Paul's Gospel for the Thessalonians and Others: Essays on 1 & 2 Thessalonians and Other Pauline Epistles (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament, 481) 9783161611551, 9783161611568, 3161611551

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Herausgeber/Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber/Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) ∙ James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) ∙ Janet Spittler (Charlottesville, VA) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

481

Seyoon Kim

Paul’s Gospel for the ­Thessalonians and Others Essays on 1 & 2 Thessalonians and Other Pauline Epistles

Mohr Siebeck

Seyoon Kim, born 1946; 1977 PhD (University of Manchester); Professor of New Testament at Chongshin Theological Seminary, Seoul, Korea; Professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA, USA; currently a senior professor. orcid.org/0000-0002-8827-0077

ISBN 978-3-16-161155-1 / eISBN 978-3-16-161156-8 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-161156-8 ISSN 0512-1604 / eISSN 2568-7476 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de. ©  2022 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany.  www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tübingen using Garamond typeface, printed on nonaging paper by Gulde Druck in Tübingen, and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

In Memory of Ralph P. Martin and Robert P. Meye, and for Donald A. Hagner and Robert K. Johnston

Acknowledgements It is a pleasant duty for me to thank those who helped me in the process of writing the essays in this volume and publishing them together in this book form. First of all, I must acknowledge my indebtedness to the late Ralph P. Martin, the founding New Testament editor of Word Biblical Commentary series, who honored me with the invitation to revise my teacher Prof. F. F. Bruce’s commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians in that series and thereby led me to an intensive study of the two letters and write most of these essays. I must thank Fuller Theological Seminary for providing me with a good working environment as well as some research assistants and secretarial help for writing these essays and my commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians over many years. The final stages of writing and editing the commentary and the essays for this volume were carried out in Tübingen, Germany. I am grateful to the University of Tübingen and its Protestant Theological Faculty for hosting me as a visiting scholar during the last two years, and to the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for granting me a renewed fellowship for the Fall quarter of 2019. I am much indebted to the libraries and their staff of Fuller Seminary, Tübingen University and its Theologicum. I must thank my old friend Prof. Hermann Lichtenberger for hosting me once again at Protestant Theological Faculty, Tübingen, and also Prof. Michael Tilly and Prof. Christof Landmesser for their warm collegial welcome. I am much indebted again to Prof. Peter Stuhlmacher for his encouragement and wise counsel. It was also good to renew fellowship with Prof. Rainer Riesner, albeit through email correspondence because of the COVID-19 pandemic. I am grateful also to Timotheus Chang Whae Kim and Kyung Jin Oh, the two Doktoranden, who helped me with literature procurement and computer matters. It gives me great pleasure also to express my deep appreciation of the friendship and sundry practical help that Doris and Jürgen Pollitz have extended to my wife and me during our stay in Tübingen this time again as they had done during our several former stays over the last four decades. Several older essays in this volume were originally edited by the late Susan Carlson Wood of Faculty Publication Services, Fuller Theological Seminary, for various journals and compendia, and some newer ones were done by Dr. Charles Lee Irons. He also copy-edited the book as a whole. The indices were compiled by Dr. Jin Ki Hwang. I am grateful to them all for their excellent work. I would

VIII

Acknowledgements

like to thank also the various publishers for permission to reuse my articles originally published in their journals or compendia. I am very thankful to Prof. Jörg Frey and Elena Müller, Program Director of Theology and Jewish Studies, for acceptance of this volume into the WUNT I series. Tobias Stäbler, Markus Kirchner and Ilse König as well as other colleagues at Mohr Siebeck have worked with their customary thoroughness and efficiency to produce this book in this fine form. To them all, I am grateful. It is with much pleasure that I dedicate this book to the memory of Ralph P. Martin and Robert P. Meye as well as to the friendship of Donald A. Hagner and Robert K. Johnston, my former colleagues at Fuller Theological Seminary. They encouraged me to join the Fuller faculty and then sustained my life and work there with their unfailing friendship. Finally, it is a distinct joy to express my gratitude to my wife, Yea Sun, who patiently supported me with loving care and encouragement through all these years of my scholarly labor, in spite of her own heavy professorial duties, and also to our daughters, Eunice Songi and Claire Hahni, for having been my most faithful cheering squad. Tübingen, July 2021

Seyoon Kim

Table of Contents Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1   1. The Structure and Function of 1 Thessalonians 1–3, and the Occasion and Purpose of 1 Thessalonians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9   2. Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel (1 Thess 1:9–10 and Rom 1:3–4) . . . 45   3. The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians: Continuity and Unity of Paul’s Gospel in 1 Thessalonians and in His Later Epistles . . . 67   4. Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings as a Basis of Paul’s Gospel of Jesus the Son of God (1 Thess 1:9–10 and Rom 1:3–4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133   5. Jesus’ Ransom Saying (Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28) and Eucharistic Saying (Mark 14:21–25 and parr.) Echoed in 1 Thessalonians and Other Pauline Epistles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151   6. The Jesus Tradition in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171   7. The Idleness of Some Thessalonians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189   8. The Thessalonian Church as Paul’s “hope or joy or crown of boasting” (1 Thess 2:19–20): Judgment according to Works and Reward for Good Deeds, or the Structure of Paul’s Doctrine of Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193   9. Is Paul Preaching a Counter-Imperial Gospel in 1 Thessalonians? . . . . . 217 10. Paul and the Roman Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

X

Table of Contents

11. Paul’s Common Paraenesis (1 Thess 4–5; Phil 2–4; and Rom 12–13), the Correspondence between Rom 1:18–32 and 12:1–2, and the Unity of Romans 12–13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 12. Paul’s Doctrine of Justification in 2 Thessalonians 1–2, and Its Implications for Pauline Theology and 2 Thessalonians . . . . . . . . . . . 279 13. “The Restraining Thing” (τὸ κατέχον) and “the Restraining Person” (ὁ κατέχων) of “the Lawless Man” (2 Thess 2:1–12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 14. “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God” (Rom 12:19; cf. 2 Thess 1:5–7): The Apostle Paul and lex talionis . . . . . . 313 15. Imitatio Christi (1 Cor 11:1): How Paul Imitates Jesus Christ in Dealing with Idol Food (1 Cor 8–10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 16. Paul as an Eschatological Herald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 17. Paul the Pastor: His Preaching and Ministry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 18. Paul and Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399 Appendix: Jesus and the Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423

List of First Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459 Index of Passages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479 Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513 Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519

Abbreviations AB AJEC AnBib ANRW

Anchor Bible Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity Analecta Biblica Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung ATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research BDAG Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. BDF Friedrich Blass, Albert Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Bib Biblica Billerbeck H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. München: Kessinger, 1922–61. BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester BKAT Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentaries BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin BZ Biblische Zeitschrift BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly ConBNT Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament Series DPL Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by G. F. Hawthorne and R. P. Martin. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993. EDNT Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. 3 vols. Edited by G. Schneider and H. Balz. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990 (ET of EWNT: Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament) EKKNT Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament ETL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses EvT Evangelische Theologie ExAud Ex Auditu ExpTim Expository Times FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen ­ Testaments

XII FS HKNT HNT HThKNT HTR IB ICC JBL JSJSup JSNT JSNTSup JSPSup JTS KEK LCL MHT MM NCB NICNT NIDNTT NIGTC NovT NovTSup NTD NTS PG PNP

PFG ÖTK RB RGG RTR SBLDS SBLMS SBS SD SNT SNTSMS SP STDJ TBei

Abbreviations

Festschrift Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review Interpreter’s Bible International Critical Commentary Journal of Biblical Literature Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament Loeb Classical Library James H. Moulton, Wilbur F. Howard, and Nigel Turner. A Grammar of New Testament Greek James H. Moulton and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. London, 1930. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997 New Century Bible New International Biblical Commentary on the New Testament New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. 4 vols. Edited by C. Brown. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975–85. New International Greek Testament Commentary Novum Testamentum Supplements to Novum Testamentum Das Neue Testament Deutsch New Testament Studies Patrologia graeca. Edited by J.-P. Migne, 162 vols. (Paris, 1857–86) S. Kim, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; WUNT 140; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. N. T.  Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God. vol. 2. Christian Origins and the Question of God 4. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. Ökumenischer Taschenkommentar zum Neuen Testament Revue biblique Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. 3rd edition. 6 vols. Edited by K. Galling. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957–65. Reformed Theological Review Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies and Documents Studien zum Neuen Testament Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Sacra Pagina Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Theologische Beiträge

Abbreviations

TDNT

ThWAT TU TynBul TZ WBC WMANT WUNT ZAW ZNW ZTK

XIII

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (ET of ThWNT: Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament). Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: ­Eerdmans, 1964–76. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck, et al. 9 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1973–2000. Texte und Untersuchungen Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Introduction This collection of essays is meant to serve as a companion to my commentary, 1 and 2 Thessalonians.1 Most of the essays collected here were written alongside my work on the commentary, either as its Vorarbeiten, or as more detailed discussions of some important themes and issues that could not be contained within the confines of the commentary. In Essay 1 of the volume, I observe how in 1 Thess 1–3 Paul affirms five times that the Thessalonian Christians accepted his gospel and came to the Christian faith in spite of severe persecutions, because they saw its truth demonstrated in his “entry” (εἴσοδος) as its preacher (1 Thess 1:5–6, 9–10; 2:1, 13; 3:6), i. e., in his apostolic conduct that was in stark contrast to that of the contemporary wandering Cynic philosophers and Sophists in Hellenistic cities (1 Thess 2:1–12). For this fact, Paul gives thanks to God three times over in the first three chapters of the epistle (1:2 + 5–6; 2:13; 3:6–10), so that the whole first part of the epistle (1 Thess 1–3) is not only the longest but also the most unusual thanksgiving section within the whole Pauline corpus. Paul’s fivefold association of the Thessalonians’ faith with his apostolic “entry” runs like a red thread through the first and main part of the epistle. This new observation, and the inquiry as to why Paul repeatedly makes this association, supporting it with a concrete description of the manner of his “entry” (2:1–12), help us to define the occasion and purpose of the epistle, as well as to determine whether form criticism and rhetorical criticism are of any value for this epistle. I argue that a proper appreciation of Paul’s fivefold association of the Thessalonians’ faith with his apostolic conduct is decisive for a right interpretation of the letter. 1 Thess 1:9b–10 is a summary of the gospel that Paul preached to the Thessalonians and the Thessalonians believed. Therefore, in Essay 2, I argue that each word, phrase, or clause in it must be treated as a keyword or heading that encapsulates a whole narrative or doctrine, similarly to those in 1 Cor 15:3–5, and that we need to expound the words and phrases and the whole of the summary in connection with the other summaries of the gospel in the epistle, namely 4:14; 2:11–12; and 5:9–10, as well as with the wish-prayer in 3:11–13 which reflects the gospel. This procedure leads me to see 1 Thess 1:10 as closely connected with Rom 5:8–10 and Rom 8:1–4, 32–34 and to conclude that the gospel of 1 Thess 1 Word

Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondedrvan, forthcoming in 2022).

2

Introduction

1:10 is essentially the same as that of Rom 1:2–4 + 16–17. In this way, the basic unity and continuity between the gospel which Paul preached to the Thessalonians and that which he preached later to the Romans through his letter are highlighted. Additionally, the whole study helps us understand why Paul defines the gospel in terms of Jesus being “the Son of God” (Rom 1:1–4, 9; 2 Cor 1:18–20; Gal 1:16; cf. Acts 9:20) and presents it in terms of justification, acquittal of sins and restoration of sinners to the kingdom of God. Thereby, it also helps us affirm that Paul’s gospel of God’s Son (Rom 1:3–4, 16–17 + 8:31–39; 1 Cor 15:23–28; Col 1:13–14) closely corresponds to Jesus’ gospel of God’s kingdom. The majority of New Testament scholars consider 1 Thessalonians to be the earliest of the Apostle Paul’s surviving letters. Accordingly, they appreciate it as witnessing to his early theology, often highlighting especially the absence of the Pauline doctrine of justification and the focus on futuristic eschatology in it. On this basis, it is quite common for scholars to argue for a theory of substantial development in Paul’s theology from its early stage in 1 Thessalonians to its mature stage in Galatians and Romans. Since 1 Thessalonians is commonly viewed as having been written in AD 50, even for those who hold Galatians to have been written a couple of years before it, there is no problem in taking it as an early letter of Paul. However, against the majority view, I consider other factors beyond those considered in the preceding essay, in order to consolidate the case for the essential unity and continuity of Paul’s gospel between 1 Thessalonians and his later letters. So, in Essay 3, I further argue for an implicit or encapsulated presence of Paul’s doctrine of justification in 1 Thessalonians, partly in the contextualized form of sanctification, a parallel metaphor to justification (as in 1 Corinthians). It is also shown that, along with that doctrine, other related Pauline doctrines, such as the Lord Jesus Christ’s present reign (1 Thess 3:11–13) and the work of the Holy Spirit (1 Thess 4:8–9), also appear in the letter in similarly encapsulated form. I explain that they are not explicitly referred to or unfolded in it because an exposition of the gospel per se or an argument for a right form of its presentation was not part of the needs of the Thessalonian Church that Paul sought to address in that brief letter. Additionally, it is suggested that we should consider more realistically the chronological fact that Paul, a trained former Jewish theologian, had already had about 16–18 years of Christian theological reflection and ministry experience before writing the letter – a period that is more than two times longer than the approximately seven years between it and Romans. It is also pointed out that there is a logical incongruity in the view of many scholars (especially New Perspectivists) who trace the formulation of the justification doctrine to the Antioch controversy and yet highlight its alleged absence in 1 Thessalonians, a post-Antioch controversy letter, as an argument for their theory of its late development. As for the question of a substantial development in Paul’s eschatology between 1 Thessalonians and his later letters, I show the situation-conditioned nature

Introduction

3

of the focus in 1 Thessalonians on the futuristic aspect of the common Pauline eschatological scheme of “already/but not yet.” While working on 1 Thessalonians, I was struck by the following four facts, when I considered them together: (1) For his eschatological teaching, Paul cites a Son of Man saying in 1 Thess 5:2 (Matt 24:43–44//Luke 12:39–40) and, most likely, another one in 1 Thess 4:16 (Matt 24:30–31//Mark 13:26–27); (2) he explains his apostolic conduct, echoing the Son of Man saying (the ransom saying) of Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28 in 1 Thess 2:6–8, just as he does in 1 Cor 9:19–22; 10:33–11:1; (3) he wrote 1 Thessalonians while transmitting to the Corinthians the eucharistic saying (1 Cor 11:23–26), which is a Son of Man saying (Mark 14:21–25 and parr.); and (4) some scholars think that the gospel cited in 1 Thess 1:10 originally had “the Son Man” in it before Paul replaced it with “[God’s] Son.”2 So, in Essay 4, I seek to demonstrate how various kinds of Jesus’ Son of Man sayings shaped Paul’s Christology, soteriology and eschatology. Thus, the study leads me to the conclusion that the Jesus tradition, both his teaching about God’s kingdom and his sayings about himself as the Son of Man who bore that kingdom or kingship (Dan 7:13–14), formed a basis for Paul’s formulation of his gospel. Hence, there is a close material correspondence between Paul’s gospel of God’s Son or justification and Jesus’ gospel of God’s kingdom, as ascertained in Essay 2. Then, in Essay 5, I go on to show more echoes of Jesus’s ransom saying and the eucharistic saying in Paul’s soteriological statements (especially those that contain the giving-up formula or its variants) and his ministerial/paraenetic teachings in 1 Thessalonians and his other letters, and conclude that those sayings of Jesus provided the most fundamental basis for his soteriology and decisively shaped his apostolic ministry after Jesus’ example. In Essay 6, I seek to demonstrate that the two issues that Paul addresses in the eschatological sections of 1 Thess 4:13–18 and 5:1–11 (namely, the Thessalonians’ grief about the believers who died before the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ and their anxiety about the exact timing of the Day of the Lord), arose from their inadequate understanding of Jesus’ sayings about the coming of the Son of Man, such as Matt 24:30–31//Mark 13:26–27 and Matt 24:43–44//Luke 12:39–40, which Paul had delivered to them as part of his eschatological teaching. I argue that therefore he tries to reassure them by helping them understand those sayings properly in the light of the fundamental gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection for our salvation (1 Thess 4:14; 5:9–10). Thus, this study supports the thesis unfolded in the preceding Essays 4 and 5. Having seen how the Thessalonians came to be anxious with their expectation of an imminent parousia of the Lord Jesus due to an inadequate understanding of some sayings of Jesus about the coming of the Son of Man, in Essay 7, I consider 2 For

a discussion of this matter, see 133–37 below (Essay 4.1).

4

Introduction

whether the problem of some Thessalonian Christians’ idleness (1 Thess 4:11–12; 5:14; 2 Thess 3:6–15) could have arisen at least partly from their one-sided understanding of Jesus’ sayings, such as Luke 12:22–34//Matt 6:25–34 + 19–21, as well as of his sayings about the coming of the Son of Man. In Essay 8, I ask: In what sense does Paul call the Thessalonian church his “hope or joy or crown of boasting” or his “glory and joy” (1 Thess 2:19–20)? I was stimulated to raise this question as many commentators appear to avoid a serious discussion about it or make confusing comments about the passage, while many preachers simply expound it meritologically. A critical inquiry about that question leads me to discuss Paul’s teachings about judgment according to works and reward for good deeds within his doctrine of justification and so helps me lay bare the structure of his doctrine of justification. Counter-imperial interpretation of the New Testament has been in vogue for some time. Pointing especially to Paul’s open criticism of imperial Rome’s slogan or “gospel” of “peace and security” (1 Thess 5:3) and his discussion of the Lord Jesus’ parousia (1 Thess 4:13–18), which evokes the majestic picture of the parousia of the Roman Emperor, the lord and god’s son, to a provincial city, many scholars take 1 Thessalonians as providing the clearest evidence for Paul’s counter-imperial presentation of the “gospel” of God’s Son, the Lord Jesus Christ (the Davidic King). So, in Essay 9, I closely examine whether 1 Thessalonians can really be interpreted as presenting a counter-imperial message. Then, in Essay 10, I go on to examine Paul’s gospel preaching as a whole in the form of critiquing the work of N. T. Wright, one of the most influential counter-imperial interpreters of Paul, to find out whether he really presented his gospel with an intention to subvert the Roman Empire. In Essay 11, by examining Paul’s common paraenesis in 1 Thess 4–5; Phil 2–4; and Rom 12–13, I further consolidate my view of an essential unity and continuity in Paul’s theology between 1 Thessalonians, an early letter of his, and Romans and Philippians, his later letters. I also affirm that Paul’s paraenesis for Christians is basically an exhortation to live a holy and righteous life in reversal of the Adamic way of existence (Rom 1:18–32). In this volume, I have included two essays on 2 Thessalonians. One of the great surprises that I got while working on my commentary was to discover the clear presence of Paul’s doctrine of justification in 2 Thessalonians. Thus, the subject matter of Essay 12 is the doctrine of justification as presented in 2 Thess 1–2. In order to reassure the persecuted Christians who are confused and anxious about the Day of the Lord, no doubt, for the last judgment that is to take place on that Day, Paul presents a brief scenario of the future revelation of “the man of lawlessness” and the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ (2:1–8). But what should strike us more than that is the fact that in the surrounding passages (1:5–12 and 2:9–17) Paul repeats the message that in his “just judgment” God will deliver a verdict of salvation for them, the believers in the gospel, while meting out con-

Introduction

5

demnation for their unbelieving persecutors. He does this, echoing many words and themes of Rom 1–2, and even representing the thesis of the justification doctrine in Rom 1:16–17 twice in generalized statements (1:8–10, in a positive form; 2:10–12, in a negative form). Thus, the presence of Paul’s justification doctrine is even clearer in 2 Thessalonians than in 1 Thessalonians. This fact greatly strengthens the argument for the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians, and also supports my view of an essential unity and continuity of Paul’s gospel between his early letters and later letters. Although Paul’s focus on God’s “just judgment” at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ in 2 Thess 1–2 deserves greater attention, in fact, historically scholars have been more fascinated with the brief eschatological scenario in 2 Thess 2:3–8 with the coded references, “the restraining thing” (τὸ κατέχον) and “the restraining person” (ὁ κατέχων) as well as “the man of lawlessness.” In Essay 13, then, I suggest that Paul’s understanding of God’s eschatological saving plan (“the mystery”) of Rom 11:25–26 is a key to the right interpretation of the scenario. I explain that by “the man of lawlessness,” Paul refers to a future Caesar who will act like Caligula but in a much more terrible way than he did, and so, as it were, to a “Super-Caligula,” the ultimate agent of Satan. Additionally, Paul refers to the then reigning Caesar Claudius and his Empire respectively as “the restraining person” and “the restraining thing.” He calls them as such because by their (relatively good) maintenance of law and order in the oecumene, they provide the time and other conditions for Paul to conduct his mission to all the nations and bring the full number of the Gentiles into God’s kingdom, which will trigger the repentance/salvation of all Israel, so that the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ may take place. Essay 14 deals with the tension between Paul’s prohibition of retaliation in personal relationships and his teaching of God’s retributive judgment. The brief inquiry is especially focused on the question how Paul reconciles his doctrine of “the just judgment of God” (2 Thess 1:5; Rom 2:5) with his gospel of God’s grace in Christ, i. e., with the doctrines of God’s justification of the ungodly and reconciliation of enemies to himself. I cautiously suggest that in the light of the revelation of God’s grace in Christ, Paul re-interprets the doctrine of God’s judgment in terms of giving unbelieving evil doers up to their own rejection of his saving love. Imitatio Christi is an important theme in Paul, and it has serious implications both for a proper understanding of his ethics and for a right resolution of the so-called “Paul–Jesus debate.” In Essay 15, I show that in dealing with the question whether Christians may eat food offered to idols in 1 Cor 8–10, Paul draws his guidelines from some sayings of Jesus as well as his example of ignoring the Jewish purity regulations and eating with sinners. I argue that by “imitation of Christ” Paul has in view not just Christ’s self-giving in his incarnation and crucifixion, nor just that and some deeds of the historical Jesus, but also his teach-

6

Introduction

ings that accompanied his deeds. With this regard, the particular importance of Jesus’ ransom saying (Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28) is highlighted (1 Cor 9:19–22; 10:33–11:1; cf. also Rom 15:1–3). Thus, this essay supports the conclusions in Essays 4 and 5 of this volume as well as strengthening the view of a strong continuity between Jesus and Paul that I have propounded in the first six Essays of this volume. In Essay 16, I discuss Paul’s self-understanding as an eschatological herald of the gospel of God’s saving reign through his Son, Jesus Christ the Lord (Rom 1:3–5), which redeems humanity from the reign of “the god of this age” (2 Cor 4:4) or “the dominion of darkness” (Col 1:13–14). I explain that understanding his apostleship thus, Paul seeks to proclaim that gospel throughout the oecumene and bring the full number of the Gentiles into God’s kingdom, and thereby also to trigger the repentance and salvation of all Israel, so that the Lord Jesus Christ may return and complete the redemption of the whole world (Rom 11:25–26). I argue that he developed such an understanding of God’s saving plan and his apostolic ministry by interpreting the revelation of the gospel and his apostolic call on the Damascus road in the light chiefly of the Servant passages and other related passages in Isa 40–66 as well as Isa 6 (cf. also Deut 32:21). I further argue that as a sign of partial fulfillment of the OT–Jewish expectation of the Gentiles’ eschatological pilgrimage to Zion and of completion of bringing the Eastern hemisphere’s portion of “the full number of the Gentiles” into God’s kingdom he undertook his journey to Jerusalem with the representatives of the churches of the Eastern hemisphere to deliver their collection for the Jerusalem church before his travel to Rome to embark his mission into the Western hemisphere (Rom 15:14–32). This thesis of this Essay partially dovetails with the thesis of Essay 13 above, and therefore they support each other. In Essay 17, I reflect on the Apostle Paul as a pastor and inquire as to how he preached the gospel and carried out his pastoral ministry. He has left several letters in the New Testament, and all of them, even Romans, are essentially pastoral in character. As such, they are quite valuable as witnesses, not only to the various pastoral situations of several Hellenistic churches of the first century, but also to Paul’s efforts to minister to their needs “in a manner worthy of the gospel” that he preached. Of course, there is a limitation in this kind of inquiry insofar as we have to rely mainly on his own letters. Nevertheless, I hope that this study produces a portrait of Paul the pastor at least as he wanted to be regarded. In Essay 18, the topic is “Paul and Violence.” Somewhat similarly to “counterimperial interpretation,” what we may call “anti-violence interpretation” is also quite in vogue in some quarters of Biblical scholarship today. Just as the former has had some salutary effects in making us understand some books of the Scriptures better and in helping us be more sensitive to the socio-political effects of our theological discourses, so the latter has also had some salutary effects in making us aware of some violent thoughts and language clearly present in the

Introduction

7

Scriptures and in helping us be more sensitive to the potentially abusive or violence-inciting character of the language we use in our theological discourses and homilies. However, in both kinds of interpretation there is the same problem of excess shown especially clearly by some extremists or “zealots” of these interpretative movements. So, in Essay 18, to answer the question whether Paul’s teaching is violent or his language violence-inciting, I discuss questions such as: To what extent is their reader‑ or victim-centered definition of violence realistic or proper? Is it possible to avoid such language as “criticism” of falsehood, “judgment”/“condemnation” of evil deeds, or “fighting” for truth, justice, freedom, peace, etc., or does the abandonment of such language serve the common good of humanity? I point out the tendency among many practitioners of the “anti-violence” interpretation to neglect due appreciation of Paul’s change from a violent “zealot” to a “pacifist” Christian apostle, his gospel of Christ Jesus’ “victory” over the Satanic forces through his self-sacrifice, and his exhortations for the church to “fight” the powers of sin and death with the “weapons” of selfsacrificing love (“the law of Christ”) in imitation of Christ Jesus. I try to assess how successful Paul was in practicing his own teaching of self-giving love even for his enemies. In this essay, I have left out assessing the Wirkungsgeschichte of his teachings, which, I presume, would be both positive and negative, depending on the degree to which the church in various times and places understood or misunderstood, and applied or misapplied or failed to apply, Paul’s teachings. Most of these essays originated separately from one another on various occasions. Moreover, some of them deal with topics that are related and involve considerable overlap. Therefore, some repetition is unavoidable. I beg the reader’s indulgence. Finally, I note here that I have appended my essay “Jesus and the Temple,” which I wrote in the Spring of 1985. For an explanation of the appendix, I refer the reader to p. 423 below.

1. The Structure and Function of 1 Thessalonians 1–3, and the Occasion and Purpose of 1 Thessalonians 1 Thess 1–3 appears to be the thanksgiving section of the epistle. However, it is unusual in that it is incomparably long, containing three thanksgivings (1:2–5 or 101; 2:13; 3:9–10) and two or three narratives in between them ([1:6–10]; 2:1–12; 2:17–3:8). Furthermore, a fivefold combination of the effectiveness of the gospel (or the faith of the Thessalonians) with Paul’s missionary entry (εἴσοδος) in their city runs through the whole thanksgiving section as a red thread. These phenomena raise various questions about the structure and function of the section, as well as about the relationship of the section with the remaining two chapters of the epistle. And these questions are vital for a proper interpretation of the epistle and for determining its occasion and Paul’s purpose in writing it.

1. The Fivefold Association of (a) the Effectivenessof the Gospel (or the Faith of the Thessalonians) with (b) Paul’s Entry (εἴσοδος) 1:5 (a)

ὅτι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐγενήθη εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν λόγῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ [ἐν] πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ [hence v. 6b: δεξάμενοι τὸν λόγον ἐν θλίψει πολλῇ μετὰ χαρᾶς πνεύματος ἁγίου], (b) καθὼς οἴδατε οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν [ἐν] ὑμῖν δι᾽ ὑμᾶς. 1:9–10 (b) αὐτοὶ γὰρ περὶ ἡμῶν ἀπαγγέλλουσιν ὁποίαν εἴσοδον ἔσχομεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, (a) καὶ πῶς ἐπεστρέψατε πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων δουλεύειν θεῷ ζῶντι καὶ ἀληθινῷ καὶ ἀναμένειν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, ὃν ἤγειρεν ἐκ [τῶν] νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦν τὸν ῥυόμενον ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς ὀργῆς τῆς ἐρχομένης. 2:1 (b) Αὐτοὶ γὰρ οἴδατε, ἀδελφοί, τὴν εἴσοδον ἡμῶν τὴν πρὸς ὑμᾶς (a) ὅτι οὐ κενὴ γέγονεν, 2:13 (b) Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο [= his εἴσοδος described in 2:2–12] καὶ ἡμεῖς εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ θεῷ ἀδιαλείπτως, (a) 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.

1 Commentators usually take the whole 1:2–10 as a thanksgiving section. But it may be better to take 1:6–10 as a narrative, which elaborates on the cause for the thanksgiving (v. 5), especially praising the faith that the Thessalonians came to have. See the section 8 “The Structure and Function of 1 Thess 1–3” below, as well as comment on 1:6 in my commentary.

10

The Structure and Function of 1 Thessalonians 1–3

3:6

Ἄρτι δὲ ἐλθόντος Τιμοθέου πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν καὶ εὐαγγελισαμένου ἡμῖν



ἐπιποθοῦντες ἡμᾶς ἰδεῖν καθάπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς ὑμᾶς

(a) τὴν πίστιν καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην ὑμῶν, (b) καὶ ὅτι ἔχετε μνείαν ἡμῶν ἀγαθὴν πάντοτε,

(a–b/b–a/b–a/b–a/a–b – no exact chiasm)

(1) In 1 Thess 1:5, Paul relates the success of his mission or the gospel among the Thessalonians to his missionary conduct among them. At first sight, the connection between the clause καθὼς οἴδατε οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν [ἐν] ὑμῖν δι᾽ ὑμᾶς in 1:5 and the preceding main clause ὅτι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐγενήθη εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν λόγῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ [ἐν] πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ appears a little awkward. However, when we see that such a connection is not only made here but is also repeated four more times within the relatively short space of 1 Thess 1–3, we can presume that it must have a certain vital logic and a central significance. If so, finding that logic and appreciating that significance should be a key to understanding Paul’s main concern and argument in 1 Thess 1–3. Already in our verse, however, we can sense that Paul considers his missionary conduct, or the Thessalonians’ appreciation of it, to have been instrumental in causing his gospel to come to them not only in word but also in the powerful manifestation of the Holy Spirit and with full conviction (so that they received it with joy of the Spirit in spite of much affliction, v. 6b). (2) In 1:9–10, Paul reports what some people in Macedonia and Achaia, and in other places, speak about. They speak about Paul’s εἴσοδος (“entry”) to the Thessalonians and their conversion from idols to the true God for salvation. Albeit with a borrowed word, here again Paul connects the success of his mission (the conversion and faith of the Thessalonians) with his missionary “entry” or conduct. If in 1:5 he indicated with the conjunction καθώς how his conduct had been a cause for his missionary success, here in 1:9–10 he suggests the same with the emphatic positioning of ὁποίαν εἴσοδον ἔσχομεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς before referring to the conversion and faith of the Thessalonians (καὶ πῶς ἐπεστρέψατε πρὸς τὸν θεόν …). (3) In 2:1, Paul again connects his missionary εἴσοδος with the success of his mission, although here he puts the latter in the self-effacing form of a negative sentence: ὅτι οὐ κενὴ γέγονεν (“that it did not become fruitless” or “that it was not in vain”). By specifying his εἴσοδος as the first direct object of the predicate verb οἴδατε and then adding to it ὅτι οὐ κενὴ γέγονεν as an epexegetical object, he produces here a similar effect as in 1:9–10. In fact, 2:1 is so constructed as to correspond to the structure of 1:9–10. Apparently, this is in order to express a thought parallel to that of the latter in connection with ἀλλ’ ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν ἡ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἐξελήλυθεν, ὥστε μὴ χρείαν ἔχειν ἡμᾶς λαλεῖν τι of 1:8. The Macedonians, the Achaians, etc. “themselves” (αὐτοί) speak about how impeccable an “entrance” Paul had towards the Thessalonians and how it brought about the wonderful conversion of the Thessalonians. For this reason, Paul “has no need to say anything” (1:8). He states a

1. The Fivefold Association of (a) the Effectiveness

11

further reason he has no such need in 2:1: “For you yourselves (αὐτοί) know our entrance (εἴσοδον) to you, that it was not in vain.” Paul “has no need to say anything” (1:8), “for they themselves report (αὐτοὶ γάρ … ἀπαγγέλλουσιν)” our impeccable εἴσοδος and your wonderful conversion (1:9–10) “for you yourselves know (αὐτοὶ γάρ … οἴδατε) our εἴσοδον …, that it was not in vain” (2:1)2

However, ὥστε μὴ χρείαν ἔχειν ἡμᾶς λαλεῖν τι (1:8) is a paralipsis like the similar sentences in 4:9 and 5:1. And in 2:2–12 Paul does go on to speak about what he says he does not need to speak about, as he does likewise in 4:10 and 5:2–11. In addition to what we have just observed in 1:5, 9–10, and 2:1 about the relationship between his εἴσοδος and the success of his mission, the lengthy, emphatic rehearsal of his εἴσοδος in 2:2–12 clearly indicates that his εἴσοδος or the Thessalonians’ perception of it is his central concern here. (4) Having rehearsed his εἴσοδος in 2:2–12 in order to substantiate what “they themselves report” (1:9a) and “you yourselves know” (2:1a), i. e., that his discharge of his divine commission to preach the gospel of God was impeccable, in 2:13 Paul returns to restate the thought of 1:5, 9–10, and 2:1. The opening καί in 2:13 connects the verse closely with the foregoing. So it is more natural to see the following διὰ τοῦτο as referring backward to 2:2–12 than forward to the ὅτι clause in 2:13b. If it is construed with the latter, the transition from 2:1–12 to 2:13 would be too abrupt. However, it would be strange to see Paul here as saying that he gives thanks to God just for the sake of his own impeccable missionary εἴσοδος. Grammatically speaking, Paul has two causes for giving thanks to God: διὰ τοῦτο (2:2–12: his own impeccable missionary εἴσοδος) and the ὅτι clause (because the Thessalonians accepted his message as God’s word).3 But they cannot be two separate causes for thanksgiving. Since in 1:5, 9–10, and 2:1 we have seen Paul repeatedly connecting his εἴσοδος with the success of his mission as its cause, we have to assume that here also he is relating διὰ τοῦτο to what he says in the ὅτι clause. He gives thanks to God for the fact that he faithfully discharged his divine commission to preach the gospel of God in a manner that pleases God rather than himself or other human beings (2:2–12), because it has brought about the real cause to thank God, namely, that the Thessalonians came to accept his message “not as a word of human beings, but as what it really is, the word of 2 This structure militates against the attempt to see the thanksgiving section end with 1:10 and a new section begin with 2:1. 3  Cf. T. Holtz, Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher (EKKNT 13; Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1986; 21990), 97 (n. 435). The twofold cause for the verb εὐχαριστοῦμεν in 2:13 corresponds to the twofold object of the predicate verbs ἀπαγγέλλουσιν in 1:9 and οἴδατε in 2:1 and of the participle εὐαγγελισαμένου in 3:6, i. e., Paul’s εἴσοδος and the success of the gospel/ the faith of the Thessalonians. The διὰ τοῦτο refers to the former, while the ὅτι … clause corresponds to the latter.

12

The Structure and Function of 1 Thessalonians 1–3

God.” Simply put, in 2:13, Paul gives thanks to God because his faithful apostolic εἴσοδος led the Thessalonians to accept the word of God. Thus, the thought of 2:13 is a virtual repetition of that of 1:2+5.4 (5) In 3:6 Paul refers to the good news that Timothy brought from his visit to the Thessalonians. It is twofold: “your faith and love, and that you always remember us kindly, longing to see us.” As in 1:5, 9–10; 2:1, 13, so here again Paul connects the Thessalonians’ faith (the successful outcome of his mission) with their happy memory of and positive disposition toward him (an expression of their appreciation of his εἴσοδος). In 3:7–8, he refers to the two facts summarily as “your faith” and also as your “standing fast in the Lord.” Paul already did this, though in reverse order, in 1:8–10, where he unfolded the Thessalonians’ “faith” that “has gone forth everywhere” in terms of his εἴσοδος to them and their conversion and faith (1:8–10). This shows how in Paul’s mind the two facts, his εἴσοδος to the Thessalonians and their faith, are bound up together as an inseparable unity. At any rate, Timothy’s report that the Thessalonians are maintaining their faith and love as well as their positive appreciation of Paul is a sign that they are “standing fast in the Lord.” By this news Paul is greatly relieved of his anxiety and so he bursts out into an enthusiastic thanksgiving to God (3:6–9). This fivefold joining of Paul’s εἴσοδος and the powerful effects of the gospel/the Thessalonians’ faith in 1:5, 9–10; 2:1, 13; 3:6 clearly runs through the first three chapters of 1 Thessalonians like a red thread. The first four passages repeat the same reference to Paul’s founding εἴσοδος in Thessalonica and its successful outcome, namely, the powerful effects of the gospel and the Thessalonians’ coming to faith. Paul first makes the statement himself (1:5), then mentions the reports of others in Macedonia, Achaia, etc., as affirming it (1:9–10), invites the Thessalonians to confirm it (2:1), and rounds it off by reaffirming it himself (2:13). Then, in 3:6, he reports that Timothy has confirmed it as being continually valid in the present. The recognition of this fivefold association as the red thread of 1 Thess 1–3 has many significant implications both for exegesis of some individual words and phrases in those chapters and for understanding the structure and function of those chapters, as well as the occasion and purpose of the whole epistle.

2. Exegetical Implications A clear implication of the fivefold parallelism of the association is that we are to take the causal clause of 1:5 (ὅτι … ὑμᾶς) as the direct reason for Paul’s thanksgiving in 1:2 (εὐχαριστοῦμεν) rather than for Paul’s knowledge of the readers’ election (1:4). This is clearly suggested by the close parallelism that 2:13 and 3:6–9 share 4  1:5 describes the powerful effects of the gospel upon the readers from the perspective of its preacher, while 2:13 describes the same reality from the perspective of its recipients.

2. Exegetical Implications

13

with 1:2–5. Since in 2:13 he gives thanks to God for the readers’ acceptance of his message as God’s word in view of his excellent εἴσοδος and in 3:6–9 he gives thanks to God for their maintaining their faith with a continuing positive appreciation of his εἴσοδος, it is only natural to understand that in 1:2–5 Paul gives thanks to God for the powerful effects that the gospel had among the Thessalonians as they accepted it in view of his excellent εἴσοδος. The three participle phrases (μνείαν ποιούμενοι … μνημονεύοντες … εἰδότες … that are connected with εὐχαριστοῦμεν in 1:3–4 describe the attendant circumstances for Paul’s thanksgiving. The phrases that Paul “remembers” (their faith, love, and hope) and “knows” (their election) while praying also constitute the reasons for his thanksgiving to God. But while they provide the more general reasons, the ὅτι clause of 1:5 states the more specific reason for Paul’s thanksgiving on this occasion. That the stress falls on the latter is clearly indicated both by its prominent position in the context in distinction from the three subordinate participial phrases and by its material repetition in 2:13 and 3:6–9 (in the case of 2:13, even with the structural parallelism). The fivefold parallelism leads us to take ὅτι οὐ κενὴ γέγονεν in 2:1 in the sense that his εἴσοδος did not lack fruit, rather than in the sense that it did not lack power. Abraham Malherbe acknowledges that Paul usually uses the word κενός in the former sense (1 Cor 15:10, 14, 58; 2 Cor 6:1). Yet Malherbe takes the latter sense here, arguing that in 2:1–12 Paul follows the philosophical tradition of contrasting “powerless speech and emboldened frankness” and that “the second member of the antithesis in 2:1–2, the first of five complex antitheses in eight verses, has to do, not with the result but the character of his ministry.”5 Indeed Paul’s statements in 2:2–12 demonstrate that his εἴσοδος was impeccable in character, but they can hardly be said to demonstrate that it was a powerful one in contrast to a powerless one. Malherbe appeals further to 1:5.6 At first sight Paul’s claim there that his gospel came to the Thessalonians “not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction” appears to support Malherbe’s interpretation. But Paul is there describing the result of his εἴσοδος rather than his εἴσοδος itself. This is made clear by the parallel passages 1:9–10; 2:13; 3:6, as we have seen. His εἴσοδος had had such a wonderful result, and so “it was not fruitless.” However, being unable to make another εἴσοδος to the Thessalonians, he had reason to fear that his “labor would be in vain” (καὶ εἰς κενὸν γένηται ὁ κόπος ἡμῶν), i. e., that the wonderful result of his founding εἴσοδος might be brought to nothing. For “the tempter” was tempting them and there 5  A. J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians (AB 32B; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 135–36 (he wrongly takes the word in 1 Cor 15:14 also in the latter sense); cf. also I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 62–63. But, for the former sense, see E. Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (BNTC; London: Black, 1972), 89–90. 6  Malherbe, Thessalonians, 136; also Marshall, Thessalonians, 63.

14

The Structure and Function of 1 Thessalonians 1–3

was the danger of their “being shaken” (3:3–5). But Timothy brought the good news that the wonderful result of his εἴσοδος was still maintained in the Thessalonian church (3:6–8). So Paul is bound to repeat in 3:9 the thanksgiving that he rendered to God in 1:2+5 and 2:13. Thus ὅτι οὐ κενὴ γέγονεν in 2:1 must be taken together with εἰς κενὸν γένηται ὁ κόπος ἡμῶν in 3:5. Then, quite apart from Paul’s usual usage, this latter clause as well as the fourfold parallelism of 1:5, 9–10; 2:13; 3:6 and 2:1 makes it clear that with the former clause Paul means that his εἴσοδος to the Thessalonians “was not fruitless.” The recognition of the fivefold parallelism leads us to take the whole section of 1:2–3:13 as an indivisible unit. It helps us see the καὶ ἡμεῖς of 2:13 as marking the continuation of the thought of 1:9–10 and 2:1 rather than a strange break from the foregoing:7 “for they themselves (αὐτοὶ γὰρ …) report” our impeccable εἴσοδος and your wonderful conversion (1:9–10) “for you yourselves (αὐτοὶ γὰρ …) know our εἴσοδος …, that it was not in vain” (2:1) [the εἴσοδος described in 2:2–12] “and we also (καὶ ἡμεῖς) give thanks to God for our εἴσοδος (= διὰ τοῦτο) as it led to your acceptance of the gospel (2:13).

Further, seeing this parallelism makes us take 2:17–3:10 as an integral part of the whole section of 1:2–3:13 rather than as a separate section under the questionable title “apostolic parousia,” as well as preventing us from fragmenting 1:2–10 from what follows.8 7  Marshall, Thessalonians, 76, objects to W. Marxsen’s taking the καὶ ἡμεῖς in connection with the Macedonians, the Achaians, etc. in 1:8–9 (Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher [Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1982], 47) on the ground that there is no mention of their thanksgiving. But their thanksgiving may be seen as implicit in their enthusiastic report about Paul’s εἴσοδος and its wonderful result. The failure to recognize this line of connection has created much uncertainty among commentators, leading W. Schmithals even to argue that a separate letter is joined at this seam between 2:12 and 2:13 (Paulus und Gnostiker [Hamburg: Herbert Reich – Evange­ lischer Verlag, 1965], 96–97). See n. 60 below against the theory that 2:13–16 is an interpolation. 8  See n. 2 above. Contra H. Boers, “The Form Critical Study of Paul’s Letters. 1 Thess as a Case Study,” NTS 22 (1976): 141–54, fragments 1 Thess 1–3 into the sections of thanksgiving (1:2–10), apostolic apology (2:1–12), and apostolic parousia (2:17–3:13). In spite of his own warning against “assume[ing] that Paul’s letters had to conform to a particular pattern” (142), he seems to be eagerly looking for those elements in 1 Thessalonians so that in the end it may prove to have the “more normal structure” (ibid., 152; similarly, also, J. L. White, The Body of the Greek Letter [SBLDS 2; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1972], 70–72, 76–77). But to talk of 2:17– 3:13 as “apostolic parousia” seems rather meaningless. The phrase is well established as a formcritical concept in Pauline scholarship. But if it is to refer to Paul’s efforts to bring his apostolic presence to bear on the consciousness of his readers through talking of his visit, of sending his emissary or sending his letter (cf. R. W. Funk, “The Apostolic Parousia: Form and Significance,” in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox [ed. W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, R. R. Niebuhr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967], 249–68), then the whole letter should be designated as such, not just a section of his letter (certainly not 2:17–3:13, whose main purpose is to explain the background of his enthusiastic thanksgiving in 3:9). Singling out 2:1–12 as “the central section” (Boers, “Form Critical Study,” 152) is also as

3. Why Does Paul Make This Association

15

3. Why Does Paul Make This Associationand Emphasize the Integrity of His εἴσοδος? Why then does Paul affirm the successful result of his εἴσοδος five times over in 1 Thess 1–3? Why does he rehearse his εἴσοδος so systematically and emphatically in 2:1–12, something that he does nowhere else quite in the same way (see below for a comparison with 2 Cor 1–7)? Surely the reason is related to his fear that his labor or εἴσοδος might be emptied of its result through the temptation and persecution of “the tempter.”9 For in 3:1–10 Paul makes a direct connection between them: (1) Paul was afraid that the tempter might have tempted the readers and so nullified the fruits of his εἴσοδος (3:5). (2) But Timothy brought the good news that they maintained their faith and love and their positive appreciation of Paul’s εἴσοδος (3:6). Exactly what shape, then, did the tempter’s attack take? The fact that in the affirmation of his εἴσοδος and the readers’ faith Paul suggests the former as a cause of the latter, and that he does so five times, leads us to presume that the tempter tried to dissuade the readers from their new faith by denigrating his εἴσοδος. But precisely what aspect of his εἴσοδος was the tempter attacking? Since with his wording οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν in 1:5b (καθὼς οἴδατε οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν [ἐν] ὑμῖν δι’ ὑμᾶς) Paul seems to suggest specifically the integrity of his εἴσοδος as a cause for its success, we may presume that the tempter is denigrating specifically the integrity of his εἴσοδος. This assumption is confirmed by 2:2–12, which unfolds the thought of 1:5b. In 2:1, letting the readers themselves confirm what the Macedonians, the Achaians, etc. say about his εἴσοδος and its wonderful fruits (1:9–10), and providing a ground for his own statement ὥστε μὴ χρείαν ἔχειν ἡμᾶς λαλεῖν τι (1:8), Paul says αὐτοὶ γὰρ οἴδατε, ἀδελφοί, τὴν εἴσοδον ἡμῶν τὴν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὅτι οὐ κενὴ γέγονεν. This statement of Paul’s is the proposition that he seeks to prove in the subsequent verses (2:2–12). But what he actually demonstrates in 2:2–12 is the integrity of his εἴσοδος as an approved servant of God, not its power, wisdom, rhetorical skill, or any such thing. But why does the integrity of his εἴσοδος have the power of arbitrary as eliminating 2:13–16 on the alleged form-critical ground (ibid., 151–52). Likewise, White’s designation of 2:1–4; 2:5–16; and 2:17–3:10, respectively, as the “body-beginning,” “body-middle,” and “body-closing” (Body, 70–72, 76–77) is also quite arbitrary. It is preferable to observe the peculiarities of 1 Thessalonians carefully and allow them to determine the structure and character of the letter, rather than imposing the preconceived pattern on it. Cf. Jan Lambrecht, “Thanksgivings in 1 Thess 1–3,” in The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? (ed. K. P. Donfried and J. Beutler; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 154–55. See further p. 38–39 below. 9  “The tempter” in 3:5 refers to Satan, the arch-adversary of God, but obviously Paul has in view here the human opponents of the Christian faith who, he believes, are acting as Satan’s agents in tempting and persecuting the Thessalonian believers as well as hindering his return to Thessalonica (2:18).

16

The Structure and Function of 1 Thessalonians 1–3

proving that his εἴσοδος was not fruitless? What he demonstrates in 2:2–12 would function as a proof for his assertion in 2:1b that his εἴσοδος was not fruitless, only under the assumption that the integrity of his εἴσοδος is seen as a cause for its success. Only under the assumption that the readers were initially persuaded by the integrity of Paul’s εἴσοδος to accept his gospel can we understand Paul’s attempt to prove the success of his mission (2:1) by pointing to that integrity of his εἴσοδος (2:2–12). So it is quite reasonable for us to infer here that the tempter is denigrating precisely the integrity of Paul’s εἴσοδος in Thessalonica in order to dissuade his recent converts in the city from their new faith and that Paul is therefore making his demonstration here in order to help them maintain their faith.

4. The Context of Paul’s Rehearsalof His εἴσοδος in 2:1–12 This conclusion from an observation of the fivefold repetition of the statement about Paul’s εἴσοδος and its success in Thessalonica can be further strengthened by a close examination of Paul’s actual demonstration of the integrity of his εἴσοδος in 1 Thess 2:1–12 against the background of wandering philosophers and orators in the contemporary Hellenistic cities, and also by a comparison of his demonstration here with his similar demonstration in 2 Corinthians. In 2:1 Paul makes a thesis-like statement about his successful εἴσοδος in Thessalonica, as that which the readers know. Then in 2:2–12 he expounds the features of that εἴσοδος. Again in 2:2 he makes a summary characterization of his εἴσοδος in Thessalonica and in the subsequent verses he elaborates on it. It is that he preached the gospel of God frankly and boldly (ἐπαρρησιασάμεθα) with the power supplied by God in the face of much opposition and persecution. He was able to do this because his preaching, or his exhortation (παράκλησις) for the Thessalonians to turn from their idols to the living God for salvation, did not spring from an erroneous doctrine (ἐκ πλάνης) or an impure motive (ἐξ ἀκαθαρσίας) and did not contain any element of guile (ἐν δόλῳ). It was so because fundamentally Paul speaks as one who has been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel (δεδοκιμάσμεθα ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πιστευθῆναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον). This divine commission has made Paul accountable to God (and to him only), so that conducting his preaching ministry always in full consciousness of God who examines his heart (τῷ δοκιμάζοντι τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν), he aims at pleasing (ἀρέσκοντες) God. This sense of divine commission has made him independent of human beings and their opinions. So in his preaching in Thessalonica he did not have to speak flattery (ἐν λόγῳ κολακείας) in order to please (ἀρέσκοντες) his audience nor seek to get applause (δόξα, “glory”) from them. Further, being conscious of God who examines his heart, he did not harbor any impure motives or use tricky methods. He certainly did not use flattery or other cunning methods in order to get financial gain (ἐν προφάσει πλεονεξίας) from his audience. As an apostle of Christ, he could indeed

4. The Context of Paul’s Rehearsal

17

have demanded a financial support (ἐν βάρει εἶναι) from the Thessalonian church, but he supported himself with his own hard work (τὸν κόπον ἡμῶν καὶ τὸν μόχθον) and did not lay any financial burden (ἐπιβαρῆσαι) on any member of it. His basic apostolic stance was not authoritarian and self-seeking but gentle (ἤπιοι)10 and self-giving. In fact, he was ready to share his own self as well as the gospel with his Thessalonian converts (μεταδοῦναι ὑμῖν οὐ μόνον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ψυχάς) out of his great love for them, just as a gentle nurse takes care of her children. In short, his εἴσοδος was perfectly holy, righteous and blameless (ὁσίως καὶ δικαίως καὶ ἀμέμπτως). This enabled him to speak frankly and boldly in spite of great opposition. Thus, taking up the position of a father speaking to his children, he frankly and boldly exhorted (παρακαλοῦντες) the Thessalonians to turn from their idols to the living God and, having turned, to lead a life worthy of God so as to enter his kingdom and glory. So far a paraphrase of what Paul says about his εἴσοδος in 2:1–12. Now, Malherbe has demonstrated close parallels between the self-commendation of Paul in 2:1–12 and Dio Chrysostom’s self-commendation in his Oration to the Alexandrians (Orationes 32).11 Using the same vocabulary and a similar antithetical formulation as Paul does in 1 Thess 2:1–12, Dio criticizes charlatan philosophers for the vices from which Paul distances himself, and he presents himself as a true philosopher who embodies the virtues which Paul claims for himself.12 Observing that Dio is not using the antithetical formulation in order to defend his personal integrity against any concrete charges but rather to present himself as an ideal philosopher in contrast to the charlatans, Malherbe concludes that we should understand Paul’s presentation in 2:1–12 in a similar way. Paul is not presenting any defense here against any personal accusations, but rather commending his integrity in the vocabulary and antithetic terms that the serious Cynic philosophers like Dio employed in the first-century Hellenistic world.13 Scholars have generally been impressed by Malherbe’s observations, but some of them have rightly found it difficult to accept his conclusion that in 2:1–12 Paul is merely commending himself à la the ideal Cynic philosopher. So, for example, Marshall asks “why Paul, a Christian preacher, should have gone to such pains to describe himself in terms of the ideal philosopher if there was nothing in the situation to make him do so.”14 10 Reading with the majority of recent commentators ἤπιοι, instead of νήπιοι in 2:7. See Malherbe, Thessalonians, 145–46. In my commentary I eventually came to read νήπιοι instead of ἤπιοι, but that change does not affect my argument here in any substantial way. 11 A. J. Malherbe, “‘Gentle as a Nurse’: The Cynic Background to 1 Thess ii,” NovT 12 (1970): 203–17, develops the suggestion first made by M. Dibelius, An die Thessalonicher I. II (HNT 11; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1937), 7–11. 12 Malherbe, “Gentle as a Nurse,” 206–17, esp. 216–17, for a detailed comparison. 13  Ibid., 217. 14  Marshall, Thessalonians, 61; similarly R. Riesner, Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 369.

18

The Structure and Function of 1 Thessalonians 1–3

For Bruce W. Winter, the charlatans who were criticized by the philosophers as seeking money, reputation, and praise by means of flattery and other deceptive rhetorical tricks were really wandering Sophists.15 According to Winter, in the first century the Sophists made an “entry” (εἴσοδος) to a city according to a wellestablished “entry” convention.16 Paul’s use of εἴσοδος as a quasi-technical term in 1:9; 2:1 suggests that he has this convention in view. In 2:1–12, denying the vices often attributed to the Sophists and claiming the contrary virtues for himself, Paul is contrasting his εἴσοδος with that of the Sophists.17 His description of his εἴσοδος in Corinth in 1 Cor 2:1–5; 3:1–2 supports this interpretation, indicating clearly that he deliberately took up an anti-Sophistic εἴσοδος to Corinth.18 These observations lead Winter to conclude that Paul rehearses his εἴσοδος in 1 Thess 2:1–12 in order to prevent the Thessalonians from misunderstanding it according to the Sophistic convention.19 Yet Winter also denies any element of apologia in 2:1–12.20 But he does not fail to appreciate “the sharp, succinct contrasts Paul makes” in the passage, which “suggest that there was a sense of urgency on his part to warn [the Thessalonians] against misjudging his ministry because of secular perceptions of him as a teacher.”21 However, Winter fails to appreciate Paul’s great anxiety and correspondingly great joy in 2:13–3:10, which convey his sense of urgency even more clearly. The readers are being persecuted by their compatriots for their new faith (2:14; 3:3–4). Then there is the “tempter” tempting them (3:5). So there is a real possibility of their being shaken (σαίνεσθαι) by the persecution mixed with temptation (3:3). Therefore, out of his great anxiety about their still weak faith (cf. 3:10), Paul repeatedly tried to come to them, only to be frustrated in the attempts (2:18). Then he became quite desperate: “Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we were willing to be left behind at Athens alone, and we sent Timothy … to establish you in your faith and to exhort you that no one be moved by these afflictions. … For this reason, when I could bear it no longer, I sent that I might know your faith, for fear that somehow the tempter had tempted you and that our labor would be in vain” (3:1–5). Note the sense of desperation in the twice repeated clause, “when we/I could bear it no longer.” Note also the concentration of Paul’s anxiety on the readers’ “faith,” that no one be shaken or tempted by the afflictions or by the “tempter” away from the faith. Then Timothy brought the good news (εὐαγγελισαμένου) that the readers were standing firm 15  B. W. Winter, “The Entries and Ethics of the Orators and Paul (1 Thess 2.1–12),” TynBul 44 (1993): 54–74; cf. C. vom Brocke, Thessaloniki – Stadt des Kassander und Gemeinde des Paulus (WUNT 2/125; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 143–51. 16  Winter, “Entries,” 57–60. 17 Ibid., 67–68. 18  Ibid., 68–70. 19  Ibid., 71. 20 Ibid., 73. 21  Ibid., 72.

4. The Context of Paul’s Rehearsal

19

in the faith and that they were maintaining a positive remembrance of Paul and were longing to see him (3:6). The relief that this good news brought to Paul was so great as to make him forget all his present distress and affliction in Corinth (3:7). It was like a death sentence reversed: “Now we live!” (3:8). This cry of joy only underlines the depth of his desperate anxiety. So does also his outburst of thanksgiving to God (3:9). Now, seeing Paul’s great anxiety and so great sense of relief here, his actual references to “the tempter” and the persecutions, his repeated attempts to come to the aid of the readers, and his actual sending of Timothy to counter the effects of “the tempter” and the afflictions, are we to fail to perceive the real presence of the opponents of the Christian faith in Thessalonica who are persecuting the young Christian converts there and actively trying to dissuade them from their new faith?22 Thus, it is clear that we should take the following three facts together in order to determine the context and purpose of 1 Thess 2:1–12 more accurately: (1) the presence of the opponents who are bringing pressures upon the readers to give up their new faith; (2) the fivefold connection of the readers’ acceptance of the gospel with Paul’s εἴσοδος; and (3) Paul’s presentation of his εἴσοδος in 2:1–12 as a “holy and righteous and blameless” one over against the despicable ones of Sophists or charlatan philosophers. With these facts properly recognized, the context in which Paul rehearses his εἴσοδος in 2:1–12 becomes clear. In order to dissuade the readers from their new faith, the opponents are clearly denigrating Paul as one of the charlatan preachers who, for money and fame, bewitched their audience with a false doctrine camouflaged in a beguiling rhetoric.23 In a situation where the phenomenon of such wandering Sophists and philosophers is well-known and their vices are widely criticized, such an attack on Paul’s εἴσοδος would be the most effective way of persuading the new Christian converts to give up the doctrine they had received from Paul. Probably the opponents are also pointing to his abrupt escape from the persecution in Thessalonica and characterizing him as one of those charlatan preachers who run away from opposition, leaving their pupils in the lurch.24 This un22 Cf. J. M. G. Barclay, “Conflict in Thessalonica,” CBQ 55 (1993): 513–16, for the likely pagan social harassment of the Christians in Thessalonica. 23  This study confirms the view that Traugott Holtz has consistently represented: see his Thessalonicher, 93–94; idem, “On the Background of 1 Thess 2:1–12,” in The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? (ed. K. P. Donfried and J. Beutler; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 69–80. 24  Cf. Bruce W. Winter, “Is Paul among the Sophists?,” RTR 53 (1994): 32; also, Malherbe, “Gentle as a Nurse,” 208–09.

20

The Structure and Function of 1 Thessalonians 1–3

derstanding seems to be suggested by the following facts taken together: Paul’s insistence that he had preached the gospel frankly and boldly even after his great suffering in Philippi and even in the face of great opposition in Thessalonica (2:2); his praise for the readers for having become imitators of him and the Lord Jesus by suffering for the faith (1:6; 2:14–16); his statement that he told them beforehand about suffering being the common lot of Christians (3:4); and above all, his extended and emphatic statements about his great concerns for them, his repeated attempts to come to them, and his sending of Timothy to their aid (2:17–3:10; cf. also 2:8). Paul was extremely worried about this slander campaign of the opponents against his missionary εἴσοδος in Thessalonica, that it might be succeeding in moving the readers to give up their new faith, so that his “labor would be in vain” (3:5). But Timothy has brought the good news that, withstanding the slander campaign well, they are still maintaining their faith as well as their full appreciation of his missionary work among them. This good news of Timothy provides the immediate occasion for Paul to write 1 Thessalonians (3:6). But when Timothy has reported that the Thessalonian Christians are standing up quite well against the opponents’ slander campaign against Paul’s εἴσοδος, why does Paul still feel the need to demonstrate its integrity to them as in 2:1–12?

5. Is Paul Presenting Himself as a Model, or Does He Have a Philophronetic Purpose? A widespread view argues that in the passage Paul is setting himself up as a model for his Thessalonian converts to imitate.25 Apparently Malherbe26 regards this as the logical consequence of his thesis that in 2:1–12 Paul commends himself in the form of an ideal philosopher. In order to support this view, Malherbe lists the following as evidence for “a direct correlation between what Paul says about himself here and what he later advises his readers to do:” “impurity: 2:3/4:7; love: 2:8/3:12; 4:9; 5:13; labor: 2:9/4:11; blamelessness: 2:10/5:23; individual attention: 2:11/5:11; exhortation: 2:12/5:11; charging: 2:11/4:6; comfort: 2:12/4:18; 5:14; God’s calling associated with moral life: 2:12/5:23–24.”27 25  See J. A. D. Weima, “An Apology for the Apologetic Function of 1 Thess 2.1–12,” JSNT 68 (1997): 76–79, for the long list of recent writers who represent this view. See also S. Walton, Leadership and Lifestyle: The Portrait of Paul in the Miletus Speech and 1 Thess (SNTSMS; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 154–56. 26 Malherbe, “Gentle as a Nurse,” 217; idem, Paul and the Thessalonians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 74; idem, Thessalonians, 153–56. G. Lyons, Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding (SBLDS 73; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 178–221, has been another influential proponent. 27  Malherbe, Thessalonians, 156.

5. Is Paul Presenting Himself as a Model

21

But this list is hardly convincing. To begin with, “God’s calling associated with moral life” is not the way Paul talks about himself. Additionally, to “love,” to “exhort,” to “charge” and to “comfort” belong to the stock vocabulary of Paul’s paraenesis, and they appear as such in the paraenetical section of 1 Thess 4–5 just as in the other Pauline letters, without any actual correlation to what Paul says about himself in 2:1–12. For example, Paul gives no indication in 4:18; 5:11, 13, 14 that the readers are to love, comfort, or exhort one another as he does (or has done). It is doubtful whether the readers would have perceived in Paul’s exhortation in 5:11 for them to “encourage ἀλλήλους and build up εἷς τὸν ἕνα” that he is directing them to pay individual attention to one another, following his own example of having exhorted them ὡς ἕνα ἕκαστον ὑμῶν ὡς πατὴρ τέχνα ἑαυτοῦ (2:11). Elsewhere Malherbe lists three more items in 2:1–7 as also reappearing in 4:1– 8: “pleasing God” (2:4/4:1), “covetousness or overreaching” (2:5/4:6), as well as “impurity” (2:3/4:7).28 But in advising the readers to keep themselves in holiness but away from impurity and greed in 4:3–8, is Paul really thinking of his apostolic εἴσοδος which he described in 2:1–12? It is questionable whether he could so directly connect his efforts to keep his preaching free of impure and greedy motives with the duty of his converts to keep their lives free of sexual impurity and greedy cheating.29 Malherbe himself distinguishes the sense of “impurity” in 2:3 (as the opposite of a true philosopher “purify[ing] his reason, his governing principle”) from that in 4:7 (sexual impurity), as well as the sense of “greed” in 2:5 (financial greed) from that of 4:6 (taking sexual advantage).30 Furthermore, in the context Paul gives no hint of relating his example to his advocating the desirable conduct of the readers. In order to motivate them for a life of sanctification without impurity and greed, he appeals to God’s will (4:3, 8), to the Lord’s judgment (4:6), to the instruction and charge that he gave them during his initial mission (4:1–2, 6), and to the work of the Holy Spirit (4:8), but he does not make even a slightest allusion to his own example. In 4:1 he exhorts the readers to live a life of pleasing God (ἀρέσκειν θεῷ), appealing similarly to his previous 28  Malherbe, Thessalonians, 81. However, here Malherbe weakens his case by granting that these items as well as those which he lists from 2:8–12 may be regarded as moral commonplaces. Lyons, Pauline Autobiography, 218–19, also lists some of these items as well as some other more far-fetched items. His sustained efforts to make Paul present himself as a model for his readers in 1 Thess 1–3 (esp. 2:1–12) (pp. 189–218) show more speculative construction than exegetical demonstration, culminating in a typical arbitrariness of inventing a motif of imitation where there is none: “The parallel expressions in 3:7 and 9 – ‘in all our distress and affliction’ and ‘in all our rejoicing because of you’ – are reminiscent of his earlier reference to the Thessalonians’ Spirit-inspired joy in their afflictions in 1:6. The reciprocity of imitation is such that Paul imitates them (1:6), even if he does not say so explicitly. They are so fully his imitators, his true friends, that they are his alter ego” (p. 218). 29 Cf. Marshall, Thessalonians, 61. 30  Malherbe, Thessalonians, 140 and 234, 142 and 242; so also another proponent of the model theory, Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 95 and 157, 97 and 155. Contra Lyons, Pauline Autobiography, 195.

22

The Structure and Function of 1 Thessalonians 1–3

teaching. In exhorting to love one another in 4:9, he talks about them as having been taught by God to do so! The same phenomenon is observed in 4:11. In view of 2 Thess 3:7–10, we may wonder whether in exhorting them to work with their hands in 4:11 he also is thinking of his own example (2:9).31 But even in 4:11 he refers only to the charge that he issued during his initial mission (καθὼς ὑμῖν παρηγγείλαμεν)! In fact, a comparison of 4:11 with 2 Thess 3:7–10 is rather instructive. From the latter it is clear that, if necessary, Paul can and does make his manual labor a model for the idle Thessalonians. But the fact that in 4:11 he does not do that but instead merely appeals to his previous exhortation seems to indicate clearly that here he is not consciously thinking of himself as a model,32 or, more precisely, that he is not looking back at what he wrote about his manual labor in 2:9. However, in 1 Thess 3:12 Paul does hold up his example of loving for the readers’ emulation. Since it appears within the wish-prayer of 3:11–13 which announces the subject matters of the paraenetical section of chs. 4–5, it may be argued that he is summarizing the whole paraenesis of the section in terms of love and “blameless sanctification” and intending to cover it with the “as we do to you” in v. 12. If this is so, we may have to discern his desire for the readers to emulate his “holy, righteous and blameless” life of pleasing God and loving the readers (2:1–12) as underlying the paraenesis of 4:1–12, despite the absence of any explicit reference in chs. 4–5 to his εἴσοδος described in 2:1–12. However, this desire, if present, can only be a partial and secondary purpose, not the primary purpose of Paul’s demonstration of the integrity of his apostolic εἴσοδος in 2:1–12. For, on the one hand, there is no denying that Paul makes no direct connection between his description of his εἴσοδος in 2:1–12 and his exhortations for the readers in chs. 4–5,33 as we have seen. In 4:1–12 it is really striking to observe that in order to motivate them for a life of sanctification he appeals to so many things, including the instructions and charges that he gave them during his initial mission (four times! 4:1, 2, 6, 11), but with no allusion to his own ex31  So, proponents of the “model” theory like to fasten on 4:11 as their evidence. See, e. g., Lyons, Pauline Autobiography, 201; J. Schoon-Janssen, Umstrittene ‘Apologien’ in den Paulusbriefen: Studien zur rhetorischen Situation des 1. Thessalonicherbriefes, des Galaterbriefes und des Philipperbriefes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 60; Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 103; Malherbe, Thessalonians, 249. 32  Later, when the idleness of some Thessalonians becomes more serious, he comes to point to his own example in 2 Thess 3:7–10, beyond his previous instruction (2 Thess 3:6, 10). 33 It is a remarkable fact that most of the proponents of the model theory neglect to substantiate their theory by showing specific cases of Paul’s correlation of his paraenesis in chs. 4–5 with his alleged example in 2:1–12. Schoon-Janssen, Umstrittene ‘Apologien,’ 62–63, has a section under the promising heading, “Chapter 2 in its material connections with the context of the remaining chapters of 1 Thess,” but there he is able to point only to 4:11 as connected with 2:9 (cf. also Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 103) – wrongly, as shown above. He further tries to see the ἡσυχάζειν of 4:11 as reflecting 2:10. But this attempt serves only to expose the weakness of his theory.

5. Is Paul Presenting Himself as a Model

23

ample, as we have seen. On the other hand, his rehearsal of his εἴσοδος in 2:1–12 contains much more than a mere model of sanctified life, and the extra elements, having to do with his apostolic status or preacher’s role, are not applicable to the readers and therefore do not have any correspondence in the paraenetic section. If in 2:1–12 he wants to present himself only as a model of sanctified life for his readers’ emulation, why is he emphasizing so much his apostolic commission (2:4), his gospel being pure and true (2:3), his preaching it with παρρησία but neither ἐν δόλῳ nor ἐν λόγῳ κολακείας (2:2, 3, 5), and his fatherly exhortation (2:11–12)? Or how does he think his readers (N. B. not leaders) should imitate his apostolic conduct?34 In fact, in 1 Thessalonians the absence of Paul’s call for his readers to imitate him is conspicuous, since he often issues this call in other letters (1 Cor 4:16–17; 11:1; Gal 4:12; Phil 3:17; 4:9; 2 Thess 3:7–12; cf. also 1 Cor 4:6; 8:13; 9:24–27; 14:18).35 Indeed, the idea of his converts “imitating” him is very much present with him also at the time of his writing 1 Thessalonians. For he does talk about the readers as having become “imitators” of him and the Lord and the Judean churches (1:6; 2:14). But what he has in view is their accepting the gospel in much affliction, and not at all their emulating his virtues that he demonstrates in 2:1–12.36 If in 2:1–12 he means to present himself as a model for them to imitate, of all his letters it should be in 1 Thessalonians that we most naturally expect a call for his readers to imitate him, for nowhere else does he give a description of his apostolic integrity in such a systematic and yet succinct summary. Indeed, it would be most strange if having so deliberately and so clearly set himself up as a model for imitation of his readers he failed to issue his usual call for imitation, or even to correlate his paraenesis with his example. Here we must also note the fundamental fact that emerges out of the fivefold repetition of his statement about his εἴσοδος in 1 Thess 1–3: whenever Paul speaks about his εἴσοδος (his impeccable apostolic ministry), he thinks of it in terms of its effect on the readers (their acceptance of the gospel), but not at all in terms of its 34  Wanamaker (Thessalonians, 91) does not say outright that 2:1–12 functions to provide the readers with a model for their emulation, but rather formulates a cumbersome sentence: “2:1–12 actually functions to reconfirm the readers in the pattern of behavior that they had been taught by Paul.” With this, does Wanamaker not betray his awareness that Paul nowhere calls his readers to follow his example but rather frequently to follow what he already taught? Further, when Wanamaker goes on to say that in 2:1–12 Paul is presenting himself as a model for the “leaders” of the Thessalonian church, does he not betray his awareness that what Paul says about his conduct as a preacher and pastor there may be applied to those who hold a similar leadership position in a community but cannot easily be applied to ordinary members? 35  Note as well, that in all these places where the call for imitation appears, Paul directly correlates his example with the exhortation he imparts. 36 The proponents of the model theory may point to the parallelism between Paul’s preaching boldly in the face of opposition (2:2) and the readers’ accepting the gospel joyfully in spite of persecution (1:6). But then they would have to explain what they would do with the rest of 2:3–12 and with chs. 4–5 where that theme does not appear.

24

The Structure and Function of 1 Thessalonians 1–3

character as a model for their emulation (compare especially 2:1–12 with 2:13, where the consequence of his integrity described in the former is directly stated; but see also 1:5–10; 2:17–3:10). So, the absence of any call for imitation, the absence of any real correlation between what Paul says about himself in the passage and what he later exhorts his readers to do, and the presence of some elements in 2:1–12 which are not applicable to the readers’ emulation strongly argue against the view that in 2:1–12 Paul sets himself up as a model for the readers’ imitation. Besides the model theory about 2:1–2, Wanamaker takes up another suggestion of Malherbe’s, namely that 2:1–12 is part of the philophronetic section of chs. 1–3 in which Paul establishes a good relationship with his readers in order to pave the way for his exhortations in chs. 4–5.37 Wanamaker then integrates this view with his theory that 2:1–3:10 is the narratio in the epistle written according to the Hellenistic rhetorical convention, in which Paul aims mainly at “establishing his ethos or credibility with his readers”38 in order to impart his exhortations in chs. 4–5.39 But neither Malherbe nor Wanamaker adequately explains how this philophronetic theory about chs. 2–3 (including 2:1–12) is related to their model theory about 2:1–12. In 2:1–12, is Paul presenting the integrity of his conduct as a model for the readers to imitate, or is he doing it to earn their trust so as to prepare them to accept his exhortations well? Why does he need to do the latter when he has come to know from Timothy’s report that the readers already have a very positive disposition toward him, cherishing his memory and longing to see him (3:6)? Be that as it may, the actual content of Paul’s exhortations in chs. 4–5 does not support the philophronetic theory40 just as it does not support the model theory. In 4:13–5:11 there is no hint that the readers are critical of his eschatological teachings requiring that Paul establish his “ethos or credibility” to impart them to the readers effectively. Citing Lyons and Malherbe,41 Wanamaker himself emphasizes the rather general, traditional, and noncontroversial character of Paul’s moral exhortations in chs. 4–5.42 But, then, in order to impart such usual and noncontroversial moral exhortations which Paul might have imparted to 37  Ibid., 90–91. Cf. A. J. Malherbe, “Exhortation in First Thessalonians,” NovT 25 (1983): 240–46; idem, Thessalonians, 104–05, 133–34. 38  Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 49–50. 39  Ibid., 49–50, 146; cf. also B. C. Johanson, To All the Brethren: A Text-Linguistic and Rhetorical Approach to 1 Thess (CBNT 16; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1987), 157–60. 40  One need not deny that there are philophronetic elements in 1 Thess 1–3 as there are normally in the thanksgiving sections of the other Pauline epistles. But the trouble is to see the whole of chs. 1–3 or 2–3 mainly as a philophronetic preparation for the exhortations in 1 Thess 4–5. 41 Lyons, Pauline Autobiography, 220; Malherbe, “Exhortation,” 250–52. 42  Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 61, 146.

6. Comparison with 2 Corinthians

25

any Hellenistic congregation,43 would he have felt the need to devote such a lengthy section of chs. 2–3 to establishing his ethos or rapport with his readers who already were so well disposed toward him (3:6)? Again, in order to impart such traditional and noncontroversial moral exhortations to a congregation with whose moral progress he was on the whole satisfied, would he have felt the need to demonstrate his model of integrity for their emulation as systematically as he did nowhere else? If he did, it would have been overkill! It would also be rather strange that in Romans and 1 Corinthians, for example, where he has to impart much more controversial teachings and exhortations to a personally-unknown congregation and a very unruly congregation, respectively, he does not devote as much space as in 1 Thessalonians to establishing his ethos for a better acceptance of his teachings from his readers. Therefore, for their theory of a philophronetic purpose of 1 Thess 2–3, Malherbe and Wanamaker must explain why Paul felt the need to go to such an unusual length in establishing his ethos. They have to explain also why Paul felt the need to be so emphatic as to call repeatedly upon his readers (2:1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 11) and even God (2:5, 10) as witnesses to his integrity, if his intention was nothing more than establishing a friendly relationship with his readers to impart such simple and ordinary exhortations.44 Can Malherbe and Wanamaker explain these without acknowledging an apologetic element in the philophronetic efforts?45 For all these reasons, the currently popular theory that sees in chs. 2–3 only a paraenetic purpose and denies even in 2:1–12 any apologetic purpose has to be rejected.

6. Comparison with 2 Corinthians (a) Parallelism with 2 Cor 1–7 It is unfortunate that the proponents of the “model” theory do not pay adequate attention to Paul’s great anxiety over the possibility that the readers might be tempted by the opponents to depart from the faith (2:17–3:10).46 Against the background of that real danger, Paul’s demonstration of the integrity of his εἴσοδος in 2:1–12, as well as his fivefold association of the readers’ faith with his 43  Cf. S. Kim, “Paul’s Common Paraenesis (1 Thess. 4–5; Phil. 2–4; and Rom. 12–13): The Correspondence between Romans 1:18–32 and 12:1–2 and the Unity of Romans 12–13.” TynBul 62 (2011): 109–39 (now reprinted as Essay 11 in this volume). 44  Schoon-Janssen, Umstrittene ‘Apologien,’ 45–46, also neglects to explain this, while emphasizing the motifs of a friendship letter in 2:1–12. 45 This is in effect conceded by Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 61, and Schoon-Janssen, Umstrittene ‘Apologien.’ Cf. Johanson, To All the Brethren, 164–65, explicitly recognizes “an anticipatory apologetic function” of 2:1–12 in spite of his application of rhetorical criticism and his general characterization of 1:2–3:13 as philophronesis (157–60). 46 Cf. Barclay, “Conflict in Thessalonica,” 512.

26

The Structure and Function of 1 Thessalonians 1–3

εἴσοδος in chs. 1–3, clearly appears as having an apologetic purpose, as shown

above. Now it is time both to strengthen and to clarify this conclusion by taking up the question raised above: when Timothy has reported that the readers are withstanding the opponents’ slander campaign against Paul’s εἴσοδος quite well, why does Paul still feel the need to demonstrate its integrity to them as in 2:1–12? At this point it is helpful to observe that there are many points of similarity between 1 Thess 1–3 and 2 Corinthians, especially between Paul’s demonstrations of his integrity in the two epistles. Just as in 1 Thess 2:2, so also in 2 Cor 3:12 Paul says that he speaks very frankly and boldly (πολλῇ παρρησίᾳ χρώμεθα, cf. also 2 Cor 7:4). Just as in the former (1 Thess 2:4), so also in the latter, he grounds his παρρησία or his frank and bold παράκλησις upon his apostolic commission by God (2 Cor 3:4–6; 5:19–20). Just as in the former he implies that he is able to preach frankly and boldly because what he preaches is not an erroneous doctrine but the gospel of God, so also in the latter he says that he preaches frankly and boldly because he preaches the gospel of God’s new covenant for life in the Holy Spirit which has been revealed in unsurpassable glory, unlike the veiled Mosaic covenant (2 Cor 3:4–18). His opponents in Philippi and Thessalonica may have persecuted him with the charges of being an impostor teaching an erroneous doctrine (πλάνος), for as he hints at it in 1 Thess 2:3, so also in 2 Cor 6:8 he includes such an accusation in the catalogue of his apostolic sufferings. Countering it with his insistence on being true (ἀληθής, 2 Cor 6:8) and speaking truth (ἐν λόγῳ ἀληθείας, 2 Cor 6:7), he argues that since he in fact carries out the ministry of God’s word, even in the face of opposition and persecution (2 Cor 4:7–16; 6:1–10), he does not lose heart (ἐγκακοῦμεν), nor does he resort to a method less than honorable and frank (2 Cor 4:1–2). This is just to continue in Corinth his frank and bold preaching which he carried out in the face of persecution in Thessalonica (1 Thess 2:2). As the sense of divine commission enabled him to shun seeking glory (δόξα) from human beings in Thessalonica (1 Thess 2:6), so it also enabled him to dispense with letters of recommendation in Corinth (2 Cor 3:1–6) and to concentrate on preaching Jesus Christ as the Lord without any thought of exalting himself (2 Cor 4:5). Just as in 1 Thess 2:4, so also in 2 Cor 5:10–11 Paul indicates that he conducts his apostolic ministry in consciousness of God’s judgment (δοκιμάζειν). This consciousness made him seek only to please God in his ministry both in Thessalonica (ἀρέσκοντες, 1 Thess 2:4) and in Corinth (εὐάρεστοι, 2 Cor 5:9). Just as this consciousness forbade him to harbor any impure motives and cover them up with a flattery or sham sincerity, or to use the methods of guile (ἐν δόλῳ) in Thessalonica (1 Thess 2:3–5), so also it made him conduct his ministry in Corinth in a way transparent to human beings as well as to God (2 Cor 3:12–4:2; 5:11), renouncing “disgraceful, underhanded ways” (τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς αἰσχύνης) and rejecting “to practice trickery or to beguile by adulterating God’s word” (μὴ περιπατοῦντες ἐν πανουργίᾳ μηδὲ δολοῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, 2 Cor 4:2).

6. Comparison with 2 Corinthians

27

Just as he refused to obtain financial advantage through preaching the gospel, camouflaging his greed with a pretense of sincerity (προφάσει πλεονεξίας) in Thessalonica (1 Thess 2:5), so also in Corinth, unlike many, he refuses to be a peddler (καπηλεύοντες) of God’s word for profit,47 “but as men of sincerity [εἰλικρινείας], as commissioned by God, in the sight of God [he speaks] in Christ” (2 Cor 2:17).48 Just as in Thessalonica he did not lay a financial burden on any member of the church there (1 Thess 2:9), so also in Corinth he did not take advantage of anyone (οὐδένα ἐπλεονεκτήσαμεν) (2 Cor 7:2). Although as an apostle he had the right to claim the church’s support, a right authorized by the Lord himself, he did not make use of it (1 Cor 9:14–17), but instead he maintained the policy of earning his living by his own hard work in Corinth (2 Cor 6:5) as in Thessalonica (1 Thess 2:9). Just as in Thessalonica he did not behave in an authoritarian manner but carried out his pastoral care in a gentle (ἤπιος, or “child-like,” νήπιοι), self-giving manner like a wet-nurse caring for her children (1 Thess 2:7–8), so also in Corinth he did not try to lord it over the Corinthians (2 Cor 1:24), but instead served them as their slave for Christ’s sake (2 Cor 4:5). Therefore, in a way similar to how he summarizes the character of his εἴσοδος in Thessalonica in terms of complete holiness (ὁσίως), righteousness (δικαίως), and blamelessness (ἀμέμπτως) (1 Thess 2:10), he summarizes the character of his εἴσοδος in Corinth thus: “For our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience that we have behaved in the world, and still more toward you, with holiness and godly sincerity [ἐν ἁπλότητι καὶ εἰλικρινείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ], not by earthly wisdom but by the grace of God” (2 Cor 1:12). As a servant of God, he commends himself by purity (ἐν ἁγνότητι), by truthful speech, and with the weapons of righteousness (διὰ τῶν ὅπλων τῆς δικαιοσύνης), as well as by other virtues, so that he may put no stumbling block (προσκοπήν) in any one’s way and no fault may be found with his ministry (ἵνα μὴ μωμηθῇ ἡ διακονία) (2 Cor 6:3–10). Just as he assures the Thessalonians of his great affection for them (1 Thess 2:8), so also he assures the Corinthians of his great love for them (2 Cor 6:11–13; 7:3). Just as to the Thessalonians (1 Thess 2:11–12), so also to the Corinthians (2 Cor 6:13), he speaks as a father to his children. Just as he exhorts the Thessalonians to lead a life worthy of God who calls them into his own kingdom and glory 47 For the nuances such as deceitfulness and greediness involved in the concept of καπηλεύειν as used here, cf. S. J. Hafemann, Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 98–176; M. E. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 1.210–15; also R. F. Hock, The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 53 with n. 23. 48  Hafemann, Suffering, 175–76, notes a close parallelism between 2 Cor 2:17 and 1 Thess 2:3– 10 and sees a common “structure and content of Paul’s ‘apology’.” The parallelism is certainly striking, but here I am trying to show that there is a still more extensive parallelism between 1 Thess 2:1–12 and 2 Corinthians. Below (nn. 68–69 and the texts around it) we shall show further a more extensive structural parallelism of thanksgivings combined with narratives between 1 Thess 1–3 and 2 Cor 1–7.

28

The Structure and Function of 1 Thessalonians 1–3

(1 Thess 2:12), so also he exhorts the Corinthians “not to accept the grace of God in vain” (2 Cor 6:1; cf. 1 Cor 4:14–21). (b) Parallels with 2 Cor 10–13 Several words and ideas employed in 2 Cor 1–7 to demonstrate Paul’s apostolic integrity reappear in 2 Cor 10–13, so that the latter can also be compared with 1 Thess 2:1–12. Vehemently rejecting the charge that being crafty he exploited the Corinthians by guile (ἀλλὰ ὑπάρχων πανοῦργος δόλῳ ὑμᾶς ἔλαβον), Paul protests that neither he nor Titus, his messenger, took advantage of them (πλεονέκτειν, x 2) (2 Cor 12:16– 18). His opponents who sow such suspicion about his integrity in the minds of the Corinthians are themselves false apostles, deceitful workmen (ἐργάται δόλιοι, 2 Cor 11:13), those who deceive them with trickery (ἐν τῇ πανουργίᾳ) and seduce them away from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ (2 Cor 11:3). For by preaching another Jesus or another gospel than the one Paul preached and by providing a different spirit from the one he provided, these “superlative apostles” obtain the submission of the Corinthians. Paul grants that he is unskilled in rhetoric, but insists that he is not unskilled in knowledge and that he has made this plain in all things (ἀλλ’ ἐν παντί φανερώσαντες ἐν πᾶσιν εἰς ὑμᾶς) (2 Cor 11:3–6). With this statement, Paul is in effect arguing that whereas his opponents resort to the method of δόλος and πανουργία because their preaching springs from error (ἐκ πλάνης), i. e., because they have an erroneous gospel, with his accurate knowledge of the gospel he has preached it frankly (παρρησίᾳ), refusing to resort to rhetorical tricks. He is conscious that “we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth” (2 Cor 13:8). But the opponents put on airs, boasting of their pedigree, connections, and spiritual and rhetorical powers, and so they make slaves of the Corinthians, prey upon them, and take advantage of them (2 Cor 11:20).49 Paul, however, has determined his apostolic stance fundamentally in the spirit of the maxim in Jer 9:22–23, “Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord,” and the judgment that “it is not the one who commends oneself that is approved (δόκιμος), but the one whom the Lord commends” (2 Cor 10:17–18; cf. 1 Cor 1:31). So, shunning the temptation to boast of himself in order to get glory from human beings (2 Cor 12:6–10), he exercises his apostolic authority “by the meekness and gentleness of Christ” (διὰ τῆς πραΰτητος καὶ ἐπιεικείας τοῦ Χριστοῦ) and in a humble manner (2 Cor 10:1). Further, he understands himself as the father to his converts and believes that “children ought not to lay up for their parents, but 49  Of course, we cannot be sure to what extent Paul’s explicit or implicit characterization of his opponents here represents the objective historical truth. For my present purpose, I am only describing how Paul perceived them and understood himself in contradistinction from them. For a recent treatment of the thorny question of Paul’s opponents in 2 Corinthians, see M. E.  Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 2.926–45.

6. Comparison with 2 Corinthians

29

parents for their children.” Thus, as the loving father of the Corinthian Christians he is ready to “spend most gladly and be spent for [their] souls” (2 Cor 12:14–15). Therefore, even being in want, he humbly foregoes his apostolic right to be supported by them in order not to burden (οὐ κατενάρκησα/ἀβαρῆ/οὐ κατεβάρησα) anyone (2 Cor 11:7–9; 12:13–14, 16). Supporting himself rather with his own hard work (κόπῳ καὶ μόχθῳ, 2 Cor 11:27) as well as a little help from the Macedonian brethren, he preached the gospel without cost to the Corinthian church (2 Cor 11:7–9). However, under the influence of the authoritarian, self-exalting, and selfseeking “superlative apostles,” the Corinthians misunderstood Paul’s gentle and humble stance and mistook him for a weakling and a fool (2 Cor 10:10; 11:16). His financial policy was especially misunderstood, as a sign not only of his weakness but even of his craftiness (2 Cor 12:13–18). So, in protest he does boast of himself in the manner of the “superlative apostles” (2 Cor 11–12). Nevertheless, saying that it is an act of foolishness to which the Corinthians have forced him (2 Cor 12:11), in the end, he affirms the paradoxical truth that his real boasting consists in his weaknesses and in his suffering for Christ’s sake, for in and through them the power of Christ is revealed (2 Cor 12:9–10). Therefore, against the Corinthians seeking “the proof (δοκιμήν) that Christ speaks in [him]” (2 Cor 13:3), he expresses his hope: “you will find out that we are not ἀδόκιμοι” (2 Cor 13:6; cf. also 2 Cor 10:18). Thus in 2 Cor 10–13 he speaks very frankly and boldly in the face of strong challenges from his opponents and converts. But he still warns them that he is coming to deal with them boldly (θαρρῆσαι τῇ πεποιθήσει ᾗ λογίζομαι τολμῆσαι) with the power of Christ (2 Cor 10:1–6; 13:1–4). The comparisons that have been shown in the above two sections should be sufficient demonstrations of the parallelism between 1 Thess 2:1–12 and the two parts of 2 Corinthians. However, in order to make the parallelism even clearer, we may tabulate just some of the words and concepts that are common to both passages: παρρησία (1 Thess 2:2  / 2 Cor 3:12; 7:4); πλάνος (1 Thess 2:3  / 2 Cor 6:8); δόλος (1 Thess 2:3 / 2 Cor 4:2; 11:3; 12:16); δοκιμάζειν (2 Thess 2:4 / 2 Cor 13:3–6; cf. also 2 Cor 5:10–11); ἀρέσκειν θεῷ (1 Thess 2:4 /εὐάρεστος [θεῷ] 2 Cor 5:9); πλεονεκτεῖν/πλεονεξία (1 Thess 2:5 / 2 Cor 7:2; 12:17–18; cf. καπηλεύειν, 2 Cor 2:17); δικαίως (1 Thess 2:10 / 2 Cor 6:7; 11:15); βάρος (2 Thess 2:7, 9 / 2 Cor 11:9; 12:16); κόπος καὶ μόχθος (1 Thess 2:9 / 2 Cor 6:5; 11:27). Add to these the following synonymous concepts: παρρησία (1 Thess 2:2 /θαρρῆσαι/τολμῆσαι 2 Cor 10:2); οὐδὲ ἐξ ἀκαθαρσίας (1 Thess 2:3; ἁγνότης 2 Cor 6:6; 11:3); οὔτε ζητοῦντες δόξαν (1 Thess 2:6 /καυχᾶσθαι 2 Cor 10:17–18; 12:6–10); ἤπιος (1 Thess 2:7 /πραΰτης καὶ ἐπιείκεια 2 Cor 10:1); ὁσίως (1 Thess 2:10 /ἁγνότης 2 Cor 6:6; 11:3); ἀμέμτως (1 Thess 2:10 / μὴ μωμηθῆναι 2 Cor 6:3; cf. Phil 2:15); βάρος (2 Thess 2:7, 9 /καταναρκᾶν 2 Cor 11:9; 12:13–14).50 50 Schmithals,

Paulus und die Gnostiker, 98–112, also observes several points of parallelism

30

The Structure and Function of 1 Thessalonians 1–3

7. The Apologetic Function of 1 Thess 1–3 Thus, like 2 Cor 1–7, 2 Cor 10–13 also displays a close parallelism with 1 Thess 2:1–12 in words, concepts, and ideas. But while with its affectionate tone 2 Cor 1–7 presents a further parallel with 1 Thess 2:1–12, with its strong polemical tone 2 Cor 10–13 presents a contrast to 1 Thess 2:1–12. In 1 Thess 2:1–12 and 2 Cor 1–7, Paul makes the demonstration of the integrity of his εἴσοδος in a calm, affectionate manner, trusting in the full assent of the Thessalonians and the Corinthians respectively, but in 2 Cor 10–13 he makes it in a highly emotional polemic against those who actively dispute it. These comparisons provide a useful key for determining the nature and function of 1 Thess 2:1–12. Clearly, unlike 2 Cor 10–13, it is not a polemical apologetic that Paul addresses at his Thessalonian converts as if they suspect the integrity of his apostleship. On the contrary, it is a rehearsal of his εἴσοδος in Thessalonica which he presents here in response to Timothy’s good report that the Thessalonians are maintaining their faith and their kind memory of Paul himself (1 Thess 3:1–10). Here it is vitally important to observe that in this regard also 2 Cor 1–9 provides parallels to 1 Thess 1–3. Just as on receiving Timothy’s good news about the Thessalonians Paul writes 1 Thessalonians (1 Thess 3:6), so also on receiving Titus’s good news about the Corinthians he writes 2 Corinthians (2 Cor 7:6–7). The euphoria to which Paul’s fear about the Thessalonians’ faith gives way when he receives Timothy’s good news about their faith and their good disposition toward Paul himself (1 Thess 3:1–10) is quite similar to the euphoria to which Paul’s fear about the Corinthians’ faith gives way when he receives Titus’s good news about their faith and their good disposition toward Paul himself (2 Cor 1:3– 7; 2:12–17; 7:2–16). Just as in 2 Cor 1–7 Titus’s good news that the Corinthians returned to a proper appreciation of Paul’s ministry occasions Paul’s rehearsal of his apostolic stance (2 Cor 1:12–7:16), so also here in 1 Thess 1–3 Timothy’s good news about the Thessalonians’ faith and their appreciation of Paul’s εἴσοδος (whence their kind memory of and longing for Paul spring) occasions Paul’s rehearsal of his εἴσοδος and its wonderful outcome. The same kind of euphoria leads him in 2 Cor 1–7 as in 1 Thess 1–3 to mix narratives about his anxiety, his sending of his assistant, and his subsequent sense of relief with demonstrations of his integrity.51 between 1 Thess 2:1–12 and 2 Corinthians, but unfortunately he uses his observation for his untenable thesis that in the former Paul is defending himself against Gnostic charges. 51  Cf. M. M. Mitchell, “New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Example of Timothy and Titus,” JBL 111 (1992), 641–62, esp. 651–62, who observes these parallels and affirms 1 Thess 3:6–10 and 2 Cor 7:5–16 as “two strikingly similar passages” (653). She argues that these parallels show Paul adopting in both passages the conventional epistolary form of response to the report of an envoy in the GrecoRoman world (I owe this reference to the reviewer for NTS). Even if in 1 Thessalonians and

7. The Apologetic Function of 1 Thess 1–3

31

From Paul’s more explicit language in 2 Cor 1–7, commentators have easily inferred that he had opponents in the Corinthian church and that under their influence there his apostolic ministry was suspect. Clearly this had caused Paul a great deal of anxiety. But Titus brought the good news that the Corinthian Christians had now shaken off their misunderstanding of Paul’s apostleship, and this made Paul breathe a great sigh of relief and rehearse his apostolic stance in a rather euphoric mood. So here we have to ask a question similar to that raised with regard to 1 Thess 1–3 above: Given that the Corinthians have returned to a proper appreciation of Paul’s apostolic ministry, why does he still feel the need to demonstrate its legitimacy and integrity in 2 Cor 1–7? It is clearly to solidify the Corinthians’ proper appreciation of his apostolic integrity, lest they should be misled again if slanders arise anew. If 2 Cor 10–13 was written later than 2 Cor 1–9, Paul’s fear would have proved only justified. For it has to be assumed that after writing 2 Cor 1–9 Paul received fresh news that after Titus’s visit the feared slander broke out again in Corinth, so that Paul had to defend his apostolic integrity in such a polemical way in 2 Cor 10–13. If 2 Cor 10–13 was written before 2 Cor 1–9, perhaps as a part of the “tearful letter” (2 Cor 2:4), it would appear that Paul’s strong defense of his apostolic integrity in the former had its desired effect upon the Corinthians. But we can also appreciate that he would feel the need to rehearse the case for his apostolic integrity in 2 Cor 1–7 in order to confirm them in their proper appreciation of it and to prevent misunderstandings from arising again. The close parallelism observed so far between 1 Thess 1–3 and 2 Cor 1–7, both in their contents and in the immediate occasions for their writing, helps us infer a purpose in 1 Thess 1–3 which closely parallels that of 2 Cor 1–7. As we have seen above, at Timothy’s report that the Thessalonian Christians are quite successfully withstanding the opponents’ slander campaign against the integrity 2 Corinthians Paul follows the social and literary conventions concerning envoys, that does not necessarily diminish the genuineness of the historical facts and his emotional responses narrated in them. In fact, the Greco-Roman examples cited by Mitchell do not contain anything close or analogical to Paul’s extensive rehearsal of his apostolic stance in 2 Cor 1:12–7:16 or of his apostolic εἴσοδος in 1 Thess 2:1–12 (cf. A. Bash, Ambassadors for Christ: An Exploration of Ambassadorial Language in the NT [WUNT 2/92; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997], 34–35, who repudiates Mitchell’s interpretation of 1 Thess 3:6–10 and 2 Cor 7:5–16 in the pattern of the Hellenistic diplomatic and epistolary convention). Furthermore, parallelism between the two epistles is not limited to the two passages, 1 Thess 3:6–10 and 2 Cor 7:5–16. 1 Thess 1–3 and 2 Cor 1–7 share the broadly same pattern of Paul’s thanksgiving/blessing, his narratives of his suffering and anxiety/travel plan/sending an assistant, his praises, his euphoric statements, his apostolic defense, etc. intermixed. Ascertaining this parallelism as well as that between 1 Thess 2:1–12 and 2 Cor 1–7 (also 10–13) in words, concepts, and ideas that are employed to demonstrate Paul’s apostolic integrity is enough for my present purpose of showing that in both epistles Paul is up against the similar kinds of criticism in the Hellenistic milieu of charlatan orators and that therefore as in 2 Corinthians so also in 1 Thess 2:1–12 there is an apologetic purpose. It is to go too far afield to determine the literary-rhetorical parallelism between the two epistles more closely.

32

The Structure and Function of 1 Thessalonians 1–3

of Paul’s apostolic εἴσοδος, Paul is greatly relieved. Yet he is still quite concerned about their young and weak faith (3:10–13), as they are continually exposed to the campaign.52 The lack of any prospect for his personal coming in the near future to strengthen their faith makes the concern still more serious (3:10–11). So, writing a letter, he does something quite similar to what he does in 2 Cor 1–7. That is, lest they should succumb to the opponents’ slander campaign and give up their faith,53 he seeks to solidify their positive appreciation of the integrity of his εἴσοδος.54 This is vitally important for Paul, of course, because his message, the gospel, stands or falls with his integrity as its preacher. With him disparaged as one of the wandering charlatan preachers, his gospel would be disparaged as a false doctrine and the Thessalonians’ faith would be destroyed.55 Therefore, it is absolutely necessary for him to defend his integrity and help his readers firmly maintain their positive appreciation of it against the opponents’ continuing slander campaign. However, this apologetic purpose is not just a negative attempt to shield the readers from the opponents’ temptation and persecution. It also has the more positive and missionary side of a true apologetic. With the demonstration of the impeccable integrity of his εἴσοδος, Paul is positively trying to equip his readers, to use the language of 1 Pet 3:15, to “be ready to make an apologia to any one who calls on [them] to account for the hope that is in [them].” This is suggested by the fact that while praising the readers’ zeal for evangelism in Macedonia and Achaia as well as their becoming an example to the believers there for a joyful acceptance of the gospel in spite of persecution, he highlights those believers’ appreciative report about his εἴσοδος and the readers’ wonderful conversion (1:7–10). This report clearly suggests that in persuading the Macedonians and the Achaians to accept his message, the gospel, the readers have pointed to Paul’s εἴσοδος as 52 Cf. Barclay, “Conflict in Thessalonica,” 514, who correctly takes ταύταις in 3:3 as indicating that the persecution continues at the time of writing 1 Thessalonians; so also Johanson, To All the Brethren, 57; contra Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 42. 53  Whereas the opponents who slander the integrity of Paul’s apostolic εἴσοδος in 2 Corinthians are some members of the Corinthian church or some Christians who came into that church from outside, the opponents in 1 Thess 1–3 are pagan opponents to the Christian faith. Even so, Paul’s concern in the two letters is the same, since the slandering of his apostolic εἴσοδος whether by some Christians within the church or by pagans outside the church would bring the same result, namely shaking the faith of the Corinthian or the Thessalonian Christians. 54  Thus, in order to explain the apologetic note in 2:1–12, we do not need to posit Paul’s concern about the readers doubting his integrity, as do Weima (“Apology,” 98) and J. Gillman (“Paul’s ΕΙΣΟΔΟΣ: The Proclaimed and the Proclaimer [1 Thess 2,8],” in The Thessalonian Correspondence [ed. R. F. Collins; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990], 62–70, 68–69). Their supposition results from their failure to appreciate the significance of 3:6b within the context of Paul’s fivefold repetition of connecting his εἴσοδος with the Thessalonians’ faith that has been observed here. Cf. M. Tellbe, M. Paul between Synagogue and State: Christians, Jews, and Civic Authorities in 1 Thessalonians, Romans, and Philippians (ConBNT 34; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2001), 99. 55 Cf. Holtz, Thessalonicher, 94.

7. The Apologetic Function of 1 Thess 1–3

33

completely different from that of charlatan orators. Thus, 1:7–10 suggests that the readers have already been using Paul’s impeccable εἴσοδος as an evangelistic tool for spreading his message (the gospel) as the true doctrine of salvation, in contradistinction from charlatans’ messages originating “from error or uncleanness.” For this reason, the believers in Macedonia and Achaia, to whom the readers have become an example, speak about his εἴσοδος as well as the readers’ wonderful conversion. Therefore, with the rehearsal of his impeccable εἴσοδος in 2:1–12, Paul tries also to support the readers in that particular way of evangelism. Thus, with the systematic demonstration of the impeccable integrity of his εἴσοδος, Paul is trying, first of all, to consolidate the readers’ positive appreciation of it in order to protect their faith against the opponents’ slanders, and then to equip them with an effective tool for rebutting them as well as for preaching the gospel to the receptive people. That is, he is trying to help the readers point to his impeccable εἴσοδος so as to repudiate the opponents’ efforts to denigrate him as a charlatan preacher of a false doctrine and to make a positive impression of his message, namely the gospel, upon the receptive (cf. 1 Thess 4:9–12; 1 Pet 2:11–12). For this comprehensive apologetic purpose Paul tries to secure a maximum rhetorical effect. Clearly the fivefold repetition of the statement about his εἴσοδος itself, which reminds the readers of the integrity of his εἴσοδος and its effective result in their own faith, is designed to have a strong rhetorical effect. In order to show that it is not just his own one-sided claim, he repeatedly appeals to their knowledge or acknowledgement of his εἴσοδος (1:5; 2:1 [N. B. the emphatic αὐτοί]; cf. also 3:3b–4) and even enlists the testimony of the people of Macedonia, Achaia, and other places about it (1:9–10, N. B. the emphatic αὐτοί). But he does not just repeat the summary reference to it. Since against the opponents’ attack on the integrity of his εἴσοδος he has to consolidate the readers’ positive appreciation of it, he finds it necessary to rehearse at least once the concrete features that testify to its integrity, beyond merely repeating a general reference to it.56 So, after stating the proposition in 2:1, he substantiates it by describing the features of his εἴσοδος in 2:2–12. Again, this is quite like what he does in a similar situation in 2 Corinthians (see especially 2:12–4:15; 5:11–6:11; 7:2–4). Within 1 Thess 2:1–12, first of all, the series of antithetical statements (2:1–8: “not … but …”) is striking. With them, he powerfully presents himself as a genuine servant of God and pastor of the Thessalonians, in contrast to charlatan orators. His repeated 56  J. S. Vos, “On the Background of 1 Thess 2:1–12: A Response to Traugott Holtz,” in The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? (ed. K. P. Donfried and J. Beutler; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 83, properly recognizes that in 2:1–12 Paul makes self-recommendation in order to strengthen the readers’ “initial acceptance” of him “to insure that their acceptance of him will endure.” But Vos fails to explain why it has become necessary for Paul to do this. This failure is due to his denial of the actual presence of Paul’s critics in Thessalonica (82) and his unnecessarily sharp distinction between self-recommendation and apology in the case of our passage.

34

The Structure and Function of 1 Thessalonians 1–3

appeals to their knowledge or remembrance of, or to their being witness to, the features of his impeccable εἴσοδος (2:1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 11) are likewise striking.57 With them, he does not seek simply to obtain their consent to his claims but rather to recall their actual experience of those features and consolidate their positive appreciation of them. He further underscores the veracity of those features even by calling upon God as witness twice over (2:5, 10). By making their acceptance of the gospel (or their standing firm in the faith) as a result of his impeccable εἴσοδος the ground of his thanksgiving to God three times (1:2+5; 2:13; 3:6–9), again he achieves a strong rhetorical effect. For with the thanksgivings to God he implicitly praises the readers for their proper appreciation of his εἴσοδος and their good response of faith to it and so encourages them to go on maintaining them (an instance of epideictic or demonstrative rhetoric!).58 Thus we are to affirm that 1 Thess 1–3 as a whole and 2:1–12 in particular have an apologetic purpose,59 like 2 Cor 1–7, though not like 2 Cor 10–13. Since Paul makes this defense in order to prevent the Thessalonian Christians from succumbing to the opponents’ continuing slander campaign against the integrity of his ministry and so losing their faith, this apologetic purpose ultimately serves the paraenetic purpose of exhorting them to stand up against the false campaign and maintain their faith. In 1 Thess 1–3 Paul seeks to achieve his paraenetic purpose through an apology of his apostolic ministry.

8. The Structure and Function of 1 Thess 1–3 Now it is important to take the following three characteristics of 1 Thess 1–3 together in order to understand the structure and function of these three chapters: (1) the fivefold statement combining the readers’ acceptance of the gospel with Paul’s impeccable εἴσοδος runs through the whole passage like a red thread; (2) the 57  For a proper appreciation of this singular phenomenon, see Holtz, “Background of 1 Thess 2:1–12,” 71–72; Weima, “Apology,” 85–86. 58 It is doubtful whether Paul really wrote 1 Thessalonians according to ancient rhetorical handbooks and so produced one uniform piece of epideictic rhetoric in the epistle as a whole, as some recent commentators (e. g., Wanamaker, Thessalonians) claim (contrast, e. g., Malherbe, Thessalonians, 96; see n. 77 below). However, it cannot be denied that the three thanksgiving sentences and some other elements in the epistle convey epideictic rhetorical effects, while 2:1–12 has an apologetic character. The apologetic rhetoric in 2:1–12 defends the integrity of his apostolic ministry against the non-Christian opponents’ criticism while the three thanksgiving sentences affirm the readers’ positive appreciation of his apostolic integrity. So they serve two different immediate purposes, but ultimately the same purpose, namely encouraging the readers to maintain their positive appreciation of his εἴσοδος as well as their faith. 59 For some recent upholders of an apologetic purpose in 1 Thess 2:1–12, see Holtz, “Background of 1 Thess 2:1–12,” 69–80; Johanson, To All the Brethren, 164–65; Riesner, Early Period, 369–70; Weima, “Apology,” 73–99; T. D. Still, Conflict in Thessalonica (JSNTSS 183; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 126–49; vom Brocke, Thessaloniki, 143–51.

8. The Structure and Function of 1 Thess 1–3

35

statement is the reason for the thrice-repeated thanksgiving; and (3) the thricerepeated thanksgiving is accompanied not only by the statement about his εἴσοδος and the readers’ faith as its reason but also by the thrice-repeated reference to persecution (1:2 + 5–6; 2:13–14; 3:1–10). We have already seen that the first statement about the gospel’s success with the readers through Paul’s impeccable εἴσοδος in 1:5 is the main reason for Paul’s thanksgiving in 1:2. This is immediately followed by a reference to the readers’ having become imitators of him and the Lord in that they received the word in much affliction, but with the joy of the Holy Spirit (1:6). After he refers to their having come to such a joyful faith in spite of persecution, he feels he cannot just pass over the opportunity to add a word of praise for their faith. So he speaks about them as having become an example to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia, and praises especially their missionary zeal and success (1:7–8). But he quickly returns to his main concern by quoting the report of the people in Macedonia, Achaia, and elsewhere that reinforces his earlier statement about his impeccable εἴσοδος and its result in the readers’ remarkable conversion (1:9–10). Then, seeking the readers’ assent to that statement (2:1), he concretely demonstrates the impeccable nature of his εἴσοδος (2:2–12). This demonstration makes it clear why the readers accepted his message not as the word of mere human beings but as the word of God (2:13). So, with the demonstration of his impeccable εἴσοδος in 2:2–12, he in fact has substantiated the statement he made in 1:5–6. Therefore, at the end of the demonstration in 2:2–12 he restates the assertion of 1:5–6 as substantiated and resumes his thanksgiving for it which he uttered in 1:2 (2:13). Just as he immediately follows his thanksgiving for the success of the gospel with the readers through his impeccable εἴσοδος in 1:2+5 with a reference to their having become “imitators” of him and the Lord in receiving the gospel in suffering (1:6), so in 2:13 also he immediately follows his thanksgiving for the readers’ acceptance of the gospel with a reference to their having become “imitators” of the churches in Judea (and the Lord Jesus, the prophets, and Paul himself) in receiving persecution from their own compatriots (2:14–16).60 Thus, 2:13–14 (or 16) is an exact restatement of 1:2 + 5–6: 60  Contra the attempts to view 2:13–16 as a later interpolation: e. g., K.-G. Eckart, “Der zweite echte Brief des Paulus an die Thessalonicher,” ZTK 63 (1961): 30–44; B. Pearson, “1 Thess 2:13–16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation,” HTR 64 (1971): 79–94; Boers, “The Form Critical Study of Paul’s Letters,” 151–52; D. Schmidt, “1 Thess 2:13–16: Linguistic Evidence for an Interpolation,” JBL 102 (1983): 269–79. This now widely rejected view (see just C. J. Schlueter, Filling up the Measure: Polemical Hyperbole in 1 Thess 2.14–16 [JSNTSS 98; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994]; M. Bockmuehl, “1 Thess 2:14–16 and the Church in Jerusalem,” TynBul 52 [2001]: 1–31) as well as the likewise widely rejected view that here another letter (2:13–4:1) is joined (see n. 8 above) is born of a failure to recognize the structure of 1 Thess 1–3 as shown here. Just as the thought of the Thessalonians coming to such a joyful faith in spite of persecution triggers Paul to add a word of praise for their faith in 1:7–8, so here the thought of the Thessalonians’ suffering from the persecution by their compatriots just as the Jewish churches

36

The Structure and Function of 1 Thessalonians 1–3

1 Thess 2:13–16

1 Thess 1:2 + 5–6

2:13a εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ θεῷ … 2:13b ὅτι παραλαβόντες λόγον ἀκοῆς παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ … ἐδέξασθε … λόγον θεοῦ 2:13aa διὰ τοῦτο (τὴν εἴσοδον ἡμῶν, 2:1–12) 2:14–16 ὑμεῖς γὰρ μιμηταὶ ἐγενήθητε … ἐπάθετε … τὸν κύριον … ἡμᾶς …

1:2 εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ θεῷ … 1:5a ὅτι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν … 1:5b καθὼς οἴδατε οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν … 1:6 καθὼς ὑμεῖς μιμηταὶ ἡμῶν ἐγενήθητε καὶ τοῦ κυρίου, δεξάμενοι τὸν λόγον ἐν θλίψει πολλῇ …

The reason Paul is recalling all this is because the readers are still suffering from persecution and are subjected to the opponents’ slander campaign against him, so that he has been extremely worried about their faith. In 2:17–3:5 he narrates this desperate situation of the Satanic persecution and temptation for the readers and the Satanic hindrance of his coming to their aid. Then he speaks of the good news that Timothy has brought: in spite of the opponents’ persecution and temptation through a slander campaign against the integrity of Paul’s εἴσοδος, the readers are maintaining their faith and cherishing their memory of his εἴσοδος (3:6). Thus, he makes the statement that connects the readers’ faith with his εἴσοδος for the fifth time in our passage, as we have seen. As in 1:5–6 and 2:13–14, so here again the statement is accompanied by a reference to the readers’ suffering (3:3–5). Then he speaks of what a great relief the good news of Timothy has brought to him (“Now we live!”) (3:7–8), and this makes him exclaim: “For what thanksgiving can we render to God for you, for all the joy which we feel for your sake before our God!” (3:9). Here we can clearly see that his thanksgiving is not simply for the fact that the readers maintain their faith, properly appreciating his εἴσοδος, but rather for the fact that they do this in spite of persecution and temptation. Thus 3:1–10 helps us understand why he joins the references to the readers’ suffering to his thanksgivings in 1:2–6 and 2:13–14, just as it has helped us understand why he demonstrates the integrity of his εἴσοδος in 2:1–12. He repeats three times his thanksgiving to God for the readers’ having come to the faith with a proper appreciation of his εἴσοδος and for maintaining that stance in spite of the oppohave been persecuted by the Jews triggers Paul to add a few words about the Jews’ persecutions of the Lord, the prophets, and Paul himself. Paul may be trying to console the young Christians in Thessalonica who are ostracized and persecuted by their own people by showing that those who stand for the Christian faith always suffer from their own people, as the cases of the Lord Jesus himself, the prophets, and Paul himself testify (cf. 3:3–4). Or Paul may be highlighting the persecution of the Jews here because he suspects that some Jews are instigating the pagan opponents to denounce Paul and persecute the Christians in Thessalonica (so Holtz, Thessalonicher, 94). If so, the Jews in Thessalonica may have charged him as a false prophet seducing people with a false doctrine (cf. Acts 17:1–9). This may be the reason why some scholars perceive in 2:1–12 (esp. v. 3) a connotation of Paul’s defense against such a charge. See W. Horbury, “1 Thess ii.3 as Rebutting the Charge of False Prophecy,” JTS 33 (1982): 492–508; K. O. Sandness, Paul – One of the Prophets? (WUNT 2/43; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 185–223; both authors show how easily the Jewish charge of a false prophet could be combined with the Hellenistic charge of a charlatan philosopher in the first century.

8. The Structure and Function of 1 Thess 1–3

37

nents’ persecution and tempting campaign of slanders against his εἴσοδος. If in 2:17–3:10 he expresses his great appreciation of their standing in the faith in spite of persecution by narrating his great sense of anxiety and then of relief, in 1:6 and 2:14 he does it by suggesting, with the connecting καί and the substantiating γάρ respectively, that their willingness to accept the gospel in spite of persecution was as much a cause for the success of the gospel as the impeccability of his εἴσοδος. So, the main structure of 1 Thess 1–3 may be summarized as follows: (a) The thanksgiving in 1:2–6: for the success of the gospel owing to Paul’s impeccable εἴσοδος and the readers’ joyful acceptance of the gospel in spite of persecution, – elaborated, with an appeal to the confirming report of others, in 1:8–10 (centering on the success of the gospel as reflected in the readers’ exemplary faith), – elaborated, with an appeal to the knowledge of the readers, in 2:1–12 (centering on the impeccable nature of Paul’s εἴσοδος). (b) The thanksgiving in 2:13–14: a resumption of the thanksgiving of 1:2–6 (with the restatement of the success of the gospel in terms of the readers’ acceptance of it), to which the elaborations (esp. that of 2:1–12) have led. – The background of this thanksgiving: the opponents’ persecution and temptation, and Paul’s anxiety about the readers’ faith: 2:17–3:5. (c) The thanksgiving in 3:3–9: for the readers’ maintenance of faith and positive appreciation of Paul’s εἴσοδος in spite of continuing persecution and temptation (confirmation of the thanksgivings of 1:2–6 and 2:13–14). This structure demonstrates the unity of 1 Thess 1–3, that 1:2–3:13 is one long thanksgiving section in which the same thanksgiving for the same reason is repeated three times.61 This is to confirm P. Schubert’s long-standing thesis. Through a detailed analysis of the structure of 1:2–3:13, Schubert comes to the conclusion that the whole passage is one extended thanksgiving period which conforms to the formal characteristics of the thanksgiving periods of the other Pauline letters. He argues that the personal narratives in 2:1–12 and 2:17–3:8 are no real “digressions” but regular parts of the thanksgiving section just like similar personal narratives in Phil 1:5, 7b–8 and Rom 1:10–13.62 He further shows that like the final clause which typically appears at the end of the Pauline 61 Contra those scholars who represent various compilation theories, only to demonstrate their failure to recognize the three special features of 1 Thess 1–3 that have been ascertained here (see the preceding n. 60). 62 Paul Schubert, Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings (BZNW 20; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1939), 19–21. See also P. T. O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul (NovTSup 49; Leiden: Brill, 1977), 144; Malherbe, Thessalonians, 103–05, 133–34. If we are so intent on finding a digression, perhaps 2:15–16 may be so called. But even here, if Holtz’s theory is right, it is not a digression. See n. 60 above.

38

The Structure and Function of 1 Thessalonians 1–3

thanksgiving pattern, the final clause in 3:10, δεόμενοι εἰς τὸ ἰδεῖν ὑμῶν τὸ πρόσωπον καὶ καταρτίσαι τὰ ὑστερήματα τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν, signals the climax of the whole

thanksgiving section of 1 Thess 1–3 in that verse.63 Then, with his appreciation of λοιπὸν οὖν in 4:1 as signaling the conclusion of the letter “in the strictest sense of the word,”64 as well as of the length of the thanksgiving section of 1:2–3:13 (43 verses, taking up about three-fifths of the whole letter),65 Schubert comes to the conclusion that “the thanksgiving itself constitutes the main body of 1 Thess.”66 Using as an interpretative key the fivefold association of the success of the gospel/the readers’ faith with Paul’s εἴσοδος and its integral connection with the thrice-repeated reference to the readers’ suffering from persecution and with the thrice-repeated thanksgiving in 1 Thess 1–3, this study has come to confirm all these points of Schubert. However, Schubert’s failure to observe these particular features of the thanksgiving section of 1 Thess 1–3 results in his inadequate explanation of the functions of the personal narratives as integral parts of the thanksgiving section.67 But our new observation of the features in the structure of 1 Thess 1–3 helps us see clearly what integral functions the narratives of 2:1–12 and 2:17–3:8 fulfill within the thanksgiving section as well as why they are both much more extensive than the narratives within the thanksgiving sections of Philippians (1:5, 7b–8) and Romans (1:10–13). 1 Thess 2:14–3:8 fulfills primarily the vital function of providing the background for his thanksgiving. Given his great anxiety about his readers because of their continuing suffering from persecution and his great joy about the result of Timothy’s mission, it is not at all strange to see Paul explain in an extensive narrative this background of his enthusiastic thanksgiving to God. Paul does exactly the same thing in 2 Corinthians. See how he provides the background of his enthusiastic thanksgiving in 2 Cor 2:14–17 with a long narrative about his suffering, about his inability to keep his travel plan of coming to the readers and the troubles it has caused in his relationship with them, and about Titus’s mission in 2 Cor 1:8–2:13 (cf. 2 Cor 7:5–16).68

 Schubert, Form and Function, 20–23.  Ibid., 25. 65 Ibid., 17. 66  Ibid., 26. 67  There is the same failure also in O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings, 141–61, who, while affirming with Schubert 1:2–3:13 as one thanksgiving section, deals with only 1:2–5; 2:13; 3:9–13, leaving out the narratives completely. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 90, uses this failure as an argument against the form-critical approach and for his rhetorical-critical approach. But see n. 77 below for the problem of his approach. Observing the structure of chs. 1–3 more carefully than the traditional form-critical approach has done, this study, I hope, is able to show how different parts of those chapters, including the narrative parts, form an integrated unity. 68 These elements in 2 Cor 1:8–2:13 form rather close parallels to those in 1 Thess 2:14–3:8. See the next note. 63 64

8. The Structure and Function of 1 Thess 1–3

39

We have already observed the necessary function that the narrative of 1 Thess 2:1–12 fulfills within the thanksgiving section of 1 Thess 1–3: in giving thanks to God for the Thessalonians’ having accepted the gospel with a positive appreciation of his εἴσοδος in the face of the opponents’ slander campaign, Paul needs to consolidate their appreciation of his εἴσοδος in order to prevent them from succumbing to the opponents’ continuing slander campaign and to equip them with a tool to rebut their attacks, as well as to do positive evangelistic work. So he demonstrates the integrity of his εἴσοδος in the narrative of 2:1–12. Again, this is what Paul does also in 2 Cor 3:1–7:4. After giving thanks to God in 2 Cor 2:14–17 for the comfort that Titus’s good news about the Corinthians’ return to a proper appreciation of his apostolic ministry has brought him, Paul turns to demonstrating the legitimacy and integrity of his apostleship in 2 Cor 3:1–7:4, before resuming his grateful talk of God’s comfort in 2 Cor 7:5–16. We have already said that Paul does this for essentially the same purpose as in 1 Thess 2:1–12. So, his doing what he does in 1 Thess 2:1–12 in the context of giving thanks to God is not strange at all. That is to say, there is no problem with seeing the two narrative parts, 1 Thess 2:1–12 and 2:17–3:8, as integral parts of the thanksgiving section of 1 Thess 1–3.69 Only those who hold a legalistic notion of the form of a Pauline thanksgiving period will say that if 1 Thess 1–3 is a thanksgiving period Paul cannot do there what he does in 2 Cor 1–7. The form-critical analysis of Pauline thanksgiving sections is a useful tool. But it has to be flexible enough to recognize the peculiarities of the individual thanksgiving sections as well as their commonalities. Our observation here of the threefold repetition of the basically same thanksgiving, for the same reason given in the fivefold repetition, against the background of suffering that is stated in threefold repetition in direct connection with the threefold thanksgiving clearly requires us to see the whole of 1 Thess 1:2–3:13 as one indivisible thanksgiving section.70 Once this is recognized, the form-critical analysis of Pauline thanksgiving sections should be adjusted to accommodate these peculiarities: its incomparable length, its threefold repetition of thanksgiving, its inclusion of lengthy narratives, etc.

69  The structural parallelism between 1 Thess 1–3 and 2 Cor 1–7 may be set out as follows: 1 Thess 1–3 2 Cor 1–7 2:1–12 Narrative (apostolic integrity) 3:1–7:4a Narrative (apostolic integrity) 2:13 Thanksgiving 7:4b–16 Gratitude and joy for God’s comfort 2:14–3:8 Narrative (background: suffering, 1:8–2:13 Narrative (background: suffering, travel plan, Timothy’s mission) travel plan, Titus’ mission, etc.) 3:9 Thanksgiving 2:14–17 Thanksgiving 70  Thus, it is wrong to fragment 1:2–10 from what follows, to view 2:13–16 as a later interpolation, or to take 2:17–3:10 as a separate section under the questionable title “apostolic parousia.” See n. 8 above.

40

The Structure and Function of 1 Thessalonians 1–3

9. The Purpose of Part One of 1 Thessalonians Another serious consequence of Schubert’s failure to recognize the characteristics of the structure of the thanksgiving section of 1 Thess 1–3 that we have observed is that he cannot explain adequately the function or purpose of the thanksgiving section. He rightly says that whereas in the other Pauline letters the thanksgiving section has the introductory function of indicating the occasion and contents of the letter, in 1 Thessalonians it contains in itself all the primary concerns of Paul. But when Schubert specifies these concerns merely as “the extensive and intimately personal description of his [sc. Paul’s] constant anxiety and longing desire for the Thessalonian church,”71 it is quite disappointing. If Schubert means to affirm that the primary concern of Paul in chs. 1–3 is to express his genuine thanksgiving to God for the exemplary faith of the readers, their wonderful acceptance of the gospel in spite of persecution in the beginning and their faithful maintenance of faith in spite of the continuing persecution in the present,72 he is of course correct. But Schubert’s conclusion is inadequate in that it fails to recognize clearly the paraenetic and the apologetic purposes that this thanksgiving also has. We must first recognize that Paul is not uttering this thanksgiving in his private prayer, but reporting his thanksgiving in a letter sent to the Thessalonian Christians who are suffering from the opponents’ temptation and persecution. In other words, he is letting them know that he is giving thanks to God for their wonderful faith. So when in chs. 1–3 he gives thanks to God three times over for their exemplary faith, he is, while expressing his genuine thankfulness to God, also implicitly praising the readers for their faith. With the thrice-repeated reference to their suffering and with his deep concern for it (2:17–3:5), he tries to convey his sympathy with them (i. e., suffering together with them) and thus to comfort them. His repeated emphasis that through their suffering for the sake of the gospel they have become “imitators” of the Lord Jesus, Paul himself, the Judean churches, and the prophets (1:6; 2:14) and his reminder of his previous teaching that Christians are bound to suffer (3:4) are especially designed to bring comfort to the suffering readers, just as his statement about the readers’ having been loved and chosen by God is designed to bring assurance to them (1:4). Against this background of their suffering, Paul holds the readers up as “an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia” and praises their joyful acceptance of the gospel, sound conversion, fervent hope, and active missionary service (1:7–10), i. e., their “work of faith, labor of love and steadfastness of hope” (1:3). But, above all, by making the ground of his thanksgiving, namely 71 Schubert,

Form and Function, 26.  Ibid., 26: “… the thanksgiving of 1 Thess has a singularly important – epistolary – function. In fact, its function is the function of the letter as a whole: the thanksgiving is the letter, i. e., the ‘main body’ of the letter.” Cf. Malherbe, Thessalonians, 104. 72

9. The Purpose of Part One of 1 Thessalonians

41

their faith, accompanied by a reference to their suffering, and by repeating this three times over, he is implicitly conveying his strong praise for their acceptance of the gospel and for their steadfast faith in spite of persecution. All these efforts to comfort, reassure, and praise the readers converge on the purpose of encouraging them to remain in faith in spite of persecution and temptation.73 While the thrice-repeated reference to the readers’ suffering from the opponents’ persecution, together with the long narrative about Paul’s own great anxiety about it in 2:17–3:10, makes it unmistakable that persecution forms the background for the whole thanksgiving section of 1 Thess 1–3, the fivefold repetition of the statement that connects the success of the gospel or the readers’ faith with Paul’s εἴσοδος, together with the emphatic demonstration of the integrity of his εἴσοδος in 2:1–12, makes it clear that the greater emphasis is laid on the latter. It is because the opponents’ pressures take the form of a slander campaign against his εἴσοδος, as we have seen. So, in Paul’s combination of the three elements together in his thanksgivings, the readers’ acceptance/maintenance of the Christian faith, their positive appreciation of Paul’s εἴσοδος, and their suffering from persecution, we can see that he gives thanks to God for the readers’ acceptance/maintenance of the Christian faith, not simply in the face of persecution of a general nature but rather in the face of persecution that is centered on a slander campaign against Paul’s εἴσοδος. Thus, in the thrice-repeated thanksgiving, Paul is, while giving thanks to God, also strongly praising the readers for successfully withstanding that slander campaign of the opponents. With the praise, he is trying to encourage them to go on maintaining their positive view of his εἴσοδος. In other words, he is trying to consolidate their positive appreciation of his εἴσοδος in order to prevent them from succumbing to their continuing slander campaign. As we have seen, this is the reason why in the midst of the thanksgiving section he includes the systematic and succinct demonstration of the integrity of his εἴσοδος (2:1–12). The affectionate expression of his continuing pastoral concerns in 2:17–3:13 as a whole and his explanation of his repeated efforts to come to their aid and of his sending Timothy there in particular are also designed to strengthen their positive evaluation of his εἴσοδος and to reassure and encourage them in faith. Thus, the thanksgiving section of 1 Thess 1–3 has three major purposes: to give thanks to God for the readers’ faith, to encourage them to stand firm in the faith with a continuing positive appreciation of Paul’s εἴσοδος in spite of persecutions,

73  Cf. Malherbe, Thessalonians, 85–86. So there is an element of demonstrative rhetoric in chs. 1–3. Even if we do not hold the theory that Paul wrote the whole letter of 1 Thessalonians according to the Hellenistic rhetorical handbooks, or that 1 Thess 2–3 constitutes the narratio in the rhetorical scheme, we must acknowledge the contribution of recent rhetorical critics (especially Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 90–91) who have emphasized the epideictic or demonstrative rhetorical character and the paraenetic function of the thanksgiving section.

42

The Structure and Function of 1 Thessalonians 1–3

and to help them rebut the opponents’ slander campaign against his mission and message. In addition, the thanksgiving section has an introductory purpose. With the traditional triad of “your work of faith, labor of love and steadfastness of hope” in 1:3, Paul may be intending to introduce the three topics which he will elaborate on later – already in the thanksgiving section a little but then more fully later (work of faith: 1:5–10; 2:13–16; 3:6–9; labor of love: 1:8; 4:9–10; 5:12–15; steadfastness of hope: 1:10; 4:13–5:11). But he does the real introduction of the topics for later elaboration in chs. 4–5 (love, holiness, the eschatological hope) in the wish-prayer of 3:11–13 which concludes the thanksgiving section (cf. Phil 1:9–11). So, the thanksgiving section of 1 Thess 1:2–3:13 also has this typical function of the thanksgiving sections of the other Pauline letters. But the fact that this function appears only at the transitional wish-prayer while the incomparably long thanksgiving section (1:2–3:10) has been preoccupied with other weighty concerns of Paul’s which are not dealt with in the following section of chs. 4–5 clearly indicates that the introductory function is of minor importance. This means that the thanksgiving section of 1 Thess 1–3 is not one of mere “introductory thanksgiving,” but rather it constitutes the main body of the letter, containing the above three major purposes.

10. 1 Thess 4–5 The opening λοιπὸν οὖν of 4:1 does indicate that what follows is really the concluding exhortation appended to the main body of the letter. However, in view of the fact that the main themes of chs. 4–5 are announced at the end of the thanksgiving section (3:11–13), the two chapters cannot be treated merely as an appendix. This fact, together with its length as well as the weightiness of its subject matters, suggests that the section also constitutes the main body of the letter. So we may see 1 Thessalonians as having two parts, 1:2–3:13 forming Part One, and 4:1–5:24 Part Two. With its practical exhortations for a sanctified life and a healthy community life inside and outside the church, as well as with its clarification of some points of the eschatological hope that have been bothering the readers,74 the second part also serves the important function of “supplying what is lacking in [their] faith” (3:10) and thus strengthening their faith.75 74  Apparently, on return from his mission to Thessalonica, Timothy reported to Paul and Silvanus not only that the Thessalonian believers were maintaining their faith in the Lord Jesus firmly in spite of persecutions, but also that they still needed more teachings urgently on some concrete issues in those three areas. 75  For more details about the structure and character of the Part Two as well as for the applicability of form-criticism and rhetorical criticism to our letter as a whole, see the introduction to Part Two in my commentary.

