (Ferguson 2003:514–519, 521–531). While the Matthean community can be understood as a competing holiness or renewal movement within Second Temple piety (i.e., Brower & Johnson 2007:xviii) it differed from rival Jewish groups in that it was much more sensitive to nonJewish outsiders. It did not withdraw (Essenes), collaborate (HeroIn Matthew 23:15 Jesus directs his second woe against the scribes and Pharisees by accusing them of traversing the whole world in order ‘to make a single proselyte’ (Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑποκριταί, ὅτι περιάγετε τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ τὴν ξηρὰν ποιῆσαι ἕνα προσήλυτον). The term προσήλυτος in the LXX refers to a Gentile who through immersion and circumcision has become a full member of the chosen people of Israel. According to Luz (2005:118) there is no evidence that scribes or Pharisees in the time of Jesus actually went on missionary journeys like the early Christian apostles that is described here. The woe is thus a rhetorical exaggeration as the reference to ‘sea and land’ (an image for an enormous effort) for the sake of a single proselyte would have alerted the readers of Matthew that what was being referred to did not happen. 18

SENSITIVITY TO OUTSIDERS IN MATTHEW

97

dians) or shun (Pharisees) them, but rather had an active mission to reach and include them in the Matthean community. Any mission to non-Jews—outsiders in regards to the Old Testament people of God—would have necessitated an authoritative re-interpretation of the Torah that would not only allow it, but also clarify the ethos and ethics19 expected from all who are to participate in the new community of God. It is precisely this which Matthew presents Jesus as doing in his Gospel.

THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE KINGDOM In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus is portrayed as an authoritative teacher20 who had fundamentally reinterpreted the Torah for his community. For Matthew it is the teaching of Jesus alone that represents the true interpretation of the Torah (23:8, 10). As such it had established a new boundary between his followers and those who follow the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees.21 He therefore called his community to faithfulness to the Torah (cf. 5:17–19) as it was interpreted and taught by Jesus (cf. 7:24–27). The teaching of Jesus provides both the content and the impetus for the mission of the Matthean church as is clear from the final command of Jesus to his disciples to go to all the nations, to initiate them into the Matthean community through baptism, and then to teach them to obey all that he had commanded them (28:19–20a; πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς

Meeks (1993:3–5) has argued that ethos is concerned with the way people act in their everyday life, whereas ethics concerns the reflection on morality in a more theoretical framework. Ethics is thus, according to Meeks, a reflective, second order activity. It is morality made selfconscious. 20 In Matthew it is Jesus’ interpretation of the Torah that is definite (5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44) and it is his words that will not pass away (24:35). 21 The condemnation of the leaven of the Pharisees (16:6, 11–12) and the woes against their teaching (23:1–36) serve to draw a clear boundary between the followers of Jesus and the Pharisees (Malina & Neyrey 1988:12–13). 19

98

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν). Through mission, baptism, and teaching, outsiders would become insiders. The teaching of the Torah as reinterpreted by Jesus was, however, not only the means by which outsiders would become insiders. It also provided the justification for reaching out to them as it was the reinterpretation of the Torah by Jesus that enabled his community to be sensitive to outsiders. It is noteworthy that Matthew's description of the ethical conduct22 expected by Jesus of his community was not ‘holiness,’ but ‘righteousness’ (δικαιοσύνη) (Hagner 2008:174).23 Unlike the Pharisees who increased the legal stipulations of the Torah in order to build a higher fence of separation around them as a community (to protect their holiness), Jesus expected his followers to enact the new righteousness of the kingdom of God that would compel them to reach out to outsiders (Hagner 2008:45). Whereas an ethic defined by holiness per se emphasises the boundary between outsiders and insiders, thus making a mission to them almost impossible, an ethic that was defined by righteousness creates the possibility of engaging others (depending on how righteousness is defined). In order to understand how an ethic of righteousness underpinned the mission of the church to others it is important to note the understanding of righteousness in Hagner (2008:174) does not take all seven occurrences of righteousness as references to ethical conduct (contra Przybylski 1980:115, 123). He understands two occurrences (3:15; 21:32) as references to the righteousness of God. The first words of Jesus in Matthew (3:15), spoken in response to the question of John the Baptist, emphasised that he has come to fulfil the righteousness of God (ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτόν· ἄφες ἄρτι, οὕτως γὰρ πρέπον ἐστὶν ἡμῖν πληρῶσαι πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην). As the Baptism of Jesus is a necessary condition for the fulfilment of God’s will it cannot be repeated and is thus not an example of conduct expected of all disciples (Riches 2000:191). 23 Matthew uses the term δικαιοσύνη seven times, all of them redactional (Riches 2000:190). With the exception of Luke 1:75, δικαιοσύνη only occurs in Matthew of the Synoptic Gospels. The cognate word δίκαιος—‘just’ or ‘righteous’—occurs seventeen times in Matthew, more than all the references in the other three Gospels combined (Hagner 1993:lxii). 22

SENSITIVITY TO OUTSIDERS IN MATTHEW

99

Matthew as a gift from God that was to be expressed in unconditional love. The nature of righteousness as gift is most evident in the redactional addition of δικαιοσύνη in the fourth beatitude (Guelich 1976:429; Riches 2000:194–195). In this beatitude righteousness is that with which those who hunger after it are filled by God (5:6; μακάριοι οἱ πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην, ὅτι αὐτοὶ χορτασθήσονται). For Matthew righteousness is a gift of grace, not just a requirement to be fulfilled (Schrage 1988:152). As the kingdom itself is a gift from God, the righteousness expected from the disciples of Jesus is not an entrance requirement, but a response to the kingdom.24 Disciples are thus not expected to meet a stringent list of criteria before they are able to enter into the community of God. They are rather the recipients of God’s gift that invites them into his community and enables them to live according to the ethical requirements that characterise the kingdom of God (cf. Hagner 2008:46). Unlike Jewish communities that defined themselves in terms of holiness—that would demand that outsiders conform to a set code before they could become part of their community25— righteousness is not an entrance requirement in the Gospel of Matthew. It is rather a gift from God that leads to a new way of living. The righteousness of Jesus demanded an ethic of unconditional love from his followers that made them sensitive to those outside of their community (cf. Schrage 1988:148–149). It demanded that they extended their hospitality beyond that practised by the Gentiles as they should greet not only their brothers (insiders), but also strangers (outsiders) (5:47; καὶ ἐὰν ἀσπάσησθε τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὑμῶν μόνον, τί περισσὸν ποιεῖτε; οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ ἐθνικοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν). They were also to love their enemies and persecutors Contra Strecker (1971:153–158) who understands δικαιοσύνη in Matthew not as a gift from God but as the action of believers according to his will (his righteousness). 25 The second part of the woe in 23:15b implies that where Gentiles did become proselytes through circumcision and immersion they were even stricter in their application of the purity code than the Pharisees and the scribes and it was this code that severely limited their contact with their prior non-Jewish surroundings (cf. Luz 2005:118). 24

100

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

(5:44; ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς). It is this righteousness that should, according to Matthew, distinguish them from the scribes and Pharisees (5:20).26 While the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees had resulted in their separation from others, a righteousness expressed in love would result in the inclusion of others. It would be disposed towards reconciliation, not anger; towards truthfulness, not deceit; towards peace, not revenge; towards uncalculating love, not reciprocity (Verhey 1984:87). In a similar way in which Matthew emphasised an ethic based on righteousness rather than holiness, he also emphasised the importance for Jesus of showing mercy to all rather than a strict adherence to cultic purity laws. In both Matthew 9:13 and 12:7, Matthew cites Hosea 6:6 to legitimise the table fellowship of Jesus with tax collectors and sinners, and to show his disregard for the stipulations regarding what was appropriate conduct on the Sabbath respectively, in order to emphasise that mercy was of greater importance than keeping the cultic purity laws (cf. Schrage 1988:149). Showing mercy and righteousness to all, even outsiders, was of greater importance in the kingdom of God than preserving the holiness of the people of God through the strict adherence to the purity code. The gift of the righteousness of the kingdom of God27 leads to practices such as almsgiving, prayer, and fasting that reflect the

Jesus makes it clear to his disciples in 5:20 that righteousness that he expects form them must exceed that of the scribes and the Pharisees (Λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ περισσεύσῃ ὑμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη πλεῖον τῶν γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶ). After stating that he expected a higher righteousness Matthew describes the expected righteousness in comparison to that of the scribes (5:21–48), then in comparison to the Pharisees (6:1–18), and finally, as an unparalleled righteousness (6:19–7:27) (Verhey 1984:87). 27 In Matthew 6:33 Jesus explicitly connects the kingdom of God and righteousness by exhorting his disciples to seek the first the kingdom of God and his righteousness (ζητεῖτε δὲ πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν [τοῦ θεοῦ] καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ, καὶ ταῦτα πάντα προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν). 26

SENSITIVITY TO OUTSIDERS IN MATTHEW

101

righteousness that God demands (6:1–18). They should, however, not be done in order to impress others (6:1; Προσέχετε [δὲ] τὴν δικαιοσύνην ὑμῶν μὴ ποιεῖν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς). The righteousness that should shape the mission and ethics of the Matthean community should rather be done as an expression of a committed relationship with Jesus as the parallelism between Matthew 5:10 (‘on account of righteousness’; ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης) and Matthew 5:11 (‘on account of me’; ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ) makes clear (Hagner 2008:45).28 It is this relationship between righteousness and Jesus that should evoke love for all—even outsiders.

SUMMARY The Gospel of Matthew reflects a community that was actively reinterpreting who belonged to the people of God and who did not in the light of the teaching of Jesus. For Matthew all who accepted the proclamation of Jesus were part of the new community of God. This community was defined by the righteousness and mercy that it had received from God as a gift, but that also compelled them to live in accordance with the example of Jesus. As its ethic was not determined by a focus on holiness that separated them from outsiders who were impure, but by a righteousness that demanded that the love, mercy, and justice of God be shown to all, the Matthean community could engage in an active mission that invited outsiders into its fellowship.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bartlett, D.L., 1993, Ministry in the New Testament, (Overtures in Biblical Theology), Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

For Matthew the phrase τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ is epexegetical of the first (Hagner 2008:45). 28 The phrase ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης is also reminiscent of the phrase ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ in Matthew 10:18 that also refer to the persecution of disciples because of Jesus (Riches 2000:192).

102

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Bauckham, R., 1998, ‘For Whom were Gospels written?’, in R. Bauckham (ed.), The Gospels for all Christians: rethinking the Gospel audiences, pp. 9–49, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Brower, K.E. & Johnson A., 2007, ‘Introduction: Holiness and Ecclesiology in the New Testament,’ in K.E. Brower & Johnson A. (eds.), Holiness and Ecclesiology in the New Testament, pp. xvi–xv, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans. Burridge, R.A., 2007, Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Carter, W., 2000, Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading, Orbis, Maryknoll. Elliot, J.H., 1995, The Jewish Messianic Movement, in E.E., Esler (ed.), Modeling Early Christianity: Social-scientific studies of the New Testament in its context, pp. 75–95, Routledge, London. Ferguson, E., 2003, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd Edition, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. France, R.T., 1989, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, Paternoster Press, Guernsey. France, R.T., 2007, The Gospel of Matthew, (NICNT), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Guelich, R., 1976, ‘The Matthean Beatitudes: “EntranceRequirements” or “Eschatological Blessings?”’, Journal of Biblical Literature 95, 415–34. Hagner, D.A., 1993, Matthew 1-13, (WBC), Word Books, Dallas. Hagner, D.A., 2008, ‘Holiness and Ecclesiology: The Church in Matthew’, in K.E. Brower & Johonson, A., (eds.), Holiness and Ecclesiology in the New Testament, pp. 40–56, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Kea, P. V., 1994, ‘Writing a bios: Matthew’s Genre Choices and Rhetorical Situation’, in E.H., Lovering (ed.), SBL 1994 Seminar Papers, pp. 574–586, Scholars Press, Atlanta. Luz, U., 2001, Matthew 8–20: A Commentary, (Hermeneia), Fortress Press, Minneapolis. Luz, U., 2005, Matthew 21–28: A Commentary, (Hermeneia), Fortress Press, Minneapolis. Malina, B.J. & R.L., Rohrbaugh 1998, Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, Fortress Press, Minneapolis. Meeks, W., 1993, The Origins of Christian Morality, Yale University Press, New Haven.

SENSITIVITY TO OUTSIDERS IN MATTHEW

103

Nolland, J., 2005, The Gospel of Matthew, (NIGTC), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Nolland, J., 2008, ‘The Gospel of Matthew and Anti-Semitism,’ in D.M. Gurtner & J. Nolland (eds.), Built upon the Rock, pp. 154– 169, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Przybylski, B., 1980. Righteousness in Matthew and his World of Thought, (SNTSMS 41), Cambridge Press, London. Riches, J.K., 2000, Conflicting Mythologies, Identity Formation in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, T&T Clark, Edinburgh. Saldarini, A.J., 1999, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community, Chicago University Press, Chicago. Schrage, W., 1988, The Ethics of the New Testament, Fortress Press, Philadelphia. Senior, D., 1999, ‘Between Two World: Gentiles and Jewish Christians in Matthew’s Gospel’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61, 1–23. Sim, D.C., 1996, Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew, (SNTSMS 88), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Sim, D.C., 2001, ‘The Gospels for All Christians: A Response to Richard Bauckham’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 84, 3–27. Sim, D.C., 2012, ‘Fighting on all Fronts: Crisis Management in the Gospel of Matthew’, in D.C. Sim & P. Allen (eds.), Ancient Jewish and Christian Texts as Crisis Management Literature: Thematic Studies in Early Christian Studies, (LNTS), pp. 62–78, T&T Clark, London. Strecker, G., 1971, Die Makarismen der Bergpredigt, New Testament Studies 17, 255–75. Ulrich, D.W., 2007, ‘The Missional Audience of the Gospel of Matthew’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 69/1, 64–83. Verhey, A., 1984, The Great Reversal: Ethics and the New Testament, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Wills, L.M., 2008, Insiders and Outsiders in the Biblical World: Not God’s people, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, New York.

5. EXPLORING A COMMON BACKGROUND OF PAUL AND ‘JOHN’: MISSION AND CONVERSION Athanasios Despotis UNIVERSITY OF BONN ABSTRACT This paper refers to the controversial issue of current New Testament research concerning the relationship of the Johannine literature (except the Apocalypse) to Paul. Although several attempts have been undertaken to compare both authors, mainly in terms of theology or the history of tradition, no one has compared them from the perspective of the conversion of the early Christian communities’ members and their missionary perspective. Accordingly, this paper explores the concepts of mission and conversion on the one hand, and, on the other hand, it tries to explain some of the common theological constellations of the Pauline and Johannine writings as a reflection of conversionist communities with missionary interest.

INTRODUCTION The debate regarding the Fourth Gospel’s relation to Paul continues.1 Despite the fact that more and more scholars publish relevant articles concerning common and different conceptualities held by Paul and “John” (I hereby refer to the author(s) of the Gospel and Epistles) we do not have a plausible theory justifying common theological perspectives between the two. The theory of Pauline influCf. research reviews in Christina Hoegen-Rohls (2004); Becker (2006); and Schwindt (2007). 1

105

106

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

ence on “John”—including the suggestion that Ephesus was the place where the “Johannine school” received the Pauline tradition—is strongly disputed. Thus, I myself find the proposal of Dieter Zeller plausible, i.e., that the mutual theological language of Paul and “John” can be justified from the perspective of common factors from their pragmatic contexts. 2 According to Zeller, the strong dichotomy between the world and the community, or the emphasis on the concepts of baptism and Spirit, derive from the pragmatic context of mission and conversion—‘die missionarische Werbung und die Bekehrung.’3 Similarly, Jürgen Becker recently proposed the theory that the common theological views of Paul and “John” derive from theological traditions of the first generation of early Christians and especially from the missionary tradition of Syriac Christianity. Both group texts reflect the language and the atmosphere of early communities with strong ‘spiritual’ profile and mission experiences.4 In this paper, I am focusing upon the Pauline and Johannine conceptualities of mission and conversion in order to prove that some close theological analogies of these groups of texts derive from a missionary and conversionist perspective. This comparison cannot be an extended one since it is impossible to make a detailed presentation of the many-faceted contexts and the relevant texts of both corpora in such a short paper. However, this preliminary approach towards the theme mentioned above will function as preparatory work for a large project I am going to complete in the near future. Preliminary considerations on the concepts ‘mission’ and ‘conversion’ Both ‘mission’ and ‘conversion’ are terms that belong to a specialized language describing phenomena that can be observed in antiquity as well as in a contemporary context. But one cannot conclude that the religious phenomena of antiquity occur in the same manZeller (2011a:283): ‘welche situationsmäßigen Faktoren, besonders etwa vorgefundene Traditionen, die gemeinsame Sprache mitbedingen.’ 3 Zeller (2011a:283). 4 Becker (2006:491). 2

EXPLORING A COMMON BACKGROUND

107

ner today. Therefore, by using the aforementioned terms for the description of Early Christianity we are confronted with the danger of an anachronism. Paul and “John” do not afford a concept of mission as mission is organized today, i.e., their approach does not correspond to the modern mechanisms of an efficient mission, which presupposes that the church is an organization with an explicit strategy to gain new members.5 Similarly, one cannot interpret Paul’s entering into the Christian community as a conversion in the modern sense since Christianity and Judaism were not understood as different religions in his time. Thus, one can gain relevant impulses for the interpretation of the Pauline and Johannine texts 6 from the modern interdisciplinary studies of these phenomena, 7 i.e., the paradigm shift in the interpretation of conversion as a social process or as a narrativebiographical phenomenon. It has become clear from recent theses that the common interpretation of conversion as a psychological occurence, which is caused by the influence of external powers on a passive religious person, has its various shortcomings. After the 1960’s, conversion is considered to be more of a sociological than a psychological process because it refers to a change of communities rather than to overcoming a psychological crisis. The religious conversion refers to a voluntary process of choosing a new community and accepting the religious and behavioural categories of this community. The convert does not just remain passive in this process but takes an active part in it. He is the one who chooses with which religious group to communicate and tries out the new community. After joining the new religious community he is the one who also uses the means and categories of the community in order to reconstruct his own biography. This narrative-biographical moment is strongly emphasized in the interdisciplinary research of conversion after the 1980’s. According to the narrativebiographical paradigm, at the moment one notices a radical discontinuity between his past and present life, i.e., before and after joining a new religious community, one experiences a perfect converGoodmann (1994:159). See e.g. Segal (1990); Chester (2004); Crook (2004). 7 Zock (2006:44). 5 6

108

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

sion. During this narrative moment—when the convert persuades himself of having found the truth—he begins to recount his experience to his contemporaries with missionary zeal. Through his missionary outreach he seeks to obtain a solid basis for his new faith and to overcome any doubt and uncertainty by winning new members.8 To summarize, according to modern research, conversion has a strong social perspective as well as a decisive narrativebiographical character. However, in this paper I use the term ‘conversion’ not only as a sociological or narrative-biographical category. In this paper, conversion refers to the process of socialization into a new religious community as well as to the shift in the way one understands the world and constructs identity that follows. Similarly, I understand ‘mission’ as an activity of a faith community for gaining new members. Deriving from these considerations in the following I will seek to explain and synoptically compare the way Paul and “John” illustrate the concepts of mission and conversion.

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXTS OF PAUL AND “JOHN” Despite the fact that Paul and “John” wrote their works in different contexts, they both have a similar Hellenistic-Jewish background9 and reflect experiences and traditions coming from the very earliest strata of Early Christianity. According to Jürgen Becker’s plausible hypothesis, there are signs of the experiences and the preaching of the earliest Christian communities and missionaries in Syria in the works of both Paul and “John.” 10 Using rather convincing arguments, Becker supports the theory that although the writings of “John” belong chronologically to the third generation of early Christianity, after 70 CE, they work on a very old tradition, deriving from the first generation. Thus, Becker explains the theoGoodmann (1994:167). Theobald (2010a:416). 10 Becker (2006:495): ‘[…] der Traditionsbereich, aus dem sie eigenständig schöpfen, lässt sich jedoch am besten mit der völkerchristlich orientierten Mission und den entsprechenden Gemeinden angeben, wie sie mit dem Stephanuskreis und dem syrisch-antiochenischen Raum namhaft gemacht werden können.’ 8 9

EXPLORING A COMMON BACKGROUND

109

logical similarities between Paul and “John” not by way of a hypothetical literary influence of Paul on “John,” but as reflections of the first Syriac mission and its communities, i.e., the circle of Stephen. The two groups of texts hand down traditions and concepts deriving from communities with a strong missionary and conversionist character; this permits neither the conclusion that Paul and “John” live and write in the same context nor that they have the same addressees. Rather the contrary is the case, i.e., that the addressees of Paul do not have the profile of Johannine communities. The former have a non-Jewish profile, while the latter seem to be removed or excluded from the Synagogue (ἀποσυνάγωγοι in 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). Further, the Johannine communities seem to have a longer experience and background than the Pauline ones. It is evident that both authors are confronted with different problems. On the one hand, Paul attempts to develop a Christian ethos in his communities that is free from the law in order to prepare them for the parousia11 and to gain support for his apostolic work. On the other hand, “John” seeks to isolate his addressees from Jews remaining in unbelief and also attempts to stabilize the community and its faith in Jesus as the Son of God. Although both authors have to manage different situations, they reflect traditions and situations deriving from communities with a comparable missionary and conversionist character, similar to that of the early Syriac Christianity. Surely, the question concerning the setting of all Johannine writings is very complex and yet remains open, though I do not seek to discuss this introductory problem in this paper. I accept the theory of the Syriac origin of the Johannine writings and I focus upon the theological conceptualities of mission and conversion according to Paul and “John” below.

PAUL The relationship with Christianity Monographs of modern scholars like Barnett (2008), Lopez (2008) and Schnabel (2011), to mention only a few of the most recent 11

Cf. Last (2012:324).

110

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

ones, describe in a remarkably extended way the missionary portrait of Paul, his team, and his strategies. These studies provide valuable information and details concerning the Pauline mission. Therefore, I will only discuss some crucial points which can function as points of comparison between Paul and “John.” Although Paul describes his gospel as a revelation of God (Gal 1:12) and his call as a divine initiative,12 one cannot deny that Paul has learned essential elements of this gospel from an earlier tradition of Christian believers and missionaries. The formula παρέδωκα ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον (1 Cor 15:3) is a technical term 13 used for the transmission of oral tradition within Judaism (kibel and masar) and refers to the connection of Paul with the theology and the praxis of the first Syriac communities established by Stephen’s disciples (Acts 8:4; 11:20). Paul joined these communities and their Syriac-Hellenistic atmosphere. 14 In this context the praxis of the Jewish Hellenistic synagogue in Antioch, which had a more liberal attitude towards gentiles and proselytes certainly influenced the praxis of the first Syriac communities of Jesus believers. Antioch is the place where we can find the background of Paul’s missionary dynamic as Apostle to the gentiles. Paul might have had his first missionary experience in his pre-Christian past as a Jewish missionary (cf. Gal 5:1115) or for a short time as a preacher in Arabia immediately after his conversion (Gal 1:17). However, Paul habituated the common celebration of the Eucharist between circumcised Modern scholars like Segal (1990) interpret the epiphany which Paul had in his road to Damascus in terms of Jewish mysticism traditions centred on visions (merkabah mysticism). A revision of this theory and bibliography see in Churchill (2010). 13 See Segal (1990:27). 14 Segal (1990). 15 In my opinion, the arguments of Campbell (2012), that Paul initially proclaimed that gentiles should be circumcised, are not plausible. If this had been the case, Paul would have frequently mentioned his transmission from the one Gospel (of circumcision) to the other (circumcision-free). If Paul refers to a missionary activity in Gal 5:11 this could only be a Jewish pre-Christian one. For more aspects on the interpretation of Gal 5:11 see Campbell (2012:325ff). 12

EXPLORING A COMMON BACKGROUND

111

and uncircumcised Christians during his prolonged stay in Antioch where he presumably also acquired the theological categories16 he later used to defend his circumcision-free mission. It is in Antioch where he could learn from the mission praxis and preaching as well as the baptismal and the Eucharistic services formulas that later appear in his letters (e.g., Rom 1:2–5; 1 Cor 6:9–11; 12:13; 2 Cor 13:13; Gal 3:27–28; Phil 2:5–11; 1 Thess 5:16–22). These formulations also carried the atmosphere of a ‘spiritual Christianity’ which had not only a strong faith in Jesus as the Messiah but also a personal experience of the Holy Spirit. Paul left Antioch after a long stay because the Christian communities there accepted the segregation proposed by the Jerusalem congregation under the leadership of James. They started differentiating between Jews and Gentiles in their communal life contrary to their earlier praxis. Thereafter, Paul took his mission to places where the Gospel had not been preached before (1 Cor 3:6–11; Rom 15:20f.). He hereby was seeking to work on what he had been practicing before—a mutual worship transcending ethnic boundaries. The profile of the missionary Paul and his commission The most urgent purpose for the long missionary journey of Paul was the establishment of communities in strategic places from which the gospel could spread to the surrounding regions.17 This could be best achieved by the power of the gospel and the Holy Spirit (1 Thess 1:5).18 At the same time, Paul was convinced that he served the single purpose of God through-Israel-in-the-person-of-theMessiah19 for the salvation of the entire creation (Rom 8:19ff.). Paul, in his Jewish framework of thought, seems to understand his apostleship as the work of the messianic herald and as part of the mission of Yahweh’s servant (Isa 52:7; Rom 10:15; cf. Rom 15:21; Gal 1:15; Phil 2:16; etc.). He believed that after the entrance of the Zeller (2011:248). Cf. Köstenberger and O‘Brien (2005:259). 18 See a detailed discussion concerning the purpose of the Pauline mission in Last (2012:299). 19 Wright (2009:243). 16 17

112

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

nations20 into the ekklesia and before the parousia Israel would return to faith (Rom 11:25). Therefore, Paul describes his call as an apostle similarly to the Old Testament descriptions of the calling of prophets (Gal 1:15 cf. Jer 1:5; Isa 49:1–6). Paul sets his call in a Christological framework—the revelation of the Son (Gal 1:15) and the encounter with the risen Lord (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8)—and relates it to the mission among the gentiles for His name’s sake (Rom 1:5). In his letters, which he wrote many years after his turning to Christian faith, Paul interprets his own experience on the road to Damascus retrospectively through the theological categories of early Christianity. The vision of the resurrected Lord was the basis of apostolic authority in early Christianity, and early Christians interpreted it as God’s call for mission. Paul combined this common belief with the special characteristic of the Syriac-Hellenistic communities: mutual worship that transcends ethnic boundaries. Paul’s missionary kerygma was the proclamation of the Gospel of Christ, i.e., the proclamation of Jesus the Messiah as Lord (2 Cor 4:5–6; Phil 2:11; Rom 10:9),21 the Messiah's resurrection and his future return in order to redeem us ‘from the wrath to come’ (1 Thess 1.9b–10).22 Deriving from this faith the early Church and Paul also interpreted the crucifixion of Jesus as an atoning death and preached it among the other substantial elements of the gospel (cf. 1 Cor 15:3).23 Through this gospel Paul was seeking not to

Goodmann (1994:60): ‘Jews expected that in the last days the gentiles would in fact come to recognize the glory of God and divine rule on earth (cf. Isa 66:19).’ 21 I disagree with Zeller (2011:255) who considers that the aim of Paul’s mission has been to validate the dominance of Jesus as lord over the entire world. This aim would be plausible if Paul, as Jesus’ follower, had established a movement with a strong political profile. Contrarily, Paul interprets his mission as ‘a ministry of reconciliation.’ 22 For a very detailed interpretation of this crucial text, which summarizes the missionary preaching of Paul, see the monograph of Zugmann (2011). 23 Wolter (2011:98ff). 20

EXPLORING A COMMON BACKGROUND

113

spread some messianic beliefs, but to connect his audience directly with their erstwhile leader, i.e., Jesus Christ as a person. 24 Paul considered the gospel to be the climax of God’s promises through his Prophets in the Holy Scriptures (Rom 1:2–5) and therefore he understood his work in terms of the Jewish eschatological expectations (Rom 11:25). One can deduce that Paul as a missionary first appealed to gentiles who belonged to the phoboumenoi (φοβούμενοι), namely gentiles who already had a relationship with the Synagogue. He offered them the opportunity of a mutual worship of God among the natural descendants of Abraham without the obligation of circumcision and the ‘works of the law’ (Rom 15:9ff.). Furthermore, the gentile converts could themselves realize that through faith in Christ and baptism they experienced the same Spirit which Paul had experienced by his coming to faith (1 Cor 12:13). Therefore, the experience of the Spirit was the most powerful means of Paul’s mission (1 Cor 2:4) and Paul refers to the Spirit as God’s seal and pledge in the hearts of the believers (2 Cor 1:22). According to his own descriptions, Paul’s everyday life as a missionary was extremely hard. In all his epistles he refers to his sufferings as an apostle. He had lost all of his Jewish privileges (Phil 3:4–8) and was confronted with direct polemic from his Jewish contemporaries. Although Paul was tolerant, in order to convince Jews of the Diaspora of his approach (1 Cor 9:20), he was persecuted and punished by the Jewish authorities as a Jew who did not respect the most fundamental Jewish tradition—circumcision (Gal 5:11; 2 Cor 11:24). Beyond this he also suffered from psychological pressure because he represented a gospel which seemed to be foolishness in the eyes of his pagan audience. His gospel was not compatible with human wisdom (1 Cor 2:6; 2 Cor 1:12). It was a matter of faith, not of human observation (2 Cor 5:7). Therefore, Paul was trying to transcend pagan wisdom by using spiritual means (2 Cor 10:4–5) as well signs and miracles (2 Cor 12:12).

24

Goodmann (1994:168).

114

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Obedience and disobedience to the gospel Paul believed that no one can be reconciled in Christ unless he comes to faith by hearing the gospel (Rom 10:14–15).25 However, not everyone who hears the Gospel obeys it: οὐ πάντες ὑπήκουσαν τῷ Εὐαγγελίῳ (Rom 10:16). Paul explains the different resonance of the Gospel on two levels. Firstly, he explains the gospel on a theological and macrohistorical level, where he looks at history from the viewpoint of God’s plan for the world.26 On this level, God appears as sovereign, calling some Jews to faith whilst he hardens the rest (Rom 9:18). Others, i.e., the unbelieving gentiles, are blinded by the devil (2 Cor 4:4) who is the main opponent of missionary work (1 Thess 2:18; 2 Cor 11:14; Rom 16:20). Paul explains everything theologically on this level, i.e., from the perspective of the purpose of a good God who leads the world to a good end but whose plan does not always appear straightforward. The disobedience of Paul’s contemporary Jews serves the plan of God for something greater: the proclamation of God’s name throughout all the earth. In that, Paul does not establish a doctrine of predestination but seeks to support the notion that God’s calling, rather than Jewish identity, is the decisive factor in becoming a part of God’s people (ἡ κατ᾿ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις τοῦ Θεοῦ μένει Rom 9:11, 24).27 On a second level, i.e., in a micro-historical context where Paul focuses upon individuals, he describes obedience to the gospel as an obedience coming from the heart (Rom 6:17; ὑπηκούσατε δὲ ἐκ καρδίας). The ‘heart’ is the centre of human προαίρεσις (2 Cor 9:7), βουλή (1 Cor 4:5), and θέλημα (1 Cor 7:37). As a result, the obedience from the heart refers to a voluntary acceptance of the gospel. Accordingly, disobedience derives from the human heart, i.e., is a matter of human choice. Therefore, when Paul uses the Zeller (2011:253–254). I hereby adopt the proposal of Stendahl (2001:46ff). 27 Therefore, it seems, according to J. Dunn (1998:512), that ‘[…] Paul was attempting not so much to mount a theology of predestination as to criticize the theory which was presently in operation. There was in effect a dogma of predestination which Paul had been echoing. It held that Israel was the sole beneficiary of God’s electing purpose.’ 25 26

EXPLORING A COMMON BACKGROUND

115

term ἀμετανόητος καρδία (Rom 2:5), he implies that disobedience to God’s word is a free action that is punishable (2 Cor 10:6). God’s word according to Paul surely is effective; it leads either to life or, if it is not accepted, to death. (2 Cor 2:16; Phlp 1:28).28 It depends on the way human beings respond. Therefore, Paul’s missionary work had a twofold influence—to those who voluntarily obeyed him a taste of life and those who willingly disobeyed a taste of death (cf. 2 Cor 2:16). The missionary team and the Community Paul counted not only upon God’s grace but also human cooperation. Therefore, he had founded a highly active missionary team, working with him and in his absence (e.g., 1 Thess 3:1–6; 1 Cor 16:15–19). The apostle often calls his co-missionaries συνεργοί (2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25; 4:3; 1 Thess 3:2; Phil 1:24; Rom 16:3, 9, 21). This title indicates that they are not only Paul’s co-workers but also fellow workers of God (1 Cor 3:9). Paul understands his own role as well as that of his missionary partners as a ministry of God (1 Cor 3:5) or as οἰκονομία, i.e., management of a household (1 Cor 4:1–2; 9:17). Even if there is a variety of ministries, all serve the plan of the one God, the one Lord and the one Spirit (1 Cor 12:4– 6). Since one can find many of the co-workers’ named in the Pauline epistles, this permits the conclusion that Paul’s circle of coworkers was not fixed or limited (cf. Phil 4:3). The apostle emphasizes that God is the unique source of missionary ministries and charismata. He thereby seeks to stabilize the communities under his leadership. Therefore, he places the commandment of love at the heart of his theological framework (e.g., 1 Cor 13; Rom 12–13) and understands the whole of his ethics on the basis of the commandment of love (Rom 13:9–10). Love demonstrates faith in Christ (Gal 5:6), is the first fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and guarantees that the Christian congregation truly is God’s people, which shines as light in the world (Phil 2:15). Goodmann (1994:99) states, ‘early Christians sometimes presupposed that it is better not to have heard the Gospel at all than to have heard it and rejected it. […] In the Gospel of John the same kind of argument is set differently: John 15:22.’ 28

116

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Paul expected both his co-workers and other believers to behave in such a way so as to attract outsiders to the Christian communities.29 The communities also attracted unbelievers through the spiritual atmosphere and preaching during their mutual worship (1 Cor 14:24–26). Surely, the communities supported the Pauline mission by providing it with both financial contributions as well as assistant missionaries (e.g., 1 Cor 16:17). Therefore, even if one cannot find explicit commands for mission in the Pauline letters (probably Phil 2:15–16a is an exception) one can draw the conclusion that Paul presupposed the responsibility of his addressees to spread the gospel to their contemporaries.30 This expansion caused joy and pride for Paul and his communities (2 Cor 1:14; Phil 2:16bc). This joy was ‘in the Lord,’ since missionary work is begun by God (2 Cor 3:3; 6:4; Phil 1:6) and all missionary achievements come from God’s grace (1 Cor 15:10). In this missionary context Paul considers the concept of conversion on which I focus below. The concept of conversion and the conversionist community Paul uses the traditional term ἐπιστρέφειν only twice in order to describe the positive response to the Christian faith (1 Thess 1:9; 2 Cor 3:16).31 This meaning derives from the use of ἐπιστρέφειν in the Septuagint as a translation of ‫( שוב‬i.e., religious and ethical repenting, turning to the true God). Paul uses this term in 1 Thess 1:9-10 where he delivers a summary of the early Christian missionary kerygma. Ἐπιστρέφειν indicates a total reorientation of human existence as such. Thus, Paul prefers to describe the process of coming to the Christian faith by using the noun πίστις and the verb πιστεύειν εἰς (or ἐπὶ) Χριστόν. Indeed, believing in Christ, in Pauline terms, does not only entail embracing an ideology but rather a new ethos as well reflected in the behavior of the members of the Christian community. This indicates that the critical point of conversion was not a psychological process but a social one which See Dickson (2003:291). Cf. Ware (2005:285). 31 Paul also uses ἐπιστρέφειν to refer to the opposite, namely the apostasy from the gospel, in Gal 4:9. 29 30

EXPLORING A COMMON BACKGROUND

117

emerges by voluntarily accepting the community’s faith in Christ, rituals, and corresponding ethos. The Pauline texts clearly reflect a conversionist perspective deriving from the experience of a spiritual transformation and socialization in a new religious community which was a minority in its social environment. From this point of view, the entrance in the Christian community causes an unusually serious change in the convert’s biography, being referred to metaphorically as a dying of the old man (Rom 6:6), a rebirth (1 Cor 4:15, 19) or a new creation (Gal 6:15; 2 Cor 5:16–21).32 Through the concept of the ‘new creation’ Paul gives a strong theological dimension to the conversion process; it is God who in Christ creates the human being anew. Paul hereby interprets theologically the new beginning which those who have been baptized experience in their life, the new reality where the former social barriers are no longer valid (Gal 3:26–28). Paul appears metaphorically as father (1 Cor 4:15), mother (Gal 4:19) of his adressees, or as the leader of the the community (metaphorically presented as a bride) to her bridegroom (Christ) (cf. 2 Cor 11:2) because he is the one who had lead them to faith in Christ. Similarly, in Paul’s experience turning to faith in Christ and baptism (1 Cor 12:13; Rom 6:2) caused an extraordinarily deep reorientation of his existence, reflected not only in his autobiographical texts (Gal 1:11–17; Phil 3:2–11) but also in the description of reality prior to Christ (cf. Rom 7:14–25). In his writings the Apostle uses strong contrasts to describe the relation between the preconversional past and the present in his Christian life and the lives of the converts. One notes a strong dichotomy in the Pauline texts that is typical of the perspective of a human being which experienced a socialization in a new religious community: between the Christian community and its environment, between belief and unbelief, and between the gospel and the wisdom of this world. All these antithetical references demonstrate the discontinuity Paul and his addressees realize in their biographies because of their resocialization in the Christian communities. The single condition for this re-socialization was the acceptance of the community’s faith in

32

Campbell (1999:292–293).

118

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Christ. Other social or ethnic boundaries were not prerequisites for entrance into the new world. The convert’s way of life is also characterized as life ‘according to the Spirit’ which is set against the life ‘according to flesh’ (Rom 8:4–5). We do not have a dualism here; ‘flesh’ does not refer to the human body but to an entire human existence which is alien to God, faith in Christ and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. This language was common in both Hellenistic Judaism and early Christianity. Some Pauline texts echo the baptismal liturgy and theology of Syriac Christianity and summarize the theological importance of the Spirit in the conversion process (e.g., 1 Cor 6:11; 12:13; Gal 3:26–28; 4:6–7). The Spirit is the agent of conversion and baptism (1 Cor 12:13), i.e., the seal that makes humans followers of Christ or the sign of their incorporation in God’s people (Rom 8:9) and the most important factor for the unity of the conversionist community (2 Cor 13:13). Concerning the role of the Holy Spirit, Paul understands conversion as a change of masters (Rom 6:18, 22) or as an adoption (Gal 3:28; Rom 8:15). The concept of ‘adoption’ mirrors the conviction that all baptized believers belong to God’s family and have the status not of proselytes or aliens to God’s people but of ‘sons.’ According to Paul and the early church this status is being demonstrated through the Spirit that dwells in the believers. The Holy Spirit displays a powerful presence in every aspect of conversion. One can confess Christ only in the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:3), the baptism of conversion is in the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13), and the Spirit signifies the adoption of the believers as ‘sons of God’ (Gal 4:6; Rom 8:15). Every charisma comes from the same Spirit (1 Cor 12:4). Lastly, the Apostle metaphorically describes the joining the Christian community as an exit from the world (1 Cor 5:10; ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐξελθεῖν). Paul required the converts to separate themselves from the world as well as from those brothers who were following a gentile ethic (cf. 2 Cor 6:17; Isa 52:11). In practice, entrance into the Pauline communities lead to a demanding ethic, a cultural differentiation as well as social isolation from the pagan environment. On one hand, participation in the public worship of pagan deities was permitted, on the other hand the Pauline ethic was contrary to the Greco-Roman ethic in various matters, i.e., those concerning the sexual life and social distinctions. The gentile environment often reacted with social pressure against the minority of the Jesus

EXPLORING A COMMON BACKGROUND

119

believers.33 Thus, this situation not only caused isolation but also made the new community attractive for those in search of an alternative ethos in the multicultural Greco-Roman environment. According to modern interdisciplinary studies,34 religious groups requiring a competitive way of life grow more than other groups having no strict ethical requirements. This is one of many factors which would also explain why the Pauline communities attracted outsiders and experienced growth in the Greco-Roman world. Indeed, can one say the same for the Johannine communities?

“JOHN” Mission and eschatological community The Fourth Gospel addresses a community (or communities) which seems to be charged with a missionary task. The most significant text concerning missionary activity, i.e., the ‘commissioning passage,’35 relates the missionary authority and activity of the community to the first appearance of the resurrected Jesus. Jesus appears (not accidentally) on a Sunday, i.e., on the first day of a new week, a symbol for the immergence of something new (John 20:1, 19:26). He appeared to Mary Magdalene and the assemblage of the apostles which represented the “Johannine community.”36 By breathing forth the Spirit—probably an allusion to Genesis 2:7 and an implication of the Pentecost—Jesus transformed the circle of his followers into the new messianic community.37 The community is henceforth called to represent the exalted Jesus.38 Therefore, he charges it with the commission to integrate outsiders in God’s famThe new way of life and the distance from the world provoked not only social isolation but also tribulations and suffering for the members of the Christian communities mentioned in all the undisputed Pauline epistles, e.g., 1 Thess 3:4-5; 1 Cor 10:17; 2 Cor 1:4; 4:5; 7:9; Phil 1:27.29-30; Rom 5:3. 34 Gooren (2006:35). 35 Köstenberger and O‘Brien (2005:204). 36 Theobald (2010b:488). 37 Köstenberger and O‘Brien (2005:211). 38 Köstenberger and O‘Brien (2005:213). 33

120

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

ily through baptism (cf. the forgiveness of the sins in 20:23). This task refers to a process of entrance and initiation in a new religious group, the messianic community or, in modern terms, a resocialization39—‘“As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained”’ (John 20:21b–23; NASB; emphasis added). The community believes that through its missionary commission it follows the example of Jesus who has been sent by the Father and gives the community the Spirit as an agent of its mission to the world. Another representative text deals with the result of commission, i.e., the flock of the believers and its great need for unity and mutual service. Ιt reflects a missionary theology similar to the text above. The faith in Christ is the starting point for missionary work. However, in the following passage it is not the role of the Spirit that is accentuated but rather the importance of love—‘As Thou didst send Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world […] I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me’ (John 17:18– 21; NASB). The focus on the community’s unity does not imply that the Johannine concept of mission is only centripetal. The unity among believers testifies that God dwells amongst them and so functions in both a centripetal and a centrifugal way as an attraction to the world (i.e., the outsiders). Accordingly, the apostles also have ‘to go’ out into the world in order to ‘bear fruit’ (John 15:16), namely to follow the paradigm of Jesus and give their lives for the world in order to serve Him (John 12:24–26).40 The concept of mission in “John” concerns both insiders and outsiders to the

39 40

Cf. Kok (2010:171). See Köstenberger and O‘Brien (2005:220).

EXPLORING A COMMON BACKGROUND

121

community.41 From this twofold point of view, Jesus’ reference (John 14:12) that his disciples shall do ‘greater works’ implies that they will continue on in his missionary work after his resurrection and extend it from Israel to the nations.42 While the author illustrates the missionary task of the community, two principal themes permanently appear in the background, i.e., the transcending of the traditional boundaries of the Jewish world as well as the review of Jewish traditions through a monistic Christological lens. The author of the Fourth Gospel uses two motives traditionally applied to Israel’s relationship with Yahweh, the ‘shepherd and the flock’ (John 10:1–21) and the ‘vine’ (John 15), in order to describe the new age which emerges through the messianic community’s birth and its universalistic mission. 43 Yahweh’s flock44 is no longer the Israelite nation but the community of Jewish and gentile believers (cf. John 10:16).45 Similarly, Yahweh’s vine46 is no longer Israel but Jesus. Israel’s role is transferred to Jesus who is the true vine.47 One shall be incorporated into Jesus and not into ethnic Israel in order to ‘bear much fruit.’ Jewish tradition and privileges are replaced by Jesus and his messianic community. The ‘good shepherd,’ the ‘door,’ and the ‘vine’ are related not to the Torah, the Synagogue or ethnic Israel but only to Jesus. The author hereby distinguishes sharply between Jesus and ‘others,’— the Pharisees or the hostile Synagogue who are ‘thieves and robSee Nissen (2007:75), who says, ‘Johannine Mission is dual in character. It is both sending and gathering. Both aspects are held together by the concept of incarnation.’ 42 Schnabel (2002:1446). 43 Cf. Köstenberger and O‘Brien (2005:215). 44 Ezek 34:13ff. 45 In my opinion this testifies that the “Johannine communities” were not exclusively Jewish-Christian but also contained gentile-Christian members. The ‘prophecy of Caiaphas’ in John 11:51–52 also conveys the universal dimension of Jesus’ redemptive death for the entire world and presupposes that the addressees of the Fourth Gospel were not only Jews. Cf. Schnabel (2002:1448). 46 E.g. Is 5:1–5 47 Cf. Köstenberger and O‘Brien (2005:253). 41

122

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

bers’—in order to protect the addressees from non-believing Jews and the danger of apostasy. However, the conceptualities of the Fourth Gospel contain not only separating but also inclusive aspects. Through Jesus one ‘shall go in and out, and will find pasture’ (John 10:9). The Fourth Gospel does not only exclude the community’s enemies but also legitimizes the mission to the hostile world. Yet the mission can only be in Jesus’ name, because salvation is based only on faith in Christ. This faith is the differentiating point between the true and the false missionaries, i.e., the antichrists, as mirrored in 1 John 4:2–3.48 The intensive struggle of the Johannine community against its environment is also reflected in Jesus’ conflict with the devil, the ruler of this ‘world.’ The enemies of Jesus and his community have the devil as their father. They embody the lifestyle of their father and are agents of the same destruction which the devil has been causing from the beginning.49 This dualistic presentation of the world is not protological,50 it does not presupposes the existence of different human natures. Such an idea would prohibit the mission to outsiders. The dualistic presentation of the world in “John” is a retrospective theological description of the world through the lens of a conversionist community. Thus, the community believes that everything came into being by the same God (John 1:3). Therefore, Jesus’ crucifixion is considered to be an offering for the entire world and, according to this, every human being is a potential believer. This perspective makes the mission to the world possible. Thus, it depends on the willingness of the individual to accept Christ by faith or not. The fact that some humans are not willing to accept the faith is implied in the following text: ‘the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19; NASB).

