Participation, Justification, and Conversion: Eastern Orthodox Interpretation of Paul and the Debate between Old and New Perspectives on Paul ... Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161541407, 3161541405

Citation preview

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

442

Participation, Justification, and Conversion Eastern Orthodox Interpretation of Paul and the Debate between “Old and New Perspectives on Paul” edited by

Athanasios Despotis

Mohr Siebeck

Athanasios Despotis, born 1979; studied Theology and Classical Philology at the University of Athens; 2006 PhD; 2012 Habilitation at the University of Bonn; since 2014 Heisenberg Fellowship at the University of Bonn.

ISBN 978-3-16-154140-7 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2017 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Dedicated to the 180th Anniversary (1837–2017) of the School of Theology of the University of Athens

Preface This volume is the second part of a research project referring to the relationship between the “New Perspective on Paul” and the Eastern Orthodox Interpretation of Paul. The first part was a Habilitationsschrift published in German, Die New Perspective on Paul und die griechisch-orthodoxe Paulusinterpretation (2014). I am deeply obliged to the contributors from around the world and from different denominations who have invested their academic experience to reflect upon this new field of research. It was a great enrichment for me to cooperate with such qualified international scholars who share the same passion for Pauline studies. I also owe gratitude to the editorial team, Artemis Sofia Markou (Dipl. Phil.), Dr. Philip Sumpter, and André Wyss (M. Theol.) who supported me in correcting the chapters. Also, great thanks to the German Research Foundation (DFG) for covering the publication costs and to Prof. Dr. Jörg Frey as well as Dr. Henning Ziebritzki who accepted this book in the renowned WUNT series. However, an important chapter regarding Phil 3:2–11 is missing due to an unfulfilled promise of submission, which unduly delayed the publication of this book. Since a further delay would depreciate the rest of the contributions and make their bibliography seem dated, I decided to proceed without the said chapter and ask for the reader’s understanding. Lastly, it is not a coincidence that the School of Theology of the University of Athens celebrates its 180th Anniversary (1837–2017) this year. Since the apostle Paul as well as many other Eastern Orthodox exegetes have a direct or indirect relationship to the ancient or the modern city of Athens and its philosophical and theological schools, this editorial is dedicated to this anniversary. I hope this collection will shed some more light on the Eastern Orthodox theological tradition and will offer material for critical reflection during the forthcoming (73rd) General Meeting of the SNTS which will be hosted in Athens in 2018. The Editor

March 2017 During the Great and Holy Lent

Table of Contents Preface .......................................................................................................... V Introduction ................................................................................................... 1

Part I: The Real Contexts Michael Wolter The Reality of Faith: Some Thoughts about the Significance of Faith in the Theology of Paul ....................................................................................13 Athanasios Despotis ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας. Rethinking the Application of the Verb δικαιoῦσθαι in Baptismal Contexts from the Perspective of Rom 6:7........................................................................................................29 Jacobus (Kobus) Kok and John Anthony Dunne Participation in Christ and Missional Dynamics in Galatians........................59

Part II: Orthodox Readings of the Relevant Pauline Texts Konstantinos Nikolakopoulos Paulus über „Gerechtigkeit“ und „Rechtfertigung“. Exegetische Perspektiven unter Berücksichtigung von 1 Kor. 1,30 ..................................89 Stelian Tofană “Treasure in earthen vessels...” (2 Cor 4:7–11) ........................................... 107 Edith Humphrey Becoming the Righteousness of God: The Potency of the New Creation in the World (2 Cor 5:16–21) ..................................................................... 125 Vasile Mihoc Galatians 2:15–21. A Commentary Challenging the New Perspective ........ 159

X 

Table of Contents 

Sotirios Despotis Eine östlich-orthodoxe Lektüre von Gal. 3,6–9.23–29 ................................ 181 Jack Khalil An Interpretation of Rom 3:21–26 within Its Proper Context ..................... 205 Michael Azar The Law and New Life in Rom 7:1–6: Eastern-Western Dialogue and Romans....................................................................................................... 247 James Buchanan Wallace Identities at Risk: The “New Perspective on Paul” and Eastern Orthodox Interpretation of Rom 8:14–17; 28–30 ........................................................ 277

Part III: Beyond Old and New, Beyond East and West Michael J. Gorman Reading Gal 2:15–21 Theologically. Beyond Old and New, Beyond West and East ...................................................................................................... 321 Athanasios Despotis Beyond Theological Arguments. The Ethics of Love and Coming to Faith in Paul ........................................................................................................ 355 Rikard Roitto Paul’s Theological Language of Salvation as Social and Embodied Cognition ................................................................................................... 377 List of Contributors .................................................................................... 401 Index of Ancient Sources ........................................................................... 403 Subject Index.............................................................................................. 429

 

Introduction The Aim of this Book The debate between the “Old” and the “New Perspective” has been a focal point of Pauline studies in recent years. However, the potential affinities and differences between the “New Perspective” and the Eastern Orthodox interpretation of Paul have not been adequately researched yet.1 Only one recently published study2 provides some research on the Greek Orthodox interpretation of Paul from its beginnings to the present day and compares it with the “New Perspective on Paul”. However, this book shows that it is beneficial to read the research opinions of various Orthodox exegetes of Paul who consider the same questions rather than to leave this subject to the reflections of any one author who may favour the one or the other view. Therefore, the current project takes up the discussion between the “Eastern Orthodox” and the “New” and “Old Perspectives” on Paul, which was first introduced in the study mentioned above and seeks to develop it further. The title of this editorial, i.e. “Participation, Justification and Conversion”, refers to topics that are gaining momentum in Pauline research. The main relevant questions with which the contributors are dealing are as follows: What does the participatory-union concept mean and what is its role in the process of justification by faith? Are participation and justification alternatives or concepts compatible with each other? Moreover, are these concepts related to the conversion experiences of the early Christ-believers and how do they reflect them? However, the aim of this project is not to construct a discussion on general topics but to open a dialogue on an exegetical basis. The authors of the first three papers set the framework for the following exegetical task: They discuss the central issue of faith as well as reflections of the real contexts of mission and conversion in Paul. In the subsequent papers, eight authors present representative orthodox readings of relevant Pauline texts. The three remaining

1 The book of James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, eds., Justification: Five Views (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011) includes some contributions from the “Old” (traditional and progressive reformed), the “New”, the Roman Catholic as well as from the FinnishLutheran perspective but it neither considers the Eastern Orthodox tradition nor provides any new exegetical input concerning the interpretation of the specific Pauline texts. 2 Athanasios Despotis, Die "New Perspective on Paul" und die griechisch-orthodoxe Paulusinterpretation, VIOTh 11 (St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 2014).

2

Introduction

papers take directions which transcend the stereotypes of the “Old” and “New Perspectives” and the Eastern and Western traditions.

Description of the Papers and Their Relationship to Each Other In the first paper, Michael Wolter analyses the concept πίστις Χριστοῦ which is crucial for the understanding of the Pauline argument regarding justification by faith. Wolter claims that “Pauline Christianity is a religion of mission and conversion” and investigates the semantics of faith in this framework. The author works on the basis of the traditional understanding of the term πίστις Χριστοῦ as a particular interpretation of the “Christ event” and links it to faith as acceptance of the gospel of Christ, i.e. “attaining the conviction that what Paul has said about Jesus and God in his gospel is true.” From this point of view, “conversion is fuelled by πίστις and conversion is πιστεῦσαι.” Wolter emphasises the cognitive aspect of the experience of religious transformation as believing in the gospel. Similarly, he underscores the integrative function of faith. Faith equalises all social and ethnic differences because the claim of the gospel is equally valid for all people. Nevertheless, even though this Pauline focus on faith breaks down old boundaries, it also raises new ones: The division between believers and ‘unbelievers’. In Wolter’s words: “Paul establishes a new master paradigm by means of which he categorises all humanity in an entirely new and unique way.” The author concludes that the understanding of πίστις Χριστοῦ as “faithfulness of Christ” is based on a fundamental error in reasoning. Therefore, Wolter’s view is in contrast to Michael Gorman’s contribution in this volume. Thus, a dynamic dialogue takes off already on the first pages of this book. The next paper moves the focus to the other crucial issue in relation justification by faith and the experience of conversion or spiritual transformation, i.e. the semantics of the verb δικαιοῦσθαι (to be justified). The author concentrates on the usage of the concept of justification in Rom 6:7 and compares it with two other undisputed Pauline texts referring to justification in baptismal contexts, i.e. 1 Cor 6:11 and Gal 3:24. This investigation shows that justification describes an ongoing and dynamic process of spiritual transformation (conversion) which finds the first climax at baptism, continues in the life of the believer in the community and will be accomplished at the final resurrection and judgment. However, the comparison between the three texts mentioned above proves that the link between δικαιοῦσθαι (be justified) and πίστις (faith) occurs only where Paul tries to solve an ecclesiological issue, i.e. the inclusion of the Gentiles among the eschatological people of God. This paper integrates views of the “New Perspective on Paul” and follows the Eastern Orthodox tradition

 

Introduction 

3

by putting an emphasis on the understanding of the justification idea in baptismal contexts as a reference to an ontological transformation. Nonetheless, this paper diverges from other voices in this volume which are nearer to the “Old Perspective”. E.g. there is a strong contrast to Fr. Vasile Mihoc’s view which assumes that Paul received the argument regarding justification by faith on the road to Damascus. This means that the reader who expects to find a thesis unanimously supported by all exegetes will find it difficult to extract it from this volume. Furthermore, Kobus Kok and John Anthony Dunne turn the discussion to the other critical issue of this book, i.e. “participation”, and discuss its relationship to the missionary commission of Paul and the concept of justification. Participation refers to a nexus of concepts like to “be in Christ”, “get co-crucified”, “die” and “be buried” with Christ in baptism. The meta-theme of participation also refers to expressions which describe the deep relationship with and incorporation in Christ (e.g. ἐν ἐμοί Gal 1:14). “Participation” is a transforming process in the sense that Paul does not only proclaim but also becomes the gospel, a view expressed by Gorman and adopted by the two authors. In this regard, “participation” establishes a Gentile mission and creates “missional Gentiles”. Similarly, justification happens by means of union with Christ. The authors also reflect on a relevant commentary of John Chrysostom on Gal 1:14 from the interdisciplinary perspective of the “Dialogical Self Theory”. In this way, Kok and Dunne demonstrate that Christ is internalised by Paul’s “self” and becomes a dialogical partner of his inner space. The authors also refer to the working of the Spirit that transforms believers, enables them to participate in Christ and to mirror the image of God for the benefit of outsiders. Kok and Dunne’s view represent a type of missional hermeneutics that is detached from the focus on the liturgical life and the function of the rituals or “mysteries”, which appear in the following Eastern Orthodox readings. Nikolakopoulos opens the part regarding the readings prevalent in the Eastern Church by describing the concept of justification from a Christological and soteriological point of view. He also focuses on the rhetoric and considers the reference of the Golden-Mouthed (Chrysostom) to 1 Cor 1:30. The author claims that one detects several aspects of the Pauline “Rechtfertigungslehre” in the context of the verse above. This thesis partially challenges the view of the second paper regarding the emergence of the argument regarding justification by faith. In Nikolakopoulos’ view, the interpretation of God’s calling to faith as a “creatio ex nihilo” links 1 Cor 1:30 to the Pauline argument in Rom 4 where Abraham’s turning to faith is interpreted in similar terms. Furthermore, Nikolakopoulos underscores the Christological aspect of the Pauline idea of justification that connects the text in question with the loci classici of the Pauline argument on justification by faith, i.e. Rom 3:21–31 and Gal 2:15–21. All three texts share the concept of justification, though this idea is only implicitly reflected in 1 Cor 1:30. The author argues that the thread that runs through all

4

Introduction

these relevant texts is the theology of the cross and the understanding of the Christ event as well as the believer’s incorporation into the Church as a justifying event. Yet, this process presupposes human synergy: “Die Rechtfertigung wird von Gott allen Menschen umsonst gegeben, und die Menschen sollen zumindest mitmachen. Sie sollten dieses Angebot annehmen, indem sie glauben.” The paper of Nikolakopoulos highlights particular characteristics of Eastern Orthodox exegesis: an emphasis on Christology and soteriology, the synthetical approach of the Pauline arguments and, in conlusion, the interpretation of πίστις as a free human response to God’s transforming initiative. The next author, Fr. Stelian Tofană, turns the discussion to the issue of participation. The text which Tofană comments, 2 Cor 4:7–11, interprets the gospel of Christ as illumination and the suffering of the believer as participation in the suffering of Christ. Tofană reminds the reader that the issue regarding participation does not refer only to baptismal incorporation in Christ but to real sharing in Christ’s suffering up to death. Therefore, Paul’s suffering up unto death for the sake of the gospel is “a culmination of the bodily death of Jesus Christ”. In this sense, Paul is not only metaphorically “dead” but experiences a long process of sufferings “on his way to encounter Christ and to assume his redemptive death”. The author stresses the sharing in Christ’s suffering to conclude that the life of the convert shall be characterised by the mortification of the “sinful nature” in everyday life. Therefore, the Pauline concept of “new creation” presupposes an ongoing struggle that leads to the achievement of “the last stage of the process of sanctification, namely the deification (theōsis)”. Tofană believes that the “issue of the New Perspective on Paul” needs to be reviewed because the Pauline anthropology is defined and understood, in what may be new in it, only when man is understood as a part of the body of Christ, been called to make an effort in achieving the justification and the holiness, and not to be their simply passive recipient. This conclusion refers to a fundamental insight among the Eastern Orthodox readings that justification is not a forensic fiction or a kind of “transition language” but an ongoing process requiring the believer’s volitional effort to follow the Christian way of life. Edith Humphrey undertakes the sophisticated task of showing “which facets of the older perspective and which of the new are consonant with the patristic readings” of the passage 2 Cor 5:16–21. Humphrey emphasises the conjoining of forensic and substitutional language in this Pauline text. She also shows how the Western and Eastern interpretations of Paul clearly differ because their representatives derive from various Christological and anthropological presuppositions. In this way, the author explains why traditional “reformational” readings of Paul speak of “imputed righteousness”, the representatives of the “New Perspective” often find Pauline language regarding justification metaphorical or eschatological, and the Eastern Fathers prefer ontological language. Humphrey also discusses the interpretation of Douglas Campbell and challenges his view that Paul’s statements about sin and justification reflect the arguments of

Introduction

5

his opponents. The author argues that Greek Fathers place 2 Cor 5:16–21 in a larger canvas and stress the ontological change that happens due to the “Christ event”. Therefore, Humphrey claims that the concepts of participation and justification are held together in the Eastern interpretation of Paul and liturgical texts: “Orthodox approaches, while not disparaging God’s words and acts of clemency, nor dismissing the importance of spiritual and ethical solidarity with Christ, see transformation as involving the entire person, and salvation as addressing not merely sin and disposition, but also death”. Finally, Humphrey notices that while the text under discussion begins with the apostle’s own “cognitive conversion” it ends with “the converting action of Christ that has the potency to make everything and everyone new”. This insight reveals the emphasis of the Eastern interpretation not on the converting power of the word of the gospel (cf. the essay Wolter’s) but the transformative aspect of the entire Christian life and the “mysteries” (rituals). Another Orthodox scholar, Fr. Vasile Mihoc, takes a negative position regarding the claims of the “New Perspective” and especially of James Dunn’s interpretation of Gal 2:15–21. Paul’s encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus radically changed Paul’s theology according to Mihoc. The converted Jew understood, once and for all, the limited character of the Mosaic law and that both Jews and Gentiles are called to the grace of salvation. However, this view is being challenged a. o. by Rikard Roitto who claims the opposite in the last paper of this volume. Mihoc criticises the interpretation of the term “works of the law” as a reference to badges of Jewish nationalism. Contrarily, this term refers to moral or ritual prescriptions of the Mosaic law, a view which is in contrast with other approaches to Paul in this volume and in particular the contribution of Michael Azar or the paper discussing the ethics of love as an eschatological interpretation of the law. However, Mihoc underscores the Orthodox understanding of justification as the founding of a new life and “not an external act of God by which man is declared righteous.” The author also stresses the implicit tie of Gal 2:19–20 to the “mystery of Holy Baptism” and the ontological foundation of the new life, i.e. justification. Like most Orthodox exegetes, Mihoc understands the Pauline language of participation and justification as being in a deep relationship to the rituals or “mysteries”. Therefore, the contribution of Roitto at the end offers a great support to justify this emphasis in the Orthodox tradition. Finally, the author adopts the idea that Pauline converts “must choose between the law and grace.” If there is a reason to appreciate the research presented in this book it is that of the polyphony of the contributors. The essays of those who criticise the “New Perspective” appear alongside those of its sympathisers. Sotirios Despotis follows another direction than Mihoc to show that the “New Perspective” can be in accordance with the interpretation of John Chrysostom. The author comments on Gal 3:6–9, 23–29 and claims that in this passage baptism is understood as the climax of an ontological transformation and union with Christ.

6

Introduction

This transformation is the basis of the justification process that will be accomplished at the eschaton. The author claims that Galatians 3 refers to the transformation of the Gentiles who become inherits of Abraham not by circumcision but by union with the Messiah and His Spirit. The author demonstrates that the idea of adoption by union with Christ trancends the concept of inclusion of proselytes in the family of Abraham. In accordance with the other Orthodox exegetes, he underscores the function of the experience and the remembrance of spiritual transformation that occurs through baptism. Similarly, he shows that, in Paul’s mind, the status of the Gentile converts and all Christbelievers transcends the status of the non-believing Jewish people. This happens because the baptised have the eschatological gift of the Holy Spirit, which justifies them and creates them anew. Fr. Jack Khalil turns the exegetical discussion to the locus classicus of the Pauline argument regarding justification by faith, i.e. Rom 3:21–26. The structure of this large paper reveals the hermeneutical presuppositions of the author. He pays attention especially to the “polemical nature of the apostle’s thoughts” for, in his view, Rom 3:21–26 delivers an answer to the false Jewish objections described in Rom 3:1–8. Therefore, Khalil begins his survey by commenting on the preceding vv. 1–20 in detail to show that this pericope “provides the impetus for the apostle’s exposition of justification through faith.” The author favours the interpretation of John Chrysostom and challenges aspects of both the “Old” and the “New Perspectives”. However, Khalil’s understanding of justification in Rom 3 has a clear forensic dimension: it refers to the forgiveness of sins. The author does not accept Dunn’s and Wright’s readings regarding the concept of “God’s righteousness” and also challenges Bultmann’s argument about the pre-Pauline origin of v. 25. Khalil’s view is nearer to other contributions in this volume who remain sceptical towards the “ecclesiological” understanding of the justification language in Paul, e.g. Mihoc’s essay. Furthermore, the author adopts a Christocentric view that is common among all Eastern Orthodox scholars, yet he plays down the importance of Rom 3:29–31 which plays crucial role in the view of other authors in this volume who interpret the argument regarding justification by faith in the context of the table-fellowship issue between Jews and Gentile converts (cf. the paper regarding the verb δικαιοῦσθαι in baptismal contexts). Besides, Deacon Michael Azar refers to the Eastern-Western dialogue from the perspective of Rom 7:1–6. In Azar’s view, the question regarding Paul’s and his converts’ relationship to the law has always been understood in other terms than those of the exegesis of the Reformation. It is not the separation from the law but rather its (i.e. the Law’s) transformation which plays a crucial role both in Paul’s text and Eastern Orthodox spirituality. The “law of sin and death” is transformed and becomes “the law of the Spirit of life”, which is within the second “marriage” of the wife (symbol of Christians) in Rom 7. This

Introduction

7

view is also demonstrated by another paper in this volume referring to the Pauline ethics of love. Besides, Azar finds that the references to the “body of Christ” are not only metaphorical but also have “material” aspects. “Though the materiality of unity with Christ’s humanity would be deemphasised in certain Reformation traditions (from which, one should note, the discipline of modern biblical studies stems), it has had a tremendous impact on the development of Eastern Christological and sacramental thought.” From this point of view, Paul does not challenge the Mosaic law, its ritual aspects or material forms of religiosity but law and materiality leading to sin. Conversion to Christ “includes, stems from, and is effected by a renewed interpretation” of the law enabled by the Savior’s sojourn in the flesh. It is evident that Azar’s view is in remarkable contrast with Mihoc’s rhetoric of Mosaic law as opposed to the gospel. The last exegetical survey underscores the role of the Spirit in the process of transformation which believers undergo. James Buchanan Wallace points out that Romans 8:15 describes conversion as the reception of the “Spirit of adoption” which offers life and security by participation in Christ. Wallace links the ideas of justification, participation and conversion and concludes that there is no tension: “participation entails the progressive deepening of a new existence of right relationship initially realised as justification.” The author detects that Paul uses a rhetoric of conversion which both Jews and Gentiles could understand and use to construct their own narratives of conversion. From an Eastern Orthodox point of view, Romans 8:15 refers to an ongoing embodied conversion process that transforms the human as a whole, the body and the soul. Regarding the relationship between the “New Perspective” and the Orthodox readings of Paul, Wallace concludes that while the “New Perspective” sheds light on the continuity of God’s plan the patristic thought describes the depth of what God has done for humanity, i.e. it refers to the healing of the human nature through the Son’s incarnation and Spirit’s work. The author also discusses the issue of predestination for Romans 8:28 speaks of God’s purpose. He argues that this text does not support individual predestination but refers to believers as a group who freely respond to God’s election by love. Finally, Wallace stresses the corporeal dimensions of the glory which believers assume in the present time and the eschaton according to Rom 8:29– 30: the use of “image” and “glory” language may provide a warrant for those strands of the Eastern Orthodox tradition that suggest that conversion in some way transforms the body. The next three papers discuss more general aspects of Pauline theology and ethics, going beyond the conventional standards. Michael Gorman’s seven theses regarding Gal 2:15–21 emphasise Christ’s faithfulness and love as the starting point of understanding justification, participation and conversion in Paul. Gorman argues that one cannot interpret Pauline texts by using hard-and-fast

8

Introduction

understandings of what each concept means for each meaning is context-dependent. Thus, Paul offers in the text under discussion “his own understanding of justification”. It is because of the “faithfulness of the Messiah” that people are justified. The Messiah’s faithful and loving death is the means of justification. The mode of justification is human participation in Christ’s death. Humans appropriate the justifying grace of God by dying to the law and the “self”. However, Paul identifies the indwelling of the Messiah with the indwelling of the Spirit. Therefore, justification also involves life with God’s Spirit which transforms the believer. Humans share in Christ’s death by getting transformed in the Messiah, i.e. embodying His transformed ethics of faithfulness and love. Gorman manages in this way to combine several aspects of the Pauline texts as well as strands of interpretation and he also uses ontological language: “But, it may be most appropriate (though shocking to some), if we are going to allow Paul’s thought and language of justification as ‘ontological transformation into God’s righteousness in the Messiah’ to have its full theological impact, (1) to use the term ‘theōsis’ or ‘deification’ in connection with justification, and (2) to say that such transformation into Godlikeness is constitutive of justification itself”. Gorman concludes that this interpretation excludes neither the ecclesiological understanding of justification of the “New Perspective” nor the forensic approach of the “Old Perspective”. However, this reading breaks down some “theological walls”. The next paper delivers an unconventional reading of the relationship between the love ethics and conversion in Paul. Mostly, the Pauline ethics of love are considered to be a consequence or expression of turning to faith in Christ. This paper demonstrates, however, that the Pauline notion of ἀγάπη has counterintuitive semantics and the Pauline ethics of love played a crucial role in the transmission of the Pauline gospel in the Mediterranean world. On the one hand, love was the sine qua non condition for the socialisation of Jewish and Gentile converts in the Christ-community and the only way to “keep united an ecclesia of Jews and Gentiles, freemen and slaves, men and women (Gal 3:28), strong and weak (Rom 14–15) as a family bound together not by common physical descent but by faith in Christ”. On the other hand, love is not only a consequence but also an essential presupposition for a constant and perfect faith in this era and the eschaton. Therefore, the ethics of love is the way to approach outsiders and make them repent and believe in the gospel. “This is also the way in which God leads the ‘ungodly’ to repentance (εἰς μετάνοιαν Rom 2:4): Through His riches of kindness and forbearance and patience.” Finally, the author refers to non-biblical evidence which supports the conclusion that the ethics of love can lead to repentance/conversion and, therefore, play a crucial role in the procedures of participation and justification in Christ. The last paper reflects on how the Pauline language of participation and justification has as its starting point not abstract theoretical speculations but rather embodied social and ritual experiences. The author of this study, Rikard Roitto,

Introduction

9

views the Pauline texts from the perspective of the Cognitive Science of Religion. Roitto claims that the ritual life in the Pauline communities, especially the Lord’s Supper and the initiatory baptism, embedded theological and social values into the Pauline way of thinking. In-Christ theology reflects and embodies the experience of Christ during the ritualised meals. Consequently, “‘in Christ’-language is good contextual theology for a community whose communal life is centred on a meal that represents Christ”. Roitto adopts the views of Sanders regarding the centrality of the participation concept in Pauline theology as well as the interpretation of the argument regarding justification as transfer-language: the idea of justification interprets the transference from a negative existence to a new existence with God ‘in Christ’. However, the author recognises that this transition of the saved individual is conceptualised not only through justification language but “in several different ways by Paul. He thinks in terms of space, substance, and social relations”. Nevertheless, “all conceptual roads lead to participation in Christ”. Roitto concludes that the Pauline participation-theology grew out a ritual context and the metaphor of justification emerges as a way to describe transfer “into Christ” in contexts where he needs to show that the convert’s condition has changed so that he/she does not have to be judged by God. Roitto’s conclusions support crucial arguments of the second paper in this volume regarding the meaning of the verb δικαιοῦσθαι in baptismal contexts. This final paper, which is both interdisciplinary as well as innovative, invites the reader to go beyond the arguments of the “Old” and “New Perspectives on Paul”. If this volume motivates the reader to accept this invitation, it would bring the efforts of its contributors to fruition.

Part I The Real Contexts

The Reality of Faith Some Thoughts about the Significance of Faith in the Theology of Paul Michael Wolter 1. Mission and Conversion as the Basis of the Pauline Understanding of Faith I would like to start1 by looking at 1 Thess 2:13: And for this reason we ourselves give thanks to God without ceasing, ὅτι παραλαβόντες λόγον ἀκοῆς παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐδέξασθε οὐ λόγον ἀνθρώπων ἀλλὰ καθώς ἐστιν ἀληθῶς λόγον θεοῦ, ὃς καὶ ἐνεργεῖται ἐν ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν.

because when you received from us the word of the message of God, you accepted it not as the word of human beings but as what it really is, as God’s word, which is also at work in you–the believers.

This text contains two elements that are important for our topic: 1. There is, in the first place, the determined participle without an attribute “the believing” (οἱ πιστεύοντες). Paul uses this expression as reference for the group of the so-called “Christians”, for which he does not yet have a term.2 Outside of Christian literature, there is no precedent for this use of οἱ πιστεύοντες as a designation for a group. This group called οἱ πιστεύοντες by Paul is different from other people not because of believing something different than other people do, but because of being the only group whose identity is constituted by the fact that they “believe”.3 While the people that belong to the group of οἱ πιστεύοντες find their common ground and distinction with reference to others in that they “believe”, all others that do not are “unbelievers” (ἄπιστοι; 1 Cor 6:6; 10:27; 14:22–23; 2 Cor 4:4; 6:14). It is not so that they believe something else, but they do not believe at all. My sincere thanks go to Erastus Jonker (University of Pretoria) for the translation of this article. 2 Rom 3:22; 4:11; 1 Cor 1:21; 14:22; Gal 3:22; 1 Thess 1:7; 2:10.13. Cf. also Acts 2:44; 4:32; 18:27; 19:18; Eph 1:19; Heb 4:3; 1 Pet 2:7. 3 Cf. also Wilfried Härle, Dogmatik (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995), 55. 1

14

Michael Wolter

Other expressions that characterise the commonality of Christians point in the same direction. For example, Gal 6:10, where Paul speaks of “those who belong to the household of faith” (οἰκεῖοι τῆς πίστεως). This involves a metaphor that refers to the community of Christians as a family whose solidarity is expressed by the fact that everyone that believes belongs to it. Another example is Gal 3:7, 9 οἱ ἐκ πίστεως (“those of faith”). This is interchangeable with οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (1 Cor 15:23; Gal 5:24). Also, this expression was invented by Paul. It can be explained as an analogical form in the case of expressions like οἱ ἐκ νόμου (“those of the law” Rom 4:14, 16) and οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς (those of the circumcision” Rom 4:12; Gal 2:12). Thereby Paul is again drawing a line: In all of these cases, it is about giving that characteristic a name that describes an independent group and separates it from other human beings. This semantic profile that Paul gives to the terms πίστις and πιστεύειν is unique in comparison with non-Christian language. There is no other group or community of which one can say that they become a group or community through faith. 2. But let us return once more to 1 Thess 2:13, because the second element that is important for our topic has not yet been addressed. It is to be found in the description of the acceptance of the Pauline proclamation. Although the words “faith” and “believe” are not there, it is clear from the text in which way people come to faith or how believing begins according to the Pauline conception. According to this text, faith is nothing but hearing Paul’s proclamation of Christ as God’s word (1 Thess 2:13): as a message that is carried out under God’s orders and that expresses the fact that God’s salvation is made accessible through Jesus Christ. “Hearing” does not just refer to an acoustic occurrence, but designates a way of distinct interpretation of what is said. Without interpretation, there is no hearing, for that which we hear in this sense comes into being only through our interpretation. Therefore, there is no distance between hearing and believing. We can explicate that by means of a simple consideration: It is impossible to first hear the gospel of Jesus Christ as God’s word and then to decide whether you believe it or not. For already at the very moment when Paul’s proclamation of Christ is heard as God’s message of salvation when the hearers say “yes, this is God’s word”, faith has entered their existence. We can provide this understanding of “faith” and “believing” with an even stronger profile if we put it in the light of Phil 1:27, where Paul speaks of the πίστις τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, of the gospel-faith. For the interpretation of this expression, we can proceed with Paul’s use of the expression εὐαγγέλιον (“gospel”). He can provide the concept of εὐαγγέλιον with three different attributes: he is able to speak of the gospel of God (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ: Rom 1:1; 15:16; 2 Cor 11:7; 1 Thess 2:2, 8, 9), of the gospel of Christ (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ: Rom 1:9; 15:19; 1 Cor 9:12; 2 Cor 2:12; 4:4; 9:13; 10:14; Gal 1:7; Phil 1:27a; 1 Thess 3:2), and of “my gospel” (τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου: Rom 2:16; 2 Cor 4:3; 1 Thess 1:5). Of course, with these three qualifications, Paul is not trying to separate three different gospels from each other. In all three cases,

The Reality of Faith

15

one and the same gospel is intended: the gospel proclaimed by Paul is only one and the same gospel: “His” gospel is “gospel of Christ”, and the “gospel of Christ” is, of course, the same gospel as the “gospel of God”. That means: When Paul speaks of Christ, he always speaks of God and vice versa. The Pauline gospel is only gospel of Christ insofar as it proclaims that God has acted for the salvation of all people through Christ. Likewise, it is only gospel of God insofar as it proclaims that God’s salvation is made accessible through Jesus Christ. Accordingly, it is precisely this theological correlation of God and Jesus in Paul’s gospel that determines his conception of faith: Faith consists of the assent to the claim of the gospel that whenever it speaks of God it speaks of Jesus, and whenever it speaks of Jesus it speaks of God. 3. It is possible to connect the elements that constitute the peculiarity of 1 Thess 2:13 and say: The first one [that Paul calls his church a community of “believing ones” (πιστεύοντες)], and the second one (the correlation between gospel and faith) are based on one common foundation, i.e. the fact that Pauline Christianity is a religion of mission and conversion. The churches established by Paul arose because there were people that assented to the just mentioned interpretation of what happened to Jesus and believed it to be true. They all had grown up in non-Christian families. This applied to all of them. “Conversion” then is not understood so as to mean turning towards an already existing πίστις, but rather conversion is fueled by πίστις, and conversion is πιστεῦσαι: “coming to faith”, i.e. attaining the conviction that what Paul has said about Jesus and God in his gospel is true. 4. At the end of this section should follow a short remark related to a popular approach towards the topic of faith, that is, the differentiation between a socalled “religious” and a so-called “secular” use of πίστις/πιστεύειν.4 Often this differentiation functions as the chief paradigm for understanding faith in early Christianity. Normally only the so-called “religious” use is considered theologically relevant. This differentiation, however, is based on an anachronistic perspective that is imposed onto texts from the outside and as such tends to be misleading. That this differentiation is not helpful can be recognised if we compare Acts 15:7 and 1 Cor 11:18 to each other: In Acts 15:7 Peter starts his speech at the Council of Jerusalem with the words: “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among 4 Cf. already Wilhelm Bousset and Hugo Gressmann, Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter, ΗΝΤ 21, 3rd ed. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1926), 193; Rudolf Bultmann, “πίστις κτλ.”, ThWNT 6: 179–180. See also the debate in Dieter Lührmann, “Pistis im Judentum”, ZNW 64 (1973): 19–38; idem “Glaube, Bekenntnis, Erfahrung”, in Glaube ed. Wilfried Härle and Reiner Preul  l; MJTh 4 = MThSt 33 (Marburg: N. G. Elwert Verlag, 1992), 13–36 and Gerhard Barth, “Pistis in hellenistischer Religiosität”, ZNW 73 (1982): 110–126.

16

Michael Wolter

you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe (ἀκοῦσαι … καὶ πιστεῦσαι).” In 1 Cor 11:18 Paul writes about grievances at the celebration of the Lord’s meal in Corinth: “For, in the first place, when you come together as a congregation, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part (ἀκούω … καὶ μέρος τι πιστεύω).” Both texts reflect one and the same connection of “hearing” and “believing”, although one of them refers to the gospel and the other to rumours. From this semantic overlap, we can learn that Paul’s understanding of faith does not reflect a religious conception of “faith” and “believing”, but is based on a thoroughly colloquial and average use of “faith” and “believing”. For this connection between “faith” and “hearing”, there is also ample evidence outside the NT. Of special interest is a text from Plutarch’s treatise “Concerning Talkativeness” (De garrulitate 503d). Plutarch here says about the chatterers: οὐδὲ πίστιν ἔχουσιν ἧς πᾶς λόγος ἐφίεται· Τὸ γὰρ οἰκεῖον αὐτοῦ τέλος τοῦτ᾿ ἐστί, πίστιν ἐνεργάσασθαι τοῖς ἀκούουσιν. Ἀπιστοῦνται δ᾿ οἱ λάλοι, κἂν ἀληθεύωσιν.

They are not met with belief, which all speech strives for. For this is its proper end and aim, to engender belief in the hearers. But chatterers are disbelieved even if they are telling the truth.

The same connection is also attested in other texts. I quote three of them from very distinct times and contexts to demonstrate how widespread it was in the ancient world: Aesopus, Fab. 301: When the landlord heard this and believed (ἀκούσας οὖν ταῦτα … καὶ πιστεύσας) he became terrified … Xenophon, Hell. 6.1.8: Of which kind the projects are in which I offer you the second prize – listen, and don’t believe me anything which does not approve itself as true to your own reasoning (… ἄκουε, καὶ μηδὲν πίστευέ μοι ὅ τι ἂν μὴ λογιζομένῳ σοι ἀληθὲς φαίνηται). 1 Macc 10:46: ὡς δὲ ἤκουσεν Jonathan and the people these words οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν αὐτοῖς.

All texts have in common that they understand faith as a very distinct way of hearing, i.e., as “affirmative hearing” which accepts what is heard as being true.5

                                                            

5 This connection is completely ignored by Thomas Schumacher, Zur Entstehung christlicher Sprache: Eine Untersuchung der paulinischen Idiomatik und der Verwendung des Begriffes πίστις, BBB 168 (Bonn: Bonn University Press, 2012), 199–232, whereas it is taken into adequate consideration by Teresa Morgan, Roman Faith and Christian Faith: Pistis and Fides in the Early Roman Empire and Early Churches (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 65–74 (“Tradition, Hearsay, Discourse, Reason, Rhetoric”).

The Reality of Faith

17

However, with Paul faith and believing do not only refer to “becoming a Christian” but also to “being a Christian”.6 That brings us to our second section.

2. We, “the Believing Ones” (1 Cor 1:18, 21). Faith as Ethos and Its Effects “Faith” and “believing” refer not only to a once-only event of conversion that arises by hearing the proclamation as God’s word but also to a long-term commitment to this agreement. This conception comes to expression in phrases like “standing firm in your faith” (1 Cor 16:13), “holding to your faith” (2 Cor 13:5), and also “living by faith” (Gal 2:20) – just to give a small selection of examples. From a sociological perspective faith attains the same function in Pauline Christianity as it happened with the Torah in Hellenistic Judaism: On the one hand, it creates social cohesion inwardly, on the other it distinguishes the group as a social minority from the outside, that is, from the majority society. To put it in Jimmy Dunn’s words: According to the Pauline conception faith functions both as “identity marker” and as “boundary marker”.7 Faith binds Christians to each other and differentiates them from other people. Accordingly, with Paul faith executes these functions in two directions: 1. Faith functions as an equaliser that removes the differences between people. Paul emphasises this meaning of faith at its clearest and most frequently concerning the abolition of the difference between Jews and Gentiles. He says this most emphatically perhaps in Rom 3:28–30: (28) Therefore we are sure that one is justified by faith – and not from works of the law. (29) Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, (30) since God is one who will justify the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcision through faith.

Three other texts can be placed alongside this: Rom 1:16: For the gospel is a δύναμις θεοῦ εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι, Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι (“a power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek”). Rom 10:11–12: πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται. οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολὴ Ἰουδαίου τε καὶ Ἕλληνος (“everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame. (12) For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek”).

                                                            

Cf. Jürgen Becker, Paulus. Der Apostel der Völker, 3rd ed., UTB 2014 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 440. 7 Cf. James D. G. Dunn, “The New Perspective on Paul”, in Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians, ed. idem (Atlanta, GA; Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1990), 192, 194 and passim. 6

18

Michael Wolter

Gal 5:6: ἐν γὰρ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ οὔτε περιτομή τι ἰσχύει οὔτε ἀκροβυστία ἀλλὰ πίστις δι᾽ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη (“in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love”).

Everyone is able to believe, regardless of whether he or she does this as a Jew living according to the law, or as a non-Jew that does not. The faith common to Jews and Gentiles can even tolerate that among the persons who have come to faith some continue to conduct their lives according to the Torah and others do not. Faith can also integrate this difference. This significance of faith can also explain why Paul in Galatians and Romans places the demarcation from the Torah so much on the foreground. Paul does not depreciate the intention of fulfilling the Torah because human beings misuse “works of the law” to procure righteousness before God by themselves.8 Rather he diminishes the theological status of the Torah because the Torah and its fulfilment mark the difference between Jews and non-Jews and because, by doing so, they contradict the inclusive claim of the gospel, that is equally valid for all people and through which God reaches out to the entire world. However, for Paul it is not only the difference between Israel and the Gentiles that is set aside by faith but also the differences between all the other social status attributions, like that between slaves and freemen and between men and women (1 Cor 7:22; Gal 3:28). – It is in the short Letter to Philemon that we encounter this equalising power of faith in its fullest ethical implications. It is, from this perspective, quite close to Romans and Galatians, because in this letter it is the κοινωνία τῆς πίστεως, the commonality of faith, that makes the slave a brother of his master.9 2. The second direction is complementary to the first. We have already touched upon it earlier. Faith not only breaks down borders, but it also raises new ones, that is, the borders between the believing ones (οἱ πιστεύοντες) and the unbelievers (ἄπιστοι). How both work together is clear from 1 Cor 1:18– 25 where Paul explains to his readers how the attitude to his proclamation that he calls “the word of the cross” can both break down borders and raise new ones:

8 This is the classical ‘Lutheran’ opinion; cf., e.g., Rudolf Bultmann, “Christus des Gesetzes Ende”, in Glauben und Verstehen II, 5th ed., ed. idem (Tübingen: Mohr, 1968), 37– 40; idem, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 6th ed. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1968), 261, 262; Ernst Käsemann, An die Römer, 4th ed., HNT 8a (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980), 144; Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NIC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 208, 209: “‘Works of the law’ is one specific form of ‘works’ generally”; und: “the problem with Jewish works is essentially the same as the problem with Gentile works.” 9 Cf. Michael Wolter, “The Letter to Philemon as Ethical Counterpart of Paul’s Doctrine of Justification”, in Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline letter, ed. Francois Tolmie, BZNW 169 (Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 2010), 169–179.

The Reality of Faith

19

(18) The word of the cross is foolishness for those who are perishing, but for those who are being saved, for us, it is the power of God (τοῖς μὲν ἀπολλυμένοις μωρία ἐστίν, τοῖς δὲ σῳζομένοις ἡμῖν δύναμις θεοῦ ἐστιν). (19) For it is written: “I will reduce to nothing the wisdom of the wise, and I will repudiate the prudence of the prudent”. (20) Where (is there) one who is wise, where one who is a scholar, who one who is a debater of this age? Has God not made the wisdom of the world foolishness? (21) For because in the wisdom of God the world through (its) wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who believe (διὰ τῆς μωρίας τοῦ κηρύγματος σῶσαι τοὺς πιστεύοντας). (22) For Jews inquire about signs, and Greeks seek wisdom. (23) But we proclaim Christ as the one who was crucified, an offence for the Jews, foolishness for the Gentiles. (24) But for those who are the called – for both Jews and Greeks – (we proclaim) Christ as the power of God and the wisdom of God (αὐτοῖς δὲ τοῖς κλητοῖς, Ἰουδαίοις τε καὶ Ἕλλησιν, Χριστὸν θεοῦ δύναμιν καὶ θεοῦ σοφίαν). (25) For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.

Faith is here understood exactly in the same way as in 1 Thess 2:13, i.e. as a kind of hearing: Faith in these verses means hearing the Pauline proclamation as the power (δύναμις) or wisdom (σοφία) of God. Accordingly, disbelief is to hear it as folly (μωρία) or offence (σκάνδαλον). This difference between faith and disbelief constitutes the difference between God and salvation on one side and the world and condemnation on the other side. It is important that the difference between Jews and Gentiles can be found on both sides: There are Jews and Gentiles on the side of God (v. 24) and there are Jews and Gentiles on the side of the world (v. 22–23). In doing so Paul establishes a new master paradigm by means of which he categorises all humanity in an entirely new and unique way, and by this – in the words of Gal 6:15 – make them a new creation. Old categories like “Israel” and “the nations” lose their theological meaning, for they make room for a new differentiation between people that is determined by their standpoint with reference to Jesus Christ. That brings us to our next section.

3. Faith as Assurance of Reality 1. What I mean by this headline can be understood if we take another look at 1 Thess 2:13. According to this text there are two possible reactions to Paul’s proclamation of Christ: You can believe it, or not. “Not believing” would be to hear it as the word of a human being, or – according to Plutarch, Garr. 503d – as the word of a chatterer. By contrast “believing” means: hearing it as λόγος θεοῦ and Paul is quick to add that this is what it really (ἀληθῶς) is. Faith is different from disbelief, in that faith accepts the claim that Paul’s gospel speaks of God when it speaks of Jesus and that in what Paul proclaims the audience does encounter the divine reality of salvation. 2. This essence of faith comes to the fore, especially where it concerns the resurrection of Jesus. That is clear from 1 Thess 4:14. Paul speaks here about

20

Michael Wolter

that which separates Christians from others, who have no hope (v. 13b): In contrast to the others, “we”, “believe that Christ died and rose again” (v. 14a: πιστεύομεν ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἀνέστη). The “we” is meant inclusively and includes all Christians, for all Christians can and must be able to say: “We believe that Jesus died and rose again”. It is striking that Paul speaks here about the death of Jesus without attributing to it a soteriological meaning. He does not say “Jesus died for us” or “for our sins”. This is what only Christians can say. Instead, he says “Jesus died”. This is what everyone can say, even someone who has no faith. This is so because it is merely a historical assertion which non-believers would agree with as much as believers. What is remarkable about this text is rather that faith as Paul understands it represents a judgement that attributes the same historical dignity to the resurrection of Christ as to his death, i.e. faith considers the resurrection of Jesus being as real as his death. Accordingly, for Paul faith is a conception of reality for which the resurrection of Jesus is a fact in the same sense as his death is. 3. We can provide the Pauline conception of faith as assurance of reality with an even sharper profile, if we look at the other side: at the side of those who do not believe and whose unbelief comes to expression by saying that what Paul is calling “gospel” is no more than λόγος ἀνθρώπων (“a word of human beings”). For illustration let us look at a text in which the words “faith” and “believing” do not appear, but which reflects the same antithetical structure as 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Cor 5:14–16: (14) For the love of Christ has hold of us, who have come to this judgement (κρίναντας τοῦτο, ὅτι): One died for all. Therefore, all have died. (15) And he died for all so that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for the one who for them died and was raised. (16) Therefore from now on we know no one according to the flesh (ὥστε ἡμεῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν οὐδένα οἴδαμεν κατὰ σάρκα). Even though we have understood Christ according to the flesh, on the contrary, we now no longer understand him (in that way) (εἰ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν κατὰ σάρκα Χριστόν, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκέτι γινώσκομεν).

What Paul in other texts calls “faith”, and what in 1 Thess 2:13 he has called “the word of God which you heard from us you accepted it … as the word of God” is described in 2 Cor 5:14–16 with the three verbs κρίνειν (v. 14: “judge, come to judgment”), εἰδέναι (v. 16: “know”) and γιγνώσκειν (v. 16: “understand”). Additionally, what Paul otherwise calls πιστεύειν εἰς Χριστόν is explained in v. 16bc with the words “to know Christ no longer according to the flesh” – “Come to judgement” (v. 14b) as well as “therefore from now on we know no one according to the flesh” (v. 16a), or “to understand Christ no longer according to the flesh” (v. 16bc), are synonymous. But that is only the one side, the side of faith. Which word Paul has for the other side, the side of ‘unfaith’, is likewise made clear from the text. In v. 16 Paul first says εἰδέναι κατὰ σάρκα and then γιγνώσκειν κατὰ σάρκα. To understand what Paul wants to say with these expressions is no longer difficult in the context of what has already been said. To “understand or know κατὰ σάρκα”, refers to nothing

The Reality of Faith

21

other than an assurance of reality that does not encompass the reality of God, because it does not presuppose that God has acted in favour of the people’s salvation through Jesus Christ and that the salvation of God is made accessible through Jesus Christ. If we understand 1 Thess 2:13 in the light of 2 Cor 5:16 we can say that it would be a γιγνώσκειν or εἰδέναι κατὰ σάρκα of Paul’s proclamation of Christ, if it is not heard as a λόγος θεοῦ, but as λόγος ἀνθρώπων. This sheds also light to 1 Cor 1:18–25, which can be rephrased in the words of 2 Cor 5:16: Because “the wisdom of the world” can only know, judge, and understand κατὰ σάρκα, it takes the word of the cross for a σκάνδαλον and μωρία, whereas, by contrast, “the believing ones” (οἱ πιστεύοντες) no longer know, judge, and understand κατὰ σάρκα, and therefore they perceive the word of the cross as δύναμις θεοῦ and as θεοῦ σοφία. 4. This opposition of the two assumptions of reality in Paul’s theology – the reality assumed by faith and the reality κατὰ σάρκα – also provides an important contribution to the discussion of an issue that is extremely controversial at present: the quest for the relationship between “Paul and Empire”. When for example some keep saying, as N. T. Wright does, the Pauline assertion “Lord is Jesus” always implies “and Caesar is not”10 – this turns out to be fundamentally mistaken in the light of Paul’s sharp distinction between the reality of faith and the reality κατὰ σάρκα. For Paul, the Roman emperor can always only be “Lord κατὰ σάρκα”, whereas Jesus is never “Lord κατὰ σάρκα”. Rather he is “Lord” in an entirely different symbolic universe: Not in the symbolic universe of the flesh, but only in the symbolic universe that faith creates. Christ is “Lord διὰ πίστεως”. Every impression that Jesus would be Lord in the same way as Caesar or conversely the idea that Caesar could be considered as a competitor of the κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς ignores the fundamental meaning of faith in Paul’s understanding of reality. This argument runs parallel to what John Barclay wrote some years ago in his critique of N. T. Wright’s position by pointing to the fact that there is “a categorical distinction between the κόσμος and the καινὴ κτίσις”.11 His categories are ontological; mine are epistemological. Therefore, I would not just say that the distinction was “created by the cross”.12 Although this is true, it is not enough, because the cross as such is ambiguous. To say that the distinction was “created by the cross” holds only true insofar the cross is considered by faith to be an event in which God acted for the salvation of all mankind. From here on we can go one step further: 5. To that which Paul calls κατὰ σάρκα there is a counterpart on the side of faith. This is not κατὰ πνεῦμα, but διὰ πίστεως. Cf., e.g., N. T. Wright, Paul in Fresh Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2005), 69. John M. G. Barclay, “Why the Roman Empire Was Insignificant to Paul”, in Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews, ed. idem, WUNT 275 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 384. 12 Barclay, ibid. 10 11

22

Michael Wolter

We find this expression in such a form, that is of interest to us, repeatedly and always in the same way: Rom 3:22 Rom 3:25 Gal 3:26 Eph 3:17

(πεφανέρωται) δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον πάντες γὰρ υἱοὶ θεοῦ ἐστε κατοικῆσαι τὸν Χριστὸν

διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ [τῆς] πίστεως

εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας

διὰ τῆς πίστεως

ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ

διὰ τῆς πίστεως

ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν

ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι

The same three elements if in a different order are also found in: Eph 3:11f

Jesus Christ,

ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν παρρησίαν καὶ προσαγωγὴν

διὰ τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ

Col 2:12

baptism,

ἐν ᾧ καὶ συνηγέρθητε

διὰ τῆς πίστεως ...

The first four texts share several similarities, the most important of which is surely that the antecedent of every prepositional phrase at the end is not the διὰ-πίστεως-expression in the middle, but the statement at the start. Therefore, Eph 3:11–12 and Col 2:12 pull this segment of the sentence forward. Especially interesting is the question how the διὰ in the διὰ-πίστεως-phrases should be understood. Usually, it is interpreted instrumentally: “by means of faith”. Surely that is not incorrect, but if we look at Eph 3:17, we cannot say that this interpretation is sufficient. Of course Christ “may dwell in your hearts through faith”, but he only lives there for as long as there is faith. When faith disappears, Christ also moves out. An instrumental interpretation does also not suit Rom 3:25, for that would place it in competition with the other instrumental phrase (ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι). The same is true of Gal 3:26 where the effect of baptism is described. In all of these cases, it appears more obvious to interpret διὰ πίστεως in a modal way. This is also suggested by the observation that in all cases the proposition of the first and the third segments of the sentence is only valid as long as there is faith. If we choose this way, the similarity between these texts pops up: with all of them Paul wants to say that the reality which is stated at the opposite ends of the sentences depend on the assurance of the reality of faith. And as in the aforementioned κατὰ-σάρκα-assertions the demarcation from the faith’s assumption of reality is implied, the reverse is also true. In each of the quoted διὰ-πίστεως-assertions a κατὰ-σάρκα-perception of the claimed reality is also present in the background and is implicitly rejected. In the case of Rom 3:25 this is especially interesting and at the same time very plausible: Paul

The Reality of Faith

23

knows – at least from his own pre-Christian past – that it is possible to interpret the death of Christ differently, for example as the death of a prophet or of a political instigator. But, according to the categories of 2 Cor 5:16, interpretations like these are all based on a κατὰ-σάρκα-perception of Jesus’ death. Only faith can maintain, that God has made Jesus’ death an ἱλαστήριον (Rom 3:25), and it is this faith that Paul in v. 22 has called πίστις 'Ι ησοῦ Χριστοῦ. With this we have reached our last section:

4. Faith as πίστις ʼΙησοῦ Χριστοῦ We have seen that for Paul “faith” is always πίστις ' Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ in such a way that it can be summarised in one sentence that describes one and the same matter of fact from two angles: Through Jesus Christ God has acted for the sake of the salvation of all humankind and through Jesus Christ salvation for all humankind is made accessible. This assurance – as we can extend Paul’s perspective – is the very substance of the faith that God has raised Jesus from the dead. This faith implies in its core that God has vindicated the claim of the historical Jesus: that he, Jesus, is the authentic representative of God through whom God acts for the sake of the salvation of all humankind and who makes God’s salvation for all humankind accessible. Thereby “faith” and “Christ” can come so close to each other that the difference between them becomes almost indistinguishable. For Paul, “through faith” and “through Christ”, διὰ πίστεως and διὰ Χριστοῦ, become almost tantamount, as it is the case in Rom 5: In v. 1 mention is made that we are “justified by faith” (δικαιωθέντες ἐκ πίστεως), but only a few verses later Paul says it is through the “blood” of Jesus, that is, his death, that we are justified. It is worthwhile therefore to look more precisely at this overlap between “faith” and “Christ”. 1. Firstly, our investigation so far allows us to comment on the πίστιςΧριστοῦ-question in a rather confident manner. This debate13 was started by the hypothesis that the expression πίστις Χριστοῦ (Rom 3:22a, 26; Gal 2:16; 2:20;

                                                             Cf. especially the contributions that are collected in the volume Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle, eds., The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical and Theological Studies (Milton Keynes, Peabody, MA: Paternoster; Hendrickson, 2009). See also Richard Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ. The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11, 2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2002), 142–180; Matthew Easter, “The Pistis Christou Debate: Main Arguments and Responses in Summary”, CBR 9 (2010): 33–47; James D. G. Dunn, “Once more, πίστις Χριστοῦ”, in Pauline Theology IV. Looking Back, Pressing On, ed. Elizabeth, Johnson and David Hay, SymS 4 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997), 61–81; Karl F. Ulrichs, Christusglaube: Studien zum Syntagma πίστις Χριστοῦ und zum paulinischen Verständnis von Glaube und Rechtfertigung, WUNT II 227 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007); Schumacher, Entstehung, 304–468. 13

24

Michael Wolter

3:22; Phil 3:9; cf. Eph 3:12) should not be understood as an Objective Genitive, meaning “faith in Christ”, but as a Subjective Genitive “the faithfulness of Christ” or even “the fidelity of Christ”. However, this interpretation is based on a fundamental error in reasoning. If advocates of the Subjective Genitive hypothesis understand Jesus’ death as a “loving act of faithfulness” of the Son towards the Father, as Richard Hays does,14 and assume “that our faith answers and reflects his”,15 they overlook something that is of crucial importance: that according to Paul’s conception it is always only the faith of the believers that is able to perceive the suffering and death of Jesus in this way. To put it in their own language: Only “faith in Christ” is able to say that there is something like “faith(fulness) of Christ”. In contrast, the proponents of the Subjective Genitive hypothesis speak of Jesus’ “faithfulness” in a way as if it were a reality as such, a reality beyond faith, whereas it can always only be an assumption of reality created by faith in Christ. Only “faith in Christ” is able to perceive Jesus’ suffering and death as an act of obedience and this is also its essence as πίστις Χριστοῦ. Something like a “faithfulness of Christ” independent from the assumption of reality of Christian faith cannot exist in principle. Therefore, theologically “faith in Christ” always precedes the “faithfulness of Christ”. 2. The reality of God’s salvation as a reality of faith: Let us return to 1 Thess 2:13 one last time. “The word of the message of God” “is at work” (ἐνεργεῖται), and that “in you, the believing ones”, if it is accepted as “word of God”. The very same thing is said by Paul in another text which is much more familiar: Rom 1:16.16 The points of contact are easy to recognise: What Paul calls “the word of God” in 1 Thess 2:13 is the “gospel” in Rom 1:16. What in 1 Thess 2:13 is cumbersomely called “accept not as the word of human beings but as what it really is, as God’s word” is described with only one word in Rom 1:16: the verb πιστεύειν. And what Paul has said about the word of God in 1 Thess 2:13 that it “is at work in you believing ones” agrees with what he says in Rom 1:16 about the gospel that is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith”. If we relate both texts to each other and interpret them accordingly, we can say the following: According to Rom 1:16, Paul’s “gospel” is “a power for salvation” because it is the λόγος θεοῦ of 1 Thess 2:13. That is, God’s word, for only as such, because it is God’s word, it is effective. Because it is God’s word, it does not just inform about an external reality, but creates that reality. In the words of Isa 55:11: it does not return empty. All of this is achieved by Paul’s gospel only because it is according to Rom 1:3–4 “the gospel of God ... concerning his Son ... Jesus Christ, our Lord”. Only in that sense is the Pauline

                                                             Hays, Faith, 275. Ibid., 297. 16 Cf. above p. 17. 14 15

The Reality of Faith

25

proclamation “gospel” at all. Its effect depends exclusively on this content. When Paul in Rom 1:16 calls those who take part in the salvation of the gospel παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι, he uses a Dative of Advantage (dativus commodi) to express the person to whose advantage something takes place. According to Paul’s understanding, faith adopts its object from the unique character of the gospel. Because this gospel does not merely inform about the salvation of God, but makes this salvation present in the word of proclamation, those that react to this word with assent – that means: believe it – partake in its content. For the ‘advantage’ of those who react in such a way to the Pauline gospel, it becomes “the power of God for salvation”. For this very reason, the Dative παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι has a second meaning. Not only is it a Dative of Advantage, but also a Dative of the Judging Person (dativus iudicantis):17 “Everyone who believes”, considers the gospel to be “a power of God for salvation”, and it is this what his or her faith consists of, and it is in this way that it becomes the power of God for salvation. Therefore, neither of them can be separated from each other. 3. Finally, we can look at the interaction between “faith” and Christ from a perspective that takes us back to the beginning: The “faith in Christ” which is a specific perception of the Christ event, applies to an event that lies in the past. Since then the interpretation of this event can only be made present – in Paul’s time as well as today – through the word: In Rom 1:16 Paul calls it “gospel”, in 1 Thess 2:13 “word of God”. In this sense, we are in the same hermeneutical situation as Paul to this very day. And people who hear this interpretation – in Paul’s time as well as today – can reject it, but they can also assent to it and base their lives on it. And that is what Paul would call faith.

                                                            

17 I borrow this term from Eduard Schwyzer and Albert Debrunner, Griechische Grammatik II (HAW 2/1/2), 5th ed. (München: Beck, 1988), 151; cf. Also Raphael Kühner and Bernhard Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache II/2, 5th ed. (Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1976), § 423,18b (II/1, 421). Within the New Testament it is possible to interpret the dative ἡμῖν in 1Cor 8:6 as such a ‘Dative of the Judging Person’ [cf. Otfried Hofius, “‘Einer ist Gott - Einer ist Herr’. Erwägungen zu Struktur und Aussage des Bekenntnisses 1Kor 8,6”, in Paulusstudien II, ed. idem, WUNT 143 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 166–180, here 173–174 with additional examples]. Friedrich Blass and Albert Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, bearb. v. F. Rehkopf, 14th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), § 192 call it ‘Dativus ethicus’; cf. Also Ludwig Radermacher, Neutestamentliche Grammatik, 2nd ed., HNT 1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1925), 126. In Heinrich v. Siebenthal and Ernst G. Hoffmann, Griechische Grammatik zum Neuen Testament (Gießen: Brunnen-Verl. u.a., 2011), 3rd ed., it is named ‘Dative of the Standpoint’.

26

Michael Wolter

Bibliography Barclay, John M. G. “Why the Roman Empire Was Insignificant to Paul”. Pages 368–387 in Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews. Edited by John M. G. Barclay. WUNT 275. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Barth, Gerhard. “Pistis in hellenistischer Religiosität”. ZNW 73 (1982): 110–126. Becker, Jürgen Paulus. Der Apostel der Völker. 3rd ed. UTB 2014. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Bird, Michael F., and Prenston M. Sprinkle, eds. The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical and Theological Studies. Milton Keynes, Peabody, MA: Paternoster; Hendrickson, 2009. Blass, Friedrich, and Albert Debrunner. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, bearb. v. F. Rehkopf,. 14th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. Bousset, Wilhelm, and Hugo Gressmann. Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter. 3rd ed. HNT. Tübingen: Mohr, 1926. Bultmann, Rudolf. “Christus des Gesetzes Ende”. Pages 32–58 in Glauben und Verstehen II. 5th ed. Edited by Rudolf Bultmann. Tübingen: Mohr, 1968. –. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 6th ed. Tübingen: Mohr, 1968. Dunn, James D. G. “The New Perspective on Paul”. Pages 183–205 in Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. Edited by James D. G. Dunn. Atlanta; Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1990. –. “‘Once more, πίστις Χριστοῦ’”. Pages 61–81 in Pauline Theology IV. Looking Back, Pressing On. Edited by Elizabeth Johnson and David Hay. SymS 4. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997. Easter, Matthew. “The Pistis Christou Debate: Main Arguments and Responses in Summary”. CBR 9 (2010): 33–47. Härle, Wilfried. Dogmatik. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995. Hays, Richard. The Faith of Jesus Christ. The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Hofius, Otfried. “‘Einer ist Gott - Einer ist Herr’. Erwägungen zu Struktur und Aussage des Bekenntnisses 1Kor 8,6”. Pages 166–80 in Paulusstudien II. Edited by Otfried Hofius. WUNT 143. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Käsemann, Ernst. An die Römer. 4th ed. HNT 8a. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980. Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich (eds.), Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, 10 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933–1979. Kühner, Raphael, and Berhard Gerth. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache II/2, Hannover. 5th ed. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1976. Lührmann, Dieter. “Pistis im Judentum”. ZNW 64 (1973): 19–38. –. “Glaube, Bekenntnis, Erfahrung”. Pages 13–36 in Glaube. Edited by Wilfried Härle and Reiner Preul. MJTh 4 = MThSt 33. Marburg: N. G. Elwert Verlag, 1992. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. NIC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Morgan, Teresa. Roman Faith and Christian Faith: Pistis and Fides in the Early Roman Empire and Early Churches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Radermacher, Ludwig. Neutestamentliche Grammatik. 2nd ed. HNT 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1925. Schumacher, Thomas. Zur Entstehung christlicher Sprache: Eine Untersuchung der paulinischen Idiomatik und der Verwendung des Begriffes πίστις. BBB 168. Bonn: Bonn University Press, 2012.

The Reality of Faith

27

Schwyzer, Eduard, and Albert Debrunner. Griechische Grammatik II (HAW 2/1/2). 5th ed. München: Beck, 1988. Siebenthal, Heinrich v. and Ernst G. Hoffmann. Griechische Grammatik zum Neuen Testament. Gießen: Brunnen-Verlag, 2011. Ulrichs, Karl F. Christusglaube: Studien zum Syntagma πίστις Χριστοῦ und zum paulinischen Verständnis von Glaube und Rechtfertigung. WUNT II 227. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Wolter, Michael. “The Letter to Philemon as Ethical Counterpart of Paul’s Doctrine of Justification”. Pages 169–79 in Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter. Edited by Francois Tolmie. BZNW 169. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 2010. Wright, N. T. Paul in Fresh Perspective. Philadelphia: Fortress, 2005.

ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας Rethinking the Application of the Verb δικαιoῦσθαι in Baptismal Contexts from the Perspective of Rom 6:7 Athanasios Despotis Introduction In one of the most recently published studies on the usage of the verb δικαιόω in Paul, James Prothro claims that the correlation between justification and baptism was probably already present in pre-Pauline Christian thinking.1 As he points out, “in every undisputed letter in which δικαιόω occurs, it appears in proximity to baptismal traditions (1 Cor 6:11; Gal 3:24, 27; Rom 6:3–4, 7).”2 Prothro argues further that “justification has primarily a positive function (approval at the judgment by virtue of being in Christ) and, therefore, should not be defined by its antithesis to “works of the law”. The same author underscores the link between baptism and justification to challenge Douglas Campbell’s view that the “justification theory of salvation” was neither revealed to Paul during his “conversion” nor belonged to his theological insights, but rather reflected his opponents’ viewpoints, which Paul would consider to be false.3 He also challenges Michael Wolter’s claim that the Pauline argument on justification by faith stems from the discussion on Gen 15:6.4 However, it seems that in this instance Prothro is not sufficiently distinguishing between justification (in general) and justification by faith. Similarly, baptism is considered by most exegetes to be only a sacramental act and not the climax of a volitional, dynamic and ongoing experience of spiritual transformation, one which is conventionally called conversion. Thus, a renowned German scholar 1 This is an already well-established argument in the secondary literature. See Ferdinand Hahn, “Taufe und Rechtfertigung: Ein Beitrag zur paulinischen Theologie in ihrer Vor- und Nachgeschichte”, in Studien zum Neuen Testament II: Bekenntnisbildung und Theologie in urchristlicher Zeit, ed. Ferdinand Hahn, WUNT 192 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 263–264. 2 James B. Prothro, “The Strange Case of Δικαιόω in the Septuagint and Paul: The Oddity and Origins of Paul’s Talk of “Justification”, ZNW 107 (2016): 48–69. 3 Douglas A. Campbell, Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 934. 4 Prothro, “Δικαιόω”, 61 with reference to Michael Wolter, Paulus: Ein Grundriss seiner Theologie (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2011), 347.

30

Athanasios Despotis

and representative of the “Old Perspective on Paul”, Ferdinand Hahn, argued in the 70s: “Für Paulus ist irgendein Rückbezug auf die Bekehrung hinsichtlich Rechtfertigung und Taufe nicht mehr konstitutiv”.5 In the following, we will provide a discussion of the issue of justification in Paul by focussing on Rom 6:7, a text which plays only a secondary role in the current debates concerning “Old” and “New Perspective(s) on Paul”. We will also consider two other relevant and undisputed Pauline texts, i.e. 1 Cor 6:11; Gal 3:21b–27, both of which refer to justification in baptismal contexts.

1. The Literary Setting of Rom 1–5 and the Research on Parallel Texts At first sight, Romans 6:7 seems not to be relevant to the debate between the “Old” and “New Perspectives”. This impression is justified because Paul does not link the δικαι* lexeme with the notions of πίστις or πιστεύω. Paul uses only the passive perfect of δικαιόω with the preposition ἀπό to express separation from sin6 because baptismal incorporation of the believer in Christ establishes his/her freedom from the control of sin. Paul refers to the same idea in Rom 6 by using the verb ἐλευθεροῦν instead of δικαιοῦν: ἐλευθερωθέντες δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας (Rom 6:18); νυνὶ δὲ ἐλευθερωθέντες ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας (Rom 6:22). In the seven words of v. 7 Paul gives the reason for the preceding statement in v. 6: ὁ παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωποςA συνεσταυρώθηB, ἵνα καταργηθῇB´ τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίαςA´, τοῦ μηκέτι δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ. Therefore, the conjunction γὰρ in v. 7, which appears very often in the argument of Romans,7 has both an explanatory sense and causative force. Simultaneously, v. 7 is in direct relationship to v. 10 where Paul speaks again about the notion of dying to sin once for all: ὃ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν, τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀπέθανεν ἐφάπαξ. The dative of harm (dativus incommodi) τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ expresses that Christ’s death is detrimental to sin and that it amounts to a separation from it. The expression δικαιοῦμαι ἀπό is used only here in the Pauline writings. However, in the previous chapters of Romans Paul analyses in detail the concept of δικαιοῦσθαι, i.e. the process of justification of the Christ-believers. The verb δικαιόω appears 11 times (2:13; 3:4, 20, 24, 26, 28, 30; 4:2, 5; 5:1, 9) in

See Hahn, “Taufe”, 120. Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Reference Resource for Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 57. 7 See Rodney J. Decker, Reading Koine Greek: An Introduction and Integrated Workbook, 139. 5 6

ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται

31

the previous and 3 times in the following text [8:30(*2), 33] of Romans.8 The lexeme δικαι* is used 38 times in the previous chapters and 24 times in the following text.9 Especially in 3:21–28, Paul links the concept of justification with that of πίστις and χάρις and opposes it to the concepts of sins (ἁμαρτήματα) and the works of the law (ἔργα νόμου). Justification by faith refers to a consequence of the redemptive work of God in Christ (ἀπoλύτρωσις ἐν Χριστῷ) and Paul uses this argument in Romans to solve an ecclesiological Problem. This issue is explicitly mentioned in Rom 3:29: Ἢ Ἰουδαίων ὁ θεὸς μόνον; Οὐχὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν; Nαὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν. Paul emphasises that faith leads to justification to show that Jewish and Gentile Christ-believers share the same status in the church. As a result, circumcision cannot be a requirement for table fellowship between Jews and Gentiles. Paul confirms this truth in Rom 4 on behalf of the example of the prototype-convert Abraham (Gen 15:6), who was justified as an uncircumcised ungodly (ἀσεβής) person because of his coming to faith (Rom 4:5). Justification refers both to a righteous standing before God as well as to forgiveness of sins, for Paul cites Ps 31:1–2LXX in this context: Mακάριοι ὧν ἀφέθησαν αἱ ἀνομίαι καὶ ὧν ἐπεκαλύφθησαν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι· Mακάριος ἀνὴρ οὗ οὐ μὴ λογίσηται κύριος ἁμαρτίαν. Consequently, in light of the verbal and theological background of Rom 1–6, the verb δεδικαίωται has a twofold meaning (double entendre): to be separated from but also to be justified from sin. Despite the fact that Paul mostly refers to sin in the singular10 as an abstract noun or a personified power11, he also uses the plural of ἁμαρτία in three instances12 and ἁμαρτήματα once in 3:25 to denote sins as human actions, i.e. transgressions of God’s will. It follows that when Paul refers to sin he has in mind both a dominating power which has entered the world because of the transgression of Adam (5:12) as well as the sinful deeds that humans voluntarily commit. Paul refers to the problem of sin retrospectively after his coming to faith. He shows that all humans, i.e. Jews and Gentiles, who do not believe 8 The verb is used by Paul 25 times in several forms. Besides the above mentioned references the verb appears in 1 Cor 4:4; 6:11; Gal 2:16, 17; 3:8, 11, 24; 5:4. In the Pauline school the verb is applied in 1 Tim 3:16 and Titus 3:7. 9 Rom 1:17(*2), 32; 2:5, 13(*2), 26; 3:4, 5, 10, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26(*2), 28, 30; 4:2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11(*2), 13, 22, 25; 5:1, 7, 9, 16, 17, 18(*2), 19, 21; 6:13, 16, 18, 19, 20; 7:12; 8:4, 10, 30(*2), 33; 9:30(*3), 31; 10:3(*3), 4, 5, 6, 10; 14:17. 10 Rom 3:9, 20; 4:8; 5:12, 13, 20, 21; 6:1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23; 7:7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, 20, 23, 25; 8:2, 3, 10; 14:23. 11 Regarding the current debate on the Jewish or the Greco-Roman background of this personification of sin, see Emma Wasserman, “Paul among the Philosophers: The Case of Sin in Romans 6–8”, JSNT 30 (2008): 387–415. 12 In 7:5 Paul refers to the passions of the sins (παθήματα τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν). Furthermore, he modifies Isa 27:9 in Rom 11:27 by changing the singular of the Septuagint text (αὐτοῦ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν) to plural (τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν).

32

Athanasios Despotis

in Christ, remain in its realm. Therefore, redemption from the power of sin and death is possible only for those who are transferred to the “new creation” by entering the community of the Christ-believers. Obedience to the gospel is the only requirement for entering the community. Does this mean that the members of the community can enjoy total moral liberty? Paul answers this question in Rom 6 by referring to what happens in baptism and by using the notion of δικαιοῦσθαι again: ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας. Before analysing this text more closely, we shall refer to possible parallel canonical and non-canonical texts. First Peter 4:1 A parallel expression occurs in a similar context, where the author of 1 Pet speaks about: A) the rebirth (ἀναγεννηθέντες 2:23) of converts (ἐπεστράφητε 2:25), B) Christ’s unique and atoning death-suffering for the sake of the unrighteous (2:24; 3:18), and C) the importance of the salvific event of baptism (3:21). In this context, baptism is the “vehicle by which believers receive the salvation” made possible through Christ’s suffering (2:21, 23–24; 3:18; 5:1)13. In this framework one finds a relevant formulation that is highly debated: 4:1 a Χριστοῦ οὖν παθόντος14 σαρκὶ b καὶ ὑμεῖς τὴν αὐτὴν ἔννοιαν ὁπλίσασθε, c ὅτι ὁ παθὼν σαρκὶ πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας15.

Many scholars find that this passage echoes Rom 6:7, while others do not see any relation.16 It is certainly the case that no direct literary dependence is evident. However, the author of 1 Pet uses the verb πάσχειν in the sense of death suffering.17 By means of this he summarises all the preceding statements about Christ’s death “in the flesh”, i.e. his human body. The author does not reflect, however, on the convert’s baptismal incorporation into Christ’s burial and death as Paul does in Rom 6:3–11. Likewise, he does not emphasise, as Paul does, that Christ has died once for all, which means that converts have been separated once for all from sin at the moment of their baptism. Paul describes baptism as ritual participation in Christ’s burial and death. Instead, First Peter Ivan Blazen, “Suffering and Cessation from Sin according to 1 Peter 4:1”, AUSS 21 (1983): 27. 14 This is the lectio brevior attested by P72, B, C and Ψ. Yet one can find a more extended text in ‫א‬2 A, P and the majority text where ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν is added. Furthermore, ‫ *א‬corrects to ἀποθανοντος ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν σαρκί. The extended version is probably an assimilation to 2 Pet 2:21; 3:18. 15 2 ‫ א‬Β Ψ offer another reading with the noun ἁμαρτία in the dative of plural: ἁμαρτίαις which is probably an assimilation to 2:24 (cf. ἐπιθυμίαις in 4:2a) 16 John H. Elliott, 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 37B (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 716. 17 See Moisés Silva, “πάσχω”, NIDNTT 3: 670; Ulrich Heckel, “πάσχω”, ThBNT 1294. 13

ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται

33

4:1 presupposes that the aim of Christ’s death is to offer human beings the opportunity to “die”, i.e. separate themselves from sin (ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἀπογενόμενοι18) and follow the path of righteousness. 2:24 a ὃς τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν (cf. Isa 53:4,12LXX) ἐν τῷ σώματι αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον, b ἵνα ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἀπογενόμενοι τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ ζήσωμεν (cf. Rom 6:18), c οὗ τῷ μώλωπι ἰάθητε (cf. Isa 53:5LXX).

Christ provides both an opportunity but also an example for believers to follow his steps (2:21). The author believes that Christ’s death has a paradigmatic character19 and its aim is the moral transformation of the believers. For this reason, he uses the conjunction ἵνα in 2:21, 24, as Paul does in Rom 6:4, 6, in order to make the final point of his statement. Back to 1 Pet 4:1: In 1b the author exhorts his addressees to arm themselves with the “same thought” as well as the “same disposition”20 (τὴν αὐτὴν ἔννοιαν) that Christ had in order to realise God’s redemptive plan in his suffering to death. This does not mean, however, that the converts will experience an atoning sacrifice for others but only a cessation from sin. Jesus suffered for sinners (2:22–24) without committing sin, while the addressees had previously committed all kinds of sin (4:3). The author articulates a moral ideal not only found within his Jewish milieu but also that of the Greco-Roman world,21 i.e. cessation from sin (παύειν or παύεσθαι22), and he links it to Christ’s atoning death and the convert’s renewal through baptism. However, the author does not use the forensic metaphor of δικαιοῦσθαι (like Paul in Rom 6:7) which he could have borrowed from the Deutero-Isaianic context.23 In spite of this, the author of 1 Pet seems to be trying to achieve the same goal as Paul, that is, to motivate his addressees to follow Jesus’s pattern of life. However, we have to examine other relevant texts.

18 The verb ἀπογίγνομαι (or its newer form ἀπογίνομαι) means a. o. to “be away from”, to “have no part in” or “die”. Cf. Thucydides, 1.39.3 (τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων ἀπογενόμενοι); idem, 2.34.2 (Tὰ μὲν ὀστᾶ προτίθενται τῶν ἀπογενομένων πρότριτα σκηνὴν ποιήσαντες, καὶ ἐπιφέρει τῷ αὑτοῦ ἕκαστος ἤν τι βούληται·). From this point of view, the thesis of Elliott, 1 Peter, 716 that 1 Pet 4:1 does not refer to a metaphorical dying of the believer is wrong. 19 Elliott, 1 Peter, 712. 20 Regarding the interpretation of ἔννοια as intent, see Euripides, Hel. 1026; idem, Hipp. 1027; Plato, Leg. 769e. 21 Plato, Leg. 784c: Παυόντων αὐτοὺς τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ ἀμαθίας. 22 The participle πέπαυται also appears in inscriptions with the meaning of separation which happens due to human death. See IK Prusias ad Hypium 78; SEG 14:847. 23 Cf. Isa 53:11. The author refers to it in 2:24.

34

Athanasios Despotis

Sirach 26:29b In a context where Ben Sira expresses his anger about those who turn from righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) to sin (ἁμαρτία) he stresses that a shopkeeper cannot be separated from sin: οὐ δικαιωθήσεται κάπηλος ἀπὸ ἁμαρτίας. This proverb refers to the common moral danger involved in commerce and mainly denotes cheating.24 Kάπηλος refers to a retail dealer or tavern keeper, and in antiquity, the conduct of a κάπηλος was synonymous for cheating.25 The author uses the very same expression that Paul also uses: δικαιοῦσθαι ἀπὸ ἁμαρτίας. The verb δικαιοῦσθαι appears parallel to the verb ἐξαιρεῖσθαι (to be moved from) in a context where also eschatological punishment is mentioned (Sir 26:28 cf. 23:11). As such, the semantics of δικαιοῦσθαι in Sir 26:29b are very close to the semantics of Rom 6:7, although here sin is not a personified power. In both cases, δικαιοῦσθαι means primarily to be separated from but also to be justified.26 The original forensic meaning of δικαιόω remains in the background of both statements. Furthermore, the same forensic metaphor δικαιωθῆναι ἀπὸ occurs in T.Sim. 6:1. The patriarch Simeon gives the reason for his predictions, i.e. to get justified from the sin of their souls: ὅπως δικαιωθῶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν (cf. Herm. Vis. 3.9.1). Relevant non-biblical texts The exact gnomic expression of Rom 6:7 cannot be found in rabbinic or GrecoRoman parallel texts. Despite this, Kuhn claimed early in the 20th ct.27 that Paul is referring here to an allegedly fixed rabbinic “theologoumenon”. However, Kuhn could hardly find one parallel which attests the idea that “all dead find atonement by death”.28 This quotation does not refer to justification but to atonement. Yet, Paul does not interpret physical death in general as a means of atonement. Furthermore, one can find in Strack-Billerberck’s commentary parallels moving in another direction. Rabbi Johanan uses Ps 88:6 to show that the dead are freed from the obligation to fulfil the commandments of the Tora.29 This parallel seems to be nearer to another perspective of Paul’s argument, for Skehan–Di Lella, The Wisdom, 355. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 9.25.2. 26 The study of Downing regarding the interpretation of the verb δικαιόω clearly demonstrates that the translation with acquitted is misleading. Gerald Downing, “Justification as Acquittal?: A Critical Examination of Judicial Verdicts in Paul’s Literary and Actual Contexts”, CBQ 74 (2012): 310. 27 Karl G. Kuhn, “Röm 6,7 ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας”, ZNW 30 (1931): 305–310. 28 ‫ המתים במיתה מתכפרים כל‬Meir Friedmann, Sifré debé Rab: Der älteste halachische und hagadische Midrasch zu Numeri und Deuteronomium (Wien, 1864): Sifre Num § 112 on Num 15:31. See criticism in Charles E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: Clark, 1979), 310–311. 29 Nidda 61b; Pesiq 200b. See discussion in Str-B 3:232. 24 25

ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται

35

Paul speaks in Rom 6–8 about freedom not only from sin and death but the entire “trio” of law–sin–death. However, Romans 6:7 does not stem from this tradition. Besides, in Hellenistic Judaism death brought about a liberation of the soul. Josephus attests that this idea was common among the Jews in the period of the Maccabean revolution, especially in the martyrological tradition.30 Furthermore, the interpretation of death as the liberation of the soul was common in Paul’s pagan Greco-Roman environment: ὁ θάνατος εἰς ἐλευθερίαν ἀφείλετο, i.e. the death has claimed as free.31 Paul, however, is not interpreting baptism in this sense. Sources referring to pagan mysteries attest a link between the concept of the experience of a transformation or liberation and a sacramental (or metaphorical) death.32 The person initiated into the mysteries experiences ritual liberation like a soul which gets liberated from its body through death: ἐν αἷς ὁ παντελὴς ἤδη καὶ μεμυημένος ἐλεύθερος γεγονὼς καὶ ἄφετος περιιὼν ἐστεφανωμένος ὀργιάζει.33 Furthermore, initiation into the mysteries of Isis or Mithras is described as the voluntary death (voluntaria mors) and rebirth of the convert.34 Ancient authors use similar ideas for the participation in the mysteries of Dionysus or other deities which were common in the entire Hellenistic world and especially in Rome.35 However, although Paul was certainly living and interacting with these ideas, there is no evidence of an exact parallel or direct influence of them on Paul.36

                                                            

Josephus, B.J. 7.344: Ὅτι συμφορὰ τὸ ζῆν ἐστιν ἀνθρώποις, οὐχὶ θάνατος. Οὗτος μὲν γὰρ ἐλευθερίαν διδοὺς ψυχαῖς εἰς τὸν οἰκεῖον καὶ καθαρὸν ἀφίησι τόπον ἀπαλλάσσεσθαι πάσης συμφορᾶς ἀπαθεῖς ἐσομένας, ἕως δέ εἰσιν ἐν σώματι θνητῷ δεδεμέναι καὶ τῶν τούτου κακῶν συναναπίμπλανται, τἀληθέστατον εἰπεῖν, τεθνήκασι· 31 Lucian, Jupp. conf. 7.20–21. The expression ἀφαιροῦμαι εἰς ἐλευθερίαν has a forensic meaning according to the relevant entry in LSJ. Cf. IG VII.2534: ἦ μάλα δὴ σὲ φίλως ὑπεδέξατο γαῖα ὑπὸ κόλπους ὄλβιον̣ αἰῶνος μᾶκος ἀμειψάμεν[ον], καὶ σοί γε ὡραία χάρις ἤλυ[θεν] α̣ὕτη, Ἀρίστων, λ[υγρ]οῦ ἐ̣[λευθ]ερίαν τοῦδ’ ἐσιδ[όντι βίου]. 32 See the classical studies on the Greco-Roman framework of the Pauline understanding of baptism in Rom 6: Günter Wagner, Das religionsgeschichtliche Problem von Römer 6, 1– 11, ATANT 39 (Zürich: Zwingli-Verl., 1962); Alexander J. Wedderburn, Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology against its Greco-Roman Background, WUNT 44 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1987). Both authors argue that Paul was not borrowing his main ideas from the mysteries but he was using also a common language. 33 Plutarch, Fragm. 178, Stobaeus, Flor. 4.52b.49. 34 Apuleius, Metam. 11.21.6–8; 11.23.1–9. 35 See evidences in Udo Schnelle, ed., Texte zur Briefliteratur und zur Johannesapokalypse, vol 2.1 of Neuer Wettstein. Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus, ed. Georg Strecker and Udo Schnelle (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996), 127–132. 36 This conclusion also refers to the Pauline concept of dying with Christ. There is no evidence of the idea of dying with the saving deity in the current pagan context of Paul. See Wed30

36

Athanasios Despotis

Regarding the Jewish-Hellenistic milieu, one finds in Philo the figurative usage of the notion of dying.37 Philo refers to a moral or philosophic transformation which human beings undergo by “dying” to the life of the body and obtaining a superior life38 (Gig. 1.14; cf. Mos. 1.279).39 Paul shares this common idea, i.e. moral transformation as dying, with his Jewish and Hellenistic background, yet he does not work with the kind of body-soul dualism found in Plato and the Platonists (here Philo). Dying does not refer to an escape of the soul from the body. All in all, Paul’s formulation in Rom 6:7 has no exact biblical or non-biblical parallel. Hence, we shall turn to a close reading of relevant Pauline texts which could function as a basis for the understanding of this much-disputed text.40

2. Galatians 3:21b–29 Given that Romans is one of the latest texts composed by the apostle we shall go back in time to his earlier letters to see if and how he reflects on justification in contexts that also mention baptism. We start with Gal 3:21b–29, for it appears to be very relevant to our discussion. Firstly, Galatians is the first letter

                                                            

derburn, Baptism, 389–390. Dieter Zeller, “Die Mysterienkulte und die paulinische Soteriologie (Röm 6,1–11): Eine Fallstudie zum Synkretismus im Neuen Testament”, in Suchbewegungen: Synkretismus – kulturelle Identität und kirchliches Bekenntnis, ed. Hermann P. Siller (Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchges., 1991), 60–61. 37 See Dieter Zeller, “Leben und Tod der Seele in der allegorischen Exegese Philos”, in Studien zu Philo und Paulus, BBB 165 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 91. 38 This was also the way in which the “Therapeutae” experienced conversion or spiritual transformation according to Philo’s description (Contempl. 13). Therepeutae relinquished all their worldly possessions or remained celibate in order to devote themselves to contemplation. 39 Philo does not only use “dying” as a metaphor in contexts dealing with spiritual transformation. He also means separation from evil (Somn. 2.282) and passions (Cher. 9; Migr. 162). “Dying to passions” was also an ideal of Platonists: Porphyry, Abst. 1.41: Mαραίνειν τὰ πάθη καὶ ἀποθνῄσκειν ἀπ’ αὐτῶν καὶ τοῦτο μελετᾶν καθ’ ἡμέραν. 40 In this study I will not make use of hypotheses concerning the pre-history of the Pauline formulations and their Sitz im Leben in baptismal ceremonies because all the textual and archeological evidence that we have about the rite of baptism and the baptismal liturgies are later than these epistles of Paul. Similarly, the textual tradition of all three relevant texts does not offer any basis for such speculations. Some stylistic elements in Gal 3:26–28, i.e. the asyndeton, word pairing, and the repetition of οὐκ ἔνι do not necessarily point out to a “liturgical” background in these verses. See similar repetition of ἔνι in Aristophanes, Lys. 544–545; Plato, Crat. 442; οὐκ ἔνεστι in Aeschylus, frag. 229. Regarding the pairs δοῦλος/ἐλεύθερος and ἄρσεν/θῆλυ cf. Plato, Leg. 665c. Finally, even if Paul is alluding to some traditional liturgical texts he fully integrates these allusions into his argument so that one cannot characterise them as “less” Pauline than the other “text elements”.

ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται

37

where Paul links the πιστ* with the δικαι* lexemes. Here he makes his argument that justification is by faith and not by the “works of the law” (2:15–21), a claim which also plays a very crucial role in Rom 1–8. Secondly, the apostle combines his arguments on justification by faith with reflections on the processes of revivification (ζωοποίησις, cf. Rom 4:17; 8:11; Gal 3:21) as well as liberation from the slavery to sin and the law (3:22–23). These are central issues in Rom 6–8, too. Furthermore, Paul views justification as a consequence of baptism in both contexts. Paul’s purpose in Gal 3:21b–23 is to solve an ecclesiological problem, i.e. to challenge the differentiation between the Jewish nation (τὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἔθνος41) and other nations (Gentiles), or that between circumcised and uncircumcised converts, so that all nations (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη) can participate in joint worship and table-fellowship. In contrast, in Rom 6:7 Paul’s purpose is not to solve the issue of the inclusion of the Gentile converts but to describe the moral transformation of the believer, i.e. their transition to their new life in Christ.42 The literal and figurative meaning of revitalisation (ζωοποίησις) Paul’s starting point is a soteriological43 understanding of life (cf. 3:11; Hab 2:4; 3:12). He claims that the Mosaic law has no power to make alive, ζωοποιῆσαι,44 i.e. to release human beings from death; on the contrary: because of their disobedience, humans expect the “curse of the law”, i.e. death (Deut 30:19). Paul uses conditional speech in the irrealis mood to indicate that the Mosaic law cannot cause humans to pass from the realm of sin to the realm of life in the “new creation” and is, therefore, incapable of vindicating humans before God. In a similar way, in 2:21 Paul discusses the impossibility of being justified by following the law. He joins this claim to the preceding references to “death to the law” and “life to God” or “life in faith” by being crucified with ְ Christ (2:19–20).45 In 3:21b the metaphor of righteousness (δικαιοσύνη ‫)צָד ָקה‬ 41 Both Jews as well as non-Jews used the term ἔθνος (nation) or γένος (race) to characterise their special position among other human social structures. E.g. Ezra 2:2; Esth 13:2; 1 Macc 8:25; Polybius, Hist. 16.39; Diodorus Siculus, Bib. His. 34/35.1.2. The evidence from Diodorus attests to the fact that Jews were known and accused by non-Jews for not having table-fellowship with another People except Jews (τὸ μηδενὶ ἄλλῳ ἔθνει τραπέζης κοινωνεῖν).”’ 42 Teresa K. Tsui, “‘Baptized into His Death’ (Röm 6,3) and ‘Clothed with Christ’ (Gal 3,27): the Soteriological Meaning of Baptism in Light of Pauline Apocalyptic”, EThL 88 (2012), 399. 43 Douglas J. Moo, Galatians BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 238. 44 The verb ζωοποιέω does not necessarily refer to future resurrection but rather to God’s power to make alive. This is clearly the case in our text as well as in Rom 4:17 or in 2 Cor 3:8 where Paul uses ζωοποιέω to denote the power of God’s Spirit. Yet the same verb can be used with reference to eternal life: Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 15:22. 45 Cf. Samuli Siikavirta, Baptism and Cognition in Romans 6–8: Paul’s Ethics beyond ‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’, WUNT II 407 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 87.

38

Athanasios Despotis

is linked to the notion of (re)vitalisation. The concept of vitalisation does not refer only to future life but it also has a present perspective. Thus, vitalisation also is linked to an ongoing experience of spiritual rebirth or, in Paul’s words, becoming “new creation” (6:14–15) which reaches completion in receiving the eternal life at the eschaton (6:8). The verbs ζωοποιεῖν and ζωοοῦν in the Psalms (70:20; 79:19–20; 84:7 LXX) refer not only to natural biological life but also to the experience of returning to God (ἐπιστρεφ* ‫( )שׁוב‬cf. Hos 6:1–2; 14:8) i.e. spiritual rebirth.46 Given that Paul uses the notion of life metaphorically in Gal 2:20ab (ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός· ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί, ἐν πίστει ζῶ), the concept of ζωοποιεῖν in 3:21b can be interpreted literally and figuratively too. That means that Paul refers to a procedure of eschatological vivification which starts with spiritual rebirth47 and culminates into the resurrection of the body and participation in “the Kingdom of God” (5:2148). Galatians 3:22 also reveals that this process of revitalisation is the fulfilment of God’s promise to Abraham to make “all nations” partakers of His blessings, that is salvation as a revelation of His righteousness. The Gentiles do not have to first become Jews, i.e. to be circumcised, in order to experience the “new creation”. They can be partakers of salvation in Christ by means of faith (3:18). V.24 ἵνα ἐκ πίστεως δικαιωθῶμεν Paul uses the δικαι* lexeme again and summarises in v. 24 the argument of 2:15–21 concerning justification by faith and not by the “works of the law” (cf. 3:8,11). Paul uses the verb δικαιοῦσθαι in the passive and with a positive sense, i.e. with the meaning “pronounce and treat as righteous, justify, vindicate”. In this context the process of justification clearly refers to a past event, because Paul locates the moment of justification after the “coming” of Christ or πίστις and the deliverance of humans from 1) the “curse” (v.10), 2) the power of “sin” (v.22), 3) the Mosaic law49 as a “pedagogue” (v.24), 4) the “guardians” (4:2) and 5) the “elements of the world” (4:3).50 Paul personifies πίστις as a cosmic power and divides history in two eras: the epoch “under the law”, i.e. before the Christ event, and the era defined by faith in Christ, i.e. the epoch after the

                                                            

Silva, “ζωή κτλ”, NIDNTT 2:368. Paul may not be using the precise term ἀναγέννησις in Galatians, yet his claims presuppose the process of passing into a “new life” or a “new creation” through “death” (2:19; 6:14 cf. Rom 7:4). 48 Cf. the discussion below on the other relevant passage, 1 Cor 6:9–11. 49 The motif of slavery under a law was common in the ancient literature: Ἐλεύθερος πᾶς ἑνὶ δεδούλωται, νόμῳ (Menander, frag. 150) 50 The expression ἐλθούσης τῆς πίστεως is a unique Pauline one. Yet the phrase ἔρχομαι εἰς πίστιν is attested by earlier ancient authors; cf. Menander, Dysk. 282. 46 47

ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται

39

Christ event (1:4; 4:4). Paul applies elements which are common in apocalyptic texts, e.g. the usage of the verb ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι, the motif of aeon-shift, the periodising of history, the imagery of cosmic powers, the concepts of justification, revitalisation and transformation by clothing garments. However, he does not record an apocalypse but rather reshapes some “apocalyptic” views. He interprets the “getting into” experience in this framework because he believes that a new era has emerged with Jesus’s resurrection. Hence, human beings can be “made alive” and participate in the new era not by the law but by means of faith51 in Christ and baptismal participation in His death. The believer can synchronise the timeline of his biography through baptism with the founding story of the new era, i.e. Christ’s coming into the world, His death on the cross and His resurrection (2:19; 6:14–15). Thus, Paul personifies πίστις and alternates between Christ’s coming and faith’s coming because one becomes “one human” in Christ through faith and baptism. However, the baptised person does not yet experience this ultimate life perfectly. It is life eternal that believers expect. Consequently, Paul understands salvation history by using two outlines of time: the backwards-looking once/now52 scheme (time of the law/the era of Christ) and the forward-looking already/not yet scheme (inaugurated new creation/perfect participation in the ultimate life). The linkage between the δικαι* and πιστ* lexemes It is not a coincidence that the link between the δικαι* and πιστ* lexemes appears for first time in the context of the debate regarding the status of Jews and Gentiles. As we will see not only in Rom 6 but also in the another relevant text, namely 1 Cor 6:9–11, Paul speaks here again about justification in a baptismal-theological context yet without linking the πιστ* and δικαι* lexemes.53 In contrast, Galatians 3:21b–29 is the only example of the three relevant baptismal texts examined here in which Paul speaks of justification by faith. Paul uses the argument regarding justification by faith in Christ54 and not by the works of the law to show that the distinction between Jews and Gentiles (v.28) With Moo, Galatians, 240. This is another good reason to reject the interpretation of πίστις Χριστοῦ as Subjective Genitive. 52 The Pauline once/now schema not only has the elements of a dichotomy but also those of continuity in the sense that the previous era has a preparatory function for the revelation of the new creation in Christ. The imagery of pedagogue combines both aspects (continuity and discontinuity) of the relationship of Paul to his previous, pre-baptismal life. 53 This is also the case in 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:25; 8:29–30. However, these texts do not have an explicitly baptismal context. 54 I am aware of the great debate regarding the interpretation of the terms πίστις Χριστοῦ and πίστις ἐν Χριστῷ. In my view, these terms do not refer to Christ’s faithfulness but rather to convert’s faith that God has been acting in Christ (Rom 10:8–10). In Gal 3, Paul derives from the faith of the convert prototype Abraham (Gen 15:6; Gal 3:6–9) who has been justified on behalf of his faith to God. 51

40

Athanasios Despotis

is relativised in the new era, for all believers share the same promises of God to Abraham (v.29bc). Perhaps, according to Wolter’s hypothesis,55 Paul’s Jewish opponents were referring to Gen 17 during the Galatian crisis and presented Abraham as the prototype circumcised convert. As a reaction, Paul recalls Gen 15:6 to prove that Abraham had been justified before his circumcision due to his πιστεύειν. Paul stresses faith in Christ and baptism as the way of justification to demonstrate that the community is “primarily a system of belief and practice unconnected in any essential way”56 with ethnicity and the other differentiations of the “old aeon”. However, this alternative community profile was not uniquely Pauline. One can also find philosophical schools where ethnicity and social status were, to a degree, of no importance.57 Therefore, the Pauline understanding of conversion does echo not only some apocalyptic views but also has similarities to the process of philosophical conversion in the Greco-Roman world. Baptised and “getting clothed” with Christ Paul uses the formulation ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε which sounds very similar to Rom 6:3 (cf. 1 Cor 12:12). In both texts Paul uses the same baptismal formulation, he only changes the word order and uses a different person.58 He also adds the specifications “baptised into his death” in Rom 6:3 and “clothed with Christ” in Gal 3:27.59 Βαπτίζεσθαι is not applied in Gal 3:27 as a metaphor but refers to a real baptism and this for three reasons: 1) It completes or replaces the notion of a real (not metaphorical) faith in v. 26. 2) Since Paul understands baptism as a real action, he needs to explain it by a clothing metaphor. 3) The

Wolter, Paulus, 374. David E. Aune, “Galatians 3:28 and the Problem of Equality in the Church and Society”, in From Judaism to Christianity: Tradition and Transition: A Festschrift for Thomas H. Tobin, S.J., on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday, ed. Patricia Walters and Thomas H. Tobin, NovTSup 136 (Boston: Brill, 2010), 153–183. 57 Cf. Apollonius, Ep. 44: Kαίτοι οὐ λέληθεν ὑμᾶς, ὡς καλῶς ἔχον ἐστὶ πᾶσάν τε γῆν πατρίδα νομίζειν καὶ πάντας ἀνθρώπους ἀδελφοὺς καὶ φίλους, ὡς ἂν γένος μὲν ὄντας θεοῦ, μιᾶς δὲ φύσεως, κοινωνίας δ’ οὔσης λόγου τε παντὶ καὶ πᾶσι (καὶ) παθῶν τῆς αὐτῆς, ὅπη γε καὶ ὅπως ἄν τις τύχῃ γενόμενος, εἴτε βάρβαρος, εἴτε καὶ Ἕλλην ἄλλως τε καὶ ἄνθρωπος. Similarly, one can refer to the cosmopolitan ideal of Cynic and Stoic philosophers (See e.g. Chrysippus, frag. 336; Seneca, Vit. beat. 20.5). Furthermore, the epicurean Garden in Athens included women and slaves as members. See Diskin Clay, “The Athenian Garden”, in The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism, ed. James Waren (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 26–27; Pamela Gordon, The Invention and Gendering of Epicurus (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2012), 72–108. 58 Yet the boundaries between the 1st and 2nd person plural in Gal 3:23–25 are very lax because Paul speaks directly above in the 1st person plural: ἐφρουρούμεθα συγκλειόμενοι, παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῶν, δικαιωθῶμεν, ἐσμέν. 59 Tsui, “Baptized”, 395. 55 56

ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται

41

clothing metaphor is very appropriate to cultic actions during baptismal ceremonies. In Gal 3, the apostle presents Christ as a heavenly garment or a cosmic man which the converts put on through baptism60 and become “one man in Christ”. The clothing metaphor with its cultic implications61 is a very impressive way to show that the deep change62 of the believer (characterised here also as justification, re-vivification or adoption) occurs through baptismal incorporation into Christ. It also fits very well with the notion of justification, for the verb ἐνδύομαι is often used in the metaphor of “putting on righteousness” (Ps 131:9LXX; Job 29:14; Wis 5:18; Sir 27:8; Isa 59:17; Eph 4:24; 6:14). From a Jewish perspective, the imagery of getting washed and clothed alludes to a renewal process which the people of God undergo through God’s calling,63 anointing, and converting64 or it is a process which the righteous expect to experience in the eschaton.65 In Paul, the clothing motif illustrates the moral66 and spiritual transformation, or better christification, which initiates experience through baptismal incorporation into Christ (cf. 1 Cor 12:11–16; Col 2:11–12; 3:10–11). Ἐνδύομαι is being applied by Paul in a transformative sense and alludes to the transfer from the state of Adam’s fall67 to that of a heavenly existence68 (1 Cor 15:53–54; 2 Cor 5:1–4) or from an “old” to a “new creation” (6:15)69. Paul uses the same verb in the imperative (ἐνδύσασθε) in Rom 13:12–14 to demonstrate the ongoing and dynamic moral transformation which the baptised shall experience in view of the eschaton (cf. Col 3:9–10; Eph 4:22–24). In another essential text regarding conversion, 2 Cor 3:18, Paul speaks about the ongoing transformation of the believers “into the image” of God, i.e. Christ, and “from glory to glory”. Similarly, Paul refers to baptismal incorporation into Christ in Gal 3:27 to show that the converts are being transformed into “sons of God” (3:26; 60 David Hellholm, “Vorgeformte Tauftraditionen und deren Benutzung in den Paulusbriefen”, in Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity = Waschungen, Initiation und Taufe: Spätantike, frühes Judentum und frühes Christentum, ed. David Hellholm and Wiard Popkes, BZNW 176, 2 vols. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), I 437. 61 E.g. Lev 16:4, 24. 62 Cf. the usage of ἐνδύεσθαι in Bar 5:1. 63 Philo, Somn. 1.214. 64 It is not a coincidence that the motif of clothing is also used in the Hellenestic-Jewish novel Joseph and Aseneth to describe the conversion process of Aseneth (14:12–15). 65 Ps 131:9LXX; Wis 5:15; Isa 52:1; 61:10; Ezek 8–10; T.Levi 18:14; Pss. Sol. 11:7; 1QS IV, 8. 66 Cf. Plutarch, Phil. 13.9 ἦθος ἐνδύς; Virt. prof. 72B, 6: ἐνδύεται γὰρ ἠθικῶς τὰ τοιαῦτα; ibid. 78F; 82D; Sera 551E. 67 The tragic experience of the fall is understood in the Bible to be Adam’s clothing with “garments of skin”: Gen 3:21; cf. Job 10:11. 68 Cf. 2 Bar. 51:3. 69 The pair οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ alludes to Gen 1:26 and confirms the statement that Paul uses the clothing metaphor to denote the overcoming of the “first” or the “old” creation.

42

Athanasios Despotis

4:7). All baptised receive a “new self”, become “one man” in Christ. Therefore, putting on Christ and putting on the new human being “are semantically equivalent”70 for both concepts refer to unification and conformity to the resurrected Christ.71 Hence, the forensic metaphor of justification along with the other notions of adoption, Christ-clothing and (re)vitalisation belong to a kind of rhetoric where the conversionist and the eschatological perspectives of Paul merge. Paul interprets the embodied72 experience of “getting into the community” as a shift in the relationship of the believers to God by using the justification language. Nonetheless, the very argument of justification by faith and not by the works of the law is used not only to interpret conversion as a shift in relation to the divine but to solve an ecclesiological issue regarding the relativisation of the ethnic identities in the eschatological community of God. This conclusion also applies to another text, 1 Cor 6:9–11.

3. First Corinthians 6:9–11 In 1 Cor 6:11 Paul uses the justification formula in a baptismal context to motivate the Corinthian converts to abstain from going to court against fellow Christians and to prepare the reader for the following condemnation of fornication. Several rhetorical figures highlight the specific statement in its immediate literary context.73 In 1 Cor 6, the discussion concerns both social issues as well as sexual matters but not the issue of circumcision or ethnic identity. Therefore, Paul reminds his addressees of certain “unrighteous” (ἄδικοι)74 men, i.e. offenders in religious, social and sexual matters: Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, the effeminate, sodomites, thieves, the covetous, drunkards, revilers and swindlers. All these “will not inherit the Kingdom” (cf. 5:10–11). 70 David Hellholm and Nils Alstrup, “Garment-Metaphors: the Old and the New Human Being”, in Antiquity and Humanity: Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy; Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on His 70th Birthday, ed. Adela Y. Collins and Margaret M. Mitchell (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 145. 71 Hellholm and Alstrup, “Garment-Metaphors”, 152. 72 It is disputed whether the “garment metaphor” alludes to actions in the ritual of baptism. Yet the references of the apocalyptic literature (1 En. 62:15–16; 2 En. 22:8–10; 2 Bar. 51:3– 10; Ascen. Isa. 4:16; 8:14–15; 9:9–10) to the motif of clothing presuppose a clothing of the body with the heavenly garment and symbolise the ultimate transformation of the body into the angelic likeness. See further Tsui, “Baptized”, 411. 73 The repetition of ἀλλά, the strong antithesis between καί and ἀλλά as well as the assonance ἦτε / ἡγιάσθητε / ἐδικαιώθητε and ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι / ἐν τῷ πνεύματι. 74 Ἄδικοι and ἅγιοι are not merely boundary/marking labels. See Nijay Gupta, “‘But you were acquitted…’: 1 Corinthians 6:11 and Justification and Judgment in Its Socio-literary and Theological Context”, IBS 27 (2008): 103.

ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται

43

The list in vv. 9–10 presupposes that Paul understood baptism not only as a passage rite but also as a means of forgiveness of sins and as a juncture of behavioural change. Converts shall incorporate another mode of life free from any injustice and sexual impurity which characterises the outsiders. The baptised are in a liminal phase. They have been justified (ἐδικαιώθητε) during their baptism (cf. 12:12–13), yet they are still at risk of returning to their previous pre-baptismal status of the unrighteous (ἄδικοι) who cannot inherit the Kingdom of God (cf. Gal 5:21). Baptism – sanctification Paul alludes to ritual baptism through A) the use of the technical term ἀπελούσασθε75, B) the formulation ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”76 and C) the reference to the Spirit of God (1 Cor 12:1377). The apostle formulates his statement using a triadic structure: He uses three verbs with a preceding ἀλλ᾿ and simultaneously refers to God (the Father), Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.78 The triad of the verbs ἀπελούσθητε / ἡγιάσθητε / ἐδικαιώθητε partially corresponds to 1:30d: δικαιοσύνη τε καὶ ἁγιασμὸς καὶ ἀπολύτρωσις. However, a simple comparison of 6:11 with 1:30d reveals the following: Firstly, the verb ἀπελούσθητε is not represented by any noun in 1:30d and, therefore, does not have a passive sense (i.e. “washed” by God). On the contrary, it is a medium which refers to the volitional baptismal washing of the believer and is the requirement for experiencing sanctification and justification. Secondly, the comparison between 1:30d and 6:11 demonstrates that Paul can freely alternate between the notions of sanctification and justification, and he does not understand justification as the forensic requirement of sanctification. Both verbs ἡγιάσθητε/ἐδικαιώθητε are 75 Cf. Acts 22:16 βάπτισαι καὶ ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου ἐπικαλεσάμενος τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. Cf. the usage of the verb ἀπολούομαι for ritual washing of the body in Philo Spec. 1.261; 3.89, 205–206; Josephus, B.J. 2.129, 150; C. Ap. 2.203. Similarly, regarding the process of purification of the earth and the human souls through the water of the flood see Philo Det. 1.170. ἀπολουσαμένης τῆς γῆς καὶ νέας ἀναφανείσης; cf. Mos. 2.64. In the most of these instances ἀπολούομαι is a middle verb and presupposes that the subject also is the agent of the washing action. 76 Cf. 1 Cor 1:13c εἰς τὸ ὄνομα Παύλου ἐβαπτίσθητε; 1:15 εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα ἐβαπτίσθητε; Acts 10:48. 77 Christian baptism was also understood as a baptism in the Spirit. Cf. Titus 3:5; John 1:33; 3:5; Acts 1:5; 2:38; 11:16; Matt 3:11–16; 28:19; Mark 1:8. In this way the Pauline converts were experiencing the fulfilment of God’s promises to Israel for eschatological renewal through God’s Spirit (cf. Ezek 36:25–27). 78 There are several other ‘triadic’ formulations in Paul’s letters: 1 Cor 12:3; 2 Cor 1:21– 22; 3:3; 13:13; Gal 3:11–14; Rom 8:11; 14:17–18; 15:16, 30 (cf. Col 1:6–8; 2 Thess 2:13–14). See further Athanasios Despotis, “Holy Trinity and Justification in the Patristic Interpretation of Paul”, OFo 24 (2010): 171–180; Wesley Hill, Paul and the Trinity: Persons, Relations, and the Pauline Letters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2015).

44

Athanasios Despotis

passive and describe the transformation which the believer79 experiences through baptismal incorporation into Christ. This transformation has a clear eschatological horizon for it leads to inheritance of the Kingdom of God (6:9). The concept of ἁγιάζεσθαι in 1 Cor 6 not only has the meaning of being consecrated and belonging to the divine sphere but also becoming the eschatological temple of God.80 Sanctification presupposes moral81 and ritual purification82 which happens in baptismal washing.83 The human body also participates in this procedure. Paul emphasises in this context that the bodies of the baptised are “members of Christ” (τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν μέλη Χριστοῦ 6:15) and the eschatological temple of God84 (3:16; 6:19). Therefore, converts shall glorify God in their (both physical and communal85) body (6:21). Justification According to Scripture, God is the only one who can justify (Ps 99:4LXX; Isa 61:8–11). As such, Paul uses the verb δικαιόω in a passive form and with a positive sense. According to 1 Cor 6:11, justification occurs during the believer’s baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of God. In 1 Cor 12:12–13 the baptised individual is incorporated into the body of Christ who “became righteousness, sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor 1:30) for the believers. Nonetheless, Paul refers to sanctification and justification as ongoing and dynamic procedures which have been already initiated but are not yet completed. Therefore, Paul claims in 4:4 that he has not been justified yet οὐκ ἐν τούτῳ δεδικαίωμαι. The believers are already justified but not yet fully. Justification will be attained at the final judgment (4:5). One cannot strictly differentiate between the forensic and the effective meaning, the present and the eschatological perspective of the concept of justification because 79 The people of God and everything belonging to God are “holy” and “righteous” Mark 6:20; Acts 3:14; Rom 7:12; Rev 22:11 because God is very “holy” and “righteous” 1 Sam 2:2; Odes Sol. 3:2. 80 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Rom 8:9; Cf. Eph 2:21–22; Heb 3:6; 1 Pet 2:5; 1QS VIII, 5. 81 Paul presents sanctification as the fruit of righteousness in Rom 6:19. 82 Horst Seebass and Klaus Grünwaldt, “ἅγιος”, ThBLNT: 886. 83 The combination between the concepts of justification and sanctification appears also in the baptismal context of the visions of Hermas (Vis. 3.9.1): Ακούσατέ μου τέκνα ἐγὼ ὑμᾶς ἐξέθρεψα ἐν πολλῇ ἁπλότητι καὶ ἀκακίᾳ καὶ σεμνότητι διὰ τὸ ἔλεος τοῦ κυρίου τοῦ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς στάξαντος τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἵνα δικαιωθῆτε καὶ ἁγιασθῆτε ἀπὸ πάσης πονηρίας καὶ ἀπὸ πάσης σκολιότητος ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐ θέλετε παῆναι ἀπὸ τῆς πονηρίας ὑμῶν. 84 Paul uses anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives which usually have qualitativedefinite sense. (See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament; With Scripture, Subject and Greek Word Indexes (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 263–264. 85 Gupta, “Acquitted”, 110.

ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται

45

the Pauline texts support a dynamic understanding of justification. The reason is that justification terminology describes an ongoing and dynamic process of spiritual transformation which will come to completion at the final resurrection and judgment. One detects that nowhere in 1 Cor does Paul link the δικαι* lexeme with the notion of πίστις or the example of Abraham. This is because he does not have to challenge his opponents’ requirement that Gentile converts must be circumcised, something he had to do in Galatia. This conclusion shows that Paul’s understanding of justification does not derive from an alleged struggle of the apostle with the “legalistic religiosity” of Judaism. Rather, the concept of justification describes a conversion experience that finds its first climax in baptism, both as an embodied transformation of the Christ-believer and as a shift in his/her relationship to God. It is not an argument against the necessity of “good works”. The justification language intensifies the apostle’s exhortation to follow another form of life, different from the conduct of the unrighteous (ἄδικοι). ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν The preposition ἐν either has an instrumental sense in both expressions (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι – ἐν τῷ πνεύματι)86 or it has different meanings: A) an instrumental meaning and/or sense of agency in the case of ἐν τῷ πνεύματι; B) the sense of attendant circumstance in the expression ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι87, for this process presupposes the believers’ confession of faith in Christ and the administrant’s invocation of the name of Jesus. God has already acted in history through Christ and is effecting the spiritual transformation in the believers by His Spirit. The Spirit of God is both an agent in the rite of baptism (1 Cor 12:12–13) effecting in the believer spiritual transformation as well as a gift given to the baptised. Instead of using the garment symbolism of Gal 3:27 to denote transformation, Paul claims that converts experience sanctification and justification in the Spirit. Paul’s claim derives from the role of the Spirit in the OT which comes upon humans, empowers, moves and transforms them (Isa 44:3; Ezek 36:27, 37:16; Zech 12:10; Joel 3:1–2). According to the Jewish thought, the Spirit turns humans into different human beings.88 Paul reinterprets this view Christologically and claims that those who turn to the Lord, i.e. Christ, get transformed by the Spirit (2 Cor 3:6–18). Thus, justification describes an aspect of the broader transformation which Jewish and pagan converts undergo by getting into the community of Christ-believers and receiving the Spirit. This is This is the most frequent non-spatial sense of ἐν in koine Greek. In this case, the agent who performs the process of sanctification and justification of the believers is God. He effects sanctification and justification by means of the Spirit. 87 Harris, Prepositions, 230–232. 88 Pseudo-Philo, Lib. Ant. 27:10. 86

46

Athanasios Despotis

why Paul can exchange between the phrases διακονία τοῦ Πνεύματος (the dispensation marked by the gift of the Spirit89) and διακονία τῆς δικαιοσύνης (the worship that brings righteousness and/or justification90). The mark of the worship of the new community which the converts enter is the Spirit. The Spirit works inwardly on the character or the body (1 Cor 6:19) and grants sanctification and justification (1 Cor 6:11). After this extensive intertextual survey, we will try again to read Rom 6:7 as a reflection of Paul’s understanding of a conversion experience. However, conversion is a “shaky” term with a broad complex of meanings and definitions. I will thus first make some relevant remarks which should hopefully make the use of this term in the current paper more precise.

4. Reading Rom 6:7 Anew Many have argued that, to this day, inter-disciplinary research on conversion has not managed to propose a better term to denote the process of turning to the Christian faith and entering the Christian community. As for me, I use the term conversion or better converting as a convention to refer to a real and ongoing situation which emerges when one: 1. enters relgious communities or intensifies one’s relationship with the community to which one previously belonged, 2. experiences and adopts an alternative way of life, 3. reconstructs one’s own biographical narrative and re-interprets the world and its history by using categories of the religious community. From this point of view, conversion is a process with socio-cultural, emotional and rational aspects in which the convert is actively and volitionally engaged. Similarly, conversion indicates a dynamic process based on the crucial interaction between the beliefs and behaviour of human beings as well as social mechanisms and the narrative construction of identity. In Romans, we find the very common lexeme regarding conversion, i.e. στρεφ*, only once. We encounter this in the shape of a compound form (ἀποστρέφειν as a translation of ‫ ְלשׁוב‬in the quotation of Isa 59:20) in 11:2. 89 The genitive τοῦ πνεύματος is more probably adjectival than objective or subjective, for Paul claims that the Spirit is the dominant characteristic of the new covenant (2 Cor 3:6) and believers worship in the Spirit (not the Spirit Phil 3:3). 90 Δικαιοσύνη has the forensic sense of δικαίωσις in this verse because it is the opposite of the act of condemning (κατάκρισις). Hence, the genitive τῆς δικαιοσύνης can be only an Objective Genitive. However, one cannot exclude ethical connotations, for δικαιοσύνη can also be used in an ethical sense to denote uprightness of conduct in 2 Cor 6:14 or with reference to almsgiving in the context of 2 Cor 9:9–10. See Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 502.

ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται

47

However, Paul also uses other terms to refer to turning to faith, the “getting into” experience or the ongoing moral transformation of the believer: a. o. πιστεύειν (13:11), ὑπακούειν ἐκ καρδίας (6:17) μεταμορφοῦσθαι (12:2) and, as we are going to show, δικαιοῦσθαι.91 The above definition describes this complex process of eschatological transformation which believers experience from the moment of their turning to faith and baptism (6:1–11; 13:11). ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανών Paul uses the concept of dying92 in a figurative sense93, i.e. not to refer to Jesus’s death94 but to explain the content of his preceding words in v. 2 and v. 6. (cf. vv. 10–11).95 The object of his reflexions is how and why the baptised are withdrawn from the dominating power of sin. In this context, dying is understood as the result of human falling into sin (Gen 3; cf. Rom 5:12). It is death which the personification of sin demands from the sinner as a consequence of his or her voluntary obedience to sin.96 The participle ἀποθανών (dead) does not refer to Christ, and therefore the notion of dying does not function as a means of atonement for sin. Conversely, death describes what happens during See also the article of Rikard Roitto in this volume. The Pauline vocabulary regarding death has its roots in the Septuagint: Τhe noun θάνατος is used 22 times in Romans and 22 times in the rest undisputed Pauline epistles. Ἀποθνήσκω occurs 23 times in Romans and 17 in the other epistles; συναποθνήσκω 2 Cor 7:3; θνητός 6:12; 8:11; 1 Cor 15:53–54; 2 Cor 4:11; 5:4; θανατοῦν Rom. 7:4; 8:13, 36; 2 Cor 6:9; ἐπιθανάτιος 1 Cor 4:9. 93 A similar figurative usage of ἀποθνήσκειν is evident in Rom 6:2, 8; 1 Cor 15:31; 2 Cor 6:9; Gal 2:19 and of θανατοῦν in Rom 7:4; 8:13, 36. 94 Only Paul applies the same participle with a definitive article in the NT. In the other three occurrences, he refers to Jesus: Rom 8:34 (ὁ ἀποθανών); 2 Cor 5:15 (τῷ ἀποθανόντι) and 1 Thess 5:10 (τοῦ ἀποθανόντος). However, one cannot assume that Rom 6:7 has a Christological sense due to the following reasons: 1. Paul does never speak about Christ’s justification from the sin. Contrarily, according to Rom 8:3, Jesus condemned sin in the flesh. 2. In the preceding v. 6 Paul speaks of the destruction of the old human being and its consequence for the converts, i.e. they are no longer slaves to sin. Accordingly, ἁποθανὼν refers to “we”. 3. Lastly, v. 8 again explains that the participle ὁ ἀποθανὼν relates to the experience of the converts at baptism. This is evident through the usage of the first plural. Contra Robin Scroggs, “Romans VI.7: O ΓΑΡ ΑΠΟΘΑΝΩΝ ΔΕΔΙΚΑΙΩΤΑΙ ΑΠΟ ΤΗΣ ΑΜΑΡΤΙΑΣ”, NTS 10 (1963/64): 104–108; Conleth Kearns, “The Interpretation of Romans 6,7”, in Studiorum Pauilnorum Congressus Internationalis Catholicus 1961 (Rom, 1963), 301–307; Douglas A. Campbell, “Rereading Paul’s ΔΙΚΑΙΟ-Language”, in Beyond Old and New Perspectives on Paul: Reflections on the Work of Douglas Campbell, ed. Chris Tilling (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014), 207–208. 95 Given that v. 7 is closely linked to the preceding and the following verses and that this verse is not missing in any manuscript, the argument of Alexander Pallis, To the Romans: A Commentary (Liverpool: Booksellers’ Co., 1920), 86 that this verse is an interpolation must surely be wrong. 96 With Michael Wolter, Der Brief an die Römer: Teilband 1: Röm. 1–8, EKK VI/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, Ostfildern: Neukirchener Verlag; Patmos, 2014), 380. 91

92

48

Athanasios Despotis

conversion, finding its climax in ritual dying, i.e. the “transformational”97 rite of baptism.98 In baptism, the believer does not experience a physical death but participates in the death of Jesus99 which broke the power of sin. However, Paul never understands the converts’ metaphorical or ritual dying as an atoning sacrifice. Paul combines the interpretation of baptism as death not with a rabbinic principle but with a common idea in antiquity that death is an act of liberation or separation.100 A person who has died has escaped from all kinds of enslavement: ἀδέσποτος γὰρ ὁ ἀποθανὼν καὶ πέπαυται κάμνων καὶ ὑπηρετῶν.101 Romans 7:3 echoes the same idea regarding freedom from the bondage of the Mosaic law. Another view, which probably lies in the background of the Pauline reference to the dead in Rom 6:7, is that a dead human has already been punished: Ὅ τε γὰρ ἀποθανὼν συμφοραῖς περιπεσὼν οὐκ ἀτιμώρητός ἐστιν.102 Reflections on the dichotomy of life/death, the concepts “life in death” or “life through death” and the figurative usage of the notion of dying were common in the Jewish and the Greco-Roman environment of Paul. For example, initiation rites in the Hellenistic religions included the cultic process of “voluntary death” (see above). Furthermore, Plato described the life of the true philosopher (οἱ ὡς ἀληθῶς φιλόσοφοι) according to a Socratic dictum μελέτη θανάτου103 (practice of death). For Plato, philosophy is not merely a cognitive exercise but a way of life, which begins with the philosopher’s separation from the pleasures of the body and his attaining of the truth.104 Similarly, the idea of philosophy as an exercise of death was prominent in Stoic philosophers. Marcus Aurelius exhorts his reader to consider himself as a “dead” in order to live a life according to nature (Ad se ipsum, 7:56: Ὡς ἀποτεθνηκότα ἤδη καὶ μέχρι νῦν βεβιωκότα, τὸ λοιπὸν ἐκ τοῦ περιόντος ζῆσαι κατὰ τὴν φύσιν.) By living in this way, Stoic philosophers believed that they could attain freedom

Gerd Theißen, “Die urchristliche Taufe und die soziale Konstruktion des neuen Menschen”, in Transformations of the Inner Self in Ancient Religions, ed. Jan Assmann and Guy G. Sṭrûmzā, SHR 83 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1999), 89. 98 The concepts of baptism and dying are linked in Luke 12:50 and Mark 10:38–39. However, in these occurrences death is interpreted as a baptism, not its opposite as in Rom 6:7, where death is meant metaphorically. In these synoptic texts the baptism is applied as a metaphor. 99 Here, participation does not have the sense that Jesus’s death is repeated during the baptismal ceremony but rather that through the ritual the believer synchronises his biography with Jesus’s life and participates in what happened once for all (v. 10). In this sense, the convert has died and is buried with Jesus. 100 Cf. Seneca, Tranq. 9.14.5.  101 Artemidorus Daldianus, Onir. 2.49. Cf. ibid. 2.30, 49. 102 Antiphon, Tetr. 2.11. 103 Phaed. 81a. See also Epictetus, Diatr. 1.19.9. 104 Phaed. 64c–65b. 97

ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται

49

which means obedience to God (Seneca, Vit. beat. 7.15.4: “deo parere libertas est”). The way Paul emphasises that the baptised join a “life in death” in Rom 6:1– 11 and motivates the converts “to reckon themselves to be dead” (v.13) has affinities to the process of philosophical conversion from a Platonic and Stoic perspective. Both theology and philosophy were modes of life in antiquity, and the μελέτη θανάτου of Plato was an existential exercise,105 the aim of which was to transform the individual and his mode of life. Both Plato and Paul understand moral transformation in terms of the life/death dichotomy. Thus, philosophers and believers can metaphorically be called “dead”. However, Paul’s concept has a Christological and eschatological horizon which differentiates him from Plato or the Stoics and brings him nearer to Jesus’s sayings about losing one’s life and gaining it.106 The apostle uses the notion of death figuratively in a Christological107 and eschatological-baptismal108 context. In Rom 6:7, dying signifies the decisive separation from sin which characterises the eschatological community of God and the entrance into the new era which is established by Christ (Rom 5:12–15). This separation belongs to a process of moral transformation which begins with the acceptance of the gospel and finds its first climax in baptismal109 participation110 of the believer in Christ’s burial and death. Baptism is not only a point supporting the meaning of another argument, but it is the starting point as well as the object of Paul’s interpretation. This ritual causes the destruction of the “old human being”.111 105 Pierre Hadot, Philosophie als Lebensform: Antike und moderne Exerzitien der Weisheit, transl. Ilsetraut Hadot and Christiane Marsch (Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer, 1987): 29–37. 106 With Wedderburn, Baptism, 388. Cf. Matt 10:39; Luke 14:33; John 12:25. Similarly, Jesus’s sayings regarding taking up one’s cross as the presupposition for entering the circle of Jesus: Matt 16:24–25; Mark 8:34–35; Luke 9:23–24. This tradition probably influenced Paul’s claims regarding co-crucifixion with Christ as a means of breaking with the past and entering the “new creation” (Gal 2:19; 6:15; Rom 6:6). 107 Anders K. Petersen, “Shedding New Light on Paul’s Understanding of Baptism: A Ritual‐theoretical Approach to Romans 6”, St. 52 (1998): 7. 108 The convert enters through baptism the “new creation”, i.e. an eschatological era, which will soon be accomplished by Jesus’s second coming (Rom 13:11). 109 The link between baptism and repentance or conversion was crucial in the early Church (Acts 2:38; 11:16–21; Heb 6:1–2; 1 Pet 3:21; Apoc. Sedr. 14:5, Herm. Vis. 3.7.3) and has the relevant practice of John the Baptist as its deriving point. Cf. Matt 3:11; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 13:24; 19:4. 110 See an overview of the secondary literature on baptism and participation in Isaac A. Morales, “Baptism and Union with Christ”, in "In Christ" in Paul: Explorations in Paul’s Theology of Union and Participation, ed. Constantine Campbell, Michael Thate and Kevin Vanhoozer, WUNT II 384 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 157–160. 111 At this point, the apostle emphasises the negative aspect of the process of change, i.e. separation and destruction. Yet, there is also another side of the process which Paul describes in Chapter 8 using positive terms such as justification, glorification and transformation through

50

Athanasios Despotis

The destruction of the “old human being” is an idea which does not support the alleged kind of body-soul dualism found in Platonic epistemology and anthropology. Paul does not argue that the soul gets freed from the body during baptism and makes a heavenly journey. Instead, Paul stresses that turning to Christ means dying, not to the human body and its senses but to sin. Paul describes the change of the convert as an event of death to show that baptism marks an irreversible and irrevocable change of all basic characteristics contained in the fallen state of human nature.112 It is not a coincidence that Paul in the same context uses the expression σύμφυτοι, i.e. a word having the same root with φύσις (nature), to show the profound sense of alteration through participation in Christ. The baptismal experience leads to transformation into “the image of God” as promised by the apocalypses.113 This point makes a qualitative distinction but not a contrast between Christ and the Mosaic law. God is acting in Christ, and he can ontologically transform human beings so that they participate in the “new creation” while the law has been given only as a means of protection against sin. This is not an antithesis between two different patterns of religion, the nomistic Jewish religion of works and the Christian religion of grace. In Paul’s view, Christ-believers become a “new creation” where sin and death no longer have any power. Nonetheless, this ontological change does not happen automatically or in a magical way but presupposes a volitional sharing in Christ’s death. Since this process is volitional and the believer needs to reflect upon it, Paul exhorts the believers to follow Jesus’s pattern of life who has been separated from sin once for all (v.10) and “has been raised for our justification” (Rom 4:25). δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας Paul took the verb δικαιοῦσθαι from the vocabulary of the LXX,114 though it has a rare double115 meaning in this context. Firstly, it is used in a liberative the power of the Spirit. The baptised individual receives the Spirit which enables him/her to transform his/her life. 112 Petersen, “Shedding”, 14. 113 Tsui, “Baptized”, 413. 114 See the classical study John A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Enquiry, SNTSMS 20 (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 200. Ziesler speaks of three different interpretations of the verb δικαιοῦσθαι in this context: 1) “he who has died is freed from sin”; 2) “he who has died has his quittance from sin” supposedly based on a rabbinic maxim; and 3) “he who has died with Christ is justified from sin”. The first interpretation truly fits to the literary context of Rom 6:7, yet the other two presuppose theological elements, which are not present in the gnomic formulation of v. 7. 115 This is why scholars are divided regarding the translation of this verse. Representatives of the New Perspective are also divided on this issue. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, WBC (Waco, TX; Dallas; Nashville: Word, 1988), 320 votes for the liberative sense while N. T. Wright, Paul For Everyone: Romans (London: SPCK, 2006), 540 adopts the forensic one.

ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται

51

sense as a synonym of ἐλευθεροῦσθαι (to be absolved or freed) in the immediate context of Rom 6:1–11. Secondly, it also indicates that personified sin has no rights over the believer because he/she has already suffered his/her punishment. From this point of view, the one who dies at baptism by participating in Christ’s death (cf. Gal 2:19116) is set free from the enslaving power of sin but also justified. Both meanings of the verb δεδικαίωται describe what follows the “dying” during baptism and the conversion process.117 The early patristic reception supports both liberative as well as forensic meanings of the verb δικαιοῦσθαι.118 By applying it in this baptismal context Paul recalls the justification concept as used in 1 Cor 6:9–11. He links it neither to the πιστ* lexeme nor the example of Abraham. He similarly avoids opposing the idea of justification to the “works of the law”. The general idea of δικαιοῦσθαι in Paul describes the experience of becoming part of the eschatological people of God. It does not solve any anthropological problem or the issue of nomism. This is also the case in Rom 8:29 where the idea of justification is set in the past as a consequence of God’s calling. However, both the perfect as well as the past tenses that Paul uses on these occasions (δεδικαίωται, ἐδικαίωσεν) do not remove the eschatological horizon of the concept of justification. Therefore, the justification which happens during their baptism anticipates the justification at the final judgment despite the fact that the baptised are in a liminal phase and remain prone to sin. It joyfully anticipates the future resurrection with Christ when ultimate justification and transformation will happen.119 When the usage of δικαιοῦσθαι in the three relevant Pauline texts is compared it becomes evident that Paul only speaks about the concept of justification by faith when he is discussing an ecclesiological issue. This is what happens in Gal 3 where Paul proves that there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles, freemen and slaves, men and women who have already been baptised in Christ. In the other two texts, Rom 6 and 1 Cor 6, where Paul refers to moral transformation he is speaking generally about justification without linking it to faith. It follows that justification is not a “legal fiction” but the interpretation of an embodied experience of a dynamic and ongoing transformation. There is also a third view which combines both senses and translates δικαιόω in forensic-liberative terms: “released” (Campbell, Deliverance, 663). 116 Klaus Grünwaldt, “δικαιοσύνη”, in ThBLNT 737. 117 One can find a similar link between Δικαι* and μεταν* lexemes in Herm. Mand. 5.1.7 ὅσοι ἂν μετανοήσωσιν ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν … ἐδικαιώθησαν γὰρ πάντες ὑπὸ τοῦ σεμνοτάτου ἀγγέλου. 118 See references in Karl H. Schelkle, Paulus, Lehrer der Väter: Die altkirchliche Auslegung von Römer 1–11 (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1956), 214; S. Stanislas Lyonnet, “Qui enim mortuus est, iustificatus est a peccato”, VD 42 (1964): 17–21. 119 Tsui, “Baptized”, 405.

52

Athanasios Despotis

The justification idea becomes precise through the usage of a prepositional phrase with ἀπό. This preposition expresses, in general, a spatial relation and denotes motion or separation from the surface of an object. The research on religious conversion in antiquity has already shown that the preposition ἀπὸ often is used to describe spiritual transformation as a spatial movement, a turning ἀπὸ or ἐξ (from) point A εἰς or πρός (to) point B (cf. Rom 7:5; 8:21; ἀπό-στρέφειν in 11:2 or ἐπεστρέψατε πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων 1 Thess 1:9).120 The same expression ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας is also used twice in Rom 6 as an adverbial supplement to the participle ἐλευθερωθέντες (set free) for conversion is described in terms of patron-client relations,121 i.e. a change of masters, a transition from serving sin to serving God. Change has been understood as a kind of motion (Μεταβολὴ δὲ κίνησις) both in spatial and temporal sense in antiquity.122 Similarly, motion is the essence of time from the viewpoint of many ancient philosophers.123 Therefore, Paul combines the spatial change with a temporal dimension for baptism. This leads to a change of eras which happened due to Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection (6:3–4). The baptised person has abandoned the “old” (v.6) to live in a “newness” (ἐν καινότητι v. 4 cf. 7:6) In v. 7, Paul uses the expression ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας with the double meaning of separation from the realm of sin and justification from the charge of sin.124 The idea of ceasing to do wrong or to sin (ἁμαρτάνειν) was a common point between the processes of religious and philosophical transformation in the Greco-Roman world. Epictetus links the turn of the philosopher (ἐπιστροφή) to the cessation of doing wrong through paying attention (προσοχή) to himself and God’s help. The similarity with the idea of Paul in 6:17 is striking: Tότε καὶ ἐγὼ ἡμάρτανον: νῦν δ᾽ οὐκέτι, χάρις τῷ θεῷ. However, in Paul’s view, the baptised has neither stopped sinning nor has he/she lost the “very means of sinning”125 but has been freed from the dominating power of sin and is justified because he/she has suffered the penalty of sin, i.e. death. The verb δεδικαίωται combines both the liberative sense of ἐλευθεροῦσθαι but also continues the line of the forensic metaphor of justification, which dominates the argument in Rom Miguel Herrero de Jauregui, “Ancient Conversion between Philosophy and Religion”, in Anthropology in the New Testament and Its Ancient Context: Papers from the EABS-meeting in Piliscsaba/Budapest, ed. Michael Labahn, CBET 54 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 142. 121 Zeba Crook, Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean, BZNW 130 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 250. 122 Plato, Parm. 126c. 123 Aëtius (Doxographus), De plac. rel. 3184–21.  124 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), 437. 125 Contra Fitzmyer, Romans, 437. In the context of Rom 6 baptismal identification with Christ in his crucifixion effects deliverance from the control of sin understood as an enslaving force. Cf. Harris, Prepositions, 61. 120

ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται

53

3:21–5:21. The baptised believers do not only move away from the realm of sin, but they enter into an upright relationship with God, i.e. they are justified due to the salvific action of God in Christ.126 This double meaning, which makes sense before the background of the entire argument of Romans, is only in partial accordance with the other use of the expression δικαιοῦσθαι ἀπό in Acts 13:38b–c: διὰ τούτου ὑμῖν ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν καταγγέλλεται, [καὶ] ἀπὸ πάντων ὧν οὐκ ἠδυνήθητε ἐν νόμῳ Μωϋσέως δικαιωθῆναι.127 The author uses the noun ἁμαρτία in the plural, i.e. to refer to sinful actions, and not in the singular as the personification of an enslaving force, as is the case in Rom 6. Despite this, turning to faith in Christ and baptism are interpreted in terms of the justification idea and by applying the same expression δικαιοῦσθαι ἀπό in both contexts. However, this concept in Rom 6:7 has a broader sense and fits the general character of Paul’s arguments in Romans where he uses cosmic terms.

Conclusion To conclude, the common denominator concerning the use of the verb δικαιοῦσθαι in the three Pauline texts discussed above is that they are all set in a baptismal framework that reflects a dynamic experience of spiritual transformation or conversion. 128 There is a reciprocal relationship: justification is interpreted through the experience of conversion, and the experience of converting is understood as getting justified.129 Therefore, one cannot strictly differentiate between the forensic and the effective meaning, the present and the eschatological perspective of the concept of justification, because the Pauline idea of justification describes an ongoing and dynamic process of spiritual transformation which reaches its first climax at baptism, continues in the life in the community and will be accomplished at the final resurrection and judgment. It is not a coincidence that Paul speaks of justification in various past, present and future tenses. This occurs because the justification language

The same expression yet in the plural is applied in Matt 1:21 αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν. There seems to be an ellipsis after ἀπό in the latter text for the meaning here is that God will save his people [from the consequences of] their sins. With Harris, Prepositions, 61. 127 Cf. Herm. Vis. 3.9.1: ἵνα δικαιωθῆτε καὶ ἁγιασθῆτε ἀπὸ πάσης πονηρίας καὶ ἀπὸ πάσης σκολιότητος. 128 Paul does not create any dichotomy between word and sacrament, faith and baptism. See Petersen, “New Light”, 7. 129 I hereby modify a relevant claim of Eduard Lohse, “Taufe und Rechtfertigung bei Paulus”, in Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 228 referring to the relationship between baptism and justification. 126

54

Athanasios Despotis

interprets an ongoing process of converting, a transformation process that already started at the moment of turning to faith and baptism and is not yet accomplished. However, the comparison of the three texts clearly demonstrates that Paul links justification to faith only in contexts where he discusses an ecclesiological issue, i.e. the right of the Gentile converts to inherit the promises of God to Abraham without having a Jewish ethnic identity. Therefore, the argument regarding justification by faith emerges later in Paul in the context of the Galatian crisis as reflected in Gal 3:21b–28, which was analysed above. From this point of view, the recent study of Prothro regarding the verb δικαιόω in Paul is only partially correct. There is indeed a correlation between justification and baptism, but the argument on justification by faith is developed for the first time by Paul in the framework of an ecclesiological, not a baptismal issue: the inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God without the requirement of circumcision. Paul challenges his opponents’ insistence on the traditional Jewish separation from other nations in matters of table-fellowship (μηδενὶ ἄλλῳ ἔθνει τραπέζης κοινωνεῖν;130 cf. Gal 2:12–14). Furthermore, Romans 6:7 highlights more strongly than the other two passages that when Paul uses justification language he does not have only a verdict indicating “acquittal” in mind.131 Δικαιοῦσθαι refers to an ontological transfer from the realm of sin to the realm of righteousness, something that happens through the “transformational rite” of baptism. From this point of view, Paul’s claim offers a new self-understanding to the converts.132 The converts do not simply grasp a better life; they rather have a new justified self because they are already “dead” to sin, i.e. the existence of the “old human” has been in fact terminated. Believers are free from the rule of sin to be transformed into the image of the Son of God (8:29; 2 Cor 3:18). All three Pauline texts which speak of justification in a baptismal context demonstrate the great role of baptism in this process. Through baptism, the believer gets incorporated into Christ and synchronises his biography with that of Christ. The convert dies with Christ and enters the new era which emerged through Christ’s death and resurrection. Romans 6:7 stresses that this process is not abstract, like a philosophical speculation, but it becomes evident through the convert’s “embodied” separation and justification from sin.133 Therefore, the convert shall volitionally present

See above fn. 41. Downing, “Justification”, 299. 132 Valérie Nicolet-Anderson, Constructing the Self: Thinking with Paul and Michel Foucault, WUNT II 324 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 79. 133 Siikavirta, Baptism, 76: “The presentation of the body as a living sacrifice to God’s service is the goal of Paul’s cognitive ethical instruction. It is inseparable from his understanding of the Christian community as a body and family (12:3–8; 12:9–14:15)”. 130 131

ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται

55

“his/her body as a living and holy sacrifice” and “be transformed by the renewal of his/her mind” (12:2). Paul reminds his addressees of their experience of baptism so that they should reckon themselves as dead to sin (6:13) and so proceed with the process of their transformation.