10. 1 Thess 4–5

43

Of the two parts, however, Paul clearly puts stress on the first. This is clearly indicated by a comparison of the nature of the subject matters dealt with and the manner of his dealing with them in the two sections. In Part One he undertakes the more vital task of helping the readers maintain their faith and preventing them from falling away, and he carries out this paraenetic and apologetic task with a greater degree of emotional engagement. In Part Two, however, he undertakes comparatively the less essential or urgent task of improving the readers’ moral and communal life (4:1–12; 5:12–22), and he carries it out by delivering a list of largely traditional moral exhortations76 with clarification on the details of the eschatological hope (4:13–5:11). The secondary nature of Part Two is also made clear by the opening phrase λοιπὸν οὖν of 4:1. To this extent, Schubert is right in saying that the thanksgiving section “contains all the primary information that Paul wished to convey. There is no other subject matter in the letter which equals in importance… .”77  See Kim, “Paul’s Common Paraenesis” (Essay 11 in this volume).  Schubert, Form and Function, 26. Contra Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 49–50, 90–91, who through his rhetorical-critical approach implicitly treats chs. 4–5 as the main section (probatio) to which chs. 1–3 are only a preparation as exordium (1:2–10) and narratio (2:1–3:10). He rejects the thematic approach, contending that “it tends to fragment the letters into sequences of themes without sufficient attention to the unity of their argumentation and the rationale for their overall structure” (45; cf. R. Jewett, The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986], 68, for a similar criticism). In his essay “The Rhetoric of Letters” (The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? [K. P. Donfried and J. Beutler eds.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], 194–240), F. W. Hughes makes the same point with the claim that “epistological analysis” does not explain well “how the structure and function of a letter is related to its content and the intention of its writer,” but rhetorical analysis can explain the question very well and thereby help establish the Sitz im Leben of the letter being studied (215). But in his actual rhetorical analysis of 1 Thessalonians in his essay, “The Rhetoric of 1 Thess” (The Thessalonian Correspondence [BETL 87; ed. Raymond J. Collins; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990], 94–116), he only repeats that claim without quite demonstrating it (see esp. p. 108). In another essay, “The Social Function Implied by Rhetoric,” which he appends to the aforementioned first essay in the same volume (The Thessalonian Correspondence, 241–54), he strangely admits: “Though the rhetorical analysis of Pauline and pseudo-Pauline letters [sc. 1 & 2 Thess] has yielded surprisingly vivid insights into the pastoral practices of Paul and his followers, this analytical method has had relatively little to contribute toward understanding the social and cultural situation of the Thessalonians that Paul addressed” (253). It is hoped that this present epistological study (and my commentary based on it) explains the unity of the various parts of 1 Thessalonians, the rationale for its overall structure, its Sitz im Leben, and Paul’s intent in it more coherently than the rhetorical analyses of Wanamaker and Hughes have done (see the introduction to Part Two: The Exhortation [4:1–5:24] in my commentary for a further criticism of the confusing applications by Wanamaker, Hughes and B. Witherington of the rhetorical-critical method to 1 Thess 4–5). Against Wanamaker, see also E. Krentz, “1 Thess: Rhetorical Flourishes and Formal Constraints” in The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? (ed. K. P. Donfried and J. Beutler; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 317. In the article, arguing against the attempts to see 1 Thessalonians as written according to the Greco-Roman rhetorical handbooks, Krentz cites M. Mitchell’s criticism of Jewett’s “identification of 1:6–3:13, ‘fully half the letter,’ as narratio, despite the fact that epideictic orations use it rarely” and the fact that 76 77

44

The Structure and Function of 1 Thessalonians 1–3

Conclusion We have ascertained the following three special features of 1 Thess 1–3 as a key to a proper interpretation of this unusually long thanksgiving section of 1 Thessalonians: (a) the fivefold statement connecting the readers’ acceptance of the gospel with Paul’s impeccable εἴσοδος runs through the whole passage like a red thread; (b) the statement is made the reason for the thrice-repeated thanksgiving; and (c) the thrice-repeated thanksgiving is accompanied also by the thricerepeated reference to persecution. These three features help us confirm the unity of the thanksgiving section, while the close parallelism between the section and 2 Corinthians 1–7 in occasion, tone, vocabulary, structure, and content helps us explain the vital functions of the two narratives, 2:1–12 and 2:14–3:8, within the indivisible thanksgiving section of chs. 1–3. A comparison of 2:1–12 with its contemporary Sophistic εἴσοδος practices on the one hand and with Paul’s apologia in 2 Corinthians on the other helps us see the apologetic purpose of 2:1–12 and clarify the specific nature of Paul’s apologetic within the overall paraenetically designed thanksgiving section of 1 Thess 1–3. Paul presents his εἴσοδος as impeccable in order to consolidate the readers’ positive appreciation of it so that they may effectively counter the non-Christian opponents’ slander campaign of denigrating him as one of the wandering charlatan orators. The character of 1 Thess 4–5 and the relationship of this second part of the letter to the first part (1 Thess 1–3) strengthen this conclusion, as they argue against the theory that in 2:1–12 Paul presents himself as a model for the readers’ imitation, as well as against the theory that the first part serves just the philophronetic purpose for the second part. These findings lead us to summarize the nature of 1 Thessalonians thus: it is a pastoral letter in which Paul seeks to strengthen the readers’ exemplary faith – primarily by helping them withstand the opponents’ persecution and temptation which is centered on disparaging his integrity as a preacher of the gospel, and then also by exhorting them for sanctification and a healthy communal life and clarifying some points of their eschatological hope. “narratio properly belongs to forensic oratory” (305; citing M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation [Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993], 1–19, who criticizes Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 72–74). This criticism by Mitchell and Krentz of Jewett applies also to Wanamaker. See further pp. 24–25 above. Against the view that Paul wrote his letters in accordance with the rules of ancient rhetorical handbooks, see, besides Krentz’s article cited here, also A. J.  Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists (SBLSBS 12; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 1–11; M. Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul (London: SCM, 1991), 58; S. E. Porter, “The Theoretical Justification for Application of Rhetorical Categories to Pauline Epistolary Literature,” in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference (ed. S. E.  Porter and T. H. Olbricht; JSNTSup 90; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 115–16; Winter, “Is Paul among the Sophists?,” 35; J. A. D. Weima, “What Does Aristotle Have to Do with Paul? An Evaluation of Rhetorical Criticism,” Calvin Theological Journal 32 (1997): 458–68; P. K. Kern, Rhetoric and Galatians (SBTSMS 101; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

2. Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel (1 Thess 1:9–10 and Rom 1:3–4) 1 Thess 1:9b–10 is an echo of the gospel that Paul preached to the Thessalonians during his pioneering mission in their city. It suggests that he made Jesus as the Son of God a key element of his gospel preaching, and this fact agrees with his testimony that on the Damascus road he was commissioned to “preach [God’s Son] as the gospel among the Gentiles” (Gal 1:16; cf. Acts 9:20), as well as his definition of the gospel in terms of the Son of God elsewhere (Rom 1:1–4, 9; 2 Cor 1:18–20). Observing this striking fact with Prof. Martin Hengel,1 I would like to consider why Paul makes this Christological title, which he uses relatively sparingly, a key element, if not the definition, of his gospel. Does 1 Thess 1:9b–10 shed light on this question? Encouraged by Hengel’s suggestion that we can reconstruct the whole passion narrative out of the single clause “that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was delivered up took bread …” (1 Cor 11:23),2 I will try to reconstruct from 1 Thess 1:9b–10 the full shape of the gospel that Paul preached to the Thessalonians.3 This would, it is hoped, teach us more precisely what “the Son of God” meant to Paul and why he made it a key term in his gospel preaching.4 In 1 Thess 1:2–5 Paul begins addressing the Thessalonian Christians by giving thanks to God for the powerful effects of the gospel among them, which they had accepted in view of his virtuous missionary conduct (1:2–5). Then, in 1:6–10 he praises them for their exemplary faith and evangelistic work in Macedonia,  Der Sohn Gottes (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1975), 20–23. heard this from him more than once. Cf. now his essay, “Das Mahl in der Nacht, ‘in der Jesus ausgeliefert wurde’ (1 Kor 11,23),” in Studien zur Christologie. Kleine Schriften IV (WUNT 201; ed. C.-J. Thornton; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 451–95. 3 In 1 Thessalonians Paul makes an unusually high number of references to the teaching that he imparted to the readers during his mission among them (2:11–12; 3:4; 4:1–2, 6, 11; cf. also 5:1–2). This is an encouraging factor for this attempt. However, see n. 47 below for some limitation in this essay. 4 This essay gathers up some ideas that I have developed in the course of preparing a commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Word Biblical Commentary series [Grand Rapids: Zondervan], forthcoming 2023), and builds on several of my previously published works. This is the reason for many self-references here. Then, in turn, this essay served as a synopsis for my book, Justification and God’s Kingdom (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), so that some materials in this essay are further developed at several places of that book. May the reader be indulgent about many self-references and some repetitions! 1

2 I

46

Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel

Achaia, and elsewhere. In 1:9–10 he goes on to praise them by quoting the report of the Macedonians, the Achaians, etc. “concerning us [i. e., Paul and his colleagues], what kind of entrance [εἴσοδος] we had towards you, and how you turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.” Apparently, moved by the missionary conduct (εἴσοδος) of Paul and his team that set them apart from the usual wandering sophists and cynic philosophers,5 the Thessalonian believers came to accept Paul’s gospel as truth, i. e., as God’s word (2:13). Then, in their evangelistic efforts in Macedonia, Achaia, and elsewhere, apparently they gave testimony about their faith, citing Paul’s εἴσοδος as something that demonstrated the credibility of the gospel. This is why the Macedonians, the Achaians, etc. were talking not just about the Thessalonian Christians’ wonderful conversion from idol worship to the Christian faith, but about Paul’s εἴσοδος as well (1:9–10). The Thessalonian Christians’ faith is summarized in terms of “serving a living and true God” and “waiting for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come” (1:9b–10). It is clear that this is an echo of the gospel that Paul preached and that the Thessalonian believers accepted and believed (1:5).

1. 1 Thess 1:9–10 a Summary of Paul’s Gospel As an echo of the gospel that Paul preached to the Thessalonians during his founding mission, vv. 9b–10 is in effect a summary of that gospel.6 According to Abraham J. Malherbe, it is not a summary of what Paul preached, but “what [the Thessalonians] had converted to.”7 But this distinction is immaterial, since the Thessalonians’ “faith” (v. 8) summarized in these two verses is none other than their acceptance of the gospel that Paul preached to them. Morna D. Hooker 5  Cf. S. Kim, “Paul’s Entry (εἴσοδος) and the Thessalonians’ Faith (1 Thess 1–3),” NTS 51 (2005): 519–42 (incorporated into the preceding Essay 1 in this volume). 6 Some scholars have claimed that 1:9b–10 is a quotation from a pre-Pauline confessional formula, baptismal hymn, or missionary preaching: e. g., G. Friedrich, “Ein Tauflied hellenistischer Judenchristen,” TZ 21 (1965): 502–16; E. Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (BNTC; London: Black, 1972), 85–87; U. Wilckens, Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte (WMANT 5; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1974), 81–91. However, some recent commentators have rejected this view: e. g., T. Holtz, Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher (EKKNT; Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1990), 55–59; C. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 85. I have supported with some additional arguments those who take the verses as Pauline: S. Kim, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 90–91. Cf. also M. D. Hooker, “1 Thess 1, 9–10: A Nutshell – but What Kind of Nut?” in Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion, Festschrift für M. Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger. and P. Schäfer; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 3:437–41. 7 A. J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians (AB; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 132.

1. 1 Thess 1:9–10 a Summary of Paul’s Gospel

47

also strongly disputes the view here propounded,8 in spite of her acceptance that with the formulation in vv. 9b–10 “Paul is reminding the Thessalonians of the gospel that he preached to them, and of its implications for their manner of life.”9 She believes that the formulation is “totally inadequate” as “a summary of the gospel itself” because Paul’s proclamation of the gospel could not possibly have run like this: 1. Abandon your idols and turn to the true and living God. 2. Serve him. 3. Wait for God’s Son to come from heaven. 4. His name is Jesus, and God raised him from the dead. 5. He will save us from the approaching wrath.10

Claiming that here “the death of Jesus is referred to only incidentally, and his resurrection is mentioned almost as an aside,” she says that this would be “a strange summary of the gospel.”11 But Hooker’s argument represents a most unimaginative, literalistic, and atomistic reading of vv. 9b–10. She apparently forgets that it is only a “summary” and not a full transcript of the gospel that Paul proclaimed and expounded probably for as long as three months. With her complaint that here “the death of Jesus is referred to only incidentally,” she reveals only the problem of her atomistic reading of the summary that leads her to neglect seeing the reference to Jesus’ death here in connection with the fuller references in 4:14 and 5:9–10 (cf. also 1:6; 2:14–15). But since 4:14, if not 5:9–10 also, clearly suggests that Paul taught the “death-formula” (Christ died for us/our sins) or the “pistis-formula” (to believe that Christ died for us/our sins and was raised)12 to the Thessalonians, we can see that the phrase “whom he raised from the dead” in our v. 10 is an adequate summary of that central element of Paul’s gospel preaching (cf. 1 Cor 15:1–5). Hooker apparently fails to imagine that in demanding his Thessalonian hearers to abandon their gods and turn to the “true and living God” Paul must have explained why their gods were mere “idols” and his God, the Father of Jesus Christ, is “the true and living God” (cf. 4:5). Without such an explanation, how could the Thessalonian Christians have abandoned their gods as idols and turned to the God of Israel as the true and living God? When Hooker argues, making an artificial distinction rather like Malherbe, that in vv. 9b–10 “Paul is describing … the Thessalonians’ response to the gospel, rather than the gospel itself,”13  8 Cf.

Kim, PNP, 91–92.  M. D. Hooker, “Concluding Reflections: ‘Our Gospel Came to You, not in word alone but in power also’ (1 Thess 1:5),” in Not in the Word Alone: The First Epistle to the Thessalonians (ed. M. D. Hooker; St. Paul’s Abbey-Rome: “Benedictina” Publishing, 2003), 158. 10  Ibid., 158. 11  Ibid. 12 Cf. W. Kramer, Christ, Lord, Son of God (SBT 50; London: SCM, 1966), 19–44. 13 Hooker, “Concluding Reflections,” 158 (emphasis original).  9

48

Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel

does she imagine that although Paul’s gospel preaching had not contained this explanation, the Thessalonians somehow made such a response? How could the Thessalonians have come to believe that God’s Son, whose name was Jesus, died, was raised, and was existing in heaven at present, unless Paul had taught them about Jesus’ death and resurrection and his exaltation as God’s Son in heaven? How could the Thessalonians come to wait for Jesus the Son of God and hope for his deliverance from the wrath to come, unless Paul had taught them about Christ’s parousia, the last judgment, and his salvation of the believers? Verses 9b–10 clearly suggest that Paul had taught the Thessalonians all these essential elements of his gospel preaching that we can verify in his other epistles. With this suggestion, these verses are revealed as a quite adequate “summary” of Paul’s gospel. In fact, Hooker herself goes on to expound the “theology and Christology” encapsulated in the concise formulation of vv. 9b–10 in the light of Paul’s Christological and theological statements in this and other epistles of Paul.14 Thus she implicitly treats the formulation as a summary of Paul’s teaching! The view that vv. 9b–10 are a summary of the gospel that Paul preached to the Thessalonians is no stranger than the view that 1 Cor 15:3b–5a is a summary of the gospel that he preached to the Corinthians: 1. Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; 2. he was buried; 3. he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures; 4. he appeared to Cephas.

Hooker would accept these four clauses as a “summary” of Paul’s gospel, since Paul explicitly states that with them he is reproducing the gospel that he preached to the Corinthians, even reflecting the “wording” of his preaching itself (τίνι λόγῳ …) (1 Cor 15:1–2). But then her manner of arguing against understanding our vv. 9b–10 as a summary of Paul’s gospel leads us to ask: Would she imagine that in Corinth Paul repeated only these four clauses, without any explanation, elaboration, and substantiation? Clearly each clause in 1 Cor 15:3b–5a is a summary heading of a whole narrative or doctrine. Similarly, each word, phrase, or clause in our 1 Thess 1:9b–10 must be treated as a keyword or summary that encapsulates a whole narrative or doctrine. While in 1 Cor 15:3b–5a Paul gives his own summary of his gospel that he preached in the language of the tradition, in our vv. 9b–10 he ostensibly quotes the report of the Macedonians, the Achaians, etc. about the Thessalonians’ “faith” (v. 8) in a succinct way. However, as we have seen, since the Thessalonians’ faith so succinctly summarized in our vv. 9b–10 is a response to his gospel, it reflects his gospel preaching. Since it is Paul himself who quotes the report of the Thessalonians’ faith that reflects his own gospel preaching, it requires little imagination to see that in our vv. 9b–10 Paul would 14 Hooker,

“Concluding Reflections,” 159–62.

2. Deliverance from God’s Wrath through the Atonement of the Son of God

49

quote it in such a way as to reflect his own gospel faithfully. Thus, Hooker’s objection to seeing our vv. 9b–10 as a summary of Paul’s gospel cannot stand. Since our vv. 9b–10 is a summary of the gospel that Paul preached to the Thessalonians and therefore each word, phrase, or clause in our vv. 9b–10 must be treated as a keyword or heading that encapsulates a whole narrative or doctrine, we need to expound the words and phrases and the whole of the summary in the light of Paul’s teachings in this epistle and the other epistles of his. Seen in this way, it is immediately apparent that the succinct summary of the gospel contains not only the death and resurrection of Christ, the focus of the saving event in the gospel definition of 1 Cor 15:3–5, but also his exaltation to the right hand of God in heaven to be his Son, his future parousia, and his consummation of salvation. Thus 1 Thess 1:9–10 is a much fuller summary of the gospel than 1 Cor 15:3b–5a! Anyway, here it is especially noteworthy that this gospel summary has Jesus as the Son of God at its center, reminding us of Paul’s definition or summary of his gospel in terms of the Son of God elsewhere (Rom 1:1–4, 9; 2 Cor 1:18–20; Gal 1:16; cf. Acts 9:20).

2. Deliverance from God’s Wrath through the Atonement of the Son of God From 1 Thess 1:9–10, it is obvious that the Son of God represents the “gospel” or the good news because he will return to “deliver us from the wrath to come.”15 Of all the Pauline passages where the “gospel” is defined in terms of the Son of God (Rom 1:1–4, 9; Gal 1:11–12, 15–16; 2 Cor 1:18–20; 1 Thess 1:5, 9–10), our passage is the only place where Paul elaborates the definition by immediately providing a soteriological ground for it. Our passage thus contains a clue that enables us to discern why Paul likes to make the Son of God the key term in the definition of the gospel. However, it is so compactly formulated that we need to carefully unpack it in order to see its implications as fully as possible. We may begin with the following line of reasoning: if Paul taught the readers that Jesus the Son of God would deliver them from God’s wrath at the last judgment, then he must also have explained how/why he would/could do it. How 15 The first element in Paul’s gospel that is reflected in 1 Thess 1:9–10 is monotheism and its logical requirement: there is only one “living and true God” (v. 9b), while all other so-called gods are mere idols, and therefore all human beings must repent of their idolatry and “serve” that God. It is obvious that among the polytheistic Gentiles Paul emphasized this fundamental element of the gospel (cf. 1 Cor 8:4–6; see n. 23 below). However, an announcement of the mere existence of one “living and true God” would not in itself spell a “gospel” or be good news. It would only be good news if that God is proclaimed as bringing salvation for us. This is precisely the concern of the second element of the gospel in our passage. Hence here we concentrate on an exposition of the work of God’s Son in v. 10, which is in fact the work of the one “living and true God” for our salvation.

50

Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel

would Paul have taught that Jesus the Son of God would/could deliver us from God’s wrath? It is a merit of I. Howard Marshall to ask this question and try to answer it in reference to 5:9–10 and Rom 5:9.16 1 Thess 5:9–10 shows Paul clearly linking Jesus’ deliverance of us from God’s wrath to his vicarious death for us. But how can Jesus’ vicarious death bring about our redemption from God’s wrath? In Rom 5:8–9 Paul answers: it is because his vicarious death was a death of atonement for our sins, so that it brings about our justification in the present, a justification that will be confirmed at the last judgment so that “we shall be saved through him from the wrath.” Paul follows this up with a further elaboration in the next verse in terms of present reconciliation through “the death of [God’s] Son” and the eschatological salvation through “his life” (Rom 5:10). This phrase “his life” in the second half of Rom 5:10 clearly refers to the resurrection (life) of Christ, the Son of God, as it is juxtaposed to “the death of [God’s] Son” in the first half of the verse. Since the future “salvation through his life” (i. e., the resurrection life of God’s Son) in Rom 5:10b is a reiteration of the future “salvation from the wrath [of God] through him” in Rom 5:9b, these two verses (Rom 5:9b and 10b) seem to have in view not just our sharing in Christ’s resurrection as well as his death,17 but also the intercession of the risen and exalted Christ as the Son of God at the last judgment, as in Rom 8:34c–e18 (cf. also Heb 7:25; see below). In view of the reference to Christ’s death in our 1 Thess 1:10, we may safely assume that in proclaiming his gospel (1 Thess 1:5), which is echoed in 1:9b–10, Paul included at least the thought of 1 Thess 5:9–10 (thus the theologia crucis is implicit in 1:10). Did he also elaborate the thought as in Rom 5:8–10? Pointing to the absence of the righteousness/justification language in 1 Thessalonians, many critics would deny this. But then how would Paul have explained the link between Jesus’ vicarious death and our deliverance from God’s wrath at the last judgment, which is after all an act of “justification”? Note how Rom 5:8–10 affirms that Christ died as God’s Son in atonement for our sins and we have now been justified and reconciled to God through his atoning sacrifice, as well as that we shall be saved from the wrath through his (resurrection) life. Some striking similarities between this statement and the formulation in 1 Thess 1:10 are unmistakable: “[God’s] Son … whom [God] raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.” This comparison leads us to see that here the reference to Jesus’ death as God’s Son abbreviates the thought of his vicarious atonement that is explained in Rom 5:8–10.  I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (NCC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 59. J. D. G.  Dunn, Romans 1–8 (WBC; Waco, TX: Word, 1988), 260; J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans (AB 33; New York: Anchor, 1992), 401. 18  So, O. Michel, Der Brief an die Römer (KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 183; P. Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an die Römer (NTD; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 76; D. J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 311. 16

17  Cf.

2. Deliverance from God’s Wrath through the Atonement of the Son of God

51

This view can be supported by further comparisons with similar formulations about the Son of God in Gal 4:4–5; Rom 7:24–8:4; 8:31–34. In Gal 4:4–5 Paul speaks of God having “sent forth his Son … in order to redeem [ἐξαγοράσῃ] those who are under the law.” This redemption refers to the “redemption from the curse of the law” (ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου) which Christ has wrought by bearing the curse of the law vicariously for us on the cross (Gal 3:13). Since “the curse of the law” is none other than the expression of or the basis for the wrath of God, redemption from the curse of the law is deliverance (ῥύεσθαι) from the wrath of God. In Rom 7:24–8:4 Paul has the natural human being enslaved to the law of sin cry out in desperation, “Who will deliver [ῥύσεται] me from this body of death?” Then Paul answers that God has wrought the deliverance through Jesus Christ. God did this by sending his Son to bear in his body the condemnation (κατάκριμα) for our sins on our behalf. The result of this saving act of God in his Son is liberation from condemnation, i. e., deliverance from the wrath of God. Thus, as in Gal 4:4–5, so also in Rom 7:24–8:4 Paul presents the Son of God as the agent of God’s work of deliverance from his wrath, and his death as the basis for that deliverance. This thought is resumed in Rom 8:31–34. Having expressed at the climax of his exposition of the gospel of justification his certainty of the consummation of salvation (“glorification”) of those whom God has predestined, called, and justified (Rom 8:28–30), in order to reassure the consummation of our justification (or deliverance from God’s wrath) at the last judgment, Paul first refers to God’s love: “He who has not spared his Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?” Secondly, he refers to the fact that God who has elected us is the judge who declares us righteous. Thirdly, he refers to the work of Christ (v. 34): Χριστὸς [Ἰησοῦς] ὁ ἀποθανών, μᾶλλον δὲ ἐγερθείς, ὃς καί ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὃς καὶ ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν (“It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us”). Thus, the references to God’s giving his Son up for us (v. 32) and Christ’s death (v. 34b) here resume the thought of the preceding 8:3–4 (and 5:8–10), God’s sending and giving his Son out of love to a vicarious death of atonement for our justification. Thus, by affirming the vicarious and atoning death of God’s Son for our justification or redemption from God’s wrath, Rom 5:8–10; Rom 7:24–8:4; 8:31–34; and Gal 4:4–5 along with 1 Thess 5:9–10 lead us to understand that the brief reference to the death of God’s Son in 1 Thess 1:9–10 is a summary of this thought and that Paul regards the death of God’s Son as the gospel because that has wrought our atonement and so will bring about the ultimate redemption from God’s wrath at the last judgment.

52

Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel

3. Deliverance from God’s Wrath through the Intercession of the Son of God In Rom 8:34, after affirming the death of Christ (v. 34b), Paul goes on to affirm his resurrection, exaltation, and intercession: Christ was raised victorious over all the evil forces; and he is sitting at the right hand of God as God’s plenipotentiary (= God’s Son). It is he who intercedes for us both now and at God’s last judgment,19 so that even if anybody brings any charge against us, there will be no condemnation for us. For the reference to Christ’s resurrection and sitting at the right hand of God (μᾶλλον δὲ ἐγερθείς, ὃς καί ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ) here, the title “Lord” or “Son of God” would have been more fitting (cf. Phil 2:9–10 and 1 Cor 15:24–28, which similarly reflect Ps 110:1 as our passage). The analogies of Gal 4:4–5 and Rom 7:24–8:4 also suggest that in this context of speaking about deliverance from condemnation, the title “Son of God” could have been used. But instead the title “Christ” is used here apparently because that title is firmly fixed for the dying formula (Χριστὸς [Ἰησοῦς] ὁ ἀποθανών),20 as well as because Paul desires to have a variant from God’s “Son” that was just used in the preceding v. 32.21 In any case, since Rom 8:34 is a continuation of the thought in Rom 8:32 (ὅς γε τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ οὐκ ἐφείσατο ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν πάντων παρέδωκεν αὐτόν), we may assume that in Rom 8:34 Paul thinks of Christ as having wrought atonement or redemption for us through his death as the Son of God (as in Rom 5:8–10; 7:24– 8:4; Gal 4:4–5) and as having been exalted as the Son of God to sit “at the right hand of God” (cf. Rom 1:3–4; 1 Cor 15:24–28). Here, therefore, Paul is affirming that Christ as the Son of God delivers us from condemnation through the intercession which he offers for us at the right hand of God (Rom 8:34c–e; cf. Heb 4:14–16), as well as through the atonement he wrought on the cross (Rom 8:32a, 34b; cf. Rom 3:24–26; 4:25). While the latter is the same thought as in Rom 5:8– 10; 7:24–8:4; Gal 4:4–5, the former is an additional thought. With it Paul seems to be making our justification at the last judgment doubly secure.

19 Pointing to the present tense of ἐντυγχάνει, M. Hengel, “Sit at My Right Hand!,” in Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 159, says that Paul has in mind the intercession of Christ both in the present and at the last judgment, and sees the present intercession of Christ as parallel to the intercession of the Spirit (Rom 8:26–27). This is right, but still the language of ἐγκαλεῖν, κατακρίνειν, and God as ὁ δικαιῶν in the context (8:33–34) suggests that here the focus is more on the last judgment. See P. Stuhlmacher, “Christus Jesus ist hier, der gestorben ist, ja vielmehr, der auch auferweckt ist, der zur Rechten Gottes ist und uns vertritt,” in Auferstehung – Resurrection: The Fourth Durham–Tübingen Research Symposium (WUNT 135; ed. F. Avemarie and H. Lichtenberger; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 355–57. 20 Cf. Kramer, Christ, Lord, Son of God, 26–28. 21  The varying use of God’s “Son” and “Christ” in Rom 5:8, 10 presents an exact parallel to that in Rom 8:32, 34 (in the reverse order): “Christ died for us” (5:8//8:34) and “the death of his Son” (5:10//8:32).

3. Deliverance from God’s Wrath through the Intercession of the Son of God

53

This thought of Christ Jesus as God’s Son delivering us from God’s wrath through his intercession at the last judgment seems to be implicit also in 1 Thess 1:10. This is suggested by 1 Thess 3:12–13, where Paul prays that the Lord Jesus “may make you increase and abound in love … so that he may establish your hearts blameless in holiness” when standing before God’s judgment seat “at the coming of the Lord Jesus with all his saints.” Here Paul clearly thinks of the Lord Jesus, the Son of God, interceding for the believers at the last judgment. Thus, just as 1 Thess 5:9–10 leads us to see implicit in 1 Thess 1:10 the thought of Christ Jesus the Son of God delivering us from God’s wrath at the last judgment through his atonement, so also 1 Thess 3:12–13 leads us to see implicit in it the thought of Christ Jesus the Son of God bringing about that ultimate redemption through his intercession. The two elements (atonement and intercession) of the Son’s work of delivering us from God’s wrath or condemnation that are suggested in Rom 8:34 seem to be thus implicitly assumed also in 1 Thess 1:10.22 We have already seen that in Rom 5:8–10 exactly the same combination of atonement and intercession by God’s Son is affirmed as the means of his deliverance of the believers from God’s wrath at the last judgment. Thus 1 Thess 1:10 builds a close parallel to the two passages of Romans (5:8–10 and 8:32–34).23

22 Cf.

Hengel, “Sit at My Right Hand!,” 159.  Note also the close affinities between 1 Thess 1:9–10 and Rom 2:4–6, which are clearly visible if we read the latter, as we should, in continuity with Rom 1:18–2:3. In Rom 2:4–6, addressing those who pass judgment on the Gentiles who turn their creaturely duty to serve the true God into serving idols and practicing all sorts of evils (Rom 1:18–31), Paul charges them of doing “the very same things” that they criticize of the idolatrous Gentiles (Rom 2:1–3). Then he calls them to “repentance” (μετάνοια), threatening that their failure to repent with their “hardened heart” will earn only God’s “wrath” on “the day of wrath and revelation of God’s righteous judgment” (Rom 2:4–9). The reference in 1 Thess 1: 9–10 to the Thessalonian Christians as having turned from idols and come to serve God and so as expecting now to be delivered from the coming wrath of God clearly suggests that during his mission in Thessalonica Paul preached the gospel in terms similar to what he does in Rom 1:18–2:9, or to what he is represented as having done in Athens (Acts 17:22–31). Seen in the light of this parallelism between 1 Thess 1:9–10 and Rom 1:18–2:9 as well as that between the former and Rom 5:8–10 and 8:32–34, the compact reference in 1 Thess 1:9–10 to the Son of God, Jesus, who was raised from the dead, coming from heaven to deliver us from the coming wrath, appears as a summary of the gospel of Jesus the Son of God that is first introduced in Rom 1:1–17 and then unfolded in Rom 3:21–8:39. This observation makes it even clearer that Paul preached in Thessalonica essentially the same gospel as in Romans (cf. Essay 12. “Paul’s Doctrine of Justification in 2 Thessalonians 1–2” in this volume pp. 285–87, 291–94 [sections 1.c & 2] below for the same conclusion from the extensive parallelism between 2 Thess 1–2 and Rom 1–2 in description of the “just judgment of God”). In response to such gospel preaching, the Thessalonian Christians repented of their idolatry and have come to serve the living and true God, putting faith in his Son, Jesus, who died for them and was raised up. So they can now confidently expect that for them the last judgment will not be God’s wrath but rather deliverance from it. Hence they eagerly wait for the coming of God’s Son Jesus, who will consummate their salvation (cf. 1 Thess 5:9). See further n. 46 below. 23

54

Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel

If the reference to the death of God’s Son in the context of speaking about deliverance from God’s wrath in 1 Thess 1:10 leads us to interpret this verse in connection with 1 Thess 5:9–10; Rom 5:8–9a+10a and Rom 8:32a+34b, as well as Rom 7:24–8:4 and Gal 4:4–5 (atonement), then the picture of God’s Son raised to sit at the right hand of God24 and the thought of his parousia lead us to interpret our verse in connection with 1 Thess 3:13; Rom 5:9b+10b and Rom 8:34c–e (intercession). At the last judgment in his parousia, the Son of God will deliver us from God’s wrath not only on the basis of the atonement he wrought on the cross, but also through his active intercession for us.25 Since in 1 Thess 1:10 the reference to the death of God’s Son is only oblique and not emphasized, the element of his intercession may be said to form the main focus while the element of his atonement remains in the background.

4. The Son of God as the Gospel26 It is noteworthy that in the three parallel passages of 1 Thess 1:10; Rom 5:9–10; and Rom 8:32–34 Paul uses Jesus’ title the Son of God for his work of salvation from God’s wrath or condemnation at the last judgment (cf. also Rom 7:24–8:4; Gal 4:4–5). It is also noteworthy that in all three passages Paul speaks of the consummation of salvation in terms of deliverance from God’s condemnation at the last judgment, even explicitly referring to the wrath of God in two of them (Rom 5:9–10 and 1 Thess 1:10). Since Christ Jesus as the Son of God delivers us from God’s condemnation or wrath through his vicarious death for our atonement on the cross and through his intercession at the right hand of God at the last judgment, it is understandable that Paul likes to define or summarize his gospel in terms of the Son of God.27 From this connection of the affirmation of Christ Jesus as God’s Son with his deliverance of sinners from God’s wrath through his atonement and intercession, 24  This is implicit in the combination of the title God’s Son, the reference to his resurrection, and the concept of “heaven” in 1 Thess 1:10. 25 Cf. P. Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, vol. 1: Grundlegung: Von Jesus und Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 335, for the integration of the atonement and intercession of Christ at the last judgment: “At the last judgment the exalted Christ can make his death of vicarious atonement effective for the sinners who believe in him, and, in this sense, intercede for them as their advocate before God, the δικαιῶν (Rom 8:34; cf. Isa 53:12).” For a more detailed explanation, see Stuhlmacher, “Christus Jesus ist hier, der gestorben ist …,” 355–57, who shows how both Rom 4:25 and 8:34 integrate the two elements, reflecting the work of the Servant in Isa 53. 26  The contents of this section are further developed in chapters 2–5, 10 of my book Justification. 27  It is unfortunate that, missing all this, Kramer (Christ, Lord, Son of God, 184–85) thinks that Paul uses the title “the Son of God” for no particular themes, but introduces it into varied contexts ad hoc.

4. The Son of God as the Gospel

55

we can also understand the unity of the famous double definition of the gospel in Rom 1:3–4 and 16–17. In Rom 1:3–4 Paul defines “the gospel of God” (1:1) as concerning [God’s] Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh and was declared Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness     by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.

It is generally agreed that the two relative clauses of this definition constitute a Jerusalem church confession, and that Paul cites it here by interpreting Christ (the “seed of David” – cf. Rom 15:12) raised up and installed as the “Son of God in power”28 in terms of our “Lord” Jesus Christ.29 The second half of this confessional formula (v. 4) is substantially the same as Rom 8:34: Christ, God’s Son (Rom 8:32), “who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God.”30 By exalting Christ through his resurrection to his right hand and so making him exercise his lordship (“Lord”) on his behalf in fulfillment of Ps 110:1, God has declared Christ (the “seed of David”) as his Son (“heir”) in fulfillment of 2 Sam 7:12–14 and Ps 2:7, so that he is now “the Son of God in power,” i. e., the Son of God who exercises God’s power. In 1 Cor 15:23–28 Paul unfolds those thoughts contained in this confession. God has installed Christ his Son as the king over all by subjecting all to his rule. So Christ the Son of God exercises God’s kingship that has been delegated to him by God the Father, in order to subdue all the rebellious evil forces, including the last enemy, death. When that task is complete, Christ God’s Son will return the kingship to God the Father. That means that the kingdom of God manifests itself in terms of the kingdom of Christ God’s Son in the present. Hence, in Col 1:13–14 there is an explicit reference to “the kingdom of [God’s] beloved Son,” and salvation is spoken of in terms of our deliverance from the Satanic kingdom (“the dominion of darkness”) and transference into the kingdom of God’s Son, “in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” All this makes it quite understandable that Paul refers to the confession of Rom 1:3–4 as the gospel: it is the gospel because it announces God’s installation of the Davidic Messiah Jesus 28  With the majority of recent commentators (e. g., E. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980], 12; C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans [ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975], 1:62; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 14; Moo, Romans, 48–49), the phrase “in power” should be taken with “the Son of God,” rather than with the participle ὁρισθέντος (pace R. Jewett, Romans [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007], 107). The following three pages share some material with the section 1 of my essay “Paul as an Eschatological Herald,” in Paul as Missionary (ed. T. Burke and B. Rosner; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2011; reprinted in this volume as Essay 16 below), as they were written at the same time. 29 Both the “Son of God” and the “Lord” may be used for the designation of Christ exalted to God’s right hand (cf. the next note). The former draws our attention more to his relationship (“heir”) to God, while the latter more to his actual exercise of divine power delegated to him. 30 Cf. Hengel, “Sit at My Right Hand!,” 157.

56

Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel

as his Son or viceroy who executes his saving kingship on his behalf and redeems us from the Satanic kingdom. Now, this would be well understandable to many inhabitants of the GrecoRoman world, who are accustomed to the notion of Caesar, the emperor, as god’s son as well as to regarding his birth or enthronement as εὐαγγέλιον. So, some Gentile readers of Romans may wonder whether in 1:3–4 Paul is announcing the εὐαγγέλιον of Jesus’ enthronement as the true emperor instead of Caesar. For Jewish readers, this impression may be even more pronounced. For by building an inclusio with his reference to Jesus’ kingly reign as the Davidic Messiah between the introduction of the gospel in Rom 1:3–4 and the concluding acclamation of it in 15:12, Paul apparently leads them to expect in the main body of the epistle an exposition of the gospel of the kingly reign of the Messiah Jesus in terms of Jewish national hope. However, in the main body of Romans, Paul does not say anything about replacement of the Roman Empire with the Davidic kingdom restored in Zion. Instead, he only presents the saving work of Jesus the Son of God in terms of his atoning death and resurrection, and explains his salvation in terms of overcoming the powers of sin, the flesh, the law, and death rather than deliverance from any political oppression.31 Nor does Paul say anything about the Jews’ sharing in the political rule of Jesus the Messiah over the Gentiles. Instead, he concentrates on explaining that the Gentiles as well as the Jews obtain justification and salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. So he reaches the climax of the epistle with a catena of OT citations (Ps 17:50; Deut 32:43; Ps 117:1; Isa 11:10) in order to celebrate how Jesus’ ministry for Israel as the Davidic Messiah in fulfillment of God’s promises to their patriarchs results in bringing the Gentiles to glorify God and share in the hope and joy with Israel in the messianic kingdom (15:7–13).

31  D. Georgi argues for an anti-imperial reading of Romans by highlighting the confession of Jesus’ messianic kingship in Rom 1:3–4 as well as Paul’s use of such words and concepts as god’s son, lord, gospel, salvation, justice, faith, peace, freedom, hope, etc. that are prominent in the imperial propaganda (“God Turned Upside Down,” in Paul and Empire [ed. R. A.  Horsley; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1997], 148–52; cf. also N. T. Wright, “Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire,” in Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation; Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl [ed. R. A. Horsley; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2000], 166–73; idem, Paul: In Fresh Perspective [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005], 76–79). However, there is little in the body of Romans that may be construed as issuing a challenge to Caesar’s rule or exposing the fake nature of the Roman justice, peace, and salvation (σωτηρία). So Georgi claims that in Romans Paul presents (or should we say “hides”) his counter-imperial gospel in a “protective code” (ibid., 148–57). Thus Georgi tries to have his cake and eat it, as other like-minded authors often do in proposing to interpret Pauline epistles in an anti-imperial sense. Anyway, it is difficult to imagine Paul exhorting the Roman Christians to obey the Roman authorities and pay taxes in 13:1–7, while presenting the gospel of Jesus Christ as an anti-imperial gospel. See S. Kim, Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and the Roman Empire in the Writings of Paul and Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), esp. 16–21; also Essays 10 and 11 in this volume below.

4. The Son of God as the Gospel

57

Before being concerned with the question whether Paul presents the gospel in Rom 1:3–4 in order to counter the Roman imperial “gospel,” we are to appreciate it properly first as the Jerusalem church’s and also Paul’s re-presentation of Jesus’ gospel of God’s kingdom in the light of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. With this confession the Jerusalem church declares that, by raising from the dead Jesus, who had represented God’s kingdom as the Messiah during the time of his flesh, God has confirmed him as his Son who executes his divine power through the Holy Spirit. As we have seen, Paul faithfully represents this gospel of the Jerusalem church by speaking of God delegating his kingship to Christ Jesus his Son for the present in 1 Cor 15:23–28, as well as of “the kingdom of [God’s] beloved Son” in Col 1:13–14. It is often said that throughout his epistles Paul refers to the kingdom of God only a few times (Rom 14:17; 1 Cor 4:20; 6:9, 10; 15:50; Gal 5:21; Col 4:11; 1 Thess 2:11–12; 2 Thess 1:5; cf. 1 Cor 15:24; Col 1:13). However, it is important to appreciate the fact that he refers to it at least eight times, thereby indicating that he knows of Jesus’ gospel of God’s kingdom, which should really be no surprise. His interpretation of “[God’s] Son in power” in terms of the “Lord” in Rom 1:4 as well as his elaboration of it in terms of God’s delegation of his kingship to his Son Jesus Christ in 1 Cor 15:23–28 and Col 1:13–14 (cf. also 1 Cor 8:6; Phil 2:9–11) leads us to understand that with his frequent reference to the “Lord” Jesus Christ Paul in fact expresses the present kingship of God’s Son, Jesus Christ. Both 1 Cor 15:23–28, with its idea of the Son destroying the evil forces on behalf of God with the kingly power delegated to him by God the Father, and Col 1:13–14, with its language of the “deliver[ance] from the dominion of darkness and transfer[ence] into the kingdom of [God’s] beloved Son,” clearly indicate that Paul maintains the apocalyptic sense of Jesus’ gospel of the kingdom of God that is set over against the kingdom of Satan (e. g., Mark 3:22–27//Matt 12:22–30//Luke 11:14–23; Luke 10:18; 13:10–17). However, one of the ways Jesus understood redemption in God’s kingdom from Satan’s kingdom was in terms of forgiveness of sins and liberation from the ill effects of sin, i. e., the various forms of suffering that arise from subjection to Satan’s kingship. This is clear already in the Lord’s Prayer (Luke 11:2–4//Matt 6:9–13), where the petition for the coming of God’s kingdom is associated with the petition for forgiveness of sins as well as the petition for protection from Satanic temptation. Further, it is also clearly visible in the account of Jesus’ healing of a paralytic in Mark 2:1–12 and parr., in which Jesus as the Son of Man who exercises God’s kingly authority (Dan 7:13–14) heals the paralytic by declaring forgiveness of his sins. That Jesus understood redemption in God’s kingdom in terms of forgiveness of sins and restoration of sinners to God is most clearly manifested in the table fellowship that Jesus offers to sinners as a foretaste of the banquet in the consummated kingdom of God, declaring that as the bearer of God’s kingdom he has come to call sinners [out of Satan’s kingdom into God’s kingdom] (Mark 2:15–17 and parr.; Matt 15:24; Luke 15:1–32; 19:1–10;

58

Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel

Matt 11:19//Luke 7:34; cf. Matt 8:11//Luke 13:29; Mark 14:25 and parr.).32 This understanding could be demonstrated further through a consideration of Jesus’ attitude to the temple and his view of his own death, which would help ascertain his view of the relationship between his kingdom gospel and his death.33 But obviously such controversial topics cannot be discussed here. Here it is enough to observe that apparently Paul cherishes the ransom saying (Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28; 1 Cor 9:19, 22; 10:33; 1 Thess 2:6–8; cf. also 1 Tim 2:5–6; Tit 2:13–14) as well as the eucharistic saying (Mark 14:17–25 and parr.; 1 Cor 11:23–26) as genuine words of Jesus. For it indicates that his belief in the death of Christ Jesus as an atoning and covenant-establishing sacrifice, which has made us “saints” or the holy and righteous people of God or his kingdom (cf. 1 Cor 6:1–11), is based not just on the post-Easter confessions of the church (e. g., Rom 3:24–26; 4:25; 1 Cor 15:3–5; 11:23–26), but also on what he considers to be genuine teaching of Jesus himself.34 Therefore, by interpreting the kingdom of God’s Son in terms of “redemption, the forgiveness of sins” in Col 1:13–14 and destruction of death (sc., “the wages of sin,” Rom 6:23) as the last enemy in 1 Cor 15:23–28, as well as by maintaining the apocalyptic sense of the kingdom of God/God’s Son in battle against the kingdom of Satan, Paul faithfully re-presents Jesus’ gospel of the kingdom of God from the post-Easter perspective.35 Now, both Col 1:13–14, with the interpretation of the kingdom of God’s Son that overcomes “the dominion of darkness” in terms of “redemption, the forgiveness of sins,” and 1 Cor 15:23–28, with the designation of death as “the last” of all the “enemies” (“every rule and every authority and every power”) that the Son of God would destroy with his divine kingship (cf. also 1 Cor 15:51–57 for the final victory over the alliance of sin, the law, and death at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ), clearly indicate that the two categories are in fact two sides of 32 Cf. D. Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 71–80, for further correspondence between the teachings of Jesus and Paul on the kingdom of God. Wenham’s efforts to appreciate their common association of the kingdom of God with righteousness (Rom 14:17; 1 Cor 6:9–10; Gal 5:21; 1 Thess 2:12; cf. Matt 5:20; 6:33; Mark 2:17; Luke 15:7, 10; 18:14) should be strengthened with our observation here about their common association of the kingdom of God with forgiveness of sins or redemption of sinners. 33 Cf. S. Kim, “Jesus – the Son of God, the Stone, the Son of Man, and the Servant: The Role of Zechariah in the Self-Designations of Jesus,” in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of E. Earle Ellis for His 60th Birthday (ed. G. F. Hawthorne and O. Betz; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 134–48. Now see Appendix: “Jesus and the Temple” in this volume below. 34  Cf. S. Kim, “Imitatio Christi (1 Corinthians 11:1): How Paul Imitates Jesus Christ in Dealing with Idol Food (1 Corinthians 8–10),” BBR 13 (2003): 193–226 (now reprinted as Essay 15 in this volume below). Cf. R. Riesner, “Back to the Historical Jesus through Paul and His School (The Ransom Logion – Mark 10.45; Matthew 20.28),” JSHJ 1 (2003): 171–99. See Essays 4 “Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings as a Basis for Paul’s Gospel” and 5 “Jesus’ Ransom Saying (Mark 10:45 par.) and Eucharistic Saying (Mark 14:17–25 and parr.) Echoed in 1 Thessalonians and Other Pauline Epistles” in this volume below. 35 An apology for reusing here the material that appears in my Justification, 129–33.

4. The Son of God as the Gospel

59

one and the same coin. Just as Jesus concretizes in his kingdom gospel the apocalyptic sense of deliverance from Satan’s kingdom in terms of forgiveness of sins and liberation from the ill effects of sins, so also does Paul concretize the gospel of the kingdom of God’s Son in terms of forgiveness of sins and redemption from death, the effect of sin. Galatians 1:4 illustrates this point further, as there Paul specifies the purpose for Christ’s giving himself to an atoning death “for our sins” as our “deliverance from this evil age,” the age ruled by “the god of this age” (2 Cor 4:4; cf. also 1 Cor 2:6–8). Thus, our deliverance through God’s Son from the Satanic kingdom and transference into the kingdom of God in which Christ God’s Son reigns on God’s behalf is both an act of forgiveness of our sins of having obeyed Satan and his idol representatives and an act of restoring us to the right, proper relationship to the living and true God, our creator (cf. 1 Thess 1:9–10). So, justification is indeed a Herrschaftswechsel or lordship-transfer.36 It is then not difficult to understand the unity of the two definitions of the gospel in Rom 1:3–4 and 1:16–17. We can see that, similarly to 1 Cor 15:23–28 (cf. 15:51–57) and Col 1:13–14, with the two definitions side by side in Rom 1 Paul is affirming God’s installation of Jesus as his Son to exercise his kingship (1:3–4), in terms of God’s justifying righteousness (1:16–17). In Romans Paul concentrates on presenting his gospel in the category of God’s justifying righteousness, or Christ’s atoning death and resurrection that brings about justification of all believers. Yet he lets us appreciate also the category of destruction of the Satanic forces that stands in the background as the larger cosmic framework for the anthropological focus of our justification (cf. Rom 1:18–32; 8:18–39; 12:1–2; 16:20). Thus, also in Romans Paul teaches that the work of Christ, God’s Son, in delivering us from the Satanic forces by God’s kingly power is the same as his work of atonement and intercession that brings about our justification or our restoration to the right relationship with God, which is our restoration to the kingdom of God, our creator.37 It is not just the parallelism between Rom 1:3–4 on the one hand and 1 Cor 15:23–28 and Col 1:13–14 on the other hand that leads us to make such an interpretation of the two definitions of the gospel in Rom 1. Paul gives more indications for this already in Rom 1:3–4 itself.38 We have already noted that Rom 1:4

36  Cf. E. Käsemann, “Gottesgerechtigkeit bei Paulus,” in Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen (vol. 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 185–93. 37 Note that in Rom 8:31–39 also Paul presents justification or acquittal at the last judgment as redemption from the Satanic forces. This is made especially clear by the parallelism of the four τίς clauses in 8:33, 34, 35, 39 (in v. 39, the clause “… τις κτίσις ἑτέρα δυνήσεται ἡμᾶς χωρίσαι ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ θεοῦ …” is given as the answer to the three preceding questions formulated with the interrogative τίς). Romans 12:1–2 also implicitly contains the idea that the justified ones are those who have been redeemed from “this age” (cf. 2 Cor 4:4; also 1 Cor 2:6–8). 38  An apology for reusing in the next few paragraphs the material that is contained in my Justification, 53–64.

60

Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel

parallels 8:32–34 with the thought of Christ’s exaltation to the right hand of God as his Son or viceroy (Ps 110:1). Now, compare Rom 1:3 and Gal 4:4: (περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ)

τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα … (Rom 1:3) ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός … (Gal 4:4)

This comparison makes it clear that in Rom 1:3–4 with his own introductory preface περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Paul makes the confession take on the ideas of the Son’s preexistence, his origin from God’s transcendence, and his incarnation. This leads us to compare Rom 1:3 also with Rom 8:3, where Paul employs the “sending formula” to express the same thoughts as in Gal 4:4. Then, we may assume that between the two lines of the confession in Rom 1:3–4, i. e., between the affirmation of the preexistent Son’s incarnation as the Davidic Messiah (1:3) and the affirmation of his installation as “the Son of God in power” through or from (ἐκ) his resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:4), Paul is conscious of the redemptive work of God’s Son in his death that he affirms in the “sending formula” of Rom 8:3–4 and Gal 4:4–5, as well as in Rom 5:8–10; 8:32–34 (compare also the “giving-up formula” of Rom 8:32 with that in Gal 2:20).39 If so, when Paul cites the confession of Rom 1:3–4, he would have in mind these ideas in those Romans and Galatians passages as well as the ideas in the parallel passages of 1 Cor 15:23–28 and Col 1:13–14: “the gospel of God” concerns God’s Son whom God sent to be born of the seed of David (as the Messiah of Israel), gave up to a death of vicarious atonement for sins, and raised up to his right hand to wield his power on his behalf (i. e., to redeem us from Satan’s kingdom of sin and death and transfer us into God’s kingdom of righteousness and life) and intercede for us at the last judgment.40 The gospel is an announcement of those saving acts of God with or through his Son. So it is quite understandable that in Rom 1:17 Paul says that “in [the gospel] God’s righteousness is revealed,” as in the proclamation or narration of such acts of God, his faithfulness to his covenant with Israel and to his whole creation is made manifest – a faithfulness that leads him to restore to the right relationship with himself those who have been estranged from him through their sins. God’s righteousness or covenant faithfulness was revealed, first of all, in his 39  Cf. G. Bornkamm, Paulus (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969), 250–51: “From this it is understandable that the title [sc. the Son of God] has its firm place exactly within the Pauline justification doctrine [Gal 1:15 f.; 3; 4; Rom 8] and includes in itself the saving significance of Christ’s death as well as his resurrection [Rom 5:10; 8:29].” 40 Here those who are more comfortable with an “atomistic” exegesis may suspect an eisegesis, i. e., reading too much into the short passage of Rom 1:3–4. But such critics are urged to ask whether it is realistic to think that Paul could introduce the gospel of God’s Son in that passage without thinking of those elements of the saving work of God’s Son that he has explained in his earlier epistles and is again about to explain so appreciatively in the same Epistle to the Romans.

4. The Son of God as the Gospel

61

acts themselves of sending and giving Christ his Son up to an atoning death (Rom 3:21–26), but it is revealed also in the gospel, in the news of those acts of God (Rom 1:17). In 1:2 Paul has already underlined this nature of the gospel (i. e., the embodiment of God’s covenant faithfulness or “righteousness”) by saying that the gospel represents the fulfillment of what God “promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures.” Thus both 1:2 and 1:17a affirm God’s righteousness embodied in the gospel, strengthening the view that the two definitions of the gospel in 1:1–4 and 1:16–18 should be seen in unity. Whoever believes in the gospel or accepts the gospel by faith appropriates God’s righteousness (i. e., his saving acts that he has wrought through his Son in faithful fulfillment of his covenant promises), so that he or she is justified (i. e., forgiven of his/her sins and restored to the right relationship with God). Thus, he or she is redeemed or delivered from Satan’s kingdom of sin and death and transferred into God’s kingdom of righteousness and life. That is, he or she is delivered from God’s wrath for having been a subject of Satan’s kingdom (cf. Rom 1:18; 2:1–11; 5:8–10; 1 Thess 1:10; 5:9–10), and made a subject of God’s kingdom who will “inherit” all the blessings of God’s kingdom (cf. 1 Cor 6:9–10; 15:50; Gal 5:21; 1 Thess 2:12; 2 Thess 1:5), or a child of God who by participating in Christ’s divine sonship will be conformed to his image (i. e., will be made to be like him, God’s Son) and “inherit” divine glory with him (8:14–17, 29–30; also Gal 4:4–6).41 So, again, it is quite understandable that in Rom 1:16 Paul defines the gospel as “the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith.”42 There is an inclusio between introducing the gospel in this way in Rom 1:1–4, 9 + 16–18 and concluding the exposition of the gospel in terms of the Son of God who justifies or delivers us from condemnation at the last judgment through his atonement and intercession in Rom 8:3–4, 31–39.43 In the climax of his exposition of the gospel, Paul triumphantly celebrates the love of God for us that is manifested in his saving acts through his Son, as it would faithfully preserve us to the consummation of salvation, overcoming all the diabolic forces (8:31–39; cf. also vv. 28–30). It looks quite like an exposition and eschatological application of God’s righteousness (or covenant faithfulness) that he said is manifested in the 41  The positive side of justification, i. e., restoration to the right relationship with God, the creator, can, of course, be expressed not only in terms of adoption into God’s family as his children, but also in terms of becoming the people of God’s kingdom (e. g., 1 Thess 2:12) or the kingdom of God’s Son, i. e., God’s kingdom in which Jesus Christ as God’s Son (“heir” or “viceroy”) rules on God’s behalf (Col 1:13). The latter can also be expressed in terms of being “in the Lord” (e. g., Phil 4:4; 1 Thess 3:8), i. e., in the sphere of Christ’s lordship, to which believers are transferred at baptism through the acclamation “Jesus is Lord” (Rom 10:9), so that they may live as “righteous” in dependence upon and obedience to his lordship. 42 Cf. Bornkamm, Paulus, 128–29, 249–51. 43  See below pp. 140–41 for the view that Rom 1:16 and Rom 8:34 together reflect Jesus’ Son of Man saying of Mark 8:38 and parr., and Luke 12:8–9//Matt 10:32–33 (cf. Phil 1:19–20), which strengthens the suggestion that they form an inclusio.

62

Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel

gospel of God’s Son, Jesus Christ, the Lord, in the introductory section of the epistle (1:3–4, 16–17). Our view that the two definitions of the gospel in Rom 1:3–4 and 1:16–17 form a unity because Paul conceives of Christ Jesus the Son of God (or God’s acts with/through him) as embodying God’s “righteousness” or covenant faithfulness is well supported by Paul’s emphatic statement in 2 Cor 1:18–20. For there again, summarizing the gospel that he previously preached to the Corinthians, in terms of “the Son of God Jesus Christ,” Paul declares thus: “God is faithful … For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached by us among you …; in him it is always Yes. For all the promises of God find their Yes in him.” Thus, for Paul the Son of God (Jesus Christ) embodies God’s faithfulness to his people. In 1 Cor 1:9 we have the same thought: “God is faithful, by whom you were called into participation [κοινωνία] in his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.” At our baptism God called us to appropriate or actualize by faith his Son’s death of vicarious atonement for us, and so we came to actualize our inclusion or participation in God’s Son, our inclusive substitute,44 in his atoning death. Thus, we came to be in the κοινωνία of God’s Son, or to participate in his sonship,45 sharing his Spirit, so that we might call God “abba” as Jesus did, and expect to “inherit” his glory as “fellow heirs [συγκληρονόμοι] of God with Christ” (Rom 8:14–17; Gal 4:4–6). Now, note that this statement in 1 Cor 1:9 is provided as the ground for the conviction that Paul expresses in the preceding statement in 1 Cor 1:7b–8 (“… you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will confirm [βεβαιώσει] you to the end inaccusable [ἀνεγκλήτους] in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ”). God has proved himself to be faithful to his covenant in making his Son atone for our sins and letting us share in his sonship. Since he is so faithful, he will also see to it that we persevere to the end and obtain full justification at the last judgment. But in vv. 7–8 it is actually stated that the Lord Jesus Christ will help us obtain this consummation of salvation at the last judgment. The logical connection between vv. 7–8 and v. 9 demands that we read the Lord Jesus Christ doing this as the agent of God, so that what the Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, will do should ultimately be ascribed to God – to the God who brings about the whole process 44 For this concept of “inclusive substitute,” cf. H. Gese, “Die Sühne,” in Zur biblischen Theologie: Alttestamentliche Vorträge (München: Kaiser, 1977), 95–97; O. Hofius, “Sühne und Versöhnung: Zum paulinischen Verständnis des Kreuzestodes Jesu,” in Paulusstudien (WUNT 51; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), 41–48; Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie, 1:138, 193, 198; W. Pannenberg, Christ – God and Man (London: SCM, 1968), 264 ff. 45  Κοινωνία in 1 Cor 1:9 should be taken in the same sense as in 10:16–17: taking the eucharistic cup and bread actualizes our participation respectively in the blood of Christ that was shed for us and in the body of Christ that was delivered up for us or for many (similarly A. C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], 104; also W. Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther [1. Kor 1,1–6,11] [EKKNT 7/1; Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1991], 123).

Summary and Conclusion

63

of our salvation out of his faithfulness to his people and his whole creation. But still, in the description of the Lord Jesus Christ’s saving activities in vv. 7–8, we may see implied the idea of his intercession at the last judgment as in 1 Thess 3:13. Then, we may note here at least an indirect association of the title the Son of God with the idea of perseverance of the believers through his intercession as in Rom 8:32–34. Then, with this fact as well as the idea of waiting for the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, 1 Cor 1:7b–9 presents a close parallel to 1 Thess 1:10 and Rom 8:18–19 + 31–39. As the agent of God who actually carries out God’s covenant promises, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, has restored us to the right relationship to God (i. e., made us his children and heirs) through his atonement for us and will consummate that justification at the last judgment through his intercession. So the Son of God stands for the gospel.

Summary and Conclusion 1 Thess 1:9–10 is a summary of Paul’s gospel adhered to by the Thessalonian believers (cf. 1 Thess 1:5). The summary, when expounded in the light of the related passages both in 1 Thessalonians and in the other Pauline epistles, turns out to contain the following ideas: Jesus is the Christ who died for our sins and was raised (cf. 4:14; 5:9–10); he is exalted as the Lord and the Son of God; and he will come for the judgment of the world and the salvation of his own people (cf. 3:12–13; 4:13–5:11). His salvation is, negatively put, deliverance from God’s wrath (cf. 5:9), and, positively put, election as his people or children (cf. 1:4) or calling into God’s kingdom and his glory (cf. 2:12), or living with the risen and returning Lord always (cf. 4:17; 5:10). This salvation is wrought by means of the atoning death of Christ Jesus Christ, the Son of God, for us (cf. 4:14; 5:9–10), and will be consummated through the intercession that he will offer as God’s Son and the Lord before God’s judgment seat in his second coming (cf. 3:12–13). The believers who are waiting to obtain salvation through Christ’s atonement and intercession need to “stand fast in the Lord” (3:8) and maintain a sanctified and disciplined life, especially a life of love, in obedience to the Lord (3:12–13; 4:1–2) through the help of the Holy Spirit (4:8), in spite of the afflictions they suffer at the hands of the opponents of the Christian faith (2:12; chs. 4–5). This message is basically the same as that of the other Pauline epistles. There is a close affinity between 1 Thess 1:10 and several key passages in the Pauline epistles such as Rom 5:8–10; 7:24–8:4, 32–34; Gal 3:13; 4:4–6: they all affirm that the atoning death of Christ Jesus as God’s Son is the means of our redemption from God’s wrath or condemnation at the last judgment. Rom 5:8–10 and 8:32–34 are especially close to 1 Thess 1:10 with their references or allusions to the intercession of Jesus Christ as God’s Son as well as to his atonement for that redemption.

64

Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel

This means that Paul preached the gospel in the category of justification to the Thessalonians just as he did to the Galatians and the Romans!46 What these passages commonly affirm, namely, that Christ Jesus as God’s Son delivers sinners from God’s wrath through his atoning sacrifice on the cross and his intercession at the last judgment, helps us understand the unity of the famous double definition of the gospel in Rom 1:3–4 and 16–17. Rom 1:3–4 is the Jerusalem church’s post-Easter re-presentation of Jesus’ gospel of God’s kingdom, with its declaration that, by raising from the dead Jesus, who had represented God’s kingdom as the Messiah in his earthly life, God has confirmed him as his Son who executes his divine power through the Holy Spirit. Paul faithfully represents this gospel by speaking of God’s having delegated his kingship to Christ Jesus his Son for the present in 1 Cor 15:23–28, as well as of “the kingdom of [God’s] beloved Son” in Col 1:13–14. This parallelism of Rom 1:3–4 with 1 Cor 15:23–28 and Col 1:13–14 leads us to see that by setting two definitions of the gospel side by side in Rom 1 Paul is affirming God’s installation of Jesus as his Son to exercise his kingship (1:3–4), in terms of God’s justifying righteousness (1:16–17), just as he affirms the kingship of Christ, God’s Son, in terms of his destruction of (sin, the law and) death along with all other evil forces in 1 Cor 15:23–28 (cf. 15:51–57), and in terms of “redemption, the forgiveness of sins” in Col 1:13–14. With such an affirmation Paul again faithfully re-presents Jesus’ gospel of God’s kingdom, his affirmation of God’s kingdom chiefly in terms of forgiveness of sins and restoration of sinners to God.47 46  See n. 23 above. See also Essay 12 “Paul’s Doctrine of Justification in 2 Thessalonians 1–2” below. Cf. also the words of Bornkamm, Paulus, 250–51, cited in n. 39 above. This is, of course, a far cry from the view of the majority of scholars, who, pointing to the fact that Paul does not explicitly present the doctrine of justification in 1 Thessalonians as in Galatians and Romans, argue that Paul developed it later. But they usually do not take into account the fact that in 1 Thessalonians Paul does not unfold his gospel in any substantial way at all, except abbreviating it in 1:9b–10; 4:14; 5:9–10, etc. Nor do they make serious efforts to unpack the implications of those summary formulae beyond treating them in a positivistic and atomistic manner as mere skeleton references to the saving event, as if those few words had constituted all that Paul actually said in his gospel preaching, rather than being the short summaries of that preaching. Against this common assumption, see M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer, Paul between Damascus and Antioch (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 301–10; R. Riesner, Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 394– 403; also my essay “Justification by Grace and through Faith in 1 Thess,” in PNP, 85–100. Cf. further S. Kim, “Paul’s Common Paraenesis (1 Thess 4–5; Phil 2–4; and Rom 12–13): The Correspondence between Romans 1:18–32 and 12:1–2 and the Unity of Romans 12–13,” TynBul 62 (2011): 109–39 (reprinted as Essay 11 in this volume). 47  This essay represents only part one of a more extended study. In part two, which is omitted here due to space limitation, I go on to demonstrate that the idea of the future coming of the Son of God from heaven in 1 Thess 1:10 is Paul’s representation of the idea of the parousia of the Son of Man in Jesus’ sayings (cf. 1 Thess 3:13; 4:13–5:11) and that Paul preached the gospel of God’s Son delivering us from God’s wrath through his atoning death and intercession on the basis of Jesus’ sayings of the Son of Man given up for a vicarious atonement (Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28; Mark 14:21–25 and parr.) and interceding for his own at the last judgment (Luke 12:8–9//

Summary and Conclusion

65

This whole consideration leads us to understand better what the gospel is for Paul. For Paul affirming Jesus Christ as the Son of God means that he is the one sent by God to be his fully empowered agent in redemption as well as in creation (cf. Col 1:13–20; also 1 Cor 8:6). So Jesus Christ as the Son of God executes God’s kingship on his behalf, redeeming us from the Satanic kingdom of sin and death and transferring us into God’s kingdom of righteousness and life. The redemption is wrought through his vicarious death of atonement for us on the cross and his intercession at the last judgment. So he redeems us from God’s wrath and justifies us, that is, he brings about our forgiveness of sins and our restoration to the right relationship to God, so that we may once more live out of the infinite love and riches of the creator, or, to speak in Paul’s metaphor, so that as God’s adopted children we may inherit his glory. All these saving acts of God’s Son Jesus Christ are ultimately God’s saving acts, as God has sent the preexistent Son to be born as a human being, gave him up to the vicarious death of atonement for us, and raised him up to his right hand in order to exercise his kingship and intercede for us (cf. Ps 110:1, 4). God has wrought these saving acts through his Son out of his faithfulness to his covenant with his people and the whole creation. Therefore, Jesus Christ the Son of God is the embodiment of God’s covenant faithfulness or his righteousness or his love (Rom 5:8–10; 8:32; cf. also Gal 2:20). Thus Jesus Christ the Son of God spells the “gospel,” the good news of God’s salvation for the whole world. Hence Paul summarizes the gospel in terms of the Son of God in 1 Thess 1:10 and Gal 1:16 as well as in Rom 1:3–4, 9 and 2 Cor 1:19–20 (cf. also 1 Cor 1:7–9 and Col 1:13–14). If Jesus Christ the Son of God is the fully empowered agent of God in redemption (and creation) and therefore the embodiment of God’s covenant faithfulness or his righteousness or his love, he is the revealer of God, the image of God (2 Cor 4:4, 6; Col 1:15–20). He is the embodied form of the immanence of the transcendent God. He is truly the “Immanuel,” God with us (cf. Matt 1:23; Isa 7:14). Here is the beginning of the insight into the triune Godhead in which Christ Jesus God’s Son, the Lord, is included (cf., e. g., 1 Cor 8:6; John 1:1–18; 5:19–24; 14:8–11; Rev 4–5).48 Only in Christ Jesus the Son of God, in the loving immanence of the transcendent (almighty) God,49 do human beings and all creMatt 10:32–33 and Mark 8:38 and parr.). This demonstration seeks to show even further the close continuity between Paul’s gospel and Jesus’ gospel, as well as to reconstruct the gospel that Paul preached in Thessalonica even more fully than I have done in part one here. The part two is now developed in Essay 4 “Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings as a Basis for Paul’s Gospel (1 Thess 1:9–10 and Rom 1:3–4)” below in this volume. 48  For an elucidation of the religion-historical or tradition-historical background of this in the OT–Judaism, cf. Hengel, Sohn, 35–89; further, R. Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008). 49  Paul does not explicitly stress the almighty power of God in connection with the affirmation of Jesus as the Son of God as he does the righteousness, faithfulness, or love of God, but he

66

Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel

ation have hope of overcoming their finitude and its consequence, death, and of obtaining life  – “eternal life” (the life of the age to come or the kingdom of God, i. e., divine life). Without him, human beings are left to their own finite resources (humanism), no matter whether they are atheists (since they have no God but only themselves the finite beings) or pantheists (since they have no God extra nos) or deists (since they have no God who comes pro nobis). This is the ultimate reason why the Son of God, the transcendent God with and for us, is the gospel for humankind and the whole creation.50

presupposes or implies it not only in his affirmation of God as the creator and Christ his Son as his agent of creation and redemption (Col 1:13–20) but especially often in his statements about God’s raising Jesus up from the dead and exalting him to be his Son or “Lord,” subjugating all the evil forces, including death (Rom 1:3–4; 8:31–39; 1 Cor 15:23–28; 1 Thess 1:10; cf. also Phil 2:9–11; 3:20–21; 1 Cor 1:18–25). 50  Cf. Bornkamm, Paulus, 250; Hengel, Sohn, 144.

3. The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians Continuity and Unity of Paul’s Gospel in 1 Thessalonians and in His Later Epistles 1. The Unity of 1 Thess 1:10 and Rom 1:2–4 + 16–17 In the preceding essay, I have argued, inter alia, (1) that the ostensible report of the Thessalonian Christians’ “faith” in 1 Thess 1:9b–10 is in fact Paul’s summary of the gospel that he preached to them and they accepted as “the word of God” (1:5; 2:13); (2) that the gospel summarized in 1 Thess 1:10 in terms of God’s Son Jesus who died and was raised up and will come from heaven to deliver us from God’s wrath at the last judgment is the same gospel that is summarized in Romans 1:2–4 + 16–18 and then briefly re-presented in Rom 5:8–10 and elaborated on in Rom 8; and (3) that this shows that 1 Thessalonians and Romans present essentially the same gospel of God’s justification of sinners through his Son Jesus Christ – through his atoning death on the cross and his intercession at the last judgment.

2. Parallelism between Paul’s Gospel Preached at the Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:16b–48) and Thessalonica (Acts 17:1–9) and Paul’s Gospel in Rom 1:1–17 This view is supported by Luke’s reports of the gospel that Paul preached at the Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13:16b–52) and at Thessalonica (Acts 17:1–9). First of all, see how close a parallelism Paul’s sermon at the Pisidian Antioch shows to Paul’s gospel of Rom 1:1–5 + 16–17: (a) Jesus, the “seed” (σπέρμα) of David: Acts 13:23 //Rom 1:3 (b) Paul preaches the gospel (εὐαγγελιζόμεθα) that God promised (ἐπαγγελίαν) to the Fathers and has fulfilled to us: Acts 13:32–33 (or 17–37)//Rom 1:1–2 (c) God raised (ἀναστήσας) Jesus, as it is written in Ps 2:7, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you:” God “raised [ἀνέστησεν] him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, [and] he spoke in this way, ‘I will give you the holy and faithful [blessings?] of David’,” which is to be seen, in view of Acts 13:22–23, as referring to the Davidic kingship promised in 2 Sam 7:12–16 and Ps 2:7. Thus

68

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

the sermon in Acts 13 unfolds the phrase of Rom 1:4: “installing [ὁρισθέντος] the ‘seed of David’ as God’s Son in power by raising him from the dead [ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν]:” Acts 13:33–35 //Rom 1:4 (d) Through Jesus David’s seed/God’s Son raised from the dead, “forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you;” while “by the law of Moses no one can be justified [δικαιωθῆναι] from anything, by him every one who believes [πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων] is justified [δικαιοῦται]: Acts 13:38–39 //Rom 1:3–4 + 16–17 (+ Rom 3:20–26; 8:3–4; Gal 2:16). (e) In Acts 13:41, Hab 1:5 is cited whereas in Rom 1:17, Hab 2:4 is cited. However, they serve the same purpose: to encourage the audience to believe the gospel of God’s saving work in Christ and avail themselves of his salvation. The latter does this in a positive way, whereas the former does it in a negative way, by way of warning that the failure to believe would lead to their destruction: Acts 13:41 //Rom 1:17. (f) Against the Jews’ objection, Paul and Barnabas “spoke out freely” (παρρησιασάμενοι): Acts 13:46 //Rom 1:16: “I am not ashamed of the gospel,” οὐ γὰρ ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (cf. Phil 1:20; 2 Cor 3; also Acts 28:31).1 (g) “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you [i. e., Jews] … we turn to the Gentiles”: Acts 13:46 //Rom 1:16b; 2:9–10: “to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (h) “I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the earth” (Isa 49:6; cf. 42:6, 16): Acts 13:47 //Gal 1:15 (cf. 2 Cor 4:6); Rom 1:1+5, 14.2 (i) Gentiles “believed” the gospel for eternal life: Acts 13:48 //Rom 1:16–17. (j) Paul urged the Gentile believers “to continue in the grace of God” (Acts13:43) – N. B. “grace,” a key-word in the Pauline doctrine of justification. (k) The repeated designation of the gospel explained in Acts 13:16b–42 (i. e., the gospel of Rom 1:2–4) as “the word of God/the Lord” in Acts 13:44, 46, 48, 49 //the designation of the gospel of Rom 1:2–4 as “the gospel of God” in Rom 1:1 (cf. “the word of God” in 1 Thess 2:13).3 These close parallels between Acts 13:16b–52 and Rom 1:1–4 + 16–17 clearly suggest that at the Pisidian Antioch Paul preached the Jerusalem gospel that he cites in the Romans passage, namely the gospel of Jesus the Messiah, the seed of David, who was raised from the dead and exalted as God’s Son to exercise 1 Cf. W. van Unnik, “The Christian Freedom of Speech in the NT,” Sparsa Collecta (Part Two; Leiden: Brill, 1980), 269–89, esp. 277–78; also N. T. Wright, Paul: A Biography (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2018), 390. 2 Cf. S. Kim, “Isaiah 42 and Paul’s Call,” in PNP, 101–27. 3 Some of these parallels are recognized by commentators (cf. C. S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary. vol. 2. 3:1–14:28 [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013], 2069–99), but not as many as we have listed here, and apparently nobody has noticed the essential unity of the gospel presented in the sermon in Acts 13 as a whole and the gospel explained in Rom 1:1–17.

2. Parallelism between Paul’s Gospel and Thessalonica

69

his kingly power on his behalf (Rom 1:2–4), and that he did it, expounding the soteriological meaning of this gospel in terms of God’s justification of every one who believes in it (Rom 1:16–17). In his report about Paul’s mission in Thessalonica (Acts 17:1–9), Luke summarizes Paul’s gospel preaching there in terms of Jesus being the Messiah and the necessity of his death and resurrection (vv. 2–3). But then he reports also that the Jews who had heard Paul preaching the gospel in their synagogue accused him and his missionary team to the politarchs of Thessalonica for being revolutionaries with the message, “There is another king, Jesus,” against the “decrees of Caesar” (vv. 6–7).4 These three points actually represent a summary of the essential elements of Paul’s lengthy sermon at the Pisidian Antioch: (a) “Jesus is the Messiah” (17:3b) < Jesus is the seed of David (Acts 13:22–23). (b) Paul explained and proved from the Scriptures that “it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and to rise from the dead” (17:2–3a) < Jesus’ suffering, crucifixion and resurrection took place according to the prophecies or divine promises (Acts 13:26–37). (c) “Jesus is king” (17:7) < God raised Jesus, David’s seed, from the dead and declared him as his Son (the Davidic king) according to Ps 2:7 (Acts 13:32–36).5 Note that these three common points of Paul’s gospel preaching at Thessalonica and at the Pisidian Antioch correspond exactly to those of the gospel that Paul cites in Rom 1:1–5. This analysis makes it clear that having quite fully reported in Acts 13:16b–47 Paul’s typical preaching of the gospel in connection with his mission in the Pisidian Antioch, in Acts 17:1–7 Luke abbreviates Paul’s gospel preaching in Thessalonica, referring only to the summarizing headings of its central elements. Therefore, we are to understand that the three points of Paul’s preaching at Thessalonica in Acts 17:1–9 correspond to the main points of “the gospel of God” in Rom 1:1–5 and that Luke presents Paul as preaching that gospel at Thessalonica as well as at the Pisidian Antioch. In his abbreviated report of Paul’s gospel preaching at Thessalonica Luke does not explicitly refer to Paul’s soteriological exposition of “the gospel of God” in terms of the justification doctrine (Rom 1:16–17). Nevertheless, in view of his inclusion of it in his fuller report of Paul’s gospel preaching at the Pisidian Antioch, we may assume that Paul included it also in his preaching at Thessalonica but Luke omitted it in Acts 17:1–96 because there his main interest lies in showing how Paul’s gospel triggered his trial and expulsion from Thessalonica. 4 For these matters, see 4. B in the Introduction to my commentary on 1–2 Thessalonians (WBC; forthcoming). 5  Note how Luke goes on to abbreviate Paul’s gospel preached in the Corinthian synagogue “every sabbath” (i. e., at more than one sabbath) still further, to its absolute core: “The Christ [Messiah] is Jesus” (Acts 18:4–5). Clearly Luke intends it to be understood in terms of his fuller report of Paul’s gospel preaching in the Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:16b–52) over his abbreviated report of Paul’s gospel preached in Thessalonica (Acts 17:1–9). 6  In fact, he did not quite omit it. For it is obvious that by the strong word “the necessity

70

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

Thus, the Lukan reports of Paul’s gospel preachings at the Pisidian Antioch and Thessalonica help us understand why there are so many correspondences between the gospel of Rom 1:3–4 + 16–17 and Paul’s own summary representations of the gospel that he preached to the Thessalonians (1 Thess 1:9–10; 4:14; 5:9–10), as we have ascertained. It is quite remarkable that this short comparison between Luke’s reports about the gospel that Paul preached at the Pisidian Antioch and Thessalonica and Paul’s own summary representations of the gospel that he preached to the Thessalonians shows how faithful Paul was to his apostolic commission of preaching that “gospel of God concerning his Son” (Rom 1:1–5; cf. also Gal 1:15–16; 2 Cor 1:18–22; cf. Acts 9:20). The correspondences between Luke’s reports of Paul’s gospel preachings at the Pisidian Antioch and Thessalonica and Paul’s own summary representations of the gospel that he preached at Thessalonica have still further implications: (a) Paul did not formulate his gospel in terms of Rom 1:2–5 + 16–17 for the first time at the time of writing Romans nor in the wake of the Antiochian incident (N. B. Luke places Paul’s preaching of the gospel in this form before the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem [Acts 15]). The gospel of justification by faith in the gospel of the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus, God’s Son – but “not by [the works of] the law of Moses” – was his constant gospel.7 Hence it is reflected in Paul’s summaries of the gospel that he preached during his founding mission in Thessalonica (1:9–10; 4:14; 5:9–10) as well as in other places in 1 Thessalonians (cf., e. g., 3:12–13; 4:1–8; 5:23 with comments ad loc. in my commentary).8 And that is why it also appears in the Lukan reports of his sermon at the Pisidian Antioch in its full and typical form (Acts 13:16–47) and his sermons at Thessalonica (Acts 17:1–9) and Corinth (Acts 18:1–17) in its starkly abbreviated forms (for the sermon at Corinth, see the following section 3). (b) Justification is explained in terms of “forgiveness of sins” and obtaining eternal life in Acts 13:38–39, 46, and similarly also in terms of deliverance from God’s wrath or condemnation and obtaining eternal life and divine glory in 1 Thess 1:10; 5:9–10; 2 Thess 1:5–12; 2:9–14. (c) But neither in the Lukan reports nor in 1 and 2 Thessalonians is it explained in terms of the believing Gentiles joining “the family of Abraham,” even while the Jews in the synagogue of the Pisidian Antioch are addressed “children of the (ἔδει) of the Messiah’s suffering, death and resurrection” (Acts 17:3) Luke starkly abbreviates the thought that he expressed in Acts 13:38–41, namely that the Messiah’s death was an atonement for “forgiveness of sins” or “justification” of the sinners who have faith (= Rom 1:16–17). 7 Consider again the implication of Paul’s claim repeated in his three different epistles (Gal 1:15–16; Rom 1:1–5; 2 Cor 1:18–22), that he was called by God to preach the gospel concerning his Son as an apostle. 8  For the more explicit presence of Paul’s gospel of justification in 2 Thessalonians, see Essay 12 in this volume.

3. Significance of the Absence of Reference to the Law

71

family of Abraham” (Acts 13:26; pace the advocates of the “New Perspective on Paul,” who focus on this category in explaining the origin and meaning of Paul’s doctrine of justification).

3. Significance of the Absence of Reference to the Law For Paul’s doctrine of justification that is expounded in Romans, Galatians and Philippians 3, his critical view of the law and its works is an essential element. However, in 1  and  2 Thessalonians there is not a single reference to the law. How does this fact affect the conclusion that we have drawn above, namely that the gospel summarized in 1 Thess 1:10 is essentially the same as the gospel expounded in Romans? Observing some similarities between Paul’s gospel echoed in 1 Thess 1:9b–10 and the Hellenistic Jewish conversion preaching, Peter Stuhlmacher9 notes the three essential differences between them, one of which is: whereas in the latter monotheism is tied to the Torah, especially to the first commandment as the summary of the whole Torah, in the former there is no reference to the Torah. It is indeed remarkable that in 1 Thess 1:9b–10 Paul, the former Pharisee and “zealot” for the law (Gal 1:13; Phil 3:6), speaks about the Gentiles’ conversion to and service of the one true living God of Israel without any reference to the Torah and circumcision. It is astonishing that such a Paul should speak also about the deliverance from God’s wrath at the last judgment without any reference to the Torah but only with the emphatic reference to Jesus the Son of God who died and was raised (1 Thess 1:9–10; 5:9–10). This is in line with his imparting in 1 Thess 4:1–8 injunctions for sanctification only in reference to the lordship of Jesus Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit but not to the law, even though those injunctions form a familiar part of the law (see below). There he stresses that the Thessalonians’ sanctification is “the will of God,” but without mentioning the law (4:3), although until not so long ago he lived and fought under the motto of the law as the embodiment of God’s will. Those who argue that these facts reflect merely Paul’s decision to treat the law as a matter of adiaphoron do not take seriously enough either his Pharisaic background or his Gentile mission context. For us, the only realistic conclusion from these facts is that Paul had renounced his former Pharisaic belief that a proper relationship to God was governed by the Torah, that is, that he had come to hold 9  P. Stuhlmacher, Das paulinische Evangelium: I.  Vorgeschichte (FRLANT 95; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968), 261–62. Actually, the similarity between them is only partial, as the Christological reference in 1:10 is the unique center of the Christian gospel. Nevertheless, it is right to highlight the significance of the fact that in the gospel of 1:9b–10 Paul speaks of Gentiles’ conversion to the one true living God of Israel and deliverance from his wrath at the last judgment without any reference to the Torah.

72

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

that it is “not by the law.” Therefore, the soteriological statements in 1 Thess 1:10 and the passages associated with it (3:12–13; 4:14; 5:9–10; 5:23; etc.) should be taken as clearly suggesting that the principle of solus Christus for justification and sanctification had already been well established in antithesis to the law in Paul’s formulation of the gospel. That is, they should be taken as declaring that justification (or sanctification) is by [faith in] Christ10 (alone, without the works of the law), and as suggesting that that doctrine had already been established before Paul’s writing of 1 Thessalonians. In Acts, Luke suggests that Paul preached that gospel not only in the Pisidian Antioch, but also in Corinth and even in Thessalonica. Having abbreviated Paul’s gospel in the Corinthian synagogue with the minimum number of words “The Christ [Messiah] is Jesus” (Acts 18:4–5; cf. n. 5 above), Luke goes on to report that the Corinthian Jews charged Paul before the proconsul Gallio of “persuad[ing] people to worship God contrary to the law” (Acts 18:12–13). When this report is seen together with his summary of Paul’s gospel, “The Messiah is Jesus,” what else can this charge imply than that Paul declared that the Messiah was Jesus the crucified and raised, that the messianic (i. e., eschatological) salvation was to be obtained through him and not through the law, and therefore that the works of the law were not necessary? Thus, even by his severely contracted report of Paul’s preaching at the Corinthian synagogue, Luke suggests clearly enough that Paul did not just repeat the proposition “The Messiah is Jesus” to the Jews and the Gentile God-fearers in the Corinthian synagogue “every sabbath” (Acts 18:4), but rather that he accompanied that central proposition of his gospel with an explanation of its soteriological meaning, that they were to receive the eschatological salvation (“forgiveness of sins” or “justification”) by God’s grace in the Messiah Jesus’ death and resurrection and through faith in that gospel but not through the works of the law, as he did at the synagogue of the Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:26–41, 43). Together with Luke’s full and explicit report of Paul’s gospel preaching at the synagogue of the Pisidian Antioch, his abbreviated but still suggestive report of Paul’s gospel preaching at the Corinthian synagogue makes it reasonable for us to assume (1) that in Thessalonica also, while arguing for “the necessity of Christ’ death and resurrection” before the Jews and the Gentile God-fearers in the synagogue there (Acts 17:2–3), Paul did refer to the problem of the law and explained the same doctrine of justification through faith in the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection and therefore without the works of the law; but (2) that Luke just abbreviates this element of his sermon in his reference to Paul’s “argument” (διελέξατο) with the Jews “from the

10  Cf. Paul’s repeated references to faith in 1 and 2 Thess: 1 Thess 1:3, 8, 3:2, 5, 6, 7, 10; 5:8; 2 Thess 1:10 (x 2), 11; 2:11, 12, 13; plus the implicit “obedience (of faith) to the gospel” in 1:8; three more in 1:3–4 and 3:2; cf. also Acts 13:38–41.

3. Significance of the Absence of Reference to the Law

73

Scriptures” about “the necessity of the Messiah’s death and resurrection.”11 For it is extremely hard to imagine that Paul could have carried on such arguments in the Thessalonian synagogue for “three sabbaths,” on the one hand, without explaining their soteriological meaning, and, on the other hand, without referring to the law (not only the question about its observance for justification but also fundamentally its relationship to the Messiah’s death). Why then does Luke not even allude to Paul as having addressed the impotence and unnecessity of the law in his report of Paul’s gospel preaching in the Thessalonian synagogue whereas in his report of Paul’s sermon in the Corinthian synagogue he alludes to Paul as having done that (Acts 18:12–13)? Apparently, it is because in Thessalonica, although in their synagogal disputations the Jews had taken issue with Paul’s rejection of the law, they did not charge him before the politarchs of their city on that account since there was the political charge with which they could persuade the politarchs more effectively to act against Paul and his mission (Acts 17:6–9).12 But if, as we are arguing here, Paul did address the problem of the law in his preaching of the gospel in the Thessalonian synagogue, too, why does he not refer to it at all in his two epistles to the Thessalonian church? The answer to this question is quite simple: he does not do it because he has no need to do it. He has no need because nobody in the church is raising the question of the law with him. While preaching the gospel in the Jewish synagogue in Thessalonica, he had to deal with the problem of the law because undoubtedly on the basis of the law the Jews there opposed his gospel of salvation in the crucified and risen Messiah Jesus (cf. 1 Thess 2:15–16). But now, writing to the church in Thessalonica which is composed of mainly Gentile believers and a few Jewish believers who have already been persuaded by his synagogal arguments for salvation through faith in the crucified and risen Christ and without the works of the law, Paul has no reason to raise the problem of the law himself. He has no need to refer to the law also because he writes the two Thessalonian epistles not to expound his doctrine of salvation but to comfort and assure his young converts who are being 11 Luke’s description of Paul’s preaching in Acts 17:2–3 rings historically quite true. For how else could Paul have tried to persuade the Jews and the Gentile God-fearers in the synagogue of Thessalonica or anywhere else to accept the gospel of the Messiah Jesus crucified and raised? 12 Some critics may attribute the different Jewish charges of Paul’s gospel, the anti-Caesar charge in Thessalonica and the anti-law charge in Corinth, to Luke’s literary skill of thus distributing the two charges to two different occasions of Paul’s trial and making the problems of his gospel from the Jewish viewpoint clear in an economical way, instead of repeating them together in his accounts of the two trials. There may be some truth in this view. However, Luke’s reports here could reflect the historical truths. Along with the likelihood that the Thessalonian Jews could easily have thought that the political charge against Paul would be more effective and sufficient for their purpose, consider also the possibility that having heard of the less than effective outcome of the political charge at Paul’s Thessalonian trial, the Corinthian Jews could have decided to charge Paul of attacking the good religious and moral life of Judaism and so disturbing social peace.

74

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

persecuted by their pagan opponents, to help them overcome their eschatological anxieties, and to exhort them to grow in sanctification and discipline. For these purposes, it is enough for him to remind them of the gospel (especially its positive and reassuring core elements) in summary form (1 Thess 1:9–10; 2:12b; 4:14; 5:9–10) and of some teachings (1 Thess 4:1–2, 6, 11–12; 2 Thess 2:15; etc.), both of which he delivered to them during his founding mission in their city, and to provide them with some clarifications about the eschatological components of the gospel as well as with some renewed exhortations for an individual and communal life of sanctification and discipline. If he were to expound the gospel summarized in 1 Thess 1:10 and 5:9–10, in the course of explaining the effectiveness and sufficiency for believers’ justification of Christ’s atoning death and his intercession before God’s judgment throne at his parousia, he might feel the need to make a short remark that the law is impotent for it and the works of the law are unnecessary, in order to prevent the few Jewish members of the Thessalonian church from any chance of wavering in their belief in this gospel in the face of the continuing objection and harassment by their unbelieving compatriots (cf. 1 Thess 2:2–6, 14–16 with comments ad loc. in my commentary). But nowhere in the Thessalonian epistles does Paul expound the gospel of 1 Thess 1:10 and 5:9–10. Even while comforting and reassuring the Thessalonian Christians by repeatedly referring to his doctrine of justification by faith in the gospel of Christ in 2 Thess 1:5–12 and 2:9–14, Paul does not expound the doctrine, but only repeatedly affirms that at the last judgment, by virtue of their faith in the gospel, the Thessalonian Christians will be judged as worthy of God’s kingdom and obtain eternal life and glory, while their persecutors, the unbelieving pagans, will be condemned and destroyed.13 In fact, there are sufficient hints in 1 Thess 4:1–8 that had he felt any need to teach the Thessalonian Christians that the observance of the Mosaic law was not necessary for their justification or sanctification, he would have explained that explicitly. Note, first, the fact that in 4:1–2 Paul reminds them that during his mission among them he imparted to them the “commands” (παραγγελίαι) “through the Lord Jesus” (διὰ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ) “how they ought to live so as to please God.” Here he implies that as an apostle or a fully authorized agent of the Lord Jesus, he imparted those “commands,” which are really the Lord Jesus’ (cf. 1 Cor 7:10, 25; 14:37). Then, note that Paul goes on to suggest in the following v. 3 that the “commands” of the Lord Jesus that he delivered to the Thessalonians concern “the will of God” for their sanctification. So here he apparently reflects his understanding of “the Lord Jesus” being the fully empowered representative and executer of God’s kingship or lordship, which is a fundamental element of his gospel (Rom 1:3–5; 1 Cor 15:23–27; Phil 2:6–11; Col 1:13–14). Jesus “the seed of David” was raised from the dead and exalted as “God’s Son in power” 13 See

Essay 12 “Paul’s Doctrine of Justification in 2 Thessalonians 1–2” below.

3. Significance of the Absence of Reference to the Law

75

to inherit his name (“Lord”) and power in order to execute God’s kingship or will; so “the Lord Jesus” is the one who issues the commands for believers “how they ought to walk so as to please God,” so that “God’s will” may be realized with them; and Paul, as an apostle or a fully empowered agent of the Lord Jesus, delivered those commands to the Thessalonian believers on his behalf (cf. Rom 1:1–5) (see comment on 4:1–2 in my commentary). Then, note also how in 4:8b Paul appeals to God’s gift of his Holy Spirit for their sanctification. It is widely recognized that here Paul echoes God’s promises in Ezek 36:27 and 37:6 to put his Spirit within his restored people in order to make them observe his “statutes and ordinances,” so that they may be cleansed of idolatry, impurity (ἀκαθαρσία) and lawlessness (ἀνομία) and vindicate his holiness (ἁγιασθῆναι) (36:22–32). However, in our verse simply the indwelling Holy Spirit is suggested as the agent of sanctification, and the reference to God’s “statutes and ordinances” of Ezek 36:27 is omitted. This is especially striking because the moral injunctions issued in vv. 3–6a are actually what the law contains in its statutes. Although Paul knows well the Jewish understanding that the will of God is fixed in the Torah (cf. Rom 2:18; Ps 40:8), in our passage he lays out the requirements of the will of God (v. 3) only in reference to the Lord Jesus Christ (vv. 1–2) and the Holy Spirit of God (v. 8) and but not at all to the law. This seems to reflect Paul’s understanding that Christ has superseded the Torah as the means of the revelation of the will of God (cf. Rom 10:4; Gal 3:21–4:7), that the Lord Jesus is the representative and executor of God’s will, and therefore that our sanctification is effected not through observance of the statutes of the law of Moses, but rather through the obedience of faith to the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 1:5; 15:18; 16:26; 2 Cor 9:13; 2 Thess 1:8) or observance of “the law of Christ” (1 Cor 9:21; Gal 6:2),14 availing ourselves of the leading and enabling of the Holy Spirit that God has given us. Thus, 4:1–8 implicitly contains the Pauline Christ–law and Spirit–law antitheses,15 which are fully expounded in Galatians and Romans as part of the doctrine of justification through faith in Christ but without the works of the law (for more details, see Explanation on v. 8 in my commentary).16 Thus, we can see that in 4:1–8, had Paul needed to refer to the law, he could easily have verbalized the two antitheses. As there was no such need, he teaches the Thessalonian Christians just in a positive way that they are to grow in sanctification by submitting through 14  See my essay, “Imitatio Christi (1 Corinthians 11:1)” reprinted as Essay 11 below (esp. pp. 329–37). 15  Cf. V. Rabens, The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul: Transformation and Empowering for Religious-Ethical Life (WUNT 2/283. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 298, who, noting that fornication, lustful passion, defrauding and impurity in opposition to which Paul sets the gift of the Holy Spirit in 4:3–8 are “works of the flesh” according to Gal 5:19–21, thinks that here is also a prefigurement of Paul’s the Spirit–flesh antithesis, which belongs together with the Spirit–law antithesis in Rom 7–8 and Gal 5. 16  See further Kim, PNP, 157–63; Justification, 73–87.

76

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

the help of the Holy Spirit to the commands of the Lord Jesus that Paul as his apostle delivered to them. For all these reasons, we reject the attempt to take the absence of a reference to the law in 1 Thessalonians as evidence for the view that Paul’s doctrine of “justification through faith in Christ but not by the works of the law” had not yet been formulated by the time of Paul’s writing of that epistle. It is much more reasonable to see it as evidence that although “not by works of the law” was part of the gospel that Paul preached in the Thessalonian synagogue during his founding mission there, in his two epistles to the Thessalonian believers he does not refer to it because he had no need to do it.17

4. The Essential Unity of Paul’s Gospel in 1 Thessalonians with That in Romans and Galatians For their denial of the presence of Paul’s doctrine of justification in 1 Thessalonians, many scholars point also to the absence of the key term of that doctrine, namely δικαιοσύνη/δικαιοῦν, in the letter. But just like the absence of a reference to the law, this fact also can be accounted for by the fact that in 1 Thessalonians Paul does not unfold his gospel (or his soteriology) in any substantial way at all, except abbreviating it in 1:9b–10; 4:14; 5:9–10 (cf. also 2:12; 3:12–13). As shown above, the real problem is that the critics make no serious efforts to unpack the implications of those three formulae beyond treating them in an atomistic manner as mere skeleton references to the saving event, as if those few words in the formulae had constituted all that Paul actually said or repeated in his gospel preaching during his Thessalonian mission, rather than being the short summaries of that preaching. They do not even ask what the “deliverance from the wrath to come” in 1:10 or Christ’s “establish[ment] of [believers’] hearts unblameable in holiness before God [i. e., his judgment throne] at the parousia of the Lord Jesus” (3:13) could mean, if not justification. Nor do they ask what Christ’ death for us, so that we may obtain salvation rather than [God’s] wrath (5:9–10), could mean, if not his atonement of our sins for our justification. But does the absence of the specific term of δικαιοσύνη/δικαιοῦν in those verses make them mean something else than justification at the last judgment of God? Should exegesis remain on the minimalistic level of mere literalistic repetition of given words instead of going beyond to the level of interpreting their meaning? Against this general tendency, this exposition of the summaries of Paul’s gospel in 1 Thessalonians in comparison with similar formulations in Rom 1:3–4 + 16–18; 5:8–10; 7:24–8:4; 8:31–39; Gal 1:16; 2:20; 4:4–518 has led us to the conclu17 Cf.

sections 19 and 20 below.  For details, see the sections 2 and 3 of the preceding Essay 2.

18

4. The Essential Unity of Paul’s Gospel in 1 Thessalonians

77

sion that Paul preached to the Thessalonians essentially the same gospel as that which he unfolds in Romans and Galatians in terms of justification by God’s grace manifested through his Son. Thus this study focused on the summary of Paul’s gospel in 1 Thess 1:9b–10 confirms the conclusion that Hengel and Schwemer reach through their more broad examination of the various features of 1 Thessalonians: Paul’s stress on faith and his connecting the gospel or the word of God with faith, his stress on God’s election and faithful perseverance (1:4; 2:12; 4:7; 5:9, 23–24), his doctrine of eschatological redemption through Christ’s death of vicarious atonement (5:10) and his resurrection, his proclamation of the gospel in terms of deliverance from God’s wrath at the last judgment, his teaching on the life in faith in terms of sanctification in the power of the Holy Spirit, etc.19 So, concluding that during his founding mission in Thessalonica Paul preached “both the predestinarian election of grace and the forensic ‘justification of the sinner’ at the last judgment,” Hengel and Schwemer strongly affirm that Paul’s Christology and soteriology during his Thessalonian (and Corinthian) mission were essentially the same as what they were in the letter to the Romans.20 Thus, there is a strong continuity of the gospel or theology between 1 Thessalonians, an early (if not the earliest extant) epistle, and Paul’s later epistles. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that Paul imparts basically the same paraenesis in 1 Thessalonians and the later epistles of Romans and Philippians.21 Yet the majority of scholars simply assume some substantial developments (especially in soteriology and eschatology) from 1 Thessalonians to the later epistles and like to support this assumption by pointing out the “absence” of the doctrine of justification in 1 Thessalonians. So it is necessary to examine more closely the question of continuity and discontinuity in Pauline soteriology between 1 Thessalonians and the later epistles. 19 M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer, Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1997), 304–08. Cf. also O. A. Rainbow, “Justification according to Paul’s Thessalonian Correspondence,” BBR 19 (2009): 249–74 (N. B. p. 251 n. 8 for his reference to the stricture of J. Barr (The Sematics of Biblical Language [Glasgow: Oxford University Press, 1961], 206–62) “against identifying a biblical concept [in this case, justification] with a particular word [in this case, δικαιοσύνη, δικαιοῦν/δικαιοῦσθαι, etc.],” as well as for his citation of R. von Bendemann, “‘Frühpaulinisch’ und/oder ‘spätpaulinisch’? Erwägungen zu der These einer Entwicklung der paulinischen Theologie am Beispiel des Gesetzesverständnisses,” EvT 60 (2000): 225: “The talk of holiness and sanctification that marks the first letter to the Thessalonians is, however, not far in content from the language of δικαιοσύνη and δικαιοῦν in the later Pauline letters” (Rainbow’s translation). For the parallelism between “sanctification” and “justification” as well as the view that “sanctification” in the Thessalonian and Corinthian correspondences is a contextualization of “justification” to the pagan environments of their recipients, see section 20 below. 20  Hengel and Schwemer, Paul, 307. Cf. also Kim, PNP, 85–99; Rainbow, “Justification.” See also Essay 12 “Paul’s Doctrine of Justification in 2 Thessalonians 1–2” below. 21 See Essay 11 “Paul’s Common Paraenesis” below.

78

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

5. Thomas Söding: “Essential Unity” and “Substantial Development” For this task I find Thomas Söding’s comprehensive essay “Der Erste Thessalonicherbrief und die frühe paulinische Evangeliumsverkündigung. Zur Frage einer Entwicklung der paulinischen Theologie”22 most helpful. Söding (200) affirms that the soteriological statements of 1 Thessalonians are in essential agreement with the doctrine of justification that Paul later formulated, and he supports this view by referring to such points as the primacy of grace, the foundation in the death and resurrection of Jesus, the soteriological significance of faith, the implicit negation of the soteriological significance of the law, and the dialectical eschatology (in spite of a greater focus on the futuristic component) and its implications for ethic. However, Söding (200–01) still believes that Paul owed to the subsequent conflicts underlying Phil 3 and Galatians an explicit formulation of the doctrine of justification with the following essential elements: making it a fundamental principle, the sharp and doctrinal formulation of the antithesis between faith and the works of the law, the cross-centered soteriology, the radical hamartology, the emphasis on the principle of faith and its derivation from the Scriptures, the explicit rejection of the soteriological significance of the law, the stress on the freedom from the law, the explanation of the relationship between faith and love, anchoring of paraenesis on the justifying grace and the operation of the Spirit, and the connection of the lordship of the crucified and risen Christ with the dynamic of the Spirit. So Söding (201) presents his view in the following two-fold summary statement: “on the one hand, the justification theology lies on the Christological and soteriological line that Paul had already pursued in his early period;” but “on the other hand, Phil 3 and Gal offer not just new forms of expression for an essentially unchanged theological matter, but rather mark … a qualitatively new stage of Pauline theology. The doctrine of justification is a substantial development of the early Pauline soteriology, which became necessary in the conflict with Christian nomists.” Thus Söding’s work results in presenting a mediating position between those who stress the absence of the doctrine of justification in 1 Thessalonians and insist on the late development of the doctrine in the wake of the Antiochian or Galatian controversies,23 and those who emphasize the implicit presence of the 22  Biblische Zeitschrift 35 (1991): 180–203. Citations from this work in the following pages are my own translation. 23  E. g., J. Becker, Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles (Louisville: Westminster/Knox, 1993), 279– 304; U. Schnelle, Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology (originally Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003; ET by M. E. Boring; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 133–37, 277–301; J. D. G. Dunn – see below.

6. “Distance of 1 Thessalonians from the Major Epistles”

79

doctrine in our epistle.24 However, Söding’s summary conclusion cited above appears to betray his (perhaps unconscious) pre-determination to strike such a mediating position and make a more palatable concession to the prevailing scholarship, as his observations and arguments leading up to that conclusion seem rather to call for affirming an essential unity between 1 Thessalonians and the later epistles in the doctrine of justification and only a formal development from the former to the latter. In any case, the view of Söding (201) that the doctrine of justification in the later Pauline epistles represents “not just new forms of expression” of his early soteriology, but rather an essential change or “substantial development” of it does not seem to represent a correct judgment. In view of the absence of any reference to the law in our epistle, it is right to see Paul’s soteriological and ethical teaching in our epistle as containing only an “implicit” negation of its soteriological and ethical role. Likewise, since our epistle presents a soteriology that is “in agreement in important points with the doctrine of justification” of Paul’s later epistles (Söding, 200), without explicitly unfolding that doctrine, it is right to see the doctrine only as “implicit” in our epistle. However, that “implicitness” should not be understood as a sign that Paul had not yet obtained a clear thinking about the law and formulated the doctrine of justification through faith without works of the law. Rather, the “implicitness” in our epistle is to be understood in terms of the lack of the occasion or need for exposition of the doctrines about justification and the law, while the explicit, systematic and sharp forms in which the doctrines are presented in Galatians, Romans and Phil 3 are to be explained likewise in terms of the occasion of each of those epistles, namely the need to ward off the challenges of the Judaizers.

6. “Distance of 1 Thessalonians from the Major Epistles” Söding (185) strongly rejects this view, but actually his own observations and arguments point to this conclusion. He (183) starts the main portion of his essay by stressing the “distance [of 1 Thessalonians] from the major epistles.” For this he (184) lists up the important words and themes of the later Pauline epistles that are missing in 1 Thessalonians: dikaiosynē and justification, the law, works, Christian freedom, reconciliation, adoption, the cross of Jesus Christ, the preexistence and exaltation of Christ, the dominion of sin and death, the temptation of self-boasting and fleshliness of human beings, reference to Scripture, and an explicit ecclesiology. Söding (184–85) also finds some common themes presented differently in 1 Thessalonians from the major epistles: 24  E. g., R. Riesner, Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 394–403; Hengel and Schwemer, Paul, 98–105; Kim, PNP, 85–100.

80

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

[T]he present eschatology stands only in the shadow of the future eschatology. The present salvation is only loosely connected with the work of the risen Christ. The Spirit is closely connected with God, but is not perceived in his dynamic unity with Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:17). Syn Christo (1 Thess 4:14; 5:10) is exclusively related to the future consummation but not the present Christ-fellowship, including suffering with Christ (Rom 8:17), buried with Christ (Rom 6:4) and crucified with Christ (Gal 2:19). Faith is not seen in antithesis to the works of the law and self-boasting, but as perseverance in persecution, as faithfulness. The polemic against the Jews in 2:15 f. cannot be harmonized with the different view of Israel in Rom 9–11. …

7. Considering also the Pre-Pauline Material, Paul’s Background, and Hints from Other Pauline Epistles in Assessing the Significance of the Absence of Certain Words and Themes in 1 Thessalonians But then Söding (186) immediately qualifies the significance of these findings by observing the pre-Pauline traditions cited in Paul’s major epistles and considering other hints from them as well as from the situations of the primitive church and Paul’s Jewish background. So Söding acknowledges that the “gospel” of 1 Cor 15:3–5, the Lord’s Supper liturgy, and “the baptismal tradition that stands in the background of 1 Cor 6:11 f.; 12:12 f.; Gal 3:26 ff.; Rom 6:1–11” as having “belonged to the repertoire of early Pauline preaching.” Referring to 1 Cor 2:2 (cf. also 1:17, 23) as well as Gal 3:1; 6:12, 14, Söding (186) also affirms the importance of the theology of the cross for early Pauline preaching. Even for the questions of the law and justification, Söding (187) argues that, although they are absent in 1 Thessalonians and appear only marginally in Phil 1–2, 4 and 1 Corinthians, … still it is more than likely that the nomos and dikaiosynē were important themes for Paul from the beginning. Their great importance in early Judaism can hardly be disputed. But then they must have been hot issues also in Jewish Christianity, which had to determine its theological identity in confrontation with its Jewish tradition. This is underlined emphatically by those many Synoptic texts that are concerned with the question of the law. In the pre-Pauline tradition also justification is an important question. Paul’s discussions of the law which are to be dated before the conflicts with Christian nomists point to a longer intensive wrestling with the theme.

Söding (187, n. 20) cites Rom 3:24–26; 4:25; 6:1–11; 8:29–30; 1 Cor 1:30; 6:11; 2 Cor 5:21 to support his affirmation that in the pre-Pauline tradition also the terminology δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ and the soteriology of justification were well established. Then he (187, n. 21) cites 1 Cor 9:20; 15:56; and 2 Cor 3 as evidence for Paul’s “long intensive wrestling” with the law before his conflicts with Christian nomists.

7. Considering also the Pre-Pauline Material, Paul’s Background

81

It is a great merit of Söding to consider the indirect evidence that the prePauline material cited in Pauline epistles and the law-critical statements in the Corinthian correspondence provide for discussion of the question as to whether the doctrine of justification was formed before 1 Thessalonians or not, something that most of the scholars who argue for the late development of the doctrine of justification neglect to do. Of course, it is debatable whether all the passages that Söding cites in this connection are indeed pre-Pauline (e. g., Rom 6:1–11; 8:29– 30; 1 Cor 1:30; 6:11; 12:12–13; 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:26–28). However, it is widely recognized that at least Rom 3:25–26 and 4:25 are pre-Pauline. But then these passages support the attempt to explain the absence of the terms δικαιοσύνη (θεοῦ) and δικαιοῦν in 1 Thessalonians as due to the fact that the particular occasion of the epistle did not require Paul to refer to them, insofar as we can assume that Paul came to know and value the two pre-Pauline soteriological formulae before writing 1 Thessalonians. They are enough to weaken any attempt to use the absence of those terms in 1 Thessalonians for the late development of the doctrine of justification. This is especially so if we properly relate those pre-Pauline material to such material in 1 Thessalonians as Paul’s emphasis on God’s or the Lord Jesus’ work to make us stand blameless at the last judgment (3:13; 5:23) and his definition of salvation in terms of deliverance from God’s wrath through Christ’s atoning death and intercession (1:10; 5:9–10), something that those scholars who argue for the late development of the doctrine of justification hardly ever do.25 Similarly, Söding’s correct recognition of 1 Cor 9:20; 15:56; 2 Cor 3 (cf. also 1 Cor 7:19) as evidence for Paul’s “long intensive wrestling with the law before his conflicts with Christian nomists” (187) significantly weakens, if not outrightly contradicts, his later statements that Paul came to reject explicitly the soteriological significance of the law later in the context of his conflicts with the Christian nomists in Phil 3; Galatians; and Romans, and that since Paul did not express such an explicit rejection of the law in 1 Thessalonians, he had not yet quite formulated his doctrine of justification (201). It is good that in view of 1 Cor 2:2, in which Paul states that when he first came to Corinth (from Thessalonica) he decided to preach solely Christ crucified, as well as in view of 1 Cor 1:17, 23; Gal 3:1; 6:12, 14, Söding (186) recognizes the importance of theologia crucis in Paul’s early preaching. But then again this recognition makes his highlighting the lack of reference to “the cross of Jesus Christ” in 1 Thessalonians quite meaningless, as well as contradicting his attempt to see “the cross-centered soteriology” as a mark of the doctrine of justification that was developed later in conflicts with Christian nomists in Phil 3; Galatians; and Romans (201). As generally agreed among commentators, Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians in AD 50 only a few months after leaving Thessalonica for Corinth. Furthermore, he wrote it in Corinth, while focusing his preaching 25 But

cf. Hengel and Schwemer, Paul, 306.

82

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

on the cross of Christ, as he emphatically testifies (1 Cor 1:17, 23; 2:2). Yet in 1 Thessalonians he did not make a specific reference to the cross of Christ. Now, then, isn’t it much more reasonable to explain this omission in terms of the subject matters of 1 Thessalonians (that are determined by its occasion or the needs of its recipients) than in terms of the post-1 Thessalonians development of “the cross-centered soteriology”? It is a pity that Söding fails to read Paul’s references to Christ’s death in 1 Thess 1:10; 4:14; 5:9–10 (cf. also 2:15) in connection with the centrality of theologia crucis in Paul’s early preaching that he properly recognizes from the evidence provided by other Pauline epistles. These examples show that Söding creates unnecessary problems by failing to be faithful to his own method of considering the pre-Pauline material, the situations of the early church, Paul’s background, and hints from other Pauline epistles in assessing the significance of the absence of certain words and themes in 1 Thessalonians. In fact, we must consider these factors thoroughly rather than making only a superficial acknowledgement of their importance. So, for example, if we take seriously Paul’s background as a “Pharisaic scribe”26 as well as his normal practice clearly demonstrated in his other epistles, we would not imagine that Paul made some important theological statements in 1 Thessalonians without having thought through their Scriptural basis, and therefore we would not evaluate the absence of any explicit reference to the Scriptures in the epistle as Söding does. We would rather explain it again in terms of the occasion of the epistle: in the brief letter written hurriedly to comfort and reassure his young converts in Thessalonica, to clarify some points of the eschatological hope, and to promote their individual sanctification and communal discipline and harmony, Paul saw no need to unfold his gospel fully, with Scriptural substantiation and critical arguments against Jewish nomism or Hellenistic sophism. Fully appreciating Paul’s background as well as his theological method displayed in his other letters, we would rather highlight the very serious exegetical work on Ezek 36–37 standing behind 4:8 (see comment ad loc. in my commentary).

8. The Pauline Words and Themes That Are Absent in 1 Thessalonians In fact, the words and themes that Söding (184–85) lists as absent in 1 Thessalonians in order to stress the difference of the epistle from the major epistles, are not all explicitly present in all of the later or major epistles themselves, some being present in one epistle but not in another. For example, “reconciliation” is absent also in Galatians and Philippians, and “the reign of sin and death” is not explicitly referred to even in the context of very critical discussions of the doctrine of jus26 Ibid.,

101.

9. Christ’s “Exaltation” and the Believers’ “Adoption”

83

tification by faith without works of the law in Galatians and Philippians. The σὺν Χριστῷ formula for the believers’ participation in the death and resurrection of Christ or their present fellowship with Christ – i. e., suffering with Christ (Rom 8:17), buried with Christ (Rom 6:4), and crucified with Christ (Gal 2:19)  – does not appear in 1–2 Corinthians, either. Furthermore, Söding’s highlighting the absence of that formula used for the above meaning stands in tension with his own affirmation (186) that the baptismal tradition reflected in 1 Cor 6:11–12; 12:12– 13; Gal 3:26–28 and Rom 6:1–11 is pre-Pauline and “belongs to the repertoire of Paul’s early preaching”! In addition, do we have an “explicit ecclesiology” in Philippians and Romans? “Pre-existence” would not be present in Philippians, either, but for the fact that Paul cites a Christological hymn there (2:5–11). If, as some scholars think, that hymn and the sending formula of Rom 8:3–4 and Gal 4:4–5 are pre-Pauline, it would not be possible to argue for the late origin of the idea of “pre-existence” of Christ on the basis of its absence in 1 Thessalonians. Thus, it is wrong for Söding to expect in one brief letter, 1 Thessalonians, all those words and concepts that he has gathered together from all the four major epistles plus Philippians, while each of the latter letters itself (except Romans) also does not contain them all. Clearly it is not right to assume that all those and other words and concepts must explicitly be present in 1 Thessalonians, if a theological unity is to be affirmed between this brief epistle, whose purpose is clearly limited, and the other Pauline epistles, some of which are much longer and contain extended exposition of his theology.

9. Christ’s “Exaltation” and the Believers’ “Adoption” When Söding thinks that even the idea of Christ’s “exaltation” is absent in 1 Thessalonians, it only proves the limitation of his exegetical method: if the idea is not there in 1 Thessalonians but developed only later, how could Paul have spoken of “the Lord Jesus Christ” coming from heaven and the believers being lifted up to meet him in the air (4:13–5:11), and have formulated the verses like 1:10 and 3:11–13? It is strange why here Söding abandons his own method of drawing light from Paul’s use of the old Jerusalem church’s traditions that affirm Christ’s exaltation as God’s Son and the Lord on the basis of Ps 110:1; 2 Sam 7:12–16; Ps 2:7, etc. (e. g., Rom 1:3–4; 1 Cor 15:23–28; cf. Söding’s own admission on pp. 190–191). Söding also includes “adoption” in his list of the words and concepts of Paul’s major epistles that are absent in 1 Thessalonians. But, as in the case of “exaltation,” this is another example of his literalistic or minimalistic exegesis that ignores his own sound proposal to consider Paul’s background, his use of prePauline traditions, hints from his other epistles, etc., for assessing the significance of the absence of an explicit reference to certain concepts in 1 Thessalonians.

84

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

If he is faithful to his own proposal, he would not miss the significance of the striking fact that Paul, a Pharisaic Jew turned a Christian apostle, repeatedly addresses the God of Israel as “our Father” in 1 Thess 1:1, 3; 3:11–13, including in this address the Gentile Thessalonian believers (cf. also Paul’s proportionately more frequent reference to the Thessalonian believers as “brothers and sisters” [ἀδελφοί] in 1 Thessalonians [14 times] than in any other Pauline letter). Nor would he fail to appreciate the significance of the fact that Paul speaks of God’s “election” of them, and his “sanctification” of them, and his “calling” them into his kingdom (1:4; 2:12; 4:7; 5:24). In 1:6 Paul speaks of their having received the gospel “with the joy of the Holy Spirit” in spite of much affliction. So that verse as well as 4:8 and 5:19–20 makes it clear that they received the Holy Spirit at their conversion. Although baptism is not referred to in 1 Thessalonians, we may assume that no scholar would, on that account, go so far as to deny that the Thessalonian believers also were baptized when they were called into God’s kingdom (2:12) and incorporated into “the ekklēsia … in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1:1). Then, would it be too much of an eisegesis if we interpret these verses in connection with passages from Paul’s major epistles such as 1 Cor 1:13–17; 10:1–2; Gal 3:1–5, especially with the old baptismal formulae of Rom 10:9–10; 1 Cor 12:3, and further with Rom 8:15–17; Gal 4:6–7? Would it be wrong to infer from them that in Thessalonica as well as elsewhere Paul taught the believers, even the Gentile believers, to call his God of Israel “Father” (abba) and confess Jesus Christ as “Lord,” as they were being baptized and endowed with the Holy Spirit? On the contrary, it would really be a neglect of the task of exegesis or interpretation to conclude simply that since the word υἱοθεσία itself does not appear there is no idea of “adoption” in 1 Thessalonians. The two examples of “exaltation” and “adoption” clearly teach us that although those terms do not appear in 1 Thessalonians, it is not only reasonable but actually required that we appreciate Paul’s references to God as “our Father” and to Jesus Christ as the “Lord” and God’s “Son” in the light of Paul’s Jewish theological background, his use of the pre-Pauline confessions, his teachings in other epistles, etc., and affirm the definite presence of those ideas in 1 Thessalonians. Then, similarly we must look at Paul’s definition of salvation in terms of deliverance from God’s wrath through his Son Jesus Christ our Lord at the last judgment (1:10; 5:9–10; cf. also 3:12–13; 5:23–24) not atomistically by itself, but in the light of Paul’s Jewish theological background, his use of the prePauline confessions (e. g., Rom 3:24–26; 4:25), his teachings in his other epistles, especially the parallels in Rom 5:8–10; 7:24–8:4; 8:31–39; Gal 4:4–5 (see above and the preceding essay). Then, it appears more than reasonable to conclude that here Paul conceptualizes salvation in the category of justification (acquittal or deliverance from condemnation) and therefore that even if the term δικαιοσύνη/ δικαιοῦν itself is absent the doctrine of justification is present in 1 Thessalonians – to be sure, implicitly, but no less certainly.

10. The Lord’s Present Work of Salvation through the Power of the Holy Spirit

85

10. The Lord’s Present Work of Salvation through the Power of the Holy Spirit Söding’s observation (184) that in 1 Thessalonians “the present eschatology stands only in the shadow of the future eschatology” and “the present salvation is only loosely connected with the work of the risen Christ” can easily be explained in terms of a major purpose of the epistle, which is to reassure the readers about their eschatological salvation by correcting some of their misunderstandings about the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ. This purpose leads Paul to concentrate on the future eschatology and omit to expound the salvation that Christ has wrought through his death and resurrection and the readers already have come to enjoy. As he does not expound the present salvation, naturally he does not have an occasion to explain it in 1 Thessalonians as the present work of the risen Lord. This fact can go a long way also to explain why, as Söding claims (184, 191), the work of the Lord is not explicitly set in dynamic unity with that of the Spirit. Yet Paul does not totally neglect the present dimension of salvation: e. g., believers’ experiences of the Holy Spirit (1:5–6; 5:19–20); the Lord’s present help for their sanctification (3:12–13); the Spirit’s present help for it (4:8); their being no longer “in darkness” but having become “children of light and children of the day” (5:4–5). A careful exegesis also reveals how in 1 Thessalonians also Paul understands the work of the Holy Spirit as the present work of the risen Lord. This is clear when we set down some of Paul’s statements in 1 Thessalonians side by side: 3:8: Paul is relieved, as the Thessalonian believers “stand fast in the Lord” 3:12–13: Paul expresses his wish-prayer that “the Lord make you increase and abound in love to one another and to all human beings, so that he may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his holy ones” (Here Paul announces the topics to be dealt with in the subsequent chapters 4 and 5 of the epistle; note especially how the opening clause announces the topics of sanctification and love to be dealt with in 4:1–8 and 4:9–12). 4:2: Paul gave the “commands” for the believers’ sanctification “through the Lord Jesus” (i. e., with the authority of the Lord Jesus as his fully empowered apostle) 4:3, 7, 9: Paul affirms that the believers’ sanctification and love for brethren are “the will of God” for them (cf. 5:9: their salvation is God’s will) 4:8: Paul affirms that God gives the believers his Holy Spirit for their sanctification. 5:23–24: In the closing prayer, which basically repeats the prayer of 3:12–13 in an abbreviated form, Paul prays God himself to sanctify the believers wholly.

86

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

This series of statements may be summarized as follows: (1) It is “the will of God” (i. e., God the Father wills) that the believers grow in sanctification and sibling love for one another. (2) The Lord Jesus sent Paul as his apostle to issue the “commands” to the Thessalonians on his behalf for their sanctification (i. e., for realization of “the will of God”). Note the implication: the Lord Jesus is the representative and executer of God’s will; he executes God’s will through his apostle Paul; Paul issues the “commands” for the sanctification of the believers on the Lord Jesus’ behalf, so that “the will of God” may be realized with them (see comment on 4:2 and Explanation on 4:3–6 in my commentary). (3) The Lord Jesus makes them grow in love (and so in sanctification), as they “stand fast in the Lord,” i. e., remain firmly committed to his lordship by dependence and obedience. (4) The Lord Jesus establishes their hearts blameless in holiness before the judgment seat of God (5) God gives them his Holy Spirit for their sanctification. (6) In short, God works out their sanctification. Now, would it be illegitimate here to understand the interrelationship of these six propositions in the light of Paul’s clearer teachings in his other epistles, as revealing the following line of his thinking?: (1) The Lord Jesus executes God’s will for believers’ growth in sanctification and love. (2) What the Lord Jesus does (i. e., enabling believers to grow in sanctification and love) is what the Holy Spirit does. (3) So, the Lord Jesus does his work, which is God’s work, with the power of God’s Holy Spirit as well as through the exhortations of his agent, the apostle Paul. (4) Thus, the Lord Jesus realizes God’s will for believers’ sanctification and ultimate salvation (5:9). (5) In summary, God works out his will (believers’ sanctification) through his agent (the Lord Jesus) by the power of his Hoy Spirit. Thus, it appears quite possible to see Paul implicitly conveying in 1 Thessalonians his understanding of the present process of salvation (growth of believers in sanctification and love) in a trinitarian framework, in which the Lord Jesus executes God’s will through the Holy Spirit. The present phase or process of salvation that is being wrought by the Lord Jesus through the Holy Spirit is certainly not unfolded or expounded in 1 Thessalonians, as in some other epistles (cf. esp. Rom 8; Gal 5), so that we can only infer it from his scattered statements in it, with the help of a clearer light drawn from his other fuller epistles. But this can be accounted for by the particular

11. Paraenesis “Anchored on the Justifying Grace and the Operation of the Spirit”

87

occasion and purpose of the epistle that we have described above. If this explanation is rejected, what is the alternative? That Paul developed the realized eschatology and the dynamic unity of the workings of the Lord and the Spirit only after 1 Thessalonians? But this alternative appears to be made less likely by the fact that affirming the risen Christ’s present lordship on the basis of Ps 110:1 was an old pre-Pauline tradition (cf. Rom 1:3–4), which Paul most certainly accepted from the first days of his Christian life as he saw it confirmed at the Damascus vision of the exalted Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, and received his apostolic commission from that Lord (cf. 1 Cor 9:1; Gal 1:13–17; etc.). It would have been really odd if Paul, the Jewish theologian, had failed to develop a sense of realized eschatology when he saw the crucified and resurrected Jesus confirmed as the long-awaited Messiah or eschatological deliverer at the Damascus Christophany and subsequently experienced the endowment of the promised eschatological Holy Spirit.

11. Paraenesis “Anchored on the Justifying Grace and the Operation of the Spirit” This consideration of the trinitarian framework of the present salvation (growth in sanctification) of the believers in 1 Thessalonians also helps us counter Söding’s claim (201) that in 1 Thessalonians paraenesis is “not anchored on the justifying grace and the operation of the Spirit,” as it is in the major epistles. Of course, 4:8 flatly contradicts the second half of this claim. But 4:7 also denies the first half of it. See the fine comment of T. Holtz on the verse: “The phrase ‘God has called …’ implicitly includes the idea that God has already made the members of the church what they through their deeds should be. For the call of God is in the first place an act of creation that sets the being, rather than a demand for becoming.”27 So God has called the believers “in sanctification.” By calling them into his kingdom (2:12; cf. also 1:4), God has sanctified them or set them apart for himself, so that they may live as his holy people. Therefore, the Thessalonian believers must now live a holy life, completely shunning the idolatry (1:9) and immorality of their pagan neighbors (4:3–5), and loving one another and all (4:9–11). So their sanctification is the will of God (4:3), and the Lord Jesus helps them grow in it (3:12–13) through the Holy Spirit that God has given them (4:8). On the basis of this sanctifying grace of the triune God, Paul issues his paraenesis for a holy and righteous life in 4:1–8. Here admittedly Paul imparts this teaching in terms of “sanctification” rather than “justification.” But 1 Cor 6:9–11 shows that “sanctification” and “justification” are closely related, if not quite synonymous, and in both our 1 Thess 4:3–8 27 Holtz,

Thessalonicher, 165.

88

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

(cf. also 3:13; 5:23–24) and 1 Cor 6:9–11 (cf. also 1:2, 30), Paul seems to choose the category of “sanctification” with a view to the Thessalonian and Corinthian believers’ pagan background (the “impure” Gentiles being made God’s holy people) and to their continuing exposure to pagan idolatry and immorality (see below). Rom 6:19–22 gives basically the same impressions as 1 Cor 6:9–11 and 1 Thess 4:3–8, and these three passages have in common the fact that they emphasize “sanctification” while echoing the immorality of the pagans that is described in Rom 1:18–32 (see comment on 1 Thess 4:3–8 in my commentary).28 Anyway, Paul’s paraenesis in 1 Thessalonians agrees with that in his other epistles in basing it on God’s grace that brings the believers to the right relationship with himself and maintains them in it through his Son Jesus’ lordship over them and his Spirit’s leading and enabling of them.29

12. Faith, or Faith Alone In his efforts to distinguish Paul’s theology in 1 Thessalonians from that in the major epistles, Söding (185) also argues that in 1 Thessalonians “faith is seen essentially not in antithesis to the works of the law and the wrong self-boasting of the enthusiasts, but as perseverance in persecution, as faithfulness (Glaubens­ treue).”30 Paul uses the word πίστις/πιστεύειν 12 times in the short epistle of 1 Thessalonians, while using it only 6 times in Philippians, an epistle of comparable length, and 16 times in 1 Corinthians, which is more than three times longer. In most of the occasions in 1 Thessalonians, he uses the noun πίστις absolutely in the phrase “your faith” (1:8; 3:2, 5, 6, 7, 10), as well as the participle phrase τοῖς πιστεύουσιν absolutely: “you, the believers” (2:10, 13) and “all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia” (1:7). This clearly indicates that the concept is well established with the readers, i. e., that Paul taught about it thoroughly to the Thessalonians during his brief mission with them.31 It also indicates clearly that he uses the concept to characterize their whole Christian existence, and perceives it as the essential distinguishing mark of Christians from non-Christians. However, in presenting the readers’ faith as their essential distinguishing mark as Christians, Paul has in view not just their perseverance in affliction. 1 Thess 1:5–8 and 2:10–13 show that he regards their acceptance of the gospel as the true  See also Essay 11 “Paul’s Common Paraenesis,” 272–74 below. a more comprehensive study of the close parallelism of Paul’s paraenetical teaching in 1 Thessalonians with that in Romans, Philippians and Galatians, see ibid., pp. 253–77 below. 30  Recently N. K. Gupta, Paul and the Language of Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020), 79–85, has also argued to take Paul’s faith language in 1 Thessalonians mainly in the sense of “faithfulness.” See my counter-argument to this in the sub-section “Faith and ‘the Work of Faith’ in Explanation after commenting on 1 Thess 1:2–10 in my commentary. 31 Cf. Hengel and Schwemer, Paul, 305. 28

29 For

12. Faith, or Faith Alone

89

word of God as the most fundamental dimension of their faith,32 and 4:14 suggests that he does so because thereby the historic saving work of Christ’s death and resurrection proclaimed in it is appropriated (cf. Rom 3:24–26; 1 Cor 15:1–5, 11; Gal 2:16–21; etc.). Alongside this fundamental sense, certainly the sense of perseverance (i. e., “faithfulness”) in commitment to the Lord Jesus or Christianity in spite of persecution is also present in Paul’s use of the word πίστις in 1 Thess (3:2, 5, 6, 7), as the concept is set in parallelism with “standing fast in the Lord” (3:8) and in antithesis to “being perturbed by these afflictions” (3:3). But this sense by necessity includes in itself the dimensions of trust and hope, as one can persevere in one’s commitment to the Lord Jesus only when one trusts in his help and hopes for his deliverance. Furthermore, when Paul says he prays earnestly that he may come to his readers and “make good the deficiencies in [their] faith” (3:10), he seems to use the word “faith” to refer to their total Christian existence, which includes the dimension of knowledge in faith: by providing deeper and wider knowledge about the gospel than what he was able to provide during his brief mission with them, he hopes to help them grow in their trust and hope, so that they can persevere better, withstanding the persecution. Paul follows up this statement about his prayer with his actual prayer for the Lord to enable his coming to the readers and help them to grow in love and sanctification with a view to the last judgment at the parousia of the Lord Jesus (3:11–13). Here we can see that by “the deficiencies in [their] faith” Paul has in view chiefly the readers’ insufficient knowledge about the gospel’s eschatological component and its requirements of love and sanctification as well as their actual practice of love and sanctification. As he cannot come to them immediately, he seeks to remedy “the deficiencies in [their] faith” at least provisionally through the present epistle by imparting in chs. 4–5 further teachings about them and encouraging them to practise greater love and sanctification. Thus, it becomes clear that “faith” includes also obedience to the Lord who both demands and enables us to practice love and sanctification. In this light, we are to understand both the phrase “work of faith” in 1:3 and the combination “faith and love” in 3:6 as pointing to the obedience dimension of faith. Thus, in Paul’s use of the concept “faith” in 1 Thessalonians, we can verify all the elements or dimensions that we can verify in his use of “faith” in his other epistles. So it is wrong for Söding to see in the former only the element of perseverance in commitment to Christianity and specifically highlight the lack of “clarification of the relationship of faith and love” (201). Certainly, Paul does not “clarify” the relationship of the two concepts in 1 Thessalonians, but then does he really “clarify” it anywhere else in his epistles, perhaps except the epigrammatic formula in Gal 5:6? Yet exegetes would not find it difficult to infer the relationship of the two concepts in Paul’s mind from his statements on them in 32 Ibid.,

304.