1 and 2 John rather mirror the inner problems and confrontations with a false Christology. 3 John may refer to wandering missionaries (vv. 3, 6, 8, 12). See Schnabel (2002:1450–1451). 49 Kok (2010:172). 50 Schnabel (2002:1442). 48

EXPLORING A COMMON BACKGROUND

123

The mission of the Son and the Spirit In the above texts the mission of the apostles is described theologically as an extension of the ‘work’ of the Son, 51 i.e., his commission to save the world (John 3:16; 12:31). This is regarded as the foundational moment of the missionary concept in the Fourth Gospel.52 The author intends to strengthen the faith of his addressees (John 20:31) that Jesus is undoubtedly the firstborn Son—the Son sent by the Father. Nonetheless, this faith can be true only if believers glorify Jesus by bearing missionary fruit (John 15:16). It follows that the concept of the redemptive mission of the Son of God, being described in terms both of revelation and redemption, 53 is predominant in the Fourth Gospel. Jesus is the one who was sent (John 6:57; 8:42; 10:36), and the giver of the Spirit (John 3:34). He directly reveals the truth and gives grace ‘from the fullness of his grace’ (John 1:16). He is the messianic sower of the missionary harvest (John 4:34–38) and the ‘grain of wheat’ which falls into the earth, dies, and bears much fruit (cf. John 12:24). Consequently, the ‘sending Christology’ of the Fourth Gospel includes the archetype of the missionary, ‘the model for his disciples to follow.’54 The author compares Jesus with two other agents of God— John the Baptist and Moses55 (John 1:15–37; 3:28–30; 5:35, 46; 6:32; 9:29; 10:41). Both John the Baptist and Moses as well as Abraham (John 8:56) act as witnesses to the fact that Jesus is the Son of God, sent by God. The other agents, Moses and the Baptist, Cf. John 13:16.20: οὐκ ἔστιν δοῦλος μείζων τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ οὐδὲ ἀπόστολος μείζων τοῦ πέμψαντος αὐτόν […] ὁ λαμβάνων ἄν τινα πέμψω ἐμὲ λαμβάνει, ὁ δὲ ἐμὲ λαμβάνων λαμβάνει τὸν πέμψαντά με. Cf. also John 15:16: οὐχ ὑμεῖς με ἐξελέξασθε, ἀλλ᾽ ἐγὼ ἐξελεξάμην ὑμᾶς καὶ ἔθηκα ὑμᾶς ἵνα ὑμεῖς ὑπάγητε καὶ καρπὸν φέρητε καὶ ὁ καρπὸς ὑμῶν μένῃ, ἵνα ὅ τι ἂν αἰτήσητε τὸν πατέρα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου δῷ ὑμῖν. 52 Nissen (2007:78). 53 Köstenberger and O’Brien (2005:206). 54 Köstenberger and O’Brien (2005:209); cf. Theobald (2010b:474). 55 Köstenberger and O’Brien (2005:211): ‘the Fourth Gospel’s portrayal of Jesus as the Mosaic Prophet, particularly by way of sending terminology and the patterning of chapters 13-17 after the Book of Deuteronomy.’ 51

124

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

only bear witness to the light, while Jesus is himself the light (John 8:12). They appeal to Jews to believe in Jesus. This means that members of the “Johannine community” previously had a relationship with the Synagogue and/or the Baptist’s circle. In order to deepen the separation of his addressees from these previous groups the Fourth Evangelist accentuates Jesus’ unique identity as Son of God. He is the one whom the Father sent in the world and the only one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit (John 1:33; 4:14). As is clearly shown, the mission of the Son of God is interrelated to the mission of the Spirit in the world, i.e., the Paraclete, ‘the other helper.’56 Jesus’ missionary work on earth is completed only after the disciples received the Spirit. Only the Spirit can empower them to continue the work of the Son and the Father. According to “John,” the Holy Spirit is the most powerful agent in the work of the apostles—He teaches, discloses Jesus’ teaching to them and reminds them of it (John 14:25–26), testifies and guides them to the truth and discloses what is to come (John 15:26; 16:13). The Holy Spirit dwells in the believers and thereby confirms the presence of the Father and the Son in the community of believers (John 7:39; 1 John 3:24). Finally, the Spirit confronts the unbelieving world57 and leads the “Johannine community” to the mission amongst the gentiles (John 16:8–15). It is evident that the community’s mission is a result of the interrelation between the respective commission of the Son and the Spirit.58 However, the end point of these interrelated missions is the glory of the Father (John 17:1ff.).59 Narratives with a missionary background Despite the fact that the Fourth Gospel is a narrative of Jesus’ life, one can detect echoes of missionary experiences and an interest in the missionary work in it. Jesus’ saying during his resurrection appearance at the end of the Gospel—‘as the Father has sent Me, I Some authors detect a trinitarian nature in the Johannine concept of mission. See Kruse 2011:2016. 57 Nissen (2007:79). 58 Nissen (2007:76). 59 Nissen (2007:76). 56

EXPLORING A COMMON BACKGROUND

125

also send you’ (John 20:21b)—functions not only as a commission to the disciples (this is the scenario) but also as a hermeneutical key given by the author to his reader (text pragmatics). He provokes the reader at the end of the story to reread the entire Gospel from this point of view as a description of a missionary model which the addressees have to follow. Some narratives echo the missionary experience and deliver crucial elements of the missionary profile of the Johannine community. The first witness of the resurrection in the Fourth Gospel is a woman with a missionary profile—Mary Magdalene. She appears as the first one to receive the authorization to announce the resurrection directly from the risen Lord and she does it in a typical way—ἑώρακα τὸν Κύριον (‘I have seen the Lord’; John 20:18). The appearance of the resurrected Lord and the missionary task were strongly linked together in the early church. The first missionaries functioned as witnesses of the resurrection (cf. Acts 1:22; 4:33; 10:41). However, the Fourth Gospel also mirrors another type of missionary. The Johannine version of the call of the disciples describes a process which occurs not only in a direct way (Jesus’ call; cf. 1:43) but rather indirectly through the witness of humans about Jesus (cf. 1:37, 41, 45).60 John the Baptist, Andrew, and Philip represent missionary workers bringing people of their family or social environment61 to faith in Christ. First they believe in Jesus and following that they call other people to have a direct experience of Jesus the Messiah. They persuade them not with rational arguments but rather by inviting them to experience the relationship with him, i.e., his community (John 1:46; ἔρχου καὶ ἴδε). Moreover, the story of another female figure in the Fourth Gospel attracts attention from a missionary perspective—the woman from Samaria. The evangelist uses Old Testament motives, Theobald (2010b:476). Of course, social ties have their own importance in this process. Cf. Gooren (2006:30), who says, ‘To put it crudely, people join the church of their family or their friends. However someone of the family has to be the first in switching from one religious group to another. Moreover he/she she may pay a high price for this switch.’ 60 61

126

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

especially the so-called ‘fountain-stories’ (cf. the meeting of Jacob and Rachel in Gen 24), to symbolically mirror the ‘marriage’ of God with the gentiles. Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman implies the opening of the Christian community for those seen as ritually impure (i.e., the Samaritans) in a truly provocative way. Jesus speaks with an impure woman and asks her for unclean water (according to the Jewish view all Samaritans and therefore their vessels were unclean).62 Jesus quickly introduced her to the mystery of the ‘living water’ (John 4:14), i.e., baptism63 and Spirit. This encounter takes place after Jesus’ discourse with Nicodemus where the Evangelist describes the concept of rebirth through ‘water and Spirit’ (John 3:5). What is even more exciting is the turning of the Samaritan woman. She recognizes Jesus’ divine identity after Jesus tells her a provocative detail about her life: ‘you had five husbands’ (an allusion to the Samaritan religion). His prophetic preaching discloses the secrets of the heart and leads the woman to recognise the faultiness of her life and to reconstruct her biography from a new perspective. One should note that the convert’s inner crisis is not the cause but the consequence of the encounter with Jesus and his community. A strong confession to Jesus and a declaration follow typically the conversion process. The woman does not only recognize the Messiah, but she declares her story to people who have socio-cultural ties with her (i.e., the Samaritans; John 4:29ff). Here appears her missionary role which is similar to that of the disciples in John 1 who call others to meet Jesus (cf. ἔρχου καὶ ἴδε [1:46]; δεῦτε ἴδετε [4:29]). However, the Samaritans are only persuaded after having the same experience with Jesus as the woman (cf. John 4:42).64 The author explicitly puts this narrative in a strong missionary context. Jesus’ comments (John 4:35–38) identify missionary work as a labour of the Son of God and arouse awareness Kok (2010:174). Some scholars, such as Michaels (1999:136–156), deny the idea that ‘John’ speaks in his texts about a ritual baptism. However, I hereby accept the opinion of the majority of the commentators of the Fourth Gospel. See Theobald (2009:251). 64 Presumably the Evangelist reflects the missionary success of missionaries in Samaria (cf. Acts 8:4-25). See Theobald (2010b:478). 62 63

EXPLORING A COMMON BACKGROUND

127

amongst his disciples of the necessity to join in the eschatological harvest and help gather what God has sowed.65 Beyond this, the accounts of the Samaritan woman as well as that of Mary Magdalene imply the special function of women in the Johannine communities. The example of the Samaritan woman belongs to an outward missionary movement, beyond the community’s boundaries, while Mary Magdalene illustrates an innermission circle. This twofold perspective of the missionary work can be noticed in the post-resurrection story of Jesus’ appearance at Tiberias. The miraculous fishing reflects the missionary work of the Johannine community which cannot be successful without divine help; the disciples could not catch fishes until after hearing Jesus’ commandment to cast the net out on the right-hand side of the ship. It would be appropriate, therefore, to comment more upon the relationship between divine agency and human action in the Fourth Gospel.66 Divine agency and mission The narrative of the Samaritan woman makes evident that human beings should move towards Jesus and his community of their own accord in order to believe in him. It is no wonder that the Fourth Evangelist uses in 12:35–36 the verb περιπατεῖν as a synonym of πιστεύειν εἰς (i.e., turning to faith). Faith in Jesus is not only a gift from God but can also be a sequence of a personal seeking, finding and remaining with Jesus (John 1:38–39).67 The Samaritans only believed after they went out of the city and came to Jesus (4:30). The missionary sharing of the Christian faith functions as the catalyst of this process. Thus, how can one explain the famous metaphor ‘to be drawn by the father’ in John 6:44–45, which the Evangelist uses in order to mention the divine agency in the process of Cf. Köstenberger and O'Brien (2005:203); Kruse (2011:216). Again the story of Thomas demonstrates another aspect of the missionary work: the intercourse of the missioners with a human generation asking for signs and wonders (John 4:48) in order to see and believe (John 6:30). The records of the apostles do not satisfy those like Thomas who want to see and touch the truth. 67 Nissen (2007:82). 65 66

128

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

conversion? Some interpreters have understood Jesus’ saying in John 6:44 (‘No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day’; NASB) as evidence of the assertion that a pre-Gnostic concept of predestination existed in the Fourth Gospel. According to this reading, there cannot be a typical mission or conversion concept in “John’s” Gospel since both believers and unbelievers are predestined by God. Actually, in the Fourth Gospel Jesus expresses the idea that no one can come to faith in him unless such a person is drawn by the Father. Thus, John 6:44–45 has a chiastic structure, which indicates on the one hand that the metaphor of being ‘drawn by the Father’ refers to ‘listening to the Father’ and ‘learning.’ On the other hand, ‘coming to Christ’ appears as a result of the Father’s drawing as well as human devotion to Him (6:45b; ‘Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me’). Consequently, this text does not support a predestinarian model. One cannot say that humans appear predetermined in John’s Gospel and, therefore, there is no interest in mission and conversion in the classical sense. God’s will does not preclude free human action (6:39)! Human volition and behaviour (cf. John 3:21) are a decisive factor for coming to Christ.68 This explains why people sometimes believe yet later become apostates (John 6:60; cf. 1 John 2:18) or how someone who is chosen by Jesus later becomes evil (John 6:70).69 The conversion and the conversionist community The author of the Fourth Gospel uses the verb ἐπιστρέφειν to refer to the turning to God only in a citation of Isaiah 6:10 (John 12:40) and probably also in 20:16 as an allusion of a deep existential turning of Mary Magdalene to Jesus. The terms μετάνοια and μετανοεῖν are lacking altogether, however. More than any other New Testament author, the author of the Fourth Gospel uses the John 5:40: καὶ οὐ θέλετε ἐλθεῖν πρός με ἵνα ζωὴν ἔχητε [5:35 cf. Matt 23:37]; John 7:17: Ἐάν τις θέλῃ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ [i.e. τοῦ πατρός] ποιεῖν, γνώσεται περὶ τῆς διδαχῆς πότερον ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν ἢ ἐγὼ ἀπἐμαυτοῦ λαλῶ. 69 Schnelle (2004:161). 68

EXPLORING A COMMON BACKGROUND

129

phrase πιστεύειν εἰς (namely in aorist ἐπίστευσεν εἰς) in order to indicate turning to faith in Christ. Similarly, “John” prefers to use symbolic language rather than direct references to crucial theological themes. The concept ‘to be born from God’ (or to be born from Spirit, water and Spirit, as well as from above)70 has a crucial position in the Johannine symbolic universe and refers to an experience of spiritual rebirth through faith, baptism and the Spirit, i.e., entrance in the Christian community (cf. John 3; 1 John 5). Spirit and water (baptism) give birth to a new creation based on the model of creation itself (Gen 1:2).71 The concept of birth from God (or ‘above’) has such a central place in the Johannine texts (e.g., the prologue of the Fourth Gospel) that it designates to conversion one of the most significant theological emphases of “John.” A similar symbolic reference to the experience of conversion is the movement from darkness to light or from blindness to sight, a very common metaphor for conversion in antiquity. The Johannine Jesus explains in John 3:19–21 why people come, i.e., turn to him or refuse the Christian faith (‘And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God’; John 3:19–21; NASB). According to this text, coming or turning to the ‘light’ is a consequence of a human lifestyle and love for the ‘light.’ ‘Light’ is a symbol of Jesus and the “Johannine community,” and ‘coming to the light,’ or seeing, alludes to a transformation process that begins with entrance into the “Johannine community” and leads to eschatological perfection (1 John 3:2). The Fourth Evangelist visualizes this symbolical language and these theological statements in the narration of the healing of the man born blind in John 9.

γεννᾶσθαι ἄνωθεν [John 3:3.7], ἐκ (τοῦ) Θεοῦ γεννᾶσθαι [John 1:13; cf. 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18], ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος γεννᾶσθαι [John 3:6, 8], ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ Πνεύματος γεννᾶσθαι [John 3:5] 71 Nissen (2007:77). 70

130

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Therefore, it is not an allegorical interpretation when one investigates in some other narratives of the Fourth Gospel reflections of the experience of conversion. Nathaniel (1:45–51), the Samaritan woman and her countrymen (4:1–42), the man born blind (9:1– 38), Martha (11:21–27), Mary Magdalene (20:11–18), and Thomas (20:26–29), all of whom emphatically come to a Christological confession, are figures with a strong symbolic function. They represent human beings coming in a dramatic way to a new or deeper faith and therefore one can detect in their stories echoes of spiritual transformation. The Johannine emphasis on the connection between the Spirit and baptism, the presence of the Spirit, the view of the world through radical contrary-statements, the negative description of the relationship to κόσμος, and especially the function of faith, which causes a different understanding of the world and a new meaning of life, reflect the theological perspectives of a conversionist Christianity. The radical change which the addressees of “John” experienced through their entrance into the believers’ community and the reconstruction of their own biography as well as their worldview is mirrored in the role ascribed to faith in Christ. It functions to bring about another reality from the one in which all those who refuse to have faith in Christ remain—the κόσμος. Only faith in Christ can displace someone from one group to the other, as John 5:24 (cf. 11:25) notoriously explicates. Furthermore, the emphasis of the Fourth Evangelist on the role of the Holy Spirit reflects mutual spiritual experiences of conversionist communities. The Spirit inhabits those who are baptized, i.e., those who are ‘born from God’ (cf. John 3:3–5).72 To this conversion experience also belongs the teaching that the addressees of the Gospel accepted ‘from the beginning’ (1 John 3:11). This teaching is concentrated on faith in Christ and brotherly love, and belongs to the foundational-knowledge and requisite ethos of the members of the “Johannine community.” According to 1 John 3:7– 12 it is faith in Christ and love between the members of the Johannine community which are the crucial signs that make evident to whom it is that one belongs. The concept of ‘love’ is used in “John” not as a love towards enemies (cf. Matt 5:44; Luke 6:27–28, 72

Cf. 2:22, 27; 3:24.

EXPLORING A COMMON BACKGROUND

131

32–36) but rather as a notion which concerns the entire Christian way of existence in the Christian community and everything which expresses the unity of this community in a practical rather than a theoretical sense (cf. 1 John 3:16–18). This concept of love is also very close to faith. Faith in Jesus as God and love of God are very near to each other as well as to the love of the brothers, i.e., the members of the community (5:1–5). Therefore, ‘to love the brothers’ means primarily to remain within the “Johannine community.” If faith can be understood as the gateway to Christian community, i.e., as the prerequisite of conversion, then love secures the coherence of the conversionist community. “John” stresses that to ‘be born from God’ truly happens only to those who really love the brothers, i.e., the community’s members (1 John 4:7). This shows that the Fourth Gospel considers conversion not only as a spiritual transformation of the individual but also as socialization in the “Johannine community.” However, not only the atmosphere of a conversionist community but also an intensive echo of the tension between the “Johannine community(ies)” and the hostile Synagogue can be detected in “John.” It is not accidental that the Evangelist uses the term ἀποσυνάγωγος three times (9:22; 12:42; 16:2). It is the most characteristic manifestation of the dramatic experience of exclusion from the Synagogue.73 The tough characterizations used in John 8 belong to a typical process of social separation and isolation between the conversionist and its non-believing environment, i.e., between the Jewish converts of the “Johannine community(ies)” and its(their) Jewish opponents.74 The author also uses the expression ‘children

Cf. Wengst (2000:332), who states, ‘Die pauschale Fixierung der Juden auf die Tötungsabsicht gegenüber Jesus dürfte Rückprojektion aus der eigenen Situation sein, in der man sich von der umgebenden jüdischen Mehrheit bedrängt fühlt.’ 74 See Hakola (2005:177): ‘[…] the Johannine writer tries to cement the break between the Johannine Christians and other Jews by presenting the Jews as the children of the devil.’ He notes further (2005:186), ‘In this context the strict boundary between the true believers and the Jews who are all exposed as unbelievers and even as murderers would have func73

132

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

of the devil’ for the non-believing Jews in this respect, namely, in order to provide an exact definition of the members of the congregation and to differentiate between them and their Jewish opponents. He also seeks to galvanize the believers and secure the unity of the community through brotherly love.75 The question still remaining open is if one can compare the conceptualities of “John” with those of Paul.

COMPARISON It has been shown that both the Pauline and Johannine text groups mirror missionary and conversionist perspectives. Their points of view reflect the situation of communities of converts which are minorities. However, we do not encounter introverted sects without a missionary interest.76 The Pauline and Johannine communities represent Christianity at its beginning, i.e., without an institutionalized form, being in a process of conceptualizing a Christian ethos and with remarkable experiences of the gifts of the Spirit as well as an interest in the missionary task. The reader of the Pauline and Johannine texts feels the atmosphere of a charismatic Christianity where the presence of the Spirit is very intense. This atmosphere derives from the baptismal experience and dominates the service of these communities as well as the life of their members. The believers not only experience a different reality but also learn new theological categories in their communities. On behalf of these categories the convert creates a new perspective through which he reconstructs his worldview and the narrative of his own biography. From this point of view he understands his coming to the Christian faith as a transition from death to life and from darkness to light. He also devalues his previous religious group and social environtioned as a warning against seeking contacts with any Jews who did not belong to the community.’ 75 Cf. Yarbrough (2008:193). 76 Nissen (2007:80): ‘Despite the inner-directedness of the johannine love language, the community never became an isolated sect like that at Qumran. The foundation of the fellowship in the divine commission to continue the witness of the Son kept it oriented towards the world. Evangelization is still the primary task of the community.’

EXPLORING A COMMON BACKGROUND

133

ment, and tries to change it, i.e., to propagate his own faith community as the only true one. However, the reaction of his previous environment is mostly negative and therefore the community remains under pressure in its social context. Both groups of texts reflect very intensively this situation by using the common language of their Hellenistic-Jewish background77 and the theological categories of the very early Syriac communities. This conclusion justifies some of the crucial similarities one notices in their theological thought patterns. Indeed, they also have important differences which can be demonstrated by making a narrow comparison. Beginning with the profile of the communities addressed one notices that the vast majority of the addressees of Paul are gentile converts while the vast majority of the addressees of “John” seems to have a Jewish background. If we accept the hypothesis of the Syriac origin of the Fourth Gospel the Johannine communities carry the same Syriac Hellenistic tradition and atmosphere which Paul met in Damascus and Antioch. Therefore, even if the addressees have a different profile, the theological thought patterns of Paul and “John” actually have a similar origin, i.e., the tradition of the Stephan’s circle (the Hellenists) who first established communities in Syria. From this tradition derives the very crucial connection between conversion to faith in Christ, missionary interest and transcendence of the traditional Jewish national and cultural boundaries. Thus, this connection is mirrored in a different way in both groups of texts. Paul describes his missionary work as the work of the messianic herald or Yahweh’s servant, focuses on the gospel of Jesus Christ, and justifies his law-free mission through his teaching of justification by faith in Christ. Despite the fact that he names God’s grace and Spirit as the most influential and effective factors for his missionary work, he also puts an emphatic stress on his own ministry; he is the one who plants the faith in the community, he ‘sows spiritual things’ and God causes their growth (1 Cor 3:6–8;

See a survey of the relevant parallel texts in the Greco-Roman and Jewish environment of the New Testament in Méndez-Moratalla (2004:23–69). 77

134

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

9:7–11). He sends out partners of his missionary team who must be accepted in the same way as the apostles. Contrarily, in the Fourth Gospel the sower is God. The author emphasizes the redemptive commission of the Son of God and interrelates it with the leading role of the Spirit in the life and the missionary work of the community. The mission of the apostles is only an expansion of the work of the Son. The missionary harvest is planted and grown by God. The eschatological sower is Jesus. The apostles are only the reapers (John 4:37–38). On the one hand, the different focus in the perspectives of the Fourth Gospel and the Pauline epistles can be explained through the difference of their literary genre. The Gospel focuses on the life and the work of Christ (‘sending Christology’), whilst the epistles are letters of correspondence between the missionary and the communities he had established in which their author accentuates his own apostolate. Indeed, one notes important analogies between the ‘sending Christology’ of John and the ‘sending terminology’78 concerning the apostolate of Paul, a fact that indicates that both authors come from a similar theological tradition and that they incorporate common theological elements in their own diverse frames.79 On the other hand one can explain the difference by reference to their diverse historical contexts. Paul writes his epistles during or directly after his missionary achievements. He was one of the protagonists of the expansion of the gospel to the nations and had direct contact with the circle of Stephen. The Fourth Gospel reflects the situation of the third early Christian generation. At that time, the mission already had a history and therefore the Evangelist could speak about ‘others’ (John 4:38) who already had laboured in the missionary harvest.80 The “Johannine communities” keep the leading Hellenist missionaries of the first generation in remembrance but in the third generation their mission functions in a different way. The Christian kerygma spreads in the context of already existing social and familial relationships. This is mostly evident in See Lietaert-Peerbolte (2003:261). Berger (2002:260). 80 Theobald (2009:337). 78 79

EXPLORING A COMMON BACKGROUND

135

the narrative of the woman from Samaria who invites her countrymen to meet Jesus. Similarly, the calling of the disciples in John 1 mirrors a growing faith in a context of already existing relationships: a convert invites one’s brother, friend, or countryman to come and see Jesus, i.e., the community. In the Fourth Gospel we do not encounter the type of apostle who missions in new contexts, establishes new communities in Hellenistic cities and has the central and leading role of Paul. This differentiation is reflected in the secondary role which the author of the Fourth Gospel ascribes to the missionaries of his community(-ies). Despite this change there are similarities in the theological explanation of the missionary work. In both contexts the mission’s beginning is connected to the witness of Jesus’ resurrection— ἑώρακα τὸν Κύριον (John 20:18, 25; 1 Cor 9:1). The mission does not respect the ethnic boundaries of Judaism, it proclaims the same Christological confession and has the praxis of baptizing in the Spirit.81 Similarly, the missionary task has centrifugal and centripetal perspectives. Both Paul and “John” understand the mission not only as inviting outsiders but also as shepherding the communities (1 Cor 9:7; John 10). Regarding conversion, both groups of texts describe the entrance into the Christian community as a radically new reality which humans enjoy through their coming to faith in Christ. The authors deliver arguments and narratives that are strongly influenced by their conversionist perspective. Paul and “John” do not understand the believer’s new status as a self-transformation in the modern sense, i.e., as a reconstruction of his/her biography and worldview through categories he/she learns by changing religious communities. In their texts we only find a theological explanation. They believe that the new status of the converts is the result of Christ’s redemptive work and the gift of his Spirit.82 This is the common theological language of the early Christian communities.

Although Paul accentuates his missionary role he believes that he serves as an ambassador of Christ and that the ministry of reconciliation is already achieved by God in Christ (2 Cor 5:18–20). 82 Theobald (2010a:423). 81

136

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

However, the conversion process has its own typical and noticeable social or ecclesiological dimensions mirrored in the texts mentioned above. The rebirth, or the transition from darkness to light, refers to a process of re-socialization in the Christian community which is remarkable in both Paul and “John.” Although Paul describes his turning to the Christian faith as a divine revelation in Galatians 1, it cannot be ignored that this text is a retrospective interpretation of his re-socialization into the early communities many years after his conversion. 83 His conversion was not only effected by divine agency but was also a voluntary change in his life. Surely, the theological and social impulses of the early Syriac communities had played a crucial role in his decision. This becomes increasingly evident in the modern interpretation of Paul. 84 Nevertheless, the social aspect of the conversion process is evident in other texts concerning the conversion of his addressees. Similarly, one also notices the social perspective of conversion in the Fourth Gospel. The narrative of the Samaritan woman shows that the prophetic preaching of Jesus, i.e., the theological and social impulses which the community generates through its preaching and life, lead outsiders to an inner crisis and reconstruction of their own biography. The way the Samaritan woman comes to faith is similar to the notion of Paul concerning the conversion of the gentiles by attending Christian worship (1 Cor 14:23–25). A personal encounter with the Christian community causes theological and social impulses that leads humans to the reconstruction of their biography and worldview towards a new perspective. When the potential converts review their biography anew from a Christian perspective they realize that their lives have radically changed and understand their turning to faith in Christ as a rebirth.

Paul’s intention in Galatians 1 is to show that he has nothing less than the ‘pillars of the church.’ Therefore, he seeks to compare himself with Peter by using, on the one hand, a text which belongs to the literary genre of the prophetic call (Jer 1:4–5; Isa 49:1–6), and, on the other hand, early Christian expressions regarding the value Peter's apostleship (cf. Gal 1:16; Matt 16:17) 84 Theißen (2010:10ff). 83

EXPLORING A COMMON BACKGROUND

137

But this process happens neither accidentally nor instantaneously. The witness born by the countrymen of the Samaritan woman presupposes a voluntary process, i.e., a personal experience and willingness to join the faith community—‘It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world’ (John 4:42bc; NASB). Conversion to the Christian faith requires two aspects, firstly, a strong personal experience of the different reality which the Christian community represents, and, secondly, willingness as well as openness to accept the consequences of this experience. When considering the narrative of the man born blind (John 9) it is noteworthy that the blind man comes to faith because he views the world without prejudgments and assumes from his own experience (John 9:25) that Jesus is the Son of God. Contrarily, the Pharisees refuse to accept the obvious because they interpret the miracle through strong prejudgments (John 9:16). The Fourth Evangelist assumes that those refusing faith do not have the willingness, i.e., love for the ‘light.’ They refuse the faith because their behaviour is not compatible with it (John 3:19). Paul does not make such an explicit comment. He rather works on the level of the human ‘heart.’85 Obedience and disobedience towards Christian preaching derive from the human heart, i.e., the entire human being. The term ‘heart’ functions as a chiffre for the entire inner-human attitude and human volition (1 Cor 4:5). Accordingly, the turning to or away from the Christian faith is a movement of the entire human existence, a voluntary obedience or disobedience to God’s calling (Rom 6:17). Paul and “John” do not always use the same metaphors in order to visualize the concept of conversion. The use of different expressions confirms that the authors of these texts are literarily independent. Paul describes conversion mainly as a new creation while John uses the metaphors ‘to be born from God’ or ‘to be born from above.’ While Paul mainly works with the temporal metaphors ‘once and now,’ “John” uses the spatial metaphors ‘under and above.’ Paul is more interested in the chronological dimen-

85

Cf. John 12:40 citing Isa 6:9.

138

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

sion (cf. 1 Cor 7:31; 10:11),86 while “John” focuses more on the diverse spaces to which the community and the world belong. These differentiated metaphors derive from the different historical contexts of the authors. Probably, sometime after 70 CE people had given up the hope for political change or an apocalyptic event on Earth. Instead, they only looked for a better future in the hereafter, i.e., in a world from above.87 Contrarily, Paul hoped the parousia would come in his time and believed that his mission was a preparation for the new age to come—‘And this do, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed’ (Rom 13:11; NASB; emphasis added). Furthermore, in both Paul and “John” the conversion process comes to its climax in the confession and the following missionary interest. In this way the convert completes his turning to a new faith and tries to build a more stable basis for his own new perspective. Indeed, the authors we compare understand confession and missionary task only from a strong theological perspective. Paul connects his evangelistic commission to the nations with the revelation of the Son (Gal 1:16), i.e., the vision of the resurrected Lord (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8) retrospectively, many years after his conversion. The Fourth Gospel, similarly, considers the mission as a commandment of the resurrected Jesus (John 20:21–23). It is not accidental that in both Paul and “John” the missionary concept is closely connected to the most influential element of the Christian faith, i.e., faith in the resurrection of Jesus. Christian faith is based on the witness of the resurrection and this witness has in it a missionary dynamic which transcends the traditional boundaries.88 The witness of the resurrection is in itself a calling to a new reality which can be understood only by faith. Therefore, faith in Christ cannot exist without a missionary dynamic. Likewise, conversion cannot be completed without a confession to the ‘others.’ Conversion, faith, and mission belong to one another. The missionary expansion of the early Christian communities appears to be necessary Theobald (2010a:417). Theobald (2010a:417). 88 On the importance of witness, see Skreslet (2006). 86 87

EXPLORING A COMMON BACKGROUND

139

as a visualization of true discipleship, i.e., the true conversion of their members. For that reason the differentiation between the community and the ‘world’ in both text groups causes a missionary dynamic rather than a sectarian mentality.89 This differentiation also belongs to the character of a conversionist community, as is attested by the parallel Jewish-Hellenistic story of Joseph and Aseneth (12:9) and is typical not only for religious but also for philosophical conversions.90 Paul and “John” use a common language from their environment (e.g., the tension between the children of the light and the children of the darkness in 1QS 3:13-4:26; cf. 1 Thess 5:5-6; Rom 13:12; John 12:36) in order to express a form of social differentiation but also disappointment and the rejection of the community’s convictions by other communities.91 Paul and the Fourth Evangelist reinterpret and adapt this language in their own theological framework. In this framework they also discuss the question concerning the non-believing Jews. Therefore, they interpret Israel’s disobedience utilizing the same Isaianic texts (cf. the use of Isa 6:9– 10 and 53:1 in John 12:38–40; Rom 10:16; 11:10). To summarize, the comparison of Paul and “John” on the perspectives of conversion and mission explains some of the main theological similarities and differences between the two, which until present have not been sufficiently handled within various controversial theories (e.g., the theory of literary influence, the connection to Ephesus, etc.). Surely, one can engage in further research on this comparison. This article is a preliminary publication of a work in progress. However, it has already been demonstrated that Paul and “John” have an intensive missionary and conversionist perspective.92 They both carry or echo the Hellenistic atmosphere of the early Syriac communities and the impact of the theological tradition of Stephen’s circle. This impact is evident in the crucial theological constellations which appear in both Paul and “John.” The apTheobald (2010a:421). See Mendez-Moratalla (2004:69). 91 See Anderson (2011:46–47). 92 For perspectives on conversion, see the monograph of Morlan (2013). 89 90

140

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

proach of the Pauline and Johannine writings from this point of view would certainly give important impulses to revise crucial points of the image we have today concerning the theologies of Paul and “John.” However, a more detailed analysis and comparison from this point of view is part of a larger work to be completed soon.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, J., 2011, ‘John and Qumran: Discovery and Interpretation over Sixty Years’, in M. Coloe & T. Thatcher (eds.), John, Qumran and the Dead Sea scrolls, (Early Judaism and its Literature 32), Society of Bibical Literature, Atlanta. Barnett, P., 2008, Paul: missionary of Jesus, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Becker, J., 2006, „Das Verhältnis des johanneischen Kreises zum Paulinismus“, in D. Sänger & U. Mell (Hrsg.), Paulus und Johannes, (WUNT 198), pp. 473-497, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. Berger, K.., 2002, Im Anfang war Johannes: Datierung und Theologie des vierten Evangeliums, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, Gütersloh. Campbell, D., 1999, ‘Dying with Christ: the origin of a metaphor?’, in S. Porter (ed.), Baptism, the New Testament and the Church, pp.273-293, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Campbell, D., 2011, “Galatians 5.11: Evidence of an Early Lawobservant Mission by Paul?” NTS 57, 325-347 Chester, S., 2003, Conversion at Corinth: Perspectives on conversion in Paul's theology and the Corinthian Church, T&T Clark, London. Churchill, T., 2010, Divine initiative and the christology of the Damascus road encounter, Wipf & Stock Publishers, Eugene, OR. Crook, Z., 2004, Reconceptualising conversion: patronage, loyalty, and conversion in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean (BZNW 130), Walter de Gruyter, Berlin. Dickson, J., 2003, Mission commitment in ancient Judaism and in the Pauline communities, (WUNT II 159), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. Dunn, J., 1998, The theology of Paul the Apostle, T&T Clark, Edinburgh. Goodmann, M., 1994, Mission and conversion, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Gooren, H., 2006, ‘Towards a New Model of Religious Conversion Careers. The Impact of Social and Institutional Factors’, in J. Bremmer, A. L. Molendijk and W J Van Bekkum (eds.), Para-

EXPLORING A COMMON BACKGROUND

141

digms, poetics and politics of conversion, (Groningen Studies on Cultural Change 24), pp. 25–40, Peeters, Leuven. Hakola, R., 2003, Identity matters: John, the Jews and Jewishness, Brill, Leiden. Hoegen-Rohls, C., 2004, „Johanneische Theologie im Kontext paulinischen Denkens? Eine forschungsgeschichtliche Skizze“, in J. Frey & U. Schnelle (eds.), Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums (WUNT 175), pp. 593–612, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. Kok, J., 2010, ‘Rediscovering a missional-incarnational ethos in John 4’, in R. Zimmermann, (eds.), Moral language in the New Testament, (WUNT II 296), pp. 168–196, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. Köstenberger, A. & O’Brien, P., 2005 (reprint of 2001), Salvation to the ends of the earth: A biblical theology of mission, (NSBT 11), Intervasity Press, Downers Grove, IL. Kruse, C., 2011, ‘Paul and John, two witnesses, one Gospel’, in M. Bird (ed.) Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, conflicts and convergences, (LNTS 411), pp. 198–219, T&T Clark, London. Last, R., 2011, ‘What Purpose did Paul Understand his Mission to Serve?’, Harvard Theological Review 104, 299–324. Lietaert Peerbolte, L., 2003, Paul the missionary, (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 34), Peeters, Leuven. Lopez, D., 2008, Apostle to the conquered: reimagining Paul’s mission, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN. Mendez-Moratalla, F., 2004, The Paradigm of conversion in Luke, (JSNTS 252), T&T Clark, New York. Michaels, J., 1999, ‘Baptism and Conversion in John: a Particular Baptist Reading’, in A. Cross and S. Porter (eds.), Baptism, the New Testament and the Church, (JSNTSS 171), pp. 136–156, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Morlan, D.-S., 2013, The Conversion in Luke and Paul, an exegetical and theological exploration, Bloomsbury, London. Nissen, J., 2007, New Testament and mission, historical and hermeneutical perspectives, Peter Lang, Frankfurt a. M. Schnabel, E., 2002, Urchristliche Mission, Brockhaus, Wuppertal. Schnabel, E., 2011, ‘Paul’s missionary strategy: Goals, methods and realities’, in S. Porter and C. Westfall (eds.), Christian Mission: Old Testament Foundations and New Testament Developments, (McMaster New Testament Studies), pp. 155–186, Picwick Publications, Eugene, OR.

142

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Schnelle, U., 2004, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, Evang. Verl.-Anst., Leipzig Schwindt, R., 2007, Gesichte der Herrlichkeit eine exegetischtraditionsgeschichtliche Studie zur paulinischen und johanneischen Christologie, Herder, Freiburg. Segal, A., 1990, Paul the convert: The apostolate and apostasy of Saul the Pharisee, Yale University Press, New Haven. Skreslet, S., 2006, Picturing Christian witness: New Testament images of disciples in mission, Grand Rapids, MI. Stendahl, K., 2001, Das Vermächtnis des Paulus, Eine neue Sicht auf den Römerbrief, Theologischer Verlag, Zürich. Theißen, G., 2010, „Die Bekehrung des Paulus und seine Entwicklung vom Fundamentalisten zum Universalisten“, Evangelische Theologie 70, 10–25. Theobald, M., 2009, Das Evangelium nach Johannes: Kapitel 1-12, Pustet Verlag, Regensburg. Theobald, M., 2010a, „Welt bei Paulus und Johannes“, in M. Theobald, Studien zum Corpus Johanneum, (WUNT 267), pp. 416– 428, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. Theobald, M., 2010b, ‘“Wie mich der Vater gesandt hat, so sende ich euch” (Joh 20,21). Missionarische Gestalten im Johannesevangelium’, in M. Theobald, Studien zum Corpus Johanneum, (WUNT 267), pp. 472–489, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. Ware, J., 2005, The mission of the Church in Paul's Letter to the Philippians in the context of ancient Judaism (NovTSup 120), Brill, Leiden. Wengst, K., 2000, Das Johannesevangelium, (ThKNT 4.1), Kohlhammer, Stuttgart. Wolter, M., 2011, Paulus, Ein Grundriss seiner Theologie, Neukirchener Theologie, Neukirchen-Vluyn. Wright, N. T., 2009, Justification: God’s plan and Paul’s vision, IVP Academic, Downers Grove. Yarbrough, R., 2008, 1–3 John, (BECNT), Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI. Zeller, D., 2011, „Theologie der Mission bei Paulus“ in D. Zeller, Studien zu Philo und Paulus, (BBB 165), pp. 279–294, University Press, Bonn. Zock, H., 2006, ‘Paradigms in Psychological Conversion Research: Between Social Science and Literary Analysis,’ in J. Bremmer, A. L. Molendijk and W J Van Bekkum (eds.), Paradigms, poetics

EXPLORING A COMMON BACKGROUND

143

and politics of conversion, (Groningen Studies on Cultural Change 24), pp. 41–58, Peeters, Leuven. Zugmann, M., 2011, Missionspredigt in nuce. Studien zu 1 Thess 1,9b– 10, Wagner, Linz.

6. DOING GOOD TO ALL: PERSPECTIVES ON MISSION AND ETHICS IN GALATIANS Jacobus (Kobus) Kok1 UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA ABSTRACT This article investigates how the concepts of identity, ethics, and ethos interrelate, and how the ethics of the Pauline community in Galatians functioned against the background of the missionary context of the early church. The author argues that the missionary dimension originated in the context of the missio Dei, and that God called Paul as a missionary to be taken up in the latter. The missionary process did not end with Paul, but was designed to be carried further by believers who should be, by their very nature, missionary. The author investigates how the transformation of identity (the understanding of self, God, and others) leads to the creation of ethical values and how it is particularised in different socio-religious and cultural contexts in the development of the early church. The author argues that there is an implicit missionary dimension in the ethics of Paul in Galatians. It is argued that those who want to speak of ethics should make something of mission, and those who speak of mission in Galatians, should speak about the role of identity, ethics, and ethos in the letter. This article was previously published in a slightly revised form as Kok, J., 2011, ‘Mission and ethics in Galatians’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 67(1), Art. #896, 10 pages. DOI: 10.4102/hts.v 67i1.896, used here with kind permission from Prof. Andries Van Aarde, chief editor of Hervormde Teologiese Studies. 1

145

146

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

INTRODUCTION Doing good to those that hurt you is one of the most difficult things to do. When one is threatened and when one’s identity and selfhood are under attack, the most natural thing to do is to retreat to inner spaces. This is most clearly seen in South Africa when some of the most popular music in Afrikaans is analysed. Songs like that of Bok van Blerk, “De La Rey, De La Rey” and others like that of Steve Hofmeyr, “Ons sal dit oorleef” (We will survive this), paints the picture of a people who retreat to inner spaces, who immigrate internally or emigrate out of the country (cf. Bok Van Blerk—“Tyd om te trek” [Time to move away]). In the original article from which this chapter comes (cf. footnote 1), it was illustrated that South Africa as a country is seriously caught up in a spiral of violence. Recently, the Mo Ibrahim index revealed that South Africa—when one compares the amount of violent deaths and rape that take place daily—statistically compares to countries that are in a state of war (see Van der Watt & Kok 2012:151–152). In September 2009, the minister of police, Nathi Mthethwa, revealed the latest crime figures in parliament, in which no less than 2.1 million cases of crime have been reported in South Africa during the last year.2 Elsewhere, Van der Watt and Kok (2012:151) has argued that South Africa is not only experiencing a moral crisis, but that after the transition into the new South Africa the mainline churches (and some members in that church) also experienced an identity crisis in the period. According to others, like the American scholar Campbell (2005:25), ‘the global cultural shift and global phenomenon of postmodernity forced fundamental changes in the Western worldview,’ to the extent that ‘the core beliefs, values and institutions of Western culture have been challenged’ significantly in the last few decades. Campbell (2005:25) argues that ‘we no longer have a cohesive system to explain reality’ and that everything is becoming pluralistic and increasingly uncertain, ‘accompanied by an increasing degree of social unrest.’ In our Zeitgeist questions like ‘who am I’ seem to be a fundamental quesSee http://www.moibrahimfoundation.org/en/mifindex/ibrahim Index?rnkitem=5 2

DOING GOOD TO ALL

147

tion people ask, which is nothing less than a question about identity (Campbell 2005:25). Against this background of the growing context of crisis and disorientation concerning morality and ethics, an increasing number of scholars are endeavouring research into ethics and/or morality and the way Christian ethics should be applied in a postmodern context (See Burridge 2007; Wolter 2009; Zimmermann & Van der Watt 2010; Kok 2010a; Du Plessis, Orsmond & Van Deventer 2009). Burridge (2007:1) rightly argues that controversies about how to apply biblical material to moral and ethical issues have always been a matter of debate within the history of the Christian church. Some of these issues relate to the prophetic role and self-understanding of the church in the pluralistic postmodern, post-Christian context of our multicultural world. As a biblical scholar, I recognise the potential and need for deeper scientific reflection on ethics in the New Testament, with specific reference to the dynamics between ethics and mission and the resulting formation of moral agents and moral communities. It is not possible to suggest a constructive answer to the moral crisis in South Africa and the appropriate way to address the problem within the scope of this article. I would, however, like to argue that a scholarly and biblical study of ethics in the New Testament is of utmost importance for contemporary society. Well known scholars in New Testament ethics like Burridge (2007:1–2) agree that the study of New Testament ethics and the way we interpret scripture should be an ongoing process of academic reflection. Burridge (2007:1–2) rightly refers to an example within the context of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa, in which human relations were understood (within a scripturally based church) to support the doctrine of ‘separate development,’ better known as apartheid. The General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church accepted the doctrine of apartheid in 1976 and justified it ethically. A few decades later, after deep reflection and changes in the South African context, the same church confessed that the doctrine of apartheid was unethical and could no longer be justified on a scriptural basis. Burridge (2007:3) is thus correct when he argues that it is necessary to continue reflecting on the use of the Bible in ethics (cf. also Du Plessis, Orsmond & Van Deventer 2009) and the way that Christian ethics is to be lived out in a concrete ethos (lifestyle). It is against this background that I investigate the dynamic relationship

148

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

between mission and ethics in the early church, with specific reference to Paul. In this article, it will be investigated how the concepts identity, ethics, and ethos interrelate, and how the ethics of the Pauline communities in Galatians functioned within the background of the missionary context of the early church. It will thus be investigated how the transformation of identity (the understanding of self, God, and others) leads to the creation of ethical values and how it is particularised in different socio-religious and cultural contexts in the development of the early church. In this article, the dynamic relationship between mission and ethics in the New Testament, focusing on Paul’s letter to the Galatians, will be investigated. Much has been written on ethics and morality3 in Paul on the one hand 4 and on Paul as missionary on When using the term ‘morality’ in combination with mission, I mean thereby that it relates to principles of right and wrong in behaviour: Ethical moral judgments; expressing or teaching a conception of right behaviour; conforming to a standard of right behaviour; sanctioned by or operative on one’s conscience or ethical judgment (a moral obligation; capable of right and wrong action (a moral agent) (Merriam-Webster 2003:341). Morality could thus be seen as a ‘system of moral conduct,’ which presupposes not only rules and regulations of what is right and wrong, but also the underlining and implicit change of identity that occurs in the process of mission and the ethos or lifestyle that flows from that. Meeks (1993:3) is of the opinion that it is not possible to speak of the term ‘New Testament ethics’ when an historical study of the New Testament letters is conducted due to the fact that ‘the New Testament as we know it had not yet fully taken shape.’ According to Meeks (1993:3) we should rather speak of early Christian morality than of New Testament ethics. In this article, however, the term ‘moral’ is used in an inclusive way to refer to identity, ethics and ethos in the particular New Testament document under investigation. Moralis denotes principles of right and wrong, or the expression or teaching of what is morally right or wrong behaviour, ways of thinking or being, etc. Morality does not only give indication of what is right or wrong behaviour within a particular society, but also directs behaviour towards that which is seen as being the standard of right behaviour. In this way, I follow Zimmermann (2009:399) who concludes 3

DOING GOOD TO ALL

149

the other,5 but little on the dynamics between ethics and mission in Paul.6 The need for this article is positioned against the background of the growing interest in the missiological dimension of the church, as seen in the worldwide flux of recent publications on the subject7 and the rapid growth of Christianity in Africa (especially amongst the indigenous peoples) over the last few decades (Jenkins 2002:1–15, 79). With regard to missional theology and the practice of mission, missiologists have in recent years become ever more sensitive to the errors that have been made in the past with reference to mission to indigenous cultures. In the process of missional endeavours from the developed world, it happened more often than not that the ethical values of the developed world were imposed on indigenous cultures.8 The social values of the developed world were seen as ‘gospel,’ and in the process, missionaries have not always been

that the New Testament does in fact contain implicit ethics and that it is possible to speak of New Testament ethics, unlike Meeks. I do however agree with Meeks (1993:4) that ethics is to be understood as ‘morality rendered self-consciously,’ it has to do with the logic of moral discourse and action, or the roots and structure of Christian virtue. 4 Cf. Wolter (2009:121–167) and especially the chapter titled ‘Identität und Ethos bei Paulus’ [Identity and Ethos in Paul]. See also Zimmermann (2007:259, 284). 5 Lietaert Peerbolte (2003); Reinbold (2000); Le Grys (1998); Gager (2000); Engberg-Pederson (2000); Dunn (1998); Sanders (1983:171–206). 6 Recently a study appeared in which Du Plessis, Orsmond & Van Deventer (2009) discussed the challenges of mission and the way the New Testament presents perspectives on these challenges. They also discussed the emergence of the missional church in the Dutch Reformed church in South Africa. 7 Cf. Hirsch (2006); Niemandt (2007); Keifert (2006); Roxburgh (2006); Lietaert Peerbolte (2003); Bosch (1999:226–230, 302–311); Newbigin (1995:6); Robert (2005:412); Nissen (2007). 8 Cf. Bosch (1999:15) speaks of ‘mission as the mother of theology.’