Bibliography Aune, David E. “Galatians 3:28 and the Problem of Equality in the Church and Society”. Pages 153–183 in From Judaism to Christianity: Tradition and Transition: A Festschrift for Thomas H. Tobin, S.J., on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday. Edited by Patricia Walters and Thomas H. Tobin. NovTSup 136. Boston: Brill, 2010. Blazen, Ivan. “Suffering and Cessation from Sin according to 1 Peter 4:1”. AUSS 21 (1983): 27–50. Campbell, Douglas. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. –. “Rereading Paul’s ΔΙΚΑΙΟ-Language”. Pages 196–213 in Beyond Old and New Perspectives on Paul: Reflections on the Work of Douglas Campbell. Edited by Chris Tilling. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014. Clay, Diskin. “The Athenian Garden”. Pages 9–28 in The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism. Edited by James Warren. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Coenen, Lothar, Klaus Haacker and Jürgen Kabiersch, eds. 3rd. ed. ThBNT. Witten: SCM R. Brockhaus, 2014. Cranfield, Charles E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. ICC. Edinburgh: Clark, 1979. Crook, Zeba. Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean. BZNW 130. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. Decker, Rodney. Reading Koine Greek: An Introduction and Integrated Workbook. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. Despotis, Athanasios. “Holy Trinity and Justification in the Patristic Interpretation of Paul”. OFo 24 (2010): 171–180. Downing, Gerald. “Justification as Acquittal? A Critical Examination of Judicial Verdicts in Paul’s Literary and Actual Contexts”. CBQ 74 (2012): 298–318. Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1–8. WBC. Waco, TX; Dallas; Nashville: Word, 1988. Elliott, John H. 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 37B. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 33. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993. Friedmann, Meir. Sifré debé Rab: Der älteste halachische und hagadische Midrasch zu Numeri und Deuteronomium. Wien, 1864. Gordon, Pamela. The Invention and Gendering of Epicurus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2012. Gupta, Nijay. “‘But you were acquitted…’: 1 Corinthians 6.11 and Justification and Judgment in Its Socio-literary and Theological Context”. IBS 27 (2008): 90–111. Hadot, Pierre. Philosophie als Lebensform: Antike und moderne Exerzitien der Weisheit. Translated by Ilsetraut Hadot and Christiane Marsch. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer, 1987.

56

Athanasios Despotis

Hahn, Ferdinand. “Taufe und Rechtfertigung: Ein Beitrag zur paulinischen Theologie in ihrer Vor- und Nachgeschichte”. Pages 241–270 in Studien zum Neuen Testament II: Bekenntnisbildung und Theologie in urchristlicher Zeit. WUNT 192. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Harris, Murray J. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGNT. Grand Rapids, Milton Keynes, UK: Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2005. –. Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Reference Resource for Exegesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. Hellholm, David. “Vorgeformte Tauftraditionen und deren Benutzung in den Paulusbriefen”. Pages 415–496 in Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity = Waschungen, Initiation und Taufe: Spätantike, frühes Judentum und frühes Christentum. Edited by David Hellholm and Wiard Popkes. BZNW 176. 2vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Hellholm, David, and Nils Alstrup. “Garment-Metaphors: the Old and the New Human Being”. Pages 139–158 in Antiquity and Humanity: Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy; Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on His 70th Birthday. Edited by Adela Y. Collins and Margaret M. Mitchell. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Herrero de Jauregui, Miguel. “Ancient Conversion between Philosophy and Religion”. Pages 135–150 in Anthropology in the New Testament and Its Ancient Context: Papers from the EABS-meeting in Piliscsaba/Budapest;. Edited by Michael Labahn. CBET 54. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Hill, Wesley. Paul and the Trinity: Persons, Relations, and the Pauline Letters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Karakolis, Christos. Αμαρτία-Βάπτισμα-Χάρις (Ρωμ 6,1–14). Συμβολή στην παύλεια σωτηριολογία. Biblike Bibliotheke 25. Thessaloniki: Pournaras 2002. Kearns, Conleth. “The Interpretation of Romans 6,7”. Pages 302–307 in Studiorum pauilnorum congressus internationalis catholicus 1961. AnBib17-18. Rome: Pontificial Biblical Institute, 1963. Kuhn, Karl G. “Röm 6,7 ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας”. ZNW 30 (1931): 305–310. Lohse, Eduard. “Taufe und Rechtfertigung bei Paulus”. Pages 228–244 in Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. Lyonnet, S. Stanislas. “Qui enim mortuus est, iustificatus est a peccato”. VD 42 (1964): 17– 21. Moo, Douglas. Galatians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. Morales, Isaac. “Baptism and Union with Christ”. Pages 157–179 in "In Christ" in Paul: Explorations in Paul’s Theology of Union and Participation. Edited by Constantine Campbell, Michael Thate and Kevin Vanhoozer. WUNT II 384. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Nicolet-Anderson, Valérie. Constructing the Self: Thinking with Paul and Michel Foucault. WUNT II 324. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Pallis, Alexander. To the Romans: A Commentary. Liverpool: Booksellers’ Co., 1920. Petersen, Anders K. “Shedding New Light on Paul’s Understanding of Baptism: A Ritual‐ theoretical Approach to Romans 6”. ST 52 (1998): 3–28. Prothro, James B. “The Strange Case of Δικαιόω in the Septuagint and Paul: The Oddity and Origins of Paul’s Talk of ‘Justification’”. ZNW 107 (2016): 48–69. Schelkle, Karl H. Paulus, Lehrer der Väter: Die altkirchliche Auslegung von Römer 1–11. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1956.

ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται

57

Schnelle, Udo, ed. Texte zur Briefliteratur und zur Johannesapokalypse. Vol 2.1 of Neuer Wettstein Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus. Edited by Georg Strecker and Udo Schnelle. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996. Scroggs, Robin. “Romans VI.7: O ΓΑΡ ΑΠΟΘΑΝΩΝ ΔΕΔΙΚΑΙΩΤΑΙ ΑΠΟ ΤΗΣ ΑΜΑΡΤΙΑΣ”. NTS 10 (1963/64): 104–08. Siikavirta, Samuli. Baptism and Cognition in Romans 6–8: Paul’s Ethics beyond ‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’. WUNT II 407. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Silva, Moisés. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis. 2nd ed. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014. Skehan, Patrick, and Alexander Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes. Translation by Patrick W. Skehan. Introduction and Commentary by Alexander di Lella. AYB 39. New York: Yale University Press, 1987. Strack, Hermann L., and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. München: Beck, 1922–1961. Theißen, Gerd. “Die urchristliche Taufe und die soziale Konstruktion des neuen Menschen”. Pages 87–114 in Transformations of the Inner Self in Ancient Religions. Edited by Jan Assmann and Guy G. Sṭrûmzā. SHR 83. Leiden: Brill, 1999. –. “Die Bekehrung des Paulus und seine Entwicklung vom Fundamentalisten zum Universalisten”. ET 70 (2010): 10–25. Tsui, Teresa K. “‘Baptized into His Death’ (Rom 6,3) and ‘Clothed With Christ’ (Gal 3,27): the Soteriological Meaning of Baptism in Light of Pauline Apocalyptic”. EThL 88 (2012): 395–417. Wagner, Günter. Das religionsgeschichtliche Problem von Römer 6, 1–11. ATANT 39. Zürich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1962. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament; With Scripture, Subject and Greek Word Indexes. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Wasserman, Emma. “Paul among the Philosophers: The Case of Sin in Romans 6–8”. JSNT 30 (2008): 387–415. Wedderburn, Alexander J. Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology against Its Greco-Roman Background. WUNT 44. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. Wolter, Michael. Paulus: Ein Grundriss seiner Theologie. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2011. –. Der Brief an die Römer: Teilband 1: Röm. 1–8. EKK VI/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn, Ostfildern: Neukirchener Verlag; Patmos, 2014. Wright, N. T. Paul For Everyone: Romans. London: SPCK, 2006. Zeller, Dieter. “Die Mysterienkulte und die paulinische Soteriologie (Röm 6,1–11): Eine Fallstudie zum Synkretismus im Neuen Testament”. Pages 42–61 in Suchbewegungen: Synkretismus – kulturelle Identität und kirchliches Bekenntnis. Edited by Hermann P. Siller. Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchges., [Abt. Verl.], 1991. –. “Leben und Tod der Seele in der allegorischen Exegese Philo’s”. Pages 55–100 in Studien zu Philo und Paulus. Edited by Dieter Zeller. BBB 165. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck Ruprecht, 2011. Ziesler, John A. The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Enquiry. SNTSMS 20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.

Participation in Christ and Missional Dynamics in Galatians Jacobus (Kobus) Kok and John Anthony Dunne Introduction Within NT scholarship, the themes of mission and participation have been treated more or less as discrete topics. As for mission, discussion has largely revolved around how early Christians came to adopt a missional strategy to the Gentiles vis-à-vis the backdrop of missional attitudes, or the lack thereof, within Second Temple Judaism.1 More extensive accounts that go well beyond the questions regarding the origin and derivation of mission in the NT have been offered, with special attention given to Paul,2 though participation is not given sustained engagement in these works. As for participation as a discrete topic, especially in Paul, the history of scholarship has been much more lively and controversial, not least in relation to whether “participation” is even the preferable term for the concept.3 This is not the place to provide an account of

For the proposal that Second Temple Jews were not missionally oriented towards the Gentiles, see, e.g., Scot McKnight, A Light Among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1991); Michael F. Bird, Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission, LNTS 331 (London: T&T Clark, 2007); idem, Crossing Over Sea and Land: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2010). For a counter proposal, see, e.g., John P. Dickson, Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities: The Shape, Extent and Background of Early Christian Mission, WUNT II 159 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). 2 Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission (Downer’s Grove: IVP, 2004); idem, Paul, the Missionary: Realities, Strategies, and Methods (Downer’s Grove: IVP, 2008); Trevor. J. Burke and Brian S. Rosner, Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice, LNTS 420 (London; New Delhi; New York; Sidney: Bloomsbury, 2011). In addition to these, theological accounts of the representation of God as a missionary has been offered by Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible's Grand Narrative (Downer’s Grove: IVP, 2006); idem, The Mission of God's People: A Biblical Theology of the Church's Mission (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010). 3 The term “mysticism” has largely fallen out of fashion since the work of Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle [Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998 (1931)]. At the very least, it carries with it too much controversy to be useful here. Instead, we prefer to use “participation”, which has become the standard term since Sanders, though we will also use terms like “union” and “incorporation” in this study. On the proper terminology 1

60

Jacobus (Kobus) Kok – John Anthony Dunne

this history,4 but it is worth noting that the topic has received significant attention in recent years.5 In none of these studies, though, is the topic of mission brought in for exploration. Recently, however, Michael J. Gorman has provided a study that does address the interrelationship between the topics of mission and participation in Paul. Surprisingly, Galatians is not one of the texts singled out for sustained focus in his Becoming the Gospel. Gorman explains that he did not set out to write “the exhaustive study of mission and participation in Paul”,6 and that he chose to address certain Pauline letters over others because he believed he had “something concrete to offer” from them.7 In this study, we wish to fill that gap and investigate the nexus of mission and participation in Galatians. We will see how participation informs Paul’s sense of calling and missional identity, on the one hand, and how participation makes the mission to the Gentiles possible.

Setting the Missional Scene Sometimes the background to a particular scene makes all the difference. Some years ago I (=Jacobus Kok) was involved in a television production for a religious program in South Africa.8 The producers of the program interviewed religious leaders from different denominations in South Africa about the interpretation of the book of Revelation and the eschaton. It might have been sometime in 2011 when some people predicted that the world would end in 2012. Behind me, there was a green screen. I answered the questions of the for the present concept, see Constantine R. Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 29–30 (cf. 413), who prefers to speak of a “metatheme” of “union, participation, identification, incorporation” instead of utilising a single term which on its own is insufficient to grasp the full concept. 4 For recent overviews of the significant contributions of, e.g., Deissmann, Bousset, Schweitzer, Bultmann, Sanders, etc, see especially, Campbell, Paul and Union, 31–64; Grant Macaskill, Union with Christ in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 17–41. 5 Campbell, Paul and Union; Macaskill, Union with Christ; Michael J. Thate, Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Constantine R. Campbell, ‘In Christ’ in Paul: Explorations in Paul’s Theology of Union and Participation, WUNT II 384 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014). 6 Michael J. Gorman, Becoming the Gospel: Paul, Participation and Mission (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 10. 7 Gorman, Becoming the Gospel, 15. It may have been the case that Gorman did not chose Galatians because his main thesis, that “Paul wanted the communities he addressed not merely to believe the gospel but to become the gospel” (Becoming the Gospel, 2), places more focus on the missional posture of the Pauline communities. In Galatians the “jury is still out”, so to speak, so they cannot get on with their missional activity until they first get on the same page with Paul. We will see however that there are some hints of a missional posture for the Galatians themselves. 8 For the sake of the illustration in this paragraph we will use first-person singular pronouns.

Participation in Christ and Missional Dynamics

61

presenter as well as I did. Kindly, we greeted and I left the study in Johannesburg where the program was shot. After some months I was notified by the producers that the program would be “on the air” on a particular day. I watched the program with my family and while I was sitting there I remember how shocked I was to see what the producers had done to the background scene. In the final program, thunderbolts were crashing and images of world conflict, war, and episodes of South African racial conflicts were all being played in the background. Watching this I felt that the background images changed the fundamental character of the message I wanted to convey. In front of my eyes I saw the creation of a very clever two-level drama. In the front scene I was presented talking about one thing, which immediately received another meaning due to the intertextual nature and interaction of the discourses being created by the backdrop. I realised at that stage how correct Anne Lamott9 and others like Müller et al10 were when they described the relation between action, background, development, climax, and ending in fictional writing. A particular action gets new meaning against a particular background. Significant at this stage is that when we want to speak about participation in Paul, we should view this concept as part of an integrated nexus of other concepts, and thus we should be sensitive to the nature of the “green screen” against which Paul’s actions are to be interpreted. We contend that one cannot fully understand Paul unless he is understood against the background of a cosmic missional narrative. Participation in Paul should be understood therefore as logically embedded within a larger narrative substructure which can be explained against the background of a missional narrative (or the missio Dei). But first we need to avoid the mistake of defining mission from an ethnocentric and anachronistic perspective.11 Mission must be defined within the framework of a sender sending his plenipotentiaries on a particular mission with a particular plan or outcome in mind, like a King sending his son or plenipotentiary.12 We will now turn to see how the cosmic missional drama is expressed in Galatians.

Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life (New York: Anchor Books, 1995). 10 Julian C. Müller, Wilhelm van Deventer and Lourens Human, “Fiction Writing As Metaphor For Research: A Narrative Approach”, Praktiese Teologie in Suid-Afrika 16 (2001): 1– 13. 11 Jacobus (Kobus) Kok, “Doing Good to All: Perspectives on Mission and Ethics in Galatians”, in Jacobus (Kobus) Kok & John Antony Dunne, eds., Insiders Versus Outsiders: Exploring the Dynamic Relationship Between Mission and Ethos in the New Testament, PPRT 14 (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2014), 152–153. 12 See Jacobus (Kobus) Kok, “Christology in the Making: The Problem of Worshiping and Honouring Angels in Colossians”, in Marius Nel, Jan G. van der Watt, and Fika J. van Rensburg, eds., The New Testament in the Greco-Roman World: Articles in Honour of Abe Malherbe (Zürich: LIT, 2015), 145–170. 9

62

Jacobus (Kobus) Kok – John Anthony Dunne

The Cosmic Missional Drama as Background In the worldview of Paul, as expressed in Galatians, a cosmic drama is unfolding, and the primary subject is God-on-a-mission for the sake of his world.13 When we want to speak about mission, we need to start with God and his plan. In Gal 1:4 Paul greets the believers on behalf God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins, with the purpose of delivering us from the present evil age. This takes place according to the will of our God and Father (τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν). Thus, we clearly see in the opening of the letter that Paul actually fills in the “green screen”, so to speak. He surely does not leave the interpretation of the actions to follow against the background of a simple green slate. He also empowered his plenipotentiary, Jesus our Lord, who was taken up in this process to address sins (Gal 1:4a) so that (ὅπως) he might deliver us from the present evil age (Gal 1:4b). The brokenness in need of “healing”, so to speak, is twofold: personal sin and external bondage.14 The world which this God created, is caught up and captivated by sin (Gal 3:22; τὰ πάντα ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν) and enslaved to elemental spirits (Gal 4:3, 9; στοιχεῖα). The will of God is to rescue humanity from this evil age and the grip of sin (Gal 1:4), and he does that by means of firstly giving his Son. God, as the missional sender, not only sent his Son (Gal 4:4; ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ), but also the Spirit of his Son (Gal 4:6; ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ) as part of his missional intentions, and continues to supply the Spirit and work miracles (δυνάμεις) among his people (Gal 3:5). The goal in all of this is restoration – “new creation” (Gal 6:15; καινὴ κτίσις).15 With this focus on God’s will and 13 For a thoroughgoing account of this cosmic drama in Galatians, see especially the magisterial commentary of James Louis Martyn [Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33A (New Haven: Doubleday, 1997)] along with Martinus C. de Boer [Galatians: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011)], though they go too far in their attempts to articulate that Galatians is “apocalyptic”. For criticisms of this approach see, e.g., John Anthony Dunne, “Suffering and Covenantal Hope in Galatians: A Critique of the ‘Apocalyptic Reading’ and Its Proponents”, SJT 68 (2015): 1–15; N. T. Wright, Paul and His Recent Interpreters: Some Contemporary Debates (London: SPCK, 2015), 155– 186. 14 The tendency of some scholars to see Gal 1:4a and its reference to the problem of “sins” (τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν) as traditional material that Paul has clarified, qualified, or interpreted in the light of Gal 1:4b regarding the present evil age (e.g., Martyn, Galatians, 88–91, 95–105; de Boer, Galatians, 29–31, 35–36), should be avoided. Even if Paul was utilising antecedent material, we should not try to pull apart what Paul held together. 15 Whether we understand καινὴ κτίσις in Gal 6:15 as anthropological [Joseph Barber, Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians: A Revised Text with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations (Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1870), 304; Marie-Joseph Lagrange, Saint Paul: Épître aux Galates, EBib (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1950), 165–166; Pierre Bonnard, L’Épitre de Saint Paul aux Galates (Neuchâtel; Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1953), 130–131; Albrecht Oepke, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, THKNT 9 (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1964),

Participation in Christ and Missional Dynamics

63

intentions, we can derive an important nuance about the topic of mission in Paul: “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.”16 Paul saw himself as being taken up into this missional initiative. He believed that in his own mission to the Gentiles, as well as that of Peter’s to the Jews, God was energising them behind the scenes (Gal 2:8; ὁ γὰρ ἐνεργήσας). Paul begins his letter with the clear statement that he is a sent apostle (Gal 1:1), not of his own accord, or even through any human delegation. Paul essentially makes the same point a few verses later when he states that the message he preaches does not have its origin in the thoughts of man (Gal 1:11; οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον), but originates by a revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal 1:12; ἀλλὰ δι’ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ).17 The denotation of ἀποκαλύψεως entails that this truth is not from the transcendent rather than the immanent realm. Paul therefore believed that he was called by God (Gal 1:15). However, in their own way, the Galatians themselves were also called by God (Gal 1:6; 5:8).18 Together both Paul and the Galatians were called by God and taken up into his plan that began before the foundation of the world (cf. Eph 1:4). Paul expresses 162; Udo Borse, Der Brief an die Galater (Regensburg: Pustet, 1984), 222; Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 319–320; François Vouga, An die Galater, HNT 10 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 157; Moyer V. Hubbard, New Creation in Paul’s Letters and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)], ecclesiological [Franz Mußner, Der Galaterbrief, HThKNT 9 (Freiburg: Herder, 1974), 415; Susanne Schewe, Die Galater zurückgewinnen: Paulinische Strategien in Galater 5 und 6, FRLANT 208 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 198–199; Peter Oakes, Galatians, Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2015), 189–191], or cosmological [James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, BNTC 9 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993), 342–343; Martyn, Galatians, 570– 574; de Boer, Galatians, 402–403; Douglas J. Moo, Galatians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013), 396–398; T. Ryan Jackson, New Creation in Paul’s Letters: A Study of the Historical and Social Setting of a Pauline Concept, WUNT II 272 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010], 83– 114], it is apparent from the context of the letter as a whole that the others are included implicitly. God is restoring the cosmos, beginning with the transformation of individuals who are joined into a new family. 16 Kok, “Doing Good to All”, 155. 17 This is most likely an objective genitive, as most scholars suggest. See, e.g., Ernest DeWitt Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians, ICC [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1980 (1920)], 41– 43; Martyn, Galatians, 144; Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 97; de Boer, Galatians, 77; A. Andrew Das, Galatians, Concordia Commentary (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2014), 121–122. For an objective genitive see Bonnard, L’Épitre, 28; Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC 41 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 23–24. Moo (Galatians, 95) favors the objective genitive, but does not think that this should be pressed too hard. 18 On the callings of Paul and the Galatians, see Orrey McFarland, “‘The One Who Calls in Grace’: Paul’s Rhetorical and Theological Identification with the Galatians”, HBT 35 (2013): 151–165.

64

Jacobus (Kobus) Kok – John Anthony Dunne

this divine priority and initiative in relation to the Galatians by setting their knowledge of God within the context of God’s knowledge of them (Gal 4:9; νῦν δὲ γνόντες θεόν, μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ θεοῦ), and in relation to himself by expressing that he was set apart for a special purpose from his mother’s womb (Gal 1:15; ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου). The callings of both Paul and the Galatians bring to the foreground the interrelationship of participation and mission because of the questions that they naturally raise. How did someone like Paul, who persecuted the early Christian church (1:13–14, 24), become a missionary to the Gentiles? How were these Gentiles able to be included among the people of God? We will see that these questions about mission are answered in part by participation in and with Christ.

Mission of Participatory Reconciliation Paul’s life was radically transformed by the revelation of God’s Son ἐν ἐμοί (Gal 1:16). The precise meaning of this prepositional phrase has been understood variously. Suggestions include: as a simple dative (“to me”),19 as instrumental (“by/through me”),20 as locative (“in me”) in a subjective, internal, or ecstatic sense,21 or locative in a transformational and outwardly revelatory sense.22 Against the simple dative interpretation is the parallel usage So, e.g., BDAG, 329; BDF §220.1; John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians and Ephesians, trans. William Pringle [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005 (1548)], 40; Burton, Galatians, 49–51; Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater, KEK 7 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951), 26–27; Oepke, Der Brief des Paulus, 32–33; Mußner, Galaterbrief, 86–87; Martyn, Galatians, 158; Schreiner, Galatians, 100; Oakes, Galatians, 57–58. 20 So, e.g., Timothy George, Galatians, NAC (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 120. 21 So, e.g., Adolf Deissmann, Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History, trans. William Wilson [New York: Harper, 2004 (1957)], 129–130; Betz, Galatians, 71; Sam K. Williams, Galatians, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 1997), 47; David A. deSilva, Galatians: A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014), 17. 22 So, e.g., Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007), 221–122; Dunn, Galatians, 64; John Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. (NPNF1 13:10–11); Bruce W. Longenecker, The Triumph of Abraham’s God: The Transformation of Identity in Galatians (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 149; Stephen Anthony Cummins, Paul and the Crucified Christ in Antioch SNTSMS 114 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 123; Michael J. Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 30; Susan G. Eastman, Recovering Paul’s Mother Tongue: Language and Theology in Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 34–35; Matthew S. Harmon, She Must and Shall Go Free: Paul’s Isaianic Gospel in Galatians, BZNW 168 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 82; Moo, Galatians, 104; Das, Galatians, 132–33. de Boer (Galatians, 92–93) offers the unique sense of “in my former manner of life”, which resembles this view, although de Boer is not concerned to stress that Paul’s revelation of the Son, but rather the discontinuity of God’s revelation. 19

Participation in Christ and Missional Dynamics

65

of ἀποκαλύπτω elsewhere. Fee23 notes that when Paul wishes to express that a revelation is given to someone he uses the dative,24 and when he communicates the location of the revelation he uses the preposition ἐν.25 He then concludes that “there is no known instance where Paul uses ἐν to indicate the recipient of something.” Additionally, against the simple dative view, it should be noted that Paul has already made reference to the objective revelation of Christ to him in Gal 1:12. Thus, there may be a distinct nuance that Paul intends to communicate here in Gal 1:16.26 Next, the instrumental interpretation is complicated by the subsequent ἵνα clause, which, although it could be epexegetical, probably expresses the purpose for the revelation (i.e., to preach the good news to the Gentiles),27 which would then make the two clauses repetitious. Turning to the locative view with an internal focus, this position is merely a variation of the simple dative view (albeit that the difference between the two is the nuance of regarding the objectivity of the event), which means it is susceptible to the same critique above. The locative view with a transformational sense is to be preferred because of the context regarding Paul’s former life (Gal 1:13–14), on the one hand, and the close relationship between Paul and Christ seen throughout the letter (more on this in a moment). What this means is that Paul himself becomes the location of God’s revelation of his Son to the Gentiles, which comes about because of the radical transformation of God’s Son in him. Such a participatory interpretation also makes sense of the intertextual links to the Isaianic Servant.28 The explanation Fee, Pauline Christology, 221n46. Cf. 1 Cor 2:10 (ἡμῖν δὲ ἀπεκάλυψεν); 14:30 (ἄλλῳ ἀποκαλυφθῇ καθημένῳ); Eph 3:5 (ἀπεκαλύφθη τοῖς ἁγίος ἀποστόλοις αὐτοῦ); Phil 3:15 (ὑμῖν ἀποκαλύψει). Moo (Galatians, 104) notes that Paul uses εἰς in Rom 8:18 in this way (ἀποκαλυφθῆναι εἰς ἡμᾶς). 25 Cf. Rom 1:17 (ἐν αὐτῷ ἀποκαλύπτεται). Harmon (She Must and Shall Go Free, 82) extends this and looks at all eight uses of ἐν following ἀποκαλύπτω in both the LXX and the NT. He notes three uses: (1) the time of relevation (Num 24:4, 16; Dan 2:19; 1 Pet 1:5), (2) the location of revelation (Judg 5:2; 1 Sam 2:27; Prov 11:13), and (3) “the actions or being by which something is revealed (Ezek 16:36; 22:10). He concludes, “It should be noted that in none of these places does ἐν function to indicate the person to whom a revelation is given.” We can extend this to three instances where ἐν precedes ἀποκαλύπτω as in Rom 1:17, noted at the beginning of this note, which is locative, Ezek 21:29LXX (ἐν τῷ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι), which indicates time, and in 1 Cor 3:13 (ἐν πυρὶ ἀποκαλύπτεται), which is instrumental. 26 Rightly noted by Fee, Pauline Christology, 221. 27 So most; see, e.g., deSilva, Galatians, 18. 28 Isa 49:1bLXX (ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομά μου) is reflected in Gal 1:15 (ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου καὶ καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ), and Isa 49:6LXX (εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν) is reflected in Gal 1:16 (ἵνα εὐαγγελίζωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν). Athanasios Despotis (Bekehrungserfahrung und –erinnerung bei Paulus und “Johannes”: Eine Untersuchung aus interdisziplinärer und orthodoxer Perspektive, forthcoming) also underscores the participatory and missional logic of Gal 1:15–16 by noting the intertextual matrix that connect Paul’s words to missional passages in the OT, e.g., Isa 49:6 and Jer 1:15. For more on this background, see, e.g., Roy E. Ciampa, The Presence and Function of Scripture in Galatians 1 and 2, WUNT II 102 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 124–125. For the priority of Isa in Gal 1:15–16, see 23 24

66

Jacobus (Kobus) Kok – John Anthony Dunne

for how Paul was able to view himself as extending the missional role of the Servant is on the basis of his participatory relationship with him. This reading in Gal 1:16 is also buttressed by the resonance it receives in Gal 2:20, where Paul says that as a result of participating in the crucifixion and dying to the law (Gal 2:19), Christ now lives ἐν ἐμοί.29 The purpose of this transformation was that Paul would preach the good news to the Gentiles (Gal 1:16; ἵνα εὐαγγελίζωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν), thus showing how participation informs Paul’s missional identity from the beginning. When we survey those places in Galatians where Paul makes reference to his ministry among them, we see further confirmation of this understanding. In Gal 3:1–5 Paul recalls how the Galatians received the Spirit during his initial proclamation, which is implied by ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως in verses 2 and 5. When Paul proclaimed the good news to them, he also displayed the crucified Christ to them (Gal 3:1; οἷς κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμοὺς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς προεγράφη ἐσταυρωμένος). Most argue that Paul is here stressing the vividness of preaching.30 However, given what we have seen already in Gal 1:16 and 2:19–20, it makes perfect sense for Paul to be stressing that he himself displayed the crucified Christ to them.31 This is best understood in relation to his sufferings. Galatians 6:17 adds support to this connection when Paul climatically ends the letter by saying that he bears on his body “the marks of Jesus” (τὰ στίγματα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ). This is in keeping with his emphasis on his own sufferings as proving demonstratively the legitimacy of his claims (cf. Gal 5:11). This interpretation of Gal 3:1 is further suggested by the other major reference to Paul’s ministry among the Galatians in 4:13–15. There Paul says that he was received by the Galatians during a time of physical weakness (Gal 4:13; ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός) and that they received him as Jesus Christ (Gal 4:14; ὡς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν). Thus, in the two passages where Paul refers to his ministry among the Galatians, he speaks of how he displayed the crucified Christ to them, and how this was chiefly done through his sufferings. So participation can be seen to inform Paul’s missional identity as well as the mode of his mission. Participation also underlines Paul’s mission because it constitutes the grounds of the Gentile mission itself. As one who died with Christ to the law Harmon, She Must and Shall Go Free, 76–86; John Anthony Dunne, “Cast Out the Aggressive Agitators (Gl 4:29–30): Suffering, Identity, and the Ethics of Expulsion in Paul’s Mission to the Galatians”, in Sensitivity to Outsiders: Exploring the Dynamic Relationship between Mission and Ethics in the New Testament and Early Christianity, eds. Jacobus (Kobus) Kok et al., WUNT II 364 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 255–263. 29 Most scholars understand ἐν ἐμοί in Gal 2:20 as locative. See, e.g., deSilva, Galatians, 48. 30 So, e.g., Mußner, Galaterbrief, 207; Betz, Galatians, 131; Dunn, Galatians, 152; Schreiner, Galatians, 181–182. 31 For this reading see especially Basil S. Davis, “The Meaning of ΠΡΟΕΓΡΑΦΗ In The Context of Galatians 3.1”, NTS 45 (1999): 194–212; Dieter Mitternacht, Forum für Sprachlose: Eine kommunikationspsychologische und epistolär–rhetorische Untersuchung des Galaterbriefs, ConBOT 30c Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1999), 311.

Participation in Christ and Missional Dynamics

67

(Gal 2:18–19), Paul knew that the law could no longer function as the normative arbiter of God’s people. As Barclay helpfully articulates, “the good news is good precisely in its disregard of former criteria of worth, both Jewish and Gentile: the gospel stands or falls with the incongruity of grace.”32 That disregard of former criteria is expressed in undoing Paul’s former manner of life ἐν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ (Gal 1:13–14), and in the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of God. The Law’s role as a παιδαγωγός had come to an end (Gal 3:24– 25). Christ’s death on the cross had dealt with the curse of the law (Gal 3:13; cf. 3:10), making it possible for the original promises to Abraham that the nations would be blessed through him to become realised (Gal 3:6–9).33 The realisation of the promise is through the outpouring of the Spirit of God’s Son (Gal 3:14; 4:6–7), which brings about the adoption of Gentiles into the family of God.34 The Galatian Gentiles received the Spirit of the Son of God (Gal 3:2– 3; 4:6–7), which demonstrated that they had been accepted by God. Indeed, through faith, the reception of the Spirit, and baptism, the old relationships with the law (Gal 2:19–20), the flesh (Gal 5:24), and the world (Gal 6:14) ended, which constitutes believers into a new creation (Gal 6:15). Their co-crucifixion with Christ in baptism35 transforms their identity. This is because they have been baptised into Christ (εἰς Χριστόν)36 and have put him on like a garment John M.G. Barclay, Paul & the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 370. N. T. Wright [Paul and the Faithfulness of God, COQG 4; (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2013), 863–867] helpfully describes the curse of the law in Gal 3:10 as a “traffic jam.” 34 Cf. the kinship language throughout Galatians. God is the Father (Gal 1:1, 3–4; 4:6; cf. 4:2), and Jesus is God’s Son (Gal 1:16; 2:20; 4:4, 6) and Abraham’s offspring (Gal 3:16). The Galatians are Paul’s children (Gal 4:19), and believers are “brothers” (Gal 1:2, 11; 3:15; 4:12, 28, 31; 5:11, 13; 6:1, 18), God’s sons (Gal 3:26; 4:6–7), Abraham’s sons (Gal 3:7, 29; 4:28), Spirit-children (Gal 4:29), children of the Jerusalem above, “our mother” (Gal 4:26; μήτηρ ἡμῶν), children of the “free woman” (Gal 4:31), and the “household of faith” (Gal 6:10; τοὺς οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως). 35 On co-crucifixion and baptism in (a) Gal 2:19–20, see, e.g., John Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. (NPNF1 13:22); Isaac Augustine Morales, “Baptism and Union With Christ”, in ‘In Christ’ in Paul: Explorations in Paul’s Theology of Union and Participation, ed. Michael J. Thate, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Constantine R. Campbell, WUNT II 384 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 171; Rudolf Schnackenburg, Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul: A Study in Pauline Theology, trans. George R. Beasley-Murray (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964), 63; Macaskill, Union with Christ, 221; Frank J. Matera, Galatians, SP 9 [Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2007 (1992)], 96, 103, (b) Gal 5:24, see, e.g., Nicolaas Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997 (1975)], 63; Morales, “Baptism and Union with Christ”, 172– 174; Schnackenburg, Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul, 63, (c) Gal 6:14–15, see, e.g., BeasleyMurray, Baptism in the New Testament, 158; Schnackenburg, Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul, 15, 65. Contra Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians, 123, 187–188. 36 For the spatial interpretation of this see, e.g., Dunn, Galatians, 203; Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 147; Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ, 207–8; Macaskill, Union with Christ, 222; Moo, Galatians, 251–52; deSilva, Galatians, 76. Contra those who held that εἰς Χριστόν was shorthand for “into the name of” (e.g., Burton, Galatians, 203; Beasley32 33

68

Jacobus (Kobus) Kok – John Anthony Dunne

(Gal 3:27).37 The former distinctions between race, status, and gender have been done away with (Gal 3:28) and ἐν Χριστῷ they are all one person (εἷς).38 As a result of being ἐν Χριστῷ Gentiles are now sons of God by faith (Gal 3:26),39 and because they belong to Christ (ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ) they are sons of Abraham (Gal 3:29).40 The identity of these Gentiles is thus entirely determined by Christ, who is both the true son of Abraham (Gal 3:16) and the true son of God (Gal 1:16; 2:20; 4:4). In the light of this connection, the reference in Gal 3:14 – that the blessing of Abraham is ἐν Χριστῷ as a result of the cross absorbing the curse of the law (cf. Gal 3:13) – should be understood as expressing that Jesus is the “location” of this blessing.41 It is only by virtue Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 147; Schnackenburg, Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul, 21–26). 37 For the idea that this reference was drawn from the baptismal practices of disrobing and rerobing, see Robin M. Jensen, Baptismal Imagery in Early Christianity: Ritual, Visual and Theological Dimensions (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 170; Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 148; Martyn, Galatians, 375–376; de Boer, Galatians, 243. However, some contend that this is probably anachronistic [e.g., Lightfoot, Galatians, 262–63; Ben Witherington III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 277]. The suggestion by Dunn [Galatians, 203–5; idem, “‘Baptized’ as Metaphor”, in Baptism, the New Testament and the Church: Historical and Contemporary Studies in Honour of R.E.O. White, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross, JSNTSup 171 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 294–310] that the references to baptism are metaphorical are unconvincing and have not garnered much support. 38 For ἐν Χριστῷ as locative here, see Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ, 118; deSilva, Galatians, 77. Cf. Campbell (Paul and Union with Christ, 67–199) for an extensive study of ἐν Χριστῷ in Paul’s letters. For εἷς as communicating a single identity, and implicitly conveying the concept of the ‘Body of Christ,’ see Lightfoot, Galatians, 263; Ed P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 457; Betz, Galatians, 200–1; Dunn, Galatians, 207–8; Martyn, Galatians, 377; Matera, Galatians, 146; de Boer, Galatians, 255. On the social implications of this see Bruce Hansen, ‘All of you are one’: The Social Vision of Gal 3.28, 1 Cor 12.13 and Col 3.11, LNTS 409 (Edinburgh; London; New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 67–106. 39 Some understand ἐν Χριστῷ in Gal 3:26 to designate the object of faith (so Martyn, Galatians, 375; Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ, 112), but in light of the clear locative references in vv. 27–28 it is preferable to maintain the same for v. 26 (so Burton, Galatians, 202–3; Dunn, Galatians, 203; deSilva, Galatians, 76). 40 Most understand ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ as a possessive genitive (so deSilva, Galatians, 77), though Lightfoot (Galatians, 263) suggested a partitive genitive in keeping with the implicit notion of the ‘Body of Christ’ in this passage. 41 For this reading see, e.g., N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1993), 154Fn56; Moo, Galatians, 215. This is contrary to those who view ἐν Χριστῷ here as instrumental (so Burton, Galatians, 175; Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ, 81–82), and also Alexander J. M. Wedderburn [ “Some Observations on Paul’s Use of the Phrases ‘In Christ’ and ‘With Christ,’” JSNT 8 (1985): 83–97], who argued for a representative understanding of “in Christ” and “with Christ” in Galatians based on the parallels to being blessed “in Abraham” (Gal 3:8; ἐν σοί) and “with Abraham” (Gal 3:9; σὺν τῷ Ἀβραάμ).

Participation in Christ and Missional Dynamics

69

of being united with Christ, being bound up with his identity and destiny, that the blessing of Abraham extends to the nations. By virtue of participation, therefore, the Gentile mission is thus established and legitimised. The close tie between participation and mission is also expressed by the fact that departure from the message of Paul is expressed in terms that show how participation with Christ is being undermined. In Gal 4:19, for example, Paul expresses his deep desire that “Christ be formed in you” (μορφωθῇ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν). By entertaining the idea of getting circumcised (Gal 3:3; 5:2), the Galatians are looking less and less like Christ (cf. Gal 3:26–29). If they finally do get circumcised, according to Paul, they will be cut off from Christ (Gal 5:4; κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ), which highlights that their close relationship and union with Christ is in jeopardy. Instead they are to remember that by virtue of their union with Christ, they have participated in the cross, which establishes a new relationship to the law, the flesh, and the world. “In Christ”, there is freedom from these former systems of value (Gal 2:4; 5:1). All (Πάντες), both Jews and Gentiles, are children of God through faith (Gal 3:26). Gentiles are now included into the people of God on the same basis as Jews – faith. Justification before God is therefore by faith and not by works of the law (Gal 2:16). Here we find reference to the drawing of social boundaries and a demarcation from outsiders.42 Based on his reading of Sanders, who pointed out the problematic nature of the traditional Lutheran reading of Judaism as a works-righteousness religion, Dunn43 argued out that the works of the law mentioned in Gal 2:16 actually referred to socio-religious (ethnic) boundary markers (e.g., circumcision, dietary restrictions, Sabbath keeping, etc.). This attempt at drawing socio-religious boundaries is most interestingly seen in Let. Aris. 139: In his wisdom the legislator [i.e. Moses] … surrounded us [the Jews] with unbroken palisades and iron walls to prevent our mixing (ἐπιμισγώμεθα)44 with any other peoples in

42 See Jacobus (Kobus) Kok and Dieter T. Roth, “Sensitivity Towards Outsiders and the Dynamic Relationship between Mission and Ethics/Ethos”, in Sensitivity Towards Outsiders: Exploring the Dynamic Relationship Between Mission and Ethics in the New Testament and Early Christianity, ed. Jacobus (Kobus) Kok et al. WUNT II 364 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 1–26. 43 Dunn originally made this point in “The New Perspective on Paul”, BJRL 65 (1983): 95– 122 and subsequently it was republished in more well-known books like, e.g., idem, The New Perspective on Paul, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007). 44 Cf. also ἐπιμισγόμενοι in Let. Aris. 152: Oἱ γὰρ πλείονες τῶν λοιπῶν ἀνθρώπων ἑαυτοὺς μολύνουσιν ἐπιμισγόμενοι, συντελοῦντες μεγάλην ἀδικίαν, καὶ χῶραι καὶ πόλεις ὅλαι σεμνύνονται ἐπὶ τούτοις. Οὐ μόνον γὰρ προάγουσι τοὺς ἄρσενας, ἀλλὰ καὶ τεκούσας ἔτι δὲ θυγατέρας μολύνουσαν. Ἡμεῖς δὲ ἀπὸ τούτων διεστάλμεθα.

70

Jacobus (Kobus) Kok – John Anthony Dunne

any manner,45 being thus kept pure in body and soul, preserved from false beliefs, and worshiping the only God, omnipotent over all creation.46

During that time Israel had an exclusive claim on God and participation in the covenant relationship with him. Neusner has studied the nature of Pharisaic commitment in the NT era.47 He has illustrated from a close reading of rabbinical traditions evidence from ca. 341 case rulings that 229 thereof (ca. 67% of total) involved matters dealing with table fellowship.48 It is clear that Paul (also in Rom 9:30–10:4), in one of his earliest letters (Galatians), wants to make the theological point that the inherent exclusivity of Jews and any form of superiority over other nations have been broken down by means of God’s new creation (Gal 6:15) and the fact that those who believed have been made acceptable by God, i.e., they are righteous in the eyes of God. It is for this reason also that Paul had a difficult time with anyone who wanted non-Jewish believers to Judaise (Gal 2:14; ἰουδαΐζειν). Paul’s understanding of justification undoubtedly implied that the zealous socio-religious barriers of the law that differentiated people was to be transcended.49 The problem within the context of the Galatian controversy for Paul was that if the agitators in Galatia were left to have their way, it would have imposed Jewish-ethnic boundaries of exclusivity that neither illustrated the inclusiveness of the gospel, nor the reality of new creation “in Christ”, or the universal mission of God. It would rather have resurrected the iron walls of exclusivity mentioned in Aristeas. Meeks is thus correct when he remarks: “Pauline Christians gave up one of the most effective ways by which the Jewish community had

45 Emphasis Added. See also Josephus, B.J. 2.487–488 where Josephus says that the Jews were set apart so that they would not be polluted and intermixed in Alexandria (ὅπως καθαρωτέραν ἔχοιεν τὴν δίαιταν ἧττον ἐπιμισγομένων τῶν ἀλλοφύλων). We are grateful to Prof. M. Webber for making this text known to us. 46 Translation adapted from Robert J. Shutt, “Letter of Aristeas”, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1983), 2:22. Cf. the Greek text: Συνθεωρήσας οὖν ἕκαστα σοφὸς ὤν ὁ νομοθέτης, ὑπὸ θεοῦ κατεσκευασμένος εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τῶν ἁπάντων, περιέφραξεν ἡμᾶς ἀδιακόποις χάραξι καὶ σιδηροῖς τείχεσιν, ὅπως μηθενὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐθνῶν ἐπιμισγώμεθα κατὰ μηδέν, ἁγνοὶ καθεστῶτες κατὰ σῶμα καὶ κατὰ ψυχήν, ἀπολελυμένοι ματαίων δοξῶν, τὸν μόνον θεὸν καὶ δυνατὸν σεβόμενοι παρ᾽ ὅλην τὴν πᾶσαν κτίσιν. 47 Jacob Neusner, Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984). 48 Jacob Neusner, From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (Eaglewood: Prentice Hall, 1973), 86; idem, Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity, 57; see also Bradley B. Blue, “Food Offered to Idols and Jewish Food Laws”, DPL 307. One has to be very cautious not to oversimplify the way in which Jews interacted with non-Jews in the public sphere because it probably differed from place to place and was also influenced by the nature of the social group(s) involved. The texts therefore are not always a direct reflection of what happened in practice. 49 Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul, 16–17.

Participation in Christ and Missional Dynamics

71

maintained its separate identity in pagan society.”50 Faith, and not the Jewish law, became the manner in which people could enter the community of faith and become righteous. It is important to recognise as well that faith is able to justify because justification happens “in Christ” (Gal 2:17; δικαιωθῆναι ἐν Χριστῷ). Although ἐν Χριστῷ has to be understood in a causal or instrumental sense here,51 the locative interpretation is ultimately preferable for four main reasons.52 First, from the flow of thought in this passage, we can see how Paul links justification ἐν Χριστῷ with the idea of participating in the crucifixion of Christ in vv. 19– 20.53 Second, Paul will later explain that the πίστις that justifies is actually a fruit of the Spirit’s work (Gal 5:22). Third, in Gal 5:6 Paul says that faith working itself out through love (πίστις δι᾽ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη)54 is a reality ἐν Χριστῷ.55 Fourth, given that participating in the crucifixion of Christ in Gal 2:19–20 helps explain the meaning of justification ἐν Χριστῷ in 2:17, as just noted, there is added clarification that comes from recognising the baptismal logic of participating in the crucifixion of Christ in 2:19–20 with the same pattern of death/new life in Gal 3:26–29, where union with Christ is also prominently expressed (as noted above). In Gal 3:26–29 we see the notion of becoming sons of God and sons of Abraham by virtue of being baptised and “putting on Christ”, which underscores the fact that these realities come about by virtue of the close relationship between the Messiah and his people. Thus, in the light of these four reasons, we can see that it is only on the basis of participation with Christ that the Gentiles, designated “sinners” in the context (Gal 2:15; ἁμαρτωλοί), could be counted righteous. Being united with Christ in his crucifixion leads one into a new relationship with the law so that “sinning” and “transgressing” in this context are defined by being disobedient to the cross and trying to rebuild what it has torn down (Gal 2:17–18; cf. v. 21).56 To be justified “in Christ”, therefore, means that justification comes about by means of union with Christ, just as the same is true for receiving the

50 Wayne A. Meeks, The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two Centuries (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 97. 51 For causal, see, e.g., Burton, Galatians, 124. For instrumental, see, e.g., Longenecker, Galatians, 89. For agency, see, e.g., Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ, 114–115. 52 So also, e.g., Betz, Galatians, 119–120; Matera, Galatians, 95; de Boer, Galatians, 157; Moo, Galatians, 165; deSilva, Galatians, 106. 53 Rightly Moo, Galatians, 165. 54 Here ἐνεργουμένη is best understood as being in the middle voice (so most; cf. Mußner, Galaterbrief, 353; Burton, Galatians, 279–81; Schreiner, Galatians, 317; Moo, Galatians, 330–31; Das, Galatians, 530–31) rather than the passive (contra Witherington III, Galatians, 370). 55 Most scholars understand ἐν Χριστῷ here as locative/spherical. See, e.g., Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ, 145. 56 Contra Schreiner, Galatians, 167–169, who contends that Paul is addressing the issue of sinning after being declared righteous by God.

72

Jacobus (Kobus) Kok – John Anthony Dunne

Spirit and becoming sons/heirs. What is true of the Messiah is true of his people. This brings us to the question of Messianism and participation. One has to agree with N. T. Wright, when he claims that the core of Paul’s theology revolves inter alia around the message that Jesus the expected Messiah,57 who was raised from death (Rom 1:3–4), is Lord and that this is done inter alia against the claim that Ceasar is Lord.58 What’s more, Wright59 contends that it is this understanding of Jesus as the Messiah that best explains the nature of Paul’s participatory and incorporative language. The logic is that the identity and unity of the people of God are summed up in the person of the Messiah since God had done for Jesus, in raising him from the dead, what he had planned to do for all of Israel at the end of time.60 The irony here is that Deissmann, who is often seen as beginning the whole debate about “mysticism” in Paul, did not think that Χριστός carried Messianic connotations: “the word ‘Christ’ has already become a proper name to Paul.”61 However, Wright’s proposal, on the whole, seems valid. As we have seen, there is a strong connection in Galatians between the Messiah and his people. For Wright’s proposal that Paul understood Jesus to be the Messiah of Israel, see, e.g., Wright, Climax, 41–55; idem, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 815–911; idem, “Messiahship in Galatians?” in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter, ed. Mark Elliott et al. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 3–23; idem, The Paul Debate: Critical Questions for Understanding the Apostle (Waco TX: Baylor University Press, 2015), 1–20. For other recent studies that have buttressed this further, see, e.g., Matthew V. Novenson, Christ Among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); Joshua W. Jipp, Christ Is King: Paul’s Royal Ideology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2015). 58 For Wright’s proposal that Paul’s theology includes anti-Imperial rhetoric, see, e.g., Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1271–1319; idem, Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul, 1978–2013 (Phiadelphia: Fortress, 2013), 169–190, 237–254, 439–451. For critical proposals, see, e.g., John M.G. Barclay, “Why the Roman Empire Was Insignificant to Paul”, in Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews, ed. idem, WUNT 275 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 363–387; Matthew V. Novenson, “What the Apostles Did Not See”, in Reactions to Empire: Sacred Texts in their Socio-Political Contexts, ed. John Anthony Dunne and Dan Batovici, WUNT II 372 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 55–72. For studies directly on the topic of imperial context of Galatians, see especially Justin K. Hardin, Galatians and the Imperial Cult; Brigitte Kahl, Galatians Re-Imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished. Paul in Critical Contexts (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2010). 59 Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 825. 60 For the full discussion see Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 517–537, 825–835; idem, “Messiahship in Galatians?”, 3–23. This is similar to the earlier contention of Schweitzer regarding the apocalyptic union of the Messiah and his people. For a critical evaluation of Wright’s proposal, see J. Thomas Hewitt and Matthew V. Novenson, “Participation and Messiah Christology in Paul”, in God and the Faithfulness of Paul: A Critical Examination of the Pauline Theology of N. T. Wright, ed. Christoph Heilig, J. Thomas Hewitt and Michael F. Bird, WUNT II 413 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 393–415. 61 Deissmann, Paul, 191. 57

Participation in Christ and Missional Dynamics

73

Yet, if it is the case that Christians were so identified with Christ that what was true of him became true of them, how are we to speak of individual Christians maintaining their own identity? In ancient Hellenistic mysticism, the focus was individualistic, and the goal was to be subsumed into the divine. Even scholars who thought that Paul’s “mysticism” was influenced by Hellenism agreed that Paul held distinctly different views in this regard.62 However, Paul does come dangerously close to such language in Gal 2:19–20. He states emphatically that “I” died to the law (ἐγώ γὰρ διὰ νόμου νόμῷ ἀπέθανον) so that “I” might live to God (ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω). This comes about by crucifixion with Christ (Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι). However, he affirms that “I” live (ζῶ δέ). Yet, he says that it is no longer “I” (οὐκέτι ἐγώ) but rather Christ lives “in me” (ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός). He then goes on to affirm that the life “I” live in the flesh (ζῶ ἐν σαρκί) “I” live (ζῶ) by faith. Paul, therefore, affirms that there is still an ἐγώ that lives, though he can also qualify this by saying that it is not “I” (οὐκέτι ἐγώ) but Christ. We saw how this is similarly expressed in Gal 1:16, as well, through the transformative revelation of God’s Son ἐν ἐμοί. Given the difficulty of the question of identity here, and the attention that this issue has been given in discussions on “mysticism” and participation in the history of scholarship, we would like to explore these issues of identity and participation in the light of the Dialogical Self Theory (DST) developed by Hubert Hermans,63 which will help give us a heuristic lens with which to better understand these newly constituted identities ἐν Χριστῷ. In turn, we will unpack the implications of DST for understanding identity as it manifests itself in a newly constituted ethos with particular ethical expression.

62 Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus [Nashville: Abingdon, 1970 (1921)], 166–167. For a critical evaluation of Paul’s mysticism deriving from Hellenism, see especially, Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul, 26–40, 140; William David Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology, rev. ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 86–110. 63 See Hubert J.M. Hermans and Agnieszka Hermans-Kanopka, Dialogical Self Theory: Positioning and Counter-Positioning in a Globalized Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). For the utilisation of DST for New Testament scholarship, see, e.g., Jacobus (Kobus) Kok, “Dialogical Self Theory as Heuristic Tool in New Testament Studies” (Pretoria: University of Pretoria, 2014 [2012]; Paper presented at the Pretoria NT workgroup). Due caution is certainly needed when using modern theories to explain ancient sources. However, in social-scientific scholarship on the NT, theories from social sciences like anthropology and social psychology have been utilised to helpfully explain ancient group dynamics. There are many examples of this, such as, the use of social identity theory, ritual theory, etc. Important for us is that we do not use these theories uncritically, but by making use of these theories we are heuristically being made sensitive to the dynamics that are believed to have been implicitly present within the context of the text, or at least are invoked in reading the text. As scholars make use of social scientific theories and models we are also sensitive to let the text provide us with the language we aim to explain by means of the theories which provide us with theoretical frameworks. In this way we do not force a model on the text but let the text speak.

74

Jacobus (Kobus) Kok – John Anthony Dunne

Missional Participation: Identity, Ethics, and Ethos We will begin by returning to Gal 1:16 and seeing how Chrysostom, one of the earliest commentators on the text, understood it.64 Chrysostom expresses the following in his homilies on Galatians: But why does he say, “to reveal His Son in me”, and not “to me?” it is to signify, that he had not only been instructed in the faith by words, but that he was richly endowed with the Spirit; – that the revelation had enlightened his whole soul, and that he had Christ speaking within him. “That I might preach Him among the Gentiles”. For not only his faith, but his election to the Apostolic office proceeded from God. The object, says he, of His thus specially revealing Himself to me, was not only that I might myself behold Him, but that I might also manifest Him to others. And he says not merely, “others”, but, “that I might preach Him among the Gentiles”. Thus, he touched beforehand on that great ground of his defence, which lay in the respective characters of the disciples; for it was necessary to preach differently to the Jews and to the heathen.65

Investigating Chrysostom critically with a heuristic sensitivity to the missional-participatory paradigm, it is clear that even Chrysostom embedded his argument against the background of a God who has a very particular missional intention that he achieves by means of the Spirit within believers, in this case Paul. The mere strategy of adaptation of the gospel in such a way that it “speaks” to audiences from diverse backgrounds shows that the early Christians interpreted Paul’s strategy and approach in an inclusive way in which not only “outsiders” or “others”, but Gentiles could be reached with the gospel.66 Even more interesting is the fact that Chrysostom paints a picture of the ancient self that is involved in the inner dialogue. Some scholars in line with the interpretation of the Context Group that ancient people were mainly group64 We are indebted to Athanasios Despotis who pointed us to the correlation between Paul and Chrysostom in this regard. 65 John Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. NPNF1 13:11 (PG 61:628): Διὰ τί δὲ μὴ εἶπεν, ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν Υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐμοί, ἀλλ’ Ἐν ἐμοί; Δεικνὺς ὅτι οὐ διὰ ῥημάτων μόνον ἤκουσε τὰ περὶ τῆς πίστεως, ἀλλὰ καὶ πολλοῦ πνεύματος ἐπληρώθη· τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως καταλαμπούσης αὐτοῦ τὴν ψυχήν, καὶ τὸν Χριστὸν εἶχεν ἐν ἑαυτῷ λαλοῦντα. Ἵνα εὐαγγελίζωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. Οὐ γὰρ τὸ πιστεῦσαι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ χειροτονηθῆναι αὐτὸν παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ γέγονεν. Οὕτω γάρ μοι αὐτὸν ἀπεκάλυψεν, οὐχ ἵνα ἴδω μόνον αὐτόν, ἀλλ’ ἵνα καὶ εἰς ἄλλους ἐξενέγκω. Καὶ οὐκ εἶπεν ἄλλους ἁπλῶς, ἀλλ’ Ἵνα εὐαγγελίζωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, ἐντεῦθεν ἤδη προανακρουόμενος οὐ μικρὸν τῆς ἀπολογίας κεφάλαιον, ἀπὸ τοῦ τῶν μαθητῶν προσώπου. Οὐ γὰρ ὁμοίως Ἰουδαίοις καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσι κηρύττειν ἀναγκαῖον ἦν. 66 This is contrary to the proposal of Bruce J. Malina and John J. Pilch [Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2006), 25] who argue that Paul was an ethnocentric Jew with no interest in reaching pagans – an argument they build on their understanding and translation of the word ἔθνος. For a critique of this, see Jacobus (Kobus) Kok, Drawing and Transcending Boundaries in the Dutch Reformed Church (Ph.D. dissertation in Science of Religion; South Africa: University of Pretoria, 2016).

Participation in Christ and Missional Dynamics

75

oriented individuals, are of the opinion that the ancient people were antiintrospective.67 However, it is helpful to consider this issue from the vantage point of the Dialogical Self Theory (DST) as proposed by Kok.68 The DST helps provide language to describe the nature of the inner dialogue, and also allows us to think more creatively about the techniques some ancients like Paul might have used and how early Christian figures like Chrysostom interpreted it. According to DST, the self is not monolithic but made up of several different I-positions that are in dialogue with one another at a given point in time. Within a specific point in time, one can recognise that there might be several different discourses within oneself that might even be in conflictual dialogue with one another. The DST also shows that external persons are represented by the polyphonic self within inner dialogue.69 The self is always in dialogue with the past and with discourse represented by people or institutions that are internalised as part of the tapestry of the polyphonic self. Now, with this in mind, it appears that Chrysostom is making a clear distinction between Christ being revealed “to” Paul and Christ being revealed “in” Paul to such an extent that he can even speak of the “voice” of Christ influencing the identity and behaviour of the believer. In this case, the voice of Christ, the sent agent of the Father, who in essence continues the original missional plan of God, and empowers those he called to continue that mission, drives the believer, who might be influenced by “voices” or discourses that come from the group he/she belongs to, to make that particular missionalparticipatory discourse the dominant “voice” or discourse. In the words of DST, Christ as external reality is actually internalised by the ancient self and becomes a dialogical partner that inhabits the society of the self. Accordingly, the self reflects society and partakes in the discourses that are already happening in society within the confines of the self. Even enemies are not objectively “out there” but are actually internalised within the self. This is where the message of the gospel and the internalised participatory nature of Christ-within-me becomes interesting. According to DST some 67 Cf. Ernest Van Eck, “Reaction to Kok’s paper on Dialogical Self Theory” (Paper presented at the Pretoria NT workgroup; Pretoria: University of Pretoria, 2015). Michal Beth Dinkler [“The Thoughts of Many Hearts Shall Be Revealed: Listening in on Lukan Interior Monologues”, JBL 133 (2015): 373–399] points out how internal monologues in Luke function and illustrate the nature of introspection inherent in ancient texts. 68 Jacobus (Kobus) Kok, “Dialogical Self Theory” (forthcomming). 69 Here is an example from one of the present authors – Jacobus (Kobus) Kok. As a son of an Afrikaner church minister, I might at a given point in time find myself making decisions in which the internalised “voice” of my father might play a role in my decisions. But at the same time, as husband living in Europe, I might be made aware of my wife’s “voice” bringing a different perspective that might be in conflict with that of my father. In the same way I might find that, as an academic, I might be taking the internalised view of my doktorvater into consideration which might differ from other two perspectives or it might be closer to one of the perspectives. The polyphonic self is thus in constant dialogue with real or imagined others, the DST maintains.

76

Jacobus (Kobus) Kok – John Anthony Dunne

individuals occupy a very dominant or central position within the “hierarchy” of the self. This person, real or imagined, occupies what DST calls a promotor position. What Chrysostom is doing, and how he is interpreting Paul, seems to indicate, from the perspective of DST, that the believer makes Christ the dominant promotor within the society of self. It is as if one can imagine the self going about his/her daily activities, but with an acute awareness of the presence of Christ within the self and that Christ is a constant companion. Epictetus provides an example of a contemporary of Paul who spoke similarly about the dialogical nature of participation with a god. As argued elsewhere,70 Epictetus gives his perspective about the nature of the good, which he says will be found where god is, and that, he says, is not in the things of the flesh, but in intelligence (νοῦς), knowledge (ἐπιστήμη), and right reason (λόγος ὀρθός). The difference between man and animals, he argued, is that humans carry parts of god within themselves (σὺ ἀπόσπασμα εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ – ἒχεις τι ἐν σεαυτῷ μέρος ἐκείνου), although some are ignorant of this fact (ἀγνοεῖς σου συγγένειαν), knowing not the source form which they sprung forth (τί οὐκ οἶδας, πόθεν ἐλήλυθας;), namely god (Diatr. 2.8.1–3).71 Epictetus believes that god is within, like a companion, and that when you do something with or to the body you do so also to someone who carries within them a part of god. He says: “You are bearing god about with you, you poor wretch, and you do not even know it. It is not an external god made of silver or gold, but it is within you that you bear him (ἐν σαυτῶ φέρεις αὐτὸν). You do not know that you are defiling him with impure thoughts (καὶ μολύνων οὐκ αἰσθάνη ἀκαθάρτοις μὲν διανοήμασι) and filthy actions (ῥυπαραῖς δὲ πράξεσι)”.72 In 1 Cor 6:18–19, Paul uses strikingly similar ideas as Epictetus when he “apotreptically motivates the believers not to take part in πορνείαν.”73 We also see how Epictetus, in this section, makes the eternal image of the god part of the dialogical participatory dynamic of the self when he says to his audience that someone who knows who they truly are, i.e., someone carrying a part of god within, will not consider doing certain profane things in the presence of statues of the gods. For this reason, they should also avoid doing so when they are alone because they should remember their true nature, namely that they are aware that god is present within them and if they had this perception, they would have tried “to do nothing unworthy of him that had fashioned you, nor of yourself, and you would have tried not to appear in an

70 Kok, Drawing and Transcending Boundaries, 159; idem, New Perspectives in Healing, Restoration and Reconciliation in John. BibInt 149 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2017). 71 Kok, Drawing and Transcending Boundaries, 159. 72 Ibid. 73 Ibid. Cf. 1 Cor 6:18–19: Φεύγετε τὴν πορνείαν. πᾶν ἁμάρτημα ὃ ἐὰν ποιήσῃ ἄνθρωπος ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν· ὁ δὲ πορνεύων εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα ἁμαρτάνει. Ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν ναὸς τοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν ἁγίου πνεύματός ἐστιν οὗ ἔχετε ἀπὸ θεοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἐστὲ ἑαυτῶν;

Participation in Christ and Missional Dynamics

77

unbecoming attitude before the eyes of men.”74 Interestingly Epictetus says, “Not only did god fashion you, but he has entrusted and committed you to yourself alone, and moreover, by forgetting, do you not dishonour his trust?” [Epictetus, Diatr. 2.8.21–23 (Oldfather, LCL)]. Again he states, “God has delivered your own self into your keeping like an orphan, to your care, to be kept unchanged from the character with which nature has endowed him, namely reverent, faithful, high-minded, undismayed, unimpassioned, unperturbed.” (ibid)75 Both Paul and Epictetus paint a picture of people who saw God as being within and part of the self and also in a dialogicalparticipatory nature. Rhetorically they wanted their readers to understand the implication thereof for self-understanding and for the consequence that it has on behaviour (identity and ethics).76 Thus, Here we see clear parallels between Paul and Epictetus – the essence being that a rational or converted person should be a responsible steward that acts faithfully towards the god within and according to their unique purpose, aligned to their nature and the one they belong to. In ethical decisions/ discernment, the loyalty to the god within should determine the applicable action. The difference is that Paul’s God is not that of Epictetus, and that the narrative of the missional God who brought about reconciliation between himself and humans is completely different. When this motivational basis is reconstructed one will see clearly that the mission of God and the sending of the Son, with the consequential empowerment of believers to participate in the continuing missio Dei, forms an important narrative backdrop of the implicit ethical discourse and motivation of the ethical subject.77 We would argue that rhetorically Paul accentuated the “participatory-union process” which he used to shape the identity of those he wanted to reach, i.e., not only believers to whom he was writing, but also those who were potential converts. As illustrated by examples in Paul and Epictetus above, this could have reflected real experiences, strategies, and even part of the core nature of Paul’s missional vision which revolved around the restorative missio Dei and the centrality of recreation (Gal 6:15) and reconciliation (2 Cor 5:17–18) in Paul’s theology. As this plays out, we see this particularly in the work of the Spirit in the lives of believers. God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts (cf. Gal 4:6; ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν), which enables God’s people to live lives that are characterised by a specific behaviour Translation by William A. Oldfather, Epictetus I (Book I and II): The Discourses as Reported by Arrian, the Manual and Fragments LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1946), 263. 75 Elsewhere, Epictetus rhetorically exhorts the reader not to act like an animal in relation to lusts and desires that destroy the true nature discussed here (cf. Diatr. 2.9.3–11). 76 For discussion on identity and ethos and ethics, see Jan G. Van der Watt, ed. Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament, BZNW 141 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012). 77 Kok, Drawing and Transcending Boundaries, 157. 74

78

Jacobus (Kobus) Kok – John Anthony Dunne

which flows forth from a particular identity that is not controlled by external elemental spirits or human laws, but operates from a Spirit-inspired position of freedom expressed and motivated by love (Gal 5:6, 13–14). In Gal 5:16 Paul urges the believers to walk by the Spirit and not gratify the selfish desires of the flesh which in essence stand in direct conflict with the Spirit. They are to be led by the Spirit (Gal 5:18) which is within them. Paul explains (in Gal 5:19–23) this explicitly by naming what he considers as works of the flesh in opposition to the fruit of the Spirit: Works of the Flesh fornication impurity licentiousness idolatry sorcery enmity strife jealousy anger selfishness dissension division envy drunkenness carousing

Fruit of the Spirit love joy peace patience kindness goodness faithfulness gentleness self-control

Paul says that those who do the works of the flesh will not inherit the Kingdom of God (Gal 5:21). Those who live this way certainly cannot claim that they participate in the newly created identity of the Spirit of God. It is also interesting to note that the works of the flesh are all negative actions that serve the selfish interests of the individual and undermine the ethos of the community.78 In contrast to these acts of the flesh, those who have experienced the transformation of God’s Spirit within them, who understand their identity as people who have been newly created and who have become part of God’s family, are called to live according to their identity. Using an organic metaphor, Paul says that the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, etc. These values, in contrast with the works of the flesh, are all in service of God and others. This is clear also when Paul turns in Gal 6:1 to motivate the spiritual believers to be gentle towards someone overtaken in a trespass and to do so in a way that restores such a person. Those who are spiritual should also carry each other’s burdens On the significance of this within the context of the whole letter, see especially John M.G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul’s Ethics in Galatians, SNTW (Edinburgh; London; New York: T&T Clark, 1988). 78

Participation in Christ and Missional Dynamics

79

(Gal 6:2). Paul makes use of an organic metaphor again in Gal 6:7–8 when he says that a person reaps what he sows; sowing to the flesh will lead to corruption (φθοράν) whereas sowing to the Spirit will lead to eternal life (ζωὴν αἰώνιον). For this reason, Paul says that those who belong to Christ (Gal 5:24; οἱ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ) and are animated by the Spirit (Gal 5:25; Εἰ ζῶμεν πνεύματι)79 have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. In a hierarchy of priority, the Spirit should have the dominant dialogical position. The interesting thing here is that this is a life in which the “natural” inclinations should, speaking from a psychological point of view, be suppressed, or transcended by means of a stronger motivation (cf. reaping eternal life in Gal 6:8). In Paul’s case he is convinced that Christ lives in him, that a fundamental part of his being has been crucified, and that he now lives for the sake of Christ in him. He believes that he not only participates in the missio Dei but also that he is being led by the Spirit who enables him to participate from the inside out and not the other way around. In a group-oriented world in which people differentiated themselves from each other, Paul encourages believers to do good towards all (Gal 6:10) and to live according to their newly created identity in Christ which leads to a constant dialogical participation in the inner self that needs to be led by the Spirt (cf. ἄγεσθε in Gal 5:18). Being newly created and experiencing the reality of participation in/with the Spirit does not mean that believers will not fall back. In Gal 4:9, we see that some have paradoxically fallen back into their old ways,80 and that many have taken part in the divisive works of the flesh to such an extent that Paul speaks of his congregation devouring each other (Gal 5:15). In other words, it could be argued that living in accord with the s/Spiritual life was a matter of constant struggle in which people might even have become weary. For that reason, Paul also encourages them by saying: “[L]et us not grow weary (ἐγκακῶμεν) in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart (ἐκλυόμενοι). So then, as we have the opportunity, let us do good to all, and especially to those who are in the household of faith” (Gal 6:9– 10). It appears that we find here a missional intention for the community both in relation to insiders (πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως) and outsiders (πρὸς πάντας). Betz referred to Gal 6:10 as expressing “the universal character of God’s redemption” and that it “corresponds to the universality of Christian ethical and social responsibility.”81 This vision and practise has important implications for mission, On living by the Spirit in Gal 5:25 being about animation and energising, see Barclay, Paul & the Gift, 441–442. 80 On the polemical representation of the Galatians’ pursuit of Jewish customs as a form of paganism, see, e.g., Martyn, Galatians, 414–18; Schreiner, Galatians, 279; de Boer, Galatians, 276–277. For the proposal that the Galatians were observing the Imperial calendar during the time that they were deciding if they should be circumcised, see Hardin, Galatians and the Imperial Cult, 122–127. 81 Betz, Galatians, 311. 79

80

Jacobus (Kobus) Kok – John Anthony Dunne

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, which transcends boundaries. In other words, a frame of reference also directed towards those outside of the faith community and not only centripetally to those inside.82 What we see, then, is that just as participation leads Paul to be a missionary and grounds the Gentile mission itself, so also it determines a particular ethos and set of ethics through the work of the Spirit in the community with the desired effect that the missional process carries on. In other words, participation established the Gentile mission, and it creates missional Gentiles.

Conclusions and Implications Paul’s theology of participation is, therefore, not about some ecstatic or mystical experience in which believers are extracted from the world, but in fact it is mainly missionally directed towards the world. This is clearly seen in Paul’s own missional vocation, but also in relation to Paul’s intentions for his readers, as we have seen in Gal 6:10. To this end, Dunn, although he does not mention the word mission, correctly observes that: “[B]eing in Christ is not … removal from the real world of every day. On the contrary, it becomes the starting point and base camp for a quite differently motivated and directed life.”83 As we have seen, the participation language in Paul is embedded within a cosmic drama, as discussed above, in which the individual is taken up into the narrative framework of God’s reconciling and restorative missional plan (cf. Rom 8:16–29; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:14–15). Participation is therefore not about escape from the world, but rather mission towards the world. The key to unlocking this reality is partaking in the indicative of having died with Christ to this world, but also in the continuing imperative responsibility of staying in participatory dialogue with the Spirit, which establishes this participatory union with Christ and forms us in such a way that we reflect the image of God so that we can partake in the continual missional of God – the mission which is a process initiated by God in and through his Son Jesus Christ, and is continued by the work of his Spirt within us, forming a dominant promotor position within the dynamics of the dialogical self.

82 83

411.

Kok, “Doing Good to All”, 171. James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998),

Participation in Christ and Missional Dynamics

81

Bibliography Barclay, John M. G. Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul’s Ethics in Galatians. SNTW. Edinburgh; London; New York: T&T Clark, 1988. –. “Why the Roman Empire Was Insignificant to Paul”. Pages 363–387 in Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews, Edited by idem. WUNT 275. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. –. Paul & the Gift. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Beasley-Murray, George Raymond. Baptism in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973. Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Bird, Michael F. Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission. LNTS 331. Edinburgh; London; New York: T&T Clark, 2007. –. Crossing Over Sea and Land: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2010. Blue, Bradley B. “Food Offered to Idols and Jewish Food Laws”. DPL 306–310. Bonnard, Pierre. L’Épitre de Saint Paul aux Galates. Neuchâtel. Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1953. Borse, Udo. Der Brief an die Galater. Regensburg: Pustet, 1984. Boussett, Wilhelm. Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus. Nashville: Abingdon, 1970 [1921]. Burke, Trevor J., and Brian S. Rosner, eds. Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice. LNTS 420. London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury, 2011. Burton, Ernest DeWitt. The Epistle to the Galatians. ICC. Edinburgh; London; New York: T&T Clark, 1980 [1920]. Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians and Ephesians. Translated by William Pringle. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. Campbell, Constantine R. Paul and Union with Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. Ciampa, Roy E. The Presence and Function of Scripture in Galatians 1 and 2. WUNT II 102. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Cummins, Stephen Anthony. Paul and the Crucified Christ in Antioch. SNTSMS 114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Das, A. Andrew. Galatians. Concordia Commentary. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2014. Davies, William David. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology. 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1967. Davis, Basil S. “The Meaning of ΠΡΟΕΓΡΑΦΗ in the Context of Galatians 3.1”. NTS 45 (1999): 194–212. de Boer, Martinus C. Galatians: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011. Deissmann, Adolf. Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History. Translated by William Wilson. New York: Harper, 1957. deSilva, David A. Galatians: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Waco TX: Baylor University Press, 2014. Despotis, Athanasios. Bekehrungserfahrung und –erinnerung bei Paulus und “Johannes”: Eine Untersuchung aus interdisziplinärer und orthodoxer Perspektive (forthcoming).

82

Jacobus (Kobus) Kok – John Anthony Dunne

Dickson, John P. Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities: The Shape, Extent and Background of Early Christian Mission. WUNT II 159. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Dinkler, Michal Beth. “The Thoughts of Many Hearts Shall Be Revealed: Listening in on Lukan Interior Monologues”. JBL 133 (2015): 373–399. Dunn, James D.G. The Epistle to the Galatians. BNTC 9. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993. –. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. –. “‘Baptised’ as Metaphor”. Pages 294–310 in Baptism, the New Testament and the Church: Historical and Contemporary Studies in Honour of R.E.O. White. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross. JSNTSup 171. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. –. The New Perspective on Paul. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Dunne, John Anthony. “Cast Out the Aggressive Agitators (Gl 4:29–30): Suffering, Identity, and the Ethics of Expulsion in Paul’s Mission to the Galatians”. Pages 246–269 in Sensitivity to Outsiders: Exploring the Dynamic Relationship between Mission and Ethics in the New Testament and Early Christianity. Edited by Jacobus (Kobus) Kok, Tobias Nicklas, Dieter T. Roth and Christopher M. Hays. WUNT II 364, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. –. “Suffering and Covenantal Hope in Galatians: A Critique of the ‘Apocalyptic Reading’ and Its Proponents”. SJT 68 (2015): 1–15. Eastman, Susan G. Recovering Paul’s Mother Tongue: Language and Theology in Galatians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Epictetus. The Discourses as Reported by Arrian, the Manual and Fragments. Translated by William A. Oldfather. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1946. Fee, Gordon D. Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007. Ferguson, Everett. Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. George, Timothy. Galatians. NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994. Gorman, Michael J. Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. –. Becoming the Gospel: Paul, Participation and Mission. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Hansen, Bruce. ‘All of you are one’: The Social Vision of Gal 3.28, 1 Cor 12.13 and Col 3.11. LNTS 409. Edinburgh; London; New York: T&T Clark, 2010. Hardin, Justin K. Galatians and the Imperial Cult: A Critical Analysis of the First-Century Social Context of Paul’s Letter. WUNT II 237. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Harmon, Matthew S. She Must and Shall Go Free: Paul’s Isaianic Gospel in Galatians. BZNW 168. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Hermans, Hubert J. M. and Agnieszka Hermans-Kanopka. Dialogical Self Theory: Positioning and Counter-Positioning in a Globalized Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Hewitt, J. Thomas, and Matthew V. Novenson. “Participation and Messiah Christology in Paul”. Pages 393–415 in God and the Faithfulness of Paul: A Critical Examination of the Pauline Theology of N. T. Wright, Edited by Christoph Heilig, J. Thomas Hewitt and Michael F. Bird. WUNT II 413. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Hubbard, Moyer V. New Creation in Paul’s Letters and Thought. SNTSMS 119. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Jackson, T. Ryan, New Creation in Paul’s Letters: A Study of the Historical and Social Setting of a Pauline Concept. WUNT II 272. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.

Participation in Christ and Missional Dynamics

83

Jensen, Robin M. Baptismal Imagery in Early Christianity: Ritual, Visual and Theological Dimensions. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012. Jipp, Joshua W. Christ Is King: Paul’s Royal Ideology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Kahl, Brigitte. Galatians Re-Imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished. Paul in Critical Contexts. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010. Kok, Jacobus (Kobus), and Dieter T. Roth. “Sensitivity Towards Outsiders and the Dynamic Relationship between Mission and Ethics/Ethos”. Pages 1–26 in Sensitivity Towards Outsiders: Exploring the Dynamic Relationship Between Mission and Ethics in the New Testament and Early Christianity. Edited by Jacobus (Kobus) Kok, Tobias Nicklas, Dieter T. Roth and Christopher M. Hays. WUNT II 364. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Kok, Jacobus (Kobus). “The New Perspective(s) on Paul and its Implication for Ethics and Mission”. Acta Patristica et Byzantina 21 (2010): 1–17. –. “Dialogical Self Theory as Heuristic Tool in New Testament Studies”. Paper presented at the Pretoria NT workgroup (book on the topic forthcoming). Pretoria: University of Pretoria, 2014a [2012]. –. “Doing Good to All: Perspectives on Mission and Ethics in Galatians”. Pages 145–178 in Insiders Versus Outsiders: Exploring the Dynamic Relationship Between Mission and Ethos in the New Testament, Edited by Jacobus Kok and John Antony Dunne. PPRT 14. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2014. –. “Christology in the Making: The Problem of Worshiping and Honouring Angels in Colossians”. Pages 145–70 in The New Testament in the Greco-Roman World: Articles in Honour of Abe Malherbe. Edited by Marius Nel, Jan G. Van der Watt, and Fika J. Van Rensburg. Berlin: LIT, 2015. –. Drawing and Transcending Boundaries in the Dutch Reformed Church. Ph.D. diss. in Science of Religion. Pretoria: University of Pretoria, 2016. –. New Perspectives in Healing, Restoration and Reconciliation in John. BibInt 149. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Lagrange, Marie-Joseph. Saint Paul: Épître aux Galates. EBib. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1950. Lamott, Anne. Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life. New York: Anchor Books, 1995. Lightfoot, Joseph Barber. Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians: A Revised Text with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1870. Longenecker, Bruce W. The Triumph of Abraham’s God: The Transformation of Identity in Galatians. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. WBC 41. Dallas: Word, 1990. Macaskill, Grant. Union with Christ in the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Malina, Bruce J., and John J. Pilch. Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 33A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Matera, Frank J. Galatians. SP 9. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2007 [1992]. McFarland, Orrey. “‘The One Who Calls in Grace’: Paul’s Rhetorical and Theological Identification with the Galatians”. HBT 35 (2013): 151–165. McKnight, Scot. A Light Among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Meeks, Wayne A. The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two Centuries. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.

84

Jacobus (Kobus) Kok – John Anthony Dunne

Mitternacht, Dieter. Forum für Sprachlose: Eine kommunikationspsychologische und epistolär–rhetorische Untersuchung des Galaterbriefs. ConBOT 30. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1999. Moo, Douglas J. Galatians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013. Morales, Isaac Augustine. “Baptism and Union with Christ”. In ‘In Christ’ in Paul: Explorations in Paul’s Theology of Union and Participation, Edited by Michael J. Thate, Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Constantine R. Campbell. WUNT II 384, 157–180, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Müller, Julian C., Wilhelm van Deventer, and Lourens Human. “Fiction Writing as Metaphor for Research: A Narrative Approach”. Praktiese Teologie in Suid-Afrika 16(2) (2001): 1–13. Mußner, Franz. Der Galaterbrief. HThKNT 9. Freiburg: Herder, 1974. Neusner, Jacob. From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism. Eaglewood: Prentice Hall, 1973. –. Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Series 1. Edited by Philip Schaff. 1886–1889. 14 vols. Repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Novenson, Matthew V. Christ Among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. –. “What the Apostles Did Not See”. Pages 55–72 in Reactions to Empire: Sacred Texts in their Socio-Political Contexts. Edited by John Anthony Dunne and Dan Batovici. WUNT II 372, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Oakes, Peter. Galatians. Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2015. Oepke, Albrecht. Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater. THKNT 9. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1964. Patrologia Graeca. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857–1886. Ridderbos, Nicolaas Herman. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997 [1975]. Sanders, Ed P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Schewe, Susanne. Die Galater zurückgewinnen: Paulinische Strategien in Galater 5 und 6. FRLANT 208. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Schlier, Heinrich. Der Brief an die Galater. KEK 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951. Schnabel, Eckhard J. Early Christian Mission. Downer’s Grove: IVP, 2004. –. Paul, the Missionary: Realities, Strategies, and Methods. Downer’s Grove: IVP, 2008. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul: A Study in Pauline Theology. Translated by George R. Beasley-Murray. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964. Schreiner, Thomas R. Galatians. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Schweitzer, Albert. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998 [1931]. Thate, Michael J., Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Constantine R. Campbell, eds., ‘In Christ’ in Paul: Explorations in Paul’s Theology of Union and Participation. WUNT II 384. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Van der Watt, Jan G., ed., Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament. BZNW 141. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. Van Eck, Ernest. “Reaction to Kok’s paper on Dialogical Self Theory”. Paper presented to the Pretoria NT workgroup. Pretoria: University of Pretoria, 2015.

Participation in Christ and Missional Dynamics

85

Vouga, François. An die Galater. HNT 10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Wedderburn, Alexander J. M. “Some Observations on Paul’s Use of the Phrases ‘In Christ’ and ‘With Christ’”. JSNT 25 (1985): 83–97. Williams, Sam K. Galatians. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 1997. Witherington III, Ben. Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Wright, Christopher J. H. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible's Grand Narrative. Downer's Grove: IVP, 2006. –. The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church's Mission. Biblical Theology for Life. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Wright, N. T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. –. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. COQG 4. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. –. Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul, 1978–2013. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. –. “Messiahship in Galatians?” Pages 3–23 in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter, edited by Mark W. Elliott, Scott J. Hafemann, N. T. Wright and John Frederick (eds.). Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. –. Paul and His Recent Interpreters: Some Contemporary Debates. London: SPCK, 2015. –. The Paul Debate: Critical Questions for Understanding the Apostle. Waco TX: Baylor University Press, 2015.

Part II Orthodox Readings of the Relevant Pauline Texts

Paulus über „Gerechtigkeit“ und „Rechtfertigung“ Exegetische Perspektiven unter Berücksichtigung von 1 Kor. 1,30 Konstantin Nikolakopoulos Zur Einführung Die seit den letzten Jahrzehnten des 20. Jahrhunderts von der Bibelwissenschaft intensiv diskutierte Frage nach dem „historischen“ Paulus betrifft einerseits die Biographie des Heidenapostels. Andererseits bezieht sie sich auf seine Theologie und die Reflexionen über seine missionarische Tätigkeit. Diesbezüglich trug die von Krister Stendahl1 und Ed P. Sanders2 bereits skizzierte und durch James D. G. Dunn3 deutlich geprägte „Neue Perspektive“ der Paulusforschung ein zentrales Verdienst davon: Paulus, seine Briefe und seine Beziehung zum Judentum werden nun vor dem Hintergrund des historischen Kontextes des Apostels betrachtet. Dadurch wird das Paulusbild von seinen späteren Aktualisierungen bei Augustinus und Luther losgelöst. „Nicht nur der Leser des Neuen Testaments, sondern jeder theologisch Interessierte bekommt bei einer neutralen Betrachtung seines Werkes den Eindruck, dass Paulus der bedeutendste und einflussreichste Denker des Urchristentums gewesen sei.“4 Die Frage nach der Beleuchtung dieser bedeutenden 1 Krister Stendahl, „The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West“. HThR 56 (1963): 199–215. Siehe auch Ders., Der Jude Paulus und wir Heiden. Anfragen an das abendländische Christentum (München: Chr. Kaiser, 1986). 2 Ed P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, (London: SCM, 1977). Deutsche Übersetzung von Jürgen Wehnert: Paulus und das palästinische Judentum. Ein Vergleich zweier Religionsstrukturen, StUNT 17 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985). 3 James D. G. Dunn, „The New Perspective on Paul“, BJRL 65 (1982/83): 95–122. 4 Konstantinos Nikolakopoulos, „Ausgewählte Aspekte der paulinischen Theologie am Beispiel des 2. Korintherbriefes“, in Τόμος επετειακός επί τη συμπληρώσει είκοσι ετών από της υπό του Σεβασμιωτάτου Μητροπολίτου Βεροίας, Ναούσης και Καμπανίας κ. Παντελεήμονος καθιερώσεως των εκδηλώσεων προς τιμήν του Αγίου ενδόξου Αποστόλου Παύλου 1995– 2014, Hg. Heilige Metropolie von Veroia, Naousa und Kampania (Veroia: Melissa, 2014) 301. Dazu vgl. ferner Werner G. Kümmel, Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments nach seinen

90

Konstantin Nikolakopoulos

Persönlichkeit des Urchristentums sollte aus mehreren Blickwinkeln betrachtet werden. Man kann und darf die sog. traditionelle Paulusinterpretation, d. h. die klassische Unterscheidung zwischen „Werke[n] des Gesetzes“ und „Rechtfertigung aus Glauben“, nicht ignorieren und über Bord werfen, wie manche Vertreter der „neuen Perspektive“ zu meinen scheinen. Das traditionelle lutherische Verständnis des Paulus bedarf diverser Korrekturen (z. B. bezüglich des Verhältnisses von Paulus zum Judentum, zum Hellenismus, zum römischen Reich usw.), die augenscheinlich die „neue Perspektive“ leisten wollte, und aus der sich konsequenterweise nicht eine „neue“, sondern mehrere „neue Perspektiven“ ergaben. „In der Diskussion über die ‚new perspective‘ darf darum nicht in Vergessenheit geraten, dass es sich nicht um eine klar definierte Position handelt, sondern um eine veränderte Gemengelage aus miteinander verwandten, aber nicht identischen Impulsen zu einer Neuorientierung im Verständnis der paulinischen Theologie.“5 So aufschlussreich und fortschrittlich die „neuen Perspektiven“ auch sein mögen, so können sie mitunter auch zu einer reduktionistischen und anachronistischen Sichtweise führen. Primär geht es nicht um die Frage, ob Paulus mehr vom Hellenismus oder vom Judentum beeinflusst worden war,6 bzw. ob er mehr Grieche oder mehr Jude war, sondern, ob es uns gelingen kann, sein theologisches Konzept in einer synthetischen und holistischen Weise aufzufassen. Es sollte unzweideutig hervorgehoben werden: „Der jüdische Hintergrund und jegliche griechische Bildung des Paulus werden zum Dienste des christlichen Evangeliums angesetzt.“7 Die Theologie des Paulus und seine missionarische Strategie werden in der Diskussion um die „Werke des Gesetzes“ und das Argument der „Rechtfertigung aus Glauben“ nicht vollends ausgeschöpft. Man muss unter anderem auch den christologischen Parameter berücksichtigen. Auf eben diese Art und Weise geht die östliche patristische Schriftauslegung vor,8 indem sie die paulinische Hauptzeugen Jesus, Paulus, Johannes, GNT 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), 121. 5 Klaus Haacker, „Verdienste und Grenzen der ‚neuen Perspektive‘ der Paulus-Auslegung“, in Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive. Beiträge zu einem Schlüsselproblem der gegenwärtigen exegetischen Diskussion“, Hg. Michael Bachmann, WUNT 182 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 3. 6 Zu einem Aspekt dieser umfangreichen Thematik s. Pablo T. Gadenz, Called from the Jews and from the Gentiles. Pauline Ecclesiology in Romans 9–11, WUNT II (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 267. 7 Ioannis Karavidopoulos, „Η σημασία του κηρύγματος του Αποστόλου Παύλου στον ελληνικό κόσμο“, in: Ders., Βιβλικές μελέτες, Bd. 2., Biblike Bibliotheke 16 (Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 2000), 129: „Το ιουδαϊκό υπόβαθρο του Παύλου και η όποια ελληνική του κατάρτιση τίθενται στην υπηρεσία του χριστιανικού ευαγγελίου.“ 8 Siehe dazu mehr in Konstantin Nikolakopoulos, Die „unbekannten“ Hymnen des Neuen Testaments. Die orthodoxe Hermeneutik und die historisch-kritische Methode, VIOTh 7 (Aachen: Shaker, 2000), 41–42.

„Gerechtigkeit“ und „Rechtfertigung“

91 

Kreuzes- und Auferstehungstheologie9 zu einer Conditio sine qua non eines vervollständigten Paulusbildes macht.10 Auch wenn in den Augen der orthodoxen Exegeten nicht alle Ergebnisse der „neuen Perspektive“ nachvollziehbar sind, sollte ein grundlegender Beitrag dieser modernen Paulusforschung hervorgehoben werden: durch die im Protestantismus sich formierende „neue Perspektive“ wurde die brennende Frage nach der Identität des Paulus aufs Neue in die wissenschaftliche Debatte eingebracht. Welches paulinische Bild wird uns durch die neutestamentlichen Texte vermittelt? Sollte Paulus ausschließlich aus seiner jüdischen Perspektive betrachtet werden oder handelt es sich um einen Paulus, der einen radikalen Bruch mit seinen jüdischen Wurzeln vollzogen hat und nun etwas ganz anderes, nämlich das Christentum, vertritt? Um diese Frage möglichst zuverlässig beantworten zu können, sollten zumindest zwei gewichtige Aspekte paulinischer Theologie auf die Waage gelegt werden: einerseits das paulinische Verhältnis zum Gesetz und dessen Verständnis11, andererseits das persönliche Verhältnis des ehemaligen Christenverfolgers Saulus zu Christus, und zwar seit seiner von ihm selbst als apokalyptisch12 formulierten Christustheophanie bei der Damaskusbegegnung (Gal. 1,11–17; vgl. Apg. 9,3–8). Diesem doppelten Aspekt paulinischer Theologie, der an zahlreichen Stellen der Briefe des Heidenapostels unmittelbar oder anspielungsweise anzutreffen ist, wollen wir in den nachfolgenden Ausführungen nachgehen.

Zum Kontext des Ersten Korintherbriefes Für die orthodoxe synthetische Auslegung eines so umfangreichen paulinischen Textes wie des Ersten Korintherbriefes, der derart unterschiedliche Themen nacheinander behandelt,13 spielt nicht die isolierte Behandlung einer Einzelstelle, sondern die Berücksichtigung des gesamten Kontextes eine zentrale Vgl. dazu N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). Eine detaillierte Analyse der paulinischen Auferstehungstheologie siehe bei Vasilios P. Stogiannos, „Ἡ Ἀνάσταση τῶν νεκρῶν“, in Ἑρμηνευτικά μελετήματα, Hg. ders. Biblike Bibliotheke 4 (Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 2006), 493–514. 11 Siehe in diesem Zusammenhang auch die aufschlussreiche Analyse im Werk von Frank Thielman, Paul & the Law: A Contextual Approach (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), der das paulinische Verständnis des Gesetzes im Lichte seines Evangeliums über Jesus Christus verdeutlicht und somit die Kohärenz und Integrität der paulinischen Theologie im Umfeld des 1. Jahrhunderts n.Chr. bekräftigt. 12 Charakteristischerweise gebraucht Paulus selbst eine apokalyptische Begrifflichkeit dafür: ἀποκαλύψαι (Gal. 1,15), ἑόρακα (1 Kor. 9,1), ὤφθη (1 Kor. 15,8). 13 Vgl. Ioannis Karavidopoulos, Εἰσαγωγή στήν καινή Διαθήκη, 2. Auflage, Biblike Bibliotheke 1 (Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 1998), 301: „ἡ Α΄ πρός Κορινθίους εἶναι ἡ πλουσιότερη σέ ἀριθμό θεμάτων ἐπιστολή τῆς Κ.Δ.“ 9

10

92

Konstantin Nikolakopoulos

Rolle. Da die Schriften des „Corpus Paulinum“ keine systematischen Abhandlungen sind,14 sollten für ihre Auslegung konkrete Faktoren ausgewertet werden. Entscheidend für den Ersten Korintherbrief sind selbstverständlich die Anlässe zur Abfassung des Briefes. Umso mehr muss der Kontext der Adressaten des Paulus unter die Lupe genommen werden. Dieser letzte grundlegende Faktor ist auch den altkirchlichen Exegeten und Theologen nicht entgangen. So betont Johannes Chrysostomos zu Beginn seines exegetischen Werkes zum Ersten Korintherbrief bezüglich der Paulus-Opponenten: Da bildeten sich nun einige Parteien gegen einander und stellten sich aus eigenem Antrieb als Häuptlinge an die Spitze des Volkes; die Einen schlossen sich an diese, die Andern an jene Parteiführer an, an die Einen, weil sie reich, an die Andern, weil sie als fähige Köpfe bessere Lehrmeister wären. Diese Führer nahmen sich ihrer Parteigänger an und rühmten sich nun, etwas mehr zu lehren als der Apostel. Darauf deutet auch Paulus hin mit den Worten: ‚Ich konnte nicht mit euch reden wie mit geistigen Menschen‘.15

Der Erste Korintherbrief zeichnet sich durch seine starke und intensive Formulierung der theologischen Botschaft des Heidenapostels aus, nämlich der Botschaft über Jesus Christus, den Gekreuzigten und Auferstandenen. Darüber hinaus gelingt Paulus in diesem ersten Schreiben an die Korinther das Einbringen der theologischen Botschaft in das konkrete Leben der Gemeinde so stark wie sonst in keinem anderen seiner Briefe.16 Für ein holistisches Verständnis des Textes ist es wichtig zu betonen, dass die Theologie des Kreuzes und der Auferstehung jene zwei Eckpfeiler des Briefes darstellt, die jeweils zu Beginn (Kapitel 1 & 2) und gegen Ende (Kapitel 15) den theologischen Bogen des gesamten Briefes spannen und den praktischen, alle Situationen des Lebens betreffenden Teil (Kapitel 5–14) harmonisch umrahmen. Insbesondere wäre in diesem Zusammenhang die Kreuzestheologie hervorzuheben, derer sich Paulus sowohl hier als auch in anderen seiner neuralgischen Briefe als theologisches Argument gegen seine Opponenten bedient und somit mehr oder minder Stellung zur christlich verstandenen Rechtfertigung17 nimmt. Da sich der Heidenapostel innerhalb seiner hohen Theologie, die in all seinen Texten anzutreffen ist, insbesondere durch seine Ausführungen über den 14 Vgl. Konstantinos Nikolakopoulos, Das Neue Testament in der Orthodoxen Kirche. Grundlegende Fragen einer Einführung in das Neue Testament, 2. Auflage, Lehr- und Studienbücher Orthodoxe Theologie 1 (Berlin: LIT, 2014), 209. 15 Johannes Chrysostomos, Hom. 1 Cor. Argumentum (PG 61:11). Interessanterweise nennt Chrysostomos in der Vorbemerkung „τὸν πλοῦτον καὶ τὴν σοφίαν τῶν οἰκούντων“ als entscheidenden Auslöser für die verwirrte Situation in Korinth. 16 Siehe diesbezüglich auch Konstantinos Nikolakopoulos, Das Neue Testament in der Orthodoxen Kirche. Grundlegende Fragen einer Einführung in das Neue Testament, 2. Auflage, Lehr- und Studienbücher Orthodoxe Theologie 1 (Berlin: LIT, 2014), 226. 17 Aufschlussreich zu dieser Thematik ist die Arbeit von Thomas Söding, „Kreuzestheologie und Rechtfertigungslehre. Zur Verbindung von Christologie und Soteriologie im Ersten Korintherbrief und im Galaterbrief“, Catholica 46 (1992): 31–60.

„Gerechtigkeit“ und „Rechtfertigung“

93 

richtigen Zugang des Menschen zum Göttlichen und letzten Endes über seine Rettung (σωτηρία) auszeichnet, würde sich auch die Erforschung des Ersten Korintherbriefes unter diesem Gesichtspunkt lohnen. Wie verhält es sich in diesem zentralen Brief zwischen den zwei grundlegenden paulinischen Themenbereichen, der „Rechtfertigung aus Glauben in Christus“ einerseits und „dem Aufprallen über die Werke des Gesetztes“ andererseits?18 Obwohl es im Ersten Korintherbrief, der einen anderen Kontext aufweist, keine direkte Gegenüberstellung zwischen „Glauben“ und „Werken“ gibt, wie z. B. im Römerbzw. Galaterbrief, erweist sich im ersten theologischen Teil des Korintherbriefes dennoch eine konkrete Stelle, in der unter anderem die einschlägigen Begriffe „Jesus Christus“, „Gerechtigkeit“ und „Erlösung“ miteinander verflochten sind, als sehr aufschlussreich: ἐξ αὐτοῦ δὲ ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ὃς ἐγενήθη σοφία ἡμῖν ἀπὸ θεοῦ, δικαιοσύνη τε καὶ ἁγιασμὸς καὶ ἀπολύτρωσις (1 Kor. 1,30) [: Von ihm her seid ihr in Christus Jesus, den Gott für uns zur Weisheit gemacht hat, zur Gerechtigkeit, Heiligung und Erlösung.]

Inwieweit könnte die ostkirchliche exegetische Annäherung an diese paulinische Formulierung zur Beleuchtung der Theologie des Heidenapostels beitragen? Gibt es im Hintergrund dieses paulinischen Gedankengangs Berührungspunkte mit einer breiteren Rechtfertigungs- bzw. Erlösungstheologie des Apostels? Würde die orthodoxe Interpretation von 1 Kor. 1,30 auf die auch seitens der „Neuen Perspektive“ gestellte Frage nach deutlicheren Aspekten des Profils und der Denkweise des Paulus etwas mehr Licht werfen können? Könnten so eventuell auch andere Punkte Berücksichtigung finden, die für die Diskussion über den Eingang der heidnischen Konvertiten in die Kirche19 und ihre Stellung in derselben relevant sind?

18 Bezüglich dieser wichtigen Fragestellung verweise ich auf die erstmals gründliche Darstellung der Problematik im interessanten Aufsatz von Athanasios Despotis, „Περὶ δικαιώσεως διδασκαλία στὴν Α΄ Κορ.;“ in Saint Paul and Corinth. 1950 Years Since the Writing of the Epistles to the Corinthians. International Scholarly Conference Proceedings (Corinth, 23–25 September 2007), Bd. 1, Hg. Constantine J. Belezos, Sotirios Despotis und Christos Karakolis (Athen: Psichogios Publications, 2009), 491–503. Erwähnenswert ist in diesem Aufsatz die Bemerkung über die auf den ersten Blick im Ersten Korintherbrief angeblich fehlende Verbindung zwischen den Begriffen „Gerechtigkeit“ und „Glauben Christi“: „Ὅμως μὲ μία πρώτη ματιὰ δὲν μπορεῖ νὰ ἐντοπίσει κανεὶς στὴν Α΄ Πρὸς Κορινθίους παρόμοια σύνδεση τῶν ὅρων ‘δικαιοσύνη’ καὶ ‘πίστις Χριστοῦ’. Γι’ αὐτὸ καὶ πολλοὶ ἑρμηνευτὲς θεώρησαν ὅτι ἡ ἐπιστολὴ αὐτὴ δὲν περικλείει τὴν περὶ δικαιώσεως διδασκαλία“, S. 491– 492. 19 Zur Weiterführung dieser Thematik vgl. Krister Stendahl, Das Vermächtnis des Paulus: Eine neue Sicht auf den Römerbrief, übers. von Kathy Ehrensperger und Wolfgang Stegemann (Zürich: TVZ, 2001), 11–13 und 17–20.

94

Konstantin Nikolakopoulos

Der exegetisch-theologische Ertrag anhand der Formulierung in 1 Kor. 1,30 Die Brieftexte des Paulus setzen konkrete Gemeindesituationen voraus, die man allerdings durchaus weiterhin als Auslöser großartiger theologischer Ausführungen bezeichnen kann. Unsere Stelle (1 Kor. 1,30) befindet sich inmitten jenes ersten Teils des Briefes (1,1–4,21), in dem die Vorstellung des gekreuzigten Herrn zum Schwerpunkt wird. Der Anlass dafür ist hier eine Gemeindesituation, nämlich jene der drohenden Zerteilung der Gemeinde durch Parteienbildung und der Streitigkeiten wegen einer angeblichen Überlegenheit an Weisheit. Dieser Abschnitt des Briefes umfasst den „Wurzeltext“ (1,10–17), „weil er das Problem nennt und eine erste Antwort gibt“. Darauf folgt die theologische Argumentation (1,18–2,16), wobei der Rest (3,1–4,21) als eine Art „abschließendes Nachwort“ die Anwendung des Theologischen auf die Praxis innerhalb der Gemeinde projiziert.20 „Inhaltlich kommt Paulus dort wieder auf die anfangs geschilderte Situation zurück und spricht eindringlich als ‚Seelsorger‘, um die Korinther zu einer Sinnesänderung zu bewegen.“21 Es war seit jeher ein Alleinstellungsmerkmal der ostkirchlichen Exegese, die betroffene Stelle in ihrem unmittelbaren inhaltlichen Kontext zu interpretieren. In den vier ersten Kapiteln des Ersten Korintherbriefes lässt sich das theologische Ziel des Paulus eindeutig skizzieren: der Heidenapostel bemüht sich leidenschaftlich darum zu zeigen, dass sich jedwede behauptete Überlegenheit dank angeblicher profaner Mittel wie menschlicher Weisheit, Gnadengaben und Kenntnisse, als nutzlos erweist. Paulus erinnert hier an die zentrale Botschaft des Christentums, dass nämlich das Kreuz Jesu Christi die eigentliche Mitte des Evangeliums ausmacht. Für Paulus ist Christus selbst die Erwiderung der oben erwähnten profanen Mittel: Christus stellt die wahre göttliche Weisheit, die Gerechtigkeit, die Heiligung und letzten Endes die Erlösung dar (1 Kor. 1,30). In aller Deutlichkeit zeigt der Apostel in diesem Zusammenhang die Inkompatibilität zwischen der göttlichen und der weltlichen Weisheit auf, worauf er sich insbesondere im ganzen 2. Kapitel ausführlich bezieht. „Das soteriologische Zentrum des Christentums bildet die weltlich verstandene Torheit des Kreuzes.“22 Diese erlösende Botschaft, dass nämlich nicht das Prahlen über profane Weisheit, sondern der Glaube von der Errettung durch den gekreuzigten Heiland grundlegend ist, konzentriert sich in dem kompakten Abschnitt 1 Kor. 1,26–31. „Es handelt sich um einen besonders aufgeladenen

Vgl. auch Savvas Agouridis, Ἀποστόλου Παύλου Πρώτη πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολή, Hermeneia Kaines Diathekes 7 (Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 1982), 37–93. 21 Norbert Baumert, Sorgen des Seelsorgers. Übersetzung und Auslegung des ersten Korintherbriefes (Würzburg: Echter, 2007), 17 Anm.7. 22 Agouridis, Πρώτη πρὸς Κορινθίους, 37. 20

„Gerechtigkeit“ und „Rechtfertigung“

95 

Text, den Paulus direkt an die Korinther richtet und der in 1,26 mit der emphatischen Aufforderung beginnt: ‚Seht doch auf eure Berufung, Brüder!‘“23 Im breiteren Kontext schreckt Paulus von einer offenen Auseinandersetzung mit den Weisen der Welt nicht zurück. Für die Durchsetzung seiner Botschaft setzt er sich leidenschaftlich ein, indem er sich bewusst effektiver rhetorischer Mittel und Figuren bedient. Charakteristischerweise attackiert er seine Opponenten, die er kurz vorher im Rahmen seiner Kreuzespredigt als „verloren“ bezeichnet (1 Kor. 1,18) hat, elegant und mit rhetorischer Eloquenz durch die Verwendung der wiederholten rhetorischen Frage, die in der antiken Rhetorik auch als „Pysma“ (πύσμα)24 bekannt ist: „Wo ist ein Weiser? Wo ein Schriftgelehrter? Wo ein Wortführer in dieser Welt? Hat Gott nicht die Weisheit der Welt als Torheit entlarvt?“ (1 Kor. 1,20). Die Verwendung dieses stilistischen und rhetorischen Mittels durch Paulus kann nicht zufällig gewesen sein. Bereits in der Antike war bekannt, dass eine Reihe hinter einander folgender Fragen zur Amplifikation eines Gedankens beiträgt.25 In diesem Fall wird die Wirkung der rhetorischen Frage sogar noch verstärkt, da Paulus das rhetorische Schema der „ἀνθυποφορά“ oder „subjectio“26 anwendet, indem er in einem Monolog die entsprechenden Antworten auf die gestellten Fragen selbst gibt (1 Kor. 21– 25). Damit ist es Paulus gelungen, seine Gegenspieler zu eliminieren. Auch im kompakten Abschnitt 1 Kor. 1,26–31, der für unseren Zusammenhang von Bedeutung ist, bedient sich der Heidenapostel tatkräftig weiterer rhetorischer Mittel. Bereits zu Beginn der Texteinheit wirkt die absolut formulierte Betonung des göttlichen Faktors bei der Berufung der Mitglieder der Gemeinde rational befremdend und überraschend. „Hatte Paulus vorher grundsätzlich, theologisch gesprochen, so bringt er nun ein konkretes Beispiel für jene Weise des törichten Wirkens Gottes.“27 Auch in diesem Fall bedient sich Paulus des Paradoxons, d. h. einer der effektivsten rhetorischen Gedankenfiguren. Das Paradoxon „zeichnet sich dadurch aus, dass es gegensätzliche und scheinbar widersprüchliche Bedeutungen beinhaltet, hinter denen sich aber ein vernünftiger Sinn verbirgt, der, obwohl er dem oberflächlich denkenden Zuschauer wesenslos und unvorstellbar scheint, unentbehrlich das Fundament der ganzen rhetorischen Gedankenfigur bildet.“28 Die direkte und unverkennbare Verbindung der göttlichen Berufung mit der menschlichen Schwäche bildet das Athanasios Despotis, „Περὶ δικαιώσεως“, 493. Ausführlich dazu siehe bei Konstantinos Nikolakopoulos, Καιvή Διαθήκη καί Ρητoρική. Τά ρητoρικά σχήματα διαvoίας στά ἱστoρικά βιβλία τῆς Καιvῆς Διαθήκης (Katerini: Tertios, 1993), 219–220. 25 Vgl. dazu Richard Emil Volkmann, Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer in systematischer Übersicht, Neudruck (Hildesheim: Georg Olms 1987), 418. 26 Die entsprechende antike rhetorische Theorie findet sich bei Nikolakopoulos, Καιvή Διαθήκη καί Ρητoρική, 220. 27 Baumert, Sorgen des Seelsorgers, 29. 28 Nikolakopoulos, Καιvή Διαθήκη καί Ρητoρική, 344. 23 24

96

Konstantin Nikolakopoulos

große Paradoxon der paulinischen Kreuzes- und Rechtfertigungstheologie in den Augen der weltlich Denkenden und zugleich das Argument, welches seine Gegner verstummen lässt. Die Botschaft des großen Apostels wird hier glasklar: Gott rettet eigentlich nur jene gläubigen Menschen, die bereit sind, ihre eigene geistige Unmündigkeit, Torheit und Schwachheit Gott gegenüber zu bekennen.29 Dieses große Paradoxon verkennt Kyrill von Alexandrien nicht und identifiziert die Torheit des Evangeliums mit dem Glauben an den Gekreuzigten. Er spielt sogar auf 1 Kor. 1,30 an, indem er diesen Glauben mit der Erkenntnis der Wahrheit, der Heiligung und letzten Endes mit der Erlösung in direkte Verbindung bringt.30 Die besondere rhetorische Struktur des gesamten ersten Teils (Kap. 1–4) ist in der Forschung bereits hervorgehoben worden.31 Die sich im Abschnitt 1 Kor. 1,26–31 entfaltende „argumentatio“ stellt die brillante rhetorische Kompetenz des Apostels unter Beweis. Hier haben wir tatsächlich eines der besten Beispiele neutestamentlicher Texte dafür, dass die Rhetorik „grundsätzlich der begrifflichen Umkleidung der Wahrheiten dient“32 und somit der beabsichtigten Botschaft einen deutlichen didaktisch-pädagogischen Charakter verleiht. An diesem Text lässt sich ohne Zweifel „eine rhetorische Bildung des Paulus erkennen“33. Allerdings sollte an dieser Stelle der grundlegende Unterschied der paulinischen Rhetorik zur griechisch-römischen Rhetorik deutlich gemacht werden. Während der antike Rhetor sich bemüht, sich durch seine Überzeugungstechnik als Autorität zu erweisen, rühmt sich der neutestamentliche Prediger seiner Niedrigkeit (1 Kor. 2,1–5) und bedient sich der Selbstironie, indem

Vgl. auch Mt. 11,25: „In jener Zeit sprach Jesus: Ich preise dich, Vater, Herr des Himmels und der Erde, weil du all das den Weisen und Klugen verborgen, den Unmündigen aber offenbart hast.“ 30 Kyrill von Alexandrien, Expl. 1 Cor. (PG 74:860C): „Τοῖς μὲν μέγα φρονοῦσιν ἐπὶ σοφίᾳ κοσμικῇ καὶ τὴν πίστιν οὐ προσιεμένοις, δῆλον δὲ ὅτι τὴν εἰς Χριστόν, μωρία τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον. Ἡμῖν δὲ οὐχ οὕτως, πολλοῦ γε καὶ δεῖ∙ διατεθείμεθα γὰρ ὅτι δύναμις Θεοῦ ἐστι, καὶ σωτηρίας ὁδὸς ἀποφέρουσα πρὸς ἁγιασμόν, καὶ εἰς τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας ἐπίγνωσιν παιδαγωγοῦσα σοφῶς δαψιλῶν κηρυγμάτων.“ 31 Siehe beispielsweise das Kapitel „Briefcharakter und Rhetorik“ im Kommentar von Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 1. Teilband 1 Kor. 1,1–6,11, EKK VII/1 (Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991), 71–90, hier 79: „Nach Aristoteles (Rhet. 1,2,3, 1356a) gibt es drei Überzeugungsmittel: ἦθος (Charakter des Redners), πάθος (Stimmung der Hörer) und λόγος (die Rede selbst mit ihren Argumenten). Von da aus kann man z. B. in Kap. 1–4 ἦθος-Momente erkennen, die den Apostel glaubhaft machen sollen.“ 32 Vgl. weiter Konstantin Nikolakopoulos, „Aspekte der ‚paulinischen Ironie‘ am Beispiel des Galaterbriefes“, BZ 45 (2001): 195. 33 Udo Schnelle, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, UTB 1830 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 51. 29

„Gerechtigkeit“ und „Rechtfertigung“

97 

er sich als töricht (1 Kor. 1,21) bezeichnet.34 Das demonstrativ-persuasive Ziel der griechisch-römischen Rhetorik wird in solchen neutestamentlichen Texten durch ein kerygmatisches ersetzt.35 Im Rahmen des bereits erwähnten Paradoxons wendet der Autor nun eine Reihe von absichtlich gedachten Antithesen an, welche die Spannung des theologisch konzipierten, polemischen Tones erhöhen: „töricht – weise“, „schwach – stark“, „niedrig/verachtet – vornehm“, „nicht seiend – seiend“ (1 Kor. 1,26–28). Ein zusätzlich resolutes Argumentationsmittel ist die Tatsache, dass zu Beginn dieser Einheit die profan Weisen, Mächtigen und Vornehmen aus der Gemeinde nicht völlig abgelehnt werden. Die sind einfach „οὐ πολλοί“ (1 Kor. 1,26), was auch in der alten patristischen Exegese nicht unkommentiert bleibt.36 „An der Tatsache, dass es nur wenige sind, macht Paulus freilich den tiefer liegenden Gegensatz klar.“37 Zugleich kann man dennoch nicht verkennen, dass diese antithetischen Sinninhalte ebenso ironische Stilmittel, die sich gegen die Opponenten des Paulus richten, darstellen. Die rhetorische Analyse des Abschnittes lässt sich damit jedoch nicht ausschöpfen. Der aufmerksame Beobachter erkennt in der Aneinanderreihung der in den weltlichen Augen absteigenden Bezeichnungen der von Gott berufenen Gläubigen eine gewisse „Steigerung“, eine „Klimax“38, die rhetorisch gewollt ist und in V. 28b durch die eindrucksvolle Figur der Hyperbel gekrönt wird. Dass die Auserwählten „Nicht-Seiende“ genannt werden, verbirgt an sich bereits eine hyperbolische Sprache.39 Selbstverständlich kann Gott etwas, was überhaupt nicht existiert, nicht auswählen; gemeint sind hier die Geringen, d. h. diejenigen, die meinen, keinen Wert zu haben, völlig unbedeutend zu sein, wie man auch in der Exegese der Alten Kirche diesbezüglich betont: „Jene, die meinen, Nichts zu sein; diese nennt der Apostel Nicht-Seiend. Als Seiend aber (bezeichnet er) jene, die meinen, Etwas (Wichtiges) zu sein.“40

34 Siehe mehr dazu bei Nikolakopoulos, Καιvή Διαθήκη καί Ρητoρική, 45: „Ἡ ρητορική τῆς Καινῆς Διαθήκης δέν εἶναι ἀκριβῶς «πειθοῦς δημιουργός» ἀλλά ὑπηρετεῖ τήν «τῆς άληθείας ἀποκάλυψιν» καί τήν «τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου διακήρυξιν».“ 35 Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 79. 36 Vgl. z. B. den Kommentar von Theophylaktos von Ohrid, Exp. 1 Cor. (PG 124:581C): „Οὐκ εἶπε δέ, ὅτι Οὐδεὶς σοφός, ἀλλ’ «Οὐ πολλοί.» Ἦσαν γὰρ σοφοὶ καὶ ἐν τῇ πίστει ... Ὧστε ἰδὲ τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ κηρύγματος, πῶς ἰδιώτας οὕτω σοφὰ δόγματα ἐδίδαξε, καὶ ὅπως ἡ ἔξω σοφία ἀχρεῖόν τι δείκνυται.“ 37 Baumert, Sorgen des Seelsorgers, 29. 38 Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 204. Darüber hinaus vgl. Josef Bohatec, „Inhalt und Reihenfolge der ‚Schlagworte der Erlösungsreligion‘ in 1. Kor. 1,26–31“, ThZ 4 (1948): 252–271. 39 Baumert, Sorgen des Seelsorgers, 30. 40 Theophylaktos von Ohrid, Exp. 1 Cor. (PG 124:584A): „Τοὺς μηδὲν εἶναι λογιζομένους, τούτους μὴ ὄντα ὀνομάζει∙ ὄντα δέ, τοὺς εἶναί τι δοκοῦντας.“

98

Konstantin Nikolakopoulos

Die vier erwähnten antithetischen Kategorien implizieren zwar automatisch die soziale bzw. soziologische Ebene, sie haben jedoch für Paulus vielmehr eine höchst theologische Äquivalenz. Dass Gott solche Gläubigen qualifiziert, die zu den törichten, schwachen, verachteten, quasi „nicht-seienden“ Menschen gehören, lässt die theologische Intention des Apostels deutlich erkennen, im deren Rahmen „Paulus alles Vorhergehende gesehen wissen will. Bei der Berufung und Konstituierung der Gemeinde vollzieht sich Schöpfung aus dem Nichts“41. Die theologische Botschaft dieses Abschnittes ist unverkennbar: Durch das Handeln Gottes vollzieht sich eine gründliche Verwandlung. Gott verwandelt die Törichten in wahre Weise, die Schwachen in wahrhaft Mächtige, die Niedrigen und Verachteten in Vornehme, die Unbedeutenden, die bisher Nichts waren, in etwas Bedeutungsvolles. Eine eventuelle Frage nach dem Hintergrund dieser Verwandlung ließe sich sofort in V. 30a beantworten: „in Christus Jesus“. Die Christen wurden aufgrund ihres Glaubens an das Kreuz und die Auferstehung Jesu Christi qualifiziert; sie sind Seiende geworden. Die wahre Weisheit besteht nach Norbert Baumert darin, dass Christus den glaubenden Menschen „zu Gerechtigkeit, zu Heiligung und zu Erlösung geworden ist“ (1 Kor. 1,30)42. Damit berühren wir einen wichtigen theologischen Aspekt dieser Perikope, der auf den ersten Blick „unsichtbar“ zu sein scheint: auch hier werden allerdings konkrete „Entfaltungen“ der paulinischen Rechtfertigungslehre sichtbar. Diese Feststellung wird umso klarer, wenn wir diesen Abschnitt mit Röm. 4,17 parallelisieren, wo ebenfalls die Rede von μὴ ὄντα ist. In 1 Kor. 1,27–28 hat Gott die μὴ ὄντα (unbedeutende Christen) berufen, während in Röm. 4,17 Gott gleichermaßen Auferstehung der Toten und Rechtfertigung der bisher Nichtglaubenden vollzieht. „Dass Gott die Habenichtse erwählt, ist wie die Rechtfertigung der Gottlosen ein Akt der Totenauferweckung und der Schöpfung aus dem Nichts.“43 Tatsächlich stellt der Abschnitt 1 Kor. 1,26–31 ein beredtes Zeugnis paulinischer Theologie dafür dar, dass Gott an der sozialen Herkunft und anderen weltlichen Eigenschaften der Menschen vorbeisieht. Nicht die menschliche Weisheit oder die irdischen Besitztümer, sondern das Vertrauen und der Glaube der Menschen an „Jenen“, der in Schwachheit bescheiden und demütig gekreuzigt wurde, sind konstituierende Elemente der Gemeinde. Die Mehrheit dieser Gemeinde, die Gott und seinen gedemütigten Sohn angenommen hat, setzt sich ausgerechnet aus törichten, schwachen, niedrigen und verachteten Menschen zusammen. Erwähnenswert sind in diesem Zusammenhang die religionsgeschichtlichen Ausführungen des orthodoxen Neutestamentlers Savvas Agouridis, der sich die Aneinanderreihung der im Abschnitt verwendeten, sozial herabstufenden Adjektive zu erklären versucht. Im Wesentlichen stellt Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 210. Baumert, Sorgen des Seelsorgers, 30. 43 Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 212. 41 42

„Gerechtigkeit“ und „Rechtfertigung“

99 

Agouridis eine Abhängigkeit der negativen Bezeichnungen von jüdischen als auch frühchristlichen Traditionen fest. Solche Formulierungen erinnern an Texte von Qumran, die sich auf die Wahl der heiligen Gemeinschaft der Essener beziehen, oder auch an die Tatsache, dass solche aus weltlicher Sicht verachteten Adjektive wie „Arme“ definierende Elemente der Urkirche gewesen sind (vgl. Gal. 2,10 u.a.). Darüber hinaus verweist Agouridis auf die Seligpreisungen der Armen, der Sanftmütigen (Mt. 5,3.5) und der „Säuglinge“, d. h. geistig Unreifen (Mt. 11,25). Kurzum ist nach Agouridis die Formulierungsart des Paulus direkt von der Lehre Jesu Christi und von der Realität der palästinischen und außerpalästinischen Kirche abhängig, „die als ihre Mitglieder Menschen niedriger Herkunft umfasste“44. Alle schwerwiegenden theologischen Ausführungen des gesamten Abschnittes 1 Kor. 1,26–31 münden letztendlich in die grundlegende Bedeutung und wesentliche Rolle Jesu Christi für die Gemeinde. Alle erwähnten weltlichen Schwächen werden nun durch ein einziges Element außer Kraft gesetzt: den Glauben an das Kreuz. „Das Wort des Kreuzes oder anders das Evangelium eliminiert jede Diskriminierung zwischen den Menschen, denn Alle erweisen sich als töricht vor ihm.“45 Jesus Christus ruft damit allen Gläubigen ins Bewusstsein, dass das „Aufprallen“ kein Alleinstellungsmerkmal christlicher Identität ist. Der hebraisierende Ausdruck „πᾶσα σάρξ“ (1 Kor. 1,29) birgt kontextuelle Parallelitäten zum Alten Bund46 und in Verbindung mit „καυχᾶσθαι“ verweist er auf vergleichbare Inhalte der Rechtfertigungslehre.47 „Es ist sicher kein Zufall, dass Paulus den Ausdruck πᾶσα σὰρξ in Röm. 3 und Gal. 2 gebraucht, wo er seine klassischen Rechtfertigungsformulierungen zum Ausdruck bringt.“48 Zu einer holistischeren Bewertung und theologischen Übersicht der Formulierungen in 1 Kor. 1,30, die den Höhepunkt der vorangegangenen Verse 26– 29 ausmachen, könnte man ohne Zweifel durch den inhaltlichen Vergleich mit den oben angeführten Perikopen aus dem Römer- und Galaterbrief gelangen. Dadurch können die gemeinsamen theologischen Linien und die entscheidenden Anhaltspunkte der paulinischen Argumentation erkannt werden, obwohl die zentralen theologischen Begriffe wie Rechtfertigung (δικαίωσις) oder Kreuz (σταυρός) nicht in allen drei Stellen expressis verbis vorkommen.

Agouridis, Ἀποστόλου Παύλου Πρώτη πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολή, 59–60. Despotis, „Περὶ δικαιώσεως διδασκαλία στὴν Α΄ Κορ.;“, 497. 46 Vgl. die eindrucksvollen alttestamentlichen Zitate in Lk. 3,6 und Apg. 2,17. 47 In diesem Zusammenhang verweise ich auf das berühmte Gleichnis des Zöllners und des Pharisäers in Lk. 18,10–14, in dem mittelbar auf das Paar „Gesetz“ und „demütiger Glaube“ angespielt wird. 48 Despotis, „Περὶ δικαιώσεως διδασκαλία στὴν Α΄ Κορ.;“, 497. 44 45

100

Konstantin Nikolakopoulos

Römerbrief 3,20: Denn durch Werke des Gesetzes wird niemand vor ihm gerecht werden (δικαιωθήσεται); durch das Gesetz kommt es vielmehr zur Erkenntnis der Sünde. 3,24–25: Ohne es verdient zu haben, werden sie gerecht (δικαιούμενοι), dank seiner Gnade (χάριτι), durch die Erlösung (ἀπολυτρώσεως) in Christus Jesus. Ihn hat Gott dazu bestimmt, Sühne zu leisten mit seinem Blut (αἵματι), Sühne, wirksam durch Glauben (διὰ τῆς πίστεως). So erweist Gott seine Gerechtigkeit (δικαιοσύνης) durch die Vergebung der Sünden, die früher, in der Zeit seiner Geduld, begangen wurden. 3,28: Denn wir sind der Überzeugung, dass der Mensch gerecht wird (δικαιοῦσθαι) durch Glauben (πίστει), unabhängig von Werken des Gesetzes.

Galaterbrief 2,16–17: Weil wir aber erkannt haben, dass der Mensch nicht durch Werke des Gesetzes gerecht wird (δικαιοῦται), sondern durch den Glauben (πίστεως) an Jesus Christus, sind auch wir dazu gekommen, an Christus Jesus zu glauben (ἐπιστεύσαμεν), damit wir gerecht werden (δικαιωθῶμεν) durch den Glauben (πίστεως) an Christus und nicht durch Werke des Gesetzes; denn durch Werke des Gesetzes wird niemand gerecht (δικαιωθήσεται). Wenn nun auch wir, die wir in Christus gerecht zu werden (δικαιωθῆναι) suchen... 2,19: Ich aber bin durch das Gesetz dem Gesetz gestorben, damit ich für Gott lebe. Ich bin mit Christus gekreuzigt worden (συνεσταύρωμαι). 2,21: Ich missachte die Gnade (χάριν) Gottes in keiner Weise; denn käme die Gerechtigkeit (δικαιοσύνη) durch das Gesetz, so wäre Christus vergeblich gestorben (ἀπέθανεν).

Selbstverständlich befasst sich Paulus im Ersten Korintherbrief nicht direkt mit dem Thema „Werke des Gesetzes“ und „Glaube an das Evangelium“ wie in Röm. und Gal., weil er wegen der konkreten Problematik in Korinth seine inhaltlichen Akzente anders gesetzt hat. Prangert Paulus in Röm. und Gal. die trockene jüdische Gesetzesfrömmigkeit an, so setzt er sich im Ersten Korintherbrief mit der heidnischen Weisheit auseinander.49 In allen drei Perikopen bleibt allerdings der Grundbegriff „Rechtfertigung“ der Christen höchst aktuell und spannend. Diesem seinem Hauptanliegen nähert sich der Heidenapostel aus verschiedenen Blickwinkeln. Auch wenn in 1 Kor. 1,26–31 der Begriff „Rechtfertigung“ nicht wortwörtlich vorkommt, bleibt er im Hintergrund als einer der Hauptbestandteile der Formulierungen bestehen. Die Tatsache der Eingliederung der Christen in die Gemeinschaft Gottes kommt meines Erachtens durch den Satz in 1 Kor. 1,30 „Von ihm her seid ihr in Christus Jesus“ (ἐξ αὐτοῦ δὲ ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ

                                                            

49 Agouridis, Ἀποστόλου Παύλου Πρώτη πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολή, 60: „ὁ Παῦλος συνέδεε τὸν Ἕλληνα μὲ τὴ «σοφία» καὶ τὸν «’Ιουδαῖο» μὲ τὴ «δύναμη». Vgl. auch Johannes Chrysostomos, Hom. 1 Cor. 5.3 (PG 61:42): „Τίς οὖν ἡμῶν σοφώτερος τῶν οὐ τὴν Πλάτωνος ἐχόντων σοφίαν, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸν τὸν Χριστόν, τοῦτο τοῦ Θεοῦ βουληθέντος;“

 

„Gerechtigkeit“ und „Rechtfertigung“ 

 

101 

Ἰησοῦ) zwar nicht explizit, dennoch mittelbar zum Ausdruck. Die Erwählung der Gläubigen durch Gott, die man durchaus mit der Rechtfertigung in Röm. und Gal. vergleichen kann, erfährt in diesem Vers ihre präzise christologische bzw. ekklesiologische Ausrichtung. „Man ist nur so in Christus, dass man in seiner Gemeinde ist (vgl. Gal. 3,27–28). Es gibt keine private christliche Existenz, sondern als Christus-Zugehörigkeit ist man zugleich Glied seines Leibes.“50

Theologische Schlussfolgerungen Die Art und Weise, in der Paulus die Erwählung und Rechtfertigung der „unwichtigen“ und „niedrigen“ Menschen durch Gott (1 Kor. 1,26–31) deutet, weist eindeutig kreuzestheologische Züge auf,51 was wie ein weiterer roter Faden alle drei paulinischen Texte durchzieht. Letzten Endes verleiht der gedemütigte und gekreuzigte Jesus Christus selbst denjenigen die rechtfertigende Anerkennung, die in der Welt ohne die menschliche Weisheit weilen und deswegen von der Welt verachtet werden. Gemäß 1 Kor. 1,30 wird Christus selbst zu Weisheit, Gerechtigkeit, Heiligung und Erlösung und gibt sie denjenigen, die dieser Eigenschaften in der Welt entbehrt hatten.52 In der altkirchlichen und orthodoxen Theologie wird die Rolle und Funktion des menschgewordenen Sohnes Gottes für die Menschen, als gleicher unter gleichen, stets betont. Johannes Chrysostomos kommentiert diese Formulierung und bringt sie in Korrelation zu 2 Kor. 5,21 („Er hat den, der keine Sünde kannte, für uns zur Sünde gemacht, damit wir in ihm Gerechtigkeit Gottes würden“), indem er durch den Begriff „Gerechtigkeit“ die durch das Kreuzesopfer Christi verwirklichte erlösende Verwandlung der Gläubigen trefflich unterstreicht.53

                                                            

Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 214. Vgl. dazu Söding, „Kreuzestheologie und Rechtfertigungslehre, 34: „Die paulinischen Aussagen über die Rechtfertigung sind durchweg kreuzestheologisch untermauert.“ 52 Vgl. in diesem Zusammenhang die trefflichen Ausführungen von Agouridis, Ἀποστόλου Παύλου Πρώτη πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολή, 60: „Σ’ αὐτὰ ὅμως τὰ ἐξουθενημένα προσφέρει ὁ Χριστὸς ὅ,τι στέρησε ὁ κόσμος. Τὰ τέσσερα οὐσιαστικὰ σοφία, δικαιοσύνη, ἁγιασμὸς καὶ ἀπολύτρωσις ἀποτελοῦν γιὰ τοὺς πιστοὺς τὸ ἀντίβαρο ἐκείνων ποὺ στεροῦνται κατὰ κόσμον.“ 53 Johannes Chrysostomos, Hom. 1 Cor. 5.3 (PG 61:42): „Anderswo sagt er, wir seien durch ihn gerecht geworden: ‚Er ließ den, der von keiner Sünde wusste, für uns ein Schuldopfer werden, damit wir vor Gott gerecht würden.‘ Hier aber heißt es, er selber sei uns zur Gerechtigkeit geworden, so dass also, wer da will, in reichlichem Maße an ihm Teil nehmen kann. Denn nicht irgendein Mensch, sondern Christus hat uns zu Weisen gemacht. Wer sich also rühmt, der rühme sich in ihm, und nicht irgendeines Menschen. Durch Christus ist Alles geschehen.“ 50 51

102

Konstantin Nikolakopoulos

Die Formulierung in 1 Kor. 1,30 eröffnet mehreren Kirchenvätern die willkommene Gelegenheit, die Rolle Jesu Christi für alle Mitglieder der Kirche zum wiederholten Mal zu betonen. Jesus Christus ist aus der eschatologischen Perspektive nicht nur der endzeitliche Richter (ἔκδικος κύριος)54, sondern von jeher der Urheber55 unserer Heiligung und Erlösung. Nach dieser weiter gefassten Vorstellung könnten wir aus der wörtlich vorkommenden „Erlösung“ (ἀπολύτρωσις) auch die nicht angeführte, aber doch gemeinte „Rechtfertigung“ (δικαίωσις) ableiten.56 Interessanterweise bekommt die Interpretation der Stelle im Ersten Korintherbrief eine weitere Färbung bei Theophylaktos von Ohrid57, der mit „Erlösung“ gewissermaßen die Befreiung des Menschen von der Sünde beschreibt: „Denn dieses (bedeutet) die Erlösung: die Wiederkehr von der Gefangenschaft“.58 Der Vergleich unserer Perikope 1 Kor. 1,29–30 mit den oben angeführten Textauszügen aus Röm. und Gal. könnte zur weiteren Verdeutlichung der Sinninhalte im Korinthertext führen. Die rechtfertigende Erlösung wird den Menschen unter konkreten Umständen und Voraussetzungen verliehen. Dieser Umstand besteht darin, dass dies nicht wegen der menschlichen Leistung (ἔργα), sondern aus Gnade (χάρις) geschieht. Niemand darf sich dessen rühmen, dass er es selbst aus eigener Kraft und Mühe herausgeschafft hätte (1 Kor. 1,29; Röm. 3,27). „Es handelt sich um die Rechtfertigung, die dem Menschen als Geschenk (δωρεά), Versprechung (ὑπόσχεσις) oder Sündenvergebung von Gott gegeben wird.“59 In diesem Zusammenhang liefert uns die patristische Tradition mehrere theologische Belege bezüglich des Erlösungswirkens Gottes So in 1 Thess. 4,6–7: „Διότι ἔκδικος κύριος περὶ πάντων τούτων, καθὼς καὶ προείπαμεν ὑμῖν καὶ διεμαρτυράμεθα. Οὐ γὰρ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ, ἀλλ᾿ ἐν ἁγιασμῷ.“ Vgl. darüber hinaus die interessante Studie von Romeo Popa, „Christliches Verhalten am Ende der Zeit. Ethik und Eschatologie in 1 Thess“, in Dreptate şi comportament: cercetări biblice, Hg. Hans Klein, Ion Brie und Constantin Oancea (Sibiu: Astra Museum, 2015), 187– 211, besonders 198. 55 Vgl. Johannes Damaskenos, In 1 Cor. (PG 95:581A–B): „ὁ Χριστὸς αὐτός ἐστιν αἴτιος, σοφοὺς ἡμᾶς ποιήσας καὶ δικαίους καὶ ἁγίους.“ 56 Siehe dazu auch Panagiotis Andriopoulos, Ἡ περὶ ἁμαρτίας καὶ χάριτος διδασκαλία τοῦ Ἀποστόλου Παύλου, 23. Auflage (Athen, 1989), 160: „Οἱ ὅροι ἀπολύτρωσις καὶ δικαίωσις ἔχουν τὸ αὐτὸ περιεχόμενον, τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν.“ 57 Theophylaktos von Ohrid, Exp. 1 Cor. (PG 124:584C): „Τουτέστι, Σοφοὺς ἡμᾶς, καὶ δικαίους, καὶ ἁγίους, καὶ ἐλευθέρους εἰργάσατο. Τοῦτο γὰρ ἡ ἀπολύτρωσις, ἡ ἀπὸ τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας ἐπανάκλησις.“ 58 Die einschlägigen Ausführungen von Theophylaktos könnten allerdings als eine Anspielung auf den paulinischen Aspekt der Freiheit (gegenüber dem Gesetz) verstanden werden. Eine Analyse des Paulinischen Freiheitsbegriffes überschreitet allerdings den Rahmen dieser Untersuchung. Für weitere Informationen hierzu sei daher verwiesen auf: Richard N. Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty, 2. Auflage (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015). 59 Athanasios Despotis, Die „New Perspective on Paul“ und die griechisch-orthodoxe Paulusinterpretation, VIOTh 11 (St. Ottilien: EOS, 2014), 293. 54

„Gerechtigkeit“ und „Rechtfertigung“

103 

bzw. Christi auf den Menschen, wie z. B. im Brief an Diognet, der diese theologische Wahrheit kommentiert: „... der Zeitpunkt kam, den Gott sich vorgesetzt hatte, hinfort seine Güte und Macht zu offenbaren – o welch überschwängliche Menschenfreundlichkeit und Liebe Gottes!“60 In seinem Kommentar zum Ersten Korintherbrief schreibt Theodoret von Cyrrhus sehr trefflich: „Er gab uns die wahre Weisheit, er schenkte uns die Vergebung der Sünden und würdigte uns mit der Gerechtigkeit und machte uns zu Heiligen, indem er uns von der Tyrannei des Teufels rettete.“61 Eindrucksvoll in der Auswahl der theologischen Begriffe ist auch folgendes Zitat vom Patriarchen Photios: „Gerechtigkeit Gottes (heißt) die Rechtfertigung seitens Gottes und die Freisprechung und die Entlassung von den Sünden, von denen das Gesetz (die Menschen) nicht fähig war zu befreien.“62 Auch wenn die Formulierung δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ63 in 1 Kor. 1,30 nicht direkt vorkommt, wird die sich daraus ergebende Frage nach der Substanz dieser Gerechtigkeit dennoch direkt beantwortet: „...ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ὃς ἐγενήθη σοφία ἡμῖν ἀπὸ θεοῦ, δικαιοσύνη τε καὶ ἁγιασμὸς καὶ ἀπολύτρωσις“. Die von Gott unentgeltlich und aus seiner Gnade heraus den Menschen gewährte Gerechtigkeit hat keine abstrakte, sondern eine konkrete Substanz. Sie hat einen Namen: „Ist Gott aber Ursprung und Subjekt der Gerechtigkeit, dann ist δικαιοσύνη nicht unsere Gerechtigkeit, sondern Gottes Gerechtigkeit für uns, die in Christus Wirklichkeit geworden ist.“64 Die Gerechtigkeit Gottes wird nämlich mit Jesus Christus selbst identifiziert, was in der patristischen Tradition und Literatur schon früh erkannt und hervorgehoben wurde.65 Die Gerechtigkeit Gottes trägt eindeutige christologische und soteriologische Züge und wird in direkte Verbindung mit seinem Sohn Jesus Christus und dessen durch das Kreuzesopfer erlösendem Werk gebracht. Eine der ältesten diesbezüglichen Formulierungen verdanken wir dem Brief an Diognet: „Denn was sonst vermochte unsere

Diogn. 9,2: „’Eπεὶ δὲ πεπλήρωτο μὲν ἡ ἡμετέρα ἀδικία καὶ τελείως πεφανέρωτο, ὅτι ὁ μισθὸς αὐτῆς κόλασις καὶ θάνατος προσεδοκᾶτο, ἦλθεν δὲ ὁ καιρός, ὃν θεὸς προέθετο λοιπὸν φανερῶσαι τὴν ἑαυτοῦ χρηστότητα καὶ δύναμιν. Ὦ τῆς ὑπερβαλλούσης φιλανθρωπίας καὶ ἀγάπης τοῦ θεοῦ.“ 61 Theodoret von Cyrrhus, Int. 1 Cor. (PG 82:240B): „Αὐτὸς ἡμῖν τὴν ἀληθῆ σοφίαν ἐδωρήσατο, αὐτὸς ἡμῖν τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων τὴν ἄφεσιν ἐχαρίσατο, καὶ τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἠξίωσε, καὶ ἁγίους ἀπέφηνεν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ διαβόλου λυτρωσάμενος τυραννίδος.“ 62 Photios von Konstantinopel, „Fragmenta in epistulam ad Romanos“, in Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche, Hg. Karl Staab, NTAbh 15 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1933), 487. 63 Eine der für diese Formulierung klassischen paulinischen Stellen findet sich in Röm. 3,21. 64 Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 216. 65 Für weiterführende Informationen verweise ich auf folgende inhalts- und aufschlussreiche Habilitationsschrift und die entsprechenden Ausführungen über δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ mit schönen patristischen Belegen: Despotis, Die „New Perspective on Paul“, bes. 291–296. 60

104

Konstantin Nikolakopoulos

Sünden zu bedecken als jene Gerechtigkeit? Durch wen konnten wir Frevler und Gottlose gerechtfertigt werden als allein durch den Sohn Gottes?“66 Dieses letzte altkirchliche Zeugnis skizziert, wenn auch nicht auf den ersten Blick erkennbar, die geforderte Voraussetzung für die Aneignung der erlösenden Rechtfertigung. Die Antwort wird in den parallelen Texten in Röm. und Gal. unverkennbar und eindeutig formuliert, während sie im Ersten Korintherbrief nur implizit enthalten ist. Diese Antwort ist die paulinische Stellungnahme auf die Frage nach den Voraussetzungen, welche von den Menschen gefordert werden. In Hinblick auf das Dilemma zwischen der Rechtfertigung aus „Werken des Gesetzes“ oder Glauben wird nicht nur in Röm. und Gal, sondern in allen Briefen des Paulus (bzw. der Paulusschule),67 die große Bedeutung des Glaubens hervorgehoben. Die zentrale Frage, die Athanasios Despotis in einem früheren Aufsatz sehr trefflich formuliert und behandelt hat,68 – nämlich ob wir im Ersten Korintherbrief eine Rechtfertigungslehre feststellen könnten – sollte ohne Zweifel bejaht werden. Die Rechtfertigung, oder anders gesagt, die Qualifizierung der Menschen durch Gott, setzt den Glauben voraus. Die glaubenden Mitglieder der Gemeinde eignen sich die Rechtfertigung und somit die wahre, nicht weltliche Weisheit an. Die wahren Christen werden nach menschlichen Kriterien als töricht, schwach und verachtet bezeichnet. Die wahre Torheit hat dennoch nicht mit dem Mangel an Beredsamkeit, sondern an Glauben zu tun. Wahre Schwachheit und Niedrigkeit bedeutet nicht unbedingt materielle Armut, sondern die Gottlosigkeit und das Fehlen der Frömmigkeit, wie Theodoret von Cyrrhus69 den Kontext im Ersten Korintherbrief kommentiert. Die Priorität des Glaubens als Voraussetzung für die göttliche Rechtfertigung wird in 1 Kor. 1,30 zwar nicht direkt formuliert, sie ergibt sich jedoch aus dem Kontext: „Von ihm her seid ihr in Christus Jesus, den Gott für uns zur Weisheit gemacht hat, zur Gerechtigkeit, Heiligung und Erlösung.“ Johannes Chrysostomos bietet uns hier eines der wichtigsten Zeugnisse patristischer Exegese: „Mit den Worten ‚von ihm her‘ spricht der Apostel meiner Meinung nach hier nicht über das Hervorrufen ins Dasein, sondern über den Glauben, d. h. sie seien Kinder Gottes geworden, nicht aus dem ‚Geblüt‘, und auch nicht Diogn 9,2: „Tί γὰρ ἄλλο τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν ἠδυνήθη καλύψαι ἢ ἐκείνου δικαιοσύνη; Ἐν τίνι δικαιωθῆναι δυνατὸν τοὺς ἀνόμους ἡμᾶς καὶ ἀσεβεῖς ἢ ἐν μόνῳ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ;“ 67 Vgl. dazu die weiterführende Studie von Geréb Zsolt, „Corelaţia dintre dreptare şi faptele bune în Epistola către Efeseni pe baza textului 2:1–10“ in Dreptate şi comportament: cercetări biblice, Hg. Hans Klein, Ion Brie und Constantin Oancea (Sibiu: Astra Museum, 2015), 213–224. 68 Despotis, „Περὶ δικαιώσεως διδασκαλία στὴν Α΄ Κορ.;“, 491–503. 69 Theodoret von Cyrrhus, Int. 1 Cor. (PG 82:237D): „Μωρὰ καὶ ἀσθενῆ, καὶ ἀγενῆ, κατὰ τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐκάλεσε δόξαν. Μωρία γὰρ ἀληθής, οὐχ ἡ τῶν λόγων ἀπειρία, ἀλλ’ ἡ τῆς πίστεως ἐρημία∙ καὶ ἀσθένεια καὶ ἀγένεια, οὐχ ἡ πενία, ἀλλ’ ἡ ἀσέβεια, καὶ τῶν τρόπων ἡ πονηρία.“ 66

 

„Gerechtigkeit“ und „Rechtfertigung“ 

105 

nach dem ‚Willen des Fleisches‘“.70 Die erlösende Wirkung Jesu Christi in jedem einzelnen Christen, der diesem Angebot durch seinen persönlichen Glauben statt gibt, schafft „eine dynamische Wirklichkeit, die der Glaubende bereits innerhalb der Kirche durch die Gnade des Heiligen Geistes real erlebt“71. Dieser Dimension der Rechtfertigung der Gläubigen verleiht Johannes Chrysostomos auf eindrucksvolle Weise Ausdruck: „Zuerst machte er uns nämlich zu Weisen, indem er uns vom Irrtum befreite; dann machte er uns gerecht und heilig, indem er uns den Heiligen Geist mitteilte, und so erlöste er uns von allen Übeln, so dass wir ihm angehören, natürlich nicht durch seine Wesenheit, sondern durch den Glauben.“72

Sekundärliteratur Agouridis, Savvas. Ἀποστόλου Παύλου Πρώτη πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολή. Hermeneia Kaines Diathekes 7. Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 1982. Andriopoulos, Panagiotis. Ἡ περὶ ἁμαρτίας καὶ χάριτος διδασκαλία τοῦ Ἀποστόλου Παύλου. 23. Auflage. Athen, 1989. Baumert, Norbert. Sorgen des Seelsorgers. Übersetzung und Auslegung des ersten Korintherbriefes. Würzburg: Echter, 2007. Bohatec, Josef. „Inhalt und Reihenfolge der ‚Schlagworte der Erlösungsreligion‘ in 1. Kor. 1,26–31“. ThZ 4 (1948): 252–271. Despotis, Athanasios. „Περὶ δικαιώσεως διδασκαλία στὴν Α΄ Κορ.;“. Seiten 491–503 in Saint Paul and Corinth. 1950 Years Since the Writing of the Epistles to the Corinthians. International Scholarly Conference Proceedings (Corinth, 23–25 September 2007). Bd. 1. Herausgegeben von Constantine J. Belezos, Sotirios Despotis und Christos Karakolis. Athen: Psichogios Publications, 2009. –. Die „New Perspective on Paul“und die griechisch-orthodoxe Paulusinterpretation. VIOTh 11. St. Ottilien: EOS, 2014. Dunn, James D. G. „The New Perspective on Paul“. BJRL 65 (1982/83): 95–122. Gadenz, Pablo T. Called from the Jews and from the Gentiles. Pauline Ecclesiology in Romans 9–11. WUNT II 267. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2009. Haacker, Klaus. „Verdienste und Grenzen der ‚neuen Perspektive‘ der Paulus-Auslegung“. Seiten 1–15 in Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive. Beiträge zu einem Schlüsselproblem der gegenwärtigen exegetischen Diskussion, Herausgegeben von Michael Bachmann. WUNT 182. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Karavidopoulos, Ioannis. Εἰσαγωγή στήν καινή Διαθήκη, 2. Auflage. Biblike Bibliotheke 1. Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 1998.