90

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

his other epistles, although they are not exactly intended to explain it. When the same method of exegesis is applied to his statements on faith and love in 1 Thessalonians, we can likewise infer from them, as we have just shown here, how Paul is linking them with each other in his mind. Then, what does it mean that Paul, the former Jewish theologian who used to be zealous for the law, now teaches that by believing the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection the Gentile Thessalonians avail themselves of that saving event and become members of God’s family and kingdom, and that he does this without any reference to the law? When he emphasizes faith so much as the means of appropriation of salvation in Christ and as the distinguishing mark of Christian existence, while making no reference to the law even in those contexts (1:9–10; 4:1–8) where the subject matters treated would have required of a person with a background of “zealotic” Pharisaism to refer to the law, is he not revealing his sola fide principle and reflecting his “conversion” from his former commitment to the law, i. e., his abandonment of his previous appreciation of the works of the law? Then, should we not see in 1 Thessalonians an implicit contrast between faith and the works of the law as the means of salvation? Söding (198) himself declares that “1 Thess is clear evidence for the law-free gospel preaching of Paul.” Yet, pointing to the absence of an explicit contrast between faith and the works of the law (or human wisdom), he, like many other scholars, argues that Paul has not yet developed the proper doctrine of justification until long after 1 Thessalonians. But this refusal to recognize the presence in Paul’s mind of “not by works of the law” as the necessary corollary of the “by faith” principle stressed in 1 Thessalonians is to ignore not only his Pharisaic background but also the occasion and nature of 1 Thessalonians, as well as the history of the early church (on this, see below). In 1 Thessalonians Paul does not unfold his soteriology in any way, correcting the aberrations of the readers or disputing the challenges of outsiders. So in the epistle he does not explain or argue that salvation or justification (deliverance from God’s wrath) is by faith in Christ, as he does in Romans, Galatians, and Phil 3. Therefore, there is no statement in 1 Thessalonians that straightforwardly affirms that salvation is by faith. Nevertheless, we have discerned that doctrine as implicitly present in the epistle by observing his numerous statements about the readers’ faith in their contexts. As he does not explain or argue that salvation or justification is by faith in Christ, it is only natural that he does not say, either, that it is not by works of the law. When the Thessalonian believers are not questioning the teaching that Paul imparted to them about salvation by faith in Christ’s atoning death and resurrection three or so months earlier, why should he explain or argue for that teaching in an epistle that he writes to address some other issues? When they are not concerned about the “works of the law” like the Galatian believers, or boasting of their wisdom/knowledge and spiritual powers like the Corinthian believers, why should Paul discuss those problems and set them in antithesis to faith? Thus the occasion

13. The Law-Free Gospel

91

of 1 Thessalonians did not call for Paul to unfold his soteriology in the epistle, and so he does no more than indirectly reflecting his doctrine of “salvation by faith” in the statements that are made for some other purposes than unfolding his soteriology. This situation appears adequately to account for his omission of any reference to the (works of the) law or human wisdom as the means of salvation (see section 3 above).

13. The Law-Free Gospel In fact, Söding (198–99) himself recognizes all this: 1 Thessalonians is clear evidence for the law-free gospel preaching of Paul. Certainly freedom from the law does not become a theme. There is no confrontation at all with the nomos and the “works.” This is certainly due to the fact that Paul is writing to Gentile Christians who are not exposed to the temptation of nomism. Freedom from the law is self-evidently presupposed. Paul sees no reason to defend or substantiate it. But still the epistle manifests the theological presuppositions under which the (de facto) freedom from the law appears theologically plausible and indeed necessary. However, they become visible only as the opposite sides of what Paul positively teaches in 1 Thessalonians. It is decisive that (already) 1 Thessalonians sees the eschatological manifestation of God’s saving will in Jesus’ death and resurrection and builds the whole theology upon it. The death and resurrection of Jesus not only constitutes the universalism of the gospel and the call of both the Jews and the Gentiles into the ekklesia; it also demands faith as response of human beings, which, led by the Spirit of God, accepts the gospel, proves itself as faithfulness in persecution, waits in hope for redemption through the kyrios, and presses toward an ethical conduct, which is determined by love. Thus implicitly the law as a way of salvation is abrogated … Then it is only consistent that the nomos plays no role in enactment of faith or in ethic, although the antithesis of faith (and love) to the works of the law is not developed (his emphasis).

This is an excellent explanation about Paul’s teaching about the law (or, more precisely, the absence thereof) in 1 Thessalonians. Here Söding clearly recognizes both that in 1 Thessalonians Paul implicitly rejects the works of the law and that the reason why he nevertheless does not make it explicit is due to the occasion and nature of the epistle. So it is difficult to understand why Söding gives so much significance to the absence in 1 Thessalonians of an actual discussion of the law and explicit references to the works of the law, the antithesis between faith and the works of the law, and Christian freedom, as well as some other words and themes (on the latter, see our discussion above), as to stress the “distance” of the epistle from Paul’s major epistles (184–85), and to claim that the doctrine of justification unfolded in Galatians, Romans and Phil 3 represents “not just new forms of expression” of his soteriology in 1 Thessalonians, but rather an essential change or “substantial development” of it (201). For us, it appears much more reasonable

92

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

to recognize the substantial unity of the implicit doctrine of justification in 1 Thessalonians with its explicitly expounded form in the later epistles, and see those points listed up by Söding (plus the problems of the flesh, sin and death) as missing in 1 Thessalonians only as the features of the doctrine that are naturally brought to expression (indeed, to sharp expression) in the course of Paul’s exposition and argumentative defense of the doctrine against the challenges of the Judaizing nomists. Even the law–the Spirit antithesis that is an essential element of the doctrine of justification in Galatians and Romans is not a new “substantial development” there, but is already implicitly present in 1 Thess 4:8 (see comment and Explanation ad loc. in my commentary).

14. The Evidence of the Corinthian Correspondence Our view here propounded is supported by the evidence provided by the Corinthian correspondence. In 1–2 Corinthians the doctrine of justification is not expounded as in Romans and Galatians. Yet its implicit presence in 1–2 Corinthians can be recognized basically from the law-free soteriology based on Christ’s atoning death and resurrection that Paul teaches in them (e. g., 1 Cor 1:30; 6:9–11; 15:1–5, 55–56; 2 Cor 5:14–6:2)33 as in 1 Thessalonians. In fact, the following facts make the implicit presence of the justification doctrine more clearly discernable in the Corinthian correspondence than in 1 Thessalonians: (a) Paul’s actual use of the terminology of δικαιοσύνη/δικαιοῦν in 1 Cor 1:30; 6:11; 2 Cor 3:9; 5:21; (b) his stress on God’s last judgment (e. g., 1 Cor 1:7–9; 3:14–17; 4:5; 5:5; 9:24–27; 2 Cor 5:10); (c) his explicit references to the problems of the law in 1 Cor 15:55–56 and 2 Cor 3 as well as to fundamental Christian freedom from the law in 1 Cor 7:19; 9:20; 2 Cor 3; (d) his clearer allusion to the law–Spirit antithesis in 2 Cor 3 than in 1 Thess 4:8 (note esp. the contrast between the old covenant of the law/letter as the dispensation of “condemnation” and the new covenant of the Spirit as the dispensation of “righteousness” in 2 Cor 3:9); (e) the great stress on the theologia crucis in sharp antithesis to boasting of the flesh (wisdom/knowledge, spiritual experiences, pedigree, status, etc.) (1 Cor 1–4; 8–10; 12–14; 2 Cor 10–13), which suggests that there Paul is applying the fundamental truth of the doctrine of justification against the Hellenistic boasting of wisdom/knowledge and spiritual power instead of the Jewish boasting of the works of the law; and (f) Paul wrote Romans (with the fullest exposition of the justification doctrine) from Corinth at the conclusion of his long protracted controversies with the church there. Actually 2 Cor 5:14–21 has regularly been taken together with Rom 3:24–26; 4:25; 5:8–10; 8:3–4; Gal 3:13–14; etc. as a key text for the doctrine of justification. For Paul’s statements there that God did not count humanity’s “tres33 Cf.

Kim, PNP, 67–70.

14. The Evidence of the Corinthian Correspondence

93

passes” (παραπτώματα) against them (5:19b), but made Christ “sin” (metonymy for “sinner,” or sin-offering) for us (5:21a) and a sacrifice of inclusive substitute for us (5:14), so that we might become “the righteousness of God” (5:21b; probably metonymy for “the justified of God”34) are very close to those key texts, especially Rom 4:25 and Rom 8:3–4. It is true that the main soteriological category in 2 Cor 5:14–21 is reconciliation rather than justification. However, both categories appear closely related to each other in that passage as well as in Rom 5:8–10. Those who are focused on the forensic meaning of justification may be inclined to seeing justification as the ground for reconciliation (cf. Rom 5:1). But if justification is understood as having also a relational meaning, justification and reconciliation may be regarded as two parallel metaphors for the same reality, namely the restored relationship between God and humans, the former conveying the nuance of it being a right relationship while the latter an amicable relationship. In any case, in 2 Cor 5:14–21 we can see the doctrine of justification appearing in an abbreviated form. Then, how can we explain the differences between the implicit or abbreviated doctrine of justification in 1–2 Corinthians and its systematically expounded and argued-out counterpart in Romans? Is it plausible to think that the latter is the result of Paul quickly giving to the former “not just new forms of expression,” but rather an essential change or “substantial development” in response to the new challenges of the Judaizing nomists that arose at the conclusion of the Corinthian controversies? Galatians, usually dated before Romans, would confound this problem even more. Söding himself rightly recognizes Paul’s striking declarations on the law in 1 Cor 9:20 (Paul being no longer under the law), 15:55–56 (the law as a destructive power in alliance with sin and death), and 2 Cor 3 (the Mosaic covenant of the law being the dispensation of blindness, condemnation and death), as being a result of his long wrestling with the problem of the law prior to the conflicts with the Judaizing Christian nomists (187).35 These most revolutionary statements about the law for a Jewish theologian (cf. also 1 Cor 7:19: “For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision …”) suggest that already by the time of writing 1 Corinthians Paul had developed a critical and comprehensive doctrine of the law, beyond a fundamental devaluation of circumcision and the regulations of food and purity, which the advocates of the New Perspective on Paul regard as having played a crucial role in Paul’s conflicts with the Jewish Christian nomists that led to his development of the doctrine of justification. In fact, the parallelism between 1 Cor 15:54–57 and Rom 7 (note esp. the parallels 1 Cor 15:56//Rom 7:5, 8–9, 34 Cf. O. Hofius, “Sühne und Versöhnung,” in Paulusstudien (WUNT 51; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), 47. 35  Cf. also R. von Bendemann, “‘Frühpaulinisch’ und ‘spätpaulinisch’? Erwägungen zu der These einer Entwicklung der paulinischen Theologie am Beispiel des Gesetzesverständnis,” EvT 60 (2000): 210–29, esp. 214–19.

94

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

11, 13, and 1 Cor 15:57 [54c–55]//Rom 7:25a; 8:1–2, 31–39 as well as the fact that both 1 Cor 15:54–57 and Rom 7 discuss the problem of the law in the context of the Adam–Christ antithesis)36 leads us to think that in 1 Corinthians Paul could have unfolded that teaching about the law encapsulated in 1 Cor 15:54–57 in the way he did in Rom 7.37 However, in 1 Corinthians Paul does not expound his teaching about the law in a way comparable to what he does in Galatians or Romans. This is clearly due to the fact that the issues which he deals with in the epistle do not necessitate him to discuss the law in any detail. Hence he makes his soteriological statements there without any reference to the law. However, on the three occasions he does refer to the law. First, in 9:19–22, he declares his stance toward the law of Moses in the context of dealing with the question of food and purity (1 Cor 8–10). Second, in 1 Cor 7:19, he refers to circumcision, reflecting the principle of Gal 3:28 (cf. also 1 Cor 12:13; Col 3:11), apart from the original context in which it probably developed, namely, the doctrine of justification (cf. Rom 1:16–17). And third, in 1 Cor 15:54–57, his Adam–Christ antithesis leads him to refer to the law, because as its parallelism to Rom 5 and 7 shows, he has firmly worked out a conception of the unholy alliance of sin, the law and death as part of his Adam–Christ antithesis. But these three occasions necessitated only a brief statement on the law, but not a systematic discussion of it. In 1 Corinthians, as Paul was not facing any challenge from the Judaizers about the salvation or legitimacy of Gentile believers, he did not need to engage in an extended discussion of the law in making the soteriological statements in the epistle. Hence, even while expressing his disregard of the law of circumcision (1 Cor 7:19) and the laws of food and purity (1 Cor 9:20) and exposing the more fundamental problems of the law (1 Cor 15:55–56), as well as affirming faith as the means of availing oneself of the saving event of Christ’s atoning death and resurrection (1 Cor 1:21; 15:1–5), in 1 Corinthians (just as in 1 Thessalonians) Paul does not refer to the phrase “the works of the law” or make it an antithesis to faith, although he will shortly make their antithesis a central theme in Romans. In 2 Cor 3, Paul does discuss the problem of the law, but not directly in connection with an exposition or defense of his soteriology (as in Romans and Galatians) but indirectly in his efforts to affirm the legitimacy and superiority of his apostolic calling as a minister of the new covenant vis-à-vis the calling of 36  Cf. also von Bendemann, “Frühpaulinisch,” 223; J. Frey, “Rechtfertigungstheologie im ersten Korintherbrief,” in Saint Paul and Corinth: 1950 Years since the Writing of the Epistle to the Corinthians (ed. C. J. Belezos, S. Despotis, and C. Karakolis, 2 vols.; Athens: Psychogios, 2009), 1:549–85 (see 584). 37  Contra Schnelle, Paul, 231, 298, who rightly discounts the attempt of F. W. Horn, “1. Korinther 15,56 – ein exegetischer Stachel,” ZNW 82 (1991): 88–105, to excise 1 Cor 15:56 as a post-Pauline gloss, but still argues that at the time of writing 1 Corinthians, Paul “carrie[d] on his mission without a theory about the Torah,” treating it just as an adiaphoron. Is it really possible to take 1 Cor 7:19; 9:20–21; 15:55–57, let alone 2 Cor 3, as evidence for this assertion?

15. Conclusion

95

Moses as the minister of the old covenant at Sinai. So, even while pointing out the problems of the old covenant of the law (its temporariness, its being of letter written on the tablets of stone rather than of the Spirit indwelling in human hearts, its function of blinding and hardening its adherents, and its bringing condemnation and death to them), which are comparable with the problems of the law that he summarizes in 1 Cor 15:55–56 and expounds in Rom 7,38 Paul does not explicitly argue that therefore salvation or justification is not by the works of the law but by God’s grace and through our faith. He does not need to do that because he is not challenged to deal with the law’s soteriological function itself. Rather, being challenged about the legitimacy of his apostleship by the Jewish Christian opponents who dispute his appeal to the divine call at the Damascus Christophany and charge his gospel as “veiled” (2 Cor 4:3) for ignoring the Mosaic covenant and the law and concentrating only on the death of Jesus,39 he focuses on presenting his call as a minister of the new covenant through the Damascus Christophany à la Moses’s call as a minister of the old covenant through the Sinai theophany and affirming the superiority of the former to the latter.40 And only in this comparison and contrast he qualifies the ministry of the old covenant with the aforementioned negative remarks in order to demonstrate the superiority of his new covenant ministry of the Spirit to Moses’s old covenant ministry of the law.41

15. Conclusion: The Implicit Presence of the Doctrine of Justification in 1 Thessalonians and 1–2 Corinthians, and the Essential Unity between These Epistles and Romans, Galatians and Phil 3 Thus, the features of 1–2 Corinthians that have been discussed above (the more explicit references to the righteousness/justification language; the doctrine of atonement, reconciliation and justification abbreviated in 2 Cor 5:14–21; and the negative references to the law as well as to the boasting of the flesh) make the implicit presence in those epistles of the doctrine of justification by faith without works of the law even more visible than in 1 Thessalonians. Those features can be seen as abbreviations of Paul’s arguments in Romans. Therefore, the doc38  In fact, naming the old covenant of the law as the “dispensation of condemnation” (2 Cor 3:9) and “dispensation of death” (2 Cor 3:7) may also be seen as a summary of Rom 7, as an even shorter summary than 1 Cor 15:55–56. 39  Cf. S. Kim, “2 Corinthians 5:11–21 and the Origin of Paul’s Concept of Reconciliation,” NovT 39 (1997): 371–79 (now in my PNP, 226–33) 40  Cf. S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981, 21984; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 233–39. 41 See section 20 below for more discussions of the law-critical statements in 1–2 Corinthians.

96

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

trine of justification in Romans is to be viewed as a more explicit and systematic soteriological exposition of the gospel that Paul preached in Corinth and elsewhere before writing Romans, rather than as representing an essential change or “substantial development” of it. If we cannot see a “substantial” development between 1–2 Corinthians (AD 53–56?) and Romans (AD 56–57) with regard to the doctrine of justification,42 do we see one between 1 Thessalonians (AD 50) and 1–2 Corinthians? In view of our examination of the features in 1 Thessalonians that implicitly present the doctrine, the lesser degree of its visibility in 1 Thessalonians than in 1–2 Corinthians should not be seen as pointing to a “substantial” development from the former to the latter, either. Rather, it should be appreciated in terms of 1 Thessalonians being a much shorter epistle dealing with fewer issues and therefore providing Paul with less opportunity to express the kinds of points that he makes in the Corinthian correspondence. For example, there was in Thessalonica no dispute about food and purity and no occasion for Paul to unfold his Adam– Christ antithesis, so that he had no opportunity to make the kinds of assertions about the law that he makes in 1 Cor 7:19; 9:20b; and 15:55–56. In fact, in view of those revolutionary, well thought-out statements about the law in 1 Corinthians, which Paul wrote only a couple of years after 1 Thessalonians, it appears more reasonable to think that he could speak of the Gentile believers in Thessalonica as God’s elect people (1:4; 2:12) and of their eschatological redemption from God’s wrath on the basis of Christ’s death of vicarious atonement (1:10; 5:9–10) and impart his exhortations for sanctification (4:1–8), all without any reference to the law, precisely because at the time of his writing 1 Thessalonians he was already holding such a critical view of the law as expressed in 1 Corinthians. Thus the evidence of 1–2 Corinthians, with the clearer visibility of the doctrine of justification in them than in 1 Thessalonians and yet the absence of its explicit exposition in them as in 1 Thessalonians, supports our view of an essential unity of Paul’s gospel from 1 Thessalonians through 1–2 Corinthians to Galatians and Romans, as well as our attempt to explain the only implicit presence of the justification doctrine in 1 Thessalonians and 1–2 Corinthians as due to the absence of the need to unfold it in those epistles rather than to its later development. In 1 Thessalonians and 1–2 Corinthians Paul seeks to meet other needs of his Gentile converts than countering the Judaizers’ attempt to impose the law on them. 42  In addition to the features of 1–2 Corinthians that are shown to exhibit the implicit presence of the doctrine of justification in those letters, the short interval between those letters and Romans, as well as the fact that Paul wrote Romans from Corinth (cf. Rom 16), also makes a theory of “substantial” development between those letters quite unlikely. Cf. the sensible judgment of S. Schreiber, Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher, ÖTK 13:1 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2014), 69: “Since all the preserved Pauline letters originate from a short time-span (likely 50–56) and none of these letters systematically unfolds a total picture of a Pauline theology, the possibility of proving theological developments remains limited anyway.”

17. Paul’s Conversion and Call

97

16. Consideration of Paul’s Conversion/Call and the Context of the Early Church History This conclusion is to be further confirmed through a consideration of the development of the doctrine of justification in the context of the early church history. Above we have expressed our regret at Söding’s failure to be faithful to his own method of taking into account the pre-Pauline material, the situations of the early church, Paul’s background, and hints from other Pauline epistles in assessing the theology of 1 Thessalonians. Another weakness in Söding’s study, which leads to his unsatisfactory judgment, is his failure to take Paul’s conversion/call and his chronology seriously. Söding does not take seriously enough the significance of the fact that Paul, a former Pharisee who had been extremely zealous for the law (Gal 1:13–14; Phil 3:5–6), forsook the law and preached the gospel to the Gentile Thessalonians without requiring circumcision and the other “badges of the covenant” (to use the language of the New Perspectivists). If, as Söding himself rightly stresses, Paul teaches in our epistle about redemption from God’s wrath at the last judgment and imparts exhortations for a sanctified life without any reference to the law, Paul is not doing this simply because he has forgotten the law or regards it as a matter of adiaphoron, something that can hardly be imagined with a former law-zealous Pharisee,43 but because he has thought through about the law and has come to a negative conclusion about its function in salvation and sanctification. Furthermore, it is difficult to imagine that Paul was not able, or did not feel the need, to reach a clear understanding of the role of the law in redemption at the last judgment so long after his conversion and call (AD 32–34). We must reckon that by the time of his writing our epistle (AD 50), Paul, a former “Pharisaic scribe,” had become a mature Christian theologian, as he had at least 16 years of apostolic career behind him.44

17. Paul’s Conversion and Call The underestimation of Paul’s conversion/call and his chronology was one of the issues that I raised with J. D. G. Dunn’s view about Paul’s doctrine of justification (my PNP, 22–53). He has responded to me,45 but the issue still remains. Dunn (“New Perspective,” 37) now states that “Paul’s understanding of justification from faith was probably clear and firm from the first,” and even says that “from 43  Nor can it be imagined that Silas/Silvanus, a Jewish Christian “prophet” who used to be a leader of the Jerusalem church (cf. Acts 15:22, 31), did the same when he participated in Paul’s writing of 1 Thessalonians (cf. 1:1). 44  Cf. Hengel and Schwemer, Paul, 11–15. 45  Dunn, “The New Perspective: What, Whence and Whither,” in The New Perspective on Paul (revised ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 36–41.

98

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

his first evangelistic outreach as a Christian … [Paul] preached the good news that God’s saving righteousness was for all, Jew first but also Gentile – that is Gentiles as Gentiles, without requiring them to become proselytes” (his italics). But Dunn (36) still insists that “the antithetical formulation, ‘from faith and not from works of the law’, was probably the outcome of his confrontation with his fellow believing Jews in Jerusalem and Antioch [Gal. 2.1–16]” (his italics. The same view was expressed already in his Theology of Paul [371–72]).46 So, Dunn still fails to consider seriously enough whether the conversion of Paul, a critical theologian, from his “zeal” for the law to a “[firm] understanding of justification from faith,” as well as his decision to offer the gospel of justification and incorporation into God’s people to Gentiles without requiring them to be circumcised, necessarily involved a formulation at least in his mind (if not in public teaching) of the antithetical corollary “and not from works of the law.”47 Dunn (“New Perspective,” 37) still affirms only that Paul’s pre-conversion “zeal” (Gal 1:13–14; Phil 3:4–6) “was directed to maintaining Jewish ‘blamelessness,’ including a holiness unblemished by contact with other nation.” He fails to consider seriously what effect the shock of discovering on the Damascus road that that law-inspired “zeal” had been mistaken would have brought upon his understanding of the law, and what resolution Paul as such a zealous Jewish theologian would have needed to make about the law in order to preach the gospel to Gentiles without requiring circumcision and law observance. In response to my criticism of his neglect of these questions as well as of his implicit view of Paul as having seriously encountered the issues of circumcision and food laws for Gentile believers for the first time at the Jerusalem Council and the ­Antioch incident more than a decade after his conversion and call (my PNP, 22–45, 46 See

the discussion in my PNP, 96 and n. 35.  In fact, for me, it is the unhappy situation of today’s scholarly debate (see below for some examples of similar views as Dunn’s) that leads me to make this sort of unrealistic formulation “at least in his mind (if not in public preaching).” The unhappy situation leads me also to ask the following questions, which under the normal circumstances would be totally unnecessary or even be regarded as petty. Can one imagine that Paul kept such an obvious but important theological formulation only in his mind but never uttered it in his teaching? Can it be imagined that Paul did not discuss the question of the law with Barnabas, a former leader of the Jerusalem church (Acts 4:36–37; 11:22), and obtain his agreement on the gospel of justification of Gentile believers without circumcision (and most likely some other works of the law), while serving the church of Antioch together (Acts 11:25–26) and carrying out Gentile mission together in other places (Acts 13–14)? Had not Barnabas agreed on that form of the gospel, how could he have represented it at the Jerusalem council together with Paul as the joint delegation of the Antioch church (Gal 2:1–10; Acts 15:1–35)? And had they not taught together the Jewish and the Gentile believers in the Antioch church that circumcision and the regulations of food and purity did not matter for them, how could the Jewish believers have had table fellowship with the Gentile believers before the “certain men from James” came to them and objected to that practice, and how could Paul criticize Barnabas as well as Peter for hypocrisy for their withdrawal from the table fellowship under the pressure of the “circumcision party” from James (Gal 2:11–14)? See more discussions in section 19 below. 47

17. Paul’s Conversion and Call

99

51–53), Dunn does not quite meet my arguments but essentially repeats his old arguments that I criticized. Instead, Dunn (“New Perspective,” 38) charges me for ignoring the “important” question of “why the issues of circumcision and then of table-fellowship did not arise for so many years and then in the way they did. [Kim] ignores the fact that the questions about circumcision and laws of clean and unclean were raised not by Paul but by his fellow Jewish believers” (his italics). Then, Dunn (“New Perspective,” 39) answers the second question himself thus: “Part of the answer presumably is that whereas for Saul the persecutor breaches of the boundary of circumcision had been an issue, for Paul the apostle they were not; that is what he had been converted from” (his italics). I think that this is the correct answer – though not in the sense that Dunn presumably intends. But unfortunately, Dunn never explains how it was possible for the persecutor turned an apostle came to reverse his theology and decide that circumcision was no issue. Doesn’t that decision already mean “not from the work of the law (at least, of circumcision)”? Or does Dunn suppose that Paul’s conversion meant that he did not need to think about the laws vis-à-vis the Gentiles anymore, or that since his conversion he stopped thinking about the laws of circumcision, purity, etc. that had driven him to persecute the Hellenistic Jewish Christians who were preaching the gospel to Gentiles without requiring them to observe those laws? But this is hardly realistic, and it is clearly denied by Paul’s own testimonies about his conversion and call in Gal 1:13–14 and Phil 3:5–6, which show how he kept on recounting his persecution of the church out of his zeal for the law. Rather, precisely because Paul was converted from his zealous Pharisaic Judaism that held circumcision and purity laws as most serious issues (i. e., precisely because he had come to the decision that those laws were not necessary for the Gentiles to avail themselves of the salvation of Christ), he carried out his Gentile mission without requiring them to observe those laws, and precisely because he did not require his Gentile converts to observe those laws, he did not need to raise those issues himself. When the issues were clearly resolved in his own mind, why should he propose to discuss them – at least at such a serious level as to leave its traces in his epistle written to his mainly Gentile converts in Thessalonica – so long as they were not raised by them or anybody else? When there is no challenge to his apostolic practice of not requiring his Gentile converts to observe those laws, why should he raise those issues on his own initiative and dispute about them? (cf. 1 Cor 7:17 and 9:20, where Paul only alludes to the issues, as he does not find the subject matters there requiring him to discuss them). So, I do not understand why Dunn thinks that the fact that those issues were raised not by Paul himself but by other Jewish Christians is an argument against my view that Paul resolved those issues in his mind soon in the wake of his conversion and call. First of all, are we to assume that Paul the former “zealous” Pharisee was not as sensitive to the requirements of the law for Gentile conver-

100

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

sion to Judaism as those Jewish Christians who raised the issues against him? Does the fact that it was not Paul but Jewish Christians who raised the issues of circumcision and food laws really point to a late development of Paul’s thinking on those issues? For me, on the contrary, that fact points to its early development: only because Paul had gone about preaching the gospel among Gentiles without requiring his Gentile converts to observe those laws, did the Jews in the synagogues and also some Jewish Christians become alarmed and begin to challenge his gospel and missionary practice, forcing him to defend them against those laws or the whole law. Isn’t this view supported by the implicit and explicit witnesses of both Pauline epistles and the Acts of the Apostles? (see sections 2 and 3 above). We must also ask – How could a former Pharisee so zealous for the law have gone about preaching the gospel to Gentiles, requiring only faith in Christ, but not the observance of the law, if he had not already had in his mind the formula of “justification ‘from faith and not from works of the law’”?

18. The Jerusalem Council and the Antiochian Controversy Our view also explains Dunn’s first question more satisfactorily. His own answer to this question is not satisfactory as far as Paul is concerned. According to Dunn (“New Perspective,” 38), [T]he believing Gentiles were initially regarded as in the same ambiguous situation as Gentile God-fearers, that is, Gentiles who were adherents of the local synagogue and had adopted some Jewish beliefs and customs, but had not accepted circumcision. It was only when the number of Gentile converts began to outnumber the believing Jews that alarm bells began to ring. The exception (uncircumcised God-fearers) was becoming the rule (believing Gentiles). This was the issue tackled at Jerusalem and resolved satisfactorily for Paul’s mission (Gal. 2.1–10). But evidently the further issue of the level of Torah obedience expected for believing Jews, especially in their relationships with these believing Gentiles, was not yet fully recognized, or was left unresolved or ambiguous at Jerusalem. Hence the incident at Antioch, when believing Jews insisted on maintaining a (higher) level of Torah observance which rendered table fellowship with the believing Gentiles impossible (2.11–14).

Some Jewish believers in Christ Jesus48 may have regarded Gentile believers in Christ as analogous to Gentile God-fearers in Jewish synagogues in some ways. But it is hard to believe that Paul regarded his Gentile converts in that way. In 48  Perhaps like those whom Paul calls “the circumcision party” (τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς, Gal 2:12), the “people who came from James.” Paul’s description of the Antiochian conflict in Gal 2:11–14 suggests that before they came to Antioch and denied the equality of uncircumcised Gentile believers in Christ with Jewish believers, the Jewish believers in the Antiochian church themselves had not questioned it. Why? Could this happen unless Paul had explictitly preached the gospel in Antioch in terms of Rom 1:3–5, 14, 16–17 and Gal 3:28?

18. The Jerusalem Council and the Antiochian Controversy

101

fact, it is difficult to believe that even the pre-conversion Paul thought that the Hellenistic Jewish Christians whom he was persecuting were engaged in making Gentiles God-fearers. Would he have so violently persecuted Hellenistic Jewish Christians when they were trying merely to win some Gentile Godfearers, without any claim of making them members of God’s holy people? Is it imaginable that with the Damascus conversion and call then he joined them in such a work himself? Actually there is no evidence that Paul thought that at his apostolic call he was entrusted with “the gospel to the uncircumcised” (Gal 2:7) in order to increase the number of Gentile God-fearers. On the contrary, all the evidence points to the fact that he felt called to preach the gospel of Christ’s salvation to the Gentiles and bring them into the eschatological community of salvation – uncircumcised as they were, but still as much God’s people or children as the Jews who believed in Christ. So, although it is imaginable that some Jewish Christians especially in Judea may not have seriously thought about the issue of circumcision for Gentile converts during the first years of the post-Easter church, it is not easy to imagine that Paul, the active missionary among the Gentiles, did not face the issue, or went about with his apostolic ministry without having resolved that issue in his mind. The combination of the two unique features in Paul’s life, namely his twofold conversion from a most zealous Pharisaism to Christianity and from a violent persecutor of law-disregarding Gentile mission to a chief practitioner of it, demands an assumption that he had resolved in his mind the issues of circumcision, purity, etc., in connection with his conversion and call to apostleship to the Gentiles, before he embarked on his Gentile mission. Here we may add that a consideration of what further distinguished Paul from many other Jewish Christians, namely, his scribal training and theological acumen, would further strengthen this view. It is indeed historically plausible that as the number of Gentile converts increased to become a significant force, Jewish Christians seriously raised the issue of requiring circumcision of Gentile converts, and both Gal 2:1–10 and Acts 15 support this supposition. Regardless of whether they refer to the same event or not, both passages witness to the fact that this issue was dealt with at the apostolic consultation at Jerusalem. But Gal 2:1–10 makes it clear that even before the consultation Paul had a firmly formulated “gospel to the uncircumcised” (Gal 2:7) that he had been preaching among the Gentiles (Gal 2:2). Luke supports this claim of Paul by placing his preaching of the gospel in the form of the doctrine of justification by faith and not by the law of Moses at the Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:16–48, esp. 38–41; see section 2 above) before that apostolic consultation (Acts 15). Paul’s taking along the uncircumcised Gentile Christian Titus as his companion (probably as “Exhibit A”) to that consultation, and his successful resistance to the pressures from the “false brethren” (Gal 2:2–5), imply that even before the consultation he had established a firm principle of not requiring circumcision of Gentile believers. What Gal 2:1–10 and Acts 15 witness to is that at the apos-

102

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

tolic consultation at Jerusalem the issue of circumcision for Gentile believers was formally or officially raised and resolved for the church as a whole, but they do not rule out the possibility that at the different places of Paul’s mission the issue had already been raised. In fact, it is much more likely that already within his own missionary team made up of Jewish Christians like Barnabas, Mark and Silas, as well as Gentile Christian(s) like Titus, the issue had been raised and he had had to address it. (It is highly probable that Paul was subjected to the Jewish punishment of thirtynine lashes five times [2 Cor 11:24] not just for preaching the crucified Jesus as the Messiah, but also for ignoring the law in making the Gentile believers in him members of the people of Yahweh-kyrios, and it is equally probable that not all those punishments occurred between the Jerusalem Council and 2 Corinthians, but at least some of them even before the Jerusalem Council.49) When the issue of circumcision was raised, even some Jewish Christians in Pauline churches could have been unable to accept his explanation about it, some Jewish Christians in other Hellenist preachers’ missionary areas could have had the same difficulty, and some Jewish Christian visitors from Jerusalem in those areas of Paul’s and other Hellenists’ missions could have been alarmed about the issue. So the criticisms of these Jewish Christians could have increasingly disturbed Paul and other Hellenist missionaries in the Gentile areas as well as the Jerusalem church leaders. As such an uneasy situation was getting increasingly critical, Paul together with Barnabas (and Titus) took the opportunity of the famine relief visit to Jerusalem that they undertook as representatives of the church of Antioch, to have a consultation with the Jerusalem apostles about the issue of Gentile believers’ circumcision (if Gal 2:1–10 corresponds to Acts 11:27–30), or the leadership of the church decided to convene an official consultation about it (if Gal 2:1–10 corresponds to Acts 15). For me, this is a plausible reconstruction from the evidence that both Paul and Luke provide. In any case, the Jerusalem Council was not the occasion in which the issue of circumcision was raised for the first time, but rather it was the occasion in which the prior disputes about it climaxed and got officially resolved. Thus, Dunn’s question (“why the issues of circumcision and then of table-fellowship did not arise for so many years”?) loses much of its validity as far as the issue of circumcision is concerned. Only a most minimalistic and literalistic reading of Gal 2 (with a complete disregard of Acts 15:1–2) and a most unimaginative historical reconstruction, would lead us to suppose that some Jewish Christians had abruptly raised the issue of circumcision at the meeting of the apostles in Jerusalem without any pre-history leading up to that meeting (see my PNP, 32–34).

49 Cf.

Furnish, Thessalonians, 71–72.

18. The Jerusalem Council and the Antiochian Controversy

103

As one who was persecuting Hellenistic Jewish Christians with his theology of “zeal” for violating the sanctity of circumcision as a fundamental identity marker of God’s people (this is to put the matter in the language of Dunn’s New Perspective), at God’s revelation on the Damascus road of the gospel of salvation in Christ Jesus, God’s Son, and his call for him to preach that gospel to the Gentiles (Gal 1:11–17; Rom 1:1–5), Paul could not help but realize that his “zeal” for Judaism was mistaken, therefore that the law that inspired such “zeal” was invalid, and therefore that he ought to preach the gospel to the Gentiles without requiring circumcision. Thus, in the wake of his Damascus conversion and call, he faced the issue of circumcision and resolved in his mind that justification is by faith in Christ without at least this work of the law (hence the most revolutionary declaration for a Jew: “Neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision …,” 1 Cor 7:19). Then, whenever Jewish Christians criticized his policy of not requiring circumcision from his Gentile converts, he must have discussed the issue with them and developed his theological arguments ever more deeply and sharply about the whole question of circumcision and the law. Thus, he must have theologically been well prepared for the crucial disputation on the issue that later took place in Jerusalem. We must understand Paul’s resolution of the issue of food laws and tablefellowship with Gentile Christians in the same way. It is simply unrealistic to imagine that Paul the former “zealot” for the law, or even Peter and Barnabas, had not faced that issue and given serious theological thoughts to it until “certain men from James” (Gal 2:12) criticized their eating with the Gentile believers in Antioch (at least Luke says so: see Acts 10:1–11:18!). Nor is it realistic to imagine that some Jewish Christians in Antioch and elsewhere had not raised with Paul and Barnabas the issue before that explosion with the arrival of “certain men from James.” Dunn (“New Perspective,” 39) cites Mark Seifrid against me: “It is scarcely imaginable that Paul’s companion in Gentile mission, Barnabas, would have wavered at Antioch if earlier he had been exposed to the full force of the polemic [here Dunn adds: ‘and of the theology’] Paul employs in the letter to Galatia.”50 But this is hardly a serious objection to the view that Paul had resolved in his own mind that justification was by faith in Christ without (at least) that work of the law, namely the observance of food regulations, long before the Antioch controversy. To begin with, of course, we do not know whether Barnabas or Peter later came around to espouse the Pauline doctrine of justification after reading or hearing of Paul’s arguments in Galatians. The poor Wirkungsgeschichte of that doctrine in the early church on the whole (not to mention its Jewish Christian wing in particular) does not make us confident about the ques-

50  M. Seifrid, Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme (NovTSup 68; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 180.

104

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

tion.51 This consideration leads us to see how unwarranted it is simply to assume that had Barnabas already had the arguments of Paul in Galatians he would not have wavered at Antioch, and to infer from this assumption that Paul must have presented different or weaker theological arguments at Antioch and before than those in Galatians. No serious scholar would argue that at Antioch or before Paul already made a long and difficult speech, presenting his doctrine of justification as fully and profoundly as he would later do in Galatians. But it is quite imaginable that at the least what he summarily reports of his Antioch speech in Gal 2:14–21 was actually elaborated on at some length in Antioch, as well as that even before the Antioch incident Paul had made similar arguments against his Jewish Christian detractors, appealing to the gospel of the atoning death of Christ Jesus, God’s Son, on the cross, to his own conversion experiences, and to the meaning of his and their common faith in Christ and the logic of their present Christian way of existence (See the next section 19). We do not know exactly what theological and/or other reasons nevertheless led Barnabas to waver. But it is easily imaginable that he and Peter could have considered the ecclesiastical peace (i. e., peace with the Jerusalem church and perhaps within the Antioch church – treating the “certain men from James” as Paul treats “the weak” in 1 Cor 8–10) or the protection of the Jewish church from the rising zealotic threat against fellowship with Gentiles more highly than theological consistency.52 It can also be imagined that they could not agree completely with Paul’s theological arguments and Scriptural exegesis. Actually, in the face of the fact that not all (to put it mildly) Jewish Christians were persuaded by Paul’s theological and Scriptural arguments in Galatians and ceased their opposition to his law-free Gentile mission after his Galatians, the above argument of Seifrid and Dunn turns out to be based on an incredibly naive assumption. Throughout church history (cf. 2 Pet 3:16) right down to our own day, there has been no dearth of theologians or Scriptural interpreters who have found it difficult to grant fully Paul’s arguments and exegesis in Galatians! In one of the latest studies on the Antiochian controversy, M. F. Bird (“The Incident at Antioch”) seeks to present a refined version of the popular view that is championed by Dunn and others, namely, that Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith without works of the law was formulated over the debates of the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem and the incident in Antioch. Similarly to Dunn, Bird affirms both “a very early Christian” root of the tenet of “righteousness by faith” (333) and the decisive importance of the Damascus revelation for the be51  Cf. T. Aono, Die Entwicklung des paulinischen Gerichtsgedanken bei den Apostolischen Vätern (Bern, et al.: Peter Lang, 1979). 52  Cf. M. F. Bird, “The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2.11–14): The Beginnings of Paulinism,” in Earliest Christian History: History, Literature, and Theology. Essays from the Tyndale Fellowship in Honor of Martin Hengel (WUNT 2/320; ed. M. F. Bird and J. Maston; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 350–52.

18. The Jerusalem Council and the Antiochian Controversy

105

ginning of “Paulinism” (358). Nevertheless, like Dunn, Bird also suggests that at the Jerusalem Council Paul successfully argued against circumcision of Gentile believers and had his gospel of uncircumcision affirmed by the Jerusalem pillars (341–42) and that only at the later Antiochian incident Paul made his first public argument against requiring Gentile believers of circumcision and observance of food laws for table fellowship with Jewish Christians (357–58). So the only practical difference (if it is a difference at all) between Bird and Dunn seems to be that whereas Dunn speaks of Paul’s first “formulation” of “(justification) from faith and not from works of the law” at the Antiochian incident, Bird (357) speaks of his “first public expression” of it there and then. But by this phrase “the first public expression,” what is Bird trying to say? Is he thereby implicitly allowing the possibility or likelihood that before the “first public” expression at the Jerusalem Council and the Antioch debate with some apostles and other leaders of the church Paul had already made a “private” resolution of it in his own mind or even some “private” expression of it at some less official occasions than the two events? The fundamental trouble with Dunn and Bird here is twofold. On the one hand, while they do confess to the importance of the Damascus revelation as the starting point of Paul’s doctrine of justification, they do not really take seriously enough the Damascus experience of the law-zealous persecutor converted and called to be an apostle to the Gentiles, and so they fail to appreciate properly that Paul had already then encountered most acutely in his own life the issues of the law, which were later raised by the Jews in the Jewish synagogues in which he preached the gospel during his mission in Asia Minor and Greece, as well as by the Jewish Christians at the Jerusalem Council and the Antiochian controversy, and then were intensified by his Judaizing opponents in Galatia. On the other hand, both Dunn and Bird ignore what the long period of some 15 years between the Damascus experience and the Jerusalem Council/the Antiochian incident53 could have meant for Paul’s theological development. I find it difficult to believe that Paul, a learned theologian and law-zealot turned an apostle for the Gentiles, took as long as a dozen or more years to the Jerusalem Council and the Antiochian incident explicitly to draw the corollary “and not from the works of the law” from his gospel of “righteousness ‘from faith’” for the Gentiles. G. Theissen54 exacerbates this problem further by postponing the origin of Paul’s doctrine of justification until the Galatian conflict with the Judaizers (the advocates of the Galatian origin of the justification doctrine usually date Galatians late to a time close to Romans, although Theissen himself [363] dates 53   J. D. G.  Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 504, 512, dates the two events to AD 47–48; similarly, also, Bird, “The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2.11–14),” 340. 54 The Religion of the Earliest Churches: Creating a Symbolic World (ET by J. Bowden; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 217–23.

106

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

it before 2 Corinthians). He (219–20) acknowledges that Paul had met the problem of the law at his conversion, but still suggests that “only [at the challenges of the Judaizers of Galatians and Phil 3] did Paul activate his own conversion and introduce it as an argument into the public discussion ….” Against this, Schnelle (Paul, 298–99) rightly asks: “Did a fundamental insight remain buried for twenty years, only to emerge with explosive force in the confrontation with the Judaists?” However, Schnelle’s own attempt to attribute the origin of the justification doctrine to the Galatian conflict is not convincing, either. His attempt is borne by a twofold, not so plausible argument: on the one hand, he minimizes the impacts of the Damascus event, the Jerusalem Council, and the Antioch controversy on its development (97–100, 136–37); and, on the other hand, he makes a distinction between “inclusive and exclusive doctrine of justification” and argues that in the Corinthian correspondence (i. e., before Galatians) there is evidence only for the former which refers to the baptismal renewal in the power of the Spirit (but with no concern for the law), and that the latter developed only with the Galatian crisis, resulting in the exclusion of “a synergistic role” of the law in justification as well as the “privileged hamartological status” of Jews and Jewish Christians (300–01). Schnelle (298) can make this kind of distinction only through such a cavalier assertion that in 1 Corinthians Paul reflects no theory about the law, treating it merely as an adiaphoron. Anyway, according to Schnelle, at the Galatian conflict Paul met a new situation quite different from those of the Jerusalem Council and the Antioch controversy, so that he developed the “exclusive doctrine of justification” in Galatians. Thus, Schnelle (299) argues that the commonly known doctrine of justification “represents a really new insight and argumentation within Paul’s thought.” At one place, Schnelle (100) summarizes his position thus: “The subject matter of justification and law had always been present with Paul since his conversion, but not the doctrine of justification and the law as found in Galatians and Romans” (his italics). But it is a question how that “subject matter of justification and law” that “had always been present with Paul” led him to develop only an “inclusive doctrine of justification” and a conception of the law merely as an adiaphoron in 1 Corinthians (Schnelle, 298) during some twenty years after his conversion and even after having had the debates at the Jerusalem Council and the Antioch controversy, and then suddenly to work out the “exclusive doctrine of justification” with so profound new insights and complex argumentation in Galatians and Romans.55 55  Equally unrealistic and arbitrary appears also Schnelle’s following distinction between “theme” and “doctrine:” “The declaration about the last judgment in 1 Thess and the two Corinthian letters thus point to the acceptance of human beings coram deo (before God) as a pervasive theme of Pauline theology. It belongs to the theme of justification but by no means has a causal connection to the specific doctrine of justification as found in Galatians and Romans” (Paul, 190, his italics).

18. The Jerusalem Council and the Antiochian Controversy

107

So it appears that Schnelle himself has not found a satisfactory answer to the question that he has put to Theissen. Thus, the attempts of Theissen and Schnelle to trace the origin of the justification doctrine to the Galatian conflict are even more unrealistic than the attempts of Dunn and Bird to trace it to the Antiochian controversy. As said above, it is only realistic to assume that during the dozen or more years of his Gentile mission before the Jerusalem Council and the Antiochian controversy, at the various places of his mission as well as within his own missionary team, which included Jewish Christians like Barnabas, Paul repeatedly encountered the issues that had first been raised in his own mind at his conversion/call and in the beginning of his Gentile mission56 and were to be raised more “officially” at the Jerusalem Council and the Antiochian controversy. So it is much more plausible to believe that before the two events Paul had developed his doctrine of justification with the two qualifying prepositional phrases, “by faith in Christ and not by works of the law,” and discussed it with his Jewish colleagues like Barnabas and even Peter, winning their approval (cf. Gal 2:14–16), and that on the basis of that doctrine, he argued first at the Jerusalem Council against requiring circumcision of Gentile believers and then at the Antioch controversy against the Jewish Christians’ withdrawal from table fellowship with the Gentile Christians, which was tantamount to requiring the latter to observe the circumcision and food laws. For me, only this supposition can satisfactorily explain Paul’s indignation at the “hypocrisy” or “play-acting” of Peter, Barnabas and the rest of the Jewish Christians at the Antiochian incident (Gal 2:13), as well as the former persecutor Paul’s mission to the Gentiles without requiring the observance of the law and Barnabas’ cooperation with Paul in such mission (see the next section). Bird himself seems to recognize this when he says that, even before the Jerusalem Council and the Antioch controversy, Paul was “the foremost defender of the Antioch church’s stance concerning Gentiles and the Torah” (341), i. e., its policy of foregoing circumcision as a requirement for Gentile Christians and its practice of Jewish Christians eating with Gentile Christians. It is only natural to assume that facing often the situation of having to justify his mission to the Gentiles without requiring them to observe the law during the long period between his conversion/call and the two events of the Jerusalem Council and the Antiochian controversy, Paul constantly deepened his insights into his justification doctrine, sharpened his arguments for it with ever more Scriptural reflection, and improved his presentation of it. Again, it is only natural to believe that those two important debates with various apostles and others and later the crisis in Galatia could have given Paul great impetus to travel further along this path of refining his justification doctrine. But for me it is more 56  Cf. Hengel and Schwemer, Paul, 45: Paul taught the gospel of justification as early as his mission in Arabia (Gal 1:17).

108

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

plausible to believe that Paul completed developing the essential features of his doctrine of justification by faith without works of the law between his conversion/call and the beginning of his Gentile mission, rather than to believe that he first preached only the gospel of justification “by faith” and only as a consequence of the Jerusalem Council and the Antiochian incident, or even later, of the Galatian crisis, he supplemented that gospel with the negative phrase “not by works of the law.”

19. New Observations for the Origin of the Justification Doctrine with Jesus and the Jerusalem Church We have argued for an early origin of the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith and without works of the law, more or less exclusively within the Pauline chronology of his conversion/call, his Gentile mission, his debates at the Jerusalem Council and the Antiochian controversy, and his letters. But we have not properly appreciated what role the pre-Pauline material (such as Rom 4:25; 1 Cor 15:3–4 and 11:23–26) could have played in the development of that doctrine. However, we may start with what would in fact make largely unnecessary our arguments above against the widespread view represented by Dunn and Bird, as well as against the view presented by Theissen and Schnelle. I mean that we need first to pay attention to some German scholars who have recently argued that the doctrine of justification “not by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” which is presented as a gnomic sentence in Gal 2:16a ([εἰδότες δὲ ὅτι] οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) and Rom 3:28 ([λογιζόμεθα γὰρ] δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου) originated not only prior to the Antiochian controversy but possibly can be traced back to the Jerusalem church and in substance even to Jesus. That the sentence presented in Gal 2:16a and its variant form in Rom 3:28 are not ad hoc statements about justification but represent a formally formulated doctrinal statement is indicated in several ways. First, note the following features of the statement in Gal 2:16a: (a) the generalized subject ἄνθρωπος (“a human being,” cf. also Rom 3:28), which Paul rephrases with equally generalizing “any flesh” (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ, Gal 2:16c; cf. also ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, Rom 3:20; cf. Ps 143:2); (b) the timeless present tense of the passive indicative δικαιοῦται (Gal 2:16a; cf. also the present passive participle δικαιοῦσθαι, Rom 3:28); and (c) the opening word εἰδότες, which indicates that the following ὅτι-clause in Gal 2:16a is a citation of a commonly recognized knowledge or belief (cf. Rom 6:9; 2 Cor 4:4). Note also the way Paul goes on to repeat the formula of the ὅτι-clause twice within the same verse of Gal 2:16 – first, in order to assert that, with the knowledge of that formula about justification, Peter, Barnabas and the other Jewish Christians in Antioch as well

19. New Observations for the Origin of the Justification Doctrine

109

as Paul himself, the “Jews by birth and not [born] of Gentiles, the sinners” (Gal 2:15), obtained their own justification according to that formula (Gal 2:16b); and then, second, in order to reaffirm the truth of that justification doctrine conclusively (Gal 2:16c: “because by works of the law shall no flesh be justified”).57 In the context of Gal 2:11–17, Paul suggests that the common knowledge and experience of the justification doctrine as stated in v. 16 had led Peter, Barnabas and the other Jewish Christians in Antioch as well as Paul himself to have table fellowship with the Gentile Christians there, setting aside the Jewish diet laws and so “living like a Gentile” (v. 14c). But when “certain men came from James” to Antioch, Peter, Barnabas and the other Jewish Christians withdrew from the table fellowship, “compelling the Gentiles to live like Jews,” i. e., requiring them to observe the Jewish food laws to be recognized as members of God’s people or as justified ones (vv. 11–14). For Paul this action was tantamount on the part of Peter, Barnabas and the other Jewish Christians to denying the truth of the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ and without works of the law that they knew (εἰδότες, 2:16a) and believed (ἐπιστεύσαμεν, 2:16b). So, it was an act of “hypocrisy” on their part and betrayal of “the truth of the gospel” (2:13–14). From this context of Gal 2:11–17 it is clear that by “the truth of the gospel” in v. 14 Paul refers to the commonly acknowledged doctrine of “justification not by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” (v. 16a). This contextual observation makes it all the more apparent that the gnomic formula in v. 16a58 was indeed a doctrinal statement, the “gospel” itself, which had been formulated prior to the Antiochian controversy and upheld commonly by Peter, Barnabas and the other Jewish Christians as well as Paul and the Gentile Christians at Antioch before the controversy broke out because of a later external pressure. Some German scholars call the formula in Gal 2:16a//Rom 3:28 a Basissatz, Grundsatz, or Lehrsatz, a well-established foundation statement or doctrinal statement.59 Recognizing it as a “Konsensaussage (consensus statement) of Antiochian Theology” or as its “Gemeindegrundsatz” (“communal foundation statement”), J. Becker thinks that Paul worked it out together with the Antiochian 57 For these and more reasons for taking Gal 2:16a as an independently formulated prePauline doctrinal statement that Paul cites there, see, e. g., M. Theobald, “Der Kanon von der Rechtfertigung (Gal 2,16; Röm 3,28) – Eigentum des Paulus oder Gemeingut der Kirche?,” in Worum geht es in der Rechtfertigungslehre? (ed. T. Söding; Freiburg: Herder, 1999), 135–40; cf. also; H. Stettler, “Did Paul Invent Justification by Faith,” TynBul 66 (2015): 167–70; R. Riesner, “Rechtfertigung aus Glauben – wie früh? Ein chronologischer und exegetischer Beitrag zum Reformationsjubiläum,” TBei (2017): 303. 58  Cf. Theobald, “Kanon,” 141–49, who determines that the formula falls in the category of γνῶμαι or sententiae in the context of the Greek-Hellenistic Gattungsgeschichte. 59 See the authors cited in the preceding n. 57. Cf. also C. Burchard, “Nicht aus Werken des Gestezes Gerecht, sondern aus Glauben an Jesus Christus – seit wann?,” in Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion 3: Frühes Christentum: Festschrift für Martin Hengel, ed. H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger, and P. Schäfer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 406–07 (405–15).

110

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

Christians.60 In his important essay on the formula of Gal 2:16 and Rom 3:28, similarly M. Theobald suggests that the doctrinal statement (Lehrsatz) was a Basissatz (foundation statement) or a common missionary theological “canon” of the Antioch church which expressed in a condensed form the experiences of pre-Pauline Christians and that it may be called Pauline insofar as Paul could have participated in formulating it during the time before the Apostolic Council and made it the Basissatz of his justification doctrine.61 C. Burchard considers whether Paul himself could have introduced the Grundsatz out of his Damascus experience and for the sake of Gentile mission or whether he could have learnt it from the Hellenists whom he had persecuted; but pointing to the fact that he includes Peter in the group of “we” who “know” it (Gal 2:11–17), he thinks that it may have to be traced to the earliest Aramaic speaking believers in Jerusalem and treated as a Christian Urgestein (primary rock) like 1 Cor 11:23–25 (and parr.) and 15:3–5.62 Recently H. Stettler and R. Riesner have carried out that tracing. Riesner’s attempt is quite comprehensive, so that in the following we would summarize it with occasional rearrangement of his material and addition of our own observations and arguments. He starts it with the observation63 (a) that the phrase, “works of the law” (ἔργα νόμου), which appears only in Pauline writings within the NT and in connection with the Basissatz (Gal 2:16 [x3]; 3:3, 5, 10; Rom 3:20, 28), has its equivalent neither in the Hebrew OT nor in the LXX but in the Qumran texts (‫מעשי התורה‬, 4QMMT (= 4Q398) 14–17 ii 3; ‫מעשי בתורה‬, 1QS 5:21; 6:18). Riesner goes on to note (b) that in the Essene community also justification was an important question and that some Qumran texts affirm that it is granted only by God’s mercy (1QS 9:12–15; 1QH 4:36–37, etc.), while other texts teach that it does not take place without faithful doing of the torah (1QS 3:5–6; CD 16:5; etc.; esp. 4Q398 ii 7–8: doing “works of the law” [ii 3] correctly and faithfully would be reckoned to the doers as righteousness at the last judgment [cf. Gen 15:6; Rom 4:3]). Then, Riesner introduces (c) a new archaeological find that in the southwestern hill of Jerusalem an Essene quarter was located not far from the first meeting place of the Jerusalem church. This leads him (d) to take Luke’s note in Acts 6:7 (“… a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith”) as a reference to many Essenes’ conversion to the Christian faith.64 From all these Riesner infers that the Basissatz had its beginning in the Jerusalem church’s need to counter the 60 J. Becker,

Paulus der Apostel der Völker (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 31998), 101, 303–04.  Theobald, “Kanon,” 131–92 (esp. 131, 156–67, 159). 62  Burchard, “Nicht aus Werken des Gestezes,” 408–10. 63 Riesner, “Rechtfertigung,” 207–10. 64  Here Riesner (“Rechtfertigung,” 209) follows O. Cullmann, “Das Rätsel des Johannesevangeliums im Licht der Handschriftenfunde,” in Vorträge und Aufsätze 1925–1962 (ed. K. Fröhlich; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966), 260–91 (279), and J. Jeremias, Die theologische Bedeutung der Funde am Toten Meer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962), 19. 61

19. New Observations for the Origin of the Justification Doctrine

111

Essene understanding of justification for those Essene converts, and concretely that for their admission into the groups around Peter and Barnabas through baptism it was coined in antithetical correspondence to the Essenes’ requirement of “works of the law” for admission into their covenantal community (1QS 5:20–23; 6:13–23). Since Peter had leadership in Jerusalem only until AD 41/42, Riesner supposes that the Basissatz was formulated before that date and that Paul could have learned it during his visit with Peter in Jerusalem “three years” after his Damascus conversion/call (Gal 1:18) or later from Barnabas in Antioch. Having so explained the origin of the phrase “(not) by works of the law” (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου) in the Basissatz, Riesner turns to explaining the origin of its positive counterpart, the phrase “through faith in Jesus Christ” (διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ),65 which, with the exception of Phil 3:9, appears only in connection with the Basissatz (Gal 2:16, 20; 3:22; Rom 3:22, 26). Pointing out the fact that the “justification” terminology in the Basissatz and elsewhere originates from the OT, esp. the fourth song of the Servant of Yahweh (Isa 53:11: “My righteous servant will justify many [‫יצדיק צדיק עבדי לרבים‬/δικαιῶσαι δίκαιον εὖ δουλεύοντα πολλοῖς], and he will bear their iniquities”), just as the early Christian reference to Christ’s saving event as the “gospel” (εὐαγγέλιον) originates from that song (Isa 53:1: ‫שמע‬/ἀκοή; Tg: ‫ ;בסרא‬cf. Isa 52:7: ‫מבשר‬/εὐαγγελίζεσθαι), Riesner suggests that the terminology of “faith” (πίστις/πιστεύειν) in the Basissatz is also rooted in that song (Isa 53:1: “Who has believed our message/gospel?” [‫מי האמין‬ ‫לשמעתנו‬/τίς ἐπίστευσεν τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν;]). The old baptismal formula and Paul’s elaboration on it in Rom 10:14–17 make this view quite likely as there Paul cites Isa 52:7 and 53:1 in combination in order to substantiate that faith in the ἀκοή or εὐαγγέλιον about Christ brings about “justification” and “salvation.” In Gal 3:1–5, in order to substantiate his argument for the Basissatz, that justification is obtained through faith in Christ Jesus and not by works of the law (2:16), Paul appeals to the Galatians’ own experience of receiving the Spirit not “by works of the law” but “by hearing with faith” (NRSV) or “by the faith-engendering hearing” (ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως, 3:2, 5) of the message of Christ crucified (3:1b).66 Here the twice repeated phrase ἀκοὴ πίστεως clearly indicates that Paul is arguing with the Servant Song of Isa 53 in mind, while the twice repeated juxtaposition of ἀκοὴ πίστεως with the phrase ἐξ ἔργων νόμου indicates that ἀκοὴ πίστεως (of Christ crucified) is equivalent to πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in Gal 2:16 as well as that receiving the Spirit (at baptism) is the same or concomitant event as obtaining justification. 65 Riesner,

“Rechtfertigung,” 210–11. There he also rightly argues for taking the phrase

πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in those passages in the sense of “faith in Jesus Christ” rather than “Jesus Christ’s faith.” 66 Cf. Riesner, “Rechtfertigung,” 211, who endorses O. Betz’s rendering of ἀκοὴ πίστεως here with “Botschaft, die Glauben heischt” (“Die Übersetzung von Jes 53 [LXX, Targum] und die Theologia Crucis,” in O. Betz, Jesus, der Herr der Kirche: Aufsätze zur biblischen Theologie II [WUNT 52; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990], 197–216 [205 n. 12]).

112

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

Thus, it appears reasonable to think that, while the phrase “not by works of the law” in the Basissatz originates from the early church’s interaction with the Essene community, its positive counterpart, “through faith in Jesus Christ,” originates from the early church’s interpretation of Jesus Christ’s saving event in terms of the Servant Song of Isa 53. Riesner relates these facts to the summary of God’s saving acts in Christ in 1 Cor 15:3–5,67 which the Jerusalem church had formulated as “gospel” in the light of Isa 53 and Paul received from his apostolic predecessors and preached as the common apostolic gospel together with them (1 Cor 15:1–5, 11). In 1 Cor 15:1–2 Paul says that the Corinthians are saved by accepting this gospel, that is, by believing in it. In Rom 10:9–10 (which is elaborated on in the subsequent verses in terms of Isa 53, as we have just seen), Paul further summarizes that four-clause summary of the gospel of 1 Cor 15:3–5 in just one clause: “God raised [the Lord Jesus] from the dead” and declares that by believing in that gospel in our heart and by confessing with our lips the consequence of that faith, “Jesus is Lord,” we are “justified” and “saved.” All these make it quite clear that the part of the Basissatz, justification “by faith in Jesus Christ” (here “Jesus Christ” being a shorthand for God’s saving work in Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection that the “gospel” proclaims), is a pre-Pauline doctrinal statement that the Jerusalem church of Peter and other apostles formulated by interpreting the Christ-event as fulfillment of the prophecy of Isa 53. Although Riesner does not discuss it in this context, this view can be further strengthened by Rom 4:24–25. There Paul speaks of justification (4:22) of those who “believe in [God] who raised [ἐγείραντα] from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered [παρεδόθη] for our trespasses and raised [ἠγέρθη] for our justification.” It is quite likely that v. 25a was the original Jerusalem church’s Semitic formulation that was Grecized into “Christ died for our sins” in the form of the gospel that Paul delivered to the Corinthians (1 Cor 15:3b).68 So we may take the two-part confessional formula in v. 25 as the Semitic original or a variant form of the common apostolic gospel of 1 Cor 15:3–5. Now note how the confession is shot through with the language of Isa 53:10–12, where Yahweh “sets/gives” (‫תשים‬/δῶτε) his Servant (v. 10), or the Servant “poured out [‫הערה‬/LXX: παρεδόθη, “was delivered/given up”/Tg: ‫מסר‬, “delivered”] his life” (v. 12) as a “guilt/sin offering” (‫אשם‬/LXX: περὶ ἁμαρτίας, v. 10; or διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν, v. 12; cf. also Tg Isa 53:5a: ‫אתמסר בעו יתנא‬, which is an exact parallel to our v. 25a, although it refers to the destruction of the temple); and after such suffering the Servant as the “righteous one” is to “justify [δικαιῶσαι/‫ ]יצדיק‬many” because “he bore the sin of many and made intercession [‫ יפגיע‬Isa 53:12 MT/‫ יבעי‬Tg Isa 53:4, 11, 12] for the transgressors.”69 So the two-part formula in Rom 4:25 makes it clearer than  Riesner, “Rechtfertigung,” 211; see also Stettler, “Did Paul Invent,” 170–72.  Cf. M. Hengel, The Atonement: A Study of the Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1981), 49–50. 69  For more details, see my Justification, 38–39. 67 68

19. New Observations for the Origin of the Justification Doctrine

113

the “gospel” in 1 Cor 15:3–5 that the positive part of the Basissatz was formulated by the Jerusalem church by interpreting the Christ-event as fulfillment of the prophecy of Isa 53. Here we would like to consider also the possibility that the Lukan reports of Peter’s sermons in Acts 2:22–40 and 3:11–26 as well as his report of Peter’s speech at the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:7–11) support the view that Peter and the Jerusalem church did indeed formulate the Basissatz, if not the precise form that is known to us from Pauline letters, but then at least its material substance. First, note the following among the various points of Peter’s Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:22–40): (1) In 2:23–24 he proclaims “Jesus (who was) delivered up (ἔκδοτον) according to God’s definite plan and foreknowledge, whom you fastened on a cross and killed by the hands of the lawless people, but God raised up (ἀνέστησεν), freeing him from the agony of death.” (2) In 2:30–36 he goes on to proclaim that God raised Jesus up from the dead, exalted him at his right hand according to the prophecy of David (Ps 110:1), gave him the Holy Spirit, and thus made him both Lord and Christ according to his oath to David (Ps 132:11; 89:4; 2 Sam 7:12–16). (3) In 2:37–40 Peter calls his audience, the pilgrims “from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5), to repent and be baptized … in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of [their] sins,” so that they may receive the Holy Spirit and “[salvation] from this crooked generation,” saying that this promise is to them and their children and “to all that are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him” (v. 39). Then, note also the following among the several points in Peter’s Temple sermon delivered after healing a lame man (Acts 3:11–26): (1) Peter preaches that God “raised” (ἤγειρεν) Jesus from the dead and “glorified” (ἐδόξασεν) him, “his servant (τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ),” “the Holy and Righteous One,” whom the Jews “delivered up” (παρεδώκατε) to Pilate and killed (Acts 3:13–15). (2) He denies that his or John’s “own power or piety” healed the lame man (Acts 3:12), and composes a complicated sentence to declare emphatically that it was the lame man’s faith in the name of Jesus that has brought about his complete healing, and “by faith in his name, his name made him strong, and the faith which is through Jesus gave him this perfect health” (Acts 3:16). (3) Finally, he declares that Christ suffered in fulfillment of what God had foretold through the prophets, and calls his audience to repent, so that they may receive the remission of their sins and the eschatological salvation (“refreshing [ἀνάψυξις]” and “restoration [ἀποκατάστασις] of all”) at the parousia of Christ Jesus (Acts 3:18–21).

114

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

Now consider the following facts: (a) The point (2) listed above of Peter’s Pentecost sermon looks very much like the Jerusalem gospel that Paul cites in Rom 1:3–4 (cf. Essay 2, section 4 above). (b) The point (3) listed above of Peter’s Pentecost sermon appears to correspond to Paul’s exposition in Rom 1:14, 16–17 of the soteriological meaning of the Christological gospel of Rom 1:3–5 (cf. Essay 2, section 4 above): God’s resurrection of Jesus from the dead and exaltation of him as Lord and Christ in fulfillment of his oath to David and of the prophecy of David means that all the nations and everyone (“every nation under heaven” or “all who are far off, every one”) can obtain “forgiveness of sins” (“justification” in Pauline terms) and salvation by “repentance and baptism in name of Jesus Christ,” which may be seen as equivalent to the Pauline terms “by faith in Christ Jesus the Lord” that is confessed at baptism (cf. Rom 10:9–13; see below). (c) In his Temple sermon, Peter describes Jesus and his suffering with several echoes of and allusions to the Suffering Servant of Yahweh of Isa 52:13–53:12: As “[God’s] servant” (παῖς, Acts 3:13, 26//Isa 52:13) and “the righteous one” (δίκαιος) (Acts 3:14//Isa 53:11), “Christ [had to] suffer as prophesied” (Acts 3:18//Isa 53) and “God … glorified his servant” (Acts 3:13//Isa 52:13, ὁ παῖς μου καὶ ὑψωθήσεται καὶ δοξασθήσεται σφόδρα), the consequence of which is that by repentance (and faith in him; see below) people may have their sins wiped out (Acts 3:19//Isa 53:12).70 (d) Since in his Temple sermon Peter thus presents Jesus as having fulfilled the prophecies in Isa 53 and elsewhere (Acts 3:18), we may see his language of the Jews “delivering up” (παρεδώκατε, Acts 3:13) of Jesus and God “raising” him up from the dead (ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν, Acts 3:15; ἀναστήσας, Acts 3:26) as echoing respectively the language of Isa 53:10, 12 and the (implicit) idea of Isa 52:13; 53:11– 12 (cf. Acts 3:13: God “glorified [ἐδόξασεν] his servant Jesus, whom you delivered up”). We may see the same also in Peter’s Pentecost sermon, where he speaks of Jesus having been delivered up (ἔκδοτον), but God raised (ἀνέστησεν) him up (Acts 2:23–24). It is true that in Acts 3:13 (probably also 2:23) Peter says that it was the Jews who “delivered” Jesus up, whereas in Isa 53:10 it is God who gives or delivers (‫תשים‬/δῶτε) the servant. But since he says that that “delivering” of Jesus to death took place “according to God’s definite plan and foreknowledge” (Acts 2:23) or God’s “fore-telling by the mouth of all the prophets” (Acts 3:18), it is likely that he sees God’s hand in the Jews’ act of “delivering” Jesus up to death.71 (e) Since in both sermons Peter proclaims Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection as having happened in fulfillment of God’s plan prophesied by the pro Cf. Keener, Acts, 2:1084–85, 1087–88.  Cf. Jesus’ sayings at the Last Supper (Mark 14:17–21//Matt 26:20–25//Luke 22:21–23): Judas is to “deliver” (παραδώσει) him, but that is in fact the way the Son of Man is to be “delivered” (παραδίδοται) as it is prophesied (in the Scriptures) or determined (by God). 70 71

19. New Observations for the Origin of the Justification Doctrine

115

phets, and in the Temple sermon he makes it fairly clear that for such interpretation he has especially the prophecy of Isa 53 in mind, we may suppose that when he calls his audiences to respond to that Christ-event by repentance and faith in Christ (see below [h]), so that they may obtain forgiveness or remission of their sins, he implicitly assumes that Jesus’ death was an atoning sacrifice for the sins of “many” (‫רבים‬/πολλῶν) or all people in accordance with the prophecy of Isa 53:10–12. (f) What Peter says in Acts 2:23–24 and 3:13–15, 18–19 may be seen as paraphrases of the (probably Jerusalem) formula in Rom 4:25, as well as the (Jerusalem) gospel of Rom 1:3–4 (and 1:16–17), while highlighting the responsibility of the Jewish audiences in Jerusalem for their role in the (ultimately divine) deliverance of Jesus to death – which is quite appropriate, as the two sermons are delivered to them shortly after Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. (g) It is also noteworthy that in the Pentecost sermon Peter mentions the gift of the Holy Spirit, along with the forgiveness of sins, that his audience is to receive by repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. This reminds us of Paul’s implicit suggestion that the Galatian Christians received the Holy Spirit along with justification at baptism (by faith without works of the law) (Gal 3:2). (h) See the two tables of parallelism in Peter’s two sermons: (1) The run of Peter’s Temple sermon (Acts 3:12–21): (A) It was not by his or John’s “power or piety” that the lame man was healed (v. 12) (B) [But it was by the lame man’s faith in Jesus who was delivered up and raised up] (Ba) The Jews delivered up Jesus to Pilate and had him killed, but God raised him up from the dead (vv. 13–15) (Bb) [The lame man’s] faith in Jesus’ name had healed him (v. 16) (Ba′) The Jews acted in ignorance, but thereby God had his foretold plan fulfilled, namely that his Christ should suffer (vv. 17–18) (Bb′) “Repent, therefore, and turn again, so that your sins may be wiped out, and “refreshing” or “restoration of all” may come at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ (vv. 19–21). (2) Parallelism between Peter’s Pentecost sermon and Temple sermon: (A) Jesus was delivered up by you and raised up by God according to God’s plan (Acts 2:23–24, 36) //Jesus was delivered up by you and was raised up by God (Acts 3:13–15), and so God fulfilled what he had foretold through his prophets, namely that Christ must suffer (Acts 3:17–18) (B) Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38) //Repent (Acts 3:19a) (and believe in Jesus’ name, 3:16; see below) (C) to obtain the forgiveness of your sins (Acts 2:38) //to have your sins wiped out (Acts 3:19) (D) to obtain salvation from this crooked age (Acts 2:40) //to obtain the “refreshing [ἀνάψυξις]” or “restoration [ἀποκατάστασις] of all” at Christ’s parousia (Acts 3:20–21).

116

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

Thus, the parallelism of the two sermons shows that the heart of the gospel preached in them is exactly the same. The only difference is that whereas in the Pentecost sermon he spells out the means of the Jewish audience’s availing themselves of God’s saving work of delivering Jesus Christ up to death and raising him up from the dead as being “repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38), in the Temple sermon he refers only to repentance (Acts 3:19a). But the parallelism between Bb (Acts 3:16) and Bb′ (3:19–21) in the run of the Temple sermon clearly suggests that Peter (or Luke) foregoes repeating in Acts 3:19 the phrase “and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ” of Acts 2:38 because in the preceding verse (Acts 3:16) he repeated two or three times its equivalent “faith in the name [of Jesus Christ]” as the means of availing oneself of the saving work of God who delivered him and raised him up.72 This is understandable because, according to the pre-Pauline (i. e., likely the Jerusalem church’s) baptismal formula cited and elaborated upon by Paul (Rom 10:9–13), baptism is the occasion where one (or anyone without distinction between Jew and Greek, according to Paul’s exposition; cf. also Peter in Acts 2:39) officially confesses faith in Jesus Christ delivered up and raised up by God and calls upon his “name,” “Lord,” and thereby is transferred into the sphere of his saving lordship and obtains salvation (“forgiveness of sins,” or “justification” in Pauline terms). So we should understand that in Acts 2:38 “baptism in the name of Jesus Christ” includes the thought of confessing “faith in Christ” in itself, while in Acts 3:19 after the imperative “Repent” the reference to baptism or faith in the name of Jesus Christ as the means of salvation is omitted in view of the repeated stress on it a few verses earlier, in Acts 3:16. (i) Following Riesner’s lead and examining Rom 10:9–13 and Gal 3:1–5, we suggested above that it is by the inspiration of Isa 53:1 that the Jerusalem church developed the understanding of faith in the “gospel” of Christ Jesus’ death and resurrection as the means of availing oneself of the salvation offered in that gospel, the salvation (“justification” or “forgiveness of sins”) that he wrought through his atoning sacrifice in fulfillment of the role of the Servant of Yahweh 72  With the parallelism Ba//Ba′ and Bb//Bb′, Peter uses the lame man’s obtaining healing (or salvation) by his faith in Jesus Christ (who was delivered up to death and raised up by God) to illustrate the gospel truth that salvation (the forgiveness of sins and the eschatological redemption) is obtained by faith in the name of that Christ Jesus. Our interpretation here is confirmed by Peter’s own summary report of the central point of his Temple sermon in his subsequent speech to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem: “[This lame man] has been saved (healed) … by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God has raised from the dead … and there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among human beings by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:8–12). This recap also shows that as the indicator for the means of obtaining healing/salvation the phrase “by the name of Jesus Christ” in Acts 4:10 is an abbreviation of “by faith in [Jesus Christ’s] name” in Acts 3:16 and thereby also makes it likely that the phrase “[baptism] in [ἐπί] the name of Jesus Christ” in Acts 2:38 implicitly includes the thought of faith in Jesus Christ, as we have suggested in reference to Rom 10:9–13 above.

19. New Observations for the Origin of the Justification Doctrine

117

in Isa 53. Since we have just seen Peter making many echoes of or allusions to Isa 53 in his two sermons, especially in the Temple sermon, we may assume that he echoes Isa 53:1 also in presenting “faith in [Christ Jesus’] name” as the means of obtaining the forgiveness of sins and the eschatological salvation in Acts 3:16– 20 and implicitly also in Acts 2:38–41.73 (j) It is very important, particularly for our present purpose, to appreciate the fact that both in the Pentecost sermon and the Temple sermon, Peter preaches the gospel of God’s saving work of delivering Christ to death and raising him up as the Lord and invites people to avail themselves of this divine saving work by faith in it (or in Christ Jesus) and obtain “the forgiveness/remission of sins” and the eschatological redemption; and that in the Temple sermon he does that even by emphatically denying the efficacy of human being’s “own power or piety” for healing or salvation (3:12).74 So Peter preaches the gospel basically in terms of the Basissatz – justification by faith in Christ Jesus and not by works of the law! To sum up, in both his Pentecost sermon and his Temple sermon, Peter preaches the gospel in essentially the same way as Paul, focusing on the pre-Pauline Jerusalem formulae cited by Paul in Rom 1:3–4 (+ 1:16–17) and 4:25 and interpreting Christ’s saving event especially in terms of the fulfillment of the Servant Song of Isa 53. In so doing, he presents a form of the Basissatz of the justification doctrine that we know from Pauline letters: forgiveness of sins (or justification) is obtained by faith in Christ who died for us and was raised, and not by our “own power or piety” (or works of the law)! In his report of Peter’s speech at the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:7–11), Luke represents Peter as having declared that God wills for Gentiles and Jews without distinction to hear the gospel and get “their hearts cleansed by faith [in it],” without bearing the yoke of the law, which even the Jews cannot bear, and that God gives the Holy Spirit to the Gentile believers just as to the Jewish believers. And Luke represents Peter as having concluded his speech by declaring the Basissatz: “We believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus [therefore, by faith (v. 9) and without bearing the yoke of the law (v. 10)], just as they will” (Acts 15:11)!75 Thus, this speech of Peter at the Apos-

73 Along with Isa 53:1, Peter could also be reflecting here his own experiences of Jesus healing some sick people with the declaration: “Your faith has saved you” (Mark 5:34; 10:52 [and parr.]; Luke 17:19; cf. also Mark 2:1–12 [and parr.]; Matt 8:5–13; Luke 7:47–50; see below). 74 In Acts 3:12 Peter means not the lame man’s “own power or piety” but that of his and his fellow apostle John’s. Even so, the formulation suggests Peter’s awareness of the principle of the sole efficacy of faith in Christ for salvation and the inefficacy of human resources or merit. We may therefore suppose that, if asked, he would also deny the efficacy of the lame man’s “piety” (or “works of the law”) for his healing or salvation. 75  Cf. C. S. Keener, Acts. An Exegetical Commentary. vol. 3 15:1–23:35 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014), 2231–39, who notes the similarities between Peter’s soteriology in his speech in Acts 15:7–11 and Paul’s doctrine of salvation by grace and through faith.

118

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

tolic Council confirms the correctness of our interpretation here of the gospel that he preached in his Pentecost sermon and Temple sermon in Acts 2–3. For some scholars who are generally sceptical about the historical value of the speeches in Acts, all these observations of ours here may mean little. But for us, the three speeches of Peter in Acts 2, 3 and 15 (cf. also his speech before the Sanhedrin in Acts 4:8–12) are valuable as they provide the clearest evidence for Paul’s claim that Peter and he had held the Basissatz of the justification doctrine together before Peter reneged on it under the pressure of the people who came from James to Antioch (Gal 2:11–16). Or, to say the same thing in reverse, this claim of Paul supports the historical veracity of the gist of Peter’s sermons and speech that are reported by Luke.76 If Luke is correct about the location of Peter’s two sermons in Acts 2 and 3, the one at Pentecost after Easter and the other in the Temple precinct at Jerusalem, it is quite amazing that right at the birth of the early church after Jesus’ death and resurrection Peter preached what is essentially the Basissatz of the justification doctrine as the gospel to the Jews (both Hebraic and Hellenistic) in Jerusalem. However, Riesner goes on to trace the origin of the Basissatz further back to the pre-Easter Jesus tradition.77 For that, he first points to Jesus’ own identification of himself with the Servant of Yahweh of Isa 53 in his ransom saying (Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28), which Paul echoes in so many places of his letters (Rom 4:25; 1 Cor 10:33–11:1; 15:3–5; Gal 1:4; etc.).78 Riesner notes especially how Paul echoes that saying in the context of supporting the Basissatz (Gal 2:16a), in the rhetorical question in Gal 2:17, which conveys the obvious sense that Christ is the “servant of God” and not a “servant of sin,” as well as in the giving-up formula in Gal 2:20, “the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself up for me.”79 Riesner also notes that the confession in Rom 4:25 echoes both Isa 53:11 and the ransom saying.80 So apparently with the confession the Jerusalem church affirmed that Jesus Christ fulfilled the mission of the Servant of the Lord as Isa 53:11 had prophesied and as he himself had said he would do in the ransom say76  Cf. Keener, Acts, 3:2239: “Whatever Luke’s source for the precise words [of Peter’s speech in Acts 15:7–11], Paul does presuppose Peter’s knowledge and approval of his view [Gal 2:7, 9, 14; and if spoken on the occasion, perhaps 2:15–16].” Jas 2:14–26 could be understood as suggesting that James the brother of the Lord also shared the Basissatz in principle (cf. also Jas 5:14– 15), albeit insisting that faith in Christ should not exclude works of the law but integrate them within it: justification is obtained by faith in Christ, the genuine faith that produces good works. 77  Riesner, “Rechtfertigung,” 212–14. 78  For this Riesner (ibid., 212) refers to his article, “Back to the Historical Jesus through Paul and His School (The Ransom Logion – Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28),” JSHJ 1.2 (2003): 171–99. See also Essay 5 “Jesus’ Ransom Saying,” in this volume below. 79  For the view that in the sending formula and giving-up formula of this verse and Rom 8:3– 4, 32; Gal 4:4; John 3:16, 17; 1 John 4:9–10; etc. “the Son of God” stands for “the Son of Man” of the ransom saying and the verbs “sent” and “gave (up)” represent respectively the verbs ἦλθεν and δοῦναι of that saying, see section 2 of Essay 5 “Jesus’ Ransom Saying,” in this volume below. 80 Riesner, “Rechtfertigung,” 212.

19. New Observations for the Origin of the Justification Doctrine

119

ing and the related eucharistic saying (Mark 14:21–25 [and parr.]). This means that it was Jesus’ own teaching that led the post-Easter Jerusalem church to interpret his mission, his death and resurrection, as fulfillment of Isa 53.81 Then, it is right to trace the formation of the positive part of the Basissatz (justification through faith in Jesus Christ) not just to the Jerusalem church’s interpretation of Jesus Christ’s mission in the light of Isa 53, but further back to Jesus himself who had taught his disciples to do it. In order to trace the origin of the Basissatz to Jesus, Riesner points also to Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9–14). In it Jesus contrasts two men praying in the temple, one, a Pharisee, who was confident of his own righteousness and boasts of his righteous deeds before God, and the other, a tax collector, who was remorseful as a hopeless sinner and pleads for God’s mercy, and declares that the latter rather than the former “went down to his house (from the temple) justified (δεδικαιωμένος).” Here Riesner refers to Hanna Stettler’s detailed study on the parable.82 She establishes the authenticity of the parable by observing its Semitic features83 and its coherence with Jesus’ distinctive ministry and teaching that stress mercy and forgiveness: e. g., his parables about the two debtors (Luke 7:41–43), the laborers in the vineyard (Matt 20:1–16), the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11–32), and his table-fellowship with sinners and tax collectors and his justification of that scandalous act with the claim, “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:13–17//Matt 9:13//Luke 5:27–32).84 Then, observing that although the parable does not contain the actual terms ἔργα νόμου and πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ it presents the Pharisee as boasting of 81 So also Stettler, “Did Paul Invent,” 194. The numerous echoes of and allusions to Isa 53 that we have just observed in Peter’s Temple sermon would confirm this view. 82  See ibid., 173–80, for a detailed discussion of this parable in support of the view that the Basissatz ultimately originates from Jesus’ own teaching. 83  Ibid., 178–80, following Jeremias, Parables, 140–42. 84  Stettler, “Did Paul Invent,” 180. Cf. also the similar and more comprehensive study by P. Tan-Gatue, The Coherence of Justification in Luke 18:9–14 with Authentic Jesus Tradition (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2021). Stettler especially highlights the parallelism between this “not the righteous, but sinners” contrast in Jesus’ teaching and “Paul’s classical statements on justification.” In all the Synoptic Gospels this episode immediately follows the episode of Jesus’ healing of a paralytic (Mark 2:1–12//Matt 9:1–8//Luke 5:17–26). So, may we venture to suggest that the Evangelists reflect here their knowledge that Jesus’ claim to have “come (ἦλθον) to call sinners” (implicitly as well as to heal the sick, Mark 2:17//Matt 9:12–13//Luke 5:31–32) is related to his preceding claim to have the “authority” as the Son of Man on earth to forgive sins (or implicitly the power to heal the sick, Mark 2:10//Matt 9:6//Luke 5:24)? May we see here Jesus implicitly claiming that he has “come” as “the ‘Son of Man’” endowed with God’s “authority, glory and power” (Dan 7:13–14; N. B. “one like a son of man came [‫אתה‬/ἤρχετο]”) to bring forgiveness and healing (i. e., salvation, cf. Ps 103:3–4) to the sinful and sick humanity by his vicarious suffering (cf. Isa 53:5) and atoning death (cf. Isa 53:10–12) as the Servant of Yahweh, i. e., by “giving his life as ransom for many” (Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28)? In other words, can we understand that with the related claims in Mark 2:10 [and parr.] and Mark 2:17 [and parr.] Jesus is in fact making the same claim as in his ransom saying: “The Son of Man has come [ἦλθεν] … to give his life as ransom for many,” fulfilling the prophecies of both Dan 7 and Isa 53?

120

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

his deeds that are examples of “works of the law,” and portrays the tax collector as counting only on the mercy of God, which corresponds to “faith in Jesus Christ” in the Basissatz, Stettler affirms that in the parable Jesus teaches in effect what is summarized in the Basissatz of Gal 2:16 and Rom 3:28: justification is not by works of the law but by faith in God’s grace (in Christ).85 So she reckons with the possibility or even likelihood of the pre-Pauline Jerusalem church having formulated the Basissatz or principle of the justification doctrine on the basis of this parable of Jesus as well as his ransom saying (Mark 10:45 [and par.]) and eucharistic saying (Mark 14:24 [and parr.]). And she thinks that Paul could have received those traditions of Jesus from Peter and James during his first Jerusalem visit after his Damascus conversion and call (Gal 1:18–19) or a little later from his co-workers, Barnabas or Silas, and could have developed the doctrine further.86 Having endorsed Stettler’s such interpretation of Jesus’ parable in Luke 18:9– 14, Riesner goes on to evaluate the significance of Jesus’ repeated pronouncement “Your faith has saved you” in the Synoptic miracle stories (Mark 5:34; 10:52 [and parr.]; Luke 17:19; cf. also Matt 8:5–13) and in the story of Jesus’ forgiveness of a woman’s sins (Luke 7:47–50). Citing M. Yeung’s view that such traditions of Jesus influenced Paul’s understanding of faith,87 Riesner suggests that we can suppose that they did the same for the Jerusalem church.88 He also appreciates 1QpHab 8:1–2, which interprets Hab 2:4 as “referring to the doers of the law in the house of Judah whom God will redeem from the house of judgment on the basis of their deeds and their faith in the teacher of righteousness.” In this he sees an additional indicator that the Jerusalem church developed the Basissatz in contrast to the Essene understanding of justification not only by stressing faith rather than works of the law as the means of justification but also by making it sure that it is faith in the Messiah Jesus (πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ), and not “faith in the teacher of righteousness.”89 For us, all these arguments of Stettler and especially of Riesner are quite plausible, so that we are inclined to accept their conclusion: it was the Jerusalem church that first formulated the Basissatz or basic statement of the justification doctrine in Gal 2:16a shortly after Easter and that she did it by interpreting the saving work of Jesus Christ in the light of Isa 53 according to the inspiration of his own teaching and ministry.90 85  Stettler, “Did Paul Invent,” 182–84. Besides seeing Rom 3:28 presenting a summary of the overall message of the parable, she also finds the verses of Rom 3:20, 23, 24–25 and 27 echoing the details of the parable. 86  Ibid., 189–94. 87  M. Yeung, Faith in Jesus and Paul. A Comparison with Special Reference to ‘Faith That Can Remove Mountains’ and ‘Your Faith Has Healed/Saved You’ (WUNT 2/147; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 170–95. 88  Riesner, “Rechtfertigung,” 213. 89 Ibid., 214. 90  This view plausibly explains the question as to how the theological unity between Paul’s

19. New Observations for the Origin of the Justification Doctrine

121

From there it is not difficult to imagine how enthusiastically Paul accepted the principle statement when he received it from Peter during his first Jerusalem visit after his Damascus conversion/call (or when he first learned it from the Hellenists whom he had persecuted and then got it confirmed by Peter during the Jerusalem visit) as it exactly expressed what he himself experienced on the Damascus road. These findings dovetail with our arguments from Pauline chronology above to confirm that Paul, starting from his experience of the Damascus revelation of Christ, developed his doctrine of justification very early, long before 1 Thessalonians. For this view, we considered above only the significance of the Damascus Christophany that brought about the conversion of Paul from zeal for the law to faith in Christ and made him an apostle to the Gentiles, his scribal training and theological acumen, his experiences in Gentile mission, some pre-Pauline confessional or kerygmatic formulae cited in Pauline letters, etc. Now add this new factor: at a quite early stage of the first 16–17 years of his Christian life, before writing 1 Thessalonians (i. e., at about AD 36–37), he received the Basissatz of the justification doctrine from the Jerusalem apostles together with the Jesus tradition that had led them to formulate it after his death and resurrection. Then, it becomes all the more reasonable to think that Paul began to develop his justification doctrine very early on during his Christian life and apostolic ministry and came to have a fully developed form of it, along with the main Scriptural arguments for it, as well as with its major theological implications. He would have articulated all of this during the first half rather than the latter half of the sixteen-year period between his conversion and writing 1 Thessalonians.91 For us, it is much safer to think this way than to presume that he did those things during the seven years between 1 Thessalonians and Romans. This view is supgospel of justification of ungodly sinners (and therefore even Gentiles) by grace through faith without works of the law (expounded along with his criticism of the Judaizers for their insistence on law observance) and Jesus’ declaration of forgiveness of sins and acceptance of sinners into God’s kingdom (accompanied by his criticism of Pharisees and scribes for their insistence on stricter law observance in the Gospels) came into being – the question that R. Bultmann has left as a riddle as he just stressed their theological unity while rejecting any attempt to explain it tradition-historically (“Die Bedeutung des geschichtlichen Jesus für die Theologie des Paulus,” in Glauben und Verstehen [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1933], 1:191–202; cf. E. Jüngel, Paulus und Jesus [HUT 2; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 41972], 263–73). Paul’s rebuke of Peter at Antioch for reneging on their shared Basissatz of the gospel was therefore ultimately a rebuke for his betrayal of their Lord Jesus’ gospel. 91 If Galatians was written in about AD 48, before 1 Thessalonians, which was written in AD 50, Paul’s well-developed Scriptural and theological arguments for the doctrine there make this view even more plausible. For it is impossible to think that Paul developed those arguments on the spur of the moment when the Judaizers came to agitate the Galatian Christians to be circumcised and to keep the law. Of course, even after obtaining a fully developed form of his justification doctrine, Paul must have continued with refining it in details with ever fresh insights from the Scriptures, Jesus tradition, his experiences in Gentile mission, etc. (cf. the last paragraph of the previous section 18).

122

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

ported by 1–2 Thessalonians themselves since many of their passages encapsulate the doctrine and show many lines of continuity between them and Romans, as I have attempted to show in several essays in this volume as well as in my commentary on the epistles.

20. Contextualization of the Justification Doctrine in 1 Thessalonians and 1–2 Corinthians, the Post-Jerusalem Council and Post-Antiochian Controversy Epistles Thus, instead of granting Dunn and Bird that the first “formulation” or “public expression” of Paul’s doctrine of “justification ‘from faith and not from works of the law’” took place at the Antioch incident, I am inclined to push its formulation back to the Damascus revelation and the beginning of Paul’s Gentile mission. However, even if the Antioch incident is acknowledged as the terminus ad quem of the justification doctrine, once that is acknowledged, it is no longer possible to argue for the late development of the justification doctrine by claiming that it is absent in 1 Thessalonians and 1–2 Corinthians, as they are the post-Antiochian controversy epistles.92 Therefore, the question why the doctrine is not referred to or unfolded in 1 Thessalonians and 1–2 Corinthians has to be faced by those who would trace its origin to the Jerusalem Council and the Antioch incident as well as by those who would trace it to the Damascus revelation and the beginning of Paul’s Gentile mission. For us, the only satisfactory answer to this question can be to acknowledge (1) the justification doctrine as belonging to the fundamental form of Paul’s gospel preaching, (2) its implicit presence in the Thessalonian and Corinthian correspondences, but (3) its appearance in contextualized forms according to the particular situations and needs of the churches in Thessalonica and Corinth. Above we have sought to demonstrate these points, especially the first two. Now we will strengthen that attempt in the light of our review of Paul’s conversion/call experience and the early Church history. Above, by comparing 1 Thessalonians and 1–2 Corinthians with the epistles where the doctrine of justification is explicitly unfolded, we have argued that it is also present in 1 Thessalonians and 1–2 Corinthians, though only implicitly. Now, that argument gets greatly strengthened if we take into account the fact that 1 Thessalonians and 1–2 Corinthians were written after the Jerusalem Council and the Antioch controversy.93 Paul declares in 1 Corinthians that circum Cf. Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 402; von Bendemann, “Frühpaulinisch,” 226. course, it gets much more strengthened if we take seriously the view that some German scholars have recently advanced, namely, that the fundamental statement (Basissatz) of the doctrine of justification (“not by works of the law but through faith in Christ”) was formulated already by the Jerusalem church soon after the Easter (see the preceding section 19 above). However, since most scholars (especially in the English-speaking world) discuss the origin of 92

93 Of

20. Contextualization of the Justification Doctrine

123

cision or uncircumcision is of no consequence (1 Cor 7:19), that he, the former Jewish theologian, is “not under the law” (1 Cor 9:20–21) (a statement made in the context of dealing with the problems of food and purity associated with idolatry), and that the law is the “power of sin” that brings death (1 Cor 15:55–56). When we give full weight to the fact that he wrote these things as one who not so long ago fought hard for the justification of Gentiles by faith in Christ alone, without circumcision and without observance of the laws of food and purity, how do these statements on circumcision and the law now appear? Don’t they really appear as reflections of his formula “(from faith and) not from works of the law”? Again, appreciate the fact that as one who already argued in Jerusalem and Antioch that justification was “from faith and not from works of the law,” Paul offers the doxology of 1 Cor 15:57 (“But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory [νῖκος] through our Lord Jesus Christ!”) as the good news of salvation to humanity caught in the grip of the destructive powers, the law, sin and death (1 Cor 15:54–56). Then, can we not see 1 Cor 15:54–57 as reflecting the doctrine of justification “not from works of the law” (vv. 55–56) but “from faith in the Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 57)? We have already suggested that Paul’s statement on the deadly alliance of the law, sin and death in 1 Cor 15:55–56 looks like a short summary of the teaching that he unfolds in Rom 7. Then, the doxology of “victory” in 1 Cor 15:57 appears as an abbreviation of his teaching in Rom 8, which he starts with a triumphant declaration of the good news or gospel (“There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. …,” Rom 8:1–2) and ends with a defiant celebration of the “victory” (ὑπερνικῶμεν, v. 37) in the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 8:31–39). So, keep in mind this fact that Paul’s statements in 1 Cor 15:54–57 appear as summaries of his teachings on the law/the flesh/sin/death in Rom 7 and on justification in Rom 8, along with the fact that Paul writes 1 Corinthians as one who already argued in Jerusalem and Antioch that justification was “from faith and not from works of the law.” Then, it is not difficult to recognize that the δικαιοσύνη and δικαιοῦν, the keywords of the justification doctrine, which Paul employs in his Christological and soteriological statements in 1 Cor 1:30 and 6:11, are abbreviations of that doctrine.94 The same kind of observation is to be made in 2 Corinthians. In 2 Cor 3, while expressing a shockingly critical view of the law of Moses and the Jewish interprethe justification doctrine only within the context of Paul’s life and Gentile ministry, here we are arguing that even if we follow this limited perspective, we can confidently affirm the presence of that doctrine in 1 Thessalonians and the Corinthian correspondence. 94  Contra Schnelle, Paul, 233, who insists that “[t]he understanding of the cross and the righteousness bound to it found in 1 Corinthians should be read in its own terms, without dragging in basic ideas derived from elsewhere.” But is it possible or advisable to read Paul’s teaching in any given epistle of his without any reference to the thoughts that he had developed before writing that epistle? Did he come to write each of his epistles after washing his mind to make it a tabula rasa?

124

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

tation of it, Paul makes a contrast between the Mosaic covenant of the law as the dispensation of κατάκρισις and death and the new covenant of the Spirit as the dispensation of δικαιοσύνη and life (2 Cor 3:6–8). The language of “condemnation” and “righteousness” fundamentally belong to the category of justification. Now, would it be illegitimate to take this contrast together with another δικαιοσύνη passage, namely, 2 Cor 5:21, which stands in the same context of Paul’s apology for his apostleship? In 2 Cor 5:21, he climaxes his explanation of his God-given “ministry of reconciliation” and his appeal for the readers to “be reconciled to God” (2 Cor 5:18–20) with an epigrammatic statement about Christ’s atoning work and our justification,95 which is comparable with Rom 3:24–26; 4:25 and 8:3–4. Recognize this context, as well as the fact that for Paul reconciliation and justification are closely related to each other (cf. Rom 5:1–11), and, again, appreciate the fact that Paul makes all these statements as one who already argued at the Jerusalem Council and in the Antioch controversy, that justification was “from faith and not from works of the law.” Then, we can see these statements as reflecting his doctrine of justification and recognize how easy it would have been for him to unfold it, formulating the contrast of 2 Cor 3:6–8 in terms of “not by the Mosaic covenant of the law, but by the new covenant of the Spirit,” the “new covenant” that has been sealed through Christ’s atoning sacrifice (2 Cor 5:14, 21; cf. 1 Cor 11:25). Then, considering both that 1–2 Corinthians are post-Jerusalem Council and post-Antiochian controversy epistles and that they were written not so long before (Galatians and) Romans, how may we explain that nevertheless in 1–2 Corinthians Paul only implies the justification doctrine but does not state it explicitly, let alone unfold it? Now, if we are conscious of the fact that as one who has already worked out his doctrine of justification “from faith and not from works of the law,” Paul criticizes the Corinthians’ “boasting” of their “flesh” in the Corinthian correspondence (esp. 1 Cor 1–4; 8–10; 12–14; 2 Cor 10–13), we can recognize better that it parallels to his criticism of the Judaizers’ “boasting” of or “putting confidence” in the “flesh” in Phil 3:2–11 (cf. Gal 3–6; Rom 2–3; 7–8). And we can see more clearly that Paul is applying the fundamental truth of his justification doctrine to the Corinthians’ Hellenistic context, regarding their “boasting” in their wisdom/knowledge and spiritual experiences as equivalent to the Judaizers’ “boasting” in the works of the law, as they were only different forms of “boasting” of the “flesh” (human resources and achievements) rather than Christ crucified, “whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness [δικαιοσύνη] and sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor 1:30–31//Phil 3:3).96 Since 95  Cf. the comment on 2 Cor 5:21 in M. E. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 1:442–44. 96 Cf. P. Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 1:333–34.

20. Contextualization of the Justification Doctrine

125

in 1 Corinthians Paul does not address the Judaizing nomists, he does not need to employ in it the explicit formula “not by works of the law (but by God’s grace in Christ),” even while implying it in his various negative statements on the law. Instead, since he addresses the Hellenistic reliance on wisdom/knowledge, he re-presents the formula in terms of “not by wisdom of the world (but by Christ crucified, the wisdom of God)” (1 Cor 1–4). Therefore, rather than arguing for the late development or limited importance of the doctrine of justification by pointing to the absence of its explicit appearance in 1–2 Corinthians, we are to marvel at Paul’s ability to contextualize its truth to a Hellenistic audience who is concerned not about justification by works of the law but salvation through wisdom and knowledge.97 Just as the striking formula about the unholy alliance of the law, sin and death in 1 Cor 15:55–56 presupposes a long and profound reflection of Paul on the problem of the law, so also the contextualization of the justification doctrine to the Hellenistic audience in 1–2 Corinthians presupposes his deep theological reflection on that doctrine and appreciation of it, not just as a missiological and ecclesiological doctrine, but as a fundamental soteriological doctrine, as a most effective expression of the divine gospel against any form of mere Humanism.98 As we come to review the evidence of 1 Thessalonians with the fact in mind that it is a post-Jerusalem Council and post-Antioch controversy epistle, we are immediately struck by the fact that in this letter, written only a couple of years after those two events (dated AD 47–48 by Dunn and Bird, see above), there is apparently no reflection of the heated arguments that took place at them (contrast Paul’s passionate reports of them in Gal 2). It shows how Paul is able to forego mentioning something, no matter how important it is in itself, when it is not relevant to the Thessalonian situation. So, in 1 Thessalonians there is no reference to circumcision and the law, nor any talk about table-fellowship between Jews and Gentiles. Thus, although scholars usually ignore this fact, the absence in 1 Thessalonians of reflection on the debates at those two events is as significant as the absence of the justification doctrine that Paul confirmed through those debates. In fact, by nature they belong together. In 1 Thessalonians there is no explicit reference to the justification doctrine because there is no explicit reflection of the issues that were debated at the Jerusalem Council and the Antioch controversy (cf. “The Jewish opposition to Paul in 1 Thessalonians” in the Explanation at the end of 2:1–4 in my commentary). 97 Cf. Hengel and Schwemer, Paul, 302, esp. 308: “It is important to reflect that in all the letters Paul always goes into the special questions and needs of those whom he is addressing. He is anything but a rigid ‘dogmatic’ theologian, and therefore he can present the same message, the gospel entrusted to him, with rich and varied metaphors and from different aspects, depending on the situation;” also J. Eckert, “Zur Erstverkündigung des Paulus,” Theologie im Werden (ed. J. Hainz; Paderborn, 1992), 297; also my PNP, 67–70, 100. 98 Pace the “New Perspective on Paul” (at least its version presented during 1980s–90s).

126

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

However, bearing in mind the fact that Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians only a couple of years after arguing vigorously for his doctrine of justification by faith without works of the law at those two events, consider his following teachings in the epistle: (1) God has elected the Gentile believers to be his children and citizens of his kingdom (which is, according to some representatives of the New Perspective, a central meaning of the justification doctrine that Paul developed out of the Jerusalem Council and the Antiochian controversy) (1 Thess 1:1, 2, 4; 2:12; 3:11–13; 4:7; 5:24); (2) God has endowed them with his Holy Spirit to accept the gospel with joy in spite of persecution (1:6) and to do his will and grow in sanctification (1 Thess 4:8; cf. also 5:19–22); (3) they are to be delivered from God’s wrath at the last judgment through the atonement and intercession of Jesus God’s Son (1 Thess 1:10; 3:13; 4:14; 5:9–10); and (4) there is emphasis on their faith in the context of speaking about their acceptance of the gospel as God’s word (1 Thess 1:6–10; 2:13; 4:14), as well as about their standing firm in the Lord (1 Thess 3:6–8), while there is no mention of circumcision or the law. Seen in the light of the two debates that Paul recently had at Jerusalem and Antioch, don’t these teachings appear to reflect those debates and their (Pauline) conclusion, namely his justification doctrine? Thus, when we read 1 Thessalonians, being fully conscious of its post-Jerusalem Council and post-Antioch controversy provenance, we can more readily affirm an implicit presence of his doctrine of justification in it. Sanctification is a major theme in 1 Thessalonians (2:10; 3:13; 4:3, 7; 5:23; cf. also 2 Thess 2:13). Above we have observed how in 1 Thessalonians Paul issues his paraenesis for a holy and righteous life (4:1–8) on the basis of God’s grace of election (1:4; 2:12; 4:7; 5:24) and sanctification (3:12–13; 4:7–8; 5:23–24) and the operation of the Holy Spirit (4:8), and how this is closely analogous to Paul’s issuing of his paraenesis for a righteous life on the basis of God’s grace of justification and the operation of the Holy Spirit in Romans and Galatians. Paul teaches about God’s “call” of the Gentile Thessalonians “into his own kingdom” to “live a life worthy of [him]” (2:12), and later translates this teaching in terms of God’s “call” of them “in sanctification” (4:7, so they were made the holy or sanctified ones, the “saints”; cf. 1:4) to live a life of “sanctification” in obedience to “God’s will” (4:3). Note that this teaching, though presented in terms of “sanctification,” is equivalent to Paul’s teaching about justification in his other epistles, which means acquittal or forgiveness of sinners of their sins and restoration of them to the right relationship with God (so they are made the justified ones, the righteous) to live a righteous life in obedience to God’s rule.99 In 99  For understanding justification not only as acquittal but also as restoration to the right relationship with God, transfer from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of God, whose kingship or lordship is exercised by his Son Jesus Christ at present (i. e., as “lordship-change”) (Rom 1:3–4; 1 Cor 15:23–27; Phil 2:9–11; Col 1:13–14), see my Justification, 59–72. In that book (73–76), “sanctification” is also explained as a transfer term, since it means separation from the

20. Contextualization of the Justification Doctrine

127

1 Thessalonians (3:13; 5:23) Paul relates God’s last judgment at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ with the category of sanctification, while relating it with the category of justification in its parallel passages Phil 1:10–11 (see comment on 1 Thess 3:13 and 5:23 in my commentary) and Rom 8:31–39 (cf. also 1 Cor 1:6–8; Phil 3:6; N. B. the intermixing of the judicial and cultic terms in Col 1:22; Phil 2:15). This makes the concept of sanctification in 1 Thessalonians equivalent to justification elsewhere. So, it appears, as we have suggested above, that in 1 Thessalonians, in the absence of the Judaizers’ challenge, Paul foregoes the concept justification (and a discussion on sin and the law) and chooses instead the concept sanctification with a view to the Thessalonian believers’ pagan background (the “impure” Gentiles being made God’s holy people, 1:4, 2:12; 4:7; 5:24) and to their continuing exposure to pagan idolatry and immorality (4:1–8) (see Explanation on 1 Thess 3:12–13 in my commentary). In view of the emphasis on sanctification as well as the association of righteousness/justification with holiness/sanctification in 1 Cor 1:2, 30; 6:1–12 (cf. also 3:17; 6:19; 7:14, 34; 2 Cor 1:12), we can say the same with regard to 1 Corinthians. In Romans Paul refers to the concept of sanctification only in Rom 6:19– 22 (and the related 12:1–2), and he does so, closely associating it with justification so as to make the two concepts at least partially overlap (to live a righteous life in obedience to God is to make progress in sanctification, that is, standing in the state of justification is the process of sanctification, so that the “fruit of righteousness” [Phil 1:11] is the “fruit for [εἰς] sanctification” [Rom 6:19, 22]).100 In Rom 6:19–22 Paul appears to be expressing his desire to interject his warning for the Roman Christians against the pagan “impurity” (v. 19) and “shameful acts” (v. 20) into his exposition of the gospel that he carries out mainly in the more Jewish category of sin and justification (cf. Rom 1:18–32). Thus, the evidence of Rom 6:19–22 supports the view that in 1 Thessalonians (and also in 1 Corinworld polluted by Satan and consecration to the holy God in order to be his possession, so that our “sanctification” (meaning “our being made members of God’s holy people”) is a parallel metaphor to “justification” (“our being made members of God’s righteous people”) for salvation (cf. 1 Cor 6:11!; also 1:30). So just as we obtain our justification proleptically at our baptism (e. g., Rom 5:1–2, 9; 10:9–10; 1 Cor 6:11) but its consummation at the last judgment (e. g., Rom 2:12–13; 3:30; 5:19; 8:31–39; Gal 5:4–5; 1 Thess 1:10; 5:9–10), so also we obtain our sanctification proleptically at our baptism (we were already “sanctified,” i. e., made “saints;” e. g., Rom 1:7; 15:26; 1 Cor 1:1–2; 16:1; 2 Cor 1:1; 9:1; 1 Thess 4:7) but its consummation at the last judgment (1 Thess 3:12–13; 5:23; Col 1:22). And just as we are in the process of justification at present (e. g., Rom 6), so also we are in the process of “sanctification” at present (e. g., 1 Thess 3:12–13; 5:23; 4:1–8; Rom 6:19–22; 12:1–2). For the concepts of the present process of justification and sanctification, see ibid., 74–91. 100  Apparently, this passage gave rise to the concept of an ordo salutis in Protestant dogmatics, in which sanctification is understood as the stage of salvation that follows upon that of justification. But this is too small a basis to build such a doctrine upon, and the overwhelming evidence of the usage of the holiness/sanctification language in parallelism to the usage of the righteousness/justification language in Pauline epistles is against such understanding, as we are briefly showing it here.

128

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

thians) Paul contextualizes his justification doctrine in terms of sanctification for the Hellenistic believers. Now, consider the following four facts: (1) that the “sanctification” language appears less frequently and in less number of Pauline epistles than the “righteousness/justification” language (if we set aside the references to believers as “saints,” sanctified ones); (2) that when it appears, it does in close association with or parallelism to the latter; (3) that not only in the epistles that explicitly unfold the justification doctrine, but also in 1–2 Thessalonians and 1–2 Corinthians where the “sanctification” language appears, Paul presents the ultimate salvation in terms of deliverance at the last judgment of God at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ (e. g., 1 Cor 1:6–9; 3:5–4:5; 5:5; 10:31; 2 Cor 5:10; 1 Thess 1:10; 3:12–13; 5:9–10, 23; 2 Thess 1:5–10; 2:9–14); and (4) that in 1 Thess 3:12–13 and 5:23–24 (cf. also 2 Thess 2:13–14; Rom 6:19–21; Col 1:22; Phil 2:15) he even places the “sanctification” language within the framework of salvation at God’s last judgment, in which the judicial language of “justification” would be more natural (N. B. the judicial concept ἄμεμπτος/ἀμέμπτως accompanying the “sanctification” language in both passages; see comments on 1 Thess 3:13 and 5:23 in my commentary). These facts confirm that justification is the main or fundamental category of Paul’s soteriology and sanctification is a parallel category that is used for contextualization of the former to the Hellenistic audiences. So it is clear that even in 1 Thessalonians and the Corinthian correspondence Paul has the justification doctrine as his main soteriology, although in those epistles he does not unfold it but rather contextualizes it in terms of sanctification.

Conclusion This study on the summary of the gospel in 1 Thess 1:9–10 has shown that the gospel that Paul preached to the Thessalonians is essentially the same as that which he preached to other churches and that it was centered on redemption from God’s wrath at the last judgment through the atonement and intercession of Christ Jesus, God’s Son, i. e., the doctrine of justification. The conclusion of this study and some of its implications may be specified as follows: (1) The doctrine of justification by faith and without works of the law is implicitly present in 1 Thessalonians as in the Corinthian correspondence (cf. also Essay 12 “Paul’s Doctrine of Justification in 2 Thessalonians 1–2” below in this volume). (2) This is only to be expected from the gospel preaching of Paul to the Gentiles, as he realized that justification is by faith in Christ and not by works of the law through God’s revelation of the crucified Jesus as his Son and his call for him to be an apostle to the Gentiles – the revelation and call that he received on the Damascus road, while persecuting Hellenistic Jewish Christians for preaching the gospel to the Gentiles without requiring the works of the law.

Conclusion

129

(3) The implicit presence of that doctrine of justification in 1 Thessalonians and 1–2 Corinthians is only to be expected given that those epistles were written after (and not long after) Paul had strongly argued for it at the Jerusalem Council and the Antiochian controversy, which were both critical moments for his Gentile mission. (4) Paul expounded and defended his gospel in terms of the doctrine of justification in Galatians, Romans and Phil 3, as it was challenged by the Judaizers, and he did so in Galatians and Phil 3, using even his own conversion/call experiences as an argument. (5) Where there was no such challenge of the Judaizers as in Thessalonica and Corinth, Paul preached his gospel of God’s salvation in Christ, without explicitly referring to the “works of the law,” as he had no need to do it. In 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians, while reflecting his doctrine of justification here and there in various abbreviated forms, Paul presented his gospel in the category of election and sanctification. Thus he contextualized the truth of the justification doctrine to the needs of the Hellenistic audiences in order to stress God’s grace of making the Gentile believers his holy people as well as to warn them against their involvement in the idolatry and immorality of their pagan environment. (6) Faced in Corinth with the Hellenistic form of trusting in or boasting of the “flesh” (such as wisdom/knowledge and spiritual experiences), which was analogous to the Jewish trusting in or boasting of the “flesh” (the works of the law), Paul also contextualized in the Corinthian correspondence the theological meaning of the antithesis between “faith in Christ” and “works of the law” to countering that Hellenistic boasting of wisdom/knowledge and spiritual experiences. Thus he contextualized his justification doctrine to the needs of the Gentile believers in Corinth. (7) In the brief epistle of 1 Thessalonians, as Paul was not facing even that issue of Hellenistic form of trusting in the “flesh,” he had no need to attack it. Hence, he only stressed Christ’s work (atonement and intercession) and the need for faith and growth in sanctification through the help of the Lord with his Spirit (1 Thess 3:12–13; 4:8) for deliverance from God’s wrath at the last judgment, i. e., the consummation of justification. Further, since his purpose in the epistle was not to expound or defend his gospel, but to encourage the readers to stand firm in faith with the hope of their eschatological salvation, he made even the references to Christ’s work and the need for faith and sanctification, not in a sustained exposition of or argument for his soteriology, but in brief statements scattered in various contexts of providing assurance and encouragement. (8) Insofar as Paul fundamentally understands (a) the human predicament in terms of sins before God, (b) Christ Jesus’ saving act in terms of atonement for our sins, and (c) the eschatological salvation in terms of deliverance from God’s wrath or acquittal at the last judgment, we need to recognize that justification is the most fundamental category of his gospel preaching. However, insofar as jus-

130

The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians

tification is not only acquittal at the last judgment and its prolepsis at present, but also restoration to the right relationship with God, we need to see that its meaning can be expressed through other soteriological metaphors such as sanctification, reconciliation and adoption, as well as more fundamentally through the metaphor of lordship transfer (redemption from Satan’s kingdom and entrance into God’s kingdom; cf. Col 1:13–14). (9) We acknowledge that in Romans, Galatians and Phil 3, Paul presents his gospel with detailed exposition, sharp formulation, heated argumentation, and extensive Scriptural substantiation of the doctrine of justification by faith and without works of the law, due to his need in those epistles to defend his gospel against the Judaizers. Nevertheless, we must still affirm the essential unity and substantial continuity of Paul’s gospel between those epistles and 1 Thessalonians (as well as 2 Thessalonians and the Corinthian correspondence). The difference between these two sets of epistles must be understood largely in terms of variation in the form of preaching the same gospel according to the varying needs of the recipients.101 (10) In inquiring about the theological continuity or discontinuity between 1 Thessalonians (which Paul wrote not as an adolescent or novice but as a mature theologian and experienced missionary and pastor, with at least 15 years of his apostolic career behind him) and the later epistles (which he wrote within the space of about two to six or seven years after 1 Thessalonians), this study has shown the limitation of the “positivistic exegesis” that assumes as non-existent (not just in 1 Thessalonians but in Paul’s whole theology at the time of writing the epistle) any concept or theme unless its putative keyword is found in 1 Thessalonians, as well as the “atomistic exegesis” that interprets a word or verse in 1 Thessalonians by itself without considering its literary context within the epistle and its historical context within Paul’s theological development and the early church history. So it has called for a more wholistic contextual exegesis that seeks to bring out both the denotation and connotation of a word as well as the full implications of a phrase, sentence or theme102 in 1 Thessalonians in full consideration of Paul’s biographical data (his Jewish background, his conversion/call, his long experiences of Gentile mission, and his debates at the Jerusalem Council and the Antioch controversy), the pre-Pauline material that he inherited, the early church history, the audience, occasion and purpose of the epistle, and hints from other Pauline epistles.103 101  Cf. H. Hübner, “Pauli theologiae proprium,” NTS 26 (1980): 458; Eckert, “Zur Erstverkündigung des Paulus,” 297; Hengel and Schwemer, Paul, 302, 308. 102 Cf. Barr, Semantics of Biblical Language, 269: “The linguistic bearer of the theological statement is usually the sentence and the still larger literary complex and not the word or the morphological and syntactical mechanisms” (cf. also 233, 235–36, 249–50, 265–66). 103  On the question of development in Pauline eschatology from 1 Thessalonians to Paul’s later epistles, see Explanation at the end of the comment on 1 Thess 5:1–11 in my commentary.

Conclusion

131

This conclusion should be further strengthened by the recognition of the even more prominent presence of the doctrine of justification in 2 Thessalonians. See Essay 12 “Paul’s Doctrine of Justification in 2 Thessalonians 1–2” below.

4. Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings as a Basis of Paul’s Gospelof Jesus the Son of God (1 Thess 1:9–10 and Rom 1:3–4) Four times Paul defines or summarizes the gospel in terms of Jesus as the Son of God (Rom 1:3–4, 9; 2 Cor 2:18–20; Gal 1:15–16; 1 Thess 1:9–10; cf. Acts 9:20). In the second Essay of this volume, “Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel (1 Thess 1:9–10 and Rom 1:3–4),” which started as a conference paper, I sought to explain why he does this and what the Son of God means to him, and I did it by way of reconstructing the gospel that Paul preached to the Thessalonians during his pioneering mission in their city. Part of what I ascertained in that study was the material correspondence of Paul’s gospel of Jesus the Son of God to Jesus’ own gospel of the kingdom of God. However, the space there prevented me from pursuing the tradition-historical continuity between Jesus and Paul in this matter. Hence it is proposed here to complete that task.1

1. Echoes of Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings In the Second Essay above, I affirmed that Paul’s gospel of Christ Jesus God’s Son or God’s viceroy, redeeming us from the Satanic kingdom of sin and death (Rom 1:3–4, 16–17 + 8:31–39; 1 Cor 15:23–28; Col 1:13–14) through his atonement and intercession (Rom 5:8–10; 8:3–4, 31–34; Gal 4:4–5; 1 Thess 1:9–10; 5:9– 10; etc.), closely corresponds to Jesus’ own gospel of God’s kingdom.2 How has this correspondence come about? Here the wording of 1 Thess 1:10 stimulates us to ask whether Jesus’ actual sayings might have influenced Paul’s formulation of the gospel in terms of the atonement and intercession of the Son of God. A number of scholars have suspected that here in 1 Thess 1:10 Paul has replaced the original “Son of Man” in an early Christian confessional or kerygmatic formula with the “Son” of God.3 They have based their view mainly on the fact that in the 1  Being a sequel to the second essay of this volume, the present essay needs to refer to it at several places. Further, like it, this sequel also builds on several of my previously published works. For these reasons there are many self-references here, too. May the reader be indulgent about it! 2  For more details of this view, see my Justification, 127–39. 3 E. g., E. Schweizer, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, TDNT 8:370, 383; U. Wilckens, “Der Ursprung der Überlieferung der Erscheinung des Auferstandenen,” in Dogma und Denkstrukturen,

134

Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings as a Basis of Paul’s Gospel

Gospel tradition “the Son of Man” is repeatedly said to be coming from heaven as the eschatological judge. Against this view, however, the phrase “the Son of Man” appears in the NT only on the lips of Jesus, and there is no evidence that it was ever used in the early church’s confession or preaching (Acts 7:56 being only an apparent exception). In this light, and since 1 Thess 1:9b–10 cannot be viewed as a pre-Pauline formula,4 it is better to think that Paul originally preached the gospel in Thessalonica in terms of “the Son of God,” as he did elsewhere (cf. Rom 1:3–4, 9; 2 Cor 1:19–20; Gal 1:16; cf. also Acts 9:20). Nevertheless, the view of the above-mentioned scholars is valuable in highlighting the correspondence of the “Son of God” here to the “Son of Man” in the Gospel tradition. How did Paul come to formulate a succinct summary of the gospel in terms of the coming of the Son of God, yet in language that is reminiscent of the coming of the Son of Man in the Jesus tradition? Does this suggest that when Paul preached in Thessalonica of the future coming of the Son of God from heaven to judge the world and deliver his own people, he did so on the basis of Jesus’ teaching about the future coming of the Son of Man from heaven for judgment and salvation? That possibility is suggested by the fact that several “Son of Man” sayings seem to be echoed in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11.5 If our interpretation that in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 Paul echoes several Son of Man sayings of Jesus is correct, we must assume that Paul replaced “the Son of Man” in those sayings about the coming of the Son of Man with the title “Lord,” or taught the Thessalonians to understand that “the Son of Man” in those sayings referred to the Lord Jesus. This is confirmed by 1 Cor 11:23–26. In the Gospel tradition, Jesus institutes the Lord’s Supper as “the Son of Man.” Jesus begins the drama of the Last Supper by announcing the theme that he is to dramatize: “For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is delivered [παραδίδοται]” (Mark 14:21// Matt 26:24). Jesus’ gestures with the bread and the cup and his interpretive words at the Last Supper concern the Son of Man’s “going” and “being delivered up,” i. e., his death. Luke conveys the same sense by presenting that saying as the conE. Schlink FS, (ed. W. Joest and W. Pannenberg; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963), 83–84 n. 67; G. Friedrich, “Ein Tauflied hellenistischer Judenchristen,” TZ 21 (1965): 502–16. See further J. Dupont, “Filius meus es tu,” RSR 35 (1948): 525; L. Cerfaux, Christ in the Theology of St. Paul (New York: Herder and Herder, 1959), 440–41. 4  Against, e. g., Friedrich, “Tauflied,” 502–16; E. Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (BNTC; London: Black, 1972), 85–87; U. Wilckens, Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte (WMANT 5; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1974), 81–91, see, e. g., T. Holtz, Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher (EKKNT; Züricher: Benziger; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1990), 55–59; C. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 85; Kim, PNP, 90–91. Cf. also M. D. Hooker, “1 Thess 1, 9–10: A Nutshell – but What Kind of Nut?” in Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion, M. Hengel FS (ed. H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger, and P. Schäfer; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 3:437–41. 5  See my essay “The Jesus Tradition in 1 Thess 4.13–5.11,” NTS 48 (2002), 225–42; reprinted as Essay 6 below in this volume.

1. Echoes of Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings

135

cluding summary of the theme of the drama of the Last Supper (Luke 22:22). Even John does the same when he has Jesus speak of the Son of Man’s departure and “glorification” – meaning his death – at the scene of the Last Supper (John 13:31–35), and summarizes the words of the institution in terms of “eat[ing] the flesh of the Son of Man and drink[ing] his blood” (John 6:53).6 But see how Paul starts the institution of the Lord’s Supper: “the Lord Jesus on the night when he was delivered up [παρεδίδετο] took bread …” (1 Cor 11:23), and how he ends it: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor 11:26). In the Gospel tradition, Jesus repeatedly announces the Son of Man to “be delivered up [παραδίδοται],”7 and on the night of the Last Supper he as the Son of Man is “delivered up” by Judas (Mark 14:21// Matt 26:24//Luke 22:22). Again, in the Gospel tradition, Jesus announces none but the Son of Man as “coming.”8 But in 1 Cor 11:23 Paul speaks of “the Lord” Jesus instead of “the Son of Man” Jesus as “delivered up” on the night of the Last Supper, and in 1 Cor 11:26 he speaks of the “death” and “coming” of “the Lord” instead of “the Son of Man.” This clearly suggests that Paul has replaced “the Son of Man” with “the Lord” in the Gospel tradition of the Last Supper, as well as in the Gospel tradition of Jesus’ announcements of the Son of Man’s death (“being delivered up”) and future coming. Thus 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 and 1 Cor 11:23–26 corroborate each other in confirming that Paul replaced “the Son of Man” with “the Lord” while passing Jesus’ sayings of the Son of Man on to his churches or imparting his teaching based on them. So, Paul speaks of “the Lord” “coming” (παρουσία) or descending from heaven to gather the believers (1 Thess 4:15–17) and “the day of the Lord” “coming” like a thief in the night (1 Thess 5:2), even while echoing the Son of Man sayings of Matt 24:30–31//Mark 13:26–27 and Matt 24:43–44//Luke 12:39–40, respectively. This is in line, of course, with the uniform early Christian avoidance of the designation “the Son of Man” in the confession of faith and the preaching of the gospel. Thus Paul’s echoes in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 of several of Jesus’ sayings regarding the coming of the Son of Man for the eschatological judgment and salvation lead us to the following threefold conclusion: (1) that during his founding mission in Thessalonica Paul taught the new believers regarding the future coming of the Lord Jesus Christ for judgment and salvation by means of Jesus’ Son of Man say6  On all these points, see S. Kim, “The ‘Son of Man’” as the Son of God (WUNT 30; Tü­ bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 45–49. 7 Mark 9:31//Matt 17:22//Luke 9:43; Mark 10:33//Matt 20:18//Luke 18:31–32; Mark 14:21// Matt 26:24//Luke 22:22; Mark 10:41//Matt 26:45; Matt 26:2; Luke 22:48; 24:6; cf. also Mark 8:31//Luke 9:22//Matt 16:21; Mark 9:12; Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28. Cf. also the Johannine translation of this phrase, the Son of Man to “be delivered up [παραδιδόναι],” into the Son of Man to “be lifted up” [ὑψωθῆναι] or “glorified” (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:23, 34; 13:31; cf. also 6:62). 8  Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26; Mark 13:26//Matt 24:30//Luke 21:27; Matt 24:27//Luke 17:24; Matt 24:37//Luke 17:26; Matt 24:39//Luke 17:30; Matt 24:44//Luke 12:40; Luke 21:36; Matt 25:31; Mark 14:62//Matt 26:64; Luke 17:22; 18:8; 21:36.

136

Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings as a Basis of Paul’s Gospel

ings; (2) that writing to the Thessalonian believers in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11, he again speaks of the future coming of the Lord Jesus with the same sayings of Jesus in mind; and (3) that both during his founding mission and while writing 1 Thessalonians, he represented or represents “the Son of Man” in Jesus’ sayings with the title “Lord.” In the light of this threefold conclusion, we may affirm that Paul is also making the wish-prayer in 1 Thess 3:13 with some of those Son of Man sayings in mind, again representing “the Son of Man” there with the title “Lord:” “… so that [the Lord] may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints” (cf. Mark 14:62// Matt 26:64//Luke 22:69; Matt 24:30–31//Mark 13:26–27; Mark 8:38//Matt 16:27// Luke 9:26; Matt 25:31–33; see comment on 1 Thess 3:13 in my commentary). This conclusion is, of course, a far cry from critical scholarship that strongly disputes the attempts to see echoes of Jesus’ Son of Man sayings in 1 Thess 3:13; 4:13–5:11. However, as Paul’s use of the “thief” saying (Matt 24:43–44//Luke 12:39–40) in 1 Thess 5:2 is almost universally recognized, the critical insight that we have obtained from Paul’s use of at least that Son of Man saying of Jesus already alerts us about great implications for understanding the development of Paul’s theology such as: (1) Paul used Jesus’ sayings in developing his eschatological expectation; (2) he used Jesus’ Son of Man saying, taking the Son of Man in it as Jesus’ self-designation; and (3) he developed his expectation of the future parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ from Jesus’ Son of Man saying, or at least supported that expectation (if he had developed it from another source) with Jesus’ Son of Man saying. Since there seems to be no better theory about the origin of the primitive church’s belief in the future (second) coming of the dead and risen Jesus Christ than the church’s post-Easter interpretation of Jesus’ sayings about the future coming of the Son of Man,9 it is the simplest to think that, after the Damascus vision of the risen Christ, Paul took over the pre-Pauline church’s belief along with some Son of Man sayings of Jesus that were serving as the basis for their belief.10 Then, Paul may have developed the specific term of παρουσία of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor 15:23; 1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess 2:1, 8) by looking at the sayings of the future coming (ἔρχεσθαι) of the Son of Man in the light of its background Dan 7:13, where Daniel sees in a vision “one like a son of man” coming (ἤρχετο/παρῆν , LXX),11 as well as by reflecting the majes Cf. Hengel, “Sit at My Right Hand!,” 133.  Even if one grants that Paul echoes only one Son of Man saying in his epistles, namely the “thief” saying, it is more realistic to think that he received more sayings of the Son of Man’s future coming along with it, than to think that he received only that one saying. 11  So, O. Betz, Jesus und das Danielbuch. Band II: Die Menschensohnworte Jesu und die Zukunftserwartung des Paulus (Daniel 7,13–14) (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1985), 130–31. Cf. also Kim, PNP, 197, n. 119, with the observation that “Paul uses the word παρουσία only in the contexts where Jesus’ “Son of Man”-sayings or their Danielic background is echoed.” The term παρουσία is used for the Lord Jesus’ second coming also in Jas 5:7, 8; 2 Pet 1:16; 3:4; 1 John 2:28, and in Matt 24:3, 27, 37, 39 it is used for the coming of the Son of Man identified as Jesus. But  9

10

2. Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings

137

tic ritual of a Hellenistic ruler’s visit (παρουσία) to his provincial cities. This conjecture is supported by the fact that the places where Paul uses the term παρουσία are precisely 1 Thess 4:15 (and its related passages in the epistle) which occurs in the context in which at least some scholars have seen echoes of several Son of Man sayings of Jesus, and 1 Cor 15:23–28 where some reflection of Jesus’ Son of Man sayings may be presumed alongside the strong echoes of Dan 7 (see below). Paul’s almost certain use of at least one saying of Jesus about the future coming of the Son of Man (the “thief” saying) and his probable use of additional sayings of Jesus in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 reveal the great significance of Jesus’ Son of Man saying(s) for development of Paul’s eschatology. This encourages us to pursue whether Paul used also other kinds of Jesus’ Son of Man sayings in developing other aspects of his theology.12

2. Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings(Luke 12:8–9//Matt 10:32–33; and Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26//Matt 16:27) Reflected in the Idea of Deliverance from God’s Wrath through the Intercession of the Son of God If Paul taught the Thessalonians during his founding mission, and is still teaching them in 1 Thessalonians, about the future coming of the Lord Jesus for judgment and salvation by means of Jesus’ sayings of the coming of the Son of Man, since those non-Pauline epistles are much later than the Pauline epistles and Matthew’s representation of the Son of Man’s coming (ἔρχεσθαι) with the term παρουσία in Matt 24 is without parallel among the Gospels, it appears safe to think that Paul began to apply the term παρουσία to the future coming of the Lord Jesus Christ without precedent (this conclusion does not exclude the possibility that Matthew and the other NT writers also developed this usage independently). 12  So far, even those who recognize Paul’s use of Jesus’ Son of Man sayings in 1 Thess 4:13– 5:11 and elsewhere have neither fully appreciated its theological significance nor seriously attempted to explain the various aspects of Paul’s theology in connection with Jesus’ Son of Man sayings (except a few scholars who have tried to relate Paul’s Adam Christology to it). No doubt, some of them have found it not easy to make such an attempt in the face of the continuing influence of the Bultmann school’s radical skepticism about Paul’s knowledge and use of Jesus tradition, as well as the critical theories that deny the Son of Man in Jesus’ sayings being Jesus’ self-designation or having any messianic significance. But such skepticism or critical theories should not really affect those who recognize Paul using in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 one or more of Jesus’ Son of Man sayings to refer to the Lord Jesus Christ’s eschatological coming for judgment and salvation. For by such a recognition they are really affirming not just the fact that Paul did use Jesus tradition, but also the fact that at least Paul did believe that with the title “the Son of Man” Jesus referred to himself and thereby identified himself as the eschatological judge and savior – no matter, in principle at least, whether the historical Jesus himself had done it or not  – although Paul’s such belief would strengthen the view that Jesus had in fact done it. (N.B. Paul’s close association with Barnabas and Silas/Silvanus, former leaders of the Jerusalem church [Acts 4:36–37; 15:22,32], and esp. the fact that both in Paul’s mission to Thessalonica and in his writing of 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 the latter also participated [1 Thess 1:1]).