150

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

sensitive to the social ethics of indigenous cultures as Dana L. Robert9 expresses it well: Mission at its worst ran the danger of cultural imperialism, of imposing western lifestyles and values to the destruction of indigenous ones. Critics have charged that the modern missional movement was little more than a sustained attempt to impose Euro-American culture on the peoples who came under its sway. To be sure, the missionary drama was played out on the same stage as the powerful political and economic developments of the period; missions were stained by its association Western imperialism. By virtue of its global reach the movement became a primary carrier of modernity and the artifacts and institutions associated with modernity early became hallmarks of missions. (Robert 2005:412)

We have indeed learned from mistakes made in the past, but also need to keep on learning and exploring new horizons on an ongoing basis. In this article, the dynamics between mission and ethics, and ultimately what we could learn from Paul’s missionary approach in this regard, will be investigated. How, in other words, are the dynamics between mission and morality in Paul, in the course of the missionary process, to be understood in a post-Christian, post-modernistic and cultural pluralistic context against the background of mission? Mapping the field: Clarification of important concepts identity, ethics, ethos and mission Firstly, it is necessary to define the terms ‘identity,’ ‘ethics,’ and ‘ethos’ (Van der Watt 2006:v–ix). The term ‘ethics’ is to be understood as a generic term referring to the moral codes, values, principles and norms in a particular society based on the systematic reflection upon the latter (Van der Watt (2006:v–viii). I agree with ZimmerSee also Bosch (1999:226–230, 302–311) for a discussion on colonialism and mission, as well as Newbigin (1995:6) for a discussion on the domination of the developed world in missionary contexts. 9

DOING GOOD TO ALL

151

mann (2009:399–400) that the term ‘ethics’ could thus be defined as the ‘systematic-theoretical examination’ of a lived ethos, in which he follows Aristotle (An. Post. 1.33–89b). Ethics is thus concerned with the ‘rational analysis of morals, the critical examination of ethos and the subsequent questioning of the motives of morality’ (Zimmermann 2009:400). ‘Identity’ relates to the question of who we are, the values we live by on the basis (motivation) of how we understand ourselves, our relationship to God and the world, and the values, rules, and principles we defer from that. ‘Ethos,’ on the other hand, is to be understood as the practical way we live out our ethics (Lebensstil,10 practical life style) in a given socio-historical and cultural context (Van der Watt 2004:2–3), the way we do things in our society or group, the institutionalised practices. As Christians, the motivation of our being should be built on the basis of a particular understanding of God, the world, and God’s story11 for and/or with the world,12 which by implication Leander E. Keck (1979:13–36) understands ethos as: ‘Lebensstil einer Gruppe oder Gesellschaft’ [The life style of a group or community]. 11 When referring to the plan of God or God’s story of the world, my presupposition is that there exists a strong relationship between the Old and New Testament, with reference to the covenant. As a result, the sending of Jesus is to be seen as the fulfilment of, not only OT scripture, but also of the Jewish Messianic expectations. I therefore do not agree with some scholars like Schnelle (2009), who argue for a stronger discontinuity between the Old and New Testament. As I see it, Paul interprets the Christ event as a fulfilment of the Old Testament expectations and within the framework of the OT covenant (For a similar approach, see Wright [2003]). 12 Elsewhere I (Kok 2014) have argued that in John’s Gospel, for example, God loved the world (3:16), which is caught up in darkness, sin, and blindness (5:24; 9:41; 12:40), and in essence the world became evil children of the devil (8:44). For this reason, God sent his only Son so that those who believe in him could have eternal life (3:16; 20:30–31), become part of a new family, and be the children of God (1:12). It could thus be argued that in John, for instance, soteriology implies re-socialisation and 10

152

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

includes the missionary dimension and Universal Godly Narrative.13 Accordingly, it could be argued that there exists a dynamic inter-relational correspondence between identity, ethics, and ethos on the one hand; and yet on the other hand the inter-relational dynamics thereof are always implicitly imbedded and particularised within a specific socio-historical context, which has to be taken into consideration. This was the case with Paul’s missionary endeavours, and will also be the case today, when we do mission. This brings us to the question as to what we understand by the term ‘mission.’ In most cases one will find that the denotative, associative, and connotative meanings of ‘mission’ are understood in a centrifugal way. That is at least the case in my native language, entrance into a new social reality, which also serves as the basis for the formulation of the believer’s ethics. This also true for Paul in Galatians; the believer becomes part of a new family (cf. Gal 3:21–4:7, 4:28; τέκνα [children]). Therefore, a fundamental interrelational correspondence exists between ethics and ethos. Conduct is a result of identity and therefore ethos is always a result of, and related to, ethics, rooted in a particular understanding of the Universal Godly Narrative. Ethos is, in other words, the Lebensstil, or conduct, of those who share a common identity. The understanding of ethics and ethos is a dynamic social process as a result of its realisation within a specific socio-historical context. Van Rensburg (2004:3) explains it as follows: ‘The basis motivates the ethics, which in turn is practiced as ethos, which receives approval and/or disapproval from society. This may result in the ethos being reconsidered in the light of the basis, and this either reinforces or reconstitutes specific behavior (ethos), etc.’ The term ethos also has a heuristic function, in the sense that it refers to the ethics. In other words, to develop a missional-incarnational ethos, we have to have a particular view of ethics, which is based on a particular understanding of God and his story/plan with the world. 13 With the term Universal Godly Narrative (from now on UGN) (taken from Van der Watt 2000a:6) the Story of God and his plan for the world, as articulated in the New Testament Literature, is referred to (cf. John 3:16, etc.). This story deals with a God who sends his Son to this world (John 3:16) so that people could be saved. In the process he creates a family on earth (John 1:12). Those who believe are part of that family, and have moved from a spiritual state of death to a spiritual state of life (John 5:24).

DOING GOOD TO ALL

153

Afrikaans. The Standard Afrikaans Dictionary defines ‘Sending’ (mission) as follows (Odendal 1994: ad loc):  handeling van te send, te stuur [Action of sending someone]  opdrag, taak wat elders verrig moet word: op ’n diplomatieke sending in Moskou wees. Vredesending [A task that has to be done somewhere else: To be on a diplomatic mission in Moscow]  al die werksaamhede van Christen-sendelinge en die administrasie daarvan: Die binne- en buitelandse sending. Die sending onder die Jode, Islam. [All the duties of Christian missionaries and the administration thereof]. These kind of centrifugal definitions are enormously problematic, in the sense that they tend not only to pacify congregations and believers as such, but also that ‘mission’ becomes something that someone else does, somewhere far away. I concur with scholars like Keifert (2006:167–168), that the Pauline understanding of mission is far removed for the latter definition and understanding that prevails in some churches today. Mission, rather, is something far greater than the church, a dimension in which the missional church is to be taken up into, and carry out God’s mission (cf. also Bosch 1999). A missional church is rather a church that does not simply do mission, but that focuses on being missional (Keifert 2006:168). The dynamics of mission in Paul The origin of the missionary dimension: God’s plan in action In Paul and in the New Testament per se, it is clear that the totality of the missionary dimension originates from God (cf. Gal 1:4). It is, in other words, not the story of people doing missionary work, but of people being taken up in the missionary dimension or story14 In recent debates in political theory and also in contemporary discussions in Christian ethics, there is a difference between the view of the so-called liberals and the communitarians. The former are in favour of a rational basis for a democratic public morality in which every person chooses their own way of life and view of that which is good. Communi14

154

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

of God and his Son (missio Dei),15 with the implication that the definition of mission should, in the first instance, reflect the missio Dei. This becomes clear in the opening verses of Galatians, where Paul clearly states that the fact that he is an apostle (missionary) is not as a result of men (Gal 1:1; Παῦλος ἀπόστολος οὐκ ἀπ’ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι’ ἀνθρώπου [Paul, Apostle not of man or through man]), but because of God (cf. also Gal 2:8), who raised Jesus from death (Gal 1:1; ἀλλὰ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν [but through/because of Christ and God the father who raised him from death]). The life-transforming message that Paul preaches thus has as its origin the revelation of God, Paul argues, and not merely that of men (Gal 1:11–12). Furthermore, Paul’s sending as an apostle is not seen as something that takes place in isolation, but is realised within the background of the UGN, according to which God has sent his Son to deliver or save (ἐξέληται [rescue]) the world (Gal 1:4). In Galatians, Paul states that the whole world is caught up in the grip of sin (Gal 3:22; ἀλλὰ συνέκλεισεν ἡ γραφὴ τὰ πάντα ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν [the whole world is a prisoner of sin]). The fact that Jesus gave himself tarians, on the other hand, argue that people’s identity and ethical values are formed in the context of communities. I agree with Hauwerwas (1983:99–100), who argues from a Christian communitarian point of view, that the community of faith is called to be a particular kind of people, based on a particular story (that has God as the main character), a story which not only shapes their identity as children of God, but also sustains it. This however, does not mean that the ethical norms and ethical action of the church is necessarily different to that of the world. In many cases it would correspond to the ethical norms of other traditions. The difference would be the motivation thereof. 15 See Bosch (1999:389–392) for a discussion on Mission as missio Dei. The latter could be described in the following way: ‘Mission is understood as being derived from the very nature of God. It is thus put in the context of the Trinity, not of ecclesiology or soteriology. The classical doctrine of the missio Dei as God the Father sending the Son, and God the Father sending the Spirit is expanded to include yet another “movement”: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit sending the church into the world’ (Bosch 1990:390).

DOING GOOD TO ALL

155

to save the world (δόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, ὅπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ [who gave himself for our sins, to rescue us from this evil age]) is, according to Paul, based on the will of God (Gal 1:4; κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν [according to the will of God our father]). The missionary process, God’s mission, takes place wherever people are subsequently saved from this evil age (Gal 1:4) or where the transforming message is preached or lived. When the missionary dimension in Paul is discussed, in other words, one should not make the mistake of limiting the scope thereof to a mere focus on the end result of the missionary process, but rather should start with its origin. In most books and articles on the subject, one will find that the authors focus more on the result of the missionary process than on the origin and motivation thereof.15 The implication of the former approach is that the focus of the missionary dimension falls more towards the result of the missionary process, where conversion has taken place, or where a missionary takes the action to go out and make converts. The pendulum moves more towards the result of the missionary process than towards the origin thereof, with the result that not much is made of the theological (and ethical) dimension that serves as the motivation for the mission. The further implication is that only that which refers to the end result of mission is regarded as mission. In the process an important dimension of the missionary process is not discussed or recognized as part of the missionary dimension, with the result that much of the implicit missionary dimensions in the New Testament are not taken into consideration.16 See for instance Lietaert Peerbolte (2003) who tends to see mission as the conversion of people towards Jesus or God and the sociological group formation that follows from that. 16 This brings us to the important thesis that will be investigated in this article. In my opinion, there does not only exist a dynamic interrelational correspondence between identity, ethics, and ethos, but also between the latter and the missionary movement of the early church. This becomes clear when the missionary process is viewed from the perspective of its origin (God and his mission) and also from the perspective of the message being incarnated in the messenger or in the context of the 15

156

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

God the sender sends Paul the missionary Paul is well-known as the planter and founder of communities of faith (cf. Gal 6:10; τοὺς οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως [the house of faith]). We know the ‘dass’ of the fact that he founded new communities of faith but have little historical evidence of the ‘Wie’ or how he went about in forming these communities. Paul’s missionary endeavours obviously entailed a particular sociological process that could be divided in different stages. The first stage would be his contact with a particular community or a group of individuals, to which he preached the Gospel, and the second entails the process of forming a community that naturally followed. Lietaert Peerbolte (2003:204) rightly asks whether Paul purposefully went out to create a new community when he visited a town or city, or whether the reality of group formation was an unforeseen result of the process of Paul’s preaching. Here it is best to investigate, as far as possible, Paul’s own way of describing his missional activities. Pesce (1994:12) argues that we do not have available historical evidence, or literary sources for that matter, that explicitly refer to the so-called first stage of group formation, where Paul met individuals or a group of individuals and the way he went about the missionary process. We have only the second stage of evidence, in which the community community of faith. Said differently, as the gospel was preached to unbelievers in the missionary process, the gospel inevitably transformed many with regards to not only their identity, but also their ethos and ethics. As the new born believer experienced conversion (cf. Rom 12:2), they received a new identity and belonged to a new group or family (see Van der Watt 2000b:211), in which a new set of rules (ethics) had to be accepted, functionally displayed, and concretised in a new way of life (ethos) which was taken up within the missionary dimension and will of God (Van der Watt 2006:vii). It could thus be argued that mission inevitably stands in an inter-relational relationship (inter-relationalen Beziehung) to identity, ethics, and ethos. The implication thereof is that the missionary dimension entails much more than the mere sending out of someone, but also the embodiment of the missionary message per se. Therefore, in this article, I will investigate Paul’s letter to the Galatians within the analytical framework and inter-related categories of identity, ethics, ethos, and mission and the inter-relatedness thereof.

DOING GOOD TO ALL

157

has already been formed, and in which Paul writes to an existing faith community. Therefore, Paul’s letters ‘do not offer direct access to Paul’s preaching of the gospel and the subsequent formation of the communities that resulted from this activity’ (Lietaert Peerbolte 2003:205). Nevertheless, we do have textual witnesses of how Paul described his own work in retrospect, for instance in Galatians 1:8–11 as εὐηγγελισάμεθα [we preached] (cf. Matt 11:5; Luke 2:10; 3:18; Acts 5:42; 10:36; Rom 1:15; 10:15; Gal 1:8; Eph 2:17; 1 Thess 3:6; Heb 4:6; 1Pet 4:6; Rev 10:7; 14:6), or the telling of the good news. Here εὐηγγελισάμεθα [we preached] (cf. εὐαγγελίζηται [he should preach]; εὐηγγελισάμεθα [we preached]; εὐαγγελίζεται [he is preaching] in Gal 1:8–11) is written in the aorist middle voice, indicating that the faith community in Galatia received the gospel as it was preached unto them by Paul when he made the gospel known (cf. Gal 1:7) to them. Paul is thus the instrument that told them about the good news that God revealed (cf. Gal 1:11; δι’ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ [by/through a revelation of Jesus Christ]) to him. In Galatians 1:11 Paul uses the passive form (εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ [I preached]) to emphasise the fact that this good message was not received by men (ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον [it is not from/according to men]), ἀλλὰ δι’ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ [but through/by revelation] (Gal 1:12). The source of this gospel, or good news, is the same God who, within his original plan, sent not only his Son, but also the apostle Paul. The message Paul preaches and embodies thus comes not from Paul, but from God, δι’ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ [revelation]. This undoubtedly presupposes the fact that as Paul ‘passively’ received the gospel through revelation from Jesus Christ, it nevertheless derives from God and from his will, and is therefore part of his plan and ultimately originates (in the language of mission) from the missio Dei. Every element of the missionary dimension thus has as its origin the original plan of God. For this reason, Paul can also argue that he was not appointed by any man, but by Jesus Christ and by God the Father who raised Jesus from death (Gal 1:1; οὐκ ἀπ’ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι’ ἀνθρώπου ἀλλὰ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν [not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from death]). The construction, διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ πατρὸς [by Jesus Christ and God the Father], refers to the

158

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

close connection and inter-relatedness between the Father and the Son in the context of the missional dimension. Paul is thus taken up in the missio Dei, into the greater story of Jesus Christ and God’s purposes with the world. The sending of Paul is thus fundamentally inter-related to the plan of God, the sending of the Son and the UGN. Therefore, Paul would often refer to the (spiritual) work being done in the the lives of believers as God’s work (cf. Rom 14:20; τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ [the work of God]) and as such, something that God will bring to maturity (Phil 1:6; ὁ ἐναρξάμενος ἐν ὑμῖν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἐπιτελέσει [he who began a good work in you will perfect/complete it]). In the introductory part of the letter (Gal 1:4), Paul gives indication of his understanding of the εὐαγγέλιον [gospel] that he is called (cf. Gal 1:15; καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ [who called me through/by his grace]) to preach:

From the aforementioned text we could infer that in Paul’s mind and theological understanding, his mission is being interpreted as part of something God is doing, or which God is up to in the world, namely, that it is the will of God (cf. κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ [will of God]) that people might be delivered (cf. ἐξέληται [delivered]) out of (or, from) this present evil age (cf. ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ [from this evil age]). In reality, the whole world, Jews and Gentiles alike, are caught up in the grip of sin (Gal 3:22; τὰ πάντα ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν [translation]) and spiritual slavery (cf. Gal 2:4 [καταδουλώσουσιν [bring into bondage]]; 4:3, 4:8 [ἐδουλεύσατε [you were in bondage]], 4:9 [δουλεύειν [to be in bondage/a slave]], 4:24–25). Those who do not believe are in other words not free, they are caught up and inevitably part of the αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ [this evil age], and although they might not realise it, they are desperately in need of deliverance from this bondage to sin (See Gal 3:22). God not only called Paul by grace (Gal 1:15), he also

DOING GOOD TO ALL

159

called him with a very definite purpose, namely, to reveal his Son in him (cf. Gal 1:16; ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοί [to reveal his son in me]), so that (ἵνα [so that]) Paul would proclaim and preach him amongst the nations (ἵνα εὐαγγελίζωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν [to preach him in/among the nations]). Paul, in other words, understood his calling as mission and his missional preaching as a calling with universalistic17 implications (Nissen 2007:60). An ontological transformation with universalistic implications Before his conversion to Christ, Paul was a zealous Pharisee following the law,18 living a life characterised by an extremely high Jewish morality (cf. Phil 3:4–5), but nevertheless a slave to the law. Accordingly, there existed for him a compelling irreconcilable difference between Jew and Gentile (and Christian) and he zealously persecuted the followers of Christ (Gal 1:13). After his conversion,19 Paul’s identity was radically redefined (Cromhout 2009:135). According to Wright (2003), the term ’justification’ in Paul is the original ecumenical doctrine. He refers to Galatians 2 and argues that it is in Galatians 2 where we see people from different cultures and traditions sharing table-fellowship on the basis of nothing other than their shared faith in Jesus as Messiah and Lord. Those who share faith in Jesus are those who have been declared as being justified and who should in obedience continue to live in Christ. According to Wright, the doctrine of justification itself urges and compels us to unite across our cultural divides, due to the unity that exists in Christ. For Wright (2003) then, the polemic against the Torah in Galatians is not to be seen as a polemic against some form of self-help moralism or against the more subtle snare of ‘legalism’, but against references to the Jewish law, seen as the national charter of the Jewish race (identity markers if you wish), which separates those who are in and those who are out. In other words, the whole debate about justification in Galatians, ‘wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.’ 18 For a critical evaluation on ἔργων νόμου [works of the law] (cf. Gal 2:16) and the interpretation thereof by the so called New Perspectives on Paul, see Horn (2009:213–234). 19 See Du Toit (2007:57–76). See also Dunn (2008:20–39) who makes the Damascus experience of Paul a very important element in the 17

160

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Although he retained much of his Jewish faith elements (Cromhout20 2009:126; Burridge 2007:107; Kok 2010b:1; Gager 2000; Sanders 1977; 1983; Wright 2003:1–2; Dunn 2008:5–9; Hawthorne, Martin & Reid 1993:306), and was still on an ethical level aligned with some of the elements that are to be interpreted as typically Jewish and Pharisaic (cf. his sexual ethics [1 Cor 5], his use of OT Scripture, covenant, etc. [Wright 2003:6]), it was nevertheless reinterpreted through his experience of the Christ event (cf. Phil 3:7). Paul realised his identity by making the Christ-event metaphorically part of his self-understanding. He soon understood, however, that Christ was sent (Gal 4:4) to redeem us all from the curse of the law21 (Gal 3:10), that he had become a curse for us (Gal 3:13).22 This newly found freedom changed Paul’s identity, ethics, and ethos, as well as his paradigm of God, people, and life. This new paradigm called forth a reevaluation of his whole outlook on life. In Galatians 2:19–20, Paul states that he has been crucified with Christ (Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι [crucified with Christ]), and it is no transformation of Paul’s life and subsequently his view on grace, works of the law, etc. 20 See Cromhout (2009) who discusses the various arguments about Paul’s ‘Jewishness or Judeanness’ as a follower of Jesus the Messiah, for instance, that Paul essentially remained to be ‘Jewish or Judean’ and after his conversion fully operated within the world of ‘Judaism.’ Cromhout investigates these claims by answering three sets of questions derived from a proposed general model of ethnicity theory. He comes to the conclusion that Paul ‘continued to see himself as an Israelite, but who belonged to his ‘Israel’, which, at least for the moment, was radically transformed, with (mostly) Gentiles being grafted in and (mostly) traditional Israelites placed without’ (Cromhout 2009:135). 21 For a positive view of the law and Paul’s view that the will of God is also to be found in the law, see Rom 2:14. According to Wright (2003), Paul was not against the law, just the wrong understanding of the law. 22 See Breytenbach (2005:163–185) who argues that Paul took over the tradition that Christ ‘died for our sins’ and consequently developed his interpretation of Christ’s death in four ways, namely by personalising it (making it part of his identity), universalising it, by making it an expression of God’s love, and by highlighting that this death resulted in salvation.

DOING GOOD TO ALL

161

longer he that lives, but Christ living in him (ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός [it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me]). He now lives a life of faith and freedom (cf. Gal 5:1), which is in the Son of God (Gal 2:20; ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ [I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God]), who loved him and gave himself up for him. In Paul’s conversion or calling, he was radically transformed from the inside out. Paul himself was delivered from this evil age and from bondage and experienced the freedom (and χάρις [grace], cf. Gal 1:6, 15; 2:9, 21; 5:4; 6:18) in Christ that he later would wholeheartedly proclaim. 23 The message of deliverance and freedom from bondage and spiritual slavery became intrinsically part of his missionary message, the good news that had the potential to radically transform the world and bring vertical (God-humans)24 and horizontal (humans-humans) reconciliation. For Paul, his missionary calling and the preaching of the gospel is to be seen as in direct opposition to the powers of this world. Hahn (1965:99) goes so far as to say that the powers of this world (cf. also Gal 4:3 στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου [rudiments of the world]; Col 2:15 ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας [principalities and powers]) are overcome by the preaching and spreading of the gospel, and Paul is led in a triumphal march through the countries whilst propagating the savour of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 2:14ff; See Col 2:15). This is true when the high Christology of Paul (cf. Phil 2:5–10; Rom 10: 9–13; 14–18; 15:7–13) is taken into account. Hahn (1965) argues that: On these presuppositions (of the high Christology) the mission to the gentiles can no longer be for Paul an exceptional phenomenon. From the concept of the exaltation he realised, as no one before him, the all-embracing reality of the Christian Breytenbach (2005:183) is correct in arguing that ‘Paul understands Christ’s beneficiary death “for” us as a prolepsis of the eschatological judgment in which the old existence was terminated. This opens the possibility for a newly created humanity in Christ.’ 24 Clearly in 2 Corinthians 5:17 and onwards, we see that God claims the world as his creation by reconciling the world to himself, creating a new creation (cf. 2 Cor 5:19, 21). 23

162

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS message, and he understood that the gospel itself, with its universal claim, demands that the mission should be to all human beings, including the ‘Greeks and barbarians.’ (Hahn 1965:99)

From this high Christology as the point of departure, Paul could thus proclaim boldly that, through faith, all who believe have been clothed in Christ (Gal 3:27; Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε [to put on Christ]) and receive a new identity (cf. Gal 6:15–16). This new identity is also expressed in kinship language. Paul uses the metaphor of a family and argues that believers are no longer slaves but have become (freed) children of God (Gal 3:26; Πάντες γὰρ υἱοὶ θεοῦ ἐστε διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ [For you are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus]), spiritual heirs of God’s testament of inheritance (cf. Gal 3:21–4:7).25 They have been changed from one state of being (bounded slaves) into a new one (freed children of God), which comes down to nothing less than being new creatures (cf. Gal 6:15–16; καινὴ κτίσις [new creation]). As newly created children of God, they are thus taken up in the family of God and have received a new identity. Soteriology, in other words, implies a particular re-socialisation and entrance into a new social reality, which also serves as the basis for the formulation of the believer’s ethics (Van der Watt 2005:124). The fact that believers have all become children of God, naturally implies that there is no difference between Jew or Greek, slave or free person, or even man and woman; in Christ they are one (Gal 3:28; πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ [for you all are one man in Christ Jesus]). It could thus be argued26 that the concept of freedom in Christ belongs just as much as universality to the gospel. In other words, from the high Christology as point of departure all socio-cultural and reliIn the act of proclaiming this message of freedom and reconciliation, Paul deconstructed and challenged the prevailing worldview and paradigm of both Jews and Gentiles. Some opposed him, whilst others were taken up by the radicality of this new paradigm of faith. For them the message of good news changed their paradigms, their identity, their ethics, and their ethos. 26 Hahn (1965:101) follows this train of thought. 25

DOING GOOD TO ALL

163

gious barriers between people dissolve,27 which inevitably opens up the missionary (universal) dimension.28 According to Galatians 4:8, at least some members of the faith community Paul was writing to were people who previously did not know God, and who worshipped pagan idols. In due time (within the missionary process) they came to know God, or rather God came to know them (Gal 4:9). The word ‘know’ (γνόντες) is to be understood as much more than intellectual knowledge. It refers to relational interaction, mutual participation, and intimate communication. It thus denotes the idea of people who journeyed together with God, and experienced God journeying with them (cf. Gal 5:25). It creates the picture of a faith community that grew ever deeper into their relationship with God. Therefore, it could be arSee, however, 1 Corinthians 5 (1 Cor 5:2; cf. also 5:5, 7, 11, 13), where Paul urges the congregation to distinguish themselves from those who live ‘unethically’ by ἀρθῇ ἐκ μέσου ὑμῶν ὁ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο πράξας [that he that had done this deed might be taken away from among you]. Here it could hardly be spoken of as a missionary dimension. When this point of view is fully developed and lived out concretely, it would lead to a distancing from all of those that live contra the core values of the congregation. On the other hand, in Galatians 6:1 Paul urges the community of faith to restore (καταρτίζετε [to restore]) a fellow believer who has fallen in sin (Ἀδελφοί, ἐὰν καὶ προλημφθῇ ἄνθρωπος ἔν τινι παραπτώματι [Brethren, if a man be overtaken in any trespass/sin, you who are spiritual, restore such a person]) in a spirit of gentleness (ἐν πνεύματι πραΰτητος), but in the process to be careful not to fall in sin themselves. Here, according to Tolmie (2005:208–209), the focus shifts from the brother who has transgressed to the rest of the community of faith, who has the responsibility to restore the fallen brother in a gentle way into their former situation. 28 When the theological relativation of socio-cultural barriers are interpreted within the framework of identity, ethics, and ethos, it would implicate that the followers of Christ should never be those who establish or maintain socio-cultural barriers that would inhibit the missionary process or inter-communal relationships. This mistake has been made in the past in some parts of the world like South Africa in the ‘apartheid’ system where church unity between different socio-cultural groups was not accepted. 27

164

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

gued that the missionary impulse that brought them to Jesus Christ continued to grow like a seed (see Gal 6:8; σπείρων […] θερίσει [to sow […] to reap]). The missionary impulse is thus not to be seen as a one-off moment of a missionary preaching the gospel, but the ongoing process of faith formation and community building. The missionary process thus does not end in the act of proclamation but continues as the word of God and the message of salvation takes root and grows to perfection.29 It is certainly within the faith community itself that the new paradigm for life is lived, where life is shared, and where the effects of the transformative missional message is particularised.30 The missional message, therefore, should naturally live on in these ways (Longenecker 2009:205–221):  the concrete reciprocal31 love-life of the faith community Our understanding of mission should not be limited to the mere proclamation of the good message, without acknowledging the ongoing process of faith formation and community building as a fundamental part of the missional process. If the definition of mission is thus broadened to include the process of faith formation, long after the original missionary message was received, the faith community itself becomes the locus where the effects and working of the missionary dynamics are to be found. In this sense Bosch (1999:168) is correct when he argues that that not only is the church to be taken up in the missio Dei, but that it also should be sent into the world as the redeemed creation, to be in the world, for the world. Kritzinger, Meiring & Saayman (1994:41) agree and argue that mission is to be defined as the church’s participation with God’s work in the world. In the latest research on mission, scholars like Niemandt (2007), Roxburgh (2006), Keifert (2007:167– 168), and Hirsch (2006) agree that mission is nothing less than to be taken up in Gods mission, and that it is to be strongly integrated with the ongoing process of faith formation and to have an impact on the world. 30 Horrell (2009:207) accurately argues that ‘the indicatives express the terms in which the identity of the community is defined, while the imperatives call for action to reflect and sustain that identity.’ 31 Wolter (2009:146–150) is correct when he argues that Galatians is to be understood against ‘Das Prinzip der egalitären Reziprozität als Darstellung der paulinischen Ekklesiology’ [The principle of equal reciprocity as representation of Paul’s ecclesiology]. This becomes clear when one investigates 29

DOING GOOD TO ALL       

165

the songs they sing the implicit ethics and the ethos the discipline the relationship to the state the relationship to the poor the relationship to the marginalized the powerless

The original missional impetus thus becomes an inherent part of the life-movement of the community. The community, who once were the mission field, becomes the carrier of the transformative missional message, with the implicit potential to influence those around them. Regression into old thinking patterns Unfortunately, this was not always the case. In Galatians, we see a clear indication of a particular situation in the faith community where some have been led off the true spiritual path, leading directly to specific moral issues. Some members in the congregation regressed and fell back into (Gal 4:9) their formal spiritual state (and identity), when they were slaves of no good idols (Gal 4:8), by again adhering to or were influenced by religious regulations (cf. Gal 4:10; ἡμέρας παρατηρεῖσθε καὶ μῆνας καὶ καιροὺς καὶ ἐνιαυτούς [You observe days, and months, and seasons, and years]) of weak and pitiful powers (cf. Gal 4:9; πῶς ἐπιστρέφετε πάλιν ἐπὶ τὰ ἀσθενῆ καὶ πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα [how turn you back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments]). Some members did not act in love towards others and, metaphorically speaking, almost devoured (ἀναλωθῆτε) other members (cf. Gal 5:15). Clearly, they did not the use of the term(s) ‘ἀλλήλων’ [each other] (cf. Gal 5:13, 15, 26; 6:2). For Paul, the community of faith in Galatia becomes the ideal context of the Christian way of life, so to speak. It is especially (cf. Gal 6:10b) within the community of faith that believers are to be on the lookout for the needs of the other members and where the fruit of the spirit should be lived out. It is especially within the community of faith that love should be nothing less than the ‘Leitprinzip der christlichen Ethik’ [Guiding principle of the Christian ethics].

166

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

walk in the Spirit (Gal 5:16) and did not let themselves be led by the Spirit. Those who belong to Christ, are supposed to have crucified their sinful nature (Gal 5:24) and should be living a new life in the Spirit (Gal 6:16; καινὴ κτίσις [new creation]), and walk in line accordingly (Gal 5:25).32 By falling back into their former state of being (or former identity), these members are living contra the recreated identity they have received,33 which inevitably leads to an embracing of certain elements of their former state of thinking (identity and ethics) and living accordingly (ethos). For Paul, this is destroying the work that God began in them (Gal 3:5; 4:11).34 Therefore it is not strange that we see Paul the missionary morally encouraging the community of faith, with rhetorical force, to adhere to the right conduct (ethos), based on the right under-

Horrell (2009:197) points to the fact that Bultmann (see Bultmann 1995:195–216) ‘rejected the notion that the indicatives described a real or objective change in a person while the imperatives called for empirically distinct and identifiable behavior.’ For Bultmann, it was rather the case that the moral demand to the believer did not acquire new content and that their moral conduct is only distinguishable from the conduct of others in that it carries the character of obedience. The implication is thus that the indicative relates to the self-understanding of the believer, while the imperative refers to the action which is done as obedience (Cf. also Bultmann 1964:76; Furnish 2009:279). 33 Wright (2003) argues that the gift of faith and the declaration of God that believers are justified is something that derives from God and not in the first instance a result of the achievements of man. Therefore it is right to speak of the fact that believers have received a new identity from God. 34 According to Horrell (2009:208–209), in 1 Corinthians 5 it is clear that those who fall into sin, actually show by their lifestyle that they are not really children of God. Their sinful actions reveal their true identity, or rather, (re)defines their identity. Furthermore, the sinful believer’s identity (revealed by his or her sinful actions) indicates where s/he belongs, namely, among the sinners of this world. Therefore the sinful believer is pushed out of the community of faith (1 Cor 5:5, 7, 11, 13) in order to protect the holy and faithful identity of the congregation. 32

DOING GOOD TO ALL

167

standing (ethics) of who they are in Christ (identity).35 Who they are, and should be in Christ, goes back to the original plan of God when he sent his Son (Gal 1:4), and afterwards the apostle Paul (Gal 1:15; 2:2). This is the core of Paul’s rhetorical purpose of the letter (Tolmie 2005:152–155), namely, to remind the believers not to regress back into their old form of identity and by so doing become spiritual slaves again. In his rhetorical argumentation, Paul takes them back to a renewed understanding of their spiritual identity in Christ. According to Paul, they should realise the implications of the fact that they were transformed from slaves of idols and slaves of the law to children of God (Gal 4:1–7), having the Spirit of the Son of God in their hearts (Gal 4:6), being immersed and clothed in Christ (Gal 3:26–27). Those who let their lives (increasingly) be guided 36 by the Spirit 37 are those who not only understand their identity, but also those who are free from the law (Gal 5:18). Their spiritual maturity should result in spiritual fruit (Gal 5:22ff.). They are nothing less than a community of faith made free of all forms of bondage.38 The faithful freedom of this community is the compelling sign of those who belong to the heavenly Jerusalem over and against those who are still enslaved (cf. Gal 4:21–31) (Hahn 1965:101). Therefore, any approach denying or undermining the faithful freedom of the faith community is to be rejected, for it again enslaves the believers who have been set free and imposes a certain cultural group’s socio-religious ethical demands on that of another. For this reason any approach that would lead to the resto-

Horrell (2009:208) argues in the same way by referring to Paul’s strategy in 1 Corinthians 5, stating, ‘the community members need both to be reminded that they are the new and holy community of God—this is the positive identity which members enjoy—and that, as such, they must be that holy community, and take the action necessary to maintain that identity […]’ (emphasis original). 36 C.f. the passive voice ἄγεσθε [to be led] in Galatians 5:18. 37 On the Spirit in Galatians, see 3:2, 3, 5, 14; 4:6, 29; 5:5, 16–18, 22, 25; 6:1, 8, 18. 38 For a discussion on the concept of freedom, see Bornkamm (1961:10). 35

168

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

ration of the letter of the law39 and divisions amongst people is to be rejected (Rom 10:4; Gal 3:28), for believers are set free from the law that could not set them free from sin and death (cf. Gal 3:19ff). With the dawn of Christ’s redemptive work on the cross (Gal 6:14), a life of new possibilities within the family of God (Gal 3:26–27) has been opened. Ethics of freedom: Missionary by nature It is important, however, to note that for Paul, humanity is not exempt from all forms of law or ethics, for judgment according to works still remains,40 but its outworking springs forth from another inherent source and motivation, namely, πίστις δι’ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη (faith working through love) (cf. Gal 5:6) based on the Gesetz Christi (way or law of Christ), who showed the ultimate form of life in dying for us (cf. Gal 2:20). Without a holy life, in other words, without a high ethical life that results in spiritual fruit (Gal 5:22), the gospel would be nullified as a liberating message of salvation and righteousness (Hahn 1965:103). Within the context of relational faith formation, the new life in Christ is guided by the Spirit (Gal 5:25), but lived in freedom (see Bornkamm 1961:6, 166) and in its scope and implication is directed universally (Gal 6:10) and inclusively in the context of love (cf. Gal 5:6) (see Watson 2007:213). According to Wolter (2009:146–150),41 love, within the See Martyn (1997:555–558) on the law in Galatians. Cf especially his discussion on the law of Christ in Galatians 6:2. Martyn refers to the watershed moment that changed the law (cf. Gal 5:14) with reference to the Greek word pleroo. 40 Cf. also 2 Cor 5:10; Rom 14:10–12. 41 See Wolter (2009:146–150), who illustrates that the concept of dying for those one loves is also found outside of the New Testament (cf. Vita Philonidis 22 [To give your neck to those you love]; Plato, Symposiom 179b [To die for ones friends]. According to Wolter (2009:146–150), the concept of love for one another is also present in the Jewish Umwelt (environment) in the time of the early church (cf. Test Seb 8:4–6 [see ἀγάπατε ἀλλήλους ‘Love one another’]). The principle of egalitären Reziprozität (egalitarian reciprocity) is also a concept that appears in the Umwelt of the early Christendom, not only in the Jewish, but also in the Hellenistic Umwelt (cf. Xeno39

DOING GOOD TO ALL

169

context of egalitären Reziprozität (egalitarian reciprocity) (cf. ἀλλήλων [each other]) is to be seen as the Leitprinzip der Christlichen Ethik (leading principle of Christian ethics) and ultimately based on and motivated by the way or law of Jesus (Gesetz Christi) who died for us as an act of love (cf. Gal 2:20).42 The theological category of freedom and good works (Gal 6:10), that have to be done in the context of love (Gal 5:6) within the context of the faith community (τοὺς οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως [the house of faith]), is nothing less than the result of Paul’s missionary message that he received from God (cf. Gal 1:12) and that reflects the will of God (Gal 1:4). Long after Paul had preached his missionary message, the effect thereof (should) still lived on in the context of the faith community as such. In other words, by understanding their freedom, and living from that freedom, they were to be carriers of the missional message. Thus, they were to carry the same inclusive and universal message they had received from the apostle—that same message that ultimately and intrinsically relates back to the original missional plan of God. This message has to be lived out in concrete ways and thus has an implicit performative, missio-ethical dimension. The characteristic of this ‘living the message’ will then carry with it the same sense of inclusiveness and the same sense of freedom. By living this way, the faith community, as an incarnation of the message, in reality becomes nothing less than missionaries, as a result of the fact that every word and every action should inherently reflect the original missionary message that they have received. Paul often, in his letters, encouraged the faith communities to follow his example, one that was modeled after that of Christ (cf. Rom 12:10; 1 Cor 4:16; 11:1; Eph 5:1; Phil 3:17; 1 Thess 1:6, 7; 2 Thess 3:7, 9; 1 Tim 1:16; 4:12; 2 Tim 1:13; Titus 2:7). Following his example (in which he follows Christ), denotes a certain way of life (ethics and ethos), based on a certain understanding of the community's identity. The missionary process thus did not stop with Paul, but was phon, Memorab. 2,7,1 [about Socrates]); Dio Chrysostomus, Or. 74,12). The difference between the Christian community and that of the Umwelt of the day is clear from the motivation (based on what Christ has done) and the outworking thereof (has an ecclesiological focus). 42 Cf. also Rom 5:8; 2 Cor 5:14; Gal 2:20; Eph 5:2, 25.

170

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

intended to be continued in the ethical realisation of the life of the faith community. Therefore the faith community should, by implication, not only become the message, but also become fundamentally missional in their being. 43 They should be missional in the sense that the will of God, and the effects of that which God planned when he sent his Son and called (and sent) Paul, should come to life in and through them. By becoming the embodiment of the message, they were taken up within the power of the message and were themselves nothing less than a light to others. 44 The same line of thought is seen in 1 Thessalonians 1:7–8 where the believers not only became an example45 to all, but the word of God also sounded forth from them, as expressed in the passive use of the verb ἐξήχηται (to sound forth). In Galatians 6:10, Paul encourages the community in this way: Ἄρα οὖν ὡς καιρὸν ἔχομεν, ἐργαζώμεθα τὸ ἀγαθὸν πρὸς πάντας, μάλιστα δὲ πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως [As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are part of the household of faith]. The construction ἐργαζώμεθα In the source documents we do not have evidence of the actual missionary endeavours of the missional congregation. This obviously limits the discussion and has the danger of putting it within the context of speculation. We do, however, have very important heuristic categories that direct the reader towards a missional hermeneutic for understanding the earliest congregations. Furthermore, from the perspective of speech act theory, it could be argued that Paul not only spoke certain words in the missional direction, but did something with those words. His words were aimed at moving the congregation, of inspiring them to action and, as we have proved, this certainly included a persuasion towards at least some sort of missional action. This is seen for instance in Galations 6:9– 10. 44 Cf. the same train of thought in Philippians 2:15 and in the Pauline tradition of Ephesians 5:8: ἦτε γάρ ποτε σκότος, νῦν δὲ φῶς ἐν κυρίῳ·ὡς τέκνα φωτὸς περιπατεῖτε [For you were once darkness, but are now light in the Lord: walk therefore as children of light] (cf. the present imperative active). 45 In some manuscripts the word τύπον is replaced by one or more words. 43

DOING GOOD TO ALL

171

τὸ ἀγαθὸν πρὸς πάντας [let us do good unto all people] has as its scope more than just the οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως [household of faith].46 Longenecker (2002:282) argues correctly that the inferential particle ἄρα [then], strengthened by the transitional particle οὖν [therefore], appears frequently in Paul’s letters. Here, according to him, it certainly signals the conclusion or main point of a discussion.47 The implication is that this particular verse is to be seen as the conclusion and main point not only of the directives given in 6:1–10 but also of all that has been said in 5:13–6:10: In effect, the exhortations of 5:13, ‘through love serve one another’, and 6:10, ‘do good to all people’, function as an inclusio for all that Paul says against negative tendencies among the believers of Galatia in 5:13–6:10. (Longenecker 2002:282)

Betz (cf. also Horrell 2005:264) also points to Paul’s use of πάντα [all] in 2:16; 3:8, 22, 26–28 and remarks: The universal character of God’s redemption corresponds to the universality of Christian ethical and social responsibility. If God’s redemption in Christ is universal, the Christian community is obliged to disregard all ethnic, national, cultural, social, sexual, and even religious distinctions within the human community.48 Since before God there is no partiality, there cannot be partiality in the Christian’s attitude towards his fellow man. See Becker & Luz (1998:95–96), who touch on the missionary dimension. On the other hand, Rohde (1989:268–268) does not mention the missionary dimension in his discussion of Galatians 6:10. 47 Cf. also Rom 5:18; 7:3, 25; 8:12; 9:16, 18; 14:12, 19; Eph 2:19; 1 Thess 5:6; and 2 Thess 2:15. 48 See Wolter (2009:143), who also agrees and argues, ‘Heindenchristen und Judenchristen trotz ihres unterschiedlichen Ethos ein und dieselbe Identität haben’ [Pagan and Jewish Christians share the same identity despite their different ethos], but on the other hand, ‘Es ist mithin das “Ethos” des Glaubens (Gn. epexegeticus), das die Christen nach Aussen abgrenzt und dadurch die Exklusivität ihrer Identität repräsentiert. Das ist möglich, weil eben der Glaube, der bei Paulus 46

172

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS (Betz 1987:311)

Forcing an ethnically particularistic Jewish ethos onto the socioculturally diverse community of faith would have worked directly against the dynamics of the missionary process, since it might again reaffirm traditional exclusivist practices. Paul never did this in his missionary approach. In the context of Galatians 6:10, Paul rhetorically persuades the community of faith to not only realise their identity, ethics, and ethos, but also to do that inter alia within a centrifugal (πρὸς πάντας) [towards all] frame of reference, that transcends boundaries. In other words, a frame of reference directed also towards those outside of the faith community and not only centripetally to those inside. Here Paul is not referring to mission as something that someone does somewhere, or is sent to do, but something essential to being a Christian. Being missional is thus part and parcel of being a Christian, it is existentially part of the ‘DNA’ of the Church, who should be missionary by its very nature. We should rather not speak of doing mission or sending people on missionary projects, but rather of being missional, in everything we do (Guder & Barrett 1998:1–17).

CONCLUSION From the preceding discussion, we could infer that there is not only a dynamic inter-relational correspondence between identity, ethics, and ethos, but also between the latter and the missionary natürlich immer pistis Xristou ist und durch seine Bezogenheit auf Jesus Christus definiert wird, eine Gemeinsamkeit herstellt, die die Differenz zwischen Juden und Heiden umgreift (vgl. Röm 1,16; Gal 5,6) und die Christen von den nichtchristlichen Juden und Heiden significant unterscheidet’ [It is, therefore, the ‘ethos’ of faith (Gn. Epexegeticus), which defines and separates the Christians to the outside and thereby representing the exclusiveness of their identity. This is possible precisely because the faith that is in Paul of course, is always pistis Xristou (faith in Christ) and defined by the believer’s relationship to Jesus Christ which creates a common bond, which encompasses the difference between Jews and Gentiles (cf. Rom 1:16; Gal 5:6) and significantly differentiates Christians from non-Christian Jews and pagans alike].