                                                            

70 Johannes Chrysostomos, Hom. 1 Cor. 5.2 (PG 61:42): „Τό, Ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ἐνταῦθα οὐ περὶ τῆς εἰς τὸ εἶναι παραγωγῆς οἶμαι λέγειν αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ περὶ τῆς πίστεως· τουτέστι, τέκνα Θεοῦ γενέσθαι οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκός.“ 71 Despotis, „Περὶ δικαιώσεως διδασκαλία στὴν Α΄ Κορ.;“, 500. 72 Johannes Chrysostomos, Hom. 1 Cor. 5.3 (PG 61:42): „Καὶ οὐ τῆς οὐσιώσεως τοῦτο δηλωτικόν, ἀλλὰ τῆς πίστεως.“

106

Konstantin Nikolakopoulos

–. „Η σημασία του κηρύγματος του Αποστόλου Παύλου στον ελληνικό κόσμο“. Seiten 125–141 in Βιβλικές μελέτες. Bd. 2. Herausgegeben von dems. Biblike Bibliotheke 16. Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 2000. Kümmel, Werner G. Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments nach seinen Hauptzeugen Jesus, Paulus, Johannes. GNT 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969. Longenecker, Richard N. Paul, Apostle of Liberty, 2nd. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Nikolakopoulos, Konstantinos. Καιvή Διαθήκη καί Ρητoρική. Τά ρητoρικά σχήματα διαvoίας στά ἱστoρικά βιβλία τῆς Καιvῆς Διαθήκης. Katerini: Tertios, 1993. –. Die „unbekannten“ Hymnen des Neuen Testaments. Die orthodoxe Hermeneutik und die historisch-kritische Methode. VIOTh 7. Aachen: Shaker, 2000. –. „Aspekte der ‚paulinischen Ironie‘ am Beispiel des Galaterbriefes“. BZ 45 (2001): 193– 208. –. „Ausgewählte Aspekte der paulinischen Theologie am Beispiel des 2. Korintherbriefes“. Seiten 299–311“ in Τόμος επετειακός επί τη συμπληρώσει είκοσι ετών από της υπό του Σεβασμιωτάτου Μητροπολίτου Βεροίας, Ναούσης και Καμπανίας κ. Παντελεήμονος καθιερώσεως των εκδηλώσεων προς τιμήν του Αγίου ενδόξου Αποστόλου Παύλου 1995– 2014. Herausgegeben von der Heiligen Metropolie von Veroia, Naousa und Kampania. Veroia: Melissa, 2014. –. Das Neue Testament in der Orthodoxen Kirche. Grundlegende Fragen einer Einführung in das Neue Testament. 2. Auflage. Lehr- und Studienbücher Orthodoxe Theologie 1. Berlin: LIT, 2014. Patrologia Graeca. Herausgegeben von J.-P. Migne. 162 Bde. Paris, 1857–1886. Popa, Romeo. „Christliches Verhalten am Ende der Zeit. Ethik und Eschatologie in 1 Thess“. Seiten 187–211 in: Dreptate şi comportament: cercetări biblice. Herausgegeben von Hans Klein, Ion Brie und Constantin Oancea. Sibiu: Astra Museum, 2015. Schnelle, Udo. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. UTB 1830. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Schrage, Wolfgang. Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 1. Teilband. 1 Kor. 1,1–6,11. EKK VII/1. Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991. Söding, Thomas. „Kreuzestheologie und Rechtfertigungslehre. Zur Verbindung von Christologie und Soteriologie im Ersten Korintherbrief und im Galaterbrief“. Catholica 46 (1992): 31–60. Staab, Karl, Hg. Pauluskommentar aus der griechischen Kirche aus Katenenhandschriften gesammelt. NTAbh 15. Münster: Aschendorff, 1933. Stendahl, Krister. Das Vermächtnis des Paulus: Eine neue Sicht auf den Römerbrief. Übers. von Kathy Ehrensperger und Wolfgang Stegemann. Zürich: TVZ, 2001. Thielman, Frank. Paul & the Law: A Contextual Approach. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994. Volkmann, Richard Emil. Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer in systematischer Übersicht, Neudruck. Hildesheim: Georg Olms 1987. Wright, N. T. What Saint Paul Really Said. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Zsolt, Geréb. „Corelaţia dintre dreptare şi faptele bune în Epistola către Efeseni pe baza textului 2:1–10“. Seiten 213–224 in Dreptate şi comportament: cercetări biblice. Herausgegeben von Hans Klein, Ion Brie und Constantin Oancea. Sibiu: Astra Museum, 2015.

“Treasure in Earthen Vessels…” (2 Cor 4:7–11) Stelian Tofană Preliminaries – The Glory of God and the Gospel Within the context of the turbulent life of the believers in Corinth, brought about by divisions and scandals in the church community, the apostle Paul continues to remind them of a critical truth that they should continually bear in mind: That which is important for the community is neither his person nor his missionary work but rather the saving work of Christ which is actualised through his ministry. The apostle Paul tells them: “For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake” (2 Cor 4:5). Not all the Corinthians have come to an understanding of the gospel that Paul has been preaching. Their eyes are still covered with the same scales (κάλυμμα, 2 Cor 3:14–15) that cover the eyes of the ancient Jewish people; the result is that the good news of the gospel has remained hidden (κεκαλυμμένον) from those who are on the path to destruction because they have been blinded by the god of this age: “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In whose case the god of this world1 has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Cor 4:3–4). In this respect, the antithesis between blindness (2 Cor 4:4) and illumination (2 Cor 4:6) becomes more evident and it reminds us of a Pauline theological contrast between God as the bringer and the source of light and Satan as the source of darkness and spiritual blindness (cf. 2 Cor 6:14–15).2 As the source of light, God illuminates our hearts through the knowledge of His gospel (cf. Eph 1:18). Illumination takes place through appropriating the message of the gospel. The apostolic teaching about God’s revelation in Jesus Christ is the real source of light. Therefore, in the text the gospel is the light by which the Christians contemplate God’s glory revealed in Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul unequivocally expressed this truth: “For God, who said, ‘Light shall shine out of darkness’, is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the 1 The Devil. This is the only text where Satan is named in this way (his followers). In other places he is called the “Prince of this World” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11 etc.). 2 For details see Craig S. Keener, 1–2 Corinthians, NCBC (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 172–173.

108

Stelian Tofană

knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ (ἐν προσώπῳ [Ἰησοῦ] Χριστοῦ, 2 Cor 4:6). The noun πρόσωπον means not only “face”, but also “person”. The majesty of Christ is not just outward, it is also inward and is identical with his person.3 As a result, the Christians enlightened by the gospel see the face of Christ and behold his glory, which is “the glory as of the only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). Although he makes no explicit reference to the OT, the apostle Paul gives the impression that he is citing a known source when he says: ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ὁ εἰπών· ἐκ σκότους φῶς λάμψει (2 Cor 4:6). There are some scholars who believe that here the apostle Paul could be referring to the story of creation (Gen 1:2–3).4 If so, he would be creating here a parallel between the creation of light that occurred with the utterance “Let there be light” and the light of the gospel, which could be considered a unique specific act of God’s creation.5 In Margaret E. Thrall’s view, this verse alludes to Paul’s epiphanic experience on the road to Damascus: “Consequently, it would be this experience to which 2 Cor 4:6 refers”.6 Indeed, there are some linguistic parallels between Acts 9 and 2 Cor 4:6. E.g., the noun φωτισμός could be a reference to φῶς found in Acts 9:3, which in turn could be connected to the noun δόξα from Acts 22:11. We can, therefore, see a subtle hint of the apostle’s Road to Damascus conversion experience, blinded by the Light of Christ, which he seems to always remember with strong emotions every time he refers to the implications and the meaning of the noun φῶς. Even if such assumptions may stand, the fact is that Christ was revealed to Paul with the light of his glory and majesty. Through this experience he is given his objective as a missionary: to shine the light of Christ into the whole world through the word of God, with the glory of God being shown in the face of Christ, whom he is to preach. 3 Although some exegetes support the reading “in the presence of”, a literal version is preferable See Simon Kistemaker, 2 Corinthians, NTC (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 144. For details on the meanings of the word πρόσωπον see Eduard Lohse, “πρόσωπον, εὐπροσωπέω”, TWNT 6:769–779. 4 See V. George Shillington, 2 Corinthians, BCBC (Kitchener, ON: Herald Press, 1998), 93. 5 Erich Gräßer, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther, vol. 2, ÖTK 8 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2005), 157; Heiko Krimmer, Epistolele Către Corinteni, Comentariu Biblic 11/12 (Sibiu: Lumina Lumii, 2007), 480. Other exegetes believe that Paul might have 2 Sam 22:29 in view: καὶ κύριος ἐκλάμψει μοι τὸ σκότος μου; these are the words of thanksgiving uttered by King David to God for his deliverance from the hand of enemies. See Hans Hübner, Vetus Testamentum in Novo, Corpus Paulinum 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 340– 343. 6 Margaret E. Thrall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, vol. 1, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2004), 316.

Treasure in Earthen Vessels

109

Therefore, the light for the soul is given for the sake of the glory of Christ, who is the physical embodiment of God (ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ, 2 Cor 4:4), and who, through his glory, gives him apostolic authority and boldness to serve. Saint Paul argues that this is why it is the will of God to manifest his glory through a weak, physically rugged body and to manifest himself in humble vessels: it is through their suffering that they can participate in the suffering of Christ and, therefore, the entire body of Christ – the church. With that being said, in Pauline theology all forms of suffering that are caused by the preaching of the gospel (afflictions, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, disorder, weariness, etc. – cf. 2 Cor 6:4–6) are a sacrificial offering that each believer must bring in his body imitating the sufferings of Christ for His body, which is the church. In Colossians, Paul is explicit in this sense: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body (which is the church) in filling up that which is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” (Col 1:24).

1. The Treasure of Gospel Light in Earthen Vessels (4:7) This treasure of gospel light, which the apostle spoke about in v. 6, is understood by him to exist in earthenware pots: “And we have this treasure (Ἔχομεν δὲ τὸν θησαυρὸν τοῦτον) in earthenware pots (ὀστρακίνοις σκεύεσιν), so that the extraordinary power may be of God and not out of us” (4:7). This verse presents a double contrast: a. The treasure of gospel light (v. 6) and worthless clay pots b. God’s supernatural power and human weakness What has generated intense debate amongst commentators is the question: what did Paul mean by θησαυρὸς οὗτος? Is he referring to the light of the gospel (2 Cor 4:3–4), to his apostolic ministry (2 Cor 3:7–9), or is he referring to the knowledge of the glory of God (2 Cor 4:6)? The parallel expression from 4:1 ἔχοντες τὴν διακονίαν ταύτην seems to suggest that St. Paul would consider θησαυρὸς οὗτος (4:7) to be the apostolic ministry, something he describes in another occasion in terms of proclaiming the gospel of God’s glory (2 Cor 3:18; 4:4–6). On the other hand, and this interpretation is most likely, “this treasure” (θησαυρὸς οὗτος) may reflect a common understanding of the mission of proclaiming the gospel reflecting God’s glory.7 Saint John Chrysostom understands the expression “this treasure” to be “God’s infinite glory” that we can contemplate through Jesus Christ. 7 Victor P. Furnish, II Corinthians: Translated with Introduction, Notes and Commentary, AB 32A (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 279. Hans Klein understands the word

110

Stelian Tofană

“Therefore, in light of that, we do not only see things that are felt, we see God through Christ himself.” 8 Paul says that this treasure is then held in “earthly vessels”. As such, the apostle describes his missionary experience as a servant in terms of a paradox: a treasure is held in jars of clay. As far as the verb ἔχομεν – ἔχω (4:7) is concerned, as in 2 Cor 4:1 it denotes possession, yet possession according to the idea of a communal, privileged possession rather than personal ownership. As can be seen in the immediate context, the apostle to the Gentiles does not enjoy this honourable ministry of preaching the gospel in a selfish manner. In fact, the very expression of his plural ἔχομεν – “we have” makes clear that the ministry of proclaiming God’s glory and grace and suffering for the sake of the preaching and spreading of the gospel is collective: “For we are God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3: 9). By means of the expression “earthenware vessels” the apostle is primarily considering the material support of man’s existence, the body, which is made of dirt (cf. Gen 2:7); in other words, it is a being that is fragile and limited.9 To express this idea, he borrows an image from everyday life, namely pots that contain all sorts of things, from the most insignificant to the most precious, from food to drinks of all kinds. These pots, made out of clay, are vulnerable to all sorts of destructive forces, they are not valued very much. In contrast to pots made out of metal, which can be repaired, or pots made out of glass, which can be melted and made into something else, vessels made out of clay are made for one-time use because if they break they would be mostly likely discarded rather than repaired.10 This image is parallel to the fragile condition of man’s body, which, day by day, faces mortal danger. Saint John Chrysostom also understands the expression “jars of clay” to refer to this kind of human weakness. He says: By means of the expression ‘jars of clay’ he refers to how simple it is for them to be broken; this jar represents the weakness of the nature of our mortal bodies. Since our bodies are in no way better or more efficient than clay they are easily subjected to death through diseases and other anomalies that quickly break down the body. This is what the apostle is saying: on the one hand he confronts pride and on the other hand he shows that nothing is ours (καὶ πᾶσι δεικνὺς ὅτι οὐδὲν ἀνθρώπινον τῶν καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς).11

“treasure” to refer to the “light of the hearth”: “Wahrscheinlicher ist, dass mit dem Schatz ‘das Licht in den Herzen’ gemeint ist” [cf. Hans Klein, Der zweite Korintherbrief (Sibiu: Honterus Verlag, 2015), 101]. 8 John Chrysostom, Hom. 2 Cor. 8 (PG 61:457). 9 See Krimmer, Epistolele Către Corinteni, 484. 10 See Colin G. Kruse, 2 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, ed. Eckhard J. Schnabel and Nicholas Perin, Tyndale NTC 8 (Nottingham: InterVarsity Press, 2015), 129. 11 John Chrysostom, Hom. 2 Cor. 8 (PG 61:457–458).

Treasure in Earthen Vessels

111

From another perspective, Jerome understands the image of the jars of clay to symbolise the humility of the Word of God. He puts it like this: “Every word of Scripture is a symbol all its own. These rustic words that persons of every age ponder over are packed full of mystical meaning. ‘But we carry this treasure in vessels of clay’; we have a divine treasury of meaning in the most ordinary words.”12 The same reference to the Scripture, understood to be like a treasure contained in jars of clay (our bodies), is found in a commentary by Friedrich Lang: “Dieser Vers wird oft – in etwas anderer Bedeutung – auf die Heilige Schrift angewendet, in der das Wort Gottes in den Worten von Menschen zur Sprache kommt.”13 A different perspective is provided by Paul Duff 14 who, on the basis of 2 Cor 2:14, which presents our triumphant procession to God through Christ, draws an inspired parallel with the vessels which are usually used during festival occasions. Thus, it appears that our bodies, filled with the light of the gospel of Christ, are destined to be brought in a procession to God the Father through His Son, Jesus Christ, in the grace and guidance of the Holy Spirit.15 The human being can never be more than a jar in his earthly existence. However, when the jar is illuminated by the glory of Christ, then he will reflect the light all around him and rise above the human condition that is perishable and subject to sin. The whole context of ideas associated with the metaphor of “earthen vessels” is built on a dialectical vision of the relationship between the natural body of the apostle and the inexhaustible spiritual powers of the gospel, which animates his life and that of every Christian under the influence of the Holy Spirit.16 In fact, the language used for the body is stressed in that part of the Epistle (2 Cor 4:7–5:10), that emphasises the missionary service that fulfils his frail body. It is most likely that the Corinthian Christians had been asking how it was possible that a body so fragile and weak as Paul’s could contain so much divine glory. If his service is so glorious, how is it that his outward appearance can be so frail and contrasting? Probably, because he senses the need to respond to such questions, and because he wanted to defend his ministry despite its outer

Jerome, Comm. Ps. 90 (91) (FC 48:160). Cf. Friedrich Lang, Die Briefe an die Korinther, NTD 7 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 280. 14 Paul B. Duff, “Apostolic Suffering and the Language of Processions in 2 Corinthians 4:7– 10”, BTB 21 (1991): 158–165. 15 For more details see Timothy B. Savage, Power through Weakness: Paul’s Understanding of the Christian Ministry in 2 Corinthians, ed. Margaret E. Thrall, SNTSMS 86 (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 165. 16 See Bob Utley, Paul’s Letters to a Troubled Church: I and II Corinthians, BLI (Texas: Marshall, 2002), 231. 12 13

112

Stelian Tofană

appearance, Paul wrote the following unique verses to the Christians of Corinth: 2 Cor 4:16–18. This text points to another reality: the superiority of the “inner man” (ὁ ἔσω ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος). The ultimate goal for the body, according to the correspondence with the Corinthians, is the changing of its status from a perishable body to an imperishable or spiritual one (σῶμα πνευματικόν, 1 Cor 15:44) because flesh cannot inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor 15:50). This perspective involves the transformation of the body through the practice of virtues in the hope of acquiring an incorruptible body (ἐγείρεται ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ, 1 Cor 15:42). The process of its transformation, however, has already begun while the body is still on this earth; it involves its being filled with the glory of Christ and the light of his gospel. Simon Kistemaker thinks that the phrase “and we have” (4:7a) refers not to Paul only but to everyone who has received and possesses the good news of salvation. This treasure consists of the gospel message that we have received from our Lord Jesus Christ.17 But the power that helps us to carry this treasure in our mortal bodies is from God himself and not from us. “... so that the extraordinary power may be of God and not out of us” (4:7b). A proper explanation of this verse can be found in 2 Cor 12:1–10, where Paul reveals that what he received from God is something supernatural, namely a revelation discovered in his body. Because of this high honour, he also received a pain in his body with the purpose of keeping him humble, a sine qua non condition for it to be filled with the power of Christ (v. 9). In other words, acquiring the glory of Christ in his life required a priori the condition of suffering and humiliation. This vision confirms, in fact, the literal meaning of the text of 2 Cor 4:7, showing that only in weaknesses the power of Christ is manifested.18

2. A Catalogue of Hardships in Ministry (4:8–9) The list of hardships that Paul introduces in vv. 8–9 can be compared with similar other passages in 2 Cor 6:4c–5; 2 Cor 11:23b–27; 2 Cor 12:10; Rom 8:35; 1 Cor 4:9–13 – all of which, like the present one, indicate the kind of adversities under which the apostles develop their mission in spreading the gospel of Christ. The present list has a special character, however, because it is more than a simple enumeration of hardships. Had it been just that, it would

Cf. Kistemaker, 2 Corinthians, 146. Savage, Power through Weakness: Paul’s Understanding of the Christian Ministry in 2 Corinthians, 167. 17 18

Treasure in Earthen Vessels

113

have explained well enough why the apostles, demeaned by the world and vulnerable, could be likened to earthen pots (v. 7).19 But in this context the list has been formulated into a series of antitheses, and these serve – according to Victor P. Furnish – “to illustrate not just the weakness of the apostles but how that weakness discloses the incomparable power of God: They are afflicted, in despair, persecuted, and struck down, yet not crushed, desperate, forsaken, or destroyed”.20 In 2 Cor 4:8–9 the apostle Paul draws, therefore, the conclusion that suffering and death as “apodictic” dangers accompany the missionary activity of each apostle. The sufferings that the apostle speaks about are exposed and displayed on the background of four contradictory expressions, which in turn are interleaved by the conjunction ἀλλά21, so that we have: thesis – conjunction – antithesis. 4:8a: θλιβόμενοι22 (afflicted) – ἀλλ᾽ (but) – οὐ στενοχωρούμενοι (crushed, distressed) 4:8b: ἀπορούμενοι23 (perplexed) – ἀλλ᾽ (but) – οὐκ ἐξαπορούμενοι (but not despairing) 4:9a: διωκόμενοι24 (persecuted) – ἀλλ᾽ (but) – οὐκ ἐγκαταλειπόμενοι (but not forsaken)

Furnish, II Corinthians: Translated with Introduction, Notes and Commentary, 280. Ibid. 21 For details on the particularity and the linguistic significance of the conjunction ἀλλὰ in the Syntax of the New Testament see Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 671–672. 22 The verb θλίβω does not appear often in the writings of the apostle Paul (2 Cor 1:6; 7:5; 1 Thess 3:4; 1 Tim 5:10; Heb 11:37), and its basic meaning, which can be deciphered from all these instances, is ‘to oppress’ or ‘to put pressure on someone’. Negation is reinforced by the presence of the verb στενοχωρέω, which in passive voice (στενοχωρούμενοι) has the meaning of being bruised or crushed, in the sense of being in a situation hopelessly sweeping nature [See F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker, Shorter Lexicon of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 90 and respective entry in LSJ, 802]. 23 The verb ἀπορέω appears only once in Pauline writings (Gal 4:20), where he highlights a situation that is hopeless in light of human nature. Negation is reinforced here by ἐξαπορέω, which is playable through the verb “to despair”, meaning to be in extreme difficulty [See Wesley J. Perschacher, The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001), 23]. 24 The verb διώκω is often found in Pauline writings (Rom 9:30; 14:19; 1 Cor 4:12; 14:1; Gal 5:11; 2 Tim 3:12), where it occurs with the basic meaning of “being persecuted” or the meaning “to track someone.” The antinomy is created by the appearance of the verb, ἐγκαταλείπω, which means “to leave” or “to abandon”. See Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller, eds., Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Baker’s Greek New Testament Library (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000), 118. 19 20

114

Stelian Tofană

4:9b: καταβαλλόμενοι25 (struck down) – ἀλλ᾽ (but) – οὐκ ἀπολλύμενοι (but not destroyed) These antonymous relationships (4:8–9) seem to describe not only past or present situations from the life of the apostles but also certain realities with a nuanced eschatological tinge (cf. Matt 24:21).26 The victory of the missionary apostles turns, finally, into crowns of eternal and eschatological glory. These contrasts seem to be selected by the apostle with the express purpose of showing the impossibility of human beings ever finding a human solution to many of the difficult situations that they are often confronted with. And the adversarial conjunction ἀλλά, alongside οὐκ, points, in fact, to the great love of God for His confessor, who, in the most difficult moments of life, enjoys God’s providence, each time being delivered from the snares of the enemy. These specific Pauline textual blocks, which choose adversarial conjunctions to emphasise providence and divine intervention, in fact, highlight that glory which overshadows the chosen vessel of God. The four antitheses involve the redemption from sudden death. In exactly this way Paul portrays his experiences, namely according to a logic of a slow process of death, one that God has not yet finalised (cf. Rom 8:36;27 1 Cor 15:31); a kind of death that is not common to all men because it comes from the preaching of the gospel.28 Therefore, to highlight the fragility of the body, of which Paul has just reminded us, the apostle composes a list of sufferings that he has endured for the gospel of Christ, using eight passive participles in the present tense (θλιβόμενοι; στενοχωρούμενοι; ἀπορούμενοι; ἐξαπορούμενοι; διωκόμενοι; ἐγκαταλειπόμενοι; καταβαλλόμενοι; ἀπολλύμενοι); these participles can be grouped into four different stanzas. In each pair, the first participle describes the suffering and persecution that Paul has gone through and the second one expresses the mercy of God, which has never left him but has always empowered him to overcome these critical situations. Saint John Chrysostom sees in all these afflictions a case of real pedagogical temptation permitted by God, for 25 The occurrence of the verb καταβάλλω, the passive (καταβαλλόμενοι), is unique in the Pauline writings. It means “being thrown” or “to be thrown down to earth”. The term is meant to contrast with the verb ἀπόλλυμι, which is in the passive voice, meaning “to be killed”. See Perschacher, The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, 221 and respective entry in LSJ, 884. 26 See Lang, Die Briefe an Die Korinther, 280. 27 The revival of the glory both of creation and of man will occur at the parousia, when the transforming from a perishable material into an incorruptible and eternal one will take place in an instant. It is that moment in which will be fully revealed the interdependence between the destiny of all creation and that of man. See Stelian Tofană, “The Relation between the Destiny of Humankind and that of Creation according to Romans 8,18–23”, in Theologies of Creation in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity, ed. Tobias Nicklas and Korinna Zamfir (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 335–353. 28 Robert H. Gundry, Commentary on the New Testament, Kindle Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), position 2098.

Treasure in Earthen Vessels

115

His grace becomes more evident in them. As he put it: “Do you see how much gain there is from temptations (Ὁρᾷς ὅσον τῶν πειρασμῶν τὸ κέρδος)? For even the power of God was revealed here and at the same time God’s grace became more evident”.29 At first glance, one gets the impression that the apostle is simply representing the courageous way in which he has faced up to all the challenges of his mission. Just before beginning this list he claims, “so that the extraordinary power may be of God and not of us (4:7b)”, thus showing paradoxically that all the sufferings he has endured speak of the power of God that is manifested in the weakness of his body.30 This shows that all his victories come from God and not from himself. Basil of Caesaria comments on all the apostle’s victories as follows: The apostle, showing trust in God that goes beyond human understanding, exposes each of what is included in this pericope as follows: with regard to human understanding he says: “In everything being pressured”, and with regard to the trust in God, he adds: “but not distressed”; again with regard to the human understanding he says: “being lacking” and again regarding the trust in God, he adds: “but not hopeless”, and so on…31

However, concerning the troubles we often experience in our life and the ways in which we should deal with them, Origen says: For God delivers us from afflictions not when we are no longer in affliction (Paul says “we are afflicted in every way”, as though there was never a time when we were not afflicted), but when in our affliction we are not crushed because of God’s help. “To be afflicted”, according to a colloquial usage of the Hebrews, has the meaning of a critical circumstance that happens to us without our free choice, while “to be crushed” implies that our free choice has been conquered by affliction and that it has given into its power. And so Paul is right when he says, ‘We are afflicted in every way but not crushed’.32

3. Authentic Missionary Conditions (4:10–11) Vv. 10–11 are both a summary of the preceding passage (vv. 8–9) and an introduction to v. 12. In this section, apostle Paul speaks of the death of Jesus that is at work in him and his associates and the life of Jesus that is at work in the Corinthians.33 Here is what he says: “Always carrying about in the body John Chrysostom, Hom. 2 Cor. 9 (PG 61:460–461). Frank J. Matera, II Corinthians: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 108. 31 Cf. Basil of Caesaria, Asceticon magnum, (PG 31:1269). 32 Origen,  Or. 30.1, Origen: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works, transl. Rowan Greer The Classics of Western Spirituality: A Library of the Great Spiritual Master (New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1988), 162. 33 Cf. Kistemaker, 2 Corinthians, 149. 29 30

116

Stelian Tofană

the dying of Jesus, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus’ sake that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh” (4:10–11). As such, vv. 10–11 introduce a new vision of suffering for Christ, the last self-denial for the sake of the gospel: The death of the confessor, which is actually a culmination of the bodily death of Jesus Christ. It is a much more powerful vision than what is presented in 1:5, since the expression: “We always carry about (περιφέροντες) in our body the death of Jesus – τὴν νέκρωσιν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ” (4:10a) refers not only to suffering and persecution but the death itself. We have in this clause two key words: “death” and “carry about”. What is to be observed here is the fact that Paul does not choose the common word for death (θάνατος, cf. vv. 11–12) but a word that describes the entire process of death (νέκρωσις). This latter word – νέκρωσις – “describes the mortification of the body; the final process of weakening, dying and decomposition”.34 If the expression of Paul τὴν νέκρωσιν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ35 was the only literary and stylistic mark of θάνατος (“physical death”, “cessation of biological functions”), then we would have expected him to use the standard term (θάνατος) in 4:10a and only then the term νέκρωσις in v. 11 as a logical continuation of the idea. But, most likely, Paul uses the term νέκρωσις in v. 10, not in order to portray a single event (the death of Jesus Christ), but rather to portray a long process of suffering that the apostle must endure every day on his way to encounter Christ and to assume His redemptive death. The long process of Christ’s sufferings until His death on the cross is, therefore, the basis of all troubles and oppression felt by Saint Paul. Therefore, the term νέκρωσις emphasises a process rather than an event36, since Paul himself says (1 Cor 15:30–31) that he suffers persecution and the danger of his death every day for the sake of Christ.37 Although imminent death Cf. Ibid. Concerning the phrase “νέκρωσις τοῦ Ἰησοῦ” (4:10a), the exegetes debate the stage of Jesus’ death that Paul has in mind. Is the apostle Paul being restrictive by looking at one aspect of death or is he being inclusive by considering the whole process of Jesus’ dying and death? (Ibid.). John T. Fitzgerald is correct by affirming: “It seems preferable not to restrict the meaning of νέκρωσις to either the dying of Jesus or his death. Nέκρωσις is likely intended to include both” [cf. John T. Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Catalogue of Hardships in the Corinthians Correspondence, SBLDS 99 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1988), 179]. For more details see Jan Lambrecht, “The Nekrosis of Jesus. Ministry and Suffering in II Cor 4,7–15”, in L’Apôtre Paul. Personalité, Style et Conception Du Ministère, ed. Albert Vanhoye, BETL 73 (Leuven University Press: Leuven, 1986), 120–143. 36 For more details regarding the meaning of the word νέκρωσις see Anthony E. Harvey, Renewal through Suffering. A Study of 2 Corinthians (Edinburgh; London; New York: T & T Clark, 1996), 57–63. 37 Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 345–346. 34 35

Treasure in Earthen Vessels

117

has accompanied Paul every step of his way, the life of Christ, which God has revealed to the apostle, has become a source of power and strength in his mission to preach the gospel of Christ. Therefore, it is not incidental that Paul uses the name “Jesus” four times in vv. 10–11, and it is also not accidental that he formulated this profound expression: “that the life of Christ may be manifested in our body” (4:10b).38 Dying with Christ means living with Christ! This is the optimistic message of the apostle, alternating daily between life and death. In this Pauline context, therefore, the term νέκρωσις needs to be understood as reflecting a process which is slowly developing, having its purposes well defined (Rom 8:36). It is about, in fact, a constant danger of death which the apostles have to face because of their full dedication to the cause of Christ.39 Hans Klein understands the expression “νέκρωσις τοῦ Ἰησοῦ” in the same way: “Die νέκρωσις τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ist nicht das sakramentale Sterben, sondern das tägliche, die immerwährende Not, die ihm als Apostel Jesu zuteil wird und die sich in Zeichen Jesu – es sind wohl Narben von erduldeten Schlägen und dergleichen gemeint – vorweisen lassen.”40 Saint Paul frequently finds himself facing death (2 Cor 11:23) and realises that his life resembles the death of Christ so much (Phil 3:10) that only Jesus can be the source of his earthly existence. Therefore, to live in the likeness of Jesus Christ, both in death and in life, is the final goal of the great apostle. Thus, the verb περιφέρω from the phrase “We always carry about (περιφέροντες) (4:10a) in our body the death of Jesus”, means to suffer death for Jesus’ sake without grumbling. “To carry about”, the second key word of v. 10, occurs only three times in the Greek NT (Mk 6:55; 2 Cor 4:10; Eph 4:14); it means that “the apostle always, in season and out of season, proclaims Jesus’ death. At the same time, Paul demonstrates his willingness to suffer physically for his Lord”41. For Saint John Chrysostom the meaning of the expression “We always carry about in our body the death of Jesus” is found in the relationships between “the weakness of the body” and the resurrection of Christ. He says: What is the death of Jesus which they carried about with them? It is the daily deaths which they died, by which the resurrection also was shown. This is another reason for the trials, that Christ’s life might be manifested in human bodies. What looks like weakness and destitution in fact proclaims his resurrection.42

For further reference see Kistemaker, 2 Corinthians, 150. See respective lemma in BAGD 668. See also Rudolf Bultmann, “νεκρὸς κτλ.”, ThWNT 4:896–899. 40 Cf. Klein, Der zweite Korintherbrief, 103. See also Lang, Die Briefe an die Korinther, 281. 41 Cf. Kistemaker, 2 Corinthians, 149. 42 John Chrysostom, Hom. 2 Cor. 9.1 (NPNF1 12:321). 38 39

118

Stelian Tofană

The divine power which is working in Saint Paul’s life, helping him to emerge victorious from any struggle, gradually transfigures him. It is a Pauline paradox that life is acquired when death appears. In accepting death with dignity in all sorts of physical dangers, the life of Jesus may be revealed in the mortal body: “For (γάρ) we who live are constantly being delivered (παραδιδόμεθα) over to death for Jesus' sake, that the life of Jesus (ἡ ζωὴ τοῦ Ἰησου) also may be manifested (φανερωθῇ) in our mortal flesh” (4:11). It is obvious that life (ἡ ζωή) here is not understood in a physical sense. Here, Paul is speaking of a living presence of the risen Jesus, so that meaning is eschatological in nature. The importance of this eschatological life is for the apostle Paul of maximum authority because humanity is enslaved to sin (Rom 3:9; Gal 3:22) and only the life of Christ that abounds in the soul of the believer can reinstate him onto an upward trajectory of transfiguration.43 By the conjunction “γάρ” (4:11) the apostle Paul explains, in fact, what he said in the previous verse. This last statement: ἀεὶ γὰρ ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες εἰς θάνατον παραδιδόμεθα διὰ Ἰησοῦν, ἵνα καὶ ἡ ζωὴ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ φανερωθῇ ἐν τῇ θνητῇ σαρκὶ ἡμῶν, is clearly composed of two parts linked by conjunctions that express the goal, the final target (ἵνα, καί). In the first part, the antithesis consists of the expressions “we who live” (ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες) and “we are always being given up to death” (εἰς θάνατον παραδιδόμεθα), as a reality that Paul is always subject to in his mission; this reminds us of the principle the disciple should be willing to follow the same path of his teacher, namely suffering. The second part of the antithesis emphasises the intention of its first part, namely to highlight the life of Jesus Christ only (ἡ ζωὴ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ), for the sake of which we are put to death (εἰς θάνατον παραδιδόμεθα) and which needs to be revealed (φανερωθῇ) in our mortal body (θνητῇ σαρκὶ ἡμῶν).44 Referring to the meaning of the phrase ἡ ζωὴ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ Hans Klein thinks: “das Leben Jesu ist aber nicht ‘die schöpferische Lebenskraft Jesu’, sondern jener Schatz und das bedeutet die Macht des erhöhten Jesus.”45 Commenting on what is expressed in v. 11, Saint John Chrysostom claims: “For as we now suffer death when we are living, preferring to die for Him, so He will prefer to raise us when death will comprise our body. Since if we go from life to death, then He will lead us from death to new life.”46

For more details see Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, The Theology of the Second Letter to the Corinthians (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 44–47. See also Klein, Der zweite Korintherbrief, 103. 44 Cf. Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 377. 45 Cf. Klein, Der zweite Korintherbrief, 103. 46 Εἰ γὰρ ἡμεῖς ἀπὸ ζωῆς εἰς θάνατον ἐρχόμεθα, καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπὸ θανάτου εἰς ζωὴν ἡμᾶς χειραγωγήσει” (Cf. John Chrysostom, Hom. 2 Cor. 9.1 (PG 61:461). 43

Treasure in Earthen Vessels

119

In reference to the body in v. 11, the apostle has an interesting insight. Instead of the word body, Paul mentions the phrase “in our mortal flesh (θνητῇ σαρκὶ ἡμῶν)”. The concepts are synonymous. “Yet the difference” – thinks Simon Kistemaker – “focuses on the transitory characteristic of human flesh, especially when it is qualified with the adjective mortal”47. Kistemaker probably has in view the eschatological transfiguration of our mortal body that passes from death to life through the resurrection. Indeed, at the universal resurrection it is not our biological body that will undergo change but the perishable matter of our body, the flesh. Only this can be the reason why the apostle Paul uses the phrase “our mortal flesh” instead of “our mortal body”. Ambrosiaster understands v. 11 in the same sense when he affirms: “Paul is saying that Christians are not afraid to die because they have the promise of resurrection.”48 When the apostle Paul speaks about his surrender to death for the sake of Jesus (εἰς θάνατον παραδιδόμεθα διὰ Ἰησοῦν) he uses the same verb (παραδίδωμι), as in the case when he speaks of God the Father who gave His Son to death for our sake, to redeem us from sin (Rom 4:25; 8:32). In other words, one may say that God himself gave Saint Paul unto death, so that the life of Christ may be revealed in him and through him, because when death is working in him at the same time the life of Christ may work in the Corinthian believers.49 This Pauline contextualisation reminds us that through the Holy Baptism in which we have been united with the life and death of Christ (cf. Rom 6:3–5)50 we ought to mortify the flesh, and with it, our sinful nature in every passing day (Gal 5:24). In this respect, the most effective way is that of suffering for Christ’s sake.

Instead of Conclusions: Relocating the Debate Second Corinthians 4:7–11 is central to a description of the Pauline vision of the apostolic mission of preaching the gospel in hostile conditions in which, at any moment, obstacles that appear can turn the apostles in subjects of passion and death. Kistemaker, 2 Corinthians, 151. Ambrosiaster, Ad 2 Cor. (CSEL 81.2:225). 49 Kruse, 2 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, 131. 50 About our renewal through Baptism, appropriating the death and the resurrection of Christ, see Stelian Tofană, “«Evanghelizare» sau «centralitatea» lui Hristos într-o societate secularizată”, Dimensiunea Socială a Evangheliei, ed. Corneliu Constantinescu, Emanuel Contac, Supliment Teologic al Jurnalului Pleroma (Bucureşti: ITP, 2011), 19–20. 47 48

120

Stelian Tofană

Therefore, according to Paul, “the treasure in earthen vessels” represents not so much the knowledge of God’s glory, reflected in Christ, as the apostolic ministry in proclaiming the gospel. This fragility, borne by the body of flesh, is always fortified by the glory of God. Paul’s painful experiences during his mission feed into his logic of a slow process of death, one that God has not yet finalised, a kind of death that is unique precisely because it is not common to all men for it comes from the preaching of the gospel. “The treasure in earthen vessels” is kept only by the act of believing and trusting in God, who can always turn defeat into victory and death into life. Applying this current study, which has an obvious anthropological tint, to the issues of “The New Perspective(s) on Paul” (i.e. the debates regarding the meaning of “participation”, “justification” and “conversion” in Paul), I would claim that we should revise them in the light of the whole of Pauline anthropology and soteriology: In his monumental work, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, James D. G. Dunn is correct when he writes: The Theology of Paul cannot be more than the sum of the theology of each of the individual letters for the obvious reason that these letters are the only firm evidence we have of Paul’s theology... The letters themselves indicate the need to go behind the letters themselves, and they do so in such a way that we will never be able to explicate them as fully as we can without taking that fuller theology into account.51

The whole Pauline anthropology is defined by the following expressions: “the man of flesh” (σαρκικὸς ἄνθρωπος, Rom 7:14; 1 Cor 3:1, 3), “the spiritual man” (πνευματικὸς ἄνθρωπος, 1 Cor 2:13–15; 14:37; Gal 6:1); “the old man” (ὁ παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος, Rom 6:6; Col 3:9); “the new man” (ὁ νέος ἄνθρωπος, Col 3:10; ὁ καινὸς ἄνθρωπος, Eph 2:15; 4:24) and “the new creature” (καινὴ κτίσις, 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). All these expressions indicate how far away a person is from life in Christ or how close he has approached it. On behalf of the analysed text one may conclude that man has to travel a long way to change the “old man” into a “new man”, so that at the end of his existence he will be perfectly transformed to καινὴ κτίσις (“new creature”, 2 Cor 5:17). From an Eastern Orthodox point of view, these anthropological terms express stages of the spiritual evolution of a man, beginning with Baptism, where the old man dies and a new man is resurrected, and ends with being fully united with Christ. This “new man” constantly renews himself within the body of Christ, which is his church, and grows up in Christ by following a cruciform

51 Cf. James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2006), 14.

Treasure in Earthen Vessels

121

way of life until he achieves the last stage of the process of sanctification, namely the deification (theōsis). Therefore, the issue at stake is not if Paul understands justification in a forensic-eschatological or ecclesiological sense for all his letters presuppose that both missionaries and converts have to experience an ongoing and painful process of transformation reflecting Jesus’ cruciform and self-giving pattern of life and not to simply be passive recipients of a “forensic”, “ecclesiological” or “ontological” justification and holiness. Justification by faith and participation in Christ do not primarily refer to theoretical beliefs, narrative or imaginative patterns but to a reality of experiencing Jesus’s way of life (from suffering and death to resurrection). Thus, Christ is present not only at the moment of turning to faith and baptism or in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper but also in the continuing sufferings of Paul and his converts. If one does not consider this cruciform pattern of life, which is the presupposition for experiencing participation, justification and conversion in Paul, these issues will continue to be subject of countless debates between the “Old” and the “New Perspective(s) on Paul” which miss the point that being religious or being a philosopher in antiquity mean following a transformative way of life.

Bibliography Barnett, Paul. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker. GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. Duff, Paul B. “Apostolic Suffering and the Language of Processions in 2 Corinthians 4:7– 10”. BTB 21 (1991): 158–165. Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2006, 14. Fitzgerald, John T. Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Catalogue of Hardships in the Corinthians Correspondence. SBLDS 99. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1988. Friberg, Timothy, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller, eds. Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker’s Greek New Testament Library. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000. Furnish, Victor P. II Corinthians: Translated with Introduction, Notes and Commentary. AB 32A. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Gingrich, F. Wilbur, and Frederick W. Danker. Shorter Lexicon of the New Testament. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979. Gräßer, Erich. Der zweite Brief an die Korinther. Vol. 2. ÖTK 8. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2005. Gundry, Robert H. Commentary on the New Testament. Kindle Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. Harris, Murray J. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

122

Stelian Tofană

Harvey, Anthony E. Renewal through Suffering. A Study of 2 Corinthians. Edinburgh; London; New York: T & T Clark, 1996. Hübner, Hans. Vetus Testamentum in Novo. Corpus Paulinum 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Jerome, Saint. The Homilies of Saint Jerome. Volume 1 (1–59 on the Psalms). Translated by Sister Marie Liguori Ewald. FC 48/1. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press 1966. Keener, Craig S. 1–2 Corinthians. NCBC. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Kistemaker, Simon. 2 Corinthians. NTC. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, 10 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933–1979. Klein, Hans. Der zweite Korintherbrief. Sibiu: Honterus Verlag, 2015. Krimmer, Heiko. Epistolele Către Corinteni. Comentariu Biblic 11/12. Sibiu: Lumina Lumii, 2007. Kruse, Colin G. 2 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary. Edited by Eckhard J. Schnabel and Nicholas Perin. Tyndale NTC 8. Nottingham: InterVarsity Press, 2015. Lambrecht, Jan. “The Nekrosis of Jesus. Ministry and Suffering in II Cor 4,7–15”. Pages 120–143 in L’Apôtre Paul. Personalité, Style et Conception Du Ministère. Edited by Albert Vanhoye. BETL 73. Leuven University Press: Leuven, 1986. Lang, Friedrich. Die Briefe an Die Korinther. NTD 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Liddell, Henry G., and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon with a Revised Supplement. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Matera, Frank J. II Corinthians: A Commentary. NTL. Atlanta; Richmond, VA: John Knox, 2003. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. The Theology of the Second Letter to the Corinthians. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Series 1. Edited by Philip Schaff. 1886–1889. 14 vols. Repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Origen. An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works. Translated by Rowan Greer. The Classics of Western Spirituality: A Library of the Great Spiritual Master New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1978. Patrologia Graeca. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857–1886. Perschacher, Wesley J. The New Analytical Greek Lexicon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001. Savage, Timothy B. Power through Weakness: Paul’s Understanding of the Christian Ministry in 2 Corinthians. Edited by Margaret E. Thrall. SNTSMS 86. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Shillington, V. George. 2 Corinthians. BCBC. Waterloo, Ontario: Herald Press, 1998. Thrall, Margaret E. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Vol. 1. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2004. Tofană, Stelian. “«Evanghelizare» sau «centralitatea» lui Hristos într-o societate secularizată”. Pages 19–20 in Dimensiunea Socială a Evangheliei - Supliment Teologic al Jurnalului Pleroma. Edited by Corneliu Constantinescu, Emanuel Contac. Supliment Teologic al Jurnalului Pleroma. Bucureşti: ITP, 2011. –. “The Relation between the Destiny of Humankind and that of Creation according to Romans 8,18–23.” Pages 335–53 in Theologies of Creation in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity. Edited by Tobias Nicklas and Korinna Zamfir. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010.

Treasure in Earthen Vessels

123

Utley, Bob. Paul’s Letters to a Troubled Church: I and II Corinthians. BLI. Texas: Marshall, 2002. Vasile cel Mare. “Regulile Mici 270.” Părinţi şi Scriitori Bisericeşti 17. Translated by Pr. D. Fecioru. Bucureşti: EIBMBOR, 1986. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Becoming the Righteousness of God The Potency of the New Creation in the World (2 Cor 5:16–21) Edith M. Humphrey It is unfortunate that many readers have reduced 2 Cor 5:16–21, a luminous passage studded with jewels of expression and thought, to an interpretative battleground. Here we encounter the new creation, God’s astonishing condescension, knowledge “according to Christ”, life-giving proclamation, incorporation into Christ, and ineffable exchange. As the apostle handles such mysteries, he uses gnomic and poetic language, without working out all his reasons or implications. In particular, there has emerged a longstanding battle of both theologians and exegetes concerning the meaning of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in verse 21, with which the passage comes to its climax. Frequently this verse has been put to the service of highly abstract theologies, and interpreted solely in terms of justification theories, without reference to the surrounding language concerning physical and glorified bodies, the scope of the biblical story, and the church as a whole. Myopic analyses threaten to overshadow the potency of St. Paul’s picture concerning the glory of the new creation in the world. In harmony with the objective of this volume, I shall read 2 Cor 5:16–21 from within an Orthodox context, showing how it was understood and used by key fathers of the church, especially Saints John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Gregory Nazianzus. I aim to disclose its importance in the debate between those who represent the “reformational” position and those working from the “New” Perspective, while assessing which facets of the Older Perspective and which of the new are consonant with the patristic readings and borne out by this passage. However, the main purpose is to do justice to the passage itself. This entails attending to: its context (in a larger sequence that reaches from 2:17 to 7:14, especially its embedment in chapters five and six); its themes of physicality and new creation, substitution and participation, sin and righteousness, apostolic and ecclesial action, transformation and theōsis; and its rhetorical flow, as Paul moves to the high point of 5:21. We will see, as we work through these matters, that the passage presents support and complications for both “Old” and “New” Perspective. Emerging from the exegesis is a surprising emphasis upon the tangible, embodied nature of the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, a phrase used exceptionally here to indicate the outward display of the new creation in the mediating body of Christ, the church.

126

Edith Humphrey

1. Context The structure of 2 Cor itself is widely debated, with many contemporary interpreters arguing that it is a compound letter representing different (and not necessarily sequential) stages in writing and some opining that one part of it (2 Cor 6:14–7:1) is inauthentic, redolent of Essene dualism.1 However arguments for the passage are strong: the call to be God’s holy temple is found elsewhere in the Corinthian correspondence, as is the divide between light and darkness; those who question this passage mostly are influenced by a view of Pauline theology that stresses justification over holy living; there is no external evidence of manuscripts that exclude or displace the passage; there are no obvious seams that interrupt the rhetorical flow, as is the case later in chapter seven. For these reasons (and those in note 1 below) we will assume its authenticity, and its significance as a passage that follows our text, in which ideas may be developed. As for other theoretical debates concerning sequence and integrity in 2 Cor (e.g. chapters 8 and 9), these do not concern our passage or the purpose of this chapter. Taking this passage in its epistolary context, we find a constellation of themes and a train of thought that begins at 2:14, and ends at 7:4.2 St. Paul begins by thanking God for the victory that the apostles and the Corinthians share with Jesus (2:14–17), contrasts their participation in Christ with those who centre their lives around Torah (3:1–18), commends his ministry within the context of God’s revelation and transforming promises for the new covenant people (4:1–18), looks forward to the resurrected body (5:1–5) and the final judgment (5:6–10) in light of the impermanence and suffering he and others now experience (5:11–15), appeals to those who have not yet come to participate fully in Christ (5:16–21), encourages the Corinthians to be generous towards him (6:1–13), urges a holy life (6:14–7:1), and concludes by speaking of his joyful hope concerning the solidarity of the church (7:2–4). Throughout, his apostolic calling and that of the Christian community are intertwined, as is his exhortation to the Corinthians and his confidence that God is transforming 1 See, inter alia, Joseph Fitzmyer, “Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph in 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1”, CBQ 23 (1961): 278–280; Nils A. Dahl, “A Fragment and Its Context: 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1”, in Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission, ed. idem (Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1977), 62–69 and most radically, Hans Dieter Betz, “2 Corinthians 6:14– 7:1: An Anti-Pauline Fragment”, JBL 92 (1973): 88–108. To this suspicion we may respond: the hapax legomena are less startling in light of Paul’s propensity to use novel language in hortatory passages; σὰρξ appears in a neutral sense elsewhere in Paul, and therefore it is not unPauline to speak of it as open to cleansing; the ‘Essene’ parallels adduced are more general than distinctive; and the weight upon Torah is no different than other passages where Paul insists upon holiness. 2 That the passage is a complex unit may be seen in the fact that the discourse beginning at 7:5 continues the narrative interrupted at 2:13.

Becoming the Righteousness of God

127

them together with him, through affliction. His reluctant self-commendation as an apostle to the Corinthians is, throughout, married to a concern for their growth in knowledge, perspective, holiness, solidarity, and witness. Pervading the whole are the themes of life and death, suffering and glory, word and ministry, light and darkness, old and new, openness and what is hidden, reconciliation and transformation. The piece begins with thanksgiving (2:14) and ends in joy (7:4), but runs the gamut of human expression and emotion, while it builds its rhetorical appeal on a foundation of substantive theological, Christological pneumatological, soteriological and ecclesial concepts. More proximate to our pericope, and surrounding it, we may observe the themes of resurrection and final judgment (5:1–10) based on what has been done διὰ τοῦ σώματος, and cooperation with the grace of God in this present embodied life (6:1–7:4). That is, the apostle prefaces his teaching and argument in 5:16–21 with a reminder concerning the hope of the resurrection in contrast to the fragility of the present life (5:1–5), with a warning about the ongoing significance of actions done in our present physical reality (5:6–9), and with emphasis upon final judgement for “each” (5:10) concerning such human actions; at the same time, he speaks strongly about God’s compassionate action on humanity’s behalf (5:11–15), which both conditions his ministry and elicits a response from the Corinthians. His focus in 5:16–21 itself is upon the primary and ongoing reconciling actions of God in Christ, the apostles, and (in my estimation) his body, the church. This is followed in chapter six by an explicit reprisal of the theme of synergy (6:1), an urgent appeal to accept God’s grace without delay (6:22), another portrayal of himself as an example (6:3–13), and an exhortation to concrete holiness and solidarity (6:14–7:4). It is helpful to note that both bookends stress what is done in the body (5:10; 7:1) just as the substance of our selected passage emphasises what Christ did in assuming flesh (5:21), in his dying and his bodily resurrection (5:15). Some have considered that our passage largely stresses participation in Christ, focused as it is on adopting the perspective of the new creation, and receiving the apostles as ambassadors for him. Consonant with this is the emphasis upon synergy and behaviour befitting those who are in Christ. Alongside this, however, appear the themes of judgement, righteousness, God’s initiative, the removal of sin and death, and the urgent “day of salvation:” so others have stressed atonement and justification, even though the latter is not prominent here, as it is in Romans and Galatians. At first blush, it is not possible to arbitrate between those who adopt this passage as evidence that the apostle stresses participation over justification, nor vice versa. The apostle appears equally concerned to establish divine and human action, though the initiative of God is logically primary: whether this passage actually concerns “justification” can be decided only by means of a close reading of a text which ends with a mysterious reference to God’s righteousness (5:21). We will consider this anon.

128

Edith Humphrey

Besides remarking upon the context of the passage within its own epistle, it is helpful to notice how the ancient theologians used it in their own discourses. Saints John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria deal with the passage in the course of commentaries – fragmentary, unfortunately, in the case of Cyril – which, in the main, follow the contours of the apostle’s letter. It is instructive, however, to see which facets of Paul’s teaching are allowed to shine forth. In Homily Ten,3 the Golden-Mouthed characterises 2 Cor 5 as a Pauline effort to arouse the zeal of believers, in the face of many trials. To this end, he shows that the apostle indicates, by the resurrection, that we are made for immortality, alerts the reader concerning judgement (which St. John invites his hearers to picture vividly), and kindles a love of the solid and glorious world to come. This sets the scene for St. John’s subsequent Homily Eleven, which begins with the prospect of judgment, insists upon the (glorified) continuing embodiment of Christ, and places the dignity of the apostles within the general Christian hope. The elation of the Homily Eleven is grounded by the realism of Homily Ten, which does not lose track of the prospect of judgment, even while it insists that “God never bears enmity” (Θεὸς γὰρ οὐδέποτε ἐχθραίνει)4 towards humanity. Both the looming judgment and the clemency of God should, St. John insists, move the believer to revere God and fear sin – the very purpose of the apostle’s letter. In Homily Twelve, then, he speaks of the astonishing grace of Christ and urges his congregation to take the apostle’s example in both mindset and action, just as St. Paul exhorted the Corinthians. In concert with St. Paul, St. John moves from realism to elation, and back to realism or practicality. St. Cyril strays a little further from the text in his commentary. When we pick up his trail as he tackles 2 Cor 5:5, which speaks about τὸν ἀρραβῶνα τοῦ πνεύματος is vouchsafed to believers, he is venturing into Trinitarianism, referring to the tabernacling presence of the only-begotten Word, reflecting on the “shining” imagery of 2 Cor 4:6, and looking further back to 1 Cor 15:45, with its emphasis upon the One who is τὸν ζῳοποιοῦντα.5 He goes on to celebrate all that the Father has done, while also stressing the shame of the cross (an allusion to Gal 3:13) and comparing Christ’s offerings with the ineffective ones of Torah. St. Cyril thus amplifies this passage by recourse to other passages in Paul, including those that stress the sacrificial aspect of Christ’s interventions. Elsewhere, the saint uses 2 Cor 5:21 in concert with Leviticus and

Unless I offer my own translation (as indicated), where the English of St. John Chrysostom’s sermons is quoted, it is from Homilies on 2 Corinthians 10–12 (NPNF1 12:326–341). Subdivisions to the sermon are consistently from NPNF. The Greek is cited from Migne’s Patrologiae Graecae. 4 My own translation of St. John Chrysostom, Hom. 2 Cor. 11.3 (PG 61:478). 5 St. Cyril of Alexandria, “Fragmenta in sancti Pauli epistulam ii ad Corinthios”, in Sancti patris nostri Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Joannis evangelium, ed. Philip E. Pusey, repr. ed., vol. 3 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965), 352. 3

Becoming the Righteousness of God

129

the two goats of offering, as he deals with the topic of atonement.6 Even there, however, his main concern is not to forward a theory of atonement, but instead to proclaim a single Christ, perfectly God and wholly human, answering to the controversies of his day, just as he stresses the divinity of the Son and the Spirit in his fragmentary commentary. Saints Chrysostom and Cyril strike the same note as St. Ambrose,7 who uses 2 Cor 5:21 to indicate that Christ bears our humanity, in both soul and body. This sampling of the Fathers shows that they follow St. Paul in knitting together themes, placing Christ’s rescue for us within the context of his incarnation, and the call to the new life. As St. Basil remarks, one who reads this passage, and remarks upon the “more wonderful benevolence of God in Christ ... must become a disciple of the Lord”8.

2. Major Themes Physicality We move on to explore the themes of 2 Cor 5:16–21. First, there is physicality, indicated throughout the extended passage of 2:1–7:4 by means of St. Paul’s sensory metaphors and recalled objects: fragrance of gnosis, aroma of Christos, odour from death to death, letters, hearts, tablets of stones, glory on faces, veils over faces, blinded eyes, light shining in darkness, treasure in earthen vessels, death and life manifested in bodies, believing and speaking, tents and temples, sighs of anxiety, things done in the body, bodies wasting away, new creation, the words of God, beatings, jail cells, crowds rioting, weapons, truthful speech, idolatry, defilements of body, and holiness made actual. Leading up to chapter five, there is a problematic verse that might be construed as diminishing the importance of the sensory world: “we do not set our sights upon the things that are seen but upon the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are ephemeral, but the things that are unseen are eternal” (2 Cor 4:18).9 However, the apostle’s discourse, in fact, stresses the weight of future glory (4:17), and the solidness of the resurrection body (5:1– 10); though the world to come is contrasted with our frailty, continuity is assumed, since what has been done in the body will be judged before the divine bench. In reading 2 Cor 5:16–21 itself, some also have been tempted to dismiss See St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 41 to Acacius of Melitene, transl. John I. McEnerney, FC 76 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1987), 168–182 (especially sections 10–15 of the Letter). Here he cites the twin goats of Lev 16, one named sin and slaughtered, and the other sent away, as well as the two birds of Lev 14. Here the father views the OT as typologically intimating the mystery of Christ, who had two natures. 7 St. Ambrose, Sacrament of the Incarnation of our Lord 7.76 (FC 44:248). 8 St. Basil, On Baptism 1.3 (PG 31:1520; FC 9:343). 9 My translation, as with every English reference to the biblical text. 6

130

Edith Humphrey

the corporeal because Paul criticises knowledge κατὰ σάρκα (5:16); however, as St. John Chrysostom points out,10 Jesus is still clothed with the body. The verse does not indicate a dualism, but refers to freedom from sins with respect to our illumined perceptions, and the anticipated freedom from weakness in the resurrection. The gnomic suggestiveness of 5:17, which omits a subject and verb, is frequently tamed in translations which supply these (e.g. “if anyone is in Christ, [that one is] a new creation”), thereby limiting the meaning to a description of the individual Christian. The personal quality of the εἴ τις moves to a larger arena, however, in the καινὴ κτίσις, which the apostle cashes out in the following verse by gesturing at (plural) things that are no longer ancient, but renewed. Similarly, the Golden-Mouthed amplifies this in his eleventh homily, when he remarks that that the old things refer to trespasses and the ritual observances of Torah:11 we might fancy that he was prescient concerning the insistence of James Dunn12 and others of the “New Perspective” who specify that circumcision, Sabbath keeping and kashrut as the apostle’s “works of Torah”. The preacher then enumerates “all things” (ταῦτα δὲ πάντα)13 from God that have become “new” – body, soul, table, dress, worship, cross, priestly Christ, “Logos-Lamb”14 as sacrifice who gives blood from his side, covenant, inheritance, the holy mysteries, and reconciliation. All these things are from God, through Christ – present phenomena of the new creation that point forward to solid and permanent glory. It is not simply that the believer has been declared to be a “new creation” (as with the paradigm of the “Old Perspective”); besides this, there is a new creation, visible for those with eyes to see. Substitution and Participation The colourful details that the Golden-Mouthed offers lead us into the debate concerning whether substitution or participation is more prominent in St. Paul. Some of those things adduced clearly belong to believers (table, heavenly manna, worship, new soul and body), while others seem more properly to describe Christ’s work on our behalf (the blood from his side, his priestly function). These are all, insists the preacher, God’s “free gift”, and not merely anticipatory, for we have received the Jerusalem which is above (cf. Gal 4:26). Hom. 2 Cor. 11.3. Hom. 2 Cor. 11.4. 12 James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Atlanta; Richmond, VA: John Knox), 1990. See chapter 7 in which Dunn coins the term “New Perspective”, and page 194 for his enumeration of the “works of the law”. 13 Hom. 2 Cor. 11.4 (PG 61:476), cf. 2 Cor 5:18, τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. 14 In harmony with the anaphora of Divine Liturgy ascribed to St. John Chrysostom, Hom. 2 Cor. 11.4 (PG 61:476) tersely contrasts the lamb that is ἄλογον with the Lamb (the Logos) who is “spiritual” (πνευματικόν). 10 11

Becoming the Righteousness of God

131

This astonishing shower of gifts is to be understood in terms of verse fourteen (ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανεν, ἄρα οἱ πάντες ἀπέθανον), which sets substitutionary (or perhaps representative) language in juxtaposition with participation. Neither St. Paul nor his ancient expositor requires us to decide which is most appropriate. Without losing the astonishment that God has done this for us through Christ, we are also called to see faithful participation in the high and low places. As Michael Gorman puts it, Paul calls Christians to be “cruciform”15 in the new creation (the cross belongs to them); as Stephen Finlan adds, “one may also share in his anastasiform living … already in this lifetime.”16 These verses concerning “not knowing” κατὰ σάρκα, and the prospect of the καινὴ κτίσις entail more than perception or epistemology: they instead also indicate ontological realities to be played out in the reclaimed world of space and time:17 perception is changed for those who are in Christ, as has actual reality. Indeed, the new reality, though not yet fulfilled, is manifest in numerous ways, by means of persons and even unlikely physical objects such as the cross. In putting his own ministry forward as an example, the apostle has said that the love of Christ, made clear in his death “for all” is the compelling force, so that “those who live might no longer live for themselves, but for the one who for their sake died and was raised” (5:15). It is with this combination of substitutionary and participatory language that the apostle sets the scene for his inferences concerning perception and the new creation: so he links 5:16–17 back to verse fifteen by means of the emphatic conjunction ὥστε. The conjoined themes of participation and substitution are also implicated in 2 Cor 5:18–19 and 21. Verse eighteen gestures at substitution with the phrase διὰ Χριστοῦ, and may further intimate it by the assurance in nineteen that God is no longer λογιζόμενος αὐτοῖς τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν. Reformed scholars understand this to imply that something has happened through Christ so that the judge is not unjust by reckoning matters differently; ancient commentators tend instead simply to marvel at the clemency of God. In any case, the apostle gives no suggestion that humans have done something about this state of affairs, but only God, acting in Christ. This is clarified (and complicated!) somewhat through the mysterious statement of verse twenty-one, that “he was made

15 Michael Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2001). 16 Stephen Finlan, “Can We Speak of Theosis in Paul?” in Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions, eds. Michael J. Christensen and Jeffery A. Wittung (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 68. 17 Careful consideration of this whole sequence in Second Corinthians would have prevented David Litwa from insisting that participation in Christ, for Paul, “is not an ontological state – let alone a mystical one – but consists (at least in this life) in a mode of being that is manifested in concrete ethical acts.” See M. David Litwa, “2 Corinthians 3:18 and Its Implications for Theosis”, JTI 2 (2008): 129.

132

Edith Humphrey

sin” (ἁμαρτίαν) for our sake (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν).18 Simultaneous with this implied substitutionary and forensic language is found the language of participation or incorporation: “our” (whether apostolic or ecclesial) recovery into relationship with God (5:18), and “our” (apostolic or ecclesial) “having the word placed in our midst” (θέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν τὸν λόγον, 5:19). The apostle does not decide between these approaches to atonement, but conjoins them. In the case of the apostolic ministry, the participation motif is accented: “we” act as ambassadors (πρεσβεύομεν, 5:20) for Christ, and thus for God. But the basis for that reconciliation is what God has done in Christ, and what Christ “has been made”. Sin and Righteousness We are propelled into the twin themes of sin and righteousness and the thorny problem of how to read 2 Cor 5:21. Transgression has already been mentioned in verse 19, where it is framed in juridical terms, but negatively – God, acting in Christ, was not charging sin to human account. Some have seen this as evidence that the apostle is thinking along the lines of justification: if he is not reckoning sin, then he must be reckoning (“imputing”) righteousness. But this is to go beyond the text, which uses the participle λογιζόμενος, without clearly indicating the technical meaning of imputation that it has come to have among later Western theologians and exegetes. It is to 5:21 that we must look for some clarity, even while recognising that its asyndetic structure gives us no incontrovertible clues as to its logical connection with the verses that proceed. Ben Blackwell ruefully remarks that “virtually every aspect within verse 21 is debated.”19 This will become clear as we investigate the way that various exegetes have interpreted the “sin”, the “righteousness” and (as we will see when we move to the next topic) the pronoun “we”. With regards to “sin” and “righteousness”, several readers solve the mystery of this obvious exchange formula by adopting an unfortunate strategy, says

18 Benjamin C. Blackwell, on page 203 of his thesis “Christosis: Pauline Soteriology in Light of Deification in Irenaeus and Cyril of Alexandria” (Durham University, 2010), reminds us that the force of ὑπέρ, whether substitutionary or representative, is debated, though he considers representation is more likely, given the statement ‘therefore all die’ (5:14). However, the substitutionary idea cannot be “excluded”, because “in 5:21, Christ dies … in a way that believers will not.” Certainly, with regards to verse 21, several fathers register the substitutionary power of Jesus’ actions: in 2 Cor. Hom. 11:5, St. John Chrysostom speaks of God allowing Jesus, who did no wrong, to suffer (κολασθῆναι, PG 61:478) for those who have behaved unjustly. Similarly, St. Cyril of Alexandria, who throughout his works stresses participation in the second Adam, calls Christ not only the “way” but the “door” (Fragmenta in sancti Pauli epistulam ii ad Corinthios, 355), stresses the shame of the cross that he endured for us and for all (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν … ὑπὲρ πάντων, 355), and speaks of Jesus as an effective offering with and for sinners (συγκατεδικάσθη καὶ συγκεκρέμαται, 356). 19 Blackwell, “Christosis”, 207.

Becoming the Righteousness of God

133

Karl Rahner, to “soften these words.”20 By limiting the meaning of δικαιοσύνη and by minimising ἁμαρτία, commentators have forged creative and mutually exclusive readings. Let us briefly consider interpretations from exegetes and theologians, both contemporary and ancient. We begin with the question of “he was made sin”21: does this refer to Jesus’ coming “in sinful flesh”, to his being a sin-offering, to his having an actual solidarity with sin (whether substitutionary or representative)22, to the exchange of divine power for sin so as to vanquish it,23 or to Jesus actually being a sinner (however this is nuanced)? The final option (Jesus actually sinned) has been argued only in the recent centuries, with the entrenchment of a low Christology. We may dismiss it by means of St. Paul’s own insistence that this one “knew no sin”. The other interpretations are not mutually exclusive: theologians have seen substitution as well as representation, a sin offering coupled with declared actual solidarity with sinners, an implied victory over sin and death joined to sacrificial imagery, and other combinations. However, the view put forth inevitably is complicated by how the commentator assesses Paul’s understanding of human nature and the effect of the fall. For example, many writers ancient and contemporary, find a parallel with Rom 8:3, ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας, (often mis-)translated “in the likeness of sinful flesh”24), as well as with Gal 3:13, γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα (“becoming for us a curse”). Generally speaking, whether they think Paul has in view simply the crucifixion, or the larger action of incarnation, Western commentators assume that the apostle sees Jesus as putting on, or at least being associated with sinful human nature for our forgiveness. St. Ambrose and the Roman Catholic Branick in our own day serve to illustrate. St. Ambrose speaks of the “body already guilty of carnal sin”, viewing the Incarnation as almost wholly for the purpose of salvation25 – that is, our rescue from the fallen plight. Branick more shockingly considers only the pre-Incarnational Son to “know no sin” and insists, 20 Karl Rahner, The Priesthood, trans. Edward Quinn (New York: Herder and Herder, 1973), 232. 21 Here I am helped by Reimund Beiringer, “Sünde und Gerechtigkeit in 2 Korinther 5, 21”, in Studies on 2 Corinthians, eds. Reimund Bieringer and Jan Lambrecht (Gembloux; Leuven: Leuven University Press), 461–514. See especially the chart on p. 495, which shows the understanding of different ancient commentators on the meaning of “sin”. 22 Morna D. Hooker helpfully finds a tertium quid between opposed substitutionary and representative positions by “participation” language in “On Becoming the Righteousness of God: Another Look at 2 Cor 5:21”, NovT 50 (2008): 358–375. 23 See Udo Schnelle, Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology, transl. Eugene M. Boring (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 445n139, insists that the word cannot refer to an offering, but to Christ actually taking the place of sin as such, thus removing its power. 24 Rom 8:3 reads more literally, “in the likeness of the flesh of sin”. 25 Ambrose, Sacrament of the Incarnation of our Lord 6.60 (FC 44:242).

134

Edith Humphrey

with Rahner and Barth, that we must feel the full scandal, wrestling “as Paul did with the sinful flesh of God’s Son.”26 Most recently, Kelly Kapic has made a plea for more clarity in speaking about “fallen human nature”, while Oliver Crisp, in his usual cogent style, has demonstrated that the onus lies with those who currently are insisting upon the Son’s assumption of a fallen nature as such.27 In the Eastern tradition, where the foundational understanding of the fall does not include a view of “original guilt” and “concupiscence” genetically transmitted, the emphasis differs. If there is no actual category of “sinful human nature”, but simply “human nature” that will likely sin or can possibly remain righteous, there is no need to worry about how the Son can fully identify with humanity while remaining righteous. For, as St. Chrysostom puts it, the one who is αὐτοδικαιοσύνη (righteousness in his very self) remarkably takes 26 Vincent P. Branick, “The Sinful Flesh of the Son of God (Rom 8:3): A Key Image of Pauline Theology”, CBQ 47 (1985): 262. To be precise, Branick also claims that Jesus never actually sinned, but that since “flesh” never has a “purely neutral sense” (251) in Paul’s letters, Jesus in solidarity with us actually became a sinner. In later Western terms, this is to assign both “original guilt” and “concupiscence” to Jesus. 27 See Kelly M. Kapic, “The Son’s Assumption of a Human Nature: A Call for Clarity”, International Journal for Systematic Theology 14 (2001): 154–166 and Oliver D. Crisp, “Did Christ Have a Fallen Human Nature?”, in Divinity and Humanity: The Incarnation Reconsidered, ed. idem (Cambridge University Press, 2007), 90–117. Kapic’s queries, though salutary in many respects, do not quite grasp the significance of Orthodoxy’s refusal of both original guilt and concupiscence. As a result, she applauds the move of Thomas Weinandy, In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh: An Essay on the Humanity of Christ (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1993), who “creatively” avoids such distinctions and argues in favour of a “sinful” incarnate Son, while under-appreciating Metropolitan Kallistos Ware (whose “synthesis” she considers as an argument). Ware’s treatment is rather a true tertium quid in consonance with many of the ancient fathers, who also deliberately rejected original guilt while understanding that Jesus lived “under the conditions of the fall”. Crisp’s work is more careful, displaying the difficulties that the Western idea of inherited guilt (especially by Jesus) has occasioned, showing difficulties all round with both a “weak” and “strong” view of fallen human nature and concluding at the end of his chapter that Augustine has shown us that “exemplifying the effects of the Fall is not the same as being fallen” (116). However, because he settles with Augustine, even he does not probe how the shape of the discussion would radically change if we were to question whether there is, in fact, such a thing as “fallen human nature”, or whether there is only human nature displayed variously in an individual, whether fallen or not. While he demonstrates well the significance of the debate concerning “original guilt”, it is not clear that he has distinguished between the Western notion of concupiscence and the Eastern reluctance to speak about anything as inherited from Adam/Eve except corruptibility and a context that favours transgression. His initial footnote mentions (without naming) Eastern theologians who have maintained that Jesus had a “fallen” but not “sinful” nature. Since he does not deal with these, it is difficult to assess whether he has entirely understood their position. It would seem more natural for an Eastern theologian to claim this of the Theotokos, but not of Jesus; it would seem even more authentic for the Orthodox to question whether there is in fact a “fallen humanity” as a res, and not simply a phenomenon.

Becoming the Righteousness of God

135

on not merely the “habit” but also the “quality” of what we experience (including guilt and death) – and so we are called to reflect upon “the greatness of that which is given”28 in his incarnation and death. We have already noted that one church father, St. Cyril, moved directly to the idea of sacrifice, the twin goats and birds, in expounding what is meant by his being “named sin”29. Another theologian, St. Gregory the Theologian, is cautious about saying that the Lord was transformed into sin or a curse, but rather understands 2 Cor 5:21, along with Gal 3:13, in terms of the incarnation (“he descended even to our lower part”30). Here the theologian uses the language of sacrifice and assumption of flesh, implying that this is all that he will say about the mystery at this point, so that he might be “understood by the many”31. (It may be that St. Gregory is here reacting against the misunderstanding made possible by St. Gregory of Nyssa’s colourful “fishhook” picture – that Jesus became a ransom to be paid to the devil, who in the second Gregory’s view, had no such claim to honour.)32 There is also a tendency in the Fathers to associate sin with death, and so to understand the phrase “became sin” as equivalent to Jesus’ assumption of death. This is demonstrated well in the survey of Hilarion Alfeyev, who stresses St. Cyril of Alexandria’s part in the debate concerning the possibility of God. Paraphrasing our verse, he declares, “Not partaking in sin, the incarnate God accepted death for himself, becoming the consequence of sin so that by it he might break the flogging circle of sin and death”33. In a similar vein, John Meyendorff writes: “[H]e became death as a greater manifestation of love for others. And when this greater manifestation of love was perfect god himself, a new life truly entered the world.”34 Meyendorff, with most of the Fathers, does treat the mystery of Jesus’ being “made sin” (or death) in isolation from the wonder of humanity becoming “the righteousness of God”. It is, indeed, the understanding of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ that lends great complexity to our discussion. Those who hold out for the reformational understanding, seeing justification as the centre of Paul’s thought, typically understand the phrase here in terms of that doctrine. Stephen Westerholm, for example, Hom. 2 Cor. 11.5. St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 41 to Acacius of Melitene (FC 76:174). 30 St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Epistle 101, 222. 31 Ibid. 32 On this see Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, Doctrine and Teaching of the Orthodox Church, vol 2. of Orthodox Christianity, ed. idem (Crestwood, NY: SVS, 2012), 308. 33 Alfeyev, Orthodox Christianity, 307. 34 John Meyendorff, “The Time of Holy Saturday”, Moscow Patriarchate Journal 4 (1992): 34, cited and translated from the Russian by Metropolitan Hilarion, Orthodox Christianity, 307. The essay has since appeared in English in Orthodox Synthesis, ed. Joseph Allen (Crestwood, NY: SVS 1981), 51–63. This English version is an adaptation (and expansion?) that stresses the incursion of Jesus’ resurrection into time and space, but does not contain the phrase that caught my attention, with relation to our passage, that is, “he became death”. 28 29

136

Edith Humphrey

comments briefly: “the dramatic exchange … is perhaps the closest Paul comes to the traditional understanding that Christ’s righteousness is ‘imputed’ to believers”35. The difficulty with this reading is that the passage does not speak about Christ’s righteousness, but the righteousness of God; furthermore, it does not use the transitive verb δικαιόω, whether or not we understand this verb as “to rightwise/to righteous” (so Ed P. Sanders!36), or to “declare righteous”, that is, “to justify”. Douglas Moo, a subtle defender of the reformational camp explains: Justification theorists have argued that God’s righteousness, in its positive, or salvific, sense, operates on the basis of ‘evidence’ of some kind; that the performative act of ‘righteousing’ a person is not arbitrary but takes account of some kind of ‘justifying criterion,’ whether that criterion be God’s covenant faithfulness or his own person or the righteousness of Christ.37

Since Luther’s reading of Rom 3:21, then, the Western exegete of this verse simply cannot ignore the default assumption that where δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is found, justification by faith is entailed. Writers of the “New Perspective”, beginning with Sanders’s little book on Paul, spend much time explaining that where there is smoke, there is not always fire, and that “Luther’s emphasis on fictional, imputed righteousness” 38 is mistaken. Sanders, while recognising the forensic themes of Paul’s letters, has proposed “participation” in Christ as a more characteristic theme. Michael Bird, showing responsiveness to the “New Perspective”, but unwilling to part company entirely with the reformational view, declares “neither is union with Christ an ancillary concept subsumed under justification or vice-versa”39. In reading 2 Cor 5:21, he insists that this is not a proof-text for imputed righteousness, but that it exemplifies a new category, which he calls “incorporated righteousness”, a righteousness that is both, to use Käsemann’s categories, declarative and operative. This is similar to the opinion of Murray Harris that the verse has both forensic and mystical implications, and that it involves participation, action and change for all who believe.40 N. T. Wright, correctly perceiving that this verse presents an Achilles’ heel to his insistence that God’s righteousness is always his very own in Paul’s letters (thus neither to be imputed nor imparted), reads the gnomic phrase as a Stephen Westerholm, Justification Reconsidered: Rethinking a Pauline Theme (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 70. 36 Ed P. Sanders, Paul (Oxford; London; New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 73. 37 This explanation is found in Douglas J. Moo’s astute review article of Douglas Campbell’s The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul in JETS 53 (2010): 146. 38 Sanders, Paul, 49. 39 Michael F. Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2007), 86. 40 Murray Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 454–455. 35

Becoming the Righteousness of God

137

terse reference to the apostolic mission, by which God’s righteousness is made known: the “become” is not ontological, but metaphorical.41 (We will consider this further in the next section of the paper). In this way he neutralises what might be a natural reference that God’s (Christ’s) righteousness is transferred to human beings. All these interpretations are worked out in reaction, the spectre of the Lutheran view as their starting point. Since the “New Perspective” is no longer “New”, a few have sought to situate themselves beyond the fray. No doubt this is how both Michael Bird and Wright understand their interventions. Bird takes the best of both worlds in his “incorporated” view. Wright argues that though St. Paul did not mean what Luther meant by “God’s righteousness”, still all the best facets of justification theory are retained with his historical recovery of the apostle’s focus upon a righteous God who keeps covenant. The most strenuously signaled move to a tertium quid, however, would appear to be that of Douglas Campbell, who entitles a key chapter in his latest book, “Beyond Old and New Perspectives”. At first glance, Orthodox might think they have found in Campbell a western ally, someone who downplays the wrath of God, and who insists upon the entire Christ event rather than the cross as the locus of God’s activity. However, more careful observation of how he cashes out his “apocalyptic” view of salvation makes clear how much he is at odds with the tradition and the reading of the Fathers. In The Deliverance of God, Campbell ascribes many of Paul’s statements in Galatians and Romans to a Judaising “Teacher” whom Paul is refuting – this, despite no internal evidence that there is a dialogue going on. By means of this method, Campbell is able to relegate to Paul’s newly-inscribed opponent many of the ideas and assertions that twenty-first-century readers find distasteful – judgement, penal atonement and rigid justification, the necessity for holy living, the depravity of same-sex eroticism, and the like. In the words of Moo, Campbell’s “apocalyptic” construal of justification is set forth as a means of avoiding the problems of “Justification Theory” (144); it avoids a good deal more than this! On pages 881–884 of Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2013), Wright understands the apostle’s language to refer specifically to the apostolic embodiment of God’s covenant faithfulness. Again, on p. 252 of the essay “New Perspectives in Paul”, in Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges, ed. Bruce McCormack (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006) Wright describes 2 Cor 5:21 as “not a statement of soteriology but of apostolic vocation”. If soteriology goes beyond an understanding of rescue, to the larger picture of human “wholeness”, it is not necessary to drive a wedge between these – so long as the apostolic vocation emerges from a change in being. In Orthodox categories, just as God’s energy truthfully expresses God’s essence, so the ecclesial demonstration of God in the world is a true reflection of what God is creating human beings to be. In the end, I would agree wholly with Wright that 2 Cor 5:21 is not about justification: but I would see it as opening up to the larger category of theōsis, rather than narrowing down to the results of the apostolic mission, that is, their faithful representation of God in the world. 41

138

Edith Humphrey

In dealing with our selected passage, Campbell views it as a picturesque presentation of the gospel in which “God, the gracious ruler, is graciously making a diplomatic overture to an estranged cosmos to be reconciled to him”42. Here, as throughout St. Paul’s letters, the righteousness of God is to be understood as “the right act of God in Jesus Christ” – an act that reconciles humanity, in an unqualified sense.43 Campbell admits that St. Paul retains in 2 Cor the sacrificial “scapegoat” language of his predecessors,44 but avers that this is not because he has a vested interest in the mechanics of sacrifice. Rather, the metaphor serves to show the extravagance of a God who is welcoming humanity. Though some of this – the profligate generosity of the Father, whose aim is not punitive – is consonant with the Fathers, the idea of God acting in a final and irresistible manner that requires no human response, is not. A snippet from an early essay of Campbell, when he was first establishing this “newer” perspective, serves to demonstrate the radical nature of his proposal: In sum, Paul’s understanding of the atonement, which was probably birthed in the context of the early, and rather avant garde, Christian mission at Antioch, is eschatological and creative, radical, implicitly trinitarian, and unconditional. However, it is also only inaugurated, and is characterised primarily in this present, incomplete state by the dynamic of the cross, rather than by the resurrection.… Hence, while Paul does not utterly reject the views of his opponents on the atonement, which are sacrificial and martyrological, his own perspective is a significant step beyond them. Ironically, much of the Church has also failed to keep in step with him, preferring the limited, rather commercial, and even punitive, views of his opponents – perhaps frightened, like them, of Paul’s unconditional, eschatological cross and its implications.45

Campbell echoes the Fathers and contemporary Orthodox in two respects: an emphasis upon triniatrianism and an eschewal of limited and contractual views of atonement. Here we find a resonance with the recent writing of Father Patrick Reardon, who considers Anselm’s influential theory, while not precisely heretical, as too confined, as an “anemic” apologetical theory.46 This, however, is where the resonance with Campbell ends. For Reardon also critiques Anselm for neither recognising the depth of sin and death, nor the enormity of God’s purposes for humanity. Campbell, on the other hand, attributes much of sin language in Paul’s letters to his opponent, and mutes the importance of human activity. Sacrifice takes a central place in the Orthodox understanding of salvation, as we see not only in patristic teaching but also in the Divine Liturgy.

42 Douglas J. Campbell, The Deliverance of God, An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 912.  43 Ibid., 913. 44 Ibid., 912. 45 Douglas J. Campbell, “The Atonement in Paul”, Anvil 11 (1994): 249–250. 46 Fr. Patrick Reardon, The Incarnation, vol. 1 of Reclaiming the Atonement: An Orthodox Theology of Redemption (Chesterton, IN: Ancient Faith, 2015): 67.

Becoming the Righteousness of God

139

Moreover, the theme of human cooperation with God’s activity (rather than Campbell’s irresistible apocalyptic God) is quintessentially Orthodox. Whereas contemporary (Western) discussion of “he was made sin” normally is framed in terms of Reformation debates over justification and atonement (imputation, impartation, participation, exemplarism), or reactions to it, or efforts to go beyond it, the ancients typically place the verse on a larger canvas. St. Basil, we have seen, marvels at “the more wonderful benevolence of God in Christ”, calling the faithful beyond gratitude for rescue, to embrace the holy life of a disciple.47 Eusebius fastens upon the priest and king figures in Zech 3 and 6, explaining how Jesus, “descending into our own state of slavery”48 was then crowned. The blessed Theodoret, in cautious awe, says that “he was called”, or “bore the name” of that which we are (“sin”) and so “called us”, or “gave us the name” of that which he possesses – that is, “he regaled us with the riches of righteousness”49. St. Gregory the Theologian in his fourth Theological Oration speaks about the “great destiny … that [we] should be intermingled with God, and by this … deified”50. He then handles our verse in terms of Christ’s headship over the whole Body, speaking in terms of incarnation and representation, and concluding that the larger purpose of the incarnation is to exchange human folly for wisdom, disobedience for obedience, sin for righteousness, and thus to sanctify humanity.51 Everywhere present in the patristic writings is the marvel that God has done infinitely more than we could ever expect or imagine. The very atmosphere of St. Paul’s asyndetic words in this passage contagiously has spread the apostle’s astonishment to the Fathers. The Golden-Mouthed in particular registers surprise at God’s grace described by St. Paul: Had He achieved nothing but only done this, think how great a thing it were to give His Son … but [the apostle] mentioned that which is far greater than this … Reflect therefore how great things He bestowed on thee … ‘For the righteous,’ saith he, ‘He made a sinner; that

St. Basil, On Baptism 1.3 (PG 31:1519–1520; FC 9:343), my emphasis. Eusebius of Caesaria, Demonstration of the Gospel 4.17 [Quotation from: The Proof of the Gospel Being the Demonstratio Evangelica 4.17, trans. William J. Ferrar (London; New York: Macmillan, 1920), 219]. 49 Comm. 2 Cor 5.21. How does Theodoret mean κληθεὶς and ἐκάλεσεν (PG 84:412) to be translated: “called to be” or “given the name”? The translation into English is difficult, so I have given options. The magnificent final English phrase, “regaled us with the riches of righteousness” is the translation from Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, trans. Robert C. Hill, vol. 1 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), 274. 50 St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Fourth Theological Oration, 3 [tr. Charles G. Browne and James D. Swallow in Christology of the Later Fathers, ed. Edward R. Harvey, LCL 3 (Philadelphia; Westminster, 1954), 178]. 51 St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Fourth Theological Oration, 3 [tr. Charles G. Browne and James D. Swallow in Christology of the Later Fathers, ed. Edward R. Harvey, LCL 3 (Philadelphia; Westminster, 1954), 178]. 47 48

140

Edith Humphrey

He might make the sinners righteous.’ Yea, rather, he said not even so, but what was greater far … For he said not “made” [Him] a sinner, but “sin;” not ‘Him that had not sinned’ only, but “Him that had not even known sin”, that we also “might become”, he did not say “righteous”, but, “righteousness”, and “the righteousness of God”.52

St John’s astonishment concerns the depth of the exchange, and also the unforeseen results – not only that the condemned might be “saved” and “cleared” but that they might be “subsequently promoted to great dignity” and “advanced … to that glory unspeakable”53. It would seem that St. Chrysostom’s analysis of Paul’s unusual language is born by the modified chiasm54 apparent in 2 Cor 5:21: A τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν B ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν

A´ ἡμεῖς ἵνα

D´ γενώμεθα might become

C ἁμαρτίαν

C´ δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ

D ἐποίησεν,

B´ ἐν αὐτῷ.

Notice that the “we” is not found at the close of the chiasm (A´) as it would be in a perfect construction, forming a bracket with “The One not knowing Sin”. A fully formed chiasm would appear in this order: D´ “might become” (corresponding to “He made”); C´ “the righteousness of God” (corresponding to “sin”); B´ “in him” (corresponding to “because of us”); and A´ “we” (corresponding to “the One who knew no sin”). Instead, “we”, with which the chiasm structurally should be fulfilled, is displaced by “in him” – which is the whole point! It would seem that the very imperfection of the chiasm paints a word-picture concerning the tension of symmetry and asymmetry inherent in the relationship of the “he” to the “we”. St. Paul, then, presents us with a startling “exchange formula” that stresses a radical communion between God and humanity, while clearly emphasising the holy One in whom this is possible. Apostolic or Ecclesial Action Clearly, Paul traces the initiative for reconciliation to its principle author, God, and his primary agent, Christ. Despite his gift for hymnody, Charles Wesley (under the ubiquitous influence of Anselm) has quite simply reversed the flow of action described in this passage in his dramatic verse “My God is Hom. 2 Cor. 11.5. Ibid. 54 Murray J. Harris, Corinthians, 449, also suggests a chiasm, which seems not very well conceived. In Harris’s chiasm, the A and A´ bear no resemblance conceptually or grammatically. Is his suggestion driven by an evangelical attempt to find “he was made sin” in the centre of the chiasm, and therefore highlight this? Harris comments that the chiasmus is “imperfect”, but does not explain the impact of the altered chiasm, preferring rather to speculate concerning Paul’s use of a traditional hymn. 52 53

141

Becoming the Righteousness of God

reconciled!”55. It is easy to see, however, why Anselmian constructions miss the Pauline insistence that God remains the “ordainer”. There is, after all, a lot of exchange, switching, and doubling of parts in the narrative that underlies the apostle’s words in this passage. The complex state of affairs may be seen as we diagram verses eighteen and nineteen, using actantial analysis. The first picture that emerges is fairly clear: Ordainer (God) → Object (reconciliation) → Recipient (“us”/world) ↑ Opposition (sins/death) → Agent (Christ) ← Help (“sin”/death/resurrection) “Ordainer”, “recipient”, “object” and “agent” are identifiable in verses eighteen through twenty, while the “opposition” and “help” must be imported from the surrounding context: we have left “us” in quotation marks, however, as it is not clear exactly what the pronoun signifies. Moreover, the paradox of verse twenty-one comes to the surface in this diagram, where we see sin and death in two polarities, opposing the reconciliation and helping the mission. Depending upon how Second Corinthians 5:21 is understood, “help” might also include the incarnation, for the assumption of death and sin imply embodiment. Verses eighteen through twenty also imply a secondary story: Ordainer (God)

→ Object (ministry) ↑ Opposition (resistance) → Agent (Christ)

→

Recipient (“us”)

←

Help (reconciliation)

This story is dependent upon the first: the objective that God accomplishes, through Christ, “our” reconciliation, becomes the help by which the recipients (whoever is meant by “us”) can be granted a ministry. Then, the story develops in a third way: Ordainer (God; Christ) → Object (reconciliation) ↑ Opposition (resistance) → Agent (“we”/Christ)

→

Recipient (world) ← Help (God’s appeal)

In this third scenario, those who have been given the ministry of reconciliation take the place of Christ, or work together with Christ, God making his appeal through them. But the paradox of God’s presence is seen in that God is both the Ordainer and the Helper who appeals, giving the agent his message of clemency. Moreover, because the “we” stands in for Christ (ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ οὖν πρεσβεύομεν, verse 20), Christ takes a proper place as the co-agent. (This is made explicit in 6:1, with its description of the “we” as συνεργοῦντες.) 55

This is the first line of the final verse of “Arise, my soul, Arise!”.

142

Edith Humphrey

Before moving to discuss the identity of the first person plural pronouns, we may register one further possible diagram that takes into consideration the ambiguity of verse nineteen: Ordainer (God)

→

Object (Logos) → ↑ Opposition (resistance) → Agent (God) ←

Recipient (“us”) Help (incarnation)

In this scheme, verse nineteen is not taken as synonymous with eighteen, but as extensive. That is, θέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν τὸν λόγον τῆς καταλλαγῆς is understood as “placing the word of reconciliation in ‘our’ midst”, rather than simply as a paraphrase of verse eighteen’s δόντος ἡμῖν τὴν διακονίαν τῆς καταλλαγῆς. The participle θέμενος does not necessarily mean to “entrust”, as it is often translated in English versions of the NT. It is possible that the apostle is referring not to the apostolic ministry, but to something grander – God’s placement in the human realm of his Logos, probably verbal but perhaps even personal, so that he comes near to humanity. The apostle’s typical use of λόγος is in reference to the spoken or written word, and there is no Logos Christology as such in his letters. However, in 1 Cor 1:30, St. Paul speaks of Christ as the “Wisdom” and “Righteousness/Justice” of God, which corresponds nicely to the (Pauline?) description in the Colossians hymn of Christ in terms redolent of Wisdom and the rabbinic Word. Further, in Rom 10, there is an interesting identification of Jesus’ nearness with the nearness of the God’s ῥῆμα, which is intimate to the believer (who speaks in the persona of righteousness); the living word is near, in the mouth, just as Christ need not be sought in the heights or depths, but is in the heart (10:1–9). In Rom 10, St. Paul makes a riff on Deut 30:11, which speaks about the nearness of God’s Word (that is, the Torah) as a living influence in the life of the faithful Hebrew. In doing this he makes similar moves to Bar 3–4 and Sir 24, where the language of immanence is applied to Wisdom. What Deuteronomy claims about Torah, and what the wisdom writers claim about Wisdom, Paul insists, is even more the case with Jesus, who need not be brought down or up to the human realm.56 It is just possible, then, that Paul, in speaking of God’s placing the word in “our midst”, is here also gesturing to the presence of Christ. This is consonant also with his letter to the Galatians, which includes those enigmatic and parallel phrases, “when faith came” (Gal 3:23) and “when Christ came” (Gal 3:24). Such an incarnational picture would anticipate the famous

56 For more on these intertextual echoes, see, Edith M. Humphrey, “Why Bring the Word Down? The Rhetoric of Demonstration and Disclosure in Romans 9:30–10:21”, Romans and the People of God, eds. Sven Soderlund and N. T. Wright (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 29–148.

Becoming the Righteousness of God

143

Athanasian view of the incarnation as a correlative, or pre-condition to Christ’s being “made sin”. Whether or not τὸν λόγον is understood as personal or propositional, it is possible that the force of ὡς ὅτι (5:19) is meant not merely to restate the phrase “ministry of reconciliation” (5:18), but to expound the gospel that the reconciling ministers proclaim. The content of their proclamation is that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting trespasses, and placing his L/logos in our midst”. God has come near by his word, putting it (or Him) in the midst of people of God, thereby reconciling the world to Himself, and indicating that trespasses cannot hamper the divine will. By this fourth reading, we understand the “we” in verse nineteen to move away from the apostolic particularity of verse eighteen to the community as a whole. At stake here is the question of the identity of the “us”: is it consistently and exclusively apostolic, or does it at some points embrace the entire believing community? Certainly wherever the “we” speaks to “you”, St. Paul is using the royal or, more likely, apostolic plural. The strongest proponent for a consistent apostolic reading in this passage is N. T. Wright, who thinks it necessary to prevent theological and anthropological confusion when we come to the astonishing statement that “we” become God’s righteousness. His solution to this conundrum, which maintains the uniqueness of the heavenly Just One, is to see this as a picturesque way of saying that the Paul and the other apostles, in their mission, represent and show forth God’s righteousness in the world. This passage, then, is not about “justification”, whether imputation or impartation of God’s righteousness to others, but about the way in which God shows his character through the apostolic ministry. However, to restrict the “we” to the apostles throughout this section does not heed all the rich nuances of its context within the immediate argument in chapter five, nor is it the strategy followed by ancient readers of this text. Certainly, the apostle has had a need to defend his apostleship among the Corinthians, and this is part of his aim in the extended passage in which our pericope is found. However, the rhetoric in chapters three through five is similar to that other more impassioned oration in 2 Cor 11–13. There, Paul asks the rhetorical question, “Do you think that all along we have been defending ourselves?” (2 Cor 12:19) – and the answer that he wants to hear is “no!”. His foundational purpose has not been to mount an apology but to build up the Corinthians. Similarly, here: Paul has compared himself to Moses, dubbed the Corinthians his own “letter of recommendation”, alluded to his vulnerability, reminded them of his suffering. But he has also spoken of “the unveiled faces” of “all”, of the transformation of all, of the light shining in “our hearts” (over against the blindness of unbelievers), of “all of us” who must appear before the judgment seat and who hope for the resurrected life. Indeed, in the verses just prior to our passage, Paul has been talking about Christ dying “for all” (5: 14), about “anyone in Christ” and about all things (not just each convert) becoming

144

Edith Humphrey

new (5:17). We must remember that the “we” in Paul is notoriously difficult, and sometimes unstable, as it is in Ephesians. In the context of statements about all and all things, it cannot be assumed that a striking verse such as 5:21 can be tamed by leashing it to the apostolic proclamation. Could the same Paul who has contrasted old covenant and new by juxtaposing Moses’ privileged illumination over against the transfiguration of the whole church, and who has spoken about God reconciling the world to himself, really intend to limit incarnational language to the apostolic ministry? So, then, it would seem that we have to consider each instance of the plural first person pronoun within its immediate context. Throughout chapter five, we see the apostle moving back and forth between the apostolic we, and the more inclusive we – for after all, they are, in Paul’s understanding, members of one another. Sometimes the apostle is an agent or giver; sometimes he is a model for the Corinthians, expecting that they should participate in the same actions. In verse nine, he specifies his personal desire to please God, whether he lives or dies; in verse ten he reminds his family that “we all” must appear before God’s βῆμα. In verses twelve and thirteen, he contrasts his “we” with the Corinthians, who are “you”. In verses fourteen and fifteen, though, he embraces his listeners with the apostolic motivation, showing himself as impelled by Christ’s love, and suggesting that they, too, should live for Christ. In verse sixteen, he seems to recall his own blindness prior to seeing the light of Christ; but in verse seventeen, he includes “anyone in Christ” within the perspective of the new creation. In verse eighteen, he apparently refers to his apostolic ministry, speaking of the “us” whom God has appointed; in verse nineteen, he opens out to the world, and arguably speaks of the entire body of the faithful as the arena in which God has placed the W/word. In verse twenty, he again contrasts the apostolic “us”, through whom God appeals, with those of the “you” who have not (adequately?) responded. And in verse twenty-one, following that pattern, we might anticipate an opening-out again, so that the “we” who are given a new identity involve far more than the apostles. After all, consider the lack of congruity if we read verse twenty-one as referring only to the apostles: Christ was made sin.… simply so that [ἵνα] the apostles could show forth God’s righteousness! In such a construal, the shock of the first part of the sentence (Christ “made sin”) does not match the purported functional quality of the second. If Christ was made sin it could hardly be for the purpose of the apostolic charism. Instead, Paul lays bare, as we see in the elevated words of St. John Chrysostom, a miracle even greater than the incarnation itself. 57 Richard Hays, a well-known proponent of the “New Perspective” and champion of narrative criticism, says that we find here, and in other Pauline passages “a sequence of events in which a hero protagonist acts

57

Hom. 2 Cor. 11.5.

Becoming the Righteousness of God

145

on behalf of others”, bringing in a new creation, so that “benefits are also received vicariously”.58 To read 2 Cor 5:21 as a mystery embracing all who are in Christ does not undermine the significance of the apostolic ministry, or deny that this is an important feature in St. Paul’s discourse in this chapter. In distinction to some of the more radical Protestant readings of Gal 2, we find that the apostle was no egalitarian (at least in a sense that would prevent him from calling himself “father” to the Corinthians, or make him reticent to give himself as a model). While the light of Christ has illumined all the faithful (2 Cor 4:6), it is the apostles in particular, according to St. Paul, who head the victory march (2 Cor 2:14) – paradoxically, showing forth their cruciform appearance. St. John Chrysostom aptly notes the “dignity of the apostles”59 that St. Paul demonstrates in our passage, since God has appointed to them the ministry of reconciliation. At the same time, the apostle is seen to reveal the humility of the Father, Christ, and the apostles, whose role is not to take mastery, but to make all “friends of God”,60 so that they show forth God’s righteousness. This church father, it seems, rightly recognises both the apostolic and ecclesial “we” in St. Paul’s rhetoric, and indeed stresses that the apostles themselves are part of the “all things new” that God has given to his church as a whole: thus, he quotes St. Paul’s words in 2 Cor 5:15, “all things are for your sakes”61. The particularity of the apostolic calling thus merges with the action of God and the calling of the whole church, suggests the Golden-Mouthed, in concert with the traditional Eastern-Orthodox troparion for the feast of pentecost: Blessed art you, O Christ our God You have revealed the fishermen as most wise By sending down upon them the Holy Spirit. Through them You drew the world into your net, O Lover of Man, glory to You!

There is, then, a holding together of participation and justification (or sacrificial) language in this text, and also a holding together of hierarchy and commonality. The patristic reading demonstrates that the polarities assumed by many since the Reformation and the advent of democracy were not part of St. Paul’s mental furniture. To read 2 Cor 5:21 as a mystery embracing all who are in Christ also does not undermine all that has been rightly argued, in my opinion, by N. T. Wright, about God’s very own righteousness in all the other places where Paul uses the phrase. (The logic is much like that of the Christian regula fidei, which reads Richard Hays, The Faith of Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983). 59 Hom. 2 Cor. 11.4. 60 Hom. 2 Cor. 11.5. 61 Ibid. 58

146

Edith Humphrey

the gospel in the light of the Hebrew Bible: the incarnation can only overwhelm those who have firmly grasped the distinctness of a holy God. It would be unremarkable for a pantheist or a polytheist.) In concert with those who followed him, St. Paul depicts this one as the LORD and Second Adam who assumes death and sin, in order to win life and righteousness for God’s people. It is this same One who stands as judge, as advocate, and as defendant. The apostle and the Fathers would be stymied by our theological parsing. What life is there except that of God, the giver of life? What righteousness is there but God’s very own? God does not give grace: he gives his very self! As Blackwell puts it, “Paul maintains a fundamental distinction between the Creator and the created, but this distinction does not hinder believers as creatures … sharing his righteousness, incorruption, and glory. The two must be held in tension because the Giver becomes the gift.”62 This view, then, takes as programmatic the paradox of our fourth actantial diagram, where Ordainer, Object, and Agent are all played by the Lord. Transformation and Theōsis At verse twenty-one, we glimpse the glory of what human beings are meant to “become” at that very point where the exception proves the well-taken rule of Wright. God’s righteousness is his very own – unless he invites human beings into that glory through the Son. Indeed, this interpretation sets us up perfectly for chapter six, which mandates the call to light, holiness, righteousness and fellowship in tangible human living. In correcting the reformational assumption that 2 Cor 5:21 is speaking about mere imputation of righteousness, Wright has suggested that St. Paul and the other apostles are here described, in their apostolic ministry, as an “incarnation” of God’s righteousness. However, in this metaphorical construal, we lose the astonishment of St. John Chrysostom: “Reflect therefore how great things He bestowed on thee … for … he did not say ‘righteous’, but, ‘righteousness’, and ‘the righteousness of God’”63. Indeed, Paul has indicated his hope for a present glory that incorporates and is expressed by all those who are in Christ, even while physically in the body. Contemplation of the Hebrew Bible, the NT, and Paul’s thought in particular, discloses the thoroughly tangible nature of glory, “the weight of glory”, as Paul as put it in the previous chapter. (Though the word δόξα can refer to abstract concepts of reputation or fame, there is also the startling appearance of the kabod as cloud, fire, and God’s palpable Shekina in the tabernacle and temple. This is either a contagious source of illumination, or a force deadlier than radioactivity!) St. Paul, the visionary rabbi who has been wounded physically in the ultimate apocalypse (cf. 2 Cor 12), continues this tradition. It would seem that in 62 63

Blackwell, “Christosis”, 229. Hom. 2 Cor. 11.5.

Becoming the Righteousness of God

147

Second Corinthians he hints at some of that wisdom intended for the mature that he has mentioned in his first letter (1 Cor 2:6), expounding a mystery concerning Christ’s all-encompassing glory: “And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit” (3:18). Christly faces are open, changed while they look, transformed together as the Holy Spirit comes among them. Among them all has shone “the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God” (4:4). The focal point in Second Corinthians is not Paul’s own role, but, as in the transfiguration narratives, Jesus himself, who has come in the flesh, who is the likeness of God, and who shows who God is. Paul’s gospel, though communicable, cannot be reduced to words, but is more deeply immersed in the world, in history and in space. Paul makes a deliberate connection between the God who creates, and the God who glorifies: “For it is the God who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (4:6). Concomitantly, the very righteousness of God becomes visible in “us”. It is for this reason that we should not be surprised that 2 Cor 5:21 places the idea of the faithful becoming the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in proximity to teaching on the resurrection. As one critic remarks, however, “the relationship between justification and new life/resurrection is clear in Paul’s letters but gets little attention because of the emphasis upon present justification”64. St. Paul’s connection of God’s initiating action with the eschatological judgement concerning what is done “in the body” is precisely the same move that he makes in the letter of Romans: there, God’s present declaration of “righteous” must eventually be matched by an embodied righteousness for all to see (Rom 2:16). The “Old Perspective” has understood justification language in terms of a nonmaterial transaction, a mere declaration by God, or a benevolent fiction that solves one aspect of our human fall. In contrast, proponents of the “New Perspective” are less likely to see justification (or even sacrifice) as central to Paul, but stress the mystic participation in Christ, which frequently issues in spiritual benefits and the possibility of an ethical lifestyle. Orthodox approaches, while not disparaging God’s words and acts of clemency, nor dismissing the importance of spiritual and ethical solidarity with Christ, see transformation as involving the entire person, and salvation as addressing not merely sin and disposition, but also death. (To be fair, many of the “New Perspective” scholars have also taken note of St. Paul’s declaration that humanity has two enemies: death as well as sin. This is one of the places in which the “New Perspective” comes closer to the patristic approach. However, frequently this conquest over death is understood in wholly eschatological terms, as the faithful look forward to the resurrection, when death will be no more.) 64

Blackwell, “Christosis”, 251.

148

Edith Humphrey

For the Fathers, death is a process, and the body was seen as not simply liable to death, but as actually dying. Similarly, the use of icons and relics indicates that glory was seen as not simply the property of the eschaton, but as something inaugurated (even physically) in the here-and-now. Without this insight, it is difficult to make sense of what the apostle is getting at in verses fourteen through seventeen: that Christ died for all, so all have died, that the faithful might live for him, that there is a new creation which is palpable to the faithful. Is Paul’s picture simply fictive? What does it mean to “die in Christ”, “to live for him”, and to perceive and live in “the new creation”? The default interpretation is to tame the Pauline vision so that we are left with ethical imperatives and pious eschatological aspirations; this does not do justice to the grittiness of the apostle’s description of the present spiritual life. Indeed, the apostle leads us to the present time. The γενώμεθα of verse twenty-one may be subjunctive, but it is not wholly future in force. After all, the λόγος has already been placed in the midst of God’s people, so that those in the ministry of reconciliation that work together with God, in a present energy. Indeed, as the apostle insists, in the sequel to our passage: ἰδοὺ νῦν καιρὸς εὐπρόσδεκτος, ἰδοὺ νῦν ἡμέρα σωτηρίας (6:2). What we are told to “behold” is the present moment (νῦν) of God’s welcome and salvation – a salvation that may be described in forensic and participational terms, but is not exhausted by these. In trying to redress the Western over-emphasis upon sin and mere future glory, some theologians have, however, constructed a caricature of the Eastern Fathers that ignores the patristic awareness of sin. Recently Benjamin Myers gave an absorbing lecture on “Atonement and the Image of God” at the third annual Los Angeles Theology Conference on Atonement. In this lecture, he draws out not only what he considers to be the patristic theory of atonement, but also the “mechanism” by which it works. His goal is laudable – not to give in too quickly to the hegemony of “mystery” that many (wrongly) assume to have taken Orthodox theology captive. Instead, he works assiduously through the logic of several key Eastern Fathers, including Saints Athanasios, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Nazianzus. His argument traces twelve steps and discloses three major assumptions: that there is a universal human nature; that death is a privation of reality, and that the divine nature is impassible. Everything turns upon Christ’s human nature succumbing to death, while the resurrection is the inevitable consequence of his death, because he unites the divine and human natures. “Human mortality is reversed when the life-giving divine nature makes contact with human nature at the point of its slide into non-being:” this is the “mechanism”, the hinge upon which the “patristic model” works. What happens to Christ happens to human nature as a whole, and so humans are free from the power of death and restored.

Becoming the Righteousness of God

149

Moreover, since human nature is now united with God, there are benefits received far beyond rescue from death.65 So far as this presentation goes, it recoups a great deal of the majestic scope of the patristic teaching on atonement. It makes sense of St. Athanasius’ argument that the incarnation was necessary, St. Cyril’s teaching of the communicatio idiomatum, St. Gregory Nyssa’s insistence that God can touch death without suffering harm, and St. Gregory Nazianzus’ dictum: “We needed a God made flesh and made dead that we might live.” It is, however, deceptively selective. Bizarrely, it has nothing whatsoever to say about that other enemy, sin, nor about the sacrificial language which we have seen in patristic commentaries on Second Corinthians, and that is abundantly present in the Divine Liturgies ascribed to Saints Basil and John Chrysostom. Such a schema has no need of Cyril’s goats, or the St. Basil’s emphasis on remission of sins by Baptism,66 or St. John Chrysostom’s injunction that we “not deem it more grievous to be punished, but to sin.”67 Moreover, it must gloss St. Paul’s own words “he made him to become sin” so that these are made to mean “he made him to assume human flesh and die.” The apostles’ words entail the incarnation and death of Jesus, but not to the exclusion of ἁμαρτία. Moreover, Myers’s representation of Eastern thought does not incorporate what the apostle (and the Fathers subsequent to St. Paul) had to say about living a holy life and worthy participation in the mysteries. Since the apostle is speaking to a group that had already received the gospel, described by him as having seen the light of God in the face of Jesus, we must understand that ongoing repentance and conversion are envisaged in the apostle’s appeal, “[Always] be reconciled to God!”68. This plea, St. John the Golden-Mouthed explains, is designed to stir up the faithful, that they should keep in mind, as they live in the body, all that which the apostle has said: These things then bearing in mind, let us above all things be afraid of sin … And let us not only be afraid of but also flee from it and strive to please God continually; for this is the kingdom, this is life this is ten thousand goods. So shall we also even here obtain already the kingdom and the good things to come.69

65 The entire argument can be heard in his lecture, available at the site below. I have presented only a brief summary that does not do justice to his argument. https://www.youtu be.com/watch?v=DzdgDdZkSOY&feature=youtu.be 66 On Baptism 1.3 (PG 31:1519–1520; FC 9:344). 67 Hom. 2 Cor. 11.6. 68 We are forced by context to read the aorist imperative of 2 Cor 5:20 as a summary aorist (rather than punctiliar), without regard to the length of time envisaged for the action to be accomplished. The aorist tense suits the apostle’s sense of urgency, which emerges in chapter six, with his talk of “now”. 69 Hom. 2 Cor. 11.6.

150

Edith Humphrey

A more adequate description of the patristic consensus concerning Pauline soteriology as theōsis is seen in the summary of Fr. John Meyendorff, who writes: Communion in the risen body of Christ; participation in divine life; sanctification through the energy of God, which penetrates true humanity and restores it to its ‘natural’ state, rather than justification, or remission of inherited guilt – these are at the center of Byzantine understanding of the Christian gospel.70

To this might be added Father John Breck’s statement that in “the Greek patristic tradition, the Pauline notion of dikaiosynē [is seen as] ‘righteousness’, rather than as ‘justice’ in the forensic sense … refer[ring] first to God’s own quality of righteousness”71. From this perspective, much of the apostle’s argument in 2 Cor 5:16–21 comes clear, including the embodied nature of the righteousness of God in the church. It seems, however, that careful Orthodox readers of the apostle must not rule out Paul’s “forensic” overtones, which reverberate through the passage, beginning with the reference to final judgment.

3. Direction of the Argument These six critical verses upon which we have set our gaze have become before our eyes a turbulent nexus of eddies, centripetal circles of inquiry that demonstrate similarities and differences between patristic readings of St. Paul and those that may be classified as “Reformational” or “New Perspectival”. The pursuit of these competing avenues of thought may distract from seeing the flow of Paul’s argument, to which we now turn. In light of his previous discussion of weakness, covenant, glory, resurrection and judgment, the apostle begins verse sixteen by speaking about the human condition and how this has been overturned by means of a new perception, a way of seeing with eyes open to the new creation; he concludes with a stunning statement concerning how Christ has taken on the human condition in order to make the faithful the very means by which others can perceive God’s character and will. We thus begin in our passage with the apostle’s own cognitive conversion, and end with the converting action of Christ that has the potency to make everything and everyone new. Let us trace the progression of thought within these two brackets.

70

146.

Fr. John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (New York: Fordham University Press, 1974),

71 Fr. John Breck, “God’s Righteousness”, https://oca.org/reflections/fr.-john-breck/godsrighteousness.

Becoming the Righteousness of God

151

The apostle begins by explaining his new epistemological outlook (verse 16), made possible in Christ by the God who is the giver of all good things (verse 17), including his own ministry of reconciliation (verse 18). Indeed, that ministry entails sounding forth the reconciling actions of God, who has not penalised humanity on account of sin, but who has drawn near (verse 19). In the face of this remarkable condescension, the apostle makes his plea, cheekily taking the place of God and Christ himself, extending the invitation that those who hear him be reconciled (verse 20). This invitation is one that fits the ears of any who hear, and may be issued not only to unbelievers, but, it seems, to believers as well, for the reconciliation is “far greater” (so the GoldenMouthed) than we can imagine. The apostle caps off his entreaty with an unadorned, unqualified, and grammatically unconnected dictum that defies theological categorisation: “The One who knew no sin He made to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (verse 21). As with the grammar, so with Paul’s theology – everything begins and ends with this One. Though the verse has a direct application to the apostle’s own ministry, it is an assertion that is pregnant with meaning, and thus infinitely applicable. Then, lest we rest in wonder, chapter six immediately propels the reader into the practical, the life of the community in the world. In terms of rhetoric, we discern both forensic and deliberative overtones. Certainly, the apostle’s own status and reception is at stake: the passage forms part of a larger apologetic, an embarrassed self-commendation to the Corinthians. Yet, just as all things come from God, so Paul mounts his defense also for the sake of his hearers. His very ministry is typed as one of the gifts that God has given, and the jostling back and forth between different meanings of the first person plural indicate that the apostle has in view not simply the bolstering of his own position. In the end, the Corinthians (and subsequent readers) are embraced by the divinely revealed new horizon, and ushered into their place in the new creation. Though this is Christ’s work, part of the dynamic involves the human recognition of the final judgement and present discernment: those addressed by the apostle’s appeal must accept reconciliation, and be moved by the humility of the One who assumed sin, and who offers a new reality that goes beyond mere rescue. From one perspective, verse twenty-one seems to be the climax of the verse, to which all has been leading. As an early foreshadowing of the patristic exchange formulae, it can hardly be more striking: the faithful community is to become God’s very own justice or righteousness in the world. However, Paul does not conclude at this point, but follows the same pattern that we see in his magisterial letter to the Romans, where the doxology at the conclusion of chapter eleven is followed by the Παρακαλῶ οὖν of chapter twelve. Similarly, Second Corinthians 5:21 emerges as the pinnacle that shows forth Jesus’ paradoxical glory in the cross, from which the reader must come down, as did the disciples from Mount Tabor, to deal with strife in the community and hostility

152

Edith Humphrey

in the world. The transformation detailed in verse twenty-one is thus neither presented as a simple goal, nor a merely eschatological aspiration. Rather, it is articulated as an accomplished act and a present reality from which vantage point the faithful are to understand their reconciliation with others and their part in the ongoing struggle to reclaim the cosmos. Participation in Christ means understanding what it is to be reconciled to God, coming increasingly to see and live in the new creation. It is to express in the body the faithfulness of God, who judges by mercy, heals by death, and brings those who were dead into new life. What we might have assumed, that Paul is advocating a mere renewal of the imagination, must yield to his remarkable assertion that things have indeed been made new: the newness is playing itself out in the life that the church shares with the dying, living and ascended One. Now (ἰδοὺ νῦν, 6:1) is the physical place and time where this ongoing conversion happens. Paul is not merely advocating a revolution of epistemology, but announcing an ontological reversal and renewal that have the potency to encompass everything and everyone. In terms of atonement theories, he moves from an exemplarist and participationist story (verses 16–17), dips into what we might describe as forensic, Christus Victor and sacrificial narratives (verses 18–20), and settles upon a transformational statement that borders on theōsis (verse 21). In Western terms, we move from the realms of soteriology to sanctification (as 5:21 provides the bridge to chapter six); in Eastern terms, these are all of one piece, for God’s purpose is to divinise his creatures and his creation.

Conclusions Amidst the involved conversations and debates generated by a tantalising passage, the conditioned nature of the exegete’s reading has become apparent. Theodore Stylianopoulos remarks astutely: The ʽjustification theology' focussing on the issue of faith and works is not less traditional simply because a Protestant declares it ʽbiblical.' Nor is the ʽθέωσις theology' focussing on union with Christ in the Spirit unbiblical simply because an Orthodox declares it ʽtraditional.' An exegetical approach may well find that both the ʽparticipatory' and ʽforensic' views of salvation are part of the larger biblical witness, and that deeper appreciation of both may be achieved precisely by seeing them in positive comparative light.72

For the Fathers, our passage shows itself critical to establishing Christological teaching in times of acute challenge, and to encouraging faithful living; for those in the midst of the Reformation paradigm, it is redolent of the mercy 72 Theodore Stylianopoulos, The New Testament: An Orthodox Perspective I: Scripture, Tradition, Hermeneutics (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross, 1999), 209–210.

Becoming the Righteousness of God

153

given by a just God who offers Christ for the justification of those who believe; for those who stress participation, it intimates the inclusion of believers in the life and actions of Christ. Our desire would be to do justice to the various facets of the pericope, noting that from the Orthodox perspective, the purpose of Scripture goes beyond theological instruction and exhortation to mystagogy. In St. Paul’s struggle with the Corinthians, we see a path in which all the themes (physicality and new creation, substitution and participation, sin and righteousness, apostolic and ecclesial action, transformation and theōsis) come together to indicate the transformation not only of each person, but of the whole body, the church (cf. Eph 4:15), who has received this epistle, and who offers worship informed by it. In speaking generally about biblical interpretation within an Orthodox context, Father Theodore Stylianopoulos takes a page from the notebook of Fr. Georges Florovsky, calling for a neopatristic synthesis (faithful to the Fathers but responsive to the contemporary world), and asserting that the exegetical and interpretive dimensions of hermeneutics must be joined to a third transformative level: Hermeneutical reflection on the transformative level involves a deeper and more personal creative tension between faith and reason. It has to deal discursively and conceptually with the issue of the direct experience of God, which is beyond concepts and syllogisms – beyond but not against.... At the transformative level, we meet not abstract ecclesiology, important as this is, but the actual life of the Church.73

His insistence on this dimension as the hallmark of Orthodox hermeneutics is borne out by the celebrated words of St. Gregory the Theologian, which we already have met in part through in the presentation of Benjamin Myers. Here it is persent in a more complete form. It leads us anagogically, by means of echoes from 2 Cor 5:16–21, through a meditation upon the cross and resurrection, to a personal outcry of praise, and a final doxology concerning the new creation and Christ’s body, the church: We needed a God made flesh and made dead, that we might live. We were made dead with him that we might be purified. We have risen with him since we were made dead with him. We were glorified with him since we rose with him. Many indeed are the wonders of that time: God crucified … the veil split; blood and water pouring from his side … dead people raised…. Who can adequately sing their praise? Yet, none is like the wonder of my salvation: a few drops of blood recreate the whole world … binding and drawing us together into one.74

As with our passage from Second Corinthians, the earthiness of St. Gregory is striking. Those “few drops of blood” recreate and draw together the body of Ibid., 222 and 234. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 45.28–29 [Quotation from: Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, Festal Orations, trans. Nonna Verna Harrison, Popular Patristic Series 36 (Crestwood, NY: SVS 2008), 189]. 73 74

154

Edith Humphrey

Christ, which St. Paul describes in the chapter subsequent to our passage as the Temple of the living God, called to holy living in the space and time world. The concreteness of the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is made manifest in Paul’s letter, reminding us that glory has a substance or “weight” which bears down upon God’s creation. This brings us to a final observation that may have been missed as we trained our gaze upon sin, righteousness, and transformation: our passage is informed and buttressed by an implicit Trinitarian perspective, which is, in fact, the foundation upon which God’s embrace of his creation takes place. The opening verses of chapter five, in detailing the permanent resurrection body, speak of the Spirit as our surety of this hope; chapter six closes by reminding the Corinthians that they have been called “sons and daughters” of the living God, who is dwelling among them. Between this bracket of the Spirit and the Father, St. Paul lifts into the light the mysterious action of Christ, who works together with the Father and the Spirit in order to accomplish the divine purposes. Entering our physical world, then, and transforming it utterly, are what St. Irenaeus called “the two hands of the Father” who reconciles the faithful to himself. Father Boris Bobrinskoy reminds us that implicit Trinitarian theology completely imbues the epistles. It is indeed the foundation for our filial adoption, and sets in theological context the possibility of our cooperation in the reconciliation accomplished by Jesus Christ. He sums up his biblical theology in this way: The one75 perspective of the teaching of the apostles is the mystery of salvation worked out by Jesus Christ, the sanctification by the Holy Spirit, the filial adoption by the Father. It is the Holy Trinity in the work – or the economy – of salvation that is professed, prayed to and taught in the NT. The redemption accomplished by Christ is therefore offered to the Father, in obedience to His will, in the transparency of the Holy Spirit…. There is, therefore, a profound continuity between the trinitarian ‘cooperation’ in the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ, and in the sanctification communicated in the Holy Spirit. The Spirit of the resurrection of Christ also acts in our own body, in our most impenetrable human existence … In the one eternal Son, we become sons, ‘children of God.’… In the Spirit of adoption, we dare murmur to the Father the name, Abba Father, a sign of the greatest sweetness and intimacy.76

What Fr. Bobrinskoy says about the epistles and NT in general is quintessentially true of 2 Cor 5:16–21. The conjunction of the earthy and the mystical, and a scope that is at once personal and cosmic, give this passage its arresting quality. In the end, we meet words that are simultaneously dense and translucent, theological and inviting, historically grounded in the apostle’s address to 75 It seems that Fr. Bobrinskoy means “single” here: unfortunately, I have no access to the original. 76 Fr. Boris Bobrinskoy, The Mystery of the Trinity: Trinitarian Experience and Vision in the Biblical and Patristic Tradition, tr. Anthony P. Gythiel (Crestwood, NY: SVS 1999), 137.

Becoming the Righteousness of God

155

the Corinthian church yet alive in myriad different settings since they were first uttered. We are reminded of St. John the Golden-Mouthed’s awed depiction of the potency of Scriptures: Reading the Holy Scriptures is like a treasure. With a treasure, you see, anyone able to find a tiny nugget gains for himself great wealth; likewise, in the case of Sacred Scripture, you can get from a small phrase a great wealth of thought and immense riches. The Word of God is not only like a treasure, but is also like a spring gushing with overflowing waters in a mighty flood.… [G]reat is the yield of this treasure and the flow of this spiritual fountain. Don’t be surprised if we have experienced this: our forebears drank from these waters to the limit of their capacity, and those who come after us will try to do likewise, without risk of exhausting them; instead the flood will increase, and the streams will be multiplied.77

Bibliography Alfeyev, Metropolitan Hilarion. Doctrine and Teaching of the Orthodox Church. Vol 2. of Orthodox Christianity. Yonkers, NY: SVS, 2012. Basil, Saint. Ascetical Works. Translated by Monica Wagner. Repr. ed. FC 9. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1999. Betz, Hans Dieter. “2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1: An Anti-Pauline Fragment”. JBL 92 (1973), 88– 108. Bieringer, Reimund. “Sünde und Gerechtigkeit in 2 Korinther 5,21”. Pages 461–514 in Studies in 2 Corinthians. Edited by Reimund Bieringer and Jan Lambrecht. Gembloux; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1994. Bird, Michael F. The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective. Exeter; Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007. Blackwell, Benjamin C. “Christosis: Pauline Soteriology in Light of Deification in Irenaeus and Cyril of Alexandria”. PhD diss., Durham University, 2010. Bobrinskoy, Fr. Boris. The Mystery of the Trinity: Trinitarian Experience and Vision in the Biblical and Patristic Tradition. Translated by Anthony P. Gythiel. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Press, 1999. Branick, Vincent P. “The Sinful Flesh of the Son of God (Rom 8:3): A Key Image of Pauline Theology”. CBQ 47 (1985): 246–262. Breck, Fr. John. “God’s Righteousness”, https://oca.org/reflections/fr.-john-breck/godsrighteousness. Campbell, Douglas. The Deliverance of God, An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. –. “The Atonement in Paul”, Anvil 11 (1994): 237–250. Crisp, Oliver D. “Did Christ Have a Fallen Human Nature?” Pages 90–117 in Divinity and Humanity: The Incarnation Reconsidered. Edited by idem. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Chrysostom, Saint John. Homilies on Genesis 1–17. Translated by Robert Hill. FC 74. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1999.

77 Hom. Gen. 3.1 [Saint John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 1–17, tr. Robert Hill, FC 74, (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1999), 39].

156

Edith Humphrey

Cyril of Alexandria. “Fragmenta in sancti Pauli epistulam ii ad Corinthios”. Pages 320–360 in Sancti patris nostri Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Joannis evangelium. Edited by Philip E. Pusey. Repr. ed. Vol. 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1965. –. Letter 41 to Acacius of Melitene. Pages 168–172 in St. Cyril of Alexandria Letters 1–50. Translated by John I. McEnerney. FC 76. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1987. Dahl, Nils A. “A Fragment and Its Context: 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1”. Pages 62–69 in Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission. Edited by the same. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977. Dunn, James D. G. Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. Atlanta; Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1990. Eusebius of Caesaria. The Proof of the Gospel Being the Demonstratio Evangelica. Translated by William J. Ferrar. New York; London: Macmillan, 1920. Finlan, Stephen. “Can We Speak of Theōsis in Paul?”. Pages 68–80 in Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions. Edited by Michael J. Christensen and Jeffery A. Wittung. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Fitzmyer, Joseph. “Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph in 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1”. CBQ 23 (1961): 278–280. Gorman, Michael. Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Gregory of Nazianzus. Epistle 101 to Cledonius against Apollinaris, Translated by Charles G. Browne and James D. Swallow. Pages 215–224. in Christology of the Later Fathers, Edited by Edward R. Harvey. LCL 3. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1954. –. Festal Orations. Translated by Nonna Verna Harrison. Popular Patristic Series 36. Crestwood, NY: SVS 2008. –. Fourth Theological Oration. Translated by Charles G. Browne and James D. Swallow. Pages 177–193 in Christology of the Later Fathers, Edited by Edward R. Harvey. LCL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1954. –. Oration 45, On Holy Pascha. Pages 161–190 in Festal Orations. Translated by Nonna Verna Harrison. Crestwood, NY: SVS, 2008. Harris, Murray J. The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Hardy, Edward R. Christology of the Later Fathers. Edited by Edward R. Harvey, LCL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1954. Hays, Richard. The Faith of Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Hooker, Morna. “On Becoming the Righteousness of God: Another Look at 2 Cor 5:21”, NovT 50 (2008): 358–375. Humphrey, Edith M. “Why Bring the Word Down? The Rhetoric of Demonstration and Disclosure in Romans 9:30–10:21”. Pages 129–148 in Romans and the People of God. Edited by Sven Soderlund and N. T. Wright. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Kapic, Kelly M. “The Son’s Assumption of a Human Nature: a Call for Clarity”. International Journal for Systematic Theology 14 (2001): 154–166. Litwa, M. David. “2 Corinthians 3:18 and Its Implications for Theosis”, JTI 2 (2008): 117– 133. Matera, Frank J. Romans, Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010. Meyendorff, Fr. John. Byzantine Theology. New York: Fordham University Press, 1974.

Becoming the Righteousness of God

157

–. “The Time of Holy Saturday”, Moscow Patriarchate Journal 4 (1992): 33–34. Myers, Benjamin. “Atonement and the Image of God”, Conference Lecture Delivered in January 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzdgDdZkSOY&feature=youtu.be. Moo, Douglas J. Review of The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul, by Douglas Campbell. JETS 53 (2010): 143–150. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Series 1. Edited by Philip Schaff. 1886–1889. 14 vols. Repr. ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Series 2. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. 1890–1900. 14 vols. Repr. ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Origen of Alexandria. Treatise on the Passover and Dialogue of Origen with Heraclides and His Fellow Bishops on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Translated by Robert J. Daly. ACW 54. New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1992. Patrologia Graeca. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857–1886. Rahner, Karl. The Priesthood. Translated by Edward Quinn. New York: Herder and Herder, 1973. Reardon, Fr. Patrick. The Incarnation. Vol. 1 of Reclaiming the Atonement: An Orthodox Theology of Redemption. Chesterton, IN: Ancient Faith, 2015. Sanders, Ed P. Paul. Oxford; London; New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Schnelle, Udo. Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology. Translated by Eugene M. Boring. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003. Schreiner, Thomas R. “The Abolition and Fulfillment of the Law in Paul”. JSNT 35 (1989): 47–74. Stylianopoulos, Fr. Theodore. The New Testament: An Orthodox Perspective. I: Scripture, Tradition, Hermeneutics. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1999. Theodoret of Cyrus. Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul. Translated by Robert C. Hill. Vol. 1. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001. Weinandy, Thomas. In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh: An Essay on the Humanity of Christ. Edinburgh; London; New York: T&T Clark, 1993. Westerholm, Stephen. Justification Reconsidered: Rethinking a Pauline Theme. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Wright, N. T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. COQG 4. Philadelphia: Fortress, 2013. –. “New Perspectives in Paul”. Pages 243–264 in Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges. Edited by Bruce McCormack. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

Galatians 2:15–21 A Commentary Challenging the New Perspective Vasile Mihoc In Galatians, we hear the voice of an apostle who, throughout the first part of his life, was full of ardour for the “traditions of [his] fathers”, and moreover, was a zealous persecutor of Christians (Gal 1:13–14). Prior to his conversion, St Paul was not only a Jewish rabbi but also an activist for the destruction of Christ’s movement. His encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus radically changed his theology and his understanding of salvation history. The one called by the glorified Lord to be His apostle discovered once and for all that what the persecuted Christians were proclaiming is true: i.e. that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah and Son of God and that His resurrection from the dead (to which Paul was made a witness, 1 Cor 15:8) has already inaugurated the eschaton. Thus, in the church, Christians are participating in “the fullness of time” inaugurated by the coming of Christ (Gal 4:4) and Christ’s followers are indeed those “on whom the fulfilment of the ages has come” (1 Cor 10:11). The conversion of Saul of Tarsus is one of the most remarkable events in the history of Christianity. How was it possible? According to the apostle it was simply God’s initiative and work (Gal 1:15–16). Six passages in the NT offer us a picture of this historic event: three in St Paul’s letters (1 Cor 9:1–2; 15:3–11; Gal 1:11–16) and three in the Acts of the Apostles (9:1–7; 22:6–10; 26:12–16).1 In the history of the church, there are many other miraculous conversions to Christ. But the conversion of St Paul was unique: first, because it enabled him to be ranked among the witnesses to the resurrection and to play a special role in the fulfilment of salvation history (1 Cor 15:8); and second, his conversion

1 The literature on Paul’s conversion is enormous. Along with many good biographies of the apostle and with the many commentaries on the NT texts related to this conversion, see especially Ulrich Wilckens, “Die Bekehrung des Paulus als religionsgeschichtliches Problem”, ZTK 56 (1959): 273–293; Richard N. Longenecker, ed., The Road from Damascus: The Impact of Paul’s Conversion on His Life, Thought, and Ministry, McMaster New Testament Studies (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) and especially, in this volume (213–237), the article of G. Walter Hansen, “Paul’s Conversion and His Ethic of Freedom in Galatians”.

160

Vasile Mihoc

also entailed his calling to carry the gospel to the Gentiles, which he received directly from Christ by divine revelation.2 The conversion of the apostle Paul explains his attitude toward Judaism and his new understanding of the role of the Mosaic law in the history of salvation.3 St Paul says concerning his situation before his conversion that he was the worst of the sinners, not a sinner in the common sense of the word, but “a blasphemer and a persecutor, and a violent man … dead … in transgressions and sins … disobedient”, following the desires and thoughts of our sinful nature (1 Tim 1:13–15; Eph 2:1–3). The zealous Jew, who was Saul of Tarsus before his conversion, was a sinner! In his own life, the law proved to be totally inefficient. The consequence was that not only those to whom he preaches the gospel but he himself needed to be delivered from the bondage of sin and death, a slavery that, in his self-righteous zeal, he had once believed to be true freedom.

The Issue of Table Fellowship The truth that there is no salvation except in Christ and that faith in Christ is the only means of obtaining divine salvation is fundamental in St Paul’s theology. In his encounter with Christ, he understood once and for all that both Jews and Gentiles are called to the grace of salvation and that there is no difference concerning this calling. The Mosaic law no longer constitutes a dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles; “in Christ” they are now fully one. The concrete example of this unity was the situation of the church in Antioch, where Christians coming from among the Jews and from among the Gentiles were living in perfect unity. This unity was especially expressed in the participation in common meals, which also offered a context of common partaking of the bread and the cup of the Lord’s Supper.4 This participation in common meals had a great religious significance for ancient peoples and especially for the Jews. Joachim Jeremias writes: “In Judaism table-fellowship means fellowship before God, for the eating of a piece of broken bread by everyone who shares in the meal brings out the fact that they all have a share in 2 Krister Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 7–23, rightly stresses that Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus was both a conversion and a calling. 3 Cf. Jacques Dupont, “The Conversion of Paul and Its Influence on His Understanding of Salvation by Faith”, in Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce on his 60th Birthday, ed. W. Ward Gasque, Ralph P. Martin and Frederick F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 176–194. 4 Though we do not know the precise nature of these meals, it seems sure that they included the agape meals, i.e. the meals of Christian love, of which the Lord’s Supper was an integral part (cf. 1 Cor 11:20–21).

Gal 2:15–21

161

the blessing which the master of the house has spoken over the unbroken bread.”5 In the situation of the Galatian churches, the table fellowship of all, both Jew and Gentile, was the climax of their living communion with Christ in His church. When St Peter came to Antioch, he found this situation of unlimited fellowship and he freely joined in this practice. But when some Christians from Jerusalem came to Antioch, he stopped participating in the common table fellowship. Possibly the “men from James” (Gal 2:12) were shocked when they saw how freely Peter was sharing table fellowship with the uncircumcised. This situation led Peter to withdraw from eating with the Gentile believers. In the Greek text the verbs “began to draw back” and “separated himself” are in the imperfect tense, indicating that Peter’s action may have happened gradually as, little by little, he reacted to the increasing pressures from the Jerusalem visitors until finally “he drew back and began to hold aloof” (NEB). As a consequence, all of the other Jewish Christians in Antioch – and even Barnabas, the close friend and co-worker of St Paul6 – were swept along with him in this hypocrisy (Gal 2:13). In Gal 2:14, St Paul says how he strongly opposed this attitude of Peter and claims that, in that situation, Peter was truly worthy of condemnation.7 The full force of the verb “to become a Jew” (ἰουδαΐζειν)8 in this verse becomes evident in the next verse where St Paul contrasts those who are Jews by birth with Gentile sinners (2:15). By their separation, Peter and those who followed him were acting as if their Gentile Christian brothers and sisters were still sinners while they, because of their obedience to the law, had a favourable relationship to God.

Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology (New York: Scribner, 1971), 115. In the interpretation of R. Bauckham, “Barnabas and Galatians”, JSNT 2 (1979): 61–70, the fact that Barnabas appears so little in Galatians reflects Paul’s severe disappointment over his behavior during the crisis in Antioch. 7 Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr; A Historical and Theological Study (London: SCM Press, 1953), 50–53, has observed that Peter’s conduct in this situation was a throwback to his earlier pattern of vacillation and denial that marked his character during the earthly ministry of Jesus as it appears at the circumstances of the walking on the water (Matt 14:22–36), of the denial of Jesus (Luke 22:54–62), and of the encounter of the risen Lord, when he took his eyes off Jesus and began to look at other people, notably John (John 21:20–22). 8 Ἰουδαΐζειν=ἰουδαϊκῶς ζῆν, means “to turn to Jew”, “to live in a Jewish manner”. 5 6

162

Vasile Mihoc

An Arrangement of the Greek Text (GNT) of Gal 2:15–21 (2:15) Ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί· (2:16a) εἰδότες [δὲ] ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, (2:16b) καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, (2:16c) ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, (2:16d) ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ. (2:17a) Εἰ δὲ ζητοῦντες δικαιωθῆναι ἐν Χριστῷ (2:17b) εὑρέθημεν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἁμαρτωλοί, (2:17c) ἆρα Χριστὸς ἁμαρτίας διάκονος; (2:17d) μὴ γένοιτο. (2:18a) Εἰ γὰρ ἃ κατέλυσα ταῦτα πάλιν οἰκοδομῶ, (2:18b) παραβάτην ἐμαυτὸν συνιστάνω. (2:19a) Ἐγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον, ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω. (2:19b) Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι· (2:20a) ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός· (2,20b) ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί, ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ (2,20c) τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ. (2:21a) οὐκ ἀθετῶ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ· (2:21b) εἰ γὰρ διὰ νόμου δικαιοσύνη, ἄρα Χριστὸς δωρεὰν ἀπέθανεν.9

The Context Galatians 2:15–21, which concludes the first section of this Epistle (1:1–2:15), contains a dense statement on the justification by faith in Christ, without the “works of the Mosaic law”, a theme central to St Paul’s soteriology. These concluding statements come after the apostle’s defence of the authority of his 9 Cf. Ezra H.-S. Kok, The Truth of the Gospel: A Study in Galatians 2:15–21, BLS 5 (Hong Kong: Alliance Bible Seminary, 2000), 4.

Gal 2:15–21

163

apostolate and of the authenticity of his gospel. Paul’s arguments are mainly autobiographical: his past as a persecutor of the church and his totally unattended conversion following a direct calling by God (1:11–24); his recognition as a true apostle by the council in Jerusalem (2:1–10); and the public confrontation in Antioch with St Peter, who, out of fear of some Jerusalemite Christians, encouraged the separation of the Jewish Christians from the common meals with Gentile Christians (2:11–14). Set in the context of this confrontation, the statements of St Paul in 2:15–21 give the impression of being a summary of what he said to Peter on this occasion. What the apostle puts concisely in these verses will be developed, with a biblical-theological argumentation, in the following part (the doctrinal part) of this Epistle (3:1– 5:12). In the Epistle’s context, St Paul’s position regarding the law and regarding the zealots of the observation of the law in the Christian church seems clear. This is even much more the case once we read this letter in the light of other NT testimonies and mainly in the context of the historical situation of the apostolic church as mirrored in the book of the Acts of the Apostles. Paul, the converted Jew, has understood once for all, following his encounter with the Christ on the road to Damascus, the limited character and role of the Mosaic law. But many aspects remain obscure to the exegete. Issues such as the destination of the Epistle and the exact time of its writing are still debated. Concerning its destination and dating, the majority of scholars argue in favour of North Galatia (territorial/ethnic Galatia)10 and set it during Paul’s third missionary journey11. Another important issue is that of the identification of the opponents of the apostle in Galatia. We know about them and their teaching only from St Paul’s 10 The classic understanding of the North Galatian view was set forth by Joseph Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, 10th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969). At the beginning of the 20th century the Romanian scholar Vasile Gheorghiu dedicated a whole book to this issue in which he concluded in favor of the North Galatian hypothesis, viz. Vasile Gheorghiu, Adresaţii Epistolei către Galateni [=The Addressees of the Epistle to the Galatians] (Cernăuţi, 1904). See also the discussion in: Donald A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, ICC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 290–293; Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 3–5; a. o. William Ramsay, A Historical Commentary on Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965), and Frederick F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 3–18, had the most important role in imposing the South Galatia hypothesis. 11 Most scholars who accept the North Galatian destination of this letter place the writing of Galatians during St Paul’s Ephesian ministry when, for some two years, Paul carried on extensive evangelistic and missionary work in the province of Asia (Acts 19:10). For a summary of the issues concerning the dating of Galatians, see Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1990), lxxii-lxxxviii.

164

Vasile Mihoc

comments in this Epistle. John M. G. Barclay’s 1987 study argues that the only way for us to answer this question is to engage in a kind of “mirror-reading”.12 What is “certain or virtually certain” about Paul’s opponents is, according to Barclay, that: 1) they were Christians; 2) they wanted the Galatians to be circumcised and observe at least some other elements of Mosaic law; 3) they questioned Paul’s gospel and apostolicity; 4) their arguments persuaded the Galatians. And it is “probable”, says Barclay, that: 1) they were Jewish Christians; 2) they argued from Scripture, perhaps from the narrative of Abraham; 3) they expected the Galatians to become circumcised proselytes and to observe the Torah as the essential characteristic of God’s people. The majority of exegetes are convinced that Paul’s opponents in Galatia were Jewish Christians, possibly from Jerusalem, for whom keeping the “works of the law” was considered to be essential to salvation. It remains uncertain how much of the Jewish law was required, in their view, for the Gentile Christians to be justified. But what is clear is that at least circumcision (cf. Gal 2:3–4; 5:2–3; 6:12–13) and the Jewish observance of “days, months, seasons, and years” (4:10) were considered necessary. In St Paul’s view, the rule and obligation of the Torah had been put to an end by “the coming of faith” (3:23, 25), i.e. by the salvific acts of Jesus Christ and by the foundation of His church. In the church the regime of the law has lost its power; there is now a new “law”, “the law of Christ” (6:2). And the Christians live “in the (Holy) Spirit”, which means that the “life in the Spirit” or the “the law of the Spirit of life” (Rom 8:2) is the new “regime” of their religious existence.

Commentary on Gal 2:15–21 Taking into account the previous verses (11–14), it seems very probable that in vv. 15–21 the apostle is basically repeating what he had already said “before all” in Antioch. On its own, v. 14b is meaningless; similarly, ἡμεῖς in v. 15, in which St Paul regards himself as belonging to the circle of Peter and of the other Jewish Christians, reflects the situation in Antioch. Therefore, this passage belongs to Part I, the autobiographic part of the Epistle, not to its theological part.13

John M. G. Barclay, “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case”, JSNT 31 (1987): 84–85. 13 According to Theodor v. Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, 3rd ed., KNT 9 (Leipzig, Erlangen: A. Deichert, 1922), ad. loc., v. 15 marks the beginning of the theological part of the Epistle. Some more recent commentators such as Betz, Galatians and Longenecker, 12

Gal 2:15–21

165

The apostle thus offers Gentile-Christians from Antioch (and, via the Epistle, those from Galatia) an a fortiori argument in defence of freedom from the law: i.e. if we, Jewish Christians, recognise that we cannot be justified by the “works of the law”, but only through faith in Jesus Christ, all the more must you, Gentile-Christians, seek righteousness where it can be obtained, namely, in Christ, not in the Mosaic rituals. St Paul’s defence of his gospel (and of his apostolic authority) has led him to this strong declaration of doctrine. The central theme of this apostolic statement is justification by faith, the very principle expressed by the table fellowship in Antioch. (2:15) St Paul reminds his addressees of the historical privilege of the chosen people. He himself, along with Peter, Barnabas, and the other Judeo-Christians, are Jews “by nature14”, that is, by birth, whereas the Gentiles are “by nature children of wrath” (Eph 2:3). The Jews are the “natural branches” of the good olive tree (Rom 11:21), while the pagans converted to Christ are branches cut out of “an olive tree that is wild by nature” and grafted “contrary to nature” into a good olive tree (11:24). The pagan is “the one by nature uncircumcised” (ἡ ἐκ φύσεως ἀκροβυστία, Rom 2:27), which to a Jew is the same as saying that the pagan is “by nature sinful”. The Jews did indeed use the adjective ἁμαρτωλοί, to describe the pagans (1 Macc 1:34; 2:48, 62; Tob 13:7; Matt 26:45; 14:41; Luke 18:32; 24:7).15 Not having the law, they were ἄνομοι, those without the law (Rom 2:14; 1 Cor 9:21); not having “the righteousness based on the law” (Phil 3:6), they were ἄδικοι, the unrighteous (1 Cor 6:1).16 In the Epistle to the Romans, St Paul insists on the “firstness of the Jew” (3:1), which is “much in every way” (3:2a). The Jews are the ones who “have been entrusted with the word of God” (3:2b), that is, the law of Moses and the entire Scripture of the OT; by striving to fulfil it, they were seeking a “righteousness based on the law” (Phil 3:6; cf. Rom 4:1–2; 9:31; 10:2–3; 11:7; Titus 3:5). Their election by God and the gifts bestowed upon them granted them certain privileges, of which the apostle is perfectly aware (Rom 1:16; 3; 9 etc.).17 But, as he himself shows right away (Gal 2:16–21), the advantage of being “by nature” a Jew is entirely insignificant when it comes to righteousness. Thus, in light of what follows, Gal 2:15 could mean: “Although we are

Galatians have interpreted this passage to be the propositio of Galatians, i.e. a transitional section of this apologetic letter that “sums up the narratio’s material content” and “sets up the arguments to be discussed later in the probatio” (Betz, Galatians,114). 14 The word here means “natural origin”; see examples in the respective lemma in BAGD. 15 See Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “ἁμαρτωλός”, ThWNT 1:329–330. 16 Cf. Str-B 3:36–46. 17 On the “firstness of the Jew” in the rabbinic literature see Str-B 3:126–128.

166

Vasile Mihoc

by nature Jews … even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified…” (2:16) The conjunction δὲ indicates the contrast between the Jewish as opposed to the Christian point of view. The subject of εἰδότες (knowing), by means of which the apostle indicates the certainty of faith (cf. Rom 6:9; 2 Cor 4:14), is the same as that of v. 15: we, the Judeo-Christians. By the very fact that they have come to Christ, Judeo-Christians have confessed their conviction that “a person is not justified by the works of the law”. The expression the “works of the law” (ἔργα νόμου) is frequent in St Paul, especially in his Epistles to the Galatians (2:16; 3:2, 5:10) and to the Romans (3:20, 28; 9:32; cf. 3:27; 4:2; 9:11; 11:6; Eph 2:9; Phil 3:6, 9; 2 Tim 1:9; Titus 3:5). In Rabbinic Judaism one often finds the expression tAc.mi  yfe[]m;  (Aram.  at'Aw'c.mi ydeb.W[ = the works of the commandments);18 this expression refers to the fulfilment of the moral or ritual prescriptions of the Mosaic law. According to St Paul, the “works of the law” were practiced by those who lived “in the law” (Gal 3:11) or “under the law” (3:23; 4:21; 5:18); thus, they represent “the whole package of the social and religious system dominated by the Mosaic law”19. Their religious experience had proven to the Jews that a person cannot be justified exclusively through his or her powers. The prophet Isaiah says, for example, “all our righteous deeds are like filthy rags” (Isa 64:6); and the Psalmist notes that “they have all turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is none who does good, no, not one” (Ps 13[14]:3; cf. Rom 3:11). Therefore, the Jews were waiting for the coming of the Messiah who was to justify them: “By His suffering, My Servant shall justify many, taking upon See examples in Str-B 3:160–162; 4:559–610; Georg Bertram, “ἔργον κτλ.”, ThWNT 2:645–650. 19 André Viard, Saint Paul. Epître aux Galates (Sources bibliques; Paris: Gabalda, 1964), 53 ; Stephen Westerholm, Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 108, says that the “law” in Paul usually refers to “the sum of specific divine requirements given to Israel through Moses.”; Franz Mussner, Der Galaterbrief, 3rd ed., HThKNT 9 (Freiburg im Breisgau; Rome: Herder, 1977), 170, says that “only a naive exegesis could … confine the works of the law to the ritual prescriptions of Judaism.” This is an answer to the interpretation represented by the so-called “New Perspective on Paul”, which says that the interpreters have misunderstood Paul’s argument with the Judaisers and that they have mistaken what the apostle meant by the expression “works of the law”; N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Oxford: Lion, 1997), 120, says that when Paul spoke of the “works of the law”, he did not have in mind the moral requirements of the law of God. Rather, he was speaking of the badges of Jewish nationalism – circumcision, the dietary laws, the priesthood, the holy days, etc. In other words, he’s talking about the ceremonial law. Wright says that the question Paul is addressing in Galatians is “the question of how you define the people of God. Are they to be defined by the badges of the Jewish race, or in some other way?”; On the “New Perspective”, see also James D. G. Dunn, “The New Perspective on Paul”, BJRLM 65 (1982): 95–122. 18

Gal 2:15–21

167

Himself their iniquities” (Isa 53:11). The Qumran scrolls repeatedly say that man cannot justify himself through his deeds, for righteousness comes only from God. In the “Hymns” from Qumran we read: “And I know20 that man does not have righteousness…, it is with God the Most High that all the works of righteousness are” [1QHa XII (IV), 30–31]; “For You forgive sins and purify man of all error by Your righteousness” [cf. 1QHa XII (IV), 36–37]; “And who shall be justified before you, when he shall be judged? ... But to all children of truth, You shall give forgiveness before You, they shall be cleansed of their iniquities by the abundance of Your goodness...” [1QHa XV (VII), 28b–30; cf. IX (I), 6.26; VI (XIV), 15; VIII (XVI), 11; 1QS I, 26; II, 1; X, 11; XI, 3.12–15 a. o.].21 St Paul supports his statement about the inability of the “works of the law” to ensure justification by freely quoting,22 at the end of the verse, Ps 142:2LXX: “For no one living is righteous before you.” Although this verse from the Psalm does not mention the “works of the law” directly, St Paul’s use of the quote is consistent with its intended meaning, because the expression πᾶς ζῶν (πᾶσα σὰρξ in Gal 2:16) has a universal scope, including those “under the law” who do the “works of the law”.23 The expression “no flesh” from the end of the verse is synonymous with the “man” at its beginning. A person in general, whether Jewish or Gentile, is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Christ Jesus. In the Epistle to the Romans, the apostle voices the same idea: “There is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith” (Rom 3:30). The Pauline dichotomy between “faith” and the “works of the law” (ἐὰν μή, has an exclusive meaning) was not known in Judaism. For Jews, the law and faith had to be joined in a living synthesis. “I trust your commandments” – says the Psalmist (Ps 118:66LXX). The Mekhilta on Exodus 14:31 cites a saying of Rabbi Nehemiah according to which “whoever receives even one commandment with faith is worthy that the Holy Spirit should rest upon him”. Judaism knew and affirmed the value of faith. Prophet Habakkuk says that “the just shall live by his faith” (Hab 2:4; Gal 3:11; Rom 1:17; Heb 10:38). This idea is

The verb “to know” here is evocative of St Paul’s wording in Gal 2:16: “Knowing that” On the use of this verb in the “Hymns” from Qumran see Siegfried Wagner, “‫ ידע‬in den Lobliedern von Qumran”, in Bibel und Qumran, ed. Siegfried Wagner (Berlin: Evangelische Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft, 1968), 232–252. 21 Cf. Mussner, Galaterbrief, 168–169; also see Herbert Braun, “Röm 7, 7–25 und das Selbstverständnis der Qumran-Frommen”, ZTK 56 (1959): 1–18; Siegfried Schulz, “Zur Rechtfertigung aus Gnaden in Qumran und bei Paulus”, ZTK 56 (1959): 155–185. 22 While LXX reads ὅτι οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐνώπιόν σου πᾶς ζῶν, St Paul rendered it ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ. 23 Cited in Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater, 5th ed., KEKNT (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 93Fn3; see Str-B 3:198–199. 20

168

Vasile Mihoc

further developed in the Qumran scrolls.24 Rabbinic theology distinguishes a righteousness based on faith from another one based on the law (cf. Midrash to Ps 27[26 in LXX]:13 and 94[93 in LXX]:17) and says that it was through faith that the Covenant was made.25 What St Paul puts in opposition to the “works of the law” is not faith in general but “faith in Jesus Christ”. The apostle mentions justification by faith in Christ twice in this verse (there is no distinction between διὰ πίστεως and ἐκ πίστεως). In the Greek expression πίστις Χριστοῦ26 the second word must be interpreted as a genitive of the object (“the faith in Christ”, cf. Matt 11:22; Acts 3:16; Phil 1:27; Col 2:12), not a subjective genitive (“the faith of Christ”).27 The use of this genitive has a nuance: Christ is the object of the faith, but He is also its principle or source. The faith by which man is justified has its objective foundation in the person and salvific work of Jesus Christ.28 Not just any faith is a means for or path to salvation. That is why – says St Paul – “even we [Judeo-Christians] have believed, that we may be justified by faith in Jesus Christ and not by the works of the law.” The aorist ἐπιστεύσαμεν points to the precise moment in the life of Judeo-Christians when they understood that justification comes only through the faith in Jesus Christ and received the Christian baptism. The verb “to be justified” (δικαιοῦσθαι) occurs three times in v. 16; in the next verse “being justified” appears in opposition to “being sinful”. In the Pauline Epistles, “being justified” (Rom 2:13; 3:26, 30; 5:1, 9; Gal 3:8; Titus 3:7; etc.; cf. Matt 12:37; Acts 13:39; Jas 2:21, 24–25) has the same meaning as “being saved”, just like the noun “righteousness” or “justification” 24 See Walter Grundmann, “The Teacher of Righteousness of Qumran and the Question of Justification by Faith in the Theology of the Apostle Paul”, in Paul and Qumran: Studies in New Testament Exegesis, ed. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor and Pierre Benoit (London; Dublin: Geoffrey Chapman, 1968), 85–114. 25 Grundmann, “Teacher”, in Murphy-O’Connor and Benoit, Paul, 99. 26 See Greer M. Taylor, “The Function of πίστις Χριστοῦ in Galatians”, JBL 85 (1966): 58– 76; George Howard, “On the ‘Faith of Christ’”, HTR 60 (1967): 439–484. 27 This is the classical interpretation, represented, for example, by Ernest. d. W. Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (Edinburgh; London; New York: T&T Clark, 1921), 121; Betz, Galatians, 118; and many others. More recently, however, other scholars have argued that this expression should be read as a subjective genitive, referring to the faith or faithfulness of Jesus Christ; so, for example, Longenecker, Galatians, 87–88; Richard Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ. The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1 – 4:11, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns 2002), 139–224 a. o. 28 Lucien Cerfaux, Le chrétien dans la théologie paulinienne, LD 33 (Paris: Cerf, 1962), 349Fn1, translates this verse as follows: “man is not justified through the works of the law except by the faith of Jesus Christ” (“que grace à la foi du Christ Jésus”). Cerfaux thinks this accurately describes “the position … of Christians who remain faithful to the law and regard it as obligatory.” However, this translation, which changes the meaning of the verse completely, is ruled out both by ἐὰν μὴ which means “but only” and by the context.

Gal 2:15–21

169

(δικαιοσύνη) is synonymous with “salvation”. In the Pauline soteriological sense “justification” has two sides which must not be dissociated: in a negative sense, justification is the wiping away of sin and guilt, that is, forgiveness; in a positive sense, justification is the founding of a new life, that is, sanctification.29 St Paul enriches the expression “to be justified” with a plenary meaning, using it to denote the new life which has its source in Christ. Jesus Christ imparts to the believer His life (Gal 2:20), He makes Himself a spring of new life in those who believe in him, granting them strength against sin.30 Justification is a foretaste and a guarantee of eternal life. The state of righteousness will culminate in the state of glory. Thus, justification is not, as Lutheran exegetes would have it, an external act of God by which man is declared righteous and forgiven of his sins.31 St Paul insists on the active role of man in the process of justification (Rom 8:10–11; 2 Cor 5:21; Eph 4:13; Phil 3:13–14; etc.).32 Already in the Epistle to the Galatians St Paul gives us a list of virtues (5:22–23) and speaks of the “faith working through love” (5:6), which proves that he did not exclude the practice of good works as a means to acquiring salvation. It is not good works but specifically the “works of the law” that nobody will be justified by. Therefore, it would be erroneous to contrast Paul’s teaching on justification with St James’ exhortation to make our faith living through good works (Jas 2:20–29). St James does not go against Paul’s teaching, but rather against understanding and applying it the wrong way.33 (2:17) Judeo-Christians could have objected to the argument in the previous verse as follows: We recognise that we are not justified by the works of the law; that is why we have believed in Jesus Christ. But this does not mean that we must set aside these “works of the law”, for by doing so we ourselves (καὶ αὐτοὶ corresponding to ἡμεῖς in v. 15) would relapse to the condition of sinful 29 Nicolae Chiţescu, Isidor Todoran and Ioan Petreuţă, Teologia Dogmatică şi Simbolică [=Dogmatic and Symbolic Theology], 3 vols. (Bucharest: Ed. Instit. Biblic, 1958), 2:70–72. 30 See Dumitru Stăniloae, Teologia Dogmatică Ortodoxă [=Orthodox Dogmatic Theology], 3 vols. (Bucharest: Ed. Instit. Biblic, 1978), 2:332–337. The biblical meaning of “justification” in Christ is systematically uncovered by Nicholaos Cabasilas, De vita in Christo (SC 355:74– 356). 31 Bonnard comments on this verse as follows: “Justification is the approval by God of the life of a person” [Pierre Bonnard, L’Épître de Saint Paul aux Galates, 2nd ed., CNT 9 (Neuchâtel: Labor et Fides, 1972), 53]. 32 The distinction that Roman-Catholic theologians make between the “first justification” and the “final justification” [cf. John Bligh, Galatians in Greek. A Structural Analysis of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians with Notes on the Greek (Detroit: University of Detroit Press, 1966), 200–201; Viard, Saint, 56] still does not cover the richness of meanings that this word has in the soteriological teaching of St Paul. 33 Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Moral Teaching of the New Testament (Freiburg im Breisgau; Rome: Herder, 1965), 356, says about St James’ Epistle: “It doesn’t speak against some teaching but rather against negligent Christian conduct.”

170

Vasile Mihoc

Gentiles (ἁμαρτωλοί, a clear allusion to v. 15b). Such an objection had already been raised in a very tangible way by the Judeo-Christians in Antioch, who had separated themselves from Gentile-Christians. The apostle shows that such an objection would have monstrous consequences. If communing with Gentile-Christians is a sin, if setting aside the “works of the law” is a sign of religious-moral decay, then this means that Christ has not made them righteous but sinful. But could Christ then (ἆρα)34 be a servant of sin? The exclamation: μὴ γένοιτο (May it not be so!), which St Paul uses whenever he wants to reject an erroneous conclusion that one might draw from his teaching (Gal 3:21; Rom 3:4, 6, 31; 6:2, 15; 7:1, 13; 9:14; 11:1; 1 Cor 6:15), categorically expresses the absolute impossibility of such a blaspheming assertion. If such a conclusion is inconceivable, – says the apostle – then it is not true that we Judeo-Christians have committed sin by coming to Christ and setting aside the “works of the law”; such fears are entirely unjustified, since Christ is not a servant to sin. Communion with Gentile-Christians is not a testimony to our decline but rather to the fact that we are all justified together in Christ Jesus.35 (2:18) The conditional particle εἰ (if) shows that the apostle is again talking about the reaction of Peter and of the other Judeo-Christians in Antioch, although he starts speaking in the first person singular. The “I” in this verse does not denote the person of St Paul but has a general and typical meaning (cf. Rom 3:7; 7:7–25, 1 Cor 6:12, 15; 10:29–33; 13:1–12; 14:11, 14, 15).36 The error would be to come back to the yoke of the law, not to renounce it. The law is violated by those who submit to it. Having recognised that the law is no longer necessary for salvation, the Christian believers cannot be in transgression of the law, since the law no longer obliges them to do anything. If I revert to the state of submission to the law, – the apostle claims – I am admitting that I was wrong when I renounced it and thus showing myself to be a transgressor of the law.37

34 Rudolf Bultmann, “Zur Auslegung von Galater 2,15–18”, in Exegetica ed. Rudolf Bultmann (Tübingen: Mohr, 1967), 395–396, argues that here we must read ἄρα (then, thus), not ἆρα (by any chance, question marker). But in the Pauline Epistles the exclamation “Certainly not!” always comes after a question. 35 Some exegetes think this verse speaks about the real state of sinfulness that Judeo-Christians must have become aware of in the light of the Gospel of Christ. However, the context excludes this interpretation (see esp. vv. 19–20). 36 The “I” in vv. 18–21 stands for any Judeo-Christian, just like the “I” in Rom 7; see Grigorie Marcu, “Cine este ἐγώ, din cap. VII al Epistolei către Romani? [=Who is ἐγώ, in chap. VII of the Epistle to the Romans?]”, Revue Mitropolia Ardealului (Sibiu:1959): 185–194. 37 Παραβάτης means “someone who violates a positive commandment” (cf. Jer 6:28; Ezek 18:10; Rom 2:25, 27; Jas 2:9, 11).

Gal 2:15–21

171

The metaphor that St Paul uses here, with its contrasting pair to destroy – to rebuild, has parallels in the rabbinic literature.38 It is possible that this metaphor is an allusion to the “middle wall of separation” between the Jews and the Gentiles, broken down by Christ (Eph 2:14). To rebuild this wall, which the apostle identifies with the “law of commandments and ordinances” (Eph 2:15) would be to make the salvific work of Christ, by which He “made the two groups one” (Eph 2:14), futile. (2:19) The most accurate interpretation of vv. 19–20 is one which is in accordance with what St Paul himself says in Rom 6–7. “I died to the law” (νόμῳ ἀπέθανον) finds an analogue in “we have died to sin” (Rom 6:2, 10). The law is necessary to punish sin. The law is not itself sin, but it was given in order to make sin evident and to punish it (Rom 7:7–12). Thus the law is necessary only to the extent that there is sin, to the extent that man lives for sin. But sin has been vanquished by Christ by His death on the cross. And we have partaken of this victory by the mystery of the Holy Baptism: “We were buried with Him through baptism into death” (Rom 6:4); “our old man was crucified with Him [Christ]” (6:6). Thus, through Baptism we have died to sin once and for all (Rom 6:2, 10). But for him who is dead to sin the law is superfluous, so the apostle can continue to say: “Therefore, my brethren, you have also become dead to the law (καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐθανατώθητε τῷ νόμῳ) through the body of Christ, that you may belong to another, to Him who was raised from the dead” (Rom 7:4). In our verse (Gal 2:19), “through the body of Christ” is the explanatory parallel to the expression “through the law”. It is this διὰ νόμου in Gal 2:19 that has puzzled exegetes. Some think that this expression refers to the law of Christ (Gal 6:2), the law of the Spirit (Rom 8:2) or the law of faith (Rom 3:27), through which the Christian believers have died to the old law.39 Other commentators see here an allusion to the fact that the law itself has announced its end, since the Scripture of the OT speaks of a new covenant (Jer 31:31–34; cf. Heb 8:7–13) and a new means of salvation, that of faith (cf. Rom 10:1–13).40 These two interpretations are not foreign to St Paul’s teaching. But both the context (“I have been crucified with Christ”, v. 19b) and the parallel texts in the Epistle to the Romans (6:1–6; 10–11; 7:1–13) show that the apostle had something else in mind here. According to Gal 3:10–13 Christ died in our place and it was the law that sentenced Him to death. He died because, bearing our sins, he fell under the curse of the law. Thus Christ died in a very real sense “through the law”. But, since he who dies is freed from the law (Rom 7:1–3), See Otto Michel, “οἶκος κτλ.”, ThWNT 5:145. E.g. Jerome, Comm. Gal. (PL 26:370); Ambrosiaster, Gal. (PL 17:371) a. o. 40 This interpretation was already proposed by St John Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. (PG 61: 645), and Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Int. Gal. (PG 82:473). 38

39

172

Vasile Mihoc

it can really be said that Christ “through the law died to the law”. Or, “all of us who were baptised into Christ were baptised into His death” (Rom 6:3). If Christ died to the law, then through the mystery of Holy Baptism we too have died to the law “through the body of Christ” (Rom 7:4).41 Since Christ died to the law, through the law, that means that we too, the moment we partook of this death indirectly and mysteriously through Holy Baptism, “through the law died to the law”.42 But the Christian believer dies to sin and, implicitly, to the law, to a specific end: “to be alive to God” (ἵνα Θεῷ ζήσω). If we have died to sin and to the law through Christ, we are alive to God also through Christ, as the apostle says in the parallel text in Rom 6:11: “In the same way [as Christ], count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord”. We are alive to God because Baptism does not only mean death with Christ but also resurrection with Him (Rom 6:4–5, 8). By co-working with the grace given to us, we must be living testimony to this new life which is in us (Rom 6:12–15), conducting ourselves as slaves of God (6:22).43 The blessed consequence of our crucifixion together with Christ is explained in the next verse. (2:20) In this verse St Paul uses the verb ζῆν (to live) four times, to describe the new life of the believer, the life “in Christ”. The first δὲ is explanatory. “Thus it is no longer (οὐκέτι) I who live” is the consequence of the previous statement: “I have been crucified with Christ”. The adverb οὐκέτι (no longer, not anymore) has a temporal meaning; the life of those who have become Christians is divided into two: the time when they were living through themselves or “in (under) the law” and the new time, 41 The sacramental interpretation of the death of the Christian believer to the law was endorsed especially by Schlier, Brief, 99–101; cf. Heinrich Schlier, “Die Taufe nach dem 6. Kapitel des Römerbriefes”, ET 5 (1938): 335–338. Pierre Bonnard, “Mourir et vivre avec JésusChrist selon saint Paul”, RHPR 36 (1956): 103, says the text in Gal 2:19b “represents a stage of Pauline thought … in which the idea of the death of Christ is not yet implicitly tied to that of baptism”. But in Gal 3:27 the apostle does make this connection when he says “All of you who were baptised into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” 42 See Vasile Gheorghiu, Epistola către Romani a Sfântului apostol Paul. Introducere, traducere şi comentar [=The Epistle of Saint Apostle Paul to the Romans. Introduction, Translation and Commentary], 2nd ed. (Cernăuţi, 1938), 179–180; Liviu G. Munteanu, ed., Epistola Sfântului Apostol Pavel către Galateni dfd – Comentar [=The Epistle of St Apostle Paul to the Galatians – A Commentary] (Cluj, 1940), 76–77; Juan Leal, “Christo confixus sum cruci (Gal 2, 19)”, VD 19 (1939): 76–80 and 98–105; Ole Modalsi, “Gal 2, 19–21; 5, 16–18 und Röm. 7, 7–25”, TZ 21 (1965): 22–37. 43 See Robert C. Tannehill, Dying and Rising with Christ, BZNW 32 (Gießen; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967); Rudolf Schnackenburg, “Todes- und Lebensgemeinschaft mit Christus. Neue Studien zu Röm. 6,1–11”, in Schriften zum Neuen Testament: Exegese in Fortschritt und Wandel, ed. idem (München: Kösel-Verlag, 1971), 361–390.

Gal 2:15–21

173

inaugurated at Baptism, when they started living “in Christ”. “I” stands in opposition to “Christ”. The “I” of the believer has been crucified;44 it has died together with Christ. The old “I” of the human being is dethroned through the mystery of Holy Baptism, Christ being set in its place. The sinful ἐγὼ having died, the source of the life of the Christian is now Christ. So the apostle can now say “Christ lives in me”, which is equivalent to his statement in Col 3:4: “Your life is Christ”. St Paul says repeatedly that the Christian life is a life “in Christ” (Rom 6:11; 8:1; 1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 3:26, 28; Eph 2:13; etc.). By saying here that Christ lives in the believers he is explicating the ontological foundation of this life.45 It is Christ who lives in us now, in the now inaugurated by Holy Baptism. This life in Christ asserts itself within us through the Holy Spirit, as the apostle himself tells us: “You are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead to sin, and the spirit is life for righteousness. And if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you…” (Rom 8:9–11). Note that “Christ living in us” or the “Spirit of Christ (the Spirit of God) living in us” mean the same thing. The “dwelling” within us of Christ or of the Holy Spirit shows how complete this union between Christ and the being of the believer is. The best explication of the complete union between Christ and the baptised comes from Nicholas Cabasilas: Through the Holy Mysteries – that announce the death and the burial of the Lord – we are born into the spiritual life, through them we grow in it and come to the point where we become united in a glorified way with our Lord Himself…”; and: “When we come out of the water of Baptism, we have in our souls the Saviour Himself … The Lord becomes our air and nourishment and thus, by becoming united with us and mixing Himself for eternity in the unity of our being, He becomes our mystical body, and in this body He gradually comes to be what the head is to the limbs.46

St Ignatius of Antioch writes along the same lines: ὁ ἐμὸς ἔρως ἐσταύρωται (Rom. 7.2). According to Schlier, Brief, 102Fn1, ἐν Χριστῷ (Ἰησοῦ) εἶναι, just like Χριστὸς ἐν ἐμοί, is first and foremost a baptismal formula. 46 De vita in Christo, 1.18.61. An alternative interpretation that I consider completely off the mark is the “juridical” interpretation of the life of Christ in the believer as proposed, for example, by Rudolf Bultmann, “ζάω”, ThWNT 2:869; Michel Bouttier, En Christ. Étude d’exégèse et de théologie paulinienne, EHPR 54 (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1962), 82– 83; Hans Conzelmann, Grundriss der Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Einführung in die Evangelische Theologie 2 (München: Kaiser, 1967), 235; Günther Bornkamm, Paulus (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969), 155, 164–165. 44 45

174

Vasile Mihoc

The fact that “Christ lives in me” – the apostle says – has profound consequences for my earthly life: “And (δέ)47 the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God…” St Paul does not negate the earthly life of the believer, the life “in the flesh”. But to live “in the flesh” (ἐν σαρκί) or to “walk in the flesh” (2 Cor 10:3) is not the same as living “according to the flesh” (Rom 8:8–9). The sinner lives “according to the flesh”. He who lives in Christ has a life “in the body”, which he lives “in the faith in the Son of God”. The adverb νῦν (now) refers not to the present life as opposed to the future48 but rather to the life of the believer (and of St Paul himself) since his conversion onwards; this life “of now” is no longer (οὐκέτι) dominated by the law but rather has as its principle the faith in Christ. In v. 16 the apostle contrasts this salvific faith with the “works of the law”. By saying that he lives the life of now in the faith in the Son of God St Paul is implicitly saying that he no longer lives according to the Mosaic law. The foundation of the faith is the expiatory sacrifice of Christ, “who loved me and gave Himself for me.” This expression was likely borrowed by St Paul from the liturgical formulas of the early church (cf. 1:4; Eph 5:2, 25; 1 Tim 2:6). Christ died “for me”49 , that is, in my place and for my benefit. The redeeming sacrifice of Christ is the expression of His love for us. That is why faith in the Son of God, crucified and resurrected, is necessarily a “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6). (2:21) This concluding verse is a summary of the entire passage (vv. 11–20). To revert to the Mosaic law – the apostle says – would be to set aside or cancel (ἀθετῶ, cf. Ps 88:35LXX; 1 Mac 11:36; 2 Mac 13:25; Mark 7:9; Luke 7:30; Gal 3:15; Heb 10:28; etc.) the incomparable grace of life in Christ. “The grace of God” is the entire redeeming work of God in Jesus Christ; it is the grace of the willing self-sacrifice of the Son of God. His death “for me” and all its soteriological consequences in my life are a gift or a grace that deserve an adequate response. The Christian believer must choose between the law and grace. The second part of the verse begins with a hypothetical “if”: if we continued to believe that righteousness comes through the law, then (ἄρα) that would mean that Christ

47 Δὲ does not have an adversative meaning here. The apostle does not see any conflict between his life now and the fact that Christ lives in him. 48 See, e.g., Theodore of Mopsuestia’s exposition in Henry B. Swete, ed., Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Epistles of St. Paul, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1880), 1:34. 49 Comparing the expression ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ with the text in Rom 8:32: “He who did not spare His Own Son, but delivered Him up for us all (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν πάντων)” (cf. Rom 4:25; Gal 1:4), we see that in this verse ἐγὼ does not have an individual meaning.

Gal 2:15–21

175

died in vain or to no end.50 If salvation could have been accomplished through the “works of the law”, there would have been no need for the cross of Christ. The apostle spends no effort arguing against such an absurd hypothesis. Those who revert to the law, taking the attitude to its logical conclusion, might even end up regarding the cross of Christ as a scandal, just like the non-believing Jews (1 Cor 1:23). Rephrased positively, this verse basically says: salvation, justification, comes only through the grace of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ; the believer receives this grace and can preserve it through the exercise of faith. The apostle doesn’t tell us how the confrontation in Syrian Antioch ended. Some believe the silence of the apostle indicates a final rupture between St Peter and St Paul.51 If his intervention had been successful – they say – St Paul would have certainly used this success as yet another argument against accusations from the Judaising camp. Such a conclusion is, however, unfounded. Most of the commentators think that St Peter, when faced with St Paul’s righteous indignation and arguments, could only have admitted his error. According to Lightfoot, we would not be mistaken if we thought that St Peter admitted his separation from GentileChristians as a new denial of Christ, and “once more went outside and wept bitterly”52. Or perhaps the apostle, bearing in mind the believers from Galatia and having evoked with such warmth the image of Christ, did not deem it necessary to bring up again the unfortunate event in Antioch. What we do know about the two apostles allows us to say with confidence that the unity and love between St Paul and St Peter did not suffer one bit from this confrontation. Much later St Peter was able to speak of “our beloved brother Paul”, recognising in him, with the typical spiritual wisdom of his epistles, a gift given from above (1 Pet 3:15–16); in his turn, St Paul would mention with due honour the name of Cephas-Peter, one of the “pillars” of the church of Christ (Gal 2:7–9).  

Bibliography Barclay, John. “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case”. JSNT 31 (1987): 73–93. Bauckham, Richard. “Barnabas and Galatians”. JSNT 2 (1979): 61–70. 50 The adverb δωρεὰν here means without a case, in vain, for nothing (just as in 1 Kgs 19:5; Pss 34:18; 68:5 LXX; Sir 20:23; 29:6). On the various meanings of this word, see Friedrich Büchsel, “δίδωμι κτλ”, ThWNT 2:169–170. 51 Alfred Loisy, L’Epître aux Galates (Paris, 1916), ad loc.; David R. Catchpole, “Paul, James and the Apostolic Decree”, NTS 23 (1977): 440; John Bligh, Galatians. A Discussion of St Paul’s Epistle (London: Householder Commentaries, 1969), 233–234. 52 Lightfoot, Galatians, 129.

176

Vasile Mihoc

Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker. GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. Betz, Hans D. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Bligh, John. Galatians in Greek. A Structural Analysis of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians with Notes on the Greek. Detroit: University of Detroit Press, 1966. –. Galatians. A Discussion of St Paul’s Epistle. London: Householder Commentaries, 1969. Bonnard, Pierre. “Mourir et vivre avec Jésus-Christ selon saint Paul”. RHPR 36 (1956): 101– 112. –. L’Épître de Saint Paul aux Galates. 2rd ed. CNT 9. Neuchâtel: Labor et Fides, 1972. Bornkamm, Günther. Paulus. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969. Bouttier, Michel. En Christ. Étude d’exégèse et de théologie paulinienne. EHPR 54. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1962. Braun, Herbert. “Röm 7, 7–25 und das Selbstverständnis der Qumran-Frommen”. ZTK 56 (1959): 1–18. Bruce, Frederick F. The Epistle to the Galatians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Bultmann, Rudolf. “Zur Auslegung von Galater 2, 15–18”. Pages 394–399 in Exegetica. Edited by Rudolf Bultmann. Tübingen: Mohr, 1967. Burton, Ernest d. W. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921. Carson, Donald A., and Douglas J. Moo. An introduction to the New Testament. ICC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. Catchpole, David R. “Paul, James and the Apostolic Decree”. NTS 23 (1977): 428–444. Cerfaux, Lucien. Le chrétien dans la théologie paulinienne. LD 33. Paris: Cerf, 1962. Chiţescu, Nicolae, Isidor Todoran, and Ioan Petreuţă. Teologia Dogmatică şi Simbolică [= Dogmatic and Symbolic Theology]. Vol. 2. Bucharest: Ed. Instit. Biblic, 1958. Conzelmann, Hans. Grundriss der Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Einführung in die evangelische Theologie 2. München: Ch. Kaiser, 1967. Cullmann, Oscar. Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr; A Historical and Theological Study. London: SCM Press, 1953. Dunn, James D. G. “The New Perspective on Paul”. BJRLM 65 (1982): 95–122. Dupont, Jacques. “The Conversion of Paul and Its Influence on His Understanding of Salvation by Faith”. Pages 176–94 in Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce on his 60th Birthday. Edited by W. Ward Gasque, Ralph P. Martin and Frederick F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970. Gheorghiu, Vasile. Adresaţii Epistolei către Galateni. Cernăuţi, 1904. –. Epistola către Romani a Sfântului apostol Paul. Introducere, traducere şi comentar [= The Epistle of Saint Apostle Paul to the Romans. Introduction, traduction and commentary]. 2nd ed. Cernăuţi, 1938. Grundmann, Walter. “The Teacher of Righteousness of Qumran and the Question of Justification by Faith in the Theology of the Apostle Paul”. Pages 85–114 in Paul and Qumran: Studies in New Testament Exegesis. Edited by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor and Pierre Benoit. London; Dublin: Geoffrey Chapman, 1968. Hays, Richard. The Faith of Jesus Christ. The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Howard, George. “On the 'Faith of Christ'”. HTR 60 (1967): 439–484. Jeremias, Joachim. New Testament Theology. New York: Scribner, 1971.

Gal 2:15–21

177

Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, 10 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933–1979. Kok, Ezra H.-S. The Truth of the Gospel: A Study in Galatians 2:15–21. BLS 5. Hong Kong: Alliance Bible Seminary, 2000. Leal, Juan. “Christo confixus sum cruci (Gal 2, 19)”. VD 19 (1939): 76–105. Lightfoot, Joseph. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. Repr. 10th ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969. Loisy, Alfred. L’Épître aux Galates. Paris, 1916. Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1990. –. ed. The Road from Damascus: The Impact of Paul’s Conversion on His Life, Thought, and Ministry. McMaster New Testament studies. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Marcu, Grigorie. “Cine este evgw, din cap. VII al Epistolei către Romani? [=Who is ἐγώ, in chap. VII of the Epistle to the Romans?]”. Revue Mitropolia Ardealului. Sibiu 1959. Modalsi, Ole. “Gal 2, 19–21; 5, 16–18 und Röm. 7, 7–25”. TZ 21 (1965): 22–37. Munteanu, Liviu G., ed. Epistola Sfântului Apostol Pavel către Galateni – Comentar [=The Epistle of Saint Apostle Paul to the Galatians – Commentary]. Cluj, 1940. Mussner, Franz, Der Galaterbrief. 3rd ed. HThKNT 9. Freiburg im Breisgau; Rome: Herder, 1977. Patrologia Graeca. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857–1886. Patrologia Latina. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 217 vols. Paris, 1844-1864. Ramsay, William. A Historical Commentary on Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965. Schlier, Heinrich. Der Brief an die Galater. 5th ed. KEKNT. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. –. “Die Taufe nach dem 6. Kapitel des Römerbriefes”. ET 5 (1938): 325–347. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Moral Teaching of the New Testament. Freiburg im Breisgau; Rome: Herder, 1965. –. “Todes- und Lebensgemeinschaft mit Christus. Neue Studien zu Röm. 6, 1–11”. Pages 361–390 in Schriften zum Neuen Testament: Exegese in Fortschritt und Wandel. Edited by Rudolf Schnackenburg. München: Kösel-Verlag, 1971. Schulz, Siegfried. “Zur Rechtfertigung aus Gnaden in Qumran und bei Paulus”. ZTK 56 (1959): 155–185. Stăniloae, Dumitru. Teologia Dogmatică Ortodoxă [=Orthodox Dogmatic Theology], 3 Vols., Bucharest: Ed. Instit. Biblic, 1978. Stendahl, Krister. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. Strack, Hermann L., and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, 6 vols. Munich: Beck, 1922–1961. Tannehill, Robert C. Dying and Rising with Christ. BZNW 32. Giessen; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967. Taylor, Greer M. “The Function of πίστις Χριστοῦ in Galatians”. JBL 85 (1966): 58–76. Viard, André. Saint Paul. Epître aux Galates. Sources bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1964. Wagner, Siegfried. “‫ יךע‬in den Lobliedern von Qumran ”. Pages 232–252 in Bibel und Qumran. Edited by Siegfried Wagner. Berlin: Evang. Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft, 1968. Westerholm, Stephen. Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Wilckens, Ulrich. “Die Bekehrung des Paulus als religionsgeschichtliches Problem”. ZTK 56 (1959): 273–93.

178

Vasile Mihoc

Wright, N. T. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? Oxford: Lion, 1997. Zahn, Theodor v. Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater. 3rd ed. KNT 9. Leipzig, Erlangen: A. Deichert, 1922.

Eine östlich-orthodoxe Lektüre von Gal. 3,6–9.23–29 Sotirios Despotis Einleitung In der orthodoxen Kirche werden Perikopen aus Gal. 3–4 zum Höhepunkt des liturgischen Jahres rezitiert: in der göttlichen Liturgie an Weihnachten, aber auch am Karsamstag, nach der Taufe der Katechumenen. Nach diesem uralten Ritual des dreifachen Eintauchens in das Wasser wird auch Gal. 3,24 mehrmals feierlich gesungen. Dies geschieht im Rahmen eines „heiligen Tanzes“ der Getauften-Neophyten in weißen Gewändern. Es folgt die Teilnahme aller Mitglieder der Gemeinde am gemeinsamen Tisch der Eucharistie, nachdem sie triumphierend das Halleluja mit Versen aus Ps. 67 (LXX: ἀναστήτω ὁ θεός) gesungen haben. Diese sogenannte „erste Auferstehung“ ist nicht nur die Klimax der Erinnerung (ἐνθύμησις) an die Passion Jesu während der Karwoche, sondern auch einer langen 40-tägigen Fastenperiode. Diese Zeit ist geprägt von Askese, Katechese und Anhörung verschiedener biblischer Texte (Genesis, Jesaja, Sprüche, Hebräerbrief und Markusevangelium). Daher sind diese Perikopen tief im Bewusstsein aller orthodoxen Gläubigen verwurzelt. Besonders das εἷς ἐστε1 des „Päans“ der Taufe – Ὅσοι εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε – wird von den meisten Interpreten (auch den orthodoxen) „ekklesiologisch“ verstanden: Ihr alle seid Einer, d. h. Christus (vgl. „ein Herz“

1 In der modernen Forschung wird das (a) οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος (b) οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, (b´) οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος (a´) οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος vor dem Hintergrund des Gebetes der Synagoge verstanden. Die jüdische Gemeinde bedankt sich bei Gott, weil ihre Mitglieder weder als Heiden (gôj bzw. nokri), als Frauen (’išāh) oder als Fremde / Torafremde (bôr; bzw. ‛äbäd) geboren sind. Etwas Ähnliches kann man bei den Griechen finden (Diogenes Laertius, Vitae philosophorum 1,33). Es ist aber umstritten, ob dieses Gebet im 1. Jahrhundert existierte. In jedem Fall relativiert dieses Lied alle Statussymbole, die die Gegner des Paulus als „Köder“ benutzten, um für eine „neue Bekehrung“ zur „Religion Abrahams“ zu werben. S. Gesila N. Uzukwu “Gal 3,28 and its Alleged Relationship to Rabbinic Writings”, Biblica (2010): 370–392. Vgl. Urs von Arx, „Gibt Paulus in 1 Kor. 7 eine Interpretation von Gal 3,28?“, in Saint Paul and Corinth. 1950 Years Since the Writing of the Epistles to the Corinthians. International Scholarly Conference Proceedings (Corinth, 23–25 September 2007), Bd. 2, Hg. Constantine J. Belezos, Sotirios Despotis und Christos Karakolis (Athen: Psichogios Publications, 2009), 193–221.

180

Sotirios Despotis

Lucian, Toxaris 46. 53)2. Als „Synopsis“ wird 1 Kor. 12,13–14 betrachtet. Im letzten Text erinnert sich Paulus im Rahmen einer Paränese gegen die Abspaltung an die Taufe: Gal. 3,27–28

1 Kor. 12,13–14

Vgl. Röm. 6,3–4

27

Ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε,

13

Καὶ γὰρ ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ἡμεῖς πάντες

ὅσοι ἐβαπτίσθημεν

Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε.

εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν,

28

Οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ·

εἴτε Ἰουδαῖοι εἴτε Ἕλληνες

εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν;

πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

καὶ πάντες ἓν πνεῦμα ἐποτίσθημεν.

εἴτε δοῦλοι εἴτε ἐλεύθεροι,

Diese Interpretation ist im Einklang mit der Neuen Paulusperspektive, die das ekklesiologische Verständnis der Rechtfertigungslehre hervorhebt. Nach dieser Perspektive gebraucht Paulus das Konzept der Rechtfertigung aus Glauben, damit die Heidenchristen als Heiden, ohne Juden werden zu müssen, Anteil an der Gnade und dem verheißenen messianischen Heil Israels bekommen. Das bedeutet aber, dass das jüdische Volk nicht unbedingt den Glauben an Christus, sondern den Glauben Jesu an Gott den Vater übernehmen müsse.3 Nach Chrysostomos jedoch unterstreicht das Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε die einzigartige Art und Weise der Sohnschaft ἐν Χριστῷ. Jeder einzelne Mensch bekommt dieselbe Ikone und Ähnlichkeit (Gen 1,26) mit Christus (bzw. Sperma Abrahams), und somit ist er nicht mit den Erzengeln, sondern mit dem Sohn Gottes selbst verwandt: Εἰ γὰρ ὁ Χριστός, Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ͵ σὺ δὲ αὐτὸν ἐνδέδυσαι͵ τὸν Υἱὸν ἔχων ἐν ἑαυτῷ καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀφομοιωθείς͵ εἰς μίαν συγγένειαν καὶ μίαν ἰδέαν ἤχθης. […] «Πάντες εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ»· τουτέστι͵ μίαν μορφήν͵ ἕνα τύπον ἔχετε πάντες. τὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Τί τούτων γένοιτ᾿ ἂν φρικωδέστερον τῶν ῥημάτων; Ὁ Ἕλλην καὶ ὁ Ἰουδαῖος καὶ ὁ δοῦλος πρώην͵ οὐκ ἀγγέλου οὐδὲ ἀρχαγγέλου, ἀλλ᾿ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πάντων Δεσπότου τὴν μορφὴν ἔχων περιέρχεται͵ 2 Vgl. Michael Wolter, Paulus. Ein Grundriss seiner Theologie (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2011), 137–138. Εleni Κasselouri, „Οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ: Η εκκλησιολογική κατανόηση του Γαλ. 3,28γ“, in Εισηγήσεις Η’ Συνάξεως Ορθοδόξων Βιβλικών Θεολόγων. Η προς Γαλάτας Επιστολή του Αποστόλου Παύλου. Προβλήματα Μεταφραστικά, Φιλολογικά, Ιστορικά, Ερμηνευτικά, Θεολογικά (Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 1997) 175–193. S. auch Εvanthia Adamtziloglou, „‘Πάντες υἱοὶ θεοῦ ἐστε’, ή ‘τέκνα θεοῦ’; (Γαλ. 3,26)“, Seiten 31–45 im selben Band. A. Andrew Das, Galatians (Saint Louis: Concordia, 2014), 384–388. 3 Charalambos Atmatzidis, „Η έκφραση ‘πίστις (Ἰησοῦ) Χριστοῦ’ στις Παύλειες Επιστολές. Ιστορική αναφορά και ερμηνευτικές παρατηρήσεις“, in Καινοδιαθηκικά, hg. von dems. (Thessaloniki: Ostracon, 2014), 69–93.

Eine östlich-orthodoxe Lektüre von Gal 3,6–9.23–29

181

καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ δεικνὺς τὸν Χριστόν (Hom. Gal. PG 61:656) [Übers: Denn wenn Christus Sohn Gottes ist, du aber ihn angezogen hast, so bist du, weil du den Sohn in dir hast und ihm ähnlich gestaltet wurdest, in eine Verwandtschaft und Form mit ihm gebracht worden […]: „Ihr alle seid einer in Christus Jesus“, d. h. ihr alle habt eine Gestalt, eine Form, die Form Jesu Christi. Gibt es etwas, was furchterregender ist als dieses Wort? Ein Mensch, der vordem Hellene und Jude und Sklave war, wandelt nun einher in der Gestalt nicht eines Engels, nicht eines Erzengels, nein, des Alleinherrschers selber und vergegenwärtigt Christus in seiner Person.] 4

Nach Chrysostomos erreichen wir durch die Taufe mehr als nur die Gemeinschaft mit einem Volk, das als Erstgeborener Sohn am Sinai erwählt wurde, um gemäß der Tora zu leben.5 Durch die Adoption der Taufe trete auch jeder von uns in eine ganz persönliche Beziehung zum Messias ein. Dies geschehe in einer einzigartigen intimen Weise, obwohl die von uns übernommene Gestalt Christi nach anderen paulinischen Aussagen jene des gekreuzigten und nicht des auferstandenen Christi sei. So wird eine Familie von gleichgestalteten Brüdern und Schwestern gegründet, die die Gewissheit haben, dass sie von Gott (der jetzt als Vater – Abba – angerufen wird) geliebt werden und sie einen „Leib“ bilden. Etwas Ähnliches wird in Röm. 8,28–29 angeführt.6 Infolgedessen hat nach Chrysostomos die ontologische Gemeinschaft mit Christus („Christosis“) durch die Taufe und die Geistbegabung einen Vorrang vor allen anderen Arten von „Begabungen“. Die Taufe wird nicht nur als Sakrament (bzw. dreifaches Eintauchen ins Wasser) verstanden, sondern als das Telos eines langen Bekehrungsverfahrens.7 Die Taufe, begleitet von dem Ethos der Selbstentleerung (Kenosis) und der selbstopfernden Liebe, wird als Unterpfand der Gerechtigkeit8 angenommen.

4 Übers. von Wenzel Stoderl in Des heiligen Kirchenlehrers Johannes Chrysostomus Erzbischofs von Konstantinopel Kommentar zu den Briefen des hl. Paulus an die Galater und Epheser, Bd. 8 von Des heiligen Kirchenlehrers Johannes Chrysostomus ausgewählte Schriften; Bd. 15 von Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, 2. Reihe (Kempten; München: J. Kösel; F. Pustet, 1936), online: https://www.unifr.ch/bkv. 5 S. Ιoannis Galanis, Υιοθεσία. Η Χρήσις του Όρου παρά Παύλω εν σχέσει προς τα Νομικά και Θεολογικά Δεδομένα των Λαών του Περιβάλλοντός του (Thessaloniki, 1977), 72–86. 6 Οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν τὸν Θεὸν πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθόν, τοῖς κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοῖς οὖσιν. Ὅτι οὓς προέγνω, καὶ προώρισεν συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς. 7 Robert Schlarb, Wir sind mit Christus begraben (Tübingen: Mohr, 1990), 249. Christian Strecker, „Die frühchristliche Taufpraxis: Ritualhistorische Erkundungen, ritual-wissenschaftliche Impulse“, in Alte Texte in neuen Kontexten. Wo steht die sozial-wissenschaftliche Bibelexegese? hg. von Wolfgang Stegemann und Richard E. De Maris, Stuttgart 2015, 347– 410. Christos Karakolis, Αμαρτία-Βάπτισμα-Χάρις (Ρωμ 6,1–14). Συμβολή στην Παύλεια Σωτηριολογία, Biblike Bibliotheke 25 (Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 2002). 8 Die Rechtfertigung bei der Taufe hat auch eine eschatologische Perspektive. Sie ist ein Unterpfand der eschatologischen Rechtfertigung und Herrlichkeit.

182

Sotirios Despotis

Durch die folgende Kommentierung des Textes soll aufgezeigt werden, dass die Interpretation des Chrysostomos eine solide Basis im Text des Galaterbriefes hat. Paulus selbst argumentiert, dass die Konvertiten durch den Glauben und die Taufe9 nicht nur in die Familie Abrahams und Saras aufgenommen werden.10 Sie werden genauso wie der Patriarch geliebt und mit Gaben versehen und sie haben schon den Status des Urmenschen Adam vor dem Fall. Deswegen macht es keinen Sinn mehr, sich als Sohn Abrahams zu rühmen. Der Gläubige erlebt schon hic et nunc den neuen Äon. Die Verwandten des Glaubens, die als Genossen Christi (des Samens V. 19.29) auch Rezipienten der Verheißung Abrahams sind, konstituieren ein neues Volk, das Israel Gottes. Sie verfügen über eine eigene Genealogie (Söhne der Sara und nicht der Hagar), eine eigene Heimat (ἄνω Ἰερουσαλήμ) und ein eigenes Ethos. Im Folgenden werden die Perikopen (a) 3,6–9 und (b) 3,23–4,6 betrachtet, in denen der Verfasser proklamiert, dass die Galater Samen Abrahams und Söhne Gottes sind. Bevor die einzelnen Perikopen aus der Perspektive der orthodoxen Hermeneutik kommentiert werden, gilt ein erster Blick dem Kontext und der Struktur von Gal. 3.

Α) Die Einheit 3,1–5,12 Gal. 3 findet sich ungefähr in der Mitte des Briefes. Dieser Brief, der zugleich Apologie und Paränese bildet,11 ist im paulinischen Corpus aus folgenden Gründen einzigartig: (1) Nur er ist an viele Kirchen adressiert, obwohl es bis heute keinen Konsens darüber gibt, ob die Adressaten, welche Heidenchristen sind, in Nord- oder Südgalatien wohnen. Ohne Zweifel aber geht es um eine Gegend, die sich nicht am Mittelmeer befindet, sondern im bergigen Anatolien. (2) Die Bevölkerung hat ein besonderes Profil,12 denn sie besteht u. a. auch aus Menschen, die entweder aus dem Westen (Γαλλογραικοί, Strabo XII 5.1) oder dem fernen Osten (Juden13) in das „mystische Phrygien“ eingewandert sind. (3) Paulus (P.) und seine Mitarbeiter (1,2) verfügen über keinen „Bruder“, damit er in Galatien (nicht fern von Paulus’ Heimat) als Bote des paulinischen

Die Taufe wird als ein Identitätszeichen par excellence erfasst. N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, COQD 4 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2013), 861. 11 Janet Fairweather, „The Epistle to the Galatians and Classical Rhetoric: Parts 1 & 2“, TynBul 45 (1994): 5–6. 12 Boon-Leong Oh, „The Social and Religious Setting of Galatians“, (PhD diss. King’s College London, 2001), passim. 13 Barry F. Parker, „‘Works of the Law’ and the Jewish Settlement in Asia Minor“, JGRChJ 9 (2013): 42–96. 9

10

Eine östlich-orthodoxe Lektüre von Gal 3,6–9.23–29

183

Evangeliums oder als Vertreter des Apostels der Völker fungieren kann.14 Außerdem begrüßt P. keine Person am Ende des Briefes und es fehlt auch der Parusie-Topos: d. h. die Mahnung, dass er bald oder später die Kirchen besuchen werde (Phlm. 22;.1 Tim. 3,14–15, 4,13). (4) Wir wissen auch nicht genau, wann und wo15 P. diesen polemischen Text verfasste. Dieser Brief ist für manche Forscher der älteste paulinische Text und gleichzeitig der einzige, der im Ganzen von der Hand P. stammt.16 Die Struktur des zweiten Briefteils (nach dem ersten „autobiographischen“ Teil) ist m. E. wie folgt: Α. 3,1–5: Die Erfahrung der Adressaten während der Bekehrungszeit und das erlebte eschatologische ‚Jetzt‘ Β. 3,6–22: Die Verheißung an den glaubenden Abraham (Gen. 12; 15; 18; 22 Vätergeschichte) und das Gesetz (3,19–22) C. 3,23–4,7: Die Erfahrung und der Status der Menschen vor bzw. nach der Inkarnation des Sohnes und der Adoption der „Kinder“ (Heilsökonomie- «πλήρωμα χρόνου»)17 Α´. 4,8–20: Die Erfahrungen der Adressaten mit P. während der Bekehrungszeit und ihre Gegenwart Β´. 4,21–5,12: Sara und Hagar (Vätergeschichte)

Die Eigenschaften dieser Einheit, in der charakteristische Kontraste (Geist – Fleisch, Segen – Fluch) vorherrschen, sind die folgenden: 1. In dieser Einheit wird – nach der Eskalation des Konflikts (Klimax) zwischen P. und Petrus (als Vertreter der Judenchristen) in Antiochien – keine Person der vorigen Einheit erwähnt. Der Fokus der Erzählung verlässt Jerusalem und Antiochien und konzertiert sich nördlich auf Galatien. Es wird eine neue Konfrontation von Angesicht zu Angesicht zwischen P. und den „unvernünftigen“ Heidenchristen Galatiens eingeleitet, die aber später Brüder bzw. Kinder genannt werden. Auch verschwindet das Crescendo des ersten autobiographischen Abschnittes, obwohl die Zuhörer zum Schluss dieser Einheit ihre Aufmerksamkeit auf das obere freie Jerusalem richten. Dies ist die verheißene Heimat, denn es ist gleichgestellt mit der „Hoffnung der Gerechtigkeit“ (5,5).

Vgl. Ἐπαφρόδιτος in Phil. 2,25. S. Udo Schnelle, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 118. 16 Chris Keith, „‘In My Own Hand’: Grapho-Literacy and the Apostle Paul“, Bib 89 (2008): 42–43. 17 Ulrike Bechmann betrachtet 3,1–4,11 als Kern des Abschnittes. S. „Rhetorische Figuren der Entgrenzung. Abraham, Sara und Hagar bei Paulus“, BiKi 66 (2011): 9. G. Walter Hansen, Abraham in Galatians. Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts, JSNTSup 29 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 109–139. 14 15

184

Sotirios Despotis

2. Das Novum des vorliegenden Abschnittes besteht in der einzigartigen Deutung der Geschichte der Heilsökonomie. Die „Ankunft des Glaubens“ bedeutet den Aufgang des „Olam Haba“ (also der kommenden Welt) hic et nunc. Infolgedessen wird die Geschichtslinie wie folgt skizziert: (a) Die Epoche der Bekehrung, die im eschatologischen Jetzt stattfindet, (b) Abraham-Tora(Habakuk)-Epoche des Fluchs (κατάρα),18 (a´) Das Ankommen des Glaubens durch das Hinabsteigen des Sohnes Gottes vom Himmel, damit alle „Gefangenen“ die Erlösung sowie die Sohnschaft erfahren. Man muss auch in Betracht ziehen, dass der Aufgang des neuen Äons ein zentrales Motiv im Galaterbrief ist, das an wichtigen Stellen des Textes anzutreffen ist. Proömium (1,4–5): τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, ὅπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν, ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν. Epilog (6,15–16): οὔτε γὰρ περιτομή τί ἐστιν οὔτε ἀκροβυστία ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις καὶ ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν, εἰρήνη ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔλεος καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Vgl. den „Kern“ in 3,28: οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ; und die Einleitung in die Paränese (5,[5]-6): [ἡμεῖς γὰρ πνεύματι ἐκ πίστεως ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνης ἀπεκδεχόμεθα]. ἐν γὰρ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ οὔτε περιτομή τι ἰσχύει οὔτε ἀκροβυστία ἀλλὰ πίστις δι᾽ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη.

3. In dieser Einheit steht das Motiv des Kindes, das seine Volljährigkeit erreicht (bzw. das πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου),19 im Mittelpunkt. Das Kommen des Glaubens bzw. des Sohnes Gottes20 impliziert für die gefangenen unreifen „Kinder“ die Vervollkommnung. Diejenigen, die vorher unter der Aufsicht eines Paidagogos21 waren, sind auch Söhne geworden. Sie erreichen das Erwachsensein ausschließlich durch (a) die Autopsie des Gekreuzigten,22 (b) die Annahme der missionarischen Predigt sowie (c) die Taufe und Geistbegabung. Die Sohnschaft (adoptio bzw. adrogatio) wird nicht durch die Beschneidung und das Erlernen der Tora, sondern durch das Anziehen (ἔνδυσις) des ChristusMessias selbst und das Ankommen des Heiligen Geistes im Herzen durch die Taufe erlangt. Auf diese Weise werden die B'nai emunah (statt mitzvah) Erben Abrahams und seiner Verheißung, vollständige Mitglieder des Israels Gottes

Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 864. Otfried Hofius, „Η Αλήθεια του Ευαγγελίου. Ερμηνευτικές και Θεολογικές Σκέψεις σχετικά με την Αξίωση Αλήθειας του Παύλειου Κηρύγματος“, in Παύλος: Ιεραπόστολος και Θεολόγος. Η αλήθεια του Ευαγγελίου. Συναγωγή Καινοδιαθηκικών Μελετών, Hg. Christos Karakolis, Ioannis Skadaresis und Michael Chatzigiannis (Αthen: Artos Zois, 2012), 218. 20 So wird Christus im Prolog, aber auch im Kern der Einheit genannt. 21 Vgl. ὑπὸ ἐπιτρόπους καὶ οἰκονόμους; στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου. 22 Die Parusie des P. und sein Kerygma veranschaulichen den Gekreuzigten. 18 19

Eine östlich-orthodoxe Lektüre von Gal 3,6–9.23–29

185

und sogar Söhne Gottes auf eine persönliche intime Weise. P. selbst23 drückt seine leidenschaftliche Liebe zu Jesus mit folgender Proklamation aus: „Ich lebe; doch nicht mehr ich, sondern Christus lebt in mir. Denn was ich jetzt im irdischen Leib lebe, das lebe ich im Glauben des Sohnes Gottes, der mich geliebt und sich selbst für mich dahingegeben hat.“24 (2,20). Der von Abraham als Ewiger gesegnete Gott wird nicht mehr als Herr und König angerufen,25 sondern als Vater: ἀββὰ ὁ πατήρ (Gal. 4,6; Röm 8,15).26 Diese Gabe verweist auf ihre Rechtfertigung. Im Gegensatz zum Crescendo des ersten autobiographischen Abschnitts27 bemerkt man im Fall der Zuhörer trotz des triumphalen Anfangs, den sie bei der Taufe erlebten, eine sehr schnelle Rückkehr zu der Epoche vor Christus. Zum Schluss glaubt der „Pharisäer“ P.28 wieder Geburtswehen29 zu spüren, um die Konvertiten in Galatien wieder zu gebären (4,19). In diesem Rahmen gebraucht P. eine „provokative“ Ironie.30 Die „unverständigen Galater“ kehren durch das Hören des falschen Evangeliums der Gegner tatsächlich um (ἐπιστρέφουσιν), allerdings zum vorchristlichen Status der Einfältigen. Als solche wurden die unbeschnittenen Proselyten im Judentum betrachtet, die eine Wiedergeburt brauchten (Röm. 2,20). Die Galater hatten dagegen die Vorstellung, dass sie, vor allem durch die Beschneidung, den hohen Status der Vollkommenheit erlangen und am Israel Gottes vollständig partizipieren. Das war offensichtlich die „Propaganda“ der Gegner des P. Für den Apostel der Völker werden die Adressaten durch die Beschneidung tatsachlich „vollkommen“. Das aber geschieht im Bereich des Fleisches und nicht des Geistes. Deswegen werden sie am Anfang der Einheit paradoxerweise als unverständige Galater bezeichnet. Sie stehen (wie die Säuglinge) unter dem Einfluss des bösen Blickes (βασκανία).31 Deswegen wird in 4,19 betont, dass in jedem einzelnen Gläubigen durch die Wehen von P. das Bild des gekreuzigten Christus Gestalt annehmen soll. Auch am Ende des zu untersuchenden Textes, wo der Verfasser die liebevolle Anrede „meine Kinder“ gebraucht (4,19), wird klar, dass sie nach oben schauen, nicht aber um das neue Jerusalem, sondern 23 Der Bezug auf seine neue Identität und Liebe für Christus hat eine paradigmatische Funktion für die Adressaten. 24 Die biblischen Zitate wurden aus der revidierten Elbefelderübersetzung übernommen. 25 So nannte Abraham Gott (b. Ber. 7b). 26 Aramäisch und Griechisch; vgl. οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, 3,28. 27 Paulus wird vom Verfolger zu einem Jünger Jesu. 28 Vgl. ἀφωρισμένος in Röm. 1,1; Gal. 1,15. 29 Paulus präsentiert sich selbst auch als Sklave, der „die Malzeichen des Herrn Jesus“ an seinem Leib trägt (6,17). 30 Konstantin Nikolakopoulos, „Η Ρητορική Ειρωνεία ως Εκφραστικό Μέσον στην προς Γαλάτας Επιστολή“, in Ερμηνευτικά Μελετήματα από Ρητορικής και Υμνολογικής Επόψεως, hg. v. dems., Biblike Bibliotheke 34 (Thessaloniki: Pournaras 2005), 95–126. 31 Vielleicht bezweckt P. auch ein Wortspiel mit den Galatern und der Milch, also γάλα (1 Kor. 3,2; 1 Pet. 2,2).

186

Sotirios Despotis

um die schwachen und armseligen Elementarmächte zu sehen.32 Obwohl sie schon das neue Zeitalter erfuhren, achten sie ängstlich wieder auf Tage, Monate, bestimmte Zeiten und Jahre (4,10). 4. In dieser Einheit beziehen sich die Argumente hauptsächlich auf die Erfahrung der Rezipienten und nur sekundär auf die Heilige Schrift. Denn P. gebraucht auch die Typologie (oder die Allegorie) nicht in Beziehung auf das Kind, sondern auf den alten Abraham und seine zwei Frauen. Die Argumentation mit der Heilige Schrift bildete eindeutig das „Arsenal“ der Gegner. Folgende Punkte sind zu beachten: (a) nur an dieser Stelle des NTs wird die Schrift so stark personifiziert, denn im Judentum redet immer Gott durch die Schrift.33 Die Schrift fungiert als „Prodromos“ des paulinischen Evangeliums und Vorbote der Zeit nach und mit Christus.34 Im diesem Kontext wird aber auch der Glaube personifiziert. Die Zentralität des Hörens der Tora wird im Olam haba durch den Glauben an Jesus ersetzt. (b) Der Verfasser wählt Zitate aus dem Anfang, Mittelteil und Epilog des Pentateuchs,35 um die schon erworbene Erfahrung „logisch“ zu untermauern. Diese „Schlüsselstellen“ beweisen die Unmöglichkeit des Erlangens des Segens der Rechtfertigung durch die „Werke des Gesetzes“. (c) Gleichzeitig wird die Schrift nicht mit der Tora, dem sinaitischen Gesetz, identifiziert, obwohl der Verfasser in 4,21–22 die ganze Schrift Nomos nennt. Zusätzlich ist der Nomos weder mit dem Testament (διαθήκη) noch mit der Verheißung (ἐπαγγελία) identisch. Er gehört eigentlich zur jetzigen bösen Zeit und hat eine befristete Funktion. Er fungierte positiv als Erzieher, aber auch negativ als „Mittel“ der Verfluchung36 und des Todes. Es ist zu beachten, dass die Tora von den Rabbinern als vor der Zeit existierendes Geschöpf betrachtet wurde, indem sie mit der Weisheit Gottes identifiziert wurde.37 5. Am Ende der Einheit steigt die Intensität der Erzählung noch einmal an. Mit einem emphatischen Ihr (ὑμεῖς 4,28) werden oἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ nicht in ein schon vorausgewähltes,38 sondern in ein ganz Neues Volk (vgl. Israel Gottes 6,16) integriert. Ihre Mutter-Heimat ist nicht die Dienerin Hagar (bzw. Sinai, Zion) sondern die freie Sara (bzw. das obere Jerusalem), obwohl Letztere für lange Zeit unfruchtbar und allein war (Jes. 54,1). Es geht um die Vollendung der Prophezeiung des Deuterojesajas, die an die berühmte Perikope des Opfers 32 Vgl. Johannes Woyke, „Nochmals zu den ‚schwachen und unfähigen Elementen‘ (Gal. 4.9): Paulus, Philo und die στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου“, NTS 54 (2008): 221–234. 33 Vgl. Donald F. Tolmie, „A Rhetorical Analysis of the Letter to the Galatians“, (PhD diss., University of the Free State Bloemfontein, 2004), 105. 34 In Gal. 3 aber werden die Verben der entsprechenden Sätze mit dem Präfix προ- benutzt: προγινώσκει (statt des üblichen λέγει) + προευαγγελίζεται. 35 Vgl. die Flüche gegen die, die nicht das Gesetz „tun“. 36 S. auch Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.18.7. 37 Pesaḥ 54a; Spr 8,22. 38 Vgl. den edlen Ölbaum in Röm. 11,17.

Eine östlich-orthodoxe Lektüre von Gal 3,6–9.23–29

187

und der Erhöhung des „Ebed Jahwes“ anschließt. Nach Gal. 4,29 geschah diese paradoxe „Geburt“ durch den „Geist der Verheißung“. Stattdessen gilt für die Dienerin Hagar nach der Verfolgung von Isaak (eine Anspielung auf die Christusgläubigen) seitens Ismaels (eine Anspielung auf die ungläubigen Juden) der Imperativ: „Stoße die Magd und ihren Sohn hinaus; denn der Sohn der Magd soll nicht erben mit dem Sohn der Freien.“ (4,30 vgl. Gen. 21,10). Gewiss meint der Verfasser nicht alle Juden, sondern die Judenchristen, die sein Werk untergraben. Deswegen werden sie auch in 2 Kor. 11,3 mit dem Teufel verglichen (vgl. Gal. 3,1). Für sie gilt auch in Gal. sowohl das doppelte Anathema (1,8–9) als auch die „Entfernung von Hefe“ (5,8; 12). Über die Gläubigen, die die Beschneidung schätzen, äußert sich der Verfasser auf eine zugespitzte Weise: „Ihr habt Christus verloren, die ihr durch das Gesetz gerechtfertigt werden wollt; ihr seid aus der Gnade gefallen. Wir aber warten im Geist durch den Glauben auf die Hoffnung der Gerechtigkeit“ (5,4–5). Nach diesem Überblick über die gesamte Einheit 3,1–5,12, ist es nun sinnvoll, den Kontext der Abschnitte 3,6–9 (Söhne Abrahams) und 3,23–4,6 (Söhne Gottes) zu untersuchen.

B) 3,6–9: Die Gläubigen als Kinder Abrahams In den Untereinheiten Β – Β´ macht der Verfasser einen Sprung von der Gegenwart, die aber den Anfang des neuen Äons und des eschatologischen „Jetzt“ bildet, und der unmittelbaren Vergangenheit zum Anfang der Heilsgeschichte, dessen Protagonisten Abraham und seine zwei Frauen waren: Sara und Hagar. Nach der Erinnerung an die erlebte (und weiter zu erlebende) Erfahrung, begründet der Verfasser seine Probatio mit Bezügen auf die heiligen Schriften und die Urzeit,39 um den Adressaten zu überzeugen. Es geht um Pisteis, also Beweise, die die Pistis per se beweisen. Es ist bekannt, dass die Bezüge auf die Erfüllung von Prophezeiungen, auf eine weit zurückreichende Geschichte und auf die Augenzeugenschaft (vgl. die „Autopsie“ in der vorigen Einheit) als starke Argumente für die Wahrhaftigkeit des Gesagten dienten.40 In den Abschnitten B – B´ argumentiert der Verfasser, dass die Gestalten des uralten, ehrwürdigen Patriarchen und der Sara Ahnen der Geistgeborenen und nicht der Beschnittenen sind. Diese „alexandrinische“ typologische Interpretation (Gal. 4,27; Jes. 54,1), die implizit aber schon in 3,6 Anwendung findet, ist eine Erfindung des P., denn sie hat keine Parallele in einem anderen Text. Während aber in Unterabschnitt B´ neben Sara auch der andere Pol, Hagar (vgl. die Gegenüberstellung zwischen Isaak und Ismael), erwähnt wird, wird Das Lexem γραφ* wird vier Mal in Β und drei Mal in Β´ wiederholt. William Kurz, „Hellenistic Rhetoric in the Christological Proof of Luke-Acts“, CBQ 42 (1980): 187–188. 39 40

188

Sotirios Despotis

im umfangreichen Abschnitt B Moses nicht namentlich genannt. Die berühmteste Person des Judentums, die als König, Prophet und Erzpriester galt, wird nur als Mittler (Mesites) bei der Übergabe der Tora (3,19–20) erwähnt. Paradoxerweise gibt es also keinen Hinweis auf das Schema „alter und neuer Adam“.41 Außerdem fehlt – zumindest in direkter Form – jede Bezugnahme auf den Leib Christi.42 In jedem Fall wird in den Teilen B – B´ klar, dass die Gläubigen alle Gründungselemente eines Volkes in Christus erwerben (Ahnen: Vater – Mutter; Metropole: das obere freie Jerusalem). Sie sind nun Verwandte des Glaubens (6,10; vgl. Eph. 2,19), d. h. Mitglieder einer Familie, die als gemeinsames Merkmal den Glauben an Jesus (und nicht die Beschneidung) teilen. Dieser Punkt fungiert auch als Einleitung für den paränetischen Teil des Galaterbriefes. Teil B beantwortet die Frage von V. 5 und hat die folgende Struktur: Α. 3,6–9: Die „aus dem Glauben“ sind Söhne Abrahams (bzw. Empfänger der Verheißung des Patriarchen). Das wird zwei Mal als Refrain in V. 7 und 9 wiederholt: Das erste Mal liegt der Nachdruck auf dem Verb Γινώσκετε („Ihr wisst“ oder Imperativ „Erkennt!“). Das Argument bezieht sich auf den Anfang der Heilsgeschichte (Gen. 15,3–4; 12,3): den Segen aller Völker in (ἐν) bzw. mit dem gläubigen Abraham (σὺν τῷ πιστῷ Ἀβραάμ). Im ersten Zitat (Gen. 1543) wird zum ersten Mal (a) der Glaube als menschliche Reaktion auf Gottes Wort hervorgehoben44 und (b) Gott wird als Herr (Κύριος) angerufen. (c) Zusätzlich, vor der Vollendung der Verheißung, wird eine Zeit der Sklaverei vorhergesagt (Gen. 15,16). Der Segen der Rechtfertigung (3,6) wird mit der Parusie des Geistes Gottes in der christlichen Gemeinde in V. 5 gleichgesetzt. Β. 3,10–14: (1) Die aus dem Gesetz (οἱ ἐκ νόμου) stehen unter Fluch.45 Die Argumentation gründet auf dem Epilog (Dt. 27,26; 28,58; 30,10) und dem Kern der Tora (Lev. 18,5: Buch der Heiligkeit). Es wird von der Tora selbst bewiesen, dass die Leute, die nicht alle 613 Weisungen (mizwaot) anwenden, automatisch unter den Fluch des Gesetzes gestellt werden (vgl. Jak. 2,10). Auch Habakuk, der Vertreter der Propheten, die zusammen mit der Tora in der Liturgie der Synagoge vorgelesen werden, proklamiert, dass der Glaubende leben wird. (2) Vom Fluch des Gesetzes wurden wir (P. und die Adressaten) durch Christus (Messias) freigekauft. Der ist selbst „Fluch“ geworden. Er hat die Konsequenzen des Fluches des Gesetzes auf sich genommen. So werden die Juden implizit als „Sklaven“ bezeichnet. Der Schluss dieses Textes entspricht dem Refrain des ersten Unterabschnittes. Der Nachdruck liegt allerdings auf Vgl. Röm. 5,14–21; 1 Kor. 15,21. Vgl. Röm. 12,12. 43 Das Zitat bezieht sich auf eine Handlung, die sogar nach der Proskynese Abrahams vor dem nicht-beschnittenen Erzpriester Melchisedek stattfand. 44 Wolter, Paulus, 348. 45 Vgl. das doppelte Anathema in der Einleitung 1,8–9. 41 42

Eine östlich-orthodoxe Lektüre von Gal 3,6–9.23–29

189

einem anderen Punkt: „damit der Segen Abrahams unter die Völker käme in Christus Jesus und wir durch den Glauben die Verheißung des Geistes empfingen.“ (Gal. 3,14) Dieser Satz erklärt aber, dass (a) sich die Verheißung auch auf die Völker bezieht, (b) man den Segen Abrahams durch den gekreuzigten Messias erlangt und (c) den Heiligen Geist empfängt, der an jeden (Juden und Heiden) seine Gaben verteilt. Α´. 3,15–22: (1) Verheißung und Nomos (3,15–18). Das Argument beweist den Brüdern, dass Gott die Berith und nicht das Gesetz rechtsgültig festlegte (vgl. Gen. 22,16–18). Gleichzeitig wird hervorgehoben, dass die Verheißungen (bzw. Berith) sich nicht eigentlich auf Abraham beziehen, sondern auf den „einzigen“ Samen (zera), der nach Gen. 22,18 (vgl. Gen. 3,15) das Objekt der Verheißung schlechthin ist. Sowieso ist Israel als zera gescheitert das Gesetz vollständig zu erfüllen (Jes. 57,4). Der Schluss dieses Abschnitts lautet: „Gott aber hat es Abraham durch Verheißung frei geschenkt.“ (3,18). (2) Die befristete Funktion des Nomos bis zur Vollendung der Verheißung: Das Gesetz wurde (i) wegen der Übertretungen (3,19; vgl. Röm. 5,13–14), (ii) 430 Jahre nach der Verheißung und auch (iii) nicht direkt von Gott, sondern durch „die Hand“ vieler Engel formuliert und durch die Interferenz eines Vermittlers etabliert. Gott aber ist ein und derselbe für Israel und die Goyim.46 Der Schluss dieses Abschnitts betont, dass die Verheißungen den Konvertiten durch den Glauben an Jesus Christus (vgl. 2,16) geschenkt werden (3,22; vgl. οἱ ἐκ πίστεως 3,7–9). Der Text 3,19–22 entspricht 3,6–9, aber gleichzeitig fungiert er auch als Brücke zum Abschnitt C. 5

[Ὁ οὖν ἐπιχορηγῶν ὑμῖν τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ ἐνεργῶν δυνάμεις ἐν ὑμῖν, ἐξ ἔργων Νόμου ἢ ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως;] 6 Καθὼς «Ἀβραὰμ ἐπίστευσεν τῷ Θεῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην»· 7 Γινώσκετε ἄρα ὅτι οἱ ἐκ πίστεως, οὗτοι υἱοί εἰσιν Ἀβραάμ. 8 Προϊδοῦσα δὲ ἡ Γραφὴ ὅτι ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοῖ τὰ ἔθνη ὁ Θεός, προευηγγελίσατο τῷ Ἀβραὰμ ὅτι «ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν σοὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη»· 9 ὥστε οἱ ἐκ πίστεως εὐλογοῦνται σὺν τῷ πιστῷ Ἀβραάμ.

Besonders am Anfang der Perikope B (3,5–9) vergleicht47 P. (a) die göttlichen Gaben der getauften Adressaten, die trotz ihres Falles im Feld des Fleisches und unter dem Einfluss von Bezauberung weiter bestehen, mit (b) der Rechtfertigung, die der glaubende Abraham erfuhr. Die Adressaten haben nicht nur die Rechtfertigung, sondern auch die eschatologische Gabe schlechthin erlangt. Es geht um den Heiligen Geist (drei Mal in 3,2–5), der sich durch Wunder manifestierte. Diese Gabe bedeutet nach den Propheten (Jer. 31; Ez. 36–37) die

Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 872. Das καθώς fungiert als verbindendes Element in 3,6. Nach James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, 2nd ed., London: Hendrickson 2002, 160: „‘just as’ is more or less an abbreviation for the fuller formula, ‘as it is written’“. 46 47

190

Sotirios Despotis

Vergebung der Sünden, die Wiedergeburt, die Adoption und die Anwesenheit Gottes in seinem Volk. Woran genau Abraham glaubte und wodurch er die Rechtfertigung erfuhr, wird im „synoptischen“ Röm. 4,17–21 deutlich: Καθὼς γέγραπται ὅτι «πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν τέθεικά σε», κατέναντι οὗ ἐπίστευσεν Θεοῦ (a) τοῦ ζῳοποιοῦντος τοὺς νεκροὺς (Eschatologie) καὶ (b) καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα. 18 Ὃς παρ᾽ ἐλπίδα ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι ἐπίστευσεν εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι αὐτὸν πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον· «οὕτως ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα σου», 19καὶ μὴ ἀσθενήσας τῇ πίστει κατενόησεν τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σῶμα [ἤδη] νενεκρωμένον, ἑκατονταετής που ὑπάρχων, καὶ τὴν νέκρωσιν τῆς μήτρας Σάρρας· 20εἰς δὲ τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐ διεκρίθη τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ ἀλλ᾽ ἐνεδυναμώθη τῇ πίστει, δοὺς δόξαν τῷ Θεῷ 21καὶ πληροφορηθεὶς ὅτι ὃ ἐπήγγελται, δυνατός ἐστιν καὶ ποιῆσαι. 22 Διὸ [καὶ] «ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην».

Also war Abraham der festen Überzeugung, dass der die Toten lebendig machende Gott fähig ist, die Verheißung zu erfüllen. So konnte „sein erstorbener Leib“ (σῶμα [ἤδη] νενεκρωμένον) ein Kind zeugen. Nach Gal. geschah das durch den Geist, denn, obwohl beide Söhne Abrahams beschnitten wurden, ist nur Isaak „nach dem Geist“ geboren (Gal. 4,29). So werden die Galater diesem Abschnitt zufolge48 durch den Glauben an die Auferstehung Christi Söhne Abrahams, obwohl sie fleischlich nicht seine Nachkommen sind. Das geschieht, weil die Sohnschaft die Erfüllung der Verheißung des Geistes ist. Augustinus49 fügt hinzu, dass man die Sohnschaft auch durch Nachahmung erwerben kann (c. Adim. 5). Es ist zu beachten, dass die Beziehung Abrahams zu Gott etwas Besonderes im Judentum war (Sir. 44,19–23). Deswegen wurde der Patriarch als von Gott Geliebter geehrt und in Krisenzeiten wurden seine Verdienste als Mittel der Erlösung aufgefasst.50 Das Merkwürdige ist, dass οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ nicht von der Leistung des Abraham (zekhut avot: Verdienste der Väter Ex. 32,13) abhängig sind, wie z. B. die drei Jungen und Daniel (Dan. 3,35;. Odes Sol. 7,35). Die Gläubigen fungieren wie der große Patriarch. Das καθὼς am Anfang des Textes (3,6–9) wird durch das abschließende σὺν „ergänzt“: εὐλογοῦνται σὺν τῷ

48 Dieser Text wurde von Markion in seiner „Bibel“ gestrichen. S. „Marcions Brief van Paulus aan de Galatiers“, ThT 21 (1887): 528–533. Transcribed into English by Daniel J. Mahar (1998). http://gnosis.org/library/marcion/Galatian.htm. 49 Theresia Heither und Christiana Reemts, Abraham, Bd. 1 von Biblische Gestalten bei den Kirchenvätern, Hg. dies. (Münster: Aschendorff 2005), 286. Vgl. Dunn, Galatians, 162– 163: „the semitic usage, ‘son of’, to denote share in a particular quality or characteristic [...] would make the transition in thought from ‘like Abraham’ to ‘sons of Abraham’ all the easier for Paul.“ 50 John van Seters, „Abraham“, ER 1:15–16. S. auch Κyriakoula Papadimitriou, „Ο ‘τύπος’ του Αβραάμ στην Καινή Διαθήκη. Μια σύγχρονη εφαρμογή της τυπολογικής ερμηνευτικής μεθόδου“, in Βιβλικά Σημαίνοντα και Σημαινόμενα, hg. von ders. (Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 2012), 149–175.

Eine östlich-orthodoxe Lektüre von Gal 3,6–9.23–29

191

πιστῷ Ἀβραάμ. Auch nach Röm. 4,23–25 ist eigentlich Abraham Vorbild der Gläubigen: οὐκ ἐγράφη δὲ δι᾽ αὐτὸν μόνον ὅτι «ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ», ἀλλὰ καὶ δι᾽ ἡμᾶς, οἷς μέλλει λογίζεσθαι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐγείραντα Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἐκ νεκρῶν, ὃς παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν καὶ ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν.

Darüber hinaus wurde Abraham dem zu untersuchenden Text zufolge ein erstes Evangelium vorausverkündigt, während die Christen die Erfüllung des Evangeliums erfuhren. Beide Parteien werden eigentlich Empfänger derselben Rechtfertigung durch den Samen (Messias). Zusätzlich empfangen die heidnischen Galater als Erbe die Verheißung per se, den Heiligen Geist, und gleichzeitig (wie im Folgenden erklärt wird), die Sohnschaft Gottes, des Vaters, und das obere Jerusalem, d. h. eine Heimat frei von Zwängen. So erfahren sie die Erfüllung von Jes. 54–56.51 Dieser Parallelismus zwischen Abraham und den Galatern ist besonders interessant aus folgenden Gründen: 1. Beide Parteien verwirklichten einen persönlichen „Exodus“ und gehorchten dem Ruf Gottes durch den Glauben. Abraham aber hatte kein Vorbild als Grund seines Glaubens. Bei den Christusgläubigen gehen das Selbstopfer und die Auferstehung des Sohnes historisch voran. Zusätzlich haben sie durch das Evangelium und das Vorbild des Apostels einen optischen und akustischen Zugang zum gekreuzigten Herrn gehabt (προεγράφη). Ebenso beweisen Gott und der Geist ihre Anwesenheit im eschatologischen Jetzt auf eine erstaunliche Art und Weise. 2. Der Patriarch hat selbst seinen Sohn „geopfert“ in dem Glauben, dass Jahwe ihn wieder auferwecken könne. Es geht um die Perikope, die an Neujahr (Rosh Hashanah) gehört wird, wenn der Schofar 100 Mal im Rahmen der Sühnung klingt, die nach der Reue und Versöhnung erfolgt. Es ist zu beachten, dass der gesamte Gottesdienst des Tempels (und des Erzpriesters) mit dem Berg Moria und dem Opfer Isaaks verbunden ist. Im Fall der Christusgläubigen ist es der Sohn Gottes, der (a) freiwillig, (b) zu Gunsten der Feinde (c) zum Fluch (κατάρα) wurde. Deswegen glaubte Abraham an Gott, während die Galater an seinen Samen glaubten (2,16; 20), der sich nach anderen urchristlichen Quellen auch biologisch (durch den Stammbaum) mit dem Patriarchen verband (Μt 1,1). Es ist zu beachten, dass P. weder die πίστις Abrahams mit der πίστις Jesu vergleicht noch das Opfer (die Akedah) von Isaak mit dem Opfer Christi. Abraham und Isaak werden nur mit den Christusgläubigen parallelisiert. Jesus Christus und der Heilige Geist sind entweder innerlich oder äußerlich mit dem Gläubigen verbunden. Nach Gregory Beale, [„The Old Testament Background of Paul’s Reference to “the Fruit of the Spirit” in Galatians 5,22“, BBR 15 (2005): 1–38] verweist Gal. 5,22 auch auf Jes. 57. 51

192

Sotirios Despotis

C) 3,23–4,6: Die Gläubigen als Söhne Gottes Im Mittelteil der Einheit kreist das narratologische „Tempus“ um die Fülle der Zeit. Die Fleischwerdung markiert einen Einschnitt in der Heilsgeschichte, den man durch die Bekehrung erfahren kann. Nach der Bestätigung, dass die Galater durch den Glauben an Christus Kinder Abrahams geworden sind und denselben Status mit dem Patriarchen teilen, weist Paulus darauf hin, dass die Gläubigen eine Adoption durch Gott erfahren, die gleichzeitig die Sohnschaft Abrahams umfasst. In diesem Abschnitt und besonders im zweiten Teil (Text II) richten sich die Augen der Adressaten auch auf die Zukunft, denn es fällt das Lexem κληρονομ* auf. Im Folgenden kann man die Parallelität52 der beiden Abschnitte der Einheit C betrachten: εἰ γὰρ ἐδόθη Νόμος ὁ δυνάμενος ζῳοποιῆσαι, ὄντως ἐκ Νόμου ἂν ἦν ἡ δικαιοσύνη. 22 ἀλλὰ συνέκλεισεν ἡ Γραφὴ τὰ πάντα ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν, 2

ἵνα ἡ ἐπαγγελία ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοθῇ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν.

Ι Α. Πρὸ τοῦ δὲ ἐλθεῖν τὴν Πίστιν ὑπὸ νόμον ἐφρουρούμεθα συγκλειόμενοι εἰς τὴν μέλλουσαν Πίστιν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι,

ΙΙ A. Λέγω δέ, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον χρόνον ὁ κληρονόμος νήπιός ἐστιν, οὐδὲν διαφέρει δούλου, κύριος πάντων ὤν,

ὥστε ὁ Νόμος παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῶν γέγονεν εἰς Χριστόν, ἵνα ἐκ πίστεως δικαιωθῶμεν·

2

24

ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ ἐπιτρόπους ἐστὶν καὶ οἰκονόμους ἄχρι τῆς προθεσμίας τοῦ πατρός. Οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς, ὅτε ἦμεν νήπιοι, ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου ἤμεθα δεδουλωμένοι∙

3

25

Β. ἐλθούσης δὲ τῆς Πίστεως

4

B. ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου,

ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν Υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, οὐκέτι ὑπὸ παιδαγωγόν ἐσμεν.

52

Vgl. Dunn, Galatians, 210.

γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον, b’ 5 ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ἐξαγοράσῃ, a’ ἵνα τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπολάβωμεν. a

b

Eine östlich-orthodoxe Lektüre von Gal 3,6–9.23–29 26 Πάντες γὰρ Υἱοὶ θεοῦ ἐστε διὰ τῆς πίστεως, ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ·

ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε. 28 a Οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος b οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, b οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος a οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, a οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν b καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

193

6

Ὅτι δέ ἐστε υἱοί, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν κρᾶζον·

27

C. 29Eἰ δὲ ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ, ἄρα τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ σπέρμα ἐστέ, κατ᾽ ἐπαγγελίαν κληρονόμοι

Ἀββά, ὁ Πατήρ!

7 C. Ὥστε οὐκέτι εἶ δοῦλος ἀλλὰ υἱός· εἰ δὲ υἱός, καὶ κληρονόμος διὰ Θεοῦ.

In diesem Abschnitt wird die Argumentation des vorigen Paragraphen fortgesetzt. Es geht um die Nutzbarkeit des Gesetzes, das zwischen Verheißungen und Fleischwerdung eingeführt wurde. Das Gesetz bietet nicht die Rechtfertigung (vgl. das Lebendig-Machen), sondern es wurde um der Übertretungen willen gegeben (3,19; 22). Auch in der zu untersuchenden Perikope fungiert die Tora als (a) Wache und (b) Pädagoge. 1. Jesus wird in I Christus (Messias), in II Sohn Gottes genannt. In Text I sind die Protagonisten das „wir“ und dann das „alle ihr“, obwohl auch P. selbst die Taufe und ihre Konsequenzen erfuhr. In Text II wird das „wir“ am Anfang wiederholt, danach ist Gott selbst das Subjekt und zum Schluss richtet sich der Verfasser an jede einzelne Person. In I werden die „äußeren“ Konsequenzen der Bekehrung bzw. der Taufe dargestellt, in II die „inneren“. Zum Schluss des Textes I werden die Zuhörer „Samen Abrahams und Erbe“ genannt, in II „Söhne Gottes – des Vaters“. In beiden wird der Erbe betont. Der Kern beider Texte wird von parallelen Aussagen umrahmt. Das oben beschriebene Diptychon betont das Kommen Christi in der Welt und im Herzen jedes einzelnen Gläubigen (vgl. 2,20). 2. In dieser Einheit wird die Hervorhebung des Glaubens (aemuna: vertrauende Zuversicht)53 nicht mit schriftlichen Zitaten, sondern mit liturgischen Texten aus dem Erlebnis der Bekehrungszeit und der Taufe begründet. Die erschütternde Er-Innerung der Momente der Taufe ruft wieder das Pathos der Zuhörer (wie in 3,1–5) hervor und verbindet sie mit ihrem „Mystagogen“ P. Es geht aber nicht um einen optischen Reiz,54 sondern um „akustische Signale“.

David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary (Maryland: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1992), 538: „trusting faithfulness“. 54 Vgl. das προεγράφη in der ersten Einheit. 53

194

Sotirios Despotis

In Text I wird ein vorpaulinischer Taufhymnus zitiert,55 während man in Text II den lauten Ruf – das Herzensgebet56– in beiden Sprachen hört. So wird indirekt das Relativieren der ethnischen Identität in der Aussage „es gibt keinen Unterschied zwischen einem Juden und einem Griechen“ von Text I fassbar. Das erste Lied wird im Kontext der folgenden „parallelen“ Aussagen angeführt: Denn ihr seid alle Gottes Kinder durch den Glauben an Christus Jesus (Gal. 3,26) / ihr seid alle einer in Christus Jesus (Gal. 3,28). Es wird die 2. Person Plural (statt der 1. Person Plural) benutzt, damit alle Rezipienten (πάντες in V. 26 und 28d), die vorher als „unverständige Galater“ angesprochen wurden, der Gabe der Sohnschaft bewusst werden und sich nicht mehr vom Evangelium der Judenchristen verlocken lassen. Sie (die Galater), die vorher zu den Goyim57 gehörten, haben durch die Taufe nicht die weiße toga virilis58, sondern Christus selbst angezogen. Im AT wird das ἐνδύεσθαι mit den Gewändern des Heils, dem Mantel der Gerechtigkeit und der „Einweihung“ des Messias bzw. Priesters [Jes. 61,10; vgl. Lev. 16,4. Zech. 3,5 (4)], aber auch mit dem Geist des Herrn verbunden, der die charismatischen Leiter Israels auszeichnete.59 In Text II bezieht sich die innere Transformation der Gläubigen auf die Ankunft des Geistes des Sohnes Gottes im Herzen jeder einzelnen Person, die auch als Sohn Gottes bezeichnet wird. Schon in 3,1 wurden andere äußere Aspekte der Präsenz des Geistes hervorgehoben. 3. Es lässt sich schließen, dass 3,23–29 nicht den Höhepunkt des Briefes ausmacht, obwohl dieser Text zum Kernpunkt der Argumentation gehört.60 Die Klimax befindet sich in 4,1–5, wo Gott selbst das Subjekt ist. Der Chiasmus und das Asyndeton verleihen dem Text emotionale Intensität und Lebhaftigkeit. Ferner stellt man bei den Abschnitten B – B´ (die Söhne Abrahams und Saras) fest, dass der Parallelismus in Gal. 3–5 synthetisch bzw. dynamisch ist: Das zweite Glied wiederholt nicht einfach die Aussage des ersten Gliedes, sondern ergänzt sie auch. Das bedeutet, dass als Höhepunkt nicht die Aussage anzunehmen ist, dass die Adressaten „Same Abrahams“ sind, sondern dass kein Gläubiger ein Sklave, sondern Sohn Gottes ist. So wurden die Engel, das Volk Nach Ed P. Sanders, Paulus. Eine Einführung, übers. Ekkehard Schöller (Stuttgart: Reclam 1995), 78 geht es um P.᾿ eigene Ausdrücke. Ich vertrete jedoch die Ansicht, dass, was P. im Ersten Korintherbrief und Römerbrief aus dieser Tauftradition entwickelt, die Metapher des Leibes ist. Auch in Röm. 5, das Affinitäten zu Gal. 3 aufweist, stellt er Christus als den Neuen Adam dar. 56 Der Geist ruft in den Herzen: „Abba, Vater!“ 57 Vgl. σπέρμα καταραμένον Weis. 12,11 58 Die toga virilis war das römische Symbol der Volljährigkeit eines Bürgers. 59 Vgl. Ri. 6,34 [Γεδεών] 1 Chr. 12:18 [Ααρών] ἐνέδυσε [Α] – ἐνεδυνάμωσεν [Β. S]. Lk. 24,29. Vgl. den charismatischen Joshua am Ende des Deuteronomiums. 60 Hans Dieter Betz, Der Galaterbrief. Ein Kommentar zum Brief des Apostels Paulus an die Gemeinden in Galatien (München: Kaiser, 1988). Hans-Josef Klauck, Die antike Briefliteratur und das Neue Testament, UTB 2022 (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1998), 237. 55

Eine östlich-orthodoxe Lektüre von Gal 3,6–9.23–29

195

Israels und der König im AT bezeichnet.61 Das Verb ἀπολαμβάνειν (statt des λάβωμεν 3,14) bedeutet in Bezug auf die Sohnschaft wiederbekommen, sprich λαμβάνειν πάλιν (vgl. Lk. 6,34; 15,24)62, und bezieht sich auf den urgeschichtlichen Status Adams vor seinem Fall (d. h. vor der Zeit Abrahams), als er die Herrlichkeit und Heiligkeit Gottes anzog.63 Darauf weist schon der Text Gal. 3,18 hin: In Christus gibt es nicht nur „weder Juden noch Griechen“, sondern auch weder „Mann noch Frau“. Das bringt mit sich, dass der alte Äon, die jetzige Olam hazah, schon „vorbei“ ist. Denn der Unterschied zwischen Mann und Frau war „Synonym“ für die Schöpfung dieses Kosmos (vgl. Mk. 12,25). In Text II wird auch das Paradoxon zugespitzt: (a) Die Gläubigen sind nicht die Befreiten, die „ekstatisch“ ins Licht schauen,64 obwohl das Wort Paidagogos am Anfang des Textes einen solchen „Weg“ vorbereiten könnte. Es ist die Weisheit, das Ziel der Pädagogie, die in die Menschen eindringt. Diese Epiphanie geschieht ohne die Vermittlung von Engeln und anderen Boten, sondern durch den inkarnierten Sohn bzw. den Geist des Sohnes Gottes. In dieser Perikope wird die Weisheit nicht mit der Tora, sondern mit dem personifizierten Glauben, also Christus identifiziert. Denn am Anfang der Perikope ist der personifizierte Glaube (fides quae creditur vgl. 1,23) paradoxerweise65 das Subjekt des Ankommens. D. h. der Glaube wird mit seinem Objekt gleichgesetzt (3,23 // 3,24). Er verweist schon am Anfang der zu untersuchenden Einheit auf die Offenbarung einer Befreiung (vgl. συγκλειόμενοι) und Rechtfertigung (3,24 // 3,29: Erbe), im Gegensatz zu der Schrift, die im vorigen V. 22 „alles unter die Sünde zusammengeschlossen hat“ (Gal. 3,22). Hierin besteht die Besonderheit des paulinischen Argumentes im Galaterbrief. Die Personifizierung des Glaubens genauso wie die der Schrift unterstreicht sowohl ihre göttliche Abstammung als auch ihre einzige Dignität im neuen Äon. (b) Der Sohn Gottes kommt als wahrhafter Mensch, sprich als Same Abrahams. Der Begriff „Loskaufen“ (ἐξαγοράσῃ) erinnert unmittelbar an die Erwähnung des Selbstopfers 61 Jerome H. Neyrey, „‘I said: You are Gods’: Psalm 82:6 and John 10“, JBL 108 (1989): 647-663. 62 Νikolaos Sotiropoulos, Ερμηνεία Δυσκόλων Χωρίων της Γραφής, Αthen 1990, 2.173– 174. Vgl. Dunn, Galatians, 217–218: „Paul ‘almost certainly had in mind the legal act of adoption […] The son ‘emancipated’ and then manumitted back, literally ‘receives back’ […] by ‘adoption’ the status of son. In which case Paul presumably integrated the thought into his Adam Christology: the purpose of Christ’s death was to recover for the ‘sons of Adam’ the status of ‘sons of God’ (cf. Luke iii.38).“ 63 Teresa Kuo-Yu Tsui, „‘Baptized into His Death’ (Röm 6,3) and ‘Clothed with Christ’ (Gal 3,27)“, ETL 88 (2012): 395–417. 64 Vgl. das Höhlengleichnis bei Plato (Resp. 7.514a-518b). Nach Plato vermischt sich Gott jedoch mit den Menschen nicht: „Θεὸς ἀνθρώπῳ οὐ μείγνυται“ (Symp. 203a). 65 Josephus verbindet Abraham nicht mit dem Glauben, während Philo in seinem einzigen Glaubenslob im Werk De Abrahamo ihn (den Glauben) einfach ein ἀγαθόν, ἀψευδὲς καὶ βέβαιον (268–271) nennt.

196

Sotirios Despotis

Christi (3,13)66, der den Glauben beim Menschen weckt. (c) Alle Menschen bekommen durch diese Epiphanie nicht nur die Freiheit (Manumissio), sondern auch die paradiesische Sohnschaft zurück. Diese „Christosis“ annulliert alle „weltlichen“ Unterschiede und dadurch den Wert der Beschneidung. Es geht um das Erkennen Gottes, das vielmehr ein Erkannt-Worden-Sein von Gott bedeutet (4,8–9). Das Erkennen spielt auf den Baum der Erkenntnis an und bedeutet hier die paradiesische Gemeinschaft zwischen beiden „Parteien“, die abseits der „Werke des Gesetzes“ besteht. Folgendes fällt beim Gebrauch vom Pronomen wir (ἡμεῖς) auf: Nach P. waren nicht nur die Heiden, sondern auch die Juden (wir) nicht-vollmündige Kinder, also Sklaven, im Gefängnis. Indem wir unter der Aufsicht von Vormündern und Verwaltern (ὑπὸ ἐπιτρόπους καὶ οἰκονόμους) waren, hatten wir auch das Bedürfnis nach Offenbarung und Befreiung. Folglich war das Gesetz nach Gal. 3 nicht eine Tora, also eine Unterweisung eines liebenden Vaters oder eine Wegweisung für ein gelingendes Leben, sondern ein Diener, der die Rolle des Pädagogen und des Wächters spielte. Der Pädagoge war also der Sklave, der (a) „mit seinem Stock“ zuständig für die moralische Erziehung eines nichtvollmündigen Kindes war und (b) die Schüler zu ihren Lehrern begleitete.67 Abschließend kann man nach dieser Analyse mit den folgenden Argumenten die Plausibilität der oben angeführten Interpretation des Chrysostomos zu Gal. 3,28 begründen: A. In der zu untersuchenden Einheit spricht P. in der 2. Person Plural und benutzt nicht die Formulierung von 1 Kor. 12,13–14 (εἰς + ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν). Man muss auch in Betracht ziehen, dass 3,28c parallel sowohl zu 3,26 (Πάντες γὰρ υἱοὶ Θεοῦ ἐστε) als auch zu 4,6 (Ὅτι δέ ἐστε υἱοί, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ) ist. In 3,26 werden alle „unverständigen Galater“ Söhne Gottes genannt und in 4,7 bezieht sich P. mit der 2. Person Singular auf jeden einzelnen Christusgläubigen, der als „Geisttragender Messias“ Abba (Vater) ruft. Auch in Röm. 8,29 nennt P. die geisttragenden Christen συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς. Diese hat Gott trotz der Leiden dieser Zeit schon verherrlicht (V. 30). B. Ferner ist der Kontext des Galaterbriefes nicht paränetisch (wie im 1 Kor). Im „praktischen“ Teil, wo die Liebe tatsächlich hervorgehoben wird (5,14–15; 6,22), benutzt der Verfasser nicht die Metapher des Leibes wie in Röm. 12, sondern Argumente, die jeden einzelnen Gläubigen „individuell“ betreffen; jeder einzelne Mensch Christi „kreuzigte“ durch die Taufe das „Fleisch

66 Todd A. Wilson, „Under the Law. A Pauline Theological Abbreviation“, JTS 56 (2005): 362–392. Nach Dunn, Galatians, 218, weist Gal. 4,5–7 Ähnlichkeiten zu Röm. 8,15– 17 auf. 67 Vgl. παιδαγωγός < παῖς ‚Knabe‘, ‚Kind‘ + ἄγειν, ἄγω ‚führen‘.

Eine östlich-orthodoxe Lektüre von Gal 3,6–9.23–29

197

samt den Leidenschaften und Begierden“ (5,24) und er lebt „im Geist“ (5,16– 18). Der Geist befähigt ihn, das Gesetz Christi (6,2) zu erfüllen. C. Paulus selbst, der „durch das Gesetz dem Gesetz starb“ (2,19), erleidet die Schmerzen einer Geburt, damit die Gestalt Jesu wieder in jedem Einzelnen seiner Adressaten erscheint. Er fungiert auch als Vorbild. Deswegen betont er „Ich lebe; doch nicht mehr ich, sondern Christus lebt in mir“ (2,20), während er die „Malzeichen des Herrn“ an seinem Leib trägt. D. Die Crux Interpretum „ihr seid in Christus getauft“ (εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε 3,27) bedeutet nicht unbedingt, dass die Gläubigen in den Leib Christi gepfropft wurden. Ihre Taufe verweist sowohl auf das Kreuz und die Auferstehung Christi (vgl. 1 Kor. 10,6) als auch auf einen neuen Herrschaftsbereich. Denn jede Person „in Christus“ ist nun eine neue Schöpfung (2 Kor. 5,17; vgl. Gal. 6,15). E. Auch in 3,29 stellt P. fest: „Wenn ihr aber Christi seid, so seid ihr Nachkommen Abrahams und gemäß der Verheißung seine Erben“ (εἰ δὲ ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ (nicht Χριστός), ἄρα τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ σπέρμα ἐστέ, κατ᾽ ἐπαγγελίαν κληρονόμοι). Der Genitiv Χριστοῦ steht parallel zum Genitiv τοῦ Ἀβραάμ. Außerdem werden die Christen nur im Galaterbrief als οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ bezeichnet (5,24). Alle Getauften als „Verwandte“ des Glaubens an den Sohn Gottes konstituieren das Israel Gottes. Auf diese Weise sind sie Rezipienten des eschatologischen Friedens und der Barmherzigkeit Gottes.

Schlussfolgerungen Nach der Wiederherstellung der Autorität seines Evangeliums will P. offensichtlich im zweiten Teil des Briefes das Evangelium seiner Gegner kritisieren. P. gebraucht Argumente aus (a) der erschütternden Er-Fahrung der Bekehrung (und ihren „äußeren“ bzw. „inneren“ Merkmalen), aber auch (b) den heiligen Schriften. Auf diese Weise will er „vernünftig“ argumentieren, aber auch das Pathos seiner Zuhörer wecken. Sie sollen verstehen, dass sie durch das paulinische Evangelium, ohne die Anwendung von „Werken des Gesetzes“ (Beschneidung, Feste), schon vollständige Kinder Abrahams sind. Das geschieht, weil sie schon durch den Glauben und die Taufe den Samen Abrahams, Christus, „angezogen“ haben und die Verheißung Abrahams und der Propheten, den Heiligen Geist, erwarben. Auf diese Weise erfahren die Galater schon die Rechtfertigung bzw. das eschatologische Leben sowie den Heiligen Geist und sind auch Erben des himmlischen Jerusalems. Eigentlich genießen sie schon in Christo einen höheren Status als Abraham. Sie haben nicht nur eine manumissio, sondern auch eine adoptio erlebt. Christus, der ewige Sohn und gleichzeitig das „Sperma Abrahams“, ist ein echter Mensch geworden und zwar „unter dem Gesetz“, damit diejenigen, die Kinder-Sklaven waren, „erwachsene“ Söhne

198

Sotirios Despotis

Gottes wie im Paradies werden. Daher verfügen sie über eine einzigartige Beziehung und Intimität zu Gott. Denn Jahwe wird weder als Herr noch als Ewiger, sondern als Ἀββὰ angerufen, und zwar nicht in einer heiligen Sprache68, sondern auf Aramäisch und Griechisch. Durch die Bekehrung, die das paulinische Evangelium verursacht, genießt jeder Mensch (auch der nicht-beschnittene Heide oder die Frauen) den Status der Gottebenbildlichkeit und -ähnlichkeit des Urmenschen (Gen. 1,26). Gleichzeitig wird auch die Unterscheidung zwischen Mann und Frau in der Praxis abgeschafft. Diese Tatsache verweist auf den Anfang des neuen Äons nach der Epoche des Fluchs (κατάρα). Das wird in der zu untersuchenden Perikope implizit angesprochen. Im Epilog des Briefes wird es jedoch explizit ausformuliert: Denn in Jesus Christus gelten weder Beschneidung noch Unbeschnittensein etwas, entscheidend ist die neue Schöpfung (6,15). Die Rechtfertigung wird schon durch die Bekehrung erlebt, die das paulinische Evangelium als eine dynamische Erfahrung auslöst. Sie wird durch die persönliche erotische Koinonia mit Jesus Christus (nicht mit einem „erwählten Volk“) zugänglich und löst „leidenschaftliche“ Proklamationen aus wie diese von Gal. 2;20; Röm. 8;35–39; 2 Kor. 5,14 (vgl. Ignatius, Röm. 7,2). Sie ist ferner mit der Parusie des Heiligen Geistes im Herzen des Gläubigen, aber auch in der Gemeinde gleichzusetzen. Die Gestalt Christi, die dem Gläubigen durch die Taufe geschenkt wird, ist zuletzt nicht unauslöschlich. Für ihre Erhaltung muss der Getaufte auch die Früchte des Geistes tragen. Sein Glaube soll sich durch das Gebot der Liebe als wirksam erweisen. Denn die Liebe erfüllt und fasst das Gesetz zusammen. Schließlich wird klar, warum die persönliche reale Erfahrung des Glaubens als Treue zum aufgeopferten Christus durch das Herzensgebet, die Katechese, die Eucharistie und die Liebe zum fremden Nächsten, in den Augen der Kirchenväter des Ostens von großer Bedeutung ist. Sie ist die wichtigste Voraussetzung dafür, dass die Gläubigen die Früchte des Geistes tragen, Christus „anziehen“ und „das Fleisch mit allen Leidenschaften und Begierden gekreuzigt [haben]“ (Gal. 5,24).

Sekundärliteratur Adamtziloglou, Εvathia. „‘Πάντες υἱοὶ θεοῦ ἐστε’, ή ‘τέκνα θεοῦ’; (Γαλ. 3,26)“. Seiten 31– 45 in Εισηγήσεις Η’ Συνάξεως Ορθοδόξων Βιβλικών Θεολόγων. Η Προς Γαλάτας Επιστολή του Αποστόλου Παύλου. Προβλήματα Μεταφραστικά, Φιλολογικά, Ιστορικά, Ερμηνευτικά, Θεολογικά. Μεσημβρία Βουλγαρίας 10–14.09.1995. Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 1997.

68

Hebräisch ist nach Jub. 12,28 die Sprache Abrahams.

Eine östlich-orthodoxe Lektüre von Gal 3,6–9.23–29

199

Arx, Urs von. „Gibt Paulus in 1 Kor. 7 eine Interpretation von Gal. 3:28?“. Seiten 193–221 in Saint Paul and Corinth. 1950 Years Since the Writing of the Epistles to the Corinthians. International Scholarly Conference Proceedings (Corinth, 23–25 September 2007). Bd. 1. Herausgegeben von Constantine J. Belezos, Sotirios Despotis und Christos Karakolis. Athen: Psichogios Publications, 2009. Atmatzidis, Charalambos. „Η έκφραση ‘πίστις (Ἰησοῦ) Χριστοῦ’ στις Παύλειες Επιστολές. Ιστορική αναφορά και ερμηνευτικές παρατηρήσεις“. Seiten 69–93 in Καινοδιαθηκικά. Hg. von dems. Thessaloniki: Ostracon, 2014. Beale, Gregory. „The Old Testament Background of Paul’s Reference to ‘the Fruit of the Spirit’ in Galatians 5:22“. BBR 15 (2005): 1–38. Betz, Hans Dieter. Der Galaterbrief. Ein Kommentar zum Brief des Apostels Paulus an die Gemeinden in Galatien. München: Kaiser, 1988. Chrysostomus, Johannes. Kommentar zu den Briefen des hl. Paulus an die Galater. Übersetzt von Wenzel Stoderl in Des heiligen Kirchenlehrers Johannes Chrysostomus Erzbischofs von Konstantinopel Kommentar zu den Briefen des hl. Paulus an die Galater und Epheser. Bd. 8 von Des heiligen Kirchenlehrers Johannes Chrysostomus ausgewählte Schriften; Bd. 15 von Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, 2. Reihe. Kempten; München: J. Kösel; F. Pustet, 1936. online: https://www.unifr.ch/bkv/kapitel3964–3.htm. Das, A. Andrew. Galatians. Saint Louis: Concordia, 2014. Dunn, James D.G. The Epistle to the Galatians. 2nd ed. London: Hendrickson, 2002. Fairweather, Jane. „The Epistle to the Galatians and Classical Rhetoric: Parts 1 & 2“. TynBul 45 (1994): 1–38. Galanis, Ιoannis. Υιοθεσία. Η χρήσις του όρου παρά Παύλω εν σχέσει προς τα νομικά και θεολογικά δεδομένα των λαών του περιβάλλοντός του. Thessaloniki, 1977. Hansen, G. Walter. Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts. JSNTSup 29. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Heither, Theresia, und Christiana Reemts. Abraham. Bd. 1 von Biblische Gestalten bei den Kirchenvätern. Herausgegeben von dens. Münster: Aschendorff, 2005. Hofius, Otfried. „Η Αλήθεια του Ευαγγελίου. Ερμηνευτικές και θεολογικές θκέψεις σχετικά με την αξίωση αλήθειας του Παύλειου Κηρύγματος“. Seiten 201–242 in Παύλος: Ιεραπόστολος και Θεολόγος. Η Αλήθεια του Ευαγγελίου. Συναγωγή Καινοδιαθηκικών Μελετών. Herausgegeben von Christos Karakolis, Ioannis Skadaresis und Michael Chatzigiannis. Αthen: Artos Zois, 2012. Jones, Lindsay. Encyclopedia of Religion. 2nd ed. 15 vols. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005. Karakolis, Christos. Αμαρτία-Βάπτισμα-Χάρις (Ρωμ 6,1–14). Συμβολή στην Παύλεια Σωτηριολογία. Biblike Bibliotheke 25. Thessaloniki: Pournaras 2002. Κasselouri, Εleni. „Οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ: Η εκκλησιολογική κατανόηση του Γαλ. 3,28γ“, Seiten 175–193 in Εισηγήσεις Η’ Συνάξεως Ορθοδόξων Βιβλικών Θεολόγων. Η Προς Γαλάτας Επιστολή του Αποστόλου Παύλου. Προβλήματα Μεταφραστικά, Φιλολογικά, Ιστορικά, Ερμηνευτικά, Θεολογικά. Thessaloniki: Pournaras 1997. Keith, Chris. „‘In My Own Hand’: Grapho-Literacy and the Apostle Paul“. Bib 89 (2008): 39–58. Klauck,  Hans-Josef. Die antike Briefliteratur und das Neue Testament. UTB 2022. Paderborn: Schöningh, 1998. Kuo-Yu Tsui, Teresa. „‘Baptized into His Death’ (Rom 6.3) and ‘Clothed with Christ’ (Gal 3.27)“. ETL 88 (2012): 395–417. Kurz, William. „Hellenistic Rhetoric in the Christological Proof of Luke-Acts”. CBQ 42 (1980): 171–195.

200

Sotirios Despotis

Manen van, W. C. „Marcions Brief van Paulus aan de Galatiers“ ThT 21 (1887): 528–533. Transcribed into English by Daniel J. Mahar (1998). http://gnosis.org/library/marcion/ Galatian.htm. Neyrey, Jerome. „‘I said: You are Gods’: Psalm 82:6 and John 10“. JBL 108 (1989): 647– 663. Nikolakopoulos, Konstantinos. „Η ρητορική ειρωνεία ως εκφραστικό μέσον στην προς Γαλάτας Επιστολή“. Seiten 95–126 in Ερμηνευτικά Μελετήματα από Ρητορικής και Υμνολογικής Επόψεως. Herausgegeben von dems. Biblike Bibltiotheke 34. Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 2005. Oh, Boon-Leong. „The Social and Religious Setting of Galatians“. PhD diss., King’s College London, 2001. Papadimitriou, Κiriakoula. „Ο ‘τύπος’ του Αβραάμ στην Καινή Διαθήκη. Μια σύγχρονη εφαρμογή της τυπολογικής ερμηνευτικής μεθόδου“. Seiten 149–175 in Βιβλικά σημαίνοντα και σημαινόμενα. Herausgegeben von ders. Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 2012. Parker, Barry F. „‘Works of the Law’ and the Jewish Settlement in Asia Minor“. JGRChJ 9 (2013): 42–96. Patrologia Graeca. J.-P. Migne. 162 Bde. Paris, 1857–1886. Sanders, Ed P. Paulus. Eine Einführung. Übersetzt von Ekkehard Schöller. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1995. Schlarb, Robert. Wir sind mit Christus begraben. Tübingen: Mohr, 1990. Schnelle, Udo. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. UTB 1830. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Sotiropoulos, Νikolaos. Ερμηνεία δυσκόλων χωρίων της Γραφής. 4 Bde. Αthen 1984–2013. Stern, David. Jewish New Testament Commentary. Maryland: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1992. Stogianos, Vassilios. Χριστὸς καὶ Νόμος. Η χριστοκεντρικὴ θεώρησις τοῦ Νόμου εἰς τὴν Πρὸς Γαλάτας Ἐπιστολὴν τοῦ Αποστόλου Παύλου. Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 1976. –. „Η περί Νόμου Διδασκαλία της Προς Γαλάτας Επιστολής του Αποστόλου Παύλου“. Seiten 237–263 in Ερμηνευτικά Μελετήματα. Herausgegeben von dems. Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 1988. Strecker, Christian. „Die Frühchristliche Taufpraxis: Ritualhistorische Erkundungen, ritualwissenschaftliche Impulse“. Seiten 347–410 in Alte Texte in Neuen Kontexten. Wo steht die Sozialwissenschaftliche Bibelexegese? Herausgegeben von Wolfgang Stegemann und Richard E. De Maris. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2015. Tarazi, Paul. Galatians. A Commentary. Crestwood, NY: SVS, 1994. Tolmie, Donald F. „A Rhetorical Analysis of the Letter to the Galatians“. PhD diss., University of the Free State: Bloemfontein, 2004. Uzukwu, Gesila N. „Gal 3:28 and its Alleged Relationship to Rabbinic Writings“. Biblica (2010): 370–392. Wilson, A. Todd. „Under the Law. A Pauline Theological Abbreviation“. JTS 56 (2005): 362–392. Wolter, Michael. Paulus. Ein Grundriss seiner Theologie. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2011. Woyke, Johannes. „Nochmals zu den ‚schwachen und unfähigen Elementen‘ (Gal. 4.9): Paulus, Philo und die στοιχεῑα τοῦ κόσμου“. NTS 54 (2008): 221–234. Wright, N. T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. COQG 4. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013.

An Interpretation of Rom 3:21–26 within Its Proper Context Jack Khalil A sereious investigation of Rom 3:21–26 must necessarily take into account everything that precedes it in Rom 3; this is because vv. 1–20 provide the impetus for the apostle Paul’s exposition of justification by faith in vv. 21–26. For this reason, it is necessary to start from the beginning of the third chapter so that we can explore the deeper meaning of the concept of justification, which is treated mainly in vv. 21–26. In Rom 3 the apostle follows a train of thought that reaches its apex in v. 26. The chapter is divided into four pericopes: 1–8, 9–20, 21–26, and 27–31. The first segment contains the objection of the Jews to Paul’s position as well as the apostle’s brief responses to this objection. The second and third segments contain the apostle’s more detailed response. The fourth segment contains the conclusions that the apostle derives from his argument. As I will demonstrate below, these units are closely related, such that the teaching and affirmations contained in 3:21–26 cannot be understood without taking into account the preceding thoughts.

1. Romans 3:1–8: The Jew’s Objections to Paul’s Positions on the Judgment of God In this chapter, the apostle continues using the diatribe style by listing objections that a Jew or Torah-observant Christian would likely raise against the positions laid out in the previous chapter. The apostle responds to these objections with brief arguments. We thus find a plethora of rhetorical questions, sometimes representing the Jew’s objections and sometimes the apostle’s responses. 1.1. Condemnation and Privileges The first question (3:1) is put into the mouth of a Jewish opponent who inquires into the distinctive role of the people of God and the importance of the covenantal sign of circumcision. This is a reasonable question to raise this question

202

Jack Khalil

after the Paul’s attack on the privileges of the Jews (2:17–29) and his claim that Jews and Gentiles are equal at the final judgment (2:6–13). The reference to Jews’ special place, as well as to circumcision (3:1), hints at God’s commitment – in accordance with the covenant on Sinai – to always intervene for the salvation of Israel. If, then, the Jew will be punished to the same extent as the Gentile, he may object – as we are led to infer in 3:3 – that God is being “unfaithful” to the covenant with His people (cf. Deut 7:9). In other words, considering the privileges enjoyed by Israel, which are many1 (see Rom 9:4–5), the interlocutor may think that God is obligated not to punish him. It is, therefore, natural to pose the first question in his argumentation: “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?” (3:1). Vv. 2–4 give the answer to the reasoning implied in the question of v. 1. The apostle formulates the answer through an effective rhetorical play on words (v. 2: ἐπιστεύθησαν; v. 3: ἠπίστησαν, ἀπιστία, πίστιν τοῦ Θεοῦ).2 It is clear that here “πίστις” refers to the keeping of the terms of the covenant,3 both by God and by the Jews. Paul certainly agrees that the Jews possess something more (v. 2). However, this in no way means that he is retracting his earlier statements.4 Rather, in his response, Paul points out the advantage of the Jews to highlight their additional responsibility rather that their inalienable privileges and assured salvation. Paul, therefore, assents to the divine initiative of the covenant, yet at the same time he underlines that the circumcised must be faithful to the covenant to maintain it5. The advantage of the Jews is that they “were entrusted with the words of God”. In this response, the stress is laid on the verb ἐπιστεύθησαν in order to again emphasise the issue of the Jews’ responsibility.

1 Panagiotis Trempelas, Ὑπόμνημα εἰς τὰς ἐπιστολὰς τῆς Καινῆς Διαθήκης, (2 vols. Athens: Ὁ Σωτήρ, 1978), 60, notes: “Perhaps he intended to enumerate the privileges, but was halted by the flow of the argument.” 2 Otto Kuss, Der Römerbrief - Röm. 1,1–6:11 (Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1957), 100. 3 Hans Lietzmann, An die Römer, HNT 8 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971), 45, rightly remarks that, in this passage, faith in the gospel is beside the point (contra Kuss, Der Römerbrief, 101). 4 See 2:25.28–29. 5 Paul is stressing what Ed P. Sanders called “covenantal nomism” [Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 75, 236, 420, 544]. In Rom 9 Paul will reject the inheritance of the promises by birth, see my article, “Translating Rom 9:7a: For an Accurate Understanding of a Difficult Verse”, in The Letter to the Romans, ed. Udo Schnelle, BETL 221 (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 691–697.

Rom 3:21–26 within Its Proper Context

203

Some scholars6 argue that the apostle’s7 question in v. 3 is as follows: If some of Israel are unfaithful to God’s covenant, does that mean that God no longer has to be faithful to it? According to this argument, μὴ γένοιτο in v. 4 rejects this possibility, leading to the conclusion that God would never forget His covenant; rather, God will always intercede to save Israel, regardless of its unfaithfulness. The problem with this interpretation, however, is that the apostle has combated precisely this line of thinking in the previous pericope; how, therefore, could he now support it? Such an understanding leads to serious difficulties in interpreting the passage8 and creates contradictions,9 which stem not from the apostle, but rather from these scholars of the “Old Perspective”. V. 3 and the exclamation “By no means!” that is directly related to it should, logically, support the apostle Paul’s statements. The question in 3:3 is completely rhetorical, in the sense that it does not represent one of the Jew’s hypothetical objections.10 Rather, in accordance with the genre of the diatribe,11 it is directed by the apostle Paul to his interlocutor in such a way as to predispose a negative response,12 thereby introducing his argument in response to the objection raised in v. 1. In any event, the following four facts make clear that it is the apostle who is raising this question: 1) the question “What for?” [τί γάρ;], which belongs to the apostle’s argument; 2) the verb “nullify” [καταργῶ], one of the apostle’s most frequently used words, occurring twenty-five times in his corpus while only two times in the rest of the NT; 3) in this verse, the question is not simply: “will God now revoke the single-plan-through-Israel-for-the6 See indicatively: Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 1–5), EKK 6–2 (Zürich: Benzinger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 164; Ηeinrich Schlier, Der Römerbrief, HThKNT 6 (Freiburg im Breisgau; Rome: Herder, 1977), 92–93; Kuss, Der Römerbrief, 100; James D. G. Dunn, “New Perspective View”, in Justification: Five Views, ed. James K. Bailey and Paul R. Eddy (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 182Fn24. 7 Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, KEK 4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 136, regards v. 3 as one of the Jew’s hypothetical objections. 8 Lietzmann, An die Römer, 45, misinterprets the apostle’s response, positing that the apostle, in his attempt to refute the Jew’s objections, strays from the topic, thus creating difficulties for the reader. In Lietzmann’s view, 3:2 contradicts 2:28–29. 9 Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 1–5), 163, identifies a problem and certain contradictions in Paul’s statements and believes that chapters 9–11 are an attempt to reinterpret the issue. 10 Contra Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 136. Michel, arguing that v. 2 alone constitutes the response to the first objection, finds it brief and unsatisfactory because, in his view, 3:2 represents the first reference to the treatment in Rom 9:4–18. 11 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, AB 33 (Garden City, NY; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 325, correctly points out that the apostle keeps control of the debate and, just like the ancient teachers who used the style of the diatribe, directs the discussion with his Jewish interlocutor. 12 The response begins in v. 3 because in this verse, in which we find the third person plural, the formulation of the question with the particle μή means that it expects a reasonable, negative response.

204

Jack Khalil

world?”13, which is out of context. The question is whether the result of faithlessness, that is condemnation, nullifies the fact that God is just and faithful to His word; 4) the proposed meaning of the verse in the context of the passage favours this reading, inasmuch as it appears as an integrated whole without any problems or contradictions. As v. 1 hints that God is obligated to save Israel, the apostle, in his rhetorical question in v. 3, condemns any attempt to doubt God’s faithfulness to His word. The Jews have only themselves to blame for their future condemnation. This is, moreover, emphasised quite explicitly from the outset regarding God’s covenant with Israel. By sinning, Jews14 ended up being unfaithful to the covenant15 with God (see Ex 19:5) because they violated His law (Lev 26:14) and thus “shattered” God’s covenant (Lev 26:15, also Ps 106:11LXX: “For they rebelled against the teachings of God”).16 According to the terms of the covenant, their sinfulness warranted God’s anger and terrible punishment17 (Lev 26:16–46). The people of God had been informed from the outset that God would fiercely punish them “seven times more” for their sins (Lev 26:24, also vv. 18 and 28) if they were disobedient, did not practice His ordinances, and did not keep His commandments18 (Lev 26:14–15), because in this way they would break His covenant (Lev 26:15), and thus make themselves enemies of God.19

N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 198. 14 As to the meaning of the pronoun τινὲς in v. 3, grammatically, when it comes after εἰ (as well as ἐάν), as it does in v. 3, it is often used instead of a name, which one thereby avoids mentioning. There are many similar cases from ancient literature: Xenophon, Anab., 1.4,12; See Xenophon, Mem. 3.1.2.62; Theocritus, Id., 5.122; Aristophanes, Ranae, 552, etc. In this verse, τινὲς replaces “the Jews”, i.e. the subject of the verbs ἐπιστεύθησαν and ἠπίστησαν. Therefore, it should not be translated in the sense of “some”. 15 The phrase τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ corresponds to the phrase διαθήκη τοῦ Θεοῦ in the LXX (Deut 33:9), as has been rightly noted by Peter Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus, FRLANT 87 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 85. 16 English translations of the LXX are taken from the Orthodox Study Bible. 17 In Rom 2:17–29 Paul showed the Jew that he dishonors God by transgressing the law (2:23). His circumcision, therefore, the sign of the covenant, loses its meaning (2:25) and cannot save him from the righteous judgment of God, according to which wrath awaits all workers of iniquity (2:8), both Jews and Greeks (2:9). 18 The single most important criterion for distinguishing the Jew is doing God’s will. This is emphasised in Rom 2:26–27. In 3:3, the condemnable unfaithfulness to God’s will is clearly connected to the Jew’s sinful condition, which was described above in 2:21–29, especially 2:27, where transgression of the law is condemnable. Peter Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes, 85 rightly refers to Pss 18:8–15LXX and 106:11LXX to demonstrate the relationship between 3:2–3 and 2:26. 19 Dimitrios Kaimakis, Η ημέρα Κυρίου στους προφήτες της Παλαιάς Διαθήκης (Thessaloniki: Uniprint Hellas, 1991), 98. 13

Rom 3:21–26 within Its Proper Context

205

Assuming that his Jewish interlocutor would know that God is faithful and keeps His covenant with those who keep His commandments (Deut 7:9), the apostle, with this rhetorical question in 3:3, dismisses the conviction that God would be unfaithful to His covenant by punishing the erring people. The question of 3:3, therefore, is: “What then? If the Jews20 did not remain faithful to God’s covenant [if they were justly punished due to their unfaithfulness],21 is God’s ‘faithfulness’ nullified?” The exclamation “By no means!” is the most appropriate response to such a line of thought. The apostle’s response continues in v. 4, in which he refers both directly and indirectly to the Psalms (Ps 115:2LXX) in order to demonstrate that every person is a liar because no one has kept the terms of the covenant (Rom 2:21–24); God, on the other hand, is “true” to the covenant because He acts justly when He condemns offenses. The characterisation of God as “true” in this passage is noteworthy. In the OT, references to God as “true” (translating the Hebrew word ‫ )אמת‬are entirely synonymous with the adjectives “faithful”22 and “just” (see, e.g., Deut 32:4, Dan 3:27, Wis 12:27). It should also be noted that the majority of the uses of the adjective “true” – which, again, corresponds to the Hebrew word ‫– אמת‬ refer directly or indirectly to God’s “judgments”, which is to say that the adjective “true”, when connected with God, is almost always associated with His judgment, giving the sense that God’s judgment is just and reliable (Ps 18:10LXX). Moreover, the Hebrew word ‫אמת‬,23 which is usually rendered in the LXX as ἀλήθεια (87 times), ἀληθινός (12 times), ἀληθής, ἀληθῶς, or ἀληθεύειν, is also rendered by the word δικαιοσύνη (Gen 24:49, Josh 24:14, Isa 38:19, 39:8, Dan 8:12, 9:13); it is also translated four times as δίκαιος.24 Thus, for Paul, the word ἀλήθεια is the inverse of ἀδικία (Rom 1:18; 2:8; 1 Cor 13:6) and is usually associated with δικαιοσύνη (Eph 4:24; 5:9; 6:14).25 That is why the apostle then quotes the second half of v. 6 from Ps 50LXX, to emphasise that God, if He were ever judged for His actions, would always be found just in “His judgments”. In this way, vv. 3–4 buttress the apostle’s previous assertions See n. 14. We must not forget that these objections emerged from Paul’s detailed exposition of the subject of divine judgment, and that v. 4 defends the righteousness of God’s judgments (see the explanation below of v. 4). For this reason, while the phrase is elliptical in this verse, it can nevertheless be understood from the context. 22 In the OT, the adjective “faithful” [πιστός] is synonymous with the adjectives “just” [δίκαιος] and “true” [ἀληθής]; it is thus clear that the subject, from the beginning of the pericope, is the just judgment of God or, to be more precise, the righteousness of God. 23 The rabbinic use of ‫ אמת‬remains substantially in line with ΟΤ usage; Gerhard Kittel, “‫אמת‬ im rabbinischen Judentum”, ThWNT 1:237. 24 See G. Quell, “Der at.liche Begriff ‫”אמת‬, ThWNT 1:233. Quell rejects the idea of rendering the word ‫ אמת‬with the sense of “Treue”, i.e., fidelity or trust (233Fn2). 25 See Rudolf Bultmann, “ἀλήθεια”, ThWNT 1:242–248. 20 21

206

Jack Khalil

that Israel’s condemnation is just and in no way nullifies God’s righteousness and faithfulness to His promises. We thus come to see that a correct understanding of vv. 3–4 resolves the unfair accusation that the apostle’s statements are contradictory while at the same time avoids hermeneutical difficulties. If, as Wilkens maintains,26 the exclamation “By no means!” (v. 4) shows that Paul and his Jewish interlocutor are in agreement, then the apostle would not have needed to continue addressing the Jewish objections in 3:5, 7. Hermeneutical difficulties arise when v. 3 is interpreted as follows: The interlocutor poses this question (or Paul formulates the question) in order to make the point that the sins of some Jews would not make God renege on His word. To this the apostle answers, “By no means!”. This is the interpretation of Fitzmyer27, Käsemann28, Wilkens29, etc. However, because the objections continue, such an interpretation cannot be correct. Additionally, the question in v. 9 shows that the issue of the Jews’ unique privileges at the final judgment has not yet been resolved. 1.2. Sin and Divine Justice We move now to 3:5. Of course, the interlocutor, who is quite familiar with the terms of the Sinaitic covenant, cannot refute the apostle’s argument. However, instead of stopping at this point, he delivers his second objection, drawing his argument from the same verse used by Paul, Ps 50:6LXX, but alluding to the entirety of v. 6, hoping to undermine the apostle’s previous interpretation. From the context of Ps 50:6LXX: “Against You only have I sinned and done evil in Your sight; that You may be justified in Your words, and overcome when You are judged”, the Jew or the Christian Judaiser draws an erroneous conclusion (Rom 3:5, 7), again in order to argue that it is impossible for God to condemn him. The second objection, which is expressed by means of two rhetorical questions (vv. 3:5, 7), is of paramount significance for the development of the argument, which continues until the end of the third chapter. The interlocutor claims that God would be “unjust” if He judged his sinfulness and punished him because he has concluded erroneously from Ps 50:6 that it is precisely this

Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 1–5), 164. Fitzmyer, Romans, 327. 28 Ernst Käsemann, An die Römer, HNT 8a (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980), 75. 29 Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 1–5), 164. 26 27

Rom 3:21–26 within Its Proper Context

207

sinfulness that causes the righteousness of God30 to become manifest (v. 3:5).31 The objection, therefore, contains – as we will see from the following – two theses which the apostle rejects: 1) that sin reveals the righteousness of God,32 and 2) that God is unjust if he condemns the sinful Jew. This objection seems to seriously vex the apostle, who does not hide his disdain when he refers to it (“I speak in a human way. By no means!”, vv. 5–6); for Paul, it defies logic and constitutes nothing less than blasphemy for someone who has a fear of God and respects the truth of the Holy Scriptures. This objection thus leads into a conversation about the relationship between sin and righteousness, which remains in the background of the apostle’s train of thought until v. 26. In v. 6, Paul gives his response to only the second aspect of the Jew’s objection (that God is unjust if he condemns the sinful Jew); the apostle rejects the categorisation of God as unjust, “For then how could God judge the world?” The apostle thus invokes a truth that not even the Jew could deny. As the Jew’s objection in v. 5 was only half-addressed, the apostle reformulates it in v. 7; this time, however, he refines the objection (that sin reveals the righteousness of God) by removing the provocative categorisation of God as “unjust”. This can be observed in the subtle way in which the apostle alters the formulation. The objections in vv. 5 and 7 begin with the same thought (the phrase in v. 5: “But if our wickedness serves to show the justice of God” corresponds with v. 7: “But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to His glory”33), According to the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers, cf. Chrysostom, Hom. Rom. 6.5 (PG 60:438), as well as the majority of modern commentators (cf. Fitzmyer, Romans, 329), in the phrase δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in 3:5, the genitive is subjective and indicates a personal attribute of God. The meaning of the phrase clearly correlates with the antonym ἄδικος, which occurs in the same verse. We have to do, then, with the judgment of God, as confirmed by v. 6, which follows immediately after. Additionally, the alternation between the phrases δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ (3:5), ἀλήθεια τοῦ Θεοῦ and δόξα Θεοῦ (v. 7) prove beyond doubt that the apostle is referring to an attribute of God [cf. Fitzmyer, Romans, 329, contra Käsemann, An die Römer, 79; Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus, 86; Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 95; Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 1–5), 165–166]. Käsemann’s insistence (An die Römer, 77–79) that Paul’s teaching on justification is the subject of the second objection in vv. 5–7 is not supported by the context. Käsemann, An die Römer, 78 does not explain how the issue of the justification of the impious from Ps 50:6LXX came about, nor how Paul’s opponents “understood” it. The truth is that Paul had not yet broached the topic of man’s justification, and therefore there was nothing yet to object to, nor an objection to refute. 31 Regarding the true significance of Ps 50:6LXX, Theodoret, Int. Rom. (PG 82:77) correctly observes that: “The word ὅπως denotes not the reason, but the result; for we do not therefore sin in order that we may set forth the loving-kindness of God.” Cf. Chrysostom, Hom. Rom. 6.5 (PG 60:438–39). 32 Trembelas, Ὑπόμνημα, 62, completely ignores the blasphemy in this thought and emphasises only the second rejected thought without noticing any mistake in the first place. 33 The similarity in terminology between vv. 7 and 4 is noteworthy. The “truth” in v. 7 refers again to righteousness as an attribute of God, while “falsehood” means unfaithfulness and injustice. 30

208

Jack Khalil

but the formulation in v. 7 relates to the sinner who is set to be judged (“why am I still being condemned as a sinner?”), while v. 5 refers to God and the wrath of an “unjust” God (“What shall we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us?”). Paul, however, not only rejects as blasphemous the categorisation of God as “unjust”, but he also dismisses the notion that the sinner’s sinfulness and falsehood cause the righteousness and truth of God to become manifest.34 This is why I consider Wilkens35 to be completely mistaken in his contention that, with his objection in v. 5, the Jew unintentionally agrees with the apostle’s argument. Wilkens claims that in reality Paul simply recapitulates the Jew’s statements on righteousness, viz. that the soteriological intent of mankind’s sinfulness is the manifestation of God’s righteousness. Below, I will demonstrate that this is precisely the line of reasoning that the apostle is combatting. If we take into account the above, it is precisely these two theses – that God would be unjust if He visited His wrath upon the sinner, and that the sinner’s sinfulness reveals the righteousness of God – that constitute the basis for understanding 3:5–8, as well as the apostle’s subsequent argumentation (3:9– 26). In order to refute the second and third objections, as well as the first,36 the apostle unfolds a theological argument in which 3:21–26 serves as the chapter’s soteriological apex. The apostle’s first reaction (v. 8) is to mock the logic of the last objection. He points out that with such reasoning – viz. that the Jews should not be condemned for their sin because, through their sins, God manifests His righteousness and proves Himself faithful to His covenant – the interlocutor ends up supporting precisely the kind of antinomianism of which Jews and Judaising Christians unfairly accused the apostle (see also 6:1).37 According to the logic of the objections we must commit evil, not only because we will not be punished for it, but in order to bring about good. To these Jews and Judaising Christians who have slandered the apostle by claiming that he teaches that sin would not be judged but on the contrary has contributed to man’s good, Paul

Cf. Photius, “Fragmenta in epistulam ad Romanos”, in Pauluskommentar aus der griechischen Kirche aus Katenenhandschriften gesammelt, ed. Karl Staab, NTAbh 15 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1993), 485–486; Chrysostom, Hom. Rom. 6.5 (PG 60:438–39). 35 Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 1–5), 165. 36 The second and third objections, which are essentially one thought, converge conceptually with the first objection toward the same end: if God condemns the sinful Jew, as the apostle stated previously, He will therefore be unjust and unfaithful. 37 William Campbell, “Romans iii as a Key to the Structure and Thought of the Letter”, NT 23 (1981): 36, unjustly identifies antinomian Gentile Christians as those (3:8) who say that Paul recommended doing wrong in order for good to come about [read the critique by Issac J. Canales, “Paul’s Accusers in Romans 3:8 and 6:1”, EvQ 57 (1985): 239–245]. 34

Rom 3:21–26 within Its Proper Context

209

avers that their “condemnation” will be “deserved”.38 What is remarkable here is how the apostle deftly reintroduces the issue at hand in the pericope, viz. that their “condemnation” (το κρίμα) will be ἔνδικον and not unjust or untrue, as the interlocutor has been trying to prove. In this way, Paul formulates a quick and clever ironic retort to the logic of the objections. However, precisely because the righteousness of God is being impugned, the apostle cannot refrain from responding properly to the allegations.39 As he is wont to do throughout his epistles, the apostle takes this misconception as an opportunity to expound the relevant accurate teaching.40 Thus, the Jew’s objections provide the impetus for the apostle Paul to develop his thoughts regarding the righteousness of God.