138

Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings as a Basis of Paul’s Gospel

it is quite likely that the succinct summary in 1 Thess 1:10 of the gospel that Paul preached to the Thessalonians also reflects such a Pauline teaching. Since Paul had used Jesus’ sayings about the Son of Man coming from heaven for the eschatological judgment and salvation to teach the Thessalonian believers, the latter have come “to wait for [God’s] Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.” The fact additionally ascertained here is also significant, namely, that while teaching about the future coming of the Lord Jesus for judgment and salvation by means of Jesus’ sayings of the coming of the Son of Man, Paul replaced “the Son of Man” in Jesus’ sayings with the title “Lord.” This leads us to presume that he sometimes replaced “the Son of Man” in Jesus’ sayings also with the title “Son of God” and that the summary of Paul’s gospel in 1 Thess 1:10 reflects this. This hypothesis is confirmed by the following considerations. In view of Paul’s prayer in 1 Thess 3:12–13 (“May the Lord make you increase and abound in love … so that he may establish your hearts blameless in holiness” when standing before the judgment seat of God the Father “at the coming of the Lord Jesus with all his saints”), we may suppose that when in 1 Thess 1:10 Paul speaks of the Son of God delivering the believers from God’s wrath at his parousia, he is thinking of the intercession of God’s Son before God the Father’s judgment seat (cf. Rom 5:9–10; 8:32–34) along the lines of that prayer.13 But above, in the light of the several sayings regarding the coming of the Son of Man that are echoed in Paul’s statements about the “coming” (παρουσία) of the Lord in 1 Thess 4:13– 5:11, we have already concluded that at 1 Thess 3:13 also, when Paul speaks of “the parousia of the Lord Jesus,” he is conscious of those Son of Man sayings. The reference to his coming “with all his saints” confirms this. Since in 1 Thess 4:13–18 Paul speaks of Christians not as coming with the Lord but rather as ascending to meet the descending Lord in the air, by “all his saints” he must be referring to angels who are often seen as attending a theophany in the OT–Jewish tradition (e. g., Ps 68/LXX 67:17; Dan 7:10; 1 En. 1:6–9). Since in the Jesus tradition, echoing Dan 7:9–14, the Son of Man is to come accompanied by the angels (Mark 8:38; 13:27; Matt 13:41; 25:31), and since several of Jesus’ “Son of Man” sayings such as Matt 24:30–31//Mark 13:26–27 seem to be reflected in 1 Thessalonians, it is reasonable to suppose that the present phrase of 1 Thess 3:13 echoes a saying like Matt 24:30–31//Mark 13:26–27; Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26// Matt 16:27; Matt 25:31–33. Since in 1 Thess 3:12–13 Paul speaks of the Lord Jesus enabling the believers to stand blameless before God’s judgment seat,14 he seems to have especially a saying like Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26//Matt 16:27 in view: if the readers are not ashamed of the Son of Man (or the Lord Jesus) and his word even 13  For a more detailed substantiation of this supposition, see Essay 2 “Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel,” pp. 52–53 above. 14  For this interpretation of the passage, see comment ad loc. in my commentary.

2. Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings

139

when under persecution (1 Thess 1:5–6; 2:13–14; 3:3–6), but rather “stand fast in the Lord” (1 Thess 3:8) and remain faithful to his command to love (1 Thess 3:12), he would recognize them as his own disciples and establish them blameless or confirm them as righteous before God’s judgment seat. Thus he would intercede for them before God the judge, so that they may obtain redemption from God’s condemnation, i. e., his wrath. That Paul echoes Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26//Matt 16:27; Luke 12:8–9//Matt 10:32–33 in Rom 1:16 + 8:34 and Phil 1:19–20 strengthens our view that in 1 Thess 3:13 also he echoes them. In Phil 1:19–20, facing a life-or-death trial on account of his preaching of the gospel of Christ Jesus, Paul is confident that he will experience “the support [ἐπιχορηγία] of the Spirit of Jesus Christ” and so will be delivered. This is “because” (ὅτι) he will not “be ashamed” (αἰσχυνθήσομαι) of the gospel under any circumstances but will “magnify” Christ “in all outspoken proclamation” (ἐν πάσῃ παρρησίᾳ) at the trial, as he always has done (cf. Rom 1:16; 2 Cor 3:12). For Paul the intercession of the Spirit of Christ/God (Rom 8:9, 26–27) is the same as, or corresponds to, the intercession of Christ Jesus, the Son of God, at God’s right hand (Rom 8:34). With the phrase “the support [ἐπιχορηγία] of the Spirit of Jesus Christ” in Phil 1:19, Paul apparently refers to the intercession of the Spirit of Christ, the Son of God, at the trial.15 Because he will not be ashamed of Christ and his gospel, but will proclaim his greatness in all outspoken frankness at the impending trial, he is confident that the Spirit of Christ Jesus will intercede for him and he will be acquitted. In Luke 12:8–9 (//Matt 10:32–33) Jesus says: “And I tell you, everyone who confesses me before human beings, the Son of Man also will confess before the angels of God, but he who denies me before human beings will be denied before the angels of God.” As often suggested, Mark 8:38 may be the Marcan variant of the negative half of this Q saying: “For whoever is ashamed [ἐπαισχυνθῇ] of me and of my words … of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed [ἐπαισχυνθήσεται], when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” Then, we can see that the thought structure of Phil 1:19–20 exactly corresponds to Jesus’ “Son of Man” saying in Luke 12:8–9//Matt 10:32–33 and Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26//Matt 16:27, while the keyword αἰσχυνθήσομαι in Phil 1:20 agrees with the ἐπαισχυνθήσεται of Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26.16 So, it is quite likely that in Phil 1:19–20 Paul is echoing that “Son of Man” saying of Jesus.17 15 Paul may be choosing this expression in order to combine the thought of Luke 12:8–9// Matt 10:32–33 and Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26//Matt 16:27 with that of Mark 13:11; Luke 12:11–12; Matt 10:20, namely, the assistance of the Spirit at the trial. 16 We should find an echo of Jesus’ “Son of Man” saying of Luke 12:8–9//Matt 10:32–33 and Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26//Matt 16:27 also in the exhortation of 1 John 2:28 for believers to “remain” in Christ, i. e., to go on “confessing” (ὁμολογεῖν) Jesus as the Christ and the Son of God in spite of the antichrist’s pressure to “deny” (ἀρνεῖσθαι) him (1 John 2:18–27, esp. 22–23), “so that when he appears we may have παρρησίαν and not αἰσχυνθῶμεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ at his parousia” (cf. S. S. Smalley,

140

Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings as a Basis of Paul’s Gospel

In my previous Essay,18 I have observed that there is an inclusio between the introduction of the gospel in Rom 1:1–4 + 16–18 and its conclusion in Rom 8:31– 39 in terms of the Son of God who delivers us from God’s wrath or condemnation at the last judgment. So, if we take the two parts in combination, we may see an echo of Jesus’ “Son of Man” saying of Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26//Matt 16:27; Luke 12:8–9//Matt 10:32–33 also in Paul’s declaration of “not being ashamed” (ἐπαισχύνομαι) of the gospel in Rom 1:16 and his expectation of the intercession of Christ, the Son of God, at the last judgment in Rom 8:34.19 In concluding his exposition of the gospel of God’s Son (Rom 1:1–4, 9) in terms of the revelation of God’s righteousness that justifies believers in the gospel (Rom 1:16–17), Paul assures believers of their ultimate justification and triumph by pointing to the intercession of the risen Christ at the last judgment as well as to God’s love in Christ’s death of vicarious atonement (Rom 8:31–39). The central image of this passage, Christ sitting at the right hand of God as God’s Son and interceding for us (8:32, 34), quite naturally has drawn comparisons with Stephen’s vision of the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:56). Luke clearly intends for his readers to find in Acts 7:56 the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise recorded in the “Son of Man” saying of Luke 12:8–9 (//Matt 10:32–33). Romans 8:34 as well as Acts 7:56 may well echo the first, positive half of the Son of Man saying of Luke 12:8–9 (//Matt 10:32–33): “And I tell you, everyone who confesses me before human beings, the Son of Man also will confess before the angels of God …”20 As we have seen, Mark 8:38 (//Luke 9:26) expresses the second, negative 1, 2, 3 John [WBC 51; Waco, TX: Word, 1984], 131). This is strongly suggested by the three key words (ὁμολογεῖν; ἀρνεῖσθαι; αἰσχύνεσθαι) as well as the thought structure of 1 John 2:18–29. Thus, Phil 1:19–20; 1 John 2:28 (+ vv. 22–23); and Rom 1:16 + 8:34 (see below) echo the “Son of Man” sayings we have been discussing (Luke 12:8–9//Matt 10:32–33 and Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26//Matt 16:27), and bear witness to their continuing vitality, as well as to the unity of the Q logion (Luke 12:8–9//Matt 10:32–33) and the Marcan logion (Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26//Matt 16:27). 17  For a more detailed demonstration of all these points, see Kim, PNP, 203–04. 18 Essay 2 “Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel,” p. 61, above. 19 Rom 1:16 and 8:34 are more relevant to the interpretation of 1 Thess 1:10 and 3:13 than is Phil 1:19–20, as the Romans passages show a proper application of the Son of Man saying of Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26//Matt 16:27 and Luke 12:8–9//Matt 10:32–33 to the final judgment by God, whereas the Philippians passage shows an application of its principle to the situation of a non-eschatological, human court. 20  So, P. Stuhlmacher, “Jesustradition im Römerbrief?” TBei 14 (1983): 250; idem, “Christus Jesus ist hier, der gestorben ist, ja vielmehr, der auch auferweckt ist, der zur Rechten Gottes ist und uns vertritt,” in Auferstehung – Resurrection: The Fourth Durham–Tübingen Research Symposium (WUNT 135; ed. F. Avemarie and H. Lichtenberger; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 356; Wenham, Paul, 128; cf. also D. Crump, Jesus the Intercessor: Prayer and Christology in Luke–Acts (WUNT 2/49; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 196; D. M.  Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS 18; Nashville: Abingdon, 1973), 130–31; J. Dupont, “‘Assis à la droite de Dieu’: L’interprétation du Ps 110,1 dans le Nouveau Testament,” in Resurrexit: Actes du Symposium International sur la Résurrection de Jésus (Rome 1970) (Rome, 1974), 380, cited by Crump, Jesus the Intercessor, 15. For an echo of Luke 12:8 (//Matt 10:32) in Acts 7:56, see Crump, op. cit., 190–91, 200.

2. Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings

141

half of the Q saying in terms of the striking concept of “being ashamed of:” “For whoever is ashamed [ἐπαισχυνθῇ] of me and of my words … of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed [ἐπαισχυνθήσεται], when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” In Rom 1:16a Paul seems to echo this saying: “For I am not ashamed [ἐπαισχύνομαι] of the gospel.”21 If so, we can see the connection between Paul’s confession in Rom 1:16a, and his confidence in Christ’s intercession on his behalf in Rom 8:34e, via the logion of Luke 12:8–9//Matt 10:32–33 and Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26: Paul is not ashamed of the Son of Man/Son of God and of his gospel before human beings (Rom 1:16a), and so he is confident that the Son of Man/Son of God will not be ashamed of him but rather intercede for him at the right hand of God (Rom 8:34e). Paul is confident that, so long as his readers are not ashamed of the gospel of the Son of God but continue to believe in it, the Son of God will intercede for them at the right hand of God so that they may overcome all evil forces and obtain complete justification and salvation. Thus in Rom 1:16 and 8:34 Paul echoes Jesus’ “Son of Man” saying in Luke 12:8–9//Matt 10:32–33 and Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26, and wraps his whole exposition of the gospel up with that echo at the points of its beginning and ending. Therefore it appears that Paul developed the idea of the intercession of Christ, the Son of God exalted at the right hand of God, for his people, by a creative reflection on that dominical saying together with Ps 110:1, 4 and Isa 53:12. In echoing the Son of Man saying, Paul may also be conscious of its Danielic background: Rom 8:31–39 reminds us of Dan 7, not only of its enthronement scene in the heavenly courtroom, but also of its picture of the people of God being preserved and made triumphant over the beastly persecutions of the enemy forces. If so, in affirming Christ/Son of God as being “at the right hand of God” and interceding for us, Paul may be reflecting Dan 7:9–27 as much as Ps 110:1 and 4. If Rom 1:16 and 8:34 thus reflect Jesus’ Son of Man saying in Luke 12:8–9// Matt 10:32–33 and Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26, it is clear that Paul represents “the Son of Man” in Jesus’ saying with “the Son of God” (Rom 1:3–4, 9; 8:32–34). That in Rom (1:16 +) 8:34 Paul speaks of the intercession of Christ, the Son of God, at the last judgment, echoing Jesus’ Son of Man saying of Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26; Luke 12:8–9//Matt 10:32–33, strengthens the view that in 1 Thess 3:13, with the same saying of Jesus in mind, he implies that the Lord Jesus Christ would intercede for believers before the judgment seat of God. This in turn makes it quite likely that in 1 Thess 1:10 also he has in view the intercession of Jesus, the Son of God, at the last judgment in accordance with that promise of Jesus.22 Apparently, during his 21  So, Wenham, Paul, 163; cf. also Cranfield, Romans, 86; J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 255. 22 Cf. A. Y. Collins and J. J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 103–05.

142

Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings as a Basis of Paul’s Gospel

founding mission in Thessalonica, appealing to this saying of Jesus, Paul taught that Jesus the Son of God would intercede for believers and deliver them from God’s wrath at the last judgment. On this basis he exhorted them to remain faithful to the gospel, without being ashamed of it or denying it in spite of persecution. If B. Rigaux and D. Wenham are right in seeing in 1 Thess 1:6–8 echoes of Jesus’ parable of the sower (Mark 4:3–9 and parr.) and its explanation (Mark 4:16–20 and parr.) as well as Jesus’ call to discipleship (Mark 8:34 and parr.),23 Paul exhorted them with these sayings as well. So they “received the word with joy” but did not fall away when “affliction” arose (cf. also 1 Thess 2:13–15; 3:3–8), unlike those represented by “the rocky ground” in Jesus’ parable of the sower. Instead, responding to Jesus’ call for believers to take up their cross and follow him, they “became imitators of the Lord” by “receiving the word in much affliction.” Thus, they went on bearing fruits manifold like those represented by “the good soil” in the parable, for which Paul praises them in 1 Thess 1:7–8. Therefore, they can confidently expect Jesus the Son of Man/the Son of God to intercede for them and deliver them from God’s wrath at the last judgment according to the promise of Jesus’ saying of Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26; Luke 12:8–9//Matt 10:32–33. If all this is correct, we may conclude that Jesus’ Son of Man saying of Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26; Luke 12:8–9//Matt 10:32–33 made an essential contribution to Paul’s development of the idea of intercession by Christ Jesus, the Lord/Son of God, for believers at the last judgment,24 and that 1 Thess 1:10 and 3:12–13 reflect this.

3. Jesus’ Son of Many Sayings, the Ransom Saying (Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28) and the Eucharistic Saying (Mark 14:21–25 and parr.) Reflected in the Idea of Deliverance from God’s Wrath through the Atonement of the Son of God In the second essay above,25 in the light of 1 Thess 4:14; 5:9–10; Rom 5:8–10; 7:24– 8:4; 8:32–34; Gal 4:4–5, I have argued that 1 Thess 1:10 reflects Paul’s teaching that Jesus the Son of God would deliver believers from God’s condemnation at the last judgment on the basis of his atoning sacrifice and through his intercession. We have just seen that in implying the idea of the intercession of the Son of God in 1 Thess 1:10 Paul likely echoes the Son of Man saying of Luke 12:8–9// Matt 10:32–33 and Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26, with “[God’s] Son” replacing “the Son 23  B. Rigaux, Saint Paul: Les Epîtres aux Thessaloniciens (Paris: Jl. Gabalda, 1956), 380–81; Wenham, Paul, 87–88. 24 For the contribution that Isa 53 made toward the idea, see Essay 8 “The Thessalonian Church as Paul’s ‘hope or joy or crown of boasting’ (1 Thess 2:19–20),” 213 (with n. 37) below; also my Justification, 39; further Stuhlmacher, “Christus Jesus ist hier,” 355–57. 25 Essay 2 “Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel,” 49–54 above.

4. Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings and Their Danielic Background Reflected

143

of Man” of that saying. Now we may wonder further whether in alluding to the atoning death of the Son of God in 1 Thess 1:10 (cf. 5:9–10) he may not also echo the Son of Man sayings such as the ransom saying (Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28) and the eucharistic saying (Mark 14:21–25 and parr.). As far as the eucharistic saying is concerned, we have already seen that Jesus phrased it in terms of the Son of Man, and that in Paul’s version of it (1 Cor 11:23–26) he has consciously replaced “the Son of Man” in the original Jesus tradition with “the Lord.” So Paul speaks of “the Lord” “being delivered up [παρεδίδετο],” and of “the Lord’s death” and “the Lord’s coming.” As for the ransom saying, in the next essay below, I try to show that echoing it in 1 Thess 2:6–9 as well as in 1 Cor 9:19, 22; 10:33, Paul presents his apostolic ministry as an imitation of Jesus the Son of Man, who “has come to serve and give his life as ransom for many,” and also exhorts the Corinthians to imitate Jesus by imitating Paul himself (1 Cor 10:33–11:1). In that essay, I also try to show how Paul echoes the ransom saying and the eucharistic saying in various key soteriological formulae about Christ’s death. By demonstrating these two facts, I argue that those sayings form a basis both for Paul’s gospel and for his apostolic stance and paraenetic teaching. So, we may see that his understanding of Jesus’ death as atonement in 1 Thess 1:10 and 5:9–10 also reflects Jesus’ ransom saying and eucharistic saying. For a more detailed demonstration, see that essay below.

4. Are Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings and Their Danielic Background(Dan 7) Also Reflected in the Idea of the Kingship of Jesus God’s Son? Are Jesus’ Son of Man sayings also reflected in the passages where Jesus’ kingship as the Son of God is affirmed (1 Cor 15:23–28; Rom 1:3–4 and 8:31–39; Col 1:13–14)? To answer this question, we need to observe first the prominent Danielic background of 1 Cor 15:23–28. Otto Betz finds many features of the Pauline passage that echo Daniel 7 and other related passages in the book of Daniel.26 Here we may summarize Betz’s observations and arguments: (1) the temporal sequencing of the eschatological events marked by “then – then” (ἔπειτα – εἶτα) in the Corinthians passage reflects the Danielic way of sequencing of the eschatological events (cf. Dan 9:24–27) (121). (2) By the designation ἀπαρχή (1 Cor 15:20, 23), Christ is seen not just as the first risen one “of those who have fallen asleep,” but as the offering of the “firstfruits” (re’shîth hab-bikûrîm), and this sacrificial imagery corresponds to the implication of Dan 7:13, where the “son of man-like” figure’s “presentation” to God is described by the cultic term haqreb in Aramaic (= hiqrîb in Hebrew). Following the Pharisaic calendar, Paul regards 26 Betz,

Danielbuch, 121–43.

144

Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings as a Basis of Paul’s Gospel

Christ as having been slaughtered as the Passover lamb (1 Cor 5:7) on Nisan 14 (as in John 19:14, 31) and offered to God as the “firstfruits” at Easter (Nisan 16) (122). (3) Christ as the fristfruits of the dead has overcome the sin and death that (the first) Adam had brought in to all humanity, and has opened up the way for life, so that “those who belong to Christ” will have this (resurrection) life at his parousia (1 Cor 15:21–23). Now, the relationship that Paul projects here between the “firstfruits” Christ and “those who belong to Christ” corresponds to the relationship between the “son of man-like” figure and the “saints of the Most High” in Dan 7, who are the wise and righteous to whom resurrection life at the end is promised (Dan 12:1–3), the “son of man-like” figure being the inclusive representative of the eschatological people of God27 (123, 131). (4) Paul’s talk of Christ’s parousia here reflects the language of the “son of man-like” figure’s “coming” (παρῆν) in Dan 7:13 (130–31, see above). (5) With his vision of Christ Jesus God’s Son destroying all the evil forces, Paul is envisaging the fulfillment of the prophecy in Dan 7 of the judgment and destruction of the beastly kingdoms and the triumph of the “son of man-like” figure and God’s people (124, 131–34).28 Besides those features, Betz (124, 134–41) observes that Paul obtains from Dan 7:13–14 with the help of Pss 8:5–7 and 110:1 his idea of Christ’s delivering the kingship to God the Father at the end (1 Cor 15:24),29 along with its presupposition that Christ has received the kingship from God the Father for a limited period of time (cf. 1 Cor 15:25–27). Here Betz’s explanation gets a little convoluted. So I would like to re-present it, using some of his helpful points and adding my own explanations. Betz thinks that behind Dan 7:14 stands the messianically understood oracle of Nathan in 2 Sam 7:12–14.30 As a former Jewish Scripture scholar, Paul could have known that fact, and that knowledge could have led him to speak of the Messiah Jesus as God’s Son endowed with the kingship of God the Father while echoing Dan 7:14 in 1 Cor 15:24–28. But interpreting his Damascus Christophany in the light of Dan 7:9–14, Paul could first have perceived that Jesus Christ was the heavenly figure who had appeared to Daniel “like a son 27 Betz, Danielbuch, 123, 131. Cf. Rom 8:14–17, 29–30: the Son of God as the “firstborn” and the believers with his Spirit partaking in his sonship and obtaining justification and glorification. 28  Cf. also Hengel, “Sit at My Right Hand!,” 164. 29  Betz, Danielbuch, 128–29, regards this idea as unique in the Scriptures, as it is usually emphasized that the Messianic kingdom is to last forever (e. g., 2 Sam 7:13–14; Ps 110:4; Dan 7:14; John 12:34; Rev 11:15). With the vision of Christ’s kingship leading or yielding to the consummated kingdom of God the Father in the whole universe after Christ’s final destruction of all the evil forces, Rev 19–22 does present a close parallel to 1 Cor 15:24–28. However, even Revelation does not explicitly speak of Christ “delivering (παραδιδόναι) the kingship” to God the Father. So, at least, this explicitness may be said to be unique to Paul. In this explicit language of Paul, we may sense his strong consciousness that Christ Jesus has his kingship as he, as God’s Son, received or inherited it from God the Father. 30  Betz, Danielbuch, 131, n. 2; cf. the rabbinic interpretation of the “son of man-like” figure as the Davidic messiah.

4. Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings and Their Danielic Background Reflected

145

of man,” the figure who had been prophesied there to be enthroned by God’s side and endowed with “authority, glory and kingship,” and therefore that Jesus Christ was the “Son” of God who “inherited,” as it were, those divine mandates from God the “Father.” Paul would have seen Nathan’s oracle fulfilled in Christ. His experience of Christ appearing in the heavenly glory on the Damascus road would have led him also to see the kerygma of his Christian predecessors confirmed, that by raising Christ Jesus from the dead God had exalted him to his right hand in fulfillment of Ps 110:1. This, in turn, would have led Paul to take Dan 7:9–14 and Ps 110:1 together in interpreting the person and work of Christ, as both OT passages seemed to speak of the enthronement of God’s Son.31 It is easy to imagine that Paul further associated Ps 8:5–7 with these two OT passages, as the Psalm refers to the “son of man” endowed with glory, honor and dominion like Dan 7:14 as well as to the idea of subjection of all things or all the enemy forces as both Dan 7:9–14 and Ps 110:1 indicate.32 Of course, for our purpose here, it is not so important to ascertain the exact procedure through which Paul came to use Dan 7:9–14; 2 Sam 7:12–14; Pss 2:7–9; 8:5–7 and 110:1 together to explain Christ’s person and work, as the fact that in our passage, 1 Cor 15:23–28, Paul does use them together for that purpose. It is enough to affirm that all these OT passages have helped him understand the risen and exalted Christ as having been commissioned as God’s Son with the kingship of God the Father in order to subdue all the evil forces. Then, Pss 8:5–7 and 110:1 led him to understand the period of Christ’s kingship as limited. For Ps 110:1 shows God determining the Messiah’s kingship to last “until” all the enemies are subjugated. Note that having asserted in 1 Cor 15:24–26 that Christ is to subjugate or destroy all the enemy forces, Paul substantiates that assertion in 1 Cor 15:27–28 by citing Ps 110:1 and 8:7 (cf. also Ps 2:8–9), which have God as the subjugator of the enemy forces. Paul can do this because he understands that while Christ does the actual work of subjugating the enemy forces, he does it as the agent of God’s kingship, so that what he does is in fact what God does. In order to make clear this unity in redemptive work between God the empowering commissioner and Christ the empowered agent, Paul uses the “Father – Son” language in our passage, 1 Cor 31  Thus, Paul followed the tradition of taking the two passages together in Judaism (cf. Midr. Tehillim on Ps 2:7; also Mark 14:62 and parr.  – so Betz, Danielbuch, 138). 32  Cf. also Ps 80 (79 LXX):15–18: “O God of hosts … watch over this vine, the stem that your right hand planted and the son of man (υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου) that you have strengthened. … let your hand be upon the man (ἄνδρα) at your right hand, the son of man (υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου) whom you have made strong for yourself.” This passage shares significant similarities with Dan 7:9–14; 2 Sam 7:12–14; Pss 8:5–7 and 110:1. So it is quite likely that in alluding to the latter passages in interpreting Christ Jesus the Son of Man as God’s Son, Paul also alludes to Ps 80:15–18 along with them. Cf. Hengel, “Sit at My Right Hand!,” 169. However, since in the Pauline epistles, and elsewhere in the NT, Ps 80:15–18 is not as clearly alluded to as those other passages, we will forego citing it alongside those passages, although we really believe that it should be considered together with them in interpreting the texts such as Rom 1:3–4; 8:32–34 and 1 Cor 15:23–28.

146

Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings as a Basis of Paul’s Gospel

15:23–28. At any rate, we can see how from the combination of Dan 7:13–14; 2 Sam 7:12–14; Pss 8:7 and 110:1 Paul develops his somewhat distinctive idea that Christ God’s Son will deliver his kingship back to God the Father when he completes God the Father’s commission for him to destroy all the anti-God forces for redemption of God’s whole creation. So, in 1 Cor 15:23–28 we can see that with the help of Dan 7, as well as 2 Sam 7:12–14; Pss 8:7 and 110:1, Paul develops his understanding of Christ Jesus God’s Son as commissioned with the kingship of God the Father. But then while using Dan 7 for this understanding, would Paul not have Jesus’ Son of Man sayings also in mind? We have seen above that Paul knows and uses Jesus’ Son of Man sayings, and also that in speaking of the “parousia” of the Lord in 1 Thessalonians while echoing some sayings of Jesus about the “coming” (ἔρχεσθαι) of the Son of Man, Paul shows that he understands those sayings against the background of Dan 7:13 (παρῆν). So, both his Damascus Christophany and his subsequent hearing from his Christian predecessors of Jesus’ Son of Man sayings would have led Paul to Dan 7 and helped him interpret Jesus’ intent in the self-designation more fully or explicitly in the light of Dan 7. At least the Son of Man saying of Matt 24:30–31//Mark 13:26–27 which Paul uses in 1 Thess 4:16–17 would have led him to do that, as it is a Son of Man saying with clear echoes of Dan 7:13–14. In my commentary, as well as in the essay “The Jesus Tradition in 1 Thess 4.13– 5.11” included in this volume (see Essay 6 below), I have argued that the Thessalonians waited for the “parousia” of the Lord and developed anxieties about it because Paul had taught them about it on the basis of Jesus’ sayings of the Son of Man’s “parousia,” and that therefore in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 Paul was seeking to allay their anxieties by helping them understand the real meaning of those Son of Man sayings in the light of the fundamental kerygma of the saving event of Christ’s death and resurrection. Then, we may assume that in speaking of “parousia” of Christ in 1 Cor 15:23, not so long after he wrote 1 Thess 4:13–5:11, he had in mind such Son of Man sayings as Matt 24:30–31//Mark 13:26–27; Matt 24:43–44//Luke 12:39–40; etc. which he alluded to in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 (cf. also 1 Thess 3:12–13; 5:23; 1:10). Since there are similarities between 1 Cor 15:23–28 and 1 Thess 1:10 and in the latter also Paul has, as we saw above, Jesus’ sayings of the Son of Man’s “parousia” in mind, we may suppose that he does the same in 1 Cor 15:23–28 as well. In addition, there is a remarkable affinity between 1 Cor 15:23–28 and the Jesus tradition of Mark 14:61–62//Matt 26:57–68, in which we see the presentation of Jesus as the Christ and the Son of God combined with echoes of the following four traditions/passages: (1) Jesus’ Son of Man saying(s); (2) Daniel 7; (3) Psalm 110:1; and (4) 2 Sam 7:12–1433 (cf. also Ps 80:15–18). May 33  The two questions of the high priest at Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:53–65// Matt 26:57–68) whether Jesus claims to build a new temple and whether he claims to be the Messiah, the Son of God, are based on the messianically interpreted 2 Sam 7:12–14, according

Conclusion

147

this affinity be taken as suggesting that in 1 Cor 15:23–28 Paul echoes also this Jesus tradition of Mark 14:61–62//Matt 26:57–68? If Paul viewed Jesus in the combined light of his Son of Man sayings, the OT texts of Dan 7, Ps 110:1, and 2 Sam 7:12–14, as well as some other OT texts (e. g., Pss 8; 80), we may assume that in Rom 1:3–4, he also has in mind not just 2 Sam 7:12–14 (//Ps 2:7–9) and Ps 110:1 and Jesus’ kingdom gospel, but also Jesus’ selfdesignation as “the ‘Son of Man’” and its background text, Dan 7.34 Since Rom 1:3–4 is a confession so compactly formulated, it is difficult to prove this assumption by establishing literary correspondence. However, beyond pointing to the close similarities that Rom 1:3–4 has with 1 Cor 15:23–28 and Rom 8:32–34, in both of which we have detected echoes of Jesus’ Son of Man sayings, as well as of Dan 7, we could appeal to the idea in the immediately following verse (i. e., Rom 1:5) that all the nations should render obedience to Jesus Christ, God’s Son, the Lord. For it may well be taken as an echo of Dan 7:14b. In Dan 7:13–14, the heavenly figure “like a son of man” is brought to God and is invested with “authority, glory and kingship” (so we are to understand him as enthroned next to God’s throne; N. B. the plural “thrones” in Dan 7:9; cf. Ps 80:18), so that “all peoples, nations and languages should serve him.” Now that God has enthroned the Messiah Jesus, God’s Son, to exercise his kingly power or lordship, in fulfillment of Dan 7:13–14a (Rom 1:3–4), Paul as his apostle is charged “to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of [the Lord’s] name among all the nations” in fulfillment of Dan 7:14b (Rom 1:5). Thus, if Rom 1:5 is an echo of Dan 7:14b (cf. also Gen 49:10; Ps 2:7–9; Isa 11:10; 52:7–10), it is quite likely that in Rom 1:3–4 Paul has in mind Jesus’ self-designation as “the ‘Son of Man’” and its background text, Dan 7 (cf. also Ps 80:15–18), as well as the more apparent 2 Sam 7:12–14 and Ps 110:1 and Jesus’ kingdom gospel.

Conclusion 1 Thess 1:9–10 is a summary of Paul’s gospel adhered to by the Thessalonian believers (cf. 1 Thess 1:5–6). In the second essay in this volume, while unpacking that summary by expounding the allusions it contains in the light of the related passages both in 1 Thessalonians and in the other Pauline epistles, we found that to which the Son of David/the Messiah, who is made the Son of God, is to build the temple (cf. my essay “Jesus and the Temple” appended at the end of this volume). 34  To be more precise, it was in fact Jesus’ disciples who formulated the gospel of Rom 1:3–4 after his death and resurrection, understanding him in the light of those OT texts as well as reflecting his kingdom gospel and “Son of Man” sayings that they had repeatedly heard from him, and in adopting their gospel Paul endorsed their proclamation of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah and God’s Son who had fulfilled those OT prophecies and exercised God’s kingship as the Son of Man on God’s behalf ( cf. Rom 1:2).

148

Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings as a Basis of Paul’s Gospel

Paul’s gospel of God’s Son (Rom 1:3–4, 16–17 + 8:31–39; 1 Cor 15:23–28; Col 1:13–14) closely corresponded to Jesus’ gospel of God’s kingdom. In order to explain how this came about, we took the language of “wait[ing] for his Son from heaven … Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come” as our clue, and sought for echoes of Jesus’ Son of Man sayings in 1 Thess 1:10 and its related passages in Pauline epistles. This search has been most rewarding. The idea found in 1 Thess 1:10 of waiting for God’s Son from heaven, when illumined by 1 Thess 4:13–5:11, reveals a background in Jesus’ sayings of the future coming of the Son of Man from heaven for judgment and salvation, as found in passages such as Matt 24:30– 31//Mark 13:26–27; Matt 24:43–44//Luke 12:39–40; and Luke 21:34–36. We have also found that the idea, implicit in 1 Thess 1:10, of God’s Son interceding to deliver us from God’s wrath or condemnation at the last judgment, when combined with 1 Thess 1:6 (cf. also 2:13–15; 3:3–8) and illumined by 1 Thess 3:12–13 and Rom 1:16 + 8:32–34 (cf. also Phil 1:19–20), echoes the Son of Man saying of Luke 12:8–9//Matt 10:32–33 and Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26. Finally, we found that the reference to the death of Jesus the Son of God in 1 Thess 1:10, when illumined by 1 Thess 4:14; 5:9–10; Rom 5:8–10; 7:24–8:4; 8:32– 34; and Gal 1:4; 2:20; 3:13 + 4:4–5, echoes sayings of the passion of the Son of Man such as the ransom saying (Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28) and the eucharistic saying (Mark 14:21–25 and parr.). This view is strongly supported by Paul’s transmission of the eucharistic saying to the Corinthians at his pioneering mission in their city (1 Cor 11:23–26) soon after his departure from Thessalonica, as well as by the fact that he clearly echoes the ransom saying in the very letter of 1 Thess (2:6–8), which, together with 1 Cor 9:19–22; 10:33–11:1, also evidences that he cherished the ransom saying so much as to shape his apostolic stance in accordance with it. All this means that Paul preached the gospel in Thessalonica using the Jesus tradition. To be more precise, by means of several of Jesus’ Son of Man sayings, he taught the Thessalonians to wait for “the ‘Son of Man’”/the Son of God, who would come from heaven to deliver them from God’s wrath on the basis of his atoning death and through his intercession. In the course of substantiating this thesis, we have detected echoes of Jesus’ Son of Man sayings in so many important Christological and soteriological statements that Paul makes by designating Jesus as God’s Son or the Lord, in the statements that express Christ Jesus’ kingship (Rom 1:3–4; 8:32–34; 1 Cor 15:23– 28; Col 1:13–14), his parousia (1 Thess 1:10; 3:12–13; 4:13–5:11; 1 Cor 11:26; 15:23–28), and his intercession (1 Thess 1:10; 3:12–13; Rom 5:8–10; 8:32–34). In the following Essay (5), we will go on detecting echoes of Jesus’ Son of Man sayings in Paul’s statements on Christ’s atonement, especially in his such significant formulae for it as God’s sending or delivering up of his Son (Rom 8:3–4, 32–34; Gal 2:20; 4:4–5; cf. also 1 Cor 11:23; Gal 1:4).35 So it appears highly likely that 35 With

the demonstration that Paul represents “the ‘Son of Man’” in Jesus’ Son of Man say-

Conclusion

149

the Jesus tradition, not only Jesus’ teaching about God’s kingdom but also his sayings about himself as “the ‘Son of Man’” who bore that kingdom or kingship, formed a basis for Paul’s formulation of his gospel. This must ultimately be the reason why there is such a close material correspondence between Paul’s gospel of God’s Son or justification and Jesus’ gospel of God’s kingdom or forgiveness of sins.36 This conclusion is further to be strengthened by more detailed examinations of the echoes of the ransom saying (Mark 10:45 and par.) and eucharistic saying (Mark 14:17–21 and parr.) and those of the eschatological sayings of the Son of Man in 4:13–5:11 in the following two essays.

ings in terms of the Son of God as well as Lord, this study strengthens my thesis in my book “The ‘Son of Man’” as the Son of God. 36  See my Justification, 127–39; contra R. Bultmann and his many followers, who insisted on Paul’s lack of interest in the historical Jesus and his teaching, while appreciating the close correspondence between Paul’s gospel of justification and Jesus’ gospel of God’s kingdom (Bultmann, “Die Bedeutung des geschichtlichen Jesus für die Theologie des Paulus,” in Glauben und Verstehen 1 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1933], 188–213; his two articles “Jesus und Paulus” and “Das Verhältnis der urchristlichen Christusbotschaft zum historischen Jesus,” in Exegetica [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1960], 210–29 and 445–69 respectively).

5. Jesus’ Ransom Saying(Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28) and Eucharistic Saying (Mark 14:21–25 and parr.) Echoed in 1 Thessalonians and Other Pauline Epistles At a number of places in his epistles, Paul alludes to or echoes Jesus’ ransom saying and the related eucharistic saying. As he echoes the ransom saying both in explaining his apostolic ministry (1 Thess 2:5–9; 1 Cor 9:19, 22; 10:33–11:1) and in exhorting believers for proper Christian conduct (1 Cor 10:33–11:1; cf. also Rom 15:1–3), we can see that the saying forms part of the foundation for his Christian ethics. But more significant than that is the fact that he echoes the ransom saying and the eucharistic saying in several key soteriological formulae about Christ’s death. This suggests that they are fundamental for Paul’s understanding of the soteriological meaning of Christ’s death.

1. Jesus’ Ransom Saying in 1 Thess 2:5–9 Having stated in 1 Thess 2:3–4 the principle of his apostolic conduct to preach the gospel in the way that pleases God, his commissioner, who continues to test his heart, in 1 Thess 2:5–8 Paul goes on to explain how he actually carried out his apostolic ministry in accordance with that principle during his eisodos (missionary entry) at Thessalonica. In the first half of the section (vv. 5–6), he affirms that in conformity to the negative side of the principle (v. 3) but in contrast to false prophets and charlatan orators, he did not preach his message with flattery and other rhetorical tricks to cover his impure motives of gaining glory and financial interest from the Thessalonians. Then, in the second half of the section (vv. 7–8), he explains how he conducted himself in accordance with the positive side of his principle (v. 4), i. e., in the way of a true apostle commissioned by God: though as an apostle of Christ he could exert authority and demand respect from his audience, he conducted himself in humility and innocence like an infant among them and took care of them like a dedicated nurse with readiness to share his own life with them. In this explanation of his apostolic resolution and conduct in 1 Thess 2:8 and the surrounding verses, we can hear Paul echoing the ransom saying of Jesus (Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28//Luke 22:26–27). For (1) the infinitive μεταδοῦναι (“to

152

Jesus’ Ransom Saying

share”) and the phrase τὰς ἑαυτῶν ψυχάς (“our own souls/selves”) here remind us of the infinitive δοῦναι (“to give”) and the phrase τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ (“his soul/ self”) of the ransom saying. (2) The main verb εὐδοκοῦμεν (“we were pleased/resolved”) corresponds to the main verb ἦλθεν of the ransom saying and well expresses the spirit of the Son of Man’s voluntary coming to give himself. (3) The causal clause διότι ἀγαπητοὶ ἡμῖν ἐγενήθητε (“because you had become dear to us”) is reminiscent of the causal clause, “because you are precious in my eyes, and honored, and I love you,” in Isa 43:3–4, which stands behind the ransom saying.1 (4) The structure and idea of 1 Thess 2:7 (“Although we might have demanded you to respect our authority as apostles of Christ, but we became babes among you. As a nurse takes care of her own children …”) agree well with both what is implicitly assumed and what is explicitly stated in the first part of the ransom saying: “[Although the Son of Man has authority to demand service], the Son of Man has come not to be served but to serve ….” (5) Similarly, Paul’s talk of refusing to burden the Thessalonians but doing hard labor or working like a servant in 1 Thess 2:9 also may well represent the spirit of Mark 10:43–45a//Matt 20:26–28a//Luke 22:26–27. (6) The idea in 1 Thess 2:6 of Paul’s refusal to seek glory from human beings can be seen as a summary echo of Mark 10:35–44// Matt 20:20–27//Luke 22:24–26. (7) The clause ἐγενήθημεν νήπιοι ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν (“we became babes among you”) in 1 Thess 2:7 may be a virtual verbal echo of the Lukan version of Mark 10:43, γινέσθω ὡς ὁ νεώτερος … ἐγὼ δὲ ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν εἰμι ὡς ὁ διακονῶν (“[Let the greatest …] become as the youngest … But I am among you as one who serves,” Luke 22:26–27). Even if ἤπιοι (“gentle”) is read instead of νήπιοι in 1 Thess 2:7, Paul may still be seen as reflecting effectively Jesus’ teaching not to be like the Gentile rulers who domineer over their people (Mark 10:42–44 and parr.). Finally, (8) the sequence of Paul’s statements in 1 Thess 2:6–8 is exactly parallel to that of Mark 10:35–45: 1 Thess 2:6–8

Mark 10:35–45

“We did not seek glory from human beings … but became babes among you” (1 Thess 2:6–7b)

[Do not seek lofty positions among human beings, but become slave of all] (Mark 10:35–44 and parr.; cf. esp. the version in Luke 22:26)

“Although we might have demanded you to respect our authority as apostles of Christ, we became babes among you. As a nurse [normally a servant] cares for her own children …” (1 Thess 2:7)

“[Although the Son of Man has authority to demand service; cf. Dan 7:13–14], the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve …” (Mark 10:45a)

“We were resolved [εὐδοκοῦμεν] to share [μεταδοῦναι] with you … our own souls/ selves [τὰς ἑαυτῶν ψυχάς]” (1 Thess 2:8)

“The Son of Man came [ἦλθεν] … to give [δοῦναι] his soul/self [τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ] … for many” (Mark 10:45b)

 Cf. W. Grimm, Die Verkündigung Jesu und Deutero-Jesaja (Frankfurt: Lang, 21981), 239–68.

1

1. Jesus’ Ransom Saying in 1 Thess 2:5–9

153

The likelihood that in 1 Thess 2:6–8 Paul echoes Jesus’ sayings in Mark 10:35– 45//Matt 20:20–28 is enhanced by the fact that in 1 Cor 9:19–22 and 10:33 in the context of revealing basically the same apostolic stance as in our passage, Paul echoes the ransom saying of Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28: 1 Cor 9:19, 22

Mark 10:44–45

“I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win the more” (πᾶσιν ἐμαυτὸν ἐδούλωσα, ἵνα τοὺς πλείονας κερδήσω), …

“… slave of all, for even the Son of Man came … to serve and to give his soul/self as ransom for many” (πάντων δοῦλος … ἦλθεν … διακονῆσαι καὶ δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν).

“I have become all things to all (people), so that I might … save some” (τοῖς πᾶσιν γέγονα πάντα, ἵνα πάντως τινὰς σώσω).

N. B. the same idea and vocabulary: becoming a slave of all, in order to save many; Paul’s talk of his being under “the law of Christ” (1 Cor 9:21). 1 Cor 10:33

“to please all people (πάντα) …, NOT seeking my own advantage, BUT that of many (πολλῶν) that they [all/many] may be saved”

Mark 10:45

“NOT to be served BUT to serve and to give his soul/self [for many/all people – πάντων in Mark 10:44]    as ransom for many (πολλῶν)”

N. B. the same thought structure, “not – but,” as well as the same idea and vocabulary; Paul’s immediate explanation of this as his imitation of Christ (1 Cor 11:1).2 Independently confirming the echoes of the ransom saying in 1 Cor 9:19, 22 and 10:33, R. Riesner has shown that the saying is also echoed in several other Pauline passages such as Gal 1:4; 2:20; and Col 1:13–14.3 Among these, Gal 2:20 shows especially close affinities with Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28: Gal 2:20

Mark 10:45

“The Son of God, who loved me and gave “The Son of Man … to give his soul/self himself up (παραδόντος ἑαυτόν) for me(ὑπὲρ (δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ) as a ransom for ἐμοῦ).” many (ἀντὶ πολλῶν).”

The simple form δοῦναι in the ransom logion is changed into παραδόντος in Gal 2:20 for emphasis, reflecting the delivering/giving-up formula of Jesus’ passion 2 For more details, see my “Imitatio Christi (1 Corinthians 11:1): How Paul Imitates Jesus Christ in Dealing with Idol Food (1 Corinthians 8–10),” BBR 13 (2003): 197–98; reprinted as Essay 15 in this volume. 3 R. Riesner, “Back to the Historical Jesus through Paul and His School (The Ransom Logion – Mark 10:45; Matthew 20.8),” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 1 (2003): 180–92.

154

Jesus’ Ransom Saying

announcements, “the Son of Man is delivered [παραδίδοται] …” (Mark 9:31 and parr.; 14:21 and parr.; etc.). The τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ in the ransom logion is turned into ἑαυτόν as in 1  Tim 2:5–6, which provides the idiomatic Greek version of the logion (as widely recognized); the preposition ἀντί is changed into ὑπέρ as in 1 Tim 2:5–6 and Tit 2:13–14; and the πολλῶν is changed into ἐμοῦ, since Paul applies the saying to himself (cf. Tit 2:13–14). Just as the clause διότι ἀγαπητοὶ ἡμῖν ἐγενήθητε (“because you had become lovely/dear to us”) in 1 Thess 2:8, so also the articular participle phrase in Gal 2:20, (“the Son of God who loved me” [τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με]), is reminiscent of the causal clause, “because you are precious in my eyes, and honored, and I love you,” in Isa 43:3–4, which stands behind the ransom saying (see above). It is quite understandable that in Gal 2:20 again Paul turns “the Son of Man” in Jesus’ saying into “the Son of God,” as he regularly does elsewhere also (1 Thess 1:10; Rom 8:32–34; 1 Cor 15:23–28; Gal 1:16; etc.).4 Thus, Paul echoes the ransom saying in several diverse contexts. Galatians 2:20 is especially significant, as it shows not only his knowledge of the logion but also his cherishing of it as the most effective definition of the Christ event that determined his own personal Christian existence. Equally significant are 1 Cor 9:19, 22 and 10:33, because they show that Paul shaped his apostolic ministry in accordance with the saying or in imitation of Jesus who said it (1 Cor 11:1). Paul’s allusion to the ransom saying in 1 Cor 9:19, 22 clearly suggests that it was the ransom saying that inspired him to adopt his apostolic stance of foregoing financial support from the church and working to support himself. This conclusion is further supported by Paul’s subsequent statement about his following “the law of Christ” (1 Cor 9:21). Now, note the close parallelism between our 1 Thess 2:1–12 and 1 Cor 9 concerning Paul’s apostolic stance on church’s material support,5 an affinity between the two passages that is enhanced further by the common echo of the ransom logion in our 1 Thess 2:6–8 and 1 Cor 9:19, 22: 1 Thess 2

1 Cor 9

Paul received a proper apostolic commission: “approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel” (1 Thess 2:4).

“Am I not an apostle? … You are the seal of my apostleship” (1 Cor 9:1–2).

The common vocabulary “entrusted” (1 Thess 2:4).

“I am still entrusted with a stewardship” (1 Cor 9:17).

He had the apostolic right, but chose to serve: “We were gentle among you” (1 Thess 2:7).

“Do we not have the right to eat and drink? … so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel” (1 Cor 9:4–15, 18).

4  See further the preceding Essay 4 “Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings as a Basis of Paul’s Gospelof Jesus the Son of God,” 133–43. 5  Cf. also Malherbe, Thessalonians, 162.

2. Jesus’ Ransom Saying and Eucharistic Saying Echoed in 1 Thess 1:10; 5:10

155

1 Thess 2

1 Cor 9

He worked for a living, rather than demanding the church materially to support him (1 Thess 2:9).

He has the right to refrain from working for a living (1 Cor 9:6).

Echo of the ransom saying (1 Thess 2:6–8). “For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them” (1 Cor 9:19, 22).

So, just as in 1 Cor 9, so also in 1 Thess 2:1–12, with the echo of the ransom saying, Paul is indicating that he shaped his apostolic ministry, including his stance on finance, in accordance with that saying. Having appropriated the saving grace of the Christ of the logion for himself (Gal 2:20) and having made the imitation of the Christ of the logion as a fundamental principle in his apostolic ministry (1 Cor 9:19, 22; 10:33–11:1), he was determined to seek no gain, financial or otherwise, from the church but rather to give away his own life in service of her in Thessalonica. In 1 Cor 10:33–11:1, by calling the Corinthians to imitate Paul himself, as he imitates Jesus Christ who said and lived the ransom saying, Paul goes on to make the ransom saying a principle of general Christian conduct beyond his particular apostolic conduct (cf. also Rom 15:1–3).

2. Jesus’ Ransom Saying and Eucharistic Saying Echoed in 1 Thess 1:10; 5:10and Related Pauline Soteriological Texts Above we have already seen how Paul echoes the ransom saying in the soteriological text of Gal 2:20 (cf. also1 Tim 2:6 and Tit 2:13–14). The clear echo of the saying in that existentially crucial text for Paul makes us investigate whether other Pauline texts containing a soteriological formula about Christ’s death for us or for our sins may also have an echo of the ransom saying. “Christ died [ἀπέθανεν] for us/our sins” is a recurring formula (the “dying formula”)6 in Pauline epistles (e. g., Rom 5:6, 8; 8:34; 14:15; 1 Cor 8:11; 15:3; 2 Cor 5:14–15; Gal 2:21). Paul explicitly designates it as that which, together with the reference to Christ’s resurrection, constitutes “the gospel” that he received from his Christian predecessors (1 Cor 15:1–5) and he and the other apostles like Peter and James commonly preach (1 Cor 15:11). Since the expression “dying for” (ἀποθνῄσκειν ὑπέρ) is frequent in Hellenistic literature and appears also in Hellenistic Jewish literature (e. g., 2 Macc 7:37–38; 13:14; 4 Macc 6:28–29; 17:21–22),7 while lacking in the OT and Semitic literature, the dying formula in 1 Cor 15:3b  Cf. W. Kramer, Christ, Lord, Son of God (SBT 50; London: SCM, 1966), 26–30. M. Hengel, The Atonement: A Study of the Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament (trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 6–18. 6

7 Cf.

156

Jesus’ Ransom Saying

may be viewed as a Grecized version of the Jerusalem church’s kerygma that seems to be cited in Rom 4:25 (“Jesus our Lord, who was delivered [παρεδόθη] for our trespasses and raised for our justification.”8 With its typical Semitic construction of divine passives (“παρεδόθη – ἠγέρθη”), the latter appears to have been the Jerusalem church’s post-Easter kerygmatic response to Jesus’ own passion announcements, “The Son of Man is delivered [παραδίδοται]…” (Mark 9:31 and parr.), especially to his own interpretation of his death at the Last Supper, where he spoke of his impending death in terms of the Son of Man “being delivered [παραδίδοται]” for atonement and covenant “for many” (Mark 14:21–25 and parr.; see further the ransom saying in Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28: “the Son of Man came … to give [δοῦναι] his life as a ransom for many”).9 In the mashal or “riddle” saying of Mark 14:21 (and parr.), which has the typical Jesuanic word-play, “the Son of Man [‫ ] בר אנשא‬is delivered” by “that man” (‫)בר אנשא‬, namely Judas, but the allusion to the Scriptural predestination there implies that ultimately God stands behind Judas’ action (cf. Acts 2:23) and also that the expression has in view not just Judas’ betrayal but the whole event of Jesus’ passion triggered by it (cf. Isa 43:3–4 and 53:10–13 echoed in Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28 and Mark 14:24 [and parr.]; also Zech 13:7 cited in Mark 14:27//Matt 26:31).10 In the foregoing essay, “Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings as a Basis for Paul’s Gospel of Jesus the Son of God,” we have argued that 1 Thess 1:10 suggests that Paul originally preached to the Thessalonians of Jesus’ future coming as the Son of God to deliver us from God’s wrath, partly relying on Jesus’ sayings about the eschatological coming of the Son of Man. Then, in preaching to the Thessalonians of Jesus having died the death of vicarious atonement in order to redeem us from God’s wrath (cf. 1:10; 4:14; 5:9–10), may he also have been conscious of such Son of Man sayings of Jesus as the eucharistic saying (Mark 14:21–25 and parr.) and the ransom saying (Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28)?11 As Paul appears to be echoing several Son of Man sayings of Jesus in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 as well as in 1:10 and 3:13 (see the preceding essay; also comments on these passages in my commentary), this question is not so arbitrary as it may at first appear. In fact, since 1 Cor 11:23–26 shows how important the eucharistic saying was for Paul, and since 1 Thess 2:6–8 as well as 1 Cor 9:19, 22; 10:33; Gal 1:4; 2:20 shows that he cherished the ransom saying of Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28 for his apostolic stance,  Cf. ibid., 49–50.  Cf. P. Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an die Römer (NTD 6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 67; idem, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments: Grundlegung: Von Jesus zu Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 1:128–43, 191–92; U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 1–5) (EKKNT VI/1; Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1978), 279–80; Hengel, Atonement, 53–75. 10 Cf. C. A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20 (WBC 34B; Nelson, 2001), 377. 11  See S. Kim, “The ‘Son of Man’” as the Son of God (WUNT 30; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 39–73, for the views that the eucharistic saying is a Son of Man saying (cf. John 6:53) and that the ransom saying is related to it.  8  9

2. Jesus’ Ransom Saying and Eucharistic Saying Echoed in 1 Thess 1:10; 5:10

157

it would have been very strange if Paul had taught the Thessalonians about Christ’s death of vicarious atonement for us without those sayings in mind. However, there are some critics who hold the view12 that Paul’s citation of the words of the institution of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor 11:23–26 was merely an act of transmitting a liturgical tradition of the church without much interest in the historical Jesus and his teaching – a rather unrealistic view. There may also be some critics who would argue that even if it is granted that there are some echoes of the ransom saying in 1 Thess 2:6–8; 1 Cor 9:19, 22; 10:33; Rom 15:1–3, these passages show only that Paul saw the ransom saying in terms of imitatio Christi and reflected it in forming his apostolic stance, but did not really make use of it in developing his soteriological statements, including in our 1 Thess 5:9–10. But Gal 1:4 and 2:20 show how crucial the ransom saying was for Paul’s soteriology! In the second essay in this volume above, “Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel,” we saw how the compactly encapsulated thought in 1 Thess 1:10 that Jesus is to redeem us from God’s wrath through his atoning death as the Son of God (as well as through his intercession) is unfolded in Rom 5:8–10; 7:24–8:4; 8:31–39; Gal 4:4– 6 (see also comment on 1 Thess 1:10 in my commentary). In Rom 7:24–8:4 and Gal 4:4–6 the thought is expressed chiefly in terms of God sending his Son for our redemption (“the sending formula”).13 However, those passages include also the idea that is more clearly expressed through the formula of God delivering/giving up his Son to an atoning death (“the giving-up formula”).14 For in Rom 8:3 Paul says, “Having sent his own Son … to be a sin offering [περὶ ἁμαρτίας/‫]חטאת‬, God condemned sin in the flesh,” and in Gal 4:5 by the “redemption (ἐξαγοράσῃ) [of] those who are under the law” he refers to the “redemption from the curse of the law” (ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου) that Christ wrought through his vicarious death (Gal 3:13). Thus Rom 8:3–4 and Gal 4:4–5 show that the sending and giving-up formulae belong together. So, in Rom 8:31–39 the same thought is expressed in terms of the giving-up formula: out of his love for us God “delivered/ gave up” Christ his Son to death for us and “raised [him] up” from the dead and exalted him to his right hand, so that on the basis of his atonement and through his intercession we may obtain redemption from condemnation at the last judgment. Romans 4:24–25 is another instance of the giving-up formula, although there “Jesus our Lord” replaces the usual “the Son of God”15 and for the main verb the 12  E. g., F. Neirynck, “Paul and the Sayings of Jesus,” in L’Apôtre Paul: Personnalite, Style et Conception du ministere (BETL 73; ed. A. Vanhoye; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986), 265–321 (esp. 277); N. Walter, “Paul and the Early Christian Jesus-Tradition,” in Paul and Jesus: Collected Essays (JSNTSS 37; ed. A. J. M. Wedderburn; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1989), 51–80 (esp. 62–63). 13  Cf. Kramer, Christ, 111–14. 14 Cf. ibid., 115–19. 15  See my Justification, 43–45, for the view that “Jesus our Lord” is connected with the verb ἐγείραντα in Rom 4:24 as part of the abbreviated version of the baptismal formula of Rom 10:9–10; that Rom 4:25 is a pre-formed confessional formula that Paul attaches to the baptismal

158

Jesus’ Ransom Saying

divine passive is used: “Jesus our Lord … was delivered [παρεδόθη] for our trespasses ….” In Gal 2:20, Paul presents this giving-up formula in Christological variation, in terms of “the Son of God who loved me and delivered himself up [παραδόντος ἑαυτόν] for me” (i. e., for my justification; cf. v. 21). He does the same in Gal 1:3–4, where he speaks of “our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself [δόντος ἑαυτόν] for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age,” substituting “our Lord Jesus Christ” for the more usual “the Son of God” in the “sending” and “givingup” formulae (cf. also Rom 4:24–25; 8:32, 34; Eph 5:2, 25; John 3:16–17). However, by adding the phrases “according to the will of our God and Father” and “the grace of God” respectively in Gal 1:4 and 2:21, Paul clearly affirms in both passages of Galatians what is affirmed by the usual giving-up formula, namely, that God is the author of the saving event. Now it may be possible to see that behind all these instances of the “sending” and “giving-up” formulae there stands the ransom saying of Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28 as well as the related eucharistic saying of Mark 14:21–26 (and parr.). First, note that the formula “God sent his Son in order to …” (Rom 8:3–4; Gal 4:4–6) could reflect Jesus’ saying, “The ‘Son of Man’ came (ἦλθεν) in order to …” of Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28 (cf. also Matt 11:18–19//Luke 7:33–34; Luke 19:10; cf. also “I have come [ἦλθον] in order to …”, e. g., Mark 2:17 [and parr.]; Matt 10:34– 35//Luke 12:49–51; also “I was sent …,” e. g., Matt 15:24; Luke 4:18, 43), with which Jesus expressed his consciousness of God’s commission.16 J. D. G.  Dunn suggests that Jesus’ self-understanding as God’s Son sent (commissioned) by God, which is expressed especially clearly in the parable of the vineyard tenants (Mark 12:1–12 and parr.), has contributed to the formation of the sendingformula.17 This view comports well with the suggestion made here that Jesus’ sayings of “the Son of Man ἦλθεν …” have also contributed to its formation. For Jesus expressed his divine commission most clearly in terms of those ἦλθεν/ ἦλθον sayings. In my “The ‘Son of Man’” as the Son of God (15–37), I argued that with the self-designation “the ‘Son of Man’” (‫בר אנשא‬/ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) Jesus identified himself with the heavenly figure “like a son of man” who in Dan 7:13–14 is enthroned beside the Ancient of Days to receive from him “authority, glory and kingship,” and that therefore with the self-designation Jesus discreetly reveals himself, to speak in the Biblical idiom, as God’s “Son” who “inherits” from God those divine mandates and acts as his viceroy. So, as the “Son of Man” of Dan 7:13–14 (i. e., the Son of God), Jesus proclaimed the gospel of formula (v. 24); and that the pre-formed confessional formula of v. 25 most likely had originally not “Jesus our Lord” but “the Son of God” as the subject of the verbs παρεδόθη and ἠγέρθη. 16  Cf. S. J. Gathercole, The Pre-Existent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), esp. 177–89, who discusses the formulae “I was sent …” (e. g., Matt 15:24; Luke 4:43) and “the one who sent me” (e. g., Mark 9:37//Luke 9:48; Matt 10:40; Luke 10:16), as corresponding to the formula “I have come …” 17  J. D. G.  Dunn, Christology in the Making: A NT Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 21989), 38–40.

2. Jesus’ Ransom Saying and Eucharistic Saying Echoed in 1 Thess 1:10; 5:10

159

God’s kingdom and represented his saving reign on behalf of God his Father. In a follow-up work, I also suggested that in the light of his Damascus vision of the exalted Christ as the Son of God (Gal 1:16; Acts 9:20), Paul correctly interpreted as the Son of God the heavenly figure who appeared “like a son of man” in the Danielic vision (Dan 7:13–14), and so identified “the ‘Son of Man’” in Jesus’ sayings with “the Son of God.”18 Thus Paul correctly interprets Jesus’ self-understanding when he replaces “the ‘Son of Man’” in Jesus’ sayings with “the Son of God” (i. e., as the one to whom the divine “authority, glory and kingship” have been delegated according to Dan 7:13–14), or with “the Lord” (i. e., as the one who actually exercises those divine mandates on God’s behalf; cf. Ps 110:1; Rom 1:3–5; 1 Cor 9:1). Therefore, it is quite understandable that looking back at the ministry of Jesus from his post-Easter/Damascus viewpoint and appreciating his sayings of “the ‘Son of Man’ ἦλθεν …,” as well as other sayings of Jesus expressing his filial self-understanding, Paul has formulated the sending formula, replacing “the ‘Son of Man’” with “the Son of God” and making the sense of God’s commission explicit with the phrase “God sent ….” If the sending formula was pre-Pauline in origin, this interpretative process would have been involved in Paul’s adoption of it in the light of his Damascus vision. Anyway, an effect of this transformation is to appreciate the mission of Jesus as God’s Son or viceroy (“the Lord”) within the context of the developing Jewish Wisdom-theology (cf. 1 Cor 8:6; Prov 8:22–31; Sir 24:3–12; Wis 9:10–17; also Jesus’ Wisdom-sayings in Matt 11:16–19//Luke 7:31–35; Matt 11:25–27//Luke 10:21–22; Matt 11:28–30; Matt 23:34–36//Luke 11:49–51). Second, note also that the formula “The Son of God gave himself” (Gal 1:4; 2:20) corresponds to the sentence “The ‘Son of Man’ came … [to] give his soul/ self ” of Mark 10:45//Matt 20:2819 (cf. 1 Tim 2:5–6, where the Grecized version of the ransom saying renders “his soul/self” [τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ] idiomatically as “himself” [ἑαυτόν]), while the formula “God delivered/gave up his Son” (Rom 8:32; also 4:25) corresponds to the sentence “The ‘Son of Man’ is delivered up” in the eucharistic saying (Mark 14:21–25 and parr.) and other passion announcements such as Mark 9:31 (and parr). This language of “give [up]/deliver” in Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28 and Mark 14:21–25 (and parr.) reflects Isa 43:3–4, where it is said that God gives Egypt, Ethiopia and Seba as ransom (‫ )כפר‬for Israel, as well as Isa 53:10–12, where God “sets” (‫תשים‬/LXX: δῶτε, “gives”) the Servant (v. 10), or the Servant “poured out [‫הערה‬/LXX: παρεδόθη, “was delivered”/Tg: ‫מסר‬, “delivered”] his life” (v. 12) as a “guilt offering” or “sin offering (‫אשם‬/LXX: περὶ ἁμαρτίας,v. 10; cf. ‫חטא־רבים נשא‬/LXX: ἁμαρτίας πολλῶν ἀνήνεγκεν, v. 12).20 18 Kim,

PNP, 206–08.   Cf. J. D. G.  Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (BNC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993),

19

147.

20 Cf. J. Jeremias, παῖς θεοῦ, TDNT 5:710–11; Grimm, Die Verkündigung Jesu, 239–68; O. Betz, “Das Mahl des Herrn bei Paulus,” in Jesus der Herr der Kirche (WUNT 52; Tübingen:

160

Jesus’ Ransom Saying

Third, the emphasis on the love of God or God’s Son in the giving-up formula (Rom 8:32, 35, 39; Gal 2:20; cf. also John 3:16; 1 John 4:9–10; Eph 5:2, 25; Rom 5:8–10) appropriately expresses that which motivates the Son of Man to “serve” and “give his life” for redemption of many in Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28, and God to deliver/give up the Son of Man to an atoning and covenant-establishing death in Mark 14:21–25 (and parr.), as it is made clear in Isa 43:3–4, the text that stands behind Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28: because he loves Israel, God gives Egypt, Ethiopia and Seba as a ransom (‫ )כפר‬for her. Finally, the clause or phrase that expresses the redemptive purpose of God’s sending or giving up his Son corresponds to the purpose clause of Mark 10:45// Matt 20:28 (“in order to give his life as ransom for many”) and to the clause of Mark 14:24 (and parr.) (“my blood … which is poured out for many”). In Rom 8:3–4, 32–34, and Gal 4:4–6 (cf. 3:13), Paul speaks of God sending or giving his Son up to a death of vicarious atonement in order to redeem us from his judgment (i. e., his wrath; cf. also Rom 4:25; 5:8–10). This idea of vicarious atonement and redemption is abbreviated in Gal 1:4 and 2:20 respectively in terms of “for our sins” (ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν) and “for me,” which in the context (N. B. v. 21) means “for my justification.” This idea of vicarious atonement and redemption reflects the idea of “ransom” (‫ )כפר‬and guilt offering (‫ )אשם‬of Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28 and 14:24 (and parr.) and their OT backgrounds Isa 43:3–4 and 53:10–12. The ἀντὶ πολλῶν and ὑπὲρ πολλῶν (“for many”) respectively in Mark 10:45 and 14:24, which literally render ‫ לרבים‬of Isa 53:11–12, is turned into the more idiomatic Greek ὑπὲρ πάντων (“for all”) in 1 Tim 2:6. By rendering the Semitic phrase with ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν πάντων (“for us all”) in Rom 8:32, Paul lets his audience more personally be addressed with the redemptive grace of God and his Son expressed in the giving-up formula (cf. ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, “for you,” in 1 Cor 11:24//Luke 22:20). He renders the phrase even with ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ (“for me”) in Gal 2:20, appropriating very personally to himself the self-giving grace of God’s Son for sinners’ justification. So, given Paul’s use of several “Son of Man” sayings in our epistle (1 Thessalonians) and elsewhere, as well as his appreciation of the ransom saying of Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28 and the eucharistic saying of Mark 14:21–25 (and parr.) in 1 Thess 2:6–8; 1 Cor 9:19, 22; 10:33; 11:23–26; Gal 1:4; 2:20, we may see all these close correspondences between the sending and giving-up formulae and the Son of Man sayings of Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28 and Mark 14:21–25 (and parr.) as suggesting that in the instances of the sending and giving-up formulae (Rom 4:25; 8:3–4, 32; Gal 1:4; 2:20; 4:4–5) Paul reflects the ransom saying and the eucharistic saying. The Johannine evidence appears to support this conclusion. John 3:13–14 and 16–17 equate “the Son of Man” who has come (or rather “come down” from Mohr Siebeck, 1990), 224; Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie, 1:120–21, 128–40; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 120–23.

2. Jesus’ Ransom Saying and Eucharistic Saying Echoed in 1 Thess 1:10; 5:10

161

heaven) and is given up (or rather “lifted up”) with “the Son of God” whom out of his love for the world God “sent” and “gave,” in order to redeem believers from the judgment (i. e., God’s wrath, John 3:36) and give them eternal life. In John 6:35–58, as God’s Son “sent” by God the Father, Jesus “came down” from heaven, and as the Son of Man he gives his “flesh” (‫בשר‬/σάρξ/σῶμα) and “blood” as the “bread” and “drink” for eternal life (thus John 6:53–55 is a clear echo of the bread-saying and cup-saying of the Last Supper). Thus, in the two passages of John (John 3:13–17 and 6:35–58; cf. also John 10:11, 15, 17, 18; 15:13; see below), we see many echoes of the ransom saying of Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28 and the eucharistic saying of Mark 14:21–25 (and parr.). So they clearly suggest that the sending and giving-up formulae developed out of Jesus’ sayings “the ‘Son of Man’ has come …” and “the ‘Son of Man’ is delivered …,” especially the ransom saying and the eucharistic saying. In fact, in view of these clear echoes of those sayings of Jesus in John 3:16–17, the sending formula in 1 John 4:9–10 (“God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him …; he loved us and sent his Son to be an expiation [ἱλασμός/‫ ]כפרים‬for our sins”) looks very much like a paraphrase of the ransom saying of Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28 (“The ‘Son of Man’ has come … to give his life as ransom [λύτρον/‫ ]כפר‬for many”) – a paraphrase made from the post-Easter perspective, turning the original formula “the ‘Son of Man’ has come, in order to …” into the formula “God sent his Son, in order to …” (cf. also 1 John 3:16; see below). Similarly, the central statement in Rom 3:21–26, “God set forth [Christ Jesus] as an atoning sacrifice” for the “redemption” of “all who believe,” also looks very much like a variant of the giving-up formula and is quite reminiscent of the ransom saying and the eucharistic saying. Note that all the usual elements of the giving-up formula are present here. God is stated as the author of the saving event. The emphasis in the whole context of Rom 3:21–26 on God’s saving righteousness and grace as the cause for God’s action closely corresponds to the emphasis on the love of God or Christ in the usual giving-up formula. The purpose of God’s setting forth Christ is the same here as in the usual giving-up formula, viz., to make him an atoning sacrifice for the redemption of “all” the believers from his wrath (cf. Rom 1:18; 2:5; 3:5). The usual “the Son of God” as the agent of the atonement and redemption is replaced by “Christ Jesus” here, but it is also replaced by “Jesus our Lord” and “our Lord Jesus Christ” in the giving-up formula respectively of Rom 4:24–25 and Gal 1:3–4 (cf. also Rom 8:32, 34; Eph 5:2, 25). Instead of the usual verb “delivered/gave up” (παρέδωκεν), the verb “set forth” (προέθετο) appears here, but the latter can well be understood as a variant of the former (cf. Isa 53:10: God’s “setting” [‫ ]שים‬the Servant is rendered in the LXX with “giving” [δῶτε]. See above and below). For the echoes of the ransom saying and the eucharistic saying in Rom 3:21– 26, note, first of all, (1) that the concept “redemption” (ἀπολύτρωσις) is clearly related to the “ransom” (λύτρον) of Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28, and no matter how

162

Jesus’ Ransom Saying

the disputed concept of “atoning sacrifice” (ἱλαστήριον/‫ )כפרת‬in v. 25 may precisely be taken, there is no doubt that, like the “sin offering” (‫ )חטאת‬in Rom 8:3 and 2 Cor 5:21, it is related to the “ransom” (‫ )כפר‬and the “guilt offering” (‫ )אשם‬of Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28 and Mark 14:24 (parr.) that reflect Isa 43:3–5 and 53:10–12, insofar as it also refers, like the latter two concepts, to a sacrifice that deals with the problem of sins (N. B. “by his blood … sins” in v. 25). (2) As suggested above, the verb προέθετο in v. 25 may be seen as representing ‫ שים‬of Isa 53:10, which stands behind the ransom saying. Note here how C. Maurer observes that with the formula τίθημι τὴν ψυχήν μου ὑπὲρ τινῶν (John 10:11, 15, 17, 18; 15:13; cf. also 1 John 3:16) John “reproduce[s] in his own way the Synoptic δίδωμι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν of [the ransom saying of] Mark 10:45// Matt 20:28, … go[ing] back directly to the Hebrew ‫ שים‬of Isa. 53:10.”21 Indeed, John 10:10–11 (ἐγὼ ἦλθον ἵνα ζωὴν ἔχωσιν … Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός. ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλὸς τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ τίθησιν ὑπὲρ τῶν προβάτων) clearly appears as a paraphrase of the ransom saying (cf. 1 John 4:9–10), and it helps us hear echoes of the ransom saying in John 10:15, 17, 18; 15:13 (cf. also 1 John 3:16) more clearly (cf. also Jesus’ enactment of the ransom- and eucharist-sayings in John 13:1–20 before his fulfilment of it on the cross).22 So, just as John renders ‫ שים‬of Isa 53:10 with τίθημι, Paul seems to render it with the similar but more emphatic προτίθημι in Rom 3:25. (3) The “all [πάντες]” mentioned as the beneficiaries of the saving event in Rom 3:22–23 seems to echo the “many” (πολλοί) of those Jesuanic sayings and their Isaianic background (53:10–12), as in 1 Tim 2:6; Rom 8:32; and 2 Cor 5:14–15. Finally, (4) the emphasis on God’s saving righteousness and grace as the cause of his saving act in Rom 3:21–26 closely corresponds to the emphasis on God’s love in Isa 43:3–4 and 53:10–12 that stand behind the ransom saying and the eucharistic saying. Thus, it seems quite likely that in Rom 3:21–26, paraphrasing the usual giving-up formula, Paul echoes the Son of Man sayings of Mark 10:45// Matt 20:28 and 14:21–25 (and parr.). Now, note how Paul re-presents the selfgiving of God’s Son in Gal 2:20 and God’s giving of his Son up in Rom 8:32 in terms of Christ’s death in the following verses, Gal 2:21 (cf. 1:3–4) and Rom 8:34 respectively. This reminds us of the relationship between the giving-up formula of Rom 4:25 and the dying formula of 1 Cor 15:3 (see above). Similarly to Rom 3:21–26, Rom 5:8–10 also contains all the usual elements of the giving-up formula except the verb “deliver/give up” (παραδιδόναι) itself: God as the subject, his love as the cause, his Son as the agent of atonement, our redemption from his wrath as the purpose, and the “for us” phrase indicating the beneficiaries. There, the usual formula “[God] delivered/gave up his Son” seems 21  C. Maurer, τίθημι, TDNT 8:155–56. For more echoes of Mark 10:45 in John 1:13, 16, see Explanation section for 1 Thess 2:5–8 in my commentary. 22 It is strange why Johannine commentators have largely ignored those allusions and echoes of the ransom saying in the Johannine literature.

2. Jesus’ Ransom Saying and Eucharistic Saying Echoed in 1 Thess 1:10; 5:10

163

to be replaced with “God demonstrates (συνίστησιν) his love for us in that … Christ died for us [sinners]” (Rom 5:8), and with “the death of his Son” (Rom 5:10). Note here that this phrase “the death of his Son” is an abbreviated re-presentation of the preceding dying formula, “Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8), so that it appears to be a compromise of the two formulae, “God delivered/gave up his Son for us” and “Christ died for us.” Here, unlike Rom 3:21–25; 8:3–4; 2 Cor 5:21 (cf. also 1 John 4:9–10), Rom 5:8–10 does not contain an explicit reference to Christ’s death as a guilt offering or sin offering or their equivalent. Yet, like the giving-up formula in Rom 4:25; Gal 1:4; 2:20, the dying formula of Rom 5:8 (“while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us”) also implicitly affirms the death of God’s Son as an atoning sacrifice, and the emphatic references to its effects, namely our “justification,” “reconciliation,” and “salvation from God’s wrath,” in the subsequent verses make the affirmation abundantly clear. So, we can see that like the other instances of the sending and giving-up formulae and their variants, Rom 5:8–10 as a whole also reflects the influence of the ransom saying and the eucharistic saying of Jesus. If 2 Cor 5:14–15 and 5:21 are taken together, as they form an inclusio enveloping 2 Cor 5:16–20 and providing the ground for new creation and reconciliation explained in the latter,23 we can see Paul doing essentially the same thing there as in Rom 5:8–10. The formula that “God made (ἐποίησεν) [Christ] a sin[‑offering, ‫ ]חטאת‬for us, so that we may become [righteous]” (2 Cor 5:21; cf. Rom 8:3–4), looks like another variant of the giving-up formula, like Rom 3:24–25. It has all the usual elements of the giving-up formula, including God as the subject, Christ as the agent, atonement and redemption (or justification) as the purpose of God’s action, and the “for us” phrase indicating the beneficiaries. There is here also an emphasis on God’s love in the context, as Paul refers to God’s action expressed in the formula of 2 Cor 5:21, summarily as “the grace of God” in 2 Cor 6:1 (note also the emphasis on Christ’s love in 2 Cor 5:14). There is only a twofold variation here: “Christ” (2 Cor 5:20) replaces the more usual “the Son of God” as in Rom 3:24–25; 4:24–25; Gal 1:3–4, and the verb “made” (ἐποίησεν) stands for the usual “gave up” (παρέδωκεν), as the verb “set forth” (προέθετο) does the same in Rom 3:25 (Both ἐποίησεν in 2 Cor 5:21 and προέθετο in Rom 3:25 may reflect ‫ שים‬of Isa 53:10, which is rendered with the verb διδόναι in the LXX and stands parallel to the verb παραδιδόναι in LXX Isa 53:12). Thus the formula in 2 Cor 5:21 is a variant of the giving-up formula. Now, note that this formula is represented in terms of the dying formula (“[Christ] died for all”) in 2 Cor 5:14–15. So, note also that like the other instances of the giving-up formula and its variants, the 23  Cf. F. Lang, Die Briefe an die Korinther (NTD; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 295; C. Wolff, Der zweite Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (THNT; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989), 117, n. 356; also R. P. Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC; Waco, TX: Word, 1986), 129; O. Hofius, “Sühne und Versöhnung. Zum paulinischen Verständnis des Kreuzestodes Jesu,” in Paulusstudien (WUNT 51; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), 45 (33–49).

164

Jesus’ Ransom Saying

formula in 2 Cor 5:21 together with the phrase “for all” (ὑπὲρ πάντων) in 2 Cor 5:14–15 (cf. Rom 8:32; 1 Tim 2:6) is quite reminiscent of the ransom saying of Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28 and the eucharistic saying of Mark 14:21–25 (and parr.) as well as their OT background, Isa 53:10–12 (the Servant of Yahweh offered as a guilt offering [‫ ]אשם‬or sin offering [‫חטאת‬/LXX: περὶ ἁμαρτίας], to make many righteous).24 From the discussions so far, we have ascertained (1) that the sending and giving-up formulae in Rom 4:24–25; 8:3–4, 32–34; Gal 1:3–4; 2:20–21; 4:4–6 (cf. also 1 Tim 2:5–6; Tit 2:13–14; John 3:16–17; 1 John 4:9–10) are the post-Easter kerygmatic responses to Jesus’ ransom saying of Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28 and the eucharistic saying of Mark 14:21–26 (and parr.);25 (2) that Rom 3:21–26; 5:8–10; 2 Cor 5:14–15, 21 (cf. also 1 John 4:9–10) are variant forms or paraphrases of the giving-up formula; (3) that like the instances of the proper sending and giving-up formulae the passages containing its variant forms also show close correspondences to the ransom saying and the eucharistic saying; and (4) that some of the instances of the giving-up formula (Gal 2:20–21; Rom 8:32–34) and its variants (Rom 5:8–10; 2 Cor 5:14–15, 21) show that Paul regularly translates the givingup formula into the dying formula (cf. also 1 Cor 11:23 and 26), as his Christian predecessors already did (cf. Rom 4:25 and 1 Cor 15:3). What implications do these points have for our question whether in our 1 Thess 5:9–10 Paul is conscious of Jesus’ ransom saying and eucharistic saying? Since both 1 Thess 1:10 and 5:9–10 (cf. also 4:14) reflect the gospel that Paul preached to the Thessalonians during his founding mission as concerning the eschatological redemption from God’s wrath, we can take them together. When we do that, we find them conveying basically the same message as Rom 5:8–10, that God will save us from his wrath through Christ’s atoning death as God’s Son. God’s love that is emphasized in Rom 5:8 is also implicit in the idea of God’s saving will emphasized in 1 Thess 5:9. Note especially the fact that as in Rom 5:8–10 so also in 1 Thess 1:10 + 5:9–10 the dying formula (“Christ died for us,” 1 Thess 5:9–10; Rom 5:8) is abbreviated in terms of the death of God’s Son (1 Thess 1:10; Rom 5:10). So, as in Rom 5:8–10, so also in 1 Thess 1:10 we may regard the reference to the death of God’s Son as a compromise of the two formulae, “God delivered/gave up his Son” and “Christ died for us.” In fact, the compact way Paul formulates the kerygma in 1 Thess 1:10, “his Son … whom he raised [ἤγειρεν] from the dead,” suggests that he would use the verb “[whom God] delivered/gave up (παρέδωκεν)” for the Son’s death to form a pair with the verb “raised,” were he to write out the kerygma in full, just as in Rom 4:24–25 he elaborates the similar phrase “… [God] who raised [ἐγείραντα] Jesus our Lord from the dead,” with the giving-up formula “[Jesus] who was delivered 24 Cf. 25

Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie, 1:295.  Ibid., 1:294–98.

3. Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings Formed a Concrete Basis of Paul’s Gospel Preaching

165

[παρεδόθη] … and was raised [ἠγέρθη] …” (contrast 1 Thess 4:14: Jesus “died [ἀπέθανεν] and arose [ἀνέστη]”). Thus, 1 Thess 1:10 and 5:9–10 together appear to suggest that Paul preached to the Thessalonians the gospel about God’s redemption through the atoning death of Christ Jesus, God’s Son, using the giving-up formula as well as the dying formula. Then, he would have been conscious of their Jesuanic basis, namely the ransom saying and the eucharistic saying, as he usually is when he uses those formulae. So it is quite likely that now in recollecting his gospel preaching in 1 Thess 1:10 and 5:9–10 he is again conscious of those Son of Man sayings of Jesus. Thus this conclusion obtained from a consideration of the wider context of Paul’s soteriological formulae about the Christ-event confirms what we have surmised from the facts that in our epistle (1 Thess 1:10; 3:13), especially in the immediate context of 1 Thess 5:9–10 (namely 4:13–5:8), Paul has several Son of Man sayings of Jesus very much in view, and that 1 Thess 2:6–8; 1 Cor 9:19, 22; 10:33; 11:23–26; Gal 1:4; 2:20 show that Paul cherishes the ransom saying and the eucharistic saying, which are both Son of Man sayings. The fact that Paul wrote our epistle during his founding mission in Corinth in AD 50, i. e., he wrote 1 Thess 1:9–10; 4:14; 5:9–10 at the time when he was delivering to the Corinthians the gospel of 1 Cor 15:3–5 and the Institution of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:23–26), would also confirm that Paul wrote those 1 Thessalonians verses with Jesus’ ransom saying and eucharistic saying very much in mind.

3. Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings Formed a Concrete Basis of Paul’s Gospel Preaching With the distance of 2000 years from the Christ-event, it is so easy for us to treat such statements as “Christ died for us/our sins” and “God sent or delivered his Son for an atoning death” just as abstract theological propositions as “God created the world,” “God forgives sinners,” “God has called us,” “There will be the last judgment,” etc. But this was not the case with Paul. When Paul preached Jesus to the Thessalonians and others, he was not talking about him as a figure in an ancient mythology or even as an ancient hero in Israel’s history like Moses or Abraham, but as a contemporary of his, who lived and was crucified barely twenty years ago.26 So, presenting the dying formula or the sending and giving26 Cf. Kim, PNP, 207–08, where I appreciate the “astounding” fact of applying the OT–Jewish terms and traditions about the heavenly mediatorial figures (e. g., Dan 7:13–14; Ps 110:1, 4) “to a human figure … from contemporary history and experience” (A. Chester, “Jewish Messianic Expectations and Mediatorial Figures and Pauline Christology,” in Paulus und das antike Judentum: Tübingen – Durham – Symposium [WUNT 58; ed. M. Hengel and U. Heckel; Tü­bin­ gen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991], 76–77), and suggest the view that it can be explained only through a supposition of Paul’s knowledge of Jesus’ self-designation as “the ‘Son of Man’” and his filial

166

Jesus’ Ransom Saying

up formulae, or speaking of “the Lord Jesus on the night when he was delivered took bread …” (1 Cor 11:23), Paul was not presenting simply a theological formula, but referring with a clear sense of historical concreteness to an event which had recently taken place in all its horror. Jesus’ disciples who witnessed to the cruel event were still around, and Paul met them from time to time. They cherished the memory of Jesus’ teachings and deeds and were seriously reflecting upon them for their understanding of God and his salvation, as the Gospels in their distinct literary genre eloquently testify. Silas/Silvanus, Paul’s colleague in the mission to Thessalonica and co-sender of this epistle, was at least a close associate of those original followers of Jesus, if not himself having been one of them (Acts 15:22, 32). If Paul had tried to present only the brute fact of Jesus’s death as the saving event, ignoring everything else about him,27 it is difficult to know how Silas/Silvanus was able to work together with Paul. Surely Silas/Silvanus, a “prophet” or preacher of the gospel himself (Acts 15:32), would have assisted Paul in his preaching with the details of the Jesus tradition, who Jesus was, what he taught, what he did, how he came to be crucified and was seen alive after his death, etc. So, we should assume that in our 1 Thess 5:9–10 Paul says “Christ died …,” not just being conscious of its theological import, but also feeling the full horror of the recent crucifixion, and that Paul says “Christ died for us/our sins” in order to redeem us from God’s wrath, in full consciousness of the ransom and eucharistic sayings. The fact that some Greek Thessalonians accepted Paul’s gospel should also lead us to assume that during his founding mission in Thessalonica Paul preached the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection for their redemption (cf. 1 Thess 1:10; 4:14; 5:9–10), fully explaining the details of Jesus’ teachings and deeds as well as the events that led up to his crucifixion and resurrection. For, unless the Thessalonians were exceptionally gullible Greeks quite unlike those whom Paul characterizes in 1 Cor 1:18, 22–23 out of his rich experiences of mission among Greeks, it is difficult to understand how they could have accepted Paul’s message as the good news of salvation when he preached simply that Jesus Christ died for them and was raised by God from the dead, but without explaining what that Jesus taught, how he came to be crucified, why the most cruel and shameful event of his death on a cross worked for their salvation.28 If the Thessalonians were such gullible Greeks, Paul would hardly have generalized the Greeks’ attitude to the gospel of the crucified Christ as he did in 1 Cor 1:18a, 22–23. To the Thessalonians as to other Greeks, Paul must have persuasively explained especially the logic behind the strangest message that the death by crucifixion of a certain consciousness and kingdom preaching as well as of his experience of their confirmation in his Damascus vision of the resurrected Christ sitting at the right hand of God. 27  Cf. R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (London: SCM, 1968), 1:188–89. 28  Cf. M. Hengel, “The Origins of the Christian Mission,” in Between Jesus and Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 61 n. 73 (178).

4. Various Kinds of Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings Are Integrated

167

Jew named Jesus had wrought their redemption from God’s wrath (cf. 1 Cor 1:18b, 20–21, 24–25). Of course, Paul would have appealed to God’s resurrection of Jesus Christ. But would that alone have persuaded any Greeks? How could they see that Jesus’ resurrection proved the redemptive character of his death, unless Paul explained that Jesus had taught about his death as a God-commissioned sacrifice of vicarious atonement and that God’s resurrection of him from the dead had confirmed it and vindicated him? The fact that Paul passed on to the Corinthians the eucharistic saying as an important institution, so that the Corinthians celebrated the Lord’s Supper in their assemblies (1 Cor 11:23–26), confirms that he did explain that Jesus’ death was an event of vicarious atonement and that he did this using Jesus’ own words. The fact that Paul shows in 1 Thess 2:6–8; 1 Cor 9:19, 22; and 10:33; Rom 15:1–3; Gal 1:4; 2:20 how precious the ransom saying is to him also confirms this. For it is impossible to imagine that Paul transmitted the institution of the Lord’s Supper quite separately from his proclamation of the gospel of Christ’s death for us, and it is also impossible to believe that Paul would have tried to explain the meaning of Christ’s death without appealing to the ransom saying that he knows so well and appreciates so much. In fact, the Grecized versions of the ransom saying in 1 Tim 2:5–6 and Tit 2:13–1429 testify that the ransom saying was cherished in the Greek-speaking churches of Paul (as well as in the Johannine community: John 3:13–17; 6:35–58; 10:11, 15, 17, 18; 15:13; cf. also 13:1–20; 1 John 3:16; 4:9–10; see above). So, along with 1 Thess 2:6–8; 1 Cor 9:19, 22; 10:33; Rom 15:1–3; Gal 1:4; 2:20, 1 Tim 2:5–6 and Tit 2:13–14 clearly suggest that Paul regularly used the ransom saying to explain the meaning of Christ’s death in his missionary preaching among the Greeks. Therefore, besides 1 Thess 2:6–8; 1 Cor 9:19, 22; 10:33; Gal 1:4; 2:20, the two Pastorals passages also support our attempt to see the ransom saying as well as the eucharistic saying standing behind those Pauline passages including our 1 Thess 1:10 and 5:9–10 that we have argued above as bearing or reflecting the sending, giving-up, and dying formulae.

4. Various Kinds of Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings Are Integrated into the Pauline Preaching of the Gospel Many scholars work with the assumption that the different kinds of the Son of Man sayings in the Synoptic Gospels could not all have originated from Jesus, but that at most one kind (either some sayings of the future coming of the Son 29 Cf. J. Jeremias, “Das Lösegeld für Viele (Mk 10,45),” in Abba. Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 226; P. Stuhlmacher, Reconciliation, Law, and Righteousness (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 18; Riesner, “Back to the Historical Jesus,” 180–92.

168

Jesus’ Ransom Saying

of Man, or some sayings where the “son of man” may be taken in the sense of “a human being,” “someone,” or “a man like me”) originated from him and the other kinds (especially the sayings about the death of the Son of Man) were created or adapted by the primitive church.30 So they would object to our attempt here to see Jesus’ Son of Man sayings as lying behind Paul’s teaching about Christ’s atoning death for us in 1 Thess 1:10 and 5:9–10, as well as his teaching about the parousia of Jesus, the Lord and the Son of God, in 1 Thess 1:10; 3:13; 4:13–5:11. But their assumption is debatable,31 and, even if it is granted, it does not affect our attempt here. For even if Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28 and Mark 14:21 (and parr.) (as they appear in our NT canon) are judged as what the primitive church created (or adapted) and attributed to Jesus, Paul could have accepted them as authentically Jesuanic. Although Paul’s use of them in 1 Thess 2:6–8; 1 Cor 9:19, 22; 10:33; 11:23; Rom 15:1–3; Gal 2:20 and his echoes of them in his sending, giving-up and dying formulae can be seen as strengthening the various arguments that have so far been advanced for the authenticity of those sayings,32 what is needed for our interpretation here is only that Paul knew those sayings as genuine Son of Man sayings of Jesus. We have already judged that the opening word in the Pauline Institution of the Lord’s Supper, “The Lord Jesus on the night when he was delivered …” (1 Cor 11:23), could well allude to the theme statement of the Last Supper, “The Son of Man goes as it is written of him … The Son of Man is delivered …” (Mark 14:21 and parr.), whose meaning Jesus explains through the symbolic gestures of giving to his disciples the bread broken and the cup of wine poured, as well as the accompanying words (Mark 14:22–25 and parr.). The closing word of the Pauline Institution is “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.” Here again we see Paul re-presenting the giving-up formula (“[the Lord Jesus] was delivered”) in the opening word with the (abbreviated) dying formula (“the death of the Lord”) in the closing word. It is quite likely that with the clause “until he [sc., the Lord] comes” in the closing word, Paul is thinking of Jesus’ sayings of the Son of Man coming in the future for judgment and salvation,33 as he does with “the coming of the Lord” in 1 Thess 3:13; 4:13–5:11. Again, think of the fact that at about the time of delivering to the Corinthians the words of the Institution including this word “until he comes,” Paul writes about waiting for the coming of the Lord (or God’s Son) in 1 Thess 1:10; 3:13; 4:13–5:11. Or think of it the other way around: while writing those 30  E. g., H. E.  Tödt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (London: SCM, 1965), 42–60; R. Leivestad, “Exit the Apocalyptic Son of Man,” NTS 18 (1971/72), 243–67; B. Lindars, Jesus Son of Man (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 60–84. 31 Cf. Kim, “The ‘Son of Man’,” 7–14. 32  Cf. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 115–25, and literature cited there. 33  Cf. C. K. Barrett, “Das Fleisch des Menschensohnes (Joh 6,53),” in Jesus und der Menschensohn (Freiburg: Herder, 1975), 351.

Conclusion

169

words about waiting for the coming of the Lord in our epistle echoing many of Jesus’ Son of Man sayings, he was teaching the Corinthians about the celebration of the Lord’s Supper “until he comes.” Then we can see the Institution of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor 11:23–26 as showing that Paul thinks of both Christ’s death and parousia in terms of Jesus’ Son of Man sayings and that thus he reflects the two kinds of the Son of Man sayings, “The Son of Man will be delivered …” and “The Son of Man will come …,” at the same time. So we may see that likewise, in our epistle also, Paul is reflecting the two kinds of Jesus’ Son of Man sayings, the sayings of the Son of Man coming in the future in 1 Thess 4:13–5:8 and the sayings of the Son of Man being delivered/given up in 1 Thess 4:14; 5:9– 10 (cf. also 2:6–8). Indeed, in 1 Thess 1:10 Paul reflects both kinds of the Son of Man sayings combined in a shortest possible sentence, re-presenting “the Son of Man” with God’s Son. In the foregoing essay, “Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings as a Basis of Paul’s Gospel of Jesus the Son of God,” we have seen that when implying the idea of the intercession of the Son of God in 1 Thess 1:10 and 3:13 Paul likely echoes also the Son of Man saying of Luke 12:8–9//Matt 10:32–33 and Mark 8:38 (and parr.), with “the Son of Man” replaced by “the Son of God” or “the Lord.” Having explained with the help of the Pauline version of the eucharistic saying how Paul could reflect in 1 Thess 1:10 the two kinds of the Son of Man sayings (of future coming and of self-giving for atonement) in combination, we now need to explain also how he could integrate with them still another kind of the Son of Man saying, namely, that of intercession. Here Isa 53:10–12, which stands behind the ransom saying of Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28 and the cup saying of Mark 14:24 (and parr.), helps us. For in that text, the Servant of Yahweh offers both atonement and intercession. So that picture seems to have helped Paul hold those two kinds of Son of Man sayings (atonement and intercession) as an integral whole and combine the atonement and intercession of the Son of God for deliverance of his people from God’s wrath at the last judgment at his parousia in 1 Thess 1:10; Rom 5:8–10; 8:32–34.

Conclusion Thus, Paul’s numerous echoes of Jesus’ ransom saying and eucharistic saying in his soteriological and ministerial/paraenetic teachings in our epistle, 1 Thessalonians, and in other Pauline epistles, show that those sayings form a basis both of his gospel and of his apostolic stance and paraenetical teaching. (I suspect that the same could be said for the Johannine theology; though here we can do for the view no more than pointing to some key Johannine passages as done above). So, together with Paul’s echoes of Jesus’ sayings of the future coming and judgment/intercession of the Son of Man, they suggest a strong continuity between

170

Jesus’ Ransom Saying

Jesus and Paul. Clearly, Paul bases his gospel on Jesus’ teachings as well as his acts, and shapes his apostolic ministry after Jesus’ example.34

34  If my findings in the last two Essays of 4 and 5 and the following Essay 6 are plausible, they can have also some serious implications for one of the most hotly debated issues in the NT, namely the whole issue of “Jesus and the Son of Man Sayings” in the Gospel tradition.

6. The Jesus Tradition in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11 Having received the report from Timothy (1 Thess 3:6–8) that the Thessalonians were grieving over the believers who had died before the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ and were also anxious about the date of the parousia, Paul deals with these questions in turn in 1 Thess 4:13–18 (περὶ τῶν κοιμωμένων) and 5:1–11 (περὶ δὲ τῶν χρόνων καὶ τῶν καιρῶν). But what was the exact nature of the Thessalonians’ grief about the dead believers? Did they think that the dead believers would not participate in salvation at the parousia of the Lord at all, or just that they would have some disadvantage over against those who would survive until the parousia? What caused them to think like that? Was there any relationship between their grief about the dead believers and their anxiety about the date of the parousia? In our passage Paul explicitly appeals to the “word of the Lord” (1 Thess 4:15) and imparts his teaching in a language strongly reminiscent of some sayings of Jesus that are transmitted in the Synoptic Gospels. Is Paul alluding to some sayings of Jesus here? If he is, why does he deal with the two problems of the Thessalonians by referring to Jesus’ sayings in a way somewhat unusual to him?

1. Some Basic Exegetical Observations In order to answer these questions, we have to start with a clear understanding of what Paul says in our passage, especially in its first section (1 Thess 4:13–18). In 1 Thess 4:14 Paul gives his answer in a nutshell to the Thessalonians’ grief (1 Thess 4:13), and then in the subsequent verses (vv. 15–17) he unfolds and substantiates this answer.1 There is a grammatical anomaly in 1 Thess 4:14, in that the protasis is a conditional clause, but the apodosis starts with a comparative and inferential conjunction (οὕτως καί). The protasis with εἰ states a reality rather than a hypothetical condition.2 Yet it is formulated as a conditional clause in order to

1 Cf. N. Hyldahl, “Auferstehung Christi – Auferstehung der Toten (1 Thess. 4,13–18),” in Die Paulinische Literatur und Theologie (ed. S. Pedersen; Arhus: Forlaget Aros, 1980), 121; I. H.  Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 125; A. J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians (AB 32B; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 267. 2  Cf. BDF 372.1

172

The Jesus Tradition in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11

invite the readers to identify themselves with the confession once more:3 “If we believe, as I trust we do, that ….” It would appear that οὕτως καί is inferential and comparative: “even so.” It refers to the unexpressed assumption: “(If we believe, I trust we do, that Jesus died and rose again, i. e., that God raised him from the dead), even so God will bring those who have fallen asleep. …” In 1 Thess 4:16, where Paul unfolds and substantiates his summary conclusion of 4:14, the resurrection of the dead is prominently referred to, and it is clearly envisaged as the work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, in v. 14 we are to construe διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ with the verb ἄξει,4 and the clause ὁ θεὸς τοὺς κοιμηθέντας διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἄξει should be interpreted as meaning: “God will bring through Jesus those who have fallen asleep.” The phrase σὺν αὐτῷ of 1 Thess 4:14 has to be interpreted in the light of its elaboration in 4:17 and 5:10. In 4:15–17, in unfolding and substantiating the summary conclusion of 4:14 on the basis of “the word of the Lord,” Paul, first of all, states in 4:15b the implication of “the word of the Lord” which he is about to give:5 “We, who are alive, who are left until the parousia of the Lord will by no means precede those who have fallen asleep.” Then, in 1 Thess 4:16–17a, he paraphrases “the word of the Lord” itself: “… the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.” Paul proceeds in this manner because he wants immediately to address the problem of the Thessalonians and allay their anxiety. By paraphrasing the “word of the Lord” in 4:16–17a, Paul substantiates the part of the conclusion, ὁ θεὸς τοὺς κοιμηθέντας διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἄξει, of 4:14 as well as the implication he drew in 4:15b from the “word of the Lord.” However, Paul draws another implication in 4:17b from the “word of the Lord” paraphrased in 4:16–17a: “And so we shall always be with the Lord.” This (together with the part of the “word of the Lord” cited in 4:17a) clearly unfolds and substantiates the ἄξει σὺν αὐτῷ of 4:14. This means that we must understand the phrase ἄξει σὺν αὐτῷ of 4:14 in the sense of the phrase σὺν κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα of 4:17: “to be with him.” This confirms A. Malherbe’s view: “the meaning of syn autō is equivalent to eis to einai autous syn autō.”6 3  T. Holtz, Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher (EKKNT XIII; Zürich: Benziger; Neu­ kirchen: Neukirchener, 1990), 190. 4 So, also, Malherbe, Thessalonians, 266. 5  So, e. g., P. Siber, Mit Christus leben: Eine Studie zur paulinischen Auferstehungshoffnung (ATANT 61; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1971), 35–36; Marshall, Thessalonians, 126–27; C. A.  Wanamaker, The Epistle to the Thessalonians (NIGNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 171; Malherbe, Thessalonians, 269. 6  Malherbe, Thessalonians, 267, following Theodore of Mopsuestia; cf. also Siber, Mit Christus leben, 30.

1. Some Basic Exegetical Observations

173

Further, we should note an inclusio between 1 Thess 4:14 and 5:9–10, and understand them respectively as affirmation of the fundamental truth at the outset of the discussion of salvation at the parousia of Christ (4:14) and its reaffirmation at the conclusion of it (5:9–10). This is shown not only by the parallelism between the two passages but also by the flow of Paul’s logic in 5:1–11: with the exhortation in 5:8 Paul concludes his argument of 5:1–7: “Since we belong to the day, let us be sober and put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation.” Then, in 5:9–10a he provides the basis for his exhortation in 5:8: “For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ who died for us.” Thus, he grounds what we should do upon what God has done. With this his argument for a watchful and disciplined life in view of the unknown date of the parousia is complete. Yet, he goes on, and he goes on to draw out the purpose of God’s act stated in 5:9–10a: “so that whether we wake or sleep we might together live with him (sc. the Lord Jesus Christ)” (5:10b). Within the context of the argument of 5:1–10 this ἵνα-clause is not really necessary, and it only makes itself liable to be misinterpreted in the manner of Markus Lautenschlager and John P. Heil.7 So, the ἵνα clause can be understood only under the assumption that with it Paul seeks to stress the salvation of both the living believers and the dead believers by way of a grand conclusion of his argument in the whole eschatological section from 1 Thess 4:13 to 5:10. His formulation of the final salvation in terms of σὺν αὐτῷ ζήσωμεν, deliberately 7  M. Lautenschlager, “Εἴτε γρηγορῶμεν εἴτε καθεύδωμεν: Zum Verhältnis von Heiligung und Heil in 1 Thess 5,10,” ZNW 81 (1990), argues that γρηγορεῖν is never used as a metaphor for being alive (42) and that καθεύδειν is used as a metaphor for spiritual/moral negligence but never for death while κοιμᾶσθαι is used as a metaphor for death but never for spiritual/moral negligence (42–49). On the basis of this linguistic observation, Lautenschlager insists on taking the γρηγορεῖν/καθεύδειν of 1 Thess 5:10 in the sense of spiritual-moral vigilance/negligence and interprets the phrase εἴτε γρηγορῶμεν εἴτε καθεύδωμεν in the verse to mean: “so sei es, dass wir in Erwartung der Pausie heilig leben, sei es, dass wir nachlässig werden.” Then, according to Lautenschlager, Paul is saying in the verse: God has destined us to acquire salvation through Christ, “so that ‘whether we live a holy life in expectation of the parousia, or whether we are negligent,’ we may together live with him.” But besides his questionable exegesis of some of the texts where (καθ)εύδειν appears (e. g., esp. Ps 87 [88]:6; Dan 12:2 – op. cit., 46–49) (cf. Malherbe, Thessalonians, 300), his interpretation leads Paul to negate all the emphatic exhortation that he has just imparted in the preceding verses (5:6–8), something that Paul, if he is a normal person, would hardly do. Standing on Lautenschlager’s linguistic argument but realizing the problem here pointed out, John P. Heil, “Those Now “Asleep’ (not dead) Must be ‘Awakened’ for the day of the Lord in 1 Thess 5.9–10,” NTS 46 (2000): 464–71, seeks to improve Lautenschlager’s thesis by saying that in 5:10 Paul means that those Thessalonian Christians who “may be presently be ‘asleep’ [i. e., in the moral-spiritual sense] … must be ‘awakened’ to a life of holiness before living with the Lord Jesus Christ” at his parousia (471). But this is an unwarranted importation of an alien thought into the text. Furthermore, it does not really improve on Lautenschlager’s thesis. For, according to Heil’s interpretation, Paul, having stressed that the Thessalonians should not be asleep but keep awake at present (5:6, 8; N. B. the three present subjunctives here, as Heil [468] himself points out!), is now seen to be allowing their spiritual-moral lapse so long as they are ‘awakened’ before the parousia. This is clearly contrary to Paul’s intent in the passage.

174

The Jesus Tradition in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11

echoing ἄξει σὺν αὐτῷ of 4:14, ἅμα σύν … of 4:17a and σὺν κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα of 4:17b, also clearly suggests that here he is making a conclusion not just for the sub-unit of his teaching in 5:1–11 but rather for the whole section of his eschatological teaching in 4:13–5:11. Therefore, with εἴτε γρηγορῶμεν εἴτε καθεύδωμεν in 5:10b, he is referring back to the living and dead believers of 4:13–18. The reappearance of ἅμα of 4:17a in 5:10b also indicates this. Thus there is an inclusio between 4:14 and 5:9–10.8 Then, ἄξει σὺν αὐτῷ of 4:14 must be interpreted in the sense of σὺν αὐτῷ ζήσωμεν: hence, “to bring them to live with him.” The idea of living with the Lord is a greater specification of the idea of being with the Lord. In the grand conclusion of 5:10 Paul uses σὺν αὐτῷ ζήσωμεν to express more clearly and conclusively the eschatological hope which he has already expressed with εἶναι σὺν αὐτῷ in 4:14 and 17. If so, we may see in 1 Thess 4:14 εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτούς omitted before σὺν αὐτῷ, and take ἄξει only with διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. Then, the whole phrase of 4:14b will run: “Even so God will bring through Jesus those who have fallen asleep to be with him.” Or we may understand that precisely in order to combine in one word both the ideas of God’s raising the dead through Jesus Christ and of his making them be with him, Paul chose ἄξει here.

2. The Nature of the Thessalonians’ Grief Now, then, what is the significance of the fact that Paul gives his fundamental answer to the Thessalonians’ problem in terms of God’s bringing the dead Christians “to be with the Lord Jesus Christ” in 1 Thess 4:14, and repeats it twice more in 4:17 and 5:10? Why does Paul draw the implication out of the “word of the Lord” in terms of our “being with the Lord” in 4:17b? What is the significance of the fact that Paul states his grand conclusion of his answer to the Thessalonians’ problem(s) in terms of the dead and living Christians “together living with the Lord Jesus Christ” always? Isn’t this emphatic repetition of the hope of the dead and living Christians’ being or living with the Lord Jesus Christ indicative of the nature of the grief of the Thessalonians? It clearly indicates that they grieved because they could not think that their dead Christian relatives would participate in the future eschatological salvation at the parousia of God’s Son (1:9–10) and “be or live with the Lord Jesus Christ.” This is precisely what is suggested in Paul’s definition of their grief in 4:13: they grieve “like the rest who have no hope.” “The rest” are those non-Christians who do not belong to the company of “us” whom “God has destined not for wrath but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess 5:9). So they will be exposed to destruction at the parousia of Christ and will not be able to escape from it (5:3). Hence, they have “no hope” 8 Cf.

Malherbe, Thessalonians, 300.

2. The Nature of the Thessalonians’ Grief

175

(4:13). Thus, both Paul’s initial definition of the nature of the Thessalonians’ grief and his emphatic answer for the grief indicate that the Thessalonians grieved because they thought that the dead Christians would not be able to participate in the salvation at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ. If so, why does Paul counter their grief first with the statement that the survivors will not precede the dead believers in 1 Thess 4:15? The statement may be regarded as an implication that Paul draws out of the “word of the Lord” which he is about to cite in 4:16–17a, or as a proposition which he substantiates with the “word of the Lord.” Anyway, it is emphatic. Further, we must also account for Paul’s emphasis on the ἅμα in 4:17 and 5:10, the simultaneous nature of the salvation of the dead and the living Christians. The statement in 4:15 and the emphasis on the ἅμα in 4:17 and 5:10 seem to suggest that the Thessalonians’ grief may have arisen from an understanding that the dead Christians would not participate so immediately in the salvation at the parousia of Christ as the Christians who survive until the parousia. But would Paul identify the Thessalonians’ grief out of such a mistaken view with the grief of non-Christians who have “no hope” (4:13)?9 This definition of the nature of the Thessalonians’ grief seems to rule out any interpretation that they grieve over the relative disadvantage of the dead believers over against those believers who would survive until the parousia.10 This means that we must give greater weight to Paul’s definition of the Thessalonians’ grief as being over the absolute hopelessness for the dead believers in 4:13 and his principal answer in 4:14 which states simply that the dead believers will be brought to live with Christ. The statement in 4:15 and the twice repeated ἅμα in 4:17 and 5:10, which emphasize that the dead believers will receive salvation at the same time as the surviving Christians, will have to be given only a secondary consideration. Once we sort out the apparently contradictory data in this way, we can see that the latter set of data is related more to Paul’s desire to stress the certainty of the dead believers’ salvation than to the nature of the Thessalonians’ grief. The stress is necessitated by the Thessalonians’ belief that only the survivors until the parousia would be saved but the dead would be lost. Against this belief Paul is saying: “No! Dead Christians will also be saved; in fact, they will begin to experience the saving power of the returning Lord even before you, the living ones!” Why did the Thessalonians fail to have any hope for the salvation of dead Christians at the parousia? Did they have no notion of the resurrection of the dead? From Paul’s invitation for them to reaffirm their faith in Christ’s death and resurrection in 1 Thess 4:14, we can safely infer that he also taught them about the resurrection of believers. For it is hardly imaginable that he would

 9 Cf.

Hyldahl, “Auferstehung,” 129.  So, U. Luz, Das Geschichtsverständnis des Paulus (BevT 49; München: Kaiser, 1968), 319.

10

176

The Jesus Tradition in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11

have taught about Christ’s resurrection without also drawing out its implication for believers. Building on the demonstration of Gerhard Lohfink that in the OT and Jewish apocalyptic literature only the living persons are assumed into heaven,11 Joseph Plevnik argues that the Thessalonians’ worry was not that dead Christians would not share in the resurrection but rather that they would not participate in the assumption into heaven at the parousia.12 But this is a strange argument. If the Thessalonians had known that at the parousia dead Christians would be raised to life, on the assumption of Lohfink and Plevnik, they should have had no fear. For the dead Christians who are resurrected would immediately stand ready as living persons to be assumed into heaven! So, if the Thessalonians were worried that dead Christians would not be assumed into heaven, this worry was based on their inability to understand the resurrection of dead Christians at the parousia. Therefore, the fundamental cause for the anxiety was the Thessalonians’ failure to understand the doctrine of resurrection adequately.13 Precisely for this reason, Paul begins to allay their fear by appealing to the fundamental kerygma of Jesus’ death and resurrection and its corollary of believers’ resurrection in 1 Thess 4:14. Why this failure, then? Various factors such as the Thessalonians’ Hellenistic background and Paul’s brief mission among them may be contemplated for this. Further, from 1 Thess 5:1–1114 we may surmise that their excitement about an imminent parousia prevented them from paying much attention to the doctrine of resurrection. But then what could have caused them to have an expectation of an imminent parousia and become so excited about it?

3. The Thessalonians’ Inadequate Understanding of the Jesus Tradition, and Paul’s Correction Here I would like to present the thesis that the Thessalonians’ excitement about the parousia and their grief about the dead believers were mainly caused by their inadequate understanding of the Jesus tradition which Paul had delivered to them, and that therefore in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 Paul seeks to resolve the problems by helping them understand the Jesus tradition more adequately. 11  G. Lohfink, Die Himmelfahrt Jesu: Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts‑ und Erhöhungstexten bei Lukas (SANT 2; München: Kösel, 1971), 37–71. 12  J. Plevnik, “The Taking Up of the Faithful and the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Thess 4:16–18,” CBQ 46 (1984): 274–83; Paul and the Parousia: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), 69–71, 83, 94–96. 13 Cf. Marshall, Thessalonians, 120–22. 14  Clearly, we have to take together the Thessalonians’ grief about the dead Christians and their anxiety about the date of the parousia, i. e., the two parts of the eschatological section of 1 Thess 4:14–5:11.

3. The Thessalonians’ Inadequate Understanding of the Jesus Tradition

177

It has long been suspected that some eschatological sayings of Jesus are echoed in our passage. Not only some ideas, phrases and words in the section remind us of some eschatological sayings of Jesus that are transmitted in the Synoptic Gospels, but also Paul’s appeal to the “word of the Lord” in 4:15 strongly supports the suspicion. 1 Thess 5:2 (and 5:4b) is seen almost universally as echoing Jesus’ saying of the Son of Man coming at an unexpected hour like a thief in the night (Matt 24:43–44//Luke 12:39–40; cf. Rev 3:3; 16:15; 2 Pet 3:10; Gosp. Thom. 21; 103).15 1 Thess 5:3b is also seen by many commentators as echoing Luke 21:34–36 as the former with the sentence “then sudden destruction (αἰφνίδιος ὄλεθρος) will come upon them as travail (ὠδίν) comes upon a woman with child, and there will be no escape (ἐκφύγωσιν)” closely parallels to the latter’s saying: the day of the Son of Man will “come upon you suddenly (αἰφνίδιος) like a snare (παγίς); for it will come upon all who dwell upon the face of the whole earth. But watch at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape (ἐκφυγεῖν) all these things that will take place, and to stand before the Son of Man.”16 Even the “minimalists” like N. Walter and C. M. Tuckett cannot completely deny these.17 However, they try to weaken the implication of these admissions that Paul transmitted the sayings of Jesus. For even while stating that “it can assuredly be assumed that at least in [1 Thess] 5.2–3 Paul takes up sayings from the Jesus-tradition,” Walter claims that “we can then no longer be sure that Paul was conscious that he was applying Jesus-tradition.”18 This is a desperate argument born of excessive skepticism. Of course, we can never be absolutely sure about the psychological state of Paul about this or anything else. However, Paul’s appeal to the “word of the Lord” in the close proximity seems to make it reasonably sure that he did. For even if the clause λέγομεν ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου is taken as 15 E. Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (BNTC; London: Black, 1972), 191–93, may be the only recent major commentator who hesitates to affirm this. 16 Cf. e. g., L. Hartman, Prophecy Interpreted (Lund: Gleerup, 1966), 192–93; F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (WBC 45; Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 110; Holtz, Thessalonicher, 216–17; Marshall, Thessalonians, 134–35; Malherbe, Thessalonians, 292. Hartman, op.cit., 192, explains that the Pauline ὠδίν and the Lukan παγίς represent the two different pointings of the Hebrew/ Aramaic word ‫חבל‬/‫חבלא‬. This is accepted by Holtz, op.cit., 216, but rejected by L. Aejmelaeus, Wachen vor dem Ende: Traditionsgeschichtliche Wurzeln von 1. Thess 5:1–11 und Luk 21:34–36 (SESJ 44; Helsinki: Kirjapaino Raamattualo, 1985), 121, and C. M. Tuckett, “Synoptic Tradition in 1 Thess?,” in The Thessalonian Correspondence (ed. R. F. Collins; BETL 87; Leuven: Leuven University Press), 174–75, on the ground that ‫ חבל‬is never rendered with παγίς in the LXX. D. Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 315, considers the possibility that Paul substituted ὠδίν for παγίς under the influence of Jesus’ saying of the eschatological birth-pangs (Matt 24:8//Mark 13:8). Sometimes an echo of Matt 24:37–39//Luke 17:26–27 is also detected in 1 Thess 5:3a. 17 Nikolaus Walter, “Paul and the Early Christian Jesus-Tradition,” in Paul and Jesus (ed. A. J. M. Wedderburn and C. Wolff; JSNTSS 37; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989), 66–67; Tuckett, “Synoptic Tradition,” 171. 18 Walter, “Jesus-Tradition,” 67 (his italics).

178

The Jesus Tradition in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11

indicating merely “by whose commission and authority he speaks,”19 it would be quite unlikely that while being so conscious of the commission of the Lord Jesus Paul would use the unique imagery of the day of the Lord coming like a thief without being conscious of its author. Since the imagery is not attested in the Jewish literature, it is reasonable to suppose that the former Jewish theologian Paul learned it from his Christian predecessors. Further, it is more reasonable to suppose that the early followers of Jesus transmitted the unique and striking imagery to Paul, clearly identifying it as a word of their Lord Jesus, than that they did it as an anonymous saying.20 Tuckett also affirms the use of the parable of the thief in 1 Thess 5:2.21 However, he disputes the use of a Jesus tradition in 5:3. Rightly rejecting Aejmelaeus’ view that 5:3 represents Paul’s own creation,22 he maintains that it is “part of Paul’s tradition” and that the subsequent verses represent “Paul’s own modifications and applications of his tradition.”23 Yet Tuckett agrees with Aejmelaeus that Luke 21:34–36 is dependent on 1 Thess 5:3, and goes on to argue that some other elements in Luke 21 (e. g., “drunk,” “the Day”) which show “the substantive agreement” with 1 Thess 5:4–8 are also due to Luke’s dependence on Paul’s teaching in 1 Thess 5.24 So Tuckett’s conclusion is that in 1 Thess 5:1–11 Paul uses the traditions of disparate origin, with only the thief image in 5:2 being a Jesus-tradition.25 It is a pity that Tuckett does not go on to identify the origin of the allegedly non-Jesuanic tradition that Paul uses in 5:3. In my judgment, Wenham has effectively countered Tuckett’s argument and rightly concluded that it is much simpler to view that both 1 Thess 5:3 and Luke 21:34–36 are dependent on a common Jesus-tradition.26 In 1 Thess 5:4–7 Paul exhorts the Thessalonians not to fall asleep but keep awake, not to be drunk but to be sober, in view of the day of the Lord coming like a thief in the night. This looks like Paul’s application of the parables of the watchmen (Luke 12:36–38; cf. Matt 24:42; Mark 13:34–37) and the steward (Luke 12:41–48//Matt 24:45–51) which are linked with the parable of the thief in Luke 12:39–40 (//Matt 24:43–44).27 Tuckett denies this on the ground that in our pas19  Ibid., 66, citing O. Hofius, “Agrapha,” TRE II (1978): 104; P. Stuhlmacher, “Jesustradition im Römerbrief?,” TBei 14 (1983): 243. 20 Unless they identified the saying clearly as a saying of the Lord Jesus, Paul, if not already they, would have found the saying as blasphemous: The Lord is to come like a thief in the night! 21  Tuckett, “Synoptic Tradition,” 171. 22 Aejmelaeus, Wachen, 38–47. 23  Tuckett, “Synoptic Tradition,” 173–74 (quotation in 174). 24  Ibid., 175–76 (quotation in 175). 25 Ibid., 176. 26  Wenham, Paul, 334–36. 27  So, ibid., 308–12; Bruce, Thessalonians, 112; Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 184. R. Bauckham, “Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse,” NTS 23 (1977/78): 163–70, demonstrates that “parousia parables were widely used … in the primitive church” and “were collected and as-

3. The Thessalonians’ Inadequate Understanding of the Jesus Tradition

179

sage “keeping awake (γρηγορεῖν)” is conceived of as a day-time activity whereas in the Synoptic texts it is a night-time activity.28 But again Wenham counters it effectively with the observation that “Paul’s thought about waking, sleeping, darkness, and light develops not directly from reflection on the day of the Lord but from the thought of the day coming like a thief in the night.”29 The high probability that in 1 Thess 5:1–11 Paul echoes at least four sayings of Jesus (Luke 12:39–40//Matt 24:43–44; Luke 21:34–36; Luke 12:36–38; Luke 12:41–48//Matt 24:45–51) strengthens the view that in 4:13–18 also Paul echoes some sayings of Jesus. Many commentators see in 4:16–17 an echo of the Synoptic saying of the Son of Man coming on clouds and sending out his angels with a loud trumpet call to gather the elect (Matt 24:30–31//Mark 13:26–27).30 However, Tuckett objects to this view, first, on the ground that the Matthean version, showing a closer parallel to 4:16–17, is usually regarded as a Matthean redaction of the Marcan saying.31 The only substantial difference between the two versions with regard to a possible parallelism to 1 Thess 4:16–17 is the reference to “trumpet” in Matt 24:31. So, then, we may compare 1 Thess 4:16–17 with Mark 13:26–27, leaving out the reference to trumpet in 1 Thess 4:16, and still find a sufficiently close parallelism between them both in language and ideas that makes an echo of the tradition represented by Mark 13:26–27 in 1 Thess 4:16–17 probable.32 Tuckett’s weightier objection is that Matt 24:30–31//Mark 13:26–27 does not contain anything about the resurrection of the dead and about its happening before the rapture of the living, which he regards as “the key point of Paul’s argument” in our text.33 Against those who view those elements in our text as the results of Paul’s interpretation and application of the saying of Jesus to the Thessalonian situation, Tuckett contends: sociated from a very early stage” and that this is especially well attested for the parables of the thief and the watchmen and, to a less extent, also for the parable of the steward (quotation from p. 170). C.-P. März, “Das Gleichnis vom Dieb: Überlegungen zur Verbindung von Lk 12,39 par Mt 24,43 und 1 Thess 5,2.4,” in The Four Gospels 1992, F. Neirynck FS, (ed. F. van Segbroeck et al.; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 633–48, also concludes that Paul knew the parable of the thief as already connected to the parable of the watchmen and probably also to the parable of the steward (esp. pp. 646–48). W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, ICC, vol. III (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 385–86, confirm this view, with a further reference to Gosp. Thom. 21 and 103. 28  Tuckett, “Synoptic Tradition,” 170–73. 29 Wenham, Paul, 309, n. 36 (Italics added). 30   E. g., Hartman, Prophecy, 189; Hyldahl, “Auferstehung,” 130–31; Stuhlmacher, “Jesustradition,” 243; Marshall, Thessalonians, 126, 129–30; Aejmelaeus, Wachen, 84–85; Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 171; Wenham, Paul, 306. 31 Tuckett, “Synoptic Tradition,” 177. 32  Then Paul as well as Matthew could have added the reference to “trumpet” from the stock imagery of Jewish apocalyptic tradition. 33 Tuckett, “Synoptic Tradition,” 180.

180

The Jesus Tradition in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11

Yet it seems still strange that Paul should cite the tradition as an authoritative answer to the problem faced by the Thessalonians if the tradition itself said nothing relevant to the situation and all relevance is supplied by Paul’s own redactional adaptations. Further, the elements in 1 Thess 4,16–17 which clearly relate the saying to the Thessalonian problem by speaking of the resurrection of the dead, and the relationship of the living and the dead at the Parousia, are not all clearly redactional.34

I have already suggested that 1 Thess 4:15b (“we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep”) is an implication that Paul draws from the “word of the Lord” which he cites in 4:16–17a, and that Paul presents the implication even before citing the “word of the Lord” itself because he is eager to address the concern of the Thessalonians immediately (4:13) and substantiate his thesis in 4:14. In 4:16–17a Paul does not speak of “the relationship of the living and the dead at the Parousia,” except affirming that they are going to be caught up together. The fact that they are going to be caught up together is clearly the ground for his earlier statement in 4:15b that the living believers will not precede the dead believers at the parousia. So really the question is whether Paul could not have interpreted the idea of the Son of Man “gathering his elect” from the four corners of heaven or of heaven and earth through his angels (Matt 24:31//Mark 13:27) as implying the resurrection of the dead believers in view of the concerns of the Thessalonians. From the saying of Jesus Paul could clearly have understood that all the elect, the dead and the living, would be gathered to be with the Son of Man or the Lord. Then, he could have seen that it presupposed the prior resurrection of the dead believers.35 In view of the Thessalonians’ anxiety, Paul is stressing this implication of the saying (4:14b, 16b). Unlike the Synoptic sayings of the future coming of the Son of Man, John 5:27–29 explicitly associates resurrection with the coming of the Son of Man: “the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his (sc., the Son of Man’s) voice (φωνή) and come forth … to the resurrection of life.” Since it is difficult to assess the age, let alone the authenticity, of this Johannine saying, we cannot make much of it here. Nevertheless, it does show how the Son of Man’s ingathering (φωνή) at his parousia could be conceived of as involving the resurrection of believers. Thus, the Johannine saying helps us at least to see that Paul could have interpreted the Synoptic idea of the Son of Man’s ingathering of the elect as implying the prior resurrection of the dead.36  Ibid., 180.  So, also, Aejmelaeus, Wachen, 84–85; Marshall, Thessalonians, 126. For this interpretation, Paul’s knowledge of the Danielic background of Jesus’ Son of Man saying could have been helpful. Understanding the saying of Jesus in the light of Dan 7, Paul could have drawn Dan 12:2–3 (resurrection of the dead) in its interpretation, as Hartman, Prophecy, 189–90 and Hyldahl, “Auferstehung,” 130–31 suggest. 36  Cf. Marshall, Thessalonians, 130. 34

35

3. The Thessalonians’ Inadequate Understanding of the Jesus Tradition

181

Thus, it is to go too far to suggest that Paul would have found the tradition in Matt 24:30–31//Mark 13:26–27 as containing “nothing relevant” to the Thessalonian situation. Yet there is some validity in Tuckett’s question. We may reframe it this way: when the saying of Jesus does not explicitly speak of dead believers’ resurrection and their salvation, so that Paul has to draw them out as implications of the saying, why does he cite it here at all, explicitly appealing to the “word of the Lord”? Why does he not just give his apostolic teaching about the resurrection of the dead? Why does he not just stop with 1 Thess 4:14, where he has applied the conclusion drawn from the fundamental faith in Jesus’ death and resurrection to the (resurrection and) ingathering of dead believers? Why does he not just elaborate what he has said in 4:14, in a way similar to 1 Cor 15:12–28? Why does he explicitly appeal to the “word of the Lord” here (4:15)? This is rather unusual in Paul (besides our passage, only in 1 Cor 7:10–11; 9:14). It has become popular to interpret the phrase λέγομεν ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου in 4:15 as a Biblical idiom for prophetic inspiration and commission by the Lord (cf. 1 Kings 13:1, 2, 5, 32; 21:35; 1 Chr 15:15; Sir 48:3, 5), and consequently to understand Paul here as referring to a prophetic oracle which a Christian prophet or even he himself as a prophet received from the exalted Lord.37 For this view, the “mystery” in 1 Cor 15:51–52 is often brought in for comparison, as it shows some similarities to our passage. However, the concept of “mystery” itself does not suggest any particular mode of inspiration. In Rom 11:25–26, by the “mystery” Paul probably does not refer to an oracle that he actually heard from the Lord but rather to a new understanding of God’s saving plan which he obtained by interpreting a new revelation in the light of the Scriptures (Isa 6; 42; 49; Deut 32) and also the Jesus tradition (Matt 8:11–12//Luke 13:28–29; Luke 21:23–24; etc.).38 So it is likely that by the “mystery” of 1 Cor 15:51–52 also he does not refer to an oracle that he or another Christian prophet actually heard from the Lord but rather to a new insight that he obtained by interpreting the revelation of the risen Christ (resurrection; the εἰκών language; change/transformation)39 in the light of the Jesus tradition (trumpet; sudden coming) and the Scriptures (Dan 12:2–3). Therefore, even if the phrase λέγομεν ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου in our passage is to be taken as indicating only a prophetic inspiration, it is not excluded that in 1 Thess 4:16–17 Paul reproduces the (prophetic) “word of the Lord” not as he actually heard but rather as he interpreted it in the light of the Jesus tradition 37 See, e. g., Best, Thessalonians, 191–93; F. Neirynck, “Paul and the Sayings of Jesus,” L’Apôtre Paul (BETL 73; ed. A. Vanhoye; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986), 311; Malherbe, Thessalonians, 268–69. 38 See S. Kim, “The ‘Mystery’ of Rom 11.25–26 Once More,” NTS 43 (1997): 412–29; reprinted with additional notes in my book (pp. 239–58) referred to in the next note. Cf. Wenham, Paul, 319–26. 39  Cf. S. Kim, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 165–213.

182

The Jesus Tradition in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11

and the Scriptures (Dan 7; 12:2–3). Note how in Rev 3:3; 16:15 the prophetic words of the risen Lord make use of the word of the earthly Jesus (the thief parable!).40 Similarly the undeniable affinities of 4:16–17 with Jesus’ logion in Matt 24:30–31//Mark 13:26–27 may be seen as indicating that 4:16–17 is a prophetic word that contains that logion. Then, there is little material difference whether the phrase λέγομεν ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου is taken as referring to a prophetic word of the exalted Lord or to a word of the earthly Jesus. In this situation, the analogy of 1 Cor 7:10–11 and 9:14 (cf. also 1 Cor 11:23– 25), where Paul gives the word or command of the “Lord” in his own formulation without any suggestion of a particular prophetic inspiration, is quite suggestive. Further, in 1 Cor 7:12, 25, regretting that he does not have the word of the Lord Jesus on the questions arising out of marriage between a believer and a non-believer and on the question of marriage of “virgins,” Paul does not show any awareness of the possibility of soliciting a prophetic “word of the Lord” for those questions. So he simply gives his apostolic “opinion” “as one who has received mercy from the Lord to be trustworthy” (1 Cor 7:25). Thus, we have at least three cases in which Paul cites the words of (the earthly) Jesus explicitly (1 Cor 7:10–11; 9:14; 11:23–25), but we have no evidence, except the present disputed passage, that he explicitly appeals to a word that he received from the Lord through a prophetic inspiration.41 Lastly, in the context, namely, in 1 Thess 5:2–7, Paul cites a word of the earthly Jesus and echoes a couple more, saying that the Thessalonians know them ἀκριβῶς. This suggests that Paul delivered to them some eschatological sayings 40  Seeing that the thief parable appears within the prophetic words of the risen Lord Jesus in Rev 3:3 and 16:15, some critics may like to think that the parable itself originated from a word of a Christian prophet who spoke in the name of the risen Lord Jesus, and then entered into the Gospel tradition (Matt 24:43–44//Luke 12:39–40) and other Christian traditions (1 Thess 5:2, 4; 2 Pet 3:10; Gosp. Thom. 21; 103). But see Bauckham, “Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse,” 162–76, for a demonstration that in Revelation the prophet John made use of the authentic parable of the thief along with the parable of the watchman (Luke 12:36–38). For a similarly negative conclusion as to the question whether many prophetic sayings of the risen Lord were assimilated to sayings of the earthly Jesus, see also J. D. G. Dunn, “Prophetic ‘I’-Sayings and the Jesus Tradition: The Importance of Testing Prophetic Utterances within Early Christianity,” NTS 24 (1978): 175–98; D. E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 233–45. 41  In 1 Cor 2:16 he claims to have “the mind of Christ.” Called to be an apostle, i. e., a fully empowered agent of the Lord Jesus Christ, by God’s grace or mercy (cf. Rom 1:5; 12:3; 15:15; 1 Cor 3:10; 15:9–10; Gal 1:15; 2:9; etc.), Paul has “the mind of Christ.” So, in 1 Cor 7:12, 25, facing a new situation in his Gentile mission for which there was no directly relevant saying of Jesus, he does not seek a special “prophetic” inspiration of the “word of the Lord” but rather gives the “opinion” which he has obtained through “the mind of Christ” in him. At least in 1 Cor 7:12–16 we can see how justified Paul is in his claim to have “the mind of Christ” when he faithfully adopts Jesus’ opposition to divorce as far as possible and supports this stance with the uniquely Jesuanic principle of sanctification by association in opposition to the principle of defilement by association which he as a Pharisee used to hold.