DOING GOOD TO ALL

173

movement of the early church (with reference to Paul’s letter to the Galatians). It is clear that the implication of Paul’s rhetorical approach in Galatians should lead to the reality of the faith community becoming the embodiment of the missional message preached by the missionary Paul. Paul’s personal transformation of his identity, ethics, and ethos becomes not only the message he preaches, but also the typos, the Γίνεσθε ὡς ἐγώ [become like me] (Gal 4:12) to be followed by the congregations that he founded on the missionary field. His typos is again related to that of Christ, who has been sent by God and thus is understood to represent something of the missional plan of God. In times of crisis and delineation from the right path of life Paul encourages the congregation by, inter alia, rhetorically taking them back to a reaffirmation of their true identity, and the ethical dimension that flows from that.49 In the dynamics of Paul’s missionary work, we clearly see a focus on the elements of identity, ethics, and ethos, which fundamentally relates to the symbolic universe of the missionary. Thus, when we speak of mission in Galatians, we have to acknowledge the fact that, from a rhetorical point of view, it was the apostle’s wish that the missional movement did not stop with his missional preaching,50 but continued in process as the faith community becomes the carrier and embodiment of the missionary message. We have argued earlier that Paul, rhetorically, tries to move the congregation to realise their identity (as well as ethics and ethos) not only within a centripetal (inwards, towards themselves) but also a centrifugal (cf. Gal 6:10; πρὸς πάντας [towards all]) frame of reference, directed inter alia towards those outside of the faith community. Thus, their transformed identity in Christ should not only lead to a new ethics, but also to a new ethos, in the form of a new lifestyle, that should impact society around them. In this way the faith See Horrell (2009:208) for a similar argument. Koester (1989:185–186) argues, ‘Doesn’t his theology lead to passivity rather than concern for action? Paul’s own autobiography issues a resounding “No” to these questions. Paul himself was anything but passive. The gospel he preached was not “an opiate for the people,” but an “adrenaline for mission.” The gospel moved him beyond the bounds of his Jewish heritage into the world around him.’ 49 50

174

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

community becomes missional by implication, because they embody the missional message and its impact potentiality. We could, in other words, infer from this that it is possible to broaden the scope of missional hermeneutics and speak of missional congregations51 in the early church and that being missional is inseparable from ethics, and ethics inseparable from the missional dimension. Those who want to speak of mission should also speak of ethics, and those who speak of ethics should make something of mission. As I have stated in the beginning of the article, we could concur with scholars like Keifert (2006:167–168), that the Pauline understanding of mission is that mission is to be understood as something far greater than the church, a dimension in which the missional church is to be taken up into and to carry out God’s mission (cf. also Bosch 1999). A missional church is, in other words, a church that does not simply do mission, but focus on being missional (Keifert 2006:168).

BIBLIOGRAPHY Becker J. & Luz, U., 1998, ‘Die Briefe an die Galater, Epheser und Kolosser’, NTD 8/1, Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, Göttingen. Betz, H.D., 1987, Galatians: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, (Hermeneia), Fortress, Philadelphia. Bornkamm, G., 1961, Das Urchristliche Verständnis von der Freiheit, (The Neckarauer Hefte 8), Evangelische Verlag, Comtesse. Bosch, D.J., 1999, Transforming mission, paradigm shifts in theology of mission, New York, Orbis Books. Breytenbach, C., 2005, ‘The ‘for us’ Phrases in Pauline soteriology, considering their background and use’, in J.G. Van der Watt (ed.), Salvation in the New Testament, (NovTSup 121), pp. 163−185, Brill, Leiden. It is evident, when one has a clear look at Philippians 4:15; 2 Corinthians 11:7–11; and Acts 16:14–15, that some congregations supported Paul financially with reference to the missionary work he was doing. Clearly, from this it could also be argued that some congregations in the early church had sensitivity towards the missionary dimension (LietaertPeerbolte 2003:222). 51

DOING GOOD TO ALL

175

Bultmann, R., 1964, Jesus Christ and mythology, SCM Press, London. Bultmann, R., 1995, ‘The problem of ethics in Paul’, in B.S. Rosner (ed.), Understanding Paul’s Ethics, pp. 195−216, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Burridge, R.A., 2007, Imitating Jesus: An inclusive approach to New Testament ethics, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Campbell, J., 2005, The way of Jesus, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Cromhout, M., 2009, ‘Paul’s “former conduct in the Judean way of life” (Gal 1:13)… or not?' HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 65(1), Art. #127, 12 pages. DOI: 10.4102/hts.v65i1.127. Du Toit, A.B., 2007, ‘Encountering grace, towards understanding the essence of Paul’s Damascus experience’, in C. Breytenbach & D.S. Du Toit (eds.), Focusing on Paul, Persuasion and Theological Design in Romans and Galatians, (BZNW 151), pp 57–76, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin. Dunn, J.D.G, 1998, The theology of the apostle Paul, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Dunn, J.D.G., 2008, The new perspective on Paul, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Du Plessis, J., Orsmond, E., & Van Deventer, H.J. (eds.), 2009, Missionary perspectives in the New Testament: Pictures from chosen New Testament literature, BybelMedia, Wellington. Engberg-Pederson, T., 2000, Paul and the Stoics, Westminster John Knox, Louisville. Furnish, V.P., 2009, Theology and ethics in Paul, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville. Gager, J.G., 2000, Reinventing Paul, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Guder, D.L. & Barrett, L. (ed.), 1998, Missional church, A vision for the sending of the church, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans. Hawthorne, G.F., Martin, R.P. & Reid, D.G., 1993, Dictionary of Paul and his letters, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove. Hahn, F., 1965, Mission in the New Testament, SCM Press, London. Hauwerwas, S., 1983, The Peaceable Kingdom. A primer in Christian ethics, University of Nortre Dame Press, Nortre Dame. Hirsch, A., 2006, The forgotten ways, Brazos Press, Grand Rapids. Horn, F.W., 2009, ‘Die Darstellung und Begründung der Ethik des Apostels Paulus in der New Perspective’, in R. Zimmermann &

176

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

F.W. Horn (eds.), Jenseits von Indicativ und Imperativ, (WUNT 238), pp. 213−234, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Horrell, D.G., 2005, Solidarity and difference: A contemporary reading of Paul’s ethics, T&T Clark, New York. Horrell, D.G., 2009, ‘Pauline ethics in 1 Corinthians 5’, in R. Zimmermann & F.W. Horn (eds.), Jenseits von Indicativ und Imperativ, (WUNT 238), pp. 197–212, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. Jenkins, P., 2002, The Next Christendom, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Keck, L.E., 1979, ‘Das Ethos der Frühen Christen’, in W.A. Meeks, (ed.), Zur Soziologie des Urchristentums, (TB 62), pp 128–147, Kaiser, Munich. Keifert, P., 2006, We are here now: A new missional era, Allelon, Idaho. Koester, C., 1989, Opportunity to do good: The letter to the Galatians, (Word & World 9/2), Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN. Kok, J., 2010a, ‘Rediscovering a missional incarnational ethos in John 4’, in R. Zimmermann & J.G. Van der Watt (eds.), Moral language in the New Testament, pp. 168–193, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. Kok, J., 2010b, ‘The new perspectives on Paul and its Implication for Mission’, (Acta Patristica et Byzantina). Kok, J., 2014 (forthcoming), New perspectives on healing in John, Brill, BINS, Leiden. Kritzinger, J.J., Meiring, P.G.J., & Saayman, W.A., 1994, On being witnesses, Orion, Halfwayhouse. Le Grys, A., 1998, Preaching to the nations. The origins of mission in the early church, SPCK, London. Lietaert-Peerbolte, L.J., 2003, Paul the missionary, Peeters Press, Leuven. Longenecker, B.W., 2009, ‘The Poor of Galatians 2:10, The interpretative paradigm of the first four centuries’, in B.W. Longenecker & K.D. Liebengood (eds.), Engaging economics: New Testament scenarios and early Christian reception, pp. 205−221, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Longenecker, R.N., 2002, Galatians, (WBC 41), Word Incorporated, Dallas. Meeks, W.A. (ed.), 1993, The origins of Christian morality, Yale University Press, New Haven. Merriam-Webster, 2003, Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Springfield, IL.

DOING GOOD TO ALL

177

Newbigin, L., 1995, The open secret, introduction to the theology of mission, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Niemandt, N., 2007, Nuwe drome vir nuwe werklikhede, Lux Verbi, Wellington. Nissen, J., 2007, New Testament and mission: Historical and hermeneutical perspectives, Peter Lang, Frankfurt. Odendal, F., 1994, Die elektroniese weergawe van die verklarende handwoordeboek van die Afrikaanse taal, Perskor Uitgewery, Midrand. Pesce, M., 1994, Le due fasi della predicatione di Paolo. Dall’ evangelizzazione alla guida della communita, (Studi Biblici 22), Bologna, Edzioni Dehoniane. Reinbold, W., 2000, Propaganda und Mission im ältesten Christentum. Eine Untersuchung zu den Modalitäten der Ausbreitung der Frühe Kirche, (FRLANT 188), Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen. Robert, D. L., 2005, American woman in mission, A social history of their thought and practice. Mercer University Press, Mercer. Rohde, J., 1989, Der Brief des Paulus and die Galater, Evangelische Verlagsanhalt, Berlin. Roxburgh, A., 2006, The sky is falling, Allelon, Idaho. Sanders, E.P., 1977, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, SCM, London. Sanders, E.P., 1983, Paul, the law and the Jewish people, Fortress Press, Philadelphia. Schnelle, U., 2009, Theology of the New Testament, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. Tolmie, D. F., 2005, Persuading the Galatians, (WUNT 190), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. Van der Watt, J.G. (ed.), 2005, Salvation in the New Testament, perspectives on soteriology, (NovTSup 121), Brill, Leiden. Van der Watt, J.G. (ed.), 2006, Identity, ethics and ethos in the New Testament, (BZNW 141), Walter De Gruyter, Berlin. Van der Watt, J.G., 2000a, ‘Die Teologie van die Johannesevangelie en Briewe’, Unpublished lecture material, University of Pretoria. Van der Watt, J.G., 2000b, Family of the King: The dynamics of metaphor in die Gospel of John, Brill, Leiden. Van der Watt, J.G., 2004, ‘Directives for the Ethics and Ethos Research Project’, paper presented at the Identity, Ethics and Ethos project meeting, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, August D2004, 2–3.

178

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Van der Watt, J.G. & Kok, J., 2012, ‘Violence in a gospel of love’, in J.W. Van Henten, & P.G.R. de Villiers (eds.), Coping with Violence in the New Testament, pp. 151–184, Brill, Leiden. Van Rensburg, F.J., 2005, ‘Ethics in 1 Peter’, paper presented at the Identity, Ethics and Ethos project meeting, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, August, 2005. Watson, F., 2007, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles. Beyond the New Perspective, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Wolter, M., 2009, Theologie und Ethos im Frühen Christentum, (WUNT 236), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. Wright, N.T., 2003, ‘New perspectives on Paul’, unpublished paper presented at the 10th Edinburgh Dogmatics Conference, Rutherford House, Edinburgh, August 25–28, viewed 16 September 2010, from http://newpaul.blogspot.com/ Zimmermann, R., 2007, ‘Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ. Entwurf einer ‘impliziten Ethik’ des Paulus am Beispiel des 1 Korintherbriefes’, Theologische Zeitschrift 132, 259–284. Zimmermann, R., 2009, ‘The “implicit ethics” of New Testament Writings: A Draft on a New Methodology for Analysing New Testament Ethics,’ Neotestamentica 43(2), 399−423. Zimmermann, R. & Van der Watt, J.G. (eds.), 2010, Moral language in the New Testament, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. Internet sources consulted: http://www.moibrahimfoundation. org/en/mifindex/ibrahimIndex?rnkitem=5

7. MISSION AND ETHICS IN 1 CORINTHIANS: RECONCILIATION, CORPORATE SOLIDARITY, AND OTHERREGARD AS MISSIONARY STRATEGY IN PAUL Jacobus (Kobus) Kok UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA ABSTRACT1 In this chapter the dynamic relationship between mission and ethics in contexts of conflict and change in the Corinthian correspondence is investigated, and the role Paul played as reconciling leader, examined. The early Christian writers, like Paul, wanted to instruct and shape communities of faith. Paul was especially concerned with the maintenance and growth of his congregations, and also with the social and ethical boundaries between the community of faith and the ‘world.’ In the article it is illustrated that within the Corinthian congregational context there existed several conflict situations, and that much of it was a result of diversity within the congregation. Diversity is a fact of life and reality of the church. In Paul’s vision for unity and reconciliation, and in his attempt to address the factionalism in the Corinthian congregation, he This article originally appeared in the Hervormde Teologiese Studies journal and is reused here in a slightly revised version with permission from Prof. Andries Van Aarde, chief editor of HTS. The original reference to this article is: Kok., J., 2012, ‘Mission and Ethics in 1 Corinthians: Reconciliation, corporate solidarity and other-regard as missionary strategy in Paul’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 68(1), Art. #1222, 11 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v68i1.1222. 1

179

180

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

would, in all cases, ground his practical solution in a theological identity construction. Paul focuses on corporate solidarity and unity, and urges the congregation to get along with their fellow brothers and sisters in times of conflict by means of ethical reciprocity and other-regard, a matter in which he is also an example, typical of other philosophers of his time, but with a significant difference. At the end it became clear that Paul’s ethical advice had a missional dimension, in the sense that the conflict management should take place in such a way that God is honoured and that both Jews, Greeks, and fellow believers will see that the way this community handles conflict is different to the way the ‘world’ would do it, and that in the process, even more might be saved.

CONFLICT OVER IDENTITY AND ETHOS IN CORINTHIANS From the beginning of the Christ-movement’s entry into the ancient world it left the traces of conflict as it dialogically steered its way through the different currents at the time and in engagement with its ‘neighbours.’ Not only did the Christ-movement experience conflict with its ‘neighbours’ but also within its own ranks. Intra-group consensus in the early Christ–movement is nothing less than a myth (contra Munck 1959:135–167). Divisions and conflict existed as natural group dynamic phenomena (cf. 1 Cor 1:10 – σχίσματα). According to social psychologists, consensus is normally a result of argument, conflict, negotiation, and persuasion (Esler 2003:27). From a social scientific point of view, group conflict is not always a negative phenomenon. Conflict creates the context in which a group can discern important identity questions. I agree with Meeks (1993:5) that: ‘[W]e cannot begin to understand that process of moral formation until we see that it is inextricable from the process by which distinctive communities were taking shape. Making morals means making community.’ Within this context of distinctive communities taking shape, conflict was a natural group dynamic reality. In 1 Corinthians Paul is addressing not only inter-group relations (1 Cor 12:13) but also intra-group relations (1 Cor 8 and 11). There existed intra-group tensions (σχίσματα) and strife about the ethos of everyday life (1 Cor 5–10) and extra-everyday life (1 Cor 11–14) which Paul addresses in his letter after receiving a report from Cloe’s people (1 Cor 1:11) in which they asked Paul for some advice on sensitive intra-group conflict matters (Wolter 2006:202– 203). Paul then appealed to the congregation to resolve the conflict

MISSION AND ETHICS IN 1 CORINITHIANS

181

and factionalism among them towards unity (Robertson 2001:2; Witherington 1995:94–95; Mitchell 1991:200).2 Closer investigation reveals that it is not true that the early Christians agreed on the boundaries of ethos and its dynamic relationship to identity in the early stages of the Christ-movement. Wolter (2006:203–215) distinguishes between three different contexts in which the conflict and questions regarding the dynamic relationship between identity and ethos occurred, intracongregational social life, extra-congregational social life, and extracongregational private life:  Intra-congregational social life (1 Cor 11:2–16 and 1 Cor 11:17– 34)  In the context of the ecclesia (intra-ecclesial) some woman prayed and prophesied, and did that purposefully without the proper customary head coverings (1 Cor 11:2, 5). To some extent it makes perfect sense to argue that this way of conduct was a natural consequence of the Pauline message of principal equality between males and females (Gal 3:28), and a typical instance of a situation in which the traditional differentiation and inequality could be transcended by not wearing the head coverings which was seen as the symbol of female subjection.  The Lord’s Supper was not held in community, since there existed divisions in the church (1 Cor 11:18; ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ […] σχίσματα), and everyone was focussed on him/herself, eating alone and not taking others into consideration, especially the poor (1 Cor 11:21; ἕκαστος γὰρ τὸ ἴδιον δεῖπνον προλαμβάνει ἐν τῷ φαγεῖν) (See Horrell 2005:108– 111).3 It is clear that the socio-economic differences

See Hansen (2010:107) who argues that Paul traces the baptismal unity formula in his argument in favour of social reconciliation. 3 See Horrell (2005:110–113) for a discussion on the relationship between identity and ethos for the Corinthians as a community of ἀδελφοί. According to Horrell (2005:113), the kinship language Paul employs cre2

182

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

between believers, prevalent in the extracongregational life infiltrated the context of the intra-congregational context.  Extra-congregational social life (1 Cor 6:1–8; 8:1–13; 10:23–11:1)  In 1 Corinthians 6:1–8 the same problem occurs from another angle, namely, that some members of the congregation take fellow members to court. The ethos of everyday-life spills over in the way the fellow members of the congregation treat each other. That is, they solve their problems in the same way that the ‘world’ does. The problem is, as Wolter (2006:205) rightly states, that some of the believers were of the opinion that taking fellow Christians to court would not have an impact on their Christian identity since it was something that fell in the category of everyday-life. On the other hand, some other Corinthian believers seem to have been much more sensitive to the implication of everyday life identity and ethos on the congregational social life and identity, since some believers asked Paul if a believer should be married to an unbeliever. Obviously they thought that extra-congregational identity influences intra-congregational social life to such an extent that believers had to divorce their unbelieving spouses (Wolter 2006:208).  1 Corinthians 8:1–13 and 10:23–11:1 demonstrate that there was disagreement on whether or not meat sacrificed to pagan deities sold on public markets may be eaten by Christ-followers. One group, described as being the ‘strong’ (those with ‘knowledge’) said that it is permissible due to the fact that there exists no gods but One God (1 Cor 8:4; οἴδαμεν ὅτι οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν κόσμῳ καὶ ὅτι οὐδεὶς θεὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς). Another group described as the ‘weak’ (the superstitious and unlettered; cf. Pluates and evokes the idea of equality where all should uphold the honour and harmony of the family (cf. also Aasgaard 2002:513–530).

MISSION AND ETHICS IN 1 CORINITHIANS

183

tarch, Cam. 6.6; Mor. 119d; Epictet, Diatr. I.8.8) said that it is not permissible for a Christ-follower to eat meat that had been sacrificed to a pagan deity. Wolter (2006:205) points to the important fact that it seems that ‘both groups were convinced that their Christian identity influences the conduct of everyday life […]. [B]ut drew completely opposite consequences from this conviction’ (emphasis mine). In the centre of all these debates lies the question how the Christ follower’s identity effects everyday ethos.  Extra-congregational private life (1 Cor 5:1–13; 7:1–40)  In 1 Corinthians 5:1–13 the same question asked above is relevant, namely, how the Christ follower’s identity effects everyday ethos, and in what way does that stand in continuation or discontinuation to the ethos of everyday life. Where are the boundaries to be drawn and when is Christian identity at stake? In 1 Corinthians 5 the problem revolves around a certain man who lives with his deceased father’s wife, most probably an ethos or practice that was typical within the social value system of antiquity, and according to Wolter (2006:206) this cohabitation context might even have existed before the person became a Christian. The natural question is thus to what extent does the fact that the person became a Christ-follower influence or transform his latter ethos. Clearly there existed divisions in the congregation about the matter since it was necessary for Paul to write about the matter. Some believers might have interpreted the custom as socially acceptable, while others felt that it was inappropriate for a Christian to live this way. Paul, on the other hand, clearly judges it as something that is not even seen amongst the pagans (1 Cor 5:1; Ὅλως ἀκούεται ἐν ὑμῖν πορνεία, καὶ τοιαύτη πορνεία ἥτις οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν).  In another instance (1 Cor 7:1–40) the young believers asked Paul advice on practical matters of sexual ethics, for instance, are Christ-followers allowed to have sexual intercourse (1 Cor 1:1–7)? May

184

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS they divorce and may divorced believers remarry (1 Cor 7:10–11)? Is it a good thing to get married in the first place (1 Cor 7:25–38)? According to Wolter (2006:207), in 1 Corinthians 7:1 Paul is most probably quoting a thesis from the letter that was sent to him (Περὶ δὲ ὧν ἐγράψατε) in which the argument goes that ‘It is good for a man not to touch a woman’ (Περὶ δὲ ὧν ἐγράψατε, καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι). If this is the way some Corinthian believers argued, it is in strong contrast to the ethical opinion that others came to, like the person who lived with his deceased father’s wife. This brings Wolter (2006:207) to the very important observation that: [T]he spectrum of ethical attitudes concerning the sexual ethos among the Corinthian Christians was rather broad. Moreover, in my view it is remarkable that it took several years from the foundation of the community until these problems had been emerging among its members. In my opinion, this can be further evidence of the thesis that it was the social context of the congregational assembly in which the Christian communities expressed their ethical identity. The quest for the Christian profile of everyday life’s ethos emerged only after a considerable delay. (Wolter 2006:207)

INTER-CONGREGATIONAL DIVERSITY AND CONFLICT From the above discussion it becomes clear that everything was not so clear-cut when it came to the dynamic relationship between identity and ethos. Different believers came to different (implicit) ethical positions that sometimes stood in direct opposition to those of other believers. These differences led to intra-congregational division and conflict. In the process of any group’s formation natural conflict processes occur, namely, forming as a group, storming (conflict), norming (determining roles), performing well as a group, and adjourning followed by mourning when the group dissolves or no longer functions as a group (Tuckman 1996; 2001; Smith 2005). The Corinthian congregation formed as a newly created group, a collection of people from different socio-economic, religious, and

MISSION AND ETHICS IN 1 CORINITHIANS

185

even ethnic contexts which resulted in the storming phase where conflict and schism became a reality that Paul ethically had to address at that stage. Meeks (1993:5) rightly refers to the fact that all morality is group morality. People reflect ethically in the contexts of a group. In the process of reflection on the dynamic relationship between identity and ethics, some believers came to the conclusion that certain ways of doing things made sense within the framework of their newly found (and forming) Christian identity. The woman who came to the conclusion that it is better not to wear a head covering in the context of the congregation might have come to such a conclusion based on the transforming message of Paul that there is no difference between man and woman in the context of the faith community (cf. 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11). This position could in other words be seen as an example of early Christfollowers ‘doing ethics’ and coming to a legitimate ethical conclusion that realised itself in some of them not wearing the symbol of status differentiation between men and women. The same is true for those who regarded meat sacrificed to idols as something that could have no effect on them as a logical consequence of a high Christology (cf. Phil 2:5–10). For this reason I agree with Wolter (2006:208) that Paul was not the only one ‘doing ethics,’ the believers were also ‘fully convinced that their conduct of life was consistent with their Christian identity.’ In this process of ethical reflection, disagreement, and conflict, Paul as leader of the community of faith is asked for support after some of Cloe’s people told Paul about the conflict that occurred in the faith community (1 Cor 1:11). In the next section the strategy Paul employs to manage the conflict will be investigated.

THE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY OF PAUL: UNITY, DIVERSITY AND ETHICAL RECIPROCITY (1 COR 10:23–24 AND 1 COR 12:13) Ancient Corinth was a highly stratified society in the time of Paul (See Theissen 1982; 2001:27–75; Horrell 1996; Winter 2001). The social class difference was one of the reasons for the factionalism in the church that related to the extra-ecclesial status of the believers and the problems it caused within the intra-ecclesial context of the faith community (Clarke 2006:6). Hansen (2010:109) states the

186

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

problem well: ‘What is widely affirmed is that Roman Corinth was a highly stratified and agonistic society and that the pervasive pursuit of status according to a matrix of social valuations was dividing the church.’ Exhortation to Unity In 1 Corinthians 1:10 Paul directly addresses the discord (1 Cor 1:11; ἔριδες ἐν ὑμῖν εἰσιν) and apparent schism in the congregation (1 Cor 1:10; μὴ ᾖ ἐν ὑμῖν σχίσματα) by exhorting the Christfollowers to be restored in Christ-centered unity—‘I exhort/beseech you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all be in agreement and that there be no schism amongst you, but that you be restored/be perfected/united together in the same mind and in the same judgment.’ (my translation). 4 Structurally the passage could be illustrated as follows:5

The theology of reconciliation6 (and not justification) found here in 1 Corinthians 1:10, and elsewhere (1 Cor 12:13) lies at the heart of The participle here can function, in my opinion, like an imperative. The passive voice signifies that the subject is being acted upon, and the perfect refers to the current state of affairs that resulted from the action in question. 5 Translation of 1 Cor 1:10—‘Now I exhort/beseech you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions in your midst; but that you be restored/be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.’ 4

MISSION AND ETHICS IN 1 CORINITHIANS

187

Paul’s implicit ethical argumentation and the thesis statement for the entire epistle to the Corinthians (Hansen 2010:108).7 Witherington (1995:94) points to the fact that in Greco-Roman rhetoric (cf. P. Oxy. 3057; See Mitchell 1991:64, 200) the proposition in a deliberative discourse (symbouleutikon, cf. Breytenbach 2010:298; Van Unnik 2004) refers to the thesis statement of the entire discourse, that the writer utilises rhetorically to influence and persuade the reader in such a way that (s)he should follow a certain (ethical) way of thinking and doing (cf. Παρακαλῶ in 1 Cor 1:10 and P.Oxy. 3057). Elsewhere, Paul also uses Παρακαλῶ in contexts where he exhorts the believers—for instance in 1 Corinthians 4:16—to imitate him, and in 1 Corinthians 16:15 where he exhorts the believers to accept Stephanas as leader. The latter represents three of the rhetorical strategies Paul utilises in 1 Corinthians to transcend internal divisions (Witherington 1995:95):  Direct exhortation to the parties causing the conflict and division (1 Cor 1:10)  Exhortation to the believers to follow his example (1 Cor 4:16)  Exhortation to acceptance of Stephanas as a leader (1 Cor 16:15) Against the background of the status8 distinctions between believers referred to above (rich and poor), and the subsequent conflict over identity and ethos that led to factionalism and divisions, Paul exhorts the believers to be one in mind towards the same purpose (1:10; μὴ […] σχίσματα, ἦτε δὲ κατηρτισμένοι ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ νοῒ καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ γνώμῃ). Paul inter alia reminds the readers of their shared alternative identity as children in the same family (1 Cor See Porter (2011:169–179) for perspectives on the role of reconciliation in Paul. Porter argues that reconciliation is the heart of Paul’s missionary theology. 7 From a rhetorical analytical point of view, Mitchell (1991) came to the same conclusion and a decade before her, also Theissen (1982) (cf. also Witherington [1995:94] and most recently, Wolter [2006:209] and Hansen [2010:108]). 8 See Theissen (1982). 6

188

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

1:10; ἀδελφοί), with the implication that their conduct should be aligned in such a way that it brings honour to the head of the household (1 Cor 1:10; διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). In the first century world ‘good’ children obeyed their parents and aligned their behaviour in such a way that it reflected the values and ethos of the group they belonged to (Kok 2013). Here Paul reminds his readers of their unique ethos as Christfollowers, a family in which unity, concord, and other-regard played a significant role for a group that imitated the remembered ethos of its Lord (cf. 2 Cor 5:18–20; Phil 2:5–10—Τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ). However, the idea of concord and harmony was nothing new in the world of Paul’s day. It was not only a slogan in the Greek polis used by political leaders and philosophers alike in contexts of conflict (στάσις; see Dio Chrysostom, Or. 38.38),9 to refer to cosmic, civic, and household concord, but also worshiped as the goddess Concordia in the Roman period (cf. Breytenbach10 2010:297–311). Philosophers like Dio Chrysostom, in line with Stoic tradition, argued in the same way as Paul that concord has its origin in the divine creator (Or. 38.11 and 48.14; τὰ μέγιστατῶν θείων πραγμάτων) and argues in favour of the relationship between friendship (φιλία), reconciliation (καταλλαγή), and kinship (συγγένεια), that which holds everything together, the opposite of that being seen as the cause of all destruction (καὶ δἰ οὗ

9 See Van Unnik (2004) and his references to the role concord and peace played in Plutarch, Lucian, Dio Cassius, Epictetus, Dio Chrysostom, Aelius Aristides, etc. Cf. especially Aelius Aristides and Dio Chrysostom (Or. 386–7, 11), Chrysippus in περὶ ὁμονοίας); Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 6.267b in Breytenbach (2010:301 n. 19; 302 n. 32). For discussions on civic concord in contexts of conflict and change, see Plutarch An. Corp. 4 (501e–502a). 10 See Breytenbach (2010:297–311) for a discussion of cosmic concord in Hellenistic thought where he discusses Pseudo-Ocellus in De universi natura and also cosmic concord in the civic rhetoric in the Roman Empire, a time in which the use of the ὁμόνοια (concord) terminology increased. In most cases the term is used to civic or household concord.

MISSION AND ETHICS IN 1 CORINITHIANS

189

πάντα ἀπόλλθται, τοὐναντιον11—Or. 38.11). The question could subsequently be asked, ‘So what is new? In what way does Paul differ from the way the philosophers and political leaders spoke about concord in the household and city-state? The answer is simple. Paul might use the same concepts but the ethical basis from which he argues is a world removed from the rhetoric of those in his Umwelt, and the household context Paul has in mind is the ecclesia of the Christ-followers. The unity that Paul has in mind does not have its origin in the cosmic order as the philosophers argued, but in Christ. This unity in Christ is nothing less than ‘predominant over every social, cultural and ethnic distinction’ (Wolter 2006:209) [Emphasis mine]. The unity Paul has in mind not only has its origin in Christ, but originally in God’s missional plan (cf. Porter 2011:169–179). In 2 Corinthians 5:18–20 Paul expresses it very clearly when he argues: τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ καταλλάξαντος ἡμᾶς ἑαυτῷ διὰ Χριστοῦ καὶ δόντος ἡμῖν τὴν διακονίαν τῆς καταλλαγῆς, 19 ὡς ὅτι θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσων ἑαυτῷ, μὴ λογιζόμενος αὐτοῖς τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν καὶ θέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν τὸν λόγον τῆς καταλλαγῆς. 20 Ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ οὖν πρεσβεύομεν ὡς τοῦ θεοῦ παρακαλοῦντος δι’ ἡμῶν· δεόμεθα ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, καταλλάγητε τῷ θεῷ. [But] All things are from God, He who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 [against the background of the fact], that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having entrusted to us the word/message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors on behalf of Christ, as though God were urging by us: we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God (my translation).

Here it is clear that when it comes to the theme of reconciliation, Paul makes it clear that God is the primary subject of the verb initiating the vision of reconciliation, that Christ is his agent and that Translation: ‘that through which all is destroyed is the opposite [of concord]’ (my translation). Cf. originally in Breytenbach (2010:303). 11

190

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

believers are to become like ambassadors with a mission for reconciliation. In 1 Corinthians, in the context of conflict and division, Paul employs several metaphors to argue for the sake of reconciliation like the metaphor of a family and household (1 Cor 1:1, 10, 26; 2:1; 3:1; 4:6; 5:11; 6:5; 10:1; 11:33; 12:1; 14:6, 26, 39; 15:1, 6, 50, 58; 16:11, 15–20; etc.), a body (1 Cor 6; 10:16–17; 12:27–28; 15:35–46), a building (cf. 1 Cor 3:9–14; 8:1, 10; 10:23; 14:3–5, 12, 17, 26), etc. All these metaphors establish the concepts of unity and concord that has as its origin the missional plan of God who reconciled the world to himself through Christ, who died and was raised, and who called (cf. ἐκλήθητε in 1 Cor 1:10) and empowered believers to continue the reconciling mission of God. In 1 Corinthians 1:10 Paul relates the concept of calling to fellowship with God, his son and their family, calling them ‘into common participation in Jesus Christ as well as into common identity with their fellow saints’ (Hansen 2010:112). Being called into this family is a call to become part of the ‘holy people of God’ (ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις—1 Cor 1:2), creating a framework of communal ‘ethnic’ identity in Christ as Hansen (2010:112) convincingly argues:  God, their father has called them into communal participation with his son, Jesus Christ (1 Cor 1:10). Here Paul employs ethnic identity construction language like genealogy, family, common ancestors (cf. God as father 1 Cor 1:3; 8:6; 15:24).  Believers are called into becoming a new family in every possible place (1 Cor 1:2) and become brothers and sisters of one another (ἀδελφοί occurs 41 times; cf. 1 Cor 1:1, 10, 26; 2:1; 3:1; 4:6; 5:11; 6:5,8; 7:12, 14, 24, 29; 8:11; 9:5; 10:1; 11:33; 12:1; 14:6, 26, 39; 15:1, 6, 50, 58; 16:11, 15, 20), forming a trans-local, fictive kinship group (1 Cor 1:1, 10).  Paul is like their spiritual father, establishing kinship bonds and a certain way of conduct that should be in line with the ethos he holds forth (1 Cor 4:14–17). Hansen (2010:112–113) and Meeks (1993:12–13; 37–51) are correct when they observe that in 1 Corinthians and in Paul’s other writings, believers constitute a fictive kinship group and that Paul navigates the identity and the ethos of the group in a way that is very typical of ancient kinship norms, like obedience to the paterfamilias,

MISSION AND ETHICS IN 1 CORINITHIANS

191

in-group reciprocity, concern for the group’s honour and shame, and the needs of the group were seen as more important than that of the individual (cf. Sandnes 1994:103–111). The opening words of the letter however (1 Cor 1:2) reflects the subtle tension that was a part of the newly formed kinship family in Corinth. They were at the same time the church of God (τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ) and in Corinth (τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ). Within the language of ethnic theory this poses the problem of maintaining and negotiating boundaries between the intracongregational and extra-congregational life, between insiders and outsiders (see Furnish 1999:49; Hansen 2010:129). As seen above, the problems in 1 Corinthians concerned intra-congregational conflict and opposing conclusions reached with regard to the particularisation of a believers’ ethos when it came to everyday issues of sexuality, marriage, and legal proceedings, and the Christian ethos within the congregational context like the nature of conduct within worship services, the role of gender, the boundaries between the social group and outsiders, etc. How does Paul steer through these situations of conflict, factionalism, and discord? Let us first discuss 1 Corinthians 5–7 where sexuality (1 Cor 5:1–13; 6:9–12), lawsuits (1 Cor 6:9–12), and marriage (1 Cor 7) are in focus.

THE BOUNDARIES OF SEXUALITY AND UNITY IN 1 COR 5:1–13 In 1 Corinthians 1:10, as argued above, we find the thesis statement of the letter in which Paul rhetorically exhorts the believers to restore the unity in their midst and not to tolerate divisions, but rather to focus on other-regard and corporate identity (cf. 1 Cor 10:23–24). For Paul, unity is a Leitmotif in his theology. All previous ethnic particularities that separated people from one another are transcended in the context of the newly created family of God. Therefore, Paul would urge unity in the midst of diversity, making room for cultural differences. He argues that non-Jews should not become Jews, and Jews should not expect non-Jews to conform to their cultural ethos and vice versa (cf. 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:28). For

192

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

the sake of unity, diversity should be encouraged and respected as a natural, unavoidable, given reality of life. Elsewhere I (Kok 2012)12 have stated that Paul’s theology is one characterised by: ‘Prinsipiële ekklesiologiese eenheid, deelname, etiese resiprositeit, diversiteit, vryheid, kosiderasie en sensitiwiteit vir ander, selfopofferende respek’ (principal ecclesiological unity, participation, ethical reciprocity, freedom, consideration and other-regard, self-sacrificial respect) (cf. also Wolter 2006:209). Wolter (2006:216) goes so far as to state that: Ethical plurality belongs to the essence of Christian communities. However, […] it is the handling of this ethical plurality by which the Christian community has to manifest that the communality of its identity prevails over divergent ethical convictions of its members. (Wolter 2006:216)

In my opinion Wolter is correct, but I also want to stress that for Paul the norm of unity has its boundaries, and within his implicit ethical argumentation, unity and concord are not more important than the call to holiness. Paul makes room for ethnic and cultural plurality, but Paul has clear boundaries when it comes to ethical plurality. These two should not be mistaken or seen as being the same thing. In the implicit structure of his ethical discourse, there is a clear hierarchy of values (see Zimmermann 2011).13 In the case where someone in the in-group violates the core value of holiness, such a person will be marginalized for the sake of the protection of http://www.bybelkennis.co.za/Search/newest-first.html?search phrase=any&searchword=kobus+kok&view=search accessed on 4 September 2013. 13 Zimmermann (2011) makes a convincing case that although Paul was not writing a systematized ethics in the Aristotelian sense of the word, it is possible to explore the implicit ethical argumentation and Begründungszusammenhang between certain values. Zimmermann introduced a methodological process to discover the implicit ethics and one of the steps include the process to investigate the ‘hierarchy of values’ in an argument or discourse. 12

MISSION AND ETHICS IN 1 CORINITHIANS

193

the identity and unity of the group (cf. 1 Cor 5:7–9; ἐκκαθάρατε τὴν παλαιὰν ζύμην […] μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι πόρνοις). Paul says that the Christ-followers in Corinth should not even have social contact with such a person (1 Cor 5:11; μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι ἐάν τις ἀδελφὸς ὀνομαζόμενος ᾖ πόρνος), not even to eat together with them (cf. 1 Cor 5:11; τῷ τοιούτῳ μηδὲ συνεσθίειν). Such people, Paul argues in his concluding sentence, should simply be removed from the group (1 Cor 5:13; ἐξάρατε τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν), citing Deuteronomy 24:7c LXX (ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν). In that sense it is not true to Paul’s theology to argue that his vision of communality made room for all kinds of divergent ethical convictions of its members. For Paul, πορνεία (1 Cor 5:1) is a particularly serious boundary marker not seen as part of the Christian ethos. Some Christians in the Corinthian congregation regarded the conduct of their fellow brother who lived with his diseased father’s wife as a culturally accepted activity within the system of social values in Corinth (Wolter 2006:206). For Paul, this is totally unacceptable, since he judges it as being πορνεία, something that a believer should simply flee from (1 Cor 6:18; Φεύγετε τὴν πορνείαν). Some years earlier, Paul made the same point when he wrote to the Christ-followers in Thessalonica, where we clearly see that Paul viewed sexual ethics as part of the distinctive ethos of Christ-followers, unlike πορνεία and πάθει ἐπιθυμίας which naturally occurs among the pagans who do not know God (cf. 1 Thess 4:5; μὴ ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας καθάπερ καὶ τὰ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν θεόν). Meeks (1993:31) is correct when he states that ‘Paul explicitly draws the line between insiders and outsiders in moral terms.’ 14 See Hirsch (2006) who from a modern missionary-ecclesiological point of view is of the opinion that the inclusion of outsiders into the modern church should be made easier, but that we should raise the bar when it comes to making disciples. He says that the church today does it the other way around. Here Hirsch is correct, especially when one takes this particular Pauline passage into consideration. Although Hirsch is correct, he fails to illustrate his point by using the text of the New Testament. This is often the problem in Missional books, namely that they do not illustrate the ability to constructively work with the New Testament in order to make their points. 14

194

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Hansen (2010:131) is thus correct when he argues that the issue of sexual ethics is [A] boundary for this fictive kinship group. Driving him out would be a violation of ethnic solidarity but for the fact that his behaviour has disqualified him from being considered a brother. His concern here is to reinforce the boundaries so as to maintain the group’s integrity. (Hansen 2010:131)

Now, the question is: Why is sexual ethics such an important matter to Paul? Some argue that Paul’s definition of πορνεία is clearly Jewish, since he quotes Leviticus 18:8 in his argument against it, but then again he departed from other exclusive aspects of Jewish ethos like circumcision and food laws (cf. Wolter 2006:210; Horrell 2005:134). Others like Meeks (1993:32) point out that Paul’s negative view of sex is not only an exclusive Jewish ethos, but is found in many pagan moralists, who also boldly spoke against the ‘passion of lust’ which was seen as the root of all vice. Malherbe (1987; 1989:ad loc 704–705) agrees: ‘Paul’s advice on sex and greed might not have sounded so strange to someone who heard the teaching of a philosopher like his contemporary Musonius Rufus’ (cf. Musonios Rufus, Fragment 12; Epictetus, Dissertation II, 8, 13). However, there is a very important difference between Paul and the popular philosophers when the motivational basis of his ethical point of view is investigated. For Paul, unlike the philosophers, sanctification, holiness, and the fact that Christ-followers have fellowship with Christ (participatio Christi) is the reason why they cannot take part in πορνεία (cf. also 1 Th 4:3, 7, 8). Malherbe (1987:ad loc 718) argues that the Jews and the Christians both differed with the pagan moralists when it came to the motivation for ethics in the sense that the former always began with God and the latter with reason or nature. Both (Jewish-Christian and Pagan moralists) however agree that this world is known for its passions and lusts that pollute and lead astray (Epictetus, Dissertation II, 8, 13). Both Jews (cf. Philo, Virt, 102–103; 181–182)15 and Christians (cf. 1 Cor 1:1–2; 15

See Meeks (1993:29).

MISSION AND ETHICS IN 1 CORINITHIANS

195

ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ… ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ) agree that God called believers to holiness (1 Cor 1:2; κλητοῖς ἁγίοις) and that it inter alia becomes particularised in the form of sexual holiness and the control of sexual lust. Horrell (2005:134) also refers to the adjective ἁγιον that places the focus on the fact that God’s people are set apart, and that ἁγιασμός (1 Thess 4:3, 4, 7) in 1 Thessalonians, for instance, is put in sharp contrast to the sexual immorality of those who are not part of the in-group, in other words, those who do not know God (1 Thess 4:5). Those who were called to holiness are those who are to learn ‘how to control (κτᾶσθαι) their own vessel (σκεῦος) in holiness and honour’ (1 Thess 4:4).16 From the beginning it seems that this was something characteristic of Christian ethics, creating a boundary between the faith community and the outside world. This is also clearly seen in the Epistle of Aristides (Aristides, Apology 15.3–7): [The Christians] are the ones, beyond all the [other] nations of the earth, who have found the truth. For they know the God who is creator and maker of everything, and they worship no other God than him… They do not commit adultery, they do not engage in illicit sex, they do not give false testimony, they do not covet other people’s goods, they honor father and mother and love their neighbours, they give just decisions…

Here the control of the vessel is a disputed matter. It can refer to the male sexual organ (cf. 4Q416) or to the wife. For a discussion on this see Malherbe (2000:224–229), who chooses the latter option. For those who favour the male organ, see Elgvin (1997). Since the point here is on self-control, I choose the option of the male sexual organ (cf. also Horrell 2005:134). If it referred only to the wife, then unmarried men would have a problem (cf. 1 Cor 7:36–38). If it referred to the male sexual organ, it would also apply to unmarried men who do not have a wife. In 1 Corinthians 7:27 it is clear that Paul is not urging believers to withdraw sexually from their marriage partners, since those who are married should stay so, and those who are not married should stay unmarried, since the end is near. If they cannot control their vessel, they should get married (1 Cor 7:2) (cf. Horrell 2005:147). 16

196

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS Their woman are chaste and are virgins and do not engage in prostitution. Their men abstain from all unlawful intercourse and impurity, and all the more the woman likewise abstain, for they look forward to a great hope that is to come. (Translation by Meeks 1993:8–9)

In my opinion it is clear that both Jews and Christians as well as pagan moralist philosophers (cf. sexual ethics of Stoicism in Hauck & Schultz 1995:579–595)17 see the control over sexual lusts as an important matter since sexual lust is universal to being human on the one hand (it is natural like eating and drinking), but those who show control over their sexuality (1 Thess 4:4), will also be more likely to show control over other moral aspects of their lives. Sexual control becomes the ‘practice ground’ of those who lead moral lives. Those who have control over their sexual lusts have illustrated their loyalty to God; they are those who are willing to give up their own needs for a greater purpose. Sexual control is thus put within the framework of showing loyalty and commitment to the group and its symbolic universe. Meeks (1993:30) observes that in the early Christian communities conversion was described as the transformation not only of a way of thinking and of a particular form of life, but also as a transformation of allegiance, from false gods to the only one true God. This implied a radical resocialization and a fundamental reformation of morals.18 From a social 17Hauck

& Schultz (1995:579) remark: ‘Seeking liberation from passion, Stoicism condemns and resists extramarital intercourse, even with female slaves. By unclean acts a person defiles the deity within. Chastity is extolled and adultery regarded as unlawful and infamous.’ 18 Eating food was a social boundary marker for the Jews. Paul parts with this Jewish way of defining boundaries. The reason is inter alia that the eating of food for Paul is no moral matter (1 Cor 8:8), but sex is (1 Cor 6:13–14; 10:1–5; 21). Furthermore, Paul’s presupposition, as a child of his day, is that sexual intercourse leads to two people becoming one flesh (1 Cor 6:16; Gen 2:24) and therefore κοινονία is the moral consequence. A Christ-follower is part of the body of Christ and for this reason a Christ-follower cannot have illicit sexual union and κοινονία with an unbeliever since they are called to be holy (Horrell 2005:150–151).

MISSION AND ETHICS IN 1 CORINITHIANS

197

identity theoretical perspective, this is a good example of how the early Christians used the language of distinction in clear boundarydrawing language between those on the inside and those on the outside (Horrell 2005:138–139). This brings a very interesting tension forward in the way Christ-followers had to draw boundaries between themselves and the world, which directly implicates the missional and incarnational dimension of the gospel message, and the way Christians had to live in the world. On the one hand they had to love the world, and on the other they had to hate the world and its impurity (Meeks 1993:52–65).