2. Romans 3:9–20: The Deplorable State of the Jews Because of Sin 2.1. Understanding Rom 3:9–26 as the Apostle Paul’s Response to the Objections of the Jew Many commentators accept that Romans 3:8 represents the end of the apostle’s response to the last two objections.41 Some do not even consider v. 8 to be an attempted response.42 This understanding is, of course, quite old, and can be traced back to Augustine, who considered this passage, along with Rom 3:28 and 5:20, to be obscure, claiming that they were not understood even in the apostolic era.43 However, the logic of Rom 3 becomes clear when we take all of 3:9–26 to be the apostle’s response to the three aspects of the Jew’s objections, which are: 1) the Jew enjoys advantages that distinguish him from the Gentiles; 2) sin causes the righteousness of God to become manifest;44 3) God would be unjust if He condemned the sinful Jew. 38 Kuss’s view in Der Römerbrief, 104: “Der nicht ungefährliche Einwand wird ohne Begründung mit einem Fluche zurückgewiesen…” demonstrates an incorrect understanding of the arguments. Contra Trembelas, Ὑπόμνημα, 62: “If a critic wants to cast doubt on the epistle’s importance, what argument can he bring forth here? This just goes to show how insignificant these kinds of arguments are.” 39 Contra Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 140. 40 E.g. Romans 2:6–11 supports the statement in 2:3–5; Romans 6 represents Paul’s answer to the statement in 6:1; Romans 9:15–29 functions as a response to the objection in 9:14, etc. 41 Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 140; Kuss, Der Römerbrief, 104; Κäsemann, An die Römer, 79; Fitzmyer, Romans, 330; Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 97. 42 Kuss, Der Römerbrief, 104, considers v. 8 a curse, a view with which Käsemann, An die Römer, 79, concurs. Fitzmyer, Romans, 330, ascribes no importance to the verse. 43 Augustine, Fid. op. 13.21 (CSEL 41:61–62). 44 Trembelas, Ὑπόμνημα, 62, completely overlooks the blasphemy in this second proposition and identifies only the rejected third thesis as blasphemy.

210

Jack Khalil

Because the objections have to do with the relationship between sin and righteousness, which is connected with man’s relationship with God, the apostle’s response revolves around these two axes: First, he discusses that which relates to the deeds of all human beings (3:9–20), including the Jews. He then presents the salvific work of God (3:21–26), to which all have equal access providing they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (3:22, 26). He thus concludes with the correct understanding that should govern man’s relationship with God (3:27–31). 2.2. The Jews and the Gentiles Αre Equally “Under the Power of Sin” The pericope 3:9–20 elaborates the apostle’s response to the first aspect of the objections, which pertains to the Jew’s advantages which supposedly preserve him from being condemned with the rest of the sinful world. The Jew had repeatedly tried in different ways to emphasise that he is not deserving of God’s condemnation. In his response, Paul shows him that, in reality, those under the law have no defense, but rather find themselves in the same position as the rest of the world, which means that they are all “held accountable to God” (3:19). V. 9 returns to the issue raised in v. 1. The same question that was introduced in v. 1 with “Then what…” is reformulated here – this time by Paul – , beginning again with the same phrase “Then what?”45 The second question that immediately follows, “Are we [Jews] any better off?” [προεχόμεθα;], is directed to the Jew who asked about the “advantage of the Jew” and the “value of circumcision”. Regarding the verb προεχόμεθα46, both the fathers of the church47 and the majority of modern commentators understand the verb as middle voice with active meaning,48 which accords with the context as well as Paul’s overall

Vasilios G. Tsakonas, Υπόμνημα εις την προς Ρωμαίους Επιστολήν του Αποστόλου Παύλου (Ρωμ 1:1–3:20) (Αθήναι, 1986), 177–8, rightly notes the following: “The expression [τί οὖν;] is not connected with προεχόμεθα because: 1) the question’s premise is affirmed after the expression; and 2) if it were connected with προεχόμεθα, the response would have to be οὐδὲν πάντως rather than οὐ πάντως as it stands in the text, and which all scholars accept. This kind of expressions appears frequently in the Pauline corpus (Rom 6:15; 11:7) as well as in classical writers as a stand-alone phrase and not as the beginning of a question, such as we see in Rom 3:1; 4:1; 6:1; 7:1; 8:31; 9:14, 30.” 46 The reading προεχόμεθα; oὐ πάντως is accepted by all commentators because it is the oldest and is witnessed to in the most important manuscripts. 47 The variant προκατέχομεν περισσόν (D*, G, Ψ, 104, it, syr, Origen, Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, Pelagius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, κατέχομεν 2495) captures the right spirit and is probably a later correction of a difficult reading. 48 If we take the verb as middle voice and read it according to the most widespread classical meaning of προφασίζομαι [I plead as an excuse], it requires a direct object, which is lacking in this particular passage; Tsakonas, Υπόμνημα, 178. 45

Rom 3:21–26 within Its Proper Context

211

thought.49 The Vulgate also agrees on this point, translating it as praecellimus eos. While the apostle agreed earlier that the Jew has something more – highlighting, in particular, the responsibility he bears because he has been entrusted with God’s words (3:2) – at this point the apostle, repeating his position on the condemnable acts of the Jews (2:17–29), answers the question of whether the Jews are “better off” with a decisive οὐ πάντως [“No, not at all”]. However, the answer οὐ πάντως is not entirely clear; one interpretation posits that the expression should be understood as “No, not entirely”, meaning that while the Jews do possess an advantage, they do not differ from the Gentiles with respect to sinfulness.50 Another interpretation reads οὐ πάντως in light of 1 Cor 5:10, where it clearly means “surely not” or “not at all”.51 This second interpretation seems to agree more with St. Paul’s overall thought, as v. 9 assumes the categories from 2:17 et seq. in order to demonstrate (through the connecting word γάρ) that the Jews enjoy no privileges; both the Jews and the Gentiles are condemned for their sinfulness and warrant the same condemnation.52 Therefore, 3:9 should be interpreted as follows: We Jews are no better off, as “we just accused both the Jews and the Gentiles of being under the yoke of sin”. This accusation was previously levelled against both the Jews and the Gentiles in 1:18–2:28. At this point, therefore, Paul can dismiss any privilege the Jews may have, based on the fact that they were unfaithful to that which has been entrusted to them by God and were thus, just like the Gentiles, far from God and slaves to sin. Beginning in v. 9, the apostle moves to his description of man’s behaviour in his relationship with God. In this verse, he summarises this behaviour with the image of slavery to sin.53 The term “sin” is used here for the first time in the Epistle to the Romans. We have to do with a personification: man is subject to sin as a slave to a queen. We encounter this personification of sin in different books of the NT (e.g. John 8:34; 9:41; Heb 3:13; Jas 1:15; 2 Pet 2:14). As a well-known Jewish method of teaching and likely also a Hellenistic and Oriental way of thinking, this personification is characteristic of Paul’s thought.54 Of course, there can be no doubt that the depiction of the sinner as a slave to 49 Nevertheless, a few commentators (Sanday and Headlam, Fitzmyer) still prefer to read the verb as passive and to translate it as “Are we worse off than the Gentiles?”. 50 Cf. Lietzmann, Lagrange, Leenhardt, Michel, Dodd, Käsemann, Cranfield and Tsakonas. 51 This opinion is supported by Theophylact, Trembelas, Nygren, Sanday–Headlam, Barett, Wilckens and Tsakonas. 52 For a more detailed exposition: Tsakonas, Υπόμνημα, 179; Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 1–5), 172. 53 Cf. Gal 3:22; Rom 5:20–21; 6:6, 12, 14, 16–17, 23; 7:14; 8:2. 54 Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 142. Michel views the use of language in the manuscripts of Qumran (1QS) and the anthropology of the Book of Psalms (1QH) as similar cases.

212

Jack Khalil

sin is connected with the words of the Lord (John 8:34): “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin”. It is worth noting here the Aramaic pun; the verb ‫ עבד‬means both “to do, to work” as well as “to serve as a slave” and the noun form of ‫ עבד‬means “slave”.55 This etymological relationship leads us to understand the image of slavery to sin as the giving over of one’s body parts to sinful acts and subjection to carnal desires (see Rom 6:12– 13, 19). The next section (3:10–18), therefore, which outlines how man developed into a state “under the power of sin”, includes references to his sinful acts, while the details in the description clearly demonstrate that human beings enjoy committing sin without any fear of God. The pericope 3:10–18 contains a concatenation of verses from the Psalter, and these are obviously cited from a specific standpoint.56 The passages are consistent, in parts, with the Septuagint, while in other parts the Greek text has undergone some changes or abbreviations. A compiling of verses in this way was common in the rabbinic tradition.57 Here, the term δίκαιος, which corresponds to the beginning of the pericope (v. 10) but not to Ps 13:1–3LXX, is particularly important. In all likelihood, it represents a Pauline addition, as the phrase “None is righteous, no, not one” once again clearly emphasises the unrighteousness of all human beings (“every man is a liar”,58 v. 4), a position that the apostle returns to again in his polysemous concluding exegesis in vv. 19–20. What is emphasised, therefore, is the collective sinfulness of all human beings, such that (ἵνα, v. 19) one has no justification before the divine justice but rather must accept that all human beings “are held accountable” before God. The Jew is mistaken if he believes that he will escape condemnation because that which is written in the Holy Scriptures (vv. 10–18) applies particularly to the Jew (v. 19). Therefore, instead of objecting, the Jew would be better off remaining silent (“so that every mouth may be stopped”, v. 19), because neither the law nor any other privilege can save the Jew from condemnation. On the contrary, the law rendered the Jew accountable to God (19–20). It is in this light that we must read 3:10–18. This is why the apostle, citing Ps 142:2LXX, concludes that “no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law” (v. 20); inasmuch as “no one living shall become righteous in Your sight” (Ps 142:2LXX), the “works of the law” cannot alter this fundamental truth, as these works are dependent on human behavior, which is completely sinful. Up to this point, the apostle has focused on refuting the first thesis of the Jew’s objections; he has clarified, analytically, how the Jews, “those who are Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 142Fn3. Ibid., 142. 57 Ibid., 143. 58 A “liar” [ψεύστης] is the opposite of true and truthful [αληθής, αληθινός], which means “just”. 55 56

Rom 3:21–26 within Its Proper Context

213

under the law” (3:19), are in fact not better off, because – due to their sinfulness – they are not exempt from the divine condemnation of the sinful world; rather, they find themselves on equal footing with the sinners among the nations, guilty and “held accountable to God” (3:19). At the same time, the apostle has partly rejected the third thesis of the objections contained in 3:1–8, namely that God would be “unjust” if he condemned the sinful Jew. Here, St. Paul clearly demonstrated that, according to the law, the Jew is “unjust” or “unrighteous” (vv. 10, 20) and “held accountable to God” (3:19). Indeed, in many places, 3:9–20 is part of the apostle’s attempt to defend the righteousness of God. The two phrases “that every mouth may be stopped” and “held accountable to God” are clearly forensic.59 On the one hand, “the phrase ‘that every mouth may be stopped’ conjures up the image of a guilty man trying to defend himself in a court of law but unable to do so because of the burden of guilt. He thus awaits the impending guilty verdict from God”60. On the other hand, the phrase “held accountable” [ὑπόδικος] corresponds to “condemned” [κατάκριτος], indicating the state in which the guilty man finds himself.61 Paul uses the forensic images in this section, together with similar terms that preceded it, in order to demonstrate the Jew’s guilt – and, more generally, the guilt of all human beings – so that the Jew would cease accusing God of being “unjust” in His judgment. Let us not forget here the impetus for the objections in 3:1–8; the apostle had referred to the Jew being judged on equal footing with the Gentile. The Jew consequently objected, citing Israel’s privileges and the advantage of circumcision; he carried his argument so far as to label God “unfair”. Paul’s goal, therefore, in the first part of his analytical response, was to bolster his previous statements regarding the Jew’s condemnation with proof of his guilt, demonstrating his actual state as one “held accountable” to a righteous God. As 3:9 makes clear, the great problem facing the Jews and the Gentiles is sin. Sin brought about man’s pitiful state, making human beings “accountable”. Sin led man to an impasse, deprived of any aid. Sin, as we conclude from Paul’s exegesis, is what deprived the Jews of their privileges, the promise, and the blessings; in fact, instead of these, sin made the Jews, as it did with the Gentiles, worthy of divine wrath and terrible punishment.62 The sinful dispositions (Rom 3:12–18) displayed by both the Jews and the Gentiles distanced them from God (3:11b, 18) and led to the loss of their state of righteousness before God and His law (3:10). The Jews’ last hope for righteousness, that is the law, is of no use, because it is unable to justify man (Rom 3:20; 8:3–4; Gal. 2:16, 21). The law, after all, does not justify man from sin, but rather man, through Tsakonas, Υπόμνημα, 187. Ibid. 61 Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 144Fn6. 62 Lev 26:14–46. 59 60

214

Jack Khalil

the law, is made aware of sin (Rom 3:20). Note that 3:20 refers essentially to the relationship between the law and sin; in the context, therefore, of this passage, as well as Paul’s parallel passages, it becomes clear that justification, which the law was unable to accomplish, is justification from sin. In other words, although the verb δικαιωθήσεται [“be justified”] is intransitive, it obviously correlates with sin (see, e.g., Rom 6:7). This understanding of justification as acquittal and release from sin is reasonable because sin was the main subject of 3:9–20. The apostle does not explain why the law is unable to justify man from sin in 3:19–20, because in this particular pericope he is simply trying to show the sinful, deplorable state of the Jews. In ch. 7, Paul attempts to clarify the cause of the Law’s inability, which he summarises afterwards in Rom 8:3 with the phrase διὰ τῆς σαρκός [“by the flesh”].63 Nevertheless, 3:20 provides us with an indirect allusion to the root of the Law’s inability with the phrase πᾶσα σάρξ, which “Paul substituted for the Psalm’s πᾶς ζῶν”64 (see also Gal 2:16). These brief prefatory references to issues that would be developed in more detail later in the epistle65 can only be explained as part of the apostle’s attempt to prevent the Jew from resorting to the law in his effort to refute Paul’s statements concerning the condemnation of all sinners, without distinction. With this reference to the Law’s inability, Paul concludes his exegesis regarding man’s behaviour, demonstrating that human beings’ actions are sinful and therefore deserving of punishment; the law proved unable to play a role more significant than that of a witness to man’s sinfulness. One nuance in this verse needs to be taken into account; namely, that Paul’s polemic against “the works of the law” in Rom 3:20 is neither trying to prove that “to require works of the law in addition to faith was to subvert the gospel of justification by faith alone”, nor is it rejecting works which “might seem to give ground for boasting”, as Dunn had suggested. Moreover, it is not enough to consider that in this verse Paul “clearly means to ensure that his fellow Jews recognise that they specifically are not exempt”. Paul here, is indeed addressing the Jews, trying to persuade them that they cannot gain, or even maintain, righteousness through the law. With his exposé of man’s sinfulness, the apostle explained sin’s real effect. Sin does not reveal God to be just and abound to God’s glory, as the interlocutor had maintained; rather, sin contributes only to the sinner’s condemnation, whether he be Jew or Gentile, inasmuch as the equality of all human beings is a presupposition of God’s righteous judgment (Rom 2:5, 9– 11). 63 I have extensively investigated this issue in my book, Δικαίωση–Καταλλαγή–Τελική Κρίση, BB 30 (Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 2004), 281–289. 64 Tsakonas, Υπόμνημα, 188. 65 Rom 6:19; 7:5, 14, 18, 25; 8:3–9.

Rom 3:21–26 within Its Proper Context

215

3. Romans 3:21–26: “The Righteousness of God Has Been Manifested” After describing the desperate situation in which every sinful man finds himself, Paul announces the good news revealed in the gospel (3:21–26), which proclaims the incarnation, passion, death, and resurrection of Christ. The gospel discloses that which until then had been “impossible”66 but which was now happening through the power of God – viz., man’s justification. In 3:21–26, Paul explicates the soteriological significance of the gospel that he preaches (Rom 1:16–17). 3.1. The Borders of the Pericope From the beginning of Rom 3 there emerges a polemic style that gradually increases through the announcement of the gospel message.67 Now, however, the style is embellished with a strong sense of boasting,68 which is characteristic of the apostle when he discusses the Savior’s death on the cross69 (Rom 5:11; Gal 6:14; also Rom 15:16–17; 1 Cor 1:30–31; 2 Cor 10:16–17; Phil 3:3). Here lies the crux of the Epistle to the Romans. Everything that follows belongs to the exegesis of this core message. The pericope Rom 3:21–26 is connected with the preceding inasmuch as it is the culmination of the apostle’s response. Thematically, however, it is distinct from the previous pericope (Rom 3:9–20); the first pericope referred to the work of man while the second, to be considered in what follows, proclaims the work of God.70 This pericope (3:21–26), although it is closely connected with the following vv. 27–31, stands out regarding content and style.71 Romans 3:21–26 is a firm declarative statement with a polemic style, boasting about the salvific Economy of God and the power that proceeds from faith in Christ and zeal for the truth; in this sense, it is a fitting culmination of Paul’s thought as expounded in his response to the Jew’s objections. The spirit contained in this particular See my comments later on Rom 8:3. In 3:1–20, the reader senses the escalating polemic. The tension is particularly evident in 3:19–20, which precedes 3:21–25 (note the harsh phrases: “so that every mouth may be stopped”, “rather, through the law comes knowledge of sin”). 68 The fact that the apostle, immediately after 3:21–26, characteristically remarks: “Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded” (3:27), referring to the vanity of man’s boasting about his works, reflects the sense of boasting “in the Lord” which filled Paul’s soul when he spoke about Christ’s salvific death on the Cross. 69 In the first reference to the message of the Gospel, the apostle’s boasting is emphasised with the phrase “For I am not ashamed of the gospel” (Rom 1:16). 70 On this issue, it is worth noting further that the Nestle–Aland critical edition completely separates (wrongly) Rom 3:21–26 from the preceding by inserting two empty lines. 71 Cf. Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 102–103 and Fitzmyer, Romans, 341–342, who, however, see 3:21–31 as one unit with two parts. 66 67

216

Jack Khalil

pericope is communicated by means of the emphasis and repetition of certain terms, the frequent use of prepositions, and the limited use of verbs and adjectives.72 With regard to content, 3:21–26 explains the manifestation of the righteousness of God and the fact that man has access to it through faith. In this passage Paul also describes the salvation event, namely, the work of God, which is clearly indicated by the passivum divinum of the verb forms (πεφανέρωται, ὑστεροῦνται, δικαιούμενοι, and possibly also the derivative nouns ἀπολύτρωσις, ἔνδειξις), as well as the active verb forms that have God as the subject (προέθετο, δικαιοῦντα). With regard to 3:27–31, the stance taken begins from the preceding perspective of the gospel but comments on the implications of this perspective; justification “by faith” allows for no human boasting, for it was bestowed not as the result of labor, namely by keeping the “works of the law”, but rather of faith. As is clear from the alternating questions and answers, the apostle reverts here to argumentation in the style of the diatribe. He returns to his dialogue with the Jew and explains to him the implications of the divine work done “at the present time” [ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ]. 3.2. Introductory Analysis The pericope 3:21–26 reveals the following thought progression: v. 21a declares the manifestation of the righteousness of God – which represents the message of the gospel (1:17) – in relation to the law and the “works of the law”. The whole of Scripture (v. 21b), not just Habakkuk 2:4, testifies to this righteousness. The prerequisite of God’s righteousness is faith in Christ (3:22a; also 1:17), and everyone has access to the bounty of this righteousness, provided only that they show faith (3:22b). All have need of it because all have sinned (3:23), as demonstrated previously. Sinners who believe in Christ are justified freely by divine grace, an event understood as “redemption which is in Christ” (3:24). V. 25 explains how “justification/redemption” took place and what its purpose is. At the end, 3:26 asserts that justification is due only to the kindness and forbearance of God, Who manifested His righteousness anew. A consensus has formed to a great extent that Paul used an older tradition in vv. 3:24–2573 which he then elaborated in order to emphasise the points that buttressed his own views. Some restrict this hypothetical material to 3:25–

See also Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 102–103. This idea originated with Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 6th ed. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1968) 47, according to Käsemann, An die Römer, 86 [cf. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 1–5), 183 n. 490]. Those who adopt this view include: Ernst Käsemann, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen I. 4th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), 96–100; idem, An die Römer, 89–90, 92, 94; Günther Bornkamm, Das Ende des Gesetzes. Paulusstudien. Gesammelte Aufsätze I, BEvT 16 (München: Kaiser, 1966), 12Fn10. 72 73

Rom 3:21–26 within Its Proper Context

217

26a.74 Below we will examine the arguments that have led scholars to doubt the Pauline origin of these specific passages and compare them to an analysis of what I consider to be their true position in the structure of the apostle’s thought in the pericope as a whole. The latter has led me to conclude that they are authentically Pauline, given that these verses contribute substantially to understanding the concept of man’s justification according to Paul. It is worth noting here that, while some may point out that Rom 3:25 contains some terms (such as ἱλαστήριον) derived from the broader milieu of Christian tradition, this does not mean that the passage stands at odds with the pericope as a unit originating from Paul. Even if the apostle borrowed some liturgical expressions when composing the text, this means simply that he accepted their teaching and believed that they supported his position. In any event, there is almost universal acceptance among scholars that Paul did not interpret the mystery of Christ’s death in only one way; on the contrary, he used various terms and images to express it. The error lies in the assumption that Rom 3:25 was taken from a pre-Pauline Christian tradition that not only does not express Pauline thought but actually opposes the apostle’s theology at certain points, which is why, according to Bultmann75, the apostle attempts in 3:26 to correct any confusion that may have been caused by 3:25. 3.3. Justification “Apart from the Law” “But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been manifested” (3:21 NASB). This verse announces that the righteousness of God has indeed been manifested, but clearly emphasises the fact that it has been manifested without the law. Of course, the statement in v. 21 is related to the previous verses, particularly v. 20, which is clear from the syntax of the verse as well as from the juxtaposition of concepts. Paul asserts that the righteousness of God has been manifested “apart from the law”, having just stated that justification “by works of the law” is impossible. By saying that, he is not merely objecting

Klaus Wengst, Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums, StNT 7 (Gütersloh: Mohn , 1972), 82–86; Eduard Lohse, Märtyrer und Gottesknecht, FRLANT 64 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963), 149–154; Wolfgang Schrage, “Röm 3,21–26 und die Bedeutung des Todes Christi bei Paulus”, in Das Kreuz Jesu, ed. Paul Rieger, Forum 12, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), 77–78; Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 1–5), 183, among others. 75 Rudolf Bultmann, Exegetica. Aufsätze zur Erforschung des Neuen Testaments, ed. Erich Dinkler (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1967), 471. 74

218

Jack Khalil

to his people’s claim that only the people of the law are the recipients of righteousness76, nor is he rejecting the exclusiveness of righteousness by the law.77 Rather, the apostle has been attempting to dissuade the Jew from relying on the law to achieve righteousness (see also Gal 2:16). He has already demonstrated the sinfulness of all (vv. 18–20) and shown that the law has proven incapable of playing a more significant role than that of witnessing to man’s sinfulness. Whether this was a view held in Jewish tradition or not, it is obvious that for Paul righteousness and law are not “two closely correlative terms”.78 On the contrary, the expressions ἐξ ἔργων νόμου and πᾶσα σὰρξ in v. 20 refer to the human factor. It is, therefore, clear that the apostle is against a righteousness that is acquired on the basis of man’s abilities. This is why Paul emphasises in v. 21 that the righteousness of which he speaks is the righteousness of God, one which comes to pass “apart from the law”, without human achievement; instead, it is given freely through divine grace (v. 24). Actually, the phrase “apart from the law” will be explicated throughout ch. 4 by means of the example of Abraham who was justified by faith and not through the law (Rom 4:2, 9–10, 11, 12; especially 4:13, 14–16). Parallel statements to the expression “without the law” are to be found in Gal 3–5 (especially 3:11, 21–22, 25; 5:4, 6). Just as the role of the law consisted in witnessing to the sinfulness of human beings, with this point underlining the Law’s inability to redeem man from sin, in 3:21 the apostle notes that “the law and the prophets” also witness to justification from God. The law thus witnesses both to the deeds of man or, more specifically, his sinfulness, as well as to the deed of God, namely, justification. For the apostle, the expression “the law and the prophets” which bear witness to the “righteousness of God” is a reference to all the Holy Scriptures. It is not just the book of Habakkuk that affirms justification by faith (Rom 1:17; see also Hab 2:8) but rather the whole of the Scripture testifies to the righteousness of God by faith. It is misleading to interpret the witness of the Holy 76 Contra James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, WBC 38a (Nashville; London: Nelson, 1988), 166, who claims that “Paul has been objecting to … his own people’s assumption that Righteousness of God is coterminous with Israel, the people of the law, those marked out as members of the covenant recipients of righteousness.” See Athanasios Despotis, Die “New Perspective on Paul” und die griechisch-orthodoxe Paulusinterpretation, VIOTh 11 (Sankt Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 2014), 244–245. Dunn’s remark that “without the law then means outside the national and religious parameters set by the law, without reference to the normal Jewish hallmarks” is misleading. 77 Contra Despotis, New Perspective on Paul, 244–245. 78 Contra Dunn, Romans 1–8, cited in and approved by Charalambos Atmatzidis, Από την βιβλική έρευνα στην Πίστη της Εκκλησίας, Συνοπτική θεολογία της Καινής Διαθήκης, vol. 1, ΒΒ 48 (Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 2010), 366. Moreover, Atmatzidis states that the law after Christ ceases to be a source of God’s righteousness. Contrary to Atmatzidis, for Paul, the law never was such a source. On the contrary, the law held its adherents in captivity until faith would be revealed, until Christ would come and bring about justification by faith (see Gal 3:23–34).

Rom 3:21–26 within Its Proper Context

219

Scriptures only in terms of the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham and fail to think of the justification of Abraham himself by faith, a fact that was completed in the past (Gal 3:6, 18), as the best “example” to be found in the NT of God’s righteousness granted by faith.79 Abraham experienced personally the righteousness that would be given by faith to all the nations (Gal 3:8–9). Evidence of this understanding is furnished by the verb πεφανέρωται [has been manifested]. The verb φανερῶ excludes, first and foremost, the idea of novelty, because, as Chrysostom observed, that which has been manifested already existed, only hidden.80 In order to prove that justification by faith was always an essential element of God’s relationship with man and that the NT witnessed to this,81 the apostle shows that since the time of the patriarch Abraham (Rom 4) – in other words, from the beginning of the people’s history – faith has always been the only precondition for justification. He also refers to David the psalmist for the same purpose (Rom 4:6–9). This is why the apostle points out that Abraham and the righteous of the NT acquired justification by faith as was revealed later in the gospel, a paradoxical fact the apostle considers possible, because the content of the gospel is foreshadowed in the Holy Scriptures (Rom 1:2).82 Consequently, the righteousness that has now been revealed is the same as that testified to by the law and the prophets (Rom 3:21; Gal 3:8). Moreover, another decisive factor is the fact that the Son of God – who is the cause of righteousness – was pre-existent (see 1 Cor 10:4).83 The relationship between the preceding and 3:21–26 in general, but especially 3:21, becomes quite clear when we take into consideration the expression νυνὶ δὲ which introduces v. 21. It admits both the logical and temporal meanings. However, the logical sense of the expression becomes more likely84 when we consider the fact that it does not refer here to the status of Christians in the new reality in contradistinction to the previous reality, as is usually the case when the νυνὶ δὲ is understood in its temporal sense, but rather introduces the specific fact of man’s justification through Christ’s death. Moreover, the focus of the pericope is on the way in which man’s justification was accomplished, clearly setting it at odds with the misperceptions of the Jews and Judaising

Contra Wright, Justification, 98–100; Despotis, New Perspective, 245. Chrysostom, Hom. Rom. 7.2 (PG 60:443). 81 The participle μαρτυρουμένη is in the present tense, which indicates Paul’s belief that the OT will always have the role of witnessing to the salvific work of God, for it is there that we find the foreshadowing of the Gospel (Rom 1:2). The OT, therefore, within the history of salvation, corresponds to the stage of foreshadowing, an integral part of God’s salvific work, without which the Christ event would be incomprehensible. 82 Otfried Hofius, Paulusstudien, WUNT 51 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), 146Fn116. 83 Ibid. 84 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 164, approves this understanding. Contra Wright, Justification, 204. 79 80

220

Jack Khalil

Christians (“apart from the law … for all those who believe; for there is no distinction85 … as a gift”, vv. 21–24 NASB). 3.4. The Meaning of the Expression “Righteousness of God” The key to interpreting 3:21–26 lies in the expression “righteousness of God”; how should we understand this phrase, which we frequently encounter in the Epistle to the Romans? In the rest of the apostle’s letters, we see it only in 1 Cor 1:3086 and 2 Cor 5:21 (as well as 2 Cor 9:9, where it refers to Ps 111:9LXX), and even more rarely in the other books of the NT.87 The expression “righteousness of God” serves as a conceptual keystone in Romans, which of course makes its correct interpretation vitally important to understanding his thought as a whole. That Paul emphasises the genitive construction “of God” [Θεοῦ] is obvious throughout, but what it is not evident is what type of genitive this represents. What remains unclear is whether righteousness is understood as an attribute of God (subjective genitive) or whether the genitive signifies Christians’ righteousness vis-à-vis God in the following two cases: 1) whether it has its source in God (genitivus auctoris), and 2) whether it is applicable visà-vis God, namely, “relationis”.88 Chrysostom quite correctly interprets the expression one way in 1:17, 3:21, 22, 25, 10:3 and another way in 3:589 and 3:26. These latter two verses refer to an attribute of God. In 3:5, according to Chrysostom, the two nouns Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην indicate the forensic fact that God is the one who is justified in His decisions and who prevails in judgment. Commenting on 3:4, Chrysostom characteristically observes: “What does the word justified mean? That, if there could be a trial and an examination of the things He had done for the Jews, and of what had been done on their part towards Him, the victory would be with God, and all the right on His side.”90

85 Oecumenius [Comm. Rom. (PG 118:334)] who accepts the logical meaning, observes: “Again indicating that the Jew has nothing more than the Gentiles”; Chrysostom, Hom. Rom. 17.3 (PG 60:567); Cf. Hom. Rom. 7.2 (PG 60:444). 86 Wilhelm Thüsing, Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie, WUNT 82 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 106–108 convincingly demonstrates that the two expressions δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ and δικαιοσύνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ are synonymous. 87 Matt 6:33; Jas 1:20; 2 Pet 1:1. 88 Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 1–5), 203. Moreover, it is widely accepted that in the OT the righteousness of God is a predicate of God that describes His acts, decisions, and judgments. The definition of the Hebrew word ‫( צדקה‬righteousness) includes both the juridical sense as well as the sense of the act of salvation. 89 I disagree with Schlier’s view (Der Römerbrief, 112) that “dabei liegt kein Grund vor, τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ [in 3:25] anders zu verstehen als in 3:21f oder 3:5” (see above n. 30). 90 Chrysostom, Hom. Rom. 6.5 (NPNF111:438).

Rom 3:21–26 within Its Proper Context

221

Paul holds the idea that God is always faithful to His promises, but the Jews spurned Him with the iniquities they committed. “He then for His part did everything, but they were nothing the better even for this”91, claims Chrysostom, explaining that God’s faithfulness to His promises confirms His righteousness, in the sense that He is just. In 3:5, we encounter the phrase δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, which St. John explains in the following way: “Since then, he means, we did despite to Him and wronged Him, God by this very thing became victorious, and His righteousness was shown to be clear”92. In the other three passages, the expression δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ has to be understood differently. The δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in these passages is a power from God which acts for the salvation of man (1:16–17). These passages do not refer to an attribute of God but rather to a dynamic energy that acts upon human beings. The use of a verbal form of the verb δικαιόω in 3:20 makes it difficult to interpret δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in 3:21 as “God’s faithfulness to the covenant”.93 Actually, Paul’s emphasis that δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ comes to pass “apart from law” and through divine grace (v. 24) even makes such an interpretation impossible. This is why the apostle announces that God’s Righteousness is addressed to “all those who believe”94 (Rom 3:22b NASB). It clearly pertains then to a salvific intervention by God, to man’s justification, which is revealed in the gospel (1:17). 1 Cor 1:30, 2 Cor 5:21, and Phil 3:9 confirm this understanding. The pericope 3:21–26 refers precisely to this content of the gospel and describes how the righteousness of God is revealed. This righteousness (or justification) is an energy that comes from God, which renders righteous those who have been condemned by their sinfulness, provided they believe in Jesus Christ. When the apostle writes in 3:23, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”, he makes it clear that sin is what deprives man initially of the glory of God; later, in the fifth chapter, Paul stresses that man’s justification renews hope of man participating in the glory of God (Rom 5:2; see also 8:17–18). Sin leads to “condemnation” [κατάκριμα], while the removal of sin renders man righteous [δικαίωμα] (Rom 5:16; 8:1–4). Thus, man’s justification by the grace of God means the forgiveness of sins by God. 95 This understanding admits a rendering of the word δικαιοσύνη as “ac-

Ibid., 373. Ibid. 93 Contra Wright, Justification, 203. 94 Wright’s translation: “for the benefit of all who believe” (Justification, 203) is customised to fit with his interpretation of δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ and πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in the context of 3:21–22. 95 See Theodoret, Int. Rom. (PG 82:84): “For having brought faith only, we received remission of sins.” 91 92

222

Jack Khalil

quittal”, as St. Photius the Great explains: “the righteousness of God is justification by God and acquittal of sins, from which the law was not able to deliver us”96. 3.5. The Precondition for Justification Vv. 22b and 23 clarify v. 22a; all people, both Jews and Greeks, have access to justification, provided that they believe in Christ, for all have “sinned” equally, all have fallen “under the power of sin” (3:9). We see clearly that 3:21– 26 builds on the themes of the previous pericopes. Justification is needed due to the sinful and pitiful condition of all people without distinction because sin has stripped everyone of the glory of God. In vv. 22–23, the apostle underlines two realities: a) First, that faith in Christ97 is the means by which man is justified – or, more precisely, acquitted of his guilt – and ceases to be ὑπόδικος. Thus, in v. 22 Paul rejects the Jew’s misperceptions; he states definitively: Israel’s privileges are not a means of justification and freedom from condemnation, nor is the Jew’s argument that sin causes the righteousness and truth of God to become manifest and that is why he must not be judged for his sinfulness. Rather, for the apostle, the righteousness of God is granted on different grounds. Indeed, the phrase δικαιοσύνη δὲ Θεοῦ (3:22) itself demonstrates an opposition (adversative δέ) to the three misperceptions (vv. 3:1, 5, 7), especially the first one which is evoked in the assertion that God’s righteousness has been manifested χωρὶς νόμου.98 The opposition to these misperceptions also becomes clear from the fact that the apostle immediately highlights the essential matter of faith, adding the phrase “through faith in Jesus Christ” (3:22; see also 1:16–17) and emphasising every person’s ability to access the righteousness of God by believing. In this way, the apostle affirms that man’s justification takes place only through faith in Christ.99 It is not the “faith of Christ”, for the statement εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας proves that Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is an objective genitive.100 For Paul, it is customary to juxtapose law and faith when discussing the precondition of justification (e.g. Rom 3:28; 4:13; 9:30–10:4; Gal 2:16; 3:11, 24; Phil 3:9). Moreover, it is about each person’s faith here, and not the Photius, “Fragmenta”, 487. Cf. Chrysostom, Hom. Rom. 9.1 (PG 60:467). In the expression διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, the name “Jesus Christ” is an objective genitive, i.e. it refers to faith in Jesus Christ. See the strong arguments provided by Michel Quesnel, “Etat de la recherche sur Paul : question au débat et enjeux sous-jascents”, in Paul, une théologie en construction, ed. Andreas Dettwiler, Jean-Daniel Kaestli and Daniel Marguerat, MdB 51 (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2004), 39–41. 98 Despotis, New Perspective on Paul, 246, draws the attention to the chiastic parallelism that proves the correlation between διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and χωρὶς νόμου. 99 See below n. 108. 100 Contra Wright, Justification, 203. 96 97

Rom 3:21–26 within Its Proper Context

223

congregation’s faith.101 The expression εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας does not denote the congregation of Christians, but suggests the accessibility to all races of human beings who believe, Jews and Gentiles. There is no doubt that Paul emphasises personal justification too, for the group of the justified consists of individual persons who believe in Christ. We can first mention the citation from Hab 2:4, which is in the singular, then v. 26, which concludes 3:21–26 by stating that God “justifies the one who has faith in Jesus” (cf. also Rom 4:6; 6:7; 10:6, 10). Subsequently, in 3:28–29, the singular and the plural are both used interchangeably to confirm this viewpoint. The call to faith is addressed to every human being, regardless of his race (Rom 10:11–12). Thus, that the plural denotes a homogenous group, or the common identity of those persons who have faith in Christ, whereas the singular designates the individual believer who represents many like him. In both cases, the main focus lies on the personal acceptance of Christ’s Lordship. This personal acceptance takes place in the congregation, for it is confessed during baptism. b) Secondly, after the apostle rejected the Jew’s contention that sin brings about the manifestation of God’s righteousness and the dismissal of condemnation, he recapitulates vv. 9–20, stressing once again that sin102 only has a negative effect on man (καὶ103 ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ). Because man’s restoration occurred not through his own power but through the power of God, Paul insists: “δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι” (3:24; see also 5:15, 17). In other words, the righteousness of God does not entail legal procedures, like those used in the courts; rather, God freely acquits man from sin, with faith being the only precondition. It turns out, then, that in these particular passages we must understand the genitive Θεοῦ as a genitivus auctoris. As such, the expression “righteousness of God” in 3:21–22 describes the righteous state that has been transmitted to man by God “as a gift” (3:24). This is why the apostle insists in Phil 3:9 that the righteousness he seeks cannot be accomplished through his faithfulness to the law but is rather acquired as a gift from God through faith.

Contra Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2007), 146, cited approvingly by Despotis, New Perspective on Paul, 246, who accepts this understanding and adds that Paul suggests that the eschatological righteousness of God will be revealed to those who through faith belong to the congregation of Christ. 102 Cf. the preceding vv. 9–10. 103 In this passage, the conjunction καὶ indicates the consequence of sin. See Jules-Marie Cambier, L’Évangile de Dieu selon l’Épître aux romains I, StudNeot 3 (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1967), 73. 101

224

Jack Khalil

It is worth noting here that the above, correct understanding of the phrase “righteousness of God”, which is accepted by almost all contemporary commentators, was not, as some claim,104 unknown until Luther discovered it. The distinction, rather, between the senses of the phrase was clearly known, for example, to St. Clement of Rome (1 Clem 32:4), St. John Chrysostom, St. Photius the Great, Blessed Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and other fathers of the church who expounded the Scriptures. St. John Chrysostom explains Rom 1:17 as follows: and righteousness, not thine own, but that of God; hinting also the abundance of it and the facility. For you do not achieve it by toilings and labours, but you receive it by a gift from above, contributing one thing only105 from your own store, ‘believing’.106

Elsewhere, this God-inspired Father notes: For this is [the righteousness] “of God” when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away. […] For that which was before was a righteousness of the law and of works, but this is ‘the righteousness of God’.107

3.6. Justification as “Redemption” In 3:24, the apostle begins to explicate the way in which God has justified man. Justification is referred to as “redemption in Christ Jesus”. More specifically, the way in which justification takes place is encapsulated by the word “redemption”108: “being justified as a gift […] through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus”. There is no reason to construe the term “redemption” in the context of freeing slaves.109 Although the issue of setting slaves free appears in 1 Cor 7:21–23, it is discussed using terms such as “become free” [ἐλεύθερος γενέσθαι] and “you were bought with a price” [τιμῆς ἠγοράσθητε].110 Additionally, when Paul uses the image of a slave being set free in relation to the issue of man’s salvation from sin he always uses the verb ἐλευθερόω [“to free”] 104 E.g. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, AYBRL (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 576; Kuss, Der Römerbrief (Röm 1,1 – 6:11), 116; Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 1–5), 226. 105 The sola fide seems to be declared firstly by Chrysostom. 106 Chrysostom, Hom. Rom. 2.6 (NPNF1 11:349); cf. idem, Hom. Rom. 7.2 (PG 60:443). 107 Chrysostom, Hom. 2 Cor. 11.5 (NPNF1 12:334). 108 Therefore, Fitzmyer’s distinction between the two concepts – viz. that man is not only justified in Christ but also redeemed in Him – seems inapt (Romans, 348). 109 Käsemann, An die Römer, 90; Lohse, Märtyrer und Gottesknecht, 149. Contra Adolf Deissmann, Licht vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellinistisch-römischen Welt, 4th ed. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1923), 271–281; idem, Paulus: eine kultur- und religionsgeschichtliche Skizze, 2nd ed. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1925), 134–138; Lietzmann, An die Römer, 49. 110 Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 1–5), 189.

Rom 3:21–26 within Its Proper Context

225

(Rom 6:18, 20; 8:2; Gal 4:21–5:1).111 Conversely, in the biblical tradition, and more specifically in the LXX, the word λύτρωσις/λυτρόομαι and its derivatives, which render the Hebrew ‫ גאל‬and ‫פדה‬, is a central concept that describes the experience of the Exodus112 and other similar deliverances from captivity (especially Isa 43:14; 44:22–28; 52:3; 62:10–12; 63:9), a deliverance in which God in His righteousness intervenes to save His people. In the book of Isaiah, “redemption” is connected with the remission of sins (Is 43:1, 22– 28; 44:21–22; 48:17–18; 50:1–3; 54:6–8; 55:7). The only case in which the noun form of ἀπολύτρωσις occurs in the LXX (Dan 4:34) also has this meaning. Such is the case also in Paul’s corpus, in which the term “redemption” is clearly identified with the “forgiveness of sins” (Col 1:14; see also Eph 1:7). It is worth noting that in Eph 1:7, in a similar way to Rom 3:25 (see Heb 9:14– 15, 22), the blood of Christ is referred to as the means of redemption. It is clear therefore that the term “redemption”, which describes how the believer is justified, must be construed in the sense of the remission of sins.113 Theodoret interprets the term in this way,114 as does St. Photius the Great, who explicitly notes: “How then are we justified? By being redeemed from our sins”115. Paul understands the remission of sins, or more specifically the justification of the believer, to be a soteriological experience similar to the redemption in the book of Exodus.116 At this point, we should note that the definition of justification in 3:24 as “redemption”, namely as “remission of sins”, accords with that which precedes it in 3:22–23. There, the apostle argued that all stood in need of justification, for all had sinned. Now, in 3:24, he clarifies that the justification of sinners became a reality when God delivered them from their sins by means of the salvific work of Christ. Without this specific understanding, the phrases “righteousness apart from the law” and “being justified as a gift” become obscure. It is worth remembering here that from the beginning of the epistle’s third chapter the dialectical relationship between sin and justification has played a key role and is of fundamental importance for understanding the background of the arguments put forth.

Ibid. Ex 6:6; Deut 7:8; 9:26; 13:6; 15:5; 21:8; 24:18; 2 Kgs 7:23; 1 Chr 17:21, Neh 1:10. 113 Karl Kertlege, “Rechtfertigung bei Paulus”, in Studien zur Struktur und zum Bedeutungsgehalt des paulinischen Rechtfertigungsbegriffs, NTA 3 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1971), 53–55. 114 Theodoret, Int. Rom. (PG 82:84). 115 Photius, “Fragmenta”, 487. 116 Cf. Johannes Karavidopoulos, Ἡ ἁμαρτία κατὰ τὸν Ἀπόστολον Παῦλον (Thessaloniki, 1968), 124. 111 112

226

Jack Khalil

Additionally, the fact that v. 24 is connected with that which precedes it by means of a participle (δικαιούμενοι, “being justified”) does not constitute irrefutable evidence that 3:24 is a traditional fragment117 used by the apostle.118 Rather, it represents the antithesis to the statement in 3:23, and this in the following sense: they [the sinful people who have believed] have been justified as a gift.119 The participle in v. 24 continues the verb [verbum finitum], as is customary in Paul’s works (2 Cor 5:6; 7:5; 8:18–20).120 Käsemann’s objection that the emphasised word πάντες in 3:23 has no counterpart in 3:24, something which would be required for an antithesis,121 does not take into account the fact that the word πάντες already has its counterpart in the word πάντας in v. 22, so that the participle δικαιούμενοι is obviously correlated with the nominalised pronouns πάντας (v. 22) and πάντες (v. 23). Paul is not teaching that all sinners have been justified, thus requiring us to look for an equivalent to the word πάντες in 3:24 also, but rather that “all those who believe” have been justified. Accordingly, the phrase πάντες δικαιούμενοι, if it were in the text, would be a glaring inconsistency. Consequently, Käsemann’s argument in favour of reading this verse as a reference to a non-Pauline tradition is unfounded. Paul makes use of the polemic style by contrasting the phrase “in Christ Jesus” with both “by the works of the law” (3:20) as well as my “falsehood” (3:7); redemption “in Christ Jesus” is the cornerstone of man’s justification from sin.122 Anyone who thinks that they will be justified by relying on their own powers and observing the commandments of the law is misguided. It is also a mistake to think that man’s “unrighteousness” and “falsehood” leads to the manifestation of God’s righteousness, thus abrogating the sinner’s guiltiness and rescuing him from condemnation (see 3:5, 7). Only Christ truly manages to liberate man from being condemned because of his sin and thereby justify whoever believes in Him. It is in this sense that Christ is called “righteousness” and even “redemption” (1 Cor 1:30).

117 Wengst, Christologische Formeln, 87, provides convincing arguments against accepting 3:24 as the beginning of a fragment borrowed from the tradition, which Paul references, adding the phrase “as a gift by His grace.” Additionally, Michael Theobald, Studien zum Römerbrief, WUNT 136 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 34–36, demonstrates, through a syntactic and semantic study (as opposed to the “hypothetical” method as he, p. 31, characterises Bultmann’s and Käsemann’s method), that v. 24 is a transitional statement. According to Theobald, the Apostle here emphasises the important concept of “redemption in Christ Jesus”, which he then expounds in the following vv. 25–26. 118 As Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 107, correctly reads it, contra Bultmann, Theologie, 49; Käsemann, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen I, 96. 119 See Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 107. 120 Ibid. 121 Käsemann, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen I, 96. 122 Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 1–5), 190.

Rom 3:21–26 within Its Proper Context

227

3.7. Rom 3:25: The Divine “Purpose” Romans 3:25 occupies a central position in the pericope 3:21–26. Paul’s frequent use of prepositions conveys his fiery thought. Here his thought reaches its apex; after refuting the misguided objections to divine condemnation (3:1– 20) and proclaiming the revelation of God’s righteousness “in Christ Jesus” as a divine gift for anyone who believes in Christ (3:21–24), the apostle now addresses the substance of how God’s righteousness is realised in order to complete his response to the Jew’s mistaken views. The choice of concepts and the syntax of the context, therefore, become obscure if the verse is read apart from the train of thought of the whole third chapter. The arguments cited in support of Bultmann’s view123 about the origin of v. 25 are based on the claim that the wording is non-Pauline; the verb προτίθημι with the sense “to display publically”, the hapax legomena ἱλαστήριον and πάρεσις, the reference to the “blood” of Christ, the phrases ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν and πάρεσις ἁμαρτημάτων, are not found in the rest of Paul’s corpus (these claims presuppose that Colossians is a pseudonymous work), while the word ἁμάρτημα is found only in 1 Cor 6:18. To address all these arguments, we will return to the interpretation of the verse in order to ascertain whether they withstand scrutiny and consequently prove the non-Pauline origin of the verse, or whether they are simply subjective interpretations that only serve to buttress the theological system of the commentators. In interpreting the phrase ὃν προέθετο ὁ Θεὸς ἱλαστήριον, two problems arise. One concerns the meaning of the verb προέθετο, and the other the word

123 Wengst, Christologische Formeln, 82–86; Lohse, Märtyrer und Gottesknecht, 149–154; Käsemann, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen I, 96; Peter Stuhlmacher, “Zur neueren Exegese von Röm. 3,24–26”, in Jesus und Paulus Festschrift für W. G. Kümmel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. E. Earle Ellis and Erich Gräßer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 315–333; Georg Strecker, “Befreiung und Rechtfertigung”, in Rechtfertigung Für E. Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Johannes Friedrich et al. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1976), 501–502; Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 1–5), 183.

228

Jack Khalil

ἱλαστήριον. The verb προέθετο can be rendered as follows124: 1) “fixed”, “intended”, “appointed”,125 or 2) “displayed publicly/for public view”126. The former sense127 is more correct for several reasons. First, the apostle frequently refers to God’s everlasting “purpose” to accomplish salvation “in Christ Jesus” (Eph 1:9–11; 3:9–11; 2 Tim 1:9; cf. 1 Cor 2:7; Col 1:26). Second, the apostle uses the verb προτίθεμαι elsewhere in only this sense (cf. Rom 1:13), as well as the noun form πρόθεσις (Rom 8:28; 9:11; Eph 1:11; 3:11; 2 Tim 1:9; 3:10). Third, the double accusative (ὅν – ἱλαστήριον) makes it more likely that it means “fix” or “appoint”.128 Overall, the meaning of the verse – viz. that from before the ages God appointed the death of Christ “to demonstrate His righteousness” – speaks to a more organic connection between this verse and the apostle’s train of thought throughout ch. 3; God determined before the creation of the world to accomplish man’s justification in this way in contrast to the Jewish views expressed in Rom 3:1–8.129 This understanding also comports with the fourth chapter; the fact that Abraham acquired “the righteousness of the faith” (Rom 4:11 NASB) testifies to God’s “purpose” from before the ages to justify man “by faith”. The righteousness of God has thus been manifest,130 apart from the law, precisely as declared by “the Law and the Prophets” (3:21b; cf. 1:2), for this was God’s “purpose” from before the ages. Chrysostom notes: “But to show again that it was no novel thing or recent, he says, ‘fore-ordained’

See Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 109–110; Fitzmyer, Romans, 349. Origen, Le commentaire d’Origène sur Rom. III.5–V.7, ed. Jean Scherer (Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1957), 156. This reading is followed by Panagiotis Trembelas. Η Καινή Διαθήκη με σύντομη ερμηνεία στη δημοτική, 35th ed. (Athens: Ο Σωτήρ, 1993); Marie-Joseph Lagrange, Saint Paul: Épître aux Romains, 6th ed. (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1950), 75; Charles E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans I (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1977), 208–210; Charles Bruston, “Les conséquences du vrai sens de ἱλαστήριον”, ZNW 7 (1906): 77; Cambier, L’Évangile de Dieu, 90–91; Alfons Pluta, Gottes Bundestreue: Ein Schlüsselbegriff in Röm. 3,25a (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969), 59–62; Dieter Zeller, Sühne und Langmut. Zur Traditionsgeschichte von Röm. 3,24–26, ThPh 43 (Freiburg im Breisgau; Rome: Herder, 1968), 56–57. 126 Thus read by: Kuss, Der Römerbrief (Röm 1,1 – 6:11), 155; Lietzmann, An die Römer, 49; Käsemann, An die Römer, 91; Lohse, Märtyrer und Gottesknecht, 151; Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 1–5), 192; Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 150; Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 109–110; Fitzmyer, Romans, 349; Arland J. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 158. 127 Trembelas, Ὑπόμνημα, 68. 128 In my assessment, the second accusative ἱλαστήριον would not fit in this context when προέθετο is rendered as “displayed publicly”. 129 Cf. συνίστησιν (3:5) and πεφανέρωται (3:21), εἰς ἔνδειξιν (3:25–26). 130 The use of the verb πεφανέρωται hints at a pre-existing event that became manifest at a particular time. 124 125

Rom 3:21–26 within Its Proper Context

229

[προέθετο]”131. Understanding the verb in this way nullifies one of the main arguments against the Pauline origin of 3:25.132 The word ἱλαστήριον has also troubled commentators. It refers either to “remission of sins” or to the restoration of friendly relations and concord between two (or more) parties.133 However, as the LXX does not use the word ἱλαστήριον and its derivatives to indicate something that man does toward God but rather an atoning work of God himself, the apostle is most probably using it in the sense of a means of expiation, that is, remission of sins.134 This, then, would exclude an understanding of Rom 3:25 in terms of propitiation and satisfaction and demonstrates that the correct reading has to do with the remission of sins.135 The word ἱλαστήριον occurs only one other time in the NT, in Heb 9:5, as the name of the lid of the ark, here in accordance with the LXX translation of the Hebrew term ‫כפרת‬.136 It is thus the neuter form of the adjective ἱλαστήριος.137 Philo uses the term in this technical sense138 when specifically referring to the lid of the ark. Nevertheless, in Hellenistic Judaism the term is not limited to this meaning; in the LXX, ἱλαστήριον is also used to render the word ‫עזרה‬, a component of the altar in Ezekiel (Ezek 43:14, 17, 20), while Symmachus calls Noah’s Ark an ἱλαστήριον [Gen 6:16 (15)].139 On the other hand, Josephus does not use the technical term “lid of the ark”, but refers instead to τοῦ δέους ἱλαστήριον μνῆμα (A.J. 16.182), in which the word is used as an adjective (as is also the case in 4 Macc 17:21–22: διὰ τοῦ ἱλαστηρίου θανάτου (“death as an expiation”, “death as an atoning sacrifice” )].140 The meaning, therefore, of the word ἱλαστήριον is not tied exclusively to the lid of the ark. Moreover, the existence of an adjectival form as well as a nominalised adjective confirms this conclusion, because, during the Hellenistic period, both the adjectival form as well as the nominalised adjective were used, the latter of which referred to a specific object,141 as can be read in an inscription from Kos: Chrysostom, Hom. Rom. 7.2 (NPNF1 11:377). Käsemann, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen I, 96, as he does not read the verb as it is normally used by Paul, concludes that this meaning – as it is understood by Käsemann (i.e., expose publicly) – serves as an argument against the Pauline origin of the verse. Cf. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 1–5), 183. 133 Cf. Werner Georg Kümmel, Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte, MThSt 3 (Marburg: N. G. Elwert Verlag, 1965), 264. Kümmel quotes Deissmann, ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΣ und ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ, 193. 134 Ibid. Kümmel cites Charles H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1954), 82–84. 135 Ibid. 136 Cf. Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 110. 137 Ibid. 138 Philo, Cher. 25; Moses 2.96–97; Her. 166; Fug. 100–101. 139 Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 110. 140 Ibid. 141 Ibid. 131 132

230

Jack Khalil

ὁ δᾶμος ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ Αὐτοκράτορος Καίσαρος θεοῦ υἱοῦ Σεβαστοῦ σωτηρίας θεοῖς ἱλαστήριον.142 All these examples witness to the use of the word with the general meaning of “expiation”. In 1 John, Christ is called “expiation [ἱλασμός] for our sins” (1 John 2:2 NAB), and John the Evangelist writes characteristically: “In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as expiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10 NAB). In Rom 3:25, which is substantially similar in terms of content to 1 John 4:10, the word ἱλαστήριον likewise has this general sense of “expiation”143. We thus avoid the problem of its connection with the prepositional adjunct “through faith”144. This sense of the word accords fully with the context of the pericope, or, more specifically, with the theme of the remittance of sins, which indicates that Paul is using it deliberately. The use of this image of Jesus’ death, which is one of those that Paul took from the realm of sacrifices, does not constitute proof of the nonPauline origin of 3:25 in which it appears. To counter the tyranny of sin – which rules over all people, both Jews and Gentiles, and alienates them from God (3:10–18), rendering them accused (3:9) and accountable (3:19) – the mystery of God was revealed, “which was kept secret for long ages” (Rom 16:25; see 1 Cor 2:1–2, 7; Eph 1:9; 3:3–4:9; 6:19; Col 1:26–27; 2:2). The Holy Scriptures testify to this mystery: God appointed Christ, His Son, as the means of forgiveness for the sins of those who believe in Him. By emphasising the referential pronoun ὅν, the apostle is underscoring the following: Christ, indeed Christ crucified (ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι, “in/by His blood”),145 is the true and only means of justification and atonement for those who believe in Him. Ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι146 defines the ἱλαστήριον and “expresses the objective condition of expiation”147. It is worth noting that the Jew, in his objections in Rom 3:1–8, argued that “unrighteousness” and “falsehood” were the means by which God’s righteousness was made manifest as one of His attributes, and were thus the ploy by which man escaped condemnation. In response to this mistaken view, the apostle points to God’s original or prior will that Christ, with His blood,148 would William R. Paton and Edward L. Hicks, The Inscriptions of Cos (Oxford: Clarendon, 1891), 81 (Cf. p. 347); Cf. Dio Chrysostom, Troj. 121. 143 As rightly read by Zigabenus, to whom Trembelas, Ὑπόμνημα, 69, refers approvingly. 144 For Dunn, Romans 1–8, 181, this expression “seems to disrupt what would be a more coherent phrase.” 145 The preposition ἐν in the phrase ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι denotes the means of expiation [cf. Maximilian Zerwick and Mary Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, 5th ed. (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1996), 466]. This phrase illustrates the importance of Christ’s death, by means of which the remission of sins was accomplished. 146 See also Rom 5:9; Eph 1:7; 2:13; Col 1:20; cf. 1 Cor 10:16; 11:25, and Hebrews, passim. 147 Trembelas, Ὑπόμνημα, 69. 148 It is in this light that the divine δεῖ is understood in Christ’s statements regarding His passion (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22; Cf. Luke 17:25; 24:7; John 3:14–15; 20:9). 142

Rom 3:21–26 within Its Proper Context

231

be the only expiation for sins and justification of believers149. The syntax of 3:25–26, therefore, clearly reflects the polemical nature of the apostle’s thoughts. The mystery of God that has now been revealed is the content of the gospel,150 the preaching of the apostles,151 “according to the eternal purpose which He has realised in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph 3:11). God made known this mystery to the apostle,152 “for which I am an ambassador in chains; that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak” (Eph 6:20; cf. 2 Cor 5:20). Moreover, the word of the gospel is identified with “the message of reconciliation” and justification (2 Cor 5:19, 21). This is why the apostle speaks in the same manner about justification, that it is revealed in the gospel that he preaches boldly (1:17–16). Taking into consideration all the above, we come to the conclusion that the eternal “purpose” of God that has been realised “in Christ Jesus” – or, more specifically, in the death and resurrection of Christ – is a justification of all believers from sin, both Jews and Gentiles153. This is why the apostle notes that Christ “was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Rom 4:25), implying thus that justification consists of the forgiveness of trespasses. Elsewhere, Paul indirectly teaches that justification by faith through redemption in Christ has brought about the forgiveness of sins, for he claims “if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins”. (1 Cor 15:17 NRS; see 2 Cor 5:21). He thereby ascribes central importance to justification from transgressions, indeed the purpose of Christ’s death and resurrection (Rom 4:25). The “truth of the gospel” (Gal 2:14) can be summarised as follows: “that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” (Gal 2:16). Moreover, Paul points out that the Holy Scriptures foresaw this truth of justification (Gal 3:8) and refers, as an example, to the justification of Abraham and David by faith and without works.154 This eternal “purpose” of God to justify mankind and expiate humans from their sins has been revealed and realised with the death and resurrection of Christ, the object of the preaching of the gospel. The divine plan was not conceived as an alternative option to the failure of Israel in order to unveil God’s covenant faithfulness. Besides, what is at stake here is more than the covenant faithfulness on the part of Israel. The context doesn’t allow for the reading proposed by Wright, Justification, 202–204. 150 Cf. 1 Cor 2:1; Eph 3:5–6; 6:19. 151 Cf. Rom 16:25; Eph 3:2–6; 1 Cor 2:1; Col 4:3; 1 Tim 3:16. 152 Eph 6:19; Cf. Col 1:26–27, etc. 153 It is not correct to identify the eternal mystery revealed in Christ with “a mystery that Paul had unveiled in Romans 11:25”, as Dunn thinks (“New Perspective View”, 187–188), for it is difficult to conceive how the mystery of the disobedience of Israelites (see vv. 11:21–36) could be identified with the mystery of God’s eternal purpose “that was kept secret for long ages.” 154 Romans 4 and Galatians 3. 149

232

Jack Khalil

3.8. The Meaning of the Phrase “Righteousness of God” in 3:25b–26a Our exegesis of 3:25a makes it easier to understand the meaning of the phrase “His righteousness” in the two final sentences, which indicate the goal of the Divine Economy: 1) εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης Αὐτοῦ (3:25b) 2) πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης Αὐτοῦ (3:26) In these passages, ἔνδειξις means “show, demonstration”.155 When “His righteousness” refers to God’s intervention to redeem man from sin, the “demonstration” of God’s righteousness is certainly compatible with the concept of the revelation and manifestation of this righteousness (Rom 1:17; 3:21).156 However, when it indicates an attribute of God, it correlates with its usage in 3:5. 3.8.1. The Realisation of Man’s Justification We discovered above that the revealed mystery of God was His “purpose” for Christ, His Son, to be the expiation and justification for all who believe in Him. It is, therefore, most likely that the phrase εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης Αὐτοῦ in 3:25b refers to God’s redemptive work, namely, justification from sins.157 A theological observation supports this conclusion: if the phrase “His righteousness” is read in this verse as an attribute of God158, then this understanding has three unacceptable theological implications. 1) God’s eternal “purpose”, which was realised with the expiatory death of Christ, was to show that God is just, or faithful to his covenant.159 This would mean that the Death of the Savior did not occur out of God’s boundless love, which was clearly displayed when His only-begotten Son was handed over to death for us,160 while we were still sinners. 2) The divine righteousness required that Christ be crucified in order for that same righteousness to emerge; this mistaken view leads to the error of The arguments put forth by Kümmel, Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte, 265–266, are quite convincing and are generally accepted by commentators. 156 Ibid. 269. 157 This was the view of Chrysostom, Hom. Rom. 7.2 (PG 60:444). 158 The following commentators adopt this view: Theodor Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, KNT (Leipzig: Deichert, 1925), 183–185; Lietzmann, An die Römer, 50; Charles H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, MNTC 6 (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1947), 55–57; Bultmann, Exegetica, 471; Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 1–5), 195, among others. Additionally, Käsemann’s view (Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen I, 98–99) that 3:25 has to do with God’s attribute as just – because He is faithful to the covenant with His people – does not withstand scrutiny, for the context of the pericope does not at all support such a view. On the contrary, the Apostle emphasises the general character of righteousness, which extends beyond the borders of Israel to include “all who believe”. 159 Wright, Justification, 203–204. 160 Cf. Rom 5:8. Noteworthy is the verb συνίστησιν, which is included among the verbs that characterise the revelation of the divine economy with the death and resurrection of Christ. 155

Rom 3:21–26 within Its Proper Context

233

Anselm of Canterbury, who claimed that because God’s righteousness required that He not leave sins unpunished Christ had to die in order to appease God’s righteous anger and to satisfy the divine righteousness. 3) The demonstration of divine righteousness requires “the passing over of previously committed sins”. This latter implication, which results from an incorrect understanding of the phrase “His righteousness” in v. 25b as an attribute of God was one of Bultmann’s arguments for the non-Pauline origin of v. 25.161 Bultmann contended that in v. 26 St. Paul corrects this confusion.162 The problem, however, is solved without challenging the Pauline origin of the verse, when we read the verse “His righteousness” as a reference to man’s redemption from sin. Nothing from the context of the pericope indicates that we should interpret the phrase “His righteousness” (3:25b) differently from its usage in 3:21–22. On the contrary, both that which precedes it and that which follows it indicate that it is about the expiation of sins. On the one hand, 3:25 is thus a natural development of the apostle’s thought concerning the righteousness of God, which is revealed in accordance with the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, apart from the law (v. 21), through faith (v. 22) and as a gift (v. 24). It is also clear that the “righteousness of God” in 3:25a depends syntactically on the wording in v. 24: “being justified as a gift […] through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus”. On the other hand, 3:25b itself provides evidence for this interpretation; the phrase “through the passing over of previously committed sins” specifies the manner of demonstrating God’s righteousness. Here we need to clarify the preposition διά and the noun πάρεσις. Instead of the well-known expression ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν (Eph 1:7; Col 1:14), 3:25b uses the formulation πάρεσις τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων. Elsewhere St. Paul, referring to the realisation of reconciliation, notes something similar with the phrase: μὴ λογιζόμενος αὐτοῖς τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν (2 Cor 5:19). There is actually no difference between these expressions;163 all three cases refer to the same event of the forgiveness of sins164 which is realised through the death and resurrection of Christ for those who believe (Cf. 1 Cor 15:17). The selection of expressions was influenced in each case by the conceptual nuance that accords best with each context. The forensic connotation of the word πάρεσις165 is perhaps associated with the prevailing forensic context in chapter 3. Incidentally, the fact that πάρεσις is a hapax legomenon in the Holy Scriptures is not usually evidence for the non-Pauline origin of the Bultmann, ThWNT 1:49. Idem, Exegetica, 471. Bultmann, Exegtica, 471. In my opinion, if it were indeed confusing, Paul would not have written the words to begin with! 163 See Käsemann, An die Römer, 92, vis-à-vis the words πάρεσις and ἄφεσις. 164 For the meaning of the word πάρεσις, see the study by Kümmel, Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte, 261–263. 165 See Käsemann, An die Römer, 92. 161 162

234

Jack Khalil

verse. Nonetheless, the phrase “through the passing over of previously committed sins” accords completely with the conceptual coherence of the text and even acquires fundamental significance therein. Regarding the preposition διά, it is incontrovertible that in the Hellenistic period this preposition, when combined with the accusative, indicates, among other things, “by means of”.166 This use is known both in the books of the NT (John 6:57; Rom 8:20; 15:15; Rev 4:11; 12:11; 13:14) as well as the patristic texts.167 In 3:25b, the expression “through [διὰ] the passing over of previously committed sins” operates as an agent for demonstrating God’s righteousness. Moreover, incorrectly reading the phrase “righteousness of God” as God being shown as just leads a few commentators to understand the preposition διὰ as final, denoting purpose,168 in order to avoid the paradoxical implication that the demonstration of God’s righteousness requires “the passing over of previously committed sins”. However, it stands to reason that Paul would note at this point that it was God’s desire from before the ages that the Crucified Christ serve as an expiation through faith; God’s purpose was to make manifest His righteousness by forgiving the sins that were committed before169 Christ’s expiatory death. Understanding the preposition as referring to means or cause, therefore, renders the unity of the pericope more likely. Given that, according to Paul, the divine righteousness was demonstrated through the forgiveness of past sins it is obvious that the reference to God’s righteousness in 3:25 is to redemption from sin, in other words from the condemnation of sin (see Rom 8:3). The juxtaposition of sin and righteousness, which has been the central theme from the beginning of the third chapter,170 now becomes clear as the apostle completes his treatment of the manner of man’s justification. Justification is a gift of God Who cleanses from sin all who believe in the Crucified Christ and Who purifies them from the iniquities they have committed. God acts so, not because of anything that man does or due to any of privileges that may guarantee him justification, but only on the basis of man’s faith in God, his trust in the One Who can acquit the wicked from his sins (Rom 4:5). The reign of sin has been broken and those “held accountable” have been acquitted. That which the law was unable to accomplish has taken See the bibliography and evidence cited by: Lietzmann, An die Römer, 51; Kümmel, Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte, 263Fn. 37. 167 See the examples in Lietzmann, An die Römer, 51. 168 This is how it is interpreted by: Zeller, “Sühne und Langmut. Zur Traditionsgeschichte von Röm. 3,24–26”, 60–61; Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 113; Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 1–5), 196. 169 The prefix προ- in the phrase προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων refers to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ as the time when God conveyed justification to human beings (Rom 3:25a; Cf. Rom 4:25, 1 Cor 15:17). 170 This juxtaposition recurs frequently: Rom 4:5–8, 25; 5:8–9, 16–19; 6:7, 13, 18–20; 8:3– 4, 10; 2 Cor 5:21; 6:14; Gal 3:21–22; Heb 1:9; Cf. Acts 13:38. 166

Rom 3:21–26 within Its Proper Context

235

place apart from the law through the death of Christ. As such, man’s redemption from his sins has come to pass as a gift, given through faith in the “author of salvation”.171 This is the message of the gospel which the apostle preaches to all mankind, to Jews and Greeks, without feeling discouraged by anything, because this gospel reveals God’s righteousness as a force aimed at man’s salvation (Rom 1:16–17). 3.8.2. The Proof of Divine Justice In the two parallel phrases εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης Αὐτοῦ and πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης Αὐτοῦ, it is clear that one refers to the righteousness of God, on the basis of which he forgives sins, and the other to righteousness as an attribute of God. In 3:26, either meaning does not lead to theological error and unacceptable implications, so that the interpretation of the phrase “His righteousness” is of little moment for our understanding of the verse. However, because it is difficult to understand the genitive Αὐτοῦ in 3:25b as a subjective genitive, for the reasons outlined above, it is, reasonable to read “righteousness of God” in 3:26a as an attribute of God Himself. This reading is based on the context, and content of the pericope, and the chiastic structure in vv. 25–26. It is also supported by the following arguments: I) V. 26b gives us the aim of the previous thought. V. 25 notes that God justified man when he forgave him all the previous sins that were enslaving him and making him “accountable”. Then 3:26 clarifies that God has done this with great forbearance in order to demonstrate how just He is,172 thereby completely refuting the charge against Him that He is “unjust”. The interpretation of the phrase ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ is crucial for a correct understanding of the phrase “righteousness of God” in v. 26. Here we agree with Käsemann,173 who wonders why some commentators associate the phrase “in the forbearance of God” – against its emphasis and placement in the phrase – with the word προγεγονότων instead of the phrase διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν,174 so that, instead of emphasising the act of God, the period of “God’s forbearance” is emphasised. Lietzmann175, Kümmel176, Wright177, and others, from both the “Old Perspective” and the “New Perspective”, take the opposite position. In my opinion, their interpretation weakens the inner coherence of the thought, Heb 2:10 NASB. As mentioned above, it is in this sense that Chrysostom, Hom. Rom. 7.3 (PG 60:445) interprets the phrase “righteousness of God” in this verse. 173 Cf. Käsemann, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen I, 98. 174 Chrysostom, Hom. Rom. 7.3 (PG 60:445), correctly assossiates ἀνοχῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ with διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν. 175 Lietzmann, An die Römer, 48. 176 Kümmel, Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte, 267. 177 Wright, Justification, 204. 171 172

236

Jack Khalil

for it yields the following meaning: God displayed His righteousness when He forgave the sins that were committed during the period of forbearance; consequently, God’s forbearance has now been exhausted.178 Moreover, the phrase “forbearance of God” relates to an attribute of God, because in the next phrase the apostle refers to another attribute by means of the expression “His righteousness”; in this phrase, the pronoun necessarily presupposes reference to God by name in the first mentioned attribute, that is, the “forbearance of God”, because it is fairly distant from the last reference to the name “God” (ὃν προέθετο ὁ Θεὸς). If it were referring to a specific period, it would have been much clearer to write: ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης τοῦ Θεοῦ. Also, the word ἀνοχή that appeared together with the genitive ἡμερῶν in the phrase ἡμερῶν ἀνοχὴν ἔχω, found in PΟxy 7.1068:15 (to which J. Fitzmeyer179 points as an argument), has a different meaning than that in the phrase ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Dunn places the divine forbearance in the past, or more precisely, in the sacrificial system of the covenant, which might have shadowed Christ’s sacrificial death. He comes to the conclusion that the merits of that system resulted in “God’s not pressing for punishment of the sins committed by his covenant people in the preceding epoch”180. However, ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ emphasises the very divine redemption and justification in Christ’s death on the cross. His forbearance, namely His love (Rom 5:8; 8:32), aims at the correction of the sinner, demonstrating, as a result, just how righteous God is as a judge. This conclusion can be drawn from Rom 2:3–4 and is relevant in v. 26 as well. It thus becomes clear why God’s forbearance is connected with His righteousness through the final preposition πρός (“for the demonstration of His righteousness”).181 The judge’s forbearance, kindness, and lack of haste in pronouncing condemnation demonstrates his righteousness. In his more expansive response, Paul elucidates that which completely refutes the accusation of God being unjust (3:6): God, rather than showing His anger and wrath over man’s hostile, sinful acts, instead accepts sinners who believe in Christ with great love and tolerance. Rather than demand retribution for their actions, such as doing something to appease His wrath, which is revealed “against all ungodliness and unrighteousness” (Rom 1:18 NASB), God instead forgives every sin through the death of His Son. The “riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience” (2:4), which are the opposite of sin lead man to an awareness of the evils he commits, and thus repentance (Rom 2:4). If a man, therefore, does not repent, he will justly face the anger of God. A This is precisely what is (wrongly) maintained by Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 153. Fitzmyer, Romans, 352. 180 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 174. 181 In Rom 2:4–5, the χρηστότης [kindness], ἀνοχή [forbearance], and μακροθυμία [patience] of God provide the foundation, in an indirect way, for His δικαιοκρισία [righteous judgment]. 178 179

Rom 3:21–26 within Its Proper Context

237

chance at repentance and rectification is offered to those “already charged”182 and “held accountable”,183 and this through justification from sin, which God has accomplished and which He bestows upon those who believe with their heart in the Lord Jesus184 and convert to Him; Paul thus clearly demonstrates that calling the God who “did not spare his own Son but delivered Him over to death” (Rom 8:32) “unjust” is groundless. Therefore, he who denies Christ and persists in his sin has only himself to blame for his condemnation, for God has shown Himself to be unquestionably just in His judgment. It is on this basis that the apostle urges Christians not to return to the sin from which they have been liberated but to repent of the works of the past, being cognizant of the grace of God that they have received, and thereafter to live for the God Who justified them (Gal 2:17–20).185 In the OT, God’s tolerance, by which God removed the iniquities and sins of the people of Israel, is considered a sign of God’s righteousness. One example can be found in Ex 34:6b–7: The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, yet by no means clearing the guilty, but visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation. [NRSV Exod 34:6–7].

The mercy (‫ )חשד‬of God and His “righteousness” (‫ צדקה‬/ ‫ )שדק‬and “truth” (‫)אםת‬ are therefore often equated in the OT186 (see, e.g., Ps 35:6, 11LXX), because mercy is the foundation of God’s righteousness; God the judge is just, because he is merciful and shows great patience and forbearance before showing His anger and wrath; He removes many sins in order to teach sinners the right path (Ps 24:7–8LXX) and to rescue them from wrath. The Jew, arguing that his “unrighteousness” brought about the manifestation of God’s righteousness, thinks that, for this reason, he is entitled to justification from God; otherwise, he considers God unjust (3:5). In response, Paul first clarifies in 3:25–26a that God from before the ages appointed His Son’s death on the cross to be an atonement for sin, thus revealing the desired justification of man, which springs from His boundless love and tolerance, so that no one can question the righteousness of the merciful judge. Secondly, he emphasises Cf. Rom 3:9. Cf. Rom 3:19. 184 Cf. Rom 10:10. 185 The subject of living for God Who grants justification, although beyond the scope of this study, remains of crucial importance for the eschatological salvation. Rom 3:31 alludes to this issue, which will be extensively developed in Rom 5–8. For a detailed discussion of these chapters see my book, Δικαίωση, chapters II, III, and V. 186 Cf. Miltiadis D. Konstantinou, Ρῆμα Κυρίου κραταιόν – Αφηγηματικά κείμενα από την Παλαιά Διαθήκη, 2 vols. (Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 1998), 168. 182 183

238

Jack Khalil

that God’s righteousness did not become manifest through man’s “unrighteousness” and “falsehood”, but rather through the love and forbearance that He displayed “now” (3:21) in freely remitting man’s sins and iniquities through the Death of His Son. Thus, as he had always done in the OT, God has once again shown ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ that He is a just God.187 The phrase ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ functions here in the same way as in Rom 11:5; this manifestation happened once again in the present time. We can thus say that the Savior’s Death serves as the fount of justification, while God’s mercy and tolerance show beyond any doubt His righteousness. II) The last phrase εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ also confirms our interpretation of the expression “His righteousness” in 3:26 as referring to an attribute of God. This phrase recapitulates the point of the pericope, formulating the outcome188 of God’s work: God is just and justifies anyone who believes in Christ. It is worth noting that the phrase refers to God and not to justified man, and this because, as we noted previously, Rom 3:21–26 described the work of God, in contradistinction to the work of man (Rom 3:9–20). In the pericope’s final statement here, it is made clear that the righteousness of God and the justification of man through God’s grace constitute the two issues which are developed in Rom 3:21–26. Therefore, it turns out that in the two instances which use the expression “His righteousness”, one refers to one issue and the other to the other issue. III) In vv. 25–26 the reference to these two issues forms a chiasm: 1) the demonstration of the divine economy for the justification of man 2) the demonstration of God’s righteousness 2a) God is just 1a) God justifies those who believe in Christ In my view, this chiastic structure supports the the interpretation of “His righteousness” in v. 26 as an attribute of God. Paul treats these two issues – the righteousness of God as attribute of God and as the justification of man – in accordance with the message of the gospel and in response to the Jew’s objections to being judged on an equal footing with the Gentiles; the objections in 3:1–8 corresponded precisely to these two issues, but the interlocutor’s thinking evinced a faulty understanding. Paul, in his effort to refute the objections – which bordered on blasphemy – composed a detailed and comprehensive theological response.189 Τhe first part analyzes Cf. Chrysostom’s interpretation, Hom. Rom. 7.3 (PG 60:445). The preposition εἰς with an articulated infinitive (εἰς τὸ εἶναι) infers in this passage from the stated facts. It does not have a final sense because it does not indicate here a specific purpose, rather it recapitulates the outcome of the preceding two final phrases. Käsemann, An die Römer, 94, takes the opposite view. 189 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 181, is wrong when he thinks that the discussion in 3:1–8 was aborted. 187 188

Rom 3:21–26 within Its Proper Context

239

the punishable offenses of humans (Rom 3:9–21) and the second part proclaimes the salvific work of God as the Lover-of-Μankind (φιλάνθρωπος) who calls upon everyone, both Jew and Greek, to experience conversion through faith. Paul thus rejects any claim that God is unjust and he clearly demonstrates that God remains “just” also “in the present time”, ascribing righteousness “unto salvation” (KJV) through the gospel to anyone – without distinction – who believes; to those, however, who do not repent and remain slaves to sin, there is condemnation according to the gospel (Rom 2:16).190 Before God, no one has any privilege besides faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Bibliography Atmatzidis, Charalambos. Από την βιβλική έρευνα στην Πίστη της Εκκλησίας. Συνοπτική θεολογία της Καινής Διαθήκης. Vol. 1. Βiblike Bibliotheke 48. Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 2010. Bornkamm, Günther. Das Ende des Gesetzes, Paulusstudien, Gesammelte Aufsätze I. BEvT 16. Munich: Kaiser, 1966. Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament. AYBRL. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Bruston, Charles. “Les conséquences du vrai sens de ἱλαστήριον”. ZNW 7 (1906): 77–81. Bultmann, Rudolf. Exegetica–Aufsätze zur Erforschung des Neuen Testaments. Edited by Erich Dinkler. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1967. –. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 6th ed. Tübingen: Mohr, 1968. Cambier, Jules-Marie. L’Évangile de Dieu selon l’Épître aux Romains. StudNeot 3. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1967. Campbell, W. S. “Romans iii as a Key to the Structure and Thought of the Letter” NT23 (1981): 22–40. Canales, Isaac J. “Paul’s Accusers in Romans 3:8 and 6:1”. EvQ 57 (1985): 237–245. Cranfield, Charles E. B. The Epistle to the Romans I. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1977. Deissmann, Adolf. Licht vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellinistisch-römischen Welt. 4th ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1923. –. Paulus: Eine kultur- und religionsgeschichtliche Skizze. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1925. Despotis, Athanasios. Die "New Perspective on Paul" und die griechisch-orthodoxe Paulusinterpretation. VIOTh 11. Sankt Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 2014. Dodd, Charles H. The Bible and the Greeks. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1954. –. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. MNTC 6. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1947. Cf. Rom 5:9. Salvific justice and salvific wrath appear in the Bible as parallel concepts for they represent different aspects of God’s righteous judgment; “δικαιοσύνη και κρίμα” are the foundation of God’s throne (cf. Ps 88:15; Cf. Ps 7:1–17LXX; Isa 11:3–5). For a more detailed analysis see Mark A. Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness, NSBT 9 (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 43. For Paul, then, it is only through Christ that Jews and Gentiles acquire the state of righteousness (justification) and are consequently saved from the realm of wrath. In the gospel, justification is manifest to the one who believes, while God’s wrath is manifest to the one who does not believe (Rom 1:16–18; cf. Rom 2:16; Cf. 2 Cor 2:15–16). 190

240

Jack Khalil

Dunn, James D. G. “New Perspective View”. Pages 182-189 in Justification: Five Views. Spectrum Multiview Books. Edited by James K. Bailey and Paul R. Eddy. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2011. –. Romans 1-8. WBC 38a. Nashville; London: Nelson, 1988. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans. AB 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Hofius, Otfried. Paulusstudien. WUNT 51. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Hultgren, Arland J. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Jewett, Robert. Romans: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Fortress, 2007. Josephus. Translated by Henry St. J. Thackerary et al. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965. Kaimakis, Dimitrios. Η ημέρα Κυρίου στους προφήτες της Παλαιάς Διαθήκης. Thessaloniki: Uniprint Hellas, 1991. Karavidopoulos, Johannes. Ἡ ἁμαρτία κατὰ τὸν Ἀπόστολον Παῦλον. Thessaloniki, 1968. Käsemann, Εrnst. Αn die Römer. HNT 8a. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980. –. Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen I. 4th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. Kertlege, Karl. “Rechtfertigung bei Paulus.“ Pages 53–55 in Studien zur Struktur und zum Bedeutungsgehalt des paulinischen Rechtfertigungsbegriffs. NTA 3. Münster: Aschendorff, 1971. Khalil, Jack. “Translating Rom 9,7A”. Pages 691–697 in The Letter to the Romans. BEThL 221. Edited by Udo Schnelle. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. –. Δικαίωση - Καταλλαγή - Τελική Κρίση. Βiblike Bibliotheke 30. Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 2005. Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 10 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933–1979. Konstantinou, Miltiadis D. Ρῆμα Κυρίου κραταιόν – Αφηγηματικά κείμενα από την Παλαιά Διαθήκη. Β΄. Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 1998. Kümmel, Werner Georg. Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte. MThSt 3. Marburg: N. G. Elwert Verlag, 1965. Kuss, Otto. Der Römerbrief - Röm. 1:1–6:11. Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1957. Lagrange, Marie-Joseph. Saint Paul: Épître aux Romains. 6th ed. Paris: Gabalda, 1950. Lietzmann, Hans. An die Römer. 5th ed. HNT 8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971. Lohse, Eduard. Märtyrer und Gottesknecht. FRLANT 64. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963. Michel, Otto. Der Brief an die Römer. ΚΕΚ 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Paton, William. R., and Hicks Edward. L. The Inscriptions of Cos. Oxford: Clarendon, 1891. Patrologia Graeca. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857–1886. Pluta, Alfons. Ein Schlüsselbegriff in Röm. 3,25a. SBS 34. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969. Quesnel, Michel. “Etat de la recherche sur Paul: question au débat et enjeux sous-jascents”. Pages 39–41 in Paul, une théologie en construction. MdB 51. Edited by Andreas Dettwiler, Jean-Daniel Kaestli and Daniel Marguerat. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2004. Sanders, Ed Parish. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Schlier, Heinrich. Der Römerbrief. HThK 6. Freiburg im Breisgau; Rome: Herder, 1977. Schrage, Wolfgang. “Röm 3,21–26 und die Bedeutung des Todes Christi bei Paulus.“ Pages 65–88 in Das Kreuz Jesu. FGS 12. Edited by Paul Rieger. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969.

Rom 3:21–26 within Its Proper Context

241

Seifrid, Mark A. Christ, Our Righteousness. NSBT 9. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2000. Staab, Karl, ed. Pauluskommentar aus der griechischen Kirche aus Katenenhandschriften gesammelt. NTAbh 15. Münster: Aschendorff, 1933. Strecker, Georg. “Befreiung und Rechtfertigung”. Pages 479–508 in Rechtfertigung für E. Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Johannes Friedrich et. al. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1976. Stuhlmacher, Peter. Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus. FRLANT 87. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. –. “Zur neueren Exegese von Röm. 3, 24–26.“ Pages 315–333 in Jesus und Paulus Festschrift für W. G. Kümmel zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by E. Earle Ellis und Erich Gräßer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Theobald, Michael. Studien zum Römerbrief. WUNT 136. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Thüsing, Wilhelm. Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie. WUNT 82. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Trembelas, Panagiotis. Ὑπόμνημα εἰς τὰς ἐπιστολάς τῆς Καινῆς Διαθήκης. 2 vols. Ἀθῆναι: Ὁ Σωτήρ, 1978. Tsakonas, Vasilios G. Ὑπόμνημα εἰς τήν πρός Ρωμαίους Ἐπιστολήν τοῦ Ἀποστόλου Παύλου (Ρωμ. 1:1–3:20). Athens, 1986. Wengst, Klaus. Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums. StNT 7. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1972. Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 1–5). EKK 6–1. Zürich: Benzinger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978. Wright, N. T. Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s vision. Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2009. Zahn, Theodor. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer. KNT. Leipzig: Deichert, 1925. Zeller, Dieter. Sühne und Langmut. Zur Traditionsgeschichte von Röm. 3,24–26. ThPh 43. Freiburg im Breisgau; Rome: Herder, 1968. Zerwik, Maximilian, and Mary Grosvenor. A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament. 5th ed. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1996.

The Law and New Life in Rom 7:1–6 Eastern-Western Dialogue and Romans Michael G. Azar In August of 1977, representatives from the Russian Orthodox Church (then under the gaze of Soviet Communism) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland met in Kiev as part of an ongoing dialogue.1 In the meeting, the two traditions reached many points of commonality (many more than would appear in Orthodox-German Lutheran dialogues).2 Yet, two major points of difference also revealed themselves: 1) the relation between grace and free will and 2) “the relation between law and gospel in salvation”3. As subsequent dialogues would show, the Orthodox participants remained resistant to too firm a wedge between law and gospel. Taking its inspiration from the Sermon on the Mount, Orthodox tradition, its representatives noted, was characterised by a conceptual blending of law and gospel as informing the ethical norms of the Christian life.4 Lutheran tradition, on the other hand, had largely viewed the Sermon on the Mount as evidence of the old law that was fulfilled by Christ, serving now not as the standard of Christian ethics but as a means to convict the sinner.5 As these series of dialogues continued into the 1980s, Lutheran participants preferred to keep notions of law and gospel at a comfortable distance from each other, while the Orthodox emphasised the gospel’s transfiguration of all of

1 For the full text of the Kiev meeting’s summary statement (“Salvation as Justification and Deification”), see Hannu T. Kamppuri, ed., Dialogue between Neighbours: The Theological Conversations between the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland and the Russian Orthodox Church, 1970–1986 (Helsinki: Luther-Agricola Society, 1986), 68–76. 2 Most notably with regard to important aspects of Orthodox soteriology and deification, to which German Lutherans remained more resistant. See Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2004), 88. For an overview of Lutheran-Orthodox dialogue in its various geographic centres, see Risto Saarinen, Faith and Holiness: Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue 1959–1994 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 1997. 3 Kamppuri, Dialogue between Neighbours, 76. 4 See, Saarinen, Faith and Holiness, 81–82. 5 See Servais Pinckaers, The Sources of Christian Ethics, trans. Mary Thomas Noble, 3rd ed. (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1995), 139.

244

Michael Azar

creation, including the law itself.6 Coincidently, at the same time that these dialogues were happening in Eastern Europe, Pauline scholarship in Western Europe and the United States, largely in light of Ed P. Sanders’s Paul and Palestinian Judaism (published the same year as the Kiev meetings), was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with too strict a division between law and gospel.7 Unfortunately, due to either Western scholarly oversight or the complications of geopolitics in the 1980s (or, rather, likely a combination of both), Eastern Orthodox views of law and gospel remained largely unknown as a so-called “New Perspective” on law and gospel was developing in Pauline studies. The difference between the Orthodox emphasis on the transfiguration of the law through the gospel and the stricter division between law and gospel offered by a Lutheran tradition reaches back well before the twentieth century. In the late sixteenth century, as Lutherans were seeking to solidify their theological and ecclesial legitimacy, theologians from Tübingen contacted Jeremiah II, the then Patriarch of Constantinople. In the enlightening and lengthy letter-exchange that ensued, a variety of key disagreements arose, among which were, again, the relationship between grace and free will and the Orthodox concept of the gospel’s transfiguration of the law.8 While both this letter exchange and the twentieth-century dialogues showed that these particular issues have significant, practical implications for following God’s commands before, in, and after one’s “conversion” from an old life to a new, Lutherans and Orthodox of neither century were able to find much conceptual commonality over either issue. As many scholars have noted, at the root of Lutheran views on law and gospel is Martin Luther’s reading of Romans, especially Rom 7:14–25, and, even more specifically, his identification of the first-person speaker in these verses as Paul himself, describing his own inner struggle with keeping the law that reveals his sin.9 Scholars of what became known as the “New Perspective”

For a concrete example of how this theological difference led to considerable practical differences, see Saarinen, Faith and Holiness, 96. 7 Ed P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977). Sanders’s later book also had an impact on these developments: Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983). 8 For the translated letters, with commentary, see George Mastrantonis, Augsburg and Constantinople: The Correspondence between the Tübingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople on the Augsburg Confession (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1982). 9 Among the most important contributions to this point from the twentieth century is Krister Stendahl, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West”, HTR 56 (1963): 199–215. Cf. Risto Saarinen, “The Pauline Luther and the Law: Lutheran Theology Reengages the Study of Paul”, ProEccl 15 (2006): 64–86, esp. 66 and Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives 6

The Law and New Life in Rom 7:1–6

245

in the last few decades, however, have offered a different reading, tending to see in this passage Paul’s speaking not as himself, but rhetorically on behalf of humanity in general, in order to both explain the overarching relationship between law and sin, and, simultaneously, defend the law from being called sin. Contrary to what might be gleaned from Luther’s position, proponents of this “New Perspective” have asserted that Paul defends rather than indicts the law, attempting to place it in a positive light rather than limiting it to a solely negative, albeit necessary, role.10 This defense that Paul seems to offer in the latter part of Rom 7 does not appear in a vacuum; rather, it is occasioned by something. And that something – the point that causes Paul to backtrack from the possibility that the law itself might be sin (Rom 7:7) – most immediately appears in the illustration of the married woman he offers and applies in Rom 7:1–6, a passage whose complexity stems from its brevity. Paul here seeks to illuminate the relationship between the law and the baptised that is effected by their transition into new life, and as he does, he offers stark divides between one marriage and another, letter and spirit, and, it would appear, law and gospel.11 In what follows, I will consider both this passage in the context of Romans and Paul’s thought in general as well as the manner in which it has been received in Eastern Christianity, especially as the latter compares to Western perspectives, old and new.

Romans 5–8: Deliverance for Subjection Romans 5–8, like Paul’s theology in general, attempts to straddle, rather than close, a gap between two seemingly disparate views of Christ’s effect on humanity. On the one hand, Paul glories in the universal and definitive change that Christ has enacted: Though, with Adam, sin and death came to rule over humankind – or, more to the point, “sin in death” (5:21) – with Christ and his death, the possibility of reconciliation and righteousness has been extended to all (5:17–19). On the other hand, despite this claim that righteousness has extended to all, especially to the baptised (6:3), Paul recognises the need to prod his audience in order to be or become righteous. Though Christ has conquered sin and death, Paul’s readers must “consider” themselves dead to sin (6:11). Though they have been set free from sin (6:7, 18), they must not let sin rule Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 140–144 (with which Saarinen interacts). 10 Cf. Saarinen, “The Lutheran Paul”, 66 or Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New, 136– 137 and 144. 11 Indeed, proponents of the new perspective recognise the trouble this passage poses. From that perspective, see, e.g., James D. G. Dunn, “In Search of Common Ground”, in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 309–334, here 322.

246

Michael Azar

over them (6:12). Though they have already become slaves to righteousness (6:18), they must “present” themselves as instruments of righteousness (6:13). Incidentally, while there appears to have been little choice in the former subjection (to sin and death), there seems to be considerable choice in the latter subjection (to righteousness and life). In this regard, what surely looms in the background of Paul’s thought is the exodus experience of a God who freed people from a slavery into which they were born not that they might wander with aimless freedom but that they might become subject to another (see, e.g., Exod 15:26). They, like Paul’s addressees, were freed from one form of subjection in order to enter another. Paul employs two, closely related illustrations to explore this transference of subjection, the granting of freedom in order to subject: first, slavery (6:15– 6:23) and, second, marriage (7:1–6). Amid the disparity that Paul portrays between the old life (slavery to sin and death or the first marriage) and the new life (slavery to righteousness and Christ or the second marriage), two underlying and essential, but easily overlooked, points arise. First, it is not the state of subjection that is destroyed in the new life; rather, it is the nature of the subjection that is transformed. Second, since slavery and marriage survive on both sides of the transition to a new life, so also does a law to govern those institutions. Law survives, but the way that it is applied changes alongside the person who passes from one subjection to another (Paul’s moral prescriptions in the latter part of Romans confirms this point).12 In other words, the task before Paul lies in convincing his readers that they have been freed from “the law of sin and of death” in order to become subject to the “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:2). At the crux of this argument in Rom 5–8 is Rom 7:1– 6.

Romans 7:1–6 Verse by Verse “Do you not know, brothers (for I speak to those who know [the] law), that the law lords over a person insofar as he [/it13] lives?” (7:1) As Joyce A. Little rightly notes, Paul’s intention here is “to establish a ‘before’ and ‘after’ illustration of the function of the law in our lives. Paul does not intend here to define what that function is, but only to establish the fact that a relationship does exist between the way in which law was to be understood before Christ and the way it is to be understood now” [“Paul’s Use of Analogy: A Structural Analysis of Romans 7:1–6”, CBQ 46 (1984): 84]. 13 The verb ζῇ has no subject and could, technically speaking, refer to either the “person” or the “law.” While the majority of commentators assume the former, Origen in his commentary, opts for the latter (Comm. Rom. 6.7.8). The English translation of Origen’s commentary, which survives in Rufinus’s Latin translation, is Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, trans. Thomas P. Scheck, FC 103–104 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001–2002). All citations below follow Scheck’s divisions. 12

The Law and New Life in Rom 7:1–6

247

By addressing his readers as “brothers” for the first time since 1:13 (and the first of two in this one passage), Paul marks not only a transition in his letter, but also the gravity of what he is about to say.14 His question, furthermore, reminds the reader of 6:3, where he likewise asked his readers, “Do you not know?” (ἀγνοεῖτε), with reference to their death in baptism. Here in 7:1 nonetheless, rather than death (6:9) or sin (6:14), it is the law that “lords over” (κυριεύει), in this case, a living person.15 The use of this particular verb serves to highlight the dimension of the law as a master, not as a passive associate or merely a παιδαγωγός (Gal 3:25). Paul will use this verb one additional time in the rest of Romans: to describe Christ’s ability to do precisely what the law cannot do – that is, “lord over” the living and the dead (Rom 14:9). Such a status, Paul notes in that verse, was the effect of Christ’s having died and risen again. While Paul’s readers may “die” and escape the subjection of one master who has power only over the living, they cannot escape subjection to the other who has power over the living and dead. For a woman under the authority of a man [ὕπανδρος γυνή] is bound by law to a husband while he lives. If the husband dies, [she] is released [/made of no effect; κατήργηται] from the law of the husband. (7:2)

The manner in which Paul here offers his proof (for the principle stated in 7:1) reveals that his interest is not in marriage law per se, but a particular feature of that law: namely, that a woman is not simply “married” to her husband in any general sense, but subject to him (ὕπανδρος) and bound to him (δέδεται).16 The connotation of Paul’s vocabulary is not that the woman should not leave her husband (as in the very similar “law” in 1 Cor 7:10) but that she cannot (indeed, this is partly why Paul focuses on the woman rather than man). While the word ὕπανδρος, rare outside of Jewish and Christian sources, is often translated as 14 Cf. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, WBC 38a (Dallas, Word: 1988), 359. With λαλῶ, Paul is likely adding further emphasis. 15 Though Peter J. Tomson intriguingly argues that Paul is referring to an “apostolic law”, given the similarities between Rom 7:2 and 1 Cor 7:39–40 [“What Did Paul Mean by ‘Those Who Know the Law’? (Rom 7.1)”, NTS 49 (2003): 573–581], I am assuming, with most commentators, that by “law” Paul is speaking, generally, of the Torah (see, e.g., Dunn, Romans 1– 8, 359). Yet, as Origen notes, much of what Paul says can be applied to any law or custom that similarly interferes with life in Christ (Comm. Rom. 6.7.14). 16 The verb (from δέω) is typically used to denote something tied up/down (e.g., the ass in Matt 21:2), and it seems to be Paul’s word of choice for describing marriage: A man is bound to his wife (1 Cor 7:27) and a wife to her husband (1 Cor 7:39). While the verb is not unique to Paul, it nonetheless fits well with his image of marriage in 1 Cor 7 as more hindering (i.e., binding) than Paul’s celibate life. It likewise works well in Rom 7, in that Paul is portraying the binding nature of marriage. This is not to suggest that Paul’s image of marriage as subjection is not without ethical problems. Cf. Elizabeth A. Castelli, “Romans”, in A Feminist Commentary, vol. 2 of Searching the Scriptures, ed. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (New York: Crossroad, 1994), 272–300.

248

Michael Azar

“married”, such a translation misses the “subjected” nature of the illustration.17 Should Paul wish merely to convey that the woman is “married” to the man (as in 1 Cor 7:39), he could have done so by entirely avoiding this word; the sentence still makes perfect sense without it.18 Nonetheless, Paul’s emphasis is on the subjection of the woman. As later rabbinic texts reveal, Paul’s socio-religious location undoubtedly afforded him an opportunity to envision a conceptual (if unfortunate) link between his illustrations of slavery and marriage.19 Both cases involved the transference of a subjected person to a new overseer, in a manner akin to the transference of property.20 It is no surprise, therefore, that Paul employs both institutions in order to communicate his understanding of his readers’ transference (“conversion”) as leaving the subjection of one for subjection to another. Nonetheless, Paul’s interest lies not in either institution per se, but in what allows a person to transfer to another subjection. With regard to the marriage illustration, it is death that allows the woman to be released (/made of no effect; κατήργηται) from the law of the husband (τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ἀνδρός – an admittedly complex phrase).21 Paul entirely overlooks divorce as an option (though he recognises it as a possibility in 1 Cor 7:10–11). Accordingly, while the man is living, she will be called an adulteress if she becomes [γένηται] another man’s. But if the husband dies, she is free from the law; she is not an adulteress if she becomes another man’s. (7:3)

The word translated here as “becomes” (from γίνομαι) is often translated as “marries” or “lives with” but, as with respect to ὕπανδρος, while such translations make sense in context, they nonetheless fail to communicate the force of Paul’s words. First, translating Paul’s use of γίνομαι here in verse 3 as “lives 17 For example, John D. Earnshaw argues that the word “simply means ‘married’” [“Reconsidering Paul’s Marriage Analogy in Romans 7:1–4”, NTS 40 (1994): 77], but he is not the only commentator to do so, as “married” is perhaps the most common translation. For a brief overview of the term, see Luzia Sutter Rehmann, “The Doorway to Freedom: The Case of the ‘Suspected Wife’ in Romans 7.1–6”, JSNT 79 (2000): 97–99. As Sutter Rehmann and a variety of others note, when the term occurs in the LXX, it is always connected to adultery, which makes partial sense of Paul’s use here (the only time the word occurs in the NT). 18 As Peter Spitaler rightly notes, translating ὕπανδρος γυνὴ as “married woman” makes sense in context, but it fails to communicate the redundancy (even overkill) of the statement [“Analogical Reasoning in Romans 7:2–4: A Woman and the Believers in Rome”, JBL 125 (2006): 721; see also 741–742]. 19 See, e.g., Gail Labovitz, Marriage and Metaphor: Constructions of Gender in Rabbinic Literature (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2009), 154–156. 20 In both cases, “freedom” required a similar document of release (ibid., 160–167). 21 While these four words (τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ἀνδρός) may be read as in apposition (cf. Origen, Comm. Rom. 6.7.1–19), it seems most likely, as the majority of commentators argue, that the expression means “the law with regard to the husband” (or something similar). Nonetheless, I have opted for a more literal translation: “the law of the husband”.

The Law and New Life in Rom 7:1–6

249

[with another man]” or “marries [another man]” but the same word in verse 4 as “belong to another” – as does the NRSV – destroys the deliberate parallelism that Paul creates between the two verses. Second, such translations hide the grammatical and conceptual roots of Paul’s portrayal of marriage. In using γίνομαι with an accompanying dative (ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ), Paul’s language reflects the Hebraic background (as filtered through the Septuagint) – a background, moreover, that confirms Paul’s emphasis on the woman’s marriage as subjection. In the Septuagint, when a woman is the subject of the act of marrying, rather than the man, she does not “marry” (i.e., a form of γαμέω) in a more egalitarian, neutral sense; rather, she “becomes a man’s” (i.e., a form of γίνομαι with ἀνδρί, reflecting the Hebrew ‫ היה‬with ‫)לִ֔אישׁ‬. ְ 22 The woman simply “becomes a man’s”, as the passive participant, whereas the man “takes a woman”, as the active participant (cf. Ruth 4:13).23 Amid this “subjected” view of marriage, Paul simultaneously highlights the woman’s freedom: Once freed from the burden of the first marriage and τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ἀνδρός, she is “free” (ἐλευθέρα) – but free to “become another man’s.” While this second marriage is thus still one of subjection, it nonetheless originates in the woman’s voluntary action (as in Rom 6:18–19, where Paul’s readers are free to present themselves as slaves). Paul avoids, deliberately it would seem, a third option: a slave seeking no new master or a woman seeking no new husband. In other words, he disregards the possibility that the woman is free not to become another’s – a point at odds with 1 Cor 7:8, where he explicitly prefers that widows remain unmarried.24 As with the option of divorce, this third option does not serve Paul’s overall motif or purpose, and so he disregards it. The illustration is not intended to describe a woman freed from marriage but a woman freed for a second marriage. As such, there is no indication that the newly joined woman is no longer subject to the same law that governed the first marriage; presumably in the second marriage, she still would have to worry about another νόμου τοῦ ἀνδρός. The (or a) law remains, even if the first husband is no more; the woman, like Israel coming out of Egypt, is never free to be without law. Given this manner in which Paul presents the transition from an old life to a new, he must now turn to address the role of the law not only in the transition to the second marriage, but within the second marriage. Presumably, the νόμος of the

See Num 30:7 or, similarly, Num 36:6. Similarly, as the LSJ entry shows, in Greek, the active of γαμέω is used typically for the man, while the middle form of the same word is typically used of the woman. Paul’s use of the active form of γαμέω when speaking of the “virgin” in 1 Cor 7:28 is a notable departure from this trend. 24 John Chrysostom, recognising this possible third option, argues that Paul demonstrates for his readers the benefits of the new marriage and exhorts them to choose it voluntarily [Hom. Rom. 12.3 (PG 60:498; NPNF1 11:419)]. 22 23

250

Michael Azar

second ἀνὴρ will offer a positive contribution in the new life of subjection, more beneficial than the first, from which the woman needed to be freed. Therefore, my brothers, you yourselves were also put to death by the law through the body of Christ, in order for you to become another’s, his who was raised from the dead, so that we might bear fruit to God. (7:4)

Paul applies his illustration to his readers through an emphasis on the major themes (i.e., a death granting freedom for a second subjection) rather than a point-by-point correspondence (e.g., the readers’ directly taking the place of the woman).25 Though he does not explicitly mention baptism here in 7:4, he strikes a similar note as that of chapter 6, where he directly explains that through baptism he and his readers participate in Christ’s death, in order to participate in his resurrection (6:3–4). There is no reason to assume he is no longer developing the same point with regard to death and new subjection wrought by transition into new life. As he does more explicitly in chapter 6 (cf. 6:4–8), Paul here explains that by participating in the death of Christ his readers also are expected to participate in his resurrection. The new union does not come without responsibility; Paul’s readers are expected to “bear fruit to God”.26 While in 6:6 Paul declares that the old self was crucified with Christ that the “body of sin” might be destroyed, he speaks even more directly here, in chapter 7, with regard to the materiality of “the body of Christ”. Should contemporary interpreters wish to do what Paul does not do in this passage and partition his thought process into a variety of specific “bodies” to which he might be referring (e.g., the church27, the Eucharist28, or the “historical body”29 of A point noted in Dunn, Romans 1–8, 361. The verb easily sounds like an allusion to marriage offspring, especially given the context of marriage, but nowhere in the LXX, nor, it seems, Greek literature in general, is this word used to denote begetting children. Rather, the general sense closely resembles the way Jesus uses it in the Parable of the Sower (Matt 13:23): If the word does not refer literally to plants bearing fruit, it refers metaphorically to producing virtuous acts (cf. Hab 3:17; Wis 10:7). 27 Robert Jewett, for example, notes that Paul’s intended meaning here is “not ecclesiastical” [Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2007), 434]. 28 E.g., Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, EKK 6, 3 vols. (Zürich; NeukirchenVluyn: Benziger; Neukirchener Verlag, 1978, 1980, 1982), 2:64–65. 29 This is the most common choice among contemporary commentators. See, e.g., Earnshaw, “Marriage Analogy”, 82–83, 87; Charles E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC 32, 2 vols., repr. with corr. (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1990), 336; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 458, and Brendan Byrne, Romans, SP (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1996), 214. Dunn suggests that seeing a Eucharistic or ecclesiological reference in this passage “runs the risk of broadening the thought too far at this stage and of missing the force of the divine passive as well as of weakening the reference to the oncefor-all epochal event of Christ’s death” (Romans 1–8, 362). Conversely, in Orthodox thought, 25 26

The Law and New Life in Rom 7:1–6

251

Christ), and, relatedly, deliberately distance this verse from Paul’s earlier comments about baptism30, one may overlook the significance of this passage: that it is through a material connection (not gnostic or spiritual per se) that Christ and the baptised are united.31 It is not by having the “mind of Christ” (1 Cor 2:16) or “Spirit of Christ” (Rom 8:9) that his readers transition to new life, but by identifying with the “body of Christ” – an expression that Paul uses elsewhere to refer either to the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 10:16) or the church (1 Cor 12:27; Eph 4:12).32 This materiality is a key reason why Paul so rarely uses the expression “believers” to refer to his “brothers” who are “in Christ” (despite the overwhelming tendency of commentators and translators), for it is not merely by “believing” that they are united with Christ in his death.33 Though the church, which is united chiefly in the regular sharing of Eucharist (rather than in belief or administrative means), is, paradoxically to some, united to the “once-for-all” event of Christ’s death. For concise summaries of Orthodox ecclesiology and liturgical thought, see Tamara Grdzelidze, “Church (Orthodox Ecclesiology)”, in The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, ed. John A. McGuckin (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 1:124–132 and John A. McGuckin, “Divine Liturgy, Orthodox”, in The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, ed. John A. McGuckin (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 1:190–196. Looking more broadly to other early Christian approaches to the continual re-embodying of completed past events, see John Hainsworth, “The Force of the Mystery: Anamnesis and Exegesis in Melito’s Peri Pascha”, SVTQ 46 (2002): 107–146. 30 Many scholars distance Rom 7:4 from too close a reference to baptism. See, e.g., Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 176. Conversely, see Frank J. Matera, Romans, Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010), 170. 31 Byrne rightly notes the peculiarity of the physicality of Paul’s point here (Romans, 211). 32 For a nicely nuanced discussion of the “body of Christ” in Paul’s letters, showing how the varied uses interrelate, Frank. J. Matera, God’s Saving Grace: A Pauline Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 134–142. In the Eastern thought that would develop in the wake of Paul, none of these three (i.e., Jesus’s historical body, the Lord’s Supper, or the church) was easily envisioned apart from the other two [for one extended example of this, see the fourteenthcentury Byzantine text Nicholas Cabasilas, The Life in Christ, trans. Carmino J. deCatanzaro (Crestwood, NY: SVS, 1974); the Greek edition is La Vie en Christ, ed. and trans. Marie-Hélène Congourdeau, SC 355 and 361 (Paris: Cerf, 1989–1990)]. Thus, one will not find the need to partition or establish which referent Paul had in mind at the expense of the other two. Relatedly, while scholars look to Origen for early support that “the body of Christ” in Rom 7:4 refers, for example, to “the crucified body of the Jesus of history” (Fitzmyer, Romans, 458), one should be aware that Origen, like other Eastern thinkers, regularly intermingles the different references to Jesus’s “body” in Scripture (see, e.g., Comm. Jo. 10.229–240, 299, 304). 33 Those scholars who do acknowledge a baptismal reference in 7:4 nonetheless often reduce Paul’s direct assertion that baptism is the means through which Christ’s death is appropriated (6:3) to an “analogy” (e.g., Little, “Paul’s Use of Analogy, 87), “symbol” [e.g., Keith Augustus Burton, “The Argumentative Coherency of Romans 7:1–6”, in SBL Seminar Papers, 2000, SBLSP 39 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 452–462, here 456; cf. 451], or a similar term not employed by Paul. In Eastern sacramental thought (see next note), however, the distance between “symbol” and “reality” is not terribly evident (nor is it in Romans 6–7):

252

Michael Azar

the materiality of unity with Christ’s humanity would be deemphasised in certain Reformation traditions (from which, one should note, the discipline of modern biblical studies stems), it has had a tremendous impact on the development of Eastern Christological and sacramental thought.34 The words with which Paul depicts this transition into new life in 7:4, and therefore the Law’s role in that transition, are complex: He declares to his readers, ἐθανατώθητε τῷ νόμῳ. If Paul were to argue here that his addressees have “died to the law”, as he does with regard to himself in Galatians (νόμῳ ἀπέθανον; Gal 2:19b), it would appear that the law would play no part in the transition to the “second marriage”. Nonetheless, though translating these words as “died/put to death to the law” or some version of “with reference to the law”35 is almost ubiquitous among contemporary scholars, neither is the most natural reading of Paul’s Greek – especially when one does not assume that Paul must be making the same point as in Gal 2:19b.36 Rather, here in Romans, where Paul does not seem to have the same Judaising concern as in Galatians, Paul is arguing that it is the law itself that has put his readers to death through Christ; the role of the law with regard to death and new union is, in other words, chiefly active, not passive.37 Galatians aside, these words are best translated as “put to death by the law” rather than “put to death to the law” for a variety of reasons.

In baptism, the person dies with Christ and transitions to new life. Such is a point that Cyril of Alexandria makes in his commentary on this passage. For the Greek text of what remains of Cyril’s Romans commentary, see Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, ed. Philip E. Pusey, 3 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1872), 173–248, here 193–194. Though there is no English translation to my knowledge, selections are included in J. Patout Burns, ed., Romans: Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators, The Church’s Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012). 34 For a classic Byzantine expression of the materiality of unity with Christ, see Cabasilas, The Life in Christ. On the general and complex relationship between symbol and reality, materiality and immateriality, in Orthodox sacramental thought, see Andrew Louth, Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2013), 96–121 (esp. 110–113) or Alexander Schmemann, For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy, 2nd ed. (Crestwood, NY: SVS, 1973, repr., 2004), esp. 135–153. 35 E.g., “as far as the law is concerned” in Byrne, Romans, 208; “in relation to the law”, in Dunn, Romans 1–8, 358, or “gegenüber” in Wilckens, Der Brief, 62. Commentators who hold to these or similar translations typically take the passive form that Paul uses for “were put to death” (i.e., ἐθανατώθητε and not, say, ἀπεθάνετε) as intending to emphasise, in Jewett’s words, “the divine initiative” – that is, God’s role in the putting to death (Romans, 433; cf. Cranfield, Romans, 335–36). 36 Indeed, too often, since the Reformation, have all of Paul’s letters been subjected to the dominance of Galatians. 37 Thus, rather than equate this verse with Paul’s claim to have “died to the law” in Gal 2:19b, one would do better to equate it with the claim that it was “through the law” that Paul died in Gal 2:19a.

The Law and New Life in Rom 7:1–6

253

First, thematically speaking, θανατόω typically connotes not just death but a sentence of death levied by authorities. Bearing in mind that Paul is alluding to the actual crucifixion of Jesus in these words (other allusions notwithstanding), it is no surprise that Paul is here not merely arguing that his addressees were “put to death” to the law but by the law – as Christ himself was (see Matt 26:59). Such an assertion – that the law is the cause of death rather than merely the thing to which a person dies – is partly what necessitates Paul’s later defence of the law in 7:14–24. Here in 7:4 and in the verses that follow (namely, 7:5–12), the law seemingly has an active, rather than passive, role in condemning to death.38 What is more, this is not the only place that Paul associates the law with causing death (cf. 1 Cor 15:56), particularly in the context of a flesh/spirit distinction (which he introduces in 7:6). In 2 Cor 3:6 he is infamously more direct: “The letter kills but the Spirit gives life.” Assigning to the law an active role in death and to the reader a passive role in dying and becoming “another’s” coheres well with Paul’s portrayal of the woman’s entirely passive role in the preceding illustration but the active role given to the “law of the husband” in binding (7:2). Second, grammatically speaking, if, as a variety of commentators argue, this expression employs a “dative of disadvantage”, Rom 7:4 would be the only use of the passive form of θανατόω with a dative of disadvantage rather than a dative of instrument in the biblical literature.39 In the majority of cases in the Septuagint where a passive form of θανατόω occurs with the dative, it is simply to translate the common Hebraic way of expressing a certain death (that is, with the infinitive absolute).40 Aside from these, there is one other passage of note: In 2 Kgs 11:15, when a passive form of θανατόω occurs with the dative noun but no preposition to intervene (as in Rom 7:4), it can only be a dative of instrument: αὐτῆς θανάτῳ θανατωθήσεται ῥομφαίᾳ (“Let her be surely put to death by the sword”).41 38 For a thoughtful summary of the problem posed in associating the law with death in Rom 7:7–11 especially, see Burton, “The Argumentative Coherency”, 458. If, as many scholars note, this passage is indeed an allusion to the Adam and Eve story, it makes sense that Paul looks to the law as an instrument of death. With Adam and Eve, the transgression did not have the power of death; rather, the commandment, the thing transgressed, stipulated death – namely, the loss of immortality – for transgression (Gen 2:17). See, e.g., Austin Busch, “The Figure of Eve in Romans 7:5–25”, BibInt 12 (2004): 1–36. 39 The BDAG entry for θανατόω lists Rom 7:4 as employing a dative of disadvantage, and the suggestion is followed by the majority of commentators (e.g., Byrne, Romans, 214). 40 This happens on numerous occasions in the Pentateuch. See, e.g., Exod 31:34, where θανάτῳ θανατωθήσεται is used for ‫יוּמת‬ ָ֔ ‫( ֣מוֹת‬cf. Exod 31:15; Lev 20:10, 11; 20:12, 16, 27; 27:29; Num 35:31; see also Ezek 3:18; 18:13; 33:8, 14). 41 See also 2 Chr 23:21, which has a similar construction: τὴν Γοθολίαν ἐθανάτωσαν μαχαίρᾳ (“They put Gotholia to death by dagger”). Cf. 1 Kgs 2:15, where a preposition is used: Εἰ θανατωθήσεται ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ (“If he will be put to death by a sword”).

254

Michael Azar

Third, while Greek patristic authors write about this passage with potentially the same linguistic ambiguity as the original, two particular comments from Basil of Caesarea’s On Baptism and John Chrysostom’s Homilies on Romans indicate that authors understood Paul’s comments about the law in 7:4 actively (as a dative of instrument) rather than passively (as the thing to which those in Christ die).42 In On Baptism, Basil examines a variety of features and implications that arise from this Christian initiation “mystery”.43 Since baptism brings death with Christ (Rom 6:3), Basil, at one point, explores what it means to be “dead to the law” (cf. Gal 2:19–20), and he does so through the lens of the Sermon on the Mount. To be dead to law, he argues, is to go beyond what the law requires – to exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees (cf. Matt 5:20), to give one’s cloak even when not required (cf. Matt 5:40). To merely do what the law requires is, according to Basil, “righteousness according to the law” that is “dung” when compared to Christ (Phil 3:8–11). Instead, the one who dies with Christ ought to go well beyond what the law requires (a point to which we will return below).44 Amid this discussion, Basil quotes Rom 7:4–6, where, he notes, Paul “more harshly” (σφοδρότερον) considers the relationship between death and the law, as if “expounding an important teaching” (δόγμα ἀναγκαῖον ἐκτιθέμενος).45 Immediately after quoting these two verses, Basil explains, For the letter”, that is to say the law, “kills but the Spirit”, that is to say the word of the Lord, “gives life” [2 Cor 3:6]. As it says, “The flesh profits nothing; it is the Spirit which gives life. My words are Spirit and life” [John 6:63]. What the apostles admit also confirms this: “To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. And we have come to believe and know that you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” [John 6:68–69]. If we diligently preserve [this] truth in confidence, with careful attention, we will be able to escape the fearful judgment prophetically written by Moses with a threat: ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me. You will listen to whatever he commands you. And it will happen that every soul, which does not listen to that prophet, will be utterly destroyed from among the people [cf. Acts 3:22–23; Deut 18:18–19].46

By using 2 Cor 3:6 (one of two other instances besides Rom 7:6 where Paul contrasts “letter” and “Spirit” directly), Basil assigns an active role to the law in causing death.

42 My citations from Basil’s Second Sermon On Baptism follow the translation found in Saint Basil, Ascetical Works, transl. Monica Wagner, repr. ed., FC 9 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1999), 339–430, with slight modifications from the Greek in PG 31:1513–1628. 43 That is, μυστήριον, the word Eastern Christians still use to refer to what are sometimes called “sacraments” (cf. Paul’s comments regarding marriage as a “mystery” in Eph 5:32). 44 On Baptism 2.12 (PG 31:1545; FC 9:365). 45 On Baptism 2.13 (PG 31:1545; FC 9:365). 46 On Baptism 2.13 (PG 31:1545, 1548; FC 9:365–356).

The Law and New Life in Rom 7:1–6

255

Both Paul’s attributing of an active role to the law in causing death (7:4) and his subsequent defense of the law that this assignation necessitates (especially after 7:13) together suggest that Paul does not intend for the law, as cause of death, to be cast in an entirely negative light. John Chrysostom picks up on this point in his twelfth homily on Romans (covering Rom 6:19–7:13).47 Taking the husband and wife in 7:2–3 as signifying, in part, the law and Christians respectively, Chrysostom argues that Paul at first intends to show that the law has died and thus no longer rules over Christians.48 But, Chrysostom explains, Paul is a careful pastor and since he does not want his addressees to have too negative of a view of the law (Chrysostom is clearly indebted to his antiMarcionite context), he only “hints” (ᾐνίξατο) at the death of the law and focuses instead on the death of the woman.49 Since 7:2–3 and this “hint” may still cast the law in too negative of a light, Chrysostom argues that Paul adjusts course in 7:4 to speak more favorably of the law: “You see”, Chrysostom explains, “how in the illustration [παραδείγματι] he points out that the law having come to an end [τετελευτηκότα], but in the application [ἐπαγωγῇ] he does not do so.”50 Chrysostom thus takes Rom 7:4 not as carrying forward a negative description of the law (i.e., that it died, as in 7:2–3), but as offering a positive counterweight (i.e. that the law contributed to humankind’s salvation). Continuing along the same line of thought, Chrysostom then describes how it is that Paul speaks positively of the law in Rom 7:4. Quoting Rom 7:3, he explains, It would have been natural to say next, “You also, my brothers, now that the law has come to an end [τελευτήσαντος], will not be judged guilty of adultery, if you become another man’s.” Yet he does not use these words, but what? “You have been put to death by the law” [Rom 7:4]. If you have become dead, you are no longer under the law.… Do you note the wisdom of Paul, how he points out that the law itself desires that we should be divorced [ἀποστῆναι] from it, and become another’s? For there is nothing, he means, against your living with another husband, now that the former has come to an end…. The marvel then is this, that it is the law itself that acquits us who are divorced from it of any charge; thus, its intension is for us to become Christ’s [αὐτοῦ βούλημα τὸ γενέσθαι ἡμᾶς τοῦ Χριστοῦ].51

Elaborating on the pastoral sensitivity of Paul, Chrysostom here assumes a dative of instrument in Rom 7:4 (“put to death by the law”), as he argues that the Law’s role in causing our death through Christ is one of the positive ways 47 My citations from Chrysostom’s Homilies on Romans 12 follow the translation by John B. Morris and William H. Simcox found in NPNF1 11:416–427 with modifications from the Greek in PG 60:493–508. 48 Hom. Rom. 12.2 (PG 60:496–497; NPNF1 11:418). 49 Hom. Rom. 12.2 (PG 60:497; NPNF1 11:418). Thus, what many contemporary commentators take as a sign of the imperfection between Paul’s illustration and application, Chrysostom takes as Paul’s careful and pastoral balancing of positive and negative comments about the law. 50 Hom. Rom. 12.3 (PG 60:497; NPNF1 11:419). 51 Hom. Rom. 12.3 (PG 60:497; NPNF1 11:419).

256

Michael Azar

in which Paul speaks of the law: The law ensures the death of the Messiah and thereby opens up a way, with its approval and even desire, for the woman/Christians to become another’s without being charged as adulterers.52 As the prophets proclaim the eventual coming of God’s Messiah and, moreover, specifically proclaim his suffering and death (cf. Luke 24:26–27), so also the law, which is “holy and just and good” (Rom 7:12), works to ensure that that death happened. The manner in which Chrysostom describes the law as ensuring the salvific work of Christ and, afterwards, itself “dying”, brings to mind the words of John the Baptist: “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30). For when we were living in the flesh, the passions of sins, through the law, were working in our members so as to bear fruit to death. But now we are released [/made of no effect] from the law, having died by [/in] that which we were constrained, in order for us to serve [/be slaves] in newness of Spirit and not oldness of letter. [7:5–6]

Paul here returns to his idealistic outlook on the success afforded by Christ’s death and the readers’ baptism. In chapter 6, he asserted that through baptism “we” had died to sin in that our baptism effected a unity with Christ’s death (6:2–3). Here in 7:5, he seems to make a similar point, while describing the former life as one that was lived “in the flesh”. In that life, the “passions of sins” (or “sinful passions”) were “working in our members” having been effected through the law. Having just asserted that the law contributed to our death “through the body of Christ” (7:4), and now that the law had previously somehow contributed to sin, Paul is assuredly building the warrant for his soon to come defense of the law (starting in 7:7 and especially 7:13). For now, however, he does not deny the point: The law had a negative impact in the era before Christ’s death/our baptism, contributing to, rather than entirely negating, sins, bearing fruit to death (7:5) rather than God (7:4). When Paul has so far mentioned θάνατος in Romans with a beneficial implication, the term has denoted Christ’s death or our death with Christ;53 whenever it has had a negative connotation, as here in 7:5, it has referred to the fruits of humankind’s sin, or, in this case, misuse of the law.54 In a way, by so Relatedly, Origen’s On Pascha [=Passover] argues that the nature of the true Pascha is Christ’s “passing over” from death to life and, through him, our own passing over from death to life (a point lost when τὸ πάσχα is misleadingly translated as “Easter”). See Origen’s text (with a helpful introduction) in Treatise on the Passover and Dialogue of Origen with Heraclides and His Fellow Bishops on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, trans. Robert J. Daly, ACW 54 (New York: Paulist, 1992). For a critical Greek edition of this porous text, see Die Schrift des Origenes ‘Über das Passa’, ed. Bernd Witte, ASKA 4 (Altenberge: Oros, 1993). [Daly’s translation is based, however, on Origène: Sur la Pâque, ed. Octav Guéraud and Pierre Nautin, Christianisme antique 2 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1979)]. 53 E.g., 5:10; 6:3; 7:4. 54 E.g., 1:32; 5:12, 14, 21; 6:21. 52

The Law and New Life in Rom 7:1–6

257

closely associating the law, sin, and death, Romans 7:5–6 serves as the crescendo of the implied effects of Paul’s words in the preceding chapters. In the rest of chapter 7, Paul will qualify this crescendo as he summarises that the law, through misuse, led to sin, and sin to death. In chapter 8, he will show that Christ, by submitting to death, has reversed the process, and so with death overcame sin, opening up a renewed possibility for proper use of the law.55 Paul will explain that through Christ’s actions and his undoing of unholy connections between law, sin, and death, the “law of sin and death” – far from being “replaced” – becomes the “law of the Spirit of life” (cf. Rom 8:2); it will be on this transformed law that Paul will base his moral advice in Rom 12–15. But again, Paul’s argument in the rest of chapter 7 and into chapter 8 is first necessitated by what he seems to imply here in 7:5–6. The translation above is admittedly fairly literal, but in light of the marriage illustration especially, it is so in order to carry forward the sense of Paul’s phrasing – namely, the dynamic between activity and passivity in the “work” of transition to new life [the key verbs Paul uses here are all variations of the root “to work” (ἐργ*)]. The fault of the old life, as Paul describes in 7:5, lies not in the “sins” per se, but in the “movements” or “passions” (παθήματα) toward sins. The primary actor/subject is not “sins” (ἁμαρτιῶν, in the genitive) but “passions” (in the nominative), a word rooted in the noun πάθος or the verb πάσχω. Though the concept of “passions” would take on a complex meaning within later Christian circles, far more than in the classical period,56 at the root of the word in both contexts is the notion of passivity, that is, something, or a part of someone, that is moved rather than moves (hence the etymological origins of the word “passivity” itself).57 Passions are what is done to rather than by a person. And herein lies Paul’s point, which he will make abundantly clear in 7:7–12 especially: Without the law, the passive τὰ παθήματα τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν lay dormant “in our members”, but with the law, they were energised

55 Indeed, in the rest of this homily, Chrysostom remains stalwart in his defense against the law as a cause of sin; rather, with Paul he asserts that it was the “old man” that misused the law and so caused sin. Defending both the law and the flesh from false charges, he explains, “For the soul ranks as a performer, and the fabric of the flesh as a lyre, sounding as the performer obliges it. So the discordant tune is to be ascribed not to the latter, but to the former, sooner than to the latter” [Hom. Rom. 12.3 (PG 60:498; NPNF1 11:420)]. It is that old man, that soul that misused both flesh and law that, Chrysostom claims, Paul describes as being “made of no effect” in Rom 7:6. 56 Even a brief comparison of the entries for πάθος in LSJ and PGL demonstrates this point. In contemporary language, the word is often taken to mean “suffering” – a connotation that Paul uses in Rom 8:18. 57 Admittedly, focusing on issues of “passivity” versus “activity”, I am passing over a number of other important connotations and issues raised by this word. For a broader description of Paul’s use of “passions” in this verse, see Jewett, Romans, 436–437.

258

Michael Azar

(ἐνηργεῖτο) so that they “bore fruit to death”.58 In a moment, Paul will rephrase the same idea: “I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived” (7:9).59 Such was the (unintended) effect of the law in the former life: an agitator of what lay dormant. But, as the woman was released or made ineffective (κατήργηται) from (ἀπὸ) the νόμου τοῦ ἀνδρός (7:2), so also “we”, Paul explains here in 7:6, are freed or made ineffective (κατηργήθημεν) from (ἀπό) the νόμου. Though often translated as “freed from” in the contexts of these verses, the passive form of the verb used here (καταργέω) does not have the connotation of freedom per se (such as with ἐλευθερόω); rather it denotes something as having been caused to cease, or stop, a shift from activity to idleness, effectiveness to ineffectiveness, usefulness to uselessness, which is precisely what Paul argues in these verses with regard to those who have died with Christ. The law, which once had an effect that produced fruit to death no longer has that effect, as those who have died have been made ineffective to this particular effect of the law. They have not been freed from the law in toto; rather, they have been freed from that particular effect of the law that energised the passions of sin and produced death.60 In other words, what is to rule the baptised now is not the “law” that effects “sin and death” but the “law” that effects “the Sprit of life in Christ Jesus” (cf. Rom 8:2) – not as two separate laws, but as the former transformed into the latter. Paul’s readers are not free (ἐλεύθερος) from law in general, but from the law as leading to sin and death.61 The woman is not forever free from the “law of the husband” itself, only the “law of the first husband”. One should here note that a variety of English translations have misleadingly construed the transition that Paul here describes, and the role of the law in that transition, too much in terms of both his argument in Galatians and a later tendency to distance law from gospel (as in the case of ἐθανατώθητε τῷ νόμῳ 58 Paul also makes a similar point in Rom 6:12, that his readers must not let sin rule over them and force them to obey their “desires” (ἐπιθυμίαις). Cf. Gal 5:24, where both “passions” and “desires” are closely associated. 59 Seeking to defend the law in his comments on 7:5, Cyril of Alexandria denies that the law “stirs up” (κεκίνηται) the passions; rather, the passions arise from an “imbedded pleasure” [ἐξ ἐμφύτου … ἡδονῆς (Pusey 3:195)]. Both he and Chrysostom (see note 54 above) appear to defend the law from too close an association with sin even more than Paul himself does. 60 Paul uses the καταργέω with ἀπὸ three times in his letters, twice in this passage (7:2 and 6) and once in Gal 5:4. The use in Galatians gives good reason to keep the connotation of “ineffectiveness” in Rom 7:2 and 6, since there Paul does not describe those who seek to be justified by the law as “free” from Christ but “unaffected” by or “ineffective” to Christ’s work. In all three cases, the subject is not “freed” per se but becomes unaffected by the actor, whether the νόμος τοῦ ἀνδρός (Rom 7:2), the law itself (Rom 7:6), or Christ (Gal 5:4). 61 Cf. Tomson, “What Did Paul Mean”, 574, which describes Paul’s asserting both the inapplicability and continuing applicability of law as a “baffling paradox”.

The Law and New Life in Rom 7:1–6

259

in 7:4 above). To speak of these verses simply as describing the believer’s liberation from the law prejudges the matter in a way that Paul does not (despite the close affinity of ineffectiveness and freedom in 7:2–3). What has changed for those who have died with Christ is not that the law is made to no effect, as if we are freed entirely from it, but that it no longer has the equivalent effect on us. In other words, the law, working in a new way (“newness of Spirit”) through Christ, no longer produces fruit to death but to God. Thus, when Paul speaks more technically of his readers’ having been “freed” (ἠλευθέρωσεν) from the law, he speaks not of the law per se, but “the law of sin and death” (Rom 8:2). Nowhere does Paul speak of having been made “free” (ἐλεύθερος or ἐλευθερόω) from the law entirely (in fact, he makes the opposite claim in 1 Cor 9:21). This is a point touched upon by John Chrysostom who, fearing dual Marcionite and gnostically minded exuberance in light Paul’s apparent distancing of the baptised from the law, observes, See how he here spares the flesh and the law: For he does not say that “the law was made no effect” nor that “the flesh was made no effect”, but “we were made no effect”. And how were we made no effect? By the old person, constrained [κατεχομένου] by sin, dying and being buried. For this is clear when he says, “having died by that which we were constrained” [Rom 7:6]. It is as if he says, “The constraint, through which we were constrained, died and was broken, so that that which constrained, that is, sin, constrains no longer.” But do not relax and become sluggish, for you were made no effect [κατηργήθης] in order to serve [δουλεύειν] again, though not in the same way, but “in order for us to serve in newness of Spirit and not oldness of letter” [Rom 7:6].62

Chrysostom then turns to explain what Paul means by “newness of Sprit”, and he does so in terms that characterise the Eastern understanding of what is usually called “original sin” in the West – that is, after Adam humankind inherited an almost inevitable tendency to misuse the law and so sin, but Christ makes the old tendency ineffective and instills a new tendency and requirement not simply to obey the law but to go beyond the law (as in the Sermon on the Mount).63 Hom. Rom. 12.3 (PG 60:498; NPNF1 11:420). I have adjusted the English translation significantly, as the original translation misleadingly prejudges Paul’s (and Chrysostom’s) words. By translating καταργέω as emphasising “deliverance” from the law, rather than being made “ineffective” to a certain effect of the law, the translators distance the law from gospel in a way that neither Paul nor Chrysostom does. 63 Indeed, the second half of Chrysostom’s sermon – a series of moral exhortations with which Chrysostom typically ends his sermons – is based significantly on the Sermon on the Mount. For concise descriptions of Orthodox understandings of “original sin”, see Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way, rev. ed. (Crestwood, NY: SVS, 1995), 62 or John Meyendorff, A Study of Gregory Palamas, repr. 2nd ed. (Crestwood, NY: SVS, 1998), 124–126. One would find here some affinity with rabbinic understandings of yetzer (“inclination”). For a recent analysis of the latter, see Ishay Rosen-Zvi, “Two Rabbinic Inclinations? Rethinking a Scholarly Dogma”, JSJ 39 (2008): 1–27. 62

260

Michael Azar

This newfound ineffectiveness of the law’s misuse has been made possible, as Paul states and Chrysostom explains, because “we” who have died with Christ have “died in/by that which we were being constrained”.64 Chrysostom evidently takes the identity of this “constrainer” as sin or the “old man”, while most contemporary commentators assume Paul means the law.65 Whatever the case, the result of this being released from constraints is clear (as Chrysostom recognises in his characteristically moral forcefulness): that we might “serve in newness of Spirit and not oldness of letter” (7:6). Paul’s marriage illustration, therefore, comes to a head, as the result of the death of the first husband was not that the woman remained single, but that she became another’s. Taking Rom 6–7 together, Paul’s interest lies not in a life of limbo between one kind of slavery and another, between one marriage and another; rather, his interest lies in the release from one in order to be bound to another. In 7:6, he combines his slavery and marriage illustrations in terms of letter and spirit: Slavery and marriage under letter is not the goal, but slavery and marriage under spirit.