3. The Thessalonians’ Inadequate Understanding of the Jesus Tradition

183

of Jesus whom he calls “the Lord.” So, in the context of discussing the parousia of the Lord in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11, he is clearly conscious of those sayings of the earthly Jesus. For these reasons, it appears better to take the phrase λέγομεν ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου as a reference to a word of the earthly Jesus.42 If it has to be taken as a reference to a prophetic word, in view of the affinities of 1 Thess 4:16–17 with Jesus’ logion in Matt 24:30–31//Mark 13:26–27 and also the presence of the words of Jesus in the context (i. e., 1 Thess 5:2–7), we will have to agree with Stuhlmacher that the prophetic word is really a paraphrase of the Jesus tradition applied to the Thessalonian situation.43 To return to the question that we have raised, no matter whether it is a “prophetic” or simple exegetical paraphrase, why does Paul appeal to the “word of the Lord,” Matt 24:30–31//Mark 13:26–27, in our passage? Both the fact that he usually lays out the hope of resurrection of the dead by expounding the implications of the fundamental kerygma of Christ’s death and resurrection (1 Cor 15!; further, e. g., Rom 6:4–9; 8:11; 1 Cor 6:14; 2 Cor 4:14; Phil 3:10–11; Col 3:1–4) and the fact that he rarely appeals explicitly to the word of the Lord make us wonder why he goes on to substantiate his summary answer drawn from the fundamental kerygma of Christ’s death and resurrection (1 Thess 4:14) with an explicit reference to the “word of the Lord” in our passage. Why does he do this, furthermore, when the word of the Lord does not explicitly mention the resurrection of the dead, so that he has to expound it as an implication of the word? We may find a clue to this question in Paul’s use of the saying of Jesus in 1 Thess 5:1–11. Trying to reassure the Thessalonians who are anxiously calculating “the times and seasons” of the parousia of the Lord44, Paul says, “You yourselves know ἀκριβῶς that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night” (5:2). Here he cites the logion of Jesus (Matt 24:43–44//Luke 12:39–40). 42 So,

e. g., Marshall, Thessalonians, 126; Wenham, Paul, 305–06; Holtz, Thessalonicher, 184.  Stuhlmacher, “Jesustradition,” 243. Even Walter, “Paul and the Early Christian JesusTradition,” 67, sees here a “fluid blending of Jesus-tradition … with its prophetic application” by Paul. However, some critics may like to go so far as to think that Paul could have mistaken the Son of Man sayings like Matt 24:30–31//Mark 13:26–27 and Matt 24:43–44//Luke 12:39–40 for sayings of the earthly Jesus although they really had originated from sayings of early Christian prophets. In principle, that possibility cannot be precluded. However, those critics will have to demonstrate against the witnesses of the Synoptists as well as, in the case of Matt 24:43–44// Luke 12:39–40, against the view of the majority of scholars, that those sayings did really originate from prophetic sayings. They will further need to show why we should deny rather than affirm that Paul and his colleague Silvanus (a “leader” and “prophet” from the Jerusalem church; Acts 15:22, 32) were in a position to discriminate prophetic sayings from sayings of the earthly Jesus. Cf. Dunn, “Prophetic ‘I’-Sayings,” 183–98. 44 Cf. J. M. G. Barclay, “Conflict in Thessalonica,” CBQ 55 (1993): 517, against R. Jewett, The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 96–100, who interprets 1 Thess 5:1–11 as evidencing the Thessalonians’ lack of interest in the future parousia born of “their intense experience of realized eschatology” (p. 97). 43

184

The Jesus Tradition in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11

The Thessalonians could have come to have the eschatological expectation of the parousia of the Lord only through Paul’s teaching. Paul’s teaching must have included the sayings of the coming of the Son of Man like Matt 24:43–44//Luke 12:39–40. For only so could Paul refer to the saying of Matt 24:43–44//Luke 12:39–40, noting that they already “know” it ἀκριβῶς (5:2) and so they “have no need to have anything written to” (5:1). Therefore, we can assume that he himself delivered at least that saying of Jesus to them during his founding mission in Thessalonica a few months ago.45 Then, it is likely that it and possibly other sayings46 like it have led them to be anxious about “the times and seasons.” Such sayings led them to have an expectation of the parousia in the first place, but with their stress on the uncertainty of its date and on the need for preparedness, they led them also to be anxious about its actual date. Their anxiety does not seem to have yet reached the morbid state evident in 2 Thess 2:1–12. Nevertheless, from their query about “the times and seasons” which Timothy may have conveyed to Paul, Paul senses a degree of anxiety which he must put to rest. How is Paul then proposing to allay with the citation of the saying their anxiety which has been caused precisely by that saying? Before allaying it, he in fact 45  Here we should compare the introductory form αὐτοὶ … ἀκριβῶς οἴδατε ὅτι … in 5:2 with the formula “Do you not know that …?” (οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι …;) in 1 Cor 3:16; 5:6; 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19. In my article “Jesus, Sayings of” (in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters [ed. G. F.  Hawthorne, R. P. Martin and D. G. Reid; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993], 481–82; reprinted in Kim, PNP, 259–97), I have tried to show that the formula in those verses in 1 Corinthians alludes to the various sayings of Jesus:

1 Cor 5:6 6:2, 3 6:9 6:15 6:16

Jesus’ sayings Mark 8:15–16 and parr. Matt 19:28//Luke 22:29–30 Matt 5:20 The eucharistic words of Jesus (cf. 1 Cor 11:23–24; 10:16) Gen 2:24 echoed in Jesus’ divorce saying (Mark 10:2–12//Matt 19:3–12), which is cited in 1 Cor 7:10–11 3:16; 6:19 Jesus’ temple sayings (Mark 14:58//Matt 26:61; Mark 11:27–12:11 and parr.)

Thus, alluding to the various sayings of Jesus, the eight occurrences of the formula “Do you not know that …?” clearly indicate that Paul delivered those sayings of Jesus to the Corinthians at his founding mission to Corinth. Like οἴδαμεν γὰρ ὅτι … in 2 Cor 5:1, the introductory form αὐτοὶ … ἀκριβῶς οἴδατε ὅτι … in 1 Thess 5:2 may be regarded as a variant of the formula οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι …; This comparison strengthens the view that Paul delivered the thief parable of Jesus to the Thessalonians during his mission to them. The unique nature of the parable confirms it. Thus, the formula “Do you not know that …?” in the eight verses of 1 Corinthians and its variants in 2 Cor 5:1 and 1 Thess 5:2 (cf. also 1 Cor 10:16) together suggest that at his founding mission for various churches he regularly delivered the teaching or sayings of Jesus as part of his preaching of the gospel of God’s salvation wrought in the death and resurrection of that Jesus. During his mission to Thessalonica Paul must have been aided in this significantly by his colleague Silvanus (1 Thess 1:1) (see n. 43 above). 46  If Paul knew the parable of the thief as already connected to the parables of the watchmen and the steward as in Luke 12:35–48 (see n. 27 above), he could have delivered the three parables together to the Thessalonians.

3. The Thessalonians’ Inadequate Understanding of the Jesus Tradition

185

heightens it by echoing another saying of Jesus which, similarly to the parable of the thief, emphasizes “sudden destruction” (or judgment of the Lord) coming at an unexpected hour (1 Thess 5:3). Only then he allays their anxiety by reinterpreting the thief parable in the light of the fundamental Christian conviction: by faith in Christ, they have already been saved and have been assured of the consummation of salvation on the day of the Lord. They have already been transferred from darkness into light. They are in the know of the day of the Lord. Therefore, no matter when it comes, the day of the Lord will not take them by surprise like a thief. They can rest assured of this (1 Thess 5:4–5; cf. also 5:9–10). Having given this assurance, Paul goes on to underscore the morale of the thief parable of Jesus: they must “keep awake” and “be sober,” i. e., maintain a disciplined life of faith, love and hope in preparation for the coming judgment and salvation on the day of the Lord (5:6–8). Thus, Paul cites Jesus’ word in order to correct their unhealthy anxiety stemming from their inadequate understanding of it, and he corrects their anxiety by helping them understand it more fully in the light of the fundamental gospel (5:9–10) and their fundamental salvation occurrence. While doing this, he does not forget to reinforce the purpose for which he delivered the word in the first place, namely the call for a disciplined life of faith, love and hope.47 Paul’s reference to the “word of the Lord” in 1 Thess 4:15–17 is to be understood in a similar way. The Thessalonians received from Paul Jesus’ sayings like Matt 24:30–31//Mark 13:26–27 and understood them one-sidedly as meaning that only the living would be gathered at the parousia of the Lord.48 Since those sayings like other Synoptic sayings of the future coming of the Son of Man did not have any reference to the resurrection of the dead, they just thought that only those who would be present at the coming of the Lord would be gathered by the angels. They could not see how their dead relatives could be present to be gathered by the angels at the parousia of the Lord. So they began to grieve that the dead were lost without any chance of salvation. This inadequate understanding or misunderstanding reflected their inability “to bring the apocalyptic expectations of resurrection and Parousia together into a systematic whole.”49 This inability was ultimately due to the fact that Paul was 47 This is important for Paul, especially in view of the fact that the Thessalonians have still not completely succeeded in overcoming their pagan moral laxity (cf. 4:3–8). Hence the reinforcing of the thief parable in 1 Thess 5:2 with a further echo of Jesus’ saying in 5:3. 48 Unless Paul had taught them about the parousia of the Lord, how could they have become anxious about the date of the parousia? Unless he had taught them about the Lord’s ingathering of the believers at his parousia, how could they have come to expect of it? How could he then have taught them about the Lord’s parousia and his ingathering of the believers? Since these thoughts are clearly reminiscent of Jesus’ Son of Man sayings in the Gospels, is it not reasonable to believe that Paul taught them with reference to those sayings? 49  Malherbe, Thessalonians, 284; similarly also Luz, Geschichtsverständnis, 321–22; Siber, Mit Christus Leben, 20–22. However, Luz and Siber go too far with their attempts to locate

186

The Jesus Tradition in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11

driven out of Thessalonica before he could fully expound the sayings and the eschatological doctrine (cf. 1 Thess 3:10), as well as to the fact that the Greek Thessalonians could not easily grasp the full implications of what Paul began to teach with regard to the resurrection of the dead.50 However, probably the nature of Jesus’ logia which Paul had delivered to them was more directly responsible for this failure. First, the sayings of the Son of Man’s future coming generally gave them an impression that the parousia of the Lord was imminent, and so made them extremely excited about it. Then, especially such sayings of Jesus as the parable of the thief (Matt 24:43–44//Luke 12:39–40), the saying of sudden coming of the day like trap/birth-pangs (Luke 21:34–36), the parables of the watchmen and the steward (Luke 12:36–38; Luke 12:41–48//Matt 24:45–51), etc., made them not only excited about the parousia but also anxious of their own salvation. For those sayings gave them the impression that even they, the living believers, might be lost at the parousia if they were not “awake and sober.”51 In such an excited and anxious situation, they were absorbed with the thought of their own salvation (cf. 1 Thess 1:10; 3:13) and with the attempt to get some assurance about it by calculating the “times and seasons” of the parousia (5:1). This left them little room for thinking through about the resurrection of dead believers. Furthermore, since those sayings of Jesus contained no reference to resurrection, there was no impetus for them to do it. So, while being anxious about their own salvation, they grieved over their recently departed fellows who would not be there at all at the parousia of the Lord, let alone presenting themselves as “awake and sober.” Therefore, Paul refers to the “word of the Lord” that has given rise to their grief, and expounds its full implications, emphasizing that one of them is the resurrection of the dead prior to ingathering. He brings this implication out of the “word of the Lord” by interpreting it in the light of the fundamental gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection (1 Thess 4:14). Among several sayings of the coming of the Son of Man which he might have delivered, Paul refers chiefly to the saying of Matt 24:30–31//Mark 13:26–27 because he finds it the most responsible for the Thessalonians’ grief and at the same time the most suitable for

this problem fundamentally in the structure of the Pauline theology. Cf. Rom 8:18–24; 1 Cor 15; 2 Cor 5:1–10. 50 1 Cor 15:12, 35 and Acts 15:18, 32 show how difficult it was for the Greeks to accept the doctrine of resurrection. Acts 26:6–8 suggests that it was difficult even for some Jews. Cf. J. S.  Park, Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Inscriptions (WUNT 2/121; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), for the surprising absence of any hope for afterlife among many Jewish inscriptions as well as the often vague nature of the hope where it is present. 51  Other eschatological sayings and especially the sayings of the coming of the Son of Man for judgment and salvation which Paul may have taught them (see n. 53 below) could have easily created the same impression. Cf. Marshall, Thessalonians, 132.

Conclusion

187

his explanation of the resurrection of the dead and ingathering of both the living and dead saints.52 Having thus resolved the Thessalonians’ grief over their dead relatives and friends, Paul goes on in 1 Thess 5:1–11, as we have seen, to allay their anxiety by enabling them to understand those anxiety-raising sayings more adequately in the light of the fundamental gospel (vv. 9–10) and their fundamental salvation occurrence (vv. 4–5). So in both sections of our eschatological passage Paul resolves the Thessalonians’ problems by explicitly referring to the sayings of Jesus which caused those problems and by providing proper interpretations of those sayings in the light of the fundamental kerygma of the Christ event.53

Conclusion This study has presented the thesis that in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 Paul seeks to remove the Thessalonians’ grief about the dead believers and allay their anxiety about the exact date of the parousia by helping them understand the eschatological sayings of Jesus (Matt 24:30–31//Mark 13:26–27; Matt 24:43–44//Luke 12:39–40; Luke 21:34–36; Luke 12:36–38; Luke 12:41–48//Matt 24:45–51) properly in the light of the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection (1 Thess 4:14; 5:9–10). He goes about this way because both problems have arisen from the Thessalonians’ inadequate understanding of those sayings of Jesus, which he had delivered to them

 Cf. Wenham, Paul, 309–11. thesis here presented will undoubtedly be strengthened if some eschatological sayings of Jesus similar or related to those observed above are shown to be echoed also in the other sections of 1 Thessalonians and in the other Pauline epistles. In my new book PNP, 194–208, I have argued in detail for the view that at several places of his letters Paul echoes various Son of Man sayings of Jesus. For example, Rom 1:16 + 8:34 and Phil 1:19–20 echo the saying of Luke 12:8–9//Matt 10:32–33; Mark 8:38 and parr. As the eucharistic tradition is transmitted as a saying of the Son of Man in the Gospels (Matt 26:24//Mark 14:21//Luke 22:22; John 6:53; 13:31–35; cf. also Acts John 109; Gosp. Phil. 15), the tradition that Paul cites in 1 Cor 11:23–26 suggests his knowledge of Jesus’ use of the self-designation, the Son of Man, in connection with both his passion and parousia (vv. 23, 26). Further, 1 Thess 1:10 echoes the teaching about the coming of the Son of Man, as some scholars have already suggested (cf. E. Schweizer, “ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ,” TDNT 8:370, 383; U. Wilckens, “Der Ursprung der Überlieferung der Erscheinung des Auferstandenen,” in Dogma und Denkstrukturen [Schlink FS; ed. W. Joest and W. Pannenberg; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963], 83–84 n. 67; G. Friedrich, “Ein Tauflied hellenistischer Judenchristen,” TZ 21 [1965]: 502–16. See further J. Dupont, “Filius meus es tu,” RSR 35 [1948]: 525; L. Cerfaux, Christ in the Theology of St. Paul [New York: Herder and Herder, 1959], 440–41). This last observation in turn leads to affirm that in 1 Thess 3:13 (cf. also 2 Thess 1:7) also there is an echo of Jesus’ Son of Man teaching as embodied in Matt 24:30–31//Mark 13:26–27; Mark 8:38 (and parr.); Matt 25:31–33, etc. These observations increase the likelihood that Paul knew and used a group of Jesus’ eschatological sayings of the coming of the Son of Man. These suggestions are now developed more fully in Essays 4 and 5 of this volume. 52

53 The

188

The Jesus Tradition in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11

as part of his eschatological teachings during his mission among them.54 This is the reason why in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 Paul does what he rarely does, namely, explicitly appealing to “the word of the Lord” and alluding to so many sayings of Jesus in such a short space.

54  (A long note that appeared at this point of the original article is here omitted, as it is developed into a separate essay, the following Essay 7 here).

7. The Idleness of Some Thessalonians In the preceding essay I have argued that the readers’ grief over the fate of the dead believers (1 Thess 4:13–18) and their anxiety about the date of the parousia (5:1–11) were caused by their inadequate understanding of Jesus’ sayings that Paul had delivered to them. May the problem of some Thessalonian Christians’ idleness be explained likewise? In the commentary on 4:9–12 I have argued to support the traditional view that the problem resulted from their expectation of an imminent parousia of the Lord. But was that expectation the sole factor? May their one-sided understanding of the Jesus tradition represented in Luke 12:22–34//Matt 6:25–34 + 19–21 have been another factor? In Luke 12, that tradition immediately precedes the parables of the watchman (12:35–38), the thief (12:39–40) and the steward (12:41–48) which Paul alludes to or echoes in 1 Thess 5:2–7. In the teaching Jesus exhorts the disciples not to be anxious about their daily needs such as food and clothes but to trust in the faithful provision of God, their loving heavenly Father (Luke 12:22–30). They are not to seek those things, but rather they are to seek the kingdom of God, which God is pleased to give them, and then those things will be granted to them as well (12:31–32). In this faith and spirit, they are to sell their possessions and give alms, storing their treasure in heavens rather than on earth (12:33–34). As seekers of the kingdom of God, they are eagerly to wait fully awake for the Son of Man, the bearer of the kingdom, as he is coming at an unexpected hour like a thief (12:35–48). From this teaching, the readers, who were mostly very poor (cf. 2 Cor 8:2), could have decided to devote themselves entirely to seeking the kingdom of God, in some cases, even literally stopping being concerned with earning their living.1 So they developed an intense expectation of the coming of the Son of Man/Son of God and God’s kingdom (1 Thess 1:10; see comment ad loc. in my commentary; cf. also 1 Thess 2:11–12), calculating anxiously the “times and seasons” of their 1 Cf. S. Dickey, “Some Economic and Social Conditions of Asia Minor Affecting the Expansion of Christianity,” in Studies in Early Christianity (ed. S. J. Case; New York: Century, 1928), 393–416: the economically hopeless conditions led many exploited laborers in Asia Minor and elsewhere in the Roman Empire more readily to accept Paul’s apocalyptic gospel as a promise for meeting their needs (411) and made them (the largely uneducated) prone “to take his word even more literally than he intended” (414). I owe this reference to R. Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 122–23.

190

The Idleness of Some Thessalonians

coming (1 Thess 5:1), on the one hand, and gave themselves to an extraordinarily zealous evangelism in many areas of Macedonia and Achaia (1 Thess 1:7–8), on the other hand. The teaching of Jesus could also have led some rich members of the Thessalonian church to sell their possessions and give alms (cf. 4:9–10; 5:12–13; 2 Thess 3:13), i. e., make the proceeds available to the community as a common fund (cf. Acts 2:43–46; 4:32–37).2 So, without working to earn their living, some members of the community could go on care-free, thinking that their daily needs were indeed being met by the faithful provision of their heavenly Father (albeit through the donations of their rich fellow believers). They may have even been satisfied with their new lifestyle of faith which was different from that of their “Gentile” neighbors (cf. Luke 12:30//Matt 6:32), as Paul seems to have boosted their morale by emphasizing their election by God and the contrast between them and the “Gentiles who do not know God” (1 Thess 4:5; see further 1:4, 9; 2:12, 14; 4:3–7, 12, 13; 5:2–9). In this lifestyle the idlers may have thought of following Paul’s own example. In their eyes Paul devoted himself so fully to the work of God’s kingdom without anxiety about his daily needs, let alone any greed to store treasures on earth. As he trusted in God’s fatherly care, he was indeed provided for by him through the gifts that the Philippian Christians sent a couple of times (Phil 1:5; 4:15–16). Having seen this, the idlers took no pangs in conscience in living off the largesse of their rich brothers and sisters in faith, but thought that it was just a normal Christian way of trusting in God and loving one another. Paul did not worry about his daily needs, but that did not mean that he stopped working to earn his living, waiting passively for God’s provision. He did work with his own hands to earn his living (1 Thess 2:9; 2 Thess 3:7–8). He even charged the Thessalonian Christians to do likewise (1 Thess 4:11; 2 Thess 3:9–10). Probably he encouraged the rich members of the Thessalonian church to share their wealth with their poor brothers and sisters in the spirit of Jesus’ teaching (Luke 12:33; cf. 2 Cor 9:6–13) and out of love for one another (1 Thess 4:9–10; 5:12–13; 2 Thess 3:13; cf. Rom 12:8; 2 Cor 8:14–15). But, at the same time, he explained that the duty to love one’s neighbor required the poor members to refrain from exploiting the good will of their better-off brothers and sisters but rather to work with their own hands to earn their own living (1 Thess 4:11d; 2 Thess 3:10). But some members of the church did not take Paul’s teaching and example into their heart, and their idle lifestyle at the expense of their better-off brothers and sisters created some tension within the church (cf. 1 Thess 5:14). Their en2  If during his mission in Thessalonica Paul had referred to the parable of the rich fool (Luke 12:13–21) alongside the teaching about care and anxiety (12:22–31) as they appear directly related in Luke, as well as the parables of the watchman, the thief and the steward (Luke 12:32–48), the parable of the rich fool could have encouraged both the rich members and the idlers all the more, the former to donate their wealth to the common fund of the church and the latter to be free of any qualm about their care-free (but dependent) lifestyle.

7. The Idleness of Some Thessalonians

191

thusiasm of faith coupled with their intense expectation of an imminent parousia, which were both caused by their one-sided understanding of Jesus’ sayings like those in Luke 12:22–48, was perhaps compounded with their natural egoism and loath of hard work (!). The ostracism from their family and community that had resulted from their conversion could also have given them some excuses. These factors led them to see only one side of Paul’s example and neglect the other side, namely his working to earn his own living. For this reason, Paul explicitly charges the readers to work with their own hands (4:11). In doing this, he is not trying to dampen their faith enthusiasm and restrain their devotion to the kingdom of God or their practice of koinōnia. On the contrary, he praises them for them (1:7–10; 4:9–10; cf. 2 Cor 8:1–4). He only tries to correct the idleness of some members, gently reminding them that the duty to love one’s neighbor requires them not to burden one’s neighbor as much as to share one’s good with him or her (2:9; 4:12b). By his own example, he implicitly tries to help them understand more adequately Jesus’ teaching in Luke 12:22–34//Matt 6:25–34 + 19–21 of trusting in God and loving neighbor. If this interpretation so far is correct, the problem of some idle Thessalonian Christians and Paul’s dealing with it are parallel to the problems of their grief over the dead believers and their anxiety about the parousia of the Lord and to Paul’s dealing with them. Unlike the latter case, however, we do not have in 1 Thessalonians a verbal echo of the Jesus tradition of Luke 12:22–34//Matt 6:25–34 + 19–21 for the former. Therefore, no certainty can be claimed for its interpretation here presented. Nevertheless, there is some plausibility about it, if the following facts are taken together as done here: (1) the idleness of some Thessalonian Christians is most likely related to their expectation of the imminent parousia of the Lord; (2) Paul deals with that problem in close proximity with the problems concerning the readers’ expectation of the imminent parousia of the Lord; (3) it is quite likely that the latter problems have arisen out of their misunderstanding of some sayings of Jesus such as the parables of the watchman, the thief and the steward (Luke 12:35–48) whereby Paul taught them about the parousia of the Lord and that therefore he resolves those problems by helping the readers understand those sayings correctly in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11; (4) Luke 12:22–34 appears connected with the parables of the watchman, the thief and the steward (Luke 12:35–48) which are clearly echoed in 1 Thess 5:2–7; and (5) both the problem of the idleness of some of the readers and Paul’s handling of it in our passage (1 Thess 4:9–12) are coherently explained when they are seen in terms of Jesus’ teaching in Luke 12:22–34 (cf. also 12:13–21), as shown here.

8. The Thessalonian Church as Paul’s “hope or joy or crown of boasting”(1 Thess 2:19–20): Judgment according to Works and Reward for Good Deeds, or the Structure of Paul’s Doctrine of Justification Paul calls the Thessalonian church his “hope or joy or crown of boasting” before the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus (1 Thess 2:19–20), similarly to the way he calls the Philippian church his “joy and crown” (Phil 4:1). In what sense does Paul address them as such?

1. Avoidance or Confusion among Commentators Pointing to the other Pauline passages where the doctrine of judgment according to works appears to be taught (e. g., Rom 2:5–16; 14:10–12; 1 Cor 3:10–17; 4:1–5; 5:5; 9:16–27; 2 Cor 5:10; Col 1:21–23), commentators usually interpret 1 Thess 2:19–20 in terms of Paul’s expectation of an eschatological reward, but refrain from elucidating that concept any further.1 E. Best2 also affirms Paul’s expectation of an eschatological reward in 1 Thess 2:19, when he comments: “[Paul] is not merely saying that because of [the Thessalonian Christians] he hopes to be saved in the End; he is writing instead about the reward” (128). But, then, on v. 20 Best comments: “Neither here nor in v. 19 is there any idea that there will be hope for him at the appearance of Jesus nor that he will receive joy, glory or a crown. The Thessalonians will be his hope, joy, glory and crown …” (129). With such comments, Best leaves us confused.

1   E. g., C. A.  Wanamaker, Commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 124; A. J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians (AB; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 188. G. D. Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 107–11, avoids any discussion about the last judgment and the question of reward. P. T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 475, and G. F. Hawthorne and R. P. Martin, Philippians (WBC; Nashville: Nelson, 22004), 240, also comment on Phil 4:1 only in terms of the present with no reference to the last judgment. 2  E. Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (BNTC; London: Black, 1972).

194

The Thessalonian Church as Paul’s “hope or joy or crown of boasting”

T. Holtz3 asserts: “Naturally it does not mean that the church (of Thessalonians) itself is the apostle’s hope, joy, and crown of boasting, but that it will be the ground for all these” (117). He repeats: “They, the members of the Thessalonian church, are the ground for the eschatological expectation that Paul cherishes for himself” (118). However, Holtz does not seem to mean that Paul has in mind presenting the Thessalonian church (as well as the other churches of his missionary labor – cf. Phil 4:1; 2 Cor 1:14) at the last judgment as the “ground” for his own salvation. So, then, does Holtz mean that Paul considers presenting the Thessalonian church at the last judgment as the “ground” for a reward, a prize given in addition to salvation? Apparently Holtz wants to avoid such a conclusion as well, as he affirms that even while speaking of “reward or punishment on the basis of each person’s work at the upbuilding of the church” in 1 Cor 3:8–15, Paul does not give any explanation as to “how he imagined such eschatological judgment would actually take place” (121). Instead, Holtz claims to see a tension in Paul’s rhetorical sentences in 1 Thess 2:19–20: the concepts “hope,” “joy,” and “the crown of boasting” are not just “reward” (1 Cor 3:8, 14) or “praise” (1 Cor 4:5) for the successful work at the upbuilding of the church but the designations for the eschatological salvation itself, and therefore they can be grounded only on Christ and not on the church. So, realizing that he has been rhetorically carried away to apply those concepts inadvertently, Paul adds the phrase ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ παρουσίᾳ (“in the presence of our Lord Jesus at his advent”) in order to make it clear that they depend on Christ’s verdict at his parousia (121). According to Holtz, Paul also adds v. 20 to make this correction yet more clear, doing so by designating the Thessalonian Christians as his “glory and joy” now in the sense of his prestige on account of the successful execution of his apostolic ministry and his rejoicing at it, and no longer in the sense of eschatological salvation itself (121). But this attempt of Holtz to see the “glory and joy” in v. 20 so differently from the “hope and joy and the crown of boasting” in v. 19, and consequently v. 20 as a modification of v. 19 is hardly convincing. Nor is it possible to read out of the phrase ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ παρουσίᾳ in v. 19 Paul’s intent of weakening his own affirmation that the Thessalonian Christians are his “hope or joy or crown of boasting.” Thus, even with his more serious theological engagement with our text, Holtz is not able to advance much beyond Best and other commentators. Like Best, Holtz also ends up making self-contradictory comments as he affirms Paul’s expectation here of an eschatological reward for his successful apostolic labor only to deny it – apparently, in view of Paul’s gospel of justification by God’s grace in Christ alone.

3  T. Holtz, Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher (EKKNT; Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1986).

2. 1 Cor 3:5–17: “He will receive a reward” (v. 14)

195

2. 1 Cor 3:5–17: “He will receive a reward” (v. 14) However, recently Kent L. Yinger4 has strongly argued that as part of his doctrine of judgment according to works, Paul does entertain, like Rabbinic Judaism, the notion of “varying rewards” to be given at the last judgment according to individual Christians’ varying deeds (213, passim). For Yinger, 1 Cor 3:5–17 presents the clearest proof for this (234). In the passage, Paul affirms that God’s servants, such as himself and Apollos, commissioned to work towards building up the church of Christ, shall receive their μισθός (wage, reward) from God according to their labor (1 Cor 3:8). Paul asserts that on the Day of the Lord the judgment fire will reveal and test what sort of work each of God’s servants has done in building up the church, whether they have done their part in the upbuilding of the church “with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, [or] straw,” and that if any person’s work survives, “he will receive a reward” (v. 14), and if any person’s work is burned up, “he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (v. 15). Like many recent commentators, Yinger takes the phrase “but only as through fire” as an idiom for “just barely,” “by the skin of one’s teeth” (cf. Amos 4:11; Zech 3:2), and as a warning to those who may not be conducting their ministry in the church in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ crucified, the wisdom of God, that they run an extremely grave risk with their salvation. Nevertheless, Yinger sees in 1 Cor 3:8–15 “reward” as clearly distinct from “salvation” (219– 21). He argues that since the statement that the unfaithful builder “will suffer loss” (ζημιωθήσεται) in v. 15 is set in antithetical parallelism to the statement that the faithful builder “will receive a reward” in v. 14, Paul means that the former will lose his “reward.”5 Yinger believes that the use of the verb ζημιόω elsewhere in the NT (Phil 3:8; 2 Cor 7:9; Matt 16:26//Mark 8:36//Luke 9:25; 2 John 8) supports this interpretation (218–19). Thus he sees Paul as assuming “that it was possible to enjoy salvation plus reward (verse 14) or salvation stripped of reward (verse 15)” (221).6 However, Mark 8:36 (and parr.) and 2 Cor 7:9 apparently refer to loss of salvation itself rather than reward as an additional prize, and Phil 3:8 refers to the loss of Paul’s privileges and achievements in Judaism (Phil 3:4–7) rather than his reward. Actually the analogy of Phil 3:8 supports the view that in 1 Cor 3:15 Paul means that God’s servants who have conducted their ministry not in conformity to the gospel but with fleshly human wisdom will suffer loss of their life-long work, just as he as a Pharisaic Jew devoted to the law and opposed to the gospel 4 K. L. Yinger, Paul, Judaism, and Judgment according to Deeds (SNTSMS; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). 5  So also D. W. Kuck, Judgment and Community Conflict: Paul’s Use of Apocalyptic Judgment Language in 1 Corinthians 3:5–4:5 (NovTSup 66; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 182. 6 Cf. also ibid., 221–22.

196

The Thessalonian Church as Paul’s “hope or joy or crown of boasting”

of Christ crucified had to suffer loss of his life-long work of law-righteousness. Thus, what the unfaithful servants “will suffer loss” is not their “reward” but what is to be burned up in the fire of the last judgment – their life-long work done with human wisdom (what they have built with “wood, hay, or straw,” as surely everything of fleshly human wisdom that is contrary to God’s wisdom – cf. 1 Cor 1:18–25; 3:18–20 – will have to be burnt up by the fire of the last judgment)! If so, the antithetical parallelism with the phrase “will suffer loss” leads us to interpret the phrase “will receive reward” as referring to what survives through the testing of the fire of the last judgment, what the faithful servants have built with “gold, silver, or precious stones,” i. e., their life-long work that they have done for upbuilding the church in conformity to the gospel.

3. 1 Cor 9: “My reward is preaching the gospel free of charge” (v. 18) In spite of his view that Paul teaches about eschatological rewards to be given to faithful Christians in addition to their salvation, surprisingly Yinger (247– 53) interprets the “prize” (βραβεῖον) and “crown” (στέφανος) of 1 Cor 9:24–25 in terms of salvation itself rather than reward, the prize added to salvation. This is, of course, the right interpretation. For in 1 Cor 9:23 and 27 Paul says he practices all the sacrifice and self-control in his apostolic ministry of preaching the gospel (9:4–22, 26–27a) “in order to be a συγκοινωνός [co-participant or sharer] in [the blessings of] the gospel” and not to “be disqualified,” and with this example of his he exhorts the Corinthians (esp. the knowledge-boasters) to exercise self-control and run the race like himself in order to win the “prize” or “crown,” and not to fall away from salvation as did the Exodus generation of Israelites (10:1–22).7 However, if Paul really believed in eschatological rewards to be given to faithful Christians in addition to their salvation, is 1 Cor 9 not the perfect place for him to express that belief? Here he speaks of the way he, unlike other apostles such as Cephas and James, foregoes even the Lord-given apostolic right of getting a living by the gospel, in order to preach the gospel effectively by demonstrating its grace character most clearly (9:4–18). Then he speaks also of his “mak[ing] [himself] a slave to all” or “becom[ing] all things to all human beings” in order to fulfill his apostolic commission effectively (9:19–22). With these examples, is he not really speaking of his “building” the church up with “gold, silver, or precious stones,” to use the metaphor of 1 Cor 3:12? Paul’s explanation here of his most conscientious efforts to fulfill his apostolic commission and his linking it with the concern 7 Cf. S. H. Travis, Christ and the Judgment of God: The Limits of Divine Retribution in New Testament Thought (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 22008), 160–69, who interprets 1 Cor 9:24–27; Phil 3:12–15; 2 Cor 5:10; Col 3:24–25; and Eph 6:8–9 as concerning salvation itself at the last judgment rather than reward as an additional prize or a special grade of salvation.

4. Is “the Ground of Boasting” (1 Cor 9:15) His “Reward”?

197

for God’s verdict at the last judgment, either approval (Paul’s “becoming a coparticipant in the blessings of the gospel,” or winning a “prize” or “crown”) or disapproval (Paul’s “becoming disqualified”), form real parallels to what he says in 1 Cor 3. So, if he means in 1 Cor 3:8–15 that God’s servants who fulfill their apostolic commission effectively would receive their eschatological rewards in addition to salvation, would it not be natural for him to let the metaphors “prize” and “crown” here in 1 Cor 9:24–25 bear the sense of such eschatological reward? Again, in exhorting the Corinthians with the athletic metaphor that although in a race many runners compete only one who has prepared himself with self-control and runs with a clear goal in view receives the “prize” or “crown,” would it not be natural for Paul to present the “prize” or “crown” as a special reward given to the winner on top of the salvation that other runners would also receive? But in 1 Cor 9 Paul does not use the words “prize” and “crown” for that notion, nor does he imply it in any other way, either. In fact, in this chapter he does speak of the “reward” (μισθός) for his most faithful fulfillment of his apostolic commission even to the extent of sacrificing his Lord-given apostolic rights. But distinguishing his “reward” (μισθός) from “reward” in its ordinary sense, namely, a recompense for a work done (9:17; cf. Rom 4:4), he defines it in an unusual way: “that in my preaching I should present the gospel free of charge, not making full use of my right in the gospel” (9:18). His “reward” is preaching of the gospel free of charge itself, rather than a recompense for that merit! Paul’s concerns in the context of his apostolic commission by God (9:16) and God’s verdict about his fulfillment of it (9:23–27) prevent us from taking Paul’s talk of his “reward” here lightly as mere wordplay. Both his manner of raising the subject and his unusual definition of the concept suggest that Paul is here very much conscious of the problems involved in the concept. All this means that the definition here given is the result of his careful consideration. This unusual definition makes clear what it negates: his “reward” (μισθός) is not an eschatological prize that he would earn for his self-sacrificial ministry. However, it does not make clear what it positively affirms: why is preaching of the gospel free of charge a “reward” for him?

4. Is “the Ground of Boasting” (1 Cor 9:15) His “Reward”? Does the fact that Paul refers to his preaching of the gospel free of charge also as his καύχημα or “ground of boasting” (1 Cor 9:15), help explain the rationale? Precisely what is the point or ground of his boasting? The run of his argument in 1 Cor 9:16–18 appears to suggest that he sees the fact of his preaching the gospel free of charge as the ground of his boasting – the fact that he does not just fulfill his commission (preaching the gospel), but the fact that he does it self-sacrificially, beyond the call of the duty, or in a way superior to other apostles who get financial compensation from preaching the gospel (9:5).

198

The Thessalonian Church as Paul’s “hope or joy or crown of boasting”

However, it is difficult to believe that Paul has in view here only this fact of his preaching in a self-sacrificial way. He seems to have in mind also the result of his preaching the gospel free of charge, i. e., the effect such a sacrificial and therefore effective way of preaching the gospel has upon the upbuilding of the church. That he has in view the more successful outcome that such preaching brings than does preaching for payment is already indicated in 9:12. That his paramount concern here actually involves the outcome of his sacrificial ministry is further indicated in the section immediately following (1 Cor 9:19–27), which is closely joined to 9:4–18. With the γάρ (“for”) in 9:19, he makes it clear that his preaching the gospel free of charge, not making full use of his apostolic right (9:18), is part of his making himself a slave to all (9:19) in fulfillment of his apostolic commission (9:16–17). In 9:19–22 he explains how he makes efforts to fulfill his apostolic commission by serving the Jews, the Gentiles, the weak, etc. through preaching the gospel free of charge, as well as by meeting their needs in other ways. But he is not interested in describing the mere fact or manner of his sacrificial service for the various people, but rather in highlighting its effect, “win[ing] the more [people for Christ]” (9:19; and note the subsequent fivefold repetition of the purpose “that I might win/save  …” in 9:20–22), on the one hand, and his own salvation through God’s approval at the last judgment (9:23, 27), on the other hand. Thus, when Paul calls his preaching of the gospel free of charge his καύχημα or “ground of boasting” (9:15), he seems to have in mind both the fact that in this way he is fulfilling his apostolic commission in a way superior to other apostles who preach the gospel, receiving payment from its hearers, and the effect that such a ministry produces, i. e., the more successful outcome in saving people.8 Paul’s “boasting” of the former corresponds to what he does in 2 Cor 11:5–15 (καύχησις) and 1 Cor 15:10, while his “boasting” of the latter corresponds to what he does in 2 Cor 10:13–18 (καυχᾶσθαι) and Rom 15:17–21 (καύχησις). In Phil 2:14–18 also Paul has in view the fruit of his sacrificial ministry: the Philippian church built up through his sacrificial labor as a church “blameless and innocent [and] without blemish … shining as lights” will be his “καύχημα in the day of Christ, that [he] did not run in vain or labor in vain.” So we may conclude that in 1 Cor 9:15 Paul identifies his preaching of the gospel free of charge as his καύχημα or “ground of boasting,” because it is a superior way of fulfilling the apostolic commission and as such it brings more fruit for the Lord, about both of which he can “boast.”

8  This is better understandable in the light of Paul’s repeated attribution of the success of his mission in Thessalonica (i.e., the Thessalonians’ acceptance of the gospel) to his apostolic conduct (εἴσοδος) in 1 Thess 1–3 (see Essay 1 above), which he describes in contrast to the conduct of charlatan preachers, echoing Jesus’ ransom saying (Mark 10:45 and parr.) and highlighting his preaching of the gospel free of charge as in our 1 Cor 9 (see pp. 153–55 above).

5. 1 Cor 3 and 9: The “Reward” for a Faithful Ministry

199

Does this understanding of Paul’s preaching of the gospel free of charge as his

καύχημα in 9:15 also shed light on his calling it his μισθός (“reward”) in 9:18? Does

Paul mean that his preaching of the gospel free of charge is his “reward” because it provides him with a καύχημα or “ground of boasting,” i. e., because it enables him to boast both of his superior way of ministry and of the more abundant fruit produced that way? If he does, then he is really saying that his μισθός (“reward”) is his καύχησις (“boasting” or “ability to boast”) that he obtains from his preaching of the gospel free of charge (= his καύχημα, “ground of boasting”): by preaching the gospel free of charge, he gets the “reward” of being able to “boast” about his superior way of ministry and its richer fruit. However, can we imagine that in speaking of his μισθός (“reward”), Paul has in view his ability to “boast” about the fact itself that by preaching the gospel free of charge he is fulfilling his apostolic commission in a superior way than other apostles? Probably not. So, while that fact partly explains why he calls his preaching of the gospel free of charge his καύχημα (“ground of boasting”), it does not seem to elucidate why he calls it his μισθός (“reward”). Therefore, it appears that we have to conclude that Paul calls his preaching of the gospel free of charge his μισθός (“reward”), with the effect of such preaching in view. His preaching of the gospel free of charge is his μισθός (“reward”) because it yields more fruit in winning or saving people.9 This conclusion is supported by 9:19–22: since this passage that opens with the explanatory γάρ (“for,” v. 19) immediately follows his definition of his μισθός (“reward”) in v. 18, it may be seen as Paul’s explanation of why preaching the gospel free of charge, without making full use of his apostolic right, is his μισθός (“reward”). We have already noted Paul’s focus in the passage on the fruit of such a self-sacrificial ministry, which is expressed with the sixfold clause “that I might win ….” In fact, his sharp focus in the passage on the rich fruit of such a selfsacrificing ministry may suggest that what he regards as his μισθός (“reward”) is the rich fruit itself of such a ministry, beyond the mere fact that such a ministry yields rich fruit.

5. 1 Cor 3 and 9: The “Reward” for a Faithful MinistryIs Its Fruit Revealed as Glorious by the Fire of Judgment This interpretation comes close to our tentative conclusion on the μισθός (“reward”) in 1 Cor 3. In view of the parallelism that we have noted between 1 Cor 9 and 1 Cor 3, the “reward” (μισθός) in 1 Cor 9:18 cannot be seen as unrelated to the “reward” (μισθός) in 1 Cor 3:8, 14–15. But what does it mean that in 1 Cor 9 Paul does not express his expectation of God’s approval of his faithful ministry in 9  Cf. C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC; London: Black, 1968, 1971), 210.

200

The Thessalonian Church as Paul’s “hope or joy or crown of boasting”

terms of a special eschatological prize but only in terms of his salvation? Again, what does it mean that in 1 Cor 9 Paul refers by “reward” only to the effect of his sacrificial ministry, rather than to a special prize awarded by God for his faithful ministry? Do they not suggest that the “reward” in 1 Cor 3:8, 14–15 should also be interpreted along the lines of the “reward” in 9:18? Thus, this observation of the parallelism between 1 Cor 3 and 9 and especially of the common concept “reward” (μισθός) in the two chapters appears to confirm what we have ascertained above by observing the antithetical parallelism between “will receive reward” and “will suffer loss” in 1 Cor 3:14–15: the “reward” (μισθός) that the faithful servants of God will receive at the last judgment is not a prize given on the top of salvation but the effect or fruit of their faithful ministry, i. e., what they have contributed to the upbuilding of the church in conformity to the gospel, or what they have built with “gold, silver, or precious stones,” which will not only “survive” the judgment fire, but will also be “revealed” (as what they are) by the fire (1 Cor 3:13),10 or, to speak in terms of 1 Cor 9:19–22, the great success in winning people for Christ, or, again, to speak in terms of Phil 2:14–18, a church “blameless and innocent [and] without blemish … shining as lights.” So, when the judgment fire tests their work and reveals that they have done their part in the upbuilding of the church with “gold, silver, or precious stones,” they “will receive reward,” i. e., they will see the result of their work appear shining gloriously (cf. 1 Pet 1:7).11

6. God’s Praise (1 Cor 4:1–5) and Paul’s “Boasting” (1 Cor 9:15) As observed above, with its positive effect as well as its superior quality in mind, Paul identifies such a faithful ministry as “the ground of boasting” as well as “reward;” when the judgment fire reveals the glorious outcome of their faithful ministry (= their “reward”), the faithful servants of God will be able to “boast” of it. In 1 Cor 4:1–5 Paul refers to this situation in terms of receiving God’s “praise” (ἔπαινος). There Paul suggests that when the Lord comes he will reveal whether his servants have been faithful to their commission or stewardship, not just in outward appearance but from the bottom of their heart, and (when they are found to have been faithful), each of them “will receive his/her praise from God” (v. 5). If we read this passage, as we should, in connection with the preceding Chapter 3, we can see that Paul connects the glorious outcome of a faithful ministry (= the “reward”) not only with “boasting” but also with God’s “praise” or “commendation.” The interpretation of the “reward” (μισθός) that we have derived from Paul’s designation of (the effect of) his preaching free of charge as his “reward” (μισθός) in 9:18 and from the parallelism between this designation and  10 So 11

similarly Travis, Christ and the Judgment of God, 172–73.  Pace Yinger, Paul, Judaism, and Judgment, 218 n. 55.

7. A Summary on “Reward”

201

his statement about the “reward” (μισθός) in 3:14–15 prevents us from directly identifying the “reward” (μισθός) with God’s “praise” in 4:5 and the “ground of boasting” (καύχημα) in 9:15. But still we can see that the latter two concepts are so inseparably connected with the concept of “reward” (μισθός) as to allow us to take them as integral parts (or inseparable consequences) of the “reward” (μισθός) that God’s faithful servants are to receive at the last judgment. Then, it seems possible to say that although Paul does not consider a superior status in the kingdom of God or a greater degree of bliss in the state of salvation as part of eschatological “reward” (cf. Matt 25:14–30//Luke 19:11–27; but also Matt 20:1–16), he still entertains the hope of receiving “praise” or “approval” from God and of “boasting” about his own work as part of eschatological “reward.” But then may we not view God’s “praise” and the ability to “boast” as an additional prize? Paul’s language in 1 Cor 4:5 and 9:15 does seem to allow us to do that.12 However, we should not forget that in Rom 2:29 he seems to equate God’s “praise” (ἔπαινος) as well as the previously mentioned “glory [δόξα] and honor [τιμή]” (Rom 2:7, 10) with salvation itself, rather than any additional prize.13 We should also note well how “dialectical” Paul is about the question of “boasting” of his apostolic work. See how, for example, in 1 Cor 15:8–10, he does “boast” about his successful apostolic ministry as the work that he has done “harder than any of [the other apostles],” but immediately corrects himself, saying that it has not been his own work but that of “the grace of God which is with [him]” (cf. also Rom 15:17–19). Of course, it is in his highly ironic “fool’s speech” of 2 Cor 10–13 that he expresses most eloquently this dialectic of his consciousness of the grounds of his “boasting,” on the one hand, and of his fundamental theological principle that all “boasting” except of the Lord is a sin to be shunned (1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17; Gal 6:14; Rom 5:1–11; cf. Jer 9:22–23), on the other hand (cf. also Phil 3).

7. A Summary on “Reward” In view of all this, we can say that Paul is motivated to carry out his apostolic commission most faithfully by the vision of the “reward” (μισθός) that he will receive at the last judgment, provided that we understand that for him the “reward” is primarily the result of his apostolic labor being revealed as a glorious contribution to the upbuilding of the church (as what he has “built with gold, silver, and precious stones”) and only secondarily what it entails, God’s “praise” and his ability to “boast.” While saying this, we should appreciate Paul’s infrequent use of the word “reward” (μισθός, only in 1 Cor 3:8, 14; 9:18; cf. ἀνταπόδοσις 12 Cf.

Travis, Christ and the Judgment of God, 174.  Cf. Yinger, Paul, Judaism, and Judgment, 232.

13

202

The Thessalonian Church as Paul’s “hope or joy or crown of boasting”

τῆς κληρονομίας in Col 3:24; cf. Judaism)14 as well as his unusual definition of it

(1 Cor 9:18), which together seem to suggest that he is well aware of the wrong theological connotation that the word can convey (cf. Rom 4:4; 1 Cor 9:17), and therefore is rather shy of using it. We should also appreciate his “dialectical” and most restrained attitude to “boasting” of the fruits of his apostolic labor, which clearly indicates his awareness of the theological problems involved in it. All this suggests that Paul has a clear theological understanding that salvation, being an all-comprehensive concept for a God-like fullness/wholeness (πλήρωμα; e. g., Rom 8:29; cf. John 1:16), cannot embrace different grades in itself, as well as that precisely because it is the attainment of divine fullness, it can only be achieved by God, that is, by his grace alone.

8. In What Sense Are the Macedonian Churches Paul’s “Crown”? This discussion helps us understand the sense in which Paul speaks of the Thessalonian church as his “hope or joy or crown of boasting” and his “glory and joy” (1 Thess 2:19–20) as well as of the Philippian church as his “joy and crown” (Phil 4:1). He is thinking of the Thessalonian and Philippian churches as parts of his “reward” that he will receive before the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus at his parousia. At the last judgment these churches would not only survive the judgment fire but also be revealed by it as members of the church universal, which their builder, namely, Paul, built with “gold, silver, and precious stones” (1 Cor 3:12–14), or as churches “blameless and innocent [and] without blemish … shining as lights” (Phil 2:15–16; cf. also 1 Thess 3:13; 5:23). So, they would show that Paul’s apostolic labor has not been “in vain” (Phil 2:16; Gal 2:2; 1 Thess 2:1; 3:5; cf. also 1 Cor 15:10) but rather has been very successful. Thus they are the proofs that he has “run” his race successfully. They are not the ground for Paul’s obtaining “the crown” (στέφανος) as an additional prize, but they are “the crown” that proves that he has won the race (cf. 1 Cor 9:24–27; Phil 2:16; 3:12–14).15 When the 14 Paul uses μισθός only in connection with the apostolic labor in the three 1 Corinthians passages, but he uses its synonym ἀνταπόδοσις in Col 3:24 as a means of motivating general good works or “fruits of righteousness” that the believers should produce in obedience to the Lord’s will. The case of Col 3:24 as well as Paul’s teaching about God’s call in 1 Cor 7:17–24 (see below) and about the varieties of services and gifts of the Spirit in the church (Rom 12:3–8; 1 Cor 12:4–11; cf. also Eph 4:7–12) would permit us to extend his concept of reward (μισθός) beyond apostolic labor to all the other kinds of services that believers are called and empowered to render in obedience to the lordship of Jesus Christ (or in the kingdom of God), as they are also the means of building up the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, the earthly manifestation of the kingdom of God. Even so, note well that in Col 3:24 the reward for good works is defined in terms of “inheritance” of God’s kingdom, i. e., salvation itself, rather than an additional prize on top of salvation. 15 Cf. Fee, Thessalonians, 107–11, who comments on 1 Thess 2:19–20 without any reference to the last judgment and the question of reward and yet says: “Likewise here, with the imagery

9. The “Crown:” Both His Salvation and the Fruit of His Ministry

203

judgment fire reveals the “blameless” churches as what Paul has built with “gold, silver, and precious stones,” they would prove to be the “crown” for which he has labored so hard or run so faithfully, and so he can “rejoice” and “boast” of them. Thus, they represent his “hope.” Thus, the churches that will be revealed by the judgment fire as what Paul has built with “gold, silver, and precious stones” are his “crown” as well as his “reward.” In short, the Thessalonian and Philippian churches that would appear “blameless” in holiness or righteousness before God’s judgment seat at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thess 3:13; 5:23; Phil 1:10–11; 2:15–16) are Paul’s “reward’ (1 Cor 3:15; 9:18) and his “joy and crown” (1 Thess 2:19–20; Phil 4:1).

9. The “Crown:” Both His Salvation and the Fruit of His Ministry Above we have observed that in 1 Cor 9:24–25 Paul uses the metaphor of “crown” (στέφανος) as well as the “prize” (βραβεῖον) for salvation itself, rather than an additional prize added to salvation. In Phil 3:14 also he seems to be using the imagery of “prize” (βραβεῖον) similarly. In a couple of places concerning the last judgment Paul also employs other concepts equivalent to “reward” (though not the word μισθός) for salvation itself (Rom 2:5–10; Col 3:24–25).16 Then, how are we to understand the relationship of the Thessalonian and Philippian churches as Paul’s “crown” (στέφανος) with his salvation as his “crown” (στέφανος)? In 1 Cor 9:23–27 Paul speaks of his self-sacrificial ministry for winning more people for Christ as the way of his obtaining his “crown” (στέφανος)/ his salvation (v. 23, his becoming a “co-participant in [the blessings of] the gospel,” and v. 27, not becoming “disqualified” – not being proven as having “run in vain”). But then the churches that he has built with “gold, silver, and precious stones,” i. e., through such a self-sacrificial ministry, are his “reward” (1 Cor 9:18) and his “crown” (1 Thess 2:19; Phil 4:1). His “crown” (στέφανος)/“prize” (βραβεῖον)/“reward” (μισθός) is: – his own salvation that he obtains by his faithful fulfillment of the apostolic commission; – the churches that he builds by his faithful fulfillment of the apostolic commission. from the games Paul is picturing himself as standing in the Lord’s presence at his coming, wearing the victor’s wreath. But the ‘wreath’ in this case is none other than the Thessalonian believers themselves, in which he will glory because they are there with him in the Lord’s presence at his Parousia” (110). Cf. also Richard, Thessalonians, 134; D. Luckensmeyer, The Eschatology of First Thessalonians (NTOA 71; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 228. Cf. also Hawthorne and Martin, Philippians, 240, for a similar comment on Phil 4:1. 16  Cf. Yinger, Paul, Judaism, and Judgment, 235

204

The Thessalonian Church as Paul’s “hope or joy or crown of boasting”

10. The Nature and Structure of Salvation17 This apparent “discrepancy” in Paul’s use of the imagery “crown” (στέφανος)/​ “prize” (βραβεῖον) is rooted in his understanding of his apostolic call, and it is indicative of his understanding of the nature and structure of salvation. In 1 Cor 9:16, he speaks of his apostolic commission to preach the gospel as the “fateful necessity” (ἀνάγκη) laid on him. By following the statement up with the solemn declaration in a biblically well-established form, “Woe unto me,18 if I do not preach the gospel,” he already implies that only a successful fulfillment of the commission would lead him to his salvation – what he then goes on to express in 1 Cor 9:23 and 27 positively and negatively, respectively. We can discern the reason for understanding his apostolic commission in this way from his more detailed report of his apostolic commission in Gal 1:13–17. Explaining his encounter with the exalted Christ (“the revelation of Jesus Christ,” Gal 1:12) with the language drawn from the call of the Servant of Yahweh in Isa 42 and 49, as well as that of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 1:5),19 Paul speaks of that event in terms of God’s election and call of him to be his servant as well as God’s revelation of his Son to him. That it was the saving event for Paul is implied in his reference to God’s grace (Gal 1:15; cf. Phil 3:3–10). However, what Paul really stresses is the purpose of God’s revelation of Jesus Christ, which is his apostolic commission: “so that I might proclaim him [sc., God’s Son] as the gospel among the Gentiles” (Gal 1:16b). From this report of the Damascus event, it is not difficult to understand why Paul brings his salvation and apostolic commission together. The divine purpose in saving him was for him to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (cf. also 2 Cor 4:6). Therefore, if he failed to preach the gospel, he would be thwarting the divine purpose, and this would lead him to become “disqualified” at the last judgment (1 Cor 9:27), while with his faithful and successful preaching of the gospel to various groups of people (1 Cor 9:19–22), he would come to be a συγκοινωνός (co-partaker) of the gospel with them (1 Cor 9:23), i. e., he would participate in the salvation that is offered in the gospel, together with those who have received the gospel from him. Paul’s holding his salvation and apostolic commission together as an integral whole is reflected also in his use of the words “call” and “grace.”20 It is striking how frequently he refers to his apostolic commission as God’s χάρις (“grace,” e. g., Rom 1:5; 12:3; 15:15; 1 Cor 3:10; 15:10; Gal 2:9; Eph 3:2, 7, 8; Phil 1:7), the concept that he normally uses in reference to God’s act or power of salvation  Some contents of this section are further developed in my Justification.  Cf. Zobel, “‫הוי‬,” ThWAT 2:382–88; E. Jenni, “‫הוי‬,” ThHAT 1:474 ff. 19 Cf. S. Kim, “Isaiah 42 and Paul’s Call,” in PNP, 101–27. 20  Cf. A. Satake, “Apostolat und Gnade bei Paulus,” NTS 15 (1968/69): 96–103; S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel (WUNT 2/4; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981, 19842/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007), 288–96. 17

18

10. The Nature and Structure of Salvation

205

(e. g., Rom 3:24; 5:2, 15, 21; 6:2; 2 Cor 8:9; Gal 1:6; 2:21; Eph 2:7–8). With such dual usage of the concept God’s χάρις, Paul seems to suggest that for him the divine act of salvation (χάρις) came in the form of the divine commission for his apostleship (χάρις). We can observe the same kind of dual usage also with the concept of God’s call (καλεῖν/κλητός/κλῆσις), as Paul uses the concept for his call to apostleship (Gal 1:15; Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1) as well as for believers’ call to faith and salvation (e. g., Rom 1:6–7; 8:28–30; 9:24; 1 Cor 1:2, 9, 24; Gal 1:6; 1 Thess 2:12; 4:7). In 1 Cor 7:17–24, Paul uses the concept repeatedly in the latter sense, and yet twice he implies an understanding of God’s call of believers to a station or a task in life as well, when he formulates, “Let every person remain in the call to/in which he/she was called” (ἕκαστος ἐν τῇ κλήσει ᾗ ἐκλήθη, ἐν ταύτῃ μενέτω, 1 Cor 7:20), as well as “Let every person walk as the Lord has assigned [to him/her], as God has called [him/her]” (ἑκάστῳ ὡς ἐμέρισεν ὁ κύριος, ἕκαστον ὡς κέκληκεν ὁ θεός, οὕτως περιπατείτω, 1 Cor 7:17). Thus, by intermixing the two understandings of God’s call in 1 Cor 7:17–24, Paul suggests that God’s call of believers to faith/salvation is at the same time his call of them to a task.21 His personal report in Gal 1:13–17 may be seen as an illustration of this truth: God’s call of him on the Damascus road was for both his salvation and his apostolic task, or God’s call of him to salvation came in the form of his call of him to apostleship for the Gentiles. Such an understanding of God’s call and grace is indicative of the structure of proleptic eschatology, the “already – but not yet” structure of salvation. With God’s call believers have already received salvation (or its “firstfruit”) by God’s grace, and they are to receive its consummation at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ. To express this soteriology in terms of justification, with God’s call to faith/salvation believers have proleptically been “justified” by God’s grace – declared “righteous,” i. e., acquitted of sins and restored to the right relationship with God the creator, and they are to receive consummation (or confirmation) of this “justification” at the last judgment. “Justification” as acquittal of sins and restoration to the right relationship with God is really a transference from the kingdom of Satan to the kingdom of God in which the Lord Jesus Christ reigns as God’s Son on behalf of God the Father (Col 1:13–14; cf. Rom 1:3–4; 1 Cor 15:24–28),22 a transference from the kingdom of sin and death to the kingdom of 21  The dual sense of “call” and “grace” that we observe here in the Pauline usage of these words (gift of salvation and assignment of a task) corresponds to the dual character of “God’s righteousness” as “gift” (of salvation) and “power” (of God’s sovereign rule), which has so helpfully been elucidated by E. Käsemann, “‘The Righteousness of God’ in Paul,” in New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 168–82 (N. B. his dictum on p. 170: “Paul knows no gift of God which does not convey both the obligation and the capacity to serve”). So Käsemann’s explanation and our observation confirm each other. 22  See Essay 2 “Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel (1 Thess 1:10 and Rom 1:3–4),” 57–59 above. Cf. Käsemann, “‘The Righteousness of God’ in Paul,” 176–77, 180. For the view that justification involves not only acquittal (or forgiveness) but also restoration of the right relation-

206

The Thessalonian Church as Paul’s “hope or joy or crown of boasting”

righteousness and life (Rom 6:1–10, 18, 20–23; 7:4–6), which is sealed and dramatized in baptism as we, endowed with and led by the Holy Spirit (compare Rom 5:5; 8:2; Gal 3:2, 5, 14 with 1 Cor 6:11; 12:13), confess our faith in the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection and call upon Jesus as the Lord (Rom 10:9–10; 1 Cor 12:3) as well as calling God as “abba” (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6).23 With God’s call to faith/salvation and by God’s grace believers have thus entered into the right relationship with God and “stand” in it (Rom 5:2), that is, live in his kingdom or under the lordship of Jesus Christ (i. e., “in the Lord”). By his grace God will faithfully preserve them in that state of “justification,” i. e., in the restored right relationship with himself, in his kingdom, until the last judgment where their “justification” will be consummated (Rom 5:8–10; 8:18–39; 1 Cor 1:9; 10:13; Gal 5:5; 1 Thess 1:10; etc.). But on their part believers must make efforts to stand in the right relationship with God (1 Cor 10:12; Phil 4:1; 1 Thess 3:8). “Standing” in the right relationship with God means to keep on obeying his kingly rule (instead of reverting to the “reign” [βασιλεύειν] or “lordship” [κυριεύειν] of sin, i. e., to the old Adamic existence of disobedience; cf. Rom 6:11–19). In the idiom that E. P. Sanders has coined for characterizing the Judaism of the Second Temple period as “covenantal nomism,”24 by God’s grace and call believers have entered into the state of justification or the saving relationship with God, and they are now to stay in it by obedience to the lordship of Jesus Christ.25 Insofar as God’s saving grace and call results in believers’ entrance into the right relationship with himself or into the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, with the consequent requirement for them to stand in it by obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ in order to participate in the final consummation of salvation, God’s saving grace and call issues in a task, alongside salvation, the task of obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, God’s grace and call for salvation is also God’s grace and call for a task. Insofar as the consummation of salvation at the last judgment is the fulfillment of the salvation (the right or saving relationship with God) in which believers stand at present, the fulfillment of the task born of the saving relationship with God is vital to the consummation of salvation at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ. This task is generally to bear the “fruits of righteousness” (Phil 1:11; cf. Rom 6:11–22; 8:1–4; 12:1–2; 1 Thess 4:3, 7), which are really “the fruits of the Spirit” (Gal 5:22–23) as they are borne only by the leading and empowering of the Holy ship with God, see also my book Justification, which reworks and expands the essay “Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel (1 Thess 1:10 and Rom 1:3–4)” (reprinted as Essay 2 above) as well as the present section of this essay. 23  Cf. K. Kertelge, ‘Rechtfertigung’ bei Paulus (Münster: Aschendorf, 1967), 248–49. 24 E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Pattern of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977). 25  For structural similarity and difference between Paul’s doctrine of justification and the Jewish “covenantal nomism,” see the discussion below.

10. The Nature and Structure of Salvation

207

Spirit (Gal 5:16–26; Rom 8:1–17; 1 Thess 4:7–8). Those fruits are borne by obeying God’s kingly rule, the rule that his Son Jesus Christ the “Lord” exercises on his behalf (Rom 1:3–4; 1 Cor 15:23–28; Col 1:13–14) by demanding to keep his law (“the law of God/Christ,” 1 Cor 9:21), that is, to obey the double command of love – love of God and love of neighbor (Mark 12:28–34 and parr.; Rom 12:1– 2; 13:9–10; 1 Cor 8:1–3; 10:31–33; Gal 5:14; 6:2), in believers’ daily life. But the task also appears in an individualized form. Paul speaks of God’s “call” (καλεῖν) of believers in terms of his “assigning” (ἐμέρισεν) of them with different stations and roles in the world (1 Cor 7:17, 20; cf. also Rom 12:3–8), his “appointing” (ἔθετο) of them to different functions in the church (1 Cor 12:27–30; Rom 12:3–8), or his “giving” (ἔδωκεν) each apostle his distinct “ministry” (διακονία, 1 Cor 3:5). He also teaches that the Holy Spirit gives “grace-gift” (χάρισμα) for each of us to carry out our individualized specific role (our “calling”) (1 Cor 12:4–11; Rom 12:6; Eph 4:7–12). So the fulfillment of this role (specific task) assigned for each believer for the kingdom of God or the church of the Lord Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit’s “grace-gift” as well as the fulfillment of the (general) task of bearing “the fruits of righteousness” with the aid of the Holy Spirit is vital to the consummation of his/her salvation at the last judgment. For himself, Paul is convinced that the particular role to or for which he has been “called” and “given grace,” or the particular task that has been “assigned” to him, is to preach the gospel to the Gentiles as an apostle (Gal 1:15–16; 2:7; Rom 1:5; 15:15–16; 1 Cor 9:16; etc.). It is to do a pioneering mission (“planting” and “laying a foundation”), while the task assigned to Apollos is to build upon Paul’s foundation-laying work (1 Cor 3:5–10). So God’s saving grace and call that has restored Paul to the right relationship with God or brought him into Christ’s kingdom is God’s grace and call for him specifically to be an apostle to the Gentiles as well as generally to bear “the fruits of righteousness.” By carrying out these tasks then Paul “stands” in the saving relationship with God, and by fulfilling them he shall receive the consummation of his justification or salvation at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ, where his works will be tested (cf. 1 Cor 3:10–17; 4:1–5; 9:19–27; Phil 3:4–14). The “crown” or “prize” or “reward” that he “runs” to obtain by bearing the “fruits of righteousness” as well as by fulfilling his apostolic commission is the consummation of his own salvation (1 Cor 9:23–27; Phil 3:12, 14; cf. 2 Tim 4:8). Since Paul’s churches, such as the Thessalonian and the Philippian, will be revealed by the judgment fire as those that he has built with “gold,” and so prove that he has fulfilled his apostolic commission (i. e., that he has faithfully stayed in the saving relationship with God or in his kingdom), those churches that he has built with such great sacrificial labor may also be called the “crown” or “reward” (1 Cor 3:15; 9:18; Phil 4:1; 1 Thess 2:19) that he “runs” or labors to obtain. At the last judgment those churches will be revealed as the proofs for the fulfillment of his apostolic commission, i. e., the fulfillment of his staying in the saving relationship

208

The Thessalonian Church as Paul’s “hope or joy or crown of boasting”

with God. So they will be the visible symbols of his having successfully reached the end of his staying in the saving relationship with God, i. e., of the consummation of his salvation (his “crown” or “prize” or “reward”). Hence those churches are his “crown” or “prize” or “reward.” Thus, those churches and the consummation of his salvation are so vitally bound up together. This is the reason that he refers with the imagery of “crown” both to his salvation itself that he obtains by his faithful fulfillment of the apostolic commission and to the churches that he builds through his faithful fulfillment of the apostolic commission.

11. Justification by Grace and Judgment according to Works Our discussion so far has attempted to explain why Paul sometimes speaks of believers’ ultimate salvation as dependent upon God’s final judgment of their works (Rom 2:5–10; 14:10–12; 2 Cor 5:10; etc.) and also of his own salvation as dependent upon God’s final verdict on his fulfillment of his apostolic commission (1 Cor 9:16, 23–27; Phil 3:12–14; etc.). Apparently for Paul this doctrine of the consummation of salvation through God’s judgment on believers’ works is not contradictory to his gospel of salvation by God’s grace alone and through our faith alone. Is it possible to show how they belong together? By way of conclusion, we attempt to show their integration in the following ten points:26 1. We are justified by God’s grace in Christ’s atoning death and resurrection and through our faith in Christ (i. e., faith that “Christ died for us and was raised”), as that faith actualizes Christ’s death of inclusive substitution27 so that we have died in/with Christ to sin and proleptically been made to participate in the new life of his resurrection, which is dramatized in baptism (Rom 6:1–10; Col 2:12–15). So we are acquitted of our sins and restored to the right relationship with God, our creator, so that we stand in that relationship (Rom 5:2). That is, we have been delivered from the kingdom of Satan, “the god of this age” (2 Cor 4:4), and transferred into the kingdom of God’s Son, Jesus Christ the Lord (Col 1:13–14), so that we exist in the kingdom or lordship sphere of God’s Son Jesus 26  Cf. Travis, Christ and the Judgment of God, 95–99; Yinger, Paul, Judaism, and Judgment, 286–91; Wright, Justification, 183–93; J. D. G.  Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 22008), 80–89; C. H. Cosgrove, “Justification in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Reflection,” JBL 106 (1987): 653–70; also K. P. Donfried, “Justification and Last Judgment in Paul,” in Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 253–78 (originally in La Notion biblique de Dieu [ed. J. Coppens; Gembloux: J. Duculot, 1976], 293–313). 27 For this understanding of Christ’s death, cf. H. Gese, “The Atonement,” in Essays on Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981), 93–116; O. Hofius, “Sühne und Versöhnung: Zum paulinischen Verständnis des Kreuzestodes Jesu,” in Paulusstudien (WUNT 51; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), 41–48; P. Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des NT, vol. 1: Grundlegung: Von Jesus zu Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 138, 193, 198.

11. Justification by Grace and Judgment according to Works

209

Christ, or as Paul simply puts it, we are “in the Lord (Jesus Christ).” By his grace God constantly keeps us in that state through his Word (1 Thess 2:13), his Christ (1 Cor 1:8–9; 1 Thess 3:12–13), and his Spirit (Rom 8:1–17; Phil 2:12–13; 1 Thess 4:7–8), in order to bring his saving work for us to completion on the day of Jesus Christ (Phil 1:6). On our part, we are to appropriate that sustaining (and enabling) grace of God by our constant exercise of faith (1 Cor 15:10bc; Gal 2:20de; Phil 2:12; Col 1:29a; 1 Thess 4:8a),28 by our constant affirmation of faith in God, that is, by our dependence upon and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, who exercises the kingship of God the Father on his behalf. In every instance requiring value judgment and moral choice, we are to confess “the Lord Jesus Christ,” i. e., trust in him and obey his will, instead of trusting in ourselves and obeying “the god of this age” (2 Cor 4:4), who demands us to sin and pays us with death (Rom 6:23). But we can do this only as we have been liberated from slavery to Satan and his forces of sin, the flesh and the law through our faithunion with Christ in his vicarious death and resurrection (Rom 6–8; also Gal 3–5) and we are led (enlightened and empowered) by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:3).29 Such a life bears the “fruits of righteousness” (Phil 1:11), which are the “fruits of the Spirit” (Gal 5:22–23) as they are borne only by “walking according to the Holy Spirit,” i. e., by being guided and enabled by the Spirit (Rom 8:1–17; Gal 5:16–26). So the “fruits of righteousness” or good works are the “work [ἔργον] of faith” (1 Thess 1:3; 2 Thess 1:11) – of πίστις δι᾽ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη, “faith that works through love” (Gal 5:6).30 2. But in the eschatological state of “already  – but not yet” (i. e., since the kingdom of God, though already inaugurated, is not yet consummated and the reign of Satan is still real in this world), there is still the reality of the “flesh” in us that leads us to trust in ourselves rather than God (or the Lord Jesus) and to 28  For an explanation of the interplay between divine grace and human agency in 1 Cor 15:10ad/10bc; Phil 2:13/12; Gal 2:20abc/20de, as well as in Rom 15:15–19 and 2 Cor 9:8–10, cf. J. M. G. Barclay, “‘By the Grace of God I Am What I Am’: Grace and Agency in Philo and Paul,” in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment (ed. J. M. G.  Barclay and S. J. Gathercole; London: T&T Clark, 2006), 151–56. 29  For this reason, on the basis of the indicative of God’s justification (i. e., redemption from Satan’s kingdom into God’s/his Son’s kingdom) and his endowment of the Spirit, Paul issues the imperative for the believers not to “walk/live by the flesh” and do “the works of the flesh” for Satan’s kingdom but to “walk/live by the Spirit and bear “the fruits of the Spirit” for God’s/his Son’s kingdom (Rom 6:11–23; 8:1–7; Gal 5:13–26). Cf. Kim, Justification, 80–81 n. 8. 30 This process is traditionally called “sanctification,” a misnomer for the present stage of “justification,” insofar as “sanctification” and “justification” are in fact parallel terms, as both refer to our restored relationship with God, one from the cultic perspective and the other from the juridical perspective, and have in view the whole process of salvation that begins with faith/ baptism, continues in the present, and consummates at the last judgment. Cf. our discussion above in the section 20 of Essay 3 “The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians,” of the “sanctification” category as a form of contextualization of the “justification” category in 1–2 Thessalonians, 1–2 Corinthians, and Romans 6.

210

The Thessalonian Church as Paul’s “hope or joy or crown of boasting”

obey Satan rather than God (or the Lord Jesus). So, in every moment of value judgment and moral choice, we are confronted with the rival claims of the lordship of Jesus Christ on the one hand and that of Satan on the other hand. In each moment, by confessing “Jesus is the Lord” with the help of the Holy Spirit (Rom 10:9–10; 1 Cor 12:3) and following his command (to love God and neighbor), we are to actualize our faith that justifies us, i. e., makes us righteous by maintaining us in the right relationship with God (cf. Rom 6:11–23). But the “flesh” in us drives us in the opposite direction, so that, failing to affirm our justifying faith, we do the “works of the flesh” (Gal 5:19–21). 3. Depending on the extent of our obedience to God (or his Son Jesus the Lord) by “walking according to the Spirit [of God/Christ]” (= faith-affirmation) or our obedience to Satan by “walking according to the flesh” (= failure of faith-affirmation) in our daily life, we bear more “fruits of the Spirit” (deeds of righteousness) or more “works of the flesh” (deeds of evil) (cf. Gal 5:16–24; Rom 8:1–17; cf. also Gal 6:8). 4. Likewise, depending on the extent of our obedience to God (or his Son Jesus the Lord) and our “walking according to the Spirit” (self-sacrificial service) or our obedience to Satan and “walking according to the flesh” (self-seeking) in our carrying out the specific task (“call”) assigned to each of us by God for his kingdom or church, we “build” the church either with “gold” or with “straw.” 5. Those who have borne much “fruits of the Spirit/righteousness” or built the church with “gold” have availed themselves of divine salvation (= the grace of God conveyed by the Spirit) to the maximum, while those who have done much “works of the flesh/evil” or built the church with “straw” have availed themselves of it to the minimum. 6. At the last judgment, our deeds will be tested by fire (1 Cor 3:10–17). Those who have “walked according to the Spirit” and so borne much “fruits of righteousness” and done their part of building the church up with “gold” will have their works revealed as righteous and “golden” by the judgment fire. This is their “reward,” “prize,” or “crown” (1 Cor 3:14; 9:16–27; Phil 3:14; 4:1; 1 Thess 2:19). So they will be confirmed in their justification, and this is the consummation of their salvation. For Paul, the churches he has built by his faithful dependence upon and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ or his Spirit will be revealed as those that he has built with “gold.” They will be his “crown of boasting” (1 Thess 2:19; Phil 4:1). With this revelation, his justification/salvation will be consummated, as those churches represent his having faithfully stood in the state of justification, his having properly availed himself through his faith of God’s saving grace administered by the Lord Jesus Christ through his Spirit. 7. Those believers who have done much “works of the flesh” and done their part of building the church with “straw,” availing themselves of God’s grace to the minimum, will just barely (“as [if escaping] through fire”) be saved, with their “works of the flesh” or “straw-building” burnt off (or purged) by the judgment

11. Justification by Grace and Judgment according to Works

211

fire (1 Cor 3:15), insofar as they once were acquitted of their sins and restored to the right relationship with God (Rom 5:2) and have availed themselves of God’s grace through faith, even if to the minimum. For even for them there will be the intercession of Christ Jesus the Son of God at the last judgment (Rom 5:9–10; 8:34; 1 Thess 1:10; 3:13).31 But those who once were justified by faith and then have abandoned their faith completely or lived their life practically under the “dominion” of sin with idolatry and various evil acts will suffer the fate of the Exodus generation of Israelites (1 Cor 10:1–22; cf. also Rom 11:21–22; 1 Cor 3:16–17; 6:9–11; 15:2; Gal 5:4, 21; 6:8; 1 Thess 4:6; etc.).32 8. Here the New Perspectivists may stress how similar the pattern or structure of Paul’s doctrine of justification/salvation is to that of the “covenantal nomism” of the Second Temple Judaism that affirms God’s election of Israel by his grace and his requirement for them to stay in the covenantal relationship with him by keeping his commandments (E. P. Sanders).33 However, S. J. Gathercole rightly points out that, despite the formal similarity or continuity between the two doctrines, “the divine empowerment of Christians” through the indwelling Holy Spirit (e. g., Rom 8:1–17; 1 Cor 1:10–13; 6:19; 1 Thess 4:8), the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 8:9–10; Phil 1:19), fundamentally distinguishes the Pauline doctrine from the Jewish doctrine.34 31  See Essay 2 “Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel (1 Thess 1:10 and Rom 1:3–4),” 50–54 above. 32 Note that in these passages Paul warns Christian believers that those who “believe in vain,” fail to remain faithful in the Lord, and do “the works of the flesh” will be judged and cut off from God’s grace or his kingdom. Although Paul presents the “cut-off line” for salvation as low as “building” with “straw” (as long as on the foundation of Christ, 1 Cor 3:10–15) and assures believers of the certainty of the consummation of their justification through the doctrines of God’s predestination and Christ’s intercession (Rom 8:31–39), he does not specify how much doing “the works of the flesh” rather than bearing “the fruits of the Spirit” would be tolerated as still remaining in the Lord or building on the foundation of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 3:17: there “destroying God’s temple,” the Christian community or church, is suggested as an act that crosses the borderline, inviting God’s “destruction”). So believers can never take their salvation for granted and live irresponsibly. Rather, they are to maintain a healthy tension between the assurance of faith in their promised salvation and the “fear and trembling” with which they have to “work out [their] salvation” by availing themselves of the grace of God who “is at work in [them] both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil 2:12–13). They are to go on affirming their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ through the aid of the Holy Spirit, being fully conscious both of his promise of salvation and his command to obey him. 33 Cf. M. Hooker, “Paul and Covenantal Nomism,” in Paul and Paulinism, C. K.  Barrett FS (ed. M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson; London: SPCK, 1982), 47–56; also Yinger, Paul, Judaism, and Judgment, 4: “Those who have rejected Pauline continuity with Jewish ‘covenantal nomism’ have not succeeded in demonstrating that the grace–works axis in Judaism generally is any more synergistic or meritorious than in Paul.” 34  S. J. Gathercole, Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 131–34. However, see now Kim, Justification (esp. 94–97 n. 1 and 112–13 n. 12) for the view that it is not just the doctrine of the Holy Spirit but the trinitarian framework of Paul’s doctrine of justification that fundamentally distinguishes it from the Jewish covenantal nomism and that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit should also

212

The Thessalonian Church as Paul’s “hope or joy or crown of boasting”

Isn’t this in fact precisely what Paul seeks to demonstrate in Rom 7–8 (cf. also Gal 3–5)? It is all the more significant because it is said by Paul, a former Pharisaic Jew: see how he designates the Jewish way of keeping the law (i. e., the Jewish way of staying in the covenantal relationship) as part of “walking according to the flesh,” how he exposes its dilemma and hopelessness, how he declares the gospel (Rom 8:2–4; Gal 3:13–14; 4:4–6) of the endowment of the Holy Spirit as deliverance from the hopelessness of the fleshly law-keeping (the efforts to keep the law that is weakened by the flesh and manipulated by sin – Rom 7:7–25; Gal 3:21), and how he is confident that the justified Christians “walking according to the Spirit” can fulfill “the just requirement of the law” (Rom 8:3–4). If D. Moo is right to view the “I” in Rom 7:7–25 in terms of Israel as well as Adam,35 as he appears to be, this contrast between the Jewish way and the Christian way of staying in the right relationship with God becomes all the more impressive. However, some, especially those of the New Perspectivists, may point to the presence of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in OT–Judaism as well, just as they stress the presence of the doctrine of grace in OT–Jewish “covenantal nomism.” But for Paul, the endowment of the Holy Spirit is the eschatological fulfillment of Ezek 36–37 (cf. also Jer 31:31–34; Rom 8:4; 1 Thess 4:8–9).36 So, the endowment of the Holy Spirit (i. e., the Spirit of Christ, Rom 8:3–17) has opened up the way of fulfilling the law properly (as “the law of Christ”) (Rom 8:3–4; 1 Cor 9:21; Gal 6:2).37 Therefore, for Paul, just as, being the typological fulfillment of the Exodus redemption (1 Cor 5:7; 10:1–4), the eschatological redemption that has been wrought through Christ’s atoning and covenant-establishing death and resurrection (Rom 3:21–26; 4:25; 1 Cor 11:23–26; Gal 4:4–5; etc.) cannot be compared with anything that has been available within the Jewish “covenantal nomism” to those who have been keeping the law of Moses, so also the work of the Holy Spirit for the believers in the Lord Jesus Christ in the new dispensation cannot be compared with that for the Jews in OT–Judaism. With such a view, in 2 Cor 3, Paul goes so far as to define the Sinai dispensation in terms of the letter that brings condemnation and death, while defining the gospel dispensation in terms of the Spirit that brings righteousness and life. Besides the belief in the aid of the Holy Spirit indwelling Christians, the belief in the intercession of Christ Jesus the Son of God is another element that structurally distinguishes the Pauline doctrine of justification from the Jewish be properly understood within this framework in connection with the present saving reign of God’s Son Jesus the Lord (see also n. 39 below). 35  D. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 423–31. 36  See the comment on 1 Thess 4:8 in my commentary. Cf. also Kim, PNP, 158–63; also H. Hübner, Biblische Theologie des NT, vol. 2: Die Theologie des Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 301–05; M. Turner, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts (Peabody: Hendrickson, 21998), 123; V. Rabens, “The Development of Pauline Pneumatology,” BZ 43 (1999): 178–79. 37 Cf. Dunn, Theology of Paul, 642–58.

11. Justification by Grace and Judgment according to Works

213

covenantal nomism. All Christians obtain their ultimate justification at the last judgment not through their good works but through Christ’s intercession at the right hand of God as well as his atonement on the cross.38 It is obvious that those Christians who have all too often failed to avail themselves of God’s sustaining grace provided through his Spirit need Christ’s intercession at the last judgment. But even those who have borne much “fruits of righteousness” through the help of the Holy Spirit need it, insofar as they are not completely free from the flesh before the eschaton, so that their “fruits of righteousness” cannot be perfect. So, there are four elements in the Pauline doctrine of justification which essentially distinguish his doctrine from Jewish covenantal nomism even within their shared structure of salvation: (1) its basis in the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ; (2) its sustenance by the saving reign of the Lord Jesus Christ God’s Son (3) through his and God’s Holy Spirit endowed at baptism; and (4) its consummation by the intercession of Christ Jesus God’s Son at the last judgment. And they lead Paul to stress God’s grace in the whole process of salvation from the beginning to the end much more than Judaism does.39  Insofar as this belief in the intercession of Christ appears to be based not only on Jesus’ saying(s) (Luke 12:8–9//Matt 10:32–33; Mark 8:38 and parr. – see Essay 4.2 above) but also on its OT background, namely Isa 53:12 (MT – cf. O. Betz, “Die Übersetzung von Jes 53 [LXX, Targum] und die Theologia Crucis des Paulus,” in Jesus der Herr der Kirche [WUNT 52; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990], 213; P. Stuhlmacher, “Christus Jesus ist hier, der gestorben ist, ja vielmehr, der auch auferweckt ist, der zur Rechten Gottes ist und uns vertritt,” in Auferstehung  – Resurrection: The Fourth Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium [WUNT 135; ed. F. Avemarie and H. Lichtenberger; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001], 355–57 [351–61]; esp. J. Ådna, “The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 as Triumphant and Interceding Messiah: The Reception of Isaiah 52:13–53:12 in the Targum of Isaiah with Special Attention to the Concept of the Messiah,” The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources [ed. B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004], 214–24 [189–224]; ET of German original, Der leidende Gottesknecht [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996]), some may say that even this belief is part of Jewish covenantal nomism, especially as the Servant Song of Isa 53 was interpreted in Judaism as a messianic prophecy. Even so, however, we need to note that just as with the case of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, so here also Paul is presenting the belief in the intercession of the Messiah, God’s Son, as something that has become a reality through the fulfillment of that OT prophecy in Jesus Christ (to put it in negative terms, as something that has not been available in Judaism). We need also to recognize that that fulfillment has taken a different form than was expected in some quarters of Judaism (e. g., Tg Isa 53). Insofar as Paul presents the gospel of Christ as the eschatological fulfillment of OT–Judaism, all his teachings need to be seen as standing in continuity with OT–Judaism (so Jewish covenantal nomism as well). Yet since fulfillment always involves a new dimension or fuller meaning in comparison with what has been prophesied or was provisionary, we also need to recognize the fuller meaning or new dimension of the gospel of Christ over against the OT–Judaism (i. e., its discontinuity with the latter). The same remarks need to be made with regard to God’s eschatological redemption through Christ’s atoning death and resurrection (Rom 3:23–26; 4:25; 8:3–4; 2 Cor 5:21; etc.), the foundation of Paul’s justification doctrine, vis-à-vis God’s redemption of Israel in the Exodus, the foundation of Jewish covenantal nomism. 39  For a more comprehensive presentation of this view, see now my Justification, 31–52, 94–97 n. 1. Dunn (The New Perspective on Paul, 82–87) questions whether the doctrine of the endow38

214

The Thessalonian Church as Paul’s “hope or joy or crown of boasting”

9. Thus, for Paul, salvation is thoroughly the work of the Lord Jesus Christ through his Spirit, of which one avails oneself through faith – the faith which itself ment of the Spirit in itself makes any real difference for the Pauline doctrine of justification and judgment from Jewish covenantal nomism, and he (91–92) regards the Pauline doctrine of Christ’s intercession as no more than something analogous to the Jewish conviction of the Israelite obtaining salvation in the end unless s/he turned apostate. Protesting against his critics who point out his inadequate appreciation of Paul’s Christology in his comparison of Pauline justification doctrine with Jewish covenantal nomism (89–91), he (92–96) suggests that Paul’s teaching about our participation in Christ’s death and resurrection and our transformation into his likeness through the aid of the Holy Spirit is “a more profound answer” to the question of the difference between the Pauline and the Jewish doctrines in the perception of “the interrelationship between divine grace and the obedience of faith.” Even so, Dunn fails to relate Paul’s teaching about Christians bearing the fruit of righteousness and being transformed into the image of Christ with the fundamental effect of Christ’s atoning death and resurrection and with the Lord Jesus Christ’s present saving reign as his Son (cf. Rom 1:3–4; 1 Cor 15:23–28; Col 1:13–14) through his (and God’s) Spirit (cf. Rom 8:9–10), and this leaves only the impression that for Dunn, at least with regard to the process of “sanctification” (or the present phase of justification), Christ has a meaning only as a Vorbild (model, 92–95) – notwithstanding his efforts to distance himself from “19th century liberalism and late 20th century neo-liberalism” (90). In questioning what real difference the doctrine of the endowed Spirit in itself makes for Christianity from Judaism, Dunn presents the ultimate criterion of judgment in terms of the actual content of Christians’ conduct: “For unless Christians are in fact notably more loving than others, and not just loving God but loving the neighbor as themselves, one cannot help wondering where and what the difference is” (87). Yet he fails to apply this criterion to his own “more profound answer,” namely, the doctrine of transformation into Christ-likeness through the aid of the Spirit. Are the adherents to Pauline doctrine of transformation more “Christ-like” in their moral character than the Jews who live according to their covenantal nomism? If we cannot say definitely “yes” to this question, should we not also conclude, according to Dunn, that there is no real difference between the two doctrines? In fact, with his ultimate criterion of judgment according to the quality or standard of moral conduct of the respective adherents of the two different doctrines, Dunn moves his discussion from the exegetical level to the sachkritischen level, from the level of explaining what Paul teaches in his letters to the level of making judgment whether what he teaches or claims is really “true” (/valid) or not. But before making a Sachkritik (material criticism), we should not forget that we are exegetically comparing what Paul teaches with what Judaism teaches and that it is Paul, the ex-Pharisee, himself who teaches that his gospel of Christ’s salvation (or justification) is the fulfilment of OT–Judaism and that the atoning death and resurrection of Christ, the risen Lord Jesus Christ’s present reign, the endowment of the Spirit, and the intercession of Christ do make an essential difference, in present life as well as at the last judgment, for the believers in his gospel from the adherents of the Torah. And we should note that he insists on these not only while expounding his doctrine of justification relatively calmly in Rom 3–8 (cf. also Rom 9:30–10:21), but even while lamenting and warning about the failures of his converts in Galatia (Gal 3–6) and Corinth (e. g., 1 Cor 5–6; 2 Cor 3). Even while harshly rebuking the very serious moral failures of the Corinthian Christians, Paul insists on the superiority of the gospel to the Torah, indeed on Christ’s liberation of us from the allied forces of the law, sin and death (1 Cor 15:54–57). If we then go on to make a Sachkritik on Paul’s doctrine of justification, we should do it in comparison not only with the adherents of the Jewish covenantal nomism but also with the adherents of other religions, Pantheistic, Deistic, or Humanistic. Then, we will be able to assess how intellectually and morally persuasive the Pauline doctrine of justification that is undergirded by a trinitarian Theism is (cf. the last paragraph of Essay 2 above), although individuals’ judgments on this question will be different, depending on their more basic world-view and anthropology. See also my Justifica-

11. Justification by Grace and Judgment according to Works

215

is awakened by God’s grace (Phil 1:29; Rom 12:3; cf. Rom 8:29–30) or his Spirit (1 Cor 12:3; cf. Rom 10:9–10). It is God who sustains us in the saving relationship to himself to the end through his Son Jesus Christ the Lord, the representative of his saving reign, and through his and his Son’s Spirit, namely the Holy Spirit (e. g., 1 Cor 1:8–10; 10:13; Phil 1:6; 2:13; Rom 1:3–4; 5:8–9; 8:1–39), and we can “work out [our] own salvation with fear and trembling, for God is at work in [us] both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil 2:12–13: even if this statement is originally meant for the communal health of a church, its principle applies also to individual salvation). Thus, it is “through Jesus Christ” (Phil 1:11) or by “walking according to the [his] Spirit,” i. e., by both following his leading and being enabled or empowered by him, that we bear “the fruits of righteousness” (Rom 8:1–17; Gal 5:16–24). It is also by the χάρισ(μα) (“grace-gift”) given to us through the Holy Spirit (Rom 12:3–8; 1 Cor 12:4–11) that we carry out the particular task assigned to each of us for the kingdom of God, i. e., to “build up” the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Hence Paul speaks of his apostolic work as “[the work of] the grace of God which is with me” (1 Cor 15:10) and as “what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit” (Rom 15:17–19) (N. B. the trinitarian formulation of God’s enabling grace in these verses). 10. In sum, according to Paul, there will be the last judgment according to works at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ, in which the faithful will receive their ultimate justification and reward, while the faithless (unbelievers) their condemnation. Therefore, Christians must produce “fruits of righteousness” or good works for their final justification and reward. They can produce them by availing themselves by faith of the sustaining and enabling grace of (the triune) God. Their reward is their works of righteousness and their contribution to God’s kingdom or the church shining gloriously by the judgment fire – “the crown of righteousness” (2 Tim 4:8). But those who have refused to avail themselves by faith of God’s grace in Christ’s atonement and his saving reign through his (and God’s) Spirit will be confirmed as belonging to the kingdom of sin and death, i. e., the kingdom of Satan. For them, there will be no intercession but only the condemnation of the Lord Jesus Christ (e. g., Rom 2:2–11; 2 Cor 5:10; 1 Thess 5:3; 2 Thess 1:8). 11. So the integration of divine grace and human works in salvation, or the doctrines of justification by God’s grace and judgment according to human deeds, may best be seen in the Pauline formula: “But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked [hard], though it was not I, but the grace which is with me” (1 Cor 15:10). tion, 112–13 n. 12, contra the related claim that Pauline justification doctrine is as synergistic as the Jewish covenantal nomism (e. g., Yinger, Paul, Judaism, and Judgment, 4; also Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul, 87–89).

9. Is Paul Preaching a Counter-Imperial Gospel in 1 Thessalonians? In 1 Thess 2:1–4, Paul contrasts himself and his gospel with Jewish false prophets and Hellenistic charlatan philosophers and their messages. Is Paul there intending also to draw a contrast between his gospel, “the gospel of God,” and the Roman imperial gospel, a mere human gospel? Pointing to the importance of the term “gospel” (εὐαγγέλιον) in the Roman imperial propaganda as well as Paul’s repeated definition of his gospel as “the gospel [or the word] of God” in our section (1 Thess 2:2, 8, 9, 13; also 1:8; 3:2), G. N. Stanton says: “Surely there is at least an implicit subversion of the imperial gospel of Providence’s provision of the emperor for salvation, for ‘peace and security.’ This is how Paul’s words would have been heard in Thessalonica, whether or not that was part of Paul’s intention.”1 Unlike with the case of the messages of false prophets or sham philosophers, the subsequent elaboration on this verse (1 Thess 2:2) in vv. 3–12 does not appear to suggest Paul’s intent to make a contrast between the gospel of God and the gospel of Rome. However, if the references to his ill-treatment in Philippi and to his conflict in Thessalonica in this verse are seen in the light of the accounts of Acts 16:22–24 and 17:5–9 respectively, it becomes quite possible that at least the Thessalonians may have heard Paul’s gospel as Stanton says (see comm. on 1 Thess 2:13–16 in my commentary). So, having heard from Paul the gospel (and accepted it as the gospel of God) that since Christ Jesus died for them and rose again for their salvation (1 Thess 4:14; 5:9–10) they would be delivered from God’s wrath at the last judgment and live with him always in God’s kingdom (2:12) when he makes his parousia from heaven as God’s Son and the Lord (1:10; 3:13; 4:13–18; 5:1–11), they may have recognized the salvation of Christ as the real salvation and the Roman “peace and security” as a mere parody of it. This recognition would have made them reject the divine claims of the emperor (cf. 1:9) and refrain from putting trust in the Roman gospel of “peace and security” (5:3). But would it also have made them disloyal to the Roman Empire in the ways beyond avoiding participating in the imperial cult, which was hardly forced upon every individual at that time?2

1 G. N. Stanton, 2

Jesus and Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 47–48.  Cf. P. Oakes, “Re-Mapping the Universe: Paul and the Emperor in 1 Thessalonians and

218

Is Paul Preaching a Counter-Imperial Gospel in 1 Thessalonians?

Would it have made them resist the Roman rule (e. g., refusing to pay taxes), or work to subvert it even more overtly than tax evasion? Does the exhortation of Paul in 1 Thess 4:11–12,3 let alone Rom 13:1–7, have relevance to this question? When some scholars say that Paul’s gospel is “counter-imperial” or “subverts” the Roman imperial ideology, what do they exactly mean? When I take them to mean something more than mere passive resistance to the Roman ideology,4 some of them protest to me, saying that they mean by “anti-imperial” or “counter-imperial” only as “providing an alternative [Davidic] King and Kingdom to the Roman emperor and empire and thus encouraging the church to live as a community in society according to the reality of God’s Kingdom as they eagerly await the return of the true King.”5 But it is regrettable that Hardin, for example, does not specify what exactly or concretely living loyally to God’s kingdom and Christ’s lordship “as an alternative” to (so, presumably, “instead of”) the Roman Empire and Caesar’s lordship entails in the Thessalonian Christians’ attitude to the Roman systems, laws and institutions beyond shunning the Roman values, mores, rituals, etc. If the “counter-imperial” interpreters of Paul do not mean to imply that Paul’s gospel was “counter-imperial” to the extent of leading Christians to reject the Roman laws, resist the Roman authorities and evade their taxation, why can they not accept Paul’s exhortations in Rom 13:1–7 as they appear, but make so much ingenuous efforts to explain them away?6 Why do some of those interpreters resort to the self-contradictory theory that Paul hid his counter-imperial messages in codes in Romans, Philippians, in our epistle (1 Thess 2:13–16, etc.), while at the same time (allegedly) revealing his counter-imperial messages through the most visible application to Christ and the church of so many “imperial” terms such as “gospel,” “Lord,” “Son of God,” “ekklēsia,” “parousia” and “apantēsis,” “salvation,” “peace and security,” “righteousness/justice,” etc.?7 If Paul did not quite mean to see the recipients of his “counter-imperial” messages act on them in overt gestures of rejecting the Roman ideology, institutions and laws, why should he hide those messages in codes, when they would not be perceived any more challenging to the Roman Philippians,” JSNT 27 (2001): 312–14 (301–22). Now reprint in his Empire, Economics, and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020), 144–46 (135–55). 3 See comment ad loc. in my commentary. 4  See S. Kim, Christ and Caesar (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008). 5  J. K. Hardin, reviewing my book Christ and Caesar in Themelios 35.2 (2010): 283; cf. also W. Carter’s review in Review of Biblical Literature (July 2009), 3. 6  E. g., N. Elliott, “Romans 13:1–7 in the Context of Imperial Propaganda,” in Paul and Empire (ed. R. A. Horsley; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997), 184–204; R. Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 780– 803; N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 1302–03. 7  E. g., D. Georgi, “God Turned Upside Down,” in Paul and Empire (ed. R. A.  Horsley; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997), 157; Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1314–17.

Chapter 9: Is Paul Preaching a Counter-Imperial Gospel in 1 Thessalonians?

219

authorities than all those “imperial” terms that he explicitly transfers to Christ and his church?8 Surely Paul’s gospel subverts all human sin-tainted institutions and ways, including the Roman Empire and its ways, insofar as it presents the alternative way of existence to all human “fleshly” ways.9 Then, his gospel is “counter-imperial” in this general sense (or as a sub-category) of counter-worldliness, and it can apply to the Parthian or Chinese empire as much as to the Roman Empire. However, since the Roman Empire was the world of Paul, we can grant interpreting his “counter-imperial” gospel particularly in relation to the Roman Empire. But how can we discern in a given passage that Paul is really aiming at the Roman Empire and its ways? It will not do to try to see a counter-Roman sense whenever the parallel terms to those of the Roman ideology or propaganda appear in his epistles, under such assumptions as a universal imperial cult, a rule of brutality and exploitation, and some social-scientific theories about domination and resistance.10 As P. Oakes says, concretely “we would need arguments that suggested that Paul specifically had Rome in view when expressing his [Christology and] eschatology.”11 So, Oakes examines 1 Thess 4:13–18 for such evidence, but finds only that “[t]he language παρουσία and ἀπάντησις [there] does seem to be drawn from experience of Roman practice, but the passage does not seem to be a conscious challenge to Roman eschatology.”12 With regards to 1 Thess 5:1–11, Oakes acknowledges, as any reader would do, that in 5:3 Paul is deliberately rejecting the central claim of Roman imperial ideology and advising the Thessalonian Christians not to trust in the imperial promise of peace and safety. Then Oakes13 goes on to say: Paul [thus] undermines the value of the status quo in order to enhance allegiance to an alternative reality. This is, as Harrison14 argues, a challenge to Roman eschatology. This is Christianity against Rome. However, it is neither Christianity seeking Rome’s overthrow nor Christianity arguing against participation in the imperial cult. It is Christian hope being asserted to be superior to Roman hope in order to sustain suffering Christians.15

These are of course the right conclusions about 1 Thess 4:13–18 and 5:1–11. For in those passages, even while talking about the παρουσία of the κύριος and advising  Cf. Kim, Christ and Caesar, 32–33. J. M. G. Barclay, “Why the Roman Empire Was Insignificant to Paul,” in Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews (WUNT 275; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 363–87. 10  See Kim, Christ and Caesar, 28–33. 11 Oakes, “Re-Mapping,” 315 (in his Economics, 148). 12  Ibid., 315–17, quotation from 317; cf. also Malherbe, Thessalonians, 304. 13  Oakes, “Re-Mapping,” 318. 14 J. R. Harrison, “Paul and the Imperial Gospel at Thessaloniki,” JSNT 25 (2002): 71–96. 15  Incidentally, this statement of Oakes shows that I am not the only person who takes the “anti-imperial” or “counter-imperial” interpretation of some scholars to mean something more than what Hardin defines it to be (see above).  8

 9 Cf.

220

Is Paul Preaching a Counter-Imperial Gospel in 1 Thessalonians?

the readers not to trust in the Roman promise of “peace and security,” Paul’s main concerns are not to establish Christ as the real κύριος over against Caesar, nor to prove that Christ brings the real salvation while the Roman Empire promises a mere parody of it, nor to teach the readers how they might behave vis-à-vis the Roman authorities, but rather to assure the readers about the participation of the dead believers in the resurrection life of Christ together with them, the surviving believers, and to allay their anxiety about the exact date of the day of the Lord and encourage their faithful perseverance in sanctified Christian living with the assured hope for obtaining the eternal life with the Lord at his parousia.16 What about 1 Thess 2:1–12 where the phrase “the gospel of God” is repeated three times (vv. 2, 8, 9; cf. also v. 13) and the concept of the kingdom of God also appears (v. 12)? In this section Paul contrasts his “gospel of God” with the mere human words of false prophets and charlatan philosophers. But is there anything there that suggests that he also contrasts it with the Roman gospel of “peace and security” or “salvation”? In the passage his main concern is to consolidate his converts’ appreciation of his missionary team’s “entry” or their conduct at their founding mission in Thessalonica, that unlike false prophets and charlatan philosophers, he and his missionary colleagues behaved themselves in a “holy and righteous and blameless” way (v. 10) as true apostles of Christ, preaching faithfully the gospel of God that was entrusted to them by God. In v. 12 Paul talks about God calling the readers into “his own kingdom and glory.” If we apply to this statement the reasoning that Stanton uses for the phrase “the gospel of God,” we will have to say that at least the Thessalonians would have heard Paul issuing here a counter-imperial message and subverting the Roman Empire with God’s kingdom. Now, since Paul says that during his founding mission in Thessalonica he “exhorted … encouraged and charged” the readers “to live in a manner worthy of God, who calls [them] into his own kingdom and glory” (vv. 11–12), what might have been his teaching about the way of life that befitted God’s kingdom over against the Roman Empire, or what changes the readers might have heard Paul requiring of them in order to be loyal to God’s kingdom rather than to the Roman Empire? In 1 Thess 4:1–2 Paul “requests and exhorts” the Thessalonian believers to go on living (περιπατεῖν) and pleasing God in the way he already “commanded” them with the authority of the Lord Jesus during his founding mission in their city. Then, in the subsequent verses (4:3–8, 12) he issues concrete moral commands for them, suggesting that by carrying them out they are to obey “God’s will” and so please him. So those exhortations (παρακαλεῖν) or commands (παραγγέλλειν) in 4:3–8 (and 4:12) must be part of the exhortation (παρακαλεῖν) and charge (μαρτύρεσθαι) that in 2:11–12 he said he had 16  See comments on 1 Thess 4:13–18 and 5:1–11 in my commentary, where I ask how Paul’s vision of our justification at God’s last judgment and our living with the returning Lord always could be construed as counter-imperial/Roman. Cf. also Kim, Christ and Caesar, 3–10.

Chapter 9: Is Paul Preaching a Counter-Imperial Gospel in 1 Thessalonians?

221

given them “to live (περιπατεῖν) in a manner worthy of God, who calls [them] into his kingdom …” But those exhortations in 4:1–8 (and 4:12) are only for a sanctified life, especially sexual chastity, for sibling love for one another, and for a quiet, respectful life. So, just as in 2:2–12 where Paul uses the concepts of “the gospel of God” and the kingdom of God, so also in 4:1–8 (and 4:12) where he issues concrete exhortations for the way of life in accordance with God’s gospel or in loyal submission to God’s kingdom, we have hardly anything that may be construed as a challenge to the Roman Empire. So, unless it can be proved that the false prophets and charlatan philosophers that Paul seems to have in view in 2:2–12 include the imperial propagandists and that those propagandists displayed the features that Paul denounces in the section, and unless it can be established that sexual passion and unchastity against which Paul warns the readers in 4:1–8 were the vices that were associated specifically with the Roman Empire rather than the Hellenistic paganism in general, it appears difficult to discern a counterimperial meaning in Paul’s concepts of “the gospel of God” and “the kingdom of God” in 2:1–12.17 1 Thess 1:10 is another passage that the counter-imperial interpreters of Paul would gladly use for their theory, as it speaks of Christians’ waiting for God’s Son Jesus to come from heaven for their deliverance, whose coming (παρουσία) from heaven is actually projected in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11. But although the compact formulation in 1:10 implies Jesus’ exaltation at the right hand of God as God’s Son and the Lord (and so his reign as God’s viceroy), its meaning that Jesus God’s Son will deliver us from God’s wrath through his atonement on the cross and intercession at the last judgment seems to issue little political challenge specifically to the Roman Empire.18 There is no denying that Paul’s gospel of salvation in God’s kingdom through his Son, the Kyrios Jesus Christ (the Messianic King), at his parousia could have been heard by the Thessalonians as subversive to the Roman Empire. In the Introduction (I. 1. B and 4. B, C, D) in my commentary, I have briefly explained how loyal the Thessalonians were to Caesar and the Roman Empire and how sensitive they were to any subversive messages. There, against that background, I judge as quite credible Luke’s report in Acts 17:1–7, that incited by the Jews, the Gentile mob of Thessalonica charged and persecuted Paul and Silas for being revolutionaries who were acting “against the decrees of Caesar” and preaching that “there is another king, Jesus” (Acts 17:6–7). Counter-imperial interpreters 17  See comment on 1 Thess 2:12 and 4:1–12 (especially on quiet life and self-reliant life that “commands the respect of outsiders”) in my commentary. Pace K. P. Donfried, “Issues of Authorship in the Pauline Corpus: Rethinking the Relationship between 1 and 2 Thessalonians,” in 2 Thessalonians and Pauline Eschatology. P. Porkorný Festschrift (ed. C. Tuckett; Leuven: Peeters, 2013), 81–113, who tries to interpret most of the contents of 1–2 Thessalonians counterimperially – more consistently than others, but still not very persuasively. 18  Cf. Essay 2 “Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel (1 Thess 1:9–10 and Rom 1:3–4)” above.

222

Is Paul Preaching a Counter-Imperial Gospel in 1 Thessalonians?

tend to stress only this fact. But we urged that we should appreciate not only the fact that Paul’s message was suspected by the Thessalonian people of being subversive to the Roman Empire, but also the fact that the Thessalonian politarchs released Paul and Silas after investigation of the charge of high treason, taking only a bond from Jason (Acts 17:1–9), so that they were able to go on with their mission elsewhere. I argued that this fact as well as the continuing existence of the Thessalonian church (albeit in afflictions) suggests that they succeeded in persuading the Thessalonian authorities of the political innocence of their gospel. Our explanation here of the passages in 1 Thessalonians that contain the language which could be heard as expressing a “disturbing” counter-imperial message should make it understandable why in their investigation the politarchs of Thessalonica found no reason to charge Paul and Silas for being counter-imperial preachers. It is a question whether our perspective shaped by our distaste of the Western imperialism of the past and some elements of the foreign policies of America and other powerful nations today, as well as by our concern to draw some help from the Biblical messages to remedy what we rightly consider as ill effects of imperialism is not driving us to “hear” Paul’s counter-imperial message where he did not quite intend it, or the original recipients of his epistles and the subsequent readers of them in the Roman imperial period did not quite “hear” it. It is a question whether shaped by our own conditions we are not being too eager to extend the application of his gospel of God’s kingdom or Christ Jesus’ lordship to the Roman imperial contexts, although Paul himself stops short of it. It may be hermeneutically possible or even desirable to attempt such an extended application to the imperialism and other evil politico-socio-economical systems of our days since his gospel of God’s kingdom or Christ Jesus’ lordship is essentially against all things worldly and human that are tainted by sin or bear the marks of Satan’s reign of evil and suffering.19 But is it also exegetically justified to see Paul’s gospel as counter-imperial where he was not trying to subvert specifically the Roman Empire and his original readers did not take him as stimulating (not to say, inciting) them to do that?

19 See

Kim, Christ and Caesar, 200–03.

10. Paul and the Roman Empire As part of his grand scheme of interpreting Paul’s theology as an integral whole in his three contexts (Judaism, Hellenism, and the Roman Empire), N. T. Wright presents Paul as deliberately formulating his gospel in a way that implicitly subverts the Roman Empire. He rests this view partly on the assumption that Paul saw Rome as the unique agent of the evil forces, the fourth beast of Daniel 7. Thus, he makes Paul the twin brother of John of Revelation. But he is not quite successful in supporting his thesis exegetically with Paul’s actual teachings in his epistles. Furthermore, by repeatedly asserting Paul’s proclamation of Jesus the Messiah and Lord as counter-imperial but never explaining how the Lord Jesus actually exercises his God-given kingship, Wright presents a political theology of Paul that is not well integrated with his gospel of God’s/Christ’s kingdom and of justification and with his ethics.

1. Paul Preached the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in Antithesis to Its Roman Parody Since A. Deissmann’s pioneering observation,1 especially over the last two decades, counter-imperial interpreters of Paul have appealed, first of all, to the extensive parallelism of the vocabulary used in Paul’s preaching and in the Roman imperial cult and propaganda: God’s son, lord, savior, gospel, salvation, peace, δικαιοσύνη (righteousness/justice), πίστις (faith/loyalty), παρουσία/ἀπάντησις, etc. In this new book Paul and the Faithfulness of God,2 however, Wright stresses more the parallelism between the narratives of the two entities, and refers to the vocabulary parallelism in that context. He is so strongly impressed by what he calls the “almost uncanny” correspondence of those narratives as well as those words (1311) that, constantly referring to it, he draws his conclusion, in the most certain terms, that Paul “could not help but” see the inherent conflict between 1 A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978; ET of the 4th German ed. [1923]), 338–78. 2 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013). Henceforth abbreviated as PFG, and references to it indicated by page numbers in the text.

224

Paul and the Roman Empire

his gospel and the Roman ideology (1280–83, passim). So, for example, he summarizes the narratives and sets them side by side thus: Rome offered a long and powerful story of a divinely appointed city, nation and culture from which had emerged [Augustus] the divi filius himself, bringing peace and justice and world domination. Paul told the long story of a divinely appointed people from whom there had emerged [Jesus Christ] the theou hyios himself, bringing peace and justice and claiming worldwide allegiance (1282).

Then, Wright draws the inference from the parallelism thus: Rome offered such a stark set of parallels to the narrative of Paul’s gospel that it was bound to appear not just as one empire among many, which happened to be there at the time, but as a strikingly specific parody of the message of Jesus and the community of his followers (1282). The inner logic of Paul’s own worldview and theology, seen as the messianic redefinition of his second-Temple Jewish world view, cannot help but have brought him into conflict, whether implicit or explicit, with the claims, the narrative and the policies of the Roman empire (1283).

As the Roman narrative of pretension, arrogance, and false promises misled the inhabitants of the empire to submission and even to the imperial cult, Paul had to expose its delusional character in his proclamation of the true gospel of justice, peace, and salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ. So, Wright concludes that Rome was “a central target of Paul’s implied polemic” (1283). For Wright, the fact that Paul was an heir to the Jewish apocalyptic tradition further strengthens this conclusion. According to Wright, in Second Temple Judaism, the apocalyptic language was employed for a “political” meaning, to speak about the rise and fall of great empires in codes, and so the apocalyptic literature was “a major carrier of social and political critique.” As an influential example of this, Daniel also talked about actual empires (1289–90). During the first century, Jews generally recognized that Rome was meant by the fourth beast in Dan 7, the final and most terrifying pagan empire that was to be destroyed with the coming of the Messiah, who would vindicate God’s people to share in his rule over the nations (1280–81, 1289). So, Paul also saw Rome as such (1282, passim). Accordingly, Wright finds Paul issuing an implicit challenge to Caesar and his empire in passages such as Rom 1:3–4; 1 Cor 15:20–28; Phil 2:6–11; Col 1:15–20; 2:14–15; etc. that declare the Messiah Jesus’ enthronement and reign over the nations as well as in apocalyptic passages such as 1 Thess 4:13–5:11; 2 Thess 2:1–12; Phil 3:20–21; Rom 8:31–39; 1 Cor 15:20–28, 51–57; etc. that speak of the Lord Jesus Christ’s parousia for eschatological redemption. And Wright interprets 1–2 Thessalonians, Philippians, and Romans as proclaiming the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in clear antithesis to its Roman parody. Thus, Wright insists that Paul’s gospel must be appreciated as fundamentally having a Rome-critical or counter-imperial dimension.

2. John M. G. Barclay: “The Roman Empire Was Insignificant to Paul”

225

2. John M. G. Barclay: “The Roman Empire Was Insignificant to Paul” In his important essay,3 Barclay makes a searching criticism of Wright’s counterimperial interpretation of Paul’s gospel. In PFG, Wright unfolds his thesis of Paul’s counter-Roman gospel anew in discussion with Barclay. So it is convenient for us to start our examination of Wright’s work by following their debate. Barclay’s thesis is that Rome was insignificant to Paul and so he did not make it a special target of his polemic. For this thesis, Barclay first points to the absence of references to Rome in Paul’s epistles: Paul condemns pagan idolatry in general, but never singles out the Roman imperial cult; Paul frequently speaks of powers, authorities, and rulers of this world, but always anonymously and never identifying them with Rome; and Paul shows no interest in the Roman Empire as Roman (373–76). So, concluding that “thus Paul never specifies Rome on the countless occasions when he could have spoken of her empire, her rulers, and her cult,” Barclay rejects Wright’s attempts to see a special reference to Caesar and his empire in Paul’s general polemic against idolatry, the world, and its rulers (375). Then, observing a “general principle” that the use of common terms “does not in itself entail a competitive, or antithetical, relationship between the two entities using [them]” (376), Barclay argues that Paul’s Christological titles cannot be taken as intending to counter the Roman honoring of Caesar as there is no indicator that they were so employed (376–78).4 Barclay contends that the same has to be said also for Paul’s soteriological terms, as “Paul never places the terms ‘good news’, ‘salvation’, or ‘faith/loyalty’ in antithesis to a Roman form of the same,” and as he contrasts “righteousness/justice” only with that of the Torah, but not with that of Rome (379). According to Barclay, Paul does not make Caesar and his empire the special target of his polemic because of his particular epistemology or worldview, rather than his apolitical pietism.5 Since the revelation of the Christ-event, Paul views the καινὴ κτίσις (“new creation,” which is represented by Christ’s church at present; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:14–15) created by the Christ-event as standing over against the κόσμος (“the world”) dominated by “the god of this age” (Gal 1:4) or 3 J. M. G. Barclay, “Why the Roman Empire Was Insignificant to Paul,” in Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). References to this work will be indicated by page numbers in parenthesis. 4 Barclay (378) illustrates this point with the evidence both of the early Christian literatures (1 Tim 2:2; 6:15; Tit 3:1; 1 Pet 2:13–17; 1 Clem 61; Tertullian, Apology 30–34) and of Philo, who in his Legatio ad Gaium, attributes both to God and to the Roman emperors similar titles such as “Master,” “Lord,” “king,” “benefactor,” “savior,” and bearer of justice and peace to the world even while stressing Jewish monotheistic abhorrence of the imperial cult. 5  Cf. M. V. Novenson, “What the Apostles Did Not See,” in Reactions to Empire: Sacred Texts in Their Socio-Political Contexts (ed. J. A. Dunne and D. Batovici; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 55–72.

226

Paul and the Roman Empire

the Satanic or demonic forces of sin, the flesh, and death. The Satanic or demonic forces operate across all levels of existence – individual, social, political, and cosmic (383–84). Paul views the Roman Empire not itself as one of those powers (383), but as an agent that is, like any empire, co-opted by powers (Satanic or divine) that are greater than itself (386). Inasmuch as the Roman Empire practices evil, making false claims, oppressing people, etc., it is driven by the power and wisdom of “this world” or the Satanic forces of sin and death, and so manifests itself as part of “the world” or “the present evil age” doomed to destruction (1 Cor 1–2; 1 Thess 5:1–11; Phil 1:27–30; Rom 8:31–39). However, inasmuch as it carries out the functions of preserving and rewarding “the good,” it is to be recognized and honored as serving God (Rom 13:1–7) (385). So Paul cannot be classified simply as pro‑ or anti-Roman. The point to stress is rather that instead of viewing Rome in the political categories created by itself or by modern political interpreters and trying to oppose or upstage it in those categories, Paul “relegate[s] it to the rank of a dependent and derivative entity, denied a distinguishable name or significant role in the story of the world” (383–85). Therefore, Barclay concludes that to view Paul as “accord[ing] the Roman Empire the kind of significance imagined by Wright (and other anti-imperial interpreters) would not only grant Rome excessive respect but would reduce Paul’s theology to the political terms that Rome herself was accustomed to use …. Rather than adding a fresh dimension to Pauline theology, Wright’s interpretation diminishes the range and significance of Paul’s remapping of the cosmos” (387).

3. Wright Makes Paul a Twin of John of Revelation (a) The Roman Empire Was Unique to Paul Wright rejects Barclay’s argument against his (and other anti-imperial interpreters’) appeal to the parallel vocabulary of Paul’s gospel and of the Roman imperial propaganda. Apparently, Wright takes Paul’s indebtedness to Jewish apocalyptic tradition, especially to Dan 7, and what he considers a unique phenomenon, namely, the narrative parallelism between the two entities, as sufficient indicators for Paul’s use of his Christological and soteriological terms in antithesis to the claims of Rome. An examination of Wright’s actual interpretation of some Pauline texts below shall show whether the two factors really amount to sufficient indicators. Given a negative result, Wright’s repeated appeal to them would be revealing his reliance only on deductive argumentation.6 Nevertheless, Wright agrees with Barclay on an important point, namely, that Paul saw the demonic “powers” as operating in and through pagan deities and 6  Cf. my Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and the Empire in the Writings of Paul and Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 30–31.

3. Wright Makes Paul a Twin of John of Revelation

227

human rulers, and so set those “powers” of sin and death as the ultimate enemy of the gospel of Jesus Christ (1285–88, passim).7 Wright also agrees with Barclay that this worldview led Paul to relativize the Roman Empire as a puppet of Satan and so to dismiss its arrogant claims (1287, 1291, passim). So, resonating with what Barclay says (384, 386–87), Wright states: “To allow Rome, or any other empire, to set the agenda so firmly that it becomes ‘the’ enemy is to fail to see the real enemies hiding behind its armour and spear” (1287). Yet Wright objects to Barclay’s drawing from this consideration the conclusion that Rome was insignificant to Paul. Instead, he uses it to sharpen his counter-imperial interpretation. Thus he declares that Paul saw the demonic powers “coming together and doing their worst precisely in and through Rome itself” (1311) and so Rome as “the specific and focused instantiation of what ‘the [demonic] powers’ were all about” (1318). Thus, asserting repeatedly that Paul viewed Rome as the fourth beast of Dan 7 (1299, 1311, passim), Wright declares “in the language of Revelation”: “when Paul looked at the Roman Empire he glimpsed the face of the Monster” (1311). Would it be unfair then for us to summarize Wright’s view thus: Paul saw Rome as the embodiment of the Satanic forces or at least as their chief agent? Wright grounds this view on the uniqueness of Rome and its imperial pretensions: the parallelism of the narratives and vocabulary between Paul’s gospel and the Roman imperial propaganda, the fact that only Rome could claim a worldwide “obedient allegiance” at Paul’s time, and the fact that in Rome “precisely the power of ‘death’ itself ha[d] been unleashed on to that ‘son of God’” (1311, 1318). Thus, Wright thinks that Paul was opposed to Rome not simply because it happened to be the ruling power of his world, which the Satanic forces could co-opt like any other ruling power (cf. 1273), but rather because its Caesar was the unique, hitherto unparalleled Satanic representative, the uniquely exact counter-image of the Messiah Jesus. Then, isn’t Wright, notwithstanding his denial (1287), suggesting in effect that Paul viewed Rome as “the” enemy?8 (b) An Appeal to the Jewish Tradition This view, of course, raises an immediate question: how could Paul then exhort the Roman Christians to honor the governing authorities and be subject to them, saying that they promoted the good by executing justice as God’s servants (Rom 13:1–7)? To explain this, Wright repeatedly appeals to the double-shaped Jewish tradition: (1) for the moment, God has set the pagan rulers over the world and so Israel should obey them, but (2) the time will come when God judges the pagan 7 Wright (761–62) suggests that the Damascus revelation of the crucified Jesus as the risen and exalted Messiah and Lord also led Paul to realize that the real enemy was not Rome itself but Sin and Death. 8 Cf. C. Heilig, Hidden Criticism? The Methodology and Plausibility of the Search for a Counter-Imperial Subtext in Paul (WUNT 2/392; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 120–21.

228

Paul and the Roman Empire

empire and replace it with Israel as the world kingdom (1275, 1283, passim). On the basis of this view, on the one hand, the prophet Jeremiah advised the Jewish exiles in Babylonia to settle down there and “seek the welfare of the city” (Jer 29:4–7), and Daniel is shown to have served the pagan king and his government (Dan 1–6); and on the other hand, both Jeremiah (50–51) and Daniel (7) prophesied God’s judgment on the arrogant and wicked pagan empire and God’s redemption of his people Israel (1274–75). So, pointing to the fact that exhortation to be subject to pagan rulers appears alongside denunciation of them in the same books of Jeremiah and Daniel (cf. also Wis 6:1–5), Wright argues that Paul was just reflecting this tradition, the positive understanding of human authorities in Rom 13:1–7 (cf. also Col 1:15–17) and the sharp critique of them in Philippians and Colossians 2 (1274–75, passim). In addition, blaming the modern Western split-mentality for seeing them in sterile antithesis (1288, 1307), Wright insists that Paul “cannot be placed on a flattened-out scale of being ‘for’ or ‘against’ Roman rule,” by playing the “supportive” passages in his epistles off against the “critical” passages (1308). However, it is questionable whether the Jewish tradition can really support Wright’s explanation of Paul’s stance toward Rome. For, in imparting the exhortation for the Jewish exiles to be good citizens in Babylon, Jeremiah (let alone Daniel) does not support it by speaking of the Babylonian rulers in such positive terms as Paul does of the (Roman) rulers in Rom 13:1–7. Surely Jeremiah imparts his advice not because of the good governance of Babylon, but rather in spite of its idolatry and wickedness. Did Philo, for example, see Augustus or Tiberius as the “Monster” of Dan 7 while, at the same time, heaping his praises on them (e. g., Legatio, 140–161; cp. esp. 161 with Rom 13:3–4), or did he ever say about Gaius something like what Paul says about the (Roman) authorities in Rom 13:1–7 while castigating him for his self-deification and evil deeds, i. e., for being like the “Monster” of Dan 7? In fact, the Jewish groups that interpreted pagan empires along the lines of Dan 7:1–8 showed only an anti-imperial stance without balancing it with the Jeremiah-like exhortation, and they rather waged actual rebellion against pagan empires (the Maccabees and the Zealots) or hoped to do it in the near future (the Qumran sect). Wright himself suggests that as a “hardline Pharisee” the pre-conversion Paul used to hold that kind of stance (e. g., 1283, 1306) – what Wright designates as the “Shammaite” stance that focused on the second half of the Jewish tradition over against the “Hillelite” stance that appreciated its first half and adjusted to the rule of a pagan empire (1280). (c) Paul’s Modification of the Jewish tradition Wright repeatedly emphasizes Paul’s modification of the Jewish tradition in the light of the Christ-event (1274–75, passim). However, his appeal to Paul’s new eschatological perspective weakens his view rather than supporting it.

3. Wright Makes Paul a Twin of John of Revelation

229

Arguing that for Paul’s political theology “eschatology is all” (1275), Wright affirms that with the Damascus revelation of Christ Jesus, Paul was convinced that God had already judged “the rulers of this age” and the Messiah Jesus had already been installed to rule over the world in fulfillment of Pss 2 and 110 (1283, 1286). So he regarded the “rulers of this age” as part of the night that was coming to an end, and the old world order under their rule as being already in the process of being dismantled (1298). This new eschatological perspective amounted to a modification of the second half of the traditional Jewish stance toward the pagan powers: the Messiah was already reigning, the nations and their rulers were now subject to him, and God was even now leading his people in his triumphal procession in the Messiah (2 Cor 2:14; Col 2:15; Rom 8:37) (1299). Then, as usual, Wright also affirms the “now–but not yet” structure of Paul’s eschatology: Christ was already ruling the world (“now”), but he had yet to subjugate all his enemies under his feet (1 Cor 15:20–28: “not yet”). So, while there still was a “not-yet,” the evil pagan rule was still real. And so the first half of the traditional Jewish stance to the pagan rulers and the Jeremiah-like exhortation (the “Hillelite” position) were still relevant. Hence Paul exhorted Christians, as Jeremiah did the exiles, to be good neighbors and good citizens, doing good to all and obeying the governing authorities (Rom 12:14–13:7; Gal 6:10; Phil 1:27; 1 Thess 5:15) (1279–81, passim). However, with his appreciation of a “now,” Paul modified the traditional stance by “balanc[ing] his command to obey the authorities with a reminder that the night [was] far gone and the day [was] already dawning” (Rom 13:11–14; 1 Thess 5:1–11) (1298).9 Nevertheless, it is a pity that Wright does not ask why, with his new realized eschatology, Paul could not just ignore the first half of the Jewish tradition and embrace a doctrine of an all-out holy war against Rome, the alleged fourth beast of Dan 7, as bar-Kochba and his followers did. It is likely, as Wright says, that before his conversion Paul held the hardline Pharisaic or “Shammaite” position and therefore did not pay much attention to the first half of the Jewish tradition. But then why did he come to value it so much as to take up the “Hillelite” position after the Damascus revelation? Under Wright’s assumption, is it not more logical to think that his new realized eschatology would have hardened Paul in his hardline position against pagan rulers? Wright himself recognizes that “Paul’s viewpoint was closer … to the inaugurated eschatologies of Qumran … and bar-Kochba” (1280) and that “[realized eschatology] by itself might simply have meant, as bar-Kochba’s followers believed, ‘So the revolution has begun!’” (1306). Even without a realized eschatology of Paul’s kind or bar-Kochba’s kind, 9  What does Wright exactly mean with this concept of “balancing” here: to “relativize” submission to the authorities enjoined in 13:1–7?   – so to “encourage” or “discourage” it? Cf. n. 28 below.

230

Paul and the Roman Empire

the Maccabees were able to set aside the first half of the Jewish tradition and wage war against Syria. Then how much more could (or rather should) Paul, with his realized eschatology, have done the same against Rome? When at the Damascus revelation Paul, the hardline Pharisaic anti-imperialist, saw the Messiah Jesus as having defeated the Satanic forces and been installed as the true ruler of the world, would it not have been much more natural for him to conclude that God had at last judged the pagan rulers and therefore their commission by God had expired, and that they should be destroyed since they were nevertheless not submitting to the Messiah Jesus but rather perpetrating evil and suffering in the world and even persecuting his church? But Wright thinks that Paul’s new eschatological perspective led him instead just to modify the first half of the traditional Jewish stance toward the pagan rulers as shown in Rom 13:1–7 and 11–14. However, is it credible that while proclaiming that the Messiah Jesus was now ruling the world and was in the process of mopping up and destroying the defeated “rulers of this age” or Satanic forces in order to bring about what was reserved for the eschatological not-yet (1 Cor 15:20–28), Paul still commanded the Messiah’s people in Rome to honor and obey the (Roman) authorities, whom he allegedly saw as the chief agent of the Satanic forces of sin and death, the fourth beast of Dan 7? Wright himself says that Paul taught that while waiting for the Lord Jesus’ return and transformation of the whole world (not-yet), the Messiah Jesus’ people “must not make the mistake of giving credence to the blasphemous claim of Rome,” the fourth beast of Dan 7, which “the one God is sweeping away” (1299). But isn’t honoring and obeying the Roman rulers precisely a way of “giving credence to the blasphemous claim of Rome”? Wright tries to make Rom 13:1–7 harmless by declaring it to be just “an implicit nevertheless” (1308). But is it possible to imagine that Paul said to the believers: “When you look at the Roman Empire you can glimpse the face of the Monster of Dan 7 (1311), whom the Messiah Jesus has already defeated and is in the process of destroying. Nevertheless, the imperial rulers still remain as God’s servants who maintain justice for your good, and so honor and obey them and pay taxes to them”? Thus, Wright’s theory in effect attributes to Paul a self-contradiction. It appears that so long as Wright maintains his assumption that Paul saw Rome as the unique agent of the Satanic forces, the Monster of Dan 7, he cannot get away with a mere declaration that there is just an “apparent tension” between 1 Cor 15:20–28 and Rom 13:1–7 (1280), which can be resolved through an appeal to the twofold Jewish stance to pagan rulers or a theory of eschatological modification of it. Seen under Wright’s assumption, the two passages contradict each other. Of course, Paul could have committed such a self-contradiction. But before reaching that extreme conclusion, we need to ask why Wright’s assumption should be maintained when it is so clearly contradicted by the Pauline texts themselves such as Rom 13:1–7, which can be coherently explained without that assumption.

3. Wright Makes Paul a Twin of John of Revelation

231

(d) A Holy War against the Satanic Forces with the Weapons of Truth and Love Nevertheless, at least in the following statement, Wright presents the effect of the Damascus revelation of Christ quite properly: Paul did not, however, advocate the normal sort of revolution. There can be little doubt that Saul of Tarsus would have done so, had he stayed in Jerusalem as a hard-line-rightwing Pharisee through the 50s and on into the 60s and its disastrous war. The biggest revolution in his own political thought happened not simply because he believed that the Messiah had now come. That by itself might simply have meant, as bar-Kochba’s followers believed, “So the revolution has begun!” The much larger transformation came with the apocalyptic unveiling of the saving plan of Israel’s God in the form of the crucified Messiah. The eschaton had not simply been inaugurated; it had been reshaped. A different fulfilment; a different kind of victory; a different kind of political theology (1306, his italics).