1 CORINTHIANS 11:2–16—PAUL ON BOUNDARIES AND CHRISTIAN GENDER ETHOS Above we referred to the problem of some women who deliberately prayed without the customary head coverings, and we mentioned that it could have been the logical (and faithful) implication of Paul’s message of equality between believers (1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:28). The conduct of these particular women caused some problems in the community of faith since some people thought it was inappropriate. In the first century cultural context, ‘you were what you wore’ in the sense that class differences were very clearly seen in the clothes a person wore (Winter 2003:4–5). Paul, as a spiritual leader, consequently had to address this problem that was also one of the issues that caused division within the faith community of Corinth. In his handling the situation, Paul argues that the man was not created ‘out of’ the woman, but the woman ‘out of the man’ (1 Cor 11:8–9; οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀνὴρ ἐκ γυναικὸς ἀλλὰ γυνὴ ἐξ ἀνδρός), appealing to an established Jewish symbolic universal frame of reference. In fact, Paul says, women were created ‘for the sake of the man’ (καὶ γὰρ οὐκ ἐκτίσθη ἀνὴρ διὰ τὴν γυναῖκα ἀλλὰ γυνὴ διὰ τὸν ἄνδρα). Important here is the fact that Paul is not arguing that men are superior to women. In Christ there is no difference between men and women since in Christ they share the same status (1 Cor 12:13). Paul does, however, acknowledge the fact that they do differ on an anthropological level. Said in another way, on a theological level man and woman are equal before God, but on physical or anthropological level they are different, with the implication that in the social and anthropological context of the culture of Paul’s day, they are to respect the particular social conventions (see

198

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Wolter 2006:210–211).19 In my opinion this was a wise decision of the early church and also related to the missionary message and ethical integrity of Christ-followers. This is most clearly seen in Peter where he/the author argues that women should behave in such a way that within the cultural context of their day, they will be perceived as ‘good’ wives, and in so doing, their husbands may come to know the Lord (1 Pet 3:1–7; Ὁμοίως [αἱ] γυναῖκες, ὑποτασσόμεναι τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν, ἵνα καὶ εἴ τινες ἀπειθοῦσιν τῷ λόγῳ, διὰ τῆς τῶν γυναικῶν ἀναστροφῆς ἄνευ λόγου κερδηθήσονται). According to Winter (2003:5), in the first century world of Paul’s day, there were many women who lived like ‘the new woman’—a free, independent, emancipated, woman. Augustus (17 BCE) made laws that tried to re-establish the traditional ‘modest’ values against the background of this development of the ‘new woman,’ by promoting and rewarding modest behaviour. Throughout the empire statues were erected that promoted the traditional ‘modesty’ of matrons. Winter (2003:60–61, 81, 101, 138, 197) also refers to Seneca (Ad Helvian 16.1–4), contemporary of Paul, who praises his mother who was not like the ‘new or modern type of woman,’ but held to the traditional mores of a modest Roman matron. Against this background it could be postulated that Paul motivated the believers to be sensitive to the social context in which they lived and not to give the wrong impression, and be like these ‘emancipated new wives.’ Paul reinforced the traditional moWitherington (1995:235–236) does not agree and argues that Paul is not trying to move the community of faith so far as to endorse typical Roman or Greco-Roman customs, but to establish a new ethos in the church that was common there, but uncommon in the culture, and in such a way to establish their own sense of a unique identity. I do not agree with Witherington (1995:236) that ‘Paul places little stock in social or cultural conventions or social status.’ In my opinion, this section is a very good example of how Paul takes the exact cultural ethos of his culture serious in the process of shaping Christian communities. One example is 1 Corinthians 9:19–23 where Paul says that to those under the law he became like someone under the law, and to those not under the law he became like them, illustrating that he was indeed sensitive to social customs and the fact that it could hinder or promote the spreading of the gospel. 19

MISSION AND ETHICS IN 1 CORINITHIANS

199

res of the time, where women were to be subject to their husbands, and the head covering was a cultural symbol that illustrated that cultural value. This however, does not take away the fact that on a theological level there is no difference between Jew and Greek, free and slave, man or woman (1 Cor 12:13). Paul argues that if women are not sensitive to this cultural aspect, their authority and honour is at stake, and therefore Paul’s advice here is not meant to degrade the woman to the lesser of the two genders (cf. 1 Cor 11:10; διὰ τοῦτο ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους20), but to edify (cf. ἐξουσίαν) her social position within the group. This becomes especially clear in 1 Corinthians 11:12 where Paul says that just as the woman is ‘out of’ the man, in the same way the man is also ‘out of/by’ the woman; but even more importantly—and this is his point—all are actually ‘out of/ from’ God (ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡ γυνὴ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρός, οὕτως καὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ διὰ τῆς γυναικός· τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ). Wolter (2006:211) is thus correct when he states that: ‘[T]he common εἶναι ἐν Χριστῶ of men and women equalises their social status, but it does not affect their anthropological differences […]’ Sexual distinctions between man and woman, according to Paul, are based on the natural order of God’s creation and are not obliterated by the believers’ redemption or the reality of the new creation in Christ (Witherington 1995:240; Wolter 2006:211). However, Paul makes a strong case for the fact that within their differences, there exists a fundamental unity and equality in Christ (1 Cor 12:13) where status divisions should make way for corporate solidarity and reconciliation. In other words, ‘corporate solidarity in Christ implies, for Paul, neither the erasure of previous distinctions nor merely their encompassing within a new sphere of belonging, but rather their relativation or revaluation, with real social implications’ (Horrell 2005:126). This message was something fresh in the first century world. The difference between men and women is a created given, but the ethical question is how these differences should be managed. In a way this is true for the way other differences between people should be handled within the This possibly refers to Genesis 6:2 where the angels fell in love with earthly woman and overstepped their boundaries. This is in other words an argument to concur with the created order of things. 20

200

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

community of faith. As we will see below, plurality is a given, the challenge is how to manage the plurality in such a way that solidarity becomes apparent in spite of the difference (see Horrell 2005; Wolter 2006:216). As in the other cases where differences occurred, the question is how to make the fundamental unity visible in such a way that ‘no one seeks his own, but each other’s interests’ (cf. 1 Cor 10:23–24; μηδεὶς τὸ ἑαυτοῦ ζητείτω ἀλλὰ τὸ τοῦ ἑτέρου). This leads to a life of corporate solidarity and other-regard, a life of egalitarian ethical reciprocity (Wolter 2006:211) which is an essential Christian ethical value for Paul’s strategy for reconciliation. 21

1 CORINTHIANS 11:17–34—INTRA-CONGREGATIONAL STATUS DIVISIONS

The problems with regard to the Lord’s Supper, as we have seen above, resulted from the economic status distinctions between the rich and the poor, the haves and the have not’s. The richer Christfollowers are shaming the poorer ones by eating before them, helping themselves to the point of satisfaction and even drunkenness, and leaving the poor with the little that is left (Witherington 1995:248). Paul addressed this problem simply by arguing that in the intra-congregational context of the church, the social distinctions should be transcended against the background of their shared unity in Christ. Interestingly enough Paul does not say that the rich should sell their property and become like the poor (Wolter 2006:211). His ethical advice to the rich is simply that they ‘eat at home’ and create room so that the poor can have something to eat when the congregation is eating together (Wolter 2006:211; Wolff 1996:262). In 1 Corinthians 11:23–26 Paul ground his practical solution in a theological identity construction that goes back to an imitatio Christi narrative that relates to a Jesus-remembered paradigm:

Wolter (2006:209) speaks of ethical reciprocity. I expanded the concept and would rather speak of egalitarian ethical reciprocity, due to the fact that the motive of equality in Christ is of such importance to Paul’s ethical discourse (cf. Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 12:13; Col 3:11). 21

MISSION AND ETHICS IN 1 CORINITHIANS

201

Paulus begründed sein ablehnendes Urteil über die korinthische Mahlpraxis unter Berufung auf die Einsetzung des Herrenmahls durch Jesus. Dort allein – in dem Sterben Jesus “für euch” (V.24b), das die eschatologische Heilsordnung (V.25b) begründet – sind die Kriterien für ein angemessenes Feiern zu finden […]’ (Paul bases his opinion on the Corinthian meal praxis, citing the establishment of the Lord’s Supper by Jesus. There alone, in the death of Jesus “for you” (V.25b), the eschatological salvation is constituted, and that is where the criteria for a proper celebration of the Lord’s Supper is to be found […]) (Wolff 1996:263)

By taking part in the Lords Supper, the believers were remembering Jesus’ self-giving life and resurrection and the fact that they are called to concretely live out that particular ethos. A Christian ethos of corporate solidarity and other-regard, a life of egalitarian ethical reciprocity for Paul, should have its clearest expression in the context of the Lord’s supper, the social setting in which the unity of the church could come to its fullest expression (Witherington 1995:247).

1 CORINTHIANS 6:1–8—EXTRA-CONGREGATIONAL CONFLICT BETWEEN BELIEVERS

On the other hand, the nature of Christian ethics is not confined to the social space of the intra-congregational context. It is essentially a way of life that should infiltrate and transform extracongregational life as well. In 1 Corinthians 6:1–8 Paul addresses the problem of some Christians, probably those with some financial means, who took fellow Christians to court. He reminds them of the fact that they are spiritual brothers (cf. 1 Cor 6:5, 7, 8) and that they are part of the same body of Christ, equal in the sight of the Lord and should resolve conflict in a Christ-following way. Instead of getting a ‘secular’ judge to litigate the case, a fellow ingroup member should be the mediating ‘facilitator’ between the two estranged parties (Wolter 2006:212). The aim is clearly that it should lead to reconciliation—a very important theological and ethical value for Paul (1 Cor 1:10). Paul motivates the believers to manage the conflict in a very particular way, namely, that each party should focus not on their own rights and needs but on that of the

202

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

other (cf. 1 Cor 10:23–24). In this way the Christian ethos of corporate solidarity and other-regard, a life of egalitarian ethical reciprocity, could transform the ‘secular’ context of conflict in a ‘Christian’ way (Wolter 2006:212).

1 CORINTHIANS 8:1-13—THE EPITOME OF OTHERREGARD

Paul’s vision of congregational unity and reconciliation finds, in my opinion, its epitome in Paul’s advice regarding the conflict that existed between two Corinthian groups which were labeled the ‘weak’ and the ‘strong.’ The conflict existed over the eating of idol meat, as discussed above. In short, some members felt that meat that was offered to an idol could be eaten by Christ-followers since there exists no God but theirs (the so-called ‘strong’), while the other group (the so-called ‘weak’)22 felt that the eating of such ‘spiritually contaminated food’ could have a negative spiritual effect on them. Paul is comfortable with diversity in this matter as elsewhere, but makes it clear that no grouping’s preferences should be imposed on that of another and that other-regard should be central to the handling of conflict that occurs due to diversity and plurality (Hansen 2010:155; Wolter 2006:216). It is very interesting that Paul does not fall into the trap of a lengthy theological discussion on whether it is spiritually beneficial or negative for a believer to eat idol meat and Some scholars are of the opinion that the ‘weak’ refers to those of lower social standing, who were vulnerable and dependent, socially inhibited and less influential than the ‘strong’ who were of high social standing and more influential (cf. Theissen 1982:121–143; Thiselton 2000:705– 706). Witherington (1995:96) argues rather convincingly that the distinction between the weak and strong could have a sociological basis and refer to the differences between the rich and the poor since it would have been the rich who would have been invited to participate in temple feasts and those who would have been involved in litigation. On the other hand, it could also be interpreted that the ‘strong’ are those who have a firm consciousness of authority and understand their identity in Christ. I prefer the latter option but do not exclude the possibility of the former. Both options come down to the point that Paul was sensitive to diverse contexts and different preferences in order to win as many as possible. 22

MISSION AND ETHICS IN 1 CORINITHIANS

203

why that is so. Paul immediately goes on to focus on the issue of conflict management with an eye to facilitating a perspective and code of conduct that would be beneficial for both groups and resolve the crisis situation. What Paul does is to motivate the ‘strong’ to take the ‘weak’ into consideration (Witherington 1995:248). Even though he himself (implicitly) agrees with the ‘strong’ that there could be no negative effect when meat offered to an idol is eaten, Paul nevertheless persuades the ‘strong’ believers to arrange their conduct in such a way that not their own needs, but the spiritual needs of the ‘weaker’ believers are taken into consideration when they are confronted with an ethical choice on the matter. By not eating meat offered to idols, the ‘strong’ would be advancing the spiritual life of the ‘weak,’ while the opposite could lead to the ‘weak’ being led astray (1 Cor 8:9–13) and the unity and health of the church being jeopardised. Rather than eating meat offered to idols, the ‘strong’ believers should abstain from eating it, for the sake of the ‘weak’ believers and their spiritual health (1 Cor 8:13). Here we find the epitome of other-regard and corporate solidarity in action (cf. also Wolter 2006:213). In 1 Corinthians 10:31–32 Paul clearly links this ethical perspective to the missionary dynamics of the Christ-follower movement. He says that all should be done in such a way that it brings God glory, and that it gives no offence to Jews, Greeks, or the Church of God. Above all else, the church should be known for the fact that it is different, it handles conflict differently, it holds fast to the love and fellowship of God and the reconciliation of humanity to God and each other; it shows abounding love and other-regard as a fundamental ethos of life, based on a distinct identity, namely, that they are the ἐκκλεσία τοῡ Θεῡ, servants of God and one another (Wolter 2006:214). In my opinion the Corinthian congregation was in an early stage of group formation. Typical of the storming and norming phases in group dynamics and group formation, stereotypical categorization took place and was related to the experience of social conflict (Smith 2005). Paul resolved the conflict by transcending the stereotypical categorization. Paul inter alia presented himself as a model of someone who succeeded in not drawing boundaries in such a way that he excludes, but rather missionally includes (Cf. 1

204

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Cor 9:12, 19–23).23 In 1 Corinthians 9:1–23, and the rhetorical climax of the section reached in 1 Corinthians 9:19–23, Paul is clearly illustrating that he become all things to all men, that he might by all means save some, all for the sake of the gospel (Ἐλεύθερος γὰρ ὢν ἐκ πάντων πᾶσιν ἐμαυτὸν ἐδούλωσα, ἵνα τοὺς πλείονας κερδήσω). Here, the ethical argumentation and hierarchy of values ‘for the sake of the gospel’ and its blessings serves as the motivational basis of his conduct (1 Cor 9:23; πάντα δὲ ποιῶ διὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ἵνα συγκοινωνὸς αὐτοῦ γένωμαι). The purpose statement (ἵνα […] κερδήσω24) illustrates that he wishes to ‘win some’ or save some (1 Cor 9:22; ἵνα πάντως τινὰς σώσω),25 which is nothing less than a missional26 intention.27 Furthermore, it becomes clear that in his Sandnes (2011:141) is not completely satisfied with the notion that Paul’s strategy was successful, in fact he thinks it eventually proved impossible to sustain as evident in the fact that it seems that Jewish culture and traditions were more dominant in the context of the development of the mixed churches. 24 Thiselton (2000:701) refers to Daube (1947:109–120) who argues that the term most probably derives from commercial background associated with profit and gaining an asset, and is probably a technical term in Judaism reflecting the Niphal of the word sakar, namely niskar, which means ‘to gain.’ Here Paul uses this term that might be a technical term associated with winning or gaining a proselyte (cf. also Matt 18:15 for more on ‘winning’ disciples). 25 It must be made clear that adaptability does not imply that Paul changed the essence of the gospel that he preaches as Wolff (1996:202) rightly argues, ‘Von einer Preisgabe oder auch nur Modifizierung der Grundzüge seiner Botschaft kann jedoch nicht die rede sein […] dass er ihnen das Evangelium unverkürzt, aber mit einfülsamen Verhalten so verkündigt, dass sie es in ihrer jeweiligen Situation verstehen und dadurch zum Glauben kommen können.’ 26 Wolff (1996:202) also sees Paul’s ‘Anpassungstaktik’ as an ‘Ausdruck der Missionssprache,’ stating further that ‘Jeder Missionserfolg wird als Gewinn für den Herrn verstanden’ and that here we clearly seen that ‘Paulus konkretisiert seine Missionsmethode.’ 27 On Paul’s missionary strategy in 1 Corinthians 9:19–23 and the fact that Paul argues in favour of flexibility for the sake of the gospel, see (Sandnes 2011:128–141). For a very interesting discussion of the parallels 23

MISSION AND ETHICS IN 1 CORINITHIANS

205

pastoral leadership strategy (Anpassungstaktik28 [Strategy of adaptability]), Paul was sensitive to diversity and adapted himself to the needs of particular groups and in his ethical decisions he guides these groups with that sensitivity in mind (Thiselton 2000:483– 484). In my opinion, it is clear that when Paul adapted to both the ‘weak’ and the ‘strong,’ Jews and non-Jews, he illustrated his enculturated sensitivity for other-regard and mutual service as an ethical guideline and did not impose a certain lifestyle or cultural way of life in a uniform way, illustrating the importance of enculturating other-regard as missional strategy (cf. also Glad 1995; Thiselton 2000:484; Wolff29 1996:202). The fact that Paul becomes a servant to all, although he is free, is not something that was seen as being ‘virtuous’ in ancient times. Martin (1990:135) (as quoted by Witherington 1995:211) points out that taking a lower station in life was viewed as slavish and servile behaviour—hardly ‘ethically’ virtuous. In fact, Paul’s metaphor of the leader as slave rejects the statusmaintaining leadership framework of the benevolent patriarchialism of his day (Martin 1990:135). In the baptismal unity formula of 1 Corinthians 12:13 (καὶ γὰρ ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν, εἴτε Ἰουδαῖοι εἴτε Ἕλληνες εἴτε δοῦλοι εἴτε ἐλεύθεροι, καὶ πάντες ἓν πνεῦμα ἐποτίσθημεν), Paul attempted to shape the identity of the between Paul and Philodemus on the matter of adaptability which was also a strategy that Graeco Roman educators used, in that they also realized the reality of diversity and the need to take different needs into consideration, see Glad (1995). 28 See Wolff (1996:202). Witherington (1995:210) agrees and speaks of this section as one in which the modus operandi of Paul is sketched, namely that ‘He sees himself as free of obligations fromall persons, yet he has made himself a slave to all in order to win over more of them. He accommodates his style of living, not his theological or ethical principles […]. He is, in short, flexible in his general lifestyle – food, clothing, and the like.’ 29 Wolff (1996:202) also agrees that Paul uses an adaptability strategy, stating, ‘Man könnte daraus und auch aus dem folgenden entnehmen, dass der Apostel eine Anpassungstaktik betrieb’ (One can see from this and what follows, that the Apostle had an adaptability tactic).

206

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Christ-followers in Corinth as a reconciling community in contexts of conflict and change (Hansen 2010:155). He does that by reminding them of their corporate identity in Christ that transcends any particular individual identity (cf. Paul’s use of ἀδελφοί). He appeals rhetorically to them to show self-sacrificial acts of love and otherregard, patterned on Christ’s example on the cross (cf. Gal 2:20; 1 Cor 9:19–23; 11:1). In his conflict management strategy the implicit ethics of reconciliation plays a fundamentally important role in Paul’s rhetorical argumentation and resolution of the conflict situation. Furthermore, the ethics of reconciliation relates to the narrative of God’s reconciling mission (2 Cor 5:18; τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ καταλλάξαντος ἡμᾶς ἑαυτῷ διὰ Χριστοῦ) which Paul and other believers were called to continue as God’s ambassadors (2 Cor 5:18; δόντος ἡμῖν τὴν διακονίαν τῆς καταλλαγῆς […] πρεσβεύομεν). In this way Paul presents the implicit ethics of reconciliation as a universal ethical imperative for the Christ-follower. In the words of Hansen (2010:155), when looking at Paul, ‘social solidarity is non-negotiable’ in the community of faith; they should be known as being a reconciling people of a reconciling God, both on vertical-theological and horizontal-anthropological levels.

CONCLUSION From the Corinthian congregational context we learned that there existed conflict in the early church and that much of it was a result of diversity within the congregation. Diversity is and was a fact of life and reality of the church. In Paul’s vision for unity, and in his attempt to address the factionalism in the Corinthian congregation, he does not opt for homogeneity, but accepts diversity as a given. In the midst of conflict he would in all cases ground his practical solution to reconciliation on a common theological identity basis. Paul focuses on corporate solidarity and unity, and urges the congregation to find their fellow brothers and sisters in times of conflict by means of the strategy of corporate solidarity in Christ, ethical reciprocity, and other-regard. At the end it became clear that Paul’s ethical advice also had a missional dimension, in the sense that diversity and conflict management should take place in such a way that God is honoured and that both Jews and Greeks, the weak and the strong, slave and free, as well as fellow believers will see that the way this community handles conflict is different than how the world would do it. Christ-followers should be known as a

MISSION AND ETHICS IN 1 CORINITHIANS

207

reconciling people, continuing the work of a reconciling God. Perhaps transforming mission could just as well be reconciling mission in contexts of conflict, diversity, and change.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aasgaard, R., 2002, ‘‘Role Ethics’ in Paul: The Significance of the Sibling role for Paul’s ethical thinking’, New Testament Studies 48, 513–530. Breytenbach, C., 2010, Grace, reconciliation, concord: The death of Christ in Graeco-Roman Metaphors, Brill, Leiden. Clarke, A.D., 2006, Secular and Christian leadership in Corinth: A Sociohistorical and exegetical study of 1 Corinthians 1–6, (Paternoster Biblical Monographs), reprinted in Wipf & Stock, Eugene, Oregon. Daube, D., 1947, ‘Κερδαίνω as a missionary term’, Harvard Theological Review 40, 109–120. Elgvin, T., 1997, ‘To master his own vessel: 1 Thessalonians 4:4 in light of new Qumran evidence’, New Testament Studies 43, 604– 619. Esler, P., 2003, Conflict and Identity in Romans, Fortress, Minneapolis. Furnish, V.P., 1999, The theology of the first letter to the Corinthians, (New Testament Theology), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Glad, C.E., 1995, Paul and Philodemus: Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian Psychagogy, (NovTSup 81), Brill, Leiden. Hansen, B., 2010, All of you are one: The social vision of Gal 3:28, 1 Cor 12:13 and Col 3:11, (LNTS), T&T Clark, London. Hauck, F. & Schultz, S., 1995, ‘Porneia’, in F.G. Kittel, G. Friedrich & G.W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. VI, pp. 579–595, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Horrell, D.G., 1996, The social ethos of the Corinthian correspondence: Interests and ideology from 1 Corinthians to 1 Clement, T&T Clark, Edinburgh. Horrell, D.G., 2005, Solidarity and difference: A contemporary reading of Paul’s ethics, T&T Clark, New York. Hirsch, A., 2006, The forgotten ways: Reactivating the missional church, Brazos Press, Grand Rapids. Kok, J., 2012, ‘Paulus as kreatiewe ruimteskepper’, www.bybelkennis.co.za

208

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Kok, J.(ed.), 2013, Unlocking windows to the world of Jesus, UP Drukkers, Pretoria. Malherbe, A.J., 1987, Paul and the Thessalonians: The philosophic tradition of pastoral care, Fortress, Philadelphia. Malherbe, A.J., 1989, Paul and the popular philosophers, Fortress, Minneapolis. Malherbe, A.J., 2000, The letters to the Thessalonians, Doubleday, New York. (AB 32B). Martin, D.B., 1990, Slavery as salvation: The metaphor of slavery in Pauline Christianity, Yale University Press, New Haven. Meeks, W., 1993, The Origins of Christian Morality, Yale University Press, New Haven. Mitchell, M.M., 1991, Paul and the rhetoric of reconciliation, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. Munck, J., 1959, Paul and the salvation of mankind, SCM, London. Porter, S.E., 2011, ‘Reconciliation as the Heart of Paul’s Missionary Theology’, in T.J. Burke & B.S. Rosner (eds.), Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice, (LNTS), pp.169-179, T&T Clark, London. Robertson, C.K., 2001, Conflict in Corinth: Redefining the System, (Studies in Biblical Literature 42), New York, Peter Lang Sandnes, K.O., 1994, A new family: Conversion and Ecclesiology in the Early Church with cross-cultural comparisons, (Studies in the Intercultural history of Christianity 91), Peter Lang, Bern. Sandnes, K.O., 2011, ‘A Missionary Strategy in 1 Corinthians 9:1923’ in T.J. Burke & B.S. Rosner (eds.), Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice, (LNTS), pp. 128–141, T&T Clark, London. Smith, M.K., 2005, ‘Bruce W. Tuckman - forming, storming, norming and performing in groups,’ The encyclopaedia of informal education, www.infed.org/thinkers/tuckman.htm, accessed on 18 January 2012. Theissen, G., 1982, The social setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth, translated by J.H. Schütz, Fortress, Philadelphia. Theissen, G., 2001, ‘The social structure of Pauline communities: Some critical remarks on J.J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival,’ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 24, 72–75. Tuckman, B.W., [1965] 2001, ‘Developmental sequence in small groups’, Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399 [Reprinted in Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3,

MISSION AND ETHICS IN 1 CORINITHIANS

209

Spring 2001 and is available at: http://dennislearningcenter.osu.edu/references/GROUP%20 DEV%20ARTICLE.doc. Accessed on January 18, 2012. Tuckman, B.W., 1996, Theories and applications of Educational Psychology, McGraw, New York. Van Unnik, W.C., 2004, ‘Studies on the so-called First Epistle to Clement: The literary genre’, in C. Breytenbach (ed.), Encounters with Hellenism: Studies on the First Letter of Clement, (AGJU 53), PAGES, Brill, Leiden Winter, B., 2001, After Paul left Corinth: The influence of secular ethics and social change, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Winter, B.W., 2003, Roman wives, Roman widows: The appearance of New Woman and the Pauline communities, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Witherington, B., 1995, Conflict and community in Corinth: A sociorhetorical commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Wolff, C., 1996, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, (Theologische Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament), Evangelishe Verlagsanhalt, Leipzig. Wolter, M., 2006, ‘Pauline Ethics according to 1 Corinthians’, in J.G. Van der Watt (ed.), Identity Ethics and Ethos in the New Testament, 199-218, Walter De Gruyter, Berlin. Zimmermann, R., 2011, ‘Implicit Ethics in 1 Corinthians 9’, Paper delivered at the prestige conference on mission and ethics at the University of Pretoria, South Africa, September 2011.

8. ‘HOLDING FORTH THE WORD OF LIFE’: PHILIPPIANS 2:16A AND OTHER REFERENCES TO PAUL’S UNDERSTANDING OF THE INVOLVEMENT OF EARLY CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES IN SPREADING THE GOSPEL Christoph Stenschke FORUM WIEDENEST, BERGNEUSTADT, GERMANY AND

DEPARTMENT OF BIBLICAL AND ANCIENT STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA ABSTRACT1 In the past several scholars have argued that, perhaps surprisingly, that the Corpus Paulinum does not charge churches or individual Christians to be involved in actively spreading their faith. Recently, some studies have argued persuasively that one such charge is to be found in Philippians 2:16a. The expression λόγον ζωῆς ἐπέχοντες should not be understood as ‘holding fast to the word of life,’ but rather as ‘holding forth, that is presenting the word of life,’ that is to say, presenting it to others. This article briefly summarizes the arguments for this underThis article originally appeared as Stenschke, C., 2013, ‘“Holding forth the Word of Life”: Philippians 2:16a and other references to Paul’s understanding of the involvement of early Christian Communities in spreading the Gospel’, Journal of Early Christian History 3, 61–82. 1

211

212

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

standing of ἐπεχεῖν, places them in the wider context of references to congregational evangelism in Pauline literature, and argues that this larger portrayal supports the understanding of ἐπεχεῖν as ‘holding forth.’

INTRODUCTION A recent substantial monograph argues that the verb ἐπεχεῖν in Philippians 2:16a should be understood as ‘holding out’ or ‘holding forth’ (i.e., presenting the word of life to non-Christians) rather than as ‘holding fast’ (to the word of life) (Cf. Ware 2005:151–153). As this case is not new, and has been argued comprehensively and persuasively, my emphasis is on placing this understanding of ἐπεχεῖν in the wider context of Paul’s mission and of his congregations to show that ἐπεχεῖν as ‘holding forth’ is not only possible and required from a linguistic point of view, but also very likely in this wider context. Ἐπεχεῖν as ‘holding out’ or ‘holding forth’ In his monograph, The Mission of the Church in Paul's Letter to the Philippians in the Context of Ancient Judaism, James P. Ware (2005:23– 159) first surveys early Jewish views regarding the conversion of Gentiles. Against this backdrop, Ware (2005:163–199, 201–236, 237–284) examines aspects of ‘Mission in Philippians’ in three chapters: ‘The Progress of the Gospel in Philippians 1:12–18a,’ ‘Suffering and Mission in Philippians 1:18b–2:11,’ and ‘The Mission of the Church in Philippians 2:12–18.’ In this last chapter, Ware (2005:256–270) offers an extended treatment of the meaning of the Greek word ἐπεχεῖν in Philippians 2:16a. Our focus is on this discussion. Ware (2005:256) rightly argues that with the expression λόγον ζωῆς ἐπέχοντες in Philippians 2:16a, Paul describes in what manner the Philippian Christians were to be ‘lights in the world’ (2:15).2 The context is one of exhortation. Ware (2005:256, 258) notes: In Ware’s (2005:256) own words: ‘The participial clause thus serves syntactically to describe how the Philippians are to be lights in the world, and contextually functions as an exhortation to the Christians in Philippi. 2

‘HOLDING FORTH THE WORD OF LIFE’

213

Interpreters are divided over the meaning of the verb ἐπεχεῖν in Philippians 2:16a. Is Paul here exhorting the Philippians to hold the word forth, or to hold it fast? The majority of recent expositors have in fact opted for the meaning “hold fast” or the equivalent. Others, including most older commentators, favour the meaning “hold forth.” […] Does Paul here exhort the Philippians to be lights in the world by holding firm to the gospel or does he exhort them to be lights in the world by spreading the gospel to others? […] The lack of consensus among interpreters and lexicographers makes a confident decision regarding the meaning of ἐπεχεῖν in Philippians 2:16 very difficult.

After a survey of how the verb is treated in various dictionaries (Liddell, Scott & Jones; Thayer; Bauer, Aland & Aland; Moulton & Milligan), Ware (2005:258–270) sets out with a comprehensive study of the meaning of ἐπεχεῖν. He surveys a large number of occurrences and interacts in detail with V.S. Poythress’s article (2002) “‘Holding Fast’ Versus ‘Holding Out’ in Philippians 2:16” and with Peter Oakes’s study (2000) “Quelle devrait être l'influence des échos intertextuels sur la traduction? Le cas de l’épître aux Philippiens (2:15f).” Ware (2005:258) shows that Poythress and Oakes base their conclusions on a limited number of texts. He offers a comprehensive study of the verb based on all relevant evidence from literature and inscriptions. Ware (2005:263) concludes that ‘The verb ἐπεχεῖν can denote the holding forth, extending or offering of something to some person or thing. These passages, furthermore, reveal that the verb in this sense can take a great variety of direct objects and functions in a wide variety of contexts’ (emphasis original). Ware (2005:263) argues that in view of this evidence, Poythress’ claim that the sense of ἐπεχεῖν as ‘holding forth, extending, offering is restricted to the specialized context of giving drink is simply false.’ Ware (2005:263) argues rather, ‘[…] when used intransitively the verb most commonly denotes the extension or spread In light of Paul’s focus on mission in the previous clause (2:15b), as well as throughout Philippians 1:12–2:18, one would expect in 2:16a an exhortation to spread the gospel’ (emphasis original).

214

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

of an entity over space, often accompanied by an accusative denoting the extent of space over which the subject of the verb reaches or extends’ (emphasis original).3 Based on his extensive survey of the occurrences of the verb, Ware (2005:266f) argues that there were: [T]wo major senses of the verb ἐπεχεῖν in antiquity. In the first sense, the verb can mean to hold back or refrain, whether transitively of an object or intransitively of the subject itself. In the second sense, the verb can be used either transitively to denote the holding forth or extension of an object, or intransitively of the spread or extension of the subject. Both of these meanings are widely attested in antiquity, and all the various uses of the verb […] fall under one or the other of these two major senses of the word. (Ware 2005:266)

Ware (2005:257) then examines and critiques in detail the treatment of ἐπεχεῖν in the Bauer & Aland (1988) Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch who ‘suggest the meaning “hold fast” for the verb in Philippians 2:16, and do not even mention the meaning “hold forth” as a lexical possibility.’4 Ware (2005:267) notes, ‘The absence of this meaning [“hold fast”] in Liddell – Scott – Jones is noteworthy, and reflects in fact an utter lack of evidence in antiquity of such a Ware (2005:266) continues: ‘In the examples cited above of the intransitive use of the verb, the idea of extension is very evident. We have thus seen that the idea of extension is a prominent component of the verb’s meaning in both transitive and intransitive functions. The verb’s intransitive usage to denote the spread, advance or extension of the subject, corresponds to the verb’s transitive usage to denote the holding forth or extension of an object by the subject.’ 4 In German: ‘trans. festhalten, in seiner Gewalt halten […] jemanden […] etwas […] intr. b. losgehen auf, auf geistige Vorgänge übertragen sein Augenmerk richten auf jemanden […] b. anhalten, verweilen’ (col. 578). Ware does not cite Bauer & Aland, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch or explain his translation of the German terms. 3

‘HOLDING FORTH THE WORD OF LIFE’

215

meaning of the word.’ The occurrences listed in Bauer & Aland’s Wörterbuch as evidence and support for their rendering of ἐπεχεῖν as ‘holding fast’ are based on a misunderstanding of the passages involved.5 Ware (2005:269f) shows that the meanings ‘hold’ or ‘hold fast’ are not attested for the verb ἐπεχεῖν and argues that: [T]he etymology and usage of the word preclude such a meaning. […] The sense hold forth is consequently the only possible meaning of the verb ἐπεχεῖν in Philippians 2:16a. The clause is accordingly to be translated ‘holding forth the word of life.’ This sense of the word is also demanded by the missional context of the immediately preceding clause, which […] describes the Philippians as ‘lights in the world.’ […] The clause λόγον ζωῆς ἐπέχοντες is thus an exhortation to spread the gospel. (Ware 2005:269f)

This result has far reaching implications for Paul’s understanding of the missionary involvement of the churches that he founded. Ware (2005:270) writes: Paul did understand the church at Philippi as obligated to engage in active mission to outsiders, and in Philippians 2:16a he explicitly commands them to do so. The presence of a command to active mission in Philippians 2:16, together with Paul's demonstrable interest in the church as mission throughout the book of Philippians, reveals that the mission of his churches did occupy an important place in Paul’s missionary thinking.6 Testament of Joseph 15.3; Josephus, Bellum Judaicum 1.230; Plutarch, Otho 17 and Diodorus Siculus 12.27.3; Luke 4.42 (D); Athenagoras; Legatio pro Christianis 8.2; Sibylline Oracles 3.340. Ware (2005:267) provides a detailed discussion of these passages. Ware (2005:269) concludes: ‘It can be stated categorically that the verb ἐπεχεῖν does not bear the sense “hold” or “hold fast” in any ancient passage.’ 6 Ware (2005:270) rightly notes that ‘in no other letter does Paul explicitly command his congregations to preach the gospel or to engage in active verbal mission.’ Roland Allen (1960 [1912]:93), a famous student of Paul’s missionary methods, noted: ‘There is one sentence of approval, “From you sounded out the word of the Lord”, but there is no insistence upon 5

216

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS (Ware 2005:270)

Ware’s understanding is supported by his persuasive reading of Philippians 1:12—2:18 as a motivation for mission and evangelism in Philippi (see below). Now it is time to place Ware’s argument regarding the understanding of ἐπεχεῖν as ‘holding forth’ in Philippians 2:16a in the wider context of Paul’s mission. Does this wider context support Ware’s case? ‘Holding forth the word of life’ in the wider context of Paul’s Gentile mission In studies of early Christianity in general, in Pauline studies, and in studies of early Christian mission, Paul is often presented as a solitary figure who worked on his own, independently of churches. However, a close look at the Book of Acts (where Paul commands centre stage from the second half onwards) and his extant letters indicates that Paul’s mission was embedded in several early Christian churches, supported by these churches in various ways, and extended through the believers’ conduct, the behavior towards outsiders, and the verbal witness of early Christian communities. Paul’s mission was inextricably linked to churches. It can and should be understood as the mission of the church(es). 7 We shall first look at the evidence for the active involvement of early Christian churches in Paul’s own mission in the North-Eastern quarter of the ancient Mediterranean world of the first century CE. Then we shall ask whether and to what extent Paul expected the churches to not only support his own missionary endeavour but to be actively involved themselves in spreading the gospel through their behaviour, their charity towards all people, and their verbal witness in their places of residence and spheres of influence. the command of Christ to preach the Gospel’ (emphasis added). However, in the same context Allen (1960 [1912]:93) writes: ‘Paul’s converts became missionaries.’ 7 We leave aside the presentation of Paul’s mission in the second half of the Book of Acts. I have argued that Acts also presents the mission of Paul as the mission of the churches (Stenschke 2010a), I have argued this case in more detail in Stenschke 2010b.

‘HOLDING FORTH THE WORD OF LIFE’

217

All of Paul’s letters are closely linked to his mission and cannot be understood apart from this context (see Schnabel 2008:123– 154 & Bosch 2001). Paul wrote these letters in order to address issues that arose from his mission work, that is, when he could not address these churches in person or through one of his co-workers. Paul’s expectation of support from local congregations for his mission Paul’s letters contain a number of clues about how churches and individuals were actually involved in Paul’s mission work and about how Paul expected them to become involved.8 Here we follow the excellent presentation of this topic in John P. Dickson’s (2003:178– 227) study. Dickson (2003:212) sets out with a survey of mission and missionaries in ancient Judaism and describes the missioncommitment amongst the Jews in the Second Temple period. He then studies the structure of Pauline mission and the significance of the evangelists and their relationship to local churches. Dickson next outlines several areas of mission-commitment in which the churches—Dickson (2003:212) speaks of ‘congregational involvement in the advance of the gospel’—supported Paul’s mission. Dickson only discusses financial assistance and prayer; 9 other expectations were the provision of co-workers and moral support for himself and his colleagues. Financial support of missionaries 10 Paul expected the churches to provide for the people whom they had sent out on the task of mission, whether they served as coworkers with Paul himself or elsewhere. Paul also expected the churches to fund his own mission work, which, in many cases, We do not distinguish between churches and individual Christians, as they appear as members of churches. Our purpose here is not to examine how Paul understood his own mission or how he went about it. For detailed examination of these issues, see Schnabel (2004; 2008) and Bolt & Thompson (2000). 9 For a detailed presentation and evaluation of Dickson’s monograph, see my review article (Stenschke 2006). 10 Cf. Everts (1993:295–300); Little (2005). 8

218

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

could not be separated from the mission work of his co-workers. Demanding extended hospitality and finances for further travelling, he writes to the Corinthians, ‘[…] and perhaps I will stay with you or even spend the winter, so that you may send me on my way, wherever I go’ (1 Cor 16:6; NRSV). In 2 Corinthians 1:16 (NRSV) he announced, ‘I wanted to visit you on my way to Macedonia, and to come back to you from Macedonia and have you send me to Judea.’ Paul expected such support for his ministry elsewhere. For example, he hoped that the Romans would help him with support for his journey to Spain (Rom 15:24). In 1 Thessalonians 2:1–9 and 2 Thessalonians 3:8f, Paul mentions his right to material support, a right for which he did not make use. An extended discussion of this can be found in 1 Corinthians 9:1–18. Paul did not make use of this right during his ministry in Corinth, although ‘the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel’ (v. 14; NRSV). Schnabel notes, ‘Paul establishes, with a dominical saying, the right of missionary workers “to live by the gospel” […] meaning the right to be supported by existing churches – a right that he renounces for his own ministry’ (Schnabel 2004:1436; emphasis added). When Paul worked elsewhere, he expected support—even from the Corinthians. Paul made similar demands for his co-worker Timothy—‘So let no one despise him. Help him on his way in peace, that he may return to me, for I am expecting him with the brothers’ (1 Cor 16:11; NRSV; see below on Titus 3:13). Occasional financial missionary gifts The second point is closely related to the first. The prime example of such gifts is the sum of money sent by the church in Philippi to Paul. Paul acknowledges its receipt and expresses his gratitude in some detail in Philippians 4:10–20 (see Dickson 2003:201–212). He reminds the Philippians that when he left Macedonia, ‘no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving, except you alone’ (4:15; NRSV; possibly ‘no other’ only applies to the churches of Macedonia). Even when Paul worked in Thessalonica—and

‘HOLDING FORTH THE WORD OF LIFE’

219

when the direct beneficiaries of this ministry should have supported him11—it was the Philippians who, again, sent Paul money (4:16). Paul writes, ‘I have received full payment, and more. I am well supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God’ (4:18; NRSV).12 Closely related to Paul’s mission was his collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem (cf. 1 Cor 16:1–4; 2 Cor 8f; Rom 15:25– 31).13 Paul expected the churches he had founded to contribute generously to this expression of the Gentile Christians’ indebtedness to the Jewish believers and went to great lengths to convince them of the need for, and worthiness of, such giving (see Downs 2008). The provision of co-workers 14 Drawing on Wolf-Henning Ollrog’s study of Paul and his coworkers (1979), Bosch (2001:132) has rightly emphasised the significance of Paul’s co-workers and their theological significance: The churches […] put these people at Paul’s disposal for limited periods. Through them the churches themselves were represented in the Pauline mission and become co-responsible for the work. […] In his fellow-workers Paul embraces the churches and these identify with his missionary efforts; this is Paul’s stay in Thessalonica was short; see his reflection in 1 Thess 2:1–9. While there, Jason provided hospitality (Acts 17:5f). The account also illustrates that such provision could be dangerous for the host. 12 That this is the only example of this type of gifts is due to Paul’s reluctance to receive support from other churches in case this led to a misunderstanding concerning his motivation for preaching the gospel, or, possibly, because these gifts had ‘strings’ attached to them (see above regarding the situation in Thessalonica and Corinth). 13 Cf. McKnight (1993) and Everts (1993). 14 Dickson treats the sending of missionaries under the provision of financial assistance. It does imply and involve finances, but there is more to it. For a convenient summary treatment of Paul’s co-workers, see Ellis (1993) and Schnabel 2004:1425–1445). 11

220

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS the primary intention of the cooperative mission. […] [T]hrough their delegates the churches themselves become partners in the entire enterprise. […] Theologically this signifies that Paul regards his mission as a function of the churches. (Bosch 2001:132)

Similarly, Eckhard Schnabel (2004:1441) writes regarding Paul’s coworkers: Some of them came to Paul as ‘delegates’ of their home churches (Col 1:7; 4:12f; Phlm 13): they represent their churches as ἀπόστολοι ἐκκλησιῶν (apostoloi ekklēsiōn) [2 Cor 8:23; cf. Phil 2:25] and thereby acknowledge as members of the body of Christ their responsibility in building up the kingdom of God. Their participation in Paul’s mission ‘makes up’ what their churches owe to Paul (1 Cor 16:17; Phil 2:30). The churches participate through their envoys in Paul’s mission. Wolfgang Schrage is certainly correct when he observes that the role of the co-workers ‘cannot be determined only along psychological lines on the basis of the need for fellowship, nor along organizational lines in terms of maximizing the missionary effectiveness, nor along pedagogical lines in terms of training workers for the time after Paul. Rather Paul emphasizes the co-responsibility and the participation of the churches because he regards missionary work and ministry as a function of the entire church (thus the great fluctuation in his team of coworkers).’ (Schnabel 2004:1441)

It is noteworthy that Paul apparently intended to come to Rome by himself. There are certainly no indications to the contrary in his letter to the Christians in Rome. In Romans 15:24, he mentions his plans of visiting the Roman Christians on his way to Spain (cf. also 1:8–15) and expresses his hope ‘to be helped on my journey there by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a while.’ The expression ‘to be helped on’ implies that Paul expected financial support from the Romans for the journey. He will also have expected

‘HOLDING FORTH THE WORD OF LIFE’

221

their prayers for the westward journey, as he asks for their prayers for this impending journey to Jerusalem (15:30f). However, it is probable that Paul also hoped to find some co-workers in Rome.15 Possibly he had in mind some of the people whom he mentioned in his detailed and affectionate list of greetings (16:3–15). His coworkers at this time were still needed in the churches in the East to complete the mission there. Many of the Christians then in Rome would have spoken Latin (which Paul and others in his company might not necessarily have been able to speak) and might have had more experience in contexts where the Christian mission could not begin with the Jewish synagogue. This wish for co-workers might explain why Paul planned a longer stay in Rome. What Paul applied to Titus would also have been applied to the churches, since Paul’s letter to Titus was not private correspondence (cf. ‘Grace be with all of you,’ in Titus 3:15 and ‘Make every effort to send Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their way, and see that they lack nothing’ in Titus 3:13; NRSV).16 Prayer on behalf of unbelievers17 Paul assures the Romans that he prays for unbelieving Jews—‘my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved’ (Rom 10:1; NRSV). Paul also urges others ‘that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity. […] I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray […]’ (1 Tim 2:1, 8; NRSV).

In his recent commentary on Romans, Jewett (2006) has interpreted the whole letter in view of Paul’s intention of establishing an apostolic partnership with the Romans. 16 Paul writes in this context, ‘And let our people learn to devote themselves to good works, so as to help cases of urgent need, and not be unfruitful’ (3:14). 17 For a summary of Paul’s requests for prayer see Hunter (1993:726), Carson (2000). 15

222

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Prayer for Paul and his co-workers In the final instructions in 1 Thessalonians, the readers are charged, ‘Brothers, pray for us’ (5:25). This is repeated in 2 Thessalonians 3:1–2—‘Finally, brothers and sisters, pray for us, so that the word of the Lord may spread rapidly and be glorified everywhere, just as it is among you, and that we may be rescued from wicked and evil people; for not all have faith’ (NRSV). The Ephesians are called to pray for all the saints, ‘[and] also for me, so that when I speak, a message may be given to me to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel […] that I may declare it boldly, as I must speak’ (6:19–20; NRSV). The Colossians are admonished, ‘[…] pray for us as well that God may open to us a door for the word, that we may declare the mystery of Christ […] so that I may reveal it clearly, as I should’ (4:3–4; NRSV; cf. Acts 14:27; 1 Cor 16:9; 2 Cor 2:12). Paul’s catalogue of suffering in 2 Corinthians 11:23–29 lists some of the strains and dangers involved in mission work, and which required prayer.18 The Roman Christians were to strive together with Paul in their prayers to God on Paul’s behalf as he travelled to Jerusalem (Rom 15:31f). However, Paul not only requests prayer for his ministry, he also generously prays for the churches and assures them that this is the case. For example, ‘I thank my God every time I remember you, constantly praying with joy in every one of my prayers for all of you’ (Phil 1:3–4) (see Hunter 1993:728). ‘Being refreshed in your company’ (Rom 15:32) It is often overlooked that Paul also expected encouragement and spiritual blessings from churches. It was not a case of the churches providing finances, people, and prayer, and Paul providing spiritual blessings in exchange to them or to others (cf. Rom 1:11–13; 15:29). For Paul it worked both ways; he also hoped to be spiritually refreshed by the churches. After having completed his task in the East and before venturing West towards Spain, Paul wrote to the Romans, ‘For I am longing to see you so that I may share with you some spiritual gift to strengthen you– or rather so that we may be 18

For a summary, see Winter (2000).