Summary: Romans 7:1–6 Paul’s comments in Romans, and particularly chapters 6–8, bear an ongoing tension between what he claims has happened in the lives of his readers and what he expects must now happen as a result. The tension is caused, in part, by Paul’s almost idealistic insistence that the work of Christ, which is effected through faith and baptism together, is sufficient to undo what began with Adam and Eve.66 Still, as Romans 12–15 will show, the baptised must respond to Christ’s gift, but not in a way that diminishes the work accomplished by Christ. God’s kindness, after all, leads to their repentance (cf. Rom 2:4), so Paul fully expects them to live in a manner worthy of the calling they have received (cf. Eph. 4:1). In a society in which the law of honour and shame lorded over the

The phrase ἐν ᾧ κατειχόμεθα may be taken as a dative of instrument (“by”) or place (“in”), as neither changes the meaning significantly. However, as similarly noted with respect to ἐθανατώθητε τῷ νόμῳ in verse 4 or κατηργήθημεν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου here in verse 6, to translate ἐν ᾧ κατειχόμεθα as “to that by which we were constrained” (or something similar) prejudges the expression in favor of both Paul’s different argument in Galatians and a later distancing of law from gospel. 65 E.g., Jewett, Romans, 437–38. 66 As noted earlier, Christian writers would keep this almost idealistic understanding of the definitive transition that takes place in baptism for centuries to come. See, e.g., Athanasius, Inc. 30, 31, 52 or Cabasilas’s description of the effect of baptism throughout his work The Life in Christ. 64

The Law and New Life in Rom 7:1–6

261

people, the church needed to keep its public face honourable and without disgrace (as Paul learned well in Corinth).67 Such is simply a practical matter, particularly in a city as important as Rome. In the transitions that Paul depicts in Rom 6–8 (whether from slavery to sin toward slavery to righteousness, marriage with one husband toward marriage with another, or slavery to letter toward slavery to spirit), the institution (slavery, marriage) itself does not cease; rather, it is transformed for a different, and better, purpose. Such is Paul’s claim not just with slavery or marriage, which are both governed by the law, but with the law itself. The law is not done away with but is transformed from oldness of letter to newness of spirit. Paul does not dismiss the law entirely, nor does he lose concern for keeping it (cf. Rom 13:8–10); rather, it is transformed to serve Paul’s readers in a new subjection, a second marriage, for a new slave-master, having a different effect in a new situation.68 Rather than bear fruit to death, in “newness of Spirit”, it bears fruit to God. With the death of Christ, the transformation of both those in Christ and the law itself has taken place, so that the “righteousness of the law would be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh abut according to the Spirit” (Rom 8:4).

Rom 7:1–6 in Eastern Reception and Western Perspectives If the reception of Paul in the West, especially since Augustine, has tended to emphasise the gap between law and gospel, two key contexts are at least partly to blame: 1) the Pelagian controversy and 2) the Reformation debates. Both contexts engendered, or at least were thought to engender, the possibility that one could somehow become righteous of one’s own volition and effort (whether this fairly characterises the teachings of Pelagius or medieval theologians is not the issue here). While both contexts raised concerns that also were sources for debate amid Eastern Christians, neither had as decisive of an influence on their reception of Paul. Rather, two other contexts had greater effects: 67 Jewett’s commentary on Rom 7:1–6, and the epistle in general, nicely highlights the dynamic between honor, shame, and the law (on Rom 7:1–6, see Romans, 428–439). 68 For recently scholarly critiques of the notion that Paul does away with the law (Torah) itself, see James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, WBC 38a (Nashville: Nelson), 365, which interact with Ernst Käsemann or Thomas R. Schreiner, “The Abolition and Fulfillment of the Law in Paul”, JSNT 35 (1989): 47–74, esp. 52–55 for his interaction with Stephen Westerholm, especially the latter’s “The Letter and Spirit: The Foundation of Pauline Ethics”, NTS 30 (1984): 229–248; “The Law and the ‘Just Man’ (1 Tim 1, 3–11)”, St. 36 (1982): 79–95; “On Fulfilling the Whole Law”, SEÅ 51–52 (1986–87): 229–237. Westerholm has since authored other major studies on Paul and the law: see, Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) and Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and his Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).

262

Michael Azar

1) the continuing threat of Marcionite and gnostic teachings and 2) debates against Jews who did not follow Jesus.69 In other words, many aspects of the context in which Paul’s own ideas were forged (i.e., Gentiles who had little concern for the law or Jews who had too much) continued as Eastern Christian thought developed in the centuries that followed him.70 About Rom 7:1–6 specifically, both of these contexts elicited two particular trends in the East. First, Eastern interpreters went to great lengths in order to diminish the possibility that Paul, in seemingly disparaging the place of the law in the new life, might be mustered as support for a Marcionite rejection of the OT in its entirety or a gnostic rejection of the body. In addition to John Chrysostom’s comments described above, one finds this trend in Alexandrian thinkers whose comments on Rom 7:1–6 are among the earliest to survive. Clement of Alexandria, for example, explicitly acknowledges earlier, more gnostically oriented readers as having used this passage to condemn marriage as evil by nature, but he counters that Romans 7:1–6 instead reveals the “one who gave the law” to be “the same as the one who gave the gospel”.71 The Mosaic law and the gospels did not come from two different gods, Clement argues, but from the same Lord who “makes the old new” (παλαιὰ καινίζων).72 Origen, Clement’s later contemporary, offers a similar, but more developed, defence of the Christian preservation of the law in his commentary on this passage.73 Both argue that properly guided, spiritual (i.e., figurative, allegorical) interpretation reveals the law itself to be gospel. In sixteenth-century Europe, Marcionism was, comparatively, less of a problem, but when Reformation thinkers diminished the significance of the likes of Origen and allegory, they began to jettison the chief mode through which Eastern thinkers had preserved the law against Marcion.74 Without an emphasis on

69 One should note that Pelagius’s follower, Celestius, was in fact condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431 (Canons 1 and 4), though the Council’s overwhelming focus was on Nestorius. (Indeed, as the Council’s later letter to Pope Celestine indicates, it seems Celestius was condemned primarily because of his association with Nestorius.) 70 Cf. Little, “Paul’s Use of Analogy”, 83 and Matera, Romans, 172. 71 Clement, Stromata 3.80, 83. The Greek edition used here is Clemens Alexandrinus, ed. Ludwig Früchtel, Otto Stählin, and Ursula Treu, 2 vols., GCS 52 (Berlin: Akademie, 1970). 72 Clement, Stromata 3.82. 73 Origen, Comm. Rom. 6.7.1–19, esp. 6.7.19 against Marcionite tendencies. He offers a similar interpretation in Comm. Jo. 13.43–50 (relating the passage to the Samaritan woman and her multiple husbands) and also in Comm. Matt. 12.4 (but with a slightly different, and less expanded, direction). 74 The discomfort with allegory that grew among Reformation traditions gave rise to a dichotomy between “typology” and “allegory” that did not exist in the ancient world [see Frances M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), esp. 263–264]. On Origen’s reception among the Reformers, especially with regard to Romans, see Thomas P. Scheck, Origen and the History of Justification: The Legacy of

The Law and New Life in Rom 7:1–6

263

the spiritual/allegorical reading as transforming the law, the division between law and gospel solidified, with the role of the former as the revealer of sin growing to eclipse its other, more useful, dimensions. As the centuries went on, and the “law” came more and more to be chiefly equated with old, outdated attempts to earn one’s righteousness in “late Judaism” (Spätjudentum), Marcion would see a revival among Lutheran scholar-theologians such as Adolf von Harnack, who, as Sebastian Moll points out, took the “contrast between the OT and the NT in Marcion’s thought” and “reinterpreted it into the Pauline/Lutheran distinction of law and Grace”75. While Eastern thinkers have readily admitted, with Paul, that the law serves the purpose of revealing sin, the focus of thought has been on the law as a transfigured guide – something to be understood anew through, rather than distanced from, the gospel. This reveals the second major trend in Eastern readings of Rom 7:1–6: Against Jews, whose vitality and fidelity to the law was perceived as a threat, Eastern Christians defended their readings of the law as transfigured chiefly by recourse to the letter/spirit distinction. The law in its “letter” – that is, primarily, in its ritualistic prescriptions and observances that serve to distance Jew from Gentile (e.g., circumcision, temple rites) – has been fulfilled in Christ and has no need of continual observance. The law itself is not to be rejected, only its observance “according to the letter”. For example, while Origen, in his commentary on this passage, is careful to resist the likes of Marcion, he also readily admits that the law is dead in its letter but alive in its spirit.76 The death of “the law according to the letter”, asserts Origen, paves the way for the Christian to marry that law’s “brother” (cf. Mark 12:19–27): the “law according to the Spirit”77. He explains, But when the Word became flesh and lived among us [cf. John 1:14], his earthly presence in Jerusalem, with its temple and altar and everything that was borne there, was torn down, at that time her husband died, i.e., the law according to the letter. Or will it not rightly be said

Origen’s Commentary on Romans (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008), esp. 173–204. 75 The Arch-Heretic Marcion (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 3–4. Harnack’s critical attitude toward the ΟΤ partly gave rise to his love of Marcion (cf. ibid, 2–3), and, while Marcion was not nearly as abstract of a thinker as Harnack made him out to be, according to Moll, “it was to become Harnack’s legacy that Marcion was a loyal disciple of Paul, a Lutheran Reformer of the second century” (ibid., 4; italics original). Fittingly, the title of Harnack’s first (then unpublished) monograph was Marcion, der moderne Gläubige des 2. Jahrhunderts, der erste Reformator (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003). 76 Origen reads the marriage illustration chiefly as an allegory denoting the death of the first husband as the death of the law in its letter, thus not the law per se, and he assumes Paul is speaking to those who “know the law” (Rom 7:1), that is, those who know it has died in its letter. See Comm. Rom. 6.7.3. 77 Comm. Rom. 6.7.14.

264

Michael Azar

in this section that the message of the law is dead, since no sacrifices, no priesthood, and no ministries associated with the Levitical order are being offered?78

This move from obedience to the law according to the letter toward obedience in spirit is, according to Origen, what happens when “someone is converted [ἐπιστρέψῃ] to the Lord” (2 Cor 3:16): When Christ died for us and we died with him to sin [cf. Rom 6:2, 8], and through him we were freed from the law of sin [cf. Rom 8:2] in which we were being held [cf. Rom 7:5], we are now able to serve the law of God, but to serve in the newness of the Spirit, not in the oldness of the letter [Rom 7:6]. For Christ did not draw us away from the law of sin in order that we might serve the oldness of the letter, that is, that we might receive circumcision and Sabbaths and the other things that the oldness of the law of the letter contains; but that we might keep the law of God in the newness of the Spirit, that is to say, that from everything that is written in this [law], we might receive the spiritual understanding as the Spirit grants it.79

For Eastern thinkers such as Origen, the transfigured reading of the law is an integral component to becoming conformed to the image of Christ. While modern commentators, in considering Paul’s spirit/letter distinction, regularly partition Paul’s intended meaning into a description of either a new life (i.e., “salvation history”) or hermeneutics, for Origen, there cannot be one with out the other, a new life without a renewed reading of the law.80 “Conversion” to Christ and a virtuous life modeled after Christ includes, stems from, and is effected by a renewed interpretation of the letter, a transformation of mind (cf. Rom 12:2), enabled by the Savior’s sojourn in the flesh.81 While Origen’s allegory, or the spirit/letter distinction as understood in the East in general, may not be easily digested among contemporary biblical scholars, many “New Perspectives” on Paul come to almost identical conclusions

Comm. Rom. 6.7.11. A moment later, Origen notes that these comments apply not just to the law of Moses in its letter but any law to which one is accustomed apart from Christ (Comm. Rom. 6.7.14). 79 Comm. Rom. 6.7.18. 80 For one example of this modern partitioning between “salvation history” and hermeneutics with regard to Rom 7:6 (and Rom 2:29 and 2 Cor 3:6), see Witherington III, Romans, 177. Cf. Dunn, Romans 1–8, 367, 373 and Jewett, Romans, 438. 81 See Origen, Comm. Jo. 1.27–28. Though not the subject here, Origen holds the NT on a similar plane as the ΟΤ: The virtuous life enabled by the Spirit is also a requirement to see the NT itself transfigured to reveal Christ, since on its own, as flesh, it too possess a veil to those not ready to read (see, e.g., Hom. Lev. 7.5.5 [cf. Princ. 4.2.9]; Comm. Matt. 12.18–19; Comm. Jo. 1.43, 107, and Comm. Rom. 2.14.14). On Origen’s hermeneutics more broadly, see Peter W. Martens, Origen and Scripture: The Contours of an Exegetical Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). Martens thoroughly shows that Origen’s approach to Scripture was fundamentally a way of life, the central component of progress toward salvation, rather than merely one discipline among many. 78

The Law and New Life in Rom 7:1–6

265

with regard to Paul and the law.82 Origen writes against Marcionite traditions; “New” commentators against “Old Perspectives”, and as such, both regularly assert that Paul does not advocate for the Law’s entire abolishment, but for adhering to the law in spirit, not letter. By this, Origen, as we have already seen, means obedience to the law as a transfigured guide for Jew and Gentile, conforming to Christ’s image, not obedience to it as primarily a prescription for circumcision, Sabbaths, and temple rites that divide Jew from Gentile. Contemporary advocates of a “New Perspective” similarly take Paul to mean that the law has come to an end in its “nationalistic”83 or “boundary marking”84 aspects, but not as a whole.85 While many of the practical conclusions offered by scholars of newer perspectives and by Origen are the same, a key difference remains in the way they describe those conclusions: Unlike many modern commentators, Origen tends to limit his description of Paul’s understanding of 82 For example, Little (“Paul’s Use of Analogy”, 86) disparages allegory but offers conclusions similar to many of Origen’s with regard to Rom 7:1–6 (cf. ibid., 90); Dunn (Romans 1– 8, 363–364) takes Paul’s “in the flesh” as describing “Jewish piety” in a manner very close to Origen’s (see Origen, Comm. Rom. 6.12.6–9 on Rom 8:5) and Cranfield (Romans, 340) concludes that “the letter of the law in isolation from the Spirit is not the law in its true character, but the law as it were denatured.” See also Dunn’s more recent article, “‘The Letter Kills, but the Spirit Gives Life’ (2 Cor. 3:6)”, Pneuma 35 (2013): 163–179. 83 See, e.g., James D. G. Dunn, “The New Perspective on Paul: Paul and the Law”, in The Romans Debate, ed. Karl P. Donfried, rev. and exp. ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 307–308, where Dunn summarises, “Paul’s negative thrust against the law is against the law taken over too completely by Israel, the law misunderstood by a misplaced emphasis on boundary-marking ritual, the law become a tool of sin in its too close identification with matters of the flesh, the law sidetracked into a focus for nationalistic zeal. Freed from that too narrowly Jewish perspective, the law still has an important part to play in ‘the obedience of faith.’” Dunn makes similar points in a variety of places, as he has written on the subject extensively; more recently, see Dunn, “A New Perspective on the New Perspective on Paul”, EC 4 (2013): 157– 182. Similarly, Robert Jewett argues that Paul here (especially in Rom 7:5 with regard to “passions” that arise “through the law”) is resisting those who look to the law as the standard of honor and shame rather than be concerned with service to God (see his comments on Rom 7:1– 6 in Romans, 428–439, esp. 435–438). 84 E.g., Dunn, “A New Perspective”, 172. Here, Dunn lists three particular boundary markers that bare a striking resemblance to those aspects of the law that Origen said were done away with: 1) circumcision, 2) laws of clean and unclean, and 3) Sabbath. Similarly, see N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 132, which describes the “works of the law” against which Paul writes as those pertaining to Sabbath, food, and circumcision – or, what Wright calls “badges of membership”. 85 See, e.g., Sutter Rehmann, “The Doorway to Freedom”, 93 (cf. ibid., 103), or Tomson, “What Did Paul Mean”, 580. One should note that one cannot say with certainty that such distinctions within the law were present in Paul’s environment (cf. Schreiner, “Abolition and Fulfillment”, 65), but one does not need to in order to assert that such distinctions were present within Paul’s thought. After all, Paul, in the very least, was wont to revise some of his prior readings of the law in light of his encounter with Christ.

266

Michael Azar

the law to terms that Paul himself actually uses (though not necessarily in the same way that Paul himself might have used them).86 Whatever the case, the centuries and, especially, the ecclesial canonical tradition that immediately followed Paul suggest that early Christian leaders kept to the law as moral guide, even while disregarding ceremonial and other, more ethnically divisive, aspects.87 Accordingly, a thorough knowledge of the development of the Christian canonical tradition may allow for less guesswork when attempting to reconstruct the role of the law in so-called “Pauline communities”, but ancient canons are rarely the interest of modern Pauline scholars.88 Practically speaking, Eastern commentators on Rom 7:1–6 frequently interpreted the need to read the law in spirit rather than letter through the Sermon on the Mount. As mentioned briefly above, Basil of Caesarea, for example, in On Baptism explains that Paul here “instructs us to imitate the Lord and go beyond the righteousness of the law” (μιμεῖσθαι πάλιν τὸν Κύριον, καὶ τῆς κατὰ νόμον δικαιοσύνης κρείττονας ἡμᾶς γενέσθα παιδεύει).89 Advocating for faithful adherence to the church’s liturgical practice with regard to baptism, Basil posits that a disregard for these practices bears the same problem as the righteousness that Paul (read through the Sermon on the Mount) condemns: “righteousness displayed individually” (δικαιοσύνης τῆς ἑκάστῳ φαινομένης).90 Rather, Basil argues, in baptism we are and must be crucified with Christ, thereby dying to the world, free from the “desires of the devil, worldly disturbances, human traditions and our own wishes” (τῶν τε τοῦ διαβόλου ἐπιθυμιῶν, καὶ τῶν τοῦ κόσμου μετεωρισμῶν, καὶ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων παραδόσεων, καὶ τῶν ἰδίων θελημάτων).91 Those who have died to the law go

For one critique of scholarly tendencies to impose modern “national” or “religious” vocabulary on ancient thought, see Steve Mason, “Jews, Judeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History”, JSJ 38 (2007): 457–512. 87 See John A. McGuckin, Ascent of Christian Law: Patristic and Byzantine Formulations of a New Civilization (Crestwood, NY: SVS, 2012), 19–20. On the relationship between Paul’s “apostolic law” and the law of Moses, see Tomson, “What Did Paul Mean”, esp. 577. 88 As Dunn notes (“A New Perspective”, 179), recent commentators often make too little of Paul’s nuanced views of the law, as he rejects some commandments (e.g., circumcision) while advocating for keeping the “commandments of God” (1 Cor 7:19). Yet, the Eastern canonical tradition nuances the law in a similar way, adhering strictly to a variety of the “commandments of God”, all the while advocating for the “freedom” of the Christian in light of the gospel [see, for example, the interview with the Orthodox canonist Louis Patsavos, published as “Salvation and the Free Life of the Spirit in the Orthodox Canonical Tradition”, Road to Emmaus 14 (2013): 15–16]. 89 On Baptism 1.2 (PG 31:1557; FC 9:373–974). Basil quotes Rom 7:1–6 here in its entirety. 90 On Baptism 1.2 (PG 31:1560; FC 9:375). Interestingly enough, many of Basil’s admonitions to follow strictly the church practice are based on the Lord’s commands in the ΟΤ to not offer sacrifices improperly [e.g., On Baptism 2.8 (PG 31:1601; FC 9:408–409)]. 91 On Baptism 1.2 (PG 31:1560; FC 9:376). Cf. Gal 2:19–20; 6:14. 86

The Law and New Life in Rom 7:1–6

267

well beyond what the law requires in imitation of Christ, spurning “the righteousness according to the law, that we might be made worthy of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 5:20).92 For Basil, the righteousness attainable by the law is a righteousness of merely following the minimum allowances of the law, strictly adhering to the precepts and nothing more. The newness of life in Christ, however, is one in which the baptised, freed from their sins, are given “the power of performing righteous acts for the glory of God and his Christ in the hope of gaining eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”93 In sum, by reading Rom 7:1–6 (and Paul’s comments about the law elsewhere) through the Sermon on the Mount, Eastern writers attempted to fashion a tradition that resisted Marcionism on the one hand and exclusively Jewish practice on the other.94 In that environment, which differed considerably from an anti-Pelagian or works-righteousness context, writers advocated for a salvific and synergistic adherence to the law in its spirit (i.e., as received in the canons and teachings of the church).95 A rhetoric of law as opposed to gospel, though not entirely absent, never found a stable home. The letter exchange between Patriarch Jeremiah II and the theologians from Tübingen reveals that centuries after Basil, Orthodox thinkers continued to insist on this synergistic understanding of the transfigured law’s purpose in salvation, as viewed through the Sermon on the Mount, directly against a tendency either to distance the law from the gospel or to diminish – as did both later Catholic and Lutheran traditions – the significance of the Sermon on the Mount as a standard for Christian ethics.96 As Jeremiah explains to his Lutheran interlocutors, in Christ “the law of nature, the written law, and that of grace are drawn together”, as Christ is both “lawgiver and redeemer”, and in order to follow the law of Christ, one must keep the “the spiritual law, which is understood spiritually”.97 Christ On Baptism 1.2 (PG 31:1560; FC 9:376). On Baptism 1.2 (PG 31:1540; FC 9:360). 94 Cf. Dunn’s use of the Sermon on the Mount to understand Paul’s spirit/letter distinction (“The Letter Kills”, 169–70). 95 Not coincidently, for days on which hierarchs are commemorated, the Orthodox liturgical tradition prescribes as the gospel reading Matt 5:14–19, where Jesus, after calling his disciples the light of the world, warns his follows of the need to keep and teach the law carefully. 96 See Pinckaers, The Sources of Christian Ethics, 136–139. While advocates of a new perspective on Paul may be concerned with sounding too “synergistic” (cf. Dunn, “A New Perspective”, 180), such is not a problem in the Orthodox tradition. For a twentieth-century Orthodox response to Protestant objections to ascetic practices and synergy (especially in the work of Anders Nygren, whose commentary on Romans still carries significant weight), see Georges Florovsky, “The Ascetic Ideal and the New Testament: Reflections on the Critique of the Theology of the Reformation”, in The Byzantine Ascetic and Spiritual Fathers, vol. 10 of The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, ed. Richard S. Haugh, trans. Raymond Miller, Anne-Marie Döllinger-Labriolle, and Helmut Wilhelm Schmiedel (Vaduz: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1987), 17–59 (on Romans specifically, see ibid., 31–35). 97 This and the following are from Mastrantonis, Augsburg and Constantinople, 178–180. 92 93

268

Michael Azar

through the gospel, transfigured, but did not abolish, the law for a purpose beyond, rather than against, the keeping of what is in the mere letter. Because of this, Jeremiah argues in favor of the variety of strict Orthodox practices over which the Lutherans had expressed reservation (especially fasting). These practices, Jeremiah argues, are necessary because the way that one follows Paul’s exhortation to subject “the flesh to the Spirit” is “by exercising virtue and doing good works” (cf. Rom 8:5). Such works do not negate a Christ who saves by faith, but, like John the Baptist, regularly assist in “preparing” the flesh for “the way of the Lord”, making more effective the Lord’s arrival through faith (cf. Mark 1:2–3).

Conclusion As these last comments reveal, at the root of Jeremiah’s understanding of “the spiritual law” (i.e., the written law as interpreted through the life of Christ and the body of teachings passed down through his followers), is an eschatological principle – one that is central to Orthodox theology and ethics: Christ is and has always been “the coming one” (ὁ ἐρχόμενος; Matt 11:3).98 As the law functioned in letter to allow humankind to prepare for Christ’s first coming in the flesh, so also the transfigured law (i.e., the law read through the gospel) functions to prepare humankind for his other and continual “comings” to his followers (spiritually through faith and the hearing/reading of Scripture, materially through liturgy, and finally through the eschaton).99 This eschatological dimension of the Orthodox ethical outlook is a key reason why Romans 7:1–6, in the Orthodox tradition, is not easily read as distancing law from gos-pel, nor as depicting a singular and completed moment of “conversion” in a person’s past.100 With the death of the first “husband” and the release from the 98 On Christ as “the coming one” in Orthodox theology, see John Behr, The Mystery of Christ: Life in Death (Crestwood, NY: SVS 2006). 99 Cf. Origen’s blending of the different “entrances” of Christ in his reading of Christ’s “entrances” into both the temple in John 2 and Jerusalem before his death in John 12 (Origen, Comm. Jo. 10). For an exploration of Origen’s interpretation of these passages, see Michael G. Azar, Exegeting the Jews: The Early Reception of the Johannine Jews (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 70–77. 100 For example, Paul’s use of the aorist verb κατηργήθημεν in Rom 7:6 need not to be taken as simply referring to “a single moment in the past of believers in which they accepted the gospel of Christ crucified and resurrected and became part of the new community of faith” (Jewett, Romans, 437). Stanley E. Porter’s critique of related past-specific assertions with regard to ἥμαρτον in Rom 5:12 is fitting: “This appears … to overstress interpreting the aorist verb form as punctiliar and past-referring, when it is probably an omnitemporal statement referring to past, present, and future events” [“The Pauline Concept of Original Sin, in Light of Rabbinic Background”, TynBul 41 (1990): 3–30, 25]. To limit Paul’s use of the aorist form to

The Law and New Life in Rom 7:1–6

269

“law” of that marriage – that is, by being put to death “through the body of Christ” – we are free to become another’s, and we continually prepare to do so by keeping the transfigured law of the second marriage, no longer “bearing fruit to death” but “to God”, going beyond the requirements of the written law in light of the Sermon on the Mount, serving not in “oldness of letter” but “newness of Spirit”. As one of the central hymns of Orthodox Holy Week proclaims – blending, as does Paul, the salvific images of marriage and servitude – “Behold the bridegroom is coming in the middle of the night; blessed is the servant (δοῦλος) whom he shall find watching.”101

Bibliography Azar, Michael G. Exegeting the Jews: The Early Reception of the Johannine Jews. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Behr, John. The Mystery of Christ: Life in Death. Crestwood, NY: SVS, 2006. Burns, J. Patout, ed. Romans: Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators. The Church’s Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Burton, Keith Augustus. “The Argumentative Coherency of Romans 7:1–6”. Pages 452–462 in SBL Seminar Papers, 2000. SBLSP 39. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Busch, Austin. “The Figure of Eve in Romans 7:5–25”. BibInt 12 (2004): 1–36. Byrne, Brendan. Romans. SP. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1996. Cabasilas, Nicholas. The Life in Christ. Translated by Carmino J. deCatanzaro. Crestwood, NY: SVS, 1974. Castelli, Elizabeth A. “Romans”. Pages 272–300 in A Feminist Commentary. Vol. 2 of Searching the Scriptures. Edited by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. New York: Crossroad, 1994. Cranfield, Charles E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. ICC 32. 2 vols. Repr. with corr. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990. Dunn, James D. G. “The New Perspective on Paul: Paul and the Law”. Pages 299–308 in The Romans Debate. Edited by Karl P. Donfried. Rev. and exp. ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. –. “In Search of Common Ground”. Pages 309–334 in Paul and the Mosaic Law. Edited by James D. G. Dunn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. –. “A New Perspective on the New Perspective on Paul”. EC 4 (2013): 157–82. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

singular, past moments of a “believer’s conversion” privileges a later soteriology not necessarily shared by Paul (nor Eastern Christianity). For one significant Byzantine contribution to the Eastern understanding of “conversion” to Christ as both definitively begun and continuously ongoing, see Cabasilas, The Life in Christ. 101 This hymn is sung on the nights preceding the first four days of Holy Week, as the liturgical services employ the Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matt 25:1–13) to call the congregants to prepare for Christ’s coming, inseparably blending together his coming into Jerusalem, his coming back from the dead, his coming to his followers, and his second coming.

270

Michael Azar

Florovsky, Georges. “The Ascetic Ideal and the New Testament: Reflections on the Critique of the Theology of the Reformation”. Pages 17–59 in The Byzantine Ascetic and Spiritual Fathers. Vol. 10 of The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky. Edited by Richard S. Haugh. Translated by Raymond Miller, Anne-Marie Döllinger-Labriolle, and Helmut Wilhelm Schmiedel. Vaduz: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1987. Grdzelidze, Tamara. “Church (Orthodox Ecclesiology)”. Pages 124–132 in vol. 1 of The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Edited by John A. McGuckin. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Hainsworth, John. “The Force of the Mystery: Anamnesis and Exegesis in Melito's Peri Pascha”. SVTQ 46 (2002): 107–46. Jewett, Robert. Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Kamppuri, Hannu T., ed. Dialogue between Neighbours: The Theological Conversations between the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland and the Russian Orthodox Church, 1970–1986. Helsinki: Luther-Agricola Society, 1986. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2004. Labovitz, Gail. Marriage and Metaphor: Constructions of Gender in Rabbinic Literature. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2009. Little, Joyce A. “Paul’s Use of Analogy: A Structural Analysis of Romans 7:1–6”. CBQ 46 (1984): 82–90. Louth, Andrew. Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2013. Mastrantonis, George. Augsburg and Constantinople: The Correspondence between the Tübingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople on the Augsburg Confession. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1982. Matera, Frank. J. Romans. Paideia. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010. –. God’s Saving Grace: A Pauline Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. McGuckin, John A. “Divine Liturgy, Orthodox”. Pages 90–96 in vol. 1 of in The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Edited by John A. McGuckin. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. –. Ascent of Christian Law: Patristic and Byzantine Formulations of a New Civilization. Crestwood, NY: SVS, 2012. Meyendorff, John. A Study of Gregory Palamas. 2nd Edition. Crestwood, NY: SVS, 1974. Repr., 1998. Moll, Sebastian. The Arch-Heretic Marcion. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Patrologia Graeca. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris 1857–1886. Pinckaers, Servais. The Sources of Christian Ethics. Translated by Mary Thomas Noble. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1995. Saarinen, Risto. Faith and Holiness: Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue 1959–1994. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1997. –. “The Pauline Luther and the Law: Lutheran Theology Reengages the Study of Paul”. ProEccl 15 (2006): 64–86. Sanders, Ed P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. –. Paul, the Law and the Jewish People. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Scheck, Thomas P. Origen and the History of Justification: The Legacy of Origen’s Commentary on Romans. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008. Schmemann, Alexander. For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy. 2nd ed. Crestwood, NY: SVS, 1973. Repr., 2004.

The Law and New Life in Rom 7:1–6

271

Schreiner, Thomas. “The Abolition and Fulfillment of the Law in Paul”. JSNT 35 (1989): 47–74. Stendahl, Krister. “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West”. HTR 56 (1963): 199–215. Ware, Kallistos. The Orthodox Way. Rev. ed. Crestwood, NY: SVS, 1995. Westerholm, Stephen. “The Law and the ‘Just Man’ (1 Tim 1, 3–11) ”. St. 36 (1982): 70– 95. –. “The Letter and Spirit: The Foundation of Pauline Ethics.” NTS 30 (1984): 229–248. –. “On Fulfilling the Whole Law.” SEÅ 51–52 (1986–87): 299–337. –. Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. –. Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Römer. EKK 6. 3 vols. Zürich: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1978, 1980, 1982. Witherington III, Ben. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Witte, Bernd. Die Schrift des Origenes ‘Über das Passa’. ASKA 4. Altenberge: Oros, 1993.

Identities at Risk The “New Perspective on Paul” and Eastern Orthodox Interpretation of Romans 8:14–17, 28–30 James Buchanan Wallace In the first half of Rom 8, Paul insists that the Holy Spirit empowers the obedience to God that the Torah, in and of itself, simply could not bring about due to the power of sin (Rom 7:14–8:11). Paul insists that true life comes by putting to death “the actions of the body by the Spirit” (8:13). He goes on, in 8:14–17, to remind his addressees in Rome that they are now adopted children of God. Such children are “led by the Spirit of God” (8:14) and are “heirs of God” (8:17), and they can be glorified with Christ if they suffer with Him (8:17). After reflecting on the cosmic dimensions of the redemption Paul expects and the Spirit’s role in helping the weakness of believers when at prayer (8:18–27), Paul celebrates his certainty that God’s good purpose for God’s people will be brought about. Believers should thus act with fearlessness, knowing that nothing can finally overcome them if God – in God’s radical love – is for them (8:28–39). Romans 8:28–30 emphasises both the inevitability of God’s good purpose for those who love God, as well as the transformation and glorification such believers undergo. Our focal verses, 8:14–17 and 8:28–30, contain what appear to be internal tensions. On the one hand, Paul can speak of God’s “purpose (πρόθεσις)” (8:28) according to which God called human beings “set apart beforehand (προορίζω)” or “predestined”, and these are those whom God justified and “glorified (ἐδόξασεν – in the aorist in 8:30)”. Even in 8:15–17, the status of being “sons of God” and “heirs” appears to be a given. These aspects might suggest both that one’s status as God’s child and eschatological salvation are guaranteed. And yet, 8:14 suggests that true sonship may be contingent upon following the lead of God’s Spirit, whom Paul has just suggested in 8:13 must be a partner in putting to death certain forms of behaviour. Moreover, 8:17 seems fairly clear that being a “co-heir of Christ” and thus being glorified are contingent upon suffering with Christ. Even 8:29, part of a passage where the emphasis is squarely on God’s action, mentions being “conformed to the image of His Son”, and the fact that Paul mentions that God “foreknows” before God “sets apart beforehand” (8:28) raises questions about what this “setting apart beforehand” really means.

274

James Buchanan Wallace

The following essay examines Rom 8:14–17, 28–30 in light of Eastern Orthodox interpretation, which will be put into conversation with modern interpretation, especially representatives of the so-called “New Perspective” on Paul.1 Both of these groups are internally diverse when it comes to specific exegetical issues. That being said, we will be able to identify some tendencies. Both Orthodox interpreters and exegetes from the “New Perspective” recognise that “salvation” is a process: it has begun, but it is not complete, and this process can be derailed. Both groups deny that a simplistic understanding of “predestination”, as the term is commonly used, finds a warrant in 8:28–30. The emphases, however, of these two interpretive trajectories are quite distinct. Nonetheless, I will argue that when these traditions are read together, they can enable us to develop a richer and more nuanced account of Christian life as a process of being led progressively to reflect the image of Jesus Christ more fully by putting sin to death. This process is empowered by the Spirit, Who facilitates an intimate relationship with God. Ultimately, believers, beginning with baptism, participate in the divine life but fully realise this new dimension of their existence by ever more fully participating in the death of Christ. In this regard, there is little tension between justification and participation; participation entails the progressive deepening of a new existence of right relationship initially realised in justification.

1. Romans 8:14–17 1.1 Symeon the New Theologian on Rom 8:14–17 Before turning to earlier patristic interpretations of Rom 8:14–17, we will begin with the provocative comments of a significant Byzantine mystic, St. Symeon the New Theologian (949–1022).2 At the young age of 30, Symeon was already the abbot of Mamas Monastery in Constantinople,3 and he sought to kindle in his monks a desire for experience of Jesus Christ in their lives in the here and now. Sustaining such encounters with God required a rigorous For an overview of the “New Perspective” and its critics, see Athanasios Despotis, Die “New Perspective on Paul” und die griechisch-orthodoxe Paulusinterpretation, VIOth 11 (St. Ottilien: EOS, 2014), 1–38. 2 For the date, see Alexander Golitzin, Life, Times, and Theology, vol. 3 of St. Symeon the New Theologian: On the Mystical Life: The Ethical Discourses (Crestwood, NY: SVS, 1995– 1997), 13; Golitzin is citing Irenée Hausherr’s “Introduction” to Vie de Syméon le Nouveau Théolgien, OrChrAn 12.45 (Rome: Pont.-Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1928), lxxx-xci. Golitizen’s book serves as an excellent introduction to the life and context of Symeon; see also Hilarion Alfeyev, St. Symeon the New Theologian and Orthodox Tradition, OECS (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); see esp. 43–72 on how Symeon uses Scripture. 3 See Golitzin, Life, Times, Theology, 28, and Alfeyev, St. Symeon the New Theologian, 34. 1

Identities at Risk

275 

ascetic life, so it is not surprising that Symeon’s zeal sparked resentment and controversy – leading eventually to his banishment. In his Catechetical Discourses, originally preached to his monks to inspire zeal for encountering God through ascetic labour, Symeon quotes and alludes to Rom 8:14–17 numerous times.4 Symeon claims that there is an internal, spiritual resurrection that can and should happen regularly. The possession and experience of the Holy Spirit that enables this resurrection is not guaranteed by baptism; rather, this spiritual resurrection requires being conformed to Christ through suffering, which includes penitential acts of asceticism. Romans 8:14–17 provides a crucial warrant for Symeon’s claims. In Catech. Disc. 6, for example, Symeon claims that those who do not suffer with Christ do not truly have the Spirit, because, though baptised, they have not actualised their baptism by dying with Christ: Therefore, Paul also says, ‘If we suffer with Him we shall also be glorified with Him’ (Rom. 8:17). But if we are ashamed to imitate His sufferings, which He endured for us and to suffer as he suffered, it is obvious that we shall not become partakers (συμμέτοχοι) with Him in His glory. If that is true of us we shall be believers in word only, not in deed.… For this reason, therefore, I say and will not cease to say that those who have failed to imitate Christ’s suffering through penitence and obedience and have not become partakers (μέτοχοι) of His death, as we have explained above in detail, will neither become partakers of His spiritual resurrection nor receive the Holy Spirit.… I mean the spiritual regeneration and resurrection of the dead souls that takes place in a spiritual manner every day.… This He grants through His all-holy Spirit as He even now bestows on them from henceforth the kingdom of heaven. [Catech. Disc. 6.10]5

For Symeon, Christian life requires participation – or “sharing in (συμμέτοχος)” – Christ’s death, so that one may also share in Christ’s glory. Being “glorified” with Christ, which Symeon can also call spiritual resurrection, is something that can be experienced now, not just at the final resurrection.6 Indeed, for Symeon, the cry of “Abba! The Father!” (Rom 8:15) is not just a baptismal formula or ritual prayer,7 but an expression of conversing interiorly with God in this life, which is a prerequisite to life with God in the world to come (Catech. Disc. 34.3).

4 Written 980–998, according to Basile Krivochéine, introduction to Catéchèses, by Symeon the New Theologian, 3 vols. (SC 96), 15–190. 5 The translation is that of C. J. deCatanzaro: Symeon the New Theologian, The Discourses, CWS (New York: Paulist Press, 1980). All translations of the Catechetical Discourses are from this version unless otherwise noted. 6 See Catech. Disc. 7.13 alluding to Rom 8:17; in 13.4, Symeon interprets Rom 8:17 as referring to a spiritual resurrection in the here and now, through which Christ is perceived through the spiritual senses. So similarly Catech. Disc. 34.7; and see also 36.10, where the language of Rom 8:17 influences Symeon’s account of his own experience. 7 Contrast John Chrysostom, Hom. Rom. 14; Theodoret, Int. Rom. 8.

276

James Buchanan Wallace

In Catech. Disc. 8, Symeon is clearer that failure to obey Christ’s commandments and engage in ascetic activities undermines what one received at baptism. One becomes an adopted son of God at baptism, but Symeon’s point – remembering that Symeon is speaking to a culturally Christian audience that would have received baptism in infancy – is precisely that many fail to understand what a precious gift they have been given and therefore fall away from it (Catech. Disc. 8.3–5). There is nothing greater “than that one may become a son of God, His heir, and fellow heir with Christ”, but, “Being deceived by folly of soul we disobey His commandments and fall away from His adoption of us as His sons” (Catech. Disc. 8.5). He goes on to ask: Tell me, what is more foolish than he who disobeys God and does not strive to attain to His adoption of sons? … How should he not be eager to lay down his life unto death (cf. John. 15:13; 1 John 3:16) for the love of Him, in order that he might be worthy, if not to become His son and His heir, at least to become one of His genuine servants who stand near Him? Everyone who strives to keep all God’s commandments without fail becomes both a child of God and a son of God born from above (cf. John. 3:3) and is known to all as a true believer and a Christian (Catech. Disc. 8.6).

presence and enlightenment of the Holy Spirit are granted. It is this [presence] that gives new birth from above, and turns us into sons of God. It clothes us with Christ (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27) and kindles our lamp (Mt. 25:8). It shows us to be sons of light and sets our souls free from darkness, and even here and now causes us to be conscious partakers of eternal life (Catech. Disc. 8.6).

Adoption is given by baptism, but what is essential is participation – that is, participation in Christ’s death must be actualised by obedience to the commandments and ascetic discipline, which in turn allows one to participate while on earth in the divine life, experiencing the Holy Spirit, adoption, and glorification.8 The language that Symeon uses above – such as “new birth from above”, becoming “sons of God”, and being clothed with Christ – already suggests what he makes explicit in Catech. Disc. 33.5: this reception of the Spirit is a second, spiritual baptism. Symeon offers Simon Magus (Acts 8:9–24) as an example of how one can be baptised but not receive the Holy Spirit. Patristic commentators are, of course, diverse among themselves, and there is no interpretation of Rom 8:14–17 that could simplistically be labeled as “the” patristic or “the” Orthodox interpretation. However, our discussion of Symeon signals some common themes. First, Symeon appears to assume that 8:15 contains baptismal language. Second, he stresses the immense dignity bestowed upon human beings by adoption. Third, patristic interpreters agree that being led by the Spirit is optional; one can choose not to follow the Spirit’s lead. 8 So similarly Catech. Disc. 14.3; 32.5. In Catech. Disc. 6.5, Symeon connects ascetic discipline with Rom 8:14, being “led by the Spirit”.

Identities at Risk

277 

Finally, according to Symeon, the Holy Spirit can be directly experienced in this life and facilitates an intimacy with God that defines Christian life. Christian life is a life of participation in both the death and glory of Jesus Christ. I will argue that Symeon’s views are fundamentally true to Paul, though deployed in a changed context. 1.2 Who Are the True Sons of God? Romans 8:14–15 1.2.1 “Led by the Spirit of God” (Rom 8:14–15) in Orthodox Interpretation Like some modern commentators, patristic interpreters detected in 8:15 a reference to baptism, by which initiates become adopted sons of God.9 St. John Chrysostom (d. 407)10 acknowledges that this sonship language was originally used of Israel, though they never truly became spiritual children of God (Hom. Rom. 14). However, 8:14, following immediately Paul’s admonition, “put to death by the Spirit the actions of the body” in v. 13, qualifies the adoption that occurs at baptism. “For as many as (ὅσοι) are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God”. In other words, only those whom the Spirit leads are truly sons of God. Chrysostom claims that Paul uses the word “led”, rather than “live by” or “receive”, to squelch any triumphalist overconfidence that would view baptism itself as a final guarantor of salvation: For lest through a confidence in the Gift of the Font they should turn negligent of their conduct after it, he would say, that even supposing your receive baptism, yet if you are not minded to be ‘led by the Spirit’ afterwards, you lose the rank bestowed upon you, and the dignity of your adoption [Hom. Rom. 14 (NPNF1 11:440–41, modified)].

9 There is, of course, significant overlap between Rom 8:14–17, esp. verse 15, and Gal 4:5– 7. Many interpreters assume a connection between crying “Abba, Father”, reception of the Spirit, and baptism. Crying “Abba, Father” may have been an ecstatic or enthusiastic cry at the baptism ceremony, at which the Spirit was received. Indeed, the proximity of Gal 4:5–7 with the explicit language of baptism in 3:16–27, where baptism and becoming “sons of God” stand in close connection, would support such a conclusion, as might 1 Cor 12:12–13. Therefore, there is a warrant for the common assumption that Romans 8:15 refers to baptism, at which the Spirit would be received. That being said, James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, WBC 38a (Waco, TX; Dallas; Nashville: Word, 1988), 451, 453, observes that Paul never explicitly says that the Holy Spirit is received at baptism. In fact, Galatians 3:2 might push against such a conclusion. Among those who affirm that Rom 8:15–16 refers to the Spirit received at baptism are Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics (Atlanta; Richmond, VA: John Knox, 2000), 237; the connection is suggested by the Orthodox Study Bible (ed. Metr. Maximos, J. Allen, et al.; Nashville; London: Nelson, 2008), 1536 (note to vs. 14–17). 10 Unless otherwise noted, all dates are taken from the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. Alexander P. Kazhdan; 3 vols. (Oxford; London; New York: Oxford University Press, 1991) and/or Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. Frank L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, 3rd ed. (Oxford; London; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).

278

James Buchanan Wallace

Freedom from sin must become fully realised by allowing the Spirit to “render us impregnable” against further sins [Hom. Rom. 14 (NPNF1 11:440–41)]. According to Chrysostom, the Holy Spirit should be like a charioteer or ship’s pilot, who steers the vessel in the proper direction, taking complete control of the entire person, but the Christian must constantly allow the Spirit such reign. Chrysostom is equally clear, however, that moral transformation is impossible without the Spirit (Hom. Rom. 14). 1.2.2 “Led by the Spirit of God”: Romans 8:14–15 in Modern Western Interpretation One can hardly deny that Romans 8:12–17 indicates that the Christian life is one of struggle and risk. The exact nature of that struggle and risk, however, is debated. Several modern interpreters downplay the human role. Käsemann and Jewett argue that “crying out, ‘Abba! Father!’” in 8:15 indicates a context of ecstatic experience of the Spirit’s presence, and hence the Spirit’s work in the struggling believer is analogous to Spirit possession.11 Käsemann argues that ἄγονται should be translated as “driven by”.12 Cranfield denies that κράζειν (8:15) refers to ecstatic experiences and allows for some “active participation of the Christian”, but he maintains nonetheless that the “being led” “is fundamentally the work of the Spirit (hence the passive ἄγονται)”.13 He likewise asserts that ὅσοι should be taken in an “inclusive sense” (i.e. “all those who”) rather than “an exclusive sense (‘only those who’)”.14 To put the issue as sharply as possible: Is being led by the Spirit a (virtual) certainty because one has received the Spirit of adoption?15 Or, as the patristic interpreters would have it, must adoption be realised through willingly following the Spirit’s lead, in order truly to be a Son of God? James D. G. Dunn, a foremost proponent of the “New Perspective”, is closer to the patristic view (though such affinity is by no means limited to the “New Perspective”). Citing Rom 8:14, along with several other texts, Dunn agrees 11 Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 226–228; Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, ed. Eldon J. Epp, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2007), 496, 499, with Jewett especially using the language of spirit possession. Jewett characterises those interpreters as “skittish” who “seek to temper it by insisting on the noncompulsory decision of believers to follow Christ” (496). 12 Käsemann, Commentary, 226. 13 Charles E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., repr. ed., ICC, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990), 1:395, 399; quotation on 399. For Calvin, of course, there can be no question; by Rom 8:14 “believers are thus aroused to undoubted confidence in their salvation”. [The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance; trans. Ross Mackenzie (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 167]. 14 Cranfield, Romans, 1:395. 15 Cranfield, Romans, 1:396, notes that the γάρ indicates “that vv. 15 and 16 are intended as a confirmation and clarification of the statement just made in v. 14”.

Identities at Risk

279 

that the Spirit enables an ethically transformed life, but he acknowledges that for Paul this is a process: with completeness, maturity/perfection as the goal, not as the already accomplished fact.… So in Paul’s soteriology, faith and the Spirit do not reduce or remove the human responsibility of obedience … and the expected outcome is not simply imputed righteousness but transformed persons.16

As Despotis recognised in his work on other Pauline texts, the “New Perspective” places a much stronger emphasis on the continuity of God’s work with humanity and thus on connections with the OT as essential background for understanding Paul’s thought. Patristic interpreters, of course, do not ignore these connections, but they tend to see the relationship as typological (see below §2.3.1). Among interpreters from the “New Perspective”, Dunn, for example, emphasises that Paul depicts believers as entering “into the eschatological privileges promised to Israel”17. The outpouring of God’s Spirit as an internal catalyst for obedience to God would be one such privilege (Ezek 36:26–27; Joel 2:28–29; Jer 31:31–34). Other exegetes have recognised that this section of Romans is saturated with references to the exodus.18 Christians’ being “led by the Spirit” (8:14) alludes to the Israelites’ being led in the wilderness by a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night [Exod 13:21–22; Exod 14:19, 24; 40:38; Ps 77:14 (78:14 MT); and see Deut 32:12, “The Lord alone led them”; and see Isa 63:11, which speaks of God’s “Holy Spirit” being put in the people as they flee Egypt].19 These connections have been taken up with enthusiasm especially by N. T. Wright.20 These allusions strengthen the case for the interpretation of 8:14–15 offered by Dunn and the church fathers. In 1 Cor 10:1–13, Paul makes explicit use of exodus tradition, specifically the traditions of wandering in the wilderness, which he uses as an analogy and prototype of the Corinthians’ current situation. Although Paul does indeed stress God’s faithfulness (10:13), Paul deploys these traditions to warn his readers that they, like Israel, might find themselves 16 “The New Perspective on Paul: Whence, What and Whither” in The New Perspective on Paul, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 1–98, see 83–85 (verbatim quotations on p. 84 and 85; emphasis in the original); see also Romans, 450 and 457–459. Among modern, Englishlanguage Orthodox commentators, cf. Dmitri Royster, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: A Pastoral Commentary (Crestwood, NY: SVS, 2008), 204. 17 Romans, 449–450. 18 The insight goes back to Ignace de la Potterie, “Le chrétien conduit par l’Esprit dans son chreminement eschatologique (Rom 8,14)”, in The Law of the Spirit in Rom 7 and 8, ed. Lorenzo de Lorenzi (Rome: St. Paul’s Abbey, 1976), 209–278, 225. The extent of the connections, however, are most fully and systematically developed by Sylvia C. Keesmaat, “Exodus and the Intertextual Transformation of Tradition in Romans 8.14–30”, JSNT 54 (1994): 29–56. 19 My list of references derives from N. T. Wright, “Letter to the Romans”, NIB (Nashville; New York: Abingdon, 2002) 10:393–770; see 10:593 and Keesmaat, “Exodus”, 39–41. 20 See Wright, “Romans”, 10:593.

280

James Buchanan Wallace

falling away into idolatry despite their spiritual nourishment through Christ. Thus, we can confirm that Paul views the “exodus” of his converts as initiated by a faithful God but at risk nonetheless. Other factors internal to Romans confirm this interpretation. Although the second half of Romans 8 will emphasise God’s trustworthy guidance, Romans 8:1–17 is more dialectical (see my discussion of 8:17 below, §2.7), expressing both what God has done and the appropriate response. Paul is arguing that the Spirit can overpower sin and empower obedience to God; this is precisely what Torah as a mere written code could not do (7:7–25). We have seen that 8:14 is linked with 8:13 by γάρ, indicating that 8:14 explains 13b, and two elements of 13b are undeniable: it is conditional (εἰ) and contains an imperative directed at the audience of the letter (θανατοῦτε).21 These verses are, then, the theological – or rather, pneumatological – foundation for the paraenetic section of the letter (12:1–15:21).22 Although Paul will first celebrate and explore the plan of God for the second half of chapter 8 and chapters 9–11, even in chapter 11, where the accent is so squarely on God’s work, he warns Gentile Christians that they, too, through arrogance, could be cut off from God’s people (11:20– 24). Finally, we must remember the occasion of the letter. Paul writes to prepare for his visit to the Romans, in hopes of gaining their support for his mission to Rome.23 In so doing, he wishes to dispel misinterpretations of his gospel, especially those that accuse him of antinomianism (see 3:8).24 1.3 “A Spirit of Slavery unto Fear” (Rom 8:15a) 1.3.1 “A Spirit of Slavery unto Fear” (Rom 8:15a) in Orthodox Interpretation For John Chrysostom, the true sons of God are those led by the Spirit. In 8:15, Paul contrasts the “spirit of adoption” with receiving “the spirit of slavery again unto fear”. Like several modern commentators, including some who share the “New Perspective”, the term “fear” is interpreted vis-à-vis the law (Torah), though the exact nuances may differ.25 Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. ca. 428), John Chrysostom, and Theodoret of Cyrrhus (d. ca. 466), the great interpreters in the Antiochene tradition, follow this line of interpretation.26 According to

Cranfield, Romans, 1:395, readily notes the imperative. Charles H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London: Fontana, 1959), 143. 23 Jewett, Romans, 80–91. 24 Ibid., 88–89, 251. 25 So Dunn, Romans, 452; also Seyoon Kim, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 73–74, an opponent of the “New Perspective”, and critical of the thrust of Dunn’s point. 26 For Theodoret, see Gerald Bray, ed., Romans, ACCS 6 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press 1998), 218. On the Antiochene “school” of exegesis, see esp. Christoph Schäublin, Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft der antiochenischen Exegese, TBRKA 23 (Bonn; Co21 22

Identities at Risk

281 

Chrysostom, the spirit of slavery that leads to fear refers to living by the “letter” of Torah and acting out of fear of divine punishment and/or the purifications it prescribes. Chrysostom’s interpretation is also ultimately typological (citing 1 Cor 10:1–13). Israel received only literal goods and thus merely the names, not the substance. Just as Christians led by the Spirit are the true sons, Israel was promised land, whereas Christians are lured on by the promise of heaven itself. Thus, there is continuity with the story of Israel, but the continuity is one of type vs. the true, higher reality.27 Theodoret of Cyrrhus likewise interprets “slavery” as a reference to the law. However, he views the language of “spirit of slavery” as referring to a gift or dispensation of the one Holy Spirit, Who gives various gifts, a very different and much better gift being the “spirit of adoption”. In this regard, Theodoret’s commentary implicitly respects the continuity of salvation history, with the time of the law being under the auspices of the Holy Spirit. Just a bit earlier, commenting on 8:13, Theodoret made clear the difference between the two dispensations: “Grace brings this advantage over and above the law, that while the latter taught obligation, the former also brings the Spirit’s cooperating grace” [Int. Rom. 8 (90)].28 So, grace brings with it the power to obey God, if believers cooperate with this grace. Origen (d. ca. 254), by contrast, connects “spirit of slavery” to a lower stage of spiritual development.29 First, as established at the very beginning of his commentary on 8:14–15, Origen claims there are many spirits, but the Holy Spirit is the “guiding spirit (πνεύματι ἡγεμονικῷ)” (Ps 50:14LXX) above them all, an interpretation likely influenced by Stoicism.30 Some spirits are, in and of themselves, evil but are used for a divine purpose (1 Kgs 22:19–23; 1 Sam 16:14, 23; 18:10). The human spirit, which is higher than the soul, is one of the logne: Hanstein, 1974); Frances Young, “Alexandrian and Antiochene Exegesis”, in The Ancient Period (ed. Alan J. Hauser and Duane F. Watson; vol.1 of A History of Biblical Interpretation; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 334–354. 27 Cf. Despotis, Die “New Perspective”, 343, though he is dealing with different passages. 28 Quotations of Theodoret’s commentary are from the following translation unless otherwise note: Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, trans. Robert C. Hill, 2 vols. (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001). I include the page number of this translation in brackets after the citation of Int. Rom. 29 Numerous books have been written on Origen’s exegesis. Since Origen does not employ allegory when interpreting our focal verses, the most significant work to consult is: Bernhard Neuschäfer’s Origenes als Philologe, 2 vols, SBAW 18.1–2 (Basel: Reinhardt, 1987). See also Karen J. Torjesen, Hermeneutical Procedure and Theological Method in Origen’s Exegesis, PTS 28 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986). 30 According to Stoics, divine πνεῦμα pervades the cosmos: Anthony A. Long and David N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, 2 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), see 47L (SVF 2.441); 48C (SVF 2.473). SVF refers to Hans von Arnim, ed., SVF, 4 vols. (Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner Verlag, 1905–1924). The πνεῦμα that pervades the cosmos could be said to be governed by a guiding faculty (ἡγεμονικόν): 47O (SVF 2.634).

282

James Buchanan Wallace

rational spirits but distinct from the Holy Spirit. The “spirit of slavery (πνεῦμα δουλείας)” (Rom 8:15) appears to be one of the lesser rational spirits, but not an evil one (Comm. Rom. 7.1.1–3). Once he comes to his detailed explication of the “spirit of slavery”, Origen makes numerous references to Gal 3:23–4:7, an undeniably important resource for interpreting Rom 8:14–17, and develops an argument that may have been influenced by Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215).31 Unlike Clement, however, Origen never uses the term “law”. Rather, “fear” itself is the “pedagogue” of Gal 3:23. Origen takes Paul’s argument about salvation history and in a move like that of Martin Luther though to very different effect, internalises it and applies it to individuals. While still a child in faith – that is, in the beginning stages of faith – under the “pedagogue” of fear, one obeys God out of fear and remains a slave. Once one grows inwardly in faith, one becomes a son and acts out of love: You see how Paul here, in accordance with the wisdom bestowed upon him by God, could designate the spirits of slavery that are given in fear as children’s tutors and guardians, which keep each one of us, while a child, according to the inner man, in fear until we come to the age when we merit receiving the Spirit of adoption of sons and become now a son and lord of everything. [Comm. Rom. 7.3.232]

In this quotation, note the use of the first-person plural, which helps reinforce the point that this is a process of inner spiritual growth that believers can go through. Note also, in contrast to Rom 8:15, the use of the plural in the phrase “the spirits of slavery”. In light of the proximity of the above statement to a quotation of Gal 4:1–3, it would seem that he equates the “spirit of slavery” with the “elements of the world” in Gal 4:3. 1.3.2 “A Spirit of Slavery unto Fear” (Rom 8:15a) in Modern Western Interpretation The phrase, “a spirit of slavery unto fear” is odd. As others have noted, Paul does not tend to use the term φόβος negatively, making its referent here all the more obscure. Paul typically speaks of “fear of the Lord” as a positive thing in principle.33 In keeping with the “New Perspective’s” emphasis on “works of 31 For Clement, see Div. 9, as well as Strom. 2.20. He is similar insofar as he views obedience out of fear as a lesser stage of perfection than the obedience of sons (and, in Strom. 4.7, which makes use of Rom 8:15, 17, and 28–30, he makes clear that Christian martyrdom should be motivated by love). Nonetheless, Clement explicitly connects this fear to the law. At the same time, the pedagogic function of the law was not just for a by-gone era. The contemporary believer can be taught fear by the law, which leads to Christ, and ultimately to being willing to be martyred (Strom. 2.20). 32 All quotations of Origen’s Commentary on Romans are from the following translation unless otherwise noted: Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans Books 6–10, trans. Thomas. P. Scheck; FC 104 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2002). 33 See 2 Cor 5:11; 7:1, where “fear of the Lord” is a good thing (cf. Rom 3:18, quoting Ps 36:2LXX; cf. also Eph 5:21; 1 Tim 5:20). In Rom 13:7 the word is used of the appropriate fear

Identities at Risk

283 

the law” as referring primarily to external markers of identity that marked off God’s chosen people, Dunn suggests that the “fear” refers primarily to the fears created by social pressures to give outward expressions of one’s piety and obedience.34 S. Kim observes that many of those at Rome are likely to have been Gentiles and so could scarcely relate to such a form of social pressure.35 Nonetheless, like the Antiochene interpreters, Kim views the reference to “fear” as the fear generated by failure to keep the Torah.36 Jewett offers a more nuanced and therefore compelling version of Dunn’s interpretation: “In the context of the previous argument of Romans, this expression must be understood in terms of slavery to sin (6:17–20), which transformed the law into a perverse system of gaining status (7:7–20)”.37 He goes on to say that Paul “refers to slavery in relation to the law, which has been twisted in this manner”.38 While Jewett’s claim about “slavery to sin” could be correct, the emphasis on Torah in all of these interpretations is not fully convincing. The word “again” in 8:15 simply does not make much sense when read in this way if many of the addressees of Romans had been Gentiles. Rather, the term suggests that Paul alludes to the pre-conversion experience of all his addressees, perhaps Gentiles especially. Other commentators see a more general reference to the anxious state of human beings – whether Jew or Gentile – before Christ and the guarantee of salvation.39 Johnson offers the thought-provoking argument that Paul is referring to a return to idolatry; this is indeed the common state of humanity according to Rom 1:18–32, and certainly makes sense as a state to which all the Roman Christians might imagine returning to “again”.40 One aspect of Johnson’s interpretation deserves special attention – namely, his understanding of the origins of idolatry: it is the deep fear of contingency, anxiety at the threat of nonexistence, that, once the gift of God’s creation is rejected, drives the compulsive need to construct one’s own life and

of ruling authorities [cf. Eph 6:5 (and the verb in Eph 5:32), though 13:3 does mention fear of punishment from these authorities. But see 2 Cor 7:5 where the word is used in relation to suffering. See also 2 Cor 7:11; 1 Cor 2:3; Phil 2:12; in none of these cases is “fear” an in appropriate attitude. Paul can also speak of his fear for his congregations: 2 Cor 1:3 (verb); Gal 4:11 (verb). Only the use of the verb in Gal 2:12, referring to Cephas’s “fearing the ones from the circumcision”, would support the typical reading. 34 Dunn, Romans, 452. 35 Kim, New Perspective, 73–74. 36 Ibid. 37 Romans, 497. 38 Ibid. 39 Cranfield, Romans, 396–397 (“anxious” is his word); Käsemann, Romans, 227, who cites Bultmann. Not surprisingly, these are two of the same commentators who emphasise that those are adopted are assured of being “led by the Spirit”. 40 Luke T. Johnson, Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary, Reading the New Testament (Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 2001), 133.

284

James Buchanan Wallace

worth.… If the Spirit they now receive ‘frees them from slavery and fear’, then, I suggest, fear can legitimately be taken as the root of the slavery that Paul describes as idolatry.41

At the root of idolatry is, fundamentally, a fear of death. At the risk of oversimplifying Johnson’s nuanced assessment of idolatry, I would assert that here the “spirit of slavery unto fear again” refers to what the author Hebrews called, “the slavery of the fear of death” (Heb 2:15). To defend this assertion, we return to the observation that Paul alludes in Rom 8 to the exodus story.42 If Rom 8:14 alludes first and foremost to Exod 13:21–22 in the exodus narrative, an allusion to fear in a nearby passage could be illuminating, and this is exactly what we find. As Pharaoh and his army close in on the fleeing slaves, the sons of Israel “were greatly afraid (ἐφοβήθησαν σφόδρα)”, and “the sons of Israel cried aloud to the Lord” (Exod 14:10). They complain to Moses, “ʻIs this not the word that we said to you in Egypt, saying, ‘Let us be, that we may serve (δουλεύσωμεν) the Egyptians’? For it is better for us to serve (δουλεύειν) the Egyptians than to die in this wilderness” (Exod 14:12). The Israelites fear death, and their fear of death leads them to prefer slavery under the old tyrant Pharaoh to the risk of freedom under the guidance of YHWH.43 The Israelites’ lengthy existence as slaves led them to be servile and fearful. Paul is about to call his readers to suffer with Christ, and he has just urged them to put to death the works of the body by the Spirit. It would make sense, then, to view Paul’s admonition in 8:15 as encouragement not to return to the fear of death that results in servile behavior that pampers and protects the body and what is one’s own at all costs.44 Just as Paul speaks of sin leading to death (Rom 6:23), he can speak of death as the ultimate enemy (1 Cor 15:25–26) and leading to sin (1 Cor 15:56), a claim with firm psychological foundations.45 If this interpretation is correct, then 8:15 contains what we can identify as “conversion” language (compare 1 Thess 1:9, “how you turned [ἐπεστρέψατε] to God from idols to serve [δουλεύειν] a living and true God”, a verse which clearly expresses Ibid. Wright, “Romans”, 593, suggests this connection: “In other words, the pillar of cloud and fire is not leading you back to Egypt”. However, he develops this no further and even refers to a “new form of slavery” to which the Romans might, apparently, be tempted. 43 Although my claim is more specific and connects the “spirit of slavery unto fear” to a specific text, the basic insight that Paul is thinking here of exodus traditions and therefore the characteristic action of God expressed in God’s liberation of Israel, is laid out by Keesmaat, “Exodus and Romans”, 42–43. Also, note that God will be “glorified (ἐνδοξασθήσομαι)” in the triumph over Pharaoh in Exod 14:18. 44 Compare Royster, Romans, 205, who cites Heb 2:14–15 in connection with Rom 8:15, though he also cites Gal 5:1. Ultimately, he gives no specific meaning to the phrase, suggesting that freedom should not be surrendered in any regard. 45 Richard Beck, The Slavery of Death (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014), see ix-xii for the biblical evidence and 27–75 for discussion of how the fear of death leads to sin, drawing on psychological research and other disciplines. 41 42

Identities at Risk

285 

“conversion”) and claims that reception of the “Spirit of Adoption” is crucial for conversion.46 This interpretation, moreover, affirms that Paul is speaking about dynamics of conversion that all – both Jews and Gentiles – could understand. All have fled the demeaning “spirit of slavery”, a slavery to sin and idolatry, that led them to fear death and hence to more sin and idolatry, and this spirit is juxtaposed with the “Spirit of adoption”, which offers the antidote to slavery and fear: life and security by participation in the very life of the one, true God. 1.4 “A Spirit of Adoption” (8:15b) According to St. Irenaeus of Lyon (ca. 130–200), when God became fully human in Jesus Christ, not only was God revealed to human beings, but human nature was brought into the divine life, making possible a restored and more intimate relationship between human beings and God: For in what way could we be partakers (participates)47 of the adoption of sons, unless we had received from Him through the Son that fellowship which refers to Himself, unless His word, having been made flesh, had entered into communion with us? Wherefore also He passed through every stage of life, restoring to all communion with God [Adv. Haer. 3.18.7 (NPNF 1:448)].

Irenaeus could be referring to Gal 4:5 or Rom 8:16, or simply thinking primarily of John 1 and adopting some of the language of Paul. Patristic interpreters did not read Paul in isolation from other NT authors. John 1, with its clear emphasis on the incarnation which is explicitly connected to becoming a child of God (John 1:12), was an important resource for understanding Paul’s talk of adoption. The divine word’s assumption of humanity restores the fellowship between God and humanity, and for Irenaeus, being an adopted son of God means sharing in this fellowship. Likewise, human beings had to be “united to incorruptibility and immortality” [Adv. Haer. 3.19.1 (NPNF 1:448–49)] before they could be true sons.48 For Irenaeus, one participates both in certain divine attributes even while putting away sin so as to be conformed to God’s “own likeness” and eventually to “see God, and … receive the Father” [Adv. Haer. 3.20.2 (NPNF 1:450)]. Irenaeus’s words suggest the possible somatic dimensions of conversion, as if the seeds of the future resurrection have already been sown in the believer’s body here and now.

46 On the term “conversion” as a modern, etic analytical category when studying Paul, see Alan Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 6, 285–300. 47 The Greek for this quotation does not survive, but just before it, particeps was used in a construction to translate the aorist infinitive of μετέχω. 48 So also Royster, Romans, 204–207.

286

James Buchanan Wallace

The Orthodox Rite of Baptism, not surprisingly, alludes to Rom 8:15/Gal 4:5 and again implies that conversion transforms the body as well as the soul. The priest prays, But do Thou, O Master of all, show this water to be the water of redemption, the water of sanctification, the purification of the flesh and spirit, the loosing of bonds, the remission of sins, the illumination of the soul, the laver of regeneration, the renewal of the Spirit, the gift of adoption to sonship, the garment of incorruption, the foundation of life.49

Later, as the priest prepares the oil to be poured into the baptismal waters, he again asks that the Holy Spirit make the oil effective “unto incorruption” and bring about the “renewing of soul and body”.50 For the Orthodox tradition, conversion is not merely a matter of the “soul” or interior, but since the soul and body are intimately joined, the renewal affects both. 1.5 “The Same Spirit Testifies Together with Our Spirit” (Rom 8:16) Many commentators have difficulty with the phrase “our spirit” which testifies with God’s Spirit. How, such interpreters ask, can the human spirit be a vehicle of the very testimony it should be receiving from outside itself through the Holy Spirit? Thus, the phrase should be translated, “The same Spirit testifies (συμμαρτυρεῖ) to our spirit”.51 However, all of the συν- words in the very next verse (and there are three of them) mean “together with”, and this is the meaning of συμμαρτυρέω in Rom 2:15 and 9:1.52 Moreover, Paul’s thinking has affinities with the Jewish text, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. This text adopts a Stoic anthropology, according to which the senses and other bodily potencies could be understood as consisting of πνεῦμα extending through the body.53 This spirit can yield itself to the influence of evil spirits, which are personified vices (though probably also viewed as genuine demonic entities) under the command of Beliar. Alternatively, the human person can yield to the “Baptismˮ, Orthodox Church in America (2012), 12–13; accessed from https://oca. org/PDF/Music/Baptism/baptism-service.pdf; Emphasis mine. 50 Ibid., 14. 51 So Cranfield, Romans, 403, which is also Calvin’s interpretation of the meaning of the phrase; Epistles, 170. Käsemann, Romans, 228, raises the same theological objection as Cranfield, has a creative solution. He maintains that the verse is saying that God’s spirit “testifies with our spirit”, but he interprets “our spirit” as a reference to the spirit reigning over the worshiping congregation, which is the context in which the cry of 8:15 would take place. 52 Dunn, Romans, 454 [ck]. 53 On Stoic influence on T. 12 Patr., see Howard C. Kee, “The Ethical Dimensions of the Testaments of the XII as a Clue to Provenance”, NTS 24 (1978), 259–270, as well as my “Spirit(s) in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”, in The Holy Spirit and the Church According to the New Testamen, ed. Predrag Dragutinović, Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, and James B. Wallace, WUNT (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 309–340, esp. 312–315. Compare Aëtius’s report on Stoic thought in SVF 2.836; Sedley and Long, Hellenistic Philosophers, 53K (SVF 2.826) with T. Reu. 2:3–3:1. 49

Identities at Risk

287 

divine Spirit, called “Spirit of truth” among other titles, and follow its promptings to obey God’s law.54 Thus, in the Judaism of Paul’s day, God’s Spirit could be understood as a power that enables one to follow God’s commandments.55 In this regard, the claim that the Holy Spirit leads a process of moral transformation, by influencing and cooperating with the human spirit, remains compelling when Paul is read in light of his own Jewish contexts. Likewise, the idea that the human spirit could witness along with the divine Spirit to the newfound relationship with God is not particularly problematic. The divine Spirit remains the source of this new knowledge, which is communicated precisely to and through the human spirit. Even if Paul is recalling a baptismal ritual or formulation, κράζομεν and συμμαρτυρεῖ are present tense verbs and hence represent ongoing experience (unlike the aorist ἐλάβετε of 8:15).56 In this regard, conversion, even if rooted in reception of the Spirit (see §2.3.2), is continuously experienced and reaffirmed; it cannot be reduced to a single moment.57 Cranfield’s question, “But what standing has our spirit in this matter?” fails to grasp how thorough is the transformation of the entire human person through the Spirit’s work, something the church fathers understood quite well. If the human spirit cannot fully confirm the newfound relationship, how profound can it actually be (see §2.6.2 below)? In this regard, interpreters from the “New Perspective” agree with Origen.58 54 See Wallace, “Spirit(s)”. See, e.g. T. Jud. 20:1–5 and note that, among other functions, the “spirit of truth” “bears witness”, though here, it is witness to the person’s sins. 55 See also E. Reinmuth, Geist und Gesetz: Studien zu Voraussetzungen und Inhalt der paulinischen Paränese, ThA 44 (Berlin: Evangelishce Verlagsanstalt, 1985), esp. 74–77 on T. 12 Patr. and Volker Rabens, The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul: Transformation and Empowering for Religious-Ethical Life, WUNT II 283 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 146–170 on Judaism, with T. 12 Patr. mentioned here and there, both of whom discuss the Spirit’s role in enabling obedience to God in Judaism, including in T. 12 Patr., as well as in Paul. 56 See Käsemann, Romans, 227–228 on the verbs and ritual, though he actually disagrees with the argument I am making. 57 Generally speaking, contemporary studies of conversion understand conversion to be a process of defining a new identity that cannot be reduced to single moment or aspect; see Lewis R. Rambo and Charles E. Farhadian, “Introductionˮ, in The Oxford Handbook of Religious Conversion, ed. L Rambo and C. Farhadian (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 2–22, esp. 5–9, and in the same Handbook, see also Henri Gooren, “Anthropology of Religious Conversionˮ, 84–116 (and see esp. 87–88, 102). Gooren discusses numerous different models of conversion developed through the study diverse manifestations of religious conversions, but virtually every model contains multiple stages and presents conversion as occuring over a period of time. To the analysis presented here, compare especially the model proposed by Luther Gerlach and Virginia Hine, discussed on pp. 87–88, which includes a “commitment eventˮ as well as “testifying to the experience; and … group support for cognitive and behavioral changesˮ.   58 So Dunn, Romans, 454, rightly says that the human “spirit” is “that dimension of his being to which and through which God’s Spirit could communicate its revelatory and redemptive power.” Implied by Johnson, Reading Romans, 134. Compare Origen, Comm. Rom. 7.1.1.

288

James Buchanan Wallace

1.6 “Spirit of God”: The Work of the Holy Spirit in Rom 8:14–16 1.6.1 The Work of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Interpretation A nuanced and comprehensive discussion of the pneumatology of the church fathers is well beyond the scope of this modest essay. Nonetheless, the Spirit is central to 8:14–15, and many of the interpreters discussed here recognised the importance of the Spirit for 8:16–17 and 28–30, as well. According to Origen, the Holy Spirit, unlike other spirits, “truly proceeds from God himself. It is he who bestows the grace of his own name and sanctification to all the others” (Comm. Rom. 7.1.2). This Spirit aids in the process of sanctification, working in conjunction with the human spirit (see §2.5 above). Indeed, “all human beings, as it seems, are led by some spirit” (Comm. Rom. 7.1.1); the Holy Spirit leads in the right direction, while Origen cites 1 Cor 12:2 as evidence that human beings are also “led” to idolatry.59 While Origen connects the work of the Holy Spirit to sanctification, he indicates that such sanctification and the presence of the Holy Spirit are for the worthy.60 Origen tends to stress the Spirit’s role in enabling believers to contemplate and understand God, and this is what it means to be “led by the Spirit” and hence be sons of God.61 Gregory of Nazianzus (329–389) will also stress the Holy Spirit as the only avenue to an understanding of the Father (Or. 31.29). Though also concerned with the capacity of the Spirit to bestow knowledge, St. Basil of Caesarea (ca. 330–379) develops his understanding of “led by the Spirit of God” through categories of causality as he expounds on the meanings of the word “in” and thus the sense in which the Holy Spirit is “in” believers. The Holy Spirit is in the believer in three senses, as form, power or potency, and habit. Regarding the first of these, the Spirit is “in” the believer as a formal cause in the Aristotelean sense: Therefore, inasmuch as the Holy Spirit perfects rational beings, completing their excellence, He is analogous to form. For he, who no longer ‘lives after the flesh’, but, being ‘led by the Spirit of God’, is called a Son of God, being ‘conformed to the image of the Son of God’ is described as spiritual [Holy Spirit 26.61 (NPNF2 8:38)].62

59 Jewett, Romans, 496, is remarkably similar on this specific point: “Paul uses the same verb, ἄγω, to refer to the pagan experience of being carried away by ‘dumb idols’, which reflects the sense dominant in the Greco-Roman world of spiritual forces overpowering humans and leading them this way and that. The notion of a spirit ‘leading’ someone is particularly common in magical texts.” 60 Cels 6.70; Princ. 1.1.3. 61 Cels. 4.95; for the emphasis on spiritual knowledge (which seems deeply influenced by 1 Cor 2:6–16, esp. 10–12), see again Cels 6.70; Princ. 1.1.3. Compare Clement, Strom. 2.78. 62 See Aristotle, Phys. 2.3 (194b): Form, which Aristotle equates with the essence, has a causal role in making something what it is.

Identities at Risk

289 

What the Christian is, as a baptised believer, is a son of God conformed to the image of the Son (cf. Rom 8:29). Since such a state is also called “spiritual”, and on the basis of Rom 8:13–14 (which suggests a role of the Spirit in bringing this about) the Spirit is analogous to the formal cause, the form making something what it truly is. The Holy Spirit is also, however, a potency, moving the believer as power not just as form. As with other Eastern patristic interpreters, however, full conformity to the image of the Son is by no means guaranteed. In this ancient understanding, a “power” is not a perpetual or necessary force, but a mere potency. As Basil explains, just as the “power of seeing” functions properly “in the healthy eye”, so the Spirit can work “in the purified soul” [Spir. Sanct. 26.61 (NPNF2 8:38)]. The potency is not activated and cannot work in an impure or slothful soul any more than the artistic power can work in an artist who does not actually try to make something. These aspects of the Spirit’s work indicate that full moral and spiritual development is absolutely impossible without the Holy Spirit to provide what the Christian ultimately is. But this explains how Basil can account for language of the Spirit’s role (i.e., in Rom 8:13–14) in bringing about spiritual development, while simultaneously insisting the Holy Spirit is only fully active when the soul is healthy.63 Basil does not neglect the epistemological role of the Spirit, either. Indeed, the Holy Spirit is also like reason, for it informs thought and speech: “And like reason in the soul, which is at one time the thought in the heart, and at another speech uttered by the tongue, so is the Holy Spirit, as when He ‘beareth witness with our spirit,’ and when He ‘cries in our hearts, Abba, Father’” [26.61 (NPNF2 8:38)]. We recall that Symeon, somewhat similarly, took the cry of “Abba” as an expression of the soul’s speaking with God. For Basil, as for Origen and Gregory, the Spirit enables and expresses a kind of intimate knowledge of God and one’s filial relation with God. Knowledge is a kind of intimacy with God (as is clear for Origen especially in Comm. Rom. 7.8.3; see §3.3.1). True, this knowledge increases as the soul or human spirit is cleansed. The brightness of the sunlight shines in direct proportion to how clean the window has become. And yet, without the kernel of this knowledge and intimacy, the cleansing would not be possible at all. To return to the Spirit as analogous to a formal cause, there would be nothing for the soul to grow towards were its fundamental “form” not gifted to it.

Spir. Sanct. 9.23 makes almost shockingly clear that intimacy with the Holy Spirit depends on purging passions, while simultaneously suggesting the active role of the Spirit: “Though His aid hearts are lifted up, the weak are held by the hand, and they who are advancing are brought to perfection. Shining upon those that are cleansed from every spot, He makes them spiritual by fellowship with Himself” (NPNF2 8:15). 63

290

James Buchanan Wallace

1.6.2 The Work of the Holy Spirit in Modern Western Interpretation In a compelling monograph, Volker Rabens has argued that Holy Spirit empowers ethical transformation by establishing a secure, intimate relationship between the believer and God, which is in turn the basis for “putting to death the actions of the body” (8:13).64 Romans 8:12–17 is one of the linchpins of his argument. Noting the γὰρ in verse 14, which indicates its close connection with verse 13, Rabens establishes the ethical nature of the Spirit’s work.65 Verses 14–16 explain how the Spirit can enable one to put to death the sinful actions of the body. In the Spirit, believers cry out, “Abba! Father!” and Rabens takes this language to indicate an intimate relationship between the believer and God. Thus, the Spirit works to establish an intimate and loving relationship – as opposed to the “spirit of slavery” that causes fear – and this sense of an intimate, filial relationship with God is the basis of ethical action.66 Moreover, Rabens’s contention that secure relationships are the firmest foundation for ethical behavior has the support of recent psychological research.67 I do not wish, of course, to conflate Rabens’s interpretation with that of the Orthodox tradition, but there is overlap worth noting. Irenaeus stresses that adoption by God transforms the human being to take on qualities of God, such as immortality. Moreover, this serves precisely to restore intimate communion between God and human beings. Theodoret and Symeon also stress this intimacy, though in different ways.68 Likewise, Origen, Basil, and Gregory all claim that the Spirit brings knowledge of God and hence intimacy. Rabens and the Fathers emphasise the establishment of a new relationship with God as the basis of moral struggle, and none view the work of the Spirit as a complete takeover or possession of the human person.69 Though Rabens acknowledges that Christian life becomes one of moral struggle,70 the accent is clearly on the power of the Spirit and the confidence the filial relationship should give for winning the struggle.71 Nonetheless, these interpretations can be mutually informing, for the Eastern Fathers helping us see how fully we share in God’s Volker Rabens Holy Spirit and Ethics, 203–237; see esp. 204. Ibid., 209–211. 66 Ibid., 216, 219–228; cf. Dunn, Romans, 460–461. 67 Holy Spirit, 129–132. 68 Theodoret says that “Abba” is the term a child uses for his father [Comm. Rom. 8 (91)]. Symeon, we recall, interprets crying “Abba! Father!” as interior converse. Despite concerns that have been raised as to the exact valence of the Aramaic word, “Abba”, the vast majority of contemporary interpreters agree that the word expresses filial intimacy, even if was not used exclusively by children, and that early Christians thus took up Jesus’s own way of addressing God (Mark 14:36). See Johnson, Reading Romans, 125; Dunn, Romans, 453–454; Jewett, Romans, 499; Cranfield, Romans, 400; Wright, “Romans”, 593. 69 As do Jewett, Romans, 496, and Käsemann, Romans, 226–227. 70 Ibid., 213–214. 71 Ibid., 214–215. 64 65

Identities at Risk

291 

life through adoption, while Rabens focuses on the security of the relationship as the motivating and empowering factor in our ethical lives. All of these interpreters affirm Ed P. Sanders’s contention that the Spirit, not the doctrine of justification as such, is the source of ethics, against a long-standing tradition that argues that justification is the source of ethics.72 1.7 “Co-heirs of Christ, if We Co-suffer, that We Might Also Be Co-glorified” (8:17) As indicated earlier, patristic interpreters are virtually united in taking the “if” of 8:17 quite seriously. Diodore of Tarsus (d. ca. 390) makes the point with almost shocking directness: “If we suffer with him we shall be worthy to be glorified with him as well. This glory is the reward of our sufferings and is not to be regarded as a free gift. The free gift is that we have received remission from our former sins.”73 Sins are remitted by grace, but this does not mean that future glorification becomes a given. If not always so terse – and juridical – as Diodore, Orthodox interpreters generally agree the εἴπερ is conditional here.74 The idea that eschatological salvation is conditional or merited in any way was anathema to Calvin.75 Among more recent commentators, Cranfield denies the conditional meaning of εἴπερ, translating it as “seeing that”. In other words, Christians were already suffering, so that was a fact, and as such, they could trust in future glorification.76 Dunn argues for the conditional meaning of εἴπερ, resulting in an interpretation generally in line with the Orthodox view.77 The issue is not an easy one to resolve, as Paul can use εἴπερ with a meaning of “seeing that” (probably Rom 3:30, though the meaning “if indeed” also works; Ed P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 439–440. 73 Quoted from Bray, Romans (ACCS), 219. 74 Among modern American Orthodox commentators, see Royster, Romans, 207–208; Paul N. Tarazi, Romans: A Commentary, Chrysostom Bible (St. Paul, MN: OCABS Press, 2010), 146–147. 75 See Epistles, 171; see William N. Pass, “A Reexamination of Calvin’s Approach to Romans 8:17”, BSac 170 (2013): 69–81; see 70–72, for a discussion and analysis of Calvin’s interpretation. Interestingly, to preserve Calvinist doctrine and the conditional force of εἴπερ, Pass argues that being “co-glorified” and “co-heir” is a step higher than simply being an “heir”, and it is only this higher level, and not eschatological salvation as such, that is conditional (76– 78). This is somewhat similar to Origen’s argument for two tiers of eschatological reward – one for those who serve like slaves and one for those who serve like sons (Comm. Rom. 7.3.2– 3). 76 Romans, 407–408, with the quotation of the translation on 407; so also Jewett, Romans, 502. 77 Romans, 456; cf. Johnson, Reading Romans, 135. But this is not exclusive to the “New Perspective”, as Käsemann, Romans, 229, also accepts the full force of the conditional, viewing it as protecting against enthusiasm. 72

292

James Buchanan Wallace

cf. 2 Thess 1:6). And yet, the overall context of 8:17 indicates that the conditional meaning is more likely, as Paul has used numerous conditional statements in 8:9–17 (see especially verses 9 and 13). This is borne out by Paul’s usage elsewhere (1 Cor 8:5; 15:15, where it seems to be emphatic), and the simple fact that so many ancient interpreters immersed in Greek naturally read it this way.78 1.7. Conclusions At baptism, the Holy Spirit establishes a new relationship between the initiate and God, an intimate relationship of Father and child. This immense gift points towards the eventual co-inheritance with Christ. This adoption is not so much about “justification” as it is about participation in the divine life through intimate relationship with God (including participation in divine attributes for Irenaeus), as the Holy Spirit continues to work with the human spirit, bringing ever deeper knowledge of God. Just as with the Israelites, God’s first adopted sons, in the wilderness, however, this identity is always at risk. Only those who continue throughout life to be “led by the Spirit”, by continual participation in Christ’s death through ending sinful actions and passions, actualise their status of sonship. One can opt out of a relationship that involves ongoing participation. The hallmark of the new life is fearlessness rooted in the experience of being the child of a loving Father. According to Orthodox tradition, intimacy with God continues to deepen the more one participates in Christ’s death. Paul’s language may reflect his own understanding of a transition from slavery to adoption and freedom (Gal 1:13–19; Phil 3:4–11), and his words would help his readers construct their own narrative of conversion. They have left behind the slavery and fear that both characterised and drove their futile idolatry, which could foster neither knowledge of God nor moral transformation. Only the secure and intimate relationship, confirmed and facilitated through experience (whether communal, individual, or both) of the Spirit, can bring about moral change and the courage to endure suffering. Conversion to such a life of courage and freedom is an ongoing process. While Paul may allude to baptism, the use of present-tense verbs in 8:15b–16 indicate ongoing experience.79

Note also the use of εἴπερ as a textual variant for εἰ in 2 Cor 5:3. See BAG, “εἰ” 220. Hence, we have seen that Symeon views the Spirit’s cry in 8:15 as an expression of interior converse with God. Chrysostom and Theodoret both viewed the cry of “Abba!” as a reference to the Lord’s Prayer, which Chrysostom calls the “prayer of the initiated” [Hom. Rom. 14 (NPNF1 11:442); Comm. Rom. 8 (91)]. 78 79

Identities at Risk

293 

2. Romans 8:28–30 2.1 Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 315–86) on 8:28 Once again, I wish to begin with a church father who is not as such offering commentary on these verses but who illustrates how the verses might be applied in a specific pastoral setting. Moreover, the interpretation offers at least one jarring contrast with current consensus. Remarkably, of all the passages he might have chosen to frame the introduction to his Catechetical Lectures – lectures given during Lent to those preparing for baptism at Pascha – St. Cyril of Jerusalem chose Rom 8:28. Speaking to those in the process of official conversion, he saw in this verse a statement about conversion to the Christian faith as well as the character of that faith as it should be lived out. Cyril insists that unless catechumens enter the baptismal font with the proper intention, their baptism will prove useless. Very close to the beginning of the prologue to the Catechetical Lectures (the Procatechesis), Cyril says: Until now, there has been for you a list of names, a calling to a campaign, and lamps of a bridal procession, and a desire of a citisenship of heaven, and a good purpose (πρόθεσις ἀγαθή), and an obedient hope, for truthful is the one who says that “to those who love God all things work together for the good.”80 For while God is liberal with benefaction, He expects of each the genuine decision (την γνησίαν προαίρεσιν); therefore the Apostle added, saying, “to those who are called in accordance with purpose (κατὰ πρόθεσιν).” When the purpose is genuine (πρόθεσις γνησία), it makes you “called (κλητόν)”, for even if you have the body thus but you do not have the intention (διάνοιαν), it benefits nothing. (PG 33:333a336a)

Cyril interprets κατὰ πρόθεσιν as referring to human purpose – that is, the sincerity of one’s intentions in seeking baptism – as the use of γνησία in two places and the virtual equation of πρόθεσις with διάνοια and προαίρεσις make abundantly clear.81 Throughout the Procatechesis, Cyril admonishes the catechumens to purify their hearts and intentions lest their baptism not be efficacious (see esp. Procat. 4). In fact, like Symeon the New Theologian much later, he offers Simon Magus as an example of one who “was baptised, but not illumined” (Procat. 2). Cyril will admonish his audience to cultivate a good intention several more times in the prologue (see esp. Procat. 4, 8, 9, though he uses

The standard critical edition (NA27.8) does not include the definite article. In this case, the Byzantine texts were divided. As we will see, Cyril’s text was not uncommon. 81 This tendency in patristic interpretation is discussed by Ryan Brady, “ʻCalled According to Purpose’: Patristic Exegesis of Romans 8:28–29 and the Early Christian Thinking on Justification”, http://www.academia.edu/8310719/Called_According_to_Purpose_Patristic_Exegesis_of_Romans_8_28–29_and_the_Early_Christian_Thinking_on_Justification. So far as I know, this paper has never been published. Among the interpreters discussed in my essay, Brady discusses John Chrysostom and Origen at some length. 80

294

James Buchanan Wallace

the term προαίρεσις).82 Although I will not try to defend Cyril’s interpretation of πρόθεσις as human intention, he does link this “genuine intention” with love for God, and in so doing, he detects an aspect of 8:28 where human decision or response is indeed involved. For Cyril, conversion, being truly called, entails a true love for God untainted by ulterior motives and accompanied by serious preparation for the costs that accompany such love for God. In this regard, “conversion” is not as such instantaneous, even if marked by baptism in an essential way. Conversion entails a process of preparation. Cyril did not deny the importance of God and the Holy Spirit or the efficacy of baptism, as a passage rich in allusions to Pauline texts in the third Mystagogical Catechesis makes clear: Baptised into Christ and having put on Christ, you have become conformed to the Son of God. For having set us apart beforehand [or, predestined] (προορίσας) for adoption, [God] made [us] conformed to the body of the glory of Christ. Therefore, having become partakers (μέτοχοι) of Christ, you have reasonably been called “Christs”; for concerning you God said, “Do not touch my Christs”. So, having received the exact representation of the Holy Spirit, you have become Christs; and all things have become as if they are reflected in an image on you, since you are images of Christ. [Myst. 3.1; PG 33:1088a]

Here, Cyril stresses God’s role in setting the initiate apart and the effects of the rite of baptism in conforming one to the image of Christ. Cyril alludes to Rom 8:29 and 8:15, as well as Phil 3:21. He appropriates the language of 8:29 to speak of the conformity to Christ’s image that happens through the Holy Spirit at baptism.83 The meaning of Phil 3:21, however, is modified to conform to Rom 8:29, where the verbs are in the aorist tense.84 What is clearly a future, eschatological hope in Philippians has here become prefigured, at the very least, through baptism. Though the church fathers often emphasise the struggle with passions that follow baptism, here it is clear that conformity to Christ happens already at baptism, the very rite of initiation. This conformity, moreover, is understood as a form of participation (μέτοχος) in Christ. Moreover, the use of the language of Phil 3:21, “the body of the glory of Christ”, hints again at the possible somatic ramifications of conversion.85

82 He still probably has Rom 8:28 in mind in Procat. 9; see also Cat. 3.15, with a reference to Rom 8:17. 83 The Spirit descended on Jesus at His baptism (Matt 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22), and the Christian’s Baptism is an exact imitation effecting a transformation into the image of Christ. 84 In Rom 8:29, σύμμορφος is an adjective, but the verbs προγιγνώσκω and προορίζω are in the aorist. Then, in 8:30, the verbs are again in the aorist, confirming that the “conforming to the image of His Son” took place, at least to some degree, in the past. 85 See Segal’s discussion of this verse in the context of Jewish Kavod traditions: Paul the Convert, 10, 63–64; cf. 59, 142.

Identities at Risk

295 

2.2 “All Things Work Together for Good, for the Ones Who Are Called according to Purpose” (Rom 8:28) Strictly speaking, the term πρόθεσις is indeed ambiguous. Modern interpreters agree virtually unanimously that the “purpose” here is God’s, and they are almost certainly correct, in light of Paul’s use of the term again in Rom 9:11 to speak quite clearly of the “purpose of God”. Nonetheless, many interpreters reared speaking and thinking in Greek took the term as Cyril of Jerusalem does. Both John Chrysostom (Hom. Rom. 15) and Theodoret of Cyrrhus [Int. Rom. 8 (94)] interpret the verse along these lines, and Origen prefers this interpretation though he allows that the “purpose” may refer to God’s (Int. Rom. 7.8.4–5). Nonetheless, later Orthodox readers have recognised that the term must refer to God’s purpose, though they are hesitant blatantly to call their forebears wrong, and they readily agree that God’s call does indeed require a free human response.86 Chrysostom and Theodoret also agree that the things producing good are not necessarily the things human beings usually assume are good. For Origen and Theodoret, the meaning is clearly restrictive; this goes only for those who “love God” and God works things for the spiritual – not material – benefit of such persons [Comm. Rom. 7.7.3; Comm. Rom. 8 (140–41)]. Interpreters both ancient and modern, Eastern and Western, tend to agree that Paul is saying that even suffering and hardships can work for the ultimate good of those who love God, in the sense that such suffering becomes conducive to their salvation and/or being conformed to Christ.87 While Chrysostom and Theodoret agree that the term πρόθεσις refers to the intention of the human being, they differ slightly in how they understand the relationship between the words “called” and this “intention” or “purpose”. Chrysostom, though giving only very brief treatment of the word “called” here, offers what is by far the consensus position of the church fathers: everyone was called, but only those with proper “intention” responded positively: “For the calling was not forced upon them, nor compulsory. All then were called, but all did not obey the call” [Hom. Rom. 15 (NPNF1 11:453)]. Origen uses Matt 22:14 as an important resource to make the same point (Comm. Rom. 7.8.4). Theodoret, however, links the “calling” to preaching and suggests that at least in some cases, only those with the proper “purpose” are actually called in the first place. He refers to several passages in Acts in which Paul seems to know that not everyone needs to be preached to since not everyone will receive the

Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), Expl. Rom. 8.28 (PG 74:828a-b; cited in Bray, Romans [ACCS], 234); Royster, Romans, 218–219. See also Tarazi, Romans, 148, 151, though he is not anxious to incorporate the traditional interpretation. 87 See, for example, Cranfield, Romans, 1:428; Calvin, Epistles, 179; Käsemann, Romans, 243–244; Dunn, Romans, 480–482, 494; Johnson, Reading Romans, 142. 86

296

James Buchanan Wallace

message [Comm. Rom. 8 (141)]. I will discuss modern, Western interpretation of 8:28 in conjunction with their interpretation of 8:29a in §3.3.2 below. 2.3. “Whom He Foreknew, He Also Set Apart Beforehand” (8:29a) 2.3.1 Romans 8:29a in Orthodox Interpretation On this passage, the church fathers and Orthodox tradition appear to be virtually unanimous: The word “foreknew” comes first, and only then “set apart beforehand” or “predestined”.88 Foreknowledge does not imply causality. Therefore, God “set apart” those whom God foreknew to be responsive to God’s call. Again, Diordore of Tarsus makes the point with brevity and precision: “This text does not take away our power of decision (αὐτεξούσιον). It uses the word foreknew before predestined. Now it is clear that foreknowledge does not by itself impose any particular kind of behaviour.”89 Origen’s interpretation aligns nicely with these later Antiochene interpretations with regard to the question of predestination. Origen’s discussion, however, is greatly enriched by his biblically-oriented reflections on the verb “foreknew”. First, Origen observes that foreknowledge applies only to good people, since only they are conformed to Christ. Those who are wicked, God never “knew”. Indeed, “to those who are not worthy to be known by God, the Savior says, ‘Depart from me, because I have never known you, you workers of iniquity’” (Comm. Rom. 7.7.5, citing Matt 7:23; Luke 13:27). Origen later observes that in the Bible, the verb “to know” when used with human beings as the object, has deep, relational connotations, perhaps best illustrated when used as a euphemism for sexual intercourse (such as Gen 4:1). The term thus has the connotation of being “united in … affection and love” (Comm. Rom. 7.8.3). Thus, Paul’s “aim is to show that those who are foreknown by God are those upon whom God had placed his own love and affection because he knew what sort of persons they were” (ibid.). The passage, then, is not simply about what God foreknows, since God foreknows everything, even what evil people will do. Rather, the term “foreknew” refers to the intimate connection between God and those who love Him. Modern Orthodox commentators are likewise unanimous in their rejection of the doctrine of predestination. In a move strikingly reminiscent of the tenor of the “New Perspective”, Tarazi favours the translation “pre-ordained” and Following Johnson, Reading Romans, 142, I prefer the less theologically laden translation, “set apart beforehand”. 89 From Bray, Romans (ACCS), 235. The translation of αὐτεξούσιον was modified from “free will” in light of the observations of Athanasios Despotis, “ʻἐλευθερία τῆς προαιρέσεως’: Freedom of Choice in Both Theology of the New Testament and Early Patristic Interpretation of the New Testament”, JOCABS 5 (2012): 1–18. As for Diodore’s basic sentiment, see similarly Theodoret, Comm. Rom. 8 (141), in his comments on v. 30. Cf. Chrysostom, Hom. Rom. 15: “Election is a sign of virtue” (NPNF1 11:454). 88

Identities at Risk

297 

interprets the term to refer to God’s fulfilling plans laid out long ago in Scripture.90 The interest, then, is salvation history rather than God’s usurpation of freewill. He also argues that the aorist should not be interpreted as a strict past but as indicating only “the fullness or assuredness of the action rather than its time”.91 Royster similarly detects a “prophetic” meaning of the verbs; those God foresaw accepting the call “are the very ones He will predestine”.92 2.3.2 Romans 8:28–29a in Western Interpretation While virtually all modern commentators understand the “purpose” in 8:28b to be God’s, some go so far as to draw the opposite conclusion from Orthodox interpreters. Since the phrase “those who are called according to purpose” renames “those who love God”, these commentators argue that loving God is itself only possible for those whom God calls. Anticipating the language of 8:29, Käsemann states, “A person can love God only if he is ‘known’ by him in election”, a sentiment very similar to one expressed by Calvin.93 Calvin, of course, adamantly rejects any suggestion that God “foresaw” who “would be worthy of His grace”.94 Cranfield virtually equates “foreknow” with “predestine”, suggesting that the former “denotes God’s gracious election” while the latter “denotes His gracious decision concerning the elect”95. Although recognising that the “purpose” of 8:28 must be God’s, several interpreters generally in line with the “New Perspective” offer readings of 8:28– 29a closer to the Orthodox tradition. Dunn, while acknowledging that the emphasis is on God’s work, observes that the phrase “for those loving God” implies a human response, for “God’s purpose works out in personal response and relationship; coerced love is not love.”96 Johnson even reaffirms the traditional contention that foreknowledge is not causality.97 Although wishing to stress God’s initiative in conforming the world to God’s purpose, Wright and Dunn both recognise that Paul is simply not talking about how, exactly, God works out God’s plan vis-à-vis the individual, and thus the issue of individual predestination should not be read into Rom 8:29–30.98 Moreover, Dunn and Romans, 152–153. Tarazi argues that the language links back to Rom 1:1, 5–6. Ibid., 154. 92 Romans, 220. 93 Käsemann, Romans, 243; Calvin, Epistles, 180: “Indeed, Paul shows that believers do not love God before they are called by Him.” 94 Epistles, 180. 95 Romans, 1:432; cf. Käsemann, Romans, 244. 96 Romans, 481. 97 Johnson, Reading Romans, 142. 98 Wright, “Romans”, 602; idem, “New Perspectives on Paul”, in Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul, 1978–2013 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2013), 273–291, see 284; idem, “Redemption from the New Perspective? Towards a Multi-layered Theology of the Cross”, in Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul, 1978–2013 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2013), 292–316, see 310–311; 90 91

298

James Buchanan Wallace

even Cranfield affirm that the language of “knowing” should here be interpreted in the richer sense such language has in the Bible, as Origen had recognised.99 For this passage, commentators such as Dunn, Wright, and Johnson offer a balanced interpretation that avoids the extremes of both the patristic and Calvinist traditions. The patristic interpreters accentuate the human response and human action in a way that is simply inappropriate for the overall thrust of this passage. But this does not mean that a free human response is somehow excluded. True, “those who are called according to [God’s] purpose” does qualify “those who love God”, and it is also true that the “call” here refers to an “effective call”.100 But 8:29, beginning with ὅτι, explains and supports the foregoing claim that “all things work together for good”. Even as “called according to [God’s] purpose” qualifies “those who love God”, so does 8:29a qualify “those called according to [God’s] purpose”. Christians can rest assured that all things – even what is seemingly bad – work for their salvation, precisely because those whom God foreknew, God set apart, and the purpose of this was to conform them to the image of His son. Thus, the patristic argument (and Johnson’s) that foreknowledge precedes being “set apart beforehand” stands, and the free response implied by “love” must not be erased. Ultimately, this passage is not about God arbitrarily setting aside an elect but rather about the certainty of God’s purpose, which is to bring believers into conformity with God’s son.101 Moreover, just as Romans 9–11 is about two groups of people – Jews and Gentiles – not individual predestination, Paul’s concern here is the overall purpose of God for believers as a group, not a commentary on how individuals are “elected”.102 So while the patristic tradition overemphasises the role of human response, they are not wrong to see Paul’s thought as necessitating a free response of love. 2.4 “Firstborn among Many Brothers” (8:29b) The phrase “firstborn among many brothers” in Rom 8:29 became especially important in the fourth century Trinitarian debates. Theologians like St. Athanasius (ca. 296–373) and St. Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 330–395) had to account for language in the Bible that seemed to suggest that the Son, the Dunn, Romans, 486. Sanders, Paul, 446–447, suggests that Paul is in line with other Jews, such as the Qumran sectarian, when he “has no difficulty in thinking of those who accept the gospel as being the elect of God (cf. also 1 Thess. 1.4; 1 Cor. 1:24, 26; Rom. 9.11f; 11.7).” For Sanders, context determines which dimension is stressed. Paul stresses “predestination” when wanting to assure readers of their salvation and faith when calling readers to decision. 99 Dunn, Romans, 482; Cranfield, Romans, 1:431. 100 Cranfield, Romans, 1:432; Wright, “Romans”, 603. 101 See Johnson, Reading Romans, 142. 102 Orthodox Study Bible, 1537 (n. 8:28–30).

Identities at Risk

299 

Second Person of the Trinity, was a creation, rather than true God preexisting all created things and having the same divine nature as the Father. Several of the problematic passages were OT texts about personified “Wisdom” that had a long tradition of being read Christologically. Another challenging text was Col 1:15, 18: “firstborn of all creation” and “firstborn from the dead”, respectively, though it was the first that was the problem for Nicene theologians. In several cases, Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa bring in Rom 8:29 to help make the argument that “firstborn” refers not to the origins of the Son but strictly to the Son’s incarnation as a full human being and thus is to be distinguished from the term “only begotten”.103 In Rom 8:29, the phrase “among many brothers”, when read with the language of adoption in 8:15–17, suggests that the designation “firstborn” signifies something about the relationship between the Son and believers, not the “birth” of the divine Son as such. Athanasius reasons thus: If then we are by nature sons, then is he [the Word] by nature creature and work; but if we become sons by adoption and grace, then has the Word also, when in grace towards us He became man, said, ‘The Lord created me.’ And in the next place, when He put on a created nature and became like us in body, reasonably was He therefore called both our Brother and ‘First-born’. For though it was after us that He was made man for us, and our brother by similitude of body, still He is therefore called and is the ‘First-born’ of us, because, all men being lost according to the transgression of Adam, His flesh before all others was saved and liberated, as being the Word’s body; and henceforth we, becoming incorporate with It, are saved after Its pattern. [C. Ar. 2.21.61 (NPNF2 4:381)]

Towards the end of this quotation, the affinities between Athanasius and Irenaeus emerge. The Word has become fully human, sharing in our human nature and flesh and redeeming it. Christians become the incarnate Word’s brothers, sharing in this redeemed human nature, though this entails imitation of Christ. Christ as “firstborn” in Rom 8:29 is distinct from Christ as “firstborn among the dead” (Col 1:18; cf. 1 Cor 15:20): “He is called ‘First-born among many brethren’ because of the relationship of the flesh, and ‘First-born from the dead’, because the resurrection of the dead is from Him and after Him” [C. Ar. 2.21.63; the reference to 1 Cor 15:20 occurs in 2.21.64 (NPNF2 4:383)].104 Gregory of Nyssa connects “firstborn among many brothers” more specifically to Christ’s baptism, for Christ drew “down upon the water, by His own baptism, the Holy Spirit; so that in all things He became the first-born of those who are spiritually born again, and gave the name of brethren to those who 103 The basic claim that “firstborn of many brothers” refers to the human incarnation can be found in John Chrysostom, Hom. Rom. 15; Theodoret, Comm. Rom. 8 (141). Indeed, many interpreters therefore interpret “creation” in “firstborn of all creation” in Col 1:15 to refer to the new creation: see Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eun. 4.8 (2.8 in NPNF2); Theodore of Mopsuestia, Comm. Col. 1:15 (Theodore uses Rom 8:29 to support his argument). 104 And see: C. Ar. 2.22.75; Tom. 7; Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 40.2.

300

James Buchanan Wallace

partook in a birth like to His own by water and the Spirit” [Contra Eun. 4.8 (NPNF2 5:112, though given in this series as Book 2)]. Hence, Christians participate in Christ’s renewed humanity through their own baptism.105 2.5 “Conformed to the Image of His Son” As the above discussion would suggest – and as indeed is fully warranted by the text of Romans – being “conformed to the image of His son” is interpreted in close connection with the idea of adoption. Indeed, the slogan others can use of the adoption as sons, John Chrysostom can use as he celebrates this phrase: “See what superb honour! for what the Only-begotten was by Nature, this they also have become by grace” [Hom. Rom. 15 (NPNF1 11:453); cf. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 14.23]. 2.6 “Conformed to the Image” and “Firstborn among Many Brothers” in Modern Interpreters Modern commentary, though somewhat at odds with the patristic tradition, ultimately proves complementary here. Again, the patristic tradition offers rich theological reflection making use of other NT passages in light of theological controversies. Modern scholars stress the connections with OT passages and traditions. Ancient and modern readers agree that πρωτότοκος refers to Christ’s preeminence.106 Many interpreters agree that Christ represents the ideal humanity. Christ is the obedient son Israel failed to be, but Christ is also the new Adam (a connection suggested by Athanasius above), who had been glorious and was created in the image of God, but lost and tarred that image (see Gen 1:27; and see 1 Cor 11:7; cf. Rom 1:23).107 Wright brilliantly elucidates the significance of this conformity in the overall context of chapter 8: But the purpose is never simply that God’s people in Christ should resemble him, spectacular and glorious though that promise is. As we saw in vv. 18–21, it is that, as true image-bearers, they might reflect that same image into the world, bringing to creation the healing, freedom, and life for which it longs. To be conformed to the image of God, or of God’s Son, is a dynamic, not a static, concept. Reflecting God into the world is a matter of costly vocation.108

See also Contra Eun. 3.2.3 (4.3 in NPNF2). Theodore of Mopsuestia, Comm. Col. 1:15; cf. Theodoret, Comm. Col. 1; Jewett, Romans, 529. 107 Johnson, Reading Romans, 143; N. T. Wright, “ʻChrist in You, the Hope of Glory’ (Colossians 1.27): Eschatology in St. Paul”, in Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul, 1978–2013 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2013), 379–391, see 385; Dunn, Romans, 495 (though Dunn claims on p. 483 that “there is little or no thought of the divine image having been lost or defaced, as in later Christian theologising”); and see likewise, Cranfield, Romans, 432; cf. Käsemann, Romans, 244–245. 108 “Romans”, 602. 105 106

Identities at Risk

301 

On the one hand, Wright’s comments coincide with typical patristic emphases on the conformity to the image of the Son as a process requiring concrete actions. Wright, however, emphasises the service to the world this requires; other commentators emphasise the necessity of imitating Christ’s suffering (an element present, of course, in Wright’s summary statement, too).109 In light of what we have seen elsewhere, Orthodox interpreters would hardly deny that this conformity must be realised and perfected throughout life. Ultimately, baptism inaugurates participation in a regenerated humanity, but as with Christ Himself, in the here and now, this participation is sustained and realised by a growing conformity to Christ’s suffering, obedience, and service. 2.8 “Whom He Justified, These He Also Glorified” (Rom 8:30) 2.8.1 Romans 8:30 from an Orthodox Perspective To avoid redundancy, I will not discuss patristic interpretation of the first half of the verse (Now those whom He set apart beforehand, these He also called; and those whom He called). For our purposes, it is most important to inquire how the church fathers interpreted the term “justified”. Developing a full and complete sense of the patristic understanding of “justification”, however, would require examination of comments on numerous passages in Galatians and Romans, and this research has been done by Despotis.110 So I will here refer only to cases in which the verb is commented on directly in the context of expounding 8:30. John Chrysostom is quite clear that God “justified them by the regeneration of the laver” [Hom. Rom. 15 (NPNF1 11:453)], as is Theodoret [Comm. Rom. 8 (141)]. Thus, “justification” does not refer to the final judgment or ultimate salvation, but to the beginning, the initiation, of one’s inclusion in God’s people. For that matter, Chrysostom’s understanding is not even forensic; justification is about new birth, i.e. a “regeneration”, that brings about change while also beginning transformation. Hence, there would be for Chrysostom little if any tension between justification and participation, since here he clearly subsumes the former under the latter.111 More juristic is Diodore, who connects God’s gift with the forgiveness of sins only; in this case, the term has no eschatological dimensions at all.112 Patristic interpreters take the aorist tense of “glorified” in verse 30 quite seriously. This glorification is, much more clearly than that of 8:17, already 109 The basic idea that conformity to the image of Christ is a process is broadly agreed on; see Cranfield, Romans, 432; Jewett, Romans, 528–529; For the emphasis on imitating Christ’s suffering, see Cranfield, Romans, 432 110 “New Perspective”, 67–152, 219–346. 111 This is at least reminiscent of Sanders’s argument that participation is indeed the more important category; see Palestinian Judaism, esp. 502–508. 112 See Bray, Romans (ACCS), 219.

302

James Buchanan Wallace

realised. For Chrysostom, it refers to the gift of adoption, already given; Theodoret agrees, adding the “gift of the Holy Spirit” [Comm. Rom. 8 (141)]. This line of interpretation is not restricted to Antiochene tradition. Origen recognises that a certain level of glorification can be known in this life, but this glorification is a lesser prefiguration of the much more marvelous glorification to occur in the eschaton. He cites 2 Cor 3:18 to demonstrate that already in this life believers can behold the Lord’s glory and be glorified (Comm. Rom. 7.8.8). “Justified” appears to apply to those who have truly entered the Christian life, though this term, too, has eschatological dimensions (Comm. Rom. 7.8.2; 7.8.8). Likewise, Gregory of Nazianzus takes the language of glorification to refer both to the new life to which the believer rises after baptism, as well as future resurrection.113 Interestingly, there is some disagreement among modern Orthodox commentators. Tarazi, similar to interpreters from the “New Perspective”, stresses the continuity of God’s plan throughout Scripture. He argues that none of the aorist verbs should be taken as necessarily implying a past tense.114 Hence, both “justified” and “glorified” point forward to future events. Indeed, in contrast to what is by far the dominant interpretation of the Orthodox tradition, Tarazi interprets “justified” in forensic, eschatological terms; it is “a legal term that applies to the ultimate verdict of the (divine) court, and this will not take place until the Lord comes”115. For different reasons, Royster likewise views the “glorification” as in the future; as noted above, he interprets the verbs of 8:29– 30 as “prophetic – past use with a future meaning.”116 And yet, wanting to keep in line with patristic tradition, he can cite with approval the same quotation from John Chrysostom I gave above.117 I would submit that Chrysostom’s intuitive interpretation of the aorist of “glorified” as referring to the past event of adoption at baptism is, in and of itself, a sufficient warrant for accepting the aorists in 8:30 as rightly interpreted as past-tense. Royster’s understanding of “justified”, however, is more general and hence more in line with Orthodox tradition than Tarazi’s; one who is justified is simply “made to be righteous in their relationship with [God]”.118 The popular American Orthodox Study Bible offers an interpretation of “justified” very much in accord with the “New Perspective” as the Orthodox understanding: Justification – being or becoming righteous – by faith in God is part of being brought into a covenant relationship with Him.… Rather than justification as a legal acquittal before God,

Or. 16.11; 45.28; cf. 40.9. Romans, 154. 115 Ibid. 116 Ibid., 221. 117 Ibid., 222. 118 Ibid. 113 114

Identities at Risk

303 

Orthodox believers see justification by faith as a covenant relationship with Him, centered in union with Christ (Rom 6:1–6).119

Again, there is no tension between “justification” and “participation” since both are fundamentally relational categories. In Tarazi and the notes to the Orthodox Study Bible, we see the influence of modern, Western biblical interpretation, to which we now turn. 2.8.2 Romans 8:30 from Modern, Western Perspectives In verse 30, Wright views Paul’s language as reflecting a very specific sequence. God foreknows some (according to verse 29), and these God then set apart and later called. Wright observes that Paul always uses “call (κλητός, καλέω)” for an effective call, and hence it is the “call”, not justification per se, that should be equated with conversion.120 (This is true to some degree for Cyril of Jerusalem, too, but for different reasons.) The “call” entails turning from idols to worship the living God (see 1 Thess 1:9). Justification refers not to conversion, but to the declaration from God’s side that one is in right relationship with God and thus part of God’s covenant people. Being “glorified” then refers to sharing in the Messiah’s rule over the world, which is indeed both future and realised.121 Likewise, justification is itself a present reality that anticipates a future verdict: “This is the point about justification by faith – to revert to the familiar terminology: it is the anticipation in the present of the verdict which will be reaffirmed in the future” (emphasis in the original).122 He also connects justification to baptism.123 Like Tarazi, some modern commentators have had difficulty with “glorified” in the aorist and insist that the future glorification is first and foremost in view.124 Dunn and Wright bring especially rich understandings of the language of glorification. Alluding back to Rom 1:21, Dunn insightfully comments: “It is a finely conceived reversal that the δοξάζειν which man failed to give to his Creator in the beginning is finally resolved in God’s δοξάζειν of man.”125 For Orthodox Study Bible, 1529. See, for example, Rom 1:1, 6, 7; 11:29; 1 Cor 1:1–2, 24, 26; 7:17–24; Gal 1:15; Phil 3:14; 1 Thess 2:12; 4:7; 5:24; cf. Eph 1:18; 4:1, 4; 2 Thess 1:11; 2 Tim 1:9. So also Dunn, Romans, 485, and Cranfield, Romans, 432–433. 121 Wright discusses this interpretation in various places. My formulation above is most directly influenced by “New Perspectives” in Pauline Perspectives, 284–287; see also “Redemption from the New Perspective?” in Pauline Perspectives, 305, 308–312. 122 Ibid., 287. Dunn’s understanding of justification terminology is somewhat broader: “The ‘righteousness of God’ is nowhere conceived as a single, once-for-all action of God, but as his accepting, sustaining, and finally vindicating grace” (Romans, 97, and see also 41–42, 485). 123 Ibid. 124 Cranfield, Romans, 1:433. 125 Dunn, Romans, 485. 119 120

304

James Buchanan Wallace

Dunn, however, the use of the aorist throughout verse 30, and the general tenor of the passage as whole, indicate that here “the whole process [is] seen again from its end point.”126 Dunn thus stresses the eschatological dimensions of “glorification”, whereas Wright stresses that glorification relates to participating in Christ’s rule over the cosmos, a glorification that is actual in Christ and shared by believers in a proleptic and not fully manifest way.127 Indeed, while groaning with the creation, believers work to realise at least partially its redemption, which will be completed in the future. Wright’s interpretation is broadly in line with the articulation of the already-not yet tension as found in the Eastern Fathers, though I find Wright’s tight connection with the cosmic dimensions of Rom 8:18–27 a helpful guard against a reading of the Fathers that might lead to a focus strictly on individual piety, purity, and morality. Especially in an age of ecological crisis, we cannot afford to miss the call to participate, now, in the redemption of the suffering world as part of the realisation of our own redemption. Wright and Dunn’s views are most compatible with Origen and, to the degree that we are looking at the interpretation of specific verses and not the bigger theological picture, more at odds with John Chrysostom. Nonetheless, the rich patristic understanding of what happens at baptism – that is, coming to participate in the transformed humanity and incorruptibility of the Son – make the equation of adoption and glorification (in the past tense) completely understandable.128 Likewise, as we saw much earlier in Symeon, glorification can be progressively realised ever more fully (cf. 2 Cor 3:18). Although Paul was not working with the developed Christological framework of the church fathers, we should follow their lead and respect his use of the aorist as referring to “glorification” already received at baptism by participation in Christ’s renewed humanity but simultaneously pointing proleptically to a fuller realisation of this glory in the eschaton. Finally, Romans 8:29–30 and the use of “image” and “glory” language may provide a warrant for those strands of Orthodox tradition that suggest that conversion in some way transforms the body. Paul’s use of “image of His Son” and “glorified” are quite likely rooted in his Adam-Christology, as we have seen. In Jewish tradition, Adam’s original image could be understood as a glorious body, reflecting the Kavod Adonai, which, according to priestly traditions, could be apprehended by the senses (1 Kgs 8:10–12) and could even 126 127

606.

Ibid. “New Perspectives”, 284–285; “ʻChrist in You’”, 385; and see “Romans”, 602, 605–

128 Interestingly, it is Käsemann, Romans, 245, citing 2 Cor 3:18 who, like Origen, readily acknowledges that Paul was willing to allow that, at one level, glorification already occurs in Baptism: “In baptism the divine image that was lost according to 3:23 is restored by conformation to the Son.” So also Jewett, Romans, 530.

Identities at Risk

305 

appear to be anthropomorphic (see esp. Ezek 1:28).129 Philippians 3:21 indicates the corporeal dimensions of the “glory” believers assume in the eschaton (see also 1 Cor 15:35–57), but even in the here and now, believers are being progressively transformed into glory (2 Cor 3:18).130 Although we cannot be certain how Paul understood the relationship between glorification in this life and the donning of a glorious body in the next, his thought allows the interpretation that believers undergo a subtle, somatic transformation that is not typically visible to the unregenerate human eye (see 2 Cor 3:7–4:6; cf. 2:15–17) but is nonetheless a guarantor of the manifest glorification that will occur at the general resurrection.

Conclusions While the patristic understanding of πρόθεσις may not convince, they rightly accentuate that all things work for good for those who love God, and “love” is a relational term that implies a free response. Moreover, they are simply correct when they observe that προέγνω precedes προώρισεν, and that foreknowledge does not presuppose or imply causality; hence, προώρισεν must be interpreted, theologically, in light of προέγνω, and not the other way around. Also, Paul’s concern here is not so much what God is doing with individuals, as what God is doing with a group of people, the believers who are now God’s adopted children. Indeed, Paul himself was not offering systematic reflections on questions of free will, determinism, or predestination at all; such issues only arose much later. To read a teaching like personal or individual predestination into 8:29– 30 is, simply put, unconvincing. Turning to the primary themes of the present volume, the Orthodox reading of Rom 8:14–17 and 8:28–30 is “participationist”, in light of the prevalence of μέτοχος language. Adoption, which occurs at baptism, makes the human being by grace what the Son is by nature. There is immediate participation in the divine life of Christ. The Orthodox tradition emphasises that the benefits of this adoption can be forfeited through negligence. Far more so than the “New Perspective” or modern scholars in general, the patristic tradition uses these 129 See the article by the Orthodox scholars Andrei Orlov and Alexander Golitzin, “ʻMany Lamps Are Lighted from One’: Paradigms of the Transformational Vision in Macarian Homilies,ˮ VC 55 (2001): 281–298 (see esp. 283–289), which traces the relationship between Jewish mystical traditions of the Kavod Adonai (including their OT foundations) and later Orthodox spirituality, such as hesychasm. 130 On Jewish traditions of the Kavod Adonai and their possible relevance for Paul, especially in Second Corinthians, see Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, WUNT II 4 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984); Segal, Paul the Convert, 9–14, 34–71, esp. 58–63; James Wallace, Snatched into Paradise (2 Cor 12:1–10): Paul’s Heavenly Journey in the Context of Early Christian Experience, BZNW 179 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 178–188. 

306

James Buchanan Wallace

verses to exhort readers to ascetic discipline, the ultimate goal of which is active love of God and neighbor. Human intention and human effort are stressed again and again. I have argued, as has Dunn, that the tension between what God has done and how human beings must respond is indeed present in Rom 8:14–17. As Symeon recognised, following the Spirit’s lead and suffering with Christ are progressive realisations of the other dimension of participation that began at baptism: participation in Christ’s death and the death of sin. When we turn to 8:28–30, patristic tradition often continues in the same vein. Recognising the thematic links between the Rom 8:14–17 and 8:28–30, Orthodox interpreters celebrate the remarkable possibility of being conformed to the image of the Son of God, and the communion with God and radical transformation that this offer promises. Nonetheless, the excessive stress on the human side of the equation, characterised by the recurring insistence on reading the “purpose” as human intentions that determine one’s worthiness for adoption, simply does not do justice to 8:28–30 in its context, where the clear stress is on the certainty that God’s purpose of conforming believers to His Son will be fulfilled. When we consider the contexts of Cyril of Jerusalem and of Symeon the New Theologian, in whose times Christianity was becoming or was the cultural norm, respectively, and baptism was all too easily taken for granted, we can sympathise with the desire to shake an audience out of complacency. Nonetheless, if Volker Rabens is right that the Holy Spirit establishes a loving, intimate relationship with God as the basis of transformation, then the excessive moralising and warnings against falling away threaten to erode the very foundation of the transformation they wish to inspire. If the relationship with God is at every moment at risk, and human weakness is powerful enough to so spoil that relationship, then in actual fact, or at least in one’s psychological perception, the relationship may not be so very secure after all. Romans 8:28–29 is undeniably focused on inculcating faith in God’s plan and God’s triumph, not on moral exhortation. In this regard, the Orthodox tradition would do well to give heed to modern, Western commentators and on that basis, reexamine the tradition for those threads that are truest to the tenor of Paul’s thought. We might emphasise, for example, Origen’s stress on love for God and the risk of again serving God out of fear, thereby returning to a status less than what God gave. With all of those caveats in mind, the Orthodox interpretation of Rom 8:29– 30 on the whole remains a convincing participationist interpretation. In fact, thanks to the Orthodox theological tradition, Orthodox commentators can give fairly precise contents to participation in Christ.131 For this tradition, which is See Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 522–523, who struggled to understand and define participation, even though he had argued that it is a more important and primary category for Paul than justification. 131

Identities at Risk

307 

well supported by 2 Cor 3:18, “glorified” is a “participationist” category, having occurred at baptism as converts come to participate in the renewed humanity of Christ as His true brothers and sisters. Whether “justification” is read simply as removal of sin at the beginning of the process or as signalling the rebirth itself – and therefore little different from “glorification”, since it indicates a return to the Edenic state and more – there is no tension with the participationist dimension of Paul’s thought. Had Paul already worked this out in the sense it was worked out in the fourth century? Of course not. But the ideas of intimate communion with the divine through the Spirit and Jesus as the One dead but made alive by God, are certainly present, and they confirm that such developments have a legitimate seed in Paul’s thought, if believers are indeed brothers and sisters of Christ. Likewise, for Paul, the Spirit is the basis for knowledge of God (see also 1 Cor 2:10–16). The participation in the divine life begun at baptism is then realised through continuing participation in Christ’s death, which entails not only literal suffering through persecution but all of the practices that, with the aid of the Spirit, transform one into a loving human being, and such practices should certainly include ascetic discipline. Although one would not want to read Aristotelean categories into Paul, perhaps Basil offers an especially helpful hermeneutical perspective to ease possible tensions. The Spirit implants what we are but have not yet become, and, when allowed to do so, simultaneously empowers the becoming. And yet, there is no inherent necessity of becoming what we are, if we fail to cooperate with the Spirit. Regarding conversion, the language of being “called” would seem to be rooted in Paul’s own experience of the dramatic reversal in his life that led him to preach the gospel (Rom 1:1; Gal 1:15, which also contains the word ἀφορίζω, related to προορίζω of Rom 8:29–30). He wants his audience to view their stories as he understands his own: they were called and grasped by God’s action and for God’s good purpose. While Paul may use “call” only when it has been effective, I am less sure that it signals conversion as such. Rather, it signals that God acted first. Security in God’s promises and God’s love is essential for the life of love and fearlessness Paul prescribes. Indeed, love cannot be complete without the fearlessness that scorns death and suffering. The addressees have responded to this call, and “justified” and “glorified” are two terms, with distinct valences, for the new reality of converts. I am not certain they are sequential; they are more likely two dimensions of the newfound identity, the first signaling right covenantal relationship and expressing the security of the newfound relationship with God. One might even argue that “justification” is not just a declared status but also requires ongoing participation in a mode of existence. “Glorified” signals participation more directly – even in the here and now – in the glorious existence of Jesus Christ, who is God’s glory (2 Cor 4:6).

308

James Buchanan Wallace

In short, no one element in Rom 8:14–17 or 8:28–30 should be identified with conversion. In conversion studies, “conversion” is now commonly understood to be a process with multiple stages as one progressively establishes a new identity distinct from the old one.132 The “call”, even an effective one, refers to God’s first step, but justification, reception of the Spirit, baptism, and even glorification would all be aspects or dimensions – whether sequential or not – of the fashioning of this new identity. Cyril of Jerusalem, for example, clearly recognised that while baptism is not a mere symbol but can actually produce a change, this change is not ultimately effective unless the initiate is properly prepared and his or her intentions are pure. “Conversion” is not defined strictly by the catechumenate or baptism. For Symeon the New Theologian, spiritual rebirth must occur throughout one’s life. If anything in our focal verses in Romans suggests a turn or conversion from one mode of existence to another, it is reception of the Spirit of adoption, which contrasts with the previous state of a “spirit of slavery unto fear” (8:15). Nonetheless, while the Spirit was received in the past (ἐλάβετε, aorist), the relationship the Spirit establishes is continuously affirmed (κράζομεν, συμμαρτυρεῖ, present) and the status of being co-heir with Christ thereby established is only fully realised through suffering. Indeed, one could argue that much of Romans 8:1–39 as a whole is about conversion from the life of slavery and fear to the life freedom, love, confidence, and hope, and no one element of God’s work for humanity – nor one element of the human response – can exhaustively define this conversion. Finally, I would like to return to the term “glorified”, which, I have argued, includes glorification in the here and now. According to several church fathers examined here, the human body is transformed by participation in the divine attributes of Christ, especially at baptism. Orthodox tradition also connects this participation to the language of “glory”, and this transformation can be manifest in the human body in this life. The term “glory”, especially in the ΟΤ, can express manifestations of God’s presence available to human senses (most notably, the Kavod Adonai; see 1 Kgs 8:10–12; Ezek 1:28). Numerous Orthodox texts speak of saints being illumined by Uncreated Light, which, in some cases, can be perceived. St. Symeon the New Theologian rejoices in how the transformation of the soul also acts in his body: “Strange marvel, my flesh, I mean, the essence of my soul, yes, also my body, participates in the divine glory and radiates with a divine brilliance” (Hymn 30).133 In the immensely popular Russian tract, “A Wonderful Revelation to the World”, St. Seraphim of Sarov becomes so bright that his interlocutor, Motovilov, cannot at first even look at Lewis Rambo and Charles Farhadian, “Introductionˮ, in The Oxford Handbook of Religious Conversion, 5–9; Gooren, “Anthropology of Religious Conversionˮ, in The Oxford Handbook of Religious Conversion, 84–116 (and see esp. 87–88, 102). 133 Hymns of Divine Love (trans. George A. Maloney; Denville, N.J.: Dimension Books, 1976), 165. 132

Identities at Risk

309 

him. Indeed, St. Seraphim is explicit that this illumination is a consequence of the presence of the Holy Spirit and a manifestation of the light of God’s own glory; St. Seraphim says he prayed, “Lord, grant him [Motovilov] to see clearly with his bodily eyes that descent of Thy Spirit which Thou grantest to Thy servants when Thou art please to appear in the light of Thy magnificent glory.”134 These passages should be treated with some care. This glorification is simultaneously genuinely somatic and yet not something typically perceptible to the human eye. Human perception, as much as if not more than the human body, must be changed to perceive the presence of this glory. In Romans, of course, Paul does not offer many hints as to what, exactly, the glorification he has in mind entails. Nor do I wish simplistically to read later Orthodox spirituality into Paul. Nevertheless, several Paul’s statements in Second Corinthians, if not interpreted as merely metamorphical and if read in the context of Kavod traditions, might indeed suggest a somatic transformation perceptible to those not blinded by Satan (2 Cor 3:7–4:6; cf. 2:15–17). At the very least, in our focal verses, “conversion” in the broad sense must be manifest in bodily actions of “crying out” and suffering. Whatever the exact somatic ramifications, “glorified” is last in the sequence of 8:30 because it has the most overtly eschatological dimensions; it expresses their proleptic experience of the cosmic transformation to happen in the eschaton. The eschatological transformation will be, undeniably, somatic. Being “justified” and “glorified” both contrast with the former existence of slavery and fear. Certainly, fearless faith is essential for embarking on the risky and difficult enterprise of being conformed to the Son. Participation in the glory one entered through baptism can only be fully realised and maintained by participating also in Christ’s death, as one is freed from sin and liberated for a life of active virtue and love. In so doing, Christians become icons in the world of the very love and fearlessness they received when adopted by God. From baptism until death, believers must cry “Abba! Father!”, expressing and thereby realising the relationship that is both the foundation and the goal of their existence.

Bibliography Alfeyev, Hilarion. St. Symeon the New Theologian and Orthodox Tradition. Oxford Early Christian Studies. Oxford; London; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 1885–1887. 10 vols. Repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Lazarus Moore, St. Seraphim of Sarov: A Spiritual Biography (Blanco, TX: New Sarov Press, 1994); the tract, “A Wonderful Revelation to the World”, is found on pp. 167–207; the quotation is on pp. 196–197. 134

310

James Buchanan Wallace

Arnim, Hans von, ed. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta. 4 vols. Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner Verlag, 1905–1924. Athanasius. Discourses Against the Arians. In vol. 4 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. 1890–1900. 14 vols. Repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Basil of Caesarea. On the Holy Spirit. In vol. 8 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. 1890–1900. 14 vols. Repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Bauer, Walter, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. Beck, Richard. The Slavery of Death. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014. Brady, Ryan. “ʻCalled According to Purpose’: Patristic Exegesis of Romans 8:28–29 and the Early Christian Thinking on Justification”. https://www.academia.edu/8310719/Called_According_to_Purpose_Patristic_Exegesis_of_Romans_8_28-29_and_the_Early_Christian_Thinking_on_Justification Bray, Gerald, ed. Romans. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture 6. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998. Calvin, John. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians. Edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Translated by Ross Mackenzie. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973. Cranfield, Charles E. B. The Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. Repr. ed. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990. Cross, F. L., and E. A. Livingstone. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Despotis, Athanasios. Die “New Perspective on Paul” und die griechisch-orthodoxe Paulusinterpretation. VIOTh 11. St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag Sankt Ottilien, 2014. –. “ʻἐλευθερία τῆς προαιρέσεως’: Freedom of Choice in Both Theology of the New Testament and Early Patristic Interpretation of the New Testament”. JOCABS 5 (2012): 1–18. Dodd, Charles H. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. London: Fontana, 1959. Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1–8. WBC 38a. Waco, TX; Dallas; Nashville: Word, 1988. –. “The New Perspective on Paul: Whence, What and Whither”. Pages 1–98 in The New Perspective on Paul. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. Paul and the Stoics. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2000. Golitzin, Alexander. Life, Times, and Theology. Vol. 3 of On the Mystical Life: The Ethical Discourses, by Symeon the New Theologian. Crestwood, NY: SVS, 1995–1997. Gooren, Henri. “Anthropology of Religious Conversion.ˮ Pages 84–116 in The Oxford Handbook of Religious Conversion. Edited by Lewis Rambo and Charles Farhadian. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Gregory of Nyssa. Against Eunomius. In vol. 5 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. 1890–1900. 14 vols. Repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Hausherr, Irenée. Introduction to Un grand mystique byzantine: Vie de Syméon le Nouveau Théologien, 949–1022, by Nicetas Stethatus. OrChrAn 12.45. Rome: Pont-Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1928. Irenaeus of Lyon. Against Heresies. In vol.1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 1885–1887. 10 vols. Repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Identities at Risk

311 

Jewett, Robert. Romans: A Commentary. Edited by Eldon J. Epp. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 2007. John Chrysostom. Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans. In vol. 11 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1. Edited by Philip Schaff. 1886–1889. 14 vols. Repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994. Johnson, Luke Timothy. Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Reading the New Testament. Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 2001. Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Kazhdan, A. P. Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. 3 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Kee, Howard Clark. “The Ethical Dimensions of the Testaments of the XII as a Clue to Provenance”. NTS 24 (1978): 259–270. Keesmaat, Sylvia C. “Exodus and the Intertextual Transformation of Tradition in Romans 8.14–30”. JSNT 54 (1994): 29–56. Kim, Seyoon. The Origin of Paul’s Gospel. WUNT II 4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984. –. Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Krivochéine, Basile. Introduction to Catéchèses, by Symeon the New Theolgian. Translated by Joseph Paramelle. 3 vols. SC 96, 104, 113. Paris: Cerf, 1963–1965. Vol. 1 repr., Paris: Cerf, 2006. Long, Anthony A. and David N. Sedley, eds. The Hellenistic Philosophers. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Neuschäfer, Bernhard. Origenes als Philologe. 2 vols. SBAW 18.1–2. Basel: Reinhardt, 1987. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Series 1. Edited by Philip Schaff. 1886–1889. 14 vols. Repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Series 2. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. 1890–1900. 14 vols. Repr. ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Origen. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans Books 6–10. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. FC 104. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2002. Orlov, Andrei and Alexander Golitzin. “ʻMany Lamps Are Lighted from One’: Paradigms of the Transformational Vision in Macarian Homilies.ˮ VC 55 (2001): 281–298. Orthodox Church in America. “Baptism”. https://oca.org/PDF/Music/Baptism/baptism-service.pdf. 2012. Orthodox Study Bible. Edited by Metr. Maximos, Eugene Pentiuc, Michel Najim, Jack Norman Sparks, Joseph Allen, Theodore Stylianopoulos, and Alan Wallerstedt. Nashville; London: Nelson, 2008. Pass, William N. “A Reexamination of Calvin’s Approach to Romans 8:17”. BSac 170 (2013): 69–81. Patrologia Graeca. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857–1886. Potterie, Ignace de la. “Le chrétien conduit par l’Esprit dans son chreminement eschatologique (Rom 8,14)”. Pages 209–278 in The Law of the Spirit in Rom 7 and 8. Edited by Lorenzo de Lorenzi. Rome: St. Paul’s Abbey, 1976. Rabens, Volker. The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul: Transformation and Empowering for Religious-Ethical Life. WUNT II 283. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Rambo, Lewis R., and Charles E. Farhadian. Introduction to The Oxford Handbook of Religious Conversion, edited by Lewis Rambo and Charles Farhadian. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

312

James Buchanan Wallace

Reinmuth, Eckart. Geist und Gesetz: Studien zu Voraussetzungen und Inhalt der paulinischen Paränese. TA 44. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1985. Royster, Dmitri. Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: A Pastoral Commentary. Crestwood, NY: SVS, 2008. Sanders, Ed P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Schäublin, Christoph. Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft der antiochenischen Exegese. TBRKA 23. Cologne: Hanstein, 1974. Segal, Alan. Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. St. Seraphim of Sarov. “A Wonderful Revelation to the World”. Pages 167–207 in St. Seraphim of Sarov: A Spiritual Biography, by Lazarus Moore. Blanco, TX: New Sarov Press, 1994. Symeon the New Theologian. Catéchèses. Translated by Joseph Paramelle. 3 vols. SC 96, 104, 113. Paris: Cerf, 1963–1965. Vol. 1 repr., Paris: Cerf, 2006. –. The Discourses. Translated by C. J. deCatanzaro. Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press, 1980. –. Hymns of Divine Love. Translated by George A. Maloney. Denville, N.J.: Dimension Books, 1976. –. On the Mystical Life: The Ethical Discourses. Translated by Alexander Golitzin. 3 vols. Crestwood, NY: SVS, 1995–1997. Tarazi, Paul N. Romans: A Commentary. Chrysostom Bible. St. Paul, MN: Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies Press, 2010. Theodoret of Cyrrhus. Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul. Translated by Robert C. Hill. 2 vols. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001. Torjesen, Karen Jo. Hermeneutical Procedure and Theological Method in Origen’s Exegesis. PTS 28. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986. Wallace, James B. Snatched into Paradise (2 Cor 12:1–10): Paul’s Heavenly Journey in the Context of Early Christian Experience. BZNW 179. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. –. “Spirit(s) in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”. Pages 309–340 in The Holy Spirit and the Church According to the New Testament. Edited by Predrag Dragutinović, KarlWilhelm Niebuhr and James B. Wallace. WUNT 354. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Wright, N. T. “ʻChrist in You, the Hope of Glory’ (Colossians 1.27): Eschatology in St. Paul”. Pages 379–391 in Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul, 1978–2013. Philadelphia: Fortress, 2013. –. “Letter to the Romans”. Pages 393–770, in NIB 10. Edited by Leander E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 2002. –. “New Perspectives on Paul”. Pages 273–291 in Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul, 1978–2013. Edited by idem. Philadelphia: Fortress, 2013. –. “Redemption from the New Perspective? Towards a Multi-layered Theology of the Cross”. Pages 292–316 in Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul, 1978–2013. Edited by idem. Philadelphia: Fortress, 2013. Young, Frances. “Alexandrian and Antiochene Exegesis”. Pages 334–354 in The Ancient Period. Vol. 1 of A History of Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Alan J. Hauser and Duane F. Watson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

Part III Beyond Old and New, West and East

Reading Gal 2:15–21 Theologically Beyond Old and New, Beyond West and East Michael J. Gorman It is a great privilege to contribute to this volume. Issues of justification, participation, and conversion have recently been front and centre in Pauline studies. Sometimes the conversation has generated more heat than light, yet occasionally there has been progress and even the hope of reconciliation among differing traditions and perspectives. Unfortunately, however, the voices of Orthodox scholars have not been given much of a hearing, at least in American and British scholarship. Hans Dieter Betz famously argued, rightly or wrongly, that Gal 2:15–21 is the letter’s propositio.1 This passage is often considered to contain some of Paul’s most important claims about both soteriology and spirituality. My main purpose here is to present some exegetical theses that, if correct, or at least plausible, will cause us to think seriously about our topic in ways that may encourage some theological agreement, some rapprochement, between old and new and between West and East.2 Despite the length of this essay, however, I cannot address every issue or justify every interpretive move, and I will interact with only a few of the main participants in the conversation. By reading ‘theologically’ I have two primary senses in mind here. Firstly, it means reading Gal 2 focused on its theological claims. This focus will not exclude other concerns, whether literary and rhetorical or social and historical, though such concerns will be pursued not as ends in themselves, but rather as means to the greater end of understanding the text’s theological claims. Secondly, it means reading Gal 2 not merely as an ancient text, and not even merely as a text that makes theological claims, but as a text that makes claims on us. Reading theologically means listening to the text as divine address. Most contributors to this volume, and many readers, will share this desire. Among many other things, this approach will mean that our text ought to unite rather than 1 Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 18–19, 113–114. 2 For an earlier close reading of this text, see my Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 63–71.

316

Michael J. Gorman

divide the members of the one universal body of Christ. This rather lofty goal should not suppress debate or terminate difference. But it should create within us, and among us, a generosity of spirit within our debates and our differences. Such generosity has not always been the case, to put it mildly, concerning justification.