We have just seen how Wright misuses this correct insight about the realized eschatology to explain Paul’s exhortation to obey the authorities (Rom 13:1–7). With that problem set aside, we can gladly agree with Wright’s statement above. The revelation of Jesus as the Messiah, God’s Son enthroned, that is, the Lord over the whole world (Rom 1:3–4; Gal 1:12–17), did lead Paul to think: “So the revolution has begun!” However, as Wright expands the above statement elsewhere (1287–88), by disclosing that the Messiah Jesus had won the victory not by a military campaign but through his crucifixion and resurrection, that revelation led Paul to redefine the messianic war. To this redefinition contributed also the insight that the Satanic forces of sin and death operated behind human rulers as well as idols (and the subsequent knowledge that Jesus had fought those enemies, rather than Rome as such). So, Paul came to understand that the messianic war that the Messiah Jesus’ followers had to carry on was not against any human kingdom or even Rome, but the Satanic forces of sin and death (1 Cor 15:20–28; Eph 6:12),10 and that the armor required was not physical sword and spear but “truth as a belt, justice as a breastplate, the gospel of peace for shoes, faith for a shield, salvation as a helmet and God’s word as a sword” (Eph 6:10–17; cf. also 2 Cor 6:3–10; 10:3–5; 1 Thess 5:8). In other words, Paul came to understand that “the victory which the Messiah’s followers must now implement is not the transfer of ordinary political and military power from one group to another, but the transformation of that power itself into something different altogether” – the greatest power, namely Love (cf. also 1282, 1298, 1306–07, 1319). With such an understanding of the Christian redefinition of the messianic war or holy war, Wright distances himself from R. A. Horsley, N. Elliott,11 etc. who  Cf. n. 7 above.   E. g., R. A.  Horsley, Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance: Applying the Work of James Scott to Jesus and Paul (Atlanta: SBL Literature, 2004); idem, Paul and the Roman Imperial Order (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2004); N. Elliott, Liberating Paul: The 10 11

232

Paul and the Roman Empire

understand it in terms of a real political revolution like the one pursued later by bar-Kochba’s followers (1273, passim). At the same time, criticizing (wrongly) those like C. Bryan and me12 for pietistically focusing only on the “supernatural and ‘spiritual’ forces” and ignoring “the political realities” (1273), Wright stresses that it is “through arrogant tyranny” as well as “chaotic anarchy” that the Satanic forces operate (1288), and that “Paul’s vision of the kingdom, its present reality and future consummation, remained emphatically this-worldly. … It was about the transformation, not the abandonment, of present reality” (1307). So, according to Wright, we must recognize that instead of pursuing “an apolitical and dehistoricized spirituality” (1307), Paul sought a real revolution, a real “subversion” of Rome with the gospel of Jesus the Messiah, albeit not the kind of bar-Kochba or a modern Marxist (1288, 1306–07). Except those who indeed have either a Gnostic or a Marxist inclination (1288), few would disagree with the view that Paul sought to bring about a “subversion,” in the sense of a transformation, of the present reality of “this age/world” or the “crooked and perverse generation” (Phil 2:15) with his vision of the kingdom of God and his Son Jesus the Lord. However, questions still remain with Wright: Did Paul really think of Rome as the unique agent of the Satanic forces, as the fourth beast of Dan 7? If he did, how did he then try concretely to bring about a subversion or transformation of that present reality created and maintained by it? (e) So, Wright Turns Paul into the Likeness of John of Revelation Below we shall examine how Wright handles the latter question. For the moment, however, we would like to point out that so long as he insists that Paul viewed Rome as the unique or chief agent of the Satanic forces, the fourth beast of Dan  7, his above explanation amounts to turning Paul into the likeness of John of Revelation. Having argued that Paul saw Rome as the Monster of Dan 7 in “the language of Revelation” (1311), Wright himself draws more parallels between Paul and Revelation (1317–18). He does this in order to justify, contra Barclay’s criticism, his search for many allusions to and echoes of Rome in the Pauline epistles, using R. B. Hays’s criteria,13 even if Rome is not mentioned.

Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1994); idem, The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008). Actually, in this new book Wright distances himself also from his earlier self, presenting a much-modified version of the counter-imperial interpretation of Paul that he presented in his numerous earlier writings. 12 C. Bryan, Render to Caesar: Jesus, the Early Church, and the Roman Superpower (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); Kim, Christ and Caesar. 13  R. B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989).

3. Wright Makes Paul a Twin of John of Revelation

233

However, curiously, Wright fails to see the more important parallels between John of Revelation and the Paul of his own interpretation: (1) his stress on the “uncanny” parallelism of the narratives between the gospel of the Messiah Jesus and the Roman imperial propaganda as well as the parallelism between the Christological titles and the Roman imperial titles, (2) his conclusion that therefore the Roman imperial propaganda was a unique parody of the gospel of the Messiah Jesus, and (3) his insistence that Paul saw Rome as the unique or chief agent of the Satanic forces, the fourth beast of Dan 7, all make Paul parallel to John, who presents Caesar (1) as the fourth beast of Dan 7, the chief agent of Satan the Dragon, and (2) as a blasphemous claimant to divine names and worship and to universal lordship, as well as presenting (3) Caesar’s gospel of pax romana as a parody of the gospel of the Messiah Jesus (Rev 13; 17). (4) Wright’s stress on Paul’s gospel of the Messiah Jesus’ victory over Satan through his crucifixion and resurrection as well as on his new doctrine of the church’s messianic war against Rome, the Monster, in cruciform or with the weapons of truth and love also makes Paul parallel to John, who presents Jesus “the Lion of Judah” as having won his victory over Satan as “the Lamb slaughtered” and raised to God’s throne (Rev 5), and as leading his church as the army of the holy war to win victory over Rome the Beast and his troops by following the Lamb, that is, by faithfully witnessing to his true gospel of God’s kingdom even unto martyrdom (Rev 7, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19–20). Thus, Wright makes Paul a twin of John of Revelation. (f) But Paul Is Different from John of Revelation Since both Paul and John preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, there are bound to be some parallels in substance, such as proclaiming the Messiah Jesus’ victory over Satan through his sacrificial death and resurrection and teaching the church to carry out the holy war against the Satanic forces by following his example, that is, by proclaiming his gospel of God’s kingdom in self-sacrificing love. However, there are clear differences between Paul and John of Revelation: whereas John conveys that message in clearly recognizable anti-Roman language and imagery, Paul does not do so. To begin with, Paul does not employ a “coded” language for Rome (on 2 Thess 2:3–10, see below), while John does it so many times and in barely hidden ways: the beast whose mortal wound was healed, 666, a woman sitting on a scarlet beast, the great harlot who is seated upon many waters, Babylon, “the city set upon seven hills, ruling the kings of the earth and welcoming merchants from around the world and so on” (PFG, 1317). Thus, with these clearly recognizable codes for Rome, Revelation presents an entirely different situation from that of the Pauline epistles in which there is no such code, so that Wright has to employ Hays’s method loosely to detect allusions to Rome,14 pro14 For

criticism, see Barclay, “Why the Roman Empire Was Insignificant to Paul,” 380.

234

Paul and the Roman Empire

ducing results that do not command an easy consent (see below). Nor can Paul’s scattered employment of various military metaphors (often alongside athletic metaphors) for diverse purposes or targets15 be compared with John’s striking use of them to produce his distinctive form of gospel preaching, that is, the form of presenting Jesus as “the Lion of Judah” commanding the twelve legions drawn from the twelve tribes of Israel in the holy war against the “Beast” and his troops and winning the victory. Furthermore, we must note that Revelation presents a clear example of what the inaugurated eschatology of the Messiah Jesus’ victory over Satan and present reign over the world (Rev 4–5, 12) did to a Jewish Christian preacher of the gospel in the first century who saw Rome/Caesar as the chief agent of Satan, the fourth beast of Dan 7. It made John completely dispense with the first half of the traditional Jewish stance to pagan rulers and concentrate on presenting the enthroned Messiah as destroying the Roman Empire (and thereby the Satanic trinity), and his church as serving as his army in his holy war. In Revelation there is nothing equivalent to Rom 13:1–7! In view of what we observed earlier, we will have to say that with this consistent presentation in Revelation John proved to be a logical and coherent interpreter of the twofold Jewish tradition in the light of the inaugurated eschatology. But then in the face of this clear example of John, should we accept the Paul of Wright’s reconstruction who produces only a muddled and self-contradictory application of the Jewish tradition to Rome, the Monster, in the post-Easter situation? These fundamental differences between the Pauline epistles and Revelation dissuade us from reading out essentially the same kind of anti-Roman polemic in the former as in the latter. Thus, this comparison of Paul with Revelation also makes it difficult to maintain Wright’s assumption that Paul saw the Roman Empire as the chief agent of the Satanic forces, as the fourth beast of Dan 7, as Revelation did. At this point, however, Wright might point to 2 Thess 2:1–12 as showing that Paul did see Caesar as the agent of Satan. There Paul says that before the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ “the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God” (vv. 3–4), that “the coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception” (vv. 9–10), and that “the Lord Jesus will slay [the lawless one] … by his appearing and his coming” (v. 8). Wright argues that since in the first century only the Roman emperor could fit the description of “the man of lawlessness” in vv. 3–4 and the description was most likely made with Gaius Caligula as a template, Paul was here referring to a future Caesar who would act as Satan’s puppet (1290–91). 15 Cf.

V. C. Pfitzner, Paul and the Agon Motif (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 157–64.

3. Wright Makes Paul a Twin of John of Revelation

235

However, even if we grant a literal interpretation of the description of “the man of lawlessness” and its reference to a Roman emperor,16 the point to be stressed here is that Paul thought of a future Caesar, who would appear only after “he who now restraints [his appearance] … is out of the way” (v. 7). Thus, Paul could have anticipated that a Caesar would appear as “the man of lawlessness” leading the whole world to rebel against God, his order and rule, and that then the Lord Jesus Christ would come to destroy him and judge the world and consummate the salvation of the saints. Thus Paul could have envisaged a scenario of the eschatological drama taking place in the future, which is broadly similar to the one that John depicts in Revelation. But at the time of writing 2 Thessalonians (probably AD 50) Paul did not see the Caesar of his time as that “man of lawlessness,” whereas John saw the Caesar of his time (probably AD 90s), or the whole emperorship of the Roman Empire, as such, and therein lies the most fundamental difference between Paul and John of Revelation. As we have seen, Wright correctly declares that for Paul’s political theology “eschatology is all” (1275). We have pointed out that nevertheless he failed to use this insight to interpret Paul’s political theology properly. Here we note the same problem. Yes, for Paul’s political theology, “the key question is, ‘what time is it?’” (1275). But, again, Wright is not applying here that insight correctly. For John, it was already the time in which, as the agent completely empowered and operated by Satan, the Caesar was leading the whole world to rebellion against God, so that the Lord Jesus Christ’s coming to destroy him and redeem the world was imminent. For Paul, however, it was not yet the time for that Caesar to be revealed. Therefore, the time was not yet ripe for the Lord Jesus Christ to come. This means that Paul could well have seen that the Caesar of his time, not (or not yet) being that “lawless one,” the exclusive tool of Satan, was still serving God in some ways even if serving Satan in more ways. Hence, Paul could give the exhortations in Rom 13:1–7 and cautiously expect to be released at his forthcoming trial before him (Phil 1:19–26), even while lumping him among “the rulers of this age/world,” the doomed opponents of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor 2:6–8). Therefore, it is conceivable that believing that he had to complete his apostolic mission of bringing all the nations to “the obedience of faith” in the Lord Jesus Christ or “the full number of the Gentiles” into the kingdom of God and his Son Jesus Christ (Rom 1:3–6; 11:25–26; 15:18; 16:25–26) during the short period remaining before the revelation of that Caesar, the complete tool of Satan, and the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ, Paul was more ready (than he otherwise might have been) to appreciate the positive side of the Roman Empire, pax romana, as providing necessary physical conditions for his worldwide mission, although he 16  A metaphorical interpretation is also possible: e. g., I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (NCBC; London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1983), 191–92.

236

Paul and the Roman Empire

was fully aware, and sometimes even critical (e. g., 1 Cor 2:6–8; 6:1; 8:5; Phil 2:15; 1 Thess 5:3), of its negative side, the ultimately sham nature of its propaganda and the wickedness of its practices of oppression, injustice, corruption, etc., which he had to bear in his own body and had to exhort Christians to persevere patiently through during the short interim period before Christ’s parousia with the hope for the consummation of the salvation that they had already obtained in Christ (Rom 5:3–5; 8:18–39; 1 Cor 7:29–31; Phil 1:27–30; 1 Thess 5:8–11; etc.).17 Thus, Wright’s assumption that Paul saw Caesar or the Roman Empire (of his time) as the chief agent of Satan, the fourth monster of Dan 7, and his ensuing attempt to present Paul’s gospel as having a counter-Roman character as does Revelation are not convincing.

4. Wright’s Interpretation of Some Epistles (a) 1 Thess 4–5 For Wright, the “clear and ‘apocalyptic’ reference to Rome” in 2 Thess 2:1–12 supports his seeing a similar reference to Rome in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11, specifically in presenting Jesus’ parousia as an “upstaging of Caesar’s parousia,” and in dismissing the Roman boast of “peace and security” (5:3). So, according to Wright, as Paul refers in 2 Thess 2 to “the blasphemous boasts of the Roman emperors,” in 1 Thess 5 he refers dismissively to “the imperial boast of protection” (1291– 92). It is reasonable to see that by using the vocabulary παρουσία/ἀπάντησις in 1 Thess 4:13–18 Paul was conjuring up the pompous ritual of an emperor’s or other high official’s visit to a city in order to present the Lord Jesus’ eschatological coming in a majestic way, and that in the dismissive reference to the slogan of “peace and security”18 in 1 Thess 5:3 Paul was warning the Thessalonians against buying that vain Roman propaganda and falling into complacency and conformity to the Roman world. However, can we see here a more active or serious counter-imperial intent of “subverting” the Roman Empire? If Paul meant to depict the Lord Jesus’ parousia really as an upstaging of the parousia of Caesar in 1 Thess 4:13–18, Paul was intimating that Caesar was a parody of the real κύριος Jesus, and Caesar’s parousia was a mere parody of the real Kyrios Jesus’ parousia. This may be seen as naturally expected of Paul, if he was 17  See now Essay 13 “‘The Restraining Thing’ (τὸ κατέχον) and ‘the Restraining Person’ (ὁ κατέχων) of ‘the Lawless Man’ (2 Thess 2:1–12)” below in this volume.

18  E. g., J. A. D. Weima, “‘Peace and Security’ (1 Thess 5.3): Prophetic Warning or Political Propaganda?” NTS 58 (2012): 331–59; but cf. also J. R. White, “‘Peace and Security’ (1 Thess 5.3): Is It Really a Roman Slogan?” NTS 59 (2013): 382–95; idem, “‘Peace’ and ‘Security’ (1 Thess 5.3): Roman Ideology and Greek Aspiration,” NTS 60 (2014): 499–510.

4. Wright’s Interpretation of Some Epistles

237

so conscious of Caesar and the Roman imperial propaganda being a parody of the Lord Jesus Christ and his gospel, as Wright insists. But then why did Paul fail to make that point clear in 1 Thess 5:1–11 while actually doing what he rarely did elsewhere, that is, referring explicitly to what could be regarded as an expression of Caesar’s “gospel,” namely, “peace and security”? Why didn’t Paul declare there that Caesar’s “peace and security” was just a parody of the real peace and security that the Lord Jesus Christ would bring? Why did Paul leave the whole category of “peace and security” as soon as he mentioned it, and present Christ’s salvation instead in terms of the resurrection life (4:13–18) and redemption from God’s wrath (5:9–10; also 1:10; 3:12–13)?19 Had Paul intended to subvert Rome by contrasting Christ with Caesar in 4:13–5:11, would he not have connected his criticism of Roman “peace and security” directly with his description of the Lord Jesus’ parousia in the first half of the apocalyptic section (4:13–18)? But how come he connected that description with the resurrection of the dead and our being with the Lord Jesus, while connecting his criticism of Roman “peace and security” with redemption from God’s wrath (5:1–11)? Here, then, seeking to compare Christ’s benefits with Caesar’s benefits, did Paul end up comparing apples with oranges? If Paul had really thought of Caesar in 4:13–18, would he not have at least alluded to his impotence with regard to death or even to his being a bringer of death (PFG, 1311), while affirming Christ as the bringer of the resurrection life? All these considerations make us wonder whether in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 Paul was really polemicizing against Caesar and his false gospel. They rather lead us to conclude that being concerned to proclaim Christ’s salvation (the redemption from God’s wrath, and the resurrection life)20 that transcended far beyond the “salvation” that Caesar boasted of bringing, Paul did not bother to compare Christ with Caesar, except warning the believers not to lose Christ’s salvation by failing to stay awake in faith through being complacent in the supposed peaceful and secure life of the Roman world. Above we have noted that like Barclay Wright also thinks that Paul’s disregard of Caesar’s claim to deity and his relegation of him as a mere agent of the Satanic or divine “powers” amounts to a real anti-imperial act on his part. If in 1 Thess 4–5 we have to find anti-imperialism, we can find only that kind – not the kind that Wright and other anti-imperialist interpreters suggest. For Paul’s presentation of Christ’s salvation in an entirely different category from that of Caesar’s “salvation” (“peace and security”) and his refusal even to compare it as superior to Caesar’s may be said to amount to an

19 Cf. the questionable attempt of Heilig (Hidden Criticisms? 129–36) to answer this question by arguing that counter-imperial criticism was not Paul’s “primary intention” in his epistles but something that he wanted only to imply in the subtext. 20 This proclamation of Paul is consistent with his understanding of (sin and) death as “the last enemy” that Christ was to destroy in his parousia (1 Cor 15:20–28, 54–56; Rom 5–8).

238

Paul and the Roman Empire

“anti-imperial act” of simply ignoring Caesar and his empire or regarding them as not worthy even of a negative comparison with Christ and his kingdom. The same point can be observed in other Pauline epistles as well. (b) Philippians Wright has a field day with the hymn in Phil 2:6–11, arguing that it is “telling the story of Jesus so that it echoes and upstages the story of Caesar” (1294) and almost every detail, especially in vv. 9–11, sets Christ over against Caesar to declare him as the true Kyrios and Savior who is to receive the universal submission and homage (1294–95). Naturally linking Phil 3:20–21 with this hymn, Wright argues that there again Paul is presenting Christ’s coming from heaven as the savior to echo and upstage Caesar’s coming from Rome to rescue a beleaguered colony (1292–93). He backs up this interpretation by referring to the history of Philippi having been one of the key battle sites of the Roman civil war, from which Augustus had emerged as the victor, claiming to have brought the whole world peace and prosperity, and to the fact that hence Augustus and his successors were acclaimed as “savior” and “lord” and the Philippians were constantly reminded of the blessings of Caesar’s empire by statues, temples, coins, inscriptions, festivals, etc. Wright argues that hearing within that “echo chamber” what Paul had to say in Philippians, the Philippian believers could not help but understand it in reference to Caesar and his empire (1292–93). So, they would have understood Paul as saying not only that Jesus was the true “savior,” “lord,” and “Christos, the Messiah, the Jewish king destined to be lord of the whole world” (1293), but also that their citizenship (πολίτευμα) was not of “the merely earthly [city or kingdom],” but of the heavenly one that was “destined to come into being on earth as in heaven” (1293). Then, finding it interesting that in the immediate sequel to 2:6–11 Paul urges the Philippian believers to “work at bringing about your own salvation” (2:12; Wright’s rendering), Wright interprets the exhortation to mean that the Philippian believers in Jesus as the true Lord and Savior had “the task of working out, in the practical details of everyday life within Caesar’s world, what it would mean … to explore the sōteria which Jesus offered instead” (1295). For this, according to Wright, Paul gave “some pointers” in Phil 3, trusting that God who was at work among them (2:13) would help them figure out “their own variety of ‘salvation’” as well as “their own variety of politeuma, ‘citizenship’” (1295). For Wright, the “pointers” that Paul gave in Phil 3 consisted in urging them to surrender their privileges as Roman subjects (3:18–21), imitating his giving up his own Jewish privileges (3:4–16) as well as Christ’s surrender of his divine privileges (2:6–11) (1295–97). Then, in reference to Phil 3:1b, Wright claims that Paul gave just these “pointers” (in code, 1314–17) for them to work out “‘their own salvation’ for themselves” from there because it would “be safer to make such a

4. Wright’s Interpretation of Some Epistles

239

hint than to write a letter explaining in detail precisely what he thinks about the blasphemous claims of Caesar” (1297, 1315). Since it is reasonable to suppose the existence in Philippi of the “echo chamber” that Wright talks about, we need not deny that the Philippians could have heard echoes of Caesar in what Paul wrote in Philippians.21 However, we need to question whether thereby Paul was intending to subvert Caesar’s claims and shake the Philippians’ allegiance to his rule, as Wright suggests. To begin with, Wright’s interpretation of Phil 3 is full of difficulties. It is not just his idiosyncratic taking of the word “safe” (ὀκνηρός, 3:1b)22 and connecting of chapter  3 with 2:12. More seriously, it is difficult to understand why Paul might have seen it politically more dangerous to advise the Philippian believers to surrender their privileges as Roman subjects than to present Jesus as the true Lord and Savior, countering “the blasphemous claims of Caesar” (2:6–11; 3:20–21), so that he had to put the former in a coded language for the safety of his readers while declaring the latter so clearly that anybody who did not have “deaf-ears” might hear, as Wright claims (1293). Wright says that not only for his readers’ safety but also for the letter’s brevity Paul could do no more than provide some “pointers” or “suggestions” (1295). But Phil 3 is a long enough space in which he could have provided a clear explanation about “their own variety of ‘salvation’,” instead of making those “pointers” as “a kind of sustained hint” about it (1296; italics added).23 It is just a pity that with only some “pointers” or “hints” but no clear explanation the shape of the Philippians’ “own variety of ‘salvation’” still remains hazy to us even after Wright’s decoding of them. Would it have been connected with the “transformation of [their] lowly body to be like his glorious body” that Paul said Christ Jesus the Lord and Savior would bring at his parousia? If it was, in what way? Nevertheless, Wright is making Paul a most erratic person: Having all but openly challenged Caesar as a fake lord and savior, a mere parody of the real Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2:6–11), he sought to hide his counter-imperial message in a coded language (3:1–17), but then turned again to mocking Caesar and his “salvation” unmistakably clearly! (3:18–21). If in Phil 2:6–11 and 3:20–21 Paul had really meant deliberately to challenge Caesar in proclaiming the Messiah Jesus as the true Lord and Savior of the whole world, he must have been not just erratic but even lunatic. For he wrote that letter in a prison under the Praetorian Guard’s watchful eyes (1:13), waiting for a trial before Caesar and hoping to be acquitted and set free (1:19–26). By disclosing that the praetorian guard believed in his innocence of a political crime  Pace Barclay, “Why the Roman Empire Was Insignificant to Paul,” 379. Wright’s interpretation is correct, by choosing the all-revealing word “safe” to signal to his converts his “coded” message to follow, Paul foolishly alerted suspicious readers to investigate it! 23  Does Paul clearly explain to the Roman and Corinthian Christians “their own variety of ‘salvation’” in his much longer epistles to them? 21

22 If

240

Paul and the Roman Empire

(1:13) and that he had won over some members of Caesar’s household with his gospel of Jesus the Lord and Savior (4:22), Paul was increasing Caesar’s alarm about his suspicious activities and endangering the safety of those two groups too! Or did Paul believe that Caesar and other Roman officials all had the kind of “deaf-ears” that Wright is attributing to the critics of his counter-imperial interpretation (1293), while Christians in Philippi, Thessalonica, and elsewhere had “the ears to hear” (cf. esp. 1315)?24 As we have seen, Wright stresses the history and nature of Philippi as a Roman colony to support his counter-imperial interpretation of Philippians. But strangely, he ignores those actual circumstances in which Paul wrote the epistle. Wright argues that “Paul would not have faced riots, imprisonment and the threat of death,” had he just taught “an apolitical and dehistoricized spirituality” (1307). Certainly, some of those troubles could well have been caused by a suspicion of his gospel being not just religiously and culturally unacceptable but politically subversive, as Luke well illustrates in Acts 17:1–9. But curiously Wright never considers the fact that Paul was set free from all those situations up to the moment of writing 2 Cor 11:23 (cf. 1 Thess 2:2; 2 Cor 1:8–10), and was now hoping to be released at the trial before Caesar again (Phil 1:19–26). Would it have been possible for the Roman and local officials to acquit and release Paul if they had found that his “gospel” was so counter-imperial as Wright insists it was? Would they not have rather turned him over to a slave market or even put him to death for treason and crack down on his churches? The fact of the matter is that, as in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11, so also in Phil 3:20– 21, Paul defined the salvation that the Lord Jesus Christ would bring, not as something comparable to Caesar’s salvation, such as peace and prosperity, but as something categorically different, as the “transformation of our lowly body to be like his glorious body.” Thus, even while presenting Christ’s parousia in a form that evoked Caesar’s majestic parousia, Paul was in fact discouraging his readers from understanding Christ in terms of Caesar. For by this striking definition of Christ’s salvation, Paul was meaning that the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ would give us a glorious resurrection body like his own (cf. 1 Cor 15:44, 51–53) and thus make us become like himself who was in “the form of God” and was “the image of God” (2:6–11; 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15), so that we might become like God and participate in his glory (cf. Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18; Col 24  Cf. L. H. Cohick, “Philippians and Empire,” in Jesus Is Lord, Caesar Is Not: Evaluating Empire in New Testament Studies (ed. S. McKnight and J. B. Modica; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2013), 175–77. It is a serious flaw of J. D. Fantin (The Lord of the Entire World: Lord Jesus, a Challenge to Lord Caesar? [Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011], 219–66) to argue for the anti-imperial nature of the confession of Jesus’ lordship in 1 Cor 8:5–6; Eph 4:5; 1 Cor 12:3; Rom 10:9; and Phil 2:11 by taking those passages out of their epistolary contexts and without considering the sort of concerns raised in this and the following paragraphs (pace his argument in 259–65).

4. Wright’s Interpretation of Some Epistles

241

3:10). Here it is easy to imagine that some Greco-Roman hearers scorned Paul for teaching “Jewish religious nonsense” (cf. 1 Cor 1:18; 15:35; Acts 17:32; 26:24), but it is hard to see how anybody could have taken Paul as challenging Caesar or subverting the Roman Empire with such a teaching.25 Clearly the members of Caesar’s household who are mentioned in Phil 4:22 did not take Paul that way, and so they embraced his gospel. Apparently even the praetorian guard in Paul’s place of imprisonment did not see any problem with his gospel (Phil 1:12–14).26 Therefore, even while presenting Jesus in a majestic way with the language and imagery drawn from Roman imperial rituals as well as from Jewish tradition, Paul was cautiously hopeful that he would be acquitted by Caesar’s tribunal if he explained the real nature of Christ Jesus’ rule and salvation. Paul certainly knew that the Lord Jesus’ rule through the Holy Spirit had not only the so-called spiritual effects but also political effects (cf. Phil 1:27; see below), but he did not see them as subversive to the Roman Empire in such a way as to antagonize its rulers. (c) 1 Corinthians Wright does not give 1 Corinthians a separate treatment as he does 1–2 Thessalonians, Philippians, and Romans. Nevertheless, 1 Cor 2:6–8; 8:5–6; and 15:20– 28, 51–57 (cf. also 2 Cor 2:14) play an important role in his counter-imperial interpretation of Paul’s gospel. From Paul’s statement in 2:6–8, Wright infers that we should take Paul’s references to “powers” or “rulers” not merely in terms of “spiritual” forces but rather in terms of the interplay between human “powers” and non-human “powers,” that is, as presupposing the worldview that, just as demons are at work behind and within the pagan “deities,” so also the “power of unseen forces [operate] behind and within the actual humans who wield power” (1284–85). So, in 1 Cor 15:20–28, Wright recognizes that in line with this worldview Paul was stressing that Christ Jesus God’s Son was to destroy not “Babylon, or Syria, or even Rome, but ‘sin’ and ‘death’ themselves” with God’s kingship delegated to him (1287). However, Wright immediately turns around to argue that to say “it isn’t empires that destroy human life, it’s the demons that stand behind them,” is as wrong as to say “it isn’t guns that kill people, it’s people that kill 25  Cf. C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 2: xlviii. 26 Note how innocently Paul speaks of the praetorian guard’s and others’ knowledge of his imprisonment as having happened “on account of Christ” and counts it positively as something that served the advance of the gospel. Had Paul loaded his gospel of Christ with a counter-imperial meaning as Wright and others insist, wouldn’t he have rather feared that the praetorian guard’s having that knowledge would endanger the safety of himself and his converts and hurt the advance of the gospel? And how could “most of the brethren have been made confident in the Lord” because of his imprisonment and become “much bolder” to preach the gospel “without fear”?

242

Paul and the Roman Empire

people,” and to urge that therefore we should recognize that “dark forces operate through arrogant tyranny” (1288). Then Wright contends that Paul saw “[the demonic] powers [particularly ‘death’] coming together and doing their worst precisely in and through Rome itself,” so that “when he looked at the Roman Empire he glimpsed the face of the Monster,” the fourth beast of Dan 7 (1311). If so, when in 1 Cor 15:24–26 Paul speaks about Christ Jesus destroying “every rule and every authority and power” and “death” as “the last enemy” in his parousia, does he have Rome, the chief agent of these forces, especially in mind as Revelation does (cf. Rev 19:11–20:15)? In the long chapter of 1 Cor 15, he does not appear to be suggesting it in any way. Instead, when he comes to elaborate on the point of v. 26 later in vv. 54–57, he relates “death” to “sin” and “the law,” giving the impression that his thought is moving in the Jewish theological world rather than in the Roman political world, an impression that is further strengthened in Rom 7, which could well be seen as an unfolding of 1 Cor 15:54–57. It is reasonable to think that in 1 Cor 2:6–8 Paul quite consciously includes the Roman regime among “the rulers of this age” who crucified Jesus, and that in his reference to “many gods and many lords” “in heaven or on earth” (8:5), Paul includes Caesars venerated with such titles. So, then, what does Paul make of that consciousness in 1 Corinthians? What does Paul ask the Corinthian believers to do with Rome? Perhaps in 1 Cor 8–10 Paul implicitly includes the imperial cult in his warning about heathen idolatry in general. Otherwise, we find Paul exhorting them to do no more than this: Do not follow “this (Romedominated) world’s” wisdom, their ethos, or their idolatrous, self-seeking, and corrupt way of life as it is demonic and sinful, but live a life of faith, love, and hope, or pursue truth, righteousness, holiness, love, humility, communal peace, etc. This exhortation is the same as that which he imparts to the Philippians and others (cf. Eph 6:10–20) and succinctly summarizes in Rom 12:1–2. How “subversive” was it to the Roman Empire then? Is it proper to designate it as “counter-imperial”? (d) Romans Wright takes the inclusion between Rom 1:3–6 and 15:7–12 as one of the clearest signs of Paul’s counter-imperial gospel (1299–1301). In the opening section of his letter to the Romans, Paul defines the “gospel” as concerning “God’s Son,” who, in fulfillment of the promises of 2 Sam 7:12–14; Pss 2:7; 110:1; etc., was incarnate as the “seed of David” and raised from the dead and installed as “the Son of God” with God’s sovereign power invested, that is, as the “Lord” over all. And Paul identifies himself as an apostle of this Lord Jesus, who was commissioned to proclaim this gospel and bring all the nations to “the obedience of faith” to him. Wright sees that with this gospel Paul is countering Caesar Augustus and his successors to whom similar titles and claims are attributed. Then, seeing that

4. Wright’s Interpretation of Some Epistles

243

Paul concludes Romans (15:7–12) by celebrating the fulfillment in the Messiah Jesus of God’s promises to the patriarchs of Israel and the prophecies about the nations also finding God’s mercy under the rule of “the root of Jesse” (Isa 11:10; etc.), Wright suggests that we should see Paul developing in the main body of Romans this main theme announced in the inclusion, echoing the claims of Rome to have brought salvation to the world, justice, peace, and a golden age of prosperity: “The ‘gospel’ of the ‘son of God’ provides apocalyptic unveiling of the divine justice, through which salvation comes to all who believe (1.16–17); this results in ‘peace’ (5.1), and in the ultimate new world when the whole creation will be set free from its slavery to corruption (8.19–21)” (1301). So in Romans Paul is to be seen as “deliberately outflanking the ‘gospel’ of the emperor with the gospel of Jesus” (1301). To confirm this thesis, however, Wright will have to resolve convincingly the problem that Barclay raises (379): “Paul never places the terms ‘good news’, ‘salvation’, or ‘faith/loyalty’ in antithesis with a Roman form of the same; the righteousness/justice of God is contrasted with that of the Torah, not of Rome.” Furthermore, we will need to consider also the facts that in Romans Paul uses the righteousness/justice/justification terminology mainly in reference to the God–human relationship, with a view to God’s judgment, and the concept of “peace,” if not in the Jewish sense of shalom (a state of overall well-being), likewise chiefly in reference to the God–human relationship and in association with “reconciliation” (5:1–11; 8:6; Eph 2:11–22; 6:15; cf. also 2 Cor 5:18–21), and that he applies both concepts to the relationship among people or social groups only in the senses of behaving properly to neighbors and living in harmony with them (Rom 6:16; 14:17–19; 2 Cor 6:14; Gal 5:22; Eph 2:11–22; 4:3; 6:14; Phil 4:2–9), but not in the political senses that evoke the Roman imperial propaganda of providing justice and peace to the world.27 Wright struggles to fit Rom 13:1–7 into his overall assessment of Romans as having a counter-Roman intent. So, first of all, he tries to diminish its relevance to the current discussion by stating: “This passage is not a comment on specifically Roman rule … It is a classic piece of Jewish writing about how to live wisely under alien rule” (1302–03). This is a surprising assertion from one who insists that not “this world” or its “rulers” in general but specifically Rome, the fourth empire of Dan 7, was a target of Paul’s implied polemic in his gospel preaching. Elsewhere, does Wright not argue to see Caesar lurking behind Paul’s mere use of the parousia language for the Lord Jesus’ coming and behind his bare mention of “peace and security” in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11? Has he not chided his critics for being ahistorical when they questioned the validity of such a view? Certainly the Roman readers of Romans would not have seen the passage 13:1–7 just as 27  For all this, cf. Kim, Christ and Caesar, 16–21. Cf. G. Schrenk, “δικαιοσύνη,” TDNT 2:210; W. Foerster, “εἰρήνη,” TDNT 2:411–18.

244

Paul and the Roman Empire

a “classic” statement about a Jewish tradition but as very concrete and relevant advice for their actual dealings with their Roman rulers. In order to render Rom 13:1–7 harmless, secondly, Wright argues that Paul’s statement about the rulers being servants of God really amounts to their demotion (1303). But Paul makes that statement positively to support his main point that Christians should honor and obey them! Then, thirdly, Wright stresses that Rom 13:1–7 should be seen in the context of Paul’s prohibition of “private vengeance” in 12:19 and his statement of realized eschatology in 13:11–14, or in the context of the whole of chapters 12–15 (1303–04). Certainly Rom 13:1–7 should be seen as an extended application of the teaching that Paul imparts to the Romans from 12:9 onward, to live in harmony with all people by practicing humility and love, even enemy love. However, it is unmistakable that in 13:1–7 Paul goes out of his way to stress the readers’ duty to honor and obey their rulers. And for a “classic” statement of the twofold Jewish tradition about pagan rulers, Paul stresses the rulers’ positive exercise of their powers for order and justice as servants of God far too one-sidedly to the total neglect of the other side of that tradition, namely, the idea that God would eventually judge the rulers for their failure to carry out their God-given functions properly. As seen above, Wright repeatedly emphasizes that Paul modified this second aspect of the Jewish tradition in the light of his realized eschatology and affirmed that God had already judged the rulers through the Messiah Jesus’ death and resurrection and that God would destroy them at the parousia of the Lord Jesus. Then, isn’t it rather strange that even referring to the realized or inaugurated eschatology in the subsequent passage of 13:11–14 Paul does not reflect that idea at all? For example, Paul does not say there that since “the day” is dawning, God would soon fulfill his pledge in Deut 32:35 cited in 12:19 and avenge those who are suffering from the injustice and oppression of the rulers (and that therefore the readers are not to resist evil rulers but to persevere with and obey them for the moment). In 13:11–14, without any such idea, Paul imparts only a general teaching that, as those who belong to “the day,” Christians must “conduct themselves becomingly” in obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ, shunning a sinful life that the flesh dictates (cf. 1:18–32). Thus, it is rather strange that Wright apparently sees Paul as supporting his command in 13:1–7 with that teaching in 13:11–14 (1303–04).28 To us, it appears best to see in Rom 13:1–7 that Paul did not present an academic statement on the Jewish tradition about pagan rulers or Christian view of the state but imparted a teaching immediately relevant to the Roman Christians: in view of some specific political and social problems that they were facing at that time, Paul was trying to dissuade them from joining some movements of civil disobedience or even rebellion. Because of this limited and specific purpose, 28 Cf.

n. 9 above.

4. Wright’s Interpretation of Some Epistles

245

in the passage he highlighted only the positive side of the Roman rulers, passing quietly over their negative side, which he often experienced himself and even criticized sometimes (e. g., 1 Cor 6:1; 1 Thess 5:3). Even so, it cannot be denied that his very positive evaluation of the Roman rulers in the passage reveals his underlying appreciation of the order and justice of the Roman Empire.29 Apparently, in spite of all their imperfection, Paul thought that they were far better than anarchy and chaos. Therefore, Rom 13:1–7 remains a stumbling block to any serious counter-imperial interpreter of Paul.30 All these considerations make it quite uncertain how much Paul really unfolded his gospel of Christ Jesus in Romans with an intent to counter the false “gospel” of Caesar. Thus, Wright’s counter-imperial interpretation of the Pauline epistles is not convincing. Further, Wright has also their Wirkungsgeschichte to contend with: he has to explain how come what he in the twenty-first century finds so clearly and critically attested in those epistles was apparently missed by Paul’s hearers and readers who actually lived under the Roman imperial rule – his Christian friends such as the members of Caesar’s household (Phil 4:22) and Erastus, the city treasurer (Rom 16:23), his theological heirs like the authors of the Pastorals (cf. 1 Tim 2:1–2; Tit 3:1; 1 Pet 2:13–17) and Clement and Tertullian, who lived in the periods in which the pressure of the imperial cult and hostility to Christianity were increasing, and even the guardians of the Roman imperial order such as the praetorian guard who watched him in prison (Phil 1:12–13) and the officials who released him after imprisonment at different cities (cf. 2 Cor 1:8–10; 11:23; 1 Thess 2:2). Should we not conclude that Paul’s audience of the first century did not find a counter-imperial message in his preaching and writings because there was none to find?31 29  Writing Romans in AD 56/57, Paul appears to be reflecting his appreciation of the relatively better reign of Claudius (AD 41–54) and the early Nero (AD 54–68) after the terrible reign of Caligula (AD 37–41), whom Paul uses as a model of “the man of lawlessness” in 2 Thess 2:3–10 for his deification of himself and his attempt to to have his statue erected in the temple of Jerusalem (AD 40). See comment ad loc. in my commentary and also my Essay 13 “‘The Restraining Thing’ (τὸ κατέχον) and ‘the Restraining Person’ (ὁ κατέχων) of ‘the Lawless Man’ (2 Thess 2:1–12)” below in this volume. 30  For all these, see Kim, Christ and Caesar, 36–43. 31 Cf. Kim, Christ and Caesar, 60–64; also Barclay, “Why the Roman Empire Was Insignificant to Paul,” 378; G. L. Gordon, “The Church Fathers and the Roman Empire,” in Empire in the NT (ed. S. E. Porter and C. L. Westfall; Eugene: Pickwick, 2011), 258–82. Wright (1313–14) counters this argument with the case of Polycarp refusing to “revile Christ” and confess “Caesar is lord” and “swear” by his “genius” at the trial before his martyrdom (Mart. Pol. 8.2; 9.2–3; 10.1). No doubt, many martyrs in the early church followed Polycarp’s example to their death when they were put to the same kind of ultimate test. Even the Jews like Philo and Josephus would have behaved in a similar way if they had been forced to do the same with regard to their Yahweh-Kyrios. But this does not prove that Polycarp and other martyrs understood the gospel as “subversive” to the Roman Empire and viewed the latter as an object to “subvert.” Did Philo and Josephus understand their loyalty to Yahweh-Kyrios as “subversive” to the Roman Empire?

246

Paul and the Roman Empire

5. The Rule of the Messiah Jesus, Justification, and “a United and Holy/Righteous Community” Another test of whether Paul was a counter-imperial theologian, and if he was, exactly in what sense he was, could be to examine what Paul taught Christians to do toward Rome. Our survey above of Pauline epistles has yielded the following: do not trust in the Roman “gospel” of “peace and security” (1 Thess 4–5) and do not participate in idolatry including the imperial cult (1 Cor 8–10). To them, Wright would add a couple of more disputable points: do not follow the wisdom or ethos of “this (Rome-dominated) world” and their self-seeking and corrupt way of life (1 Cor 1–10; Phil 2–3; Rom 12:1–2; etc.); and surrender your privileges as Roman subjects in order to be loyal to Jesus the true Lord (Phil 3). Quite apart from Rom 13:1–7, these few negative teachings appear quite meager for a theologian who is alleged to have employed such a sustained and powerful polemic against Rome, the fourth beast of Dan 7. In connection with Rom 15:12 (along with 1:1–6), Wright observes that as an apostle “Paul was there to announce [the Messiah Jesus’ rule over the nations] and to make it a reality” (1281). Elsewhere, he stresses that “Paul’s vision of the kingdom [of God and the Messiah], its present reality and future consummation, remained emphatically this-worldly … . It was about the transformation, not the abandonment, of present [earthly] reality” (1307). And still at other places he states that the church of the Lord Jesus as “a united and holy community of love” was a demonstration of the Messiah’s present rule, and as such it issued a challenge to the whole world, especially to Rome (1277–78, 1299). Therefore, Wright might want us to consider not just the few negative exhortations above, but Paul’s whole paraenesis for building up that community as essentially having a counter-imperial dimension. However, Wright does not explain how the Messiah Jesus’ rule actually takes place at present and how the kingdom of God and his Son Jesus the Messiah brings about the “transformation” of the present reality, issuing a challenge to the Roman Empire. So he explains even “the united and holy community of the Messiah Jesus” without any reference to the Lord Jesus’ present rule (384–450; cf. also 912–1042). This is rather strange of Wright, who insists on Paul’s use of On the contrary, while refusing to vow to the imperial cult, Polycarp is said to have offered to explain to the proconsul “the doctrine of Christianity,” saying that “we have been taught to pay proper respect to rulers and authorities appointed by God, as long as it does us no harm” (Mart. Pol. 10.2) – obviously alluding to the tradition of Rom 13:1–7. Didn’t Philo and Josephus in fact do exactly the same thing with regard to Judaism as what Polycarp was proposing to do with regard to Christianity? Tertullian is a good example of those who were adamant against the imperial cult but were still loyal to Caesar and his empire. It is reasonable to believe that Paul’s Christian friends and theological heirs had the same stance toward the Roman Empire and the imperial cult.

5. The Rule of the Messiah Jesus

247

Christos in its messianic sense, rendering the title regularly with “Messiah” and often also with “King” (815–911), and repeatedly stresses the Messiah Jesus’ present rule and its counter-imperial character. This unexpected thing happens because Wright concentrates on interpreting Jesus’ messiahship in terms of his fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham or the covenant purpose for which God called him (Gen 12:2–3; 18:18–19; 22:18) (815–911). So Wright explains even the people of God and the Messiah or “the united and holy community” in reference only to this sense of Jesus’ messiahship, but not to his kingly rule. Thus Wright makes little use of the category of the kingly reign of Jesus as the Messiah outside the context of setting Jesus over against Caesar. And even in that context (1271–1319), he uses it only to assert that Jesus is the messianic king. Wright repeatedly refers to Rom 1:3–4; 1 Cor 15:20–28, and other similar texts in order to assert the counter-imperial character of Paul’s gospel, but has little discussion as to how the Messiah Jesus, God’s Son, is actually exercising God’s kingship on his behalf in this world and destroying the evil forces at present in order to bring the whole creation under God’s kingship and establish the universal shalom (cf. also Rom 16:20). While insisting that with the gospel of justice, peace, and salvation in Jesus the Messiah, God’s Son and the Lord, Paul directly challenges the Roman “gospel” of justice, peace, and salvation secured by Caesar, god’s son and the lord, Wright provides little explanation as to how Jesus the Messianic King and Lord actually rules over the believers and the nations and brings about justice, peace, and salvation at present. He emphasizes the inclusio of Rom 1:3–6 and 15:7–12 and the unity between the two definitions of the gospel in Rom 1:3–4 and 1:16–17, asserting that they lead us to see the whole epistle of Romans as having a counter-imperial character (916, 1300–01). Yet he sees Paul affirming with them only that God has faithfully fulfilled through the Messiah Jesus his promises to Abraham so that Jews and Gentiles are united under the rule of the Messiah Jesus; and this view leads Wright to interpret Paul’s gospel of justification in the main body of Romans only in terms of making Jews and Gentiles members of Abraham’s family (925–1042).32 Thus, Wright misses another dimension of the inclusio of Rom 1:3–6 and 15:7–12 and the double definition of the gospel in Rom 1:3–4 and 1:16–17: that Paul’s interpretation of the gospel of the kingdom of God and his Son Jesus the Lord (Rom 1:3–4) in terms of justification of Jews and Gentiles in 1:16–17 and throughout the main body of Romans33 reveals that Paul’s gospel of justification 32  So still the limitation of his “New Perspective” seems to remain with Wright in spite of his attempt to develop it into a new, more comprehensive “Fresh Perspective” (cf. Paul: In Fresh Perspective [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005]; PFG). 33  Note esp. Rom 8:31–39, where Paul presents the redemption by the Messiah Jesus God’s Son in terms of justification at the last judgment through his atonement on the cross (8:1–4, 32) and intercession at the right hand of God (8:34), making it the final victory of the Messiah Jesus

248

Paul and the Roman Empire

has an apocalyptic framework of God’s kingdom overcoming the kingdom of Satan, and that therefore justification (declaration as righteous) means not just acquittal at the last judgment or just an abstract act of granting the status of righteous or recognizing someone as righteous, but making a real righteous person by the creative divine word of declaration – a person who is in the right relationship with God, one who has been transferred to the kingdom of God from the kingdom of Satan.34 So justification is to bring both Jews and Gentiles, indeed all the nations, which have been estranged from God the creator and fallen to the Satanic reign of sin and death (1:18–3:20), back to God, to his reign of righteousness and life. It is to make them render “the obedience of faith” to God’s Son Jesus the Lord, who has been entrusted with God’s kingly power (1:3–6), and thus ultimately to God the Father himself (16:26). That is why, having started Romans with an announcement of the gospel of Jesus the Davidic Messiah as having been installed as God’s Son to rule over all the nations on his behalf (1:3– 6), and having gone on to expound its meaning in terms of God’s justification of sinful, fallen Jews and Gentiles in the main body, Paul concludes the epistle with a celebration of both Jews and Gentiles coming to receive salvation and to praise God under the rule of Jesus the Davidic Messiah (15:7–12). Wright’s failure to interpret justification in terms of a restoration to the kingdom of God and his Son Jesus Christ leads him to neglect Christ’s actual kingly rule over his people and the world through his (i. e., God’s) Spirit and to leave Paul’s teaching on Christian living disjointed from his doctrine of justification.35 Even while seeing Pauline ethics as determined by his inaugurated eschatology, Wright still does not relate the various elements of Paul’s ethical exhortations to the actual rule of the Messiah Jesus whose installation as God’s Son and the Lord God’s Son over the Satanic forces. Thus in 8:31–39 Paul’s exposition of the gospel of the kingdom of God and his Son Jesus reaches an initial climax, forming an inclusio with his introduction of it in 1:3–4 and 1:16–17. Cf. also 1 Cor 15:20–28, 50–57; Col 1:13–14 and 2:8–15; Phil 2:6–11 and 3:20–21; 1 Thess 1:10 (cf. 3:12–13; 5:9–10); Gal 1:3–4, where the gospel of the kingdom of God and his Son Jesus is interpreted in terms of redemption from the powers of sin and death, i. e., justification, as in Rom 1:3–4, 16–17 and 8:31–39. Note also how in Rom 6 Paul maintains the unified view of the kingdom gospel (Rom 1:3–4) and the justification gospel (Rom 1:16–17), or the apocalyptic framework of the justification doctrine, in his talk of “kingship/lordship” of sin and “serving/obeying” sin vs. “serving/obeying” righteousness. 34 So, justification is a lordship change, as E. Käsemann stresses (“‘The Righteousness of God’ in Paul,” in New Testament Questions of Today [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969], esp. 174, 176–77, 181–82) or as Paul himself so succinctly puts it in Col 1:13–14. Cf. my book Justification and God’s Kingdom (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), which seeks to demonstrate this thesis by reworking an earlier essay of mine, “Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel (1 Thess 1:9–10; Rom 1:3–4),” in Earliest Christian History: History, Literature, and Theology; Essays from the Tyndale Fellowship in Honor of Martin Hengel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 117–41, which is now included as Essay 2 in this volume. 35  This is explained more in detail in the Ch. 11 (“God’s Kingdom is a More Comprehensive Category than Abraham’s Family for Interpreting the Doctrine of Justification. A Critique of N. T. Wright’s Interpretation”) of my Justification, 141–56.

5. The Rule of the Messiah Jesus

249

is the essence of the inaugurated eschatology (1095–128).36 Christian living is by definition a living that renders “the obedience of faith” to the Messianic King Jesus the Lord. Yet Wright expounds Paul’s teaching on it without any reference to Jesus’ kingship/lordship and, therefore, also without asking whether or not it has a counter-imperial character – something strange for one who insists that Jesus’ Messiahship is foundational for Paul’s whole theology and that Paul’s understanding of it has a fundamentally counter-imperial character. Here the limited space does not allow us to demonstrate positively how Paul’s gospel of the kingdom of God and his Son Jesus the Messiah, presented in terms of justification, organically contains the Messiah Jesus’ present kingly rule over the “justified,” those who have been transferred from the Satanic kingdom of sin and death to God’s and his Son’s kingdom of righteousness and life,37 “the united and holy/righteous community” in which all the divisions of “the flesh” and the consequent injustice and conflicts are overcome (Gal 3:28; Rom 1:14– 17; 1 Cor 7:17–24; 12:13; 1 Cor 11:17–34; Eph 2:11–22; Col 3:11; Philemon; 1 Cor 8–10; Rom 14–15; etc.); how Jesus the King and Lord actually rules over this community through God’s/his Spirit at present; how the “justified” as the people of God’s kingdom render “the obedience of faith” to his Son Jesus the King and Lord through the aid of the Holy Spirit and bear “the fruits of the Spirit/righteousness” in their daily lives (Gal 5:22–23; Phil 1:11; Rom 6:11–22; 8:4), which have socio-political significance as well as religious-moral; and how thus the church, “the united and holy/righteous community of love,” demonstrates the Messiah Jesus’ present rule and materializes the “righteousness and peace and joy (or happiness)” of God’s kingdom on earth by the aid of the Holy Spirit (Rom 14:17), fighting against the Satanic forces of sin and death with truth, righteousness, love, etc. (e. g., Eph 6:10–20), and issuing a “subversive” or better redemptive challenge to the dark world (e. g., Phil 1:27–30; 2:15–16; Cf. Matt 5:14–16).38 A demonstration of these would present an alternative to Wright’s vision of Paul’s political theology. Anyway, Wright’s unexpected neglect of the kingly rule of the Messiah Jesus leads him to fail to expound the full implications (including the socio-political) of “the united and holy/righteous community” as a demonstration of the Lord Jesus Christ’s rule, and to substantiate adequately his claim that that community as such issued a challenge to the Roman Empire.

36  In reference to Eph 5:5, Wright does mention “the Messiah’s kingdom” (1106) and later even says that the concept “presumably indicates the present ‘rule of the Messiah’ in and through the present church” (1114, his italics). But he does not develop the theme at all. 37  Or over the “sanctified,” those who have been separated from the idolatry and impurity of the world and dedicated to the holy God as his own people, “the saints” (e. g., 1 Cor 1:2; 6:11). 38 For all these, see my Justification, esp. 58–91.

250

Paul and the Roman Empire

Conclusion Wright handles the question of “Paul and the Roman Empire” with four keys: (1) the gospel that the Messiah Jesus has defeated the powers of sin and death and been enthroned to rule over the whole world; (2) the parallelism in the narrative and vocabulary between the gospel of the Messiah Jesus and the Roman imperial propaganda; (3) the Jewish apocalyptic view of the Roman Empire as the fourth beast of Dan 7; and (4) the twofold Jewish stance toward pagan empires. Through a combination of the first three keys Wright determines that Paul “could not help but” see Caesar and his empire as a blasphemous parody of the Messiah Jesus and his kingdom, and that therefore Paul’s preaching of the gospel of the Messiah Jesus must have been “subverting” the Roman imperial propaganda or “gospel.” With this thesis, Wright in effect turns Paul into the likeness of John of Revelation. However, the obvious differences between Paul and John, such as Paul’s lack of coded references to Caesar and his empire as the fourth beast of Dan 7 and Paul’s exhortation for Christians to honor and obey the (Roman) rulers (Rom 13:1–7), make us question Wright’s thesis and its basic assumption that Paul saw the Roman Empire as the fourth beast of Dan 7, the chief agent of the Satanic forces. Nevertheless, Wright argues for a counter-imperial character of Paul’s preaching, appealing to the summaries of the gospel in Pauline epistles, such as Rom 1:3–4; 1 Cor 15:20–28; Phil 2:6–11, etc., that declare Jesus’ messianic kingship or lordship, as well as to the passages that contain the words that are parallel to those of the Roman propaganda, such as kyrios, God’s Son, parousia, sōteria, dikaiosynē, etc. and, above all, what may be taken as a Roman slogan “peace and security” (1 Thess 5:3). However, Wright does not meet his critics who ask how in those passages Paul was trying to subvert the Roman Empire by presenting the salvation of the Lord Jesus in completely different terms from those of the Roman “gospel,” namely, in terms of redemption from God’s wrath (or justification) at the last judgment, the resurrection life, or conforming to Christ’s image and obtaining God’s glory. Like other anti-imperial interpreters of Paul, for his thesis Wright also has to account for Rom 13:1–7. For this he uses the fourth key above. According to him, the exhortation to honor and obey the (Roman) rulers is an application of the first half of the traditional twofold Jewish stance toward pagan rulers, namely, the view that for the moment God has appointed pagan rulers to maintain order in the world and that therefore Israel should obey them. Wright argues that Paul found this application necessary for the present because Jesus’ messianic kingdom had not yet been consummated. But we have countered that Paul’s realized eschatology should have led Paul to understand that that first half of the Jewish stance had expired, as the coming and triumph of the Messiah

Conclusion

251

Jesus already fulfilled its second half, namely that at the coming messianic age or eschaton God would judge pagan rulers for their arrogance and evil rule. Since, with all the passages such as Rom 1:3–4; 1 Cor 15:20–28; 2 Cor 2:14; Phil 2:6–11; Col 2:15 to which Wright appeals for his counter-imperial interpretation of Paul, Paul was affirming that at present the enthroned Messiah Jesus was in the process of subjugating and destroying all the “principalities and powers” or all the forces of sin and death with God’s kingship entrusted to him, Paul could not possibly have taught the Roman Christians to honor and obey the (Roman) rulers had he viewed Rome as the fourth beast of Dan 7, the unique and chief agent of the Satanic forces. Instead, the realized eschatology should have led him to wage a messianic holy war against Rome as bar-Kochba’s followers did, or at least to develop his gospel preaching as John did in Revelation. Thus, Wright’s fourth key is quite useless for accounting for Rom 13:1–7, and the passage remains an Achilles heel for his thesis, calling into question his very assumption that Paul saw Rome as the fourth beast of Dan 7. Wright’s counter-imperial interpretation is a component of his grand scheme to interpret Paul’s theology as an integral whole in connection with his three worlds – Jewish, Greek, and Roman imperial. He rightly asserts that for Paul’s theology Jesus’ Messiahship is foundational. Yet while stressing that Paul’s preaching of the Messiah Jesus as enthroned as God’s Son and the Lord issued a challenge to Caesar, Wright neglects to explain how the Messiah Jesus actually exercises God’s kingship in order to destroy the powers of sin and death. He neglects it because he interprets Jesus’ Messiahship mainly in terms of God’s fulfillment of his promises to Abraham. So, he expounds Paul’s teaching on Christian living as disjointed from Jesus’ lordship and the doctrine of justification, and he explains the church as “the united and holy community of love” without any reference to the Messiah Jesus’ reign, even while asserting that it is a demonstration of that reign and that as such it issued a challenge to the Roman Empire. Thus, there is a serious shortcoming both in Wright’s presentation of Paul’s theology as an integral whole and in his counter-imperial interpretation of it.

11. Paul’s Common Paraenesis(1 Thess 4–5; Phil 2–4; and Rom 12–13), the Correspondence between Rom 1:18–32 and 12:1–2, and the Unity of Romans 12–13 1. Parallelism between Phil 4:2–9 and 1 Thess 5:12–24 In 1 Thess 5:16–18 Paul gives a series of three brief commands for individuals’ basic religious life, rounding off the series with a substantiating comment, “For this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.” The three adverbs “always,” “incessantly,” and “in everything” accompanying the three commands, respectively, as well as this appeal to the “will of God” as the sanction for those commands enhance the sense that the three activities commanded belong to the essence of Christian existence. This impression is further confirmed by the fact that the exhortation here in 1 Thess 5:16–18 is very similar to that in Phil 4:4–6: 1 Thess 5 “rejoice always” (πάντοτε χαίρετε) (5:16)

Phil 4 “rejoice in the Lord always” (χαίρετε

πάντοτε) (4:4)

“pray incessantly” (5:17)

“in everything by prayer and supplication … let your requests be made known to God” (4:6)

“give thanks in everything” (ἐν παντὶ εὐχαριστεῖτε) (5:18)

“in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving” (ἐν παντὶ … μετὰ εὐχαριστίας) (4:6)

Consider further the parallelism:1

1 Cf. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (London: Macmillan, 1927), 160, who renders τὸ ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν here with “your gentle and forbearing spirit” and cites Jas 5:8 (μακροθυμήσατε καὶ ὑμεῖς, … ὅτι ἡ παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου ἤγγικεν) as being similar to the whole verse of Phil 4:5 (τὸ ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν γνωσθήτω πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις. ὁ κύριος ἐγγύς). The four parallels between Phil 4:4–6 and 1 Thess 5:14–21 have also been recognized by J. Piper, ‘Love Your Enemies’: Jesus’ Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and the Early Christian Paraenesis (SNTSMS; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 11.

254

Paul’s Common Paraenesis

1 Thess 5

Phil 4

“be longsuffering with all” (μακροθυμεῖτε πρὸς πάντας) (5:14e–15)

“let all people know your forbearance” (τὸ ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν γνωσθήτω πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις) (4:5a)

The confession “The Lord is at hand [ἐγγύς]” (Phil 4:5b), which Paul includes in the middle of his exhortations in Phil 4:4–6 for both assurance and motivation, is not included in the midst of the exhortations in 1 Thess 5:16–22. However, the Thessalonians passage is framed by the lengthy discussion of the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 and its recapitulation in 1 Thess 5:23. Furthermore, in both 4:13–5:11 and 5:23 the reference to the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ provides the readers with both assurance and motivation for obedience to the exhortations, as it does in Phil 4:5b. Consider a further parallelism: 1 Thess 5

Phil 4

“the God of peace” (5:23)

“the peace of God” and “the God of peace” (4:7, 9b)

In the Philippians verses Paul assures the Philippian Christians that “the God of peace” will be with them (4:9) and “the peace of God” will guard their “hearts and minds” in Christ Jesus (4:7). In the Thessalonians passage Paul assures the Thessalonian Christians that “the God of peace” will “sanctify you wholly,” that is, keep their “spirit and soul and body sound and blameless at the parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Since both the Thessalonians passage and the Philippians passage speak of “the God of peace”/“the peace of God” keeping the believers, we can see a parallelism also in the anthropological designations of the two passages: 1 Thess 5

Phil 4

“keep your spirit and soul and body” (5:23)

“guard your hearts and your minds” (4:7, 9b)

This comparison makes it clear that in 1 Thess 5:23 the eschatological orientation and the theme of sanctification in view of the last judgment are prominent, clearly reflecting the particular needs of the Thessalonian church (cf. 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 and 4:1–8). But in Phil 4:7, 9, “the peace of God” and “the God of peace” are invoked not for the sake of perseverance in view of the last judgment but for safe-keeping from the present anxieties that arise from internal division (Phil 4:2–3; cf. 1:27–2:18) as well as from external persecution (Phil 1:27–30; 3:18–19). This difference in purpose has led Paul to vary the anthropological terms in the two passages. However, Paul’s invocation of “the God of peace” in 1 Thess 5:23 also seems to include his concern for the peace that overcomes both the communal con-

1. Parallelism between Phil 4:2–9 and 1 Thess 5:12–24

255

flicts and the anxieties that arise from them. This is suggested by the fact that as the reference to peace in 1 Thess 5:23 cannot easily be connected with the theme of blameless sanctification for the last judgment, it has to be seen as a reflection of Paul’s concern for the Thessalonian church’s communal peace, which he has expressed a few verses earlier, in 1 Thess 5:13: “Be at peace [εἰρηνεύετε] among yourselves.” Clearly, he is concerned about the disorder and ill-feeling created by the lack of recognition for leadership and by the behavior of “the disorderly” (ἄτακτοι) in Thessalonica (1 Thess 5:12–14). Note how his concerns about similar problems arising out of some Corinthians’ rebellion against his apostolic authority as well as their disagreement among themselves lead Paul to issue the similar exhortations in 2 Cor 13:11: “Mend your ways, heed my appeal, agree with one another, be at peace [εἰρηνεύετε], and the God of love and peace will be with you.” Thus, the combination of the exhortation “be at peace” (εἰρηνεύετε) with the assurance about “the God of peace” being with the Corinthians in 2 Cor 13:11 helps us see the same exhortation “be at peace” (εἰρηνεύετε) and the same invocation of “the God of peace” in combination in 1 Thess 5:13 and 23. Paul’s invocation of “the God of peace” in 1 Thess 5:23 seems also to be connected with the communal confusion and conflict that have arisen with the exercise of the spiritual gift of prophecy (1 Thess 5:19–22). This view is supported not only by the fact that the invocation follows immediately upon the exhortations concerning the exercise of the gift, but also by the fact that in 1 Cor 14:33, with the similar concern about the confusion created by the exercise of the spiritual gift of prophecy, he invokes “the God of peace.” However, the reference to the “fainthearted” (1 Thess 5:14) and the injunction to renounce retaliation to the evil-doers (1 Thess 5:15) as well as the references to the persecution in the wider context (1 Thess 1:6; 2:14; 3:4) lead us to see the invocation of “the God of peace” in 1 Thess 5:23 as including also Paul’s concern for overcoming the anxieties that the readers have in the face of the persecution by the opponents of the Christian faith. This is to say that we are to see another parallelism: 1 Thess 5

Phil 4

“comfort the fainthearted” (5:14)

“have no anxiety” (4:6)

Thus, it is clear that although the invocation of “the God of peace” in 1 Thess 5:23 is set in the eschatological context and connected with the theme of sanctification, it still reflects the same concerns as its equivalents do in Phil 4:7, 9: the concerns about communal peace over internal divisions and about psychological peace over anxieties about external persecution. There may be yet another parallel between 1 Thess 5:12–24 and Phil 4:2–9. In Phil 4:8–9 Paul exhorts the Philippian Christians to think about “whatever is true, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, … any excellence, anything wor-

256

Paul’s Common Paraenesis

thy of praise,” after the teaching and example that Paul has imparted or shown, in order to experience the presence of “the God of peace” in their midst. This could well be seen as an elaboration of 1 Thess 5:15: not to “repay evil for evil,” but to “seek always the good [τὸ ἀγαθόν] for one another and to all.” “The good” here may be understood as an abbreviation for all the virtues that are mentioned in Phil 4:8. “Always” and “to all” in 1 Thess 5:15 convey the same universal sense as the “whatever [ὅσα] …” and “any[thing, τις] …” formulae of Phil 4:8. It is also noteworthy that both in 1 Thess 5:12–24 and Phil 4:2–9 the exhortation starts with the questions of leadership and unity in the respective churches. However, in this comparison, the difference is also apparent: whereas in 1 Thess 5:12–13 Paul is concerned with having the leaders of the Thessalonian church properly recognized and with establishing a unity of the mind between the leaders and the rest of the church, in Phil 4:2–3 he is concerned with helping the two leaders themselves, Euodia and Syntyche, have a unity of the mind so that there may be a unity in the whole church. Thus, the above ten points of comparison show that there is a very close parallelism between 1 Thess 5:12–24 and Phil 4:2–9.

2. Parallelism with Rom 12:9–21 The same kind of parallelism appears in Paul’s exhortations in Rom 12:9–21 too. In the passage Paul gives a series of injunctions (mostly in the participial form) that are basically the same as those in Phil 4:2–9 and 1 Thess 5:12–24.2 We may list them, with brief comments on some of them: 1. “Rejoice” (Rom 12:12a//Phil 4:4; 1 Thess 5:16) 2. “Be patient [or persevere, ὑπομένοντες] in affliction” (Rom 12:12b//Phil 4:5, ἐπιεικές; 1 Thess 5:14e, μακροθυμεῖτε).3 3. “Be constant in prayer” (Rom 12:12c//Phil 4:6; 1 Thess 5:17) 4. “Agree [τὸ αὐτὸ εἰς ἀλλήλους φρονοῦντες] with one another” (Rom 12:16a// Phil 4:2: τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν; cf. 1 Thess 5:12–14). It is obvious that Rom 12:16a and Phil 4:2 are close parallels. 1 Thess 5:12–14 also provides a substantial, though not

2  Some of the parallels between 1 Thess 5:12–24 and Rom 12:9–21 have also been seen by some commentators: e. g., E. Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (BNTC; London: Black, 1972), 241; I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (NCBC; London: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1983), 145–46; C. A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 191; T. Holtz, Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher (EKKNT; Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1990), 266; cf. also E. G. Selwyn, First Epistle of St. Peter (London: Macmillan, 121955), 408–09; C. H. Talbert, “Tradition and Redaction in Rom. XII.9–21,” NTS 16 (1969–70): 84 n. 2; Piper, ‘Love Your Enemies’, 8–9. 3 For the relatedness of μακροθυμία and ὑπομονή, see J. Horst, “μακροθυμία,” TDNT 4:384 (esp. n. 82).

2. Parallelism with Rom 12:9–21

257

verbal, parallel to both passages. The remaining exhortations in Rom 12:16bcd (“do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; never be conceited” – cf. also 12:10b) also share close affinities with those in Phil 2:2–3 (cf. 1 Thess 5:12–13). 5. “Be at peace [εἰρηνεύοντες] with all” (Rom 12:18//Phil 4:7, 9; 1 Thess 5:13b [εἰρηνεύετε], 23). Just as in Phil 4:7, 9 and 1 Thess 5:13, 23, so also in Rom 12:18 Paul has in view the need to live peaceably both with fellow Christians (cf. Rom 12:16) and with outsiders (cf. Rom 12:17, 19–21). 6. “Repay no one evil for evil … but overcome evil with good” (μηδενὶ κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ ἀποδιδόντες … μὴ νικῶ ὑπὸ τοῦ κακοῦ ἀλλὰ νίκα ἐν τῷ ἀγαθῷ τὸ κακόν, Rom 12:17a, 21//1 Thess 5:15, μή τις κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ τινι ἀποδῷ, ἀλλὰ πάντοτε τὸ ἀγαθὸν διώκετε). The close verbal and substantial parallelism is striking. 7. “Hate what is evil [τὸ πονηρόν], hold fast to what is good [τῷ ἀγαθῷ] … take thought for what is noble [καλά] in the sight of all” (Rom 12:9b, 17b//Phil 4:8; 1 Thess 5:15, 21b–22). Here the parallelism is more substantial than verbal. However, with the exhortation “Hold fast what is good [τὸ καλόν], abstain from every form of evil [πονηρόν],” 1 Thess 5:21b–22 shows some verbal affinity as well. 8. “Love one another with brotherly affection [φιλαδελφία]” (Rom 12:10a; 13:8–10//Phil 2:1–4; 1 Thess 4:9–10, φιλαδελφία). There is a strong emphasis on this theme throughout Phil 2 and in 1 Thess 4:9–10. It is noteworthy that the generally rare term φιλαδελφία appears in the Pauline corpus only in the two passages of Rom 12:10 and 1 Thess 4:9. It appears that precisely because he has treated with a special emphasis the most important commandment of neighbor love (cf. Rom 13:8–10; Gal 5:14) in Phil 2 and 1 Thess 4:9–10, Paul foregoes including it in the compact list of commands in Phil 4:4–9 and 1 Thess 5:13–23. 9. “Be aglow with the Spirit” (Rom 12:11b//1 Thess 5:19; cf. Phil 2:1; 1 Thess 4:8).4 This list of exhortations in Rom  12 lacks a reference to the imminent parousia of the Lord, which is included in Phil 4:2–9 (also 3:20–21) and 1 Thess 5:12–24 (also 4:13–5:11) in order to provide the readers with both assurance and motivation for complying with the exhortations that are similar to those given in Rom 12. But it is not really missing. It is only postponed to Rom 13:11–14, where it is given with great emphasis. This postponement is caused by the need to expand on the theme of “living peaceably with all” (Rom 12:18). Clearly Paul seeks to drill into the hearts of the Roman Christians the thoughts of humility, non-retaliation, and enemy love even in the situation of persecution. Hence he elaborates on the theme at length with repeated commands for humility, non-re-

4  Some commentators also see a material parallelism between 1 Thess 5:12–13 and Rom 12:3–8: e. g., Marshall, Thessalonians, 145; Best, Thessalonians, 223; Holtz, Thessalonicher, 266. Romans 12:3–8 could be seen as an extended application of the exhortation concerning the appreciation of the gifts and ministries of the leaders in 1 Thess 5:12–13 to the appreciation of the gifts and ministries of all the members of the church. See below p. 272.

258

Paul’s Common Paraenesis

taliation, and enemy love in Rom 12:14–21, echoing some sayings of Jesus.5 The immediately following passage, Rom 13:1–7, is directly related to this purpose.6 In that passage, Paul is applying his exhortation of “living peaceably with all” to the Roman Christians’ attitude to the Roman governing authorities: they are to be subject to them rather than resist them, and especially they are to pay them tributes and taxes. This elaboration on the theme of “living peaceably with all” and its special application here to the Roman Christians’ attitude to the Roman governing authorities clearly seem to reflect Paul’s concern about the Roman Christians’ possible resistance, if not rebellion, to the menacing Roman authorities. He may be trying to persuade the Roman Christians not to get involved in the unrest (ad 57–58) caused by the people’s protests about publicans’ corrupt practices of collecting indirect taxes (Tacitus, Annales 13.50–51).7 He may also be concerned about the lingering resentments about the Emperor Claudius’s expulsion of the Jews (Christian Jews included) from Rome in ad 49 as well as about the repercussions that their return to Rome after ad 54 is having on both the relationship between the Jewish community and the Roman authorities and the relationship between the synagogue and the church.8 Or he may even be worried that the rising revolutionary fervor among the Jews in Palestine might affect the church as well as the Jewish community in Rome.9 All or any one of these anxieties or perhaps even another anxiety like them but unknown to us would necessitate Paul’s extensive treatment of his usual exhortation to “live peaceably with all” in Rom 12:14–21 as well as its specific application to the actual Roman situation in Rom 13:1–7.

5 Cf. Matt 5:38–48//Luke 6:27–36; Mark 9:50//Matt 5:9. Cf. M. Thompson, Clothed with Christ (JSNTSSup 59; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991), 90–110; D. Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 250–52, 260. 6  Cf. J. D. G.  Dunn, Romans 9–16 (WBC; Waco, TX: Word, 1988), 759; R. Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 781. It is unfortunate that D. J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 790, speaks of “the loosely connected series of exhortations in 12:9–21” and sees no connection between 12:9–21 and 13:1–7. In spite of his recognition of the link between 12:9–21 and 13:1–7, Dunn, Romans 9–16, 737, also speaks of 12:9–21 as “the most loosely constructed of all the paragraphs.” See Moo, Romans, 791 nn. 3–4, for those who see 13:1–7 as an “alien body” within 12:1–13:14; see also Jewett, Romans, 783–84, who rejects the interpolation theory. 7  P. Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994), 200–01; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 766, 768; J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 662. 8  Cf. E. Bammel, “Romans 13,” in Jesus and the Politics of His Day (ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 365–83, here pp.  369–70; J. Moiser, “Rethinking Romans 12–15,” NTS 36 (1990): 571–82, here p. 577. 9  Cf. Bammel, “Romans 13,” 370–71; M. Borg, “A New Context for Romans XIII,” NTS 19 (1972/73): 205–18; Fitzmyer, Romans, 662; Jewett, Romans, 780–803; also K. Wengst, Pax Romana and the Peace of Jesus Christ, trans. J. Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 82–83.

2. Parallelism with Rom 12:9–21

259

Then, Paul rounds off his exhortation in Rom 13:8–10 by underlining the summary command of 13:7 (“Pay all of them their ὀφειλάς”),10 once more in a generalized form (“ὀφείλετε no one anything,” v. 8a)11 and emphasizing the commandment of neighbor love (vv. 9–10). In this, especially with his statement “Love does no wrong to a neighbor” (v. 10a), Paul appears to be summarizing the whole theme of his exhortation in Rom 12:14–13:10, namely, humility, nonretaliation, and enemy love. Thus, Rom 12:14–13:10 is really a unit – a long unit in which Paul drills into the minds of his Roman readers the exhortation to “live peaceably with all” by practicing humility, non-retaliation, and enemy love even in the situation of persecution. This long elaboration of the theme has led Paul to postpone the parousia theme to 13:11–14. Romans 13:11–14 does not actually contain any reference to the coming or nearing of “the Lord.” However, it is clear that his statements, “the day is near [ἤγγικεν]” and “salvation is nearer [ἐγγύτερον] to us now,” do refer to “the day of the Lord” (1 Thess 5:2), i. e., the day of his coming and the salvation he is to bring. With these statements Paul provides the Roman Christians with both assurance for their perseverance and motivation for their obedience to his exhortations, in a way similar to what he does in Phil 4:2–9 (3:20–21) and 1 Thess 5:12–24 (4:13–5:11). In fact, Rom 13:11–14 shares many parallels with 1 Thess 5:1–11:12 – you know what hour (καιρός) it is … (Rom 13:11//1 Thess 5:1–2) – the day is at hand (Rom 13:12//1 Thess 5:2) – the night is far gone, the day is at hand (Rom 13:12; cf. 1 Thess 5:5, 7–8) – wake up from sleep (Rom 13:11//1 Thess 5:6–8) – conduct ourselves becomingly (εὐσχημόνως) as in the day (Rom 13:13//1 Thess 4:12; 5:5) – put off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light (Rom 13:12//1 Thess 5:5) – no drunkenness (μέθη/μεθύειν) (Rom 13:13b//1 Thess 5:7) – put on the armor of light and the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 13:12, 14//1 Thess 5:8) – the reference to the imminent or certain salvation (σωτηρία) for motivation for a wakeful life (Rom 13:11b//1 Thess 5:9–10) 10 13:7 is the concluding command that summarizes all the preceding commands in 13:1–6. So Jewett, Romans, 801, referring to H. Schlier, Der Römerbrief (HThKNT 6; Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 392. 11 Cf., e. g., Dunn, Romans 9–16, 775; Jewett, Romans, 783, 805. 12 Many of the following parallels are also observed by A. Vögtle, “Paraklese und Eschatologie nach Röm 13, 11–14,” in Dimensions de la Vie Chrétienne (Rom 12–13) (ed. L. de Lorenzi; Rome: Abbaye de S. Paul, 1979), 185, and Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 143; cf. also Holtz, Thessalonicher, 238.

260

Paul’s Common Paraenesis

Thus, there are close parallels in both vocabulary and thought between Rom 12–13 and 1 Thess 4–5.13 Especially the parallelism between the exhortations in Rom 12:9–21 and those in the two passages, Phil 4:2–9 and 1 Thess 5:12–24, is very close. It is true that those in Rom 12:9–21 as a whole are not so compactly formulated as those of Phil 4:2–9 and 1 Thess 5:12–24. However, it can easily be recognized that Rom 12:9–21 also starts by listing the exhortations in a compact manner as do 1 Thess 5:16–22 and Phil 4:4–6, but that from Rom 12:14 on that manner of composition is somewhat diluted with the multiple repetition of the four basic, mutually related exhortations: “Do not be haughty” (Rom 12:16b, c, d), “Do not retaliate against your persecutors” (12:14b, 17a, 19, 21a), “Instead, love your enemies” (12:14a, 17b, 20, 21b), and “So, live peaceably with all” (12:16a, 18, perhaps also v. 15ab). We have already seen above that these four exhortations are also present in an abbreviated form in the two parallel passages of 1 Thess 5:12–24 and Phil 4:2–9 (also 2:2–3). Thus, a comparison of the ways the three parallel passages list the exhortations reveals no essential difference between them but only the great expansion of the theme of “living peaceably with all” by maintaining a humble posture, renouncing retaliation, and loving enemies in Rom 12:14–21 (and further in 13:1–10).14

3. The Exhortation to Give Thanks to God When the three passages – Rom 12:9–21; Phil 4:2–9; and 1 Thess 5:12–24 – are so compared as parallels, the absence of the exhortation to give thanks to God (Phil 4:6; 1 Thess 5:18) in Rom 12:9–12 becomes quite conspicuous and surprising. But the theme is not really missing. As we have found the missing reference to the parousia of the Lord postponed to Rom 13:11–14, so we can see the missing exhortation to give thanks to God already included in the exhortation to “present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your intelligent worship” (Rom 12:1). Having implicitly included the thanksgiving exhortation in the summary statement for the whole paraenetic section of Rom 12–15, Paul omits to mention it in the subsequent list of exhortations in Rom 12–13. This implied thanksgiving exhortation becomes clear when we recognize that the thesis for the redeemed existence in Rom 12:1–2 is composed as an antidote to the fallen Adamic existence described in Rom 1:18–32. A structural analysis

13  We may see a parallelism also between Rom 13:8–10 and 1 Thess 4:9–10. Further, it may also be possible to see the exhortation in 1 Thess 4:11–12 (“aspire to live quietly, … mind your own affairs … so that you conduct yourselves becomingly [εὐσχημόνως] towards the outsiders”) as including the thoughts of Rom 13:1–7. 14 It is the failure to recognize these facts that leads some commentators to speak of the “loose” list of exhortations in 12:9–21 (see n. 6 above).

3. The Exhortation to Give Thanks to God

261

of Rom 1:18–32 and observation of its correspondence with Rom 12:1–2 provides this recognition. (1) Structural Analysis of Rom 1:18–32 Many commentators recognize the thesis character of Rom 1:1815 as well as the importance of the threefold repetition of the phrase “God gave them up …” (vv. 24, 26, 28)16 for analyzing the structure of Rom 1:18–32. Nevertheless, they diverge in making paragraph divisions of the passage.17 It appears best to agree with U. Wilckens and P. Stuhlmacher in this: v. 18; vv. 19–21; vv. 22–24; vv. 25–27; vv. 28–31; and v. 32.18 A. The Thesis (1:18) “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of humans who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness” (v. 18) – Humans suppress the truth and so are ungodly and unrighteous: human perversion, the fundamental problem. – Against them God’s wrath is revealed. B. The Indictment (1:19–21)19 – The truth (implicitly stated) is to know God and glorify him as God or give thanks to him (v. 21a). – Humans know the truth because God has manifested (ἐφανέρωσεν) himself, his eternal power and deity, to them through his whole creation (vv. 19– 20b). – But they did not glorify God or give thanks to him (v. 21a): suppression of the truth. – They became futile in their thinking (reasoning/διαλογισμός), and their senseless (ἀσύνετος) heart (καρδία) was darkened (v. 21b): the perverted mind. – So, they are without excuse (v. 20c): God’s wrath is their desert.

15 Cf. E. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 37; U. Wil­ ckens, Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 1–5) (EKKNT; Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen: Neu­ kirchener, 1978), 95; P. Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an die Römer (NTD; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 34. 16  Cf. E. Klostermann, “Die adäquate Vergeltung in Rm 1, 22–31,” ZNW 32 (1933): 1–6. 17  Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 276. 18 Wilckens, Römer (Röm 1–5), 95; Stuhlmacher, Römer, 34. 19  Cf. Käsemann, Romans, 37: “the guilt of the gentiles.”

262

Paul’s Common Paraenesis

C. God’s Wrath (Judgment): The Thrice-Repeated “God gave them up …” (1:22–31)20 (1) Vv. 22–24 – “Claiming to be wise, they became fools” (ἐμωράνθησαν, v. 22 – restatement of v. 21b: the perverted mind), and exchanged the glory of God for the idolatry of creatures (v. 23 – restatement of v. 21a: suppression of the truth): the fundamental problem (suppression of the truth by the perverted mind) stated. – “Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity” (v. 24a): God’s wrath. – “to the dishonoring of their bodies [σώματα] among themselves” (v. 24b): human degeneration. (2) Vv. 25–27 – “They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and venerated and worshipped [ἐσεβάσθησαν καὶ ἐλάτρευσαν] the creature rather than the Creator” (v. 25): a summary restatement of the fundamental problem stated in vv. 21, 22–23. – “Therefore, God gave them up to dishonorable passions” (v. 26a – restatement of v. 24a): God’s wrath. – Examples of sexual perversity (vv. 26b–27 – illustration of the statement of v. 24b): human degeneration. (3) Vv. 28–31 – “Since they did not see fit [ἐδοκίμασαν – the perverted mind] to acknowledge [ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει] God” (v. 28a – suppression of the truth): a summary restatement of the fundamental problem stated in vv. 21, 22–23, 25. – “[Therefore] God gave them up to a reprobate mind [ἀδόκιμον νοῦν], to do the things that are improper” (v. 28b): God’s wrath. – Examples of personal and social evils illustrated in vv. 29–31: human degeneration.

20  The thrice-repeated sentence “God gave them up …” is each time preceded by a statement of the fundamental problem (human perversion: suppression of the truth by the perverted mind), and followed by a statement of the consequent degeneration of human life. So, it is made clear that the judgment of God’s giving them up is a divine response to human suppression/distortion of the truth (acknowledging and worshipping God) by the perverted mind. This threefold scheme of “human perversion – God’s judgment – human degeneration” in (1) vv. 22–23 – v. 24a – v. 24b; (2) v. 25 – v. 26a – vv. 26b–27; and (3) v. 28a – v. 28b – vv. 29–31 is obscured by the paragraph divisions of Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (28th ed.) and several modern translations that follow it. They also fail to mark v. 32 as the concluding summary.

3. The Exhortation to Give Thanks to God

263

D. The Concluding Summary: The Fundamental Problem and the Consequent Judgment of God Restated (v. 32): they – know God or God’s decree: the truth; – but disobeying it, they practice evils and “approve” (συνευδοκοῦσιν) those who practice them: suppression of the truth and perversion; – [therefore, they receive God’s judgment of death – cf. 2:1–11: God’s wrath].21 This structural analysis lays bare the five main points of Paul’s argument in 1:18–32: 1. The truth is that God has intended for humans that they acknowledge, glorify, or worship God, the Creator, and give thanks to him. 2. The fundamental problem of humans is that, suppressing this truth, they refuse to worship God and instead worship creatures. 3. It is the perverted mind that leads humans to suppress the truth and fall into idolatry. 4. Therefore, God’s wrath is revealed against this ungodliness and unrighteousness of humans, and it is revealed in his giving them up to their perverted mind and passions, so that they may persist in them. 5. So, they dishonor their bodies in impure sexual conduct and commit all sorts of personal and social evils. It is often noted that in Rom 1:18–32 the “ungodly and unrighteous” humans are described chiefly in terms of the fall of Adam in Gen 1–3.22 When that fact is kept in mind, we can see a close schematic correspondence between Rom 1:18–32 and 12:1–2, which is supported by extensive common vocabulary (νοῦς, σώματα, δοκιμάζειν, λατρεύειν/λατρεία, ἀσύνετος/λογικός, and ὀργή/εὐάρεστος).23 In fact, vir21  Romans 1:32, with the τὰ τοιαῦτα referring not just to the evils mentioned in vv. 28–31 but to all the evils mentioned in vv. 18–31, is to be seen as the concluding summary of the whole section 1:18–31: so, e. g., Käsemann, Romans, 51; O. Michel, Der Brief an die Römer (KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 107; C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans (BNTC;; London: Black, 21991), 40; cf. also J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8 (WBC; Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 69. In view of the judgment language, “God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die,” v. 32 is also to be recognized as building a transition to 2:1–11 (so, e. g., Käsemann, Romans, 51; Barrett, Romans, 40; cf. Moo, Romans, 96). So, although v. 32 does not contain an explicit statement about God’s wrath or judgment, we may see the thought implicitly present in it, as it is unfolded in 2:1–11. 22 E. g., M. D. Hooker, “Adam in Romans I,” NTS 6 (1959/60): 296–306; A. J. M. Wedderburn, “Adam in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” in Studia Biblica 1978, vol. 3: Papers on Paul and Other NT Authors (JSNTSup 3; ed. E. A. Livingstone; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), 413–19; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 53, 72–73, 76; Wilckens, Römer (Röm 1–5), 107–8; cf. Moo, Romans, 109– 10, 121; also n. 36 below. 23  Some of these parallels have also been recognized by C. A. Evans, “Romans 12:1–2: The True Worship,” in Dimensions de la Vie Chrétienne (Rom 12–13) (ed. L. de Lorenzi; Rome: Abbey de S. Paul, 1979), 31; cf. also Dunn, Romans 9–16, 708. See n. 26 below.

264

Paul’s Common Paraenesis

tually every phrase or clause in the summary statement about the lifestyle of the redeemed in Rom 12:1–2 can be seen as set in antithesis to the statement about the lifestyle of the fallen Adamic humanity in Rom 1:18–32: – “do not be conformed to this age” (the lifestyle of the Adamic humanity described in 1:18–32; cf. 5:12–21); – “be transformed” (μεταμορφοῦσθε, i. e., conform to the image of Christ, the Adam of the new age, cf. Rom 8:29 [σύμμορφος]; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18 [μεταμορφούμεθα]; Phil 3:21 [μετασχηματίσει]; cf. Rom 5:12–21); – “by the renewal of the mind” (νοῦς) (i. e., the renewal of the perverted mind [νοῦς or καρδία]24 that is described in 1:21–23, 25, 28); – offer “rational/intelligent/sensible worship [λατρεία]” to God (instead of persisting in the “foolish,” “senseless,” or irrational worship [λατρεύειν] of creatures as described in 1:21–23, 25); – “present your bodies [σώματα] as a sacrifice, living, holy, and well–pleasing [εὐάρεστος] to God” (instead of devoting your “bodies” [σώματα] to impure and dishonorable fornication and to other evils, provoking God’s displeasure or wrath [ὀργή], as described in 1:24–31; cf. also 6:12–13, 19); – “discern [δοκιμάζειν] what is the will of God” (rather than suppressing God’s truth and persisting in the “senseless” [ἀσύνετος] or “reprobate” [ἀδόκιμος] mind of the former Adamic life as described in 1:19, 21, 28); and – do “what is good, well-pleasing [εὐάρεστος], and perfect” (instead of doing what is evil, impure, and dishonorable, which displeases God and provokes his wrath, as described in 1:18, 24–31). This antithetical correspondence of Rom 12:1–2 to Rom 1:18–32 reveals that in the former, stating the thesis for the whole paraenetic section of Rom 12–15, Paul is making a summary exhortation for the redeemed or justified to reverse the sinful lifestyle of the old Adamic humanity into the lifestyle of the new justified (or rightwised) humanity. For this reversal or the required “transformation,” “the renewal of the mind” is crucial because it was the perverted “mind” that led to the suppression of the truth of worshipping God the Creator, to the “foolish” and “senseless” worshipping of creatures, and to the consequent immorality and other evils. Hence there is the triple emphasis concerning the mind in Rom 12:1– 2: the needs to offer τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν (“rational/intelligent/sensible worship”) to God and to “discern [δοκιμάζειν] what is the will of God,” and the fundamental need for ἀνακαίνωσις τοῦ νοός (“the renewal of the mind”) to do them.25 24  In Rom 1:21 καρδία refers to the organ that does διαλογισμός. So, as an organ of knowing and thinking, it is synonymous with νοῦς in 1:28. Cf. Jewett, Romans, 159. 25  Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 81–86, had already made more or less the same observations on the correspondence between Rom 1:18–32 and 12:1–2 as summarized here, but I had failed to notice or remember it until it was pointed out by a reviewer of my paper “Rom 12:1–2 as an Antidote to Rom 1:18–32.” Hence, instead of publishing it as a separate article,

3. The Exhortation to Give Thanks to God

265

For our present purpose, however, the most important point that emerges out of the correspondence between Rom 1:18–32 and 12:1–2 is that Paul’s exhortation in Rom 12:1 for the redeemed to “offer/present your bodies as a sacrifice, living,26 holy, and well-pleasing to God, which is your intelligent worship” is to be seen as his comprehensive demand to reverse the Adamic humanity’s suppression of the truth, i. e., their refusal to do the essential things that are required of creatures, namely, to honor and worship God and give thanks to him (Rom 1:18, 21–25). The phrase παραστῆσαι … θυσίαν … τῷ θεῷ (“offer … sacrifice … to God”) in 12:1 clearly carries the cultic sense of worship, and that is confirmed by the appositional and explanatory phrase τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν.27 Since in the I have just incorporated its substance in this essay, often in a summary form. May my subsequent “independent” observations (plus some more supporting observations – see below) be taken as confirming the validity of Thompson’s original observations? Nevertheless, all these observations on the correspondence between 1:18–32 and 12:1–2 lead us both to interpret the much debated word λογικός in 12:1 as “rational/intelligent/sensible” over against “senseless” (ἀσύνετος)/“foolish” (ἐμωράνθησαν)/“reprobate” (ἀδόκιμος) of 1:21, 22, 28, 31, as well as to hold the phrases τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν and τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοός in 12:1–2 together (cf. Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 81–82). Thus, the λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν is the “intelligent worship that you should offer as the people of the renewed mind or proper sense,” or, to speak in the OT–Jewish category, “as wise people [‫( ”]משכלים‬I owe this OT–Jewish category to my OT colleagues John Goldingay and Jim Butler at Fuller Seminary). Therefore, we may render Rom 12:1b thus: “to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, and well-pleasing to God, which is the intelligent worship you should offer (as people redeemed with the proper mind).” Cf. NJB: “that is the kind of worship for you, as sensible people.” 26  In my essay “Rom 12:1–2 as an Antidote to Rom 1:18–32” (see the preceeding note), I have sought to demonstrate the correspondence of Rom 12:1–2 to Rom 1:18–32 further by observing the close parallels that Rom 6 (esp. vv. 11–23) shows to both Rom 1:18–32 and 12:1–2 (cf. Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 79–80, who also observes the parallelism of Rom 6 with 12:1–2, though not with 1:18–32). Echoing the description of the Adamic humanity in 1:18–32 (note esp. such concepts as ἐπιθυμία, ἀδικία, ἀκαθαρσία, ἀνομία, ἐπαισχύνεσθαι, and σῶμα/μέλη used to describe the Adamic humanity in 6:11–23) as well as anticipating the exhortation in 12:1–2 (note esp. the five times repeated παραστάναι τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν/ἑαυτούς, the twice repeated ἁγιασμός, and καινότης in 6:4, 11–23), Rom 6 (esp. vv. 11–23) forms a bridge between the two passages and shows that the exhortation for the righteous existence of the redeemed in Rom 12:1–2 is composed as an antidote to the sinful existence of fallen humanity in 1:18–32. So it becomes clear that the exhortation to present our bodies as a “living” (ζῶσαν) sacrifice in 12:1 reflects the exhortation in 6:13b: “present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life” (ὡσεὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῶντας), and implicitly includes its negative counterpart, namely, shunning the Adamic humanity’s presenting their bodies to sin (6:13a), as our old Adamic humanity (“our old ἄνθρωπος,” 6:6) has already died to sin in/with Christ (6:1–10). Thus, the word “living” (ζῶσαν) in 12:1 stands in opposition to the Adamic existence that is dead in and through sin (6:23), rather than to dead or bloody animal sacrifice (contrary to the interpretation of many commentators). It means “as those who are dead to sin but alive to God [ζῶντας δὲ τῷ θεῷ] in Christ Jesus” (6:11). So, similarly, Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 79. 27 παραστάναι (θυσίαν) is a Hellenistic technical term for cultic offering (see the references in C. E. B.  Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans [vol. 2; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979], 598 n. 4; also O. Michel, Der Brief an die Römer [KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978], 369 n. 10). It is used in Josephus (J. W. 2.89; Ant. 4.113), although not in the LXX. Paul may be using this phrase here instead of the common LXX term προσάγειν or προσφέρειν (cf.

266

Paul’s Common Paraenesis

thesis statement of 12:1–2 Paul needs to formulate his exhortations in a compact form, it is possible to see that he employs the language of “worship” in 12:1 in order to cover not only worshipping God but also honoring him and giving thanks to him, as he has designated the three inseparably interconnected acts as the requirements of proper creaturely existence in 1:21–25. If we consider what kind of “sacrifice” Paul may be thinking of in giving the metaphorical exhortation, “offer your bodies as a sacrifice [θυσίαν],”28 it becomes clearer that the theme of thanksgiving is included in the exhortation. For among the various sacrifices of the OT–Jewish cult, ‫( תודה‬thanksgiving sacrifice) seems to fit the best with Paul’s metaphor here. Note how H. Gese describes the occasion of ‫תודה‬: “When someone is rescued from death, from an illness, or from persecution that poses threat of death, then the divine deliverance is celebrated by a worship service built on a thank offering as a new foundation for the person’s existence.”29 Then, it makes perfect sense that in Rom 12:1 Paul is exhorting us to offer our “bodies” as a “thanksgiving sacrifice” for his redemption from the Adamic sin and death to a new life in Christ, which he described in Rom 3:21– 11:36. Writing in the wake of his celebration of God’s marvelous mercy upon all, his worship and glorification of God for “the depth of [his] riches and wisdom and knowledge,” and his comprehensive affirmation, “From him and through him and to him are all things” (Rom 11:30–36), surely Paul must be asking us in 12:1 to offer our “bodies” as a “thanksgiving sacrifice” for the wonderful salvation that he has wrought by his mercy and wisdom. Then, it becomes clear that having thus included the thanksgiving exhortation already in the all-embracing exhortation in Rom 12:1–2, the summary statement for the whole paraenetic section of Rom 12–15, Paul omits to mention it in the subsequent list of exhortations in Rom 12–13.

4. Inclusio Between Rom 12:1–2 and 13:11–14 So far, we have ascertained that Rom 12:9–21, Phil 4:2–9, and 1 Thess 5:13–24 contain essentially the same list of exhortations: rejoice always, pray unceasingly, give thanks to God for everything, love one another, bear patiently with detractors or persecutors rather than resorting to retaliation, live peaceably, shun what is evil, seek what is good, etc. Concerned as they are with what we might Rom 15:16: προσφορά) in order to express alongside the sense of worship also the sense of placing something at God’s disposal, i. e., to mean that we are to place our “bodies” at God’s disposal as our act of “worship” for him. 28 This question was put to me by John Goldingay, and we agreed that the OT thanksgiving sacrifice seems to be the answer. 29  H. Gese, “The Origin of the Lord’s Supper,” in Essays on Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980), 129.

4. Inclusio Between Rom 12:1–2 and 13:11–14

267

call spirituality and ethic, these exhortations represent some of the fundamental characteristics of the Christian way of life. In order to motivate the believers to live such a life, Paul adds in the list the reference to the not-so-distant coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and his salvation as well as giving an assurance that God’s peace will keep them. With the list of the exhortations in Rom 12:9–21, we have also observed that the exhortation to give thanks to God is implicitly made as a fundamental requirement for redeemed existence in 12:1, and the reference to the parousia of the Lord is made in Rom 13:11–14 after a postponement created by the need to expand greatly the theme of living peaceably with all in 12:14–13:10. This means that, if we set Rom 12:3–8 aside for a moment (see below), Rom 12:1–13:14 forms a unity with a list of exhortations that are comparable to those in Phil 4:2–9 and 1 Thess 5:13–24. This view is strengthened by the fact that Rom 13:11–14 forms a partial inclusio with 12:1–2. Above we have ascertained some significant parallels between Rom 13:11–14 and 1 Thess 5:1–11.30 When those parallels are set aside from Rom 13:11–14, then the following remain in the passage: 1. the list of sexual and social sins in Rom 13:13 (only “drunkenness” is in 1 Thess 5:7); 2. “putting on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 13:14a) (corresponding to “putting off the works of darkness” in Rom 13:12); and 3. “making no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires” (Rom 13:14b) (referring to the sins listed in Rom 13:13).

In spite of the overall parallelism between Rom 13:11–14 and 1 Thess 5:1–11, only “drunkenness” is mentioned in both passages as a concrete example of the works of “darkness” that unbelievers are supposed to do in the “night.” In Rom 13:13, besides “drunkenness,” Paul further mentions κῶμος, κοίτη, ἀσέλγεια, ἔρις, and ζῆλος. In 1 Thess 5:1–11 he may be omitting references to such sexual and social sins because, having exhorted the Thessalonians to avoid πορνεία, ἀκαθαρσία, ἐπιθυμία, and ὑπερβαίνειν καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν only a few verses earlier (1 Thess 4:1–8), he is now concerned more to allay the Thessalonians’ anxiety about the date of the Lord’s parousia than to impart concrete exhortations about a sanctified life. But the three elements that distinguish Rom 13:11–14 from 1 Thess 5:1–11 clearly reveal that in Rom 13:11–14 Paul is concerned to exhort the Romans to lead a sanctified life as much as to assure them with the nearness and certainty of the parousia and the consummation of salvation. In Rom 13:11–14, he seems to express the former concern by reminding the readers with the three elements of what he has said about the wicked life of the Adamic humanity in Rom 1:24–32 (and 6:11–23; 7:7–8:13) as well as of what he has said about the transformed life of the redeemed humanity in Rom 12:1–2 (and 6:11–23; 8:3–13).

30 See

p. 259 above.

268

Paul’s Common Paraenesis

There are some reasons for thinking that with elements (1) and (3) above Paul reminds the readers of what has been said in Rom 1:24–32; 6:11–23; and 8:3–13. First of all, there are the words for vices (ἐπιθυμία, ἔρις, and ζῆλος/φθόνος31) common to both Rom 13:11–14 and 1:24–32 (vv. 24, 29), and the vices κῶμος, κοίτη, and ἀσέλγεια in Rom 13:13 may at least be compared with those sexual vices mentioned in Rom 1:26–27. Then, the sexual and social sins in Rom 13:13 are illustrations of the “works of darkness” (σκότος) in Rom 13:12, and this fact corresponds to the fact that the similar sins in Rom 1:26–27, 29–31 are attributed to the “darkened” (ἐσκοτίσθη) heart in Rom 1:21. So, when Paul exhorts in Rom 13:13, “Let us conduct ourselves becomingly/decently/respectably [εὐσχημόνως] as in the day,” shunning those “works of darkness,” he seems to have in mind his earlier explanation that committing those sins is to “dishonor” (ἀτιμάζεσθαι) the body as they are “shameless/indecent” (ἀσχημοσύνην) acts (1:24, 27), “the things of which they are now ashamed” (ἐπαισχύνεσθε, 6:21). In Rom 13:14 those vices are seen as the consequences of doing τῆς σαρκὸς πρόνοιαν … εἰς ἐπιθυμίας. The word πρόνοια is defined in BDAG as “thoughtful planning to meet a need, forethought, foresight, providence.” In his Greek literature survey, J. Behm says that the word is commonly used “in the sense of ‘provision’ or ‘forethought,’ ‘intention,’ ‘deliberation,’” and adds that “the word can mean ‘care,’ ‘provision.’”32 If τῆς σαρκός is taken as a subjective genitive and εἰς ἐπιθυμίας as directly connected with τῆς σαρκὸς πρόνοιαν, the clause in Rom 13:14b, καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς πρόνοιαν μὴ ποιεῖσθε εἰς ἐπιθυμίας, would mean: “and do not do the intention of the flesh for desires,” i. e., “and do not carry out the intention of the flesh which is for (impure) desires.” In this interpretation, the word πρόνοια is clearly seen as denoting the work of the mind (“intention”). However, the construction πρόνοιαν ποιεῖσθαι τίνος is usually treated as an idiomatic expression in Greek for “to make provision for something, be concerned for or about something,”33 and so the clause in Rom 13:14b, καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς πρόνοιαν μὴ ποιεῖσθε εἰς ἐπιθυμίας, is usually rendered “and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires” (NRSV). But even this idiomatic interpretation implicitly contains the notion of the intention of the flesh, since to “make provision for the flesh” is really to do what the flesh wants. That Paul has this implication in mind seems to be evident especially in view of what he writes in Rom 8:3–13. There he stresses that those who are in, or dominated by, the flesh (8:5, 8) and therefore live according to the flesh (8:13) “set their minds on the things of the flesh” (τὰ τῆς σαρκὸς φρονοῦσιν, 8:5), and he abbreviates this fact with the phrase τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός, “the mind(‑set)34 of the 31 For

the synonymous nature of the two words, cf. “ζῆλος” and “φθόνος,” see BDAG.  J. Behm, “προνέω, πρόνοια,” TDNT 4:1011. 33  “ πρόνοια,” BDAG; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 791. 34 “φρόνημα,” BDAG. 32

4. Inclusio Between Rom 12:1–2 and 13:11–14

269

flesh” (8:6, 7). Contrasting this flesh-dominated existence with the Spirit-dominated existence, he affirms that we, the redeemed, are no longer “debtors to the flesh [ὀφειλέται τῇ σαρκί] to live according to the flesh” and do “the deeds of the body” (τὰς πράξεις τοῦ σώματος)35 (8:12–13). It can hardly be denied that his imperative in Rom 13:14b (καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς πρόνοιαν μὴ ποιεῖσθε εἰς ἐπιθυμίας) is based on this teaching that he has already imparted on the mindset of the flesh in Rom 8:3–13 as a whole, and especially on the indicative of Rom 8:12–13. In Romans 7–8, Paul explains the predicament of the σάρξ-dominated existence chiefly in terms of Adam’s experiences in Genesis 2–3,36 and thereby develops further, now in connection with the law and sin, his explanation of the fallen humanity which he gave in Rom 1:18–32. So, the paraenesis implicit in the indicative statements in Rom 8:3–13 is that we, the redeemed, being in the Spirit and not in the flesh, should not “set our minds on the things of the flesh” or oblige ourselves to do what the flesh wants, as Adam did and the Adamic humanity still do. So, we may see that in recapitulating this paraenesis in Rom 13:14b Paul is exhorting the redeemed to stop following the mind(‑set) of the flesh, which Adam followed and the Adamic humanity still do, as he has shown in Rom 1:18–32 and 7:7–8:13. Thus, with this clause in Rom 13:14b, Paul appears to be reminding the readers of the idea repeatedly stressed in Rom 1:18–32, namely, of the perverted mind (νοῦς) of the Adamic humanity ending up in the impure and dishonorable desires (ἐπιθυμία or πάθος) for such evils as those mentioned in Rom 1:26–27, 29–31 and recapitulated in Rom 13:13. Then, in Rom 13:14b Paul is in effect demanding the readers, “do not be conformed to this age” (Rom 12:2a), which follows the intention of the flesh or the lifestyle of the Adamic humanity. If so, Paul’s synonymous exhortations in 13:12b and 14b, “Put off [ἀποθώμεθα] the works of darkness” and “Make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires,” are really elaborations of this exhortation in Rom 12:2a. This reading makes it quite likely that another pair of Paul’s synonymous exhortations in 13:12c and 14a, “Put on [ἐνδυσώμεθα] the armor [ὅπλα] of light” 35  Apparently, Paul writes (τὰς πράξεις) τοῦ σώματος here instead of τῆς σαρκός that is expected in the context of Rom 8:3–13, as well as in Paul’s usual distinction between σῶμα and σάρξ, because he is writing here in view of what he said in Rom 1:24, 26–27. In the latter passage, he said: because of the Adamic humanity’s fleshly mindset that does not please God but is hostile to him (cf. Rom 8:7–8), God gave them up “to the dishonoring of their bodies [σώματα] among themselves,” so that they fell into the “dishonorable passions” which they satisfy with perverted practices involving their bodies. This view is supported by Rom 6:12–13, 19, where, speaking in the context of the Adam–Christ contrast (Rom 5:12–21) and clearly alluding to what he said of the Adamic existence in Rom 1:18–32, Paul expresses the same thought in terms of “let[ting] sin reign in your mortal body [σῶμα]” and “present[ing] your members [μέλη, i. e., body parts] to sin, to impurity, and to wickedness.” 36  For the view that in Romans 7 the predicament of the fleshly “I” is described chiefly in terms of that of Adam, see, e. g., Käsemann, Romans, 195–98; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 378–80; esp. H. Lichtenberger, Das Ich Adams und das Ich der Menschheit (WUNT 164; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 107–86.

270

Paul’s Common Paraenesis

and “Put on [ἐνδύσασθε] the Lord Jesus Christ,” are really elaborations of his exhortation in Rom 12:2b: “Be transformed.”37 This understanding can be confirmed through a survey of Paul’s use of the language of “putting on” and “transformation.” In the NT only Paul uses such terms of “transformation” as μεταμορφοῦσθαι, συμμορφοῦσθαι, μετασχηματίζεσθαι, and ἀλλαγήσεσθαι as soteriological and ethical concepts, and when he uses them, he always means the believers’ being “transformed into” or “conformed to” the image (εἰκών) of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God: The believers are predestined to this transformation (Rom 8:29) and are undergoing it in the present (2 Cor 3:18) until the final consummation at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor 15:52; Phil 3:21). Likewise, in the NT only Paul uses the “putting off”/“putting on” language for soteriological–paraenetical statements (1 Cor 15:44–54; Gal 3:27; Col 3:9–10; cf. also Eph 4:22–24). 1 Cor 15:44–54 shows that the “transformation” terminology is synonymous with his language of “bearing” (φορεῖν) the image (εἰκών) of the heavenly man, the Last Adam, and of “putting on” (ἐνδύεσθαι) the imperishable or immortal nature of Christ Jesus, the Last Adam. So Paul speaks of the believers’ “putting on” Christ in baptism (Gal 3:27) and their actualizing in their ethical life that saving event by “putting on” “the new [man, ἄνθρωπος] which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator” (Col 3:9–10; cf. also Eph 4:22–24), so that they may finally “put on” the immortal nature of Christ at the consummation of salvation (1 Cor 15:53–54). Both 1 Cor 15:44–54 37  Note the correspondence between the two pairs of synonymous imperatives set in a chiastic structure in Rom 13:12 and 14: A: “put off the works of darkness” B: “put on the armor of light” B': “put on the Lord Jesus Christ” A': “make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires” AA' correspond to the exhortation, “Do not be conformed to this age,” of Rom 12:2a, while BB' correspond to the exhortation, “Be transformed by the renewal of the mind,” of Rom 12:2b (so similarly Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 151; cf. also Moo, Romans, 826). Thus we can see a sort of inclusio between Rom 12:2 and 13:12, 14. AA' also correspond to the exhortation in Col 3:9: “put off the old humanity [ἄνθρωπος] with its practices,” while BB' also correspond to the exhortation in Col 3:10: “put on the new [humanity], which is renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.” For the contrasting pair “put off”/“put on,” Eph 4:22–24 uses ἀποτίθεσθαι/ἐνδύεσθαι, like Rom 13:12, 14. The parallel passage, Col 3:8–12, shows the synonymity of ἀποτίθεσθαι and ἀπεκδύεσθαι, using both in contrast to ἐνδύεσθαι. The exhortation in Col 3:5, “put to death the earthly members [μέλη, i. e., body parts]” that are involved in committing πορνεία, ἀκαθαρσία, πάθος, etc., is reminiscent of the charge in Rom 1:24–27 against the Adamic humanity for misuse of their “body” (σῶμα) for those sexual sins, and of the exhortation in Rom 12:1 to offer our “body” (σῶμα) to God as a sacrifice. Similarly the exhortation in Col 3:10, “put on the new [humanity], which is renewed in knowledge [ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν] after the image of its creator,” is reminiscent of the exhortation in Rom 12:2 to “be transformed by the renewal of your mind [ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοός].” Thus Col 3:5–11 shows significant parallels with Rom 12:1–2 as well as with Rom 1:18–32, and so supports together with Rom 6:11–23 (see above n. 26) and 1 Thess 4:1–8 (see below section IV) the view that the two Romans passages should be held together.

4. Inclusio Between Rom 12:1–2 and 13:11–14

271

and Col 3:9–10 make it clear that all these synonymous terms are part of Paul’s Adam-Christology/soteriology. All these facts confirm (1) that in Rom 12:2a and 12:2b Paul is exhorting the believers not to “be conformed” to the way of the old Adamic humanity (1 Cor 15:44–54; Col 3:9: “put off the old ἄνθρωπος with his practices”) but to “be transformed” into the image of Christ Jesus, the Last Adam (Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:44– 54; 2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10); (2) that his exhortation in Rom 13:14a, “put on the Lord Jesus Christ,” being synonymous with the exhortation, “be transformed into the image of the Lord Jesus Christ,” is likely to be an elaboration of the exhortation in Rom 12:2b; and (3) that as both the exhortations of Rom 12:2b and 13:14a reflect Paul’s Adam-Christology/soteriology, it is likely that Paul issues them bearing in mind the lifestyle of the fallen Adamic humanity which he has explained in Rom 1:18–32; 6:11–23; and 7:7–8:13. Therefore, we can conclude that the two elements that distinguish Rom 13:11– 14 from the parallel passage 1 Thess 5:1–11, namely, the sexual and social sins mentioned as illustrations of the works of darkness in Rom 13:12–13, and the exhortation “make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires” in Rom 13:14b, are reminiscent of what Paul has written of the fallen Adamic humanity in Rom 1:18–32; 6:11–23; 7:7–8:13; and 12:2a, while the third element, namely, the exhortation “put on the Lord Jesus Christ” in Rom 13:14a, is reminiscent of what he has written of the redeemed humanity in Rom 6:1–23; 8:1–13; and 12:2b. Thus, in Rom 13:11–14, Paul refers to the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ in order to provide both assurance for perseverance and motivation for obedience to his moral exhortations of Rom 12:9–13:10, as he does in the parallel passages of 1 Thess 4–5 and Phil 4:2–9 (cf. also Phil 3:20–21). But he formulates Rom 13:11–14 bearing in mind what he has said both about the wicked lifestyle of the fallen humanity in Rom 1:18–32 (and 6:11–23 and 7:7–8:13) and about the righteous lifestyle of the redeemed humanity in Rom 12:1–2 (and 6:11–23 and 8:1–13). In other words, in Rom 13:11–14, he rounds off his exhortations in Rom 12:9–13:10, not simply referring to the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ, but also restating his thesis about the lifestyle of the redeemed humanity that he stated in Rom 12:1–2 in contrast to the lifestyle of the fallen humanity that he described in Rom 1:18–32. If Rom 13:11–14 thus forms a partial inclusio with Rom 12:1–2, it must be the conclusion not just to the exhortations in Rom 12:9–13:10, but to those in the whole of Rom 12–13, the first part of Paul’s paraenesis, which he states before embarking on the second part of his paraenesis with the specific issue of food and the unity of the church in Rom 14–15. In that case, all of Rom 12:1–13:14 should be seen as a unity.38

38 Thompson,

Clothed with Christ, 151–53, also recognizes the partial parallelism of Rom

272

Paul’s Common Paraenesis

Then the question arises as to how to account for Rom 12:3–8. This study, which has started from the fundamental observation of the parallelism among 1 Thess 5:12–24; Rom 12:9–21; and Phil 4:2–9 and come to affirm the unity of Rom 12–13, supports the view held by some scholars that Rom 12:3–8 is an expansion of the theme of the unity within the church that is also included in the parallel passages 1 Thess 5:12–14 and Phil 4:2–3 (1:27–2:11).39 Thus Romans 12–13 provides a paraenesis in a unity that is parallel to those in 1 Thess 4–5 and Phil 4:2–9. Among the three passages, Phil 4:2–9 is the most compact. In 1 Thess 4–5, there is a substantial expansion of the parousia theme (4:13– 5:11), while in Romans 12–13, there is a substantial expansion of the theme of living peaceably with all (12:14–13:10) as well as an expansion of the theme of the unity within the church (12:3–8). Furthermore, in Romans 12–13 the whole paraenesis is set within the clearly visible framework of the Adam–Christ antithesis.

4. Parallelism of 1 Thess 4:1–8 with Both Rom 1:18–32 and 12:1–2 1 Thess 4:1–8 contains several close parallels both to Rom 1:18–32 and to Rom 12:1–2. This fact strengthens our views that Rom 12:1–2 should be interpreted in connection with Rom 1:18–32 and that there is an overall parallelism between Rom 12–13 and 1 Thess 4–5. Note in 1 Thess 4:1–8: 1. πορνεία (1 Thess 4:3), πάθος ἐπιθυμίας (4:4–5), and ἀκαθαρσία (4:7) are said to be characteristics of the heathen (4:5).

13:11–14 with Rom 12:1–2 (though not with Rom 1:18–32) and affirms that the two Romans passages form an inclusio. 39  See n. 4 above. The second part of the paraenesis in Rom 14:1–15:13 can also be seen as an extended application of Paul’s common paraenesis to the needs of the Roman church. In exhorting “the strong” and “the weak” in matters of dietary and calendar laws to accept one another, Paul stresses especially peace and joy. Note how, having affirmed “the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (14:17), Paul exhorts: “Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding” (14:19). Note again how he concludes the whole paraenetical section of Rom 14:1–15:13 with the prayer: “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing” (15:13). These explicit and implicit exhortations to pursue peace and joy are, on the one hand, comparable to the common exhortations that Paul imparts to the Philippian and Thessalonian Christians to have peace and to rejoice by overcoming their communal dissension and consequent communal gloom (see above the discussion on Phil 4:2–9 and 1 Thess 5:12–24). On the other hand, they may be seen as an application of Paul’s injunction in Rom 12:18: “live peaceably with all.” Having applied that injunction to an earnest political situation in Rome (13:1–7) and rounded off the main part of his paraenesis (13:11–14), Paul makes another application of it to another serious problem of the Roman church, the communal conflict between “the strong” and “the weak.” Since the latter problem requires a more extended treatment with more theological arguments, he dedicates a new section of his letter to it, and appends it to his main paraenesis that he has rounded off with the inclusio of 12:1–2 and 13:11–14.

4. Parallelism of 1 Thess 4:1–8 with Both Rom 1:18–32 and 12:1–2

273

2. Against the heathen misuse of σκεῦος (“body,” see n. 42 below) in πάθει ἐπιθυμίας, the proper control of it in ἐν ἁγιασμῷ καὶ τιμῇ is urged (4:4–5). 3. The heathen are defined as those “who do not know God” (4:5). 4. ὑπερβαίνειν καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν are also mentioned as heathen behavior (4:6). 5. To those who engage in such acts of heathen character, “avenging by the Lord” (ἔκδικος κύριος) is threatened (4:6). The parallelism between 1 Thess 4:1–8 and Rom 1:18–32 in this description of the heathen is unmistakable, as in the latter also:40 1. ἐπιθυμία (Rom 1:24), ἀκαθαρσία (1:24), (πάθος) ἀτιμίας (1:24, 26a), and fornication (1:26b–27) are said to be characteristic of the heathen. 2. The heathen are charged especially of “dishonoring” (ἀτιμάζεσθαι) of their “body” (σῶμα) in ἐπιθυμία and ἀκαθαρσία (1:24). 3. These evils are the consequences of their failure to know God properly, i. e., to acknowledge and worship him (1:19–23). 4. The heathen are also charged with πλεονεξία as well as other social evils (1:29–31). 5. Against their ungodliness and unrighteousness “the wrath of God” (ὀργὴ θεοῦ) is said to be revealed (1:18; cf. 1:24, 26, 28). Thus the descriptions of the heathen in 1 Thess 4:1–8 and Rom 1:18–32 show close parallels in both their vocabulary and thought.41 Furthermore, observe the parallelism between 1 Thess 4:1–8 and Rom 12:1–2. In the former Paul says that a sanctified or “holy” life (especially controlling the “vessel”/body in ἐν ἁγιασμῷ καὶ τιμῇ, so that it may not fall to πάθος ἐπιθυμίας 1 Thess 4:4), is “the will of God” for believers (1 Thess 4:3), and that it “pleases [ἀρέσκειν] God” (1 Thess 4:1). In Rom 12:1–2 he says basically the same thing: believers’ offering of their “bodies” to God as a living sacrifice is “holy” (ἁγία) and “well-pleasing” (εὐάρεστον) to God and that it is to do “the will of God.” Thus, 1 Thess 4:1–8 shows parallels with both Rom 1:18–32 and 12:1–2. This double parallelism together with the correspondence between the two Romans 40 Some of the following parallels between 1 Thess 4:1–8 and Rom 1:18–32 have also been noted by some commentators: e. g., Holtz, Thessalonicher, 159; A. J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians (AB; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 229, 230. Col 3:5–6 also shows basically the same parallels with 1 Thess 4:1–8 and Rom 1:18–32: πορνεία, ἀκαθαρσία, πάθος, ἐπιθυμία, πλεονεξία, εἰδωλολατρία, the misuse of the “body” (τὰ μέλη τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς) for πορνεία, ἀκαθαρσία, etc., and ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ. See n. 37 above for the parallelism of Col 3:8–11 with Rom 12:1–2 and 13:12, 14. So, like 1 Thess 4:1–8, Col 3:5–11 also shows parallels with both Rom 1:18–32 and 12:1–2. 41  This parallelism between 1 Thess 4:1–8 and Rom 1:18–32 seems to strengthen the case for interpreting the controversial phrase “his vessel [σκεῦος]” of 1 Thess 4:4 in the sense of “his body” in its sexual aspect (the misuse of which is described and condemned in Rom 1:26–27), rather than “his wife.” Cf., e. g., Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 151–53; T. Elgvin, “‘To Master His Own Vessel:’ 1 Thess 4.4 in Light of New Qumran Evidence,” NTS 43 (1997): 604–19. See my comment ad loc. in my commentary.

274

Paul’s Common Paraenesis

passages leads us to affirm that just as in 1 Thess 4:3–8 ἁγιασμός (vv. 3, 4, 7), while associated with τιμή (v. 4), is contrasted with πορνεία (v. 3), πάθος ἐπιθυμίας (vv. 4–5), and ἀκαθαρσία (v. 7), so also in Rom 12:1 the word “holy” (ἁγία) is employed in contrast to the ἐπιθυμία, ἀκαθαρσία, πάθος ἀτιμίας, and fornication of Rom 1:18–32. Therefore, we can say that just as in 1 Thess 4:1–8 believers are called to seek sanctification (ἁγιασμός) by controlling their “body” in “holiness” (ἁγιασμός) in contrast to the heathen use of their “body” for πορνεία, πάθος, ἐπιθυμία, and ἀκαθαρσία, so also in Rom 12:1–2 they are called to offer their “bodies” as a “holy” (ἁγία) sacrifice to God in contrast to the heathen life of offering their “bodies” to ἐπιθυμία, ἀκαθαρσία, πάθος ἀτιμίας, and fornication which is described in Rom 1:18–32. So, both Rom 12:1–2 and 1 Thess 4:1–8 affirm that the “holy” life “pleases” God, while both Rom 1:18–32 and 1 Thess 4:1–8 affirm that the heathen life of lustful passion, fornication, and impurity angers God, i. e., provokes “God’s wrath” (Rom 1:18–32) or his “vengeance” (1 Thess 4:6). – 1 Thess 4:1–8 and Rom 1:18–32: The lustful and impure life of unbelievers angers God, (as it defies “the will of God”). – 1 Thess 4:1–8 and Rom 12:1–2: The “holy” life of believers “pleases” God, as it obeys “the will of God.” Thus, with the common vocabulary of “holy/holiness,” “the will of God,” “body”/“vessel (= body),” “pleasing/well-pleasing,” and God’s “vengeance”/ “wrath”, Paul “exhorts” (παρακαλῶ) believers both in 1 Thess 4:1–8 and in Rom 12:1–2 for a life of sanctification, in contrast to the heathen life that is described in essentially the same way in 1 Thess 4:1–8 and Rom 1:18–32.42 These parallels between 1 Thess 4:1–8 and Rom 12:1–2 strengthen our view that there is an overall parallelism between 1 Thess 4–5 and Rom 12–13.

5. Parallelism of Phil 3:17–21 with 1 Thess 4–5 and Rom 12–13(and Its Related Texts) The exhortation for a holy, God-pleasing life in contrast to the heathen life of idolatry and immorality is implicitly made also in Phil 3:17–19: “[Imitate me, and 42  Note how in 1 Thess 4:1–8 Paul emphasizes that he already taught the Thessalonians about the need for them to live a sanctified life (vv. 1–2), warning about the Lord’s vengeance on the sinful life of the heathen (v. 6). Romans is, of course, a letter that Paul addresses to people whom he has never taught. Hence he delivers the same teaching in the letter, and he does so, elaborating on the horrors of the heathen existence in Rom 1:18–32, much more extensively than in 1 Thess 4:3–8, as he might have done orally during his mission to Thessalonica. Thus the warning about God’s wrath/vengeance on the sinful life of the heathen and the call for the sanctified life of the redeemed that 1 Thess 4:1–8 and Rom 1:18–32 + 12:1–2 represent may have been part of the staple diet of Paul’s missionary preaching to the Gentiles.

5. Parallelism of Phil 3:17–21 with 1 Thess 4–5 and Rom 12–13

275

not the] many … [who] live as enemies of the cross, whose end is destruction, their god is the belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set [φρονοῦντες] on earthly things.” This starkly abbreviated formulation reminds us much of the exhortations in 1 Thess 4:1–8 and Rom 12:1–2//13:11–14 (//Rom 1:18–32; 6:11– 23; 8:3–13) against the heathen or Adamic humanity’s lifestyle. Note especially the following echoes in Phil 3:17–19: – “live as enemies of the cross” – provoking God’s wrath (Rom 1:18–32; 8:7– 8) and “pleasing to God” (Rom 12:1; 1 Thess 4:1) – “belly” – “body” (Rom 1:24; 6:12–19; 8:13) and “vessel” (1 Thess 4:4) – idolatry (of belly) – idolatry (Rom 1:23, 25) and ignorance of God (1 Thess 4:5) – “their god is the belly” – passions and lusts (Rom 1:24, 26; 13:14; 6:12; 13:14; 1 Thess 4:5) – “they glory in their shame” – “dishonoring” (Rom 1:24, 26), “shameless” (Rom 1:27), “approve those who practice” (improper deeds, Rom 1:28), “ashamed” (Rom 6:21), “conduct becomingly” (Rom 13:13), and “holiness and honor” (1 Thess 4:4) – “mind” – mind (Rom 1:21–22, 28; 8:5–7; 12:1–2) – “minds set on earthly things” – “lusts of heart” (Rom 1:24) and “minds set on the flesh” (Rom 8:5–7; 13:14) – “their end is destruction” – God’s wrath or judgment (Rom 1:18, 32; 6:21; 8:6; 1 Thess 4:6) – the contrast between those who imitate Paul and the many who live in the heathen way – the contrast between the lifestyles of the redeemed and the Adamic humanity (Rom 12:1–2; 1:18–32; 6:11–23; 8:3–13; 13:11–14; 1 Thess 4:1–8) – further, reference to the Lord’s parousia and consummation of our salvation for assurance for perseverance and motivation for sanctification (Phil 3:20–21) – parallels in Rom 13:11–14 and 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 Thus, there are many close parallels between Phil 3:17–21 on the one hand and 1 Thess 4–5 and Rom 12–13 (and its related passages in Rom 1:18–32; 6:11–23; 8:3–13) on the other hand. So, if we add Phil 3:17–19 to Phil 4:2–9, the list of the exhortations in the Philippians passages is basically the same as the lists in Rom 12–13 and 1 Thess 4–5,43 although the exhortations are presented in a compact form in the former and are much enlarged and elaborated in the latter two lists. 43  The exhortation in Rom 12:13 (“Contribute to the needs of the saints, practice hospitality”) is apparently missing both in Philippians and 1 Thessalonians. Paul seems to omit it in 1 Thessalonians because the Thessalonian Christians are already practicing hospitality so well (1 Thess 4:9–10; cf. 5:12–13) and the common fund created out of hospitality is abused by some idlers (1 Thess 5:14; cf. 2 Thess 3:6–15). In Philippians Paul seems to omit it because he is about to address the delicate subject of the Philippian church’s contribution to his needs in 4:10–20.

276

Paul’s Common Paraenesis

Conclusion This study started with an observation of close parallels among 1 Thess 5:12–24; Rom 12:9–21; and Phil 4:2–9, and has ascertained a substantial parallelism among their wider contexts, namely 1 Thess 4–5; Rom 12–13; and Phil 3:17–4:9. It has also ascertained the unity of Romans 12–13 as a whole, in which Rom 12:1–2 and 13:11–14 form an inclusio, and Rom 12:14–13:10 a subunit for the theme of “living peaceably with all.” The parallelism among 1 Thess 5:12–24; Rom 12:9–21; and Phil 4:2–9 suggests that Paul had a set of moral exhortations for all the churches, as he implies in 1 Cor 4:17. This view is further supported by the fact that there is a close similarity between the virtues commended in those passages and the “fruit of the Spirit” in Gal 5:22–25 (“love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control;” cf. also the list of vices as “the works of the flesh” in Gal 5:19–21). Therefore we may conclude that the exhortations in 1 Thess 5:12–24; Rom 12:9–21; Phil 4:2–9; and Gal 5:22–25 represent the common paraenesis of Paul, or what he considered the fundamental way of Christian life.44 This conclusion is supported by the fact that the paraenesis of Rom 12:9–21 (and its extension in 13:1–10) is framed by the inclusio of Rom 12:1–2 and Rom 13:11–14, which are, respectively, the thesis statement and the concluding statement about the lifestyle of the redeemed in contrast to that of the fallen humanity in Rom 1:18–21. Although the three passages, 1 Thess 5:12–24; Rom 12:9–21; and Phil 4:2–9, and their wider contexts contain essentially the same exhortations, there is variance among them in stressing certain exhortations. Clearly Paul is making adaptations to the differing needs of the three churches for which those passages are written. For example, with his expansion of the list of exhortations in 1 Thess 5:19–22 with those that are specifically concerned with the question of the spiritual gift of prophecy, and his application of the concepts “good” and “evil” specifically to the question of examining prophecy, Paul is clearly addressing some vital concerns of the Thessalonian church. In the case of his expansion of the parousia theme in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11, he explicitly refers to that church’s concerns (1 Thess 4:13; 5:1). Paul’s adaptation of his common paraenesis to the specific needs of the church he is addressing is also clearly seen in his expansion of the exhortation to “live peaceably with all” (Rom 12:18) with further exhortations to forsake retaliation, exercise enemy love, submit to the governing authorities 44  In view of some partial parallels between these Pauline texts and 1 Pet 3:8–12 (cf. Selwyn, First Peter, 408–10), some scholars think that Paul is drawing on the common Christian tradition for his paraenesis. However, the view of Talbert (“Tradition and Redaction,” 83–94) that in Rom 12:9–21 Paul is reproducing the Jewish Christian ethical code with some Hellenistic Christian redactional additions in vv. 14–21, seems to go too far. Against this view, see Piper, ‘Love Your Enemies,’ 15–16.

Conclusion

277

and pay taxes to them, etc. in Rom 12:14–13:1045 (cf. also Rom 14:1–15:7). In Rom 12:14–21 Paul is clearly going out of his way to repeat several times and in various ways the four related exhortations “Exercise humility,” “Live peaceably with all,” “Do not retaliate against your persecutors,” and “Love your enemies.” And then he proceeds with the highly political exhortations in Rom 13:1–7. These particular features of Rom 12:14–13:10 as well as the unity of this long passage come into sharper relief when the passage is compared with the parallel passages of 1 Thess 5:12–24 and Phil 4:2–9. Thus, the comparison helps us better see reflected in Rom 12:14–13:10 a very critical socio-political situation of the Roman Christians and Paul’s serious attempt to prevent them from getting involved in the movement of resistance and retaliation in Rome.46 Thus, by a careful comparison of the lists of exhortations in 1 Thess 5:12–24; Rom 12:9–21; and Phil 4:2–9 in a manner analogous to the redaction-critical comparison of the Synoptic Gospels, we can more sharply define the needs of each church or the intent of Paul for each of these churches. By way of a postscript, we may state two further potential contributions of this study: (1) Our observation of the basically common paraenetical teaching in the three letters, one early (if not the earliest) letter (1 Thessalonians) and two later letters (Romans and Philippians), could have implications for the discussion about “development” in Pauline theology. (2) The correspondence between Rom 1:18–32 and 12:1–2 that has first been observed through a direct comparison between the two passages and then repeatedly reaffirmed through further comparisons of those two passages with other passages within Romans itself (6:11–23; 7:7–8:13; 13:11–14) as well as with Phil 3:17–21; Col 3:5–11; and 1 Thess 4:1–8 reveals the consistent line of Paul’s thinking in Romans, running from his explanation of the fall of humanity (1:18–3:20), through his proclamation of the gospel (3:21–8:39 or 11:36), to his exhortation for the righteous living of the justified (12:1–15:13), a consistent line that is sustained through his Adam–Christ antithesis (5:12–21). This finding militates against Douglas Campbell’s recent attempt to attribute Rom 1:18–32 to Paul’s opponent and to base his novel theses on Romans and Paul’s theology of justification partly on that assumption.47

45  Thus, the unity of Rom 12:14–13:10 ascertained in this study has some significant implications for the interpretation of the controversial passage Rom 13:1–7. 46 Thus, this study strengthens the view that in Romans Paul is not simply summing up his theology, but he also wants to help solve some of the actual problems of the Roman Christians. 47  D. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), esp. 519–600.