‘HOLDING FORTH THE WORD OF LIFE’

223

mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine’ (Rom 1:11f; NRSV; emphasis added), ‘[…] once I have enjoyed your company for a little while’ (15:24; NRSV), ‘so that by God's will I may come to you with joy and be refreshed in your company’ (15:32; NRSV; emphasis added). This kind of support of the mission work will have been limited neither to the Roman Christians nor to Paul. The ‘partnership in the gospel from the first day until now,’ which Paul had with the Philippians, will not have been limited to finances and prayer (1:5). Together with his extant letters (they give an indication of at least three further letters; cf. 1 Cor 5:9, 2 Cor 2:4,9; Col 4:16), Paul’s co-workers formed a strong link between Paul, his mission and the churches. Some of this encouragement will have come to Paul and other missionary colleagues through them. Paul’s expectation of congregational involvement in evangelism A number of studies have inquired whether Paul was content with the significant involvement of the churches in supporting his mission (as we have seen) or whether he expected the churches to be actively involved themselves in spreading the gospel. A number of older studies suggested that—as far as we know—Paul had no such expectations (or only limited expectations) (see Marshall 2000:252– 256; Plummer 2006:1–42). However, several more recent studies have convincingly argued that Paul had such expectations and that he voiced them (see Schnabel 2008:1451–1472). It appears that Paul expected congregational involvement in evangelism in three areas. These issues are inseparably linked; we separate them only for the sake of presentation. There was Paul’s expectation of exemplary conduct as Christian witness, of charitable behaviour toward all people, and of direct verbal evangelism.

224

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Paul’s expectation of exemplary conduct as Christian witness Dickson (2003:228–308) has summarised these pleas under the headings mission-commitment through social integration, ethical apologetic, public worship and verbal apologetic.19 Despite all calls to personal holiness and warnings to dissociate from immoral Christians, Christians are not to withdraw from the world, but are to mix with the unbelievers around them (1 Cor 5:9f).20 Bosch (2001:137) notes on this passage, ‘So the weight of Paul’s emphasis is put on the conduct of “insiders” in relation to “outsiders” and for the latter’s sake.’ The Corinthians are not to isolate themselves, but are to use the evangelistic opportunities which local banquets provide (10:31–11:1); they are to eat or drink, or whatever they do, for the glory of God, giving no offence to Jews, Greeks, or Christians. They should please everyone in everything they do, not seeking their own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved. In this they are to imitate Paul. Christians are to appear in a good light before nonChristians—‘[…] so that you may behave properly towards outsiders’ (1 Thess 4:12; NRSV). Bosch (2001:137) comments on 1 Thessalonians 4:11, ‘Paul admonished them “to live quietly”, but not in the Stoic sense of retiring into contemplation for its own sake or in the Epicurean sense of contemptuously shunning society; rather, Christians should, by living quietly, aim at earning the approval of society at large.’ These aspects express ‘congregational commitment to local mission’ (Dickson 2003:308). 20 Allen (1960:119) also observed that Paul ‘made it possible for converts to continue to work at their trades as members of a heathen guild or society. […] They were present, but they did not partake.’ Allen (1960:120) comments on the consequences when the mission paradigm of his own day chose a different route, ‘[T]he Christians cannot so leaven society when they are, as it were, outside it, as they can when they are really in it, living in the same life, sharing the same toil, the same gains, the same losses, as their heathen fellows; they and their religion are peculiarly the care of the foreign missionary, they are looked upon as having separated themselves from the life of the nation; their religion does not appear to belong to their people.’ 19

‘HOLDING FORTH THE WORD OF LIFE’

225

In addition, Christians are to display gracious, sound judgment (Phil 4:5; ‘Let your reasonableness be known to everyone’; ESV) and they are to walk wisely toward outsiders (Col 4:5; cf. also Titus 2:2–10; 3:1–8) who observe their conduct. Christian slaves are called to ‘adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect’ (Titus 2:10; NRSV). All Christians are to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarrelling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy towards all people (Titus 3:1). They are to devote themselves to good works—‘These things are excellent and profitable to everyone’ (3:8; NRSV). At least some Christian worship is to be publicly accessible and is to be at least indirectly evangelistic (1 Cor 14:23–25) (see Nikesch 2008). Paul assumes that some unbelievers attend church meetings with a degree of regularity. The unbelievers who experience what is described in 1 Corinthians 14:24b–25 (‘[he] is reproved by all and called to account by all. After the secrets of the unbeliever's heart are disclosed, that person will bow down before God and worship him, declaring, “God is really among you.”’; NRSV), will surely be led to repentance and to saving faith.21 Christians are to be able to answer with gracious speech, seasoned with salt, questions regarding their behaviour and faith (Col 4:6). Much of this behaviour, on the part of Christians, will have led to opportunities for sharing the gospel, as 1 Peter 3:15 suggests, ‘[…] always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks for a reason of the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.’ Christians are to be people who strive for and keep peace: ‘If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all’ (Romans 12:18; NRSV; emphasis added).22 See the detailed discussion in Plummer (2006:94–96), who states, ‘In this passage, Paul presupposes the Corinthians’ desire for nonChristians to be convicted of sin and turn to the Lord in faith. To accomplish this desire, Paul explains, communication within the church meeting should be intelligible to a visiting non-believer’ (Plummer 2006:94f). 22 Christians are to give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all people (Rom 12:17). In the following verses Paul gives instructions on how to deal with enemies (19–21). 21

226

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Bosch (2001:168–170) has referred to this exemplary conduct in a section entitled, “For the sake of the world.” There Bosch (2001:168) noted, ‘The church is called to be a community of those who glorify God by showing forth his nature and works and by making manifest the reconciliation and redemption God has wrought through the death, resurrection and reign of Christ.’ The awareness of being a distinctive group had not led the churches to ‘any encystation; precisely their sense of uniqueness encouraged them to share with others’ (Bosch 2001:168). The mission of the church in the world ‘is to be this new creation. Its very existence should be for the sake of the glory of God. Yet precisely this has an effect on the “outsiders.” Through their lifestyle, believers attract outsiders or put them off’ (Bosch 2001:168). Bosch (2001:168f) concluded: The church is not other-worldly. It is involved with the world, which means that it is missionary. Christians are called to practice a messianic lifestyle within the church but also to exercise a revolutionary impact on the values of the world. They do not withdraw into a cloister, barricaded against the onslaughts of the world. […] The church is the church in the world and for the world, which means that it has an active vocation and mission to the created order and its institutions. The church is that community of people who are involved in creating new relationships among themselves and in society at large and, in doing this, bearing witness to the lordship of Christ. (Bosch 2001:168)

Paul’s expectation of charitable behaviour toward all people In addition to a general witness by conduct, there are a number of statements—often overlooked in this context—in which Paul calls his readers to exercise certain behaviour not only within the community but towards all people. To the Galatians he writes, ‘So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith’ (6:10; NRSV; emphasis added). Former thieves are charged to no longer steal but to labour, doing honest work with their own hands, so that they may have something to share with anyone in need (Eph 4:28). There are several such charges in 1 Thessalonians—‘And may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another

‘HOLDING FORTH THE WORD OF LIFE’

227

and for all’ (3:12; NRSV; emphasis added),23 ‘[…] be patient with all of them’ (5:14; NRSV; emphasis added),24 and ‘See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all’ (5:15; NRSV; emphasis added). Titus 3:2 calls the readers ‘to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarrelling, to be gentle, and to show courtesy to everyone’ (NRSV; emphasis added). Despite the distinctiveness of the church, this concern for all people to a certain extent blurs the boundary of the community when it comes to charitable behaviour. In addition, there are many charges for commendable ethical behaviour which do not specify the beneficiaries (e.g. 1 Tim 6:17f). They are not limited in their scope to the Christian community, neither is their more general application explicitly stated. Paul’s expectation of verbal evangelism In Bosch’s (2001:138) understanding of Paul’s mission, ‘the primary responsibility of “ordinary” Christians is not to go out and preach.’ Rather they are ‘to support the mission project through their appealing conduct and by making “outsiders” feel welcome in their midst.’ Is there a consensus on this statement or is there evidence that Paul indeed expected churches to also evangelise by word?25 The following evidence has been adduced for the latter case: First, Paul twice urges the Corinthians to become imitators of him (1 Cor 4:16; 11:1) (see Plummer [2006:81–92] and O’Brien [1995:83–107]). The imitative behaviour that Paul desires from his Bosch (2001:137) concludes, ‘Christians are to love all people’ and refers to Lippert (1968:153), who ‘lists the concrete ways in which this love ought to manifest itself: Christians should relinquish all desires to judge others; their behavior should be exemplary over against the civil order; they should be ready to serve others, they are called upon to forgive, pray for, and bless others.’ 24 The ESV relates the charge to patience to the people named previously—‘[…] admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all.’ This is possible, but not required by Greek grammar. 25 See Marshall (2000:258–263). 23

228

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

congregations includes imitation of his missionary concern and activities. Bosch (2001:132; see also p. 171) notes that Paul ‘presents himself as a model to be emulated, not only by his fellowworkers, but by all Christians.’ Second, Paul also speaks of the missionary task of the believer married to an unbeliever; this task entails exemplary conduct aimed at the eschatological salvation of the unbelieving spouse (1 Cor 7:12–16). Plummer (2006:93; cf. Stenschke 2009:176–178, 181– 183) states: The apostle exhorts a believing spouse to live at peace with a non-believing spouse. The ultimate goal of this irenic behavior is not temporal harmony, but eschatological salvation. […] In this conjugal relationship, as in other relationships, the evangelistic concern of the believer is assumed. Paul does not write, ‘[Believing] wife, you must desire, pray and actively work for your husband’s salvation.’ Such active concern is assumed. […] While including attractive behaviour of the spouse, Paul’s instructions in 7:12–16 cannot be relegated to simply the ‘passive’ category of missionary activity.26 (Plummer 2006:93)

Third, rather than being limited to Paul and his missionary colleagues, the first person plural in 2 Corinthians 5:18–6:2 probably includes the Corinthians in Paul’s statement as being Christ’s ambassadors. Marshall (2000:260) observes that ‘the language itself clearly indicates that those who have been reconciled themselves become agents of reconciliation’. Fourth, Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 1:8 that from the Thessalonian Christians ‘the word of the Lord has sounded forth not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place your faith in God has become known, so that we have no need to speak about it’ (NRSV; emphasis added). Marshall concludes: ‘Accordingly, we have evi-

Plummer (2006:95f) offers further circumstantial evidence that indicates that the Corinthians imitated Paul in his missionary concern. 26

‘HOLDING FORTH THE WORD OF LIFE’

229

dence of a mission developed from Thessalonica, which Paul relates with enthusiasm and implied approval’ (Marshall 2000:259). 27 Fifth, Schnabel (2004:244; cf. Bosch 2001:137) observes: In 1 Thessalonians 3:12, Paul prays that the love of the believers in Thessalonica ‘for one another and for all’ might increase. He reminds them that they should not allow the new community and fellowship that they enjoy as new converts to be solidified as a 'closed group' that insulates itself against society, a behavior that would prevent others from hearing the news of Jesus. (Schnabel 2004:244)

Sixth, regarding Philippians, Schnabel (2004:245) also notes, ‘Paul thanks the Christians in Philippi for their “sharing in the gospel” (Phil 1:5). The phrase “in the gospel” (eis to euangelion) describes an active participation of the church in Philippi in his own missionary work. They cooperated in the preaching of the gospel not only through their financial support for Paul (Phil 4:15f) and through their prayers (Phil 1:19), but also in terms of passing on the news of Jesus’ (emphasis added). Seventh, this is the context of Ware’s study. In Philippians 2:16 the Greek word ἐπεχεῖν has often been understood to mean ‘holding on to.’ For example, the NRSV reads, ‘It is by your holding fast to the word of life […].’28 However, it can also be understood as ‘holding forth’—‘as you hold out the word of life’ (NIV) (see Marshall 2000:260; Ware 2005:256–270).29 In this rendering the Christians are charged to hold forth the word of life, that is, to Schnabel (2004:244) agrees, ‘This description has been interpreted in the sense that Paul sketches a picture of active preaching by the Thessalonians in Macedonia and Achaia and beyond.’ 28 The ESV reads, ‘holding fast to the world of life,’ but recognises in the notes, ‘Since the Greek “epecho” can either mean “hold fast” or “hold out to, offer”; some think that Paul may have in mind “holding forth,” i.e. proclaiming the word of life.’ 29 The NIV has a note with the alternative reading ‘hold on to the word of life.’ 27

230

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

present the word and to shine as lights in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation (2:16). Ware (2005:284) writes: As such Philippians 2:16 is very significant, for while Paul nowhere else in his letters gives an explicit command to his churches to spread the gospel, his exhortation to the Philippians to do so reveals that Paul did envision his churches as having an active mission to those outside. […] Paul did not understand his apostolic mission as fulfilled in the establishment of firmly founded communities, but in the independent spread of the Gospel from the communities he founded. (Ware 2005:284)

In addition to the significance of this single expression, Ware (2005:237–284) has detailed—in his chapter entitled, “Mission of the Church in Philippians 2:12–18”—the work of God and of the Philippians in 2:12f, the relationship of eschatology and mission in 2:14f, and the relation between the mission of the church and the mission of Paul in 2:16b–18 (the priestly activity of the Philippians in 2:17f and Paul’s apostolic self-description in 2:16b).30 Therefore the rendering of ἐπεχεῖν as ‘holding forth’ fits the context well. Ware (2005:283) concludes: In 2:12–18, Paul spells out the consequences of the preceding Christ hymn by exhorting the Philippians to proclaim the gospel. Paul’s exhortation to the Philippians in 2:12 to work out their own salvation does not introduce a new command but functions to sum up and climax Paul’s entire appeal in 1:12– 2:11. Echoing themes and motifs carefully developed throughout the epistle, the command functions within this wider context of the letter as an exhortation to the Philippians to boldly spread the gospel despite the threat of suffering and persecution. […] Paul’s portrayal of the Philippians as lights among the gentiles reflects the widespread use of light imagery in ancient Judaism to depict the eschatological conversion of the Ware (2005:201–236) rightly understands Phil 2:12–18 in view of the progress of the gospel in Phil 1:12–18a (treated on pp. 163–199) and in view of suffering and mission in Phil 1:18b–2:11. 30

‘HOLDING FORTH THE WORD OF LIFE’

231

nations. In applying these traditions to the Philippians, Paul portrays the church in Philippi as the eschatological diaspora of God set in the midst of both Jews and gentiles and bringing them the light of God’s salvation. (Ware 2005:283)

A comprehensive case for congregational evangelism in the whole letter to the Philippians has recently been argued by Mark J. Keown (2008; also see Plummer 2006:72–77). Keown (2008:279) begins with a detailed analysis of Paul’s own situation at the time of writing and of the situation in the Philippian church. The following seven chapters present the evidence for Paul’s expectation of a proactive involvement of the Philippian Christians in what he calls ‘proclamatory evangelism.’ The evidence includes, Paul’s delight in others proclaiming the gospel in Rome (Phil 1:14–18a), evangelistic aspects of contending for the faith of the gospel (1:27–30), unified ethical witness and proactive evangelism (2:14–16a), the evangelistic content of the examples of Timothy and Epaphroditus (2:19– 30), evangelistic disunity in the Philippian church (4:1–3), Paul’s thanksgiving for the Philippian involvement in evangelistic mission (1:3–7), and the evangelistic content of the appeal for emulation in Philippians 4:9 and proclamation in other references to imitation in the Pauline epistles. Keown (2008:279) argues that the readers of this letter would have been inspired by the example of Christ, by his own example, by the example of other such preachers, the desire to please God, a fear of God, Paul’s appeals for imitation, Paul’s missionary strategy, the impulse of the Spirit, and the urgings of those charismatically equipped and called to evangelism to share their faith in their communities. In the absence of a prohibition to proclaim, believers who had experienced the loving grace of salvation in Christ could not have been stopped from sharing the gospel. The gifts of the Spirit to the church for its ministry includes that of evangelism (Eph 4:11). Paul expected that individual Christians would receive this gift and use it. Says Schnabel (2004:245): The charismata that the Holy Spirit gives to the church for ‘building up the body of Christ’ (Eph 4:12) include the task of proclaiming the news of Jesus. The orientation of this task toward the nurture of the church does not diminish the primary

232

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS meaning of the word: evangelists, particularly if they are not at the same time ‘shepherds’ and teachers, proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ also and perhaps primarily before people who have not yet heard the gospel or who have not yet come to faith in Jesus Christ. (Schnabel 2004:245)

However, this particular gift does not exclude others from the call to active witness. The extended military metaphor in Ephesians 6:11–17 includes the charge to wear shoes, ‘having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace’ (6:15; ESV). Plummer (2006:78f; see also Schnabel 2004:246f) rightly asks, ‘What, then does it mean to have one’s feet fitted with “the readiness of the gospel of peace”? What is one ready or prepared to do? How does the gospel relate to this readiness?’ Observing that Paul alludes to Isaiah 52:7 and Nahum 1:15–2:3 (LXX 2:1–4), Plummer (2006:80) argues that Paul has the preaching of the gospel in mind—‘Both texts present God as victor over enemy powers. God is the one who brought peace and blessings, which must be joyfully proclaimed […]. The combination of these Old Testament texts with Paul’s current concerns may help explain what influenced Paul to speak so explicitly at this point about the church’s readiness to proclaim the gospel.’ The NRSV rightly translates, ‘As shoes for your feet, put on whatever will make you ready to proclaim the gospel of peace.’ Two further elements in the immediate context confirm this reading. First, the charge to wield the sword of the Spirit (which is the word of God) probably also has evangelistic connotations. Second, the readers are called upon in Ephesians 6:18–20 to pray for the fearless proclamation of the gospel. Plummer (2006:80) observes: ‘In the two other instances where Paul requests prayer for his evangelistic mission, the apostle also mentions a missionary role for the congregations which he addresses (Col 4:2–6; 2 Thess 2:16f; 3:1f). Paul seems unwilling to request prayer for his gospel preaching without noting the missionary work of his churches.’31 In the Pastoral Epistles, Schnabel (2004:247) refers to 1 Timothy 3:7, stating, ‘The “good reputation” (martyria) of the elders determines the witness (martyria) of the church. Both the elders and the congregation are 31

‘HOLDING FORTH THE WORD OF LIFE’

233

For Roland Allen (1960:93), one of the seminal authors in the 20th century on the mission of Paul, the missionary involvement of Paul’s churches ‘[…] was not really surprising. Christians receive the Spirit of Jesus, and the Spirit of Jesus is a missionary spirit, the Spirit of Him who came into the world to bring back lost souls to the Father.’ Like many of Allen’s observations, this pneumatological argument deserves more attention in the exegetical discussion. Both Marshall (2000:258–262) and Plummer (2006:107–139) gather further ‘incidental evidence that Paul expected the churches to spread the Gospel in the apostolic pattern’ (emphasis added, so the title of Plummer’s chapter) and that Paul was aware of an ongoing mission through Christians other than himself. Marshall (2000:261), for example, notes that the ‘comings and goings of the apostles and their co-workers will have led to a blurring of the distinction between congregation and the missionaries.’ Marshall (2000:262) concludes his survey of the evidence as follows, ‘The cumulative effect of these points is to demonstrate that early congregations and individual believers did have an evangelistic function that appears to have developed spontaneously.’32 Or to use Plummer’s (2006:96) words: committed to the obligation to represent, display and communicate the will of God who wants to save sinners.’ In regards to 2 Timothy 4:5 he notes, ‘The leaders of the congregations are called upon to proclaim the gospel, evidently before people who have not yet heard the message of Jesus Christ. The congregations are not to wait for traveling missionaries who pass through. Rather, they are to make sure that people hear the gospel.’ As for Titus 2:3–5, he argues, ‘The exhortation to the “older women” […] may be motivated by missionary concerns. […] Their behavior should not discredit the evangelistic efforts of the church but promote them.’ Lastly, about Titus 2:9f he states, ‘[…] the credibility of the gospel, which is preached in connection with the missionary activities of the local church, would be discredited if they display a rebellious attitude’ and the Christian slaves were encouraged ‘to make the gospel as attractive as possible for those around them’ (Schnabel 2004:248). 32 See also Schnabel (2004:244), who states, ‘There is sufficient evidence to conclude that Paul’s teaching included the encouragement of the believers to share their faith in Jesus Christ with other people.’

234

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS There can be no doubt that Paul instructs and approves of his churches actively proclaiming the gospel. In Philippians, Ephesians, and 1 Corinthians, we have examined texts in which Paul commands the churches to declare the gospel, to be prepared to do so, or to imitate him in the way that he strives for the salvation of non-Christians.33 (Plummer 2006:96)

CONCLUSION Our survey has shown that the mission of Paul can be understood as deeply embedded in churches in a number of ways. Paul’s letters indicate that he expected the churches to actively support his own trans-local mission (which included his co-workers). This support included the financial maintenance of missionaries, occasional financial missionary gifts, provision of co-workers, prayer on behalf of unbelievers, prayer for Paul and his co-workers, and the provision of spiritual refreshment to missionaries. Paul also expected the churches he addressed to be actively involved themselves in local evangelism. Robert Plummer’s question ‘Did the Apostle Paul Expect the Early Christian Communities to Evangelize?’, which constitutes the subtitle of his study, is to be answered affirmatively. Paul expected them to spread the gospel through their exemplary behavior at home, at church, and elsewhere in their day-to-day living, through charitable behaviour toward all people and through verbal communication of the gospel in different situations. Our survey of these expectations which the apostle Paul had of his churches fully supports the understanding the expression λόγον ζωῆς ἐπέχοντες in Philippians 2:16a as ‘holding forth or presenting the world of life’ to non-Christians, as has recently been argued in detail by James Ware.

Plummer (2006:96–105) then turns to ‘Paul’s commands to witness passively’ which we have addressed above. 33

‘HOLDING FORTH THE WORD OF LIFE’

235

BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, R., 1960 [1912], Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours?, World Dominion Press, London. Bauer, W., Aland, K. & Aland, B. (eds.), 1988, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, 6th edn., Walter de Gruyter, Berlin. Bolt, P.G. & M. Thompson (eds.), 2000, The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission in Honour of P. T. O’Brien, IVP, Leicester. Bosch, D.J., 2001, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission, (American Society of Missiology Series 16), 21st. edn., Orbis, Maryknoll. Carson, D.A., 2000, ‘Paul’s mission and prayer’, in P.G. Bolt, M. Thompson (eds.), The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission in Honour of P. T. O‘Brien, pp.175–184, IVP, Leicester. Dickson, J.P., 2003, Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities: The Shape, Extent and Background of Early Christian Mission, (WUNT 2.159), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. Downs, D.J., 2008, The Offering of the Gentiles: Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem and its Chronological, Cultural and Cultic Contexts, (WUNT 2.248), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. Ellis, E.E., 1993, ‘Coworkers, Paul and His’, in G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin & D.G. Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, pp.183–189, IVP, Leicester. Everts, J.M. 1993, ‘Financial Support’, in G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin & D.G. Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his Letters, pp.295–300, IVP, Leicester. Hunter, W.B., 1993, ‘Prayer’, in G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin, D.G. Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his Letters, IVP: Leicester. Jewett, R., 2006, Romans: A Commentary, (Hermeneia), Fortress Press, Minneapolis. Keown, M.J., 2008, Congregational Evangelism in Philippians: The Centrality of an Appeal for Gospel Proclamation to the Fabric of Philippians, (Paternoster Biblical Monographs), Paternoster, Carlisle. Lippert, P., 1968, Leben als Zeugnis: Die werbende Kraft christlicher Lebensführung nach dem Kirchenverständnis neutestamentlicher Briefe, (Stuttgarter biblische Monographien 4), KBW, Stuttgart.

236

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Little, C.R., 2005, Mission in the Way of Paul: Biblical Mission for the Church in the Twenty-First Century, (Studies in Biblical Literature 80), Peter Lang, New York. Nikesch, H., 2008, Gottesdienst ohne Mauern: Die neutestamentliche Gemeinde und ihre Wirkung auf Gemeindeferne., Jota, Hammerbrücke. Marshall, I.H., 2000, ‘Who Were the Evangelists?’, in J. Adna and H. Kvalbein (eds.), The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles, (WUNT 127), pp.251–263, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. McKnight, S., 1993, ‘Collection for the Saints’, in G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin & D.G. Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his Letters, pp.143–147, IVP, Leicester. Plummer, R.L., 2006, Paul’s Understanding of the Church’s Mission: Did the Apostle Paul Expect the Early Christian Communities to Evangelize?, (Paternoster Biblical Monographs), Paternoster, Milton Keynes. Poythress, V.S., 2002, ‘‘Holding Fast’ Versus ‘Holding Out’ in Philippians 2:16’, Westminster Theological Journal 63, 45–53. Oakes, P., 2000, ‘Quelle devrait être l’influence des échos intertextuels sur la traduction? Le cas de l’épître aux Philippiens (2:15f)’, in D. Marguerat & A. Curtis (eds.), Intertextualités: La Bible en échos, (Monde de la Bible 40v), pp. 266–285, Labor et Fides, Paris. O’Brien, P.T., 1995, Gospel and Mission in the Writings of Paul: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis, Paternoster, Carlisle. Ollrog, W.– H., 1979, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter: Untersuchungen zu Theorie und Praxis der paulinischen Mission, (WMANT 50), Neukirchener, Neukirchen-Vluyn. Schnabel, E.J., 2004, Early Christian Mission II: Paul and the Early Church, Apollos, Downers Grove. Schnabel, E.J., 2008, Paul, the Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods, IVP/Apollos, Nottingham. Schrage, W., 1991, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, (EKKNT 7), Neukirchener, Neukirchen-Vluyn. Stenschke, C., 2006, ‘Review article of Dickson (2003)’ in European Journal of Theology 15, 125–134. Stenschke, C., 2009, ‘Married Women and the Spread of Early Christianity’, Neotestamentica 43, 176–183. Stenschke, C., 2010a, ‘Mission in the Book of Acts: Mission of the Church’ in Scriptura: International Journal of Bible, Religion and Theology in Southern Africa 103, 66–78.

‘HOLDING FORTH THE WORD OF LIFE’

237

Stenschke, C., 2010b, ‘Mission und Gemeinde in der Apostelgeschichte des Lukas’, Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 94, 267–285. Winter, B.M., 2000, ‘Dangers and Difficulties for the Pauline Mission’, in P. G. Bolt & M. Thompson (eds.), The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission in Honour of P. T. O‘Brien, pp. 285–295, IVP, Leicester. Ware, J.P., 2005, The Mission of the Church in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians in the Context of Ancient Judaism, (NTS 120), Brill, Leiden.

9. MISSION AND ETHICS IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS: FAITH MEANS PERSEVERANCE Rob van Houwelingen TU KAMPEN (NL) ABSTRACT In terms of lifestyle, the first Christians were, according to the New Testament, in constant interaction with their non-Christian environment. This was even so when society responded critically or dismissively. How dynamic was the relationship between ethics and missionary awareness? This chapter charts a biblical-theological quest through the epistle to the Hebrews, a New Testament letter addressed to Jewish-Christian readers who should refocus their lives in a time of crisis. The writer of this letter urges them to look in faith to Jesus Christ, the superior high priest in heaven. This being a paradigm for future readers who also desire to persevere in a time of crisis.

INTRODUCTION The epistle to the Hebrews has been referred to as the most enigmatic of all the writings of the New Testament. It ends like a letter, but it lacks the beginning typical of a letter. The author’s name is absent, but he clearly has a good relationship with the readers, probably Jews (‘Hebrews’ according to the title) who accepted Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah of Israel. He hopes to meet them personally (13:23b). And yet, the community of believers is not identified or located in any way. This is all very puzzling indeed. At the same time, there can be no doubt that the epistle to the Hebrews is a text of great theological significance. This letter particularly discusses the function of the new covenant as a fulfilment of the earlier covenant relationship between the God of Israel and 239

240

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

his people. Dealing with that important fulfilment, the author points to the reconciling work of Jesus Christ. His atoning sacrifice is a prerequisite for having communion with God in the new covenant. His coming has introduced a new era. Only through his mediation is the broken relationship between God and his people restored. Despite all the riddles surrounding the so-called introductory issues, the theological message of the epistle to the Hebrews is clear.1 What could the epistle to the Hebrews contribute to our understanding of the dynamic relationship between ethics and mission in the New Testament, and to our knowledge of the interaction between Christian ‘insiders’ and non-Christian ‘outsiders’ during the first century CE? 2 This chapter consists of three parts. Firstly, the aim of the letter will be clarified by interpreting the situation in which the author appeals to his readers. Here the city of Jerusalem takes central stage. Jewish belief sought salvation in Jerusalem since there the holy temple was located. Jesus-believing Jews, however, need to look elsewhere for their salvation. They must seek it in heaven, with Jesus the Messiah (Part 1). Second, a more detailed discussion will deal with the main focus of the letter: the theme of atonement by which Christ established reconciliation between God and man. The epistle to the Hebrews extensively deals with bringing the true sacrifice for sin unto man’s salvation. This atoning sacrifice for sin is in the letter exclusively associated with the heavenly high priest (Part 2). Finally an important aspect of This chapter previously appeared in a blind peer review journal and is used here in revised form with permission: Van Houwelingen, R., 2013, ‘The Epistle to the Hebrews: Faith Means Perseverance’, Journal of Early Christian History 3.1, 98-115. The current contribution also contains material from Van Houwelingen (2011). In that article, the introductory issues are discussed in a more detailed way. Dr P.H.R. (Rob) van Houwelingen is professor of New Testament at the Theological University Kampen, the Netherlands, as well as research associate in the Department of New Testament Studies, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Unless otherwise indicated, all biblical quotations and references are taken from the New International Version Bible (NIV), 1984 edition. 2 See Kok (2011); Du Toit (2012). 1

MISSION AND ETHICS IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 241 Christian life will be examined. That aspect concerns the dynamic interaction between ethics and mission in this letter. The change from the old covenant to the new covenant and the reconciling work of the heavenly priest had an impact on the readers’ life and witness. The way in which they cope with the hard circumstances of their life as Christians will not remain unnoticed by nonChristian outsiders (Part 3).

AIM OF THE LETTER The temple as marker Regarding the epistle to the Hebrews the key question is whether the temple in Jerusalem was still in operation or not. In the letter, cultic worship is consistently described in verb forms that denote the continuing present. This usage may be no more than a literary convention (as, for example, in a cultic passage in I Clement 40–41). Hebrews, however, draws on existing cultic data when arguing that the readers are to seek their salvation in Christ who is in heaven. The writer argues, for instance, that the continuing sacrifices can never make perfect those who draw near to worship. If they could, he says, would they not have stopped being offered (10:1, 2)? If he had written his letter after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, he would have formulated his point differently. In other passages, too, it appears that at the time of writing this letter cultic worship in the temple was still alive and well (7:27–28; 8:3–5; 9:25; 10:8; 13:10). For this reason it is a defensible position to situate this letter before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE.3 If one opts for a later dating, as often is the case, the destruction of the temple remains an important recent event both for the writer and for his readers. The recipients of the letter were Jewish Christians whether from Jerusalem or from the Diaspora. They regarded the temple as their religious center. The nullification of the temple sacrifices and ceremonies required a fundamental reorientation. It is remarkable, though, that the writer nowhere refers explicitly to the temple. Instead, he continually goes back to the tabernac3

E.g. by Carson & Moo (2005:606–607); Walker (1996: 227–230).

242

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

le (also called the Tent of Meeting) as the earthly sanctuary, and to the people of Israel during their time in the wilderness. He consistently portrays the cultic worship in Jerusalem in Old Testament terms. Stephen similarly did so in his address (Acts 7), showing that the moveable tabernacle (a large tent) points to something that is transient. The reference to that earthly sanctuary probably was done to relativise the importance of the temple, and to warn the Jews against misplaced pride. The sanctuary in Jerusalem is neither the beginning nor the end of meeting with God. If the old covenant of Sinai is described as obsolete and aging (8:13), then the cultic worship in the Old Testament is certainly included. In his line of reasoning, the author of Hebrews goes back to the Old Testament system of temple worship. By highlighting the mobility and the temporary character of the Tent of Meeting, he makes his readers see that true and rather permanent worship has been moved to heaven. That is the worship of the God who spoke to Israel’s forefathers (1:1), finding its resting place and ultimate meaning in the person of Jesus Christ, God’s Son (Westcott 1977:xi). A word of exhortation The Jewish Christians were severely oppressed by their nationalist compatriots. They are addressed with a ‘word of exhortation’ (13:22; λόγος τῆς παρακλήσεως). The fact that the letter identifies itself in this way seems also to describe its character. Acts 13:15 shows that delivering such a ‘word’ was customary in the synagogues: when Paul and Barnabas came to Antioch in Pisidia, the leaders of the synagogue, following the reading of the Law and the Prophets, invited them to speak a word of exhortation to encourage the congregation. Upon that invitation Paul delivers a lengthy address about the history of Israel, concluding with the proclamation of Jesus the Messiah. It is very well possible that both this sermon and the epistle to the Hebrews follow a form of address that was customary in the synagogues. One might, then, read this letter as a sermon or homily in written form in the tradition of the Hellenistic-Jewish synagogue (Thyen 1955; Van Eck 2003:284). Therefore, Hebrews as a written homily could be heard in faraway places, exhorting Christian Jews elsewhere in the world. The author, however, wishes to create the impression that he is in the midst of the assembled church, speaking to it directly and personal-

MISSION AND ETHICS IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 243 ly. So he carefully avoids any reference to writing or reading; instead, he accentuates speaking and listening (2:5; 5:11; 6:9; 8:1; 9:5; see also 11:32: ‘I do not have time to tell about […]’). As a preacher living at great distance from the addressees, he speaks to these Christians as if he sees them. He does so by using the first-person plural ‘we’ and ‘us,’ also conveying the sense of solidarity with them. He frequently uses rhetorical devices as well. Last but not least, the dynamic within his homily is enhanced by regularly alternating instructive explanations with admonitory exhortations. Shift in thinking By means of frequent and sometimes extensive quotations, the author endeavours to let Scripture speak. Occasionally he even gives Scripture, as it were, a direct voice by writing ‘the Holy Spirit says […].’ He introduces the letter with a catena of Bible references (a series of quotations strung together like beads on a string), showing that Moses has been superseded by Jesus, to whom—according to Psalm 8—everything is subjected. After that, three great themes follow. These themes are characteristic and non-negotiable for orthodox Judaism: homeland, temple, and city (Walker 1996:201– 226). Time and again, the author reminds his readers not to fix their eyes on earthly things but on things in heaven. Such a change in focus requires an upward and forward shift in the believer’s thinking. In this context, he addresses all three themes: 1. The ‘promised land’ is the eschatological rest, which we must still enter. When Psalm 95 recounts the message for the unbelievers in the wilderness, that they would never enter the promised land, it clearly indicates that God’s promise of rest still stands. 2. Our ‘tent of meeting’ is the heavenly sanctuary, where Christ ministers as our perfect high priest. He is a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek (Ps 110). He is the Mediator of a new covenant, one that causes the earlier one to be forgotten (Jer 31). He is the One who is to come, the One who will not delay, the One who will save the righteous by faith (Hab 2). 3. The ‘city’ we look for is the city of the future, the heavenly Jerusalem. God the Father at times nurtures his children with discipline (according to Proverbs 3). The trials of this

244

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS life are part of the training school of faith. They should not discourage us.

This shift in thinking challenges the readers of Hebrews to stop orienting themselves on the Jewish securities. It seems that the author wants to get the following message across to them: Prepare yourselves for the loss of the earthly Jerusalem, the holy temple city. As perilous as the situation may become, the land, temple, and city do not fall in the category of non-negotiable things. We can give them up. Our security is the very Son of God, Jesus the Messiah. As mediator, he is superior to Moses. Those who, in times of crisis, orient their lives around him, will find the courage to leave the camp, to let go of their dearly-held Jewishness, and to leave Jerusalem. For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come (cf. 13:13–14). Indeed, only Jesus Christ will be the same forever (13:8). Review We have seen that the epistle to the Hebrews is a written sermon to Jewish Christians. It is an earnest appeal, exhorting them to persevere in the Christian faith. The purpose of this letter is to encourage these believers in a time when dearly held truths change and are even superseded. This watershed change, however, should not wash their certainty and courage away. On the contrary, the author exhorts ‘his listeners’ to cast the anchor of Christian hope into heaven, where Jesus Christ is, the embodiment of our New Testament worship. They should not drift away from him! The following table may assist in understanding Hebrews’ content and aim. The chapter divisions and the Scripture references are linked to the three great themes of homeland, temple, and city.

MISSION AND ETHICS IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 245 Theme

Chapter

Represents

Jesus is a Mediator superior to Moses (Chapters 1-2)

Scripture References [Chain of references] Psalm 8

Homeland

Chapters 3-4

Eschatological rest

Psalm 95

Temple

Chapters 5-10

Heavenly sanctuary

Psalm 110 Jeremiah 31 Habakkuk 2

City

Chapters 11-13

City of the future

Proverbs 3

MAIN FOCUS OF THE LETTER Theme of the sermon What can be considered to be the main focus of the letter? The theme of this ‘sermon to the Hebrews’ is: Jesus Christ, the superior high priest.4 He is the fulfilment of the law and the prophets. God made him superior to Moses and Aaron, superior to the Old Testament prophets and even superior to the angels. On earth, he accomplished the purifications for sins (1:3). In heaven he now ministers as our great high priest. Therefore, every Christian needs to obey him and persevere in faith. In the epistle to the Hebrews the Son is for the first time called high priest precisely in connection with his reconciling work according to God’s plan of salvation. The Gospels and the book of Acts speak about different high priest(s) within Judaism. However, God’s Son is unique. ‘For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make The theme of the priesthood of Jesus Christ according to Hebrews has been dealt with extensively in secondary literature. See e.g., Anderson (2001); Bauckham (2009); Bensel (2005); Isaacs (1992:127–178); Lindars (1991); Scholer (1991). Den Heyer (1998) minimises the theological contribution of Hebrews by stating that the letter represents a theological view that is exceptional in the New Testament. 4

246

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted’ (2:17-18). The superior high priest The epistle to the Hebrews tells us that Jesus the Messiah functions as high priest in the framework of a new covenant between God and his people. In which way is this covenant new? Chapters 7–10, in particular, elaborate on that question. The author himself explains what his main point is—‘The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man’ (8:1–2). There are seven differences between the former and the present situation (inaugurated by the high priesthood of Jesus Christ), between the old and the new covenant. The ministry of God’s Son is superior on every point.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7.

Old situation

New situation

Priesthood received by hereditary succession (order of Aaron) Priests needed to be replaced since they die Priests served in an earthly sanctuary, man-made The high priest made atonement for the people, once a year The high priest sacrificed the blood of animals for his own sins and the sins of the people The sacrifices needed to be repeated since they could never take sins away Access to the inner sanctuary on earth was forbidden

God appointed Christ as priest (order of Melchizedek) Christ always remains priest: He lives for ever Christ entered a heavenly sanctuary, God-made Christ continuously stays in God’s presence Christ sacrifices his own blood, not for himself but for the sins of the people Christ’s sacrifice is made once and for all and does take sins away Christ’s blood gives free access to the sanctuary in heaven

MISSION AND ETHICS IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 247 Atonement in Hebrews An overview of the biblical-theological theme of ‘atonement’ in the epistle to the Hebrews will show various factors. All these factors are comprised in the confession of the supremacy of Christ as high priest. The writer likes to share the truth of this confession with his readers giving them the encouragement they need. That confession is also very much his own. Hebrews, therefore, breathes a brotherly tone as the writer includes himself in what he writes by using the first-person plural. The gospel of reconciliation strengthens the bond between believers and bridges great distances. Five factors can be distinguished: an accomplished fact, a new covenant, a sacrifice to God, sealing by blood, and sanctification as fruit. An accomplished fact Jesus Christ accomplished reconciliation with God. By his atoning sacrifice he abolished sin, bringing salvation to those who are waiting for him (9:26–28). He has obtained eternal redemption and access to the promised inheritance by his death (9:12–15). At his return total redemption will be completed. For this complete redemption the crucial condition has been met. Atonement has been made once and for all. Since God will forgive his people’s sins and lawless acts, a sacrifice for sin is no longer needed (10:18). Jerusalem is facing an accomplished fact; the great high priest is already in heaven. The atoning sacrifice, given by Jesus the Messiah, forms the apex of history, the beginning of the end. Sometimes Good Friday is called ‘the Day of Atonement of the new covenant,’ and not without reason. A new covenant In Hebrews Jesus Christ is called the Surety or Mediator of a new or better covenant (7:22; 8:6; 9:15; 12:24; found elsewhere in the New Testament only in Gal 3:19; 1 Tim 2:5). He functions as an indispensable guarantee for the relationship between God and man. He is at the same time a personal link in that relationship. A new phase has begun through the fact that God’s own Son came into the world and entered heaven after he had finished his work. His ministry as high priest bears an astounding exalted character. In comparison to his supreme ministry, the whole of the Old Testament cultic worship, including the Levitical priesthood, is outdated

248

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

(8:13; which of course does not mean failure). Here ‘outdated’ or ‘obsolete’ means that the covenant of Sinai had seen its best days. It proved to be far from perfect since the LORD had to rebuke his people because of disobedience (8:7–8a). Hence, God deemed it necessary to re-order his relationship with his people. He instituted a new covenant precisely as the prophet Jeremiah had announced (Jer 31:31–34). The new covenant is better because God’s old promises have now received a firmer foundation through the atoning death of Jesus Christ (8:6). His death marks a new period in the relationship between God and man—the Christian era. The blood of Jesus Christ is not at all the blood of a martyr. It surely does not call for vengeance but for forgiveness (12:24). A sacrifice to God According to Hebrews, Christ’s death on the cross can be characterised as follows: he took it willingly, he did it once-for-all, it was voluntary, and it is unrepeatable. These aspects complement one another. He offered himself, giving the sacrifice of his life once for all (7:27). He appeared only once to do away with sin (9:26). His voluntary sacrifice in God’s service was extraordinarily effective. He offered himself unblemished to God. Through his blood we are cleansed and consecrated for God’s service (9:14). In this verse the words ‘to God’ indicate the particular purpose of this sacrifice. By his voluntary death Jesus Christ dedicated himself as an acceptable sacrifice to God. His glorification in heaven, then, clearly proves that God accepted this unique sacrifice. Jesus obediently did God’s will and fulfilled it as this was written about him in the scroll (10:5– 7; Ps 40:5–7). Indeed, in the Old Testament his messianic obedience was plainly foretold by the prophets. His death, which he underwent once and for all and of his own accord, was not without effect. For, in his divine counsel unto salvation, God had decreed that we once and for all would be sanctified through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ (10:10). Sealing by blood In Hebrews, the blood of Jesus Christ points to the surrender of his life unto death. His sacrifice has a cleansing and purifying effect. So his blood has much more power than that of rams and bulls which flowed in the temple at Jerusalem. Thanks to Jesus’

MISSION AND ETHICS IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 249 blood, believers can now enter God’s sanctuary with a good conscience (10:19). The blood of the covenant has sanctified them. No one should despise that blood or deem it unholy (10:29). The people who do that will bring God’s judgment upon themselves. Considering that the suffering Christ had to bear included the disgrace outside the gate, one can say that he has sanctified his people by his own blood (13:12). Because his blood is the blood of an eternal covenant, Jesus can be called the great Shepherd of the sheep (13:20). Sanctification as fruit According to Hebrews the supremacy of Christ as high priest bears great significance for a personal relationship with God. For surely he is merciful and faithful. With fondness, then, he gives the sheep of God’s flock a place in his gentle heart. He will never break the bond with them but always be at hand. They may experience his aid, not the least in a time of crisis (2:17–18; 4:15–16). Sanctification of Christian life is a fruit from his atoning messianic work (10:10). Who, then, will benefit from this fruit? All those who are called by God and obey God’s Son will enjoy the fruit of a holy life. Christ indeed has become the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him (5:9). Certainly all those who are called will receive the eternal inheritance by his death (9:15). Jesus Christ is always the same Being overwhelmed by the atoning sacrifice of the superior high priest, which established reconciliation between God and man, the author of Hebrews exhorts his readers in 10:22–23, ‘[…] let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful.’ Despite the remaining introductory issues, this earnest appeal given as encouragement to persevere in the Christian faith continues to be very relevant for all those who confess the name of the Lord. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever (13:8). Seen in this way, he is the main focus of the epistle to the Hebrews.

250

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE LETTER In the epistle to the Hebrews, Jewish Christians are exhorted to set their hope on a better homeland, temple, and city, because of the atoning sacrifice by a better high priest, Jesus Christ. Faith in him and a life in the new covenant require a holy life—ethics. Faith and the new covenant should also stimulate a preaching with a missionary focus—mission. Ethics and mission cannot be separately viewed. They are very much intertwined. Though the basis of this letter’s instruction is Christological, it nevertheless has a two-pronged approach: to ethics and mission. The author also exhorts his readers to remain faithful on that terrain. So from part B it is very important to observe that ethics and mission are grounded and connected to Christ’s work. Admittedly, one would not immediately think of consulting the epistle to the Hebrews on mission. Most would think of this letter as solely concerned, not with the church’s relationship to the world, but with internal church matters (Köstenberger 1998:193). While indeed this letter first and foremost is an intra-ecclesiastical document, it nevertheless touches on the lifestyle and witness of the believers. The manner in which they deal with their day-to-day circumstances would not and should not have escaped the attention of others. Spoken to by God The epistle to the Hebrews begins by stating that God is speaking to us today (1:1–4).5 As seen earlier, by using the first-person plural the author identifies himself with his readers. Those are Jewish Christians, who are descendants of the forefathers to whom in the past God had spoken by the prophets. Now he speaks to ‘us’ by his Son. That speaking is exceptionally relevant for the readers. In the text the object is missing; the Son is the messenger and the message at the same time. Jesus Christ is the speaking God. He is the decisive and the last Word. Being the Son, he is seated at the right hand of God in heaven.

5

See on this motif: O’Brien (2011).

MISSION AND ETHICS IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 251 God is the living One (3:12; 9:14; 10:31; 12:22); hence his speaking remains relevant for Christian life—‘For the Word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart’ (4:12). The stubborn conduct of the people of Israel, therefore, is an ‘example of disobedience,’ according to the author; it should not be followed (4:11). It would be a mark of shame for the readers to fail to enter into God’s rest, since it would reveal their distrust and disobedience, instead of courage and justice, two cardinal virtues in antiquity (DeSilva 2000:169). Chapter 11 in contrast gives many examples of the obedience of faith of believers from the past. A prime and appealing example is Abel. He is the first witness and also the first martyr of faith. The writer says about him, ‘And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead’ (11:4). He was murdered by his own brother Cain. His blood is calling for vengeance. Yet the atoning blood of Jesus, the Mediator of a new covenant, is more precious; Chapter 12 speaks about ‘the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel’ (12:24). Good courage and confidence in persecution The Jewish Christians, addressed in this letter, did not live in isolation from their intolerant environment. Because they had accepted Christ as their saviour they often were publicly disgraced and humiliated, becoming a spectacle to others. ‘Sometimes you were publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated’ (10:33; θεατριζόμενοι; cf. 1 Cor 4:9). There was at least an element of public humiliation in their persecution (Attridge 1989:299). The believers had accepted these sufferings. They also supported one another in their hardships. They sympathised with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of their property, because they knew that they had better and lasting possessions (10:34; the majority text adds: ‘in heaven’). In Hebrews 10:38–39 two contrasting attitudes are mentioned: ‘to shrink back’ or ‘to believe.’ Quoting Habakkuk 2 the author emphasises the point that faith needs to show perseverance. Believers are confident that nothing whatsoever will separate them ‘from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord’ (Rom 8:39).