Galatians 2:15–21 – Text and Tentative Translation ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί· [But] we, by birth Jews and not sinners from the nations/Gentiles,

15

εἰδότες [δὲ] ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ. because we know that no person is justified by virtue of works of the law but rather through the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah, even we came to faith [that incorporates us] into the Messiah Jesus, so that we might be justified by virtue of the faithfulness of the Messiah and not by virtue of works of the law, for no human being will be justified by virtue of works of the law.

16

εἰ δὲ ζητοῦντες δικαιωθῆναι ἐν Χριστῷ εὑρέθημεν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἁμαρτωλοί, ἆρα Χριστὸς ἁμαρτίας διάκονος; μὴ γένοιτο. But if we, while seeking to be justified in the Messiah are ourselves found to be sinners, then is the Messiah a servant of sin? May it never be!

17

εἰ γὰρ ἃ κατέλυσα ταῦτα πάλιν οἰκοδομῶ, παραβάτην ἐμαυτὸν συνιστάνω. For if I rebuild the things I tore down, then I prove myself to be a transgressor.

18

ἐγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον, ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω. Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι· For I myself, through the law, died in relation to the law so that I might live in relation to God. I have been crucified with the Messiah;3

19

ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός· ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί, ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ. thus I myself no longer live, but [the] Messiah lives in me; and the life I do now live in the flesh, I live by means of the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me by giving himself for me. 20

21 Οὐκ ἀθετῶ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ· εἰ γὰρ διὰ νόμου δικαιοσύνη, ἄρα Χριστὸς δωρεὰν ἀπέθανεν. I do not annul the grace of God; for if justice/righteousness comes through the law, then the Messiah died for nothing.

3 I follow the versification found in most critical editions of the NT and in such translations as the NRSV and NAB.

Reading Galatians 2:15–21 Theologically

317 

A few initial comments about this translation: 1. The traditional language of ‘justification’ has been used for the δικαιοfamily verb forms in vv. 16–17 (δικαιοῦται, δικαιωθῶμεν, δικαιωθήσεται, and δικαιωθῆναι), and the less traditional (in English) language of ‘justice’ for the noun δικαιοσύνη in v. 21, though it has been combined with ‘righteousness’. I leave open for the moment the actual sense of both the verb and the noun, but I stress that this translational decision is complex, highly significant, and frustratingly inadequate. It is all of these things especially because (a) few ways of rendering the Greek can capture the links among the various words in the δικαιο- family; (b) the inability to capture these links diminishes our understanding of what Paul means to convey when he uses this word-family; and (c) some common ways of translating the δικαιο- family into English are actually misleading. Elsewhere I have argued that, in order to maintain the conceptual, theological link between justification and justice, the verb and the noun should both be translated with forms of the ‘just-’ family (e.g., ‘be justified’, ‘justice’),4 but this approach is not completely satisfactory. For one thing, Ed P. Sanders contends that ‘justification’ is a weak word when we need a ‘strong’ one, and that it is misleading because it often signifies ‘sufficient reason’ or even ‘adequate excuse’.5 Moreover, for many English-speaking people the word ‘justice’ has no connections to its biblical, prophetic sense and often implies retributive justice. 2. I have retained the passive voice in the translation of the verbs ‘justify’, rather than rendering it with the implicit actor ‘God’, as in ‘God justifies’. Theologically, however, the repeated passive voice stresses divine initiative and grace, as we must do. As for the tenses of the verb in v. 16, present (δικαιοῦται) and future (δικαιωθήσεται), they both have a gnomic sense: they state a principle, and the future tense does not necessarily refer to a future justification. 3. As elsewhere, I have followed Richard Hays and others, opting for ‘faithfulness’ and the so-called ‘subjective genitive’ in the translation of the famous πίστις + genitive constructions in vv. 16 and 20.6 4. The arguments of scholars such as Matthew Novenson, N. T. Wright, and Joshua Jipp have led to the rendering of all occurrences of χριστός as ‘Messiah’, not ‘Christ’.7

4 ‘Justification and Justice in Paul, with Special Reference to the Corinthians’, Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 1 (2011): 23–40; cf. my Becoming the Gospel: Paul, Participation, and Mission (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 212–260. 5 Ed P. Sanders, Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters, and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2015), 505. 6 See Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Gal 3:1– 4:11, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). 7 Matthew V. Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); N. T. Wright, Paul

318

Michael J. Gorman

5. Specific prepositions that suggest source, instrumentality, or means have been translated with some differentiation and consistency to indicate the possibility of both similarities and differences among them: ἐκ = ‘by virtue of’; διά = ‘through’; and ἐν = ‘by means of’ before ‘the faithfulness of the Son of God’, but ‘in’ before ‘the Messiah’ and ‘the flesh’ (two spheres of existence). 6. The word δικαιοσύνη in v. 21 is an ethical rather than a legal term (such as δικαίωσις). Its presence suggests something more than, or even other than, a forensic understanding of justification.8 This last point is suggestive of the direction this essay will be going. We proceed, therefore, to the theses, which will include some justifying and nuancing of the translation.

Thesis One: Galatians 2:15–21 as Paul’s Interpretation of Justification Galatians 2:15–21 is a self-contained rhetorical unit; the subject of this unit is ‘justification’; and Paul is offering his own interpretation of justification. This thesis is clearly really a thesis with three parts, or sub-theses, though they are all closely connected. It is important that we recognise the rhetorical unity of these seven verses. They are set off from what precedes and follows by an inclusio, namely the occurrence of words from the δικαιο- family in the unit’s opening and closing sentences (vv. 15–16 and v. 21, respectively). The presence of three lexical items in v. 16 (δικαιοῦται … δικαιωθῶμεν … δικαιωθήσεται) is matched with only one in v. 21 (δικαιοσύνη), but both the repetition and the singularity have their separate and appropriate rhetorical effects. The first sentence both introduces Paul’s topic and states his fundamental thesis with great emphasis: not that way of justification but this way. The final sentence names the material subject of the unit again, both reminding us that Paul has not changed topics along the way and stating the seriousness of his compact argument about the topic in very succinct, even stark terms. The passage is about that to which the δικαιο- family of words gives expression. That ‘justification’ is the subject, indeed the sole subject (see further below), of this carefully constructed passage is signalled by the absence of δικαιο- language from the preceding and following verses. The very first occurrence of and the Faithfulness of God, vol. 4 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2013), esp. 815–836; Joshua W. Jipp, Christ is King: Paul’s Royal Ideology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2015). 8 See also David A. deSilva, Galatians: A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014), 42, 50–51.

Reading Galatians 2:15–21 Theologically

319 

the δικαιο- family is in 2:16, and it does not reappear in any form until 3:6 (Καθὼς Ἀβραὰμ ἐπίστευσεν τῷ θεῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην), which begins a unit in which justification is again directly addressed. The start of a new unit, between 2:21 and 3:6, at 3:1 is clear as Paul shifts from the predominantly first-person language of 2:15–21 (with some third person language) to the forceful second-person direct address of 3:1–5. This, of course, does not mean that 3:1–5 is unrelated to 2:15–21 – it is in fact related in significant ways – but simply that a new rhetorical unit with a different rhetorical agenda has been introduced. Although everyone acknowledges this shift to 3:1–5 at the conclusion of our passage, some interpreters want to add to the front end of our text, considering 2:11–21 as a unit.9 There is some justification for this move, since 2:11–21 does indeed narrate the events at Antioch that generated Paul’s response to Cephas about the real ‘truth of the gospel’ (2:14a). Paul’s rebuke of Cephas, which begins in 2:14b, may also end there, but it may continue into 2:15 and beyond; interpreters and translators are divided.10 Whether or not Paul intended his Galatian audience to understand 2:15–21 as part of his rebuke of Peter – and I am inclined to think he did, in part11 – there are two reasons, in addition to the introduction of δικαιο- language in 2:15–16, not to blur the divide between 2:11–14 and 2:15–21. Firstly, 2:14b is addressed specifically to Cephas, but his name does not appear in 2:15–21. The primary audience of 2:15–21 is the ‘foolish Galatians’ directly addressed in 3:1, not merely Cephas and others present at Antioch. Secondly, Paul’s words in 2:14b are in the form of a rhetorical question, a rebuke based on behaviour (Cephas’s ‘liv[ing] like a Gentile’). The question does not mention the specifically theological topic of justification, though in Paul’s mind Cephas’s (mis)behaviour and the subject of justification are intimately connected, as we will see further below. But in the letter as we have it, Paul’s rhetorical rebuke of Cephas in 2:14b functions as an introduction to the subject of 2:15–21, justification. Accordingly, it is best to see 2:15–21 as a distinct unit, but one that is also closely related to the events at Antioch and at Galatia that are narrated in 2:11–14 and 3:1–5, respectively. If justification is recognised as the subject of the unit 2:15–21, it should also be recognised as its sole subject. By ‘sole subject’, I do not mean that justification is unrelated to other topics, such as faith, works of the law, Jesus’ E.g., Peter Oakes, Galatians, Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), 75–98. 10 Most translations end the quotation after 2:15, but some extend it through v. 16 [e.g., NLT; Louis Segond 21 (French)] or even v. 21 (e.g., NIV). Sanders thinks the unit begins at 2:14, calling 2:14–21 the first section of the letter’s main argument, though he thinks the quotation ends at 2:14 (Paul, 501–503). 11 That is, vv. 15–21 are also, and especially, directed at the Galatians. Theologically speaking, they are also addressed to all subsequent audiences. 9

320

Michael J. Gorman

death, and so on, but simply that Paul has not abandoned justification for a different topic, such as ‘dying to the Law’ or ‘being crucified with Christ’, if they are understood as being about something other than justification. In other words, by ‘sole subject’ I mean ‘persistent subject’. Recognising or denying the legitimacy of this claim is one of the two most significant exegetical meta-decisions an interpreter can make about this passage as a whole. If justification is the persistent subject, then the death and resurrection of the self and the new life with the Messiah’s indwelling presence are integral aspects of Paul’s theology of justification – not supplements to it or different topics. We may debate the best way to articulate the various dimensions of justification and how they are related to one another, but we will not separate out justification from these other theological and spiritual realities to which the text refers.12 The second most significant exegetical meta-decision is a corollary of the first: whether we force a prior understanding of justification onto Paul or allow him to tell us what he means by justification. Many interpreters come to texts like this in Paul with hard-and-fast understandings of what justification means in Scripture, and/or Second Temple Judaism, and/or Paul. Such positions are generally justified by appeal to the alleged meaning of the δικαιο- family that is evident from the lexicons or the primary sources themselves. Far more often than not, the conclusion offered by proponents of a fixed sense for justification is that it had, and could only have had for Paul, a forensic sense: a declaration. This boxed-in approach to justification can be seen in both the traditional perspective on Paul and the “New Perspective” on Paul, with the former 12 Referring to my argument in Inhabiting that interprets justification in terms of co-crucifixion and co-resurrection, Douglas J. Moo, writing from the traditional perspective, charges me with confusing proximity with identity [Galatians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 155, 172]. In his view, justification and co-crucifixion/co-resurrection are syntactical neighbors rather than semantic twins, but my argument here is precisely that, because the subject of the passage is defined by Paul as that to which the δικαιο- family of words gives expression, we misread Paul if we see these two topics merely as being proximate to each other. (To Moo’s credit [155], he suggests that union with Christ may be ‘the key’ to the letter.) Beverly Gaventa, writing from an apocalyptic perspective, seems to both deny and partly affirm the argument I am making. She argues that in Gal 2:19–20 Paul has ‘shifted his discourse’, moving beyond ‘making things right (rectifying or justifying) and how that is done; instead, it concerns death and life’. But she also says that in 2:19–20 ‘Paul’s interpretation of the singular character of justification transforms it’ because ‘rectification is necessary but not sufficient’ (emphasis original). An interpretation is not a change of subject; it is the development of the same subject. In the end, therefore, Gaventa agrees with my view. See Beverly Roberts Gaventa, ‘The Singularity of the Gospel Revisited’, in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel and Ethics in Paul’s Letter, ed. Mark W. Elliott et al. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 187–199; here 194. For an apocalyptic view even more similar to mine, see Douglas A. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 838–852.

Reading Galatians 2:15–21 Theologically

321 

sometimes saying justification can only mean a declaration of acquittal (e.g., Thomas Schreiner), the latter sometimes saying it can only mean the declaration of covenant membership (e.g., N. T. Wright).13 Apart from any arguments that need to be made about the meaning(s) of the verb δικαιόω, not to mention the noun δικαιοσύνη, this principle of assigning inviolable semantic significance to a term, and to the concept to which the term refers, without investigating context, contravenes a fundamental linguistic principle: that meaning is context-dependent. Moreover, it violates the common-sense axiom that creative people understand old concepts in new ways. Theologically, it underestimates the transformative power of the gospel on Paul’s mind, as he is forced to rethink everything, including justification, in light of the apocalyptic event of the Messiah’s death and resurrection.14 To summarise our first thesis: in Gal 2:15–21, from beginning to end, Paul is offering his own understanding of justification. We turn, now, to several aspects of that understanding.

Schreiner [Galatians. ZECNT. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 155] claims that the verb ‘justify’ in Paul has a ‘forensic and legal character’ derived from the OT. It ‘refers to God’s verdict of not guilty on the day of judgment (Rom 2:13). God’s eschatological verdict has now been announced in advance for those who believe in Jesus Christ’. Furthermore, it does not ‘denote a righteousness that transforms or “makes us” righteous’ (156). To be sure, Schreiner makes arguments for his view here and elsewhere; my point is that this perspective will hardly allow a reading of Paul in Gal 2:15–21 that challenges it. Similarly, Wright has consistently argued for justification as divine declaration, as in Paul and the Faithfulness of God: ‘“Justification” is the declaration of the one God’ that one is ‘a member of Abraham’s covenant family’ (958–959; cf. 797–799). Wright’s understanding seems so controlled by his reconstruction of what a Pharisee would mean by justification by works of the law (see 184– 88) that he fails to allow Paul to break the bounds of that understanding. 14 As I have argued elsewhere, it is ironic that in N. T. Wright’s magnum opus, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Paul’s governing hermeneutical principle is rightly said to be the reconfiguring of everything in light of the crucified and resurrected Messiah, and yet ‘justification’ is said to mean only ‘declaration’. See my review [‘Wright about Much, but Questions about Justification: A Review of N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God’, Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 4 (2014): 27–36], where I also argue that, implicitly, Wright actually sees justification as more than declaration. Martinus C. de Boer [Galatians: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2011), 165], on the other hand, relying on J. Louis Martyn [Galatians, AB 33A (New York: Doubleday, 1997)], thinks rightly that Paul is consumed by the language of apocalyptic deliverance and co-crucifixion in Galatians and that such language ‘forces [justification] to take on a different meaning’, though de Boer unnecessarily claims that Paul only uses justification language because the ‘new preachers’ do.  13

322

Michael J. Gorman

Thesis Two: Messiah’s Death, not the Law, as the Means of Justification According to Gal 2:15–21, there are two mutually exclusive approaches to the means of justification, namely, the (works of the) law and Messiah’s death, but because Messiah Jesus’ faithful and loving death is the manifestation of God’s grace, it alone is the actual means of justification. One of the most striking features of our passage is the cluster of phrases indicating antithetical claims about the source, or means, of justification – how justification is accomplished. One source/means is firmly and repeatedly denied, the other affirmed. We may set these out in a table: Source/means of justification denied

Source/means of justification affirmed

οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου (v. 16a) no person is justified by virtue of works of the law ἐὰν μὴ [δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος] διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (v. 16b)15 but rather [a person is justified] through the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ (v. 16d) so that we might be justified by virtue of the faithfulness of the Messiah καὶ οὐκ [δικαιο-] ἐξ ἔργων νόμου (v. 16e)16 and not [justified] by virtue of works of the law ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ (v. 16f) no human being will be justified by virtue of works of the law17 ζητοῦντες δικαιωθῆναι ἐν Χριστῷ (v. 17a) seeking to be justified in the Messiah τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ (v. 21a) the grace of God

The phrase in brackets is implied, and supplied by the previous clause. Some form of the δικαιο- family is implied in this phrase.  17 An allusion to Ps 143:2, which reads (LXX 142:2), οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐνώπιόν σου πᾶς ζῶν, translating a Hebrew Qal imperfect meaning ‘no one is righteous’ in contrast to the righteous God (vv. 1, 11). 15 16

Reading Galatians 2:15–21 Theologically Source/means of justification denied εἰ γὰρ διὰ νόμου δικαιοσύνη [contraryto-fact condition] (v. 21b) for if justice/righteousness comes through the law

323 

Source/means of justification affirmed

21

Χριστὸς … ἀπέθανεν (v. 21c) the Messiah … died

There are of course several phrases cited here that are disputed as to their syntactical sense and therefore their translation. Chief among these are (1) ‘works of the Law’, three times in v. 16 – referring either to works in general or a specialised set of works or practices (circumcision, etc.); (2) ἐὰν μή in v. 16b – meaning either ‘except’ or ‘but rather’; and (3) πίστεως [Ἰησοῦ] Χριστοῦ – meaning ‘by faith in’ or ‘by the faith[fulness] of’ the Messiah [Jesus], twice in v. 16. With respect to (1), my interpretation does not take, or need to take, a definitive position. Regarding (2), I opt for the ‘but rather’ interpretation in light of the antithetical structure of the entire passage.18 As for (3), the translation expresses the so-called subjective-genitive interpretation, meaning ‘faith[fulness] of’, not ‘faith in’. We shall return to the reasons for that momentarily. We may refer to these two approaches to justification in general terms as Torah-centric and Messiah-centric without necessarily agreeing on the meaning of all of the disputed phrases. The main issue that arises from an unresolved dispute about these phrases is whether Paul is pitting something about works of the law, and/or the law generally (possession? performance? usage as identity marker[s]?), over against human faith or over against the Messiah’s faithfulness as the alternative means of justification (i.e., the alternative to the law). Of course, this debate cannot of be played out or settled definitively here. But the argument that the table implicitly makes is that v. 21 is key to understanding the whole set of antitheses about the means of justification. Verse 21 contains an absurd contrary-to-fact condition: ‘I do not annul the grace of God; for if justice/righteousness comes through the law [which it does not do – the false premise], then the Messiah died for nothing [which he did not do – the false conclusion]’. Stated differently, as a simple declarative rather than a conditional sentence, the verse claims, ‘I affirm the grace of God that was manifested for our justification and justice/righteousness in the saving death of the Messiah, not in the Law’. This bold statement about the inefficacy of the law sums up the same assessment of the works of the law in v. 16 (the left column

18 Similarly, also appealing to context, both Schreiner (Galatians, 162–163) and Martyn (Galatians, 251).

324

Michael J. Gorman

of the table), while simultaneously describing the alternative means of justification (the right column of the table) as both the grace of God and the death of Jesus. No mention is made in v. 21 of human faith. Instead, the death of the Messiah is presented as the means of justification. Thus the parallelism between the phrase Χριστὸς … ἀπέθανεν in v. 21 and the two occurrences of the phrase διὰ/ἐκ πίστεως [Ἰησοῦ] Χριστοῦ in v. 16 strongly suggests that we should understand ‘the faith of the Messiah’ as a reference to Jesus’ death, that is, to his act of fidelity to God the Father in dying for the justification of sinners, both Jews and Gentiles. The equation of the Messiah’s death with his faith is reinforced by verse 20. In this verse, Paul is setting out the modus operandi of the life of the justified person. He does so with two parallel sets of phrases: (a) ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, thus I myself no longer live,

(b) ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός· but the Messiah lives in me;

(a') ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί,

(b') ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ. I live by means of the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me by giving himself for me.

and the life I do now live in the flesh

In the phrases marked (a) and (a'), Paul is affirming the paradox of being dead but alive (to which we shall return in considering theses three and four). In the phrases marked (b) and (b'), he is explaining how this is the case: the crucifiedbut-resurrected Messiah lives in him. As the resurrected Messiah, Jesus is able to indwell people such as Paul (b); as the resurrected crucified Messiah (b'), he indwells people in a certain way, as the one who retains his identity as the crucified one. The significance of this for messianic, or ‘in-the-Messiah’, existence will be explored below. But for now the crucial point is that in (b) and (b') Paul is characterising the One who does the inhabiting, not the one inhabited, who is described, albeit briefly, in (a) and (a'). In other words, the πίστις to which v. 21 refers – (b') in the display above – is predicated of the Son of God, not of Paul. As in verse 16, it is Jesus the Messiah who is characterised as having faith, or (better) faithfulness, and it is consequently by virtue or by means of his faithfulness that people are both justified and able to live out their justified existence ‘in the flesh’ – in real life. It is the last part of verse 20, the (b') above, then, that succinctly but significantly reveals the fundamental character of Jesus’ death – which was mentioned even more briefly, and only implicitly, in the reference to co-crucifixion in v. 19 (συνεσταύρωμαι). In his death by crucifixion, Jesus displayed both faithfulness and love, πίστις and ἀγάπη, the former toward God, parallel

Reading Galatians 2:15–21 Theologically

325 

to Paul’s language of the Messiah’s obedience (Rom 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8),19 and the latter toward humanity.20 Since in Paul’s theology the display of Jesus’ love is not separate from, but expressed through, his death, it is best to treat the καί as an epexegetical marker, signalling a hendiadys in the text and yielding the translation ‘who loved me by giving himself for me’. To summarise this second thesis: Paul delineates two possible means of justification, one involving the law and the other involving the death of the Messiah as the expression of his faithfulness and love, and as the embodiment of God’s grace. It is the latter means alone that actually justifies.

Thesis Three: Participation in Messiah’s Death as The Mode of Justification According to Gal 2:15–21, justification is a participatory reality described explicitly as co-crucifixion with the Messiah; it is this type of ‘faith’ that brings a person into the realm of the Messiah. Since Paul sets out two possible but antithetical means of justification and contends that the only true means of justification is the faithful, loving death of Jesus that embodies the grace of God, the question naturally arises, ‘How does one benefit from that death?’ – which is actually equivalent to asking, ‘How is one justified?’ If Jesus’ death is the means of justification, what is the mode of justification?21 The text itself, as well as the immediate and larger contexts of our passage, make it clear that this is a question with the same answer for both Jews and Gentiles. The universality of the means and thus the mode of justification is especially clear in the text at hand. Paul uses two generic references to humanity with a negated passive form of the verb ‘to justify’ – οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος … οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ (v. 16) – to stress the non-effective means of justification, the law. As a Jew, he then uses emphatic first-person-plural language to include his Jewish audience, whether those in Antioch or those in Galatia: καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν (v. 16b) and εἰ δὲ ζητοῦντες δικαιωθῆναι ἐν Χριστῷ εὑρέθημεν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἁμαρτωλοί (v. 17a). that is, this

19 Especially in light of the close connection between faith(fulness) and obedience in Rom 1:5 and 16:26 as well as 6:17; 10:16. 20 For further development of this claim, see my Inhabiting, 57–63, where I refer to this symbiosis of faithfulness and love in the Messiah’s death as the quintessential act of covenant fulfillment, i.e., one act of devotion to God and to others. 21 I borrow this language from Peter Frick, ‘The Means and Mode of Salvation: A Hermeneutical Proposal for Clarifying Pauline Soteriology’, HBT 29 (2007): 203–222.

326

Michael J. Gorman

understanding of justification is not merely for ‘Gentile sinners’ (v. 15).22 If justification for Jews has transpired apart from the law by faith, then surely it has happened in the same way for Gentiles. Thus the acts – specifically, faith and baptism, as we will see – through which people have been transferred into the Messiah (2:16; 3:25–27) have created a level playing field – a unity of ‘no longer Jew or Greek’ (3:28). Moreover, at the end of the passage, Paul uses first-person-singular language (vv. 19–20, and perhaps v. 21) to speak not only about himself but also generically for all who are in the Messiah. If the Messiah’s death is the unique and universal means of justification, how is the justifying grace of God manifested in Jesus’ death appropriated? The short answer is by participation in that death. The form, or content, of that participation is delineated in several brief phrases. Just as recognising various sorts of parallelism was critical to understanding the means of justification, so also now will recognising parallelism be critical to understanding its mode. Paul contends that the mode of justification is ‘faith’, or better ‘faith-ing’ (the verb), and that this entails being crucified with the Messiah, which in turn entails two corollary ‘deaths’: death to the law as the means of justification, and the death of the self. The result is being transferred into the realm of the Messiah, which means a ‘resurrection’ to new life. (Our focus in this thesis will be on the dying, and in the next thesis on resurrection to life, but in reality they are inseparably connected.) It is important at this point to recall what we have argued under thesis one: that Paul does not change subjects as he moves from the beginning to the end of this passage. In other words, when Paul speaks in the first-person-singular about being crucified with the Messiah, he is speaking about justification. This is part of his creative contribution to the first-century ‘justification wars’. But before Paul arrives at this innovative description of justification, he speaks first about faith and about being in the Messiah. One of the major concerns about the ‘faith of Christ’ interpretation of this passage and other texts has been the fear that it downplays the human response of faith. This concern is completely unnecessary, for in all the Pauline passages in question, human faith is affirmed, including this text. What Paul does, however, is redefine faith (as he does justification), and he does so at least partly in light of his characterisation of Jesus’ death itself as an act of faith, or faithfulness. Accordingly, we find Paul’s statement about human faith in the midst of his double mention of the faith of Jesus, in v. 16:

22 The first-person-singular language in v. 18 is parallel to the first-person-plural language of v. 17; Paul is speaking representatively for and about Jewish believers.

Reading Galatians 2:15–21 Theologically

327 

εἰδότες [δὲ] ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ.

Because we know that no person is justified by virtue of works of the law but rather through the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah, even we came to faith [that incorporates us] into the Messiah Jesus, so that we might be justified by virtue of the faithfulness of the Messiah and not by virtue of works of the law. With respect to the mode of justification, the key phrase in this sentence is καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ (‘even we came to faith [that incorporates us] into the Messiah Jesus, so that we might be justified by virtue of the faithfulness of the Messiah’). The linguistic challenge of English is again on vivid display here, with no good way to convey the profound theological point Paul makes about faith: the human act of πίστις is a response to the πίστις of Messiah Jesus. In some sense, then, human πίστις must have inherent within it a fidelity, a commitment, that entails more (though not less) than either intellectual assent or affective trust. This sense of faith as fidelity and commitment – which some might wrongly take as a reference to salvation by human effort – does not make the faith-ing person’s πίστις into the means of justification, which remains the faithfulness of Jesus in his death, but it is, in fact, the necessary mode.23 This grace-enabled human act of faith (cf. Phil 1:29), then, results in justification, but only on the basis of Jesus’ faithful death. The meaning of this ‘state’ of justification, so to speak, is further clarified by the phrase that precedes (in Greek) the word(s) ‘we came to faith’: εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν. Almost always translated ‘in’ (so every translation consulted), the preposition εἰς (‘into’) in this phrase more likely indicates the direction toward which a dynamic act, namely faith, propels the one who expresses such faith. This is the act of faithful response to the faithful death of Jesus that results in being ‘in’ the Messiah. In the language of Ed P. Sanders, a ‘transfer’ has occurred. (Paul would no doubt attribute this movement into the Messiah to the work of the Spirit [see 3:1–5], too, but that is not his emphasis here.) Hence my translation’s bracketed phrase ‘that incorporates us’. Paul implies that this movement is in fact what has happened when he speaks in 2:17 of ‘seeking to be justified in the Messiah’: ζητοῦντες δικαιωθῆναι ἐν Χριστῷ. This is not a statement about a search that might terminate with justification in the Messiah, but rather a statement about an assumed, existing state (being in the Messiah, and claiming that that is the place where justification occurs). The claim has probably been

23 The aorist verb ἐπιστεύσαμεν is usually translated as ‘(have) believed’ or ‘have come/came to believe’, though NIV has ‘have put our faith’. Whether the ἵνα is taken as indicating purpose or result, the relation between the faith of Jesus and of humans remains the same: means and mode, source and appropriating response.

328

Michael J. Gorman

questioned by critics of Paul, who contend that his understanding of justification makes the Messiah into a ‘servant of sin’. This phrase εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν has an exact parallel at the beginning of 3:27, ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε (‘For as many of you who were baptised into the Messiah’), with the verb again following the phrase. The parallel suggests a close relationship in Paul’s mind between faith and baptism as acts of transfer into the (realm of the) Messiah. Immediately after 3:27, Paul famously affirms that all who have been baptised are one in the Messiah: πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησου (3:28), the phrase ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησου being equivalent to ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησου in 2:17. Theologically, Paul’s close association of ‘faith-ing’ and being baptised suggests that these two modes of transfer into the Messiah should not be separated.24 For Paul, they are two sides of the one coin of conversion/initiation that is a death-and-resurrection experience. If Paul has said that human faith is a response to the faith of Jesus, then it should come as no surprise that he develops this idea further, and with imaginative imagery, by depicting ‘justification by faith’, to use the Reformers’ language, in terms of participating in Jesus’ faithful death, or cocrucifixion: Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι. The verb συσταυρόω (‘crucify with’) occurs just five times in the NT, three times with a literal sense in the Gospels (Matt. 27:44; Mark 15:32; John 19:32) and twice metaphorically (though ‘metaphor’ is insufficient to describe what Paul is doing with the word) in Paul’s letters, here in Gal 2:19 and in Rom 6:6.25 We cite one of those gospel texts and both of Paul’s: ὁ χριστὸς ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἰσραὴλ καταβάτω νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ, ἵνα ἴδωμεν καὶ πιστεύσωμεν. καὶ οἱ συνεσταυρωμένοι σὺν αὐτῷ ὠνείδιζον αὐτόν. [‘Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down from the cross now, so that we may see and believe’. Those who were crucified with him also taunted him. (Mark 15:32; cf. Matt. 27:43–44)] ἐγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον, ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω. Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι· [For I myself, through the law, died in relation to the law so that I might live in relation to God. I have been crucified with the Messiah; (Gal 2:19; my translation)] τοῦτο γινώσκοντες ὅτι ὁ παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος συνεσταυρώθη, ἵνα καταργηθῇ τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, τοῦ μηκέτι δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ· [We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. (Rom 6:6)]

Both Mark’s and Matthew’s combination of συσταυρόω with an explicit reference to the Messiah in the same breath (Messiah in Mark 15:32; Son of God in Matt 27:40, 43) makes it rather likely that Paul knew at least an oral 24 I have explored these connections in more detail, with reference also to Rom 6, in Inhabiting, 63–79. 25 de Boer (Galatians, 160) says that the (‘nomistic’) ‘I’ has been ‘metaphorically yet truly crucified’.

Reading Galatians 2:15–21 Theologically

329 

tradition similar to that which is preserved in these Gospels. So what is Paul doing theologically with this language? For those like Paul who were not literally present with, much less crucified with, the Messiah, the literal co-crucifixion of those who insulted Jesus even as he was dying for them is paradigmatic in at least two ways. Firstly, the connection emphasises the great love (2:20) that Jesus had, and that God displayed in Jesus, for his enemies (cf. Rom 5:6–8). Justification means the justification of the ungodly (Rom 4:5; 5:6). Amazingly, to be crucified with Jesus is to be loved by Jesus, loved to the uttermost, as the Fourth Gospel puts it (John 13:1). Secondly, the connection suggests that to have faith ‘into’ Jesus is to so fully identify with his death that what happened to Jesus also happens to the ‘believer’: a death, a termination of previous existence. Despite the linguistic connection between the passion narrative(s) and Galatians, being crucified with the Messiah does not occur ‘when Christ died’, as some have said.26 It occurs, rather, in the moment of initial faith and its public manifestation, baptism, as the parallels between 2:19–20 and Rom 6:1–11 indicate.27 The effects of that co-crucifixion endure, as the perfect tense of the verb (συνεσταύρωμαι) suggests. Looking at 2:19–20 by itself, apart from the connection to the Gospel tradition, we find that crucifixion with the Messiah entails death to the law and the death of the self. ‘I have died in relation to the Law’, or possibly ‘with respect to the Law’ (νόμῳ), means a severance from reliance on the law for life.28 This suggests that ‘life’ and ‘justification’ are overlapping terms, as 3:21 confirms, claiming that the law can effect neither: ‘For if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the Law’ (εἰ γὰρ ἐδόθη νόμος ὁ δυνάμενος ζῳοποιῆσαι, ὄντως ἐκ νόμου ἂν ἦν ἡ δικαιοσύνη). A ‘death’ to the law was necessary for Paul ‘so that I might live in relation to/with respect God’ (ἵνα θεῷ). The rather shocking assumption behind this claim in v. 19 is that the very thing the Scriptures said, and Jews believed, would bring them life – the law – did not and does not do so. In the words of Michael Wolter, with the gift of the Torah God had ‘given Israel the possibility

26 E.g., from different interpretive perspectives, Schreiner, Galatians, 171, and Moo, Galatians, 171 (‘believers are regarded by God as having hung on the cross with Christ’); and de Boer, Galatians, 160–161. This interpretation can effectively rule out a connection between co-crucifixion and justification (though it does not for de Boer).  27 Moreover, Galatians 3:1–5 indicates that receipt of the Spirit, part of the initiation into the Messiah through the death and resurrection described in 2:19–20, occurs in connection with a faith-filled response to the message of the crucified Messiah. 28 This dying to the law is not only a comment on the previous verse but also part of the entire rejection of the law as the means to life and justification.

330

Michael J. Gorman

of an abiding participation in God’s sanctity’.29 Because of the Messiah, this has now changed for Paul. But although the ‘I’ in 2:19–20 is certainly autobiographical – Paul’s interpretation of his call (1:10–24) as a death (and new life), or a transformation/conversion – it also certainly applies beyond his own life.30 As always when speaking autobiographically in his letters, Paul is here speaking paradigmatically as well. Jews who have accepted the death of the Messiah as the means of justification/life have ended, or should end, any dependence on the law for justification. They should also terminate any practices that, despite shared participation in the Messiah, would separate Gentiles from them, for (as Paul will later say) the Law’s function has been completed (3:19– 26). Moreover, Gentiles who have accepted the death of the Messiah as the means of justification should not now pursue the law in any way, no matter who might encourage them to seek circumcision or whatever. Thus ‘I have died to the Law’ is a death that applies to all in the Messiah, Jews and Gentiles alike. Theologically speaking, since the law is repeatedly named in this passage as the (false) alternative means of justification, we may say by extension – without at all discounting the specific reference to the Jewish law and its practices – that dying to the law means the renunciation of any and all alleged means of justification, of life in relation to God, and in fact of ‘righteousness’ (2:21) other than the saving death of Jesus. There is no other way to participate in the holiness and life of God. Furthermore, Paul’s claim that ‘I myself no longer live’ (ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ), with stress on the pronoun representing the ‘I’, the self, expands the death motif beyond the notion of death with respect to the law; it entails the death of the person qua person. The ‘old person’ or ‘former self’ (ὁ παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος – plural, and inclusive of all in the Messiah: ‘our old self/selves’) has died, as Paul puts it in Romans in connection with baptism (Rom 6:6, cited above). Such language, though it may spring from reflection on a ‘death’ to the law, is not restricted to that context; it is language understandable by and applicable to all humans. Elsewhere Scripture speaks of new birth (John 3; 1 Pet 1:23); Paul will soon employ the language of new creation (Gal 6:15; cf. 2 Cor 5:17). Entering the new creation requires forsaking the old, including the old self and old humanity that are determined by that old creation. The larger context of Galatians further enlarges our understanding of cocrucifixion with the Messiah, and its applicability to all, as the verb σταυρόω Michael Wolter, Paul: An Outline of his Theology, trans. Robert L. Brawley (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2015), 17. 30 de Boer (Galatians, 159) calls 2:19–20 both ‘the theological high point’ of Galatians 1– 2 and ‘Paul’s (further) interpretation of his conversion’. Wolter responds to the debate about Paul’s transformation – was it a call or a conversion? – with a strongly worded ‘both’: ‘anyone who gives up the category of ‘conversion’ or semantically analogous concepts … does not at all come close to the meaning of the vision of Christ for Pauline biography and theology’ (Paul, 28). 29

Reading Galatians 2:15–21 Theologically

331 

(‘crucify’) appears two times in reference to believers [plus once in reference to Jesus (3:1)]. In 5:24, Paul says those who belong to the Messiah have crucified ‘the flesh’, together with its passions and desires (οἱ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ [Ἰησοῦ] τὴν σάρκα ἐσταύρωσαν σὺν τοῖς παθήμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις). The presence of several words also found in 2:19–20 – Messiah [Jesus], flesh, and crucify – suggest that 5:24 is a brief commentary on 2:19–20. Those who belong to the Messiah live in the flesh but they are not governed by the flesh, that is by base passions and desires. The extension in 5:24 of the crucifixion metaphor to all who belong to the Messiah confirms the claim that 2:19 is also true of all who are in the Messiah. In 6:14, containing the second instance of σταυρόω referring to believers, Paul again employs the first-person-singular language but certainly in a paradigmatic way. As he pronounces both circumcision and uncircumcision soteriologically irrelevant and denounces any pride in ‘the flesh’, he also announces the focus of his own life and source of his own pride – ’the cross of our Lord Jesus the Messiah’ – as the fruit of his having been crucified to the world, and it to him (6:11–17). Thus to be co-crucified with the Messiah entails severing any attachment to normal human values, even the most religious ones, that in any way contradict the saving power of the crucified Messiah – ’the cross’. It alone is the means by which God has effected salvation, indeed the ‘new creation’ (6:15). As such, the cross is an ‘apocalyptic’ event, the definitive divine incursion into the human predicament that delivers people both from their sins and from the ‘present evil age’ (1:4) into this new creation. We can also say, therefore, that to be crucified with the Messiah means to be personally ‘invaded’ by this apocalyptic event of divine giving and messianic self-giving, and thereby to receive the benefits of the incursion named in 1:4 and elsewhere in the letter (e.g. the gift of the Spirit, 3:1–5; adoption as children, 4:4–6). It is not so much a decision made as an invasion experienced, a gift received – indicated by the passive voice: ‘I have been crucified’. Finally, although we must be careful not to make too much of the perfect tense of that passive voice, it does suggest, not a one-time reality but an ongoing reality with a one-time starting point, a vocation with a specific start date but no termination date. Thus the death with Jesus of which Paul writes is not over; it continues into the present. And this ongoing reality of co-crucifixion with the Messiah leads us ineluctably to the conclusion that, in close connection with death, there has also been resurrection – the Messiah’s and ‘mine’. That, in fact, is the subject of our next thesis. It follows directly from this third thesis, in which we have argued that when Paul speaks of justification, its mode is co-crucifixion with the Messiah, which is the faith by which a person is transferred into the realm of Jesus the Messiah, the ‘location’ of justification.

332

Michael J. Gorman

Thesis Four: Justification as Resurrection According to Gal 2:15–21, justification is participation not only in Messiah’s death, but also in his resurrection, which means that justification entails resurrection to new life, that is, the emergence of a new self indwelt by the (Spirit of the) Messiah and living in proper relation to God. Galatians 2:15–21 contains no specific reference to Jesus’ resurrection; neither is there a specific word about believers sharing in that resurrection, whether now or later. Unlike the creed-like text in 1 Cor 15, the explicit language of our text says simply that the Messiah died, and nothing about his being raised. Unlike the participatory interpretation of baptism in Rom 6, which echoes that creed, the explicit claim of our text is simply that ‘I’ died, ‘I’ was crucified with him. Nevertheless, within these verses are strong implicit references to resurrection, both the resurrection of Jesus and the resurrection of believers to new life in him. Indeed, the ultimate theological focus of 2:19–20 is life, living. Paul’s supreme interest, as we see in 3:21 (noted above), is being made alive (indicated by the verb ζῳοποιῆσαι), glossed as δικαιοσύνη (cf. Rom 5:17–21). In fact, Paul affirms throughout 2:15–21 both that justification means life and that such life comes, paradoxically, through death – both the Messiah’s and ‘mine’, or ours. We turn now to the rhetorical, theological, and spiritual telos of this death: life. The noun ζάω (‘live’) occurs five times in 2:19–20, once in v. 19 and four times in v. 20. The first instance defines justification as having life, specifically living in relation to God: 19 ἐγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον, ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω. (For I myself, through the law, died in relation to the law so that I might live in relation to God.) The ἵνα clause in which the verb ‘live’ is located is parallel to the ἵνα clause in the middle of v. 16: ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου (so that we might be justified by virtue of the faithfulness of the Messiah and not by virtue of works of the law.) According to both verses, the soteriological goal of life/justification is realised only apart from the law, as also in 3:21. That which was believed to give life did not. In v. 19, the way in which this soteriological goal is realised is paradoxical: it occurs only by a death that makes life possible.31 The four occurrences of ζάω in v. 20 speak of four interrelated realities that Paul narrates in the first person with implications for all who are in the Messiah: (a) the death of myself – that is, the end of my previous life, life in its default mode; (b) the presence of the Messiah living in me; (c) the 31 de Boer refers to this dynamic as Paul’s ‘negative soteriology’ and ‘positive soteriology’, which constitute ‘two sides of the same coin’ [‘Cross and Cosmos in Galatians’, in The Unrelenting God: Essays on God’s Action in Scripture in Honor of Beverly Roberts Gaventa, ed. David J. Downs and Matthew L. Skinner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 208–225].

Reading Galatians 2:15–21 Theologically

333 

affirmation that in spite of my death, I do in fact live; and (d) the claim that I now live by means of the faithfulness of God’s Son. The dominance of the self in this verse is expressed in several ways, including the use of four first-personsingular verbs and four first-person-singular pronouns: ζῶ … ἐγώ, ζῇ … ἐμοὶ … ζῶ … ζῶ … με … ἐμοῦ. But ultimately the stressing is on the presence of the living Messiah; the whole point of the verse is that Paul’s self is no longer determined by himself but by Another. We can see this clearly by laying out once again the parallel phrases in v. 20, thus highlighting the four occurrences of ζάω in v. 20 and the four realities to which they point in two pairs, one pair – (a) and (a') – focusing on the self’s (death and) life, the other pair – (b) and (b') focusing on the role of the Messiah in that life: (a) ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ,

(b) ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός·

thus I myself no longer live,

but Messiah lives in me;

(a') ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί

(b') ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ.

and the life I do now live in the flesh,

I live by means of the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me by giving himself for me.

Taken all together, these four statements point to the overarching reality of resurrection. Jesus the Messiah has obviously been raised from the dead or he would be unable to live ‘in me’. At the same time, and in a highly paradoxical way, Paul’s dead self has also been resurrected; he has died but is alive, enlivened by the presence of the living Messiah. Paul is clearly speaking about participating in Messiah’s resurrection in the present, about co-resurrection with Jesus to new life. What he says by clear implication here, we find elsewhere in the Pauline letters more explicitly, using idiom that would have been completely appropriate here: συνεγείρω (‘raise with’) in the passive voice, as in Colossians and Ephesians (Col 2:12; 3:1; Eph 2:6); or ζωοποιέω (‘make alive, give life to’), as in Rom 4:17 in describing God as the one who gives life to the dead (in the context of Abraham’s justification: θεοῦ τοῦ ζῳοποιοῦντος τοὺς νεκροὺς καὶ καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα); or perhaps the language of Rom 6:4: συνετάφημεν οὖν αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἰς τὸν θάνατον, ἵνα ὥσπερ ἠγέρθη Χριστὸς ἐκ νεκρῶν διὰ τῆς δόξης τοῦ πατρός, οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς περιπατήσωμεν. Therefore, we have been buried with him by baptism into his death, so that, just as the Messiah was raised from among the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. (my translation)

334

Michael J. Gorman

The phrase ‘newness of life’ (καινότητι ζωῆς) is another way of saying, ‘I myself no longer live; well, I do live, but it’s not me, it’s the Messiah in me’. Faith and baptism, again, are two sides of the one coin of entrance into the Messiah and into resurrection life. We know from Rom 8, especially, that Paul identifies the indwelling Messiah with the indwelling Spirit. In that context, Paul lets the Romans know that they (individually and corporately, he implies) are inhabited by the Spirit of God, who is the Spirit of the Messiah, who is the source of their righteousness and life (Rom 8:3–4, 9–11). The same spirituality is present in Galatians, though less fully developed in a single passage. But Galatians 4 says specifically that the Spirit God ‘has sent … into our hearts’ – an allusion to the promise of Ezek 36:26 – is ‘the Spirit of his [God’s] Son’ (Gal 4:6). This is the Spirit the Galatians received, not ‘by doing the works of the Law’ but by believing the message of the crucified Messiah (3:1–2). That 3:1–2 follows directly after 2:15–21 implies that Paul integrates receiving the Spirit (as a consequence of believing the gospel of the crucified Messiah) with the singular experience of believing into the Messiah, dying and rising with the Messiah, and being initially indwelt by the Messiah. These do not constitute a series of events but different angles on one reality. For Paul, the Spirit, not the law, was ‘the means by which Jewish and non-Jewish Christians received in one and the same way one and the same purity and participation in God’s sanctity – the sanctity that characterised the people of God’.32 The result is what Paul will later in Galatians call ‘walking’ in or by the Spirit (5:16) – the Spirit of the crucified and resurrected Messiah. Paradoxically (once again), therefore, the shape of this new, resurrection life in the Messiah/the Spirit, and with the Messiah/the Spirit within, is cruciform. As noted at the end of the discussion of the previous thesis, we saw how co-crucifixion is an ongoing vocation, an ongoing sharing in the death of Jesus, specifically in his faithfulness and love – to which we turn in the next thesis. To summarise thesis four: just as justification involves death to the law and the death of the former self, so also it entails resurrection to life with God and a new self, reconstituted by the crucified and resurrected Messiah Jesus, in whom believers live and who lives in them by his Spirit. This spirituality of ‘mutual indwelling’ will mean that participation entails transformation; the substance of δικαιοῦσθαι is δικαιοσύνη, which is the focus of thesis five.

32

Wolter, Paul, 35.

Reading Galatians 2:15–21 Theologically

335 

Thesis Five: Justification as Transformation into Righteousness (Faithfulness and Love) According to Gal 2:15–21, justification as participation in Jesus’ death and resurrection means transformation into righteousness, which will be exhibited fundamentally as cruciform faithfulness and love. So far we have noted that the death of Jesus, not the law, is the means to justification (v. 16) and life (v. 19), and argued that they are parallel, indeed semantically overlapping, terms – two ways of referring to the same reality. We come, finally, in the last line of the passage (v. 21), to a third parallel term pointing to this one reality: δικαιοσύνη. The translation and interpretation of this word will have a significant impact on one’s understanding of the passage as a whole. The argument made here is that either ‘righteousness’ or ‘justice’ is the best translation into English, for the point of verse 21 is that what the law fails to effect is the moral reality that is constitutive of being justified and of life in relation to God.33 The interpretation of v. 21 raises a theological question that has concerned and divided Christians for centuries: does justification entail transformation? More specifically, does justification entail being counted righteous, having the righteousness of Christ imputed or imparted, or being made righteous? Some proponents of the “New Perspective” might add yet another possibility: does justification entail being regarded as one of the community of the righteous? A related question is whether δικαιοσύνη even has any sense of morality or ethics; is it simply a term for some sort of status? (There are, of course, various permutations and combinations of these questions and perspectives.) It is tempting, especially within certain theological traditions, to allow one’s theological framework to determine the possible acceptable answers, or even the sole acceptable answer, to the concrete exegetical question about the meaning of δικαιοσύνη in verse 21. Interestingly, however, many English translations are somewhat unpredictable in their renderings of this verse: – if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing! (NIV) – if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die. NLT) – if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing. (NRSV – with a note that ‘righteousness’ is an alternative translation; NAB) – if saving justice comes through the law, Christ died needlessly. (NJB) – if we become righteous through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. (CEB)

33 Justification and righteousness in Paul have at times been correctly described as ‘relational’ but incorrectly as ‘relational rather than ethical’ – a claim that makes no sense whatsoever in either a Jewish or Christian context, for biblical relationships are covenantal, and thus inherently carry obligations.

336

Michael J. Gorman

The major evangelical Protestant translation (NIV) uses ‘righteousness’ but does not interpret its specific meaning. More predictably, another evangelical translation (NLT) seems to define righteousness or justification more definitively as ‘mak[ing] us right with God’. The major mainline ecumenical (NRSV) and Catholic (NAB) translations employ, without specific interpretation, ‘justification’. Another Catholic translation (NJB) goes in a very different direction and uses ‘saving justice’. Only one recent major translation, the ecumenical CEB, renders the phrase in a way that explicitly conveys transformation: ‘if we become righteous’. How do we determine the significance of δικαιοσύνη here without being unduly influenced by our theological lenses? It will be useful to see how Paul uses the word later in Galatians and then in another text about justification, 2 Cor 5:21. We begin with the three additional occurrences in Galatians, plus the one instance of the cognate adjective δίκαιος. In Gal 3:6, Paul quotes Gen 15:6 LXX: Καθὼς Ἀβραὰμ ἐπίστευσεν τῷ θεῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην. The standard translation of this verse is to render the second clause ‘and it was reckoned [or credited] to him as righteousness’. There is no reason to deny Paul’s use of the accounting metaphor here (as also in Rom 4), because God’s ‘accounting’ is efficacious (see next thesis). However, the contextual connection with both ‘life’ (v. 11) and the Spirit (v. 14) suggests that Paul is thinking of life in the Spirit as the consequence of faith. Thus it would be better to understand the phrase εἰς δικαιοσύνην, not as ‘as righteousness’, as if the act of faith were being counted as righteousness, but as ‘resulting in righteousness’. That is, the outcome of faith is taking on the quality of righteousness (implicitly by an act of divine grace, not human effort). In the same context, Galatians 3:11 seems to equate justification, indicated by the verb, and being just/righteous, indicated by the nominalised adjective: ὅτι δὲ ἐν νόμῳ οὐδεὶς δικαιοῦται παρὰ τῷ θεῷ δῆλον, ὅτι ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται.34 Once again, the CEB alone among English translations captures this sense: ‘But since no one is made righteous by the law … the righteous one will live on the basis of faith’. Other translations have ‘no one is justified’ (NAB: ‘reckoned’). This sort of translation fails to show that justification means the creation of a just person and a just people. The ‘faith’ that is the source of ὁ δίκαιος ‘living’ could be either that of the person being justified (the mode of justification, over against keeping the law) or that of the Messiah (the means of justification, over against the law). In either case, the result is an actual δίκαιος person.

34 Whether we translate the second clause as ‘for the one who is righteous by faith will live’ or ‘for the one who is righteous will live by faith’, the text indicates an actual state of righteousness, an actual righteous person. In addition, we again have a reference to justification as life.

Reading Galatians 2:15–21 Theologically

337 

Galatians 3:21b, which we have previously noted, is a contrary-to-fact condition that is a restatement of the contrary-to-fact condition in 2:21. It also includes an important echo of 2:19–20 and of 3:11, with its motif of ‘life’: εἰ γὰρ ἐδόθη νόμος ὁ δυνάμενος ζῳοποιῆσαι, ὄντως ἐκ νόμου ἂν ἦν ἡ δικαιοσύνη. Curiously, despite the similarity of 3:21 to 2:21, no major English translation renders ἡ δικαιοσύνη in 3:21 as ‘justification’; with the exception of NAB’s ‘saving justice’, they all use ‘righteousness’. For example, the NRSV has ‘For if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the Law’. The δικαιοσύνη mentioned in this verse is the material substance of ‘life’. Taken together, these three verses in chapter 3 – two using the noun δικαιοσύνη and one the related nominalised adjective δίκαιος – imply that whatever else being justified (δικαιοῦσθαι) means, it entails the transformation of people into those who possess the quality of righteousness/justice, who are in fact righteous/just. This quality is the fundamental content of the ‘life’ in the Spirit that justification effects. Galatians 5:5 contains the final instance of δικαιοσύνη in the letter: ἡμεῖς γὰρ πνεύματι ἐκ πίστεως ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνης ἀπεκδεχόμεθα, rendered by the NRSV as ‘For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness’. This text might appear to suggest that δικαιοσύνη is only a future reality – a positive divine verdict at the final judgment or an eschatological transformation. But the context suggests otherwise. Paul is once again denying that the law can justify and affirming that grace alone – an echo of ‘the grace of God’ (2:21) and thus ultimately a reference to the Messiah’s death – does so (5:4). Paul’s immediate concern here is preventing Gentiles from seeking circumcision (5:2–3). His rationale for this is not only that the law (and its associated practices) cannot justify, but also that neither possessing nor lacking circumcision ἰσχύει: ‘counts for anything’ (5:6a; NRSV, NAB) or ‘carries any weight’ (NET). What does matter, however, is πίστις δι᾽ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη: ‘faith working through love’ (most English translations) or ‘faith expressing itself through love’ (NIV). This pregnant phrase takes us back to 2:15–21, and specifically to the earlier argument that the Messiah’s death was an act of faith (fulness) and love. If it is the faithful and loving death of the Messiah that is the manifestation of God’s grace and the means of justification – of making people righteous – and if that crucified-but-resurrected Messiah now dwells in and among the people who have been justified, then their individual and corporate lives will be characterised by the Messiah’s faithfulness and love.35 That is, in anticipation of their hoped-for eschatological righteousness, those who are in the Messiah This connection between 2:15–21 and 5:6 was persuasively made by Richard B. Hays in his classic essay ‘Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ’, CBQ 49 (1987): 268–290. 35

338

Michael J. Gorman

and thus already made righteous in him will practice righteousness now by embodying the Messiah-like qualities of faithfulness and love. To borrow from 2 Cor 3:18, it is as if Paul is saying that those in the Messiah are being changed ‘from righteousness to righteousness’. We have already seen that Paul speaks in terms of being justified, living in relation to God, and possessing righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) as three ways of referring to the same reality, a reality made possible by Jesus’ faithful and loving death. Righteousness, then, is not only derived from the Messiah’s death but is also defined by the Messiah’s death. His faithful and loving death is both the source and the shape of righteousness. These two qualities, this fundamental meaning of δικαιοσύνη, further clarify what being crucified with the Messiah means: it entails sharing in his death by practising faithfulness and love. Such practices are made possible by means of the indwelling Messiah, as 2:20 tells us – the indwelling of the Spirit of the Son (4:6). Accordingly, we should understand the lengthy exposition of a life of walking in the Spirit, guided by the Spirit, in Gal 5 and 6 as an elaboration of the basic claim that those made righteous in the Messiah (2:17; ἐν Χριστῷ) embody Messiah-like faithfulness and love, the ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ relational requirements of covenantal existence. We find a similar set of claims about justification/righteousness in the Messiah in 2 Cor 5:21. The context strongly emphasises the transformative character of what God has done in Jesus and of what has happened to those who have shared in his loving death and his resurrection (5:14): ‘So if anyone is in the Messiah, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!’ (NRSV, alt.).36 The theme of transformation in the Messiah culminates in 5:21 itself: τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (NRSV) In this ‘interchange’ text,37 we have thought and language that are consonant with what we find in Gal 2:15–21. Participation in the death of Jesus, already characterised in terms of love (2 Cor 5:14), results in transformation into God’s δικαιοσύνη in the Messiah. The purpose clause in this verse, delineating the reason for Jesus’ death (ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ), is parallel to the earlier purpose clause in 5:15 (ἵνα οἱ ζῶντες μηκέτι ἑαυτοῖς ζῶσιν ἀλλὰ τῷ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἀποθανόντι καὶ ἐγερθέντι). That is, God’s intent is to effect a transformation of human beings such that they live both for the crucified and resurrected Messiah and in him, and thus take on the God-like quality of 36 Wolter (Paul, 90) finds the overlap between Gal 2:19–20 and 2 Cor 5:14–17 ‘palpable’; in Galatians Paul ‘describes his own becoming the same “new creation”’. 37 See Morna D. Hooker, From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

Reading Galatians 2:15–21 Theologically

339 

δικαιοσύνη manifested in that death and enabled by his living presence. As in Gal 2, here in 2 Cor 5 Paul is speaking about justification. In each passage, a critical aspect of the discussion of justification is the use of the word δικαιοσύνη, but in neither text does Paul say that this righteousness is attributed to people, as some interpreters have claimed. As Richard Hays has put it, here in 2 Cor: [Paul] does not say ‘that we might know about the righteousness of God’, nor ‘that we might believe in the righteousness of God’, nor even ‘that we might receive the righteousness of God’. Instead, the church is to become the righteousness of God: where the church embodies in its life together the world-reconciling love of Jesus Christ, the new creation is manifest. The church incarnates the righteousness of God.38

Similarly, but perhaps surprisingly, Lutheran (and formerly Baptist) NT scholar Mark Seifrid, commenting on this text, rejects justification as a ‘bare imputation or declaration’ (265) and calls it a ‘forensic event’ (265) that is ‘irreducibly ontological’ (260) entailing ‘a change of being (263)’.39 Second Corinthians, then, confirms the claim that justification is thoroughly participatory [‘in him’ (ἐν αὐτῷ)], transformative [‘become’ (γενώμεθα)], and ethical [‘the righteousness/justice (δικαιοσύνη) of God’]. The Christian tradition has several terms for the process of taking on Godlike qualities by virtue of the empowering activity and presence of Christ/the Spirit. But it may be most appropriate (though shocking to some), if we are going to allow Paul’s thought and language of justification as ‘ontological transformation into God’s righteousness in the Messiah’ to have its full theological impact, (1) to use the term ‘theōsis’ or ‘deification’ in connection with justification, and (2) to say that such transformation into Godlikeness is constitutive of justification itself. This would not, of course, mean that justification entails crossing the line that divides creature from creator, but it would mean stressing what Paul himself stresses: that God’s justifying action means the transformation of the unrighteous into the righteous, such that they take on something of God’s righteousness that was displayed in Jesus’ faithful and loving death, in anticipation of the final eschatological reality of full

38 Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation; A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996), 24. See further, A. Katherine Grieb, ‘“So That in Him We Might Become the Righteousness of God” (2 Cor 5:21): Some Theological Reflections on the Church Becoming Justice’, ExAud 22 (2006): 58–80. 39 Mark Seifrid, The Second Letter to the Corinthians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2014), 260–268 (specific pages noted in the text). See also, from a Jesuit perspective, Thomas D. Stegman, ‘Paul’s Use of Dikaio-Terminology: Moving Beyond N. T. Wright’s Forensic Interpretation’, TS 72 (2011): 496–524.

340

Michael J. Gorman

participation in the righteousness of God. This is what the law could not do – to make people alive in this full sense of sharing in the very life of God.40 The objections of some to this claim will be forceful indeed, but in the next thesis we suggest that it is possible to maintain an understanding of justification as divine declaration and still hold to its transformative quality. Moreover, it is possible to place all of these claims within the corporate context of covenant membership. Transformation into righteousness – the main point of thesis five – is compatible with both declarative and incorporative understandings of justification.

Thesis Six: Participatory, Transformative Justification as Inclusive of Forensic and Covenantal Dimensions A participatory and transformative understanding of justification based in 2:15–21 does not rule out either (1) a covenantal, primarily ‘horizontal’ understanding of justification as membership in the covenant community grounded in the context of Gentile acceptance or (2) a declarative understanding of justification. I would anticipate at this point that Pauline interpreters who lean toward a traditional Protestant perspective are happy with the focus on the individual person that has characterised this essay thus far. On the other hand, many of them are likely highly dissatisfied with the thesis that justification is participatory and even transformative. This participatory and transformative dimension may please certain members of the ‘apocalyptic’ school of Pauline interpretation, however, as well as Catholics and Orthodox (and their ‘heirs’ in other traditions) who are theologically predisposed to that point of view. What about those from the “New Perspective”? What appears to be an over-emphasis on the individual and the ‘vertical’ dimension of justification may leave them unhappy that the communal, ecclesial, ‘horizontal’ dimension of justification has not received its due. Justification is a polyvalent reality for Paul. What I have been doing thus far is arguing for some distinctive aspects of Paul’s interpretation of justification that have sometimes been under-appreciated, especially in the West, and particularly among Protestants. I turn now, briefly, to show how these distinctive dimensions do not exclude other aspects, and how they are, in fact, related to them. While it is important to see 2:15–21 as a distinct unit, it is also closely 40 Betz (Galatians, 125) rightly says that believers receive the ‘“divine life”’ and refers to parallel notions in antiquity. See also M. David Litwa, We are Being Transformed: Deification in Paul’s Soteriology, BZNW 187 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012), though his work needs some correcting.

Reading Galatians 2:15–21 Theologically

341 

related to the narratives of the events at Antioch and at Galatia (2:11–14 and 3:1–5, respectively), as well as the discussion of justification throughout Gal 3. It is absolutely clear that the presenting problem that elicits Paul’s interpretation of justification in 2:15–21 is the sudden apartheid that was created by Cephas and others when they stopped eating with Gentiles out of fear of the ‘circumcision faction’ (2:11–13). Accordingly, Paul’s response, and thus the theology of justification he creatively articulates, are inherently corporate – ‘horizontal’. The over-emphasis by some proponents of the “New Perspective”, especially early in the movement, on this aspect of justification does not invalidate the fundamental claim: justification is about who gets into the covenant people, now defined by the Messiah Jesus, and how.41 This corporate, horizontal aspect of justification is present in our passage itself, too, in at least two principal ways. Firstly, there is the presence of firstperson-plural verbs and pronouns in vv. 15–17, which Paul uses to remind his audience that, although justification occurs one person at a time (indicated by the first-person-singular verbs and pronouns in vv. 18–21), it is ultimately about ‘us’, about being together ‘in the Messiah’, the locus of justification (2:17). Secondly, this ‘in the Messiah’ language – and implicitly also the ‘Messiah in’ language – is inherently communal, not merely individual. The ‘transfer language’ (‘into the Messiah’) of faith and baptism (2:16 and 3:27, respectively) and the resulting ‘incorporative language’ (‘in the Messiah’; 2:17; 3:28) refer to a communal reality – membership in the people of God reconfigured by the Messiah and ruled by his presence and power. This corporate understanding of justification, then, is manifest in the discussion of baptism and unity in the Messiah at the end of Gal 3, which is the culmination of everything Paul says about the Galatians’ receiving the Spirit (3:1–5) and their being offspring of Abraham by virtue of their being in the Messiah (3:14), the one seed (σπέρμα) of Abraham (3:16). The references to justification in chapter 3 (some of which were considered in the previous thesis) must be understood in this corporate way, as the presence of multiple firstperson-plural verbs and pronouns confirms. As in 2:15–21, however, the communal character of justification does not rule out the need for each person to be justified, as the example of Abraham (3:6) and the first of two summary statements about justification using the verb δικαιόω (3:11–12) indicate.42 It seems rather evident that justification in this context is more than a divine declaration, as some have insisted over the centuries. Although there may be See the classic new-perspective exposition in James D. G. Dunn, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, BNTC (London: Black, 1993), 131–150. Cf. the essay introducing his collection of essays for his later, or clarified, emphasis on both the horizontal and the vertical: The New Perspective on Paul, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 1–98, esp. 32–33. 42 The second such statement, in 3:24, uses the first-person-plural verb. 41

342

Michael J. Gorman

other texts where δικαιόω means a divine pronouncement of acquittal or vindication, that simply does not seem to be the case in Gal 3 any more than it does in Gal 2. Rather, when justification occurs, something happens: people receive life, they become children of Abraham, they are clothed with the Messiah and incorporated into him, and so on. It may, however, be the case that justification as divine declaration and justification as divine action are not distinct and mutually exclusive understandings of justification for Paul or for us. If we think of a divine declaration as an effective word, a performative utterance, then justification as divine declaration not only permits transformation, it requires transformation. The neologism of conservative Reformed theologian Peter Leithart is particularly helpful in articulating this truth; he understands justification as a ‘deliverdict’, a verdict that effects deliverance.43 Whether intentionally or not, with this term Leithart has brought together traditional Protestant approaches to Paul and apocalyptic approaches (which generally characterise justification as ‘deliverance’ from apocalyptic powers), as well as other perspectives that stress justification’s transformative element.44 The theological stakes here are, in my view, quite high. The German protestant Michael Wolter agrees; he breaks down the wall between ‘“forensic justification”’ and ‘“real participation”’, claiming that ‘if God’s judgment about a person were not completely directly efficacious in reality and God’s pledge of salvation were not a salvific power that changes the person, God would not be God’.45 A final example from Paul will help us see the close connection between the communal, the transformative, and (possibly) the declarative elements in justification according to the apostle. In 1 Cor 6:1–11, Paul attempts to persuade the Corinthian community that the practice of pursuing lawsuits against their siblings in the Messiah is a form of ἀδικία (‘injustice, unrighteousness’). Although this noun itself does not occur in the text (but see 1 Cor 13:6), its cognate adjective ἄδικος (‘unjust, unrighteous’), used as a noun, occurs in vv. 1 and 9, and its cognate verb ἀδικέω (‘commit injustice, harm’) appears in vv. 7 and 8. Paul’s arguments against this injustice culminate in his claim that the unjust (ἄδικοι) – implicitly including the Corinthian litigants – will not inherit the kingdom of God (v. 9). The Corinthians, he says, used to practice injustice and other evils disqualifying people from the kingdom, but then ‘you [the Corinthians] were washed … sanctified … justified (ἀλλὰ ἀπελούσασθε, ἀλλὰ Peter J. Leithart, The Baptized Body (Moscow, ID: Canon, 2007), 75–76. Douglas Campbell (Deliverance, 852) calls the justification described in Gal 2:15–21 ‘a forensic-liberative act of resurrection by God’. 45 Wolter, Paul, 251 (emphasis original except for the last phrase). His entire succinct discussion of the issue on 250–251 is helpful. Even Wright acknowledges that justification is an ‘“illocutionary speech-act of declaration and verdict”’ (Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 945), but it is not clear that this means anything more than the status of covenant membership declared is actually granted. 43 44

Reading Galatians 2:15–21 Theologically

343 

ἡγιάσθητε, ἀλλὰ ἐδικαιώθητε) in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God’ (v. 11). That is, something happened to these Corinthians, including justification; the passive voice connotes an act from outside the self, an act of grace and of God. Whether or not we see in this third passive verb a divine declaration, we cannot help but see a transformation. The unrighteous have become righteous; the unjust have been incorporated into the community of the just, the community of the Messiah and the Spirit where practices of justice have replaced practices of injustice.46 Our sixth and penultimate thesis, then, is that if justification is participatory and transformative, this participation is inherently corporate, referring to Gentiles and Jews together in the Messiah, and this transformation can be understood as the result of a divine declaration, God’s performative utterance.

Thesis Seven: Justification and Theological Rapprochement The participatory and transformative understanding of justification presented in this paper should contribute to theological rapprochement between old and new perspectives, and between West and East. A fairly constant theme in recent discussions of justification in Paul has been the warning not to make Paul’s theology of justification bear too much of a soteriological load. After all, it is not the fullness of Paul’s soteriology, not the only metaphor or image he uses. But there is another caution to heed: we must be sure that we do not limit justification in Paul to our preconceived notions of what it can or must mean, and we must not let justification bear too little of a load. Instead, we must attempt to understand justification as fully as Paul understood it. The perspective on justification articulated in this essay contends that Paul had – and that we should have – a thick, robust theology of justification. In particular, I have argued for justification as a participatory and transformative event that may both expand our theological horizons and break down some of our theological walls. The final thesis claims that Paul’s theology of justification is inherently an ecumenical theology, which is, I contend, a highly important aspect of its contemporary theological significance. That significance can be summarised in the following four claims: 1. The interpretation offered here promotes an understanding of justification as entailing transformation and ethics – and even theōsis – without thereby

46

See further my ‘Justification and Justice’, 32–34 and Becoming the Gospel, 234–240.

344

Michael J. Gorman

promoting ‘works-righteousness’ or autosoterism. It therefore has the possibility of building bridges between Protestants and Catholics, between West and East, and among various schools of Pauline thought.47 2. This interpretation, while stressing participation (the mode of justification), acknowledges that justification is God’s gracious activity accomplished in the Messiah’s death (the means). If we say ‘justification by co-crucifixion’,48 then we must acknowledge that this phrase implies the means (crucifixion) as well as the mode (co-crucifixion). It means the gift of life through the gift of death. In more traditional language, we should say, ‘Justification by grace through faith’, not merely ‘justification by faith’. The interpretation offered here should further close the door to any form of Pelagianism. 3. This interpretation, while stressing participation and transformation, does not rule out a more forensic approach to justification as long as any divine pronouncement is understood to be effective and thereby inherently transformative. It therefore acknowledges the contributions of forensic approaches while incorporating them into more participatory perspectives, again permitting rapprochement between Protestants and Catholics, between West and East, and among Pauline interpretive schools. 4. The interpretation offered here also highlights the traditional Protestant emphasis on individual, personal, ‘vertical’ justification as well as the concerns of the “New Perspective”, namely, the issue of Gentile inclusion, justification’s ‘horizontal’ dimension. It therefore promotes a ‘both-and’ approach to justification that can build bridges between traditional (especially Protestant) and more recent emphases in the study of Paul. To the modern question of whether justification is about soteriology or ecclesiology, the answer is a resounding ‘yes’. In fact, these two theological loci are inseparable in Paul’s mind, for he is convinced (to paraphrase Cyprian writing two centuries later) that outside the Messiah/the ekklēsia there is no salvation. It is important to stress that these claims have not been the motivation or purpose of my study of justification, but rather the fruit of that study. It is

47 Sanders (Paul, 506), from the “New Perspective”, says, ‘Paul thought that Christians were changed’ (though this does not mean for him ‘moral rectitude’ but transfer into Christ and union with him). And we have seen earlier that Seifrid, from the more traditional perspective, and Gaventa (implicitly) and Campbell (explicitly), from the apocalyptic, see justification as transformative. For a comparison of Orthodox (especially patristic) and other approaches to Paul, see Athanasios Despotis, Die „New Perspective on Paul“ und die griechisch-orthodoxe Paulusinterpretation, VIOTh 11 (St. Ottilien: EOS, 2014). Despotis sees significant congruity between the Fathers and the “New Perspective” in their emphases on participation and ecclesiology. Despotis himself sees justification as a process from conversion to final judgment. The term ‘process’ may be better understood as two points, initial and final, as we find in Wright. Eschatology is not the focus of Gal 2, however. 48 See my Inhabiting, 40–104.

 

Reading Galatians 2:15–21 Theologically  

345 

ironic, however, that a passage that was intended to end the Galatian ‘apartheid’ has been so divisive. Perhaps that situation can be somewhat ameliorated by studies, and books, like the present work.49 We come finally, in light of our study, to an attempt at a working definition of justification in Paul and then to a re-translation of Gal 2:15–21. As noted early on, the words ‘justify’ and ‘justification’ themselves are problematic in English. But I have not yet found a suitable substitute, although I am drawn to words like ‘rightwise/righwising’ and ‘rectify/rectification’ because they imply that God is actually fixing the human condition and because one can make fairly easy connections in English between verbs and nouns in the wordfamily (although the resulting words are not always commonly used in English).50 At the same time, despite its problems, ‘justify/justification’ is appealing because it retains the connection to the theological tradition and because ‘justice’ and ‘just’ are part of the word-family. On the other hand, a neologism like ‘righteousification’ might be helpful, if clumsy.51 There is no perfect solution. Here is my extended working definition of justification according to Gal 2:15–21: Justification/righteousification is God’s gracious act of delivering people from the power of sin and restoring them to a right covenant relationship with himself, the righteous/just God, through the Messiah’s faithful, loving death and resurrection, giving them new life and incorporating them into the righteous/just people of God who share in God’s righteousness/justice, both Jews and Gentiles, ‘in’ the Messiah, as by God’s grace they participate in the Messiah’s death and resurrection, dying to their past lives and rising to lives of righteousness/justice marked by faithfulness to God and love for others. In a brief phrase: God makes people right. A bit longer: In the Messiah, God allows people to share in his own righteousness. It is all – past righteousification and present life/righteousness – by grace, by a means other than the law or the self.52 How might this come across in a translation – without using the awkward slashes utilised in the definition? Perhaps as follows, adding a gloss to the main verb and its cognate noun (with changes from the earlier translation underlined):

                                                             49 On the importance of 2:15–21 in light of what precedes it, and thus as an instrument of communal unity, see William Sanger Campbell, ‘Unity in the Community: Rereading Galatians 2:15–21’, in Downs and Skinner, The Unrelenting God, 226–241. 50 J. Louis Martyn consistently uses ‘rectify’ and ‘rectification’. 51 Sanders (Paul, 504–516) uses ‘to righteous/be righteoused’, calling this verb both a revival of an older English verb and a neologism. (The actual Old/Middle English verb [515] would today be ‘to rightwise’.) 52 Hence in the following translation, I render ἐκ, διά, and ἐν (except when ἐν means ‘in the sphere of’) as ‘by means of’. They differ only stylistically, not substantively.

346

Michael J. Gorman

[But] we, by birth Jews and not sinners from the nations, 16 because we know that no person is made right – alive to God and transformed from ‘sin’ to ‘righteousness’ by being delivered from this present evil age into the community of the righteous – by means of works of the law but rather by means of the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah, even we came to faith and so entered into the Messiah Jesus, so that we might be justified by means of the faithfulness of the Messiah and not by means of works of the law, for no human being will be justified by means of works of the law. 17 But if we, while seeking to be made right in the Messiah are ourselves found to be sinners, then is the Messiah a servant of sin? May it never be! 18 For if I rebuild the things I tore down, then I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19 For I myself, through the law, died in relation to the law so that I might live in relation to God. I have been crucified with the Messiah; 20 thus I myself no longer live, but the Messiah lives in me; and the life I do now live in the flesh, I live by means of the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me by giving himself for me. 21 I do not annul the grace of God; for if righteousness – the life of right covenant relations with God and others (namely, faithfulness and love) that is the substance of being made right – has its source in the law, then the Messiah died for no reason and to no effect.53 15

Bibliography Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Campbell, Douglas A. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Campbell, William Sanger. “Unity in the Community: Rereading Galatians 2:15–21”. Pages 226–241 in The Unrelenting God: Essays on God’s Action in Scripture in Honor of Beverly Roberts Gaventa. Edited by David J. Downs and Matthew L. Skinner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. de Boer, Martinus. “Cross and Cosmos in Galatians”. Pages 208–225 in The Unrelenting God: Essays on God’s Action in Scripture in Honor of Beverly Roberts Gaventa. Edited by David J. Downs and Matthew L. Skinner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. –. Galatians: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011. deSilva, David A. Galatians: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2014. Despotis, Athanasios. Die „New Perspective on Paul“ und die griechisch-orthodoxe Paulusinterpretation. VIOTh 11. St. Ottilien: EOS, 2014. Dunn, James D. G. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. BNTC. London: Black, 1993. –. The New Perspective on Paul. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

                                                             53

I am grateful to Andy Johnson for feedback on a draft of this essay.

Reading Galatians 2:15–21 Theologically

347 

Frick, Peter. “The Means and Mode of Salvation: A Hermeneutical Proposal for Clarifying Pauline Soteriology”. HBT 29 (2007): 203–222. Gaventa, Beverly Roberts. “The Singularity of the Gospel Revisited”. Pages 187–199 in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter. Edited by Mark W. Elliott, Scott J. Hafemann, N. T. Wright, and John Frederick. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. Gorman, Michael J. Becoming the Gospel: Paul, Participation, and Mission. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. –. Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. –. “Justification and Justice in Paul, with Special Reference to the Corinthians”. Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 1 (2011): 23–40. –. “Wright about Much, but Questions about Justification: A Review of N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God”. Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 4 (2014): 27– 36. Grieb, A. Katherine. “‘So That in Him We Might Become the Righteousness of God’ (2 Cor 5:21): Some Theological Reflections on the Church Becoming Justice”. ExAud 22 (2006): 58–80. Hays, Richard B. “Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ”. CBQ 49 (1987): 268–290. –. The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Gal 3:1–4:11. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. –. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation; A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1996. Hooker, Morna D. From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Jipp, Joshua W. Christ is King: Paul’s Royal Ideology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Leithart, Peter J. The Baptized Body. Moscow, ID: Canon, 2007. Litwa, M. David. We are Being Transformed: Deification in Paul’s Soteriology. BZNW 187. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians. AB 33A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Moo, Douglas J. Galatians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. Novenson, Matthew V. Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Oakes, Peter. Galatians. Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015. Sanders, Ed P. Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters, and Thought. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Schreiner, Thomas R. Galatians. ZECNT. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Seifrid, Mark. The Second Letter to the Corinthians. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2014. Stegman, Thomas D. “Paul’s Use of Dikaio-Terminology: Moving Beyond N. T. Wright’s Forensic Interpretation”. TS 72 (2011): 496–524. Wolter, Michael. Paul: An Outline of his Theology. Translated by Robert L. Brawley. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2015. Wright, N. T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. COQG 4. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013.

 

Beyond Theological Arguments The Ethics of Love and Coming to Faith in Paul Athanasios Despotis It has already been very well attested that Paul is the first author who uses ἀγάπη as a key theological concept.1 Similarly, the notion πίστις is emphasised by Paul in a way that does not occur before. The semantics both of ἀγάπη as well as πίστις/πιστεύειν in the Pauline texts derive from LXX language. However, Paul adapts these terms in new contexts which lend them not only new meanings but also great importance. Despite the fact that the bibliography on the notions of faith and love in Paul is extensive we do not have any special study concerning the function of love in the process of human “coming to faith”. However, the interpretation of the relationship between faith and love plays a crucial role in the ecumenical dialogue. Mostly, love is understood as a consequence of faith in Paul. This study intends to read the Pauline texts not only towards this direction but also to change the order, i.e. to show if and how turning to faith, i.e. conversion can be a consequence of the love ethics in Paul. Therefore, I am seeking to conduct an analysis both of the theological relationship between “coming to faith” and love in Paul as well as of their correlation in the real contexts of mission and conversion in early Christianity. But firstly I will consider the relevant scholarship from the perspective of the ethics of love.

A Research Survey Up until the 1980’s one can find an exhaustive bibliography of research on the topic of love in Paul in Spicq’s lemma ἀγάπη in his Theological Lexicon of the New Testament and his earlier work on love. From the works prior to Spicq it is necessary to refer to Lütgert’s monography on love in the NT, which chronologically and theologically followed his teacher’s, Schlatter’s, well known

                                                             1 Cf. Oda Wischmeyer, “Vorkommen und Bedeutung von Agape in der außerchristlichen Antike”, ZNW 69 (1978): 228.

350

Athanasios Despotis

work on faith.2 Lütgert represents the Lutheran understanding of Paul. Therefore, he emphasises the unique character of the Pauline and, more generally, Christian understanding of love which went beyond the “nomism” and the “casuistics” of the Jewish synagogue.3 Accordingly, both love and faith are the opposite of human “works”. Faith is not an active state but rather “receptivity”. Moreover, from faith results love and love is not a “work” per se4, but rather the will5, i.e. the organ through which faith can be active.6 After the Second World War extensive works on the notion of love were published by RomanCatholic theologians.7 The most renowned of these, Ceslas Spicq, assumes in his monumental study Agape in the New Testament (Agapè dans le Nouveau Testament, I–II, 1958–59) that love constitutes the very essence of the believer’s life in Paul. In his view Paul received the notion of ἀγάπη from the oral catechesis of the “primitive community, which was linked to the Lord’s teaching.”8 Furthermore, the Pauline ἀγάπη is “Christ’s love in us”9 and this notion “is found only within Christianity”10. So ἀγάπη was a revelation of the Lord which the Pauline neophytes were made to understand from the moment of their conversion11 and was “infused”12 in them by the Spirit.13 Similarly, Furnish emphasises the relationship between the Pauline ethics of love, the theology of the cross and the transforming work of the Spirit in the early 70’s.14 Moreover, it is Oda Wischmeyer who in the 70’s and 80’s offers new insights into the Pauline notion of love (especially in 1 Cor 13) as well as the semantics of the lexeme ἀγαπ* in the NT and its environment. On behalf of a very extensive analysis of linguistics and tradition-history Wischmeyer concludes that one finds a radical innovation15 in Paul which differentiates his ethics from the

                                                            

Der Glaube im Neuen Testament, 1885. Wilhelm Lütgert, Die Liebe im Neuen Testament: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Urchristentums (Giessen: Brunnen-Verlag, 1905), 171, 210. 4 Ibid., 215. 5 Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word (New York: Scribner, 1958), 117. 6 Lütgert, Liebe, 214. 7 Cf. The work of Viktor Warnach, Agape: Die Liebe als Grundmotiv der neutestamentlichen Theologie (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1951). 8 Ceslaus Spicq, Agape in the New Testament, (St Louis: Herder, 1966), 3:91; 338. 9 Ibid., 314. 10 Ibid., 340. 11 Ibid., 18. 12 Ibid., 29, 95. 13 Ibid., 40, 195. According to Spicq the origin of the ἀγάπη in the Spirit is what makes it specifically Christian. Ibid., 209. 14 Victor P. Furnish, The Love Command in the New Testament, NTL (London: SCM Press, 1973), 92. 15 Oda Wischmeyer, “Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der paulinischen Aussagen über die Liebe (ἀγάπη)”, ZNW 74 (1983):236. 2 3

 

Beyond Theological Arguments  

351 

Jewish ones. Furthermore, two major contributions of Thomas Söding16 show how Paul undertook the concept ἀγάπη from the Hellenistic Jewish milieu and improved it through his Christocentric approach to a “proprium” of his ethics. In Paul love is always the expression of faith in Christ.17 The emergence of the “New Perspective(s) on Paul” in the 80’s with its (their) emphasis on covenantal nomism, participation in Christ and ecclesiology as well as the understanding of πίστις Χριστοῦ as faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah lead to new approaches concerning the love ethics of Paul. James Dunn stresses that the reception of the OT command of love (Lev 19:18, 34; cf. Deut 10:19) by Paul proves the continuing importance of the Torah for the Christ believers, who could fulfil the law by loving the neighbor.18 Therefore, Paul’s notion of love was not a “wholly new and unheard of ethos and ethic”19. The Pauline emphasis on love was his answer to the ethnocentric misunderstanding of the law. Hence love ethics mainly have an ecclesial function: Love is the only way to turn the charismatic body of Christ into function.20 Additionally, N. T. Wright finds that “Love, for Paul, is something you do”21 and links the Pauline notion of love with Messiah’s faithfulness (πίστις Χριστοῦ) to Israel’s God, i.e. his loving self-giving for human beings. The manner in which the Messiah fulfilled his task is the “fulfilling of the law” which forms the heart of the Pauline ethics of love.22 Some scholars even admit a more radical Perspective on Paul and emphasise the affinities of Jesus and Paul to streams in Judaism that had a “liberal charity concept”.23 Another group of exegetes enlighten the Greco-Roman background of the Pauline ethic of love. Some find the Pauline association between love and faith

                                                            

16 Thomas Söding, Die Trias Glaube, Hoffnung, Liebe bei Paulus: Eine exegetische Studie, SBS 150 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1992); Thomas Söding, Das Liebesgebot bei Paulus: Die Mahnung zur Agape im Rahmen der paulinischen Ethik, NTAbh 26 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1995). 17 Ibid., 284–285. 18 James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 656. 19 Ibid., 661. 20 Ibid., 660. 21 N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, COQG 4 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2013), 429. 22 Ibid., 431; 853–860. 23 Serge Ruzer, “From ‘Love Your Neighbour’ to ‘Love Your Enemy’: Trajectories in Early Jewish Exegesis”, RB 109 (2002): 371–389. See also about “inclusivist” trends in Judaism: Pieter Venter, “Inclusivism and Exclusivism: a Study of Two Trends in the Old Testament”, in Insiders Versus Outsiders: Exploring the Dynamic Relationship between Mission and Ethos in the New Testament, ed. Jacobus Kok and Anthony Dunne, PPRT 14; (Piscataway: Gorgias, 2014), 15–48.

352

Athanasios Despotis

common for Greek and Roman ears.24 Engberg-Pedersen and Thorsteinsson argue that Paul refers love only to the in-group, i.e. the community.25 Similarly, Thorsteinsson26 tried to correct a misunderstanding based on the idea that Paul represents a universalistic approach27 while the Stoics were an exclusive circle. Contrarily, he believes that Pauline ethics of love are more ‘particular’ in comparison to the Stoic impartial understanding of love for all humans.28 However, an increasing number of scholars29 pay more attention on the opposite direction, i.e. the missionary hermeneutics of Paul. Michael Gorman with his works Cruciformity (2001) and the most recent Becoming the Gospel: Paul, Participation, and Mission (2015) stresses the missional and integrative character of the Pauline ethics of love.30 Lastly, the German school shows a new interest in the Pauline and more generally NT ethics of love. Three brand new projects of renowned Protestant and Roman Catholic exegetes are indicative of this trend. In a collaborative book project on love31 Gerd Theißen32 argues on behalf of a careful traditionhistoric analysis that the triad “faith, love, hope” (1 Thess 1:3; 5:8) probably belongs to a very early Christian tradition which inspired Paul and was consciously transformed by him in a new formula “faith, hope and love” (1 Cor 13:7, 13). In Theißen’s view, Paul transformed the traditional material, put the emphasis on ἀγάπη and made it the basis of his theological and ethical reflec-

                                                            

Ceslas Spicq, “ἀγάπη”, TLNT 1:16; cf. Michael Wolter, “Die Liebe”, in Paulus Handbuch, ed. Friedrich W. Horn (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 450. 25 Troels Engberg-Pedersen, “Paul’s Stoicizing Politics in Romans 12–13: The Role of 13.1–10 in the Argument”, JSNT 29 (2006): 166. 26 Runar M. Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity and Roman Stoicism: A Comparative Study of Ancient Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 190–198. Cf. Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000), 290. See criticism against the views of Thorsteinsson and Engberg-Pedersen in Moyer V. Hubbard, “Enemy Love in Paul: Probing the Engberg-Pedersen and Thorsteinsson Thesis”, Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 6 (2016): 115–135. 27 Cf. Victor P. Furnish, The Love Command in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1973), 98; Yitzhak Benyaminy, Narcissist Universalism: A Psychoanalytic Reading of Paul’s Epistles, LNTS 453 (Edinburgh; London, New York: T & T Clark, 2012), 33. 28 Runar M. Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity and Roman Stoicism: A Comparative Study of Ancient Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 190–198. 29 See representatively Jacobus Kok et al., eds., Sensitivity Towards Outsiders: Exploring the Dynamic Relationship between Mission and Ethics in the New Testament and Early Christianity, WUNT II 364 (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2014). 30 Michael J. Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001); idem, Becoming the Gospel: Paul, Participation, and Mission (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015). 31 Martin Ebner, ed., Liebe, JBTh 29 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2015). 32 Gerd Theißen, “Glaube, Hoffnung, Liebe: Eine Formel, die zu denken gibt”, in Liebe, ed. Martin Ebner, JBTh 29 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2015). 24

 

Beyond Theological Arguments  

353 

tions in the letter to the Romans. It is surprising how the modern German interpretation of Paul and especially his ethics of love has been developed in the last years (cf. the contrast to Lütgert’s understanding as mentioned above). Similarly, Oda Wischmeyer’s new interdisciplinary study33 Liebe als ἀγάπη offers critical insights about affinities and differences between the early Christian ἀγάπη concept and other notions of love in the environment of the NT. She also gets engaged with the current philosophical discussion on love. For our study is important that Wischmeyer understands love in Paul as a kind of a meta-virtue beyond Greco-Roman ethics. However, she does not detect any connection between coming to faith and ethics of love. It is rather a view in Thomas Söding’s new contribution that the ethics of ἀγάπη in Paul can be attractive for outsiders.34 Yet, Söding delivers only some theological considerations, he does not further investigate the relationship between coming to faith and ἀγάπη in Paul. Therefore, this study intends to offer some new insights concerning the function of love in the process of coming to faith in Paul. Yet, I have firstly to describe the meaning of πίστις in Paul.

Faith and the “Coming to Faith” in Paul Πίστις and πιστεύω εἰς/ἐπί mainly refer to the faith which results from the acceptance of the gospel (1 Cor 15:2). Πίστις refers to the faith that God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead (Rom 10:4) and also indicates the adhering to this faith. From the perspective of this πίστις Jesus is understood as the Son of God, who was sent by God, was “given up” for human sins as well as the Messiah who is going to return in His parousia. But in Paul’s view πίστις also functions as an ethos which corresponds to the believer’s sharing in Christ’s death and the power of his resurrection (Phil 3:10–11).35 This faith is neither an abstract ideal nor an individual matter in Paul. It involves collective and individual, cognitive, psychological and moral elements. Πίστις also is closely associated

                                                            

33 Oda Wischmeyer, Liebe als Agape: Das frühchristliche Konzept und der moderne Diskurs (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015). 34 Thomas Söding, Nächstenliebe: Gottes Gebot als Verheißung und Anspruch (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2015). 35 Furnish, The Love, 92. See more about the participatory understanding of believing in Paul in Douglas Campbell, “Participation and Faith in Paul”, in "In Christ" in Paul: Explorations in Paul’s Theology of Union and Participation, ed. Michael J. Thate, Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Constantine R. Campbell, WUNT II 384 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 58. Obviously, I do not accept the interpretation of πίστις Χριστοῦ as faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah because πιστεύειν never has Jesus Christ as its subject. See also Moisés Silva, “πιστεύω, πίστις, κτλ”, NIDNTE 3:768. Yet, in some occasions the lexeme πιστ* (e.g. Rom 3:3; 1 Cor 1:9; 7:25; 1 Thess 5:24) refers (almost exclusively) to faithfulness.

354

Athanasios Despotis

with a community (Gal 1:23; 6:1036) and has a dynamic character, in a sense that it is vital (Gal 5:6), grows in the human being [(2 Cor 8:7, 10:15, though it also can remain uncompleted (1 Thess 3:10)] and humans can gradually recognise more insights of faith (Phlm 9). Paul does not systematically analyze how one “comes to faith”. Initial faith presupposes evangelisation37 (Rom 10:14, 17) and is understood as the reception of the “word of God” (1 Thess 2:13) or human obedience38 deriving from the entire human person, i.e. from the καρδία (Rom 6:17) because πιστεύειν is an action in and through the καρδία, i.e. the human person as a whole (Rom 10:9–10).39 Given that πίστις linked the members of the Christian communities one should understand the “coming to faith” not only as a spontaneous acceptance of a new meaning system centring on what is perceived by the individual as “sacred” but rather a volitional socialisation process in a faith community. Therefore, baptism and the following experience of the Spirit in the community constituted the climax of the “coming to faith” process.40 Lastly, because πίστις and πιστεύειν refer to the entire human person and their semantics also relate to the notions of faithfulness or trust41, Paul relates πίστις to hope (Rom 15:13, Gal 5:5). Paul also links πίστις to ἀγάπη, builds the triad πίστις ἐλπίς, ἀγάπη (1 Cor 13:7, 13; cf. 1 Thess 1:3; 5:8) and shows a special preference for the direct connection between πίστις and ἀγάπη.42 Before investigating the reason for Paul doing that I will describe the semantic field of the notion of ἀγάπη in Paul.

                                                            

36 See in detail: Teresa Morgan, Roman Faith and Christian Faith (Corby: Oxford University Press, 2015), 266–267. 37 Here, it is meant an evangelisation not only “in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with fullness of assurance” (1 Thess 1:5). 38 Contrarily, unbelief is understood as disobedience (Rom 10:16). On the one side, from the perspective of God’s universal divine plan for the deliverance of the entire creation, disobedience can be theologically interpreted as “hardening” or “blindness” (Rom 11:7, 25; 2 Cor 3:14). On the other side, faith or unfaith can be understood as contingent states (Rom 11:22–23). 39 Similarly, the non-turning to faith or non-repenting can be related to the moral intention of the καρδία (Rom 2:5). 40 Paul always presupposes that the believers are baptised (Gal 3:25–26). Wayne McCready, “Ekklesia and Voluntary Associations”, in Voluntary Associations in the GrecoRoman World, ed. John S. Kloppenborg and Stephen G. Wilson (London: Routledge, 2012), 65. 41 See Fn 35. Further on it: Thomas Schumacher, Zur Entstehung christlicher Sprache: Eine Untersuchung der paulinischen Idiomatik und der Verwendung des Begriffes πίστις, BBB 168 [Göttingen, (Bonn): V & R unipress; Bonn University Press, 2012], 215–219; Morgan, Roman Faith 143; 214–224. 42 In the undisputed Pauline Epistles: 1 Cor 13:2, 7, 13; 2 Cor 8:7; Gal 5:6, 22; 1 Thess 1:3; 3:6; 5:8; Phlm 1:5. In the Pauline school: Eph 1:15; 3:17; 6:23; Col 1:4; 2 Thess 1:3; 1 Tim 1:5, 14; 2:15; 4:12; 6:11; 2 Tim 1:13; 2:22; 3:10; Titus 2:2.

 

Beyond Theological Arguments  

355 

The Semantics of Love in Paul The main signifier of love in Paul is the lexeme ἀγαπ* (ἀγάπη, ἀγαπάω, ἀγαπητός).43 The notion of love with its emotional, moral and religious nuances in the LXX language44 can refer both to the vertical relationship of human beings with God as well as the horizontal social relationships between the members of the community. In the Hebrew Bible the lexeme ἀγαπ* also has a special reference to the relationship between YHWH and Israel because God elected and gave the promises to his people on behalf of his love (cf. Is 41:8).45 Therefore the Jewish people were the “beloved”. Against this Jewish-Hellenistic background Paul stresses ἀγάπη as a central theological category. Firstly, the God of Israel is understood as the “the God of love” (2 Cor 13:11) and his love is perceived as the deriving point of the divine plan for the salvation of the entire creation, the self-giving of Jesus Christ on the cross and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5–8; 8:39). God’s love relates to His grace which calls humans to faith. Therefore, the “called”, Jews and gentile Christbelievers, are also the “beloved” by God (Rom 1:7; cf. Rom 9:12–13; 11:28). Secondly, ἀγάπη can refer to human love towards God. Salvation is prepared for those who “love God” (1 Cor 2:9), are “known” (1 Cor 8:3) and encouraged by Him to conquer all difficulties (Rom 8:37). Thirdly, the Pauline ἀγάπη mostly refers to the love for the brothers in the community46 and rarely to outsiders (Rom 12:9; 1 Thess 3:12; cf. Gal 5:22– 6:10). Moreover, it is not only the ἀγαπ* lexeme which refers to love ethics. In one instance Paul also uses the verb φιλέω regarding the human love to the Lord as well as φιλαδελφία (Rom 12:10; 1 Thess 4:9 as synonym of ἀγαπᾶν) or φιλόστοργος (Rom 12:10) to denote love for the brothers in the community. As symbols or expressions of love could be mentioned φιλοξενία (Rom 12:13), φίλημα (Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess 5:26) and κοινωνία as close and embodied relationship between the believer, God and the brothers (as participation or close relationship in 1 Cor 1:9; 10:16; 2 Cor 6:14; 13:13;

                                                             43 One finds 18 verbal forms (incl. participles and infinitives) in Paul. The greatest frequency appears in Rom 8–13. Similarly, the noun ἀγάπη is being used 14 times in First Corinthians and 10 times in Romans. In the other epistles it is being lesser used (total 23 times). Paul uses the adjective ἀγαπητὸς 19 times and the more often in Romans (in the disputed Rom 16). 44 See also Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003), 3. 45 Cf. Hos 11:1; Isa 44:2. 46 Rom 12:9; 13:10; 14:15; 15:30; 1 Cor 4:21; 8:1; 13:1–13; 14:1; 16:14, 24; 2 Cor 2:4, 8; 2 Cor 6:6; 8:7, 24; Gal 5:6, 13, 22; Phil 1:9, 16; 2:1–2; 1 Thess 1:3; 3:6, 12; 5:8, 13; Phlm 5, 7, 9. The believers also have a special relationship to Paul, i.e. they are beloved by the apostle 1 Cor 15:58; Phil 4:1; 1 Thess 2:8.

356

Athanasios Despotis

Gal 2:9; Phil 1:5; 2:1, collection for the poor in 2 Cor 8:4; 9:13; Rom 15:26 and sharing in 1 Cor 10:16; Phil 3:10; Phlm 6). Lastly, the Lord’s Supper was a great manifestation of this κοινωνία which united and designated the community as the Passover people47 and made the believers partakers of the blood and the body of Christ (1 Cor 10:16). Concerning the antonyms of love one should firstly mention the verb μισέω, -ῶ (hate) which appears in two difficult passages Rom 7:15, 9:13. The former indicates that love and hate also can have the connotation of willingness or unwillingness from a semiotic perspective. Love and hate are not only emotional situations or abstract feelings but also involve recognition and judgment of value.48 The latter text is a citation of Mal 1:2–3 where μισέω has God as subject and is located as opposite to ἀγαπάω in a context concerning divine agency and call. Those who are not called or beloved are “enemies” of God. Furthermore, the Greek word ἔχθος (hatred) is the root of the adjective ἐχθρός, which is being used as substantive with the sense of “enemy”.49 In Paul it is used as the opposite of ἀγαπητοί (Rom 11:28), while the same word connotes the pre-conversional status of the believers (who after their “coming to faith” were reconciled with God, Rom 5:10),50 the status of those who decline the gospel (Rom 11:28) or hate Paul (Gal 4:16). Lastly, in the usage of ἐχθρὸς in Rom 12:20 is echoed the command of the love for the “enemies” (cf. 12:18). Subsequently, from a semantic point of view πιστ* and ἀγαπ* stems have a broad semantic matrix in Paul, and can refer to states of human person as a whole. Πίστις mainly refers to a permanent and dynamic obedience to the proclamation of the gospel. Ἀγάπη mentions the ongoing positive relationship between God and human beings or between the believers who should adopt a “family-like” behavior as “brothers and sisters” in a moral and practical sense. Moreover, ἀγάπη is not always a mutual love in terms of familial reciprocity51 but it can also refer to universal love and charity towards all human beings and enemies.

47 Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 429; Rodrigo Morales, “A Liturgical Conversion of the Imagination: Worship and Ethics in 1 Corinthians”, Letter & Spirit 5 (2009) 115, 126. 48 Cf. Spicq, “ἀγάπη”, TLNT 1:11. 49 In its LXX usage it refers both to God’s and Israel’s enemies (Exod 23:22). Similarly, the enemies of the righteous are the ungodly (Pss 55:3; 37:20LXX). 50 Cf. 1 Cor 15:25–26 as reference to God’s enemy, i.e. death. In Phil 3:18 are mentioned the enmities of the cross who “walk”, live, not like the model (τύπος) of Paul. 51 Walter F. Taylor, Paul, Apostle to the Nations: An Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2012), 96.

 

Beyond Theological Arguments  

357 

Πίστις καὶ ἀγάπη Let us turn now to the relationship between love and coming to faith in Paul. Paul is the first author who explicitly links the notions πίστις and ἀγάπη (1 Thess 3:6; Phlm 5) and stresses their deep theological connection: πίστις δι᾿ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη (Gal 5:6). As already mentioned the apostle also builds the triad πίστις, ἐλπίς, ἀγάπη. Πίστις in these contexts refers to faith in Christ which united community as a kind of “voluntary association”.52 However, ἀγάπη is not an addition to πίστις but rather the manner in which faith will express53 itself. Ἀγάπη is an expression of faith in Jesus und imitation of his cruciform and self-giving pattern of life (cf. Phil 2:2–11)54 for it is understood as the embodiment of Jesus’ kenotic “lifestyle” (Rom 15:7; 2 Cor 8:9; cf. more explicitly in the Pauline school Eph 5:25). That does not mean that love is a unique Christian virtue for Paul. The apostle knew very well that ethics of love could be an ideal also for the pagan world. When he uses the term φιλαφελφία instead of ἀγάπη he alludes to relevant discussions in the pagan world.55 What is new is the interpretation of love in an Christological context. According to 2 Cor 5:14 the acceptance of the sacrificial character of Jesus’ death causes the believer’s “possession” by God’s love. Since God delivered His Son up for all human beings because of His love according to Rom 8:32, 39.56

The Counterintuitive Background This interpretation of Jesus’ sacrifice as an action of love was only partially reasonable both for Jewish as well as Greek and Roman audience. The atoning death of YHWH’s servant for His people in Isaiah and several models of death for (or on behalf of) beloved persons or the motherland in the Greco-Roman

                                                             52 For a brief comparison between “voluntary associations” of the ancient Mediterranean world and Paul’s churches see, Taylor, Paul, 98. See also Wayne McCready, “Ekklesia”, 59–73. 53  Love displays what one has “learned” through faith. Cf. the combination between intellectual and practical aspects (contemplation and action) of the philosopher’s life in Seneca, De Otio 5.8.   54 For this reason, the ethic of love is also associated with the notions of hope and patience (cf. 1 Cor 13:7; 2 Cor 6:4–7). Here we detect the background of the Jewish association between faith(fullness), suffering and patience. Cf. Jub 17:18; 2 En. 66:7. See further, Wischmeyer, “Traditionsgeschichtliche”, 229. 55 Stefan Schreiber, Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher, ÖTK 13/1 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2014), 66–67. 56 Similarly, Jesus is understood as the one who was “given” (Rom 4:25) or gave himself motivated by love (Gal 1:4; 2:20).

358

Athanasios Despotis

antiquity57 synthesised a kind of background of the early Christian understanding of Jesus’ crucifixion as an outstanding demonstration of love.58 However, the Pauline understanding of Jesus’ death goes beyond these images since Christ died not only for (or on behalf of) his kin people, but for “all” (2 Cor 5:14), “for the sinner/enemies” (Rom 5:6–10) and the “weak” (1 Cor 8:11 and Rom 14:15). The formulation ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός59 με καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ (Gal 2:20) suggests the notion that Christ not only gave himself voluntarily but also that Christ exchanged his status with the “enemies’” status in order to save them. This reciprocal status reversal concept is explicitly described in 2 Cor 5:20–2160: Tὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ. Paul demonstrates that Christ’s death was not only a suffering for God’s beloved people but a kind of becoming one with God’s “enemies” in order to save them. Also, for the Hellenistic audience Christ’s death was acceptable as a demonstration of love or “apotropaic death” though Paul goes beyond these standards. He interprets Christ’s death as an expression of renunciation of his own divine status in favour of his “opponents”, i.e. an exchange of statuses between the Son of God and the unrighteous. Similarly, Christ’s death was counterintuitive not only for Greek and Roman ears but also for the Jews, firstly, because it was understood as an atoning death not of the servant for his people but of the pre-existing Son of God, and, secondly, because of its universalistic character for Jews and Gentiles. From this point of view Paul’s love ethics were deeply related to Paul’s counterintuitive Christology.61 Consequently, ἀγάπη could function as a “virtue”62 but it simultaneously could be a “counter-cultural” reality for both Jewish and Greco-Roman standards. Cf. Wolter, “Liebe”, in Horn, Paulus, 451. Cf. e.g. Aristotle (Eth. nic. 1169a) classifies the ὑπεραποθνήσκειν for the friends or the home country into the behavior of the above-average virtuous men (περὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν σπουδαῖος). 59 One detects in Gal 2:20 a very intimate tone which goes beyond the limits of a cognitive faith. Some Greek Fathers speak about the eros of Paul for Christ on behalf of this verse (Dionysius Areopagita, De Divinis Nominibus, 13, PTS 33, 15820–15914). Similarly, the ancient moralist Plutarch informs us that the soul of the lover dwells in the soul of the beloved in erotic relationships (Amat. 759c): «τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ ἐρῶντος ἐνδιαιτᾶσθαι τῇ τοῦ ἐρωμένου». 60 Christina Eschner, Gestorben und hingegeben "für" die Sünder: Die griechische Konzeption des Unheil abwendenden Sterbens und deren paulinische Aufnahme für die Deutung des Todes Jesu Christi, 2 vols., WMANT 122 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2010), 1:201; 2:313–317. 61 Gerd Theißen, “Kontraintuitive Bilder. Eine kognitive Analyse der urchristlichen Christologie”, ET 71 (2011): 315–320. 62 Paul might borrow material and rhetoric from the Jewish or the Hellenistic moral discourses, i.e. here the canon of the two “two virtues” [Wolter, “Liebe”, in Horn, Paulus, 449; 57 58

 

Beyond Theological Arguments  

359 

The Ecclesial Function of Love Despite the special meaning that Paul gives to love he does not hesitate to put ἀγάπη among other virtues in the relevant Hellenistic catalogues. Paul adopts common material in order to adapt it to the context of his theology and ethics. Though “virtue catalogues” were common in the Hellenistic era, they did not contain ἀγάπη but rather φιλανθρωπία. Paul exchanges φιλανθρωπία with ἀγάπη and classifies it in Gal 5:22 as the first (logically most important) fruit given by the Spirit.63 The apostle consciously lends ἀγάπη such a central position. Love was the sine qua non condition for the socialisation of the converts in the family of the Christ-community. It was the prerequisite for the establishment and growing of family-like relationships in the communities. Further, ἀγάπη was the only way to keep united an ecclesia of Jews and Gentiles, freemen and slaves, men and women (Gal 3:28), strong and weak (Rom 14–15) as a family bound together not by common physical descent but by faith in Christ.64 Furthermore, the focus on the notion of love had not only social but also emotional and psychological importance. The convert could experience his turning to faith as a shift in his relationship to a loving and protecting God, in a sense of a rebirth into a new family, where he/she has a new self, enjoys love as well as the promise not of an eudemonia65 but rather of sanctification and eternal life (Rom 6:20–22). From this point of view, one finds it plausible how Paul describes turning to faith both as an election of a loving God as well as a promise for deliverance (1 Thess 1:4, 9b–10). However, the psychological mechanisms of the people of antiquity cannot be reconstructed with certainty. One can only be sure, that the attachment of the convert to the community became stronger through the ethics of love because love was the way to break down excluding boundaries or “normal” rules

                                                            

Friedrich W. Horn, “Paulus und die Kardinaltugenden”, in Paulus – Werk und Wirkung: Festschrift für Andreas Lindemann zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Paul-Gerhard Klumbies (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 351–369. Despite that, the theological background and the pragmatic function of these notions proves that the apostle went beyond the standards of the moralists of the Hellenistic era. See Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 253. 63 The background of the association between ἀγάπη and πνεῦμα is pure Jewish. S. Wischmeyer, “Traditionsgeschichtliche”, 232. 64 Taylor, Paul, 128. 65 Horn, “Kardinaltugenden” in Klumbies, Paulus, 364.

360

Athanasios Despotis

of hierarchy which characterised contemporary Jewish or Greco-Roman institutions66 for ἀγάπη allowed to keep table-fellowship only on behalf of faith in Christ. Simultaneously, the love command established a certain continuity between the ethics of the ecclesia and the Jewish law as interpreted and practiced by Jesus.67 Since, according to Paul, the law is fulfilled through love (Rom 13:8– 9 and Gal 5:14) without the obligation to belong to the Jewish nation.

The Eschatological Character of Love and Its Reciprocal Relationship to Faith This application was a rather eschatological understanding of the law, a redefinition of the Torah according to the life and teaching of Jesus68 as well as in light of His approaching parousia. As a result, love is also shaped by the eschatology of YHWH’s return.69 The ecclesia constituted the place where God again made his presence perceptible through the indwelling of the Spirit. Converts are not educated by any teacher or pedagogue like the Mosaic law, but from God and empowered by his Spirit to love. They are beloved70 but simultaneously educated by God to love, in Greek θεοδίδακτοι, according to the expectation of Deutero-Isaiah and Jeremiah for a time when YHWH himself would teach his people to keep Torah from the heart.71 Therefore, God’s Spirit, not any social and cultural conventions, guarantees the unity and holiness of the believers and proves that they belong to the “new creation” (cf. the parallel formulations Gal 5:6 and 6:15). The “new creation” concept presupposes that the Pauline converts undergo an ontological transformation, they get released from the slavery to sin and now they are free in Christ to follow the commandment of love.

                                                             66 Love establishes trans-ethnic relationships, familial reciprocity (Gal 5:13), builds up the ecclesia (1 Cor 8:1) and undoes the competition for honor in the community (Rom 12:9– 10). 67 Cf. James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Christianity in the Making 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 605. I mean an interpretation of the law through an appeal to love as its central meaning which made the openness of Jesus’ table-fellowship possible. Similarly, the repentance Jesus looked for, expressed itself in “acts of loving concern (Mark 10:21) and restitution for wrong-doing (Luke 19:8)” [Dunn, Jesus, 607]. 68 Cf. Richard A. Burridge, Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Αpproach to New Testament Εthics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2007), 115. 69 Wright, Paul, 716. 70 1 Thess 1:4. 71 Isa 54:13; Jer M 31:31–34 (LXX 38:31–34); Cf. Schreiber, Der erste Brief, 229; Horn, “Kardinaltugenden”, in Klumbies, Paulus, 366.

 

Beyond Theological Arguments  

361 

Now, in this eschatological context love combined with faith helps understanding all “kinds of good” which are truths of faith (Phlm 5–6): ἀκούων σου τὴν ἀγάπην καὶ τὴν πίστιν, ἣν ἔχεις πρὸς τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους, ὅπως ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστεώς σου ἐνεργὴς γένηται ἐν ἐπιγνώσει παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν εἰς Χριστόν. [: Because I hear of your love and the faith which you have in the Lord Jesus and for all saints, so that your participation in faith becomes effective in the recognition of every good thing which is in us in relation to Christ.]

In this text we detect that love is not only an expression of faith but it simultaneously (cf. Phil 1:9–10) leads to a recognition (ἐπίγνωσις) of all insights of faith. Faith and love stand in a reciprocal relationship and have an eschatological orientation. Love is not only a consequence but also an essential presupposition for a constant and perfect faith in this era and the eschaton. That is what Paul emphasises in 1 Cor 13:7: πάντα πιστεύει. Namely, the one who has the ἀγάπη as described in 1 Cor 13 believes in every manner and every truth of the gospel of Christ. It is not reasonable to argue that the notion of πιστεύειν does not refer to faith in Christ because Paul in the climax of his argument (13:13) explicitly notes that ἀγάπη eschatologically is “greater” than πίστις.72 From this perspective, love is “greater” because it is a kind of metavirtue which characterises both the divine and human world73. All good things in the current as well as in the eternal life derive from a relationship of love between God and the community of believers.74 Therefore, love is a requirement for a deep faith in all aspects of the gospel.

Beyond Theological Arguments: A Love also Looking Outward Besides these aspects, if one considers the paragraphs concerning ethics of ἀγάπη in 1 Thess 5:13–22, Gal 5:22–6:10 and especially Rom 12:9–21, it becomes evident that love does not refer only to the relationships between the members of the community but also to the attitude towards all people,75 i.e. unbelievers. In 1 Thess 3:12 Paul refers to the love which the converts should have not only for insiders but rather for all people. Paul prays so that the Thessalonians converts increase and abound in love for one another, and for all men, just as

                                                            

72 See Richard Oster, 1 Corinthians, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1995), 306. 73 Cf. Wischmeyer, Liebe, 144–147; 156. 74 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 32 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 503. 75 Gal 6:10; 1 Thess 3:12; Rom 12:14, 17, 19; 1 Tim 2:1; 1 Pet 2:17.

362

Athanasios Despotis

he, the missionary Paul, loves them.76 The community in Thessaloniki should meet the outsiders in the same manner as Paul met them: in Spirit and love (1:5–6). This love is a gift from Lord77 and has an active and practical sense as one detects in the relevant exhortation for doing the good to everyone (5:13b– 22). 3:12 ὑμᾶς δὲ ὁ κύριος πλεονάσαι καὶ περισσεύσαι τῇ ἀγάπῃ εἰς ἀλλήλους καὶ εἰς πάντας καθάπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς ὑμᾶς,

5:15 ὁρᾶτε μή τις κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ τινι ἀποδῷ, ἀλλὰ πάντοτε τὸ ἀγαθὸν διώκετε [καὶ] εἰς ἀλλήλους καὶ εἰς πάντας.

Paul has in mind that the community does not withdraw from the broader society but that it approaches outsiders (1 Thess 4:12).78 Therefore, the apostle asks them to show a “godly love” or a love for all according to John Chrysostom79: Ὁρᾷς ποῦ βούλεται τὴν ἀγάπην ἐκτείνεσθαι; οὐκ εἰς ἀλλήλους μόνον, ἀλλὰ πανταχοῦ. Τοῦτο γὰρ ὄντως ἀγάπης τῆς κατὰ Θεόν, τὸ πάντας περιπλέκεσθαι· ἂν δὲ τὸν δεῖνα μὲν ἀγαπᾷς, τὸν δεῖνα δὲ μηκέτι, κατὰ ἄνθρωπον ἡ φιλία. Ἀλλ’ οὐχ ἡ ἡμετέρα τοιαύτη. [: Do you see where he wants love to be extended, not only toward one another, but everywhere? For this truly belongs to the love according to God, to embrace all. However, if you love only this but not that, it is a human friendship. But our is not such.]

                                                             76 Here, one detects two different perspectives of love. The first is the reciprocal and the latter the imitating perspective. The community has to love Paul because and simultaneously as the apostle loved the community. See Jane M. Heath, “Absent Presences of Paul and Christ: Enargeia in 1 Thessalonians 1–3”, JSNT 32 (2009): 27. 77 One detects an unusual syntax of πλεονάζειν with persons as direct objects. Nevertheless, this verb always denotes a process of growing. See in detail Silva, NIDNT 3:778. 78 Cf. Phil 2:14–15a: ἵνα γένησθε ἄμεμπτοι καὶ ἀκέραιοι, τέκνα θεοῦ ἄμωμα μέσον γενεᾶς σκολιᾶς καὶ διεστραμμένης, ἐν οἷς φαίνεσθε ὡς φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ, λόγον ζωῆς ἐπέχοντες. The believers shall shine like the stars in the darkness of the unbelieving world both through their behavior and preaching. Paul expected from his converts not only to believe and preach but also to shine in the world. In the same chapter Paul also explains that the love of the believers shall imitate the love of the self-humiliated Son of God, (2:1–11) while he motivates the Philippians in Phil 4:5: Τὸ ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν γνωσθήτω πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις. Ὁ κύριος ἐγγύς. So the feeling of the imminent Parousia was no reason for Paul to neglect the ethics but, contrarily, to stress the need of love (even towards outsiders) more intensively. Furthermore, First Corinthians 7:10–16 testifies to the fact that Paul even exhorted believers to remain in conjugal love with unbelievers. The remaining in the conjugal relationship should be a volitional action of both parts which has as its goal not a superficial harmony but eschatological salvation. See Robert Plummer, “Imitation of Paul and the Church’s Missionary Role”, JETS 44 (2001): 233: “Paul mentions the possibility of an already desired outcome (i.e. the salvation of a non-believing spouse) to encourage the Christian towards peaceful and self-sacrificial behavior.” 79 Hom. 1 Thess. 4.3 (PG 62:420).

 

Beyond Theological Arguments  

363 

Consequently, the proper behavior is not only to avoid having negative effects towards nonbelievers80 but rather to seek what is good for them, i.e. to love all human beings and, thus, to imitate the missionary profile of Paul. That ἀγάπη ἀνυπόκριτος (love without hypocrisy) belonged to the main characteristics of Paul’s mission is clear in the catalogue of 2 Cor 6:3–10 (cf. 1 Cor 9:19–23 and 10:31–11:1)81. Genuine love characterised the way Paul met all human beings as potential converts. Both his genuine love as well as his inspired preaching of the truth which Paul uses in his mission are fruits of the same Spirit and assimilation to Jesus’ life pattern.82 After these considerations, we can now turn to Rom 12 where Paul exhorts his Roman audience to experience an ongoing transformation through a renewal of their minds (12:2). The deriving point of this exhortation is God’s mercy (i.e. οἰκτιρμοὶ extended towards all human beings cf. 11:31) and the incorporation of all believers in the one “body of Christ” (12:5). From this perspective, the transformation83 of the converts is a conformity to Christ84. Therefore, the paraenesis concerning ἀγάπη ἀνυπόκριτος which follows has the self-giving love of Jesus for the “sinners/enemies” (5:6–8) as its background. Christ’s pattern of obedience, self-humiliation and cruciform love as described not only in Romans but in all Pauline epistles have a missional dynamic and can lead outsiders to faith.85 This love has a practical sense. The believer should not only bless the persecutors (12:14)86, adopt the customs and mood of the others (12:15)87 but also “provide good things insight of all people” (12:17) which in the light of 13:8– 10 means to love them. In this way he/she overcomes evil, i.e. makes the hostile

                                                             80 Cf Gal 6:10. A possible objection could be that Paul refers through πάντας to all believers. E.g. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Interpr. 1 Thess (PG 82:644), understands πάντας here as reference to all believers around the world. However, Paul would refer especially to believers only if he had specified the adj. πάντας with a substantive like ἀδελφοὺς in 4:9 (πάντας τοὺς ἀδερφοὺς cf. 5:26 τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς πάντας; 5:27 πᾶσιν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς cf. 1 Cor 16:20; Gal 1:2) or ἁγίους (cf. 1 Thess 3:13; so in Rom 16:16 πάντας ἁγίους; Phil 1:5 πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους cf. 2 Cor 1:1; 13:12; Phil 1:1; 4:21–22). Similarly, πᾶσιν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν (1 Thess 1:7; cf. Rom 1:16; 3:22; 10:4, 11). 81 Cf. 1 Cor 4:21. 82 Paul as missionary also follows the paradigmatic pattern of Jesus’ life and teaching who motivated by love exchanged his status with the sinners/enemies of God. This reciprocal status reversal can be expressed in economic terms by Paul and refers to his missionary strategy in 2 Cor 6:10; 8:9. 83 This transformation is not a rejection of the law but it is based both on Jesus’ sacrifice and moral values of the law (Rom 13:8–9). 84 Cf. the way Paul gives reason for his paraenesis in 15:3: καὶ γὰρ ὁ Χριστός οὐχ᾿ ἑαυτῷ ἤρεσεν; 15:7 καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστός. 85 Gorman, Becoming, 116. 86 Ibid., 97: “Such Christ-like non-retaliation is a form of evangelism”. 87 Furnish, The Love, 106.

364

Athanasios Despotis

outsiders repent and believe in the gospel.88 In my view, we have the model of Christ’s love for His “enemies” at the background of this text, which is the only way for the believer to conquer evil (8:37; 12:9, 21). In other words, the ethic of love towards the enemies may lead them to change their mind and desire conversion. This is also the way in which God leads the “ungodly” to repentance (εἰς μετάνοιαν 2:4)89: Through His riches of kindness and forbearance and patience.90 Romans 2:4–5 delivers an idea which can be detected behind the difficult text Rom 12:20–21 (Paul quotes Prov 25:21–22aLXX ἀλλὰ ἐὰν πεινᾷ ὁ ἐχθρός σου, ψώμιζε αὐτόν· ἐὰν διψᾷ, πότιζε αὐτόν· τοῦτο γὰρ ποιῶν ἄνθρακας πυρὸς σωρεύσεις ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ and concludes: μὴ νικῶ ὑπὸ τοῦ κακοῦ ἀλλὰ νίκα ἐν τῷ ἀγαθῷ τὸ κακόν.). The apostle does not express his hatred towards outsiders or persecutors here, but he rather invites the believers to imitate God’s kindness which is a form of evangelism91 and leads to repentance.92 Yet, if a human heart is so stubborn that it does not repent it is going to experience wrath and destruction at the final judgment (Rom 2:5 and Phil 3:19).93

                                                            

Gorman, Becoming, 291; Söding, Nächstenliebe, 283. Ibid., 108. 90 Cf. Rom 11:32. The idea of God showing mercy towards all people can also be found in Wis 11:23; 15:1; Sir 18:13; Ps 146:8LXX; Matt 5:43; Luke 6:35–36. 91 Gorman, Becoming, 41. 92 This interpretation is based on the understanding of “coals of fire” in Rom 12:19 rather as an eschatological torment of the unbelievers who do not repent. Still, there also are other approaches which detect a desire for the punishment of the opponents in 12:20. Concerning the debate on Rom 12:14–21 see in detail: Gordon M. Zerbe, Citizenship: Paul on Peace and Politics (Winnipeg: CMU Press, 2012), 145–165. In my view, both v. 9 as well as the conclusion v. 21 of this text do not allow to interpret it as an expression of hatred against the opponents. Contrarily, v. 21 proves that the evil disposition of the enemies can be changed by works of charity. 93 John Piper, Love Your Enemies: Jesus’ Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and in the Early Christian Paraenesis: A History of he Tradition and Interpretation of Its Uses, SNTSMS 38 (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 118. The early Church fathers do not read this text unanimously. Patout Burns and Constantine Newman, Romans: Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators, The Church’s Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 310–313, deliver some quotations which show how diverse the early interpretations of Paul are. A. o. John Chrysostom dedicates an entire homily to Rom 12:20. In Chrysostom’s view, Paul refers to the coals of fire in order to motivate his addressees rather to get reconciled with their enemies than to seek their destruction. See Homily Πρὸς τοὺς μὴ ἀπαντήσαντας εἰς τὴν σύναξιν, καὶ εἰς τὴν ἀποστολικὴν ῥῆσιν τὴν λέγουσαν, ‘Ἐὰν πεινᾷ ὁ ἐχθρός σου ψώμιζε αὐτόν, καὶ περὶ τοῦ μνησικακεῖν (PG 51:171–186). Similarly, Chrysostom underlines in his Commentary on Romans that Paul does not provoke his addressees’ hate against their opponents but, contrarily, he intends to free them from such an intention by what he writes in Rom 12:21. One should also take note an alternative reading of Origen who interprets Rom 12:18–20 allegorically, as reference to the process of spiritual transformation which happens in human beings during their conversion. Here the coals of 88 89

 

Beyond Theological Arguments  

365 

Excursus: The Non-Biblical Evidence The idea that actions of love can lead hostile people to repentance has a broader basis of evidence. The Didache (1:3) testifies to the Early Christian reception of this idea and especially the linking between non-retaliation, charity and conversion of the “enemies”. The Epistle of Barnabas (11:8) also links πίστις, ἀγάπη and ἐπιστροφή (repentance/conversion). Furthermore, relevant evidence in the Greco-Roman environment of Paul shows that charity for the “enemies“ was classified either as “alternative“ ethics94 or as a kind of “high” moral and politics.95 One also finds passages in the Hellenistic-Jewish literature prior to Paul which contain a similar idea. Love is the imitation of God’s benevolence96 (imitatio Dei) which leads the ungodly to repentance.97 So in the Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates one finds the exhortation to practice righteousness towards all people in order to bring them to repentance (188): Οὕτως ἄν μάλιστα διευθύνοις, μιμούμενος τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ παντὸς ἐπιεικές. Mακροθυμίᾳ γὰρ χρώμενος, καὶ βλιμάζων τοὺς ἀξίους ἐπιεικέστερον, καθώς εἰσιν ἄξιοι, μετατιθεὶς ἐκ τῆς κακίας καὶ εἰς μετάνοιαν ἄξεις.98 [: You can set in the best order if you imitate the everlasting forbearance of God. For if you are patient and treat those who deserve more kindly than they deserve, you will turn them from evil and lead them to repentance.]

Similarly, the same author testifies to the idea that through benefactions one gives his enemies impulses to change.99 Consequently, it is good to try to become friend with all people because love is a gift from God and the way in

                                                             fire are the “true words” which transform the mind of the convert so that Christ becomes his head [Comm. Rom. 53, ed. Ramsbotham, "Documents: The Commentary of Origen on the epistle to the Romans", JTS 13 and 14 (1912): 22]. 94 Cf. the testimony of Epictetus about the not normal conduct of the Cynics: Diatr., 3.22.54–55: Καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο λίαν κομψὸν τῷ Κυνικῷ παραπέπλεκται· δέρεσθαι αὐτὸν δεῖ ὡς ὄνον καὶ δερόμενον φιλεῖν αὐτοὺς τοὺς δέροντας ὡς πατέρα πάντων, ὡς ἀδελφόν. 95 Cf in Gnomologium Vaticanum, 82, the alleged “gnome” of Alexander the Great: Ὁ αὐτὸς ἐρωτηθεὶς ποῖος βασιλεὺς δοκεῖ ἄριστος εἶναι ἔφη· ὁ τοὺς φίλους δωρεαῖς συνέχων, τοὺς δὲ ἐχθροὺς διὰ τῶν εὐεργεσιῶν φιλοποιούμενος. See also ibid., 370: Κλεόβουλος ἔφη τὸν μὲν φίλον δεῖν εὐεργετεῖν ἀεί, ἵνα μᾶλλον ᾖ φίλος, καὶ τὸν ἐχθρὸν ὁμοίως, ἵνα γένηται φίλος, καὶ φυλάσσεσθαι τῶν μὲν φίλων τὸν ψόγον, τῶν δὲ ἐχθρῶν τὴν ἐπιβουλήν; 508: Σόλων ἐπερωτῶν Κροῖσον τί παρὰ τῆς βασιλείας ἔσχε τιμιώτατον, ἐκείνου δὲ εἰπόντος· “τὸ τοὺς ἐχθροὺς μετελθεῖν καὶ φίλους εὐεργετεῖν” “πόσῳ μᾶλλον” ἔφη “χαριέστερον ἐποίησας, εἰ καὶ τούτους εἰς φιλίαν μετετρόπωσας;” 96 Let. Aris. 192; 207. 97 Philo, QG 2:13: Πρῶτον ἀναχώρησιν δίδωσιν ὁ ἵλεως εἰς μετάνοιαν ἁμαρτημάτων. 98 Cf. Let. Aris. 168. 99 Ibid., 227: Ἐγὼ δ᾽ ὑπολαμβάνω, πρὸς τοὺς ἀντιδοξοῦντας φιλοτιμίαν δεῖν χαριστικὴν ἔχειν, ἵνα τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ μετάγωμεν αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τὸ καθῆκον καὶ συμφέρον ἑαυτοῖς.

366

Athanasios Despotis

which human piety (εὐσέβεια) becomes active.100 This idea is very close to the Pauline conception of πίστις δι᾿ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη in Gal 5:6.101 Lastly, another text from the same milieu attests to the dynamic of goodness for the repentance of the prodigal people. In the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs the example of Joseph’s story of how he changed the mind of his brothers through his kindness plays a crucial role: (T. Benj, 4:2–3b, 5:1a–b) Ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος οὐκ ἔχει σκοτεινὸν ὀφθαλμόν· ἐλεᾷ γὰρ πάντας, κἂν ὦσιν ἁμαρτωλοί· κἂν βουλεύωνται περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς κακά, οὗτος ἀγαθοποιῶν νικᾷ τὸ κακόν, σκεπαζόμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ·… Ἐὰν ἔχητε ἀγαθὴν διάνοιαν, τέκνα, καὶ οἱ πονηροὶ ἄνθρωποι εἰρηνεύσουσιν ὑμῖν, καὶ οἱ ἄσωτοι αἰδεσθέντες ὑμᾶς ἐπιστρέψουσιν εἰς ἀγαθόν. [: The good man does not have a dark eye because he shows mercy to all even if they are sinners; even if they plan evil against him, he overcomes evil by doing good, being protected by the good; … If you have a good mind, my children, then both the wicked men will be reconciled with you, and the prodigal people will turn to good because they revere you.]102

Now, after this excursus we can reconsider the relationship between the coming to faith and the ethics of love in Paul. In the apostle’s view the status of all human beings and especially the outsiders remains contingent. In the real contexts of mission and conversion all human beings are considered as potential “believers” and “brothers” in Christ. Therefore, not only evangelisation but also ἀγάπη could attract outsiders and bring them to “repentance”. It is not only the word but also the love-ethics of the church which bear witness of the gospel. As Gorman puts it, from a Pauline perspective the good news of God’s reconciling love embodied in Jesus for the salvation of all are in turn embodied by the power of the Spirit in the ecclesia for the good of all.103 In this sense converts are not only benefiting from God’s love through their “coming to faith“ but also participate in God’s reconciling plan104 by bringing outsiders to faith through their inspired preaching and the ethics of love.

Conclusions In conclusion, one detects a deep connection between coming to faith and love in Paul not only on a superficial rhetorical level but also on a deep theological, ecclesiological and eschatological one. Coming to faith in Christ leads to an ontological renewal, as well as to a new notion of love which is the eschatological fruit of the Spirit. Theologically, ἀγάπη is founded on God’s love,

                                                             100 Ibid., 229: Τί καλλονῆς ἄξιόν ἐστιν; Ὁ δὲ εἶπεν· Εὐσέβεια. Καὶ γὰρ αὕτη καλλονή τίς ἐστι πρωτεύουσα. Τὸ δὲ δυνατὸν αὐτῆς ἐστιν ἀγάπη. 101 See also Wolter, “Liebe”, in Horn, Paulus, 450. 102 Cf. T. Gad 6:6. 103 Gorman, Becoming, 102. 104 Ibid., 158.

Beyond Theological Arguments  

 

367 

Christ’s cruciform way of life and the enabling of the Spirit. Moreover, the ethics of love can lead to deeper faith or give outsiders impulses to repent and receive the proclamation of the gospel, i.e. come to faith. Therefore, πίστις and ἀγάπη remain in a reciprocal relationship in Paul. Through his theology and ethics focused on love Paul provided his converts with the necessary categories to experience their conversion as a call of the loving God and a shift in their relationship with Him. By “coming to faith” the convert was attached to the one body of Christ and this attachment was an embodied experience visualised through ethics of love and the collective rituals of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Nevertheless, the converts were not supposed to withdraw from the larger society. Contrarily, they had to show a “love without hypocrisy” to all human beings. This love could motivate outsiders to “repent”, i.e. accept the gospel and become members of the Christ-community. Paul does not reflect on it theologically and directly. However, this can be concluded from his paraenetic texts, the references to his “attractive behaviour as witness of the gospel”105 (1 Cor 9:19–23; 10:31–11:1) as well as common missionary and conversionist experiences in early Christianity. It remains a fact that numerous individuals were attracted by the ethics of love and chose to be Christian in spite of the political and social opposition it met with in the Roman Empire.106 Love is proved to be more effective than dominion in bringing people to faith and protecting them from apostasy. 

Bibliography Benyaminy, Yitzhak. Narcissist Universalism: A Psychoanalytic Reading of Paul’s Epistles. LNTS 453. London, New York: T & T Clark, 2012. Bultmann, Rudolf. Jesus and the Word. New York: Scribner, 1958. Burns, Patout, and Constantine Newman. Romans: Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators. The Church’s Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Burridge, Richard A. Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Campbell, Douglas. “Participation and Faith in Paul”. Pages 37–60 in "In Christ" in Paul: Explorations in Paul’s Theology of Union and Participation. Edited by Michael J. Thate, Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Constantine R. Campbell. WUNT II 384. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. –. Jesus Remembered. Christianity in the Making 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Ebner, Martin, ed. Liebe. JBTh 29. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2015. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. Paul and the Stoics. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000.

                                                             Plummer, “Imitation”, 234. Cf. the testimony of the emperor Julian (Epistulae 89b, 465) concerning the effectiveness of the φιλανθρωπία in the attraction of outsiders to Christian faith. 105 106

368

Athanasios Despotis

–. “Paul’s Stoicizing Politics in Romans 12–13: The Role of 13.1–10 in the Argument”. JSNT 29 (2006): 163–172. Eschner, Christina. Gestorben und hingegeben "für" die Sünder: Die griechische Konzeption des Unheil abwendenden Sterbens und deren paulinische Aufnahme für die Deutung des Todes Jesu Christi. 2 Vols. WMANT 122. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2010. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 32. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Furnish, Victor P. The Love Command in the New Testament. NTL. London: SCM Press, 1973. Gorman, Michael J. Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. –. Becoming the Gospel: Paul, Participation and Mission. The Gospel and Our Culture Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Heath, Jane M. “Absent Presences of Paul and Christ: Enargeia in 1 Thessalonians 1–3”. JSNT 32 (2009): 3–38. Horn, Friedrich W. “Paulus und die Kardinaltugenden”. Pages 351–369 in Paulus – Werk und Wirkung: Festschrift für Andreas Lindemann zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by PaulGerhard Klumbies. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Hubbard, Moyer V. “Enemy Love in Paul: Probing the Engberg-Pedersen and Thorsteinsson Thesis”. Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 6 (2016): 115–135. Kok, Jacobus (Kobus), Tobias Nicklas, Dieter T. Roth, and Christopher M. Hays, eds. Sensitivity Towards Outsiders: Exploring the Dynamic Relationship between Mission and Ethics in the New Testament and Early Christianity. WUNT II 364. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Lust, Johan, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie. Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003. Lütgert, Wilhelm. Die Liebe im Neuen Testament: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Urchristentums. Giessen: Brunnen-Verlag, 1905. McCready, Wayne. “Ekklesia and Voluntary Associations”. Pages 59–73 in Voluntary Associations in the Greco-Roman World. Edited by John S. Kloppenborg and Stephen G. Wilson. London: Routledge, 2012. Morales, Rodrigo. “A Liturgical Conversion of the Imagination: Worship and Ethics in 1 Corinthians”. Letter & Spirit 5 (2009): 107–143. Morgan, Teresa. Roman Faith and Christian Faith. Corby: Oxford University Press, 2015. Oster, Richard. 1 Corinthians. The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1995. Patrologia Graeca. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris 1857–1886. Piper, John. Love Your Enemies: Jesus' Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and in the Early Christian Paraenesis: A History of he Tradition and Interpretation of Its Uses. SNTSMS 38. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Plummer, Robert. “Imitation of Paul and the Church’s Missionary Role”. JETS 44 (2001): 219–235. Ruzer, Serge. “From ‘Love Your Neighbour’ to ‘Love Your Enemy’: Trajectories in Early Jewish Exegesis”. RB 109 (2002): 371–389. Schreiber, Stefan. Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher. ÖTK 13/1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2014.

 

Beyond Theological Arguments  

369 

Schumacher, Thomas. Zur Entstehung christlicher Sprache: Eine Untersuchung der paulinischen Idiomatik und der Verwendung des Begriffes πίστις. ΒΒΒ 168. Göttingen, [Bonn]: V & R unipress; Bonn University Press, 2012. Silva, Moisés. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014. Söding, Thomas. Die Trias Glaube, Hoffnung, Liebe bei Paulus: Eine exegetische Studie. SBS 150. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1992. –. Das Liebesgebot bei Paulus: Die Mahnung zur Agape im Rahmen der paulinischen Ethik. NTAbh 26. Münster: Aschendorff, 1995. –. Nächstenliebe: Gottes Gebot als Verheißung und Anspruch. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2015. Spicq, Ceslas. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. Translated by James D. Ernest. 4th Repr. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2012. –. Agape in the New Testament. 3 Vols. Translated by idem. St. Louis: Herder, 1966. Taylor, Walter F. Paul, Apostle to the Nations: An Introduction. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Theißen, Gerd. “Kontraintuitive Bilder. Eine kognitive Analyse der urchristlichen Christologie”. ET 71 (2011): 307–323. –. “Glaube, Hoffnung, Liebe: Eine Formel, die zu denken gibt”. Pages 149–169 in Liebe. Edited by Martin Ebner. JBTh 29. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2015. Thorsteinsson, Runar M. Roman Christianity and Roman Stoicism: A Comparative Study of Ancient Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Venter, Pieter. “Inclusivism and Exclusivism: a Study of Two Trends in the Old Testament”. Pages 15–48 in Insiders Versus Outsiders: Exploring the Dynamic Relationship between Mission and Ethos in the New Testament. Edited by Jacobus (Kobus) Kok and Anthony Dunne. PPRT 14. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2014. Warnach, Viktor. Agape: Die Liebe als Grundmotiv der neutestamentlichen Theologie. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1951. Wischmeyer, Oda. “Vorkommen und Bedeutung von Agape in der außerchristlichen Antike”. ZNW 69 (1978): 212–238. –. “Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der paulinischen Aussagen über die Liebe (ἀγάπη)”. ZNW 74 (1983): 222–236. –. Liebe als Agape: Das frühchristliche Konzept und der moderne Diskurs. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Witherington III, Ben. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: A socio-rhetorical commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Wolter, Michael. “Die Liebe”. Pages 449–53 in Paulus Handbuch. Edited by Friedrich W. Horn. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Wright, N. T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. COQG 4. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. Zerbe, Gordon M. Citizenship: Paul on Peace and Politics. Winnipeg: CMU Press, 2012.

 

Paul’s Theological Language of Salvation as Social and Embodied Cognition Rikard Roitto Introduction What is it about Paul’s fashion of formulating theology that inspires such varying interpretations and so much debate? What is going on in Paul’s mind, really? Can we understand Paul’s processes of theologising better if we interpret him in the light of recent decades of research in the cognitive sciences? This chapter aims to use a number of insights from the cognitive sciences (a very broad and diverse scholarly field in itself) to discuss how Paul as an embodied and socially embedded thinker formed his theology of salvation. I argue why participation in Christ is most probably at the core of a theology for a community steeped in the embodied ritual experience of banquets in honour of Christ. I also introduce how cognitive linguistics can help us understand the relation between the different aspects of Paul’s multi-facetted theological language. When I was invited by Athanasios Despotis to contribute to this volume, I was entrusted with the rather broad topic of a cognitive perspective on Paul’s soteriological theology.1 I have therefore taken the liberty to use the broad brush in this chapter and pursue the big picture rather than the details. The analysis is thus an initial exploration of what cognitive sciences can bring to the scholarly discussion, but by no means the final word.

                                                             1 I would like to thank Athanasios Despotis, not only for inviting me to write this chapter, but also for the great inspiration his recent monograph, Die “New Perspective on Paul” und die griechisch-orthodoxe Paulusinterpretation (St. Ottilien: EOS, 2014), has been to my thought process in writing this article.

372

Rikard Roitto

Embodied and Socially Embedded Cognition and the Metaphorical Character of Theological Language The inevitably anthropomorphous character of theology has been apparent to Christian theologians ever since Paul, the first Christian2 theologian. “I speak in human terms because of the infirmity of your flesh”3 (ἀνθρώπινον λέγω διὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν, Rom 6:19), the apostle writes to let the recipients know that no language can capture the full meaning of salvation.4 Similarly, when Origen contemplates whether it is proper to attribute the human emotion anger to God, he suggests that God is not really angry, but that we humans benefit from understanding God as angry: If you hear of God’s anger and wrath, do not think of wrath and anger as emotions experienced by God. Accommodations of the use of language like that are designed for the correction and improvement of the little child. We too put on a severe face for children not because it is our true feeling but because we accommodate ourselves to their level. (Origen, Homilies on Jeremiah 18.6)5 The insight that human cognition is limited is taken to its logical conclusion in the apophatic theology (also called negative theology) expressed over and over again in the history of Christian theology6 – only to conclude that it is nevertheless necessary to describe God in human terms. Cyril of Jerusalem, just to mention one example, first acknowledges that “to confess our ignorance [about God] is our best knowledge”, and then continues to argue that we still need to talk about God with our limited capacity in order to fulfil our duty to glorify him (Catechetical Lectures VI.1–5).7

                                                             2 When I call Paul a “Christian” in this chapter, I do not mean to say that he ever stopped being a Jew. Nor do I mean to say that Paul perceived Christianity as something outside Judaism. I am also aware that Paul never uses the terms Χριστιανὸς or Χριστιανισμός. “Christian” and “Christianity” are nevertheless convenient terms. 3 All translations of NT texts are my own, unless otherwise indicated. 4 Cf. The Deutero-Pauline 1 Tim 6:16. 5 Transl. Maurice Wiles and Mark Santer, eds., Documents in Early Christian Thought (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge UP, 1975), 10. 6 E.g. Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1957), ch. 2; Aristotle Papanikolaou, Being With God: Trinity, Apophaticism and Divine-Human Communion (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006); Gregory P. Rocca, Speaking the Incomprehensible God: Thomas Aquinas on the Interplay of Positive and Negative Theology (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2004); Paul van Geest, The Incomprehensibility of God: Augustine as a Negative Theologian (Leuven: Peeters, 2011). 7 Perhaps a partial explanation to the fierceness of the theological debate in the Protestant traditions about how to understand Paul’s soteriology is that theologians in those traditions have often suppressed the insight that language – even language about salvation – is limited, to avoid making language less absolute and thus undermine the dogma of sola scriptura. To substantiate that claim would be a different article, though.