12. Paul’s Doctrine of Justification in 2 Thessalonians 1–2, and Its Implications for Pauline Theology and 2 Thessalonians Soon after sending his first letter to the Thessalonian Christians, Paul writes this second letter to them apparently upon the news that they are suffering from the intensifying persecutions by their pagan opponents and that they are also deeply shaken by a prophecy that the Day of the Lord has already come. So, in the first and main part of 2 Thessalonians (chs. 1–2), in order to comfort and assure them, he makes it clear that the Day of the Lord is yet to come as the parousia of the Lord Jesus will take place only after the revelation of “the man of lawlessness.” And he repeatedly hammers out the message that “the just judgment of God” (1:5) on the eventual Day of the Lord will be justification and glorification in God’s kingdom for them, the believers in the gospel of Christ (1:5, 7, 10, 11–12; 2:13–14, 16–17), but condemnation and destruction for their persecutors and others who refuse to believe the truth of the gospel but rather follow the lie of “the man of lawlessness,” the agent of Satan (1:6, 8–9; 2:9–12). So, addressing the Thessalonian believers’ anxiety about the Day of the Lord at the center (2:1–8), Paul comforts and assures them by explaining God’s “just judgment” (1:5) before it (1:5–12) and after it (2:9–17) in terms of his doctrine of justification by faith.

1. Exegesis1 (a) 2 Thess 1:5–10 In the first thanksgiving section (1:3–10), Paul says that the readers’ “endurance and faith” in all their persecutions (v. 4) is “evidence of the just judgment of God (ἔνδειγμα τῆς δικαίας κρίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ) that [they] would be counted worthy (καταξιωθῆναι) of the kingdom of God” (v. 5). This is the thesis of the message that he proclaims to the persecuted and anxious Thessalonian Christians in 2 Thessalonians. He substantiates it first by explaining God’s “just” (δικαία) judgment at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ in terms of the principle of appropriate 1 For more details of the exegesis of the following five passages of 2 Thess 1–2, see my commentary 1 and 2 Thessalonians (WBC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, forthcoming). Here I can give only a summary of that, highlighting only the points relevant to the present purpose, though sometimes I reproduce some material verbatim.

280

Paul’s Doctrine of Justification in 2 Thessalonians 1–2

retribution (ἀνταποδοῦναι) (vv. 6–7): it is to reverse the unjust reality of this fallen world and establish justice by “repaying with affliction those who afflict [the believers],” and “[repaying] [them], the afflicted, with rest.” Then, he substantiates it further by explaining God’s “just” judgment in terms of his doctrine of justification (vv. 8–10a): God “inflicts vengeance [ἐκδίκησις] upon those who do not know God and who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus,” so that they may be excluded from the glory of the Lord, while granting “his saints,” “all who have believed [the gospel],” to participate in his glory. Here note that in vv. 8–10a the second person pronouns and verbs that are predominant in the preceding vv. 3–7a and following vv. 10b–12 are absent and the specific references to the Thessalonian believers and their afflicters give way to the generalized references to those who do not know God and disobey the gospel as well as to God’s “saints,” “all who have believed.”2 Then, by adding the causal ὅτι clause in v. 10b, which is to be understood with the missing main clause filled in from the context, Paul applies personally to the readers the positive outcome of God’s just judgment for believers (v. 10a): “[Therefore you will also receive this blessing of participation in the Lord’s glory] because you have believed our testimony [i. e., the gospel].” These points mark vv. 8–10a out as a generalized explanation about God’s just judgment.3 In fact, in the passage Paul presents an explanation of God’s judgment according to his doctrine of justification, which he began to reflect in v. 5 and goes on reflecting in vv. 10b–12. This view is supported by 2 Thess 2:9–14, which parallels to the explanation of our passage (2 Thess 1:5–10) in contrasting descriptions of the readers and unbelievers and also contains a similarly generalized statement about God’s judgment according to his doctrine of justification in 2:12. Note here how strongly Paul emphasizes faith in the gospel as the criterion of God’s “just judgment” at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ: the Thessalonian Christians will be given the verdict of being worthy of God’s kingdom and rewarded with salvation (“rest” and “glory”) because of their faith in the gospel (vv. 4–5, 7, 10), while their persecutors will be repaid with affliction (v. 6) because they belong to “those who do not know God and … do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus,” to whom only “vengeance” (ἐκδίκησις) or “punishment [δίκη] of eternal destruction” is due (vv. 8–9). Paul’s distinctive parlance, “to obey the 2  Like “every” (πᾶς) in Rom 1:16, “all” (πάντες/πάντας) in Rom 3:22–24 (cf. also 3:28–30), and “all/every” (πᾶς) in Rom 10:12–13, “all” (πᾶς) here in v. 10a represents an element of Paul’s doctrine of justification, with which he stresses that God justifies without any distinction all human beings who believe the gospel (cf. also πάντες in Gal 3:26, 28). So, it also is a sign that in vv. 8–10a Paul states his doctrine of justification (cf. also 2:12, see below). 3  Cf. C. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians, NIGT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 232, who thinks that here Paul is inserting a pre-formed material of uncertain origin; cf. also E. Best, A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, BNTC (London: Black, 1977), 267.

1. Exegesis

281

gospel,” here reflects his understanding of the gospel cited in Rom 1:3–4 and of all the nations’ duty to render “the obedience of faith” to the “name” of “Jesus Christ our Lord” whom the gospel proclaims (Rom 1:4b–5; cf. also 15:18; 16:26; 2 Cor 9:13; also Gal 5:7; Rom 2:8). In Rom 10:9–10, Paul says that if we “believe in our heart that God raised Jesus from the dead” and “confess with [our] lips that Jesus is Lord,” we will be “justified” or “saved” (N. B. This is a summary presentation of the gospel of Rom 1:3–4 + 16–174). Then, in the same context (Rom 10:16), after making the charge that “But all have not obeyed the gospel,” Paul goes on to cite Isa 53:1 (“Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?”) in order to substantiate that charge. Thus, he makes it clear that “obedience to the gospel” is “belief in the gospel” or “obedience of faith to the gospel,” which brings justification or salvation. In our passage he does the same by contrasting the damned as those “who do not obey the gospel” (v. 8) with the Thessalonian Christians who “believed” the gospel, the “testimony” borne by him and his colleagues (v. 10; cf. 2:14; 1 Thess 1:5; 1 Cor 1:6). Furthermore, in our verse 8, by modifying “the gospel” with the phrase “of our Lord Jesus” (only here; elsewhere usually “the gospel of Christ”), he indicates not only that he is referring to the gospel cited in Rom 1:3–4, the gospel concerning God’s Son Jesus who was raised up from the dead and installed as the Lord over all, but also that he is talking about faith in that gospel and obedience to that Lord Jesus which that gospel demands. God justifies (and so saves) “everyone” who believes that gospel and confesses Jesus as the Lord, i. e., commits oneself to obedience to his lordship (Rom 1:16– 17; 10:9–10). By accepting the gospel or believing it, we come to “know God” properly as the Father of the Lord Jesus who has sent his Son to be incarnate in Jesus, the seed of David, and raised him from the dead in order to exalt him as his Son who bears his name “Lord” and exercises his power on his behalf through his Spirit. The Thessalonian Christians accepted this gospel and so came to know and serve the “living and true God” and to “wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come [i. e., justifies us at the last judgment]” (1 Thess 1:9–10).5 But their persecutors belong to those who do not know God properly and do not render the obedience of faith to the gospel. From Paul’s point of view, they are willfully refusing to avail themselves by faith of God’s saving grace offered in the gospel, unlike the readers who have “believed” the gospel (2 Thess 1:10b). Therefore, God will mete out to them ἐκδίκησις (“vengeance”) or δίκη (“punishment”) of eternal destruction  Cf. S. Kim, Justification and God’s Kingdom (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 15–19. the views that the thesis of Paul’s doctrine of justification in Rom 1:16–17 is a soteriological application of the Christological gospel cited in Rom 1:3–4 and that Paul’s gospel summarized in 1 Thess 1:9–10 reflects them both, see comment ad loc. in my commentary; cf. also Essay 2 “Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel” above in this volume; also my book Justification, 15–19. 4

5 For

282

Paul’s Doctrine of Justification in 2 Thessalonians 1–2

(vv. 8–9), instead of δικαίωσις (“justification”) and salvation at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, together with v. 5 and v. 10, v. 8 reflects clearly the doctrine of justification that Paul introduces in Rom 1:3–4, 16–17 and then applies to the Jews in Rom 10 after expounding it in Rom 1–8. Seeing all this, we may take the infinitive καταξιωθῆναι in v. 5 as a material synonym of the infinitive δικαιωθῆναι (“to be counted righteous, to be justified”),6 a key-concept in Paul’s doctrine of justification, and we may interpret the verdict of God’s “just judgment” for believers as “καταξιωθῆναι of the kingdom of God” in terms of the gospel of Rom 1:3–4 +16–17. Here it is necessary to remember that by believing that “God raised Jesus from the dead” (and exalted him as his Son to exercise his kingship or lordship) and by confessing “Jesus is the Lord” in accordance with that gospel of Rom 1:3–4 at our baptism (Rom 10:9–10), we are transferred from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ God’s Son, which is the present manifestation of the kingdom of God (cf. 1 Cor 15:23–28, which unfolds the gospel of Rom 1:3–4). It is also necessary to remember that God’s righteousness (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) is not just a judicial concept but more fundamentally a relational concept as God’s covenant-faithfulness and that God’s justification (δικαιοῦν, δικαιοῦσθαι) is not only a forensic act of acquittal but also an act of restoring sinners to the right, covenantal relationship with himself, so that his justification of us (his declaration of us as righteous) involves our transfer from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of God, which is represented by the kingdom of his Son Jesus Christ the Lord at present. This truth is most succinctly stated in Col 1:13–14: “[God] has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (i. e., justification). Thus, justification is a Herrschaftswechsel,7 a transfer into the kingdom or lordship sphere of Christ Jesus the Lord, so that we may live “in the Lord” (ἐν κυρίῳ). At our baptism, by our affirmation of faith in the gospel of Jesus’ atoning death and his resurrection/exaltation and by our confession of him as Lord, we are justified, i. e., acquitted of our sins and transferred into the kingdom of God and his Son Jesus Christ (Rom 10:9–10). However, this is only the firstfruit of our justification, and we are yet to have the consummated justification at the last judgment at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the meantime, we are to live, rendering “the obedience of faith” to the Lord Jesus, to his kingship or lordship, by availing ourselves by faith of the leading and enabling of his Spirit, the Holy Spirit, rather than obeying

6 Cf. O. A. Rainbow, “Justification according to Paul’s Thessalonian Correspondence,” BBR 19 (2009): 251. 7  Cf. E. Käsemann, “Gottesgerechtigkeit bei Paulus,” in Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen (vol. 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 185–93 (ET: “‘The Righteousness of God’ in Paul,” in New Testament Questions of Today [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969], 174–82).

1. Exegesis

283

Satan, who tempts us through our flesh (Rom 8:1–13; Gal 5:16–25).8 Then, at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ, we are to stand before the judgment seat of God, who will judge us according to our works (Rom 2:5–16; 14:10–12; 2 Cor 5:10; cf. also Rom 6:19–23; 1 Cor 3:10–17; 4:1–5; 6:9–11; 9:16–27; Gal 5:19–21; 6:7–8; Phil 2:12–17; Col 1:21–23; 1 Thess 3:12–13; 5:23), according to the fruits of our “obedience of faith” (Rom 1:5; etc.; i. e., our “work of faith,” 2 Thess 1:11; 1 Thess 1:3) or the “fruits of righteousness/sanctification” (Phil 1:11; Rom 6:22) that we have borne through the aid of the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:22–23). There, with the intercession of God’s Son Jesus Christ we shall finally obtain from God the ultimate justification, which is entering his consummated kingdom (1 Cor 6:9; 15:50; Gal 5:21) and participating in the glory of God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ the Lord (Rom 5:2; 8:17–18; 29–39; 2 Thess 1:10, 12; 2:14). The Thessalonian Christians have “[led] a life worthily [ἀξίως] of God, who calls [them] into his own kingdom and glory” in accordance with Paul’s charge (1 Thess 2:11–12). Paul sees their “endurance and faith in all [their] persecutions” (2 Thess 1:4) as evidence for such a life. Therefore, he is wholly convinced that that is also sure “evidence” (ἔνδειγμα) that in his “just judgment” God will certainly grant them that ultimate justification, i. e., the ultimate verdict: “You are worthy [καταξιωθῆναι] to enter into my kingdom!” (2 Thess 1:5),9 and make them participate in his glory. (b) 2 Thess 1:11–12 Even with this conviction, Paul adds a prayer to the long thanksgiving section (vv. 3–10) for God to help the Thessalonian believers obtain at the last judgment the blessing referred to in v. 10 (N. B. the opening εἰς ὅ in v. 11), namely their participation in the Lord’s glory (which summarily includes in itself the blessings mentioned in vv. 5 and 7). The petitions of the prayer are specified by two clauses: that God “make the [Thessalonian Christians] worthy [ἀξιώσῃ] of his call” and that he “enable [them] to fulfill [their] every resolve to do good and their work of faith.”10 But they belong together, for the latter petition concretizes the former one. God called the Thessalonian believers into his kingdom (cf. 1 Thess 2:12) through the gospel (2 Thess 2:14), offering in it their justification or  8  For a detailed explanation of this “present process of justification,” see “The Present Phase of Justification and the Ethical Imperatives” in my Justification, 73–91. For the concept of the “present process of justification,” see P. Stuhlmacher, Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective, With an Essay by Donald A. Hagner (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Academic, 2001), 55–69; pace Rainbow, “Justification,” 274 n. 72.  9 Contrast the verdict for unbelievers in v. 9, which implicitly suggests that “the punishment of eternal destruction” for them consists in exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from his glory. 10  For the exegetical decisions for such interpretations of the two clauses (as well as the other passages dealt with in this essay), see comments ad loc. in my commentary.

284

Paul’s Doctrine of Justification in 2 Thessalonians 1–2

sanctification (i. e., offering to make them the righteous or holy people of God), so that they may participate in his glory. By their acceptance of the gospel, God’s call for them through it has become actualized at their baptism. Therefore, now they are to live as God’s holy or righteous people, rendering the “obedience of faith” to God’s Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, who reigns over God’s people on his behalf. Such a life is that which is “worthy of [God’s] call.” It is to have the will or resolve to do good and to work it out in every situation in accordance with the will of the Lord Jesus. The Thessalonian Christians cannot do these by themselves. Therefore, Paul is praying for God to enable them to do those things “by power” (ἐν δυνάμει, v. 11, no doubt, by the power of his Spirit) or by his “grace” (v. 12).11 The purpose of God’s enabling them to do the good works by his power or grace is for them to obtain the consummated justification, (their entry into the consummated kingdom of God and) their participation in the glory of the Lord Jesus (v. 12; cf. its parallel in 2:14b), in the ultimate fulfillment of the purpose of God’s call (cf. Rom 8:30). Thus here Paul expresses his standard teaching about the present process of justification (or sanctification): those who were justified or sanctified at baptism need to do good works in the present for the consummation of their justification or sanctification at God’s last judgment (e. g., Rom 2:5–16; 1 Cor 1:8; 2 Cor 5:10; Phil 1:10; 1 Thess 3:12–13);12 God enables them to do them by the power of his Spirit or his grace (1 Cor 15:10; Phil 2:12–16; Col 1:29; 1 Thess 4:8); and they can do them only by availing themselves of that grace of God by faith or by walking according to the Holy Spirit of God and his Son (Rom 7–8; Gal 5), so that their good works are the “work of faith” (v. 11; cf. 1 Thess 1:3). So is justification wrought by God’s grace and through our faith not only at our baptism but also during the present process of it and at the last judgment (cf. Rom 8:31–39; 1 Thess 1:10). Therefore, it is quite impressive to see Paul rounding off his references to the three phases of justification or salvation – God’s baptismal call of believers (cf. Gal 1:6), his present help for them fulfill the good “work of faith,” and his eschatological granting of glory – as being “according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

11  Cf. J.-N. Aletti, Justification by Faith in the Letters of Saint Paul: Keys to Interpretation (tr. From French by P. Manning Meyer; Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2015), 207: “… if for Paul, believers have been justified [= have become just] not by their good works but by the grace of God, this does not mean that once justified they have remained incapable of good works: it is necessary for them to do what is good [Rom 13:3] and, with this same divine grace, accomplish all sorts of good deeds [2 Cor 9:8]. Divine grace suppresses neither the will nor the behavior of the believer, but rather it gives the capacity to do what is good.” 12 See n. 16 below for the view that justification and sanctification are parallel metaphors for salvation (cf. esp. 1 Cor 6:11).

1. Exegesis

285

(c) 2 Thess 2:9–12 It is most probably the anxiety about God’s last judgment that has made the Thessalonian Christians greatly shaken by a prophecy that the Day of the Lord has already come (2:1–2). So, in order to comfort and assure them, Paul first explains in 2:3–8 that the Day of the Lord is yet to come only after the revelation of “the man of lawlessness,” which is being restrained at present. Then, in 2:8 he concludes that explanation by affirming that eventually, with the restrainer (ὁ κατέχων) removed, the lawless man will be revealed and that the Lord Jesus will destroy him by his parousia. But then, in 2:9–12, instead of continuing the narrative with a description of the Lord Jesus’ parousia and “our assembling to meet him” (cf. 2:1) or with an explanation about the events to take place on the Day of the Lord, Paul steps back to describe the deceptive work of the lawless man and its effects on unbelievers as well as God’s judgment of them. Then, in 2:13–14, he follows the reference to God’s judgment of unbelievers up with a strongly reassuring message of God’s salvation of the readers, the Thessalonian Christians, for their faith in the gospel. Thus, with the two sections of 2:9–12 and 2:13–14, Paul elaborates on the themes that he propounded in 1:5–10, namely God’s “just judgment” that will reward the Thessalonian Christians and other believers with salvation and glory in his kingdom, while condemning and destroying their persecutors and others who refuse to believe the gospel and instead do evil. Thus, it is clear that Paul’s chief concern in 2:9–14 (and vv. 16–17), as well as in 1:5–10 (and vv. 11–12), is to stress repeatedly these different prospects of God’s judgment and thereby to comfort and assure the suffering Thessalonian Christians who are anxious about the last judgment of God at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ or on the Day of the Lord. Therefore, the first and main part of 2 Thessalonians, namely chs. 1–2, is to be seen as having as its main theme not the apocalyptic scenario of the revelation of “the lawless man” and the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ, but believers’ justification or salvation and unbelievers’ condemnation at God’s “just judgment” at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ. In our passage (2 Thess 2:9–12), Paul says that by demonstrating the great power through signs and wonders, “the lawless man,” when he comes, will deceive people to believe his lie and indulge in unrighteousness (ἀδικία) so as to perish, instead of accepting the truth (the gospel, cf. 2 Cor 4:2; 13:8; Gal 2:5, 14; 5:7; Eph 1:13; Col 1:5, 6) so as to be saved (2:9–10). “Therefore, God will send them a working of delusion [ἐνέργειαν πλάνης], so that they should believe the lie [2:11], so that all may be judged who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness [2:12].” Here note, first of all, how in our 2:10 and 2:12 Paul makes it clear that acceptance of or faith in the truth (the gospel) leads to salvation, while unbelief in it leads to condemnation and destruction. Then, note fur-

286

Paul’s Doctrine of Justification in 2 Thessalonians 1–2

ther the three facts in 2:12: (a) he states this truth in a generalized form (“all who did not believe the truth [would] be judged”) by way of concluding his teaching in the preceding verses (2:9–11) just as he does in 1:8–10; (b) the language of the statement echoes Rom 2:8; and (c) its content (together with that of 2:10b) is a negative expression of the doctrine of justification that he fundamentally sets forth in Rom 1:16–17: all who believe the gospel will be saved. Then, appreciate how Paul’s description of unbelievers’ sins and his explanation of God’s judicial response to them in our passage form a close parallel to what is expressed in Rom 1:18–32: (a) just as here unbelievers are charged of having rejected “the truth” of the gospel (2 Thess 2:10, 12), so in the Romans passage pagans are charged of having rejected “the truth” revealed in creation (Rom 1:18, 25); (b) both here (2 Thess 1:8) and in Rom 1:21 unbelievers are charged with not acknowledging God properly; (c) their rejection of “the truth” of the true God led them to believe “the lie” of a false god both here (2 Thess 2:4, 11) and in Rom 1:25; (d) both in our passage (2 Thess 2:11) and in the Romans passage (Rom 1:24, 26, 28) God is said to respond to unbelievers’ rejection of “the truth” by abandoning them to or making them fall deeper into the world of “the lie” and unrighteousness (ἀδικία); (e) the ways of expressing this thought in the two passages are very similar: both in 2 Thess 2:11 and in Rom 1:26 the thought is introduced by διὰ τοῦτο (cf. also διό in Rom 1:24), and “God [will] send them a working of delusion …” here corresponds to “God gave them up to a reprobate mind” in Rom 1:28 (cf. also 1:24, 26); (f) unbelievers’ rejection of “the truth” and indulgence in unrighteousness form an organic unity both here and in the Romans passage; and (g) just as Paul declares in the Romans passage that God’s wrath is revealed for all such unbelieving evil doers (Rom 1:18; 2:5, 8) in contrast to God’s justification of all those who believe the gospel (Rom 1:16–17), so in our passage he declares that all those who did not believe the truth (the gospel) will be condemned at God’s judgment (2 Thess 2:12; cf. Rom 2:8–9) in contrast to (all) believers13 obtaining God’s salvation and glory (2 Thess 2:13–14). There is a difference between our passage and the Romans passage in the temporal perspective.14 However, for our present purpose, it is important to note that in the two passages Paul employs the same principle of human sin and God’s 13 Cf. 2 Thess 1:10: “all who believed.” Cf. also Essay 2 “Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel (1 Thess 1:9–10 and Rom 1:3–4)” above in this volume (p. 53 n. 23) for the close affinities between 1 Thess 1:9–10 and Rom 2:4–6. 14 Whereas our passage looks from the perspective of the future parousia of “the lawless man” at unbelievers’ (past) rejection of the gospel truth, their (future) response to “the lawless man’s” lie, and God’s (future) judgment, the Romans passage looks from the perspective of the present preaching of the gospel at pagans’ (past) rejection of God’s truth revealed in creation, and God’s (past) judgment that has present effect in the lives of those pagans. Nevertheless, the principle of human rejection of God’s truth and salvation leading to God’s response with a judicial abandonment of them to remain in their reprobate mind and moral depravity is the same in both passages.

1. Exegesis

287

response as well as the same concepts and vocabulary in explanation of God’s condemnation of unbelievers in the truth/gospel in contrast to his justification or salvation of believers in it. Our 2 Thess 2:12 is a close parallel to Rom 2:8 (τοῖς ἀπειθοῦσιν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πειθομένοις δὲ τῇ ἀδικίᾳ, “[God’s judgment of] those who disobey the truth but obey unrighteousness”), which Paul has already echoed in speaking of God’s judgment of “those who do not obey the gospel (τοῖς μὴ ὑπακούουσιν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ) in our 2 Thess 1:8. In fact, his explanation of “the just judgment of God” (τῆς δικαίας κρίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, 1:5) in our 2 Thess 1:4–12 and 2:10–17 closely parallels that in Rom 2:5–11 (δικαιοκρισίας τοῦ θεοῦ, v. 5). In Rom 2:6 he apparently cites Prov 24:12 to affirm the principle of “God’s just judgment:” “[God] will recompense [ἀποδώσει] every human being according to one’s works.” Then, he goes on to apply it to “those who … do not obey [ἀπειθοῦσιν] the truth (ἀληθεία) … [but] obey unrighteousness (ἀδικία)” and “those who by patience (ὑπομονή) do good work (ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ): to the former God will repay with “wrath and fury,” “affliction [θλῖψιν] and distress” and to the latter with “glory” (δόξαν), “peace” (εἰρήνην) and “eternal life” (ζωὴ αἰώνιον), “on the Day of wrath when God’s just judgment will be revealed” (ἀποκάλυψις) (Rom 2:5–11). Employing the vocabulary and ideas found also in Rom 2:5–11, Paul, in our 2 Thess 1:4–12 and 2:9–14, explains “God’s just judgment” that is to take place with the “revelation” [ἀποκάλυψις] of the Lord Jesus (1:7) on the Day of the Lord (2:9–14); he speaks of the damned as “those who … do not obey [ὑπακούουσιν] the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (1:8) or as “those who do not accept or believe the truth (ἀληθεία [of the gospel]) but have pleasure in unrighteousness (ἀδικία)” (2:10, 12), whereas the Thessalonian Christians believe the gospel or “the truth” (1:10; 2:13–14) and maintain faith in “patience” (ὑπομονή, 1:4); he affirms that God will “recompense” (ἀνταποδοῦναι) unbelieving evil doers with affliction (θλῖψιν, 1:6) or “give [them] vengeance” (διδόντος ἐκδίκησιν, 1:8), the “punishment” (δίκην) of “eternal destruction” (ὄλεθρον αἰώνιον, 1:9; cf. ἀπολλύναι, 2:10) instead of “eternal life” (ζωὴν αἰώνιον), but will give “glory”(δόξαν) and “rest” (ἄνεσιν) in God’s kingdom to those who believe [the truth of] the gospel and do good work (εὐδοκίαν ἀγαθωσύνης καὶ ἔργον πίστεως; ἔργῳ … ἀγαθῷ) by patience (ὑπομονή) (1:4, 5, 7, 10– 12; 2:13–14, 17); and he affirms that this truth applies to “all” unbelievers and “all” believers (1:10; 2:12) (regardless of the distinction between “Jews and Gentiles,” Rom 2:10; cf. Rom 1:16). Thus, there is an extensive and close parallelism between our 2 Thessalonians passages (1:5–12 and 2:9–14) and Rom 2:5–11 in explaining “God’s just judgment.” (d) 2 Thess 2:13–14 Formally this is a thanksgiving section, but in content it is a direct continuation of the preceding section (2 Thess 2:9–12). After speaking of God’s coming con-

288

Paul’s Doctrine of Justification in 2 Thessalonians 1–2

demnation of those who refuse to believe the gospel, in our section Paul goes on to give thanks to God for his saving work for the Thessalonian Christians. God chose them for salvation, called them through the gospel preached by Paul and his colleagues, sanctified them by his Spirit, i. e., made them become his holy people by leading them by the Holy Spirit to believe the truth (the gospel) and confess Jesus as Lord (cf. Rom 10:9–10 plus 1 Cor 12:3b)15 and thus to be transferred into his and his Son’s kingdom (cf. 1 Cor 6:11; Col 1:13–14), so that they may obtain the consummation of salvation at the eschaton. The “salvation” for which God chose and called the readers is to obtain “the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ” at his parousia. It presupposes the understanding that God exalted the risen Christ to his right hand and made him “Lord” (cf. Rom 1:3–4; Phil 2:9–11), entrusting him with his “dominion and glory and kingship” (cf. 1 Cor 15:20–28, which, unfolding the gospel of Rom 1:3–4, echoes Dan 7:14 as well as Pss 8:7; 110:1), and that Christ is “the image of God” who bears “the glory of God in [his] face” (2 Cor 4:4, 6). Paul often expresses Christians’ eschatological salvation in terms of obtaining the glory of God or Christ (Rom 5:2; 8:17–18, 21, 30; 1 Cor 2:7; 15:43; 2 Cor 4:17; Phil 3:21; 1 Thess 2:12; cf. also 2 Cor 3:18). In 2 Thess 1:8–12, which is a material parallel to 2 Thess 2:10–14, he already said that the readers would participate in the glory of the Lord Jesus at his parousia because they believed the gospel preached by his missionary team while their opponents would be excluded from it and destroyed because they refused to believe the gospel and obey the Lord Jesus. He recapitulates it here, making it clearer, by way of concluding his message of assurance and comfort for the readers. Thus, having applied in 2 Thess 2:10–12 to unrighteous unbelievers his doctrine of justification through faith in the gospel in a negative way, now here, in 2:13–14, Paul applies it to the Thessalonian Christians in a positive way. In the former he maintains the juridical framework of that doctrine with his emphasis on God’s condemnation (κριθῶσιν) of unbelievers for their belief in the lie of “the lawless man” and for their unrighteousness (ἀδικία), instead of believing the truth (of Christ). But here he explains that doctrine in the category of sanctification within the juridical framework of the last judgment (this framework must be seen as presupposed in 2:13–14, as the passage is set in contrast to the preceding section 2:9–12).16 15 Note that ἁγιασμὸς πνεύματος is placed ahead of πίστις ἀληθείας in the construction governed by one instrumental preposition ἐν (ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος καὶ πίστει ἀληθείας). Paul means that the Thessalonians were enabled by the prevenient grace of God operating through his Spirit to believe the truth (the gospel) proclaimed to them. For more details of this exegesis, see comment ad loc. in my commentary. 16  In this respect, 2 Thess 2:13–14 is similar to 1 Thess 3:12–13 and 5:23. Justification (restoring us to a right relationship with God, i. e., making us members of the righteous people of God) and sanctification (consecrating us to belong to God, i. e., making us members of the holy people

1. Exegesis

289

(e) 2 Thess 2:16–17 Like 1 Thess 3:11–13, this wish-prayer (2 Thess 2:16–17) concludes the first part of the letter (chs. 1–2, the eschatological teachings) and makes transition to the second part (2 Thess 3:6–15, exhortations). In content, it has close parallels to the earlier prayer-report of 2 Thess 1:11–12. Paul opens this prayer by addressing the Lord Jesus Christ and God the Father as having “loved us” in reference to their saving acts mentioned in 2:13–14, namely, election, calling and sanctification. Paul addresses them also as having “given us” the fruit of those saving acts, namely, the hope of obtaining the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ (at his parousia), which he calls “eternal comfort and good hope.”17 By summarizing the saving acts of God and Christ thus in terms of their “loving and giving,” Paul has already implied that they were the acts of their grace. However, in order to make that truth explicit and emphatic, he adds the phrase “by grace” (2 Thess 2:16), which he employs elsewhere as shorthand or virtual terminus technicus for God’s work of justification (or salvation) (e. g., Rom 3:24; 4:4, 16; 5:2, 15; 6:1, 15; Gal 1:6; 2:21; 5:4; Eph 2:5, 7, 8). Then, in 2 Thess 2:17, Paul makes the petition for the God and Christ of saving grace to “comfort” the readers’ “hearts and help them stand firm” (in the “traditions”18 of the right faith, cf. 2:15) to produce “every of God) are parallel metaphors for salvation, so that they are not to be seen in terms of the ordo salutis of Protestant dogmatics. The fact that Paul sets sanctification within the judicial framework of the last judgment indicates that justification is the more fundamental category of Paul’s soteriology, and that in the Thessalonian correspondence (and the Corinthian correspondence) he contextualizes his justification doctrine partly in terms of sanctification because the Thessalonian Christians (like the Corinthian Christians) face the danger of idolatry and immorality in their pagan environment rather than the issue of keeping the Mosaic law (cf. also Rom 6:19–22). For a comprehensive comparison of Paul’s use of the justification language and the sanctification language, see Explanation on 1 Thess 3:11–13 in my commentary; cf. also section 20 of Essay 3 “The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians” above in this volume. 17  Paul puts “eternal comfort” ahead of “good hope” in order to make the suffering Thessalonian Christians immediately feel the effects of the good hope. For the designation of “good hope” for obtaining the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ as the result of justification, cf. Rom 5:1–2: “the hope of sharing the glory of God;” cf. also Rom 8:24–25. 18 For rendering στηρίξαι in 2 Thess 2:17 with “help them stand firm” and taking the omitted location as the “traditions” that were taught by Paul (2:15), see comment ad loc. in my commentary. There I also explain that in view of the facts that Paul is alarmed about the Thessalonian Christians being “deceived” and “shaken” by a false prophecy about the Day of the Lord (2:1–3) and that he places the exhortation in 2:15 (N. B. the opening inferential ἄρα οὖν) in the middle of warning the readers about the deceptive teachings or claims of “the lawless man” and encouraging them with his gospel of justification of believers (2:9–14, 16–17), we need to see that by the plural “traditions” he refers to the Christological/soteriological/ethical teachings as well as the eschatological teachings that he taught the Thessalonians during his founding mission among them. If so, the doctrine of justification that he expresses in our passages was a “tradition” that he delivered to them at that time. Of course, this is confirmed by 1 Thess 1:10 and 5:9–10 (cf. also 4:1–8). For the implicit presence of that doctrine in the Corinthian correspondence as well, cf. section 14 in Essay 2 “The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians” above in this volume. Cf. also n. 23 below.

290

Paul’s Doctrine of Justification in 2 Thessalonians 1–2

good work and word” (no doubt, towards the consummation of their salvation, namely, obtaining the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ),19 as he similarly does in the wish-prayers of 1 Thess 3:12–13; 5:23 (cf. also Phil 1:9–11). As he did in the prayer-report of 2 Thess 1:11–12, so also in this wish-prayer (2:16–17) Paul rounds off his references to the three phases of justification or salvation – God’s saving work of the past (2:13–14a) and of the future (2:14b) and also of the present (2:17) – as being “by grace” (2:16). However, it is noteworthy that in speaking of God’s salvation of believers in his “just judgment” (i. e., his justification) in the five sections of our 2 Thess 1–2, Paul refers to God’s “grace” only twice (1:12; 2:11), whereas he refers to “faith” seven times (1:10 [x 2], 11; 2:11, 12, 13; plus the implicit “obedience [of faith] to the gospel” in 1:8). In Romans and Galatians Paul frequently refers to God’s “grace” as well as human “faith” (often together, Rom 3:24; 4:4–5, 16; 5:2, 15– 20; 6:1–4; Gal 2:20–21; 5:4–5) in connection with his doctrine of justification. In those letters, unfolding that doctrine, Paul explains God’s saving act of delivering Christ to a death of vicarious atonement for us, referring to it as his grace, and stresses that sinners avail themselves by faith in the gospel of that saving act of God in Christ. However, in 2 Thessalonians he is not concerned to unfold or expound formally his justification doctrine per se, but concentrates rather on reassuring and comforting the anxious and persecuted recipients of the letter by highlighting the final element of that doctrine. Therefore, here he does not explain that God’s justification is based on his grace in the death and resurrection of Christ, but repeatedly stresses only that at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ the Thessalonian Christians will receive justification (salvation) because they have believed the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ while their persecutors will receive condemnation and destruction because they have not believed it. Hence in our 2 Thess 1:5–10, 11–12; 2:9–12, 13–14 Paul makes repeatedly and prominently references to belief or unbelief in the gospel as the criterion of justification (salvation) or condemnation (destruction). Thereby he lets that element of his doctrine of justification clearly appear: faith in the gospel is the means whereby human beings avail themselves of God’s saving work offered in it. Nevertheless, in 2 Thess 1:11b and 2:13–14 he refers, albeit only partially and in a summary form, to God’s saving acts that have been wrought: in 1:11 to God’s baptismal “call” of believers, and in 2:13–14 to his election of believers, his sanctification of them by the Spirit, and his call of them through the gospel – three divine actions which provide the ground for their eschatological salvation. Hence, in 1:12 and 2:16, Paul uses the word “grace” in a summary reference to those 19  If by “every good work and word” Paul has in view also the charges that he is to issue in 2 Thess 3:6–12 to the disorderly idlers to work for their own bread and not to be busybodies, as well as the general good “work of faith” that he mentioned in the parallel passage 2 Thess 1:11, he must mean that as the specific forms of fulfilling the Lord’s commandment to love one’s neighbor those works are part of the good “work of faith” that the idlers ought to produce.

2. Arguments

291

saving acts of God, even if their list does not include the central element of God’s saving work, namely Christ’s atoning death and resurrection,20 in reference or allusion to which he uses the word “grace” elsewhere with noticeable frequency. In 1:12, with the phrase “according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus,” Paul has chiefly in view their present saving work of enabling believers to fulfill their work of faith in the present process of justification or sanctification towards its consummation (1:11; cf. 1 Cor 15:10; Phil 2:12–13; Col 1:29), whereas with the phrase “by grace” in 2:16 he refers chiefly to their saving acts already wrought (2:13–14a) and secondarily also to their work of helping believers in their present process of justification (2:17). Anyway, it appears clear that Paul refers to God’s grace when he explains God’s saving work (of the past, the present and/or the future), and that in 2 Thessalonians he refers to it only twice because in it he is concerned not with expounding the doctrine of justification per se, but with comforting and assuring the suffering and anxious Thessalonian Christians with his doctrine of justification: in his “just judgment” God will grant them salvation in his kingdom because they have believed the gospel but condemn and destroy their persecutors because they have not believed it.

2. Arguments So far, we have observed how both in 2 Thess 1:5–12 and 2:9–17 Paul expresses21 his doctrine of justification. The presence of the doctrine of justification in them is discernable already in the sixfold occurrence of the δικ-terms in description of “the just judgment of God” on the Day of the Lord within the short spaces of those two passages (1:5, 6, 8, 9; 2:10, 12), sevenfold reference to faith (1:10 [x 2], 11; 2:11, 12, 13; plus the implicit “obedience [of faith] to the gospel” in 1:8; three more in 1:3–4 and 3:2;22 cf. also eight references to faith in 1 Thess 1:3, 8; 3:2, 5, 6, 7, 10; 5:8), the references to good works (2 Thess 1:11; 2:17) in contrast to unbelievers’ unrighteousness (2:10, 12), and the ultimate appeal to “the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ” for salvation of believers (1:12; 2:16; cf. also the reference to God’s “call,” “election” and “love” of believers in 1:11; 2:13,

20  Surely not because Paul is uninterested in it, but because for his purpose in 2 Thessalonians he does not feel the need to refer to it. N. B. his emphatic reference to Christ’s atoning death in 1 Thess 5:9–10; see also an allusion to it in 1 Thess 1:10. 21  This verb is used here because although in those passages Paul expresses the substance of the doctrine, he does not mean to teach it formally. 22 Paul’s description in 2 Thess 3:2 of the persecutors of Christians as “perverse and evil men” and as those who “do not have faith” summarily represents the thoughts of 1:5–9 and 2:9–12, while his assurance in 3:3 for the Thessalonian believers about the faithful Lord’s continuing work of establishing (στηρίξει) them in faith summarily represents the thoughts of 1:10–12 and 2:13–17.

292

Paul’s Doctrine of Justification in 2 Thessalonians 1–2

14, 16). So, we have here multiple references to most of the essential elements of Paul’s doctrine of justification. We have observed how in explaining God’s last judgment both in 2 Thess 1:5– 12 and 2:9–17 Paul sets forth teachings that he later unfolds in Rom 1:18–3:20 about fallen humanity and about God’s condemnation of all unbelievers and his justification of all who believe the gospel. We may also compare his presentation of believers’ consummated justification (or sanctification) in terms of their obtaining God’s glory at the last judgment in 2 Thess 1:11–12 and in 2:13–17 with what he does in Romans. For, in the latter also, having indicted the fallen humanity of sins (Rom 1:18–3:20), as in our 2 Thess 1–2, declaring that “all have sinned and lack the glory of God” (Rom 3:23), he concludes his whole exposition of the gospel of justification by affirming that the consummation of believers’ justification is to obtain God’s glory (Rom 5:2; 8:17–18, 21, 30). Within this parallelism between 2 Thess 1–2 and Rom 1–8 in the overall scheme of the human rebellion to God and God’s redemption or justification of believers in the gospel of Christ Jesus to participate in divine glory, there is also the parallelism between 2 Thess 2:13–14 (“God elected, called, and sanctified you, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ”) and Rom 8:29–30 (“[God] predestined, called, justified, and glorified [believers]”), both passages having the same purpose of comforting and reassuring the suffering and anxious Christians in view of the last judgment (Rom 8:18–39). This overall parallelism lends support to the views that in 2 Thess 1–2 Paul expresses his doctrine of justification and that in this there is a clear continuity between this early letter and the late letter Romans.23 However, our explanation of Paul’s teachings on God’s last judgment in 2 Thess 1–2 as based on his doctrine of justification may come to many readers as a shock. But, for me, what is really surprising is the fact that while noting, in the margins, several parallels in 2 Thess 2:9–14 to Rom 1:18–32, the Nestle–Aland editions of Greek New Testament have failed to note that in 2 Thess 1–2 there are four parallels to Rom 1:16–17: two positive parallels in 2 Thess 1:10; 2:13 and two negative ones in 2 Thess 1:8; 2:10, 12: Rom 1:16–17: “[The gospel of Rom 1:2–4] is the power of God for salvation to every one who believes [in it] … For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith, as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.” 2 Thess 1:10: All who have believed the gospel will participate in the glory of the Lord at his parousia “because our testimony [/gospel] was believed” (for this summary of the verse, see the exegesis above). 23  If 2 Thessalonians is a genuine Pauline letter as we are suggesting here, there is only about seven years intervening between it and Romans. Along with this fact, we should also bear in mind the fact that by the time of writing 2 Thessalonians (AD 50), Paul, the former “Pharisaic scribe” (M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer, Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years [Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1997], 10; cf. Gal 1:13–14), had had behind him a period longer than twice of that for developing a mature Christian theological thinking.

2. Arguments

293

2 Thess 2:13: “… God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth [/gospel].” 2 Thess 1:8: God “inflicts vengeance [ἐκδίκησις] upon those who do not know God and who do not obey [/believe] the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” 2 Thess 2:10–12: All those who were deluded by the lawless man to believe his lie and did not believe the truth (/gospel) would be condemned and destroyed “because they refused to love the truth [/gospel] and so be saved.”

Likewise, in their most thorough treatments of our passages about God’s judgment on the Day of the Lord commentators do note those parallels of our 2 Thessalonians passages to Rom 1:18–32, but they invariably comment on 2 Thess 1:8– 10; 2:10–12 and 13 without relating them to Rom 1:16–17 and Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith at all. Most commentators on 2 Thessalonians overlook the multiple parallels between 2 Thess 1:5–12; 2:9–14 and Rom 2:5–11. However, some of them do recognize at least the significant parallelism of the two phrases: “the just judgment of God” in 2 Thess 1:5 and Rom 2:5, and “obedience not to the gospel/the truth but to unrighteousness” in 2 Thess 1:8; 2:12 and Rom 2:8. But, even so, they also fail to see them in relation to Rom 1:16–17 (cf. also Rom 1:5). In NT scholarship it is a long-standing assumption that the doctrine of justification is absent in 1 Thessalonians. That assumption is often cited to support the theory of the late development of that doctrine in Pauline theology, and that assumption of its late development in turn makes commentators and other scholars overlook several clear signs of that doctrine in 1 Thessalonians.24 This assumption about the absence of the justification doctrine in 1 Thessalonians, coupled with the doubt about the Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians, has led commentators to explain Paul’s concentrated teaching about God’s “just judgment” in the first two chapters of 2 Thessalonians without even considering a possible reflection of that doctrine, in spite of the fact that 2 Thess 1:5–12 and 2:9–17 show proportionally the greatest concentration of the δικ-terms and of references to faith in all the Pauline letters, as well as the decisive fact that there faith in the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is repeatedly presented as the criterion for God’s “just judgment” for salvation on the Day of the Lord. Commenting on 1 Thessalonians, scholars regularly point to the absence of the δικαιοῦν terminology and of any reference to the law in order to deny the presence of the doctrine of justification in that letter. But in the face of the strong emphasis on the idea of our redemption from God’s coming wrath through the 24  Apparently, Rainbow, “Justification,” 249–74, is the only exception in seeing the presence of the doctrine of justification in both letters to the Thessalonians. For the view that that doctrine is implicitly present in 1 Thessalonians, see also Hengel and Schwemer, Paul, 301–10; R. Riesner Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 394–403; S. Kim, Paul and the New Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans and Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 85–100.

294

Paul’s Doctrine of Justification in 2 Thessalonians 1–2

Lord Jesus Christ’s death of vicarious atonement (1 Thess 5:9–10) and his intercession for us as God’s Son at the last judgment at his parousia (1 Thess 1:10; 3:12–13; cf. Rom 4:25b; 5:10b; 8:32–34), such an argument represents a most unimaginative and literalistic interpretation of the Pauline texts.25 Now, here we would claim that it would be an even greater failure of literalistic exegesis if any argues against the presence of the doctrine of justification in 2 Thess 1–2, pointing to the absence of the verb δικαιοῦν/δικαιοῦσθαι and of any reference to the law. For there are so many occurrences of δικ-terms, and we can easily understand that καταξιωθῆναι of 1:5 closely corresponds to δικαιωθῆναι and that ἐκδίκησις of 1:8 is an antonym of δικαίωσις, just as ἀδικία of 2:10, 12 is the antonym of δικαιοσύνη. Clearly we have here a most serious fallacy of identifying the Biblical concept or doctrine of justification exclusively with a particular word – the verb δικαιοῦν/ δικαιοῦσθαι or the noun δικαιοσύνη – disregarding even so many cognate δικ-terms and other synonymous (or antonymous) words and concepts present in our texts that deal with God’s last judgment.26 Here we should simply ask: If redemption or salvation of believers from God’s eschatological wrath at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thess 1:10; 5:9–10) cannot be called “justification,” how is it to be called? Or if the verdict of God’s “just judgment” for the Thessalonian believers that they are worthy (καταξιωθῆναι) of his kingdom (2 Thess 1:5) is not “justification,” what is “justification”?

Conclusion and Implications Both 1 and 2 Thessalonians, but especially 2 Thessalonians, clearly show that Paul teaches his doctrine of justification by grace through faith, and that he does this even where the question of observance of the law is not raised by the Judaizers in connection with his Gentile mission. These facts support the view that the justification doctrine was an essential form of Paul’s gospel preaching from the earliest days of his Gentile mission, if not even before them, and that his soteriology remained constant in its essentials from this early correspondence to the late epistles of Romans and Philippians.27 Clearly this view is supported more 25 See the section 1 of Essay 2 “Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel” above in this volume (pp. 46–49). 26  Cf. J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), 269: “The linguistic bearer of the theological statement is usually the sentence and the still larger literary complex and not the word or the morphological and syntactical mechanisms” (cf. also 233, 235–36, 249–50, 265–66). Cf. also Rainbow, “Justification,” 251 n. 8. About the absence of reference to the law in 1 Thessalonians, see section 3 of Essay 3 “The Gospel that Paul Preached to the Thessalonians,” above in this volume. 27  See n. 23 above. Luke nicely supports this view with his report of Paul’s sermon at the Pisidian Antioch in Acts 13:16b–52, which has not only a clear echo of Paul’s doctrine of justification (δικαιωθῆναι/δικαιοῦται) by faith in Christ without the works of the law (Acts 13:38–39)

Conclusion and Implications

295

concretely by the fact that there is such extensive parallelism between 2 Thess 1:5–12; 2:9–17 and Rom 1–2 (and 8) as we have shown.28 Actually the Thessalonian correspondence helps us understand why Paul had to teach the doctrine of justification as an essential element in his gospel preaching, or as a chief form of it, even where there was no dispute about his Gentile mission or the law of Moses. He had to do it because he had to speak of the consummation of salvation in terms of deliverance from God’s wrath or condemnation at the last judgment according to his OT–Jewish theological thinking – even to Greeks or Gentiles (e. g., 1 Thess 1:10; 3:12–13; 4:6; 5:9–10, 23–24; 2 Thess 1:5–10; 2:9–14; cf. also Rom 1:18–3:20; 1 Cor 1:8; 4:5; 2 Cor 5:10; Phil 1:10–11; Acts 17:31).29 Thus, the presence of the justification doctrine in 1–2 Thessalonians raises serious questions about the whole “New Perspective” movement, which focuses on the Jew–Gentile relationship in Paul’s Gentile mission to explain both the origin and meaning of that doctrine.30 Furthermore, if our exegesis of 2 Thess 1:5–12 and 2:9–17 is right, it supports our efforts to interpret Paul’s justification doctrine both in the juridical terms of acquittal and in the relational terms of transference or entrance into God’s kingdom, and also to emphasize that the present process of justification is an essential part of that doctrine,31 since all these points are present in 2 Thessalonians, as we have shown. Of course, the presence of the Pauline doctrine of justification in 2 Thess 1–2 would also strengthen greatly the argument for the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians.

but also a close overall parallelism with Paul’s introduction of his gospel in Rom 1:1–5, 16–17. See section 3 of Essay 3 “The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians,” above in this volume. N. B. Luke places Paul’s preaching of the gospel in this form at the Pisidian Antioch before the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15). Pace Aletti, Justification by Faith, 209. 28 Cf. also Essay 11 “Paul’s Common Paraenesis (1 Thess 4–5; Phil 2–4; and Rom 12–13)” above in this volume. 29 U. Schnelle (Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology [originally Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003; ET by M. E. Boring; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005], 190) recognizes this: “The declaration about the last judgment in 1 Thess and the two Corinthian letters thus point to the acceptance of human beings coram deo [before God] as a pervasive theme of Pauline theology. It belongs to the theme of justification …” Yet he goes on to say: “but [it] by no means has a causal connection to the specific doctrine of justification as found in Galatians and Romans” (his italics). But, for us, his distinction between “theme” and “doctrine” here is only an arbitrary attempt or a Verlegenheitslösung, which is born of the rigid scholarly dogma that Paul’s justification doctrine is present only in Romans, Galatians and Philippians 3. 30  Cf. Essay 3 “The Gospel That Paul Preached to the Thessalonians” above in this volume. 31 For more details about these points, see my book Justification.

13. “The Restraining Thing” (τὸ κατέχον) and “the Restraining Person” (ὁ κατέχων) of “the Lawless Man” (2 Thess 2:1–12) In 2 Thess 2:1–12, in order to reassure and exhort the Thessalonian Christians not to be perturbed by a false prophecy that the Day of the Lord has already come, Paul explains that it is yet to come, that it will come only after the end-time rebellion (against God) takes place with the revelation of “the man of lawlessness” (2:3).1 He describes the future rebellion of “the man of lawlessness,” the agent of Satan, in terms of fulfilment of the prophecy about “the king of North” (i. e., Antiochus IV) in Dan 11:36–37 (2:3b–4, 9–11), but assures the Thessalonian believers that when that happens the Lord Jesus will come, slay the lawless man and condemn all those who have joined his rebellion (2:8, 12), while granting them, the believers in the gospel, salvation and participation in his glory (2:13– 14). Presenting this broad eschatological scheme, Paul particularly stresses that at present there is “something that restrains” (τὸ κατέχον) the revelation of the lawless man, so that only when “one who restrains” (ὁ κατέχων) it “is out of the way” will the lawless man be revealed and only then the Lord Jesus will come to slay him (2:6–8). Thus, in our passage Paul offers a kind of scenario of the sequence of events that would usher in the parousia of the Lord Jesus. It is the most detailed one among its kinds in all his letters. However, he makes coded references to something and someone that will play a key role in that scenario, τὸ  κατέχον and ὁ κατέχων, in part appealing to Thessalonian Christians’ knowledge of the referents, since he taught them about the scenario during his founding mission among them (2:5). But as the two terms, τὸ κατέχον and ὁ κατέχων, appear only in our passage and nowhere else in the Pauline corpus and in the whole NT and Paul does not divulge those referents in this letter, exegetes are forced to do their best to decipher the codes by considering them in the light of Paul’s statements (especially eschatological scenarios) elsewhere, the possible OT allusions, and the historical circumstances of his time. In this way, since the age of the Apostolic Fathers, diverse views have been suggested. They are somewhat comprehensively surveyed in the recent monographs of P. Metzger and F. W. Röcker,2 1

 For this interpretation of 2 Thess 2:3, see comment ad loc. in my commentary. Katechon: II Thess 2,1–12 im Horizont apokalyptischen Denkens (BZNW 135;

2 P. Metzger,

298

“The Restraining Thing” and “the Restraining Person”

as well as briefly in some commentaries.3 However, many scholarly efforts to identify τὸ κατέχον and ὁ κατέχων have not yielded a majority opinion, let alone consensus. In fact, many modern commentators4 have joined Augustine, who declared, “I frankly confess that the meaning of this completely escapes me” (City of God 20.19). However, we believe that we can present a plausible interpretation by rethinking some of the insights contained in a couple of the proposals that have already been made but proven in themselves to be inadequate. Among the various proposals for identifying τὸ  κατέχον and ὁ  κατέχων, the following four (plus one that combines the two of them) are worthy of more serious consideration.

1. God’s Saving Plan and God On this view, ὁ κατέχων (“he who restrains”) is interpreted as referring to God, and τὸ κατέχον (“that which restrains”) as referring to his plan of salvation. This view was already suggested by Theodore of Mopsuestia (PG 66, 936) and Theodoret of Cyrrhus (PG 82, 664D–666B) in the fifth century. In modern times, A. Strobel has propounded it most extensively.5 Understanding our passage as reflecting the NT problem of the delay of Christ’s parousia, which stands in continuity with the Jewish discussion about the problem of the delay of the Messiah’s coming (Ezek 12:21–25, 26–28; Hab 2:2–3), Strobel (101) takes the verb κατέχειν as synonymous with ‫אחר‬/χρονίζειν (“to delay”) of Hab 2:3 and as a technical term used like the latter “for the delay of the parousia that is reckoned in God’s plan for the world.” So he (103) interprets 2 Thess 2:6–7 in this sense: the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but “there is a delaying moment in the rapid run of time toward the end: It is God’s own will and intention. He is the katechōn who thus preordained the coming and appearance of the Antichrist to take place ahead of the parousia of Christ.” Then, he (106) interprets τὸ κατέχον Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), 15–47; F. W. Röcker, Belial und Katechon: Eine Untersuchung zu 2 Thess 2,1–12 und 1 Thess 4,12–5,11 (WUNT 2/262: Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 422–58. 3 E. g., E. Best, A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (BCNT; London: Black, 1977), 296–301; I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (NCBC; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1971), 196–99; J. A. D. Weima, 1–2 Thessalonians (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 570–77. 4  E. g., B. Rigaux, Les épîtres aux Thessaloniens (Études bibliques; Paris: Gabalda, 1956), 278– 79; D. M.  Martin, 1,  2 Thessalonians (NAC; Nashville: Broadman, 1995), 242; B. R. Gaventa, First and Second Thessalonians (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1998), 114; P. G. Müller, Der erste und zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher (Regensburg: Pustet, 2001), 270. 5  A. Strobel, Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzögerungsproblem auf Grund der spätjüdisch–urchristlichen Geschichte von Habbakuk 2,2 ff. (SuppNovT 2; Leiden: Brill, 1961), 98–116. See Röcker, Belial, 428, for the scholars who follow him, including J. Ernst, Die eschatologischen Gegenspieler in den Schriften des Neuen Testaments (BU 3; Regensburg: Pustet, 1967), 55–57; W. Trilling, Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher (EKKNT 14; Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1980), 89–92.

2. The Angel Michael

299

as “the divine will in itself that determines the eschatological run of the events in a sovereign way. It does not refer to an entity within the world that holds up the coming of the Antichrist, as usually thought, but to the delay of the parousia [of Christ] itself, which is included in God’s time-table.” But this is a strange interpretation of vv. 6–7. Here Paul is not talking about something and someone “delaying” the parousia of Christ but “restraining” the revelation of the lawless man. Even if the latter would result in delaying the parousia of Christ, this consequence is not the main purpose of Paul’s use of the term κατέχον/κατέχων here.6 Furthermore, as often pointed out, this view cannot explain why Paul uses the cryptic references τὸ κατέχον and ὁ κατέχων, instead of speaking plainly as God and his saving plan. But the most serious problem with this view is that it fits ill with the clause ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται (v. 7) as God can neither be removed nor can withdraw from ruling the world. Strobel (108) attempts to avoid this problem by taking the phrase μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι as a parenthesis and making “the mystery of lawlessness” the subject of the clause ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται. But this is clearly unnatural. Insofar as Paul sees God having the sovereign power over all human beings and history being the stage where God’s will or plan is unfolded, it is right to think that he would see ultimately God and his saving plan operating in the revelation of the lawless man being restrained at present (see comment on vv. 6–7 in my commentary). However, as the clause, “until he is out of the way,” makes it clear, in speaking of ὁ κατέχων and τὸ κατέχον, Paul is not thinking of God and his saving plan, but of a human or non-human agent and something related to that figure that play a role in God’s economy of salvation.

2. The Angel Michael The view that by ὁ κατέχων Paul refers to an angel was suggested by some commentators,7 but recently it has been more fully presented by D. D. Hannah and C. R.  Nicholl.8 These two scholars think that Paul has specifically the archangel Michael of Dan 10–12 in mind, and Weima (Thessalonians, 574–77) closely follows them. Their arguments for the view are fivefold:  Cf. Best, Thessalonians, 301, against interpreting κατέχον/κατέχων in the sense of “delaying.”   E. g., Dibelius, Thessalonicher, 46–51; Marshall, Thessalonians, 199–200; M. J. J.  Menken, 2 Thessalonians (NT Readings; London: Routledge, 1994), 133; G. K. Beale, 1–2 Thessalonians (IVP NT Commentary Series; Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity, 2003), 216–17. 8  D. D. Hannah, Michael and Christ (WUNT 2/109; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 132–34; idem, “The Angelic Restrainer of 2 Thessalonians 2.6–7,” in Calling Time: Religion and Change at the Turn of the Millennium (ed. M. Percy; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 35–45; C. R.  Nicholl, From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: Situating 1 and 2 Thessalonians (SNTSMS 126; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 230–49; idem, “Michael, The Restrainer Removed (2 Thess 2:6–7),” JTS 51 (2000): 27–53. 6

7

300

“The Restraining Thing” and “the Restraining Person”

(a) In our passage Paul underlines that God is in control of history and that the events described in it are to take place in accordance with God’s plan or reign. So, if God himself cannot be ὁ κατέχων, then somebody and something controlled or used by God need to be thought of as ὁ κατέχων and τὸ κατέχον (cf. Marshall, Thessalonians, 199; Hannah, Michael, 133). (b) Only a supernatural being can restrain “the man of lawlessness” or “the mystery of lawlessness.” But since God or his Spirit cannot be the restrainer, only an angel can be considered as the restrainer (Nicholl, Hope, 230; Weima, Thessalonians, 574; also Marshall, Thessalonians, 199). (c) In Jewish and NT apocalyptic literature, angels are often depicted as “binding” or restraining Satan and his forces (e. g., 1 En. 10:4, 11–12; 18:12–19:2; 21:1– 6; 54:4–6; Rev 20:1–3; cf. also Tob 8:3; Jub. 48:15–16) (Hannah, “Restrainer,” 40–41; Nicholl, Hope, 231–32; Weima, Thessalonians, 574) (d) Paul speaks of angels accompanying Christ at his parousia (1 Thess 3:13; 2 Thess 1:7) and playing a role in it (1 Thess 4:16) (Weima, Thessalonians, 575). (e) Since in our vv. 3–4 Paul describes “the man of lawlessness” after the model of Antiochus IV, “the king of the north,” in Dan 11:31, 36–37 (cf. also 9:27; 12:11), it is likely that his description of the restrainer also reflects the activities of the archangel Michael described in Dan 10–12, his activities of fighting as the “chief prince” or patron angel of Israel against the “princes” or patron angels of Persia and Greece (Dan 10:13, 20–21) and protecting Israel (Dan 12:1a) (Hannah, “Restrainer,” 42–43; Nicholl, Hope, 232–35; Weima, Thessalonians, 575–76). Furthermore, the Pauline clause ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται (v. 7) can easily be explained if an angel is in view here, for God can remove an angel as he sees it fit (Hannah, “Restrainer,” 41). In fact, the clause can be seen as originating from Dan 12:1a, where the LXX renders the MT sentence “Michael ‫“( ”… יעמד‬will stand”) with “Michael παρελεύσεται …” (“will stand aside, pass away”) (Nicholl, Hope, 239– 41; Weima, Thessalonians, 575–76). Dan 12:1b–3 follows up that prophecy about Michael’s “passing away” with the prophecies about the unparalleled tribulation for God’s people and about the last judgment in which God’s elect will be delivered while their enemies punished. This sequence of events in Dan 10–12 closely corresponds to the sequence of events in our 2 Thess 2:3–12: Michael is currently restraining the evil forces (Dan 10:13, 20–21//2 Thess 2:6a, 7a); Michael will be removed (Dan 12:1a//2 Thess 2:7b); the unparalleled tribulation for God’s people will happen (Dan 12:1b//2 Thess 2:3–4, 8–10: the coming of the apostasy and the revelation of the man of lawlessness); and the last judgment will take place (Dan 12:1c–3//2 Thess 2:10–14) (Nicholl, Hope, 244–45; Weima, Thessalonians, 576). Among these five points, the first one (a) is important for any viable interpretation of ὁ κατέχων and τὸ κατέχον, but it does not require us to think only of an angelic being for the restrainer (see below). The second point (b) stands on the assumption that “the man of lawlessness” is a supernatural being. But it is odd that such an assumption is held by those who believe that Paul describes

2. The Angel Michael

301

that figure in 2 Thess 2:4 after the model of Antiochus IV of Dan 11:36–37 and perhaps also that of the Roman emperor Caligula. Anyway, it will be shown below that that assumption is not necessary and that even with an assumption of a human restrainer we can make a plausible interpretation of our passage.9 The point (d) is quite irrelevant to our present discussion, as in our passage Paul is talking about the activity of the restrainer, not at the parousia of Christ but in the present before the parousia, and as he is in fact reticent to speak of angels aiding God’s people – unlike the Qumran covenanters and other apocalypticists. With regard to the point (c), even if we grant that the frequent apocalyptic idea of angels “binding” (δεῖσθαι) or “fighting” Satan or Satanic forces is equivalent to “restraining” (κατέχειν) (cf. Hannah, Michael, 133), there is a question whether the work of ὁ κατέχων and τὸ κατέχον should be interpreted in terms of those angels. For whereas with the angels their activities of “binding” or “fighting” the Satanic forces are said to be for the purpose of protecting God’s people (cf. Nicholl, Hope, 239–46 and Weima, Thessalonians, 576, who stress this point), with ὁ κατέχων/τὸ κατέχον Paul does not express that purpose.10 Paul is acutely aware that in the present “the mystery of the lawlessness is already at work” (2 Thess 2:7a) and the Thessalonian believers are currently suffering severely under the persecution of their pagan compatriots (2 Thess 1:4–7) while ὁ κατέχων and τὸ κατέχον are “restraining” the revelation of the lawless man (2 Thess 2:6–7). Surely here Paul does not mean that ὁ κατέχων and τὸ κατέχον restrain the revelation of the lawless man in order to protect the believers from the unparalleled eschatological suffering, even if it means prolonging the present severe suffering and delaying the parousia of the Lord Jesus! On the surface the last point (e) appears quite impressive as a whole. However, the appeal to the LXX employment of the verb παρελεύσεται in Dan 12:1a for an explanation of the Pauline clause ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται is rather weak. Even more serious is the problem that this interpretation of ὁ κατέχων in terms of the archangel Michael of Dan 10–12 cannot properly explain τὸ κατέχον. Hannah (“Restrainer,” 41–42) thinks that “the restraining force, τὸ κατέχον, of v. 6 denotes the divine eschatological plan that finds expression in the work of the angel or ὁ κατέχων of v. 7.” According to Nicholl (Hope, 247–48), the neuter τὸ κατέχον refers to “Michael with his focus on Michael’s restraining activity,” while the masculine ὁ κατέχων to “Michael as a person.” But far from being convincing, both explanations seem to make the fundamental question all the more serious: Why does Paul use cryptic or code-like terms instead of simply naming Michael (and Michael’s work or God’s plan)?11  9 Cf.

Metzger, Katechon, 280. Metzger, Katechon, 281–82, 285, who repeatedly stresses that ὁ κατέχων and τὸ κατέχον in our passage do not have the function of protecting believers from afflictions. 11  Cf. Metzger, Katechon, 280–81; Röcker, Belial, 435. Contra Hannah, “Restrainer,” 44, who attempts to explain away this question by appealing to the alleged “Pauline tendency to avoid 10 Cf.

302

“The Restraining Thing” and “the Restraining Person”

For all these reasons, this Angel/Michael theory has to be rejected, its growing popularity notwithstanding.

3. Paul’s Mission and Paul Oscar Cullmann presented an impressive argument for interpreting τὸ κατέχον as preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles and ὁ κατέχων as Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles.12 This was partially suggested already by Theodoret of Cyrrhus (PG 82, 665A) and also by Calvin in his commentary on 2 Thess 2:6.13 Cullmann bases this view, first of all, on the dominical saying in Mark 13:10//Matt 24:14, that the gospel must first be preached to all the nations before the end. Being part of the so-called Synoptic apocalypse, both in Mark 13 and Matt 24 the saying is followed up by the narratives about the coming eschatological woes and the parousia of Christ. Together with the content of the saying, this sequence creates an impression that the parousia of Christ will not take place before the task of preaching the gospel to all the nations is completed. Apparently, this was a common early Christian conviction as it is reflected in various NT texts such as Matt 28:19–20; Acts 1:6–8; 10:42; Rev 6:9–11. In Rom 11:25–26 Paul also reflects it. Since the preaching of the gospel to all the nations is what must be completed first before the parousia of Christ, it may be said to be what is holding up the parousia of Christ. This view is a Christian transformation of the Jewish tradition of seeing repentance of all Israel as what “is holding back” (Aramaic: ‫)עכב‬ the coming of the Messiah (y. Ta’anit 1:64a; cf. also b. Sanh. 97b). For Paul, the repentance (or salvation) of all Israel is to take place when the full number of the Gentiles come into God’s kingdom (Rom 11:11–32, esp. 25–26). Therefore, for him it is the preaching of the gospel to all the Gentiles that is “holding up” the parousia of Christ. He reflects this view in 2 Thess 2:6–7, so that by τὸ κατέχον there he means the preaching of the gospel to all the nations. Having so argued about τὸ κατέχον, Cullmann (327–36) proceeds to demonstrate that by ὁ κατέχων Paul refers to himself as the apostle uniquely commissioned to preach the gospel to the Gentiles and bring the full number of the Gentiles into God’s kingdom. For such an apostolic self-consciousness, Cullmann appeals to various Pauline passages such as Gal 1:15–16; Rom 1:5; 1:14; 15:15–18; 1 Cor 9:16; Col 1:22–29; Eph 3:1–13, and affirms that he had “the consciousness that he is an indispen-

explicit references to angels in favour of terms like ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι and δυνάμεις” – which Paul usually uses in reference to the anti-God forces! 12 O. Cullmann, “Der eschatologische Charakter des Missionsauftrags und des apostolischen Selbstbewusstseins bei Paulus: Untersuchung zum Begriff des κατέχον (κατέχων) in 2.  Thess. 2,6–7” (1936), in Vorträge und Aufsätze 1925–1962 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966), 305–36. 13 J. Calvin, The Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 403.

3. Paul’s Mission and Paul

303

sable element of the great drama that will lead to the ultimate establishment of the messianic kingdom” (332). This interpretation of Cullmann was closely followed by J. Munck and more recently also by P. Stuhlmacher and his former students, H. Stettler and F. W.  Röcker.14 However, it has often been pointed out that the clause ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται in 2 Thess 2:7 presents an insurmountable obstacle to it. For in this letter (2:1) as well as in 1 Thess 4:13–18 (cf. also 1 Cor 15:51–57) Paul expresses his expectation to meet with the Lord Jesus alive at his parousia. Cullmann (334) thinks that with the clause Paul refers to his death as “disappearance” rather than a violent removal, and suggests that as his death marks the end of preaching of the gospel to the Genitles, it “would mark the decisive time for the appearance of Antichrist and the inauguration of the messianic era.” This would mean practically that the sooner Paul dies the sooner the parousia of Christ takes place! But it is hardly credible that Paul entertained such an idea (cf. Phil 1:21–26!). Stuhlmacher (Biblical Theology, 491–92), Stettler (“Colossians 1:24,” 202 n. 86, 207) and Röcker (Belial, 475–76) interpret the clause in the sense of Paul’s “retiring” from his apostolic commission (after completing it). But surely Paul was capable of expressing such an idea more clearly (e. g., “until the gospel is fully preached to the Gentiles”) than ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται. In connection with this mysterious clause, we need to ask why Paul uses the code-like terms τὸ κατέχον and ὁ κατέχων for his mission and himself, while in so many places of his letters he plainly indicates himself and his mission as having a uniquely significant role in the eschatological drama of salvation as Cullmann and his followers themselves stress.15 However, there is an even more fundamental problem with Cullmann’s interpretation, which has not hitherto been properly noted or appreciated in scholarship. It is that there is a serious confusion within that interpretation. If Paul’s gospel preaching to all the Gentiles is to be seen as a condition for the parousia of Christ, its necessity, the need to bring in the full number of the Gentiles into God’s kingdom (and thereby to bring about the repentance of all Israel) before the end, may be said to delay the parousia of Christ (and therefore the revelation of the lawless man as well, as it is to happen prior to the parousia of Christ), but his Gentile mission itself does not delay it (and the revelation of the lawless man), but, on the contrary, it hastens it (or them). The sooner he preaches the gospel to 14 J. Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (London: SCM, 1959), 37–42; P. Stuhlmacher, Biblical Theology of the New Testament (trans. D. P. Bailey; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018 [from Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Band I & II; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999], 491–92); H. Stettler, “An Interpretation of Colossians 1:24 in the Framework of Paul’s Mission Theology,” in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles (WUNT 127; ed. J. Ådna and H. Kvalbein; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 198–208; Röcker, Belial, 458–76. 15  Cf. Nicholl, “Michael,” 32; Metzger, Katechon, 278.

304

“The Restraining Thing” and “the Restraining Person”

the end of the world and brings in the full number of the Gentiles, the sooner will all Israel be freed from the hardening of heart, thus fulfilling the condition for the parousia of Christ. So Paul’s Gentile mission does not restrain the revelation of the lawless man and the parousia of Christ, but hastens the parousia of Christ (and therefore the revelation of the lawless man as well). Hence Paul’s Gentile mission cannot be τὸ κατέχον and he cannot be ὁ κατέχων. Thus, Cullmann’s view is a misunderstanding born of a confusion between the necessity of Paul’s Gentile mission and that mission itself.16

4. God’s Saving Plan/Paul’s Gentile Mission and God/Paul Although Röcker (Belial, 458–76) follows Cullmann’s interpretation in the main, he seeks to strengthen it by combining it with the insights of Strobel. He (458– 65) starts with an observation that in the Jewish literature, the understanding that the still unfulfilled repentance of all Israel is holding back the eschatological redemption of Israel stands side by side with the understanding that God’s fixed time is doing that. For the former he cites 4 Ezra 4:36; 2 Bar 23:5 as well as y. Ta’anit 1:64a; b. Sanh. 97b; b. Yoma 86b, and for the latter 4 Ezra 4:40; 2 Bar. 51:11 as well as Midr. Ps 14. He (461–62) cites also L. A. B. 51:5, suggesting that the reference there to “the one who holds back” means God and that it parallels to 2 Thess 2:7. Then he discusses (466–70) more OT and Jewish texts as well as some NT texts for the two perspectives, the theocentric and the anthropocentric, on that which holds the end back. Then he proposes (468–73) to understand τὸ κατέχον and ὁ κατέχων against this background as reflecting both perspectives, i. e., in terms of “double causality” (472). His conclusion is that τὸ κατέχον in 2 Thess 2:6 is God’s fixed time for the end (i. e., his saving plan) and the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles to bring about the salvation of the Gentiles and the Jews (which is the main meaning of the present in God’s saving plan), and that ὁ κατέχων in 2 Thess 2:7 is God and the preacher of the gospel. With this conclusion, Röcker (475–76) suggests that the clause ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται applies only to Paul, the preacher of the gospel to the Gentiles, and that it means his retirement upon the completion of his apostolic task at the time fixed by God. Above we have already suggested that such interpretation of the clause ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται is problematic. But Röcker makes the problem doubly serious because he sees it applicable only to Paul, one of the two entities (God and Paul) that are supposed to be represented by the subject of the clause, namely ὁ 16  Stettler, “Colossians 1:24,” 198–208, notes that Paul’s Gentile mission hastens the parousia of Christ (202), but uses that insight only for interpretation of Paul’s statement about his suffering in Col 1:24, while, with the question of τὸ κατέχον/ὁ κατέχων in 2 Thess 2:6–7, just following Cullmann. So she cannot resolve the contradiction between her interpretations of the two Pauline passages (208). Cf. also Röcker, Belial, 442 n. 541.

5. The Roman Empire and the Emperor

305

κατέχων. Thus, Röcker’s combination of the views of Strobel and Cullmann helps neither with the problem of interpreting the clause ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται nor with the question why Paul uses the cryptic ὁ κατέχων and τὸ κατέχον instead of plainly referring to God and his plan or Paul and his Gentile apostleship, the problem and question that have been raised against the views of Strobel and Cullmann. In fact, Strobel’s view and Cullmann’s view (at least as they are) cannot be combined. Above against Cullmann’s view we have pointed out that although the necessity to preach the gospel to all the Gentiles may be seen as that which delays the coming of the end the gospel preaching to all the Gentiles itself cannot be seen as such, because it actually hastens it. So God’s saving plan for all the Jews and Gentiles to come to salvation by believing in the gospel and the necessity to preach the gospel to all the nations can be combined and together may be seen as delaying the coming of the end. But God’s such saving plan and the gospel preaching to all the nations itself cannot be combined for such a view. For while the former can be seen as restraining the coming of the end, the latter hastens it. Likewise, God and Paul cannot be combined as ὁ κατέχων, “the restrainer.” For while God restrains the coming of the end out of his mercy, so that the Jews and the Gentiles have enough time to hear the gospel and receive salvation, Paul hastens it through his world-wide mission! Röcker’s sustained efforts to combine the views of Strobel and Cullmann are not successful. Below our interpretation of ὁ κατέχων and τὸ κατέχον will be introduced, and there it will be shown that for a proper identification of them the importance of both God’s sovereign plan and Paul’s Gentile mission need to be properly recognized, although they are not τὸ κατέχον itself. Along with the works of Strobel and Cullmann, Röcker’s work may be appreciated for helping us indirectly to keep those topics in view while interpreting our passage and identifying ὁ κατέχων and τὸ κατέχον.

5. The Roman Empire and the Emperor Since Tertullian (Apol. 32; Res. 24.18) and Hippolytus (Comm. Dan. 4.21) of the early third century and Chrysostom (Hom. 2 Thess., Hom. 4) of the fourth century until at least the middle of 20th century, the most popular view was to identify τὸ κατέχον as the Roman Empire and ὁ κατέχων as its representative, the emperor.17 This view has been based on five considerations: (a) Both in Jewish apocalypticism (4 Ezra 11–12) and Christian apocalypticism (Rev 13, 17–20) the Roman Empire is identified with the fourth and last beastly empire of Dan 7, and after or at its demise the ultimate opponent of God (the equivalent to “the man of lawlessness” in 2 Thess 2:3–8) is thought to appear; (b) Paul apparently 17 Cf.

Metzger, Katechon, 15; Röcker, Belial, 423.

306

“The Restraining Thing” and “the Restraining Person”

appreciates the Roman Empire for restraining evil and maintaining the law and order of the world (cf. Rom 13:1–7), in spite of his and the church’s frequent suffering at the hands of Roman officials; (c) this hypothesis explains the best both the change from the neuter τὸ κατέχον (the Roman Empire) to the masculine ὁ κατέχων (the emperor) and the reason for Paul’s use of the coded terms (see below); (d) it also explains smoothly the clause ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται (v. 7; cf. Paul’s recent experience of the “removal” of Caligula), whereas all the other suggested hypotheses have difficulty of doing it; and (e) in view of the fact that Paul describes “the man of lawlessness” in 2 Thess 2:3–4 in terms of Antiochus IV in the prophecy of Dan 11:36–37, as well as the likelihood that in doing that he has also in mind the lawless emperor Caligula, it is reasonable to think that he has the fear of another Caligula rising after the relatively good current emperor Claudius “is out of the way” (2 Thess 2:7) – a Super-Caligula who will lead the world to the ultimate rebellion against God in fulfillment of that Danielic prophecy (see comment on 2 Thess 2:4 in my commentary).18 There is no question that these considerations build up a powerful argument together for identifying τὸ κατέχον and ὁ κατέχων as the Roman Empire and its emperor respectively. However, some commentators19 reject this hypothesis of the Roman Empire and its emperor by pointing to the fact that in the contemporary Jewish literature the Roman Empire is regularly seen as a negative power (cf. also Rev 13–19) and by arguing that therefore Paul could not possibly have seen the Roman Empire fulfilling a positive role of restraining the revelation of the lawless man. Certainly, the modern exegetes who are eager to interpret the Pauline epistles from the counter-imperial perspective would join in this objection. In fact, N. T. Wright has advanced a strong argument that following the Jewish apocalyptic tradition of seeing the Roman Empire as the fourth and last beast of Dan 7, Paul preached his gospel in antithesis to the Roman Empire, actually presenting a future Caesar as “the man of lawlessness” in our passage, 2 Thess 2:3–8.20 But Wright ignores the central point of our passage, that the revelation of “the man of lawlessness” is being “restrained” at present. So he fails to recognize that although Paul may be expecting a future Caesar to appear as that Antichrist, clearly he is not seeing the current Caesar as such.21 Therefore, it is logically not excluded that in our passage Paul understands the current Caesar as “restraining” the revelation of that Rebel  Cf. Best, Thessalonians, 296, who lists up some of these points.   E. g., Best, Thessalonians, 296; Weima, Thessalonians, 571–72, referring to L. J. L. Peerbolte, The Antecedents of Antichrist: A Traditio-Historical Study of the Earliest Christian View on Eschatological Opponents (JSJSup 49; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 142. 20  N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 1271–319, esp. 1290–91. 21  See S. Kim, “Paul and the Roman Empire,” in God and the Faithfulness of Paul: A Critical Examination of N. T. Wright (WUNT 2/413; ed. C. Heilig, J. T. Hewitt, and M. F. Bird; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 289–91; now reprinted as Essay 9 of this volume. 18 19

5. The Roman Empire and the Emperor

307

Caesar (“the man of lawlessness”) until he “is out of the way.” This possibility would be denied only by those who point one-sidedly to Pauline passages such as 1 Cor 2:6–8 and 1 Thess 5:3 to the effective neglect of Rom 13:1–7.22 But it would not be right to ignore the fact that Paul explicitly teaches that the Roman Empire or its emperor is still serving God and fulfilling his purpose as his empowered minister (διάκονος) at present (Rom 13:1–7), even while implicitly criticizing it often for its rebellious and unjust nature (e. g., 1 Cor 2:6–8; 6:1; 8:5; 15:23–27; Phil 1:27–30; 2:15; 1 Thess 2:17–18; 5:3; cf. also Rom 1:18–32). Metzger (Katechon, 289) seeks to obviate such a discussion by repeatedly asserting that in our passage the katechon/Roman Empire is not a good power that protects God’s people, but an evil power that delays the parousia of the Lord and so prolongs the period of their suffering (124, 282, 285–86, 293–94, et passim). Nevertheless, he insists on interpreting τὸ κατέχον and ὁ κατέχων as the Roman Empire and its emperor respectively by repeatedly asserting that “in the ancient thinking, as a rule a demonic power is subdued by another demonic power (cf. Mark 3:22par)” (293; see also 127–28, 288, 290) and arguing that in our passage the katechon/Roman Empire is seen as an entity that is both “human and demonic” (288). But the passage Mark 3:20–27 (and parr.), out of which he cites “Mark 3:22par” to support his strange theory, in fact disproves it effectively by showing that the opposite is true and that it is Jesus who subdues the demonic forces!23 Marshall correctly notes that in order to make sense of our passage it appears necessary to take the restraining thing/person as good rather than evil in character.24 Thus, if Paul designates the Roman Empire and its emperor as τὸ κατέχον and ὁ κατέχων respectively, he must be seen as appreciating them for some good purpose that they are serving by restraining the revelation of the man of lawlessness. What is that good purpose that Paul has in mind? Since he sees the Roman authorities as God’s servants who have been empowered by God to maintain justice and order in the world (Rom 13:1–7), is Paul appreciating the Roman Empire for discharging this divine commission faithfully with their good government, that is, for restraining the revelation of the man of lawlessness and preventing the world from plunging into the total rebellion or chaos? But we have already observed that Paul frequently criticizes the Roman Empire, albeit implicitly, for its rebellious and unjust nature. Is it then imaginable that he would think that God is delaying the parousia of Christ because the Roman Empire is keeping the world in relatively good order and peace, and that God is waiting to intervene in the world and send Christ only when it becomes intolerably evil and chaotic? Does God delay Christ’s parousia so long as the human government on earth is 22 Cf.

Weima, Thessalonians, 571. Röcker, Belial, 451–52. 24  Marshall, Thessalonians, 199; so also Weima, Thessalonians, 572; contra G. H.  Giblin, The Threat to Faith (AnBib 31; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967), 167–242, who views them as threat to the church’s faith. 23 Cf.

308

“The Restraining Thing” and “the Restraining Person”

a tolerable one? Surely not. So it is difficult to believe that Paul appreciatively refers to the Roman Empire and its emperor as the katechon/katechōn because he sees them successfully fulfilling their divine commission by restraining lawlessness in the world with their good government. Then, may Paul be appreciating the Roman Empire and its emperor as the katechon/katechōn because he sees their relatively good government from the perspective of suffering of the church? That is, is he appreciating them because he/ that is delaying the end-time chaos and tribulations for believers that the revelation of the man of lawlessness will unleash? If Paul is only concerned about the increased suffering of believers, would it not be more rational of him to wish for the revelation of the lawless man to happen without delay, so that the parousia of the Lord might also take place without delay and believers might receive their salvation sooner without the prolonged period of suffering? For even at present while the katechon/katechōn is restraining the revelation of the lawless man, believers are suffering from pagan persecutions (1:4–7), which take place because “the mystery of lawlessness is already at work” (2:7). So, from the perspective of believers’ suffering also, Paul would not designate the Roman Empire and its emperor appreciatively as the katechon/katechōn (restrainer) of the revelation of the lawless man.25 So, then, should we conclude with Cullmann that “there is no intrinsic connection between the task of the Roman state and the date of the coming of the Antichrist” (his italics), and take it as “the decisive argument” against identifying the Roman Empire and its emperor as the katechon/katechōn?26

6. The Roman Empire/Emperor and Paul’s Gospel Preaching At this point, ironically, some elements of Cullmann’s theory become helpful. Above we have already seen that his theory as it is has to be rejected because Paul’s mission to all the nations cannot be the katechon as it hastens rather than restrains the parousia of Christ (and therefore also the revelation of the lawless man). But we said that the need to preach the gospel to all the nations could be said to be “restraining” them. But, in fact, that was not quite accurate. For in itself it has no power to restrain the revelation of the lawless man and the parousia of Christ. God has this power. So, by combining the theocentric perspective of Strobel and the anthropocentric or missiological perspective of Cullmann, we may say that God in his mercy or with his saving plan restrains the revelation of 25 Cf. our criticism above of Metzger (Katechon) who insists that from the perspective of believers’ suffering Paul views the Roman Empire as an evil power. 26  Cullmann, “Charakter,” 309. Cf. also Best, Thessalonians, 296: “There does not appear to be any real connection between the empire or emperor and the date of the parousia of the Rebel or that of Christ.”

6. The Roman Empire/Emperor and Paul’s Gospel Preaching

309

the lawless man and delays the parousia of Christ in order to grant time for the church to preach the gospel to all the nations and bring them to salvation. But in view of the clause ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται (v. 7), we have already seen that Paul cannot mean God as ὁ κατέχων and therefore he does not designate God’s saving plan as τὸ κατέχον, either, in spite of the fact that in our passage (2 Thess 2:3–8) he implicitly conveys the sense that all the eschatological events are taking place according to God’s overall sovereign plan. An angel may be believed to have the power to restrain the revelation of the lawless man. But above we have also seen that Paul cannot mean an angel as ὁ κατέχων here, either. If God and an angel drop out of consideration for ὁ κατέχων, which other entity may Paul think of as having the power to restrain the revelation of the lawless man, the agent of Satan (v. 9)? Is there any option remaining other than Caesar and his empire for this in Paul’s thought-world? So it would seem that we have to presuppose that Paul really refers to the Roman Empire and its emperor as τὸ κατέχον and ὁ κατέχων respectively. But, if neither the concern for their commission from God to maintain the world’s order, nor the concern for the consequent lessening of the suffering of the church, leads Paul to appreciate their roles as the restrainer of the revelation of the lawless man, what concern may be leading him to do that? Here Cullmann’s stress on the importance of Paul’s Gentile mission for our subject is helpful (although his theory as such has to be rejected). Paul looks at the Roman Empire and its emperor from the perspective of the need for his mission to all the nations. And he appreciates them for their (relatively good) maintenance of law and order as well as the political unity and security of the oecumene because thereby they provide the time and other conditions for him to conduct his mission to all the nations and so bring the full number of the Gentiles into God’s kingdom, which will trigger the repentance/salvation of all Israel, so that the parousia of Christ may take place (Rom 11:25–26). So, interpreting their present relatively good governance as restraining the revelation of the lawless man, the eschatological Rebel, which effectively creates time and conditions for his mission to all the nations, Paul refers to the Roman Empire and its current emperor Claudius as τὸ κατέχον and ὁ κατέχων respectively.

310

“The Restraining Thing” and “the Restraining Person”

Conclusion: How Paul Developed Such a Unique Eschatological View and How He Taught It to the Thessalonians During His Founding Mission among Them27 In 2 Thess 2:6–7 Paul uses those code-like terms in order to avoid the potentially unpleasant attention of Roman authorities to his interpretation of their government and emperor as serving the purpose of the God of his disputed religion, the fledgling Christianity. The positive evaluation of the role of the contemporary Roman Empire and its current emperor implicit in the designations themselves is based on his conviction that he must preach the gospel to all the Gentiles and bring in the full number of them into God’s kingdom and thereby also lead all Israel to repent of their hardness of heart and obtain salvation, so that the Lord Jesus Christ may return to judge the world and consummate salvation for believers. Paul calls the content of this conviction a “mystery” (Rom 11:25–26), an eschatological plan of God, which was revealed to him when he, a Pharisee exceedingly zealous for Judaism (Gal 1:13–14; Phil 3:5–6), was called to be an apostle to the Gentiles on the Damascus road, at a time (AD 32–34) when even the church’s mission to the Jews had barely begun. In order to interpret the revelatory experiences and comprehend the meanings of both that shocking call and that revolutionarily new saving plan of God, he naturally had to search the Scriptures such as Isa 6; 42; 49; Jer 1:5; Deut 32.28 Alongside those OT Scriptures, the common belief of the early church that is based on what is believed to be the dominical teaching, namely, that the gospel must be preached to all the nations before the parousia of Christ (e. g., Mark 13:9–12//Matt 24:17–22; Acts 1:6–8; see above), as well as its OT–Jewish background, that the Messiah would come when all Israel repented, also helped Paul to formulate that revolutionary understanding of God’s saving plan, as Cullmann, Wenham, Röcker and others have so helpfully shown.29 As he understands himself to be a (if not the) minister (διάκονος) or steward (οἰκονόμος) of that divine “mystery” of Rom 11:25–26 as the apostle to the Gentiles (1 Cor 4:1; Eph 3:1–13; Col 1:23–29; cf. also Gal 2:7–9; 2 Cor 3:1–4:6; 27  In my commentary, I present a summary of the present essay in the Excursus at the end of commenting on 2 Thess 2:1–8. That summary is short, but still the whole of this conclusion is included in it because the explanations on these questions are deemed important to support my comments on the passage as a whole. 28  Cf. my essays, “Isaiah 42 and Paul’s Call” and “The ‘Mystery’ of Romans 11:25–26 Once More,” both in Kim, PNP, 101–27 and 239–58 respectively. 29 Cf. D. Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 316–19; Röcker, Belial, 411–14, 485–88, 497–502. However, in Röcker’s case, his arguments for parallelism between our passage and Matt 24 in some details beyond the broad correspondence in the sequence of the coming eschatological events appear sometimes far-fetched.

Conclusion

311

5:11–21),30 Paul has to hurry with his work of Gentile mission to bring in the full number of the Gentiles into God’s kingdom and thereby trigger the repentance and salvation of all Israel. He knows that before the parousia of Christ there is to be the revelation of the lawless man who will lead the whole world to a total rebellion against God. When the Roman emperor Gaius Caligula tried to have his statue set up at the Jerusalem temple a decade ago (AD 40–41), Paul wondered whether Caligula was that lawless man and whether the total rebellion would break out at any moment (cf. 2 Thess 2:3–4), even before he made any significant headway in his Gentile mission. But in God’s mercy and according to his plan Caligula was removed and Claudius was enthroned as the emperor (AD 41). And under Claudius the Roman Empire has been maintaining law and order sufficiently well for Paul to move about in relative freedom and safety among the cities of the oecumene to preach the gospel to the Gentile nations. So, he sees Claudius and his Empire as “restraining” the revelation of the lawless man at present and appreciates them for it because thereby they are providing him with the time and conditions for fulfilling his apostolic commission, i. e., for realizing the divine saving plan of bringing Gentiles and Jews into God’s kingdom, thus paving the way for the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ. By restraining the revelation of the lawless man at present, “so that he may be revealed in his own [Goddecreed] time” (2 Thess 2:6), Claudius and his Empire are serving this saving purpose of God as his servants (cf. Rom 13:1–7).31 However, Paul’s experience of Caligula’s demise has taught him that Claudius (or another relatively good emperor who might succeed him) could “be removed out of the way” (ἐκ μέσου γένηται) just like Caligula. Then, another, even more terrible emperor, a “SuperCaligula,” could ascend to the throne. That figure would be “the lawless man” who is to do the things described in 2 Thess 2:4 and plunge the whole world into the rebellion against God in fulfillment of the prophecy of Dan 11:36–37. When that happens, neither Paul nor anyone else will be able to conduct any further missionary work. Hence he is anxious that a “Super-Caligula,” the lawless man, might be revealed before long, and he is very conscious that he has to rush with his mission to preach the gospel to all the nations during the short time (cf. Rom 13:11; 1 Cor 7:29) while Claudius and his Empire “restrain” the revelation of the lawless man and maintain order and peace in the world (cf. Rom 15:15–24). Thus, the subject of “the revelation of the man of lawlessness” excites his feelings. Therefore, in our passage, 2 Thess 2:3–8, he concentrates on talking about that figure and about his being restrained at present, forgetting even to state clearly the apodosis in v. 3 (“the day of the Lord will not come”).32

 Cf. Essay 16 “Paul as an Eschatological Herald of the Gospel” below in this volume.  See comment on 2 Thess 2:6 in my commentary. 32 See comments on vv. 3 and 5 in my commentary, and also Explanation there. 30 31

312

“The Restraining Thing” and “the Restraining Person”

During his founding mission in Thessalonica, Paul taught the Thessalonians these things concerning God’s saving plan (2 Thess 2:5). As part of his gospel preaching he taught them not only about the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Thess 4:13–18) and the consummation of their salvation on that Day of the Lord (cf. 1 Thess 5:1–11; 2 Thess 2:1), but also about those things or events that would lead up to the parousia of the Lord (2 Thess 2:5–6).33 Since he understood them in connection with his own Gentile apostleship and mission, he taught about them, naturally, referring to the role of his apostleship and mission in the divine eschatological drama. This way of teaching the divine eschatological drama is uniquely Pauline. Therefore, in his delivery of this teaching his colleagues, Silvanus and Timothy, did no more than just endorsing it. It appears that the abrupt change of the subject from the collective “we” to the first-person singular in 2 Thess 2:5 (“Do you not remember that when I was with you I told you about these things?”) reflects this fact.34

33 Hence,

they “know” what and whom he is referring to with the codes, τὸ κατέχον and

ὁ κατέχων (2 Thess 2:6–7). 34

 See comment ad loc. in my commentary. Here it may be added that this interpretation of

ὁ κατέχων as a code for Claudius, the Roman Emperor (AD 41–54), has an implication for both

the authenticity and dating of 2 Thessalonians.

14. “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God”(Rom 12:19; cf. 2 Thess 1:5–7): The Apostle Paul and lex talionis* 1. Tension between Prohibition of Retaliation and the Idea of God’s Retributive Judgment “See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all.” This is the exhortation that the apostle Paul imparts to the Thessalonian Christians in 1 Thess 5:15. Then, in Rom 12:14–21 he expands it thus: 14 Bless those who persecute you and do not curse them. … 17 Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is good in the sight of all. 18… live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves [Lev 19:18], but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord’ [Deut 32:35].” 20 But ‘if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink …’ 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Thus, like Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt 5:38–42, 43–48; Luke 6:27–36), the Apostle Paul forbids Christians acting in interpersonal relationships according to lex talionis, the law of just or appropriate retribution (“an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc.”), which is enshrined in the law of Moses as its fundamental principle (Exod 21:23–25; Lev 24:17–21; Deut 19:21). However, note in Romans 12:19 how he combines the prohibition of avenging with an exhortation to leave vengeance to the wrathful judgment of God. In 2 Thess 1:5–7, Paul tells the Thessalonian Christians that at the second coming of the Lord Jesus, in his “just judgment,” God will “repay those who afflict you with affliction and you who are afflicted with rest.” Thus he teaches that God is an avenger of evil doers and that his vengeance is going to be according to the principle of the lex talionis. In fact, at numerous places (e. g., Rom 2:5–10; 14:10; 2 Cor 5:10; 2 Thess 1:5–10) Paul teaches that at the last judgment God will mete out his “just judgment” for all human beings according to their deeds, rewarding righteous people with eternal life and pouring out his “wrath” upon evil doers. So there * A paper delivered in Humboldt Lecture Series at Forum Scientiarum, Universität Tübingen, January 8, 2020.

314

“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God”

is some tension between the two teachings, prohibition of vengeance in interpersonal relationships and expectation of God’s vengeance at the last judgment, when they are seen in terms of the lex talionis. This tension is particularly palpable in Rom 12:19, as Paul issues both teachings in the same breath: “Beloved, never avenge yourselves [Lev 19:18a], but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord” (Deut 32:35).

2. The Need for God’s Retributive Justice Administered by State Authorities (Rom 13:1–7) Is Paul aware of this tension himself, and does he try to resolve it anyway in his writings? To answer this question, we need to understand the nature of the tension a little more closely. For that, we may start with an appreciation of the implication of the fact that he follows up the exhortations concerning believers’ interpersonal relationships in Rom 12:14–21 with the exhortations concerning their relationships to state authorities in Rom 13:1–7. In the latter, he exhorts believers to be subject to the governing authorities, saying that they are God’s “servant(s)” whom God has appointed to “execute vengeance (ἔκδικος) with wrath (ὀργή) upon the wrongdoers” (13:4). So, God avenges with his wrath even at present, albeit through the state authorities, his servant(s). Thus, Paul sanctions state laws and penal systems as divine instruments for maintaining justice and order in society, and assumes that they are based on the principle of the lex talionis. This fact has an implication also for social ethics, where we have to be concerned about the justice, order and peace of a community as a whole (cf. 1 Cor 5:1–8, 13b//Deut 17:7) beyond reconciliation of individuals in their personal relationships (cf. 1 Cor 6:7).

3. Justification of God’s Judgment according to lex talionis from the Theistic Perspective From a theistic perspective, it is quite understandable that for the sake of justice, order and peace of the world, God sanctions the application of the lex talionis in the realms of social ethics and jurisprudence, though not in the realm of personal ethics. Then, it should also be understandable that God judges all human beings, his creatures, according to whether or not they obeyed his righteous rule and positively contributed to the maintenance of the world in the right order, and that God punishes the unrighteous (those who disobeyed his rule and disturbed the right order and peace of his world) and rewards the righteous (those who obeyed his rule and upheld the right order of his world). Further, it should

5. Paul’s Zealous Pharisaic Background

315

not be difficult to make sense of the teaching that there will be the last judgment at the point of closing the old age and inaugurating the new, at which God will separate the unrighteous from the righteous and destroy the former, so that his world may be purged of all evil, restored perfect under his righteous rule, and made the eternal abode of the righteous people. This is the main meaning of the violent judgment scenes of Revelation 18–20, and we may understand that this is also the true intent of the stern statements about God’s last judgment in 2 Thess 1:5–10 and 2:3–12, which explain it as taking place in accordance with the lex talionis (cf. also, e. g., Rom 2:5–11; 2 Cor 5:10; 11:15; Col 3:25).

4. But How Can God’s Retributive Judgment Be Reconciled with the Gospel of God’s Grace in Christ? But how is this Pauline teaching of God’s judgment to be reconciled with his gospel, which declares that out of his love God delivered up his Son Jesus Christ as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of Adamic humankind in order to justify the ungodly, the trespassers of his law, and reconcile them, his enemies, to himself (e. g., Rom 3:24–26; 4:25; 5:6–11, 12–21; 8:3–4; 2 Cor 5:13–21)? Doesn’t God’s saving act in Christ Jesus represent the supreme example of “overcoming evil with good” (Rom 12:21)? So, our question whether Paul is conscious of the tension between his prohibition of vengeance in interpersonal relationships and his teaching about God’s judgment (or vengeance) according to the lex talionis is to be reframed as whether he is conscious of the tension between his gospel of God’s justification of the unrighteous and his doctrine of God’s judgment of the unrighteous according to lex talionis. Paul presents God both as forgiving and retaliating his enemies! And it is to be recognized that ultimately it is concerned with the tension between God’s mercy and justice.1

5. Paul’s Zealous Pharisaic Backgroundand His Personal Experience of God’s Forgiving Grace Paul’s citation of Lev 19:18 and Deut 32:35 in Rom 12:19 suggests that he is well aware of the Jewish teachings that forbid retaliation and encourage to defer vengeance to God on the basis of those OT texts.2 However, he must have been 1 Cf. G. Zerbe, Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts: Ethical Themes in Social Contexts (JSPSup 13; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 263–64. 2  See comment on 1 Thess 5:15 in my commentary; also Zerbe, Non-Retaliation, 236; cf. also W. T.  Wilson, Love without Pretense: Rom 12:9–21 and Hellenistic and Jewish Literature (WUNT 2/46; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 192: “The repudiation of vengeance, often ac-

316

“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God”

even more aware of the OT–Jewish teachings that encourage retaliation against one’s enemies, especially the Gentile enemies, because those teachings are more numerous than the former,3 as well as because of his own zealous Pharisaic background. He often refers or alludes to his overwhelming experience of the revelation of the crucified Jesus Christ as God’s saving event for the unrighteous humankind, as well as to his own personal appropriation of that saving grace through which he, a persecutor of Christians and enemy of God, was forgiven and made an apostle.4 It is likely that only such overwhelming experiences on the Damascus road led him to emphasize the forgiving or saving grace of God much more than the revenging judgment of God. Nevertheless, he retains the latter in his theological thinking, and in fact, he proclaims the good news of the former within the eschatological framework of the latter. Ultimately, does Paul just affirm both God’s grace and his (punishing/revenging) justice as two divine attributes implicitly in the traditional manner of the rabbinic doctrine of the two thrones of God?5

6. Paul’s Re-interpretation of God’s Judgmentin the Light of the Revelation of God’s Grace in Christ Or does Paul make efforts to reinterpret God’s judgment in the light of his lifechanging experience of God’s saving grace in Christ? Yes, it appears that we can actually detect such efforts in the way he describes God’s judgment upon the evil doers in 2 Thess 1:5–10 as well as in his speaking of God’s judgment in terms of his “giving [sinners] up” to their rebellion and their destructive consequences in Rom 1:18–32. (a) 2 Thess 1:5–10 Having declared that at the return of the Lord Jesus God the righteous judge will repay with affliction those who afflict the Thessalonian believers (2 Thess 1:6–7), Paul goes on in 1:8–10 to describe these afflicters upon whom God is to inflict vengeance, as well as to explain the content of God’s vengeance. The afflicters are said to be “those who do not know God … and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus,” and the content of God’s vengeance is said to be the “penalty companied by a call to leave judgment and punishment to God, is common in [Jewish] sapiential sources.” 3  Cf. M. Reiser, “Love of Enemies in the Context of Antiquity,” NTS 47 (2001): 418–22. 4 Cf. S. Kim, “2 Cor 5:11–21 and the Origin of Paul’s Concept of Reconciliation,” NovT 39 (1997): 360–84 (reprinted in Kim, PNP, 214–38). 5  middat ha-din and midat ha-rahamim; cf. L. H. Silberman, “Justice and Mercy of God,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, (22007), 668–69.

6. Paul’s Re-interpretation of God’s Judgment

317

of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” So, Paul describes the afflicters basically as those who have refused to acknowledge God as the Savior and Lord and to avail themselves by faith of his salvation offered in the gospel. By this refusal they have chosen the opposite of salvation (eternal life), namely destruction (eternal destruction), and the opposite of eternal fellowship with the Lord and participation in his glory, namely, exclusion from those. Then, God’s judgment of them in accordance with the lex talionis at the return of the Lord Jesus really consists just in leaving them with their own choice of destruction, with their self-exclusion from participation in God’s glory. (b) Rom 1:18–32 In Rom 1:18–32, in explaining the anticipatory revelation already in the present of God’s eschatological “wrath” (or judgment) against all the ungodly and unrighteous human beings (Rom 1:18), Paul employs the OT–Jewish idiom of “God delivering/handing [wrong-doers] over to [the punishing power]” in vv. 24, 26, 28.6 It is often used for God’s delivering/giving Israel’s enemies over to Israel, or the sinful Israel over to their enemies, for destruction or punishment (e. g., Exod 23:31; Josh 7:7; Judg 2:14; 6:1, 13; Dan 7:25). The formula is also used for judicial trial and punishment in the NT (e. g., Matt 5:25//Luke 12:58; Matt 26:15//Mark 14:10; John 19:11, 16; 1 Cor 5:5; cf. also Rom 4:25). N. T. Wright7 suggests that Paul may owe his use of this idiom in Rom 1:18–32 particularly to Ps 81:12: “So I gave [the rebellious Israel] over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices.” But, doubting this possibility because of the absence of the key verb παραδιδόναι in its LXX version, Douglas Moo8 instead appreciates Acts 7:42 as the closest parallel to Paul’s language in Rom 1: because of Israel’s idolatry, “God turned and gave them up (παρέδωκεν) to worship the host of heaven.” Anyway, both Ps 81:12 (MT) and Acts 7:42 show that Paul is not unique to use this idiom of explaining God’s punishment in terms of his abandonment of the rebellious people to their rebellion and its destructive consequences. However, both passages (or any other Jewish and Christian texts) cannot be compared with Paul’s triple emphatic use in Rom 1:24, 26, 28 of this formula and his expansion of the descriptions of the destructive consequences of their reprobate mind, their lust and their passion to which God is said to have given the rebellious people up. Apparently he mulled much more over understanding God’s judgment in terms 6  Cf. M. Wolter, Der Brief an die Römer (Teilband 1: Römer 1–8) (EKKNT; Ostfildern: Patmos/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 145. 7 N. T. Wright, “The Letter to the Romans,” in vol. 10 of The New Interpreter’s Bible (ed. Leander E. Keck; Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 433. 8  D. J. Moo, The Letter to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 22018), 121, nn. 86–87.

318

“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God”

of his giving of the unrepentant rebellious people up to their rebellion, so that it may inflict the due punishment on them.9 James Dunn10 notes that this giving-up formula “denotes a measured and deliberate act, but also the resigning of direct control over what is thus passed on.” So, with the language in Rom 1:18–32, it is clearly affirmed that God is the judge and punisher of the unrighteous people, and yet his character as God of mercy and grace is protected, insofar as he is not depicted as directly inflicting afflictions upon them, but instead their own reprobate mind and lustful passion are suggested as inflicting upon them the various afflictions of idolatry and dehumanization as well as moral depravity and all sorts of social conflicts,11 and as leading them ultimately to death (Rom 1:32). (c) 2 Thess 2:9–12 In 2 Thess 2:9–12, Paul says that God will send to “those who are on the way to destruction” a “working [ἐνέργειαν] of delusion,” which will make them believe the lie of the lawless man as the supreme god (2:4) and be deceived by his display of power to commit wickedness, so that they may be condemned at the last judgment. At the first sight, the reference to God’s sending to the unbelieving people a “working of delusion” appears to stress God’s initiative in and responsibility for driving them to their further rebellion, and so to be moving into the opposite direction of the giving-up formula of Rom 1:24, 26, 28. But note well that Paul says that God will send a “working of delusion” to the rebellious people because they are rebellious, having refused to accept the truth of the gospel (2:10). Thus, Paul’s talk of God sending a “working of delusion” to unbelievers in 2 Thess 2:11 expresses basically the same pattern of God’s judicial blinding as his formula of God “giving [the wicked people] up to their reprobate mind, etc.” in Rom 1:18–32.12 (d) Rom 11:7–10 For Paul, the same pattern of God’s judicial blinding takes place for the disobedient Israel as well. So, in Rom 11:7–10, citing a combination of Isa 29:10; Deut 29:3; Ps 68:23–24; etc., he says that God has given the majority of Israel “a spirit of stupor,” darkened their eyes, and hardened their hearts (Rom 11:25) because they persisted in unbelief in the gospel (Rom 10).

 9 Cf. Wolter, Römer I:146, who paraphrases the giving-up formula thus: “Gott gibt die Menschen in die Gewalt ihrer ‘Begierden’.” 10   J. D. G.  Dunn, Romans 1–8 (WBC 38A; Waco, TX: Word, 1988), 73. 11 N. B. Rom 1:27: “their (own) error” (homosexuality) is suggested as already paying them “due reward/penalty (ἀντιμισθίαν).” 12  See comment on 2 Thess 2:11 in my commentary for a close parallelism between 2 Thess 2:9–12 and Rom 1:18–32.

Conclusion

319

(e) Compare with 2 Cor 4:4 However, in 2 Cor 4:4 Paul makes it clear that it is “the god of this world,” namely Satan, who “has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ.” Therefore, it is quite unlikely that, in speaking of God giving unbelievers “a spirit of stupor” or “working of delusion,” he would mean that God himself is the deliberate author of such blinding or deluding. So, we need to understand such statements in Rom 11:8 and 2 Thess 2:11 in terms of his abandoning of unbelievers to the blinding or deluding activities of Satan13 in view of their persistent rejection of the truth of the gospel in favor of the lie of Satan and his agent. Therefore, in spite of greater directness, such statements mean essentially the same as the formula in Rom 1:18–32 of God delivering unbelieving evil doers up to their lust, passion, and reprobate mind, or to their Satan-inspired rebellious spirit, which leads them to eternal death at the last judgment.

Conclusion: God’s Retributive Judgment Is to Give Unbelieving Evil Doers Up to Their Rebellion, to Their Own Rejection of His Saving Love God’s action for wicked unbelievers that is presented in such various ways in Rom 1:18–32; 11:7–10; and 2 Thess 2:9–12 as his giving of them up to their reprobate mind, his giving them “a spirit of stupor,” his sending them a “working of delusion,” and his hardening of their hearts represents his proleptic judgment upon them for their rebellion (cf. Rom 1:18): it is his abandonment of them to persisting in their refusal to know and serve the true God and to avail themselves by faith of his salvation offered in the gospel. God’s last judgment will then consist in the final confirmation of their own rejection of his salvation and their self-exclusion from participation in his glory, i. e., their self-chosen condemnation and destruction (cf. 2 Thess 2:12; Rom 1:32), as it is clearly explained in 2 Thess 1:5–10. So, Paul is presenting the last judgment essentially in the same way as the Lukan version of the parable of the great banquet (Luke 14:15–24; cf. Matt 22:1–10): those who have rejected the invitation to the banquet (salvation) of God’s kingdom will be left to remain with their own exclusion of themselves from it. The same understanding is expressed also in the most famous passage of John (3:16–21): God so loved the world that he sent his Son into it and even gave him up to death, so that it might not be condemned but be saved; nevertheless

13  N. B. the reference to the “working [ἐνέργειαν] of Satan” behind the works of “the lawless man” in 2 Thess 2:9.

320

“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God”

(God’s) judgment inevitably takes place through unbelievers’ own act of turning against God’s light and salvation in Christ in preference to remain in darkness. At the last judgment, those who have rejected God’s offer of Heil or salvation will be left to remain with their self-chosen Unheil or destruction. That is God’s “repaying” (ἀνταποδοῦναι, 2 Thess 1:6; Rom 12:19) and his “vengeance” (ἐκδίκησις, 2 Thess 1:8; Rom 12:19) against unbelieving evil doers, and their “paying penalty” (δίκην τίσουσιν, 2 Thess 1:9), at the last judgment. So, then, can we see that God’s giving of the rebellious sinners up to their reprobate mind, his giving them “a spirit of stupor” or a “working of delusion,” and his hardening of their hearts are Paul’s ways of speaking of God’s judgment as taking place according to the lex talionis? If we can, we may recognize here that Paul has found a way of using those Scriptural or traditional languages to present God’s just judgment according to the lex talionis, even while protecting his character as God of mercy and grace. Then, we may also recognize that Paul is able to issue the exhortation not to retaliate against wrong-doers but to leave it to God in the same breath, in spite of the apparent tension between the two halves of the exhortation, not just because it is traditional in Judaism with the Scriptural basis for it, but more because he has this new understanding of God’s last judgment in the light of God’s saving grace in the crucified and risen Christ.

Postscript However, Paul does not rest with such a threat of God’s last judgment of the rebellious sinners according to the lex talionis. He looks forward to the rebellious Israel getting released from their hardening and coming to obtain salvation at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 11:25–26). In the same hope, to the “ungodly” people upon whom he sees God’s “wrath” already being revealed proleptically in terms of giving them up to their rebellion (Rom 1:18–32; cf. also Rom 2:1–3:20) Paul preaches the gospel of justification and salvation of the “ungodly” through Christ’s atoning death for them (Rom 5:6; 3:21–8:39). Paul expects that eventually “all Israel” (God’s elect nation Israel as a whole) will be saved (Rom 11:26), but he does not utter the same expectation for the Gentiles. However, note how he concludes his explanation of the hope for the eventual salvation of the disobedient Israel through God’s mercy upon them with this statement: “For God has consigned all human beings to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all” (Rom 11:25–32). May we see here the same kind of bold hope for the majority of humanity as that which he has for all Israel? While writing under a much more adverse circumstances of the hostile Roman Empire than that of Paul’s time and warning in a much more fierce language about God’s judgment upon unbelievers than Paul’s language, the John of Reve-

Postscript

321

lation still sees the vision of all people of the earth except only 7,000, the mere tenth of the earth, eventually coming to give glory to God (i. e., their conversion to acknowledge the one and true God and receive his salvation) through the church’s witness to the gospel by their gospel-embodying or martyrdom-ready life and mission (Rev 11:13; contrast 1 Kings 19:18),14 and the vision of “the kingdom of the world” becoming “the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ” (Rev 11:15; chs. 19–21). If in the much darker hour John could express his certainty of the triumph of God and his saving grace over Satan and his power of sin and death, how much more could Paul have had the same certainty? See his stirring celebration of the triumph of God’s love in Christ over all the powers of evil and death in Rom 8:35–39, and also his unflinching enthusiasm for his mission to “all the nations” in Rom 15:14–29 that is to bring them to the obedience of faith to the Lord Jesus God’s Son (Rom 1:5)! For non-Christians, all this may sound like a weird theodicy. But for Paul it is really a logical unfolding of the gospel of the crucified and risen Christ Jesus itself, God overcoming evil with good, which is the most sharply expressed in terms of God’s justification of the ungodly and reconciliation of the enemies to himself (Rom 4:5; 5:6, 10). And for many Christians, that gospel enables them to maintain basically a positive and hopeful worldview even in the midst of often overwhelming presence of evil and violence.

14  Cf. R. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 273–83.

15. Imitatio Christi (1 Cor 11:1): How Paul Imitates Jesus Christ in Dealing with Idol Food (1 Cor 8–10) In 1 Cor 11:1 Paul calls the Corinthian Christians to imitate him, basing this call on the fact that he himself is an imitator of Christ. So in the passage Paul is calling them in effect to imitate Christ (cf. also 1 Cor 4:16–17; Phil 3:10, 17; 1 Thess 1:6). The same idea seems to be involved when he sets forth Christ as an example for his readers to follow (Rom 15:1–3, 7; 2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:5–8). But what of Christ does Paul himself imitate? How does he imitate it? What example of Christ does Paul ask his readers to imitate?

1. The Reductionism of Critical Protestant Scholarship Critical Protestant scholarship has shown a tendency to affirm that with the thought of imitatio Christi Paul has in view only Christ’s self-giving in his incarnation and death but not the historical Jesus’ teaching and example. So, for example, Otto Merk in his essay “Nachahmung Christi” claims that with his demand for imitation of Christ Paul “refers … to the inimitable event of the cross, … to the imitation of the pre-existent one, … to the ‘that’ of Jesus’ having come, … to the saving act of God,” but not “to the imitation of the earthly Jesus, his behavior on the basis of (his) word and deed.”1 With this Merk concurs with H. D. Betz, who claims that “what Paul presents as concrete features from the life of Jesus refers to the fact of the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of the pre-existent Christ, [but] not to the details from the life of Jesus which are analogous to what the Gospels narrate”2 and that for Paul imitation of Christ “is in no way oriented to the ethical and moral example character of the historical Jesus.”3

1  Otto Merk, “Nachahmung Christi: Zur ethischen Perspektiven in der paulinischen Theologie,” Neues Testament und Ethik (R. Schnackenburg FS; ed. H. Merklein; Freiburg: Herder, 1989), 201; see similar statements also in 202–03, 206. Unfortunately, Merk does not explain how Paul might have imagined to “imitate” what is “inimitable.” 2  H. D. Betz, Nachfolge und Nachahmung Jesu Christi im Neuen Testament (BHT 37; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1967), 161. 3 Ibid., 168.

324

Imitatio Christi (1 Cor 11:1)

Reviewing the works on the topic of imitation of Christ during the second half of the twentieth century, Merk4 does note that there have also been attempts to see the importance of the historical Jesus’ teaching and example in connection with our topic (E. Larsson. W. P. de Boer, D. M. Williams, W. G. Kümmel, etc.).5 However, he6 emphatically aligns himself with H. D. Betz, N. A. Dahl, W. Schrage, V. P. Furnish, J.-F. Collange, S. Schulz, etc.,7 who all more or less repeat what was essentially the thesis of R. Bultmann: “Christ is not a model (Vorbild) …. he can … become the model of serving one another. But throughout it is the pre-existent one who is the model.”8 This thesis is often accompanied by the contention that Paul did not know or use much of Jesus’ teaching and was not interested in his historical person. Of course, this view was also championed by Bultmann.9 So Merk claims, “That the synoptic tradition … is not clearly demonstrable in Paul is still the far better secured thesis than the opposite view. Paul did not know the stream that is known to us as the synoptic tradition, even if a few Herrenworte appear in Paul.”10 Furnish is surprised at “the fact that the teaching of the earthly Jesus seems not to play as vital, or at least as obvious, a role in Paul’s concrete ethical instructions as the OT.”11 For him, the fact that in the few instances of citing the Herrenworte, Paul does not refer to them as “words of Jesus” but rather as those of “the Lord” is a matter of “the greatest significance,” as it shows that “Paul does not appeal to Jesus as an earthly teacher … but to the risen, reigning

 Merk, “Nachahmung,” 175–78, 184. E. Larsson, Christus als Vorbild: Eine Untersuchung zu den paulinischen Tauf‑ und Eikontexten (ASNU 23; Uppsala: Gleerup, 1962); W. P. de Boer, Imitation of Paul (Kampen: Kok Pharoh, 1962); D. M. Williams, “The Imitation of Christ in Paul with the Special Reference to Paul as Teacher” (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1967); W. G. Kümmel, “Jesus und Paulus,” in Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte I: Gesammelte Aufsätze 1933–1964 (MATThSt 3; Marburg: Elwert, 1965), 439–56.  6 Merk, “Nachahmung,” 179–90.  7  Betz, Nachfolge und Nachahmung; N. A. Dahl, “Formgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zur Christusverkündigung in der Gemeindepredigt,” in Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann (BZNW 21; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1954); W. Schrage, Ethik des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 198–99; V. P. Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968), 223; J.-F. Collange, De Jesus à Paul: L’ethique du Nouveau Testament (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1980); S. Schulz, Neutestamentliche Ethik (Zürich: Theologischer, 1987).  8  R. Bultmann, “Die Bedeutung des geschichtlichen Jesus für die Theologie des Paulus,” in Glauben und Verstehen 1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1933), 206. See also R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament 1 (London: SCM, 1952), 188: “When [Paul] refers to Christ as an example, he is thinking not of the historical but of the pre-existent Jesus.” Cf. also M. Dibelius, “Nachfolge Christi,” RGG (21930), 4:395–96 and E. Lohse, “Nachfolge Christi,” RGG (31960), 4:1286–87; both cited from Merk, “Nachahmung,” 174–75.  9  Bultmann, “Bedeutung,” 190–91; Theology, 188–89. 10  Merk, “Nachahmung,” 205. 11 Furnish, Theology and Ethics, 55, cf. also 59.  4

 5 Cf.

1. The Reductionism of Critical Protestant Scholarship

325

Christ, the church’s Lord.”12 Further, Furnish finds it noteworthy that “none of [the] imitation passages [1 Cor 4:16–17; 11:1; Phil 3:17; 1 Thess 1:6–7; 2:14] singles out any particular qualities of the earthly Jesus with the insistence that they be emulated. Rather, it seems always to be the humble, giving, and obedient love of the crucified and resurrected Lord to which the final appeal is made.”13 This last point is confirmed also by Merk: “None of the mentioned passages is directly linked to a word of Jesus – or even as of the risen one.”14 However, on this point Schrage presents a somewhat different view. He also emphasizes that “Paul has scarcely drawn the historical life and work of Jesus for the concrete orientation of the Christian life. Hence every attempt to copy or imitate the life of Jesus, which regards Jesus as a model, is not Pauline.” Yet Schrage immediately adds that the imitation passages show that Christ’s selfgiving in his incarnation and crucifixion “mediates not only a formal impulse for disposition (Gesinnungsimpuls) but sets out from itself a certain fundamental direction for Christian life.”15 Schrage further stresses that the sayings of Jesus were important for Paul: What is true of the life of Jesus cannot be said of his preaching in the same way. About the significance of the words of Jesus we cannot pass the same negative judgment as about the significance of Jesus as an earthly person or ethical model. … Direct references to the Herrenworte are indeed rare, and yet it cannot be overlooked how Paul takes up the sayings of Jesus and what importance he attaches to them.16

Then Schrage goes on to say that “certainly Paul did not understand the sayings isolated from him who spoke them,” and rejects the Bultmannian claim that Paul understood the transmitted Herrenworte not as sayings of the earthly Jesus but as of the exalted Lord.17 For Schrage, 1 Cor 11:23 ff. shows that “Paul was not satisfied with the mere formal ‘Dass’ of the earthly life of Jesus but held firmly to a certain story of Jesus Christ, indeed to narrative elements and above all to sayings of Jesus.”18 Schrage says, “It is remarkable that all cited Herrenworte including 1 Cor 11:23 ff. are concerned about the Christian way of life.”19 Then, noting that Paul understands them in terms of the love command,20 Schrage con-

12 Ibid., 56 (his italics), obviously following R. Bultmann, “Paulus,” RGG (21930), 4:1028 again! As if Paul distinguished the two! See Kümmel, “Jesus und Paulus,” 451, for the view that “Paul sees the earthly Jesus and the exalted Lord as one;” cf. also Schrage, Ethik, 201. 13 Furnish, Theology and Ethics, 223. 14  Merk, “Nachahmung,” 205. 15  Both quotations from Schrage, Ethik, 199. 16 Ibid., 200 (his italics). 17  Ibid., 201: “This is an alternative unknown to Paul.” 18  Ibid., 201–02. 19 Ibid., 202. 20  Here, following Schürmann, “Das Gesetz des Christus,” 286.

326

Imitatio Christi (1 Cor 11:1)

cludes that “to that extent there exists for Paul a far-reaching agreement between the exemplary character of the life and saying of Jesus.”21 If this is so, how can Schrage so emphatically endorse the Bultmannian denial of Paul’s drawing on the historical life and work of Jesus for his teaching on Christian living?22 To me, Schrage’s ambivalence only seems to highlight the power of the theological prejudice that has prevailed in certain circles on the question of the relationship between Paul and the historical Jesus. Against this prejudice, we need to investigate the following questions: (1) In his call for imitatio Christi, does Paul have in view only the self-giving of Christ in his incarnation and crucifixion or also the example and teaching of the historical Jesus? (2) If the latter be the case, does Paul call his readers to imitate only the love of Jesus Christ or also some other features of his life and teaching?23

2. Observations on 1 Cor 8:1–11:1 (a) Not only Christ’s self-giving in his incarnation and death, but also a saying of Jesus In 11:1 Paul calls the Corinthians to imitate his example stated in 10:33: καθὼς κἀγὼ πάντα πᾶσιν ἀρέσκω μὴ ζητῶν τὸ ἐμαυτοῦ σύμφορον ἀλλὰ τὸ τῶν πολλῶν, ἵνα σωθῶσιν. His example is in fact the result of his imitation of Christ (11:1b: καθὼς κἀγὼ Χριστοῦ). Therefore, the example stated in 10:33 is ultimately that of Christ.

With the sentence, then, is Paul just generally characterizing Jesus’ life and death as having been sacrificial for others? For that intent, the verse, with the common words πάντα and πολλῶν in the common antithetical sentence structure, and with the same idea basically, is far too clearly reminiscent of the saying of Jesus transmitted in Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28 (cf. also 1 Tim 2:5–6).24 Note the close parallelism between the two:

 Schrage, Ethik, 202. 199. 23  Contrast Schrage, 1. Korinther (1. Kor 6,12–11,16), 477: “Die imitatio Christi besteht inhaltlich vom Makrokontext der drei Kapitel wie auch von 8,11 her nicht in der Nachahmung des irdischen Jesus oder gar von Einzelheiten dieses Lebens, sondern wie auch sonst in der durch das Heilsgeschehen begründeten Entsprechung zum Verhalten Jesu Christi, d. h. im Verzicht auf die ἐξουσία und der aus Liebe erwachsenen und auf die Rettung der ‘vielen’ zielenden Lebenshingabe.” 24 So, M. Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.1–15.13 (JSNTSup 59; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 213; D. Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 269–70; cf. also F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians (NCBC; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1971), 102. 21

22 Ibid.,

2. Observations on 1 Cor 8:1–11:1

1 Cor 10:33

“to please    all people (πάντα) …, NOT seeking my own advantage, BUT that of many (πολλῶν) that they [all/ many] may be saved”

Mark 10:45

“NOT to be served BUT to serve and to give his life [for many/all people – πάντων in Mark 10:44] as ransom for many (πολλῶν)”

327

As we shall see, there is a close parallelism between 1 Cor 9:19–22 and 10:32–33. This parallelism strengthens our observation of the parallelism between 1 Cor 10:33 and Mark 10:45, since there is also a close parallelism between 1 Cor 9:19, 22 and Mark 10:44–45: 1 Cor 9:19, 22

πᾶσιν ἐμαυτὸν ἐδούλωσα, ἵνα τοὺς πλείονας κερδήσω … τοῖς πᾶσιν γέγονα πάντα, ἵνα πάντως τινὰς σώσω

Mark 10:44–45 ἔσται πάντων δοῦλος … διακονῆσαι καὶ δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ

πολλῶν

N. B. the same idea and vocabulary: becoming a slave of all, in order to save many.25

Thus, contrary to the assertions of Furnish and Merk,26 Paul does echo a saying of the earthly Jesus (Mark 10:44–45) and allude to a quality of his life in the context of speaking of imitating Christ. In connection with our present concern, what then are its implications? First of all, it means that one cannot argue as does Schrage that since in 1 Cor 11:1 Paul is talking about imitating Christ rather than Jesus, Paul is not thinking of the earthly Jesus as the object of imitation.27 Further, it is hardly possible to think that Paul understands the saying of Mark 10:44–45 as a saying of the risen Lord rather than the earthly Jesus. Even if the unrealistic view is somehow granted that Paul thinks of the risen Lord apart from the historical Jesus, it is impossible to think that in echoing Jesus’ saying of his giving his life as ransom for many Paul thinks only of the risen Lord but not of the historical Jesus who actually gave his life to death. Then does Paul have in mind here only Christ’s self-giving in his incarnation and death? No doubt, Paul has 25 So J. Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief (KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910), 243; Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 86; Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 213; Wenham, Paul, 269; Schürmann, “Das Gesetz des Christus,” 286; R. Riesner, “Paulus und die Jesus-Überlieferung,” in Evangelium, Schriftauslegung, Kirche (P. Stuhlmacher FS; ed. J. Ådna, S. J. Hafemann, and O. Hofius; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 364. We could argue here both ways: 1 Cor 9:19–22//10:32–33 – 1 Cor 9:19, 22//Mark 10:44–45 – therefore, 1 Cor 10:32–33//Mark 10:45, or 1 Cor 10:32–33//Mark 10:45 – 1 Cor 9:19, 22//Mark 10:44–45 – therefore 1 Cor 10:32– 33//9:19–22. 26  See nn. 11–14 above. Contra also H. Conzelmann, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), 212. 27 Schrage, Ethik, 199; but cf. n. 17 above.

328

Imitatio Christi (1 Cor 11:1)

this chiefly in view. However, there are indications that he has more features of the historical Jesus in view than just the two moments of his life, incarnation and death. (b) Not only a saying of self-giving, but also a saying about stumbling block In 10:32 Paul exhorts the readers, “Give no offense (ἀπρόσκοποι … γίνεσθε) to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God.” It is really a negative formulation of the positive statement of 10:33. So, in the two verses Paul is saying in effect: “Do not give offense to anybody, but please everybody, just as I am trying to do.” Note the context of this advice: Paul gives it at the conclusion of his long and careful treatment of the question of eating idol food in 1 Cor 8–10. So 10:32–33 immediately recalls the statement he made at the conclusion of the first phase of the treatment (8:13): “Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble (σκανδαλίζει), I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to stumble (σκανδαλίσω).” This example of his is presented to enforce his advice for the knowledge-boasters in the Corinthian church not to exercise their right/freedom in such a way as to present a “stumbling block” (πρόσκομμα) to “the weak” (1 Cor 8:9). So, it is clear that Paul is using πρόσκομμα/προσκόπτειν and σκάνδαλον/ σκανδαλίζειν as synonyms. This is confirmed by Rom 14:13: “rather decide never to put a stumbling block (πρόσκομμα) or hindrance (σκάνδαλον)” (see further Rom 14:20–21). It is well known that σκάνδαλον/σκανδαλίζειν is attested rarely outside the Biblical Greek (LXX and NT), but plays an important role in the Jesus tradition.28 For this reason as well as the close correspondence of the ideas, it is highly likely that in 1 Cor 8:13 and 10:32 as well as in Rom 14:13 Paul is echoing Jesus’ stern warning for his disciples not “to cause one of these little ones (οἱ μικροί) among believers to stumble (σκανδαλίζειν)” (Mark 9:42–50//Matt 18:6–9// Luke 17:1–2; cf. also Matt 17:24–27).29 Paul seems to be identifying the “weak” Christians in 1 Cor 8–10 and Rom 14–15 with the οἱ μικροί of Jesus’ saying.30 What does it mean then that in the context of talking about imitating Christ Paul echoes Jesus’ teaching not to cause “weak” believers to stumble (Mark 9:42– 50 and parr.) as well as his saying about his self-giving (Mark 10:44–45 and par.)? It clearly suggests that Paul has Jesus in mind not only as one who gave oneself to save others, but also as one who taught one’s followers about responsible and caring behavior. Thus, in talking about imitating Christ, Paul has in view not 28 See

G. Stählin, σκάνδαλον, κτλ., TDNT 7:339–56; Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 175–79.  Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 175–83; Wenham, Paul, 264–65; C. H. Dodd, “ἔννομος Χριστοῦ,” in More New Testament Studies (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1968; originally in Studia Paulina, J. G. Zwaan FS, Haarlem, 1953), 145; Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 82; D. C. Allison Jr., “The Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels: The Pattern of the Parallels,” NTS 28 (1982): 14–15; Schürmann, “Das Gesetz des Christus,” 286; cf. also Furnish, Theology and Ethics, 53. 30 Cf. Wenham, Paul, 264. 29

2. Observations on 1 Cor 8:1–11:1

329

only Christ’s act of self-giving in his incarnation and death, but also his teaching about behaving responsibly in the interest of others. That is, Paul means that imitating Christ involves following his teaching as well as his act of self-giving. (c) Chiefly Jesus’ teaching and act of love In 10:32–33, no doubt, Paul has in mind chiefly Jesus’ act and teaching of love for others. He means that the Corinthians are to imitate Jesus’ act of loving in his self-giving for the salvation of many and are to follow his teaching about loving (not offending) others, just as Paul himself does. However, note that the example Paul provides in 1 Cor 10:32–33 is a summary restatement of his apostolic example that he cited in 1 Cor 9:19–22.31 So, taking the two passages together, we find Paul saying this: In order not to give offense to Jews or “those under the law” but to please them, he became “as a Jew” or “as one under the law” to the Jews; in order not to give offense to the Greeks or “those outside the law” but to please them, he became as “one outside the law” to “those outside the law;” and in order not to give offense to the church of God or “the weak” members of it but to please them, he became “weak” to “the weak.”32 Doing all this is an act of sacrificing his own advantage in order to seek that of many, i. e., sacrificing his own freedom and making himself a slave to all. All this he does in order to “win” them, that is, to “save” them. In view of this close correspondence between the two passages, we must also see the correspondence between the concepts “the law of Christ” in 9:21 and the example of 31 Cf. G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 489–90; Schrage, 1. Korinther (1. Kor 6,12–11,16), 475–76; C. Wolff, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, Zweiter Teil: Auslegung der Kapitel 8–16 (ThHNT VII/2; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1982), 63; D. G. Horrell, “Theological Principle or Christological Praxis? Pauline Ethics in 1 Corinthians 8.1–11.1,” JSNT 67 (1997), 106. N. B. the function of 1 Cor 9 within 1 Cor 8–10: in ch. 9 Paul demonstrates his own example of renouncing his right/ freedom for the sake of the gospel/the church/others in order to reinforce his teaching in chs. 8 and 10. 32  In view of the correspondence between 9:19–22 and 10:32–33, it appears that “the weak” in the former is to be identified with “the church of God” in the latter, and that in the latter we are to understand Paul as exhorting mainly the knowledge-boasters not to give offense to the “weak” members of the church (cf. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 489). By omitting ὡς before “weak” in 9:22, Paul seems to be intending to avoid an impression of too clear an identification on his part with the knowledge-boasters in Corinth. For if he wrote ὡς before “weak” in 9:22 as before Ἰουδαῖος, ὑπὸ νόμον and ἄνομος in the preceding verses, he would be clearly expressing that he in fact belongs to the camp opposite to the “weak” (i. e., the group of the knowledge-boasters), though condescending to become “as weak.” Being conscious of the touchiness of the “weak” brethren in Corinth, he apparently tries to identify himself with them, instead, as much as possible. He can “become weak to the weak” only because normally he is not “weak.” He does not balance this phrase with a phrase such as “I became (as) strong to the strong,” because, having already implied it in the phrase τοῖς ἀνόμοις ὡς ἄνομος to some extent, he does not want to stress his identification with the “strong” but rather wants to urge them to imitate him in accommodating to the needs of others. Cf. Horrell, “Theological Principle,” 94.