252

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Often the confidence of persecuted Christians is observed by others, who are amazed about their courage.6 The passage of Hebrews 10:19–39 (entitled by the NIV as a call to persevere) is almost encompassed by the term παρρησία (translated in the NIV as ‘confidence’: 10:19, 35). In the book of Acts the same term characterises the confident courage with which the apostles act in different circumstances. It is one of the keywords, connected with the missionary activity that is carried out with all boldness and without hindrance (Acts 2:29; 4:13, 29, 31; 28:31; cf. Van Unnik 1980:279). In Hebrews we are concerned with the same courageous attitude, yet here it is strengthened by the confidence of drawing near to God. ‘Here it is, so to say, the content of the Christian attitude in the world, the security of God’s salvation and the open confession amidst of [sic] opposition […]. In the situation in which the Christians live, they need it as a gift and a task’ (Van Unnik 1980:286–287). Peace with all men In Hebrews 12:14 we find a fundamental rule in Christian ethics: ‘Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no-one will see the Lord.’ 7 Here the first element of this verse concerns the relationship with the neighbour; the second element concerns the relationship with God. Christians are peacemakers. They devote their lives unto service of the holy One. This text seems to allude to the Sermon on the Mount: ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, the peacemakers, for they will see God’ (Matt 5:8–9; cf. Bruce 1990:348).

‘The writer’s exhortation to believers to go to Jesus “outside the camp” and to bear suffering with him accentuates the call to Christians to be “outsiders,” choosing not the easy road of material prosperity but the path of the cross, of self-denying, death-defying discipleship and, if called for, social ostracism’ (Köstenberger 1998:199). 7 Attridge (1989:367) reads this ‘all’ as denoting one’s fellow Christians (‘inner-communal harmony’). It is more probable, however, that the author promotes peaceful relations with one’s non-Christian neighbours (Rom 12:18; 1 Pet 3:11). In this reading, ‘all’ really means ‘all people.’ 6

MISSION AND ETHICS IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 253 In Hebrews 13:1–6 this fundamental principle is applied by emphasising the following: to show mutual love and hospitality, to remember those in prison and those who are mistreated, to show fidelity in marriage, and to fight against the love of money. Dependence on God in faith will only enable us to live in peace (toward the neighbour) and in holiness (toward God). The believers need to support each other as well like the first Christians did in Jerusalem (Acts 2:42). This means, according to Hebrews 13:16, to maintain fellowship (κοινωνία) and to practise charity (εὐποιΐα). Since the time of sacrificing according to the old order in Jerusalem has passed (13:9), the New Testament believers need to bring ‘living sacrifices that are pleasing to God’ (Rom 12:1), as the writer of Hebrews says in chapter 13:16: ‘And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.’ Commenting on this text, Ellingworth observes that in the Septuagint the verb εὐαρεστεῖν is not used in relation to sacrifices, but almost always in regard to people, who are pleasing generally to God (Enoch, mentioned in 11:5–6, and Noah; Ellingworth 1993:722). Having come to the end of his letter, the author expresses this wish: may the God of peace ‘equip you with everything good for doing his will […]’ (13:20). This prayer contains an implicit exhortation (Attridge 1989:407). The epistle to the Hebrews does not indicate if such a Christian lifestyle would lead to having a good reputation and would lead to growth of the congregation as that happened with the first Christians in Jerusalem. Care for each other The epistle to the Hebrews deals also with mutual pastoral care and attention. Christians need each other. In this letter providing spiritual help is expressed by the verb παρακαλεῖν, meaning admonition as well as encouragement. Yes, we are our brother’s keepers, unlike what Cain scornfully said regarding Abel (Gen 3:9)! In Hebrews 3, the bad example of the disobedient desert generation is applied to each member of the congregation individually. Added to that admonition is the positive appeal to encourage one another from day to day—‘See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another daily […] so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness. We have come to share in Christ if we hold

254

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

firmly till the end the confidence we had at first’ (3:12-14). Since the believers are on the way to God’s glorious kingdom, that spiritual support should be a daily practice. We also find the term παρακαλεῖν in Hebrews 10:24–25— ‘And let us consider how we may spur one another on towards love and good deeds.’ In this text a more specific word is παροξυσμός (to sharpen). We need to keep each other sharp when it concerns love and doing good. Those activities of faith should not be missing. Coming to the assemblies of the congregation is vital for supporting each other on the way to God’s kingdom. Hence the author adds this exhortation as well—‘Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.’ Like in James 2:2, here the Greek term (ἐπι)συναγωγή is used for meeting together as a congregation. The usage of this word gives credibility to our suggestion in Part A that the readers indeed are Jewish Christians. At the same time a connotation with the bringing together of all the believers by Jesus Christ (1 Thess 4:13–18; 2 Thess 2:1) is made—the day of his coming is approaching. When the Christian congregation meets, mutual exhortation and encouragement take place in view of the gathering together on the final and great day (cf. Ellingworth 1993:527–530; Cockerill 2012:480). The author of Hebrews states that Christians will have an attitude of respect to their leaders, both those who are already deceased and those who currently watch over them as a shepherd watches over his flock. Members of the congregation do not forget those who have spoken to them ‘the word of God,’ the first preachers of the gospel (13:7), nor do they behave arrogantly to their actual leaders (13:17; cf. 13:24). Instead, they show honour and submission to all the leaders for Christ’s sake, because they do their work in his name. The leaders have been and are role models for their Christian life; believers have to remember them and to obey them in order to persevere in faith. A forward looking life The epistle to the Hebrews has a strong forward looking focus which puts all earthly realities in the right perspective. In chapters 2–4, the author demonstrates on the basis of Psalm 95 that the Christian congregation lives toward the fulfilment of God’s promise of rest for his people. That is an eternal sabbath-rest, praising

MISSION AND ETHICS IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 255 and adoring God without end. In order to enter this rest one needs, for examples to follow the heavenly call (3:1), to be ‘en route’ to the city-to-come (11:13–16; 13:9–14), to inherit what has been promised (6:12; 11:39–40), to run the race as marked out (12:1), and to have the desire of coming to the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22– 24). The Christian life is a pilgrimage or journey in faith (Marshall 2004:613–615), or as Johnsson puts it in his article on pilgrimage in Hebrews, ‘[…] the Christians of Hebrews are viewed as a cultic community on the move’ (Johnsson 1978:249). ‘For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come,’ as it says in Hebrews 13:14. This verse is often understood as a general statement about the fragility of life, or as a view about the need to let go of earthly securities—we only have a temporary place in this world. The ‘city’ is explained as pointing to two things: on the one hand to the earthly world which would disappear, and on the other hand to the world-to-come, which is the aim of our life’s quest.8 However, this interpretation is not in agreement with earlier statements in Hebrews about the city of the future as dealt with in Part A. It is not stated that we do not have an enduring place (τόπος), but that we do not have an enduring city (πόλις; see Van Houwelingen 2003a). A rather vague interpretation focusses on city people, implying that city life poses problems and dangers for believers.9 According to Hebrews, the purpose of our life’s quest is coming to the new Jerusalem. Therefore, the ‘city that would not endure’ is undoubtedly the old Jerusalem.10 Verse 12

Westcott (1977:442) writes, ‘The necessity for the abandonment of the old, however dear, lies in the general fact that we have no abiding system, no unchanging organisation, in the present transitory order.’ Many commentators hold this position: e.g. Bruce (1990:382); DeSilva (2000:503). For the Wirkungsgeschichte [reception history] of this particular text, see Grässer (1997:388-389). 9 Cf. Buchanan (1972:235–236); De Young (1960:10); Lane (1991:546–548). Contra Filson (1967:66–70); Koester (2001:570–571). 10 In Isaiah’s prophecy of Israel’s redemption, when Zion is no longer a rejected woman, then Jerusalem is called ‘Sought After, the City No Longer Deserted’ (Isa 62:12 LXX; ἐπιζητοθμένη πόλις). With great 8

256

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

speaks about Jesus’ suffering ‘outside the city gate’ which means outside the city gate of Jerusalem. That reference is immediately followed by the call, ‘Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore’ (13:13).11 Jesus was deported from Jerusalem in order to be crucified outside its walls and gate. Those who join him in faith, therefore, will lose that earthly city Jerusalem! The author of the epistle to the Hebrews shares this conviction with his readers. Hence he formulates his call in the firstperson plural ‘we.’12

CONCLUSION The Jewish Christians addressed in the epistle to the Hebrews were in danger of losing their confidence of faith. Therefore the author delight God’s people, then, will enter her gates. We are looking for that city which is to come. 11 Here the camp is a metaphor for Jerusalem (Walker 1996:216– 217). Verse 11 links this metaphor with the situation of the people of Israel during their wilderness journey; on the Day of Atonement all carcasses of the killed animals had to be burned with skin and all outside their camp of tents. Thus Jesus let himself be slaughtered as a unique sacrifice for the complete forgiveness of all our sins/as a unique atoning sacrifice for all our sins (Heb 10:1–18), outside the city gate of Jerusalem. 12 If the readers would have still lived in Jerusalem, then this call would have become very relevant. Jews for whom Jesus was the Messiah did not need to pitch their tent any longer in the camp of Jewish orthodoxy. As followers of Jesus they were prepared to give up Jerusalem. That precisely happened at the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans. The Christian congregation left Jerusalem just before or even during the siege of the city. They took refuge outside the borders of Israel, finding a safe haven at the city of Pella in Transjordan. For further details, see: Van Houwelingen (2003b). Cf. Gleason (2002:120); Mosser (2009). Contra Mackie (2007), who takes the view that Hebrews only relativises the value of Roman citizenship. Recently, the Australian archaeologist Stephen Bourke, who led the excavations at Pella in Jordan on behalf of the University of Sydney, claimed that several lines of evidence point in the direction of the tradition’s historicity and concluded that it is possible the Jerusalem church did in fact flee to Pella (Bourke 2013).

MISSION AND ETHICS IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 257 is strengthening this faith community so that they remain faithful. He is exhorting and encouraging them to persevere. In such a situation it is crucial to instil in them deep convictions regarding the supremacy of Jesus. To them the preacher (indeed, the letter reads like a sermon) portrays Jesus as both the model and object of faith (Rhee 2001:52–62). This overall observation makes it highly artificial to dichotomise between the internal and external life of the church, or between ethics and mission. For genuine faith is evidenced by moral qualities, such as endurance, hope, and confidence in God’s promises. These qualities have a missionary impact; they will not remain unnoticed by others. In this way, the internal dynamics of the church are indispensable prerequisites for the church’s external relationships. The message for believers’ activities within the community should therefore not be seen in isolation from believers’ responsibilities to the outside world (Köstenberger 1998:199). The epistle to the Hebrews may seem enigmatic, but what we have found gives sufficient clarity to locate this letter in the context of early Christendom. This view is warranted by many references to the cultic worship in Jerusalem. Moreover, the link with the congregation in Jerusalem as suggested in the present chapter makes this location even likely. So the essence of the message that this ‘distance-sermon’ wants to deliver, is crystal clear: faith means perseverance (cf. Van de Kamp 2010). Indeed, this letter contains an encouraging exhortation that was designed to impact the life of the members of the congregation, internally as well as externally. Aiming to encourage believers in a time of crisis, the preacher refers his audience continuously to Jesus, our heavenly High Priest. The message of the epistle to the Hebrews is especially Christological in nature. It unleashes a dynamic interaction between ethics and mission.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, D.R., 2001, The King-Priest of Psalm 110 in Hebrews, Peter Lang, New York. Attridge, H.W., 1989, The Epistle to the Hebrews, (Hermeneia), Fortress Press, Philadelphia. Bauckham, R., Driver, D.R., Hart, T.A. & MacDonald, N. (eds.), 2009, The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

258

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Bensel, K., 2005, Die Melchisedek-Typologie in Hebräer 7,1–28: Ihre Beziehung zu kontemporären Melchisedek-Traditionen und den Prinzipien jüdischer Schriftexegese, diss. ETF Leuven. Bourke, S., 2013, ‘The Christian Flight to Pella: True or Tale?’, Biblical Archaeology Review 39(3), 31–39, 70–71. Bruce, F.F., 1990, The Epistle to the Hebrews, rev. edn., (NICNT), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Buchanan, G.W., 1972, To the Hebrews. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, (The Anchor Bible), Doubleday, New York. Carson, D.A. & Moo, D.J., 2005, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd edn., Apollos, Leicester. Cockerill, G.L., 2012, The Epistle to the Hebrews, (NICNT), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Den Heyer, C.J., 1998, Jesus and the Doctrine of the Atonement. Biblical Notes on a Controversial Topic, Trinity Press, Valley Forge. DeSilva, D.A., 2000, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews”, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. De Young, J.C., 1960, Jerusalem in the New Testament: The significance of the city in the history of redemption and in eschatology, Kok, Kampen. Du Toit, A., 2012, ‘Sensitivity towards the reaction of outsiders as ethical motivation in early Christian paraenesis’, HTS Theological Studies 68(1), 7 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v68i1.1212. Ellingworth, P., 1993, The Epistle to the Hebrews. A Commentary on the Greek Text, (NIGTC), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Filson, F.V., 1967, ‘Yesterday’: A Study of Hebrews in the Light of Chapter 13, SCM Press, London. Gleason, R.C., 2002, ‘The Eschatology of the Warning in Hebrews 10:26–31’, Tyndale Bulletin 53(1), 97–120. Grässer, E., 1997, An die Hebräer. 3. Teilband (Hebr. 10,19–13,25) (EKK), Benzinger Verlag/Neukirchener Verlag, Zürich. Isaacs, M.E.,1992, Sacred Space. An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Johnsson, W.G., 1978, ‘The Pilgrimage Motif in the Book of Hebrews’, Journal of Biblical Literature 97, 239–251. Koester, C.R., 2001, Hebrews. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, (The Anchor Bible), Doubleday, New York. Kok, J., 2011, ‘Mission and ethics in Galatians’, HTS Theological Studies 67(1), 10 pages.

MISSION AND ETHICS IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 259 [http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v67i1.896]. Köstenberger, A.J., 1998, ‘Mission in the General Epistles’ in W.J. Larkin Jr. & J.F. Williams (eds.), Mission in the New Testament: An Evangelical Approach, pp. 189–206, Orbis Books, Maryknoll. Lane, W.L., 1991, Hebrews 9–13, (WBC), Word, Dallas. Lindars, B., 1991, The theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, University Press, Cambridge. Mackie, S.D., 2007, Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. Marshall, I.H., 2004, New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, one Gospel, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove. Mosser, C., 2009, ‘Rahab Outside the Camp’, in R. Bauckham, D.R. Driver, T.A. Hart & N. MacDonald (eds.), The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, pp. 383–404, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. O’Brien, P.T., 2011, ‘God as the Speaking God. ‘Theology’ in the Letter to the Hebrews’, in A.J. Köstenberger & R.W. Yarbrough (eds.), Understanding the Times: New Testament Studies in the 21st Century, (FS D.A. Carson), pp. 196–216, Crossway, Wheaton. Rhee, V. (S.-Y.), 2001, Faith in Hebrews: Analysis within the Context of Christology, Eschatology, and Ethics, Peter Lang, New York. Scholer, J.M., 1991, Proleptic Priests. Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Thyen, H., 1955, Der Stil der jüdisch-hellenistischen Homilie, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen. Van de Kamp, H.R., 2010, Hebreeën. Geloven is volhouden (CNT), Kok, Kampen. Van Eck, J., 2003, Handelingen. De wereld in het geding (CNT), Kok, Kampen. Van Houwelingen, P.H.R., 2003a, ‘Wij hebben hier geen blijvende stad’, De Reformatie 79, 49–52. Van Houwelingen, P.H.R., 2003b, ‘Fleeing Forward: The Departure of Christians from Jerusalem to Pella’, Westminster Theological Journal 65(2), 181–200. http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/wtj/62-2_181.pdf Van Houwelingen, R., 2011, ‘Riddles around the Letter to the Hebrews’, Fides Reformata 16(2), 151–162. http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/fr/16-2_151.pdf

260

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Van Houwelingen, R., 2013, ‘The Epistle to the Hebrews: Faith Means Perseverance’, Journal of Early Christian History 3.1, 98– 115. Van Unnik, W.C., 1980, ‘The Christian’s Freedom of Speech in the New Testament’ in Sparsa Collecta II, pp. 269–289, Brill, Leiden. Walker, P.W.L., 1996, Jesus and the Holy City. New Testament Perspectives on Jerusalem, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Westcott, B.F., 1977, The Epistle to the Hebrews. The Greek Text with Notes and Essays (Reprint), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

10. INSIDERS OR OUTSIDERS? THE USE OF THE TERM ‘βάρβαρος’ IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES: A PROBLEMANZEIGE Ronald H. van der Bergh UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA ABSTRACT1 This article seeks to highlight the problematic use of the term βάρβαρος in the Acts of the Apostles (28:2, 4). In the ancient world, this term could function as an ethnic and linguistic marker to designate another people group as the ‘other.’ In taking the nature of the term into account in the context of its appearance in Acts 28:1–10, some hitherto unsolved problems in the narrative of Acts are identified. The article then collects and groups implicit suggestions for understanding the term within its context as a starting point for future studies.

INTRODUCTION The ethnic and linguistic term βάρβαρος,2 arguably the most wellknown delimiter of ‘otherness’ in the ancient world,3 occurs only This essay is a slightly revised version of an article that previously appeared as Van der Bergh, R.H., 2013, 'The use of the Term βάρβαρος in the Acts of the Apostles: A Problemanzeige', Neotestamentica 47.1, 69–86. It is reprinted here with kind permission. 2 Excellent summaries of the general development and problematic nature of the term already exist. The best starting point for understanding the term’s use in the New Testament remains to date Windisch’s entry in volume 1 of Kittel et al.’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Windisch 1964:546–553). Windisch gives a cursory overview of the 1

261

262

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

twice, in close proximity, at the end of the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 28:2, 4). As the book of Acts remains to date one of our primary sources for understanding the early stages of the spread of Christianity, the mere occurrence of this term, which contains the potential of extreme prejudice (cf. Windisch 1964:547–548),4 has term’s use in literature up to the time of the New Testament. He discusses each occurrence of the term in the New Testament, and classifies them according to their broad semantic use. Windisch’s (1964:551) conclusion on the use of βάρβαρος, after emphasising the use of the term as a linguistic marker in Acts 28:2, 4, is telling, ‘When Luke says: οἵ τε βάρβαροι παρεῖχον οὐ τὴν τυχοῦσαν φιλανθρωπίαν ἡμῖν, he means that we met with friendly treatment which as shipwrecked travellers we had not expected, or had never met with elsewhere, from such “barbarians.” Hence there is either a contrast between βάρβαρος and φιλανθρωπία, or else a protest against the dominant contempt for βάρβαροι’ (emphasis mine). In the first instance, then, Windisch implicitly acknowledges that Luke could be using the term in accordance with the ‘dominant contempt for βάρβαροι.’ A more recent evaluation of the term, although not as elaborate, can be found in Balz (1990:197–198). For expositions and summaries of the term’s use, meaning and development outside the New Testament, see Opelt & Speyer (1967); Funck (1981); Lévy (1984); and Hall (1989). 3 Even Gruen (2011:76), who recently stressed that the animosity between ancient peoples was not as great as modern-day scholars would have it, has to admit that the term ‘did at least provide a signifier of “Otherness.”’ To a certain extent, this held true even in Hellenistic times (Browning 2002:261). 4 Not all the uses listed by Windisch can be considered as pejorative (cf. also the much less negative assessment of the term by Balz 1990:197– 198), but in the final stage of the term’s development, he reckons the term akin to: σκληρός (harsh), ὠμός (savage), ἄγριος (wild), μανικός (mad), ἄπιστος (unfaithful), ἀνόητος (unintelligent), σκαιός (clumsy), ἀμαθής (unlearned), ἀπαίδευτος (ignorant), and ἀναίσθητος (stupid)—an impressive list of derogatory adjectives. Even when the term was applied purely as a linguistic marker (see the discussion below), the potential for prejudice exists. To the Greek mind, there was a 'close connection […] between intelligible speech and reason' (Hall 1989:199–200). The term itself has also played a great part in the development of slavery, even in the ancient world (cf. Harrington 2002:3), where ‘barbarians’ were viewed as slaves by

THE USE OF THE TERM ‘ΒΆΡΒΑΡΟΣ’ IN ACTS

263

significance for our reflection on the movement’s views towards outsiders, and especially those of other ethnic groups. Within the Greco-Roman world, the term could function to point out hierarchical differences between people groups, and this division is not only of a literary nature (cf. Lissarague 2002).5 Yet, in discussions on ‘multiculturalism’ in Acts, the term and its context have largely avoided notice, taking second place to Acts’ perceived Jew / gentile dichotomy (Gaventa 2001:31; cf. Witherington 1998:293).6 With regard to the term’s immediate context, more historical questions, such as the true location of the island Μελίτη (Acts 28:1),7 have been the main line of inquiry.8 The same can be said for the asnature—so much so that the ideas became ‘synonymous’ (cf. Funck 1981:34; Hall 1989:101; Kyrtatas 2009:93). With regard to the term’s use in the context of slavery, also see Hengel (1980:56). 5 Lissarague investigated the images of, amongst others, ‘barbarians’ on Athenian vases and comes to the conclusion that this hierarchical division is certainly not a literary invention only. 6 Even though the term evokes notions of ‘racism’ to modern ears, Hall (1989:ix) warns against viewing the term as signifying such, since the division of people groups in the ancient world was not primarily based on biological differences. She suggests using the terms ‘xenophobia,’ ‘ethnocentrism,’ or ‘chauvinism’ to designate the deprecating view of Greeks towards ‘barbarians.’ The use of ‘multiculturalism’ or perhaps ‘different ethnic groups’ is therefore also to be preferred in discussing different people groups in Acts. 7 Much ink has been spilled on the question whether Μελίτη is modern-day Malta or not. For a survey and discussion of the proposals up to 1996, see Gilchrist (1996:29–30). A thorough discussion of the problem and proposals can also be found in Börstinghaus (2010:432–444). Of special note is the debate between Suhl (1991a; 1991b; 1992), who argues against Malta, and Wehnert (1991), who opts for Malta. The latest consensus seems to be that Μελίτη is indeed the island Malta (cf. Börstinghaus 2010:442), and this will be the working hypothesis with which this article will proceed. Of course, interaction with this debate will not be entirely unavoidable, but this question will not be the main inquiry. 8 This is partly due to the fact / fiction question surrounding Acts, which has especially invaded discussion on Acts 27—28:10; for a discussion on this issue, see Hummel (2000:40).

264

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

sessment of Acts 28:1–10’s overall role in Lukan theology (cf. Gaventa 2001:36; Clabeaux 2005:604), even though the episode is at such an important juncture in the Acts narrative—forming part of the ‘epilogue,’ so to speak (cf. Alexander 2006a:211–212). The primary aim of the present article is to serve as a Problemanzeige. Therefore, the reasons for finding the use of the term βάρβαρος in Acts 28:2 and 28:4 problematic will be outlined below under the heading, “The problematic use of the term βάρβαρος in Acts 28:1–10.” The next section of the article will identify previous suggestions, most of them implicit, on how to assess this term’s use within its context. As no study has hitherto been concerned exclusively with the use of the term in Acts, these suggestions will be culled from commentaries on Acts and scholarly works on related issues and the context of the term in the narrative of Acts. For this reason, the suggestions will be grouped together as ‘trajectories’ rather than full-blown proposals, and will only give an indication along which further lines of enquiry could proceed. It is of great import that the term’s literary function within the greater context of the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles be investigated and evaluated, especially in a multicultural and multilingual society such as South Africa’s. This article hopes to provide the impetus—and the necessary first steps—for such a study.

THE PROBLEMATIC USE OF THE TERM βάρβαρος 28:1–10

IN ACTS

Paul’s (and Luke’s) possible lesser concern for missionary activity among the βάρβαροι Perhaps the most pressing concern in understanding Luke’s use of the term βάρβαρος in Acts is that the normal missionary activity by Paul—the latter part of the Acts narrative’s main protagonist—is lacking in the immediate context of the term’s occurrence (Acts 28:1–6; but this should also be taken with Paul’s further stay on the island, related in Acts 28:7–10) (cf. Schnabel 2004:1267; Schnabel

THE USE OF THE TERM ‘ΒΆΡΒΑΡΟΣ’ IN ACTS

265

2008:338).9 Indeed, the narrative of Acts 28:1–10 relates no clear move by Paul to evangelise the βάρβαροι or the island’s other inhabitants (if these are to be taken as two separate groups), nor is there any straightforward account of conversion among them. In light of the normal missionary pattern found in Acts (cf. Tannehill 1986),10 tinged with what can be described as ‘universalism’ (Witherington 1998:511–512),11 this possible lack of missionary concern could be problematic. Various suggestions have been offered to Although they are clearly distinct episodes, many commentators group Acts 28:1–6 (in some cases 28:2–6, when 28:1 is taken as an introduction to both) and 28:7–10 together. It is important to include Acts 28:7–10 in an assessment of the literary function of the term βάρβαροι, as to determine whether the characters in this episode include the βάρβαροι or not. Especially the relation between Acts 28:6 and Acts 28:10 should be investigated; if it is the same group of people who honours Paul ‘with many honours’ (πολλαῖς τιμαῖς) in Acts 28:10 and regard him to be a god in Acts 28:6, there will be implications for understanding the term’s use. The latest study concerned with Paul’s stay on Malta, that of Börstinghaus (2010), is more concerned with the literary motif of the perilous journey and subsequent shipwreck than the use of the term βάρβαρος in the Acts narrative; consequently, Börstinghaus ends his investigation at Acts 28:6. However, in a footnote, Börstinghaus (2010:10–11) notes that in the wider context of Acts, the section should run from 27:1 to 28:16. The present article is only concerned with the use of the term βάρβαρος, and hence, only the possible presence of these characters in the narrative plot of Acts (that is to say, up to Acts 28:10). 10 Of course, the very different circumstances in which the narrative has Paul find himself in Acts 28:1–6 should be taken into consideration. However, the stay on Μελίτη lasted three months (Acts 28:11), which is ample time for Paul to ‘recover’ and resume his usual custom. For the general missionary method of the historical Paul, with ample discussion of his views towards ethnicity, see Schnabel (2008:256–373). Schnabel (2008:36) notes, for instance, that for the historical Paul, ‘matters of ethnic identity, class, culture or gender did not control his missionary focus’ (emphasis original). 11 The full statement by Witherington, in commenting on Acts 17, reads, ‘We have […] repeatedly noted Luke’s universalism—salvation is for all, for every sort of person’ (1998:511–512). 9

266

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

attempt to alleviate this perceived difficulty, only some of which tie in with what is stated in the text, namely, that Paul ‘healed’ Publius’ father (Acts 28:8) as well as the rest of the islanders who were sick (Acts 28:9). The two words used for ‘healing’ are different (ἰάσατο in Acts 28:8; ἐθεραπεύοντο in Acts28:9), but the terms are synonyms and the difference should not be pressed.12 Paul would have preached, then, while healing (e.g. Grosheide 1974:214; Neudorfer 1990:359; Schnabel 2008:1267; cf. Schnabel 2008:314, 338), or the healing action itself, might be seen as evangelism (e.g. Krodel 1986:480; Jervell 1998:617; cf. Stenschke 1999:237).13 Another approach is to simply remark that Paul preached—without reference to the text at all— but that no faith community was grounded (e.g. Wikenhauser 1961:284; Schlatter 1962:312; Rapske 1994:360); others suggest historical veracity as Luke’s reason: Paul did not preach or his preaching was not well received, and therefore Luke did not report it (e.g. Marshall 1980:418; Roloff 1981:367; Pesch 1986:300). Schneider (1982:401) notes the suggestion that Paul did not preach as he was a prisoner, but immediately dismisses the idea (and rightly so) as there is no mention of Paul’s captivity in Acts 28:1–10. Arguably the proposal taking the most of the Acts narrative as such in account is made by Johnson (1992:463). Johnson opines that ‘[a]s always in Luke-Acts, the sharing of physical possessions is a symbol of sharing in the good news (Lk 6:32–36; 8:3; 12:32–34; 14:13–14; 18:22; 21:1–4; Ac 2:42–47; 4:32–37).’ None of these suggestions directly addresses the lexical choice for the term βάρβαρος in this pericope.

See, however, the discussion in Kirchschläger (1979:512) for the effect of the finer nuance between these two verbs in this context. Kirchschläger opines that ἰάσατο is the more specific of the two and forms the ‘Höhepunkt der Erzählung.’ 13 Stenschke (1999:237; cf. Kirchschläger 1979:516) notes about the laying on of hands in this context that ‘Paul’s action indicates [the “barbarians’”] spiritual blindness and its persistency,’ and that this action ‘served to avert false identifications and to correct Gentile notions. Paul was God’s servant and dependent upon him (cf. Acts 27.23), not divine himself.’ 12

THE USE OF THE TERM ‘ΒΆΡΒΑΡΟΣ’ IN ACTS

267

The possibly naïve nature of the βάρβαροι Another problematic issue in Acts 28:1–10 is the ascription of divinity to Paul by the βάρβαροι. Whereas Paul (and Barnabas) reacts very strongly to being equated with a god in Acts 14:14–15, nothing is made of the similar statement by the βάρβαροι in Acts 28:6.14 In addition, it should be noted that the narrative possibly depicts the βάρβαροι as naïve: in a mere three verses, their opinion goes from one extreme (regarding Paul as condemned murderer—Acts 28:4)15 to another (regarding Paul as a god—Acts 28:6). Opinions about the motivation behind Luke’s report of this sudden change of mind and / or the reference to Paul as a divine being are manifold, including:16  Luke wants to depict Paul as a θεῖος ἀνήρ (‘divine man’), and this perception of Paul as a ‘god’ forms the high point of this theme, emphasised by the sudden reversal of the βάρβαροι’s thoughts (Haenchen 1971:715; Marshall 1980:417; Roloff 1981:365; Conzelmann 1987:223; Hummel 2000:51; Van Eck 2003:553). Van Eck takes the καί, ‘also,’ in Acts 28:10 (this can hardly be translated in any Not so frequently noted with regard to Acts 28:1–6 is the episode of Herod’s death on account of not correcting the crowd’s view of him as divine in Acts 12:20–24; this link is noted by Gaventa (2001:37). 15 But cf. Marshall (1980:416) with regard to Acts 28:4: ‘In this kind of thought-world the reaction of the Maltese to Paul’s experience is fully intelligible.’ The motif of escaping Δίκη (‘Justice’) is also taken by some as a motif to be found in Luke’s contemporary thought-world; the text most frequently cited as an example is a poem by Statilius Flaccus in Anthologia Graeca VII 290, sometimes also listed is the even more appropriate epigram by Antipater of Thessalonica in Anthologia Graeca IX 269 (cf. Roloff 1981:366; Pesch 1986:298; Conzelmann 1987:223; Jervell 1998:615; Van Eck 2003:552). However, Börstinghaus (2010:414–415), points out that the direct correlation of Δίκη with snakes is not well attested in the ancient mediterranean world at all. Hemer (1989:153) notes that ‘[t]he snake as the agent of vengeance (v. 4) was a common idea.’ 16 It should further be noted that at least three scholars (Bruce 1954:523; Marshall 1980:417; Hemer 1989:153) note humour in this account. 14

268

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

   



other way), where Paul and company are ‘honoured’ (ἐτίμησαν), as a clear indication that the ascription of divinity to Paul in Acts 28:6 is approved by the author. Also remarking that the ‘honouring’ could be in line with taking Paul as divine are Lindijer (1979:277) and Schille (1983:473); Luke wants to write an apology for Paul as an apostle, showing him as a miracle worker (Marshall 1980:234; Schmithals 1982:234); Luke seeks to emphasise Paul’s innocence (Krodel 1986:480); Luke wants to stress the unstoppable nature, through God’s help, of Paul’s movement to Rome (Roloff 1981:367; Pesch 1986:298); Luke does not deem it necessary to have Paul correct the βάρβαροι as the reader has been prepared to see this point of view as false (Schmithals 1982:233–234; Jervell 1998:618–620); Luke wants to depict the fickleness of the pagans (or heathens) without much reflection on what is to be understood under that term (Grosheide 1974:213; Schneider 1982:403; Neudorfer 1990:358; Jervell 1998:616).

These suggestions, with the exception of the last, do not seem to take the nature of the term βάρβαρος into account. The last suggestion, lacking critical reflection on the nature of people groups in the narrative of Acts, is disconcerting in its own right. With all of these suggestions, one is left to wonder whether the reader was supposed to care about the βάρβαροι’s salvation at all. Luke’s possible predilection for selected people groups The religious framework in which the above-mentioned episode at Lystra plays out in Acts 14 is clearly Hellenistic (cf. Schnabel 2008:337–338). This is betrayed not only by the roles assigned to Paul and Barnabas (Hermes and Zeus, respectively—Acts 14:12), but also the fact that a ‘priest of Zeus’ (ὅ ἱερεὺς τοῦ Διός) was stationed close by and ready to act (Acts 14:13). The same cannot be outrightly claimed for Acts 28:1–6. Some note that, with regard to the use of Δίκη in Acts 28:4 (if this is indeed to be taken as the personification of the Greek goddess ‘Justice,’ which virtually all

THE USE OF THE TERM ‘ΒΆΡΒΑΡΟΣ’ IN ACTS

269

scholars agree on), ‘Luke has put a Greek idea into the mouths of the barbarians’ (Haenchen 1971:713; also arguing along these lines are Roloff 1981:367; Schille 1983:471; Pesch 1986:298; Conzelmann 1987:223). Others prefer the idea that Luke could be using the Greek equivalent of a Punic deity (e.g., Wikenhauser 1961:284; Neil 1973:254; Neudorfer 1990:257). However, it should be noted that, in Acts 28:6, Paul is not described as a specific deity, even though such an identification could easily be made. In a Hellenistic setting, Asclepius, the god of healing, who was associated with snakes, comes to mind—especially in light of Paul’s healing activity in Acts 28:8–9. That the βάρβαροι were really Hellenistic in their outlook is not a clear cut case—far from it. After all, it is striking that Paul’s next move, related in Acts 28:7, is towards an individual seemingly of Greco-Roman cultural allegiance.17 This could indicate Luke’s predilection for—or maybe even sole interest in— converting people of Greco-Roman and Jewish cultures. This preference for Greco-Roman and Jewish conversion should be considered together with Luke’s interest in languages.18 For an in-depth discussion of the designation of Ποπλίος (i.e., ‘Publius’) as πρῶτος τῆς νήσου (‘first of the island’; Ac28:7) and especially whether an official Roman title is meant or not, see Suhl (1992:220–226; cf. 1991b:16; Hummel 2000:43). Commentaries on Acts are divided between seeing the title as official and hence seeing Publius as Roman (e.g. Bruce 1954:523; Blaiklock 1959:192; Schlatter 1962:311; Haenchen 1971:714; Grosheide 1974:214; Lindijer 1979:276; Schmithals 1982:234; Schille 1983:472; Neudorfer 1990:358; Van Eck 2003:553) or as a title related to patronage, and thus not necessarily Roman (e.g. Wikenhauser 1961:381; Roloff 1981:367; Krodel 1986:481; Pesch 1986:299). Some remain indecisive (e.g. Neil 1973:254; Johnson 1992:462; Jervell 1998:616). Whatever the case may be, Publius is a Roman name (cf. Blass, Debrunner & Rehkopf 1984:34 [§ 41.1]) and betrays an association with the Romans, even though Luke’s use of the praenomen is unusual (Marshall 1980:417). 18 Language plays an important part in the episode in the incident at Lystra recorded in Acts 14—the native language of the Lycaonians being expressly mentioned (Acts 14:11), probably to explain how things could go as far as they do before Paul and Barnabas act. However, as noted 17

270

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

In the bigger context of the Acts narrative, as in Acts 28:1–10, linguistic markers regularly serve as designators of specific people groups. The most well-known of these is perhaps the Ἑλληνισταί of Acts 6 (cf. Bruce 1985:644–645; Shillington 2007:48–49),19 but reference should also be made to the different language groups present at the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts 2. 20 Ιt is not clear above, the group in question is Hellenistic. Cf. also the role language plays in Acts 21:37–40 with regard to identity / ethnicity, where Paul addresses the crowd in Jerusalem. 19 Both Bruce and Shillington note that the division was primarily linguistic, but that there must have been significant cultural differences between these groups too. The term Ἑλληνιστής seems to have ‘at least as its primary meaning “one who speaks Greek”’ (Witherington 1998:241). Witherington believes that the same linguistic prominence applies to the term Ἑβραῖος—in Acts, only found at 6:1—and its derivative, Ἑβραΐς. That Ἑλληνιστής does not simply mean ‘Greek’ can be seen by the use of another term, Ἕλλην, for this group (cf. Shillington 2007:128); however, the term Ἑλληνιστής could embrace those who consider themselves to be Greek, e.g., Nicolas the proselyte in Acts 6:5. The Ἕλληνες are clearly not proselytes (De Boer 1995:50), but in Acts, they can regularly be found in synagogues (e.g. Acts 14:1; 18:4). 20 There are considerable difficulties in determining the ethnic boundaries and affiliations of the groups described in Acts 2:5–11. The groups all have their own mother tongue (Acts 2:8), but they are introduced as Ιερουσαλὴμ κατοικοῦντες Ἰουδαῖοι, ἄνδρες εὐλαβεῖς ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔθνους τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν (Acts 2:5). The first obstacle is a text critical one. However, the textual variants listed in NA27 mainly concern word order, while the basic difficulty of the passage remains intact: the term Ἰουδαῖοι seems to stand in apposition with ἄνδρες εὐλαβεῖς, even though the qualification ‘ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔθνους τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν’ is added (and this part of the text knows no noteworthy variants). Only in one manuscript, the original hand of Codex Sinaiticus, is the problem completely removed—by omission of the term Ἰουδαῖοι. There can be little doubt that this change is secondary (Metzger 1975:291). Thus, the groups are all described as ‘Jews’ in Acts 2:5; but in Acts 2:14, Peter addresses both ἄνδρες Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οἱ κατοικοῦντες Ἰερουσαλὴμ πάντες. However, in Acts 2:22, clearly still part of Peter’s speech, the form of address is once again directed to the Jews—ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται. Whatever the case may be,

THE USE OF THE TERM ‘ΒΆΡΒΑΡΟΣ’ IN ACTS

271

whether these linguistic designators refer to people wholly unacquainted with Judaism or to those either within Judaism or at its fringes.21 There might thus be some legitimate concern that the author of Acts cares only about drawing those groups already acquainted with Judaism into the Christian fold. A primary use of the term βάρβαρος in Greek literature is exactly this division between groups who spoke a different tongue (Windisch 1964:546). 22 A betthe εὐλαβεῖς of Acts 2:5 appears to place these groups within or close to Judaism. With regard to Acts 2 and Acts 28, the position of both these episodes—Acts 2:5–13 almost at the beginning of Acts and Acts 28:1–10 almost at the end—should also be considered. Could there be an intentional comparison between the uses of linguistic markers in these two outermost parts of the Acts narrative? 21 Discussions on this ambiguity are generally situated within the ‘God-Fearers’ debate, investigated by De Boer (1995). This debate concerns whether (a) the φοβούμενοι, occurring only up to Acts 13:26, and the σεβόμενοι, occurring only after Acts 13:43, are the same group, and (b) these groups’ relation to Judaism. De Boer (1995:57) concludes that, for Luke, both ‘the σεβόμενοι are, like the φοβούμενοι, Gentiles who venerate the God of Israel.’ De Boer also notes—and this applies more directly to the question of Luke’s estimation of the βάρβαροι—Jervell’s (1988) and Esler’s (1987) suggestion that Luke is only interested in converting God-fearers, and not Gentiles per se. Also see Squires (1998:615– 616), who have similar arguments, and McRay (1992), who takes the term Ἕλληνες to refer to ‘non-Jews who worship the one true God’ (But see Sanders 1991:passim); the debate up to 1995 is summarised in De Boer (1995:65–66; also see his conclusions on page 69). Here, the discussion mainly centres on the terms φοβούμενοι, σεβόμενοι, Ἕλληνες, and τὰ ἔθνη—the βάρβαροι are left out in the cold. 22 No express mention of language is made in Acts 28:1–6. However, the term’s function as a linguistic marker would have been enough to designate these people as constituting their own group. The language they are supposed to speak can only be guessed. In the narrative, the βάρβαροι speak ‘to each other’ (πρὸς ἀλλήλους), which could, although this is seldom assumed, just as easily have been in Greek. Their speaking ‘to each other’ might very well exclude Paul and company from their discussion, irrespective of the language used. The fact / fiction question (on this question, see Hummel 2000:40) has led Zahn (1927:840) to propose a

272

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

ter grasp of the literary function of the term βάρβαρος within the context of Acts will therefore contribute to a better understanding of this issue. To summarise: it is possible that the author of Acts harbours prejudice towards the βάρβαροι and is not concerned with their conversion or inclusion within the Christian ranks, even though they are depicted in a positive light (cf. the term φιλανθρωπία and its use in Acts 28:2).23 As can be clearly seen in the exposition above, this problem has not received any significant attention by the scholars. The above-mentioned problems in reading the narrative of Acts, especially those dealing with possible ethnic and cultural discrimination by the work’s author, could be addressed by a careful study of the literary purpose (if there is any) of the word βάρβαρος in this specific context. Such a study remains a desideratum. The remainder of this article will give an overview of implictly proposed suggestions to lay out lines along which such a study might proceed.

PROPOSED TRAJECTORIES FOR UNDERSTANDING USE OF THE TERM βάρβαρος IN ACTS 28:1–10 Four trajectories for understanding the term βάρβαρος in Acts 28:1–10 have been proposed. 24 Different nuances are present within each of these four trajectories, as they are an amalgamation of the opinions of different scholars, often not concerned with the solution to where this snippet of information (i.e., what the barbarians are saying ‘to each other’) might come from. According to him, there was enough mutual intelligibility between Aramaic and Punic, the language of the Phoenician population of Malta, that Paul could understand what the barbarians were saying. Such concerns with fact / fiction and how the saying got ‘preserved’ have even slipped into dictionaries (e.g. Windisch 1964:551). 23 Also see the discussion under “The term as a marker of the next stage of Christian missionary activity” below. 24 Börstinghaus (2010:404–406), although not explicitly categorising, identifies the first two of these trajectories, and points out the use of φιλανθρωπία, an important component of trajectories three and four.

THE USE OF THE TERM ‘ΒΆΡΒΑΡΟΣ’ IN ACTS

273

term βάρβαρος as such. These four trajectories only serve as broad groupings of how the term can be understood. The term as a purely linguistic and cultural marker Not surprisingly, many commentators—who have, after all, an edifying purpose as their goal— simply state that the word is used in a neutral fashion and as a purely linguistic and cultural marker (e.g., Wikenhauser 1961:283; Lindijer 1979:275; Marshall 1980:415–416; Schneider 1982:401; Hemer 1989:152; Balz 1990:198; Neudorfer 1990:356; Johnson 1992:461; Jervell 1998:615). Some see no negative connotation to the word in the context of Acts 28:1–6, but still take the trouble to point out that the βάρβαροι (on Malta) were indeed civilised people (e.g., Blaiklock 1959:192; Neil 1973:254; Grosheide 1974:212), although perhaps uneducated (cf. Stenschke 1999:94). Another group would have the term point only to a linguistic and cultural difference, but in a demeaning way, ranging from ‘patronizing’ (Bruce 1954:521)25 through the expected feeling of Greek superiority (Roloff 1981:366) to describing the βάρβαροι as such ‘in alle betekenissen van het woord’ (Van Eck 2003:548– 549).26 Some of these latter proposals might also fit in with the other proposed trajectories for understanding the term’s use. The term as a marker of the ἔσχατος τῆς γῆς (‘end of the earth’) An enticing proposal with regard to the ἐσχάτος τῆς γῆς (‘end of the earth’) has been put forward by Loveday Alexander. That Acts 1:8 sets up the lines along which Acts enfolds geographically has been well established in New Testament scholarship. This is usually taken to mean that the narrative has Rome as its final goal; that is to say, witnessing takes place in Jerusalem, in Judea and Samaria, and finally, Rome. However, this is not necessarily the case for Paul’s missionary work. There already is a church at Rome, 27 and Later editions of the commentary by Bruce (cf. Bruce 1990:531) do not contain this description of the βάρβαροι. 26 An English translation would be ‘in all the meanings of the word.’ 27 Cf. Meinert (1985:334), who also points out this fact. 25

274

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

what can almost be considered an honourary guard awaits and escorts Paul on the last stage of his journey to the Eternal City (Acts 28:14–16). Alexander’s main proposal needs to be quoted at length: Given the symbolic significance of ‘the islands’ in biblical geography, it is not unreasonable to suggest that readers might see this as a rather subtly-hinted fulfilment of the commission of Acts 1.8. This island turns out rather prosaically to have a name (28.1), but it is still peopled by ‘barbarians’ (28.2: the only βάρβαροι in the whole of Acts), who, like the Lycaonians of 14.11, show a satisfying readiness to attribute divine status to the apostle. (Alexander 2006a:214)

She continues in the following paragraph, ‘But it is not so easy to be confident that the voyage’s final destination, Rome, has this symbolic significance.’ Alexander goes on to argue that the reader is guided from the miracle-filled and missionary world of Acts to a more quotidian existence in Rome, starting with the ‘“first man” with the very Roman name of Publius,’ and the easy accessibility of an ‘Alexandrian grain-ship wintering on the other side of the island’; i.e., that the move from the exotic location of the shipwreck to civilisation is a literary technique guiding the reader back to reality (see esp. Alexander 2006a:229). Alexander’s suggestion calls for a closer look. In the ancient mediterranean world, it is at the periphery that the ‘other’ is encountered. Although remarking upon Herodotus, the following quote by Redfield has general application: We place the fabulous beyond the edges of the known world, [Herodotus] suggests, not only because they are beyond our knowledge, but because, as we move toward the edges, we encounter more extreme conditions and atypical forms, both natural and cultural. The ends of the earth, for Herodotus, are districts full of oddities, monsters, and rare valuable substances. The center, by contrast, is a sphere of mixtures. (Redfield 2002:40)

This is also true for the ancient novels (cf. Alexander 2006c:113), although they place the barbarians at the eastern border; Alexander has also suggested that the move from East to West in Acts is a protest against the Greco-Roman worldview (Alexander 2006b:84).