Theological Language of Salvation as Social and Embodied Cognition

373 

Although Paul does not dwell on the inadequacy of language at length, he seems intuitively aware of this problem, since he seldom sticks to just one language domain to describe a theological topic that is important to him. For example, the resurrection of the dead is described both naively, as a spatial journey on clouds (1 Thess 4:17), and more philosophically, as a transformation of the “body” (σῶμα) and “glory” (δόξα) of the human embodiment (1 Cor 15:36–57).8 Baptism is both described as a death from oneself and a transformation (Rom 6), as clothing with Christ (Gal 3:27), as purification (1 Cor 6:11), and as becoming one body with the community of believers (1 Cor 12:13). Had we tried to exhaust the list of theological subjects where Paul uses imagery from multiple cognitive domains, the list would fill this entire chapter. These two examples are enough to make the point that Paul frequently feels the need use complementary language domains, though. In each case, it seems, Paul chooses certain language not because it is the only possible language, but because it fits his rhetorical goals in that particular situation. Recent decades of research on the human cognition of the divine in the scholarly field called “the Cognitive Science of Religion”9 (CSR) has explored the human tendency to think about gods and other supernatural beings in anthropomorphous terms. Pascal Boyer, one of the pioneers of CSR, argues that although educated theologians can, of course, develop very abstract theologies, these theologies are not that memorable and useful for “online” thinking about the divine and will therefore never become popular beyond the circles of educated theologians.10 Instead, he suggests, cognitions of the divine that take our Dale Martin and Troels Engberg-Pedersen both argue that Paul describes the resurrection of the body in terms of Stoic(-like) metaphysics in 1 Cor 15, probably in order to communicate the resurrection of the body to philosophically educated community members. Anthony Thiselton protests against Martin that Paul’s interest is existential more than metaphysical, but I must agree with Martin and Engberg-Pedersen that Paul’s language in 1 Cor 15 makes remarkably much sense in the light of Stoic philosophy. Troels EngbergPedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 8–38; Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 104–138; Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1269. 9 For introductions to the field, see e.g. James A. Van Slyke, The Cognitive Science of Religion (Burlington: Ashgate, 2011); Todd Tremlin, Minds and Gods: The Cognitive Foundations of Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006); Justin L. Barrett, Cognitive Science, Religion and Theology: From Human Minds to Divine Minds. Templeton Science and Religion Series (West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press, 2011); Ilkka Pyysiäinen, How Religion Works: Towards a New Cognitive Science of Religion (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2001). 10 Pascal Boyer, The Naturalness of Religious Ideas: A Cognitive Theory of Religion (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 227–298. Cf. Pascal Boyer, Religion Explained: The Human Instincts That Fashion Gods, Spirits and Ancestors (London: Vintage, 2002), 58–105; Barrett, Cognitive Science, 73–112; Ilkka Pyysiäinen, Supernatural Agents: 8

374

Rikard Roitto

cognition of humans as its starting point will be much more memorable and useful: memorable, because a theological concept that is built on cognition that is already familiar to us is easy to remember; useful, because our cognition of fellow humans already contains such concepts as agency, intentionality, and moral interest, all of which are essential to the cognition of the divine in most religions, including Christianity. When God is thought of as a social agent, it is very intuitive to draw inferences about God’s attitudes and actions. However, Boyer adds, most cognitions of the divine also hold a number of “counterintuitive” element – that is, elements that do not fit our cognition of ordinary humans – such as omnipresence, unlimited knowledge, invisibility, and power to interfere with creation in a supernatural manner. These counterintuitive elements make the cognition of the divine attention-grabbing and attractive, and thus more memorable. Boyer suggests that there is an optimum of memorability in cognitions of the divine that are based on cognitions of humans, but adds counter-intuitive elements.11 Boyer and most scholars who work within SCR focus mainly on the innate12 – and thus pan-human – cognitive capacities of humans in order to understand the cross-culturally recurring phenomenon of anthropomorphous conceptualisations of the divine. Therefore, they focus on how our most basic perceptions of humans model our perceptions of the divine. However, in order to understand concepts of the divine in a particular culture, we must of course also add the insight that imaginations of gods are typically informed by cultural patterns in that particular culture. It should come as no surprise that the biblical God is a shepherd and a king rather than a kindergarten teacher and a president. Culturally learned cognitive patterns about social roles, just like innate patterns for cognition of humans, are excellent starting points for conceptualising the divine.

                                                            

Why We Believe in Souls, Gods, and Buddhas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009); Stewart Elliott Guthrie, Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). 11 Yet, the counterintuitive elements must not be so complex that the cognition of the divine becomes difficult to understand and remember. Optimal cognitions of the divine are often called “minimally counterintuitive” by CSR-scholars since they only violate a limited number of our expectations of human agents. Although Pascal Boyer is to be credited with the concept, Justin Barrett was first to use the exact term “minimally counterintuitive” in Justin L. Barrett, “Exploring the Natural Foundations of Religion”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4 (2000): 29–34. 12 Although constructivism is still very much in vogue among humanist scholars, psychologists typically recognise that humans are not born as blank slates. Rather, humans across the world are capable of cognitive activities such as language, categorisation, causal thinking, narrativisation, and attribution, which indicates that such capacities are innate and develop spontaneously in children under most living conditions. For an introduction, see Rikard Roitto, Behaving as a Christ-believer: A Cognitive Perspective on Identity and Behavior Norms in Ephesians, ConBNT 46 (Winona lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 26–144.

Theological Language of Salvation as Social and Embodied Cognition  

 

375 

Paul is therefore pedagogically right on the spot when he describes God’s saving action in terms that build on both general cognition of humans and on social roles that were embedded in the culture of the ancient Mediterranean. God is like a good father who buys humanity free from slavery under the evil slave owners, Sin and Death (personified), and adopts them as sons. God is like a righteous judge who cares about the just judgement of transgressors but still wants to avoid judging those he loves. God is like a covenant lord who expands his covenant to all humanity. God is like a loving diplomat, who wants to reconcile with his enemies. God is like a gracious ruler who accepts sacrificial gifts. (We will return to all these images below.) With this plural imagery, Paul creates a rich cognitive platform for reflection on the meaning of God’s saving action that has inspired theologians throughout the history of the church. However, the richness of Paul’s imagination is also the reason why it has been possible to interpret him in so many different ways and claim such different dogmata based on his letters. This brings us to cognitive linguistics. In linguistics, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson pioneered the field of cognitive linguistics by showing how our bodily and social experience is the foundation for all our abstract thinking.13 They showed that all thinking about complex and abstract problems is dependent on analogy with more concrete forms of experience. That is, all cognition is embodied cognition. For instance, the expression “the price is rising” depends on analogy with our basic bodily experience of up and down. Expressions like “we have come a long way” and “our ways parted” reveals that human relations are often conceptualised as journeys, that is, movement along a trajectory. In the last decade, an increasing amount of evidence from neuro-linguistics confirms Lakoff and Johnson’s claim. Studies show that those parts of the brain that are used to interpret input from our senses and to control our bodily movements (the sensory-motor system) are also activated when we solve problems and understand metaphors.14 These insights are important for our understanding of how theological language is formed. For instance, Paul’s language of being “in Christ” (ἐν Χριστῷ) after having been baptised “into Christ” (εἰς Χριστόν, Rom 6:3) is a metaphorical extension of our concrete bodily experiences of moving into contained spaces and being in contained spaces. Paul, like all normal human beings, forms his theological language by metaphorical extension of his concrete bodily experience.

                                                            

George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought (New York: Basic Books, 1999); George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live by (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980). 14 Lotte Meteyard, Sara Rodriguez Cuadrado, Bahador Bahrami and Gabriella Vigliocco, “Coming of Age: A Review of Embodiment and the Neuroscience of Semantics”, Cortex 48 (2012): 788–804; Lawrence W. Barsalou, W. Kyle Simmons, Aron. K. Barbey and Christine D. Wilson, “Grounding Conceptual Knowledge in Modality-Specific Systems”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7 (2003): 84–91. 13

376

Rikard Roitto

Lakoff and Johnson also show that abstract ideas can be formed by analogy with concrete social interaction with other human beings. For instance, several expressions used in English language to talk about argumentation reveals that our thinking about intellectual debates is informed by humanity’s experience of concrete battles: “I won the argument”, “I attacked his argument”, “I defended my position”, “his arguments do not hold”, etc., are expressions that betray how we model intellectual “battles” on concrete ones. This insight is obviously important for our understanding of Paul’s theological language of salvation, too.15 We have already discussed briefly how Paul portrays God with language based on familiar social roles. It is precisely our capacity to conceptualise new cognitive domains in terms of familiar cognitive domains that allows Paul to create the theological languages of redemption, sacrifice, justification, reconciliation and transformation. What bodily and social experiences would have been the most influential when Paul developed his theological language to explain the significance of Christ? What embodied and social experiences informed the cognitive structure of Paul’s theology? In Pauline scholarship, the most proliferate discussion about origin has concerned Paul’s theology of justification. This theology has typically been explained as the fruit of his Damascus experience or as a response to the crisis in Antioch when table fellowship between Jews and Gentiles fell apart.16 I will not attempt to solve this problem here, but I would like to acknowledge that both are reasonable suggestions in the light of research on when human cognitive patterns tend to change. By default, we tend to hold on to acquired cognitive patterns, or only adjust them just as much as is needed to accommodate new experiences.17 Only when a person is struck with awe – that is, overwhelmed by data that is utterly irreconcilable with current beliefs – one is forced to go through the hard cognitive process of re-evaluating all that one took for granted.18 We can imagine that the pre-Christian Paul experienced in-

                                                             15 By “theological language of salvation” I do not mean Pauls usage of σῴζω, σωτηρία, etc. but all different linguistic ways in which he describes the process of human salvation. 16 Albert Schweizer and William Wrede famously questioned the centrality of Paul’s theology of justification by faith by claiming that it was a “Nebenkrater” (Schweizer) and a “Kampfeslehre” (Wrede) born out of the conflicts in Antioch and Galatia, as opposed to previous scholarship, which tended to assume that justification by faith sprang from his Damascus Experience. Albert Schweitzer, Die Mystik des Apostels Paulus (Tübingen: Mohr, 1930), 220; William Wrede, Paulus (Tübingen: Mohr, 1907), 72. For an analysis of the scholarly debate since Schweizer and Wrede, see Despotis, New Perspective, passim. 17 The processes of assimilation and accommodation were described already by Jean Piaget, The Origins of Intelligence in Children (New York: International Universities Press, 1952), 407–19. 18 Dacher Keltner and Jonathan Haidt, “Approaching Awe, a Moral, Spiritual, and Aesthetic Emotion”, Cognition & Emotion 17 (2003): 297– 314.

Theological Language of Salvation as Social and Embodied Cognition  

 

377 

creasing cognitive dissonance between what he saw in the early Christian communities and his pre-conceptions until he came to the point where the intense experience on the Damascus road struck him with awe and forced him to reconsider several aspects of what he believed to be true. The Antiochene crisis, on the other hand, might be seen as an occasion when Paul did not change his cognitive patterns radically, but rather accommodated justification-language into his already well established conviction that Christ is a redeemer of Gentiles, in order to defend his conviction. Nevertheless, I think it is a mistake to conclude that crisis is the most decisive motor in all of Paul’s theological pattern formation. The Damascus experience made it necessary for Paul to reconsider, but nothing that we read in Paul’s own texts or in Acts indicates that the meaning of his experience was clear to him right away. We must of course be careful not to assume that Acts gives us an undistorted account of Paul’s reaction, but the account of a confused Paul who needs guidance from the already existing Christian community is generally plausible (Acts 9:9–20). Paul’s own account in Gal 1:13–24 gives a similar impression. Although Paul fervently denies influence from Jerusalem, he acknowledges that he withdrew to Arabia and then returned to participate in the Christian community in Damascus. To put it simply, Paul needed some time to think before he knew what his experience meant, and he did most of his theological thinking in a community, not alone. An emerging field of scholarship on human cognition emphasises that human cognition is not only embodied but also embedded and extended.19 By embedded cognition is meant that cognition is the result of interaction between a thinking subject and his/her environment. For instance, when you go to a research workshop, the conference building, the schedule, the other people in the room, etc., will all interact with you to make you focused on scholarly matters. Your mind is embedded in the conference setting. By extended cognition is meant that a cognitive system is not always limited to the neurones of one individual’s brain. Rather, all interacting individuals and the environment they are in can be seen as one extended cognitive system. Returning to the just mentioned hypothetical workshop, the intellectual dialogue between the scholars, the notes they take on pieces of paper to remember and structure their thought, the PowerPoint slides, etc., could be said to constitute an extended cognitive system that is able to produce insights (cognition) that perhaps none of the participants could have come up with on their own. The consequence of this research is that we should not treat Paul as this solitary genius who produces theology that is not influenced by the communities in which he participates. Of course, scholars nowadays often acknowledge

                                                            

John A. Teske, “From Embodied to Extended Cognition”, Zygon 48 (2013): 759–787. For a more thorough discussion of these concepts, see respective chapters in Lawrence A. Shapiro ed., The Routledge Handbook of Embodied Cognition (London: Routledge, 2014). 19

378

Rikard Roitto

that Paul’s theology is theology “in the making”,20 contextually created to solve concrete practical-theological problems in his communities. Still, scholars do not always explicitly acknowledge that Paul was influenced by the communities he lived in. Perhaps scholars want to avoid repeating the divide between the Jewish message of Jesus and the Gentile mystery religion of Paul that the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule once suggested.21 Nevertheless, from the perspective of embedded and extended cognition, a Paul who is not deeply influenced by the communities he interacted with on a daily basis is very implausible. On the contrary, it is plausible that it is precisely in the context of Paul’s everyday interaction within Christian communities that the most fundamental aspects of his theology would have been developed. Wilhelm Bousset was probably too eager to derive the origin of Paul’s theology genealogically from the mystery religions,22 but he was nevertheless right in criticising the overly individualistic explanatory model, in which Paul derives his theology solely from his private mystic experience in Damascus, and instead suggesting that Paul’s theology was formed in the cultic setting of the ekklesiai.23 The concepts of embodied, embedded, and extended cognition alerts us to the possibility of examining a different aspect of Paul as a thinker embedded in a context, though: It prompts us to examine how Paul forms his theology embedded in the concrete embodied and social communal experiences of the Christ-believing ekklesiai. The bulk of Paul’s undisputed letters are usually dated to the 50s and the 60s, which gives us a window of around two decades between Paul’s conversion and his letters, assuming that Paul became a Christ-believer in the early 30s. This means that Paul had about two decades of continuous interaction with different local communities of Christ-believers to develop his theology before we meet him in his letters. During that time, it is very plausible that he was able to develop quite stable theological cognitive patterns. These thoughtpatterns were formed to be relevant to the communal life he experienced.

                                                            

E.g. James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, 2nd ed (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), xixxxii. 21 For an overview of research history on scholars’ attempts to demonstrate that Paul was influenced by mystery religions, see e.g. Andrew J. Wedderburn, Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology against Its Greco-Roman Background, WUNT 44 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1987), 1–6. 22 Alexander Wedderburn gives an excellent analysis of why this cannot be done, given the dates of existing sources. He concludes that one must of course recognise the possibility of an indirect influence, but that a direct influence from mystery religions cannot be demonstrated. Wedderburn, Baptism and Resurrection, 393–396. 23 Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens (Göttingen, 1913), 780–781. 20

 

Theological Language of Salvation as Social and Embodied Cognition  

379 

We should, therefore, ask ourselves what kind communal life did Paul experience during these years and how Paul’s theological language of salvation can be seen as metaphorical extensions of the embodied and social experience in these communities. Recent decades of research on early Christian worship indicates that Pauline (and other) Christian communities gathered to celebrate Christ in meals. Our next step is, therefore, to examine how meal practices in Pauline communities shaped Paul’s theological conceptualisation of salvation.

A Collegium Celebrating Ritualised Meals Earlier liturgical scholarship frequently claimed that Christian worship had a liturgical structure similar to what Justin Martyr describes (1 Apol. 67) from the very early on, but Paul Bradshaw gives good reason to question whether this is warranted.24 Besides purely dogmatic motivations to claim an original liturgical structure, one of the most common scholarly arguments used to be that the first Christians must have inherited the basic structure of the synagogue liturgy. However, Bradshaw acknowledges that several scholars who study the development of the synagogue liturgies have concluded that the liturgical orders we find in the rabbinic material were probably developed no earlier than the third century.25 The NT contains no discernible liturgical orders. The Didache gives us glimpses but no whole liturgy, and for all we know the tradition represented in this document was by no means universally acknowledged.26 Several recent monographs have emphasised how Christian ekklesiai (and Jewish synagogues) of the first century Christians can be seen as part of the association culture of the Roman Empire.27 In the associations, the most typical pattern for gatherings was the banquet, a ritualised meal in honour of various divinities and rulers. Several NT scholars in the last decades have demonstrated

                                                            

24 Paul F. Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and Methods for the Study of Early Liturgy, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 36– 39; Paul Bradshaw, “Jewish Influence on Early Christian Liturgy: A Reappraisal”, JewishChristian Relations, http://www.jcrelations.net/Jewish_Influence_on_Early_Christian_Liturgy_A_Reappraisal.3217.0.html. 25 Heather A. McKay, Sabbath and Synagogue: The Question of Sabbath Worship in Ancient Judaism (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1994); Lee Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000) 134–159. 26 Bradshaw, Search, 47–51, rightly warns about the false assumption of “panliturgism”, that is, the assumptions that all liturgies were the same in the first century. 27 Philip A. Harland, Dynamics of Identity in the World of the Early Christians: Associations, Judeans, and Cultural Minorities (New York: T & T Clark, 2009); Philip A. Harland, Associations, Synagogues and Congregations: Claiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2003); John S. Kloppenborg and Stephen G. Wilson, eds., Voluntary Associations in the Greco-Roman World (London: Routledge, 1996).

380

Rikard Roitto

that the glimpses of information we get from the NT points in the direction of such banquets.28 Our most vivid description of community life in Paul’s congregations comes from First Corinthians, and what we see there is an ekklesia whose gatherings are formed like banquets. As we shall see, these banquets were, of course, adapted to be celebrated in honour of Christ rather than pagan divinities and rulers, but the structure seems to have been very similar. The typical Greco-Roman banquet was held in a home and began with a dinner. All participants lay down on couches facing toward the centre of the triclinium (dining room).29 At the end of the dinner, there was a libation ritual, usually pouring wine, in honour of different divinities, heroes, events and rulers.30 Thus, the libation functioned as a manifestation of the identity and character of the association. The libation was then followed by a symposium with songs, prayers and orations by the participants in the banquet. According to the thorough analyses of Matthias Klinghardt and Dennis Smith, the most basic value of these banquets was “community” (κοινωνία).31 The meal’s social function was to manifest the shared identity of the participants, but also the boundaries of the group. From the perspective of embodied cognition, it is not hard to see how the practical arrangements of a typical banquet embedded such values. Everyone reclined facing each other on similar couches. Thus they literally formed a circle (well, actually a square) of community which at the same time set the boundaries toward the rest of the world. To the extent that all were seated on equal height (which was not always the case), this arrangement also embodied the friendship and equality of the participants. Banquet language permeates First Corinthians, our best source for insight into communal practices in Pauline congregations.32 Their meetings are referred to as “the Lord’s dinner” (κυριακὸν δεῖπνον, 11:20) and the community members are warned not to “partake in the table” of both demons and the Lord (10:21). Paul describes this banquet as “community” (10:16–22). If we imagine that the banquet was the main way of meeting in the Corinthian congregation, this explains why Paul is so upset about eating in a way that does not manifest the community and equality of all participants (11:17–22). It also Dennis E. Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2003); Matthias Klinghardt, Gemeinschaftsmahl und Mahlgemeinschaft: Soziologie und Liturgie frühchristlicher Mahlfeiern (Tübingen: Francke, 1996); Hal Taussig, In the Beginning was the Meal: Social Experimentation and Early Christian Identity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009); R. Alan Streett, Subversive Meals: An Analysis of the Lord's Supper under Roman Domination during the First Century (Eugene: Pickwick, 2013). 29 For reconstructive illustrations, see Taussig, Beginning, 24–25. 30 Smith, Symposium, 28–30. 31 Klinghardt, Gemeinschaftsmahl, 153–173; Smith, Symposium, 9–11. 32 For an overview of all New Testament texts suggesting that the first Christians met in the form of symposia, see Streett, Subversive, 31–42. 28

Theological Language of Salvation as Social and Embodied Cognition  

 

381 

explains why Paul is so upset when Jews and Gentiles cannot eat together in Antioch (Gal 2:11–14). Not eating together is in practice not celebrating together. In the Corinthian gatherings, the procedure seems to have been to drink the cup after the dinner (11:25).The drinking of the cup is not exactly a libation, but it seems to have a function very similar to the libation.33 That is, its function is to celebrate their identity, which is to be partakers in the “new covenant” (11:23–26). We may, therefore, infer that the cup also was the transition to the second part of the banquet, the symposium. The language that Paul uses for their gatherings is that they “come together” (συνέρχομαι). They “come together in the ekklesia” (11:18), the first part of the gathering is that they “come together … to eat the Lord’s dinner” (11:20). The second part is that they “come together” to share songs, prayers, hymns etc. “When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation” (14:26, NRSV). This kind of improvised celebration is structurally essentially the same as the symposium portion of the banquets in Greco-Roman associations. As Hal Taussig and Alan Streett both argue, it seems like both Pauline communities and other early Christian communities tried to encourage everybody’s equality in these banquets, as opposed to many other banquets where the participants were placed according to their societal status.34 Paul’s insistence that they should not begin eating before everyone has gathered (11:33), his chastisement of those who eat while others remain hungry (11:21–22), and resolve that Jews and Gentiles should eat together (Gal 2:11–14), show that Paul shares this ethos of equality in the meals. Therefore, we may assume that when Paul says that “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28, NRSV), he does not only refer to theological principles but to the practical order of the communal meals. Thus, the primary embodied and embedded ritual experience of the first Pauline communities was a Symposium-like celebration in honour of Jesus Christ. The participants entered the dining room of a household,35 which temporarily became a contained ritual space. In this ritual space, everybody reclined, had dinner together in honour of the Lord Jesus Christ, and took part in the same community. After the dinner and the cup in celebration of the new

                                                            

Streett, Subversive, 39–40. Taussig, Beginning, 145–172; Streett, Subversive, 212–217. 35 That is, if we assume that they gathered in a large domus with several rooms, including a dining room. If they met in simpler homes in an insula, they probably just met in the only room of the apartment. 33 34

382

Rikard Roitto

covenant, preaching, singing, prayers, prophesies and speaking in tongues began, and this was experienced as the work of God’s one Spirit. This ritual environment was the context in which Paul’s theology was embedded.36 In the following, I will assume what scholars who study ritual have observed over and over again: that ritual action is more primary and more stable than theological explanation.37 Theological explanations of a ritual abound and vary, but the ritual practice itself is typically much more stable than the explanations given for the ritual. This insight among ritual scholars fits the predictions of embedded cognition research:38 The embodied and socially embedded ritual experience is often the basis for semantic discourse about its meaning. In Paul’s case, the ritual practice of meeting as collegium and celebrate Christ in banquets is a given that probably predates Paul’s theological production. Therefore, it is realistic to assume that Paul’s theological language was formed in interaction with this ritual practice in the communities of Christ-believers. I here argue that important factors that formed the theological language of participation in Christ are the basic embodied experiences of being together inside a contained space, sharing the same substance of bread and wine, and belonging to the same group. Significantly, “in Christ”-language is so well established already in First Thessalonians, Paul’s earliest known letter, that he can use it in passing while talking about other things (2:14; 3:8; 5:18). We can therefore safely assume that “in Christ”-theology was well accepted in the Pauline communities at an early stage. I propose that the language emerges from two of the most prominent ritual practices in Paul’s thinking: banquets and initiatory baptism. Of these two, the banquets must by far have been the most frequent experience for Paul.

                                                             In the undisputed letters of Paul, the impression of a symposium emerges most clearly in 1 Cor. However, I see no reason to suspect a different type of celebration in other Pauline communities, especially since several Christian texts from the first century point in the same direction, according to the research cited in n. 28. 37 Daniel C. Ullucci, The Christian Rejection of Animal Sacrifice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 20–23; Ronald L. Grimes, The Craft of Ritual Studies, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 317–328. There is of course a mutual influence between theological language and ritual practice, if we examine the evolution of Christian rituals throughout the centuries. Nevertheless, theological explanation tends to be more varied than ritual practice. 38 Unfortunately, not much has been written on embodied cognition and ritual by scholars who specialise in embodied cognition research. To my best knowledge, only one very tentative article, has been written: Lawrence W. Barsalou, Aron K. Barbey, W. Kyle Simmons and Ava Santos, “Embodiment in Religious Knowledge”, Journal of Cognition and Culture 5 (2005): 14–55. Barsalou et al. do however support the claim that embodied ritual practice is important for theological semantic thinking. Biblical scholar Risto Uro has written an excellent chapter on embodied cognition and its implications form our understanding of early Christian rituals: Risto Uro, Ritual and Christian Beginnings (Oxford: Oxford Universy Press, 2016), 154–177. 36

Theological Language of Salvation as Social and Embodied Cognition  

 

383 

Paul himself indicates that the starting point for the theological language of participation in Christ is the experience of the ritualised meal in First Corinthians. The bread is “the body of Christ”, (11:24) The cup and the bread is the “communion of the body of Christ” and the ritual sharing of the bread signifies that the community is “one body” (10:16–17). Christ was thus experienced as present in their midst in a highly embodied way, since the bread and the wine was most probably experienced to have an indexical relation to Christ.39 We can easily imagine Paul (and other Christ-believers of the first generation) preaching Christ during these meals. In order to capture the relevance of Christ, the ritualised meal in honour of Christ, where the meal itself is an index of Christ, would have been the most natural starting point for theological reflection. I therefore suggest that the theological language of participation in Christ is a metaphorical extension of the meal experience. There is really no need to postulate direct borrowing from Gentile mystery cults to explain the innovation of “in Christ”-language. Rather, “in Christ”-language is good contextual theology for a community whose communal life is centred on a meal that represents Christ. The very format of the triclinium (dining room) would have reinforced the experience of being a community in Christ. As noted above, the typical triclinium was an enclosed space with the couches along the walls so that the focus of all participants was towards the centre of the room. Even if we imagine meals under poorer conditions, for instance in a room of an insula,40 the participants would have faced each other during celebration. The architecture of the ritual space was thus set up for an embodied experience of community and unity in Christ. As we discussed above, the most common value of associations was “community”, and the very fact that the Christ-believers considered themselves a group would have made “in Christ”-theology easily conceivable. Social psychologists have demonstrated that as soon as we humans categorise objects into

                                                             I have no intent to go into the long-standing theological dispute about how this presence should be properly described in metaphorical terms. The important point here is that the bread is experienced as a ritual index of Christ. Vojtěch Kaše has argued convincingly in his forthcoming dissertation chapter, “Ecclesiology, Christology, or Magic? A Cognitive Reconsideration of Pauline Lord’s Supper Tradition”, that in 1 Cor 10:16; 11:23–25, 29 the bread is conceptualised as Christ (not just as the community), and it seems reasonable to me that also the Corinthian community experienced the bread and wine in this way. 40 Philip Esler has argued that the Christians in Rome were probably meeting in insulae. Philip F. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter (Philadephia: Fortress, 2003), 82–83. Given that the Corinthian community had problems with social division, I find it possible that at least some of its members were rich enough to live in a domus. καθημένῳ in 1 Cor 14:30 might suggest a poor or crowded home, since the verb seemingly indicates a sitting posture during the meals, though. 39

384

Rikard Roitto

categories, we tend to think that all objects of that category share certain characteristics.41 These characteristics are intuitively conceptualised as depending on a shared “essence” behind these characteristics.42 This is also true for social categories, including voluntary religious communities.43 We tend to think that all members of a certain category have certain characteristics stemming from the shared essence of all members of that category. In the case of the early Pauline Christ-believers, what was the most immediate answer to the question of what their shared essence is? The answer, it seems, was “Christ” – Christ was their shared essence; they were of the same nature (σύμφυτοι, Rom 6:5) as Christ (cf. the discussion of transformation below). The origin of their shared essence was Christ himself. As discussed above, Christ’s presence was immediate through the Lord’s Supper, but also manifest in the experience of the Spirit. From this ritual experience follows intuitions about transformation by contagion, since we humans intuitively think that we are influenced by contagion by what we are close to.44 Jesper Sørensen has used blending theory (explained below) in combination with research about human intuitions about contagion to discuss at length how our intuitions about contagion are central to our beliefs in the efficacy of many rituals.45 The closeness to Christ experienced in a highly embodied fashion in the ritual life of the Pauline ekklesiai is very efficiently captured by the language of being in “in Christ”. I do of course not suggest that a theology of participation in Christ emerges purely out of the experience of being a group. Many social groups, including religious groups, do not think of their shared characteristics in such terms. However, the cognition of being a group is a social experience that together

41 For an introduction to the cognitive psychology of categorisation, see John R. Taylor, Linguistic Categorization, 3rd rev. ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). Two pioneers in this field were Eleanor Rosch and George Lakoff. Eleanor Rosch, “Principles of Categorization”, in Cognition and Categorization, ed. Eleanor Rosch, and Barbara B. Lloyd (Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1978), 27–48; George Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987). 42 Susan Gelman, The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). 43 Negin R. Toosi and Nalini Ambady, “Ratings of Essentialism for Eight Religious Identities”, International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 21 (2011): 17–29. 44 Carol Nemeroff and Paul Rozin, “The Contagion Concept in Adult Thinking in the United States: Transmission of Germs and Interpersonal Influence”, Ethos 22 (1994): 158– 186; Kendall J. Eskine, “Moral Contagion Effects in Everyday Interpersonal Encounters”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49 (2013): 947–950. Cf. Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors, 128–132. 45 Jesper Sørensen, A Cognitive Theory of Magic (Lanham: AltaMira, 2006), 97–111 and passim. Note that Sørensen uses the term “magic” for any belief in the efficacy of a ritual, which is a use of terminology that differs from many other taxonomies.

 

Theological Language of Salvation as Social and Embodied Cognition  

385 

with the more concrete factor of sharing meals that manifested Christ’s presence in a banquet did in this particular group converge into the language of being “in Christ”. Salvation as participation in Christ effectively summed up their ritual experience. A less frequent, but probably emotionally more intense, ritual experience in the Pauline communities was baptism. According to several ritual theorists, rare rituals such as rituals of initiation are typically experienced as emotionally intense and give long lasting effects on memory and motivation.46 We do not know very much about the details of the baptismal ritual in the Pauline communities, but we can be fairly confident about a few import basics. First, baptism was probably not self-administered, but administered by someone who was already part of the community (1 Cor 1:13–16). According to Robert McCauley and Thomas Lawson, rituals where God is thought to work through a ritual agent (in this case, the baptiser) are perceived as more powerful than other rituals.47 Risto Uro analyses John the Baptist’s ritual using Lawson and McCauley’s theory and argues that the innovation of a ritual agent (as opposed to the self-administered washings common in Judaism), which probably made his baptism feel more powerful than other immersion rituals, was probably an important factor behind the attractiveness of John the Baptist’s baptism.48 We do thus have good reason to think that baptism was an intense ritual experience in Corinth, too. Second, the use of verbs and prepositions in Rom 6:3–4 indicates that the basic form and medium of baptism was a) going down into the water, and b) rising up out of the water. Fredrick Tappenden has used cognitive linguistics to analyse how the language of death and resurrection with Christ in Rom 6 is a metaphorical extension of the embodied ritual of going down into and out of the water, and how the theology of moving “into Christ” in baptism is a metaphorical extension of the ritual experience of moving into the water.49 The movement through the water is also a path from one place to another, which Paul uses metaphorically in Rom 6 to talk about baptism as transformation and change from one status to another.

                                                            

46 Robert N. McCauley and E. Thomas Lawson, Bringing Ritual to Mind: Psychological Foundations of Cultural Forms (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Harvey Whitehouse, Modes of Religiosity: A Cognitive Theory of Religious Transmission (Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press, 2004). 47 McCauley and Lawson, Bringing, 29–35. Cf. Justin L. Barrett and E. Thomas Lawson, “Ritual Intuitions: Cognitive Contributions to Judgments of Ritual Efficacy”, Journal of Cognition and Culture 1 (2001): 183–201. 48 Uro, Ritual, 71–78. 49 Frederick Tappenden, Resurrection in Paul: Cognition, Metaphor and Transformation (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 135–174.

386

Rikard Roitto

Among NT scholars, most attention has been paid to Paul’s baptismal theology in Rom 6 where he develops quite a complex theology of dying and rising with Christ based on the ritual experience of going down into and up into the baptismal waters.50 However, as many liturgical scholars have pointed out, this theology did not really catch on in the first three centuries.51 Instead it was a similar theology of birth “out of” the water, inspired by John 3:5, that became most popular in the second century.52 In the light of this, it is worth taking a look at the less complex theology of baptism in 1 Cor 12:13: “By one Spirit we have been baptised into one body”. Here, just like in Rom 6, the key preposition is “into” (εἰς). The movement “into” the water is theologised as a movement “into one body”, the body of Christ. While the theology of death and resurrection might be Paul’s own ingenious innovation in order to integrate his theology of redemption in Rom 5–8 with the ritual of baptism,53 he seems to presuppose that the Corinthian recipients of his letter will accept the simpler baptismal theology of just being baptised “into Christ”, since he refers to it in passing to argue for something else (communal values in the expressions of the Spirit). This gives us reason to think that the theology of participation in Christ was not only apt as an interpretation of the communal meals but also as an interpretation of the bodily experience of initiation.

All Linguistic Roads Lead into Christ So far, I have argued that the language of participation in Christ was probably at the core of the semantic conceptualisation of the ritual experiences in the Pauline communities, both the frequent sharing of communal meals and the ritual of initiation. From this insight emerges the inference that participation in Christ must reasonably have been at the core of Paul’s theological thinking – a key concept that summarised the meaning of devotion to Christ in his communities. Thus, I would side with those scholars who have suggested that participation in Christ (rather than justification by faith) is at the centre of Paul’s

                                                            

50 E.g. Lars Hartman, ‘Into the Name of the Lord Jesus’: Baptism in the Early Church (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 51–82. 51 Maxwell E. Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation: Their Evolution and Interpretation, 2nd ed. (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2007), 137–142. 52 Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 143. 53 I assume here, together with Martinus de Boer, that Gal 2:19 (διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον, ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω. Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι.) does not refer specifically to baptism, even if the thought here probably is a precursor to the baptismal theology in Rom 6. Martinus C. de Boer, Galatians: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011) 159–161.

 

Theological Language of Salvation as Social and Embodied Cognition  

387 

theology.54 I have given reason for this suggestion by not treating Paul’s letters as timeless collection of semantic statements divorced from an embodied ritual reality, but instead assuming that the ritual and communal experience is the basis for theological conceptualisations. Thus, although the conclusion so far is not unprecedented, I have reached it by a route that will hopefully be a fresh input to the scholarly discussion of Paul’s theology. But how about the language of “justification by faith”, so important to many Lutheran interpreters? I argue here that this concept is but one of many conceptual metaphors that Paul uses to describe the transition from a negative state to a positive state. As Stephen Finland has explored at length, Paul bombards his recipients with a multitude of conceptualisations of this transition and combines them in different ways.55 Although Finlan does not use insight from cognitive linguistics about how abstract knowledge is modelled on more concrete experience, his study is nevertheless an excellent starting point for a discussion about theology modelled on multiple cognitive domains. The imagery of Paul makes use several cognitive domains familiar to most people in antiquity: Covenantal court of law:56 Christ’s death changes the human condition so that she does not have to be judged by God, the judge. That is, Christ’s death justifies whoever responds in faith (Rom 3:24–26; 4:23–25; 5:16–20; 8:1, 33; 2 Cor 5:17). Also, dying with Christ takes away the law’s authority to judge (Rom 6:7; 7:1–6; Gal 2:19). I agree with N. T. Wright that the court language must be understood in a covenantal framework. Justification is not just about an individual judged in a divine court, but about being included in the covenant in which a righteous relation to God is possible.57

                                                            

54 E.g. Schweizer, Mystik, 220; Ed P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 502; Morna Hooker, From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge Universtiy Press, 1990), 13–72. 55 Stephen Finlan, Options of Atonement in Christian Thought (Collegeville: Michael Glazier, 2007), ch. 2. Already Sanders (Paul, 463–472) argued this, but I will take Finlan as my starting point, since he discussed how these images blend. Finlan focuses on the imagery related to the concept of atonement, so I have widened his discussion to include the semantic domain of “transformation and new creation”. 56 The centrality of justification by faith has been defended by e.g. Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and his Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004); Mark A. Seifrid, Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1992). 57 The expansion of the covenant as central to Paul has been argued by N. T. Wright repeatedly, e.g. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 131–179; idem, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991); idem, Justification: God's Plan and Paul’s Vision (London: SPCK, 2009).

388

Rikard Roitto

Slavery and adoption:58 Jesus is a redemption that buys people free from slavery under the personified Sin and Death (Rom 3:24; 5:12–15, 21; 6:6, 11– 23; 1 Cor 6:20; 7:23), and the curse of the law (Gal 3:13). The redemption is followed by adoption as sons (Gal 4:5–7; Rom 8:14–17, 22–23). When Paul says that Jesus has won victory over Sin and Death (1 Cor 15:54–56), he probably has the image of these powers as slave masters in mind. Sacrifice: Jesus is the ἱλαστήριον (atoning sacrifice, place of atonement) on the Day of Atonement that atones the sins of humanity (Rom 3:25; 8:3), a scape-goat removing sin and taking on the curse of the law (2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13), and the death-averting Paschal lamb (1 Cor 5:7). Jesus is also a sacrifice that institutes a new/renewed covenant (1 Cor 11:15).59 Diplomacy:60 The death of Jesus ends the enmity between God and humanity and reconciles humanity with God (Rom 5:10–11; 2 Cor 5:19–20). Transformation (through death and resurrection) into a new creation:61 Whoever enters into Christ is transformed into a new creation. Sometimes this transition is described in the language of dying with Christ from the old self and rising as a new self in Christ (Rom 6:3–11; 7:4; Gal 2:19; 5:14; 6:14–15). We should note here, that the language of transformation is used both in relation to the change at the time of entry into Christ (Rom 6:5–6; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15), the continuous transformation while in Christ (Rom 8:29; 12:2; 2 Cor 3:18; Gal 4:19; Phil 3:10) and the final transformation at death and resurrection (Phil 3:10, 21; 1 Cor 15:42–56). Thus, the cognitive domain of transformation of substance is not only used to explain the transition into Christ, but also to describe the both the continued and final transformation of those in Christ. Finlan rightly argues that Paul regularly combines these images. Unfortunately, Finlan does not use insights from blending theory to discuss the effects on the reader when faced with such a complex battery of images. Blending theory, developed by Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, is a development of 58 The centrality of redemption has recently been argued by e.g. Douglas A. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). 59 Scholars typically connect the cultic atonement language to either justification or redemption; see Stephen Finlan, The Background and Content of Paul’s Cultic Atonement Metaphors (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2004), 163–192. 60 No scholar has, to my knowledge, claimed that this language is at the center Paul’s theology. The Swedish theologian and founder of the Missionary Covenant Church of Sweden, Paul Petter Waldenström, based his subjective theory of atonement on the reconciliation metaphor, though; see Paul Petter Waldenström, “Försoningens betydelse”, Pietisten, June 1872. 61 The centrality of theosis in Paul has been argued by e.g. Michael J. Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009).

 

Theological Language of Salvation as Social and Embodied Cognition  

389 

the insights about metaphorical thinking in cognitive linguistics.62 The basic innovation of blending theory compared to earlier cognitive linguistics is the insight that many thought processes do not only involve metaphorical transfer from one domain to another. Rather, we construct blends of different cognitive domains into something new that contains elements from two or more domains of knowledge. This mental capacity to “blend” knowledge allows the human mind to be creative and solve problems. Vernon Robbins has used blending theory to discuss readers’ interpretations of complex blends in biblical texts, and he suggests that different readers will spontaneously appreciate different potentials of the blend when reading the text and thus decipher the imagery differently.63 Robbins’ suggestion fit well into Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner’s insight that integration processes of different cognitive domains into blends are “opportunistic”, that is, oriented toward the pragmatic needs of the thinking subject.64 No wonder “justification by faith” shined more clearly than the other metaphors in Paul’s texts for a Luther in agony. When Paul’s already complex blends blended with Luther’s situation, particular aspects of Paul’s theological language came to the fore. No wonder a Calvin, trained in law, extracted a predominantly judicial understanding of “justification” in Paul’s complex blends. Both Luther and Calvin could be said to be great contextual theologians, just like Paul. Since Paul provides the reader with a smorgasbord of cognitive domains to explain the significance of Christ, every reader will make opportunistic blends of Paul’s language, depending on a myriad of contextual factors. This phenomenon explains why his letters have continuously been a source of inspiration and contention in all branches of Christianity. Although scholarship on Paul is well aware of Paul’s original personification of Sin in Rom 5–8, no scholar that I know of discusses the fact that the conceptualisation of sin changes with the different conceptualisations of Christ’s death and resurrection. Gary Anderson has demonstrated with the aid of cognitive linguistics that sin is conceptualised by metaphorical extension of mundane social categories in Jewish thinking.65 The two conceptualisations of sin in Jewish thinking explored by Anderson are sin as substance (burden or

                                                            

62 Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities (New York: Basic Books, 2002). 63 Vernon Robbins, “Conceptual Blending and Early Christian Imagination”, in Explaining Christian Origins and Early Judaism: Contributions from Cognitive and Social Science, ed. Petri Luomanen, Ilkka Pyysiäinen and Risto Uro (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2007) 161–195. For more thorough introductions to the use of blending theory to interpret ancient texts, see Bonnie Howe, Because You Bear This Name: Conceptual Metaphor and the Moral Meaning of 1 Peter (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2006); Hugo Lundhaug, Images of Rebirth: Cognitive Poetics and Transformational Soteriology in the Gospel of Philip and the Exegesis on the Soul (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010). 64 Fauconnier and Turner, Way, 366. 65 Gary A. Anderson, Sin: A History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009).

390

Rikard Roitto

stain), and sin as debt. Anderson, who discusses a huge number of Jewish and Christian texts, does not pay attention to Paul’s conceptualisation of sin as an agent, which is arguably his most original way of talking about sin. I would like to suggest that Paul uses (at least) all these three conceptualisations of sin: sin as substance, sin as debt, and sin as agent. When sin is conceived of as substance, it may be a burden or dirt, which fits well with Paul’s cultic metaphors. The sacrifice of Christ removes the substance of sin, just like sin and guilt offerings in the Jewish tradition did. Paul uses expressions that imply a conceptualisation of sin as something that can be moved, cleansed or covered – a substance – at several occasions (e.g. Rom 4:7; 11:27; 1 Cor 6:11; 15:17; 2 Cor 5:21). When sin is conceived of as moral debt, it matches Paul’s judicial metaphors. Christ’s death somehow stands in for the punishment for human moral debt. Sin is often described as something that can be counted or measured – a debt – in Paul’s letters (e.g. Rom 2:6; 4:4–5; 4:7; 5:13–15, 20; 6:1, 23; 2 Cor 5:19; 1 Thess 2:16). When sin is conceived of as a personified force modelled on a slave owner, the conceptualisation matches Paul’s language of redemption. Christ’s role here fluctuates and is either that of a payment or a victor over sin.66 Sin is frequently conceptualised as an agent in Paul’s letters (e.g. Rom 3:9; 5:12, 21; 6:2, 6–7, 12–22; 7:8–25; 1 Cor 15:56; Gal 3:22). Also Paul’s language of metamorphosis seemingly implies an understanding of sin as a deforming force,67 similar to an agentic understanding of sin with respect to its power to influence humanity. In opposition to this deforming force, Christ is a positive transforming force. To summarise the discussion so far in terms of cognitive linguistics: Paul’s theologising is an activity where he conceptualises salvation, Christ and sin by metaphorical extension of several different domains of knowledge. The different constellations of metaphors are all ways to describe how Christ changes the human condition – especially the condition of the Gentiles – from a negative existence to an existence in God’s presence “in Christ”:

66 In Rom 3:24; Cor 1:30; 6:20, Jesus seems to be the payment, while in Rom 5–8, Christ’s role is to defeat the condition of slavery under Sin, and in Gal 4:5 Christ seems to take on the role of the broker of payment. Christ’s role in the redemption metaphor is thus unstable, which only confirms the opportunistic and flexible nature of human metaphorical thinking. 67 Cf. the mythic drama in Rom 1:21–32, which depicts sin as force that deforms the knowledge and morality of humanity.

Theological Language of Salvation as Social and Embodied Cognition

Not in Christ

Justification in a covenantal court (sin as judicial debt, Christ settles the debt) Redemption and adoption (sin as agent, a slave owner, Christ as payment or a victor) Effects of sacrifice (sin as substance, Christ as sacrifice) Reconciliation (sin as interpersonal injury causing enmity, Christ as broker) Transformation (sin as deforming force, Christ as sanctifying force)

391 

 In Christ

Therefore, I agree generally with Ed P. Sanders’ analysis that the common denominator of justification, redemption, reconciliation and transformation language, is that they all are transitional concepts, “transit language”.68 However, we need to refine Sanders’ suggestion and recognise that this transition of the saved individual is conceptualised in several different ways by Paul. He thinks in terms of space, substance, and social relations. Salvation is a movement in space: either sin is removed from the sinner (cultic metaphors) or the sinner is removed from the power of sin (redemptive metaphors). Salvation is a change of substance: the negative substance of sin is cleansed (cultic metaphors), and the essence of the believer is transformed (transformation metaphors). Salvation is a change in social relations: a moral imbalance is settled (judicial metaphors), a hostile relation is restored (diplomatic metaphor), slaves have their social status changed into that of sons (redemptive metaphors) and the covenantal relation is renewed (cultic metaphors). In Paul’s theological language of salvation, all conceptual roads lead to participation in Christ. The consequence of the analysis so far is that there is really no reason to claim the primacy of one of these conceptualisations over the other ones, and thus no reason, except for confessional ones, to place justification by faith at the centre of Paul’s theology. Nor is there any reason to claim that metamorphosis, the theological language in Paul so central to theōsis-theology, or redemption, favoured as Paul’s theological centre by certain scholars, is more important than justification to Paul. Paul pragmatically combines several conceptualisations of salvation, depending on what he wants to say.

68

Sanders, Paul, 463–472.

392

Rikard Roitto

Paul’s Theology of Salvation as Extended Cognition In order to explore Paul’s pragmatic stance in his choice of theological language, we need to return to the idea of extended cognition. In each of Paul’s letters, Paul is a component of a cognitive system larger than himself. Thus, he thinks and communicates within that system. We can only look at a few brief examples within the space of this chapter. First, let us look at the much contended “justification by faith”. Is there, from the perspective of cognitive linguistics, any reason to dismiss “justification by faith” as less important in Paul, because it emerged as a Kampfeslehre in the heat of a conflict with Jerusalem? I would agree that it is fully plausible that the theological language of “justification” did indeed emerge or at least become more developed as the fruit of the conflict about gentile communitymembers. We can even imagine that Paul was not the first to talk about righteousness. It might just as well be those who argued for circumcision of Gentiles who began to argue with the language of “righteousness”.69 That is, Paul was embedded in an extended cognitive system in which “righteousness” was a key concept. This made it necessary for Paul to communicate with language from the judicial domain of knowledge to win the argument. Perhaps the opponents’ use of “righteousness” is not all that influenced Paul’s choice of language. As Hans Dieter Betz pioneered the rhetorical analysis of Galatians, he argued that its rhetoric is best understood a forensic speech.70 Although few scholars nowadays would agree that Galatians as a whole fits the forensic genre, many scholars still concur that portions of the letter can be fruitfully analysed as defence speech, since Galatians is written to defend Paul’s vision for the ekklesia.71 That is, Paul could be thought of as being a prosecutor in an imaginary court when he shapes his theology of justification in Galatians. We can reasonably assume that Paul had used the theology of justification by faith in several court-like oral debates before formulating the letter to the Galatians, since Paul’s narration of his rebuke of Peter in Antioch relies heavily on justification-language (Gal 2:16–21). We should therefore not be surprised that Paul, embedded in a virtual court-room setting, arguing for the inclusion of the Gentile Christ-believers, finds court-room terminology an appropriate semantic field to argue with. Is the circumstance that Paul develops his theology of justification contextually a valid argument against its centrality? Let us compare with another of

                                                            

De Boer, Galatians, 151, argues that both Paul and his opponents used “righteousness”language in their argumentation. 70 Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, WBC (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979). 71 De Boer, Galatians, 66–71, summarises the debate since Betz well. 69

Theological Language of Salvation as Social and Embodied Cognition

393 

Paul’s important theological languages, transformation. Transformation-language is just as absent as justification-language in First Thessalonians, and to my knowledge no one has dismissed Paul’s language of transformation as secondary because it does not appear in his earliest letter. In First Corinthians, transformation language is only used about the future resurrected self, 15:42– 58. Depending on whether one thinks Galatians or Second Corinthians was written first, one could perhaps trace the language of transformation either to Paul’s ethos-argumentation in Second Corinthians or the eschatological argumentation in Galatians. In Second Corinthians, where Paul defends his position as apostle, he does so very much by referring to his Christ-like suffering for the gospel (e.g. 4:7–12). His apparent weakness is in fact a sign of him having been transformed into a new creation (5:12–17), his care for all brothers (11:28–30), and him being the instrument of Christ’s power (12:9–12). In Galatians, the basic premise of his entire argument about the law is the eschatological conviction that the Galatians are “set free from the present evil age” (1:4) and thus “a new creation” (6:15). We could therefore name the language of salvation as transformation into a new creation a Kampfeslehre, either do defend Paul’s ethos or to defend Paul’s vision for the Gentiles. Doing so would make it neither more nor less central to Paul’s theological thinking. My point is twofold: First, not only “justification by faith” but also other language domains Paul uses to make theology are embedded patterns of cognition emerging from Paul being part of an extended cognitive system, a socio-rhetorical context. Second, the fact that we can trace the origin of theological language to a certain context into which Paul’s cognition is embedded does not constitute a proper argument for or against its centrality in the thought-world of Paul. If we would work our way through all of Paul’s theological languages to describe the transition into Christ, we would probably find that they all emerge from Paul being embedded in an extended cognitive system. The redemption imagery, appearing first in Galatians, is probably the fruit of Paul (and his opponents) preaching to communities in which a fair proportion of the members are slaves.72 The reconciliation language, appearing first in Second Corinthians, appears in a context where Paul tries to mend his crumbling relation to the Corinthians. In short, Paul seems to invent new theological language to describe the process of salvation as he enters into new socio-rhetorical situations.73 Here I find Peter Oakes’ distinction between implied and expected readers helpful. The implied reader in reader in Galatians if a free gentile man, but Paul’s expected readers were probably to large degree slaves (and women and Jews). Peter Oakes, Galatians, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2015), 14. 73 In a more complete analysis, we would of course also have to include an analysis of Paul’s embeddedness in Jewish culture in general. Intertextual parallels to Paul’s thinking are extensively treated in commentaries. In this article I focus on Paul’s more immediate contexts, though. 72

394

Rikard Roitto

No matter in what order Paul added new semantic fields to his theological language, they all have parallel functions in his basic cognitive structure: they all describe the transit into Christ. Proving that one particular metaphor is late and born out of a certain context does not change thius. But how do all these metaphors relate? It seems to me that Paul feels free to blend (on blending, see above) the conceptualisations of salvation based on different language domains in more or less infinite ways. In Romans, we can see a well-developed integration of the different theological language domains he is using. I will just give a few brief examples, well aware that a proper analysis of the integration of different language domains would require a much more thorough procedure: The famous statement in Rom 3:23–26, one long sentence in the Greek text, uses language from the judicial domain (δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι), the domain of slave trade (διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησου), and the cultic domain (ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον … ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι). In the following chapters, all of Paul’s important language domains are integrated into his presentation of how Christ saves (see references above). In Romans 5, court-language (5:1, 9; κρίμα … δικαίωμα, 5:16; παράπτωμα, 5:20) is integrated with diplomatic language (εἰρήνην ἔχομεν, 5:1; κατηλλάγημεν τῷ θεῷ, 5:9–11), cultic language (ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτου, 5:9) and descriptions of death and sin as personified rulers (5:11– 14, 21). In Rom 6, the language of transformation through death and resurrection (6:1–5, 8–11) blends smoothly with the language of redemption from slavery under Sin (6:6, 9, 12–23) and occasional glimpses of judicial language (δεδικαίωται, 6:7). Apparently, Paul likes all his theological languages to have a place in his presentation of his theology to the Romans. He sees these terms as complementary. The plethora of theological languages might even be so well integrated in Paul’s thinking at the time he is writing Romans that he does not even see them as distinct anymore. So how is it possible for Paul to integrate all these metaphors from such different domains of knowledge so seamlessly? Blending theory suggests that when knowledge from different domains is integrated into blends, there needs to be common elements in the different domains that structure the blend. These common elements are called “the generic space”, while the different domains are called “input spaces”.74 In other words, the different input spaces are integrated via their common elements in the generic space into a blend.75 In the case of Paul’s theological language, I suggest that the most fundamental component of the generic space is spatial movement. From the core spatial language of being “in Christ” follows that the transition “into Christ” is Fauconnier and Turner, Way, 44–50. Note that “space” is just analytical language to describe how our cognitive processes function. There are no identifiable “spaces” in the brain where blends happen. 74 75

Theological Language of Salvation as Social and Embodied Cognition

395 

conceptualised as spatial movement. This spatial movement is then used metaphorically to conceptualise a social “move” in change of status (justification, reconciliation, redemption). The process can be clarified by using Rom 3:23–25a as an example. Paul begins by evoking the image of lacking God’s glory due to sin (v. 23). Humanity is outside God’s sphere of glory (ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεου), that is, outside the sphere of God’s ingroup, due to sin. Then Paul evokes the image of the covenantal court-room where God’s gift sets the relation right (δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι). That is, sin is conceptualised as a debt that can be cancelled by gift. That gift changes the social status of the receiver, so that the receiver is socially relieved of the problem that hinders entrance into God’s ingroup. Without a blink, Paul shifts the imagery into that of redemption (διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως). Now it is not the debt of sin that is cancelled by the gift, but the sinner himself that is bought free. This redemption is “in” Jesus Christ (τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησου). The redemption metaphor thus complements the debt-cancellation metaphor by depicting the social “move” away from outsidership into Christ, that is, into the sphere of God’s glory. Finally, Paul changes imagery again to the great day of atonement. The genius use of the open-ended ἱλαστήριον integrates the concepts of getting rid of sin and being moved into a new sphere. The ἱλαστήριον is the place of atonement in Septuagint (Lev 16:13–15), and Jesus is that place. At the same time, Jesus is pictured as the sacrificial animal, since it though his blood (ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι) that the atonement is made. Jesus thus occupies two slots in the scene, the place and the instrument of salvation. In that way, the atonement metaphor integrates the move into the space of salvation in the redemption image and the change of social status before God that allows the move to happen in the courtroom image. By integrating imagery from court-room, slave-trade, and cult, Paul sparks a rich imagination of separation from the problem of sin and a social “move” into the sphere of salvation “in Christ”. The theological language of transformation works a bit different from the other languages though, since it does not conceptualise salvation as a movement but as a change of substance. As was discussed above, from the ritual experiences of Christ’s presence follows both the spatial language of being “in Christ” and intuitions about transformation by contagion, since we humans intuitively think that we are influenced by contagion by what we are close to, and this experience can be especially vivid in rituals. The closeness to Christ was embodied in ritual experiences such as baptism, in partaking in the meal, and by manifestations of the Spirit. Therefore, I suggest that the communal experience of being in Christ would have developed quite spontaneously into a theology of transformation into Christ-likeness.

396

Rikard Roitto

Conclusion Paul’s cognition was embodied, socially embedded and part of a larger cognitive system than just himself. The core of the ritual experience for the Pauline ekklesiai was the banquet, which celebrated community with Christ. The unity and closeness to Christ experienced therein can explain how the theology of being “in Christ” grew out that ritual context, since we humans think about abstract things, for example theology, by metaphorical extension of concrete experience, for example rituals. All theological languages used to describe the transfer “into Christ” grew from different contexts in which Paul was embedded, as an extension of the basic core theology of participation in Christ. Justification, redemption, reconciliation, transformation, et cetera, probably all emerged from different historical circumstances. What makes it possible for Paul to blend these conceptualisations so easily is that they all share the basic structure of spatial transfer, which is metaphorically extended into social transfer. The language of transformation into Christ-likeness, though, is not based on spatial movement, but on intuitions of contagion by that which you are close to, which in this case is Christ.76

Bibliography Barrett, Justin L. “Exploring the Natural Foundations of Religion”. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4 (2000): 29–34. –. Cognitive Science, Religion, and Theology: From Human Minds to Divine Minds. Templeton Science and Religion Series. Templeton Press, 2011. Barrett, Justin L., and E. Thomas Lawson. “Ritual Intuitions: Cognitive Contributions to Judgments of Ritual Efficacy”. Journal of Cognition and Culture 1 (2001): 183–201. Barsalou, Lawrence W., Aron K. Barbey, W. Kyle Simmons and Ava Santos. “Embodiment in Religious Knowledge”. Journal of Cognition and Culture 5 (2005): 14–55. –. “Grounding Conceptual Knowledge in Modality-Specific Systems”. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7 (2003): 84–91. Betz, Hans Dieter, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. WBC. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Bousset, Wilhelm. Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens. Göttingen, 1913. Boyer, Pascal. The Naturalness of Religious Ideas: A Cognitive Theory of Religion. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.

76 Further research: I have not developed the importance of eschatology and the highly embodied manifestations of the Spirit in Paul’s community in this chapter. Partly realised eschatology is integral to the idea of being transformed into a new creation, and should be further elaborated.

Theological Language of Salvation as Social and Embodied Cognition

397 

–. Religion Explained: The Human Instincts That Fashion Gods, Spirits and Ancestors London: Vintage, 2002. Bradshaw, Paul F. The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and Methods for the Study of Early Liturgy. 2nd rev. ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. –. “Jewish Influence on Early Christian Liturgy: A Reappraisal”. Jewish-Christian Relations. http://www.jcrelations.net/Jewish_Influence_on_Early_Christian_Liturgy__A_Reappraisal.3217.0.html. Campbell, Douglas A. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. De Boer, Martinus C. Galatians: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011. Despotis, Athanasios. Die “New Perspective on Paul” und die griechisch-orthodoxe Paulusinterpretation. St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 2014. Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Engberg-Pedersen, Troel. Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Eskine, Kendall J. “Moral Contagion Effects in Everyday Interpersonal Encounters”. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49 (2013): 947–950. Esler, Philip F. Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter. Philadelphia: Fortress, 2003. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books, 2002. Ferguson, Everett. Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Finlan, Stephen. The Background and Content of Paul’s Cultic Atonement Metaphors. Leiden: Brill, 2004. –. Options of Atonement in Christian Thought. Collegeville: Michael Glazier, 2007. Gelman, Susan. The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Gorman, Michael J. Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Grimes, Ronald L. The Craft of Ritual Studies. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Guthrie, Stewart Elliott. Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Harland, Philip A. Associations, Synagogues and Congregations: Claiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. –. Dynamics of Identity in the World of the Early Christians: Associations, Judeans, and Cultural Minorities. New York: T & T Clark, 2009. Hartman, Lars. “Into the Name of the Lord Jesus”: Baptism in the Early Church. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. Hooker, Morna. From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Howe, Bonnie. Because You Bear This Name: Conceptual Metaphor and the Moral Meaning of 1 Peter. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2006 Johnson, Maxwell E. The Rites of Christian Initiation: Their Evolution and Interpretation. 2nd ed. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2007. Keltner, Dacher, and Jonathan Haidt. “Approaching Awe, a Moral, Spiritual, and Aesthetic Emotion”. Cognition & Emotion 17 (2003): 297–314.

398

Rikard Roitto

Klinghardt, Matthias. Gemeinschaftsmahl und Mahlgemeinschaft: Soziologie und Liturgie frühchristlicher Mahlfeiern. Tübingen: Francke, 1996. Kloppenborg, John S., and Stephen G. Wilson, eds. Voluntary Associations in the GrecoRoman World. London: Routledge, 1996. Lakoff, George. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. –. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books, 1999. Levine, Lee. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Lossky, Vladimir. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Cambridge: James Clarke, 1957. Lundhaug, Hugo. Images of Rebirth: Cognitive Poetics and Transformational Soteriology in the Gospel of Philip and the Exegesis on the Soul. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010. Martin, Dale B. The Corinthian Body. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995 McCauley, Robert N., and E. Thomas Lawson. Bringing Ritual to Mind: Psychological Foundations of Cultural Forms. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002. McKay, Heather A. Sabbath and Synagogue: The Question of Sabbath Worship in Ancient Judaism. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1994. Meteyard, Lotte, Sara Rodriguez Cuadrado, Bahador Bahrami and Gabriella Vigliocco. “Coming of Age: A Review of Embodiment and the Neuroscience of Semantics” Cortex 48 (2012): 788–804. Nemeroff, Carol, and Paul Rozin. “The Contagion Concept in Adult Thinking in the United States: Transmission of Germs and Interpersonal Influence”. Ethos 22 (1994): 158–186. Oakes, Peter. Galatians. Paideia. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015. Papanikolaou, Aristotle. Being with God: Trinity, Apophaticism and Divine-Human Communion. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006. Piaget, Jean. The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International Universities Press, 1952. Pyysiäinen, Ilkka. How Religion Works: Towards a New Cognitive Science of Religion. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2001. –. Supernatural Agents: Why We Believe in Souls, Gods and Buddhas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Robbins, Vernon. “Conceptual Blending and Early Christian Imagination”. Pages 161–195 in Explaining Christian Origins and Early Judaism: Contributions from Cognitive and Social Science. Edited Petri Luomanen, Ilkka Pyysiäinen, and Risto Uro. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2007. Rocca, Gregory P. Speaking the Incomprehensible God: Thomas Aquinas on the Interplay of Positive and Negative Theology. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2004 Roitto, Rikard. Behaving as a Christ-believer: A Cognitive Perspective on Identity and Behavior Norms in Ephesians. ConBNT 46. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Rosch, Eleanor. “Principles of Categorization”. Pages 27–48 in Cognition and Categorization. Edited by Eleanor Rosch and Barbara B. Lloyd; Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1978. Sanders, Ed P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Schweitzer, Albert. Die Mystik des Apostels Paulus. Tübingen: Mohr, 1930.

Theological Language of Salvation as Social and Embodied Cognition

399 

Seifrid, Mark A. Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1992. Shapiro, Lawrence A., ed. The Routledge Handbook of Embodied Cognition. London: Routledge, 2014. Smith, Dennis E. From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World. Philadelphia: Fortress, 2003. Sørensen, Jesper. A Cognitive Theory of Magic. Lanham: AltaMira, 2006. Streett, R. Alan. Subversive Meals: An Analysis of the Lord’s Supper under Roman Domination during the First Century. Eugene: Pickwick, 2013. Tappenden, Frederick. Resurrection in Paul: Cognition, Metaphor and Transformation. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016. Taussig, Hal. In the Beginning was the Meal: Social Experimentation and Early Christian Identity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 2009. Taylor, John R. Linguistic Categorization. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Teske, John A. “From Embodied to Extended Cognition”. Zygon 48 (2013): 759–787. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGCT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Toosi, Negin R., and Nalini Ambady. “Ratings of Essentialism for Eight Religious Identities”. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 21 (2011): 17–29. Tremlin, Todd. Minds and Gods: The Cognitive Foundations of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Ullucci, Daniel C. The Christian Rejection of Animal Sacrifice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Uro, Risto. Ritual and Christian Beginnings. Oxford: Oxford Universy Press, 2016. Van Geest, Paul. The Incomprehensibility of God: Augustine as a Negative Theologian. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. Van Slyke, James A. The Cognitive Science of Religion. Burlington: Ashgate, 2011. Waldenström, Paul Petter. “Försoningens betydelse”. Pietisten, June 1872. Wedderburn, Andrew J. M. Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology against Its Greco-Roman Background. Tübingen: Mohr, 1987. Westerholm, Stephen. Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and his Critics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Whitehouse, Harvey. Modes of Religiosity: A Cognitive Theory of Religious Transmission. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press, 2004. Wiles, Maurice, and Mark Santer, eds. Documents in Early Christian Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Wrede, William. Paulus. Tübingen: Mohr, 1907. Wright, N.T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991. –. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. –. Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision. London: SPCK, 2009.

 

 

 

List of Contributors Michael G. Azar Assistant Professor of Theology/Religious Studies at the University of Scranton in Pennsylvania. Athanasios Despotis Privatdozent – Heisenberg Fellow at the Protestant Theological Faculty of the University of Bonn and Research Associate at the Mission and Ethics Project at the University of Pretoria. Sotirios Despotis Professor and Head of the Department of Social Theology at the University of Athens. John Anthony Dunne Assistant Professor of New Testament at Bethel Seminary (St. Paul, MN) and Research Associate at the Mission and Ethics Project at the University of Pretoria. Michael J. Gorman Raymond E. Brown Chair in Biblical Studies at St. Mary’s Seminary & University in Baltimore, MD. Edith M. Humphrey William F. Orr Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and Secretary of the Orthodox Theological Society of America. Jack Khalil Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of Balamand. Jacobus (Kobus) Kok Professor and Head of Department of New Testament Studies at ETF Leuven in Belgium, and NRF Y1 Research Associate at the University of Pretoria. Vasile Mihoc Honorary Professor of New Testament Studies at the Orthodox Theological Faculty of the University of Sibiu. Konstantinos Nikolakopoulos Professor of Biblical Theology at the Institute for Orthodox Theology at the LudwigMaximilian-University in Munich. Rikard Roitto Docent and University Lecturer at Stockholm School of Theology.

402

List of Contributors

Stelian Tofana Professor and Head of the Department of New Testament Studies at the Faculty of Orthodox Theology of the Babeş-Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca. James Buchanan Wallace Associate Professor and Chair of the Faculty of Religion and Philosophy at the Rosa Deal School of Arts of the Christian Brothers University. Michael Wolter Professor Emeritus at the Protestant Theological Faculty of the University of Bonn and President of the SNTS (2017).

 

Index of Ancient Sources Old Testament   Genesis 1:2–3 1:26 1:27 2:7 2:17 3 3:15 3:21 4:1 6:16 (15) 12 12:3 15 15:3–4 15:6 17 18 21:10 22 22:16–18 22:18 24:49 Exodus 6:6 13:21–22 14:10 14:12 14:18 14:19 14:24 15:26 19:5 23:22 31:15 31:34 32:13

108 41 n. 69, 180, 198 300 110 253 n. 38 47 189 41 n. 67 296 229 183 188 183, 188 188 29, 31, 39 n. 54, 40, 336 40 183 187 183 189 189 205

225 n. 112 279, 284 284 284 284 n. 43 279 279 246 204 356 n. 49 253 n. 40 253 n. 40 190

34:6–7

237

Leviticus 14 16 16:4 16:13–15 16:24 18:5 19:18 19:34 20:10 20:11 20:12 20:16 20:27 26:14 26:14–15 26:14–46 26:15 26:16–46 26:24 27:29

129 n. 6 129 n. 6 41 n. 61, 194 395 41 n. 61 188 351 351 253 n. 40 253 n. 40 253 n. 40 253 n. 40 253 n. 40 204 204 213 n. 62 204 204 204 253 n. 40

Numbers 15:31 24:4 24:16 30:7 35:31 36:6

34 n. 28 65 n. 25 65 n. 25 249 n. 22 253 n. 40 249 n. 22

Deuteronomy 7:8 7:9 9:26 13:6 15:5 18:18–19

225 n. 112 202, 205 225 n. 112 225 n. 112 225 n. 112 254

404 21:8 24:18 27:26 28:58 30:10 30:19 30:11 32:4 32:12 33:9 Joshua 24:14

Index of Ancient Sources 225 n. 112 225 n. 112 188 188 188 37 142 205 279 204 n. 15

205

Judges 5:2 6:34

65 n. 25 194 n. 59

Ruth 4:13

249

1 Samuel 2:2 2:27 16:14 16:23 18:10

44 n. 79 65 n. 25 281 281 281

2 Samuel 22:29

108 n. 5

1 Kings 2:15 8:10–12 19:5 22:19–23

253 n. 41 304, 308 175 n. 50 281

2 Kings 7:23 11:15

225 n. 112 253

1 Chronicles 17:21

225 n. 112

2 Chronicles 23:21

253 n. 41

Ezra 2:2

37 n. 41

Nehemiah 1:10

225 n. 112

Esther 13:2

37 n. 41

Job 10:11 29:14

41 n. 67 41

Psalms LXX 7:1–17 13:1–3 13:3 18:8–15 18:10 24:7–8 26[27M]:13 31:1–2 34:18 35:6 35:11 36:2 37:20 50 50:6 50:14 55:3 67 68:5 70:20 77[78M]:14 79:19–20 84:7 87[88M]:6 88:15 88:35 93[94M]:17 99:4 106:11 111:9 115:2 118:66 131:9 142:2

239 n. 190 212 166 204 n. 18 205 237 168 31 175 n. 50 237 237 282 n. 33 356 n. 49 205 206, 207 nn. 30–31 281 356 n. 49 179 175 n. 50 38 279 38 38 34 239 n. 190 174 168 44 204, 204 n. 18 220 205 167 41, 41 n. 35 167, 212

405 

Index of Ancient Sources 142[143M]:2 146:8

322 n. 17 364 n. 90

31:31–34 44:2 63:11

171, 279, 360 355 n. 45 279

Proverbs 8:22 11:13 25:21–22a

186 n. 37 65 n. 25 364

Isaiah 27:9 38:19 39:8 41:8 43:1 43:14 44:3 44:21–22 44:22–28 48:17–18 49:1bLXX 49:6LXX 50:1–3 52:1 52:3 53:4 53:5LXX 53:11 53:12 54–56 54:1 54:6–8 54:13 55:11 57 57:4 59:17 59:20 61:8–11 61:10 62:10–12 63:9 64:6

31 n. 12 205 205 355 255 225 45 255 225 255 65 n. 28 65 n. 28 255 41 n. 65 225 33 33 33 n. 23, 167 33 191 186, 187 255 360 n. 71 24 191 n. 51 189 41 46 44 41 n. 65, 194 225 225 166

Ezekiel 1:28 3:18 8–10 16:36 18:10 18:13 21:29LXX 22:10 33:8 33:14 36–37 36:25–27 36:26 36:26–27 36:27 37:16 43:14 43:17 43:20

305, 308 253 n. 40 41 n. 65 65 n. 25 170 n. 37 253 n. 40 65 n. 25 65 n. 25 253 n. 40 253 n. 40 189 43 n. 77 334 279 45 45 229 229 229

Jeremiah 1:15 6:28 11:3–5 31

65 n. 28 170 n. 37 239 n. 190 189

Daniel 2:19 3:35 3:27 4:34 8:12 9:13 Hosea 6:1–2 11:1 14:8

38 355 n. 45 38

Joel 2:28–29 3:1–2

279 45

Habakkuk 2:4 2:8 3:12 3:17

37, 167, 216, 218 218 37 250 n. 26

65 n. 25 190 205 225 205 205

406 Zechariah 3 3:5 (4) 6

Index of Ancient Sources 12:10 Malachi 1:2–3

139 194 139

45 356

Deuterocanonical Books Tobit 13:7

165

Wisdom of Solomon 5:15 5:18 10:7 11:23 12:27 15:1

41 n. 65 41 250 n. 26 364 n. 90 205 364 n. 90

Sirach 18:13 20:23 23:11 24 26:28 26:29b

364 n. 90 175 n. 50 34 142 34 34

27:8 29:6 44:19–23

41 175 n. 50 190

Baruch 5:1 3–4

41 n. 62 142

1 Maccabees 1:34 2:48 2:62 8:25 10:46

165 165 165 37 n. 41 16

4 Maccabees 17:21–22

229

New Testament Matthew 1:21 3:11 3:11–16 3:16 5:3 5:5 5:14–19 5:20 5:40 5:43 6:33 7:23 10:39 11:3 11:22 11:25 12:37

53 n. 126 49 n. 109 43 n. 77 294 n. 83 99 99 267 n. 95 254, 267 254 364 n. 90 220 n. 87 296 49 n. 106 268 168 96 n. 29, 99 168

13:23 14:22–36 14:41 16:21 16:24–25 21:2 22:14 24:21 25:1–13 25:8 26:45 26:59 27:40 27:43 27:44 27:43–44 28:19

250 n. 26 161 n. 7 165 230 n. 148 49 n. 106 247 n. 16 295 114 269 n. 101 276 165 253 328 328 328 328 43 n. 77

407 

Index of Ancient Sources Mark 1:2–3 1:4 1:8 1:10 6:20 6:55 7:9 8:31 8:34–35 10:21 10:38–39 12:19–27 12:25 14:36 15:32

268 49 n. 109 43 n. 77 294 n. 83 44 n. 79 117 174 230 n. 148 49 n. 106 360 n. 67 48 n. 98 263 195 290 n. 68 328

Luke 3:3 3:6 3:22 3:38 6:34 6:35–36 7:30 9:22 9:23–24 12:50 13:27 14:33 15:24 17:25 18:10–14 18:32 19:8 22:54–62 24:7 24:26–27 24:29

49 n. 109 99 n. 46 294 n. 83 195 n. 62 195 364 n. 90 174 230 n. 148 49 n. 106 48 n. 98 296 49 n. 106 195 230 n. 148 99 n. 47 165 360 n. 67 161 n. 7 165, 230 n. 148 256 194 n. 59

John 1 1:12 1:14 1:33 2 3 3:3 3:5

285 285 108, 263 43 n. 77 268 n. 99 330 276 43 n. 77, 386

3:14–15 3:30 6:57 6:63 6:68–69 8:34 9:41 12 12:25 12:31 13:1 14:30 15:13 16:11 19:32 20:9 21:20–22

230 n. 148 256 234 254 254 211–212 211 268 n. 99 49 n. 106 107 n. 1 329 107 n. 1 276 107 n. 1 328 230 n. 148 161 n. 7

Acts 1:5 2:17 2:38 2:44 3:14 3:16 3:22–23 4:32 8:9–24 9 9:1–7 9:3 9:3–8 9:9–20 10:48 11:16 11:16–21 13:24 13:38 13:38b–c 13:39 15:7 18:27 19:4 19:10 19:18 22:6–10 22:11 22:16 26:12–16

43 n. 77 99 n. 46 43 n. 77, 49 n. 109 13 n. 2 44 n. 79 168 254 13 n. 2 276 108 159 108 91 377 43 n. 76 43 n. 77 49 n. 109 49 n. 109 234 n. 170 53 168 15 13 n. 2 49 n. 109 163 n. 11 13 n. 2 159 108 43 n. 75 159

408 Romans 1–5 1–6 1–8 1:1 1:2 1:3–4 1:5 1:5–6 1:6 1:7 1:9 1:13 1:16 1:16–17 1:16–18 1:17 1:18 1:18–32 1:18–2:28 1:21 1:21–32 1:32 2:3–4 2:3–5 2:4 2:4–5 2:5 2:6 2:6–11 2:8 2:9 2:9–11 2:13 2:14 2:15 2:16 2:17–29 2:20 2:21–24 2:21–29 2:25 2:26–27

Index of Ancient Sources

30–36 31 37 14, 185 n. 28, 297 n. 90, 303 n. 120, 307 219, 219 n. 81, 228 24, 72 325 n. 19 297 n. 90 303 n. 120 303 n. 120, 355 14, 165 228 17, 24–25, 165, 215 n. 69, 363 n. 80 215, 221–222, 235 239 n. 190 65 n. 25, 167, 218, 220–221, 224, 232 205, 236 283 211 303 390 n. 67 256 n. 54 236 209 n. 40 8, 236, 260 236 n. 181, 364 214, 354 n. 39, 364 209 n. 40, 390 209 n. 40 204 n. 17, 205 204 n. 17 214 168, 321 n. 13 165 286 14, 147, 239, 239 n. 190 202, 211, 204 n. 17 185 205 204 n. 18 170 n. 37, 202 n. 4, 204 n. 17 204 n. 18

2:27 2:28–29 2:29 3 3:1 3:1–8 3:1–20 3:2 3:3 3:4 3:5 3:6 3:7 3:8 3:9 3:9–20 3:9–21 3:10–18 3:11 3:18 3:19 3:20 3:21 3:21–26 3:21–31 3:21–5:21 3:22 3:22a 3:23 3:23–25a 3:23–26 3:24 3:24–25 3:24–26 3:25 3:26 3:27 3:27–31 3:28 3:28–29 3:28–30 3:29–31

165, 170 n. 37, 204 n. 18 202 n. 4 264 n. 80 6, 99, 165, 201, 215 210 n. 45, 222 6, 201–209, 213, 228, 230, 238, 238 n. 189 6, 215 n. 67, 227 211 353 n. 35 170, 212, 220 220–221, 222, 228 n. 129, 237 170, 236 170, 222, 226 280 118, 222, 230, 237 n. 182, 390 201, 209–214, 238 239 230 166, 218 282 n. 33 230, 237 n. 183 100, 166, 221, 226 103 n. 63, 136, 220 6, 201–241 3, 215 n. 71 53 13 n. 2, 22, 23, 220, 363 n. 80 23 395 395 394 388, 390 n. 66 100 387 22–23, 220, 388 23, 168 102, 166, 171, 215 n. 68 201, 215–216 166, 222 223 17 6

Index of Ancient Sources 3:30 3:31 4 4:1 4:1–2 4:2 4:4–5 4:5 4:5–8 4:6 4:6–9 4:7 4:9–10 4:11 4:12 4:13 4:14 4:14–16 4:16 4:17 4:17–21 4:23–25 4:25

5 5–8 5:1 5:2 5:5–8 5:6 5:6–8 5:6–10 5:8 5:8–9 5:9 5:9–11 5:10 5:10–11 5:11–14 5:12 5:12–15 5:12–21 5:13–14

167, 168, 291 170, 237 n. 185 3, 219, 231 n. 154, 336 210 n. 45 165 166, 218 390 234, 329 234 n. 170 223 219 390 218 13 n. 2, 218, 228 14, 218 218, 222 14 218 14 37, 37 n. 43, 98, 333 190 191, 387 39 n. 53, 50, 119, 174 n. 49, 231, 234 n. 169–170, 357 n. 56 23, 194 n. 55, 394 237 n. 185, 245– 246, 386, 389, 390 n. 66 23, 168, 394 221 355 329 329, 363 358 232 n. 160, 236 234 n. 170 168, 230 n. 146, 394 394 256 n. 53, 356 388 394 47, 256 n. 54, 268 n. 100, 390 49, 388 325 189

5:13–15 5:14 5:14–21 5:15 5:16 5:16–19 5:16–20 5:17 5:17–21 5:20 5:20–21 5:21 6

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

409  390 256 n. 54 188 n. 41 223 221, 394 234 n. 170 387 223 332 390, 394 211 n. 53 256 n. 54, 388, 390, 394 32, 35 n. 32, 39, 51– 52, 53, 209 n. 40, 328 n. 24, 332, 373, 385–386, 386 n. 53, 394 171, 260 35, 37, 260–261 209 n. 40, 210 n. 45, 390 394 171, 303 29–57, 329 170, 171, 264, 390 256 172, 254, 256 n. 53, 375 180, 250, 385 119 388 171, 333 172 250 384 388 120, 171, 211 n. 53, 250, 328, 330, 388, 394 390 2, 47–54, 214, 223, 234 n. 170, 387, 394 172, 264 394 166, 247, 394 171, 223 171 172, 173

410 6:11–23 6:12 6:12–13 6:12–15 6:12–22 6:12–23 6:13 6:14 6:15 6:16–17 6:17 6:17–20 6:18 6:18–19 6:18–20 6:19 6:19–7:13 6:20 6:20–22 6:21 6:22 6:23 7 7:1 7:1–3 7:1–6 7:1–13 7:2 7:4 7:5 7:5–12 7:6 7:7 7:7–11 7:7–12 7:7–20 7:7–25 7:8 7:8–25 7:9 7:11 7:12 7:13 7:14 7:14–8:11

Index of Ancient Sources 388 211 n. 53, 258 n. 58 212 172 390 394 49, 234 n. 170 211 n. 53, 247 170, 210 n. 45 211 n. 53 52, 325 n. 19, 354 283 30, 33, 225 249 234 n. 170 44 n. 81, 212, 214 n. 65, 372 255 225 359 256 n. 54 30, 172 211 n. 53, 284, 390 6–7, 247 n. 16 170, 210 n. 45 171 6, 243–271, 387 171 173 n. 44, 198 38 n. 47, 47 nn. 92– 93, 171, 172 52, 214 n. 65 253 52 31 n. 10 253 n. 38 171, 257 283 170, 280 31 n. 10 390 31 n. 10 31 n. 10 31 n. 9, 44 n. 79, 256 31 n. 10, 170, 256 31 n. 10, 120, 211 n. 53, 214 n. 65 273

7:14–24 7:14–25 7:15 7:17 7:18 7:20 7:23 7:25 8 8–13 8:1 8:1–4 8:1–17 8:1–39 8:2 8:3 8:3–4 8:3–9 8:4 8:5 8:8–9 8:9 8:9–11 8:9–17 8:10 8:10–11 8:11 8:12–17 8:13 8:13–14 8:14–17 8:15 8:15–17 8:16–29 8:17–18 8:18 8:18–27 8:20 8:21 8:22–23 8:28

253 244 356 31 n. 10 214 n. 65 31 n. 10 31 n. 10 31 n. 10, 214 n. 65 257, 280, 300, 334 355 n. 43 173, 387 221 280 308 31 n. 10, 164, 171, 211 n. 53, 225, 257, 258–259 31 n. 10, 47 n. 94, 133, 133 n. 24, 214, 215 n. 66, 234, 388 213, 234 n. 170, 334 214 n. 65 31 n. 9, 261 265 n. 82, 268 174 44 n. 80, 251, 292 173, 334 292 31 nn. 9–10, 234 n. 170 169 37, 37 n. 44, 43 n. 78 278, 290 47 nn. 92–93, 273, 277, 280, 281, 290, 292 289 273–312, 388 7, 185 196 n. 66 80 221 65 n. 24, 257 n. 56 273, 304 234 52 388 228

Index of Ancient Sources 8:28–29 8:28–30 8:28–39 8:29 8:29–30 8:30 8:31 8:32 8:33 8:34 8:35 8:35–39 8:36 8:37 8:39 9 9–11 9:1 9:4–5 9:4–18 9:11 9:12–13 9:13 9:14 9:15–29 9:30 9:30–10:4 9:31 9:32 10 10:1–13 10:3 10:4 10:5 10:6 10:8–10 10:9–10 10:10 10:11 10:11–12 10:14 10:16 10:17

181 273–312 273 51, 196, 388 7, 39 n. 53 31, 31 n. 9 210 n. 45 119, 174 n. 49, 236, 237, 357 31, 31 n. 9, 387 47 n. 94 112 198 47 nn. 92–93, 114, 117 355, 364 355, 357 165, 202 n. 5 280, 298 286 202 203 n. 10 166, 228, 295, 298 n. 98 355 356 170, 209 n. 40, 210 n. 45 209 n. 40 31 n. 9, 113 n. 24, 210 n. 45 70, 222 31 n. 9, 165 166 142 171 31 n. 9, 220 31 n. 9, 353, 363 n. 80 31 n. 9 31 n. 9 39 n. 54 354 31 n. 9, 237 n. 184 363 n. 80 17, 223 354 325 n. 19, 354 n. 38 354

11 11:1 11:2 11:5 11:6 11:7 11:17 11:20–24 11:21 11:22–23 11:25 11:27 11:28 11:29 11:31 11:32 12 12–15 12:1–15:21 12:1–21 12:2 12:3–8 12:9 12:9–10 12:9–14:15 12:9–21 12:10 12:12 12:13 12:14 12:17 12:18 12:19 12:20 13:3 13:7 13:8–9 13:8–10 13:10 13:11 13:12–14 13:14 14–15 14:9 14:15 14:17 14:17–18 14:19

411  280 170 52 238 166 165, 210 n. 45, 298 n. 98, 354 n. 38 186 n. 38 280 165 354 n. 38 354 n. 38 31 n. 12, 390 355; 356 303 n. 120 363 364 n. 90 196 257, 260 280 363–364 264, 388 54 n. 133 355, 355 n. 46 360 n. 66 54 n. 133 361 355 188 n. 42 355 361 n. 75 361 n. 75 356 361 n. 75 356 283 n. 33 282 n. 33 360, 363 n. 83 261 355 n. 46 49 n. 108 41 276 8, 359 247 355 n. 46, 358 31 n. 9 43 n. 78 113 n. 24

412 14:23 15:3 15:7 15:13 15:15 15:16 15:16–17 15:19 15:26 15:30 16 16:16 16:25 16:26 1 Corinthians 1–4 1:1–2 1:1–4:21 1:9 1:10–17 1:13–16 1:13c 1:15 1:18 1:18–25 1:18–2:16 1:20 1:21 1:23 1:24 1:26 1:26–28 1:26–31 1:27–28 1:28b 1:29 1:29–30 1:30 1:30–31 1:30d 2 2:1 2:1–2 2:1–5

Index of Ancient Sources 31 n. 10 363 n. 84 357, 363 n. 84 354 234 14, 43 n. 78 215 14 356 43 n. 78, 355 n. 46 355 n. 43 355, 363 n. 80 230, 231 n. 151 325 n. 19

96, 96 n. 31 303 n. 120 94 353 n. 35, 355 94 385 43 n. 76 43 n. 76 17–19, 95 18, 21 94 95 13 n. 2, 17–19, 97 175 298 n. 98, 303 n. 120 95, 97, 298 n. 98, 303 n. 120 97 94–95, 98–101 98 97 99, 102 102 3, 39 n. 53, 44, 89– 106, 142, 173, 220, 221, 226, 390 n. 66 215 43 94 231 n. 150–151 230 96

2:3 2:6 2:6–16 2:10–12 2:7 2:9 2:10 2:10–16 2:13–15 2:16 3:1 3:1–4:21 3:2 3:3 3:9 3:13 3:16 3:18 4:4 4:5 4:6 4:9 4:9–13 4:12 4:21 5:7 5:10 5:10–11 6 6:1 6:1–11 6:6 6:9–11 6:11 6:12 6:15 6:18 6:18–19 6:19 6:20 6:21 7 7:8 7:10 7:10–11 7:10–16 7:17–24 7:19

283 n. 33 147 288 n. 61 288 n. 61 228, 230 355 65 n. 24 307 120 251 120 94 185 n. 31 120 110 65 n. 24 44, 44 n. 80 147 31 n. 8, 44, 147 44 147 47 n. 92 112 113 355 n. 46, 363 n. 81 388 211 42 44 165 342 13 38–39, 42–46, 51 2, 29–30, 31 n. 8, 373, 390 170 44, 170 227 76, 76 n. 73 44, 44 n. 80, 46 388, 390 n. 66 44 247 n. 16 249 247 248 362 n. 78 303 n. 120 266 n. 88

Index of Ancient Sources 7:21–23 7:22 7:23 7:25 7:27 7:28 7:39 7:39–40 8:1 8:3 8:5 8:6 8:11 9:1 9:1–2 9:12 9:19–23 9:21 10:1–9 10:1–13 10:4 10:6 10:11 10:13 10:16 10:16–17 10:16–22 10:21 10:27 10:29–33 10:31–11:1 11:6 11:7 11:15 11:17–22 11:18 11:20 11:20–21 11:21–22 11:23–25 11:23–26 11:24 11:25 11:29 11:33 12:2 12:3 12:11–16

224 18 388 353 n. 35 247 n. 16 249 n. 23 247 n. 16, 248 247 n. 15 355 n. 46, 360 355 292 25 n. 17 358 91 n. 12 159 14 363, 367 165, 259 142 279, 281 219 197 159 279 230, 251, 355–356, 383 n. 39 383 380 380 13 170 363, 367 166 300 388 380 15–16, 381 380–381 160 381 383 n. 39 381 383 230, 381 383 n. 39 381 288 43 n. 78 41

12:12 12:12–13 12:13 12:13–14 12:27 13 13:1–12 13:1–13 13:2 13:5 13:6 13:7 13:13 14:1 14:11 14:14 14:15 14:22 14:22–23 14:26 14:30 14:37 15 15:2 15:3–11 15:8 15:15 15:17 15:17 15:20 15:21 15:22 15:23 15:25–26 15:30–31 15:31 15:35–57 15:36–57 15:42 15:42–56 15:42–58 15:44 15:45 15:50 15:53–54 15:54–56 15:56 15:58

413  40 43–45, 277 43, 373, 386 180, 196 251 350, 361 170 355 n. 46 354 n. 42 17 215, 342 352, 354, 354 n. 42, 357 n. 54, 361 352, 354, 361 113, 355 n. 46 170 170 170 13 n. 2 13 381 383 n. 40 120 373 n. 8 353 159 91 n. 12, 159 292 233, 234 n. 169, 390 231 299 188 n. 41 37 n. 44 14 284, 356 n. 50 116 47 n. 93, 114 305 373 112 388 393 112 128 112 41, 47 n. 92 388 253, 284, 390 355 n. 46

414 16:13 16:14 16:20 16:24 21–25 2 Corinthians 1:1 1:3 1:6 1:21–22 2:1–7:4 2:4 2:8 2:12 2:13 2:14 2:14–7:4 2:14–17 2:15–16 2:15–17 2:17–7:14 3:1–18 3:3 3:6 3:6–18 3:7–9 3:7–4:6 3:8 3:14 3:14–15 3:16 3:18 4:1 4:1–18 4:3 4:3–4 4:4 4:4–6 4:5 4:6 4:7–11 4:7–12 4:7–5:10 4:11

Index of Ancient Sources 17 355 n. 46 355, 363 n. 80 355 n. 46 95

363 n. 80 283 n. 33 113 n. 22 43 n. 78 129 355 n. 46 355 n. 46 14 126 n. 2 111, 127, 145 126 126, 148 239 n. 190 305, 309 125 126 43 n. 78 46 n. 89, 253–254, 264 n. 80, 265 n. 82 45 109 305, 309 37 n. 44 354 n. 38 107 264 41, 54, 109, 302, 304, 304 n. 128, 305, 307, 338, 388 110 126 14 107, 109 13–14, 107, 109 109 107 107–109, 128, 145, 307 4, 107–123, 65 n. 24 393 111 47 n. 92

4:14 4:16–18 4:17 4:18 5 5:1–4 5:1–5 5:1–10 5:3 5:4 5:5 5:6 5:6–9 5:6–10 5:10 5:11 5:11–15 5:12–17 5:14–16 5:14–17 5:14 5:14b 5:15 5:16 5:16a 5:16bc 5:16–21 5:17 5:17–18 5:18–19 5:19 5:19–20 5:20 5:20–21 5:21

6:1 6:1–13 6:1–7:4 6:2 6:3–10 6:3–13 6:4–6

166 112 129 129 128, 339 41 126–127 127, 129 292 n. 78 47 n. 92 128 226 127 126 127 283 n. 33 126–127 393 20 148, 338 n. 36 20, 132 n. 18, 198, 143, 338, 357–358 20 20, 47 n. 94, 127, 131, 145, 338 20–21, 23 20 20 4–5, 125–157 80, 120, 144, 173, 197, 330, 387, 388 77 131 231, 233, 390 388 231 358 101, 127, 129, 131, 144, 169, 220–221, 231, 234 n. 170, 336, 338, 339 n. 38, 388, 390 127, 141 126 127 148 363 127 109

415 

Index of Ancient Sources 6:4–7 6:4c–5 6:6 6:9 6:10 6:11 6:12 6:14 6:14–15 6:14–7:1 6:14–7:4 6:16 6:22 7:1 7:2–4 7:3 7:4 7:5 7:11 8 8:4 8:7 8:9 8:11 8:18–20 8:24 9 9:9 9:9–10 9:13 10:3 10:14 10:15 10:16–17 11–13 11:3 11:7 11:23 11:23b–27 11:28–30 12 12:1–10 12:9–12 12:10 12:19 13:5

357 112 355 n. 46 47 nn. 92–93 363 n. 82 373 47 n. 92 13, 46 n. 90, 234 n. 170, 355 107 126 127 44 n. 80 127 127, 282 n. 33 126 47 n. 92 127 113 n. 22, 126 n. 2, 226, 283 n. 33 283 n. 33 126 356 354, 354 n. 42, 355 n. 46 357, 363 n. 82 47 n. 92, 358 226 355 n. 46 126 220 46 n. 90 14, 356 174 14 354 215 143 187 14 117 112 393 146 112 393 112 143 17

13:11 13:12 13:13 Galatians 1:1 1:1–2:15 1:3–4 1:2 1:4 1:4a 1:4b 1:6 1:7 1:8–9 1:11 1:11–16 1:11–17 1:11–24 1:12 1:13–14 1:13–19 1:13–24 1:14 1:15 1:15–16 1:16 1:23 2 2:1–10 2:3–4 2:4 2:7–9 2:8 2:9 2:10 2:11–13 2:11–14 2:12 2:12–14 2:14 2:15 2:15–21

355 355, 363 n. 80 43 n. 78, 355

63, 67 n. 34 162 67 n. 34 67 n. 34, 363 n. 80 39, 62, 174 n. 49, 331, 357 n. 56, 393 62, 62 n. 14 62, 62 n. 14 63 14 187, 188 n. 45 63, 67 n. 34 159 91 163 63, 65 64, 65, 67, 159 292 377 3 63, 64, 65 n. 28, 91, 185 n. 28, 303 n. 120 65 n. 28, 159 64, 65, 66, 68, 73, 74 354 99, 145, 315, 339 163 164 69 175 63 356 99 341 162–164, 341, 381 14, 161, 283 n. 33 54 70, 161, 231 71 3, 5, 7, 37, 38, 159– 178, 315–347

416 2:16 2:16–17 2:16–21 2:17 2:17–18 2:17–20 2:18–19 2:19 2:19a 2:19b 2:19–20 2:20 2:20ab 2:21 3 3–5 3:1 3:1–2 3:1–5 3:1–5:12 3:2 3:2–3 3:3 3:5 3:6 3:6–9 3:7 3:8 3:8–9 3:9 3:10 3:10–13 3:11 3:11–12 3:11–14 3:13 3:14

Index of Ancient Sources 23, 31 n. 8, 69, 213, 214, 218, 222, 231 100 392 31 n. 8, 71 71 237 67 38 n. 47, 39, 47 n. 93, 51, 66, 100, 197, 386–388 252 n. 37 252 5, 37, 66, 67, 71, 73, 254, 266 n. 91, 17, 23, 66, 68, 197, 198, 357 n. 56, 358 38 37, 71, 100 6, 39 n. 54, 41, 51, 186 n. 34, 194 n. 55, 196, 231 n. 154 194, 218, 341 66, 319 334 66, 319, 327, 329 n. 27, 331, 341 182–187 166, 277 n. 9 67 69 62 219, 319, 336, 341 5, 39 n. 54, 67, 179– 200 14, 67 n. 34 31 n. 8, 38, 68 n. 41, 168, 219, 231 219 68 n. 41 38, 67 171 31 n. 8, 37, 38, 166, 167, 218, 222, 336 341 43 n. 78 67, 68, 128, 133, 135, 196, 388 67, 68, 189, 341

3:15 3:16 3:18 3:19–26 3:21 3:21–22 3:21b 3:21b–27 3:21b–28 3:21b–29 3:22 3:23 3:23–4:7 3:23–24 3:23–29 3:23–4:6 3:24 3:24–25 3:25 3:25–26 3:25–27 3:26 3:26–29 3:27 3:27–28 3:28 3:29 4:1–3 4:2 4:3 4:4 4:4–6 4:5 4:5–7 4:6 4:6–7 4:7 4:9 4:10 4:11 4:12

67 n. 34, 174 67 n. 34, 68, 341 38, 195, 219 330 37, 170, 329, 332 218, 234 n. 170 337 30 54 36–42 13 n. 2, 62, 118, 195, 211 n. 53, 390 142, 164, 166 282 218 n. 78 5, 6, 179–200 192–197 2, 29, 31 n. 8, 142, 222, 341 n. 42 67 164, 218, 247 354 n. 40 326 22, 67 n. 34, 68, 69, 173 69, 71 29, 45, 68, 172 n. 41, 276, 328, 341, 373 101 8, 18, 68, 173, 326, 328, 341, 359, 381 67 n. 34, 68 282 38 38, 62, 282 39, 62, 68, 159 331 285, 286, 390 n. 66 196 n. 66, 277 n. 9, 388 62, 67 n. 34, 77, 185, 334, 338 67 42, 196 62, 64, 79 164 283 n. 33 67 n. 34

Index of Ancient Sources 4:13 4:13–15 4:14 4:16 4:19 4:20 4:21 4:21–5:1 4:26 4:27 4:28 4:29 4:31 4:5 5:1 5:2 5:2–3 5:4 5:5 5:6 5:6a 5:8 5:10 5:11 5:13 5:14 5:13–14 5:15 5:16 5:16–18 5:18 5:19–23 5:21 5:22 5:22–23 5:22–6:10 5:24 5:25 6:1 6:2 6:7–8 6:8

66 66 66 356 67 n. 34, 69, 388 113 n. 23 166 225 67 n. 34, 130 187 67 n. 34 67 n. 34, 190 67 n. 34 285, 286 69, 284 n. 44 68 164, 337 31 n. 8, 69, 218, 258 n. 60, 337 337, 354 18, 71, 78, 169, 174, 218, 354 n. 42, 355 n. 46, 357, 360, 366 337 63 166 66, 67 n. 34, 113 n. 24 67 n. 34, 355 n. 46, 360 n. 66 338, 388, 360 78 79, 338 78 197 78, 79, 166 78 38, 43, 78, 338 71, 191 n. 51, 354 n. 42, 355 n. 46, 359 169 355, 361 14, 67, 79, 119, 197, 198, 258 n. 58, 331 79 67 n. 34, 78, 120 79, 164, 171 79 38, 79

6:9–10 6:10

417 

6:17 6:18

79 14, 67 n. 34, 79, 80, 354, 361, 363 n. 80 331 164 38 n. 47, 67, 215, 266 n. 91, 331 38, 39, 67 n. 35, 80, 388 19, 41, 49, 62, 67, 69, 70, 77, 120, 197, 330, 331, 360, 388, 393 66 67 n. 34

Ephesians 1:4 1:7 1:9–11 1:9 1:15 1:18 1:19 2:1–3 2:6 2:13 2:14 2:15 2:19 2:21–22 2:3 2:9 3:2–6 3:3–4:9 3:5 3:5–6 3:11 3:11–12 3:11f 3:12 3:17 4:1 4:12 4:13 4:14 4:15 4:22–24 4:24

63 225, 230 n. 146, 233 228 230 354 n. 42 107, 303 n. 120 13 n. 2 160 333 173, 230 n. 146 171 120, 171 188 44 165 166 231 n. 151 230 65 n. 24 231 n. 150 231 22 22 24 22 260 251 169 117 153 41 41, 120, 205

6:11–17 6:12–13 6:14 6:14–15 6:15

418

Index of Ancient Sources

5:2 5:21 5:25 5:32 6:5 6:14 6:19 6:20

174 282 n. 33 174, 357 254, 283 n. 33 283 n. 33 41 213 nn. 150–152 231

1:27 2:11–12 2:12 3:4 3:9 3:9–10 3:10 3:10–11 4:3

Philippians 1:1 1:27 1:27a 1:29 1:5 1:9 2:1–2 1:9–10 2:2–11 2:8 2:12 2:14–15a 2:25 3:3 3:4–11 3:6 3:8–11 3:9 3:10 3:10–11 3:13–14 3:14 3:15 3:19 3:21 4:1 4:5 4:21–22

363 n. 80 14, 168 14 327 356, 363 n. 80 355 n. 46 355 n. 46 361 357 325 283 n. 33 362 n. 78 183 n. 14 46, 215 292 165, 166 254 24, 221, 222, 223 117, 356, 388 353 169 303 n. 120 65 364 294, 305 355 n. 46 362 n. 78 363 n. 80

1 Thessalonians 1:1–3 1:3 1:4

Collossians 1:4 1:6–8 1:14 1:15 1:18 1:20 1:24 1:26 1:26–27

354 43 225, 233 299, 300 n. 106 299 230 n. 146 109 228 230, 231 n. 152

1:5 1:7 1:9 2:2 2:8 2:9 2:10 2:12 2:13 2:14 2:16 3:2 3:4 3:6 3:8–10 3:8 3:12 3:13 4:6–7 4:7 4:9 4:12 4:14 4:17 5:8 5:10 5:13 5:13–22 5:18 5:24 5:26 9b–10

300 n. 107 41 22, 168, 333 173 120 41 120 41 231 n. 151

362 n. 76 352, 354, 355 n. 46 298 n. 98, 359, 360 n. 70 14, 354 n. 37 13 n. 2, 363 n. 80 52, 284, 303 14 14, 355 n. 46 14 13 n. 2 303 n. 120 13 n. 2, 13–25, 354 382 390 14 113 n. 22 354 n. 42, 355 n. 46, 357 354 382 355, 361, 362 354, 363 n. 80 102 n. 54 303 n. 120 355 362 19 373 354, 355 n. 46 47 n. 94 355 n. 46 361 382 303 n. 120, 353 n. 35 355 359

419 

Index of Ancient Sources 2 Thessalonians 1:3 1:6 1:11 2:13–14

354 292 303 43 n. 78

1 Timothy 1:3–11 1:13–15 1:5 2:1 2:6 3:14–15 3:16 5:10 5:20 6:16

261 n. 68 160 354 n. 42 361 n. 75 174 183 31, 231 n. 151 113 282 n. 33 372 n. 4

2 Timothy 1:9 1:13 2:22 3:10 3:12

166, 228, 303 n. 120 354 n. 42 354 n. 42 228, 354 n. 42 113 n. 24

Titus 2:2 3:5 3:7

354 n. 42 43 n. 77, 165, 166 31 n. 8, 168

Philemon 5 6 5–6 7 9 22:1 Hebrews 1:9 2:10 2:14–15 3:6 3:13 4:3 6:1–2

354 n. 42 and 46, 357 356 361 355 n. 46 354, 355 n. 46 183

234 n. 170 235 284 n. 44 44 n. 80 211 13 n. 2 49 n. 109

8:7–13 9:14–15 9:22 9:5 10:28 10:38 11:37

171 225 225 229 174 167 113 n. 21

James 1:15 1:20 2:9 2:11 2:20–29 2:21 2:24–25

211 220 n. 87 170 n. 37 170 n. 37 169 168 168

1 Peter 1:5 1:23 2:2 2:5 2:7 2:17 2:21 2:22–24 2:23–24 2:23 2:24 2:25 3:15–16 3:18 3:21 4:1 4:3 5:1

65 n. 25 330 185 n. 31 44 n. 80 13 n. 2 361 n. 75 32, 33 33 32 32 32, 33 32 175 32 32, 49 n. 109 32–33 33 32

2 Peter 1:1 2:14 2:21 3:18

220 n. 87 211 32 n. 14 32 n. 14

1 John 1 2:2 3:16

230 230 276

420

Index of Ancient Sources

4:10

230

Revelation 4:11

234

12:11 13:14 22:11

234 234 44 n. 79

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Sedrach 14:5 49 n. 109 Ascension of Isaiah 4:16 42 n. 72 8:14–15 42 n. 72 9:9–10 42 n. 72 2 Baruch 51:3 51:3–10

41 n. 68 42 n. 72

1 Enoch (Ethiopic Apocalypse) 62:15–16 42 n. 72 2 Enoch (Slavonic Apocalypse) 22:8–10 42 n. 72 66:7 357 n. 54 Joseph and Aseneth 14:12–15 41 n. 64 Jubilees 12:28 17:18

198 n. 68 357 n. 54

Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (Pseudo-Philo) 27:10 45 n. 88 Letter of Aristeas 139

69

152 168 192 207 227

69 n. 44 365 n. 98 365 n. 96 365 n. 96 365 n. 99

Odes of Solomon 3:2 7:35

44 n. 79 190

Psalms of Solomon 11:7 41 n. 65 Testament of Benjamin 4:2–3b 366 5:1a–b 366 Testament of Gad 6:6

366 n. 102

Testament of Judah 20:1–5 287 n. 54 Testament of Levi 18:14

41 n. 65

Testament of Reuben 2:3– 3:1 286 n. 53 Testament of Simeon 6:1 34

Dead Sea Scrolls 1QHa XII 30–31 1QHa XII 36–37 1QHa XV 28b–30 1QHa IX 6.26

167 167 167 167

1QHa VI 15 1QHa VIII 11 1QS I, 26 1QS II, 1

167 167 167 167

421 

Index of Ancient Sources 1QS X, 11 1QS XI, 3.12–15

167 167

1QS IV, 8 1QS VIII, 5

41 n. 65 44 n. 80

Rabbinic Works Niddah 61b

34 n. 29

Pesaḥim 54a

186 n. 37

Pesiqta Rabbati 200b

34 n. 29

Sifré debé Rab Sifre Num § 112

34 n. 28

Apostolic Fathers Clement of Rome

Shepherd of Hermas

1 Clement 32.4

224

Diognetus 9.2

103 n. 60, 104 n. 66

Ignatius of Antioch To the Romans 7.2

173 n. 44, 198

Mandates 5.1.7 Visions 3.7.3 3.9.1 Didache 1.3

51 n. 117

49 n. 109 34, 44 n. 83, 53 n. 127 365

Early Christian Authors (until 5th ct) Ambrose

Athanasius of Alexandria

De incarnationis dominicae sacramento 7.76 129 n. 7

Orationes contra Arianos 2.21.61 299 2.21.63 299 2.21.64 299

Ambrosiaster Commentarius in secundam epistulam ad Corinthios 4.11 119 Commentarius in epistulam ad Galatas 2.19 171

De incarnatione 30 31 52

260 n. 66 260 n. 66 260 n. 66

422

Index of Ancient Sources

Augustine De fide et operibus 13.21 206 n. 43 Basil of Caesaria Asceticon Magnum 270 115 n. 31 De baptismo libri duo 1.2 266 nn. 89–91, 267 nn. 92–93 1.3 129 n. 8, 139 n. 47, 149 n. 66 2.12 254 n. 44 2.13 254 nn. 45–46 De spiritu sancto 9.23 26.61

289 n. 63 288, 289

Clemens of Alexandria Quis dives salvetur 9 282 n. 31 Stromata 2.20 2.78 3.80 3.82 3.83 4.7

282 n. 31 288 n. 61 262 n. 71 262 n. 72 262 n. 71 282 n. 31

Cyril of Alexandria Fragmenta in sancti Pauli epistulam ad Romanos 3:193–194 252 n. 33 3:195 258 n. 59 Fragmenta in sacti Pauli epistulam ii ad Corinthos 4.1 128 n 5

Epistula 41 (ad Acacium Scythopolitanum 10–15 129 n. 6, 135 n. 29 Cyril of Jerusalem Procatechesis 1.8 2 9

293 293 294 n. 82

Catechesis ad illuminandos 3.15 294 n. 82 6.1–5 372 Mystagogiae 1–5 3.1

294

Eusebius of Cesarea Demonstratio evangelica 4.17 139 n. 48 Gregory of Nazianzus Epistulae 101 222

135 n. 30 135 n. 30

De filio (orat. 30) 3

139 nn. 50–51

De pauperum amore (oratio 14) 23 300 In patrem tacentem (oratio 16) 11 302 n. 113 De spiritu sancto (oratio 31) 29 288 In sanctum baptisma (oratio 40) 2 299 n. 104 9 302 n. 113 In sanctum pascha (oratio 45) 28 302 28–29 153 n. 74

Index of Ancient Sources Gregory of Nyssa Contra Eunomium 4.8 299 n. 103 Irenaeus of Lyon Adversus haereses (liber 3) 3.18.7 186 n. 36, 285 3.19.1 285 3.20.2 285 Jerome Commentariorum in Epistulam ad Galatas libri III 1.2.19 171 n. 39 Commentarioli in Psalmos 90 111 n. 12 John Chrysostom Homiliae in Genesim 3:1 155 n. 77 Homiliae in epistulam ad Romanos 2.6 224 n. 106 6.5 207 nn. 30–31, 208 n. 34, 220 n. 90 7.2 219 n. 80, 220 n. 85, 224 n. 106, 229 n. 131, 232 n. 157 7.3 235 nn. 172–174, 238 n. 187 7.13 220 n. 85 9.1 222 n. 96 12 255 n. 47 12.12 255 nn. 48–49 12.3 249 n. 24, 255 nn. 50–51, 257 n. 55 259 n. 62 14 275 n. 7, 277, 278, 292 15 295, 296 n. 89, 299 n. 103, 300, 301 12.20 364 n. 93 17.3 220 n. 85

423 

Homiliae in epistulam i ad Corinthios 5.2 101 n. 53, 5.3 100 n. 49, 105 nn. 70–72 Homiliae in epistulam ii ad Corinthios 8 110 n. 8 and 11 9 115 n. 29 9.1 117 n. 42, 118 n. 46 11.3 128 n. 4, 130 nn. 10 and 13–14, 145 n. 59 11.4 130 n. 11 11.5 132 n. 18, 135 n. 28, 140 nn. 52–53, 144 n. 57, 145 nn. 60– 61, 146 n. 63, 224 n. 107 11.6 149 nn. 67–69 Homiliae in epistulam ad Galates commentarius 1.15–16 64 n. 22, 74 n. 65 2.20 67 n. 35 Homiliae in epistulam i ad Thessalonicenses 4.3 362 n. 79 Origen Homiliae in Jeremiam 18.6 372 Homiliae in Leviticum 7.5.5 264 n. 81 Commentarii in evangelium Matthaei 12.4 262 n. 73 12.18–19 264 n. 81 Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 1.27–28 264 n. 81 1.43 264 n. 81 1.107 264 n. 81 10 268 n. 99 10.229–240 251 n. 32 10.299 251 n. 32 10.304 251 n. 32

424 13.43–50

Index of Ancient Sources 262 n. 73

Commentarii in Romanos 2.14.14 264 n. 81 6.7.1–19 248 n. 21, 262 n. 73 6.7.3 263 n. 76 6.7.8 246 n. 13 6.7.11 264 n. 78 6.7.14 247 n. 15, 263 n. 77, 264 n. 78 6.7.18 264 n. 79 6.7.19 262 n. 73 6.12.6–9 265 n. 82 7.1.1 287 n. 58, 288 7.1.2 288 7.1.1–3 282 7.3.2 282 7.3.2–3 291 n. 75 7.7.3 295 7.7.5 296 7.8.2 302 7.8.3 289, 296 7.8.4 295 7.8.8 302 Commentarii in epistulam ad Romanos (I.1–XII.21) (in catenis) 53 365 n. 93 De oratione 30.1

115 n. 32

De principiis 4.2.9

264 n. 81

Theodore of Mopsuestia Expositio in epistulam Pauli ad Galatas 2.19 174 n. 48 Expositio in epistulam Pauli ad Colossenses 1.15 299 n. 103, 300 n. 106 Theodoret of Cyrus Commentarius in epistulam Pauli ad Romanos 3.4 207 n. 31 3.24 221 n. 95 3.25 225 n. 114 8.13 281 n. 28 8.15 275 n. 7, 290 n. 68 8.28 295 8.29 295 8.30 296 n. 89, 299 n. 103, 301– 302 Commentarius in epistulam Pauli i ad Corinthios 1.31 103 n. 61, 104 n. 69 Commentarius in epistulam Pauli ii ad Corinthios 5.21 139 n. 49 Commentarius in epistulam Pauli ad Colossenses 1.15 300 n. 106 Commentarius in epistulam Pauli ad Thessalonicenses 3.12 363 n. 80

425 

Index of Ancient Sources

Other Ancient Sources Rhetorica 1356a

Aeschylus Fragmenta 229

36 n. 40

Aesop Fabulae 301 16 Aëtius Doxographus

96 n. 31

Artemidorus Daldianus Onirocritica 2.49 2.30

48 n. 101 48 n. 101

Chrysippus Stoicus

De placitis reliquiae (Stobaei excerpta) 3184–21 52 n. 123

Fragmenta moralia 336 40 n. 57

Antiphon

Diodorus Siculus

Tetralogiae 1, 2, 3 2.11. 48 n. 102 Apollonius Tyanensis

Biblioteca historica 34/35.1.2 37 n. 41

Apollonii epistulae 44 40 n. 57 Apuleius Metamorphoses 11.21.6–8 11.23.1–9

Antiquitates romanae 9.25.2. 34 n. 25 Epictetus

35 n. 34 35 n. 34

Aristophanes Ranae 552

204 n. 14

Lysistrata 544–545

36 n. 40

Aristotle Ethica nicomachea 1169a 358 n. 58 Physica 2.3 (194b)

Dionysius Halicarnassensis

288 n. 62

Diatribai 1.19.9 2.8.1–3 2.8.21–23 2.9.3–11 3.22.54–55

48 n. 103 76 77 77 n. 75 365 n. 94

Euripides Helena 1026

33 n. 20

Hippolytus 1027

33 n. 20

Gnomologium Vaticanum 82 370 508

365 n. 95 365 n. 95 365 n. 95

426

Index of Ancient Sources

Lucian Juppiter confutatus 7.20–21 35 n. 31 Toxaris 46.53

180

Marcus Aurelius Ad se ipsum 7:56 Menander

48

Dyskolos 282

38 n. 50

Fragmenta 150

38 n. 49

Plato Cratylus 442

36 n. 40

Leges 665c 769e 784c

36 n. 40 33 n. 20 33 n. 21

Parmenides 126c

52 n. 122

Phaedo 81a 64c–65b

48 n. 103 48 n. 104

Respublica 7.514a–518b

195 n. 64

Symposium 203a

195 n. 64

Plutarch Amatorius 759c

De garrulitate 503d

16, 19

Fragmenta 178

35 n. 33

Philopoemen 13.9

41 n. 66

De sera numinis vindicta 551E 41 n. 66 De virtute e vitio 72B, 6 78F 82D

41 n. 66 41 n. 66 41 n. 66

Polybius Historiae 16.39

37 n. 41

Porphyry De abstinentia 1.41

36 n. 39

Seneca De otio 5.8

357 n. 53

De tranquillitate animi 9.14.5 48 n. 100 De vita beata 20.5 7.15.4

40 n. 57 49

Stobaeus Florilegium 4.52b.49

35 n. 33

Theocritus 358 n. 59

Idyllia 5.122

204 n. 14

427 

Index of Ancient Sources Thucydides 1.39.3 2.34.2

33 n. 18 33 n. 18

Xenophon Anabasis 1.4.12

Hellenica 6.1.8

16

Memorabilia 3.1.2

204 n. 1

204 n. 14

Non-Literary Sources IG Megaridis, Oropiae, Boeotiae IG VII.25 35 n.31

IK Prusias ad Hypium 78 33 n. 22

IG Kos IGR IV 1050

Supplementum epigraphicum graecum (SEG) 14:847 33 n. 22

230

 

Subject Index Abba (father) 154, 181, 194 n. 56, 196, 275, 277 n. 9, 278, 289, 290, 292 n. 79, 309 Abraham 3, 164, 184, 185, 186, 190, 191, 194, 197, 198 n. 68, 219, 228, 231 – as prototype convert / example of 3, 31, 39 n 54, 40, 45, 51, 191, 34 – children of 187–191, 192, 197, 342 – faith of 190, 191 – family of 6, 182, 321 n. 13 – heirs of 184, 193 – justification of 40, 189, 218, 219, 228, 231, 333 – offspring of 67 n. 54, 197, 341 – promises / blessings to 38, 40, 54, 67, 68, 69, 182, 183, 188, 197, 219 – religion of 179 – seed of 180, 182, 193–195, 197, 341 – son(s) of 67 n. 54, 68, 71, 182, 186– 194 acquittal 34 n. 26, 44 n. 85, 54, 214, 222, 223, 234, 255, 302, 321, 342 activity (human active conduct) 46, 169, 249, 278, 309, 350, 366 Adam – transgression (fall) of 31, 41, 134 n. 27, 182 – second / new 132 n. 18, 146, 188 adaptation 74, 349, 359, 380 adoption of converts 6, 7, 41, 42, 67, 154, 184, 195 n. 62, 197, 273, 276–292. 294, 299, 302–309 aeon / age (s) / epoche (s)/ era (s) – before Christ 184–185, 198, 256 – before the 218, 224, 227, 234 – change of 39–40, 52, 184 – evil 62, 331, 346, 393 – long 220 – new 39 – of Christ 38, 39, 49, 54 – of ecological crisis 304 – of the Spirit 282

– present 8, 97, 361, 184 – the end of 149 agency 55, 356, 374 allegory 186, 262–265, 281 n. 29, 364 n. 93 anthropology 4, 73 n. 63 – issue of 51, 143 – Pauline 120 – platonic 50 – Stoic 286 anthropomorphism 305, 372–374 anticipation (of eschatological realities) 51, 130, 303, 337 antinomianism 208, 280 Antioch 138 – incident of 160–165, 170, 175, 183, 319, 325, 341, 376 n. 16, 377, 381 – school of 280, 283, 296, 302 apocalyptic – lierature 39, 42 n. 72, 50 – views 40, 72 n. 60, 146, 91 – event 321, 331 – perspectives 62 n. 13, 137, 139, 320, 342 – powers 342, 344 n. 47 apostasy (falling away) 276, 367 ascetic practices 179, 267 n. 96, 275– 276, 306, 307 atonement 32, 33, 34, 47, 127, 129, 132, 152, 229, 230, 237, 357, 358, 387 n. 55, 388, 395 – means of 48 – penal 137–139 – patristic theory of 148–149 Augustine 89, 134 n. 27, 190, 209, 261 banquets 379–386 see also “meals” baptised 245, 251, 258, 259, 289, 328 baptism – adoption through 179–185, 194, 302, 305

430

Subject Index

– Christian 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 22, 29–52, 120, 121, 168, 180, 194–198, 250, 274– 277, 293–294, 300, 302, 305–309, 329, 354 – Christ’s 299 – “death” in 247, 252 n. 33, 254, 256, 330, 333, 373 – effective change by 308 – justification through 29–52, 302–303 – ritual practices of 68 n. 37, 179, 223, 286, 287, 367, 375, 382, 385–386, 395 – participatory union through 71, 119, 120, 121, 181, 251, 301, 304, 307, 308, 332, 341 – transfer / entrance through 326, 328, 334, 341 – remission of sins through 149 believing the Gospel 13–25, 70, 120, 129, 166–169, 221–224, 236–239, 251, 334, 353–354, 364 blending theory 384, 387–389, 394, 396 blindness (spiritual) 107–108, 129, 143, 144, 309, 354 n. 38 boasting 92, 101 n. 53, 102, 182, 214– 216 body – actions / experiences of the 273, 277, 284, 290, 309, 375–376, 386 – as pejorative category 36, 48, 50, 133, 262 – as metaphor of the church 4, 54 n. 133, 68 n. 38 and 40, 109, 120, 127, 136, 139, 149, 153, 181, 194 n. 55, 196, 316, 351, 363, 367, 373, 383, 386 – convert’s 7, 35, 44, 50, 130, 144, 146, 149, 173, 174, 285–286, 304, 305, 308–309, 373, 386 – Christ’s 4, 32, 44, 46, 109, 130, 149, 171, 172, 173, 188, 250, 251, 256, 269, 294, 299, 356, 383, 386 – human 70, 76, 110–120, 127, 129, 147, 148, 185, 190 – parts / potencies of 212, 286 – resurrection of 38, 126, 127, 129, 154 – Paul’s 66, 109–120, 197 – sacrifice of the 54 n. 133, 55 – sins of the 250

– washing of the 43 n. 75 Caesar 21 called (the) 19, 63, 139, 273, 293–299, 301, 303, 307, 355, 356 calling of God 41, 51, 60, 63 n. 18, 64, 95–98, 126, 145, 160, 163, 295 Catholics 1 n. 1, 133, 169 n. 32, 267, 336, 340, 344, 350, 352 causality 288, 296–297, 305 charge of sin 52, 132, 235, 237, 255–257 Christification 41, 181, 196 Christology / Christological 4, 133, 142, 304, 358 church – early 49 n. 109, 97, 99, 174 – the church 4, 31, 64, 109, 120, 125, 126, 127, 138, 144, 145, 150, 152, 153, 159, 163, 164, 175, 250, 251, 261, 266, 267, 339, 366, 375 – community 15, 102, 105, 107, 155, 160, 161, 357 n 52 circumcision – advantage of 213, 196, 198 – those of 14, 167, 283 n. 33, 331 – issue of 17, 42, 79 n. 80, 164, 166 n. 19, 341, 392 – requirement / practice of 31, 37, 38, 45, 69, 130, 185, 187, 202, 263, 264, 265, 266 n. 88, 323, 330 – convert’s 40 – sign of 188, 201, 204 n. 17 clothing with Christ 39, 40–42, 172 n. 41, 184, 276, 342, 373 cognitive – approach 371–399 – conversion 2, 150, 287 n. 57 – elements 353 – exercise 48 – instruction 54 n. 133 commandments 34, 166, 167, 170 n. 37, 171, 204, 205, 226, 253, 266 n. 88, 276, 287 community – Christian 8, 54 n. 113, 95, 97, 98, 99, 101, 126, 199, 342, 354, 355, 359, 367 – covenant 340 – entering into the 32, 45, 71

Subject Index – – – – – –

eschatological / messianic 42, 49, 343 ethos of the 78 Jewish 70 life / issues of the 53, 92, 94, 151 mission of the 60 n. 7, 79–80 of faith / of believers 14, 32, 40, 42, 143, 268 n. 100, 342, 354, 357, 361, 373 – of righteous / justified 104, 335, 343, 346 – Pauline 9, 32, 60 n. 7, 107, 143, 266, 342, 352, 362, 371–396 – primitive 350 – rituals of the 179, 371–396 concupiscence 134 conditional salvation 291–292 contagion 384, 395, 396 Context Group 74 contextuality / -sation 9, 119, 336, 378, 383, 389 conversion – at risk 280 – climax of 45, 48 – definition of 46–47, 287 n. 57, 308 – embodied / somatic dimensions of 7, 193, 285–286, 294, 309 – interpretation (description/understanding) of 52, 248, 292, 303, 307, 359, 367 – moment of 183, 268, 350 – ongoing 17, 29, 41, 149, 152, 184, 269 n. 100, 287 n. 57 – Paul’s 108, 159–163, 174, 330 n. 30, 378 – philosophical 40, 49, 121 – process of 53–54, 121, 150, 181, 192– 193, 197, 285, 294 – religion of 2, 15 – resulting from ethics of love 349–367 – rhetoric / language of 7, 284 – to / through Christian faith 239, 293 convert – “dying” of 4, 35, 48, 50, 54, 328, 330 – Gentile 6, 54, 93, 165 – prototype 31, 40 – socialisation of 359–360 – rebirth / transformation of 32–33, 36– 55, 198, 300–301, 307–308, 330, 359–360, 363

431 

cosmos 63 n. 15, 138, 152, 281 n. 30, 304 counterintuitiveness 357–358, 374 covenant 70, 130, 150, 168, 302–303, 307, 321, 338, 340–342, 345, 346, 375, 387–388, 391 – faithfulness to the 136–137, 202–203, 205, 208, 221, 232, 325 n. 20 – new 16 n. 89, 126, 144, 171, 381, 388 – nomism 202 n. 5, 351 – old 99, 144 – Sinai 202–208 cross of Jesus / theology of the cross 4, 18–21, 67–69, 91–103, 116, 128, 130, 131, 137–138, 153, 171, 175, 181, 184, 185, 189, 191, 197, 215, 236, 237, 328–331, 350, 355 deification 4, 8, 121, 125, 137 n. 41, 139, 146–150, 152, 153 339, 343, 388 n. 61, 391 Dialogical Self Theory 3, 73, 75 dualism 36, 50, 126, 130 efforts (human) 102, 190, 261, 306, 327, 336 embodiment (in religious experience and knowledge) 8–9, 42, 45, 51, 54, 125, 127–128, 137 n. 41, 141, 147, 150, 325, 339, 355, 357, 371–397 energy of God 137, 148, 150, 221 eschatology 4, 6, 41–42, 44, 49, 190, 268–269, 302–305, 309, 360–361, 393 ethics 7–8, 54 n. 133, 147–148, 243, 267–268, 279, 290–291, 343 – missional 74–80 – of love 5, 7, 71, 78, 169, 174, 282, 306, 308, 335–340, 345, 349–367 ethnocentricism 5, 61, 74 n. 66, 166 n. 19, 265, 351 – relativisation of 2, 40, 70, 194 exchange (of statuses) 125, 132–141, 244, 358, 363 n. 82 exodus (experience of) 191, 225, 279– 280, 284 expiation 229–234 faith – as fidelity 325

432

Subject Index

– in Christ 8, 13–25, 39–40, 45, 53, 160, 162, 167–168, 174, 180, 192, 194, 215, 216, 222, 223, 353–357 – faith of Christ 168, 180, 222, 326 faithfulness of Jesus Christ 2, 24, 168 n. 27, 318, 324, 327, 346, 351, 353 n. 35 final judgment 44, 51, 126, 127, 150, 151, 202, 206, 301, 337, 344 n. 47, 364 forgiveness 31, 43, 102, 103, 133, 167, 169, 190, 221, 225, 230, 231, 233, 234, 301 freedom 30, 48, 69, 130, 165, 222, 278 free human response 4, 295, 298 free will (choice)115, 243, 244, 296, 305 Galatia 70, 163–164, 175, 182–183, 185, 319, 341 Gentile – conversion / justification of 6, 7, 16, 37–39, 163–165, 167, 231, 239 n. 190, 285, 324–326, 330, 337, 345, 377, 390 – status / inclusion of 2, 5, 6, 8, 17–19, 31, 45, 51, 54, 68, 69, 71, 160–161, 170, 209, 210–214, 223, 230, 238, 263, 265, 298, 340–341, 358–359, 381, 390, 392, 393 – mission 3, 59, 60, 63, 65, 66, 67, 69, 71, 74, 80, 160 “Gnosticism” 251, 259, 262 gospel (acceptance of) 2, 13–25, 49, 268 n. 100, 298 n. 98, 353, 367 grace 5, 50, 67, 100, 108, 110, 111, 115, 127, 128, 139, 146, 160, 168 n. 28, 172, 174, 175, 180, 187, 237, 238, 261, 263, 267, 281, 288, 297, 299, 300, 305, 317, 322–325, 327, 355 – justifying 8, 102, 103, 105, 216, 218, 221, 224, 226 n. 117, 238, 291, 303 n. 122, 326, 336, 337, 343, 344–345, 346 – relation to free will 243, 244 historical dignity 20 history of salvation (Heilsgeschichte) 39, 159, 187, 188, 192, 264, 281, 282, 297

holiness 4, 121, 126 n. 1, 127, 129, 146, 188, 195, 330, 360 idolatry 78, 129, 280, 283–284, 285, 288 image – of God 3, 41, 50, 80, 107, 148 – of the Son of God / Christ 54, 175, 180, 198, 264, 265, 273, 274, 288– 289, 294, 298, 300–301, 304, 306 imitation – of God 365 – of Christ 267, 294 n. 83, 299, 357 incorporation in Christ 4, 30, 32, 41, 44, 54, 59 n. 3, 132, 299, 316, 327, 341– 343, 363 initiation 35, 48, 254, 294, 301, 328, 329 n. 27, 385, 386 Isaac 187, 190, 191 Israel – boarders of 232 n. 158 – privileges / difference of 18, 213, 222, 279 – disobedience / failure of 231 nn. 149, 153, 300 – exclusivity of 70, 265 n. 83 – law of 166 – leaders of 194 – people of 19, 189, 218, 237, 249, 277, 284, 328, 329, 355, 356 n. 49 – salvation of 202–206 – of God 182, 184, 185, 186, 197 – plan for 72 – promises to 43, 180, 281 James (brother of the Lord) 169 Jewish (Judaising) Christians 31, 70, 161–164, 183, 187, 194, 208, 219, 334 John Chrysostom’s exegesis (as matter of discussion) 3, 5, 6, 74–76, 92, 101, 104, 109, 110, 114, 117, 118, 125, 128, 129, 130, 134, 139, 140, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149, 155, 171 n. 40, 180–182, 196, 219, 220, 221, 224, 228, 254–260, 277–281, 295–296, 300, 301–302, 304, 362 justification – and the Holy Spirit 46, 188, 189, 197

Subject Index – as redemption from sin 31, 103, 214– 222, 224–226, 230–237 – as resurrection 332–334 – by faith 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 17, 29, 37–40, 51, 54, 69, 104, 105, 121, 136, 162– 168, 201, 214, 216, 218–219, 231, 302–303, 328, 344, 359, 376 n. 16, 386–387, 389, 391–393 – by means of Christ’s faithfulness 8, 322–325 (see also “faithfulness of Jesus Christ”) – by means of imitating Christ 121 – covenantal 340–343 – ecclesiological-social dimension of 31, 37, 40, 42, 51, 54, 69, 101, 180, 185, 191, 340–343, 395 – effective / ontological 3, 5, 7, 8, 44, 54–55, 105, 136–137, 147, 150, 169, 197 332–339 – forensic / judicial 6, 42, 44, 104, 132, 136–137, 150, 152, 302–303, 340– 343, 389, 392 – in baptismal contexts 2, 29–55, 181 n. 8, 302–303 – indirect reference to 89–105 – participatory mode of 3, 71, 325–331 – precondition for 222–224 – realisation of 232–235 – signaling the rebirth 301, 302, 307 – transfer / transit language 9, 54, 391 Kingdom of God / heaven 38, 42, 43, 44, 78, 112, 149, 267, 275, 342 law s. Torah and Mosaic law Luther / Lutheran 1 n.1, 18 n. 8, 69, 89, 90, 136, 137, 169, 224, 243–245, 263, 267, 268, 282, 287 n. 57, 339, 350, 387, 389 love s. “ethics of love” Marcion / Marcionite views 190 n. 48, 259, 262–263, 265, 267 meal practices 9, 16, 160, 163, 179, 379– 386, 395 missionary work and experience 1, 2, 3, 13–17, 59–80, 89, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111–121, 137, 138, 141, 143, 160,

433 

162, 163, 174, 262, 349, 352, 360, 363, 366, 388 Moses / Mosaic law 5, 7, 37, 38, 48, 50, 69, 143, 144, 165, 166 n. 19, 188, 254, 264 n. 78, 266 n. 87, 284 mystery (ritual) 3, 5, 130, 149, 171, 172– 173, 254 – pagan 35–36, 378, 383 mystic experience 80, 147, 305 n. 129, 378 mysticism 59 n. 3, 72–73 narrative – forensic and sacrificial 152 – of conversion 7, 46, 292 – missional 61, 77, 80 – passion 329 – criticism 144 nationalism see “ethnocentricism” new creation 4, 19, 32, 37, 38, 39, 41, 49 n. 106; n.108; 50, 62, 67, 70, 125, 127, 125–155, 198, 299 n. 103, 330, 331, 338, 339, 360, 387 n. 55, 388, 393, 396 New Perspective on Paul 1, 2, 4, 50 n. 115, 89, 90, 91, 166 n. 19, 245 n. 11, 273, 274 n. 1, 344 n. 47 Nicholas Cabasilas’ theology (as matter of discussion) 169 n. 30, 173, 251 n. 32, 252 n. 34, 260 n. 66, 269 n. 100 nomism 51, 202 n. 5, 351 ontological – change 3, 5, 8, 50, 54, 121, 152, 339, 360, 366 – state 131, 137, 173, 181 Origen’s exegesis (as matter of discussion) 115, 262–268, 281–282, 287– 306, 364 n. 93, 372 Orthodox (Eastern Orthodox – selected pages with special focus) – Church 179, 243–244 – hermeneutics 91–93, 152–153, 244 – points of view 1–7, 120, 125, 134 n. 27, 137–139, 147, 150, 250 n. 29, 252, 259 n. 63, 267–269, 274, 276, 286, 290, 29, 292, 295, 296, 301, 302–303, 304, 305–309

434

Subject Index

participation in – Christ 1–9, 50, 126, 127, 132 n. 18, 136, 147, 278, 294, 330, 351, 371, 382–386, 396 – Christ and mission of Paul 59–80 – Christ and substitution 130–132 – Christ and justification 127, 145, 274, 301, 303, 325–331, 340–345 – Christ’s burial 32, 49 – Christ’s death 32, 39, 48, 49, 47–51, 66, 69, 71, 250, 274–277, 292, 306, 307, 326, 328, 335, 338, 345 – Christ’s body 44 – Christ’s resurrection 250, 332, 335, 345 – Christ’s rule over the cosmos 304 – Christ’s suffering 109, 120–121 – divine life 150, 274, 285, 292, 305, 307, 330 – God’s sanctity 330, 334 – the mysteries / table fellowship 37, 149, 160–161, 385 – the Kingdom of God 38 – the glory 221, 277, 307–309 – righteousness of God 340 – the Spirit 79–80 – restored humanity 301, 304, 307 patron-client relations 52 Pelagianism 261, 267, 344 people of God see “Israel” Peter – at Antioch 161–165, 170, 175, 183, 319 – at the Council of Jerusalem 15 – mission of 63 predestination 273, 294, 296–298, 305 Protestant / Protestantism 145, 152, 267, 336, 340, 342, 344, 352, 372 n. 7 rabbis / rabbinic views 34, 50 n. 114, 70, 142, 146, 159, 165 n. 17, 166, 167, 168, 171, 186, 205 n. 23, 212, 248, 259 n. 63, 379 rebirth 38, 173, 185, 190, 276, 307, 308, 359 reconciliation 64, 77, 127, 130, 140–144, 151–154, 191, 231, 233, 245, 315, 339, 366, 376, 388, 391, 393, 395, 396

Reformation / Reformational 4, 6, 7, 125, 135, 136, 139, 145, 146, 150, 152, 252, 261, 262 repentance 8, 49 n. 109, 149, 236, 237, 239, 260, 354 n. 39, 360 n. 67, 364– 367 resurrection of / with Jesus 19, 20, 39, 52, 54, 92, 98, 117, 119, 121, 127, 138, 141, 154, 159, 172, 190, 191, 197, 215, 231, 232 n. 160, 233, 234 n. 169, 250, 321, 329 n. 27, 338, 345, 353, 385, 386, 389 – of the self at conversion 98, 179, 320, 326, 328, 331–335 – final 2, 37 n. 44, 38, 45, 51, 53, 128, 129, 130, 135 n. 34, 147, 148, 150, 154, 285, 299, 302, 305, 373 n. 8, 388 righteousness of God 101, 103, 125, 127, 135, 136, 138, 140, 143–146, 151, 205 nn. 21–22, 206, 207, 208, 209, 213, 215–224, 226–228, 232–235, 237, 238, 303 n. 122, 338–340, 345 Sabbath 69, 130, 264, 265 sacramental 7, 29, 35, 53 n. 128, 172 n. 41, 251 n. 33, 252, 254 n. 43 sacrifice 33, 48, 54 n. 133, 55, 130, 135, 138, 147, 174, 175, 229, 230, 264, 266 n . 90, 357, 363 n. 83, 376, 388, 390, 391 salvation 5, 93, 94, 96, 98, 100, 101, 102, 104, 184, 190, 112, 127, 133, 137, 147, 148, 152, 153, 154, 160, 164, 168–171, 175, 180, 202, 216, 220, 221, 224, 228, 235, 237 n. 185, 239, 243, 255, 278 n. 13, 291, 295, 298, 301, 327, 331, 342, 344, 355, 362 n. 78, 366, 371–396 salvation history 39, 159, 160, 264, 267, 273, 274, 277, 278, 281, 282, 297 sanctification 4, 43–45, 93, 94, 96, 98, 101, 102, 104, 150, 152, 154, 286, 288, 359 Sarah 182, 183, 186, 187, 194 sin (see “forgiveness”, “freedom” and “justification”) slavery 37, 38 n. 49, 139, 160, 211, 212, 246, 248, 260–261, 280–285, 290, 292, 308, 309, 360, 375, 388, 390

Subject Index soul 35, 36, 50, 109, 118, 129, 130, 215, 257, 276, 286, 289, 308, 358 n. 59 Spirit see “justification” and “participation” Stoic philosophy 40 n. 57, 48, 49, 281, 286, 352, 373 n. 8 suffering 4, 66, 107–121, 126, 127, 143. 149, 166, 196, 256, 257, 273, 275, 283, 291, 292, 295, 301, 304, 306, 307, 309, 357 n. 54, 358, 393 Symeon the New Theologian 274–309 synergism 4, 127, 267 table fellowship 31, 70, 160–161, 165, 376 temple of God 44, 126, 154, 263, 265, 268 n. 99 theōsis see “deification” and “transformation” Torah 17, 18, 126 n. 1, 130, 142, 164, 179 n. 1, 247 n. 15, 273, 280, 281, 283, 323 transformation – and participation 334, 344 – and theōsis 146–150 – by contagion 384 – cosmic 309 – into a new creation 388–391, 393–396 – into the image of God 294 n. 83

 

435 

– – – – – – – – – –

into righteousness 335–340 of all 143 of God’s Son 65–66 of God’s Spirit 78 of mind 264 Paul’s 330 n. 30 of the law 6, 246–268 moral 278, 290–292 ontological 3, 5, 8, 63 n. 15, 360 religious / spiritual 2, 5, 6, 7, 29–55, 112, 121, 125, 127, 143, 194, 273, 287, 301, 306, 330, 343, 363, 364 n. 93, 373, 376, 384, 385 – somatic 305, 308, 309 Trinity, trinitarianism 128, 138, 154, 298, 299 typological interpretation 129 n. 6, 186, 187, 262 n. 74, 279, 281 wisdom of God 19, 21, 93–105, 142 – of the world 21, 94–105 works of the law 5, 17, 18, 29, 31, 37, 38, 39, 42, 51, 69, 130 n. 12, 164–170, 174, 175, 212, 214, 216, 217, 226, 231, 265 n. 84, 319, 323, 327, 332, 334, 346 worship 37, 46, 61, 130, 153, 191, 303, 379