330

Imitatio Christi (1 Cor 11:1)

Christ in 10:33: in adapting himself to please his Jewish, Greek, or “weak” Christian audience, Paul follows the example of Christ or observes “the law of Christ.” With “the law of Christ” in 9:19–22 Paul clearly has in mind chiefly Jesus’ teaching on love. We have already observed that in that passage and in its parallel passage, 10:32–33, Paul echoes Jesus’ ransom saying (Mark 10:45 and par.) and scandal saying (Mark 9:42–50 and parr.), which both have love for others as their main point. In Gal 6:2, with the concept of “the law of Christ,” Paul also has Jesus’ love command (Mark 12:28–31 and parr.) in view. For there Paul’s exhortation, “bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ,” is to be taken together with his earlier statement in Gal 5:14: “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (cf. Rom 13:8–10).33 This makes it quite likely that in 1 Cor 9:19–22 Paul’s concept of “the law of Christ” also has in mind Jesus’ love command itself, as well as his love teaching contained in the ransom and scandal sayings.34 1 Cor 10:23–11:1 is clearly the concluding section in which Paul recapitulates his arguments in 1 Cor 8–10. It is true that the points recapitulated here are mainly the ones that he made in chs. 8–9.35 This fact orients us to understand both that his dominant concern in 1 Cor 8–10 is the knowledge-boasters’ need to give up their right/freedom to eat eidōlothyta in respect for the interest of the weak brethren, and that 1 Cor 10:1–22 represents an additional argument for abstaining from eidōlothyta.36 However, Horrell goes too far when he says, “Notable in this concluding section is the lack of any reference back to 10.1–22. All the reiterations and repetitions relate to chs. 8 and 9.”37 Actually 10:31 does appear to recapitulate the concern of 10:1–22. Idol worship is so diametrically opposed to rendering glory to God that it is difficult to imagine that having just argued at length against idolatry (10:1–22), which would “provoke the Lord to jealousy” (10:22), Paul would not have associated that thought with his talk of the duty to glorify God in 10:31. Thus, in the verse, we should understand that Paul is exhorting the Corinthians to glorify God by abstaining from eating eidōlothyta in an idolatrous situation as well as by properly respecting the concerns of the weak brethren in dining. Then, in 10:31, we may hear an echo of the first element of Jesus’ double command33  See Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 121–40, for an extensive demonstration that in Rom 13:8–10 as well as in Gal 6:2 Paul alludes to Jesus’ commandment of love (Mark 12:28–31 and parr.); also Kim, PNP, 266–68, with an additional observation that Rom 12:1–2 could echo the first element of Jesus’ double commandment of love as Rom 13:8–10 does the second. 34 Cf. Schürmann, “Das Gesetz des Christus,” 290–94. 35  Horrell, “Theological Principle,” 102, quoting J. C. Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians (London: SPCK, 1965), 128: “Closer comparison reveals that the whole of 1 Cor 10.23–11.1 is a point by point restatement and summary of the argument of 1 Cor. 8 and 9.” Cf. also Schrage, 1. Korinther (1. Kor 6,12–11,16), 461. 36  Cf. Horrell, “Theological Principle,” 100–102. 37 Ibid., 104; similarly, also Schrage, 1. Korinther (1. Kor 6,12–11,16), 461.

2. Observations on 1 Cor 8:1–11:1

331

ment of love: Love your God with your whole being (Mark 12:30 and parr.; cf. 1 Cor 8:6), as we hear an echo of its second element (neighbor love; Mark 12:31 and parr.) in this same context (10:28, 32–33; cf. 9:19–22). This interpretation is strongly supported by the observation of an inclusio that the concluding summary of 10:31–33 builds with the thesis statement that Paul makes in the opening section of 8:1–3. Note the correspondence between the emphasis on love that builds up (οἰκοδομεῖ, 8:1) and the demand on self-sacrificing love that does not cause anyone to stumble (ἀπρόσκοποι) in 10:32–33, and between loving God in 8:3 and glorifying God in 10:31. Having stated his thesis in the opening section of 8:1–3 that with regard to the problem of eidōlothyta what really matters is not “knowledge” but rather love – of God and of neighbors, Paul concludes his long discussion in 10:31–33 with a call to love (sc. glorify) God and love neighbors. Thus, in 10:31 and 32–33 both elements of Jesus’ double commandment of love seem to be reflected side by side.38 Therefore, we may infer that with the concept of “the law of Christ” in 9:19–22, the parallel passage of 10:31–33, Paul has in view both elements of Jesus’ double commandment of love. (d) Jesus’ teaching on food/purity also However, more than the love teaching of Jesus seems to be involved in the concept of “the law of Christ.” This is suggested by Paul’s contrasting this concept with the law of Moses in 9:19–22. Paul says that he is no longer “under the law (of Moses)” but “in the law of Christ.” In what way is “the law of Christ” different from the law of Moses?39 The love command alone would not lead to a contrast between the two laws, because the law of Moses also centers on the love command, i. e., love of God and love of neighbor. In saying that he adapts himself 38  So 10:23–11:1 is to be understood as a summary of the whole of chs. 8–10, with emphasis on the dominant concern of chs. 8–9. The structure of the concluding summary could be tabulated thus: 10:23–30 summary of chs. 8–9: Christian freedom with adiaphora; but the duty to sacrifice it for neighbor love; 10:31 summary of 10:1–22: no idolatry (esp. 10:14), for the sake of love for God – inclusio with 8:3; 10:32–33 reiteration of the summary of chs. 8–9 (recalling particularly 9:19–22): the duty to sacrifice one’s interest for the sake of others – inclusio with 8:1; 11:1 summary of 10:32–33 and grand summary of the whole: love for God; love for neighbor; Christian freedom. N. B. the double inclusio in chiastic structure:   (a) 8:1   (b) 8:3   (b‫ )׳‬10:31  (a‫ )׳‬10:32–33 39  See below pp. 340–42; contra P. J.  Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (CRINT; Assen/Mastricht: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 278–80, who refuses to see any difference between them.

332

Imitatio Christi (1 Cor 11:1)

to the Greeks (“those outside the law”) “as one outside the law (of Moses)” but as one “in the law of Christ,” Paul implies that the law of Christ sanctions such an adaptation whereas the law of Moses does not. Now, considering the context of this statement of Paul, namely a discussion of eating eidōlothyta, we seem bound to conclude that Paul has in mind here the question of food/purity rules beyond the love of neighbor. If he wants to keep the law of Moses with its many food/purity rules as he did during his Pharisaic days, he would not accommodate himself to the Gentiles as he does now. But he is no longer bound to the law of Moses and he does not find “the law of Christ” equally prohibitive about his accommodation to the Gentiles with regard to questions of food/purity. What, then, about “the law of Christ” allows Paul to ignore the food/purity rules of the law of Moses? The principle of love of neighbor (i. e., love for the Gentiles, to please them and save them) alone would not lead Paul to be ἄνομος to the Gentiles, i. e., to ignore the food/purity rules for the sake of the Gentiles, because if he maintains his Pharisaic understanding of purity he would think that for the sake of the higher principle, namely love for God, he must keep God’s purity regulations enshrined in the law of Moses. This line of reasoning suggests that Paul not only sees “the law of Christ” emphasizing the love command, but also dispensing with the food/purity rules of the law of Moses. With “the law of Christ” Paul refers to Jesus’ setting aside the food/purity rules as well as his stressing the love command. Only so could Paul, guided by “the law of Christ,” accommodate himself to the Gentiles “as one outside the law,” i. e., ignoring the food/purity regulations of the law of Moses.40 This conclusion points to Jesus’ ruling about food/purity in Mark 7:15//Matt 15:11, the mashal saying of Jesus whose intent Mark correctly interprets: “Thus he declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:19).41 It is widely recognized that in Rom 14:14, 20 Paul alludes to this ruling of Jesus.42 Apparently dealing with a dispute in the Roman church between the 40  So, Schürmann’s interpretation of “the law of Christ” as exclusively concentrating on Jesus Christ’s exemplary act of self-giving and on his words about love (“Das Gesetz des Christus,” 283–94) needs to be modified. It is true that the theme of love dominates in many of Paul’s references/allusions to the Herrenworte (see the list in Schürmann, 286). But Schürmann himself recognizes many exceptions including Mark 7:15//Rom 14:14, 20 (ibid.). Impressed by the language Paul uses in reference to sayings of Jesus (διατάσσειν, 1 Cor 9:14, and ἐπιταγή, 1 Cor 7:25), as well as the way Paul uses sayings of Jesus (Rom 14:10, 13, 14, 20; Gal 6:1–5; 1 Cor 5:4–5), Dodd, “ἔννομος Χριστοῦ,” 141–47, suggests that Paul conceives of “the law of Christ” in terms of the precepts of Jesus Christ contained in sayings of Jesus such as those to which he refers in those passages. If Schürmann needs to expand his understanding of “the law of Christ” to include some other elements such as Jesus’ ruling on food/purity, Dodd seems to need see Jesus’ example and teaching of love being the focus of “the law of Christ.” 41 Cf. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 490 n. 70. 42  So, even the minimalists Furnish, Theology and Ethics, 53, and N. Walter, “Paul and the Early Christian Jewish-Tradition,” in Paul and Jesus (ed. A. J. M. Wedderburn and C. Wolff; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 71–72 (in spite of what he says in p. 57).

2. Observations on 1 Cor 8:1–11:1

333

“strong” who would eat anything and the “weak” who eat only vegetables (Rom 14:2, 21), Paul imparts very similar advice to the Romans as to the Corinthians. Just as in 1 Cor 10:32 (cf. also 8:13), so also in Rom 14:13, he exhorts the Romans “not to put a stumbling block (πρόσκομμα) or hindrance (σκάνδαλον) to a brother.” Just as he advises the knowledge-boasters in Corinth to sacrifice their right/freedom of eating eidōlothyta in order not to ruin the “weak” brethren or to cause them to stumble in 1 Cor 8:7–13; 9:19–22; 10:25–33, so also in Rom 14:13–23 he advises the “strong” in Rome to sacrifice their right/freedom of eating anything in order not to ruin the “weak” brethren or to cause them to stumble. Thus, just as he grants that the knowledge-boasters in Corinth have their “right” (ἐξουσία, 1 Cor 8:9; cf. 10:23) or “freedom” (ἐλευθερία, cf. 1 Cor 9:1, 19) to eat eidōlothyta, so also in Rom 14 he assumes that the “strong” in Rome have their right/freedom to eat anything. It is only out of love for brethren for whom Christ died that they are to sacrifice it (Rom 14:15; 1 Cor 8:11). In Rom 14 Paul provides the basis for this assumption: “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself. … All things are clean” (vv. 14, 20). John Barclay appreciates the great significance of this declaration: “This constitutes nothing less than a fundamental rejection of the Jewish law in one of its most sensitive dimensions.”43 He draws attention also to the striking manner of Paul’s rejection: “It is important to observe that Paul does not base his judgment here on an appeal to a ‘higher principle’ in the law or on an allegorical interpretation of the law.”44 So, for Barclay, “The certainty and candour with which Paul here expresses his freedom from the law is thus quite breathtaking.”45 Barclay is to be complemented for his acute observation of both the revolutionary content of the statement of Rom 14:14, 20 and the striking manner in which it is made. When we consider the fact that the statement is made by a former Pharisee who used to be zealous for the law (Gal 1:13–14; Phil 3:5–6), especially for the regulations about food and purity (cf. Mark 7:1–5 and par.!), they are even more astonishing. So we are bound to ask with C. H. Dodd, “On what grounds, then, does [Paul] affirm this maxim?”46 According to Barclay, while the saying of Jesus in Mark 7:15–19 could possibly lie behind it, “Paul makes no attempt here to present Jesus as an interpreter of the law.”47 According to Dodd, however, Paul’s sentence in Rom 14:14 “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus” does indi43  John M. G. Barclay, “‘Do We Undermine the Law?’ A Study of Romans 14.1–15.6,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law (WUNT 89; ed. J. D. G. Dunn; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 300. 44 Ibid., 300. 45  Ibid., 301; cf. also Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 196, who appreciates the astonishing nature of the simple declaration all the more in view of the recipients of Romans who must have included some Jewish Christians and of the intention that Paul has in the epistle for wooing the united support of Roman Christians for his mission to Spain. 46  Dodd, “ἔννομος Χριστοῦ,” 144. 47 Barclay, “‘Do We Undermine the Law?’,” 300–01.

334

Imitatio Christi (1 Cor 11:1)

cate that he bases his declaration on the teaching of the historical Jesus such as Mark 7:15–23.48 Surely Paul’s appeal here to “the Lord Jesus” while making an astonishing statement that closely corresponds to the saying of Jesus supports Dodd’s interpretation.49 Now what is the significance of Paul’s alluding to the saying of Jesus in Mark 7:15 when giving basically the same advice for essentially the same problem regarding food in both Romans and 1 Corinthians? Besides the similarities between the presenting problems and Paul’s treatment of them in the two epistles, we must also bear in mind that Romans was written from Corinth only a couple of years after 1 Corinthians itself. These facts seem to suggest that in 1 Cor 8–10 Paul is also guided by the saying of Jesus in Mark 7:15 as he is in Rom 14–15. We have already noted that 1 Cor 9:19–22; 10:32–33 themselves, on close observation, point to Paul’s having in mind a teaching of Jesus like Mark 7:15. So it appears reasonable to conclude that after implying in 1 Cor 8–10 his following Jesus’ teaching in Mark 7:15, Paul makes it explicit in Rom 14–15. No doubt, only because he had a conviction such as that of Mark 7:15–23 could Jesus eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners against the opposition of the Pharisees and scribes (Mark 2:15–17 and parr.; Matt 11:19//Luke 7:34; Luke 48 Dodd, “ἔννομος Χριστοῦ,” 144; for a fuller argument, see Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 194–99. The latter (188–94) also provides a strong defense for the authenticity of the logion Mark 7:15//Matt 15:11. The high probability of its allusion or echo in Rom 14–15 and 1 Cor 8–10 in turn strengthens its authenticity. 49  Contra H. Räisänen, “Zur Herkunft von Markus 7,15,” in The Torah and Christ (Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1986), 209–18, who rather arbitrarily denies an allusion to Mark 7:15 in Rom 14:14 in spite of the agreement in words (οὐδέν and κοινόν) and ideas between the two passages and of the close agreement between Mark 7:19 and Rom 14:20 (214–15), and argues that the saying in Mark 7:15 is inauthentic because, he alleges, it has no Wirkungsgeschichte. In a follow-up essay, “Jesus and the Food Laws: Reflections on Mark 7.15,” in the same volume (215–41), he strengthens his denial of the authenticity of the logion by asserting that Paul does not use it in his dealing with the food questions in 1 Cor 8–10 and Rom 14–15 (235). Here I am arguing that Paul’s discussions in 1 Cor 8–10 as well as Rom 14–15 are part of the Wirkungsgeschichte of the logion, with Rom 14:14 being a clear allusion to it, and that as such they strengthen the case for its authenticity, which is supported by “a broad consensus among NT scholars” as Räisänen himself says (219). In reporting the Antiochian controversy in Gal 2:11–14 Paul may be refraining from referring to the logion because he was conscious of a different interpretation of it by the Jerusalemites, as well as of the fact that he could hardly speak as authoritatively as Peter on the Jesus tradition. When Räisänen (214–15) disputes the view that the sentence οἶδα καὶ πέπεισμαι ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ is an indicator of Paul’s referring to the logion of Jesus, he fails to consider not only the cumulative effect that the sentence builds together with the verbal and ideological agreements between Rom 14:14 and Mark 7:15, but also to appreciate that sentence in the light of the phrases, “the law of Christ” (1 Cor 9:21) and imitation of Christ (1 Cor 11:1). If we take the sentence of Rom 14:14a together with the latter two phrases – as we should because they appear in the similar contexts of dealing with questions about food and imparting similar lessons that are, as we argue presently, strongly reminiscent of Mark 7:15 – the sentence appears more clearly as a reference to Jesus’ teaching. Cf. also Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 188–96; R. H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 370–71, against Räisänen.

2. Observations on 1 Cor 8:1–11:1

335

15:1–2; 19:1–10; cf. Matt 21:31–2; Luke 7:29). Frequently describing the kingdom of God with the metaphor of a feast (Matt 8:11//Luke 7:19; Matt 22:1–10//Luke 14:16–24; Luke 15:11–32; etc.), he demonstrated its proleptic realization in his mission by holding feasts with those sinners who accepted his invitation into it. Had Paul known Jesus’ ruling on food/purity in Mark 7:15, he must have also known this characteristic, notorious conduct of Jesus, which was a demonstration of that ruling. (e) Imitate also Christ’s freedom on food/purity questions If so, we have to conclude also that in dealing with the problem of eidōlothyta in 1 Cor 8–10 Paul is guided not only by Jesus’ double commandment of love but also by his teaching on food/purity, and that with the notion of imitating Christ Paul has in mind not only Christ’s self-sacrificing love for others but also Jesus’ freedom from the food/purity regulations. We are to imitate Christ by following both his teaching (Mark 10:45 and par.; 9:42–50 and parr.; 12:28–34 and parr.) and example (his death) of self-giving and his teaching (Mark 7:15 and par.) and example (banqueting with sinners) of freedom from the food/purity laws.50 As a result of following Jesus’ teaching on food and purity and imitating Jesus’ example of eating and drinking with sinners,51 Paul is able to advise the Corinthian Christians to “eat whatever is sold in the market, without inquiring on the ground of conscience” (1 Cor 10:25) and to accept a pagan neighbor’s invitation and “eat whatever is set before you, without inquiring on the ground of conscience” (1 Cor 10:27). Some, if not most, of the meat sold in the Corinthian market is likely to be eidōlothyta,52 and likewise at least some of the food set on the table of a pagan neighbor is likely to be eidōlothyta. So this advice presupposes the views that all food, even eidōlothyta, is clean (cf. Rom 14:14, 20) and that Christians may associate themselves freely with unbelievers without fear of defilement (cf. 1 Cor 7:12–14). Because he holds these views, Paul is able to grant that the knowledge-boasters in Corinth have the right to eat (of course, 50 Since the allusions to or echoes of Jesus’ sayings in Mark 7:15 and par.; 9:42–50 and parr.; 10:45 and par; and 12:28–34 and parr. are accompanied by Paul’s references to the “law of Christ” and the example of Christ in 9:19–23 and 10:23–11:1, these references may be regarded as “tradition indicators” (i. e., indicators of referring to the Jesus tradition). 51  Cf. P. Richardson and P. W. Gooch, “Accommodation Ethics,” TynBul 29 (1978): 89–142. In the section “B. Early Christian Sources of an Accommodation Ethic – from Jesus to Paul” (118–42), Richardson argues that what he calls Paul’s “accommodation ethic” in 1 Cor 9:19–22 and 10:31–11:1 is ultimately a development of Jesus’ example of accommodating to the needs of various people, including sinners and tax collectors. 52 Cf. B. W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 287–301, about the availability of kosher food in Corinth. Winter (297–301) speculates that after Paul’s first mission to Corinth the city officials withdrew special provisions on kosher meat, creating difficulties for the Corinthian church, and that this situation forms the background for Paul’s advice in 1 Cor 10:25–29.

336

Imitatio Christi (1 Cor 11:1)

eidōlothyta) even “in an idol’s temple,” i. e., probably in private parties held in a pagan temple, although he has to object to their exercising the right on the ground that it would cause “weak” brethren to stumble (1 Cor 8:10). For this astonishingly “liberal” teaching53 Paul indirectly appeals to “the law of Christ,” which differs from the law of Moses on the question of food/purity (1 Cor 9:20), and ultimately to the example of Christ (1 Cor 11:1).54 (f) The priority of love However, what Paul stresses even more in 1 Cor 8–10 than the Christian freedom based on Jesus’ teaching and example is the Christian duty of love. This duty is apparently called for by the knowledge-boasters’ more aggressive claim to their right/freedom and the defensive position of the “weak” believers in Corinth (cf. 1 Cor 8:1–3, 7–13). The knowledge-boasters must sacrifice their right/freedom to eat eidōlothyta in a pagan temple in order not to cause the “weak” brethren to 53  The spirit of Paul’s teachings in 1 Cor 8:10; 10:25 and 27 is incomparably more liberal than the most liberal interpretation that E. P. Sanders seeks to put on the attitudes of first-century Jews towards associating with Gentiles (“Jewish Association with Gentiles and Galatians 2:11– 14,” in Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John. J. Louis Martyn FS [ed. R. T.  Fortna and B. R. Gaventa; Nashville: Abingdon, 1990], 170–88). P. Borgen, “‘Yes,’ ‘No,’ ‘How Far?’: The Participation of Jews and Christians in Pagan Cults,” in Paul and His Hellenistic Context (ed. T. Engberg-Pedersen; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 30–59, illustrates the liberal attitudes of some loose and even apostate Jews toward associating with Gentiles or participating in pagan cults, as well as the strict prohibition of such practices among the more religiously committed Jews. Concluding that “there were Jews and Christians who followed a practice similar to that of Paul, and some who went even further than he did” (56–57), Pedersen tries to explain Paul’s liberal attitude in 1 Cor 8 and 10 from within this diversity of the Jewish attitudes (cf. P. Tomson’s work discussed in the next section). But such an attempt is not very helpful insofar as it cannot explain how such a strict, indeed “zealotic” Pharisee as Paul (Gal 1:13–14; Phil 3:4–6) could come to have such a liberal attitude. Cf. A. F. Segal, Paul the Convert (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 231–33, about the Pharisees’ “punctilious observance of food laws” (231) in contrast to the looser attitudes of some other Jews. 54 Some may object to my view that in 1 Cor 8–10 one of the bases of Paul’s advice is Jesus’ teaching in Mark 7:15–20, by pointing out that in 1 Cor 10:26 Paul justifies eating market food without questioning by citing Ps 24:1 rather than referring to a saying of Jesus (Mark 7:15–20) as in Rom 14:14, 20. I have already argued (1) that on close observation 1 Cor 9:19–22 and 10:32–11:1 themselves strongly point to that saying of Jesus; (2) that in view of the parallelism between 1 Cor 8–10 and Rom 14–15, the fact that the saying is alluded to in Rom 14:14, 20 makes it highly likely that in 1 Cor 8–10 also Paul has that saying in mind; and (3) that the fact that Romans was written in Corinth only a couple of years after 1 Corinthians also strengthens this view. Those who would deny the implicit presence of the saying in 1 Cor 8–10 will either have to deny its allusion in Rom 14:14, 20 or say that Paul learned of the saying during AD 54–56 after writing 1 Corinthians and before writing Romans. But neither of these seems plausible. For Paul Ps 24:1 is God’s word. In 1 Corinthians, as he is referring to the “law of Christ” (9:20) and the example of Christ (11:1), understanding them as implying the saying of Jesus, he decides to strengthen his advice with an additional authority, namely the word of God, Ps 24:1 (cf. 1 Cor 9:8–14 for Paul’s combination of the OT and Jesus’ saying for the authoritative grounding of the apostolic right to receive a living by the gospel).

2. Observations on 1 Cor 8:1–11:1

337

stumble (1 Cor 8:9–12). Having supported this advice with his own exemplary determination (1 Cor 8:13), Paul goes on to demonstrate his example of foregoing various apostolic rights, including gaining his livelihood by the gospel, as well as his example of sacrificing his freedom for the needs of his audience in order to serve the Jews, the Gentiles, and the “weak” Christians and in so doing win them to faith and salvation (1 Cor 9:1–27). In the concluding section, while affirming Christian freedom on the question of food, he immediately calls the Corinthians to sacrifice their freedom when its exercise is likely to cause a neighbor to stumble (1 Cor 10:23–30). Then he wraps up his long and careful treatment of the question of eating eidōlothyta by stressing the need to sacrifice our own advantage for the sake of others, citing his own example, which follows the example of Christ (10:32–11:1). As we have seen above, by echoing Jesus’ sayings such as Mark 9:42–50 and parr.; 10:45 and par., in these verses, Paul clearly indicates that his teaching on the priority of love over freedom is based on Jesus’ teaching and example of self-giving. In short, we may say that the two principles that guide Paul in his treatment of the question of eating eidōlothyta in 1 Cor 8–10 are the absolute demand of love for God and for others and the Christian freedom regarding food/purity.55 Clearly Paul has learned them from Jesus, who made the commandment of love for God and for neighbor absolute (Mark 12:28–34 and parr.) while making the regulations about food/purity adiaphora (Mark 7:15–23 and par.). Paul’s teaching about eidōlothyta in 1 Cor 8–10 in “imitation” of Jesus’ teaching and example may be summarized as follows: Paul’s Teaching about Idol Food (1 Cor 8–10) How Paul “Imitates” Jesus Christ 1. The Thesis: the two fundamental principles (8:1–3) 1a) Love of neighbor (8:1) – inclusio with 10:32–33 (6b) 1b) Love of God (8:3) – inclusio with 10:31 (6a) (N. B. the chiastic structure of the double inclusio)

2. Four imperatives (cf. the summary in 10:14, 23–33) 2a) Shun idolatry: no participation in the table fellowship at a pagan temple (10:1–22, esp.14–22) 2b) Eat the meat sold at market without questioning on account of conscience 2c) When invited by a pagan neighbor, eat the food offered, without questioning 2d) But do not eat when your eating may offend the “weak” brethren (or the pagan friend’s moral expectations of a Christian?) 55 Three principles, if we analyze the double commandment of love into two separate principles. The concern for the unity and edification of the church may be considered as a further principle. It goes without saying that monotheism (1 Cor 8:4–6) is a fundamental assumption here. Cf. n. 72 below.

338

Imitatio Christi (1 Cor 11:1)

3. Three principles 3a) No idolatry (2a above) 3b) Christian freedom (2b + 2c above) 3c) Love of neighbor (2d above) 4. Correspondence to Jesus’ Teaching 4a) Jesus’ ignoring the Jewish food/purity laws (Mark 7:15 and par.; Rom 14:14, 20) (= 2b + 2c; 3b) 4b) Jesus’ double commandment of love (Mark 12:28–34 and parr.) – 4ba) Love of God with one’s whole being – contra idolatry (= 2a; 3a) – 4bb) Love of neighbor as oneself (= 2d; 3c). 5. Paul applies these to his own apostolic stance (Paul “imitates” Jesus or observes “the law of Christ”) – 9:19–22 5a) Adjustment of his missionary stance on the matters of adiaphora according to his audience – 5aa: among the Jews/the weak, Paul observes the food/purity laws (= 4bb – love of neighbor) – 5ab: among the Gentiles/the strong, Paul ignores the food/purity laws (= 4a + 4bb – Christian freedom and love of neighbor) 5b) Yet subject to the “law of God”/“the law of Christ” (= 4a + 4b) 6. Summary statement and call (the double commandment of love)56 6a) Do all things for the glory of God (10:31) (= 4ba) – inclusio with 8:3 (1b) 6b) and in love of neighbor (10:32–33) (= 4bb) – inclusio with 8:1 (1a) 7. Final summary and call: “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (11:1)

3. No Christian Freedom but Only an Absolute Prohibition of eidōlothyta? This interpretation of Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 8–10 results in confirming the main lines of the traditional majority view that eidōlothyta means food offered to an idol, that for Paul eating eidōlothyta, whether in temple precincts or at a private home, was not in itself an idolatrous act to be prohibited (8:10; 10:25, 27), and that it is to be shunned, nevertheless, if it causes the “weak” brethren to 56 The reason why in this summary and call Paul stresses only the requirements of love for God and for neighbor is because his main concern is to persuade the knowledge-boasters to be ready to give up their right/freedom for the sake of neighbors as well as to warn them not to fall into idolatry. However, one who has reached this point after carefully listening to Paul’s argument up to this point would see the principle of Christian freedom implicitly present in 10:32–33 as Paul phrases the requirement of neighbor love in terms of not laying any stumbling block to others.

3. No Christian Freedom but Only an Absolute Prohibition of eidōlothyta?

339

stumble (8:10; 10:28) or if it takes on the character of idolatry, with participation in the table fellowship on an occasion when sacrifice is actually being offered to an idol (10:14–22). Some scholars think that this interpretation makes Paul contradict himself first by allowing eating eidōlothyta at a temple in principle (8:10) and then by categorically forbidding it as an act of idolatry (10:1–22). So, some of these scholars deny that in ch. 8 Paul allows the knowledge-boasters the right to eat eidōlothyta at a temple in principle. According Gordon Fee, Paul prohibits eating eidōlothyta at a temple completely both in ch. 8 and 10:1–22, although he allows it at private homes (10:23–11:1). The only difference between ch. 8 and 10:1–22 is that in ch. 8 Paul argues against eating eidōlothyta at a temple on the ethical grounds, while in 10:1–22 he does the same on theological grounds.57 Ben Witherington refines this view by distinguishing εἰδωλόθυτος from ἱερόθυτος. According to him, εἰδωλόθυτος refers to meat eaten at a pagan temple where a god is thought to be present,58 whereas ἱερόθυτος refers to food that has come from a temple but is eaten at home.59 Then he argues that Paul forbids εἰδωλόθυτος but not ἱερόθυτος.60 But David Horrell questions the validity of Witherington’s linguistic analysis, and rightly argues against this line of interpretation: “It is difficult to see why Paul should apparently leave unquestioned the ἐξουσία of the strong to eat εἰδωλόθυτα, even in a temple, in ch. 8, if he intended to prohibit that very activity in ch. 10.”61 Indeed, if Paul were objecting to eating εἰδωλόθυτα in a temple as an act of idolatry, he would start his argument against it on that ground first and warn against it as seriously as in 10:1–22 or denounce it as categorically as in Rom 1:18–32. Surely in ch. 8 he would not leave the impression that he was concerned only about its offense to the weak brethren but not at all about its idolatrous character. Furthermore, if in ch. 8 he is not presupposing in principle the right/freedom of the knowledge-boasters to eat εἰδωλόθυτα in an idol temple and exhorting them to sacrifice it for the sake of the weak brethren, what is the point of his demonstration in ch. 9 of his example of sacrificing his right/freedom as an apostle for the sake of others?  Fee, 1 Corinthians, 359–63. “Not So Idle Thought about EIDŌLOTHYTON,” TynBul 44 (1993):

57

58 B. F. Witherington,

242.

 Ibid., 248.

59

60 Ibid.

61  Horrell, “Theological Principle,” 99. See B. N. Fisk, “Eating Meat Offered to Idols: Corinthian Behavior and Pauline Response in 1 Corinthians 8–10 (A Response to Gordon Fee),” Trinity Journal 10 (1989): 56–61, for more detailed linguistic and exegetical arguments against Fee and Witherington. P. J. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law, 196, tries to downplay 8:10 as merely rhetorical; and A. T. Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth: Jewish Background and Pauline Legacy (JSNTSup 176; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1999), 105–06, endorses him. These days in some circles an appeal to rhetoric has become a convenient knife for cutting away any statement inconvenient to one’s theory. Thus, Tomson and Cheung seem to betray here only their embarrassment at one of the stumbling blocks for their interpretations. See n. 66 below.

340

Imitatio Christi (1 Cor 11:1)

Therefore, with Bruce N. Fisk and David Horrell, we reaffirm the majority view, seeing the difference between 8:10 and 10:14–22 in these terms: in the latter Paul envisages eating εἰδωλόθυτα where it is accompanied with an actual sacrifice to an idol, whereas in the former he envisages a social meal in a temple where it does not entail such a sacrifice.62 However, the most drastic challenge to the majority view has come from Peter J. Tomson and Alex T. Cheung.63 They both insist that Paul absolutely prohibits eating food known as εἰδωλόθυτος under any circumstances. Tomson summarizes his interpretation of Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor 8–10 thus: “While 1 Cor 8 introduces the problem and 10:1–22 reiterates the general prohibition of food known to be consecrated to idols, 10:25–29 deals with food of unspecified nature in a pagan setting” (208). According to Tomson, συνείδησις in 1 Cor 8–10 means “intention” (214), and in the situations where the nature of the food is not specified, Paul tells the Corinthians, they “can eat anything … without inquiring because of the intention” (10:25, 27) (217). Here Tomson thinks Paul is following the moderate Hillelite halakhic tradition that allows dealing with things whose idolatrous intention is not explicitly known (208–20, also 266). Tomson’s interpretation of the crucial text of 9:19–22 is very revealing. Against the overwhelming manuscript evidence, he, first of all, seeks to eliminate the ὡς before Ἰουδαῖος as well as the phrase μὴ ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον in v. 20 (276–79). Then he renders vv. 20a and 22a most strangely and yet revealingly thus: “I was born the Jews a Jew, … I was born the delicate [the weak] a delicate [a weak]” (277). Tomson is clearly aware that the phrase μὴ ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον is only making explicit what is already implicit in the preceding τοῖς ὑπὸ νόμον ὡς ὑπὸ νόμον, because he says that the former phrase is “tautological after the restrictive ‘as under the Law’” (278). He uses this as an argument for his view that the former phrase was added by a later scribe (278). Of course, he makes all this effort to delete the phrase μὴ ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον for the sake of his overall thesis that even the Christian Paul was always under the law of Moses and never outside of it. However, what Tomson himself observes defeats his own purpose: The τοῖς ὑπὸ νόμον ὡς ὑπὸ νόμον, even without μὴ ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον, already implies that Paul could be τοῖς ἀνόμοις ὡς ἄνομος, as Paul in fact says in v. 21a. Likewise, Tomson’s effort to delete the ὡς before Ἰουδαῖος is also quite futile. For, being parallel to τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις [ὡς] Ἰουδαῖος, τοῖς ὑπὸ νόμον ὡς ὑπὸ νόμον requires us to understand even the supposedly original τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις Ἰουδαῖος also in the sense of τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ὡς Ἰουδαῖος.64 In fact, Tomson recognizes that the phrase ‘as under the Law’ does suggest “that [Paul] is not really or not in all respects ‘under the Law’,” and he 62 For more detailed arguments for this conclusion, see Fisk, “Eating Meat Offered to Idols,” 61–64; Horrell, “Theological Principle,” 100–01. 63  Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law; Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth; similarly also G. W. Dawes, “The Danger of Idolatry: First Corinthians 8:7–13,” CBQ 58 (1996): 82–98. 64 That is, unless we are to turn it into an incomprehensible sentence as Tomson, Paul and

3. No Christian Freedom but Only an Absolute Prohibition of eidōlothyta?

341

even cites the passages like Rom 6:14; Gal 3:23–25; 5:18 where Paul insists that Christians are not “under the law” (278). But he tries to explain these away by appealing in a rather opaque manner to “Paul’s apocalyptic Law theology” (278). Tomson goes on to say: But it is not clear why this apocalyptic imagery should actually be relevant in our passage, any more than in the sense of a faint echo from some such other context. On the contrary, the reference here is to various ‘real’ human positions or classes. … If Paul was a ‘Jew’, he would be by all standards of antiquity be ‘under’ the Jewish Law. Indeed, the expression ‘under the Law’ also has a ‘realistic’ connotation which seems rather more appropriate here. … In that ‘realistic’ sense it is difficult to imagine how Paul, besides saying he is ‘not without the Law but respecting it’, could also state that he himself is ‘not under the Law’ (278–79)

It is amazing to see the extent to which Tomson’s presupposition of Paul as a law-observant Jew pushes him to go distorting the Pauline statements about the law. Apparently the fixation also misleads Tomson to see Gal 4:4–5 (“a full and important parallel” to our passage of 1 Cor 9:20, according to him) as pointing against the authenticity of the phrase μὴ ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον in 1 Cor 9:20 (279). On the contrary, Gal 4:4–5 declares that God’s sending his Son Jesus Christ has ushered in the new aeon in which “those who are under the law” are redeemed from the law, the παιδαγωγός, so that they may no longer be under that disciplinarian (οὐκέτι ὑπὸ παιδαγωγόν, Gal 3:24–25)! In a quite revealing way, Tomson silently passes over the crucial phrase τοῖς ἀνόμοις ὡς ἄνομος in 1 Cor 9:21 and moves straight to the next phrase μὴ ὢν ἄνομος θεοῦ ἀλλ᾽ ἔννομος Χριστοῦ. Then, he explains the latter phrase thus: since “the law” always refers to “the Law of the Jews,” the phrase means, “Paul is not ‘outside the Law’ like a Gentile; he is a Jew ‘respecting the Law’” and “he is Law-respecting ‘under the aspect of Christ’: he does not observe the Law as an aim in itself and standing alone but as one among various members of Christ’s body” (280). It is difficult to make sense of this explanation, but it certainly does not appear to be a correct interpretation of 1 Cor 9:21. This critical examination of Tomson’s interpretation of the crucial passage 1 Cor 9:19–22 leads to the conclusion that his attempt to demonstrate from that passage his presupposition that Paul faithfully maintained the Jewish halakhic tradition is a failure, and therefore that his whole interpretation of Paul’s teaching on eidōlothyta in 1 Cor 8–10 on the basis of that presupposition is not convincing. Apparently, Tomson has developed that presupposition from his decision that “it is historically unimaginable that Jesus would have infringed upon the biblical food laws” (241) and that Paul’s identification of himself as a Jew meant that he was “under the Jewish Law” (279) in its entirety, including the food/puthe Jewish Law, 277, does: “I was born the Jews a Jew, … I was born the delicate [the weak] a delicate [a weak].”

342

Imitatio Christi (1 Cor 11:1)

rity laws, because otherwise Paul would be wrongly portrayed “as the Apostle who indeed severed Christianity from Judaism and hence excommunicated Jewish followers of Jesus” (228). If Jesus and Paul had been so faithfully observant of the Jewish law as Tomson presupposes, one wonders why they both were persecuted so severely by the Jews. At any rate, Tomson’s efforts to interpret Paul’s teaching solely within the framework of the rabbinic halakah leads him to see the Antiochian controversy in terms of the conflict between the Shammaite position represented by the men of James and the Hillelite position represented by Paul (230–36). So Tomson goes so far as to explain Paul’s standing up “for the truth of the gospel” (Gal 2:14) in effect as his standing up for the Hillelite halakhic tradition! (236) But this is forcefully to shut Paul’s mouth that testifies in Gal 1–2 of his conversion from a “zealotic” (Shammaite?) Pharisaism to Christ and his grace of salvation, and turn him back to his (alleged Hillelite) Judaism! A fundamental problem with Tomson’s interpretation of Paul is that his presupposition leaves little room for Paul’s Christology to have an effect on his understanding of the law. In fact, Tomson explicitly denies an essential role of Christology in Paul’s thinking (273). But this not only ignores the Paul who speaks of Christ as “the end of the [Mosaic] law” (Rom 10:4) and therefore refers now to “the law of Christ,” clearly differentiating it from the law of Moses (1 Cor 9:21; Gal 6:2), but also distorts Paul’s thought so obviously that we do not need to waste our time disputing it. At any rate, with his baseless denial of the role of Christology in Paul’s thinking and his unjustifiable presupposition about Paul’s continued upholding of the Mosaic law and the Jewish halakha, Tomson makes his interpretation of Paul’s teaching on the law as a whole, including the question of eidōlothyta, quite untenable.65 While Tomson argues on the basis of the Jewish halakha, Alex T. Cheung argues on the basis of the OT, for the view that Paul absolutely prohibits eating eidōlothyta, allowing only eating of food that is not specified as such. As Tomson appeals to Paul’s continuing Jewish character, Cheung similarly appeals to the fact that both Judaism and early Christianity forbade eating of eidōlothyta. As Tomson declares his dogmatic decision that “it is historically unimaginable that Jesus would have infringed upon the biblical food laws” (241), so also Cheung declares his dogmatic decision: “That Paul himself had eaten, or had condoned eating, idol food was an unimaginable scenario for early Christians” (104). Just as Christology plays no role in Tomson’s interpretation of Paul’s teaching on the law, so also it plays no role in Cheung’s interpretation of Paul’s teaching on eidōlothyta. To focus more sharply on our topic, just as Tomson silently passes 65 When Tomson denies any significant role of Christology in Paul’s thinking, he, of course, remains only with a rabbinic Paul, a normal Jew determined by his halakha, whose teaching naturally has to be interpreted only in terms of the Jewish halakha. But, to say the least, this is certainly not the Paul of the NT.

3. No Christian Freedom but Only an Absolute Prohibition of eidōlothyta?

343

over the phrase τοῖς ἀνόμοις ὡς ἄνομος and fails to interpret the phrase “in the law of Christ” in 1 Cor 9:21 properly, so also Cheung silently passes over both phrases (142–43). This multiple parallelism between Tomson and Cheung means that much of the above criticism of Tomson applies to Cheung also. To counter the majority view that in 8:7–10 Paul in principle grants the knowledge–boasters the right to eat eidōlothyta, so long as it does not cause the weak brethren to stumble, Cheung follows Gordon Fee’s ineffective explanation that Paul develops his argument against eidōlothyta in two stages, first on ethical ground (8:7–13) and then on the theological (10:14–22) (96, 102–3, 297).66 However, in interpreting 1 Cor 10:23–30, Cheung parts company with Fee and joins with Tomson to argue that Paul allows eating only food whose religious history is not specified, because “one who has unknowingly eaten idol food would not be defiled” (152–60, 300, quotation from 153). So, Cheung interprets Paul’s advice not to make inquiry about the eidōlothyton nature of food for the sake of “conscience” (1 Cor 10:25, 27) in terms of this Jewish principle. But this only results in creating the impression that in the end Paul advises not to make the inquiry, lest its eidōlothyton character should be known (see 152–53, 297, 300–01). The picture of Paul that we get from his letters is that he is liberated precisely from this sort of legalistic concern and he advises Christians to live free of precisely this sort of legalistic anxiety. One just wonders how with such a legalistic concern Paul could ever have been τοῖς ἀνόμοις ὡς ἄνομος. Whereas Tomson tries to buttress his interpretation of Paul’s advice in 1 Cor 10:23–30 with the rabbinic halakha, Cheung appeals to some OT passages such as Exod 21:12–13, 28–29; 22:2 for Paul’s “somewhat casuistic approach to marketplace food and dinner invitations by unbelievers” (300–01). But the illustrations from Exodus appear quite far-fetched. There is a world of difference between saying “you may eat what is really eidōlothyton if you do not know that it is” and saying “eat whatever is offered, do not make inquiry about it”! Cheung and Tomson think that in 1 Cor 10:25, 27 Paul says the former, but I believe that he really says the latter. When Paul goes on to say in vv. 28–29 that if somebody informs of the eidōlothyton nature of food on a pagan dinner table we should not eat it for the sake not of our “conscience” but the informer’s “conscience,” he clearly seems to allow, in principle, the freedom of eating the food made known as eidōlothyton, but for the duty of respecting the “conscience” of the neighbor. 66  See above p. 339 contra Fee. According to Dawes, “Danger of Idolatry,” 98, the difference between ch. 8 and ch. 10 is just a matter of Paul’s rhetorical strategy: “In 8:7–13 the apostle responds to those having knowledge on their own grounds, while in 10:14–22 he introduces a new consideration in opposition to their behavior.” But how can it be explained away as a mere rhetorical strategy when, as Dawes himself admits, Paul “accepts the correctness of the knowledge [the knowledge-boasters] claim to have” (92) and regards the “weak” as lacking “appropriate knowledge regarding the nonexistence of idols,” agreeing with the former “that these people lack due enlightenment” (96)?

344

Imitatio Christi (1 Cor 11:1)

How effective is then Cheung’s repeated insistence that Paul must be absolutely forbidding eating of eidōlothyta because that was the universal position in Judaism and in early Christianity? (92, 97, 103, 109, 128, 140–41, 147, 278–84, 298–99). The Jewish evidence is obvious but hardly relevant to the apostle Paul, because precisely with regard to questions like eidōlothyta he differentiates himself from his former Pharisaic Jewish position in the light of the Christ-event (e. g., 1 Cor 7:12–14; 9:19–22; Rom 14:14–20; Gal 2:11–21). Cheung’s comprehensive survey of the early Christian material on eidōlothyta (165–295) is indeed impressive.67 However, given the strong Biblical abhorrence of idolatry and the influence of the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:28–29; cf. Rev 2:14, 20),68 as well as the fact that Paul’s doctrine of justification is almost completely forgotten in the post-apostolic age,69 the absence of the influence of Paul’s teaching on eidōlothyta in the early church is not inexplicable. Indeed, there may be an analogy or even some connection between the early Christians’ almost universal flattening of Paul’s carefully nuanced teaching on them into a simple prohibition of them and their replacing of Paul’s doctrine of justification sola gratia/fide with a doctrine of works-righteousness. Clearly Cheung cannot comprehend how this could have happened, but to me Cheung and Tomson themselves with their simplified reading of 1 Cor 8–10 in terms of an absolute prohibition of eidōlothyta unwittingly demonstrate that it could always happen! Therefore, instead of trying to settle the matter with an appeal to the early Christian interpretations of Paul’s teaching, we must, first of all, carefully exegete the text of 1 Cor 8–10 itself and then consult the related texts such as Rom 14:1–15:13; Col 2:16; 1  Tim 4:3–5 and Paul’s theology of the law as a whole. Only after these, can the weight of the early Christian evidence be considered. The space forbids me to show in detail the failures in Cheung’s exegesis of 1 Cor 8–10, but above I have pointed out some of the problems with his interpretation of the crucial passages, 1 Cor 8:7–13; 9:19–22; 10:23–30. It is also regrettable that Cheung ignores the significance of Rom 14–15 on the ground that there Paul 67  Cf. also J. C. Brunt, “Rejected, Ignored, or Misunderstood? The Fate of Paul’s Approach to the Problem of Food Offered to Idols in Early Christianity,” in NTS 31 (1985): 113–24. 68  Cf. J. Jervell, The Unknown Paul: Essays on Luke–Acts and Early Christian History (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 34–35: “As a historical phenomenon [the decree] played a decisive role in the history of the church, for example, when it came to the question of the eating of consecrated food. No one followed what Paul recommended (1 Corinthians 8–9 and Romans 14–15), but we can see that Jewish-Christian policy gained ground.” Besides the influence of the apostolic decree, Brunt, “Rejected, Ignored, or Misunderstood?” 120–22, rightly considers also how difficult Paul’s complex argument and his ethical principle of love’s responsibility in 1 Cor 8–10 must have been for early Christians who tended to use a prooftext method of interpretation and discuss such questions as eidōlothyta simply in terms of right or wrong. 69 T. Aono, Die Entwicklung des paulinischen Gerichtsgedankens bei den Apostolischen Vätern (Bern: Peter Lang, 1979), 403, summarizes the result of his extensive survey of the Apostolic Fathers thus: “Die Reflexion der paulinischen Rechtfertigungsbotschaft ist aber jedenfalls mehr oder weniger konsequent durch die Werkgerechtigkeit ersetzt.”

4. Jesus’ Teaching and Example as well as His Death

345

deals with the Jewish food laws, which he thinks are different from the questions about eidōlothyta treated in 1 Cor 8–10 (136). It is true that the Jewish food laws treated in Rom 14–15 are broader than the questions about eidōlothyta treated in 1 Cor 8–10 and the nature of the conflicts between the “strong” and the “weak” in the two passages are not exactly the same. However, it is hardly possible to think that the two subject matters are totally unrelated or that when writing Rom 14–15 from Corinth only a couple of years after writing 1 Cor 8–10 Paul does not reflect in the former what he wrote in the latter. For that there are far too many similarities between the two passages! In fact, it is quite likely that the “weak” in Rom 14–15 avoid meat (14:21), eating only vegetables (14:2), at least partly for the fear that the meat might be eidōlothyton. Therefore, Paul’s declaration of all food as clean in itself (14:14, 20) and his teaching that the “strong” forego their right/freedom to eat meat if it causes the “weak” to stumble do shed light on our interpretation of 1 Cor 8–10, and they do so against Cheung’s thesis.70 Finally, if we consider Paul’s teaching on eidōlothyta within the comprehensive framework of his theology of the law – which is fundamentally reshaped in the light of the Christ-event – the majority view on it is far more plausible than the view of Cheung and Tomson.

4. Jesus’ Teaching and Example as well as His Death Our present study shows that precisely in our context of Paul’s dealing with eidōlothyta Christology is decisive. This is recognized by Richard B. Hays when he identifies “the unity of the community and the imitation of Christ” as the “two fundamental norms” for Paul’s ethical teaching in 1 Cor 8–10 as elsewhere.71 David Horrell has devoted a whole essay to a demonstration that “christological praxis” or “a christologically patterned orientation to others” is the guiding principle for Paul’s treatment of eidōlothyta in 1 Cor 8–10 as it is for the whole Pauline ethics.72 For this thesis, Horrell refers to Paul’s designation 70 See

above pp. 333–34.  R. B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament (New York: HaperCollins, 1996), 41– 43; quotations from 41. In his essay, “Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ,” CBQ 49 (1987): 268–90, R. B. Hays shows that also in Galatians Christology (“the law of Christ” or Christ’s pattern of self-giving) provides the decisive paradigm for the Christian life. 72 Horrell, “Theological Principle,” quotation from 105. While he is right to stress the importance of “christological praxis,” it is unfortunate that he contrasts it with “theological principle” and denies the latter’s influence upon Paul’s ethical teaching in 1 Cor 8–10 (105–09). Not only is Paul’s “liberal” attitude to eidōlothyta fundamentally grounded on his theological decisions that monotheism excludes the real existence of an idol (8:4–8; 10:19) and that all God’s creations are good (10:26), but Paul also explicitly refers to his abiding by the law of God (9:21) and exhorts his readers to make glorification of God their ultimate concern (10:31; cf. 8:6) and therefore to shun idolatry (10:14). 71

346

Imitatio Christi (1 Cor 11:1)

of the knowledge-boasters’ exercise of their right in disregard of the conscience of the weak as a “sin against Christ” (8:12) (90–91), to Paul’s “Christ-like selfgiving” in accommodating to the needs of others (1 Cor 9:19–22) (95), to Paul’s argument against idolatry in reference to the body of Christ in the Lord’s Supper (10:16–17) (97–98), and to Paul’s explicit call in the concluding section of 1 Cor 10:23–11:1 for the Corinthians to imitate Christ by imitating him (102–04). Understanding “the law of Christ” in 1 Cor 9:21 in terms of the command to love in conformity to Christ,73 Horrell also compares the imitation theme of 1 Cor 10:33–11:1 and 9:19–22 with that of Phil 2:4–11 as well as Rom 15:3.74 The recognition by Hays and Horrell of the fundamental importance of the imitatio Christi theme in 1 Cor 8–10 and Pauline ethic as a whole may be regarded as an improvement upon the tendency of some critical Protestant scholars whom we have examined above.75 However, they also narrowly concentrate only on Christ’s self-sacrificing love in his death,76 so that their thesis can hardly be said to represent a substantial improvement upon that of those reductionistic scholars. Hays even finds it significant that Paul deals with the question of eidōlothyta “not by pointing to the authoritative teaching of Jesus … but by urging [the ‘strong’] to follow the example of Christ and the example of [his own] by surrendering their place of privilege.”77 Likewise, Horrell stresses that Paul lets imitating Christ’s self-sacrifice override even a direct instruction of Jesus (1 Cor 9:14–15).78 However, Paul’s apparent transgression of Jesus’ instruction for the preachers of the gospel to get their living by the gospel (1 Cor 9:14–15; cf. Luke 10:7//Matt 10:10) is only to set aside its letter in order to render a real obedience to its spirit or intention, as Horrell himself recognizes elsewhere.79 Furthermore, we have seen above that for such a narrow conception of the example of Christ as Hays and Horrell suggest there are far too clear allusions in our context to various 73 Here

Horrell follows Schrage, 1. Korinther (1. Kor 6,12–11,16), 345.  Horrell, “Theological Principle,” 106. 75  Cf. ibid. 76 Hays, Moral Vision, 43; Horrell, “Theological Principle,” 91, 95, 102, 105–06. See further Hays, “Christology and Ethics in Galatians,” 272–83. 77  Hays, Moral Vision, 43; cf. also idem, “Christology and Ethics in Galatians,” 278: “It should be stressed that nothing is said here about any teachings of Jesus on humility and servanthood, nor is there any reference to historical incidents in Jesus’ ministry such as healings or table-fellowship with ‘sinners’ or washing the feet of disciples. Paul focuses in a single-minded fashion on the decisive significance of Christ’s incarnation and death” (his italics). 78  Horrell, “Theological Principle,” 107, citing a similar statement of Schrage, 1. Korinther (1. Kor 6,12–11,16), 310. 79  D. Horrell, “‘The Lord commanded. … But I have not used’: Exegetical and Hermeneutical Reflections on 1 Cor. 9.14–15,” NTS 43 (1997): 600, agreeing with this interpretation of mine in S. Kim, “Jesus, Sayings of,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (ed. G. F. Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, and D. G. Reid; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 475, reprinted in Kim, PNP, 261. 74

4. Jesus’ Teaching and Example as well as His Death

347

sayings of Jesus and to his conduct as well as to his self-giving in his death. We can underline this further by observing the fact that it is precisely in 10:23–11:1, the concluding summary of Paul’s whole teaching on eidōlothyta in chs. 8–10, and immediately before the call for imitation of Christ (11:1) that there is a concentration of echoes of Jesus’ sayings such as Mark 7:15 and par. (1 Cor 10:25, 27; cf. 9:21), Mark 9:42–50 and parr. (1 Cor 10:32, also 28; cf. 8:13), Mark 12:30 and par. (1 Cor 10:31; cf. 10:14), Mark 12:31 and par. (1 Cor 10:28, 32–33; cf. 9:19–22) and Mark 10:44–45 and par. (1 Cor 10:33; cf. 9:19–22), and of Jesus’ conduct of dining with sinners (1 Cor 10:27; cf. 9:21). Surely this fact strongly indicates that in the whole of Paul’s teaching about eidōlothyta in 1 Cor 8–10 those sayings of Jesus as well as his act of self-sacrifice in his death (1 Cor 8:11; 10:33//Mark 10:45 and par.) provide the guiding principles and that in his call for imitation of Christ Paul has in view Jesus’ teaching and conduct as well as his self-giving love in his death. Therefore, in affirming the imitatio Christi paradigm as central for Paul’s ethical teaching in 1 Cor 8–10, we must understand that Paul has in view Jesus’ teaching and conduct as well as his self-sacrifice in his death. This conclusion can be further supported with a number of considerations. Paul’s citation of Jesus’ mission charge in 1 Cor 9:14 indicates that while delivering his teaching on eidōlothyta (1 Cor 8–10) Paul actually is conscious of the historical Jesus and his teaching. This inference can be drawn also from the fact that in the neighboring context Paul cites the actual teaching of Jesus to use as a principle for his teaching on divorce (1 Cor 7:10–11). The great reverence that Paul pays to the command of the Lord Jesus in this citation (compare 1 Cor 7:10 with 7:12 and 25) strengthens the inference still further. With regard to his teaching in the same context that mixed marriages should not be dissolved, Paul provides the theological basis that the unbelieving spouses are sanctified through the believing spouses (rather than the believing spouses are defiled through their unbelieving spouses) (1 Cor 7:12–14). This is a remarkable statement for a former “zealotic” Pharisee, as this principle of sanctification by association effectively overturns his former Pharisaic principle of defilement by association.80 It is most unlikely that Paul has developed this new theological conviction completely independent of Jesus’ “infamous” practice of associating with sinners and other unclean people to make them “clean” or holy people of God (Mark 1:40–45 and parr.; 2:15–17 and parr.; 5:25–34 and parr.; Matt 11:19//Luke 7:34; Luke 19:1–10; etc.). We have already drawn on Rom 14:14–20 to shed light on Paul’s implicit use of Jesus’ teaching on food and purity (Mark 7:15//Matt 15:10) in 1 Cor 8–10. In Rom 15:1–3, which is rather similar in language and thought structure to 1 Cor 10:33–11:1, Paul refers to the example of Christ in his self-sacrifice. At the con80  Cf. Ezra 9–10; Neh 13:23–30; m. Gittin 9.2 against marriage with a Gentile. Cf. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law, 118–19; also Sanders, “Jewish Association with Gentiles,” 170–88 (esp. 177).

348

Imitatio Christi (1 Cor 11:1)

clusion of his treatment of the conflict about food between the “strong” and the “weak” in Rom 14:1–15:13, Paul exhorts the Romans: “Receive one another, therefore, as Christ has received you” (Rom 15:7; cf. 14:1). The exhortation comes on the heels of his warning not to lay any “stumbling block (πρόσκομμα) or hindrance (σκάνδαλον)” to a brother (Rom 14:13–23; cf. 1 Cor 8:9, 13; 10:32), which seems to echo Jesus’ saying not to “put a hindrance (σκανδαλίζειν) to one of these little ones” (Matt 18:6//Mark 9:42//Luke 17:1). So, it may be echoing Jesus’ saying for the disciples to “receive” children (Matt 18:5//Mark 9:37//Luke 9:48), as in Matt 18:5–6 this saying appears similarly joined with the σκανδαλίζειν saying.81 If so, here again Paul includes Jesus’ teaching in the idea of imitating his example. In 1 Thess 1:6, Paul congratulates the Thessalonian Christians for having become “imitators” (μιμηταί) of himself and “of the Lord” by accepting the gospel, with the joy of the Holy Spirit, in spite of much persecution. Clearly Paul is thinking here of Jesus’ bearing with the joy of the Holy Spirit the persecution of his opponents for his preaching the gospel (Matt 12:28//Luke 11:20; Luke 10:21; cf. also Luke 6:22–23; Heb 12:2). Just as Paul himself is (2 Cor 6:10; 8:2), so also now are the Thessalonians imitators of the Lord Jesus in this regard. Thus, in 1 Thess 1:6 Paul is making abundantly clear not only that the historical Jesus82 is the object of imitation, but also that his gladly bearing persecution for the gospel is a point for imitation. Of course, the persecution that Jesus bore for the sake of the gospel climaxed in his crucifixion. But it would be quite arbitrary if we insist that in 1 Thess 1:6 Paul has in view only that climax divorced from the series of the opposition and persecution by Jesus’ opponents which eventually led to it. With his theme of imitatio Christi Paul does not always think only of Christ’s incarnation and death or his self-sacrifice! Nevertheless, the immediate connection of 1 Cor 11:1 with 10:33 does lead us to see Paul’s emphasis falling on the imitation of Christ’s act of self-giving in his death because 10:33 echoes Jesus’ saying about his self-sacrificial death (Mark 10:45 and par.).83 To understand this properly, however, we must first appreciate what it means that in 1 Cor 10:33–11:1 Paul brings out the character of Christ’s 81  So, Wenham, Paul, 262–64. Cf. Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 233, for echoes of Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28 and Matt 15:24 in Rom 15:8. 82  By designating as “the Lord” the earthly Jesus who suffered affliction because of his preaching of the gospel, Paul here nullifies all the attempts to suggest that he distinguishes the exalted Lord from the earthly Jesus or that with the imitation theme he thinks only of the incarnation of the pre-existent or exalted Lord. 83  The statement in 11:1 is the grand conclusion of 1 Cor 8–10 as a whole. Hence, the call “be imitators of me” is not related just to Paul’s example in 10:32–33 but also to his example in 8:13 and its elaboration throughout ch. 9 (esp. 9:19–23). So, the reference to his imitating Christ in 11:1 must be understood likewise as covering his following Christ’s teachings and conduct that is suggested throughout chs. 8–10. Yet it cannot be denied that with the immediate connection of 11:1 to 10:33 Paul puts stress on imitating Christ’s self-sacrificing service in his death.

4. Jesus’ Teaching and Example as well as His Death

349

death as an act of self-sacrifice by echoing Jesus’ own saying about his death. It means that Paul interprets Christ’s death as an act of self-sacrificing service for our salvation not just because he accepts the primitive church’s kerygma, but more basically because he understands Christ’s death in terms of Jesus’ own interpretation of it. If Paul had originally learned from the kerygma that “Christ died for us/for our sins” (1 Cor 15:3; Gal 1:3–4; 1 Thess 5:9–10; etc.), he must have had it confirmed by the dominical logion, i. e., Jesus’ own interpretation of his death. This has a great implication for Paul’s theological method84 as well as for the whole Jesus–Paul debate. It is simply impossible to say that Paul concentrates only on the kerygma of the church or Christ’s death in it, ignoring the life and teaching of the historical Jesus. When Paul thinks of Christ’s self-sacrificial death, he does not think of it as an isolated event (not to speak of an abstract principle) like the mathematical point without any line connecting to the life of the earthly Jesus. On the contrary, 1 Cor 10:33–11:1 shows that Paul thinks of Christ’s death in full consciousness of the Jesus who went to that death, speaking of it as a service for many, as a sacrifice for their redemption. Therefore, in 1 Cor 10:33–11:1 Paul is presenting as an example for his and our imitation precisely that Christ, or that Jesus, who went to his death, speaking of it as a sacrifice for the salvation of many. While thus resisting any attempt to see Paul as considering Christ’s death in isolation from his earthly life and teaching, 1 Cor 10:33–11:1 nevertheless does show Paul as focusing on Christ’s death. The fact that in giving the grand conclusion to his whole teaching of 1 Cor 8–10 in these two verses Paul echoes the saying about Jesus’ death in Mark 10:45 and par. clearly suggests that he thinks of Christ’s death as the culminating demonstration of Jesus’ sacrificial service, and as such, as the clearest model for his and our imitation. The parallelism between 10:32–11:1 and 9:19–22 with their common echoes of Mark 10:45 and par. produces the same effect. This impression naturally leads us to link the imitatio Christi call here with the similar calls in Phil 2:5–11 (cf. also 3:10–17) and 2 Cor 8:9 (cf. Rom 15:1–3). These verses describe the example of Christ’s selfemptying and self-giving in his incarnation and death in the most striking terms, and they concentrate on his incarnation and death, without pausing to reflect on either his teaching or exemplary conduct between these two points of his life. Furthermore, there is a heavy concentration on Christ’s death (and resurrection) throughout the Pauline epistles. So it is understandable that under the overwhelming impression of these facts scholars have narrowly focused on the dimension of Christ’s self-sacrificing death in the imitatio Christi call of 1 Cor 11:1, 84 Concerning Paul’s theological method of seeing Jesus’ claim and the early church’s kerygma confirmed by the Damascus revelation and then interpreting that revelation in the light of the Jesus tradition as well as the Scriptures, and vice versa, see my PNP, 126–27, 194–208, 238, 257 (n. 59), 259–90, 296–97.

350

Imitatio Christi (1 Cor 11:1)

too. Therefore, when we consider the theme of imitatio Christi in Paul’s letters as a whole, it is quite proper to stress the dimension of Christ’s self-giving love in his death (and incarnation)85 as central to the theme. In view of 1 Cor 10:33, it is also proper to see that dimension central in the imitatio Christi call of 1 Cor 11:1, too. Here it is pleaded only that the recognition of its centrality should not lead to ignoring the dimension of following the earthly Jesus’ teaching and exemplary conduct also involved in that call. 1 Cor 10:33 itself, being an echo of Jesus’ saying about his own death, prevents us from doing this. A. J. M. Wedderburn argues that with his Gentile mission Paul was following Jesus’ acceptance of sinners into the kingdom of God, of which he had learned from the Hellenists,86 and C. Wolff delineates four aspects of life and ministry showing parallels between Jesus and Paul (deprivation, celibacy, humble service, and suffering persecution), concluding that Paul was “a true follower” of Jesus.87 Endorsing Wolff’s judgment, Wedderburn suggests further that the lists of virtues that Paul exhorts Christians to have (1 Cor 13:4–7; Gal 5:22–23) could “stem ultimately from the remembered character of the earthly Jesus.”88 So, in the macro-context of the Pauline epistles as a whole as well as in our chosen passage of 1 Cor 8–10, we can affirm that Paul tried to follow the teaching of the historical Jesus and imitate his example. At the same time, Wedderburn emphasizes the centrality of Jesus’ self-sacrificing death in the story of Jesus for Paul, observing that from the viewpoint of Jesus’ death “Paul evaluates both the rest of Jesus’ earthly life and the other-worldly part of his story, and all must be consistent with this.”89 However, Wedderburn argues about the importance of Jesus’ earthly life for Paul’s assertions about Christ’s incarnation, too: If Jesus had behaved self-assertively in his earthly life, appeal to the example of his self-denial in his incarnation (2 Cor 8.9; Phil 2.6–7) would be … at least obstructed and vitiated: Paul’s converts could then reasonably ask which example of Jesus they were to follow, and could claim that they preferred to follow the self-seeking earthly Jesus rather than the self-denying heavenly one.90

85 Cf. A. J. M. Wedderburn, “Paul and the Story of Jesus,” in Paul and Jesus (JSNTS 37; ed. A. J. M. Wedderburn and C. Wolff; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 188–89, for Paul’s projecting the image of the self-sacrificing Christ from his death backwards into prehistory for affirmation of his self-emptying in the incarnation. 86  Wedderburn, “Paul and Jesus: Similarity and Continuity,” in ibid., 130–43. 87  Wolff, “Humility and Self-Denial in Jesus’ Life and Message and in the Apostolic Existence of Paul,” in ibid., 145–60; quotation from 160. 88  Wedderburn, “Paul and the Story of Jesus,” 180, referring to J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit (London: SCM, 1975), 321. 89 Wedderburn, “Paul and the Story of Jesus,” 181–89; quotation from 187. Wedderburn (181) refers to H. Weder, Das Kreuz Jesu bei Paulus (FRLANT 125; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 229, who understands Jesus’ Geschichte as “summarized and concentrated in his death on the cross.” 90  Wedderburn, “Paul and the Story of Jesus,” 182.

Conclusion

351

The same argument can be applied to the relationship between Jesus’ death and the rest of his earthly life just as well as between his incarnation and his earthly life. At any rate, all these considerations confirm that, in thinking of imitating Christ, Paul has in view the life and teaching of the earthly Jesus as well as his death. Jesus’ self-sacrificing death was the conclusion of his whole life of selfgiving service as well as the supreme demonstration of his teaching about selfgiving love. Hence Paul finds it to provide the strongest motivating power for his moral exhortation. About this, M. Thompson writes well: For Paul, the death and resurrection of Jesus inaugurated the eschaton, thus eclipsing in significance all of his words and deeds leading up to the Passion. Why should Paul point to an act of love, humility, or compassion during Jesus’ ministry when he could cite his example of total commitment on the cross? Why should he cite a healing power, when he could refer to the resurrection? Everything Jesus said and did before his death and vindication paled in significance by comparison to the Christ-Event.91

This discussion makes it clear why in his ethical exhortation Paul focuses on Jesus’ self-sacrifice in his death and (by extension) in his incarnation. But it also makes it clear how Paul leaves sufficiently clear allusions to or echoes of the teachings and exemplary conduct of the earthly Jesus and how he sees them so consistent with Jesus’ self-sacrificing death as to be summarized by it. Together with the fact that for Paul Christ is no longer an earthly figure and no mere earthly figure, this focusing on Jesus’ self-giving in his death (and incarnation) probably lies behind Paul’s dropping the terminology of ἀκολουθεῖν of the Gospel tradition and using instead exclusively the terminology of μιμηταί, although he includes following the teaching and example of the earthly Jesus in his conception of imitating Christ.

Conclusion Now we may gather up the results of our investigation and reflect on their implications. In dealing with the problem of eidōlothyta in 1 Cor 8–10, Paul follows Jesus’ teachings: the absolute demand of love for God and for neighbor as embodied in Jesus’ double commandment of love (Mark 12:28–34 and parr.) and in his other sayings (Mark 9:42–50 and parr.; 10:44–45 and par.), and his teaching about food and purity (Mark 7:15 and par.), as well as his conduct exemplifying these teachings: his self-giving service for others unto death (1 Cor 8:11) and his free association with sinners. Since Paul echoes such sayings of Jesus and such conduct of his especially clearly in the crucial passages, 1 Cor 8:13; 9:19–22 and 10:23–33, where he gives himself as an example for the Corinthians’ imitation, saying that he himself is an imitator of Christ (11:1), it is clear that in seeking 91 Thompson,

Clothed with Christ, 73.

352

Imitatio Christi (1 Cor 11:1)

to imitate Christ Paul has in view such teachings and conduct of Jesus. Seeing, however, that Paul gives the grand conclusion to his long discussion of eidōlothyta with an echo of Jesus’ saying about his self-giving death for redemption of many (Mark 10:45//1 Cor 10:33) and with a call to imitate him as an imitator of Christ (11:1), we have to recognize the centrality of Christ’s death for Paul’s idea of imitatio Christi. Thus, showing how Paul follows the concrete teachings and conduct of Jesus as well as how he makes his climactic reference to Christ’s death in terms of Jesus’ own interpretation of it, 1 Cor 8–10 teaches us that with regard to Paul’s idea of imitatio Christi we are to affirm the centrality of Christ’s death, though not as an isolated event divorced from Jesus’ life and teaching but rather as their climax. Clearly for Paul, Jesus’ self-sacrifice in his death on the cross is the supreme demonstration of his teaching of love as well as the climax of his exemplary life of self-giving service. Therefore, while recognizing the centrality of Christ’s death for Paul’s ethic as well as his theology, we must also pay due attention to Paul’s following Jesus’ teachings and example. With this main result of this investigation, we can affirm the following three subsidiary results as well. (1) This study has confirmed the traditional majority view of Paul’s treatment of eidōlothyta. (2) It has further shown that Paul’s excellent advice about eidōlothyta that so wonderfully balances Christian freedom with Christian duty of love is, at least in part, the result of his appropriation of Jesus’ teachings and example. Paul does not just indirectly suggest this through his echoing of Jesus’ sayings and conduct, but in fact directly indicates this in our passage through his claim to follow “the law of Christ” and the example of Christ (1 Cor 9:21; 11:1). (3) What is perhaps even more significant than these results is that this study has strengthened the cases for the authenticity of such crucial sayings of Jesus as Mark 7:15 and par.; 9:42–50 and parr.; 10:45 and par.; and 12:28–34 and parr., as they seem to be used by Paul as Jesus’ teachings in 1 Cor 8–10. Clearly Paul knew the logion Mark 10:45 and par.; indeed he valued it so much as to echo it twice in our text (9:19, 22; 10:33; cf. 1 Tim 2:5–6).92 The great implications that this fact has for his understanding of Jesus’ death, for the Jesus–Paul debate and indeed the whole question of the rise of the post-Easter Church’s kerygma, and even for the quest of the historical Jesus can scarcely be exaggerated. 92  The contexts in which Paul echoes the logion of Mark 10:45 and par., namely, those of his speaking about his following the “law of Christ” and the example of Christ, indicate his appreciation of it still further (cf. now also Essay 5 above in this volume). See n. 50 above for the view that Paul’s references to the “law of Christ” and the example of Christ in 9:21 and 11:1 respectively are “tradition indicators” for allusions to or echoes of the logia of Mark 7:15 and par.; 9:42–50 and parr.; 10:45 and par.; and 12:28–34 and parr. All these suggest that Paul’s use of such dominical logia as demonstrated in this essay should be counted as a case of multiple attestation for their authenticity (I owe this last point to David Lowery, my respondent).

Conclusion

353

With these results, this study bears significantly on two further points. By making it clear that Paul knew and used effectively some concrete sayings and example of Jesus for his teaching, this study leads us to stress the importance of the historical Jesus for Paul’s theology and ethic. Further, the way Paul used Jesus’ teachings and exemplary conduct as his guiding principles in dealing with the problem of eidōlothyta that he faced in his Gentile mission field has a paradigmatic significance for our hermeneutical and theological endeavors in our missionary situations. A study on the Pauline theme of imitatio Christi would not be complete without a consideration of its relationship to another Pauline theme, namely the idea of Christians being conformed (συμμορφοῦσθαι) to or transformed (μεταμορφοῦσθαι) into the image (εἰκών) of Christ (Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18; Phil 3:20–21; Col 3:9–10; cf. Eph 4:22–24), who is the image (εἰκών) of God (2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15; cf. Phil 2:6). How did Paul relate the two themes to each other (cf. Phil 2:1–30 and 3:10–11; 2 Cor 4:10)? This question is neglected in scholarship. Having stressed the latter theme as a distinctive and important Pauline theme overarching soteriology and ethics,93 I feel the urgency of the question. However, it cannot be treated within the confines of this essay, and it will have to remain a task for another day and a sequel to the present essay.

 See S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel (WUNT 2/4; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 135–268 (esp. 223–33), 315–27; idem, PNP, 165–213.

93

21984;

16. Paul as an Eschatological Herald Romans is one of Paul’s last epistles (AD 56/57). One of his purposes in writing it is to win the support of the church in Rome for his mission to Spain (Rom 1:10–13; 15:22–32). But he writes it also with a view to the consultation that he would have with the leaders of the church in Jerusalem when he soon visits the city with the gifts that he has collected for the mother church from his Gentile churches in Macedonia and Achaia (Rom 15:25–32). For these reasons and perhaps for some other reasons, in Romans he unfolds his controversial gospel of justification most fully and systematically, as well as providing more fully than in any other epistle what we may gather as his own understanding of the nature of his apostolic mission. Those characteristics of the epistle are already intimated in its unusually long superscription (1:1–6). In it, Paul identifies himself as an “apostle” commissioned to proclaim “the gospel of God,” which is an eschatological message about God’s reign through the Davidic Messiah, his Son. Thus Paul shows himself as an eschatological herald. So it appears the best for us to be guided by this superscription in dealing with our topic.

1. The Gospel: The Message that Paul the Eschatological Herald Is to Proclaim1 In unpacking the compact superscription of Romans in order to portray fully Paul as an eschatological herald, it is convenient to start with the gospel that he has been commissioned to proclaim. After defining the gospel fundamentally as originating from God and then revelation/salvation-historically as the fulfillment of what God had promised through the prophets in OT Scriptures, Paul defines it in terms of its content, namely God’s Son. Then, he explains God’s Son with what is generally regarded as a confession originally formulated by the Jerusalem church, which focuses on Jesus having been the Davidic Messiah during the time of his flesh and his having been raised from the dead and installed as “[God’s] Son in power” (1:3–4). Paul elaborates the reference to “[God’s] Son in power” in terms of Jesus Christ being our “Lord,” thus making explicit the reference to Ps 1  This section shares some material with the section 4 of Essay 2 “Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel (1 Thess 1:9–10 and Rom 1:3–4)” above.

356

Paul as an Eschatological Herald

110:1 that is implicit in the second element of the Jerusalem church’s confession (cf. Rom 8:32–34). By exalting Christ through his resurrection to his right hand and so making him exercise his lordship (“Lord”) on his behalf in fulfillment of Ps 110:1, God has installed Messiah (the “seed of David”) as his Son (“heir”) in fulfillment of 2 Sam 7:12–14 and Ps 2:7, so that he is now “the Son of God in power,” i. e., the Son of God who exercises God’s power. In his epistles Paul refers to Jesus’ Davidic Messiahship rarely, but it is presupposed and fundamental in his Christology. His reference to it again in Rom 15:12, building an inclusio with the reference to Jesus’ Davidic Messiahship here in 1:3, leads us to understand the saving work of Jesus Christ that is explained in the whole epistle, as something that he has done as the Davidic Messiah.2 However, in the main body of the epistle, Paul has nothing to say about replacement of the Roman Empire with the Davidic kingdom restored in Zion. He only stresses Christ Jesus saving us by overcoming the powers of sin, the flesh, the law, and death through his atoning death and resurrection. Nor does he say anything about the Jews’ sharing in the political rule of Jesus the Messiah over the Gentiles. Instead, he concentrates on explaining that the Gentiles as well as the Jews obtain justification and salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. So he reaches the climax of the epistle with a catena of OT citations (Ps 17:50; Deut 32:43; Ps 117:1; Isa 11:10) in order to celebrate how Jesus’ ministry for Israel as the Davidic Messiah in fulfillment of God’s promises to their patriarchs results in bringing the Gentiles to glorify God and share in the hope and joy with Israel in the messianic kingdom (15:7–13). Throughout his epistles Paul refers to the kingdom of God only eight times (Rom 14:17; 1 Cor 4:20; 6:9–10; 15:50; Gal 5:21; Col 4:10–11; 1 Thess 2:11–12; 2 Thess 1:5; cf. 1 Cor 15:24; Col 1:13), thereby, though, indicating that he knows of Jesus’ gospel of God’s kingdom. Yet far more often Paul speaks of the “Lord” Jesus Christ. From the confession cited in Rom 1:3–4 and other passages (e. g., Phil 2:6–11) that reflect Ps 110:1, we can easily surmise why he does so. Jesus Christ, God’s Son, exalted at the right hand of God, has inherited the kingship or lordship from his Father, so that the kingdom of God is now expressed in terms of “the kingdom of [God’s] beloved Son” (Col 1:13). In 1 Cor 15:23–28 Paul elaborates on this thought by indicating the purpose for God’s delegation of his kingship to Christ, his Son, for the present. God’s kingship is delegated to Christ, so that Christ may subdue “all his enemies,” the anti-God forces that operate as Unheilsmächte to us. When Christ, God’s Son, completes that task, he is to return the kingship to God the Father, so that the whole creation may be pacified under the sole reign of God the creator. Hence, in Col 1:13–14, expressing this truth from the perspective of God the Father who has initiated this saving work by delegating his kingship to his Son, Paul speaks of God as having 2 Cf.

N. T. Wright, Paul in Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 44.

1. The Gospel: The Message that Paul the Eschatological Herald Is to Proclaim

357

“delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” In Col 1:13–14, the kingdom of God’s Son that overcomes “the dominion of darkness” is explained in terms of “redemption, the forgiveness of sins,” while in 1 Cor 15:23–28, death is designated as “the last enemy,” the last of the evil rules, authorities, and powers that the Son of God is to destroy with his divine kingship. In 1 Cor 15:51–57 Paul further specifies death in alliance with sin and the law as the last enemy that the Lord Jesus Christ at his parousia would destroy. Thus, these passages suggest that for Paul the category of deliverance from the Satanic kingdom and the category of the resolution of the problems of sin and death are the two sides of one and the same coin. Our deliverance through God’s Son from the Satanic kingdom and transference into the kingdom of God in which Christ God’s Son reigns on God’s behalf is both an act of forgiveness of our sins of having served Satan and his idol representatives and an act of restoring us to the right relationship with the true God, our creator. Thus, the work of Christ God’s Son of delivering us from the Satanic forces with God’s kingly power is the same as his work of atonement that brings about our justification or our restoration to the right relationship with God. Hence, in Gal 1:4 Paul speaks of Christ as having given himself to a death of atonement “for our sins in order to deliver us from the present evil age,” the age ruled by “the god of this age” (2 Cor 4:4). Now both 1 Cor 15:23–28 (N. B. v. 26) and Col 1:13–14, from which we have drawn to explicate the gospel defined in Rom 1:3–4, make it clear that God is the initiator of the saving work wrought through his Son Jesus Christ. This is suggested also in Rom 1:3–4 through the passivum divinum of the participial phrase τοῦ ὁρισθέντος, as well as through the reference to the confession as “the gospel of God” (Rom 1:1). Note also how by making “his Son” the antecedent of the participial phrase τοῦ γενομένου in Rom 1:3, Paul produces a close parallelism between Rom 1:3 and Gal 4:4: Rom 1:3

(περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ)   τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα …

Gal 4:4

ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ      γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός …

This parallelism leads us to understand the confession in analogy to the “sending formula” in Gal 4:4–5 and Rom 1:3–4 (God sent his Son in order that …). Then, we can see that in Rom 1:3–4, with his own introductory preface περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, Paul makes the confession take on the ideas of the Son’s pre-existence and God’s having sent him to be incarnate. Further, we may assume that between the two lines of the confession in Rom 1:3–4, Paul is conscious of the redemptive work of God’s Son in his death (and resurrection) that he would affirm later in the epistle through the “sending formula” of Rom 8:3–4 as well as through his exposition of God’s love in terms of the death of God’s Son in Rom 5:8–10; 8:32–34.

358

Paul as an Eschatological Herald

If so, Paul would be citing the confession of Rom 1:3–4 with at least the following ideas in mind: “the gospel of God” concerns God’s Son whom God sent to be born as the Messiah of Israel, gave up to a death of vicarious atonement for sins, and raised up to his right hand to exercise his power on his behalf and intercede for the believers at the last judgment. The gospel is an announcement of those acts of God with or through his Son. So, in Rom 1:17, Paul says that “in [the gospel] God’s righteousness is revealed,” as in the proclamation of the gospel the Christ-event is made manifest as the eschatological saving work that God has wrought in faithful fulfillment of his covenant with Israel and his whole creation.3 In 1:2 Paul has already underlined this nature of the gospel (i. e., the Christevent as an embodiment of God’s covenant faithfulness or “righteousness”) by saying that the gospel represents the fulfillment of what God “promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures.” Whoever believes in the gospel or accepts it by faith appropriates God’s righteousness (i. e., his saving acts that he has wrought through his Son in faithful fulfillment of his covenant promises), so that he/she is justified (i. e., forgiven of his/her sins and restored to the right relationship with God; Rom 3:21–26; 4:25; 5:1–11; etc.). Thus, he/ she is delivered from God’s wrath (cf. Rom 1:18; 8:34) and made a child of God who by participating in Christ’s divine sonship will be conformed to his image and obtain divine glory (8:14–17, 29–30; cf. also Gal 4:4–6). Hence Paul defines the gospel also as “the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom 1:16). In the main body of Romans, Paul expounds this gospel that he has summarized in thesis form in 1:16–17, chiefly in the category of God’s justifying righteousness, emphasizing that the Gentiles as well as the Jews appropriate God’s righteousness through faith without works of the law. Yet from Rom 7–8 as well as 1:18–32 and 16:20 we can see in the background the category of destruction of the Satanic forces or redemption from them as the larger cosmic framework for the anthropological focus of justification. This is also suggested by Rom 12:1–2, where Paul exhorts the justified people of God to devote their whole being to doing God’s will (i. e., obeying the kingship/lordship of God), instead of conforming to “this age” (cf. also 1 Cor 1:20; 2:6–8; 3:18) – the age ruled by “the god of this age” (2 Cor 4:4; cf. also 1 Cor 2:6–8), which is coming to an end (1 Cor 7:29–31; 10:11). Thus, being conscious of standing at the eschatological turning point, Paul heralds the gospel or the good news of the kingship/lordship of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, which redeems humankind from the Satanic forces and ushers in the 3  Then, in Rom 3:21–26, Paul recounts God’s redemptive work as the manifestation of his righteousness, sharply focusing on the center of the Christ-event, namely, his setting Christ forth as an eschatological sacrifice of atonement. There again Paul emphasizes the theme of God’s faithful fulfillment of the OT. Cf. also 1 Cor 1:9 and 2 Cor 1:18–20, for Paul’s affirmation of God’s faithfulness in reference to his Son.

2. An Apostle: An Eschatological Herald of the Gospel to the Gentiles

359

new age in which God the creator reigns. And as an apostle or fully empowered agent of the Lord Jesus Christ, Paul demands all the Gentiles to come out of “the dominion of darkness” or the kingdom of Satan by repentance (cf. Rom 2:4–6) and enter into the kingdom of God or his Son by faith (Col 1:13; cf. Rom 11:15; 1 Thess 2:12), something that takes place with their explicit confession of Jesus as Lord at baptism (Rom 10:9–10; cf. 1 Cor 8:6; 12:3; Phil 2:9–11). Thus, Paul is “to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of the name” of the Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son (Rom 1:5). The Thessalonian Christians have responded to Paul’s such preaching of the gospel and “turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come” (1 Thess 1:5–6, 8, 9–10). Those who make such conversion from the kingdom of Satan to the kingdom of God’s Son receive “redemption, forgiveness of sins” (Col 1:13–14), or are “justified” and “reconciled” to God (Rom 3–8; 2 Cor 5:18–21). They can look forward to receiving deliverance from God’s wrath or condemnation (Rom 5:9; 8:1, 32–34; 1 Thess 1:9–10; also 1 Cor 1:7–9; 1 Thess 3:12–13; etc.), or the ultimate redemption from death into which sin, the flesh, and the law have driven us, which is to take place at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ when the Satanic rule is completely destroyed (1 Cor 15:26, 53–57; Rom 7–8). By preaching such a gospel, Paul seeks to bring all the Gentiles into the kingdom of God’s Son, so that they may be restored to God the creator and receive his glory and his life (= eternal life).

2. An Apostle: An Eschatological Herald of the Gospel to the Gentiles In Rom 1:1–5, Paul sets forth his qualifications as an eschatological herald of such a gospel: “a slave of Jesus Christ, called [κλητός] to be an apostle, set apart [ἀφωρισμένος] for the gospel [εὐαγγέλιον] of God, … concerning his Son … to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles ….” This is another version of his self-description given in Gal 1:15–16: “When he who had set me apart [ἀφορίσας] from my mother’s womb and had called [καλέσας] me through his grace was pleased [εὐδόκησεν] to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach [εὐαγγελίζωμαι) him [as the gospel] among the Gentiles. …” In this Galatians passage Paul is referring to the revelation of Christ Jesus as the Son of God and his call to apostleship for the Gentiles on the road to Damascus. Seeing here echoes of Isa 49:1, 6 and Jer 1:5: καλεῖν (= Isa 49:1, 6; cf. τίθημι in Jer 1:5; 1 Cor 12:28); ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου (= Isa 49:1; cf. Jer 1:5); ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (= Isa 49:6; Jer 1:5), commentators generally agree that Paul is interpreting his apostolic call in terms of the call of the Servant of Yahweh in Isa 49 as well as that of the prophet Jeremiah.

360

Paul as an Eschatological Herald

However, I have sought to supplement this view by observing also echoes of the first Servant song of Isa 42 in the Galatians passage and elsewhere in Pauline epistles.4 First of all, the εὐδόκησεν in Gal 1:15 is seen as reflecting ‫רצתה נפשי‬ of Isa 42:1, which is rendered (ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου) ὃν εὐδόκησεν ἡ ψυχή μου in Codex Marchalianus (Q) and Syro-Hexapla, etc. (cf. also Matt 12:18–21; 3:17pars). The first Servant song of Isa 42 and the second Servant song of Isa 49 being closely related to each other, they share the reference to God’s “call” of the Servant to be “a light to the Gentiles” (Isa 42:6–7; 49:1, 6). That in Gal 1:15–16 Paul echoes not just Isa 49:1, 6, but also Isa 42:6–7, is suggested by the fact that in 2 Cor 4:4–6, alluding to his experience of the Damascus Christophany, he reflects both the εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν of Isa 42:6; 49:6 and the ἀνοῖξαι ὀφθαλμούς of Isa 42:7 (cf. also Acts 26:16–18). Paul appears to have chosen “Arabia” as his missionary destination immediately after his apostolic commission near Damascus (Gal 1:17), because he saw ‫( קדר‬a North-Arabic tribe) and (‫סלע‬/LXX: Πέτρα) in Isa 42:11 as referring to “Arabia,” the Nabataean kingdom, whose leading city was Petra (cf. Tg Isa, which has simply “the wilderness of Arabia” for both). Further, the concept of “setting apart” (ἀφορίσας) in Gal 1:15 appears to combine the ideas of election (ἐκλεκτός) of Isa 42:1 (cf. also ἐξελεξάμην, Isa 41:8–9) and consecration (ἡγίακα) of Jer 1:5. Having made several further observations in Paul’s teaching and ministry that appear to reflect Isa 42, I have argued that the most significant reflection of Isa 42 in the Pauline epistles outside of Gal 1:15–17 is found in 2 Cor 1:21–22. There, in the context of defending his decision not to come to Corinth as he had promised (2 Cor 1:12–2:4), Paul says “Now the one who makes us firm [or secure; βεβαιῶν] together with you unto Christ, and anointed [χρίσας] us is God, who indeed sealed [σφραγισάμενος] us and gave [δούς] us the down-payment [ἀρραβῶνα] of the Spirit in our hearts.” The interpretation of this statement has been bedeviled by the attempt to see it in terms of a baptismal confession, which applies to all believers. But that attempt, which has to take the thrice repeated “us” in vv. 21b–22 as including the readers as well as Paul and his colleagues, cannot satisfactorily explain the remarkable aorist participle χρίσας in v. 21b, nor the question how in the context of defending his apostolic behavior Paul suddenly turns to make a general affirmation about the baptismal experience of himself and the Corinthian Christians. It would be strange if having specifically separated “you” from “us” in v. 21a, Paul would include “you” in the immediately following “us” in v. 21b. Since the “us” in v. 21a clearly refers to Paul and his colleagues, so the “us” in v. 21b must also refer to them only. Likewise, the “us” and “our” in v. 22 must do the same. The emphatic “I” (ἐγώ) in v. 23 makes it clear that throughout the apologetic section of 1:12–2:4 Paul is thinking mainly of himself since the cancel4  S. Kim, “Isaiah 42 and Paul’s Call,” in PNP, 101–27. The following three paragraphs here summarize the relevant sections of that essay.

2. An Apostle: An Eschatological Herald of the Gospel to the Gentiles

361

lation of the planned visit was the decision he made as the leader of his team. This is made crystal clear in 2:1–4. Thus, in 1:21–22, in order to affirm that his cancellation of the planned visit was born of holiness and sincerity from God (1:12), Paul appeals not only to the faithful God’s present upholding (βεβαιῶν) of him in Christ, but also to his past anointment (χρίσας), sealing (σφραγισάμενος), and endowment (δούς) with the Spirit. With the three aorist participles, Paul seems to be referring to his apostolic commission on the Damascus road. Then, it is most significant that he understands it as God’s anointment with the Spirit. Along with all the points that have been listed above, this point also suggests that he interprets his apostolic commission on the Damascus road in terms of Isa 42:1, in which God promises to endow his chosen Servant with his Spirit. Then, it is natural to think that Paul would have seen his apostolic commission prefigured also in Isa 61:1–3, a text closely related to the Servant songs of Isa 42 and 49. For in it Yahweh “anoints” (‫מׁשח‬/ἔχρισέν) his servant with the Spirit and “sends” (‫שלח‬/ἀπέσταλκέν) him “to preach the gospel” (‫לבשר‬/εὐαγγελίσασθαι). The latter two concepts alone could be cited as enough evidence for the view that Paul saw his apostolic commission in the light of this text. But the text also contains the important word χρίσας and the idea of endowment with the Spirit, which we have found as decisive in Paul’s allusion to his apostolic commission in 2 Cor 1:21–22. This view that Paul saw his apostolic commission also in terms of Isa 61:1–3 is further supported by his echoes of the text in his description of his apostolic commission as ἀπέστειλέν με Χριστὸς … εὐαγγελίζεσθαι (1 Cor 1:17) and his subsequent reference to his preaching of the gospel “in demonstration of the Spirit” (1 Cor 2:4). By explaining Paul’s apostolic commission through a combined allusion to Isa 42:7, 16, and 61:1, the Pauline tradition in Acts 26:16– 18, which is close to 2 Cor 4:4–6, adds its support to this view. Thus, in Gal 1:15–16 Paul describes his apostolic commission especially echoing the language of the call of the Servant of Yahweh passages in Isa 42, 49, and 61. So we may conclude that Paul saw his apostleship as prefigured in the call and ministry of the Servant of Yahweh in those Isaianic passages. These findings should be integrated with the findings that J. Ross Wagner has made from Paul’s citation of Isa 52:7; 53:1; and 52:15, respectively, in Rom 10:15; 10:16; 15:21. Wagner’s overall thesis is that the way Paul uses those Isaianic texts reveals that Isa 51–55 exercised a formative influence on Paul’s conception of his apostolic ministry, as he saw in those chapters “a prefiguration or pre-announcement of his own proclamation of the gospel of Christ to Jew and Gentile alike, wherever Christ is not yet known,”5 or “a prefiguration of the part he now plays in the 5 J. R. Wagner, “The Heralds of Isaiah and the Mission of Paul: An Investigation of Paul’s Use of Isaiah 51–55 in Romans,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins (ed. W. H. Bellinger Jr. and W. R. Farmer; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International, 1998), 194; cf. also J. P.  Dickson, Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities:

362

Paul as an Eschatological Herald

drama of redemption,”6 as well as the prophecies about the Gentile inclusion, Israel’s hardening and eventual redemption.7 No doubt, there are more OT texts that also helped Paul understand his apostleship for the Gentiles and God’s redemptive plans in that way. In this limited essay it is not possible to consider all those texts. However, having seen what great influences the Servant passages and chs. 51–55 of Isaiah had exerted on Paul’s understanding of those, we may highlight at least such texts within the same book of Isaiah as 2:2–4; 11:10; 25:6–10; 55:3–5; 56:6–8; 60:1–5; 66:18–21 that prophesy about the Gentiles’ streaming to Zion in the last days to worship Yahweh and participate in his salvation (these texts are conveniently referred to in terms of “the Gentiles’ eschatological pilgrimage to Zion;” cf. also Mic 4:1–3; Jer 3:17; Zeph 3:8–10; Zech 2:8–12; 8:20–238), as well as the texts such as Isa 6, which speak about the hardening and eventual restoration of Israel. When on the Damascus road Paul as a Pharisee extremely zealous for Judaism (Gal 1:13–14; Phil 3:4–6) received a call by the risen Lord Jesus Christ to be his apostle for the Gentiles, it must have been a total shock, which could only be resolved by a fresh look at his Scriptures for its logic and meaning. If he obtained from the Servant passages and chs. 51–55 of Isaiah his convictions about his call for Gentile apostleship and its role in God’s redemptive history of ingathering of the Gentiles and hardening and yet eventually redeeming of Israel, he would surely have consulted also those texts of “the Gentiles’ eschatological pilgrimage to Zion” in the same book and seen them further strengthening his new convictions. However, what of the Damascus Christophany would, in the first place, have led Paul to those texts of Isaiah? Or what light would the Damascus revelation have thrown upon those texts, so that Paul the zealous Pharisee could read out of them God’s plans about the ingathering of the Gentiles and the present hardening and future salvation of Israel as well as his role in those plans? First of all, in view of the form‑ and tradition-history of prophetic call visions in the OT and Judaism,9 it is not difficult to imagine that the nature or form of the Damascus Christophany led Paul to turn to the prophetic call visions such as Isa 6 and Ezek 1 for an interpretation of its meaning for him, and that from a combined reading of Isa 6 and the call/commission narratives of the Servant passages he The Shape, Extent and Background of Early Christian Mission (WUNT 2/159; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 165–77. 6  Wagner, “Heralds of Isaiah,” 222. 7  Ibid., 201, 222. 8 For the continuation of this tradition in the Second Temple Jewish literature, cf. e. g., Tob 13:11; 14:5–7; 1 En. 48:4–5; 90:33; T. Sim. 7:2; T. Levi 18:2–9; T. Jud. 24:6; 25:5; T. Naph. 8:3–4; 2 Bar. 68:5; Sib. Or. 3:710–30; etc. 9 Cf. W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel  1 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1969), 16–21; H. Wildberger, Jesaja 1 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1972), 234–38; W. Stenger, “Biographisches und Idealbiographisches in Gal 1,11–12.14,” in Kontinuität und Einheit, F. Mussner FS (ed. P.-G. Müller and W. Stenger; Freiburg: Herder, 1981), 132–40.

2. An Apostle: An Eschatological Herald of the Gospel to the Gentiles

363

obtained his conviction about the Lord’s call and sending as an apostle for the Gentiles, as well as the idea of Israel’s present hardening, something that he could confirm from the Jewish resistance to the gospel in the present.10 We also need to consider the main content of the Damascus Christophany: what would a vision of the crucified messianic pretender Jesus appearing exalted by God have meant to Paul? It could only have confirmed the kerygma of Jesus’ believers whom he was persecuting, namely, that Jesus was indeed the Messiah and that he was exalted to the right hand of God as his Son, the Lord. He could not help but see confirmed their confession that he would later cite in Rom 1:3–4. That means that Paul realized that the long-awaited Davidic Messiah had come in the person of Jesus and that Yahweh had come to Zion through him, the seed of David, his Son, who had represented his kingly reign while on earth and was now exercising it on his behalf at his right hand since his exaltation. This realization would naturally have led Paul to Isa 52:7–10, the passage whose v. 7 he actually cites in Rom 10:15, suggesting its great importance for his understanding of his apostolic mission. There he would have confirmed that what was revealed to him through the Damascus Christophany was none other than the “gospel” (εὐαγγέλιον) that had been prophesied in that prophetic passage: Yahweh has come to Zion, and he reigns, or he “has bared his holy arm” of salvation for all the nations.11 There he would also have realized that the gospel had to be preached to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews, since it is said there that “all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” (Isa 52:10). Further, he would also have realized that the meaning of God’s granting him the Christophany vision in the traditional form of prophetic call visions was to call him as one of “the heralds of the good news” (τῶν εὐαγγελιζομένων [τὰ] ἀγαθά) prophesied in the Isaianic text, in fact, as a herald of the gospel especially for the Gentiles. Then Paul would have had his sense of God’s apostolic calling for the Gentiles further confirmed through his consultation of especially the Servant passages of Isa 42, 49, and 61. But the revelation of the Davidic Messiah, God’s Son, through whom God reigns and saves all the nations, so that “all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” (Isa 52:10), would naturally have led Paul to those many passages first in the same book of Isaiah and then later in other books that all similarly prophesied “the Gentiles’ eschatological pilgrimage to Zion”  Cf. S. Kim, “The ‘Mystery’ of Romans 11:25–26 Once More,” in PNP, 247–50.  Cf. Wagner, “Heralds of Isaiah,” 207, who stresses that Paul’s use of Isa 52:7 in Rom 10:15 reveals not only his understanding of himself as one of those who are prophesied in Isa 52:7 as “the heralds of the good news” (‫מבשר טוב‬/τῶν εὐαγγελιζομένων [τὰ] ἀγαθά), but also his understanding of his “gospel” (εὐαγγέλιον, Rom 10:16) “Jesus is Lord” (Rom 10:9–13) as corresponding to the message of salvation that the heralds of Isa 52:7 are prophesied to proclaim, namely “Your God reigns.” It goes without saying that our discussion here strengthens the view that the main background of Paul’s term “gospel” (εὐαγγέλιον) is Isa 52:7; 61:1 and their related texts in Isa 40–65 (cf. Dickson, Mission-Commitment, 153–77, who confirms the works of earlier scholars such as P. Stuhlmacher). 10 11

364

Paul as an Eschatological Herald

(henceforth abbreviated GEP). In those texts he would have further come to see that what he had realized in the Damascus revelation actually formed the main elements of the prophecies of those texts: the coming of the Davidic messiah (Isa 11:10; 55:3), God’s coming to reign (52:7–8; 60:1), the revelation of God’s glory (Isa 11:10; 40:5; 60:1; 66:19) and his glorification of the Davidic messiah (Isa 55:5), and even the restoration of Israel (e. g., Isa 11:11–12; 25:8–9; 52:1–10; 60:1– 5). Paul found the majority of Israel “hardened” against the gospel at present and so expected the restoration of “all Israel” only at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 11:25–26). Yet he apparently saw in the small number of Jewish believers (the “remnant”) centered at the Jerusalem church (ἡ ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ/‫קהל‬ ‫יהוה‬, Gal 1:13) at least the prolepsis of that eventual restoration of the whole Israel (Rom 11), in a similar way as James, according to Luke (Acts 15:16–18), saw in the presence of the Jerusalem church with the “pillars” (cf. Gal 2:9) made up of the “twelve” whom Jesus chose, “the rebuilding of the fallen tent of David,” i. e., the restoration of the Davidic kingdom (of Israel), in eschatological fulfillment of the prophecy of Amos 9:11–12.12 Having thus seen all the other main elements of the texts of the GEP realized, Paul would have been convinced that the remaining primary element in the prophecies of those texts, namely the Gentiles streaming to Zion, was now to be realized: all the conditions were ripe for the Gentiles to turn to the Lord or “come into” his kingdom (cf. Rom 11:25) and receive his salvation.13 His reasoning would have been similar to the implicit reasoning of the Lucan James who defends the Gentile mission by citing Amos 9:11–12 (LXX; with an echo of Jer 1:15), which declares God’s promise to return and restore the Davidic kingdom, “so that the rest of humankind may seek the Lord, all the Gentiles who are called by my name” (Acts 15:16–17). Then, having understood God’s call to be a herald of the gospel to the Gentiles from Isa 52:6–10 and confirming it through the Servant passages of Isa 42, 49, 61, as well as through Isa 6, Paul would have understood himself as an (if not the)14 eschatological herald of the gospel who was to effect fulfillment of the GEP prophecy. As the Servant of the Lord who was called, consecrated, and anointed with the Spirit, he was sent as an apostle to the Gentiles to proclaim the gospel of the saving lordship of the Messiah Jesus, God’s Son, or God’s saving righteous12  Cf. P. Stuhlmacher, “Matt 28:16–20 and the Course of Mission in the Apostolic and Postapostolic Age,” in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles (WUNT 127; ed. J. Ådna and H. Kvalbein; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 40. 13  Some GEP texts also contain the ideas of vengeance upon the Gentiles and the Gentiles’ serving Israel. Apparently, Paul turned blind eyes to them, as Jesus did in citing such texts as Isa 61:1–2 (Luke 4:18–19) and Isa 35:5–6 (Matt 11:4–6//Luke 7:22–23). 14  This cumbersome expression is an attempt to do justice both to Paul’s recognition of other preachers of the gospel to the Gentiles (e. g., Rom 15:20; 16:7; 1 Cor 3:5–9) and to his consciousness of his unique apostleship for all the Gentiles (e. g., Rom 1:5–6, 13–15; 11:13; 15:15–16).

3. An Agent of the Eschaton

365

ness, or to bring the light and salvation of God, so that they might turn to the Lord, and worship and serve him. So, he was an (or the) eschatological herald who was to proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles and call them to make the eschatological pilgrimage to Zion. Thus he was an (or the) agent for the Gentiles’ eschatological pilgrimage to Zion! Therefore, Paul brought “the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ” or “the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” to those who had been blinded by “the god of this age” (2 Cor 4:4–6),15 calling them to “turn to the Lord” (2 Cor 3:16), or to confess Jesus as Lord or call on his name (Rom 10:9–13; 1 Cor 1:2) for salvation. So he preached the gospel of the Lord Jesus, the Son of David/the Son of God, through whom God had manifested his saving reign or justifying righteousness, and called the Gentiles therefore to praise God as well as rejoicing and hoping in him, as we can see from the relatively more complete sample of his gospel preaching in Romans (N. B. the inclusio of 1:2–5 and 15:7–8, 12, and the concluding call for the Gentiles in 15:9–12). The Thessalonian Christians responded to Paul’s gospel and “turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God,”16 so that they might be delivered from God’s wrath and enter into his “kingdom and glory” at the parousia of his Son, Jesus Christ, the Lord (1 Thess 1:5–10; 2:12). In this way, Paul sought to bring all the Gentiles to “the obedience of faith for the sake of the name” of the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 1:5; 15:18; 16:26) and make them an offering to God (Rom 15:15–16; cf. Isa 66:20), with a view to the day when “the full number of the Gentiles come into” the kingdom of God with the completion of the whole process of the GEP.17

3. An Agent of the Eschaton: Paul’s Collection Journey to Jerusalem as a Fulfillment of the Prophecy of the Gentiles’ Eschatological Pilgrimage to Zion As some of the GEP texts also contain the prophecy of the Gentiles bringing their gifts to Zion (e. g., Isa 56:6–8; 60:1–10; 66:19–21; Zeph 3:8–10; Tob 13:11), it is widely recognized that Paul reflects that prophecy in his collection of money from his Gentile churches for the Jerusalem church and in his collection jour15  Cf. Isa 60:2–3; 66:18–19; T. Levi 18:4–5 as examples of some GEP texts that emphasize the light of the glory of God borne to the Gentiles and their coming out of darkness into the light. 16  Some GEP texts make it explicit that the Gentiles abandon their idols to turn to the Lord: e. g., Tob 14:5–7; Sib. Or. 3:715–24. 17 Cf. W. Keller, Gottes Treue, Israels Heil: Röm 11,25–27 – Die These vom “Sonderweg” in der Diskussion (SBB 40; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998), 174, for the view that “the full number of the Gentiles” is a term that Paul uses with the prophecy of the GEP in mind (cited from E. J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, vol. 2: Paul and the Early Church [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004], 1295).

366

Paul as an Eschatological Herald

ney with a Gentile delegation to Jerusalem (Rom 15:25–32; 1 Cor 16:3–4; 2 Cor 8:16–24). However, lately this view has been strongly disputed by D. J. Downs.18 Criticizing J. Jeremias’s method of collecting texts from diverse Scriptural sources in order to define the “tradition” of the Gentiles’ eschatological pilgrimage,19 Downs questions the existence of such an established tradition within the OT and early Jewish literature (3 n. 9). However, even while questioning that, Downs should have appreciated the significance of Paul’s citing Isa 11:10, one of the GEP texts, at the climax of his presentation of the gospel in Rom 15:12, forming an inclusio with his introduction of the gospel and his Gentile apostleship in Rom 1:2–5. It is also regrettable that Downs does not consider, as we have done here, how much Paul’s understanding of his Gentile mission would have been influenced at least by the passages within Isaiah, namely, Isa 2:2–5; 11:10; 25:6–9; 56:6–8; 60:1–22; 66:19–21, which are in the neighborhood of the texts that he actually cites (Isa 11:10; 52:7, 15; 53:1) or alludes to (Isa 6, 42, 49, 61) and/or contain prophecies that are similar to or can or need to be coordinated with those that are in the latter texts. Thus, failing to see the implication of his own teacher’s study,20 Downs exercises in a rather atomistic and positivistic exegesis: no explicit citation, hence no influence! So, Downs’s first argument against the popular view is that in the collection passages of 1 Cor 16:1–4; 2 Cor 8–9; and Rom 15:25–32, Paul does not cite any GEP text (6). But he fails to appreciate the connection between the catena of the OT Scriptures that are cited in Rom 15:9–12 in order to affirm the Gentiles’ inclusion in the eschatological kingdom of the Davidic Messiah, and Paul’s account of his apostolic ministry among the Gentiles in the following section of Rom 15:14–32. So even while acknowledging the citation of Isa 11:10 at the climax of the catena (Rom 15:12) as a possible allusion to the GEP, Downs insists that “the absence of any reference to pilgrimage texts in Paul’s explicit comments about the collection in Rom 15:25–32” shows that Paul did not attach to the collection the significance of the GEP (7). But then by the same token Downs’ own view that the collection had an ecumenical purpose of promoting fellowship and unity between Paul’s Gentile churches and the Jewish church in Judea (15–19) will have to be denied. There is no denying that Paul attached such significance to the collection (cf. Gal 2:1–10). Here it is only observed that Paul does not refer to it in Rom 15:25–32, just as he does not refer to the GEP. Downs’ efforts to hang 18 The Offering of the Gentiles: Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem in Its Chronological, Cultural, and Cultic Contexts (WUNT 2/248; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 3–9. I regret that I have to disagree with Downs, a former student and present colleague of mine! 19 J. Jeremias, Jesus’ Promise to the Nations (London: SCM, 1958). 20 One of the conclusions of J. Ross Wagner (“Heralds of Isaiah,” 221) in his study of Paul’s citations of Isa 52:7, 15; 53:1 in Rom 10:15–16 and 15:21 is that “Paul’s citations are not plunder from random raids on Isaiah, but the fruit of careful reading of the text [of Isa 51–55] in light of his own situation as an apostle to the Gentiles.”

3. An Agent of the Eschaton

367

the ecumenical purpose on the phrase κοινωνίαν τινὰ ποιήσασθαι in Rom 15:26, rendering it as “to make a certain partnership–forming contribution” (16–17), do not appear successful. Downs’ second argument is based on the fact that Paul does not mention his Gentile delegation in Rom 15:14–32 (7–8). In the passage Paul refers only to himself, and asks his readers to pray for God’s rescue only of himself from the unbelievers in Judea as well as for his ministry to be accepted by the saints in Jerusalem. But he does not refer to his Gentile companions, let alone commenting on their delivery of their gifts to Jerusalem. For Downs, this “places the eschatological pilgrimage reading of the collection in doubt” (8). But then again by the same token, Downs’s own view that the collection had an ecumenical purpose will also have to be denied. For, according to his logic, Paul’s failure in Rom 15:25–32 to refer to his Gentile delegation and to ask the readers to pray for the Jerusalem church’s favorable acceptance of them should also be taken as suggesting that Paul had no thought of promoting an ecumenical fellowship between them. Downs takes the προσφορὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν of Rom 15:16 in the sense of “the offering given by the Gentiles” (149), “an offering of obedience and cultic worship made by the Gentiles” (151), and as specifically referring to the collection (149–56), and bases this view partly on the parallelism between the cultic language of Rom 15:16 (λειτουργός, ἱερουργέω, προσφορά εὐπρόσδεκτος, and ἁγιάζω) and that of Rom 15:25–32 (λειτουργέω, εὐπρόσδεκτος, cf. also ἐπιτελέω, σφραγίζω) (154–55). But it is strange that he does not see this interpretation of Rom 15:16 actually supporting the view that in his collection scheme Paul reflects the GEP prophecy, more strongly than does the usual interpretation.21 In appreciating the cultic language of Rom 15, Downs points out the metaphorical usage of those terms and Paul’s application of them to his Gentile mission and to the Gentile churches’ service for the Jerusalem church. He also notes that Pauline Christianity includes no thought of a literal temple and the cultic activities such as animal sacrifices, festivals, etc. So, it is difficult to understand how Downs can then argue that since Paul brought the collection not to the Jerusalem temple but to the Jerusalem church, in his collection scheme we cannot see the GEP meaning reflected (8–9). In fact, Paul refers to the church as the temple of God (1 Cor 3:16–17), and he does so obviously because he understands the church as the eschatological people of God in which God dwells through his Spirit (cf. 1 Cor 6:19; Deut 12:5, 11, 21; Ps 114:2; Zech 2:10–11; 1QS 5:5–6; 8:4–10; 9:3–6; etc.). So we can well imagine 21  The majority of the commentators take the genitive of the phrase προσφορὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν as appositional or epexegetic (the Gentiles are the offering). But the phrase needs to be seen as including also a reference to their gifts, the offering of which is the subject matter of the subsequent section (Rom 15:25–32). Cf. P. T. O’Brien, Gospel and Mission in the Writings of Paul: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 51: “The offering is the Gentiles themselves, epitomized by the material gifts brought by their representatives.”

368

Paul as an Eschatological Herald

that he regarded the Jerusalem church (ἡ ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ/‫קהל יהוה‬, Gal 1:13) as the temple of God in Zion that had been built upon the foundation of Christ, i. e., his eschatological sacrifice of atonement and covenant (cf. 1 Cor 3:11; 11:24–25; Rom 3:24–26). Then, in bringing the collection of the Gentiles to the Jerusalem church, Paul could well have thought of fulfilling one of the hopes of the GEP prophesies. In his references to the collection, Paul makes explicit only the purpose of providing relief for the poor Christians in Jerusalem (Rom 15:25–27; 2 Cor 8:4; 9:1, 12). No doubt that was the primary purpose. However, it is difficult to believe that for that purpose alone he made such great efforts for such a long period in the face of so much misunderstanding and conflict especially with the Corinthian church, some of which apparently were caused or aggravated by the Jewish Christian opponents of Paul who came into the Corinthian church from outside with some sort of connection with the Jerusalem church (cf. esp. 2 Cor 10–13). So there must have been some more serious purposes for the collection, such as the GEP and the ecumenical meanings. The reasons he does not make those meanings explicit could be explained by the fact that in all three passages of Rom 15:25–32; 1 Cor 16:1–4; 2 Cor 8–9 Paul is concerned about something else than explaining the meanings of the collection, as well as the fact that he is aware of the possible controversy that the two meanings could provoke in the minds of some Jewish Christian opponents of his Gentile mission, whereas an explicit reference to its relief purpose would not be controversial insofar as it was something for which there was not only a genuine need in the Jerusalem church, but also a specific request of her leaders themselves (Gal 2:10). However, Paul does not keep the two other purposes of the collection totally secret. Note what he says about the collection in 2 Cor 9:13–14: “Through the proof [δοκιμή] provided by this act of service, they [the Jerusalem church] will be glorifying God for the obedience consisting in your confession of the gospel of Christ, and for the genuineness of your sense of fellowship with them and with all. And in their prayer for you they will be longing for you because of the abundant grace of God bestowed on you.”22 Here Paul clearly suggests that the Jerusalem church would take the Corinthians’ collection to cover their wants (2 Cor 9:12) as a “proof” of the genuineness of the Corinthians’ fellowship with them and the Jerusalem church would long for them as well as pray for them. Thus he lays bare the ecumenical purpose of the collection. However, what is even more striking for us in Paul’s statement is that the Jerusalem church would take the collection as a “proof” of the Corinthians’ conversion to the gospel of Christ as well as of their having received the saving grace of God abundantly. It is surely reasonable to see Paul here reflecting the prophecy of some GEP texts 22  This translation is taken from M. E. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 2:563.

3. An Agent of the Eschaton

369

that the Gentiles who turn to the Lord and experience his salvation in the last days would come to Zion with their gifts.23 Thus 2 Cor 9:13–14 confirms that with the collection that he organized among his Gentile churches for the Jerusalem church Paul sought to realize the vision of the GEP. Thereby it also confirms our conclusion above that Paul understood himself as an agent of the GEP. Then, it is plausible to see his collection journey to Jerusalem (Rom 15:25–32) as an enactment of the GEP. In view of Paul’s remarks in 1 Cor 16:3–4; 2 Cor 8:17–23; 9:3–5, we need to assume that in that journey he took as companions not only some of his Gentile Christian coworkers like Titus but also a delegation of the representatives of the churches that participated in the collection scheme. But we do not know who or how many they were (in spite of the list in Acts 20:4–5 of Paul’s Gentile Christian companions from different cities and provinces). However, for Paul the size of the delegation would not have been so important, as he was enacting the GEP not in the literal sense of making all Gentile Christians stream to Zion but in the symbolic sense through their representatives, perhaps applying the firstfruits principle that he derived from Num 17:17–21 (Rom 11:16). In Rom 15:30–32 Paul expresses his apprehension about the threat that he foresees coming from the unbelieving Jews in Judea as well as about the possible rejection by the Jerusalem church of the gifts from the Gentile churches. But he does not give up the risky journey. He is determined to make it, even postponing his so long-desired trip to Rome (Rom 1:10–13; 15:22–25). Apparently, this man of dauntless faith and unflagging hope (cf. Rom 4:18–21; 5:5; 2 Cor 4:8–12) makes the dangerous journey, overcoming his apprehension by assuring himself with the hope that he expresses in 2 Cor 9:13–14: the Jerusalem church will welcome the Gentile churches’ delegation and gifts, seeing in their gifts the “proof” that they have genuinely turned to the Lord and received God’s saving grace in fulfillment of the GEP prophecy. Paul hopes that with the Jerusalem church thus recognizing the Scriptural prophecy of the GEP being fulfilled through his Gentile mission, he would then expound his gospel to them in the form that he has drafted in Romans,24 and thus turn them away from the increasing Judaizing tendency toward endorsing his Gentile mission wholeheartedly. In view of the troubles that he has so far had with the Judaizers disputing his gospel and Gentile mission, he would find that such a hope makes his risky journey to Jerusalem worthwhile. If that hope is realized, it would mark a very successful completion of his mission in the Eastern hemisphere of the oikoumenē (Rom 15:18–19), and

23 Cf. D. Georgi, Remembering the Poor: The History of Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem (Nashville: Abingdon, 1992), 106. 24  For the view that this is one of the purposes for Paul’s writing Romans, cf. the essays of T. W. Manson, G. Bornkamm, G. Klein, and J. Jervell in The Romans Debate (ed. K. P. Donfried; revised ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 3–64.

370

Paul as an Eschatological Herald

he would indeed be able to “come with joy” to Rome in order to embark on his mission in the Western hemisphere (Rom 15:22–24, 32). However, it is quite likely that by going up to Jerusalem with the Gentile delegation bearing their gifts Paul also reckons with making an impression on the unbelieving Jews as well. In Rom 11:13–14 he says: “… Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry, if somehow I might provoke my kinsfolk to jealousy and save some of them.” It was J. Munck who first, linking Paul’s collection journey with this passage, suggested that one of the purposes of Paul’s collection journey was to provoke the unbelieving Jews to jealousy for the Gentiles’ obtaining salvation, and thus to move some of them to obtain salvation themselves.25 In spite of some questionable elements in Munck’s argument, his basic thesis is sound. We must not forget that Paul writes those sentences of Rom 11:13–14 on the eve of his collection journey to Jerusalem. Nor should we ignore the fact that the collection journey clearly is an example of the ways Paul “glorifies” his apostolic ministry for the Gentiles (cf. Rom 15:15–29). Thus, it is natural to think that he writes Rom 11:13–14 in full consciousness of the probable effects of his impending collection journey on the unbelieving Jews as well as on the Jerusalem church. So, Paul hopes that through the demonstration of the Gentiles’ obtaining salvation and making the eschatological pilgrimage to Zion as prophesied in the Scriptures he would provoke the Jews to jealousy according to God’s way of working that he has apprehended from Deut 32:21 (cf. Rom 10:19; 11:11), and thus would prompt interest in the gospel and lead some of them eventually to come to salvation.26 Thus, it is clear that Paul sees his apostolic ministry for the Gentiles as an instrument for the salvation of Israel as well as the Gentiles. This fact agrees well with his self-understanding as an (or the) eschatological herald of the gospel of Christ as well as an (or the) agent of the Gentiles’ eschatological pilgrimage to Zion, which we have observed above. Now, since Paul says that he “has fully preached [πεπληρωκέναι] the gospel” in the Eastern hemisphere of the oikoumene (Rom 15:19), and he says this while preparing for his collection journey to Jerusalem in which he would offer to God his Gentile converts, the fruits of that mission, as a sacrifice, through their representatives (Rom 15:16, 25–32), we may ask the questions of whether he considers the task of bringing the portion of the Eastern hemisphere in the “full number [πλήρωμα] of the Gentiles” into the kingdom of God (Rom 11:25) as completed and whether he would consider the whole task of bringing in the “full number of the Gentiles” as accomplished when he successfully completes his planned mission in the Western hemisphere. 25 J. Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (Richmond: John Knox, 1959), 301–05; so also Georgi, Remembering the Poor, 118–19; K. F. Nickle, The Collection: A Study in Paul’s Strategy (London: SCM, 1966), 129–43. 26 Pace M. Baker, “Paul and the Salvation of Israel: Paul’s Ministry, the Motif of Jealousy, and Israel’s Yes,” CBQ 67 (2005): 474–77.

Conclusion

371

Answering these questions affirmatively would mean that Paul regards himself as the Gentiles’ apostle charged to bring the “full number of the Gentiles” into God’s kingdom. This then would mean that his apostleship for the Gentiles is the decisive instrument for the salvation of “all Israel” as well, indeed for the whole saving plan of God that he calls “the mystery” (τὸ μυστήριον, Rom 11:25–26). Paul may be expressing this understanding of the salvation-historical role of his apostleship when in Col 1:24–29 he speaks of his having become “a minister in accordance with God’s οἰκονομία … to fulfill [πληρῶσαι] the word of God, the mystery [τὸ μυστήριον] …” (cf. Eph 3:1–13). This line of inquiry would eventually lead us to the question whether in 2 Thess 2:6–7 by “that which restrains” (τὸ κατέχον) the revelation of “the man of lawlessness” that is to take place before the parousia of Christ, Paul refers to his mission of bringing the “full number of the Gentiles” into God’s kingdom, and therefore by “the one who restrains” (ὁ κατέχων) he refers to himself. Our treatment of the topic “Paul as an eschatological herald” would be complete only when all these difficult questions are properly discussed. However, there is no more space for it here.27

Conclusion I simply conclude this study with the following four affirmations: 1. As an apostle Paul understands himself as an eschatological herald of the gospel for the Gentiles and the Jews. 2. His message is the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is the good news of God’s saving reign through the Davidic Messiah, his Son, or of his justifying righteousness, that inaugurates the new age of salvation, bringing to an end the age of the evil forces. 3. As an apostle and eschatological herald, Paul understands himself as a decisive agent or instrument for God’s plan of salvation, and while working to realize God’s plan of salvation for the Gentiles through his gospel heralding, he also seeks to realize God’s plan of salvation for the Jews through his Gentile mission. 4. Paul develops such understanding of his gospel, his apostleship, and God’s plan of salvation by interpreting the Damascus revelation through the Scriptures, especially Isaiah.

27  See now Essay 13 “‘The Restraining Thing’ (τὸ  κατέχον) and ‘the Restraining Person’ (ὁ κατέχων),” above in this volume.

17. Paul the Pastor: His Preaching and Ministry* Preaching is a significant element – if not the most basic – of Christian ministry. The apostle Paul was a missionary who preached the gospel and planted churches at various cities of the east Mediterranean world. He was also a pastor, who ministered in those churches, in some of them briefly during the founding visits, but in others (e. g., Tarsus, Antioch, Ephesus, and Corinth) for more extended periods. Even while being physically away from the churches that he founded, he carried out his pastoral ministry with them by sending his associates such as Timothy and Titus as well as his letters to impart his further teaching and exhortations. The NT preserves several of such pastoral epistles, in which he explicitly or implicitly reminds the recipient churches of the gospel he preached to them, elaborates on his preaching with further teaching in relation to the issues and needs obtaining in their various situations, and makes other pastoral efforts for his churches. So Paul is the best, if not the only, example in the NT in whom we can observe how a preacher related his/her preaching to his/her pastoral ministry as a whole.

Part I. Paul’s Gospel and Apostleship Paul claims to have received his gospel and apostleship through the revelation of Christ Jesus the Son of God near Damascus (Gal 1:11–17; cf. Acts 9:1–22; 22:6–21; 26:12–18).

1. His Gospel Once he saw the crucified Jesus revealed as exalted to God’s side in the Damascus Christophany, Paul came to accept the primitive church’s preaching of Jesus as the Messiah, Lord, Son of God whom God sent for our salvation. Thus Paul * A slightly revised version of “Paul as a Preacher and Pastor” presented as a main paper at the meeting of the Asia-Pacific Early Christian Studies Society, which was held in Seoul, Korea, during July 5–6, 2012 under the overall conference theme “Preaching and Ministry in the Early Church.”

374

Paul the Pastor: His Preaching and Ministry

obtained the gospel, the good news of God’s eschatological redemption in Christ Jesus, and he began to preach it, summarizing it often in the formulae that he had received from his Christian predecessors (Rom 1:3–4; 3:24–26; 4:25; 1 Cor 15:3–5; 2 Cor 5:21; etc.),1 that is, in terms of Christ Jesus the Son of God, who was delivered up to death to atone for our sins and was raised up to be the universal Lord to reign on God’s behalf, and who will return for judgment and consummation of salvation in the kingdom of God. By preaching this gospel, Paul called his hearers to believe it and, so availing themselves of the salvation of God’s grace offered in it, become members of the justified or sanctified people of God’s kingdom, and to receive the Holy Spirit as the first-fruit and downpayment of their consummated salvation at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 8:23; 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5).

2. An Apostle and Pastor It does not require a lengthy argument to assert that Paul understood himself first and foremost as an apostle, a fully empowered envoy, sent by the Lord Jesus Christ to proclaim his gospel and bring the Gentiles as well as the Jews into God’s kingdom in which Christ reigns as God’s Son on behalf of God his Father (Rom 1:1–5; 15:7–12; 1 Cor 15:23–28; Col 1:13; 1 Thess 2:12; etc.). So, Paul understood himself primarily as a pioneering missionary whose main task was to proclaim the gospel and create the eschatological people of God, i. e., to “plant” a church or to “lay [its] foundation,” in different places through his itinerant missionary journeys, leaving the further work of upbuilding to other servants of God (1 Cor 3:5–10; also Rom 15:20). That is the reason why, at least during his worldwide mission, he apparently made it his normal policy not to stay at a place for long but to move on to another place as soon as he saw his pioneering task completed.2 Yet no matter how brief his stay may have been in any given city or town, he carried out his apostolic task with a pastor’s heart.3 1 Thessalonians illustrates this well. Apparently he stayed in Thessalonica during his mission there for no

1  Many scholars also regard passages such as Rom 8:3–4; Gal 4:4–5; Phil 2:6–11; Col 1:15–20; and 1 Thess 1:9–10 as pre-Pauline. 2 He was also often forced to move on by external circumstances such as persecution. His more extended periods of stay in Corinth (about 18 months, Acts 18:11) and in Ephesus (2–3 years, Acts 19:10; 20:31) during his worldwide mission were the exceptions. Cf. R. Riesner, Die Frühzeit des Apostels Paulus: Studien zur Chronologie, Missionsstrategie und Theologie (WUNT 71; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 186, 194. 3  Cf. J. W. Thompson, “Paul as Missionary Pastor,” in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice (LNTS. ed. T. J. Burke and B. S. Rosner; London: T&T Clark, 2011), 25–36.

2. An Apostle and Pastor

375

more than three months.4 During this brief period, he did his best to expound the gospel to his converts (1:9–10; 4:14; 5:9–10), to impart instructions concerning the Christian way of life (4:1–2), and to exhort for a life of faith, love, and hope (1:3) as well as one of sanctification in their pagan environment of idolatry and debauchery (4:1–8). Thus, in the epistle he reminds the Thessalonians of “how, like a father with his children, we exhorted (παρακαλοῦντες) each one of you and encouraged (παραμυθούμενοι) you and charged (μαρτυρόμενοι) you to lead a life worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory” (2:11–12).5 He carried out this pastoral ministry not only “like a father with his children” (cf. 1 Cor 4:14–15; Phlm 10; also 2 Cor 11:2; 12:14), but also “like a nurse taking care of her children” (2:7). In Gal 4:19, in order to illustrate his pastoral ministry for his erring converts in Galatia, he employs the imagery of a “mother” suffering birthpangs. In Rom 15:16, he describes his ministry as a “priestly service” (ἱερουργοῦντα) of offering to God the Gentiles as a sacrifice sanctified by the Holy Spirit. With these images, he effectively conveys the sense of his authority, responsibility, loving care, and sacrifice for his converts as their pastor. In his pastoral ministry in Thessalonica, he conducted himself in a “holy and righteous and blameless” way, and thereby he modeled the life of blameless sanctification that he was exhorting his converts to live as the citizens of God’s kingdom (2:3–6, 10–12; 3:12; 4:1–8; cf. Phil 1:27). Apparently, Paul thought that the three-month ministry in Thessalonica was not a long enough period to lay a sufficiently firm foundation of a church there (cf. 1 Thess 3:10). So after he was abruptly driven out of the city, he became so anxious about his converts’ continuing in the faith without being swayed by the pagan persecution that he made efforts to return to them again and again. But finding it impossible to come to their aid personally, he sent his associate Timothy “to establish [them] in [their] faith and to exhort [them], that no one be moved by these afflictions” (2:17–3:5). When Timothy returned with the good news of their faith and love (3:6), Paul was overjoyed, so that, giving thanks to God, he wrote this letter of 1 Thessalonians in order to consolidate their faith and provide them with further instructions about some eschatological questions that were troubling them, as well as further exhortations for a life of sanctification and of communal unity and discipline. Thus, even after leaving a church that he had founded, Paul was very much concerned for its continuing growth in faith and love, and so made efforts to provide it with further pastoral care by prayer, by personally revisiting, and by 4  Cf., e. g., Riesner, Die Frühzeit des Apostels Paulus, 323; A. J.  Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians (AB; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 61. 5  For his pastoral activities, along with the three verbs here, Paul also employs the verbs “beseech” (ἐρωτᾶν, 1 Thess 4:1; 5:12); “command” (παραγγέλειν, 1 Thess 4:2, 11); “forewarn” (προλέγειν, 1 Thess 4:6); “solemnly declare” (διαμαρτύρεσθαι, 1 Thess 4:6); and also “admonish” (νουθετεῖν, 1 Cor 4:14; Col 1:28).

376

Paul the Pastor: His Preaching and Ministry

sending his associate(s) and letter(s). This pattern of pastoral care shown to the Thessalonian church was repeated with the Corinthian church – over a much longer period in which he paid the church two personal revisits (1 Cor 4:19; 2 Cor 1:15–16), and sent Timothy (1 Cor 4:17; 16:10) and Titus (2 Cor 7:6–7), as well as several pastoral letters (1 Cor 5:9–11; 2 Cor 7:8; etc.) in order to correct their errors, impart more instructions about their queries, and issue strong exhortations for a sanctified life as well as for the unity and health of the church. From the examples of 1 Thessalonians and the Corinthian correspondence, Paul clearly emerges as a pastor who bears “the daily pressure of anxiety for all the churches” (2 Cor 11:28). This pressure of anxiety led him to write also such desperate letters as Galatians and 2 Corinthians and such affirmative letters as 1 Thessalonians and Philippians. Thus, individually in their own distinctive ways, all his letters, including Romans, which he sent to a church not founded by him, are pastoral letters. Through all these pastoral efforts, Paul sought to form and build up the communities of the believers in the gospel as the people of God’s kingdom who live a life “worthy of God” or “worthy of the gospel of Christ” (1 Thess 2:12: Phil 1:27; cf. also Phil 1:27 + 3:20; Rom 14:17), a life that is marked by faith, love, and hope (1 Cor 13:13; 1 Thess 1:3; 3:13; 4:9–12; 5:8–9; cf. also 2 Thess 1:3–4), so that at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ he might present them to God as a sacrifice of blameless sanctification (Rom 15:16; Phil 2:15–16; 1 Thess 3:13; 5:23; cf. also 1 Cor 1:8–9; Phil 1:6, 9–11), or to Christ “as a pure virgin” (2 Cor 11:2). For these pastoral aims, Paul teaches and exhorts Christians to grow in the process of transformation into the image of Christ/God with a view to its consummation at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 12:1–2; 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18; Gal 4:19; Phil 3:20–21; Col 3:10; etc.), or to “put off” the old Adamic humanity and