THE USE OF THE TERM ‘ΒΆΡΒΑΡΟΣ’ IN ACTS

275

Within this interpretation, the term βάρβαρος would serve to announce the arrival at the ‘end of the earth.’ The term as designation of the inhabitants of the island as literary props on Paul’s way to Rome A third proposed backdrop against which the term βάρβαρος can be understood in Acts 28:2 and 28:4 is that Luke’s concern is only with Paul’s journey to Rome; he is at pains to show that nothing will stop the apostle reaching this destination (e.g., Jervell 1998:617). Pesch (1986:298) has suggested that this is to be understood in light of Acts 26:22a; through God’s assistance, Paul is heading for Rome. An even more applicable text would be Acts 23:11b; Paul ‘must’ go to Rome.28 Within this interpretation, the term βάρβαρος can be understood as a literary prop; the term is connected with, yet stands in contrast to, the term φιλανθρωπία (Acts 28:2; in the New Testament, to be found only here and at Titus 3:4)29 (cf. Bruce 1954:521; Windisch 1964:551; Marshall 1980:416; Neudorfer 1999:360; Van Eck 2003:554), and this contrast symbolises the difficulties removed (by God) from Paul’s way (cf. Grosheide 1974:212; Krodel 1986:479). This interpretation would have God influence the βάρβαροι to be exceptionally friendly towards Paul. Still within this category of ‘literary props’ is a suggestion by Van Eck (2003:549–551), one of a few commentators to muse at length on the literary use of the word βάρβαροι (and its contrast with φιλανθρωπία). Van Eck notes the parallel of Paul’s journey to Rome with that of Vespasian in 69 CE—for instance, the reported healings by Vespasian in stopping over at Alexandria—and concludes that ‘[h]oe dichter Paulus bij Rome komt, hoe meer hij op een keizer in aantocht gaat lijken’ (Van Eck 2003:554). For Van Eck, the contrast of the terms βάρβαρος and φιλανθρωπία

Acts 23:11b: ὡς γὰρ διεμαρτύρω τὰ περὶ ἐμοῦ εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ, οὕτω σε δεῖ καὶ εἰς Ῥώμην μαρτυρῆσαι. 29 The term itself, however, is not a strange choice for the narrative of Acts 28:1–10. On hospitality within the ancient mediterranean world, with an extended discussion of terminology and an in-depth discussion of Luke-Acts, see Arterbury (2005, esp. 150–152 for Acts 28:1–10). 28

276

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

is a critique of Greco-Roman culture, as is the rest of Paul’s journey to Rome. The term as a marker of the next stage of Christian missionary activity This last proposed theory is sporadically hinted at; or rather, it can be surmised when different statements of various scholars are considered together. This theory also makes much of the use of φιλανθρωπία in conjunction with the βάρβαροι. Lindijer (1979:262)30 quite rightly links this term with the centurion Julius being φιλανθρώπως in Acts 27:3 (a hapax legomenon in the New Testament), and Publius acting φιλοφρόνως in Acts 28:7 (another hapax legomenon in the New Testament), and since all of the entities connected with this group of words are non-Jewish, states that the terms’ use demonstrates the nations’ ‘openness.’31 Johnson (1992:461) remarks on the Acts 28:1–6 episode that ‘[t]hroughout Luke-Acts, the theme of hospitality has been an important symbol of receptivity to God’s visitation […].’32 He does not develop this theme or link it explicitly with the lack of preaching or conversion among the βάρβαροι or the island’s other inhabitants. If, indeed, the statement by Witherington (1998:439) about universalism (made in the context of Acts 15) holds true that [a]t least a significant part of Luke’s purpose is not merely to display or explore ethnic diversity in the Empire, as might be the case if he merely intended to entertain or inform the curious, but to show how out of the many could come one, a united people in a saved and saving relationship to the one true God, perhaps this final “ethnographical” marker, occurring in a context where no preaching or conversion take place, is an invitation to the reader with an interest in missionary activity

Also see Krodel (1986:479) and Johnson (1992:445). The full statement by Lindijer (1979:262) reads: ‘Op de weg naar Rome blijkt de openheid van de volken.’ 32 He notes the following passages: Luke 5:29; 7:36–50; 9:4–5; 10:1– 16, 38–42; 19:1–10; Acts 10:24; 16:11–15. 30 31

THE USE OF THE TERM ‘ΒΆΡΒΑΡΟΣ’ IN ACTS

277

to move beyond the people-groups of the Greco-Roman world.33 (Witherington 1998:439)

CONCLUSION This article has sought to point out the problems connected with the use of the term βάρβαρος in Acts 28:2 and 28:4. In the ancient world, the term could be used to distinguish between people groups, and to do so in a pejorative way. The term’s use to designate only one specific group of people within Acts becomes conspicuous in the face of the content of the Acts narrative—a narrative replete with various ethnic groups and languages. In Acts 28:1– 10, the occurrence of the term leads to questions concerning the author of Acts’ possible lack of a missionary concern, the possibility of the view by the author of the inhabitans of Malta as naïve, and the possibility of a concern that salvation is only for people of a Jewish or Greco-Roman cultural allegiance. After pointing out these problems, mostly implicit suggestions with regard to the term’s use were gathered and amalgamated into four possible trajectories along which the problematic use of the term may be understood. The term could be understood as a purely linguistic and cultural marker; as a marker of the ‘end of the earth’; as indicating this specific people group as ‘literary props’ on Paul’s way to Rome; as a marker of the next stage of Christian missionary activity; or as a combination of any of these. The four suggestions need to be evaluated against the bigger context of the Acts narrative, especially since this book has become in the eyes of many present-day Christians—right or wrong!—a missionary manifesto of the early church.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander, L., 2006a, ‘Reading Luke-Acts from Back to Front’, in L. Alexander (ed.), Acts in its Ancient Literary Context: A ClassiIn similar vein, Schneider (1982:401) has remarked upon the healing actions of Paul among the inhabitants of Μελίτη: ‘Der Leser erkennt, was gegenüber den Heiden in der Welt noch zu tun bleibt.’ 33

278

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

cist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles, (LNTS), pp. 207-29, T&T Clark, London. Alexander, L., 2006b, ‘‘In Journeyings Often’: Voyaging in the Acts of the Apostles and in Greek Romance’, in L. Alexander (ed.), Acts in its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles, (LNTS), pp. 69–96, T&T Clark, London. Alexander, L., 2006c, ‘Narrative Maps: Reflections on the Toponomy of Acts’, in L. Alexander (ed.), Acts in its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles, (LNTS), pp. 97–131, T&T Clark, London. Arterbury, A.E., 2005, Entertaining Angels: Early Christian Hospitality in its Mediterranean Setting, (New Testament Monographs 8), Sheffield Phoenix Press, Sheffield. Balz, H., 1990, ‘βάρβαρος’, in H. Balz & G. Schneider (eds.), Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Volume 1: Ἀαρών – Ἑνώχ, pp. 197–98, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Blaiklock, E.M., 1959, The Acts of the Apostles: An Historical Commentary, Tyndale Press, London. Blass, F., Debrunner, A. & Rehkopf, F., 1984, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 16th edn., Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen. Börstinghaus, J., 2010, Sturmfahrt und Schiffbruch: Zur lukanischen Verwendung eines literarischen Topos in Apostelgeschichte 27,1–28,6, (WUNT 2.274), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. Browning, R., 2002, ‘Greeks and Others: From Antiquity to the Renaissance’, in T. Harrington (ed.), Greeks and Barbarians, pp. 257–77, Routledge, New York. Bruce, F.F., 1954, Commentary on the Book of the Acts, (NICNT), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Bruce, F.F., 1985, ‘The Church of Jerusalem in the Acts of the Apostles’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of Manchester, 67(2), 641–661. Bruce, F.F., 1990, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 3rd Edition, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Clabeaux, J., 2005, ‘The Story of the Maltese Viper and Luke’s Apology for Paul’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 67, 604–610. Conzelmann, H., 1987, Acts of the Apostles, (Hermeneia), trans. J. Limburg, A.T. Kraabel & D.H. Juel, Fortress Press, Philadelphia.

THE USE OF THE TERM ‘ΒΆΡΒΑΡΟΣ’ IN ACTS

279

De Boer, M.C., 1995, ‘God-Fearers in Luke-Acts’, in C.M. Tuckett (ed.), Luke’s Literary Achievement: Collected Essays, (JSNTSSup), pp. 50–71, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Esler, P.F., 1987, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology, (SNTSMS), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Funck, B., 1981, ‘Studie zu der Bezeichnung βάρβαρος’, in E.C. Welskopf (ed.), Untersuchungen ausgewählter altgriechischer sozialer Typenbegriffe und ihr Fortleben in Antike und Mittelalter, (Soziale Typenbegriffe im alten Griechenland und ihr Fortleben in den Sprachen der Welt), pp. 26–51, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin. Gaventa, B.R., 2001, ‘Traditions in Conversation and Collision: Reflections on Multiculturalism in the Acts of the Apostles’, in B.K. Blount & L.T. Tisdale (eds.), Making Room at the Table: An Invitation to Multicultural Worship, pp. 30–41, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville. Gilchrist, J.M., 1996, ‘The Historicity of Paul’s Shipwreck’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 61, 29–51. Grosheide, F.W., 1974, De Handelingen der Apostelen: Tweede Deel: Hoofdstuk 15–28, (Korte Verklaring der Heilige Schrift), Kok, Kampen. Gruen, E.S., 2011, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Haenchen, E., 1971, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, trans. B. Noble & G. Shinn, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Hall, E., 1989, Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition through Tragedy, (Oxford Classical Monographs), Clarendon Press, Oxford. Harrington, T., 2002, ‘General Introduction’, in T. Harrington (ed.), Greeks and Barbarians, pp. 1–14, Routledge, New York. Hemer, C.J., 1989, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen. Hengel, M., 1980, Jews, Greeks and Barbarians: Aspects of the Hellenization of Judaism in the pre-Christian period, trans. J. Bowden, SCM Press, London. Hummel, A., 2000, ‘Factum et fictum. Literarische und theologische Erwägungen zur Romreise des Paulus in der Apostelgeschichte (Apg 27,1–28,16)’, Biblische Notizen 105, 39– 53.

280

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Jervell, J., 1988, ‘The Church of Jews and Godfearers’, in J.B. Tyson (ed.), Luke-Acts and the Jewish People: Eight Critical Perspectives, pp. 11–20, Fortress Press, Minneapolis. Jervell, J., 1998, Die Apostelgeschichte, (Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament), Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen. Johnson, L.T., 1992, The Acts of the Apostles, (Sacra Pagina), The Liturgical Press, Collegeville. Kirchschläger, W., 1979, ‘Fieberheilung in Apg 28 und Lk 4’, in J. Kremer (ed.), Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie, (Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 48), pp. 509–521, Leuven University Press, Leuven.. Krodel, G.A., 1986, Acts, (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament), Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis. Kyrtatas, D.J., 2009, ‘Slavery and Economy in the Greek World’, in K. Bradley & P. Cartledge (eds.), The Cambridge World History of Slavery, (The Ancient Mediterranean World), pp. 91–111, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lévy, E., 1984, ‘Naissance du concept de barbare’, Ktèma, 9, 5–14. Lindijer, C.H., 1979, Handelingen van de Apostelen: II, (De Prediking van het Nieuwe Testament), G. F. Callenbach, Nijkerk. Lissarague, F., 2002, 'The Athenian Image of the Foreigner', in T. Harrington (ed.), Greeks and Barbarians, pp. 101–24, Routledge, New York. Marshall, I.H., 1980, The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary, (TNTC), InterVarsity Press, Leicester. McRay, J., 1992, ‘Greece’, in D.N. Freedman (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary, pp. 1092–98, Doubleday, New York. Meinert, H.G., 1985, ‘Another Look at Acts’, Expository Times 96(11), 333–37. Metzger, B.M., 1975, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, London. Neil, W., 1973, The Acts of the Apostles, Oliphants, London. Neudorfer, H.-W., 1990, Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas: 2. Teil, (EDITION C-Bibelkommentar), Hänssler, NeuhausenStuttgart. Opelt, I. & Speyer, W., 1967, ‘Barbar (Nachtrag z. RAC)’, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 10, 251–90.

THE USE OF THE TERM ‘ΒΆΡΒΑΡΟΣ’ IN ACTS

281

Pesch, R., 1986, Die Apostelgeschichte: 2. Teilband: Apg 13–28, (Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament), Benziger Verlag, Zürich. Rapske, B., 1994, Paul in Roman Custody, (The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting 3), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Redfield, J., 2002, ‘Herodotus the Tourist’, in T. Harrington (ed.), Greeks and Barbarians, pp. 24–49, Routledge, New York. Roloff, J., 1981, Die Apostelgeschichte, (Das Neue Testament Deutsch), Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen. Sanders, J.T., 1991, ‘Who is a Jew and who is a Gentile in the Book of Acts?’, New Testament Studies 37, 434–55. Schille, G., 1983, Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas, (Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament), Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, Berlin. Schlatter, A., 1962, Die Apostelgeschichte, (Erläuterungen zum Neuen Testament), Calwer Verlag, Stuttgart. Schmithals, W., 1982, Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas, (Zürcher Bibelkommentare: Neues Testament), Theologischer Verlag, Zürich. Schnabel, E.J., 2004, Early Christian Mission. Volume Two: Paul & the Early Church, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove. Schnabel, E.J., 2008, Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove. Schneider, G., 1982, Die Apostelgeschichte: II. Teil: Kommentar zu Kap. 9,1–28,31, (Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament), Herder, Freiburg. Shillington, V.G., 2007, An Introduction to the Study of Luke-Acts, (T&T Clark Approaches to Biblical Studies), T&T Clark, London. Squires, J.T., 1998, ‘The Function of Acts 8.4–12.25’, New Testament Studies 44(4), 608–17. Stenschke, C.W., 1999, Luke’s Portrait of Gentiles Prior to Their Coming to Faith, (WUNT 2.108), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. Suhl, A., 1991a, ‘Gestrandet! Bemerkungen zum Streit über die Romfahrt des Paulus’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 88(1), 1– 28. Suhl, A., 1991b, ‘Zum Seeweg Alexandrien-Rom’, Theologische Zeitschrift, 47(3), 208–213. Suhl, A., 1992, ‘Zum Titel πρῶτος τῆς νήσου (Erster der Insel) Apg 28,7’, Biblische Zeitschrift 36(2), 220–226.

282

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Tannehill, R.C., 1986, ‘Rejection by Jews and Turning to the Gentiles: The Pattern of Paul’s Mission in Acts’, in K.H. Richards (ed.), Society of Biblical Literature 1986 Seminar Papers, (Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers), pp. 130–41, Scholars Press, Atlanta. Van Eck, J., 2003, Handelingen: De Wereld in het Geding, (Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament), Kok, Kampen. Wehnert, J., 1991, ‘“…und da erfuhren wir, daß die Insel Kephallenia heißt”: Zur neuesten Auslegung von Apg 27–28 und ihrer Methode’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 88(2), 169–180. Wikenhauser, A., 1961, Die Apostelgeschichte, (Regensburger Neues Testament), Friedrich Pustet, Regensburg. Windisch, H., 1964, ‘βάρβαρος’, in G. Kittel, G.W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, pp. 546–53, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Witherington, B., 1998, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Zahn, T., 1927, Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas: Zweite Hälfte Kap. 13– 28, (Kommentar zum Neuen Testament), A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Leipzig.

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 1:2, 129 2:7, 119 3:9, 253 10, 36 12:13, 37 12:1–13, 58 15:18–21, 57 24, 126 37–50, 37

Deuteronomy 1:8, 58 6:10, 57 7, 35 6:20–25, 35 23:1–8, 39 24:7, 193 25:17–19, 35

Exodus 2:5–10, 41 3:16, 58 12:48–49, 42 13:1, 59 13:3, 58 18, 41 19:4–6, 42 20:2, 58

Ezra 4:1, 30 4:4–5, 30 6:19–21, 30 8:35, 30

Leviticus 17–26, 33 18:8, 194 19:2, 66 19:18, 28 19:17–18, 33 19:33–34, 33, 34, 37 19–26, 35 19, 35 25, 35 26:14–45, 39

1 Kings 8:44–47, 37

Nehemiah 1, 32 8, 32 Psalms 40:5–7, 248 78:61, 60 95, 243, 254 110, 243 Proverbs 3, 243 Isaiah 6:9–10, 128, 139 40–55, 38 40:28, 38 40:43, 38

283

40:14–21, 38 40:18–19, 38 40–55, 38 42:6, 38 43:20, 60 49:1–6, 112 49:6, 38 52:7, 111, 232 52:11, 118 53:1, 139 56:1–8, 39–40 56, 38 56–66, 37, 39–41 66, 38 66:17–24, 39 66:18–21, 42 Jeremiah 1:5, 112 16:1–13, 35 31, 243 31:31–34, 248 33:26, 58 Ezekiel 24:15–27, 35 40–48, 10, 15, 31 47:21–23, 34 Daniel 1–6, 37 Hosea 6:6, 100

284

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Nahum 1:15–2:3, 232

Habakkuk 2, 243, 251

NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 1:1–17, 56 2:1–12, 94 3:9, 69 3:12, 88 5:6, 99 5:8–9, 252 5:10–11, 101 5:17–19, 97 5:20, 100 5:40–41, 95 5:44, 95, 100 5:46–47, 93 5:48, 6 5:43, 28 5:44, 130 6:1–18, 101 6:7–8, 93 6:31–32, 93 7:16–20, 88 7:24–27, 97 8:10, 92, 94–95 8:11, 69 8:28–34, 92 9:10–11, 68 9:13, 100 10:5, 50 10:5, 57, 92 10:6, 92 10:16, 88 10:34–35, 91 11:5, 157 11:19, 68 11:20–24, 92 11:23, 90 12:7, 100 12:30, 88 12:38–42, 92 12:46–50, 85 13:11, 88

13:13, 68 13:24–30, 89 13:47–48, 88 15:22, 57 15:21–22, 50 15:21–28, 93 15:24, 92 15:28, 94 16:18, 85 18:15–17b, 88 18:15–20, 33 18:17, 85, 88, 94 19:19, 28 21:23, 68 22:39, 28 21:11, 57 21:13, 69 21:31–32, 68 21:43, 92 22:21, 95 23:1–39, 86 23:8–10, 97 23:37–38, 91 23:16–22, 69 24:9, 93 24:14, 94 25:1–13, 88 25:31–46, 88 26:10, 68 26:13, 94 27:37, 57 28:19–20, 86, 94, 97 Mark 1:19, 56 1:40–42, 68 2:9, 69 2:13–15, 68 2:18, 68

2:21–22, 59 2:23, 68 3:1–5, 68 3:23–38, 56–57 5:17–26, 67 5:25–34, 68 6:35–44, 68 6:36, 66 7:1, 68 7:8, 69 7:1–10, 67 7:14, 68 7:21, 67 7:25, 68 7:26, 50, 67 7:33, 68 8:26, 67 9:33–37, 68 9:51–56, 67 10:13–16, 68 10:30–35, 67 12:31, 28 21:23, 68 21:31, 68 Luke 2:10, 157 2:21–22, 59 3:18, 157 3:23–38, 56–57 4:31–37, 67 4:38–40, 67 5:17–26, 67 6:27–28, 130 6:32–36, 131, 266 6:36, 66 7:1–10, 67 7:11–17, 68 7:21, 67 7:37–50, 68

INDEX 8:3, 68, 266 8:26, 67 8:26–39, 67 8:49–56, 68 9:51–56, 67 10:27, 28 10:30–35, 67 12:32–34, 266 13:11, 68 13:16, 69 13:28, 69 13:29, 69 13:34–35, 69 14:13–14, 266 15:1–22, 6 18:22, 266 19:9, 69 19:41–44, 69 20:18, 125 20:21, 125 21:1–4, 266 21:20–24, 69 23:14, 70 John 1:1–18, 6 1:15–37, 123 1:16, 123 1:3, 122 1:33, 123 1:38–39, 127 1:45, 56 1:45–51, 130 1:46, 125, 126 3, 129 3:3–5, 130 3:5, 126 3:16, 6, 123 3:19–21, 129 3:19, 122, 137 3:21, 128 3:28–30, 123 3:34, 123 4:14, 124, 126 4:1–42, 6, 130

4:7, 50; 57 4:29, 126 4:20, 127 4:34–38, 123, 126 4:37–38, 134 4:42, 126 5:1–5, 131 5:10, 59 5:24, 130 5:35, 123 5:46, 123 6:32, 123 6:39, 128 6:44–45, 127–128 6:49, 59 6:57, 123 6:60, 128 6:70, 128 7:2, 59 7:39, 124 8:12, 124 8:33, 69 8:37, 69 8:39–40, 69 8:42, 123 8:44, 9 8:56, 123 9:1–38, 130 9:16, 59, 137 9:22, 109, 131 9:25, 137 9:29, 123 10, 135 10:1–20, 121 10:9, 122 10:16, 121 10:36, 123 11:21–27, 130 11:25, 130 10:41, 123 12:20, 50 12:24, 123 12:24–26, 120 12:31, 123

285 12:35–36, 127, 139 12:38–40, 139 12:40, 128 12:42, 109, 131 14:12, 121 14:25–26, 124 15, 121 15:16, 120, 123 15:26, 124 16:2, 109, 131 16:8–15, 124 16:13, 124 17:1, 124 17:18–21, 120 17:19, 1 19:19, 57 19:26, 119 20:1, 119 20:11–18, 130 20:16, 128 20:18, 135 20:21, 6 20:21b–23, 120, 138 20:23, 120 20:25, 135 20:26–29, 130 20:31, 123 Acts 1:22, 125 1:8, 273–274 2, 270 2:6–11, 58 2:29, 252 2:42, 253 2:42–27, 266 3:25, 77 4:13, 252 4:29, 252 4:31, 252 4:32–37, 266 4:33, 125 5:42, 157

286 6, 270 6:9, 57 7:8, 77 8:27, 57; 59 8:4, 110 9:1, 60 10:11–12, 77 10:13–14, 77 10:20, 77 10:28, 77 10:36, 157 10:37–39, 77 10:41, 125 11:1, 50 11:2, 77 11:12, 77 11:17, 77 11:18, 50, 78 11:19, 50 11:20, 110 11:26, 2 12:13, 50 13:15, 242 13:17, 77 14:2, 50 14:12–13, 268 14:14–15, 267 14:27, 222 15, 276 15:1–2, 78 15:9, 78 15:13–21, 78 15:15, 78 22:28, 60 23:11, 275 26:6, 77 26:22, 275 27:3, 276 28:1–2, 274 28:1–10, 13, 261, 264–268, 270 28:2, 272–273, 275–277

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS 28:2–4, 13, 261– 263 28:4, 267–268, 275, 277 28:6, 267–269 28:7, 269, 276 28:8–9, 269 28:14–16, 274 28:31, 252 Romans 1:2–5, 111, 113 1:5, 112 1:8–15, 220, 222 1:11, 223 1:15, 157 3:1, 57 2:17, 57 4:3, 115 6:2, 117 6:6, 117 6:17, 114, 137 6:18,118 6:22, 118 7:14, 117 8:4–5, 118 8:9, 118 8:15, 118 8:19, 111 8:39, 251 9:7, 57 9:11, 114 9:18, 114 9:24, 114 9:31, 57 10:1, 221 10:9, 112 10:9–13, 161 10:14–15, 114 10:14–18, 161 10:15, 111, 157 10:16, 114, 139 11:2, 57 11:10, 139 11:25, 112–113

12:1, 253 12:10, 169 12:18, 225 13:9, 28 13:9–10, 115 13:12, 139 14–15, 51 14:20, 158 15:7–13, 161 15:20–21, 111 15:24, 218, 220, 223 15:25–31, 219 15:29, 222 15:30, 221 15:31–32, 222– 223 16:3, 115 16:3–15, 221 16:9, 115 16:20, 114 16:21, 115 1 Corinthians 1:1–2, 194 1:2, 191, 195 1:1–3, 190 1:1–7, 183 1:10, 180, 186– 188, 190–191 1:11, 180, 185, 186, 201 1:24, 51 2:1, 190 2:4, 113 2:6, 113 3:1, 190 3:6–11, 111, 133 3:9, 115 3:9–14, 190 4:1–2, 115 4:5, 114, 137 4:6, 190 4:9, 251

INDEX 4:14–17, 15:58, 190 4:15, 117 4:16, 169, 187, 227 4:19, 117 5, 160, 180 5:1–13, 183, 191, 193 5:7–9, 193 5:9, 223–224 5:10, 118 5:11, 190, 193 5:13, 193 6:1–8, 182, 201 6:5, 190 6:8, 190 6:9–11, 111, 191 6:11, 118 6:18, 193 7:1, 184 7:1–40, 183 7:10–11, 183 7:12, 190 7:12–16, 228 7:14, 190 7:24, 190 7:25–38, 184 7:29, 190 7:31, 138 7:37, 114 8, 6, 180 8:1, 190 8:1–13, 182, 202 8:4, 182 8:4–13, 51 8:6, 190 8:9–13, 203 8:10, 190 8:11, 190 9:1, 112, 135, 138 9:1–18, 218 9:1–23, 204 9:5, 190

9:7–11, 134–135 9:12, 204 9:17, 115 9:19–23, 204, 206 9:20, 113 10:1, 190 10:11, 138 10:16–17, 190 10:23, 185, 190 10:23–24, 191, 200, 202 10:23–11:1, 182 10:31–32, 203, 224 10:32, 51 11, 6, 180 11:1, 169, 206, 227 11:2–16, 181, 197 11:12, 199 11:20, 199 11:17–34, 181, 200 11:18, 181 11:21, 181 11:23–26, 200 11:33, 190 12:4, 118 12:1, 190 12:4–6, 115 12:13, 111, 113, 117–118, 180, 185–186, 191, 197, 199, 205 12:27–28, 190 13:11, 138 13, 115 14:3–5, 190 14:6, 190 14:12, 190 14:16–17, 190 14:22, 8 14:23–25, 136, 225

287 14:24–26, 116 14:26, 190 14:39, 190 15:1, 190 15:3, 110 15:6, 190 15:8, 112, 138 15:3, 112 15:10, 116 15:24, 190 15:35–46, 190 15:50, 190 15:58, 190 16:1–4, 219 16:6, 218 16:9, 222 16:11, 190, 218 16:15, 115, 187 16:15–20, 190 16:17, 116, 220 2 Corinthians 1:12, 113 1:14, 116 1:16, 218 1:22, 113 2:4, 223 2:9, 223 2:12, 222 3:3, 116 3:16, 116 2:16, 115 4:4, 114 4:5–6, 112 5:7, 113 5:16–21, 117, 188–189 5:18, 206, 228 6:2, 228 6:4, 116 6:17, 118 8:23, 115, 220 9:7, 114 10:1, 74 10:2, 74, 79

288 10:3, 74 10:4–5, 74, 79, 113 10:6, 74, 115 10:7–8, 74, 79 10:12, 74 10:13, 74 10:15, 74 10:17, 74 11:2, 117 11:7, 74 11:14, 114 11:22, 71 11:22–23, 74 11:23–29, 222 11:24, 113 12:12, 113 12:13, 111 13:13, 111, 118 Galatians 1:1, 154, 157 1:4, 153–155, 158, 167, 169 1:6, 161 1:7, 70 1:8–11, 157 1:11–17, 117 1:12, 110, 157, 169 1:13, 75, 159 1:14, 75 1:15, 167 1:15–16, 75, 112, 158, 161 1:16, 138, 159 1:17, 110 2, 4 2:2, 167 2:4, 76, 158 2:6, 76 2:7, 29 2:7–8, 57 2:8, 154 2:9, 161

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS 2:11–12, 154 2:12–13, 71, 74– 75 2:15–16, 75, 76 2:16, 71, 75, 171 2:19, 75 2:19–20, 160 2:20, 161, 168– 169, 206 2:21, 161 3:2–3, 75–76 3:4–5, 159, 166 3:6–7, 75 3:7, 75 3:8, 171 3:10, 160 3:13, 160 3:16, 75–76 3:19, 168, 247 3:22, 154, 158, 171 3:26–27, 76, 118, 167, 168 3:27–28, 111, 162, 171 3:28, 50, 57, 67, 79, 117–118, 162, 168, 181, 185, 191, 197 4:1–17, 167 4:3, 158 4:4, 160 4:6, 118, 167 4:8–9, 158, 163 4:8–10, 165 4:10, 165 4:11, 166 4:12, 173 4:19, 117 4:21–31, 167 4:24–25, 158 5:1, 161 5:4, 161

5:6, 76, 115, 168, 169 5:11, 71, 75, 110, 113 5:14, 28 5:15, 165 5:16, 76, 166 5:18, 167 5:22, 115, 167, 168 5:24, 166 5:25, 163, 166, 168 6:1–10, 171 6:8, 164 6:10, 6, 156, 169– 170, 173, 226 6:14, 168 6:15, 117, 162 6:16, 166 6:18, 161 Ephesians 2:17, 157 4:28, 226 5:1, 169 4:11–12, 231 6:11–17, 232 6:15, 232 6:19–20, 222, 232 Philippians 1:1, 73, 79 1:3–4, 222 1:3–7, 231 1:5, 229 1:6, 116, 158 1:9, 73 1:12, 73 1:12–18, 212 1:12–2:18, 216 1:14–18, 231 1:19, 229 1:24, 115 1:27–30, 231

INDEX 2:1, 73, 79 2:2, 73 2:5–11, 111, 161, 185, 188 2:7, 73 2:11, 112, 212 2:11–18, 212 2:12–18, 230 2:14–16, 231 2:15, 115 2:16, 12, 111, 116, 211, 212–215, 229–230, 234 2:16–18, 230 2:19–30, 231 2:21, 72 2:25, 115, 220 2:30, 220 3:1, 73 3, 1 3:2, 51, 70 3:2–11, 117 3:3, 70, 72, 73, 79 3:4, 72 3:4–6, 71, 74 3:4–8, 113 3:7, 72 3:8, 72 3:9, 72, 73 3:10, 72 3:13, 73 3:17, 73, 169 4:1, 73 4:1–3, 231 4:3, 115 4:5, 225 4:8, 73 4:9, 231 4:10–20, 218 4:15, 229 4:16, 219 4:18, 219 4:21, 73

289

Colossians 1:7, 220 2:15, 161 3:11, 185 4:2–6, 232 4:3–4, 222 4:5, 225 4:6, 225 4:12, 220 4:16, 223

2:1–4, 6 2:5, 247 2:8, 221 3:8–13, 7 4:12, 169 5:10, 7 6:17, 227

1 Thessalonians 1:5, 111 1:6–7, 169 1:7–9, 1, 170 1:8, 228 1:9, 116 1:9b–10, 112, 116 2:1–9, 218 2:18, 114 3:1–6, 115 3:2, 115 3:6, 157 3:12, 227, 229 4:3, 194–195 4:4, 195–196 4:5, 193, 195 4:7–8, 194–195 4:11–12, 224 4:13–18, 254 5:5–6, 139 5:14, 227 5:15, 227 5:16–22, 111 5:25, 222

Titus 2:2–10, 225 2:7, 169 2:10, 225 3:1–8, 225 3:2, 227 3:4, 275 3:13, 218, 221 3:15, 221

2 Thessalonians 2:1, 254 2:16, 232 3:1–2, 222, 232 3:7–9, 169, 218 1 Timothy 1:16, 169 2:1, 221

2 Timothy 1:13, 169

Philemon 13, 220 Hebrews 1:1, 242 1:1–4, 250 1:3, 245 2:5, 243 2:17–18, 246, 249 3:1, 255 3:12, 251 3:12–14, 254 4:6, 157 4:11, 251 4:12, 251 4:15–16, 249 5:9, 249 5:11, 243 6:9, 243 6:12, 255 7:22, 247 7:27–28, 241, 248 8:1, 243 8:1–2, 246

290 8:3–5, 241 8:6, 247–248 8:7–8, 248 8:13, 242 9:5, 243 9:12–15, 247 9:14, 248, 251 9:15, 247, 249 9:25, 241 9:26, 248 9:26–28, 247 10:1–2, 241 10:5–7, 248 10:8, 241 10:10, 248–249 10:18, 247 10:19, 249 10:19–39, 252 10:22–23, 249 10:24–25, 254 10:29, 249 10:31, 251 10:33–34, 251 10:38–39, 251 11:4, 251 11:13–16, 28, 255

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS 11:32, 243 11:39–40, 255 12:1, 255 12:14, 252 12:22, 251, 255 12:24, 247–248, 251, 255 13:1–6, 253 13:7, 254 13:8, 244, 249 13:9, 253 13:9–14, 255 13:10, 241 13:12, 249 13:13–14, 244, 256 13:14, 255 13:16, 253 13:17, 254 13:20, 249, 253 13:22, 242 13:23, 239 13:24, 254

James 2:2, 254 2:8, 28 1 Peter 3, 7 3:1, 6 3:1–7, 198 3:15, 225 4:6, 157 4:16, 2 1 John 3:2, 129 3:7–12, 130 3:11, 130 3:16–18, 131 3:24, 124 4:2–3, 122 4:7, 131 5, 129 Revelation 10:7, 157 14:6, 157

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS Aasgaard, 182, 207 Adna, 236 Alexander, 264, 273–274, 277– 278 Allen, 103, 215–216, 224, 233, 235 Anderson, J., 139–140, 245, 257 Armstrong, 68, 80 Arterbury, 275, 278 Ateek, 28, 34, 46 Attridge, 251–253, 257 Bailey, 68, 80 Baker, 77, 80, 142, 177 Balz, 262, 273, 278 Barclay, 75, 80 Barnett, 109, 140 Barrett, 172, 175 Bartchy, 73, 80 Barth, F., 52, 54–55, 80 Bartlett, 85, 101 Bauckham, 86–87, 102–103, 245, 257, 259 Bauer, 213–214, 235 Becker, 3, 13–14, 105–106, 108, 140, 171, 174 Bensel, 245, 258 Berger, 134, 140 Betz, 171–172, 174 Blaiklock, 269, 273, 278 Blass, 269, 278 Boccaccini, 30–31, 38, 40, 46

Bolt, 217, 235, 237 Bornkamm, 167–168, 174 Börstinghaus, 263, 265, 267, 272, 278 Bosch, 149–150, 153–154, 164, 174, 217, 219–220, 224, 226–229, 235 Bourke, 256, 258 Breytenbach, 160–161, 174– 175, 187–189, 207, 209 Brower, 96, 102 Brown, 52, 80–81 Browning, 262, 278 Bruce, 208, 252, 255, 258, 267, 269, 270, 273, 275, 278 Buchanan, 255, 258 Bultmann, 166, 175 Burridge, 87, 92, 95, 102, 147, 160, 175 Callenbach, 46–47, 280 Campbell, D., 110, 117, 140, 146, 147, 175 Carson, 221, 235, 241, 258–259 Carter, 59, 80, 87, 102 Chester, 107, 140 Churchill, 110, 140 Clabeaux, 264, 278 Clarke, A., 185, 207 Cockerill, 254, 258 Cohen, 55, 62, 80 Conzelmann, 267, 278

291

292

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Cromhout, 50, 52–53, 61–62, 80, 159–160, 175 Crook, 80, 107, 140 Cupitt, 67, 80 Daube, 204, 207 De Boer, 270–271, 279 De Vos, 53, 81 De Young, 258 Debrunner, 269, 278 Den Heyer, 245, 258 DeSilva, 251, 255, 258 Dickson, 116, 140, 217–219, 224, 235–236 Douglas, 42, 46, 63, 81 Downs, 219, 235 Du Plessis, 147, 149, 175 Du Toit, 159, 175, 240, 258 Duling, 50, 52–60, 62, 70–72, 76, 81 Dunn, 114, 140, 149, 159, 160, 175 Ellingworth, 253–254, 258 Elliot, 89–90, 102 Engberg-Pederson, 149, 175 Esler, 50, 52, 56, 81, 102, 180, 207, 271, 279 Everts, 217, 219, 235 Ferguson, 96, 102 Filson, 255, 258 France, 89, 91, 102 Frey, 2, 13, 141 Funck, 262–263, 279 Furnish, 166, 175, 191, 207 Gager, 149, 160, 175 Gaventa, 263–264, 267, 279 Geary, 58, 81 Geertz, 54–55, 81 Gelardini, 54, 59, 64, 81 Gilchrist, 263, 279 Glad, 205, 207

Gleason, 256, 258 Goodmann, 107–108, 112–113, 115, 140 Gooren, 119, 125, 140 Graafland, 23, 46 Grant-Henderson, 30–31, 36– 41, 46–47 Grässer, 255, 258 Grosheide, 266, 268–269, 273, 275, 279 Gruen, 262, 279 Guder, 172, 175 Guelich, 99, 102 Haenchen, 267, 269, 279 Hagner, 86, 89, 98–99, 101–102 Hahn, 6, 13, 161–162, 167–168, 175 Hakola, 131, 141 Hall, 57–58, 81, 84, 262–263, 279 Hansen, B., 181, 185, 187, 190, 191, 194, 202, 206–207 Hanson, 56, 81 Harrington, 262, 278–281 Hauck, 196, 207 Hauwerwas, 154, 175 Hawthorne, 175, 235, 236 Hays, C.M., 9, 13 Hays, R.B., 76, 82 Hemer, 267, 273, 279 Hengel, 263, 279 Hermans, 5, 13 Herzog, 60, 82 Hirsch, 149, 164, 175, 193, 207 Hoegen-Rohls, 105, 141 Holland, 51, 82 Hood, 58, 82 Hoover, 73, 82 Horn, 159, 175–176 Horowitz, 55, 82

INDEX Horrell, 164, 166–167, 171, 173, 176, 181, 185, 194–197, 199–200, 207 Hummel, 263, 269, 271, 279 Hutchinson, 56, 82 Isaacs, 245, 258 Jenkins, 52, 82, 149, 176 Jervell, 266–269, 271, 273, 275, 280 Jewett, 221, 235 Johnson, 96, 102, 266, 269, 273, 276, 280 Jongeneel, 21, 47 Juel, 278 Kaminsky, 33–35, 38, 42, 47 Kea, 90, 102 Keck, 151, 176 Kee, 78, 82 Keifert, 149, 153, 164, 174, 176 Keown, 231, 235 Kirchschläger, 266, 280 Koester, 173, 176, 255, 258 Kogler, 30, 47 Kok, 2, 5–9, 11, 13, 120, 122, 126, 141, 145–147, 151, 160, 176, 178–179, 188, 192, 207–208, 240, 258–259, 279, 282 Köstenberger, 111, 119–121, 123, 127, 141, 250, 252, 257, 259 Kraabel, 278 Kritzinger, 164, 176 Krodel, 266, 268–269, 275–276, 280 Kruse, 124, 127, 141 Kvalbein, 236 Kyrtatas, 263, 280 Lane, 255, 259 Last, 141

293 Le Grys, 149, 176 Lévy, 262, 280 Lietaert Peerbolte, 141, 149, 155–157 Lietaert-Peerbolte, 134, 176 Lieu, 2, 51, 82 Limburg, 278 Lindars, 245, 259 Lindeque, 37, 42–44, 47 Lindijer, 268–269, 273, 276, 280 Lippert, 227, 235 Lissarague, 263, 280 Little, 80, 217, 236 Longenecker, 164, 171, 176 Lopez, 109, 141 Louw, 77, 82 Luz, 96, 99, 102, 171, 174 Mackie, 256, 259 Macnab, 79, 82 Malherbe, 194–195, 208 Malina, 56, 59, 65–66, 68, 73, 81–83, 88, 90–91, 97, 102 Marshall, 223, 227–229, 233, 236, 255, 259, 266–269, 273, 275, 280 Martin, 160, 175, 205, 208, 235, 236 Mason, 56, 83 McRay, 271, 280 Meeks, 5, 13, 97, 102, 148–149, 176, 180, 185, 190, 193–194, 196, 197, 208 Meinert, 273, 280 Meiring, 164, 176 Mendez-Moratalla, 139, 141 Metzger, 270, 280 Michaels, 126, 141 Mitchell, 181, 187, 208 Morlan, 139, 141 Mosser, 256, 259

294

INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS

Munck, 180, 208 Nagel, 53, 83 Nebrada, 72–73, 83 Neil, 269, 273, 280 Neils, 59, 83 Neudorfer, 266, 268–269, 273, 275, 280 Neusner, 63, 83 Newbigin, 149, 150, 177 Neyrey, 63, 66, 82–83, 88, 90– 91, 97 Nicklas, 3, 9, 13 Niemandt, 149, 164, 177 Nikesch, 225, 236 Nissen, 121, 123–124, 127, 129, 132, 141, 149, 159, 177 Nolland, 86, 89, 103 Nongbri, 2, 3, 13 O’Brien, 123, 141, 227, 235– 236, 250, 259 Oakes, 213, 236 Oakman, 56, 81 Odendal, 153, 177 Ollrog, 219, 236 Opelt, 262, 280 Orsmond, 147, 149, 175 Park, 16, 18, 27–31, 33, 37–38, 40, 47 Patterson, 68, 83 Pesce, 156, 177 Pesch, 266–269, 275, 281 Pilch, 50, 73, 83 Plummer, 223, 225, 227–228, 231–234, 236 Powery, 28–29, 47 Poythress, 213, 236 Przybylski, 98, 103 Rapske, 266, 281 Raymann, 42, 47 Redfield, 274, 281

Rehkopf, 269, 278 Reid, 160, 175, 235, 236 Reinbold, 149, 177 Rhee, 257, 259 Riches, 98–99, 101, 103 Robert, 149–150, 177, 234 Robertson, 181, 208 Rohde, 171, 177 Roloff, 266–269, 273, 281 Roosens, 53, 83 Roth, 2, 5–9, 11, 13 Roxburgh, 149, 164, 177 Saayman, 164, 176 Saldarini, 93, 103 Sanders, 149, 160, 177, 271, 281 Sandnes, 191, 204, 208 Schermerhorn, 83 Schille, 268–269, 281 Schlatter, 266, 269, 281 Schmithals, 268–269, 281 Schnabel, 109, 121–122, 141, 217–220, 223, 229, 231–233, 236, 264–266, 268, 281 Schneider, 266, 268, 273, 277– 278, 281 Schnelle, 128, 141–142, 151, 177 Scholer, 245, 259 Schrage, 99–100, 103, 220, 236 Schultz, 196, 207 Schwindt, 105, 142 Segal, 107, 110, 142 Senior, 93–94, 103 Shillington, 270, 281 Shils, 54–55, 83 Sim, 86–87, 93–94, 103 Skreslet, 138, 142 Smith, 53, 56, 82–83, 184, 203, 208 Speyer, 262, 280

INDEX Steenks, 17, 46–47 Stendahl, 114, 142 Stenschke, 12, 211, 216–217, 228, 236–237, 266, 273, 281 Strawn, 35, 47 Strecker, 99, 103 Suhl, 263, 269, 281 Tajfel, 52, 84 Tannehill, 265, 282 Taylor, 56, 76, 84 Theißen, 136, 142 Theissen, 81, 185, 187, 202, 208 Theobald, 108, 119, 123, 125– 126, 134–135, 138–139, 142 Thompson, 217, 235, 237 Thyen, 242, 259 Tolmie, 163, 167, 177 Tomson, 75, 84 Trebilco, 4, 7, 8, 13 Tuckman, 184, 208, 209 Turner, 52, 84 Ulrich, 86–87, 94, 103 Van de Kamp, 257, 259 Van den Berghe, 84 Van der Watt, 2, 14, 146–147, 150–152, 156, 162, 174, 176–178, 209 Van Deventer, 147, 149, 175 Van Eck, E., 10, 49 Van Eck, J., 242, 259, 267, 269, 273, 275, 282 Van Houwelingen, 240, 255, 259–260 Van Rensburg, 152, 178

295 van Ruler, 17, 46, 47 Van Ruler, 3, 9, 15–27, 44–47 Van Unnik, 188, 209, 252, 260 Varshney, 55, 84 Venter, 9, 10, 15, 31, 36, 48 Verhey, 100, 103 Walker, 241, 243, 256, 260 Ware, 116, 142, 212–216, 229– 231, 234, 237 Watson, 168, 178 Wehnert, 263, 282 Wengst, 131, 142 Westcott, 242, 255, 260 Wikenhauser, 266, 269, 273, 282 Wills, 92, 103 Windisch, 261–262, 271–272, 275, 282 Winter, 185, 197–198, 209, 222, 237 Witherington, 181, 187, 198– 203, 205, 209, 263, 265, 270, 276–277, 282 Wolff, 200–201, 204–205, 209 Wright, 111, 142, 151, 159–160, 166, 178 Yarbrough, 132, 142 Yoshiko Reed, 3, 13–14 Zahn, 271, 282 Zeller, 106, 111–112, 114, 142 Zimmermann, R., 141, 148–149, 151, 175–176, 178, 192, 209 Zock, 107, 142 Zugmann, 143

SUBJECT INDEX boundaries, 2–4, 7–9, 11, 30, 32, 36, 46, 54, 63–64, 66, 70, 80, 83, 86, 93, 111–112, 118, 121, 127, 135, 138, 172, 179, 181, 191–192, 194, 196, 197, 199, 203, 270 conflict, 11–12, 27, 29–30, 36, 38, 43, 44, 50–51, 70–71, 74–75, 81–87, 92, 95, 96, 122, 179–181, 184–185, 187–188, 190–191, 201–203, 206–207 conversion, 2, 5, 9, 20, 105, 106–108, 110, 116–118, 126–129, 130–143, 155–156, 159–161, 196, 212, 230, 265, 269, 272, 276 diversity, 12, 179, 191–192, 202, 205–207, 276 ethnicity, 10, 49, 51–56, 58–59, 60–62, 66, 71–83, 160, 265, 270 exclusive exclusivity, 3, 4, 7, 16, 23, 27, 30, 33, 36–38, 42–46, 65–66, 78, 194

identity, 11, 2–22, 27, 30–33, 36, 44–49, 51–52, 55–56, 59–64, 71–72, 75–76, 80–84, 90, 108, 114, 124–126, 145–148, 150, 152, 154, 155–156, 159–160, 162–167, 171–173, 180–185, 187, 190–193, 197–198, 200, 202–203, 205–206, 265, 270 Inclusive inclusivity, 3, 4, 7, 10, 15–17, 27–28, 36–37, 41–46, 49, 67, 73, 78–79, 122, 148, 169, 175 Labelled, labelling label, 4, 8, 9, 56, 58, 64 sensitivity to outsiders, 6–11, 85, 86 Social-scientific, 49, 55, 56, 60, 62 unity, 12, 26, 28, 39, 43, 118, 120, 131–132, 159, 163, 179–181, 186, 188–189, 190–193, 199–203, 205–206 βάρβαρος, 13, 261, 262, 264– 266, 268, 271–282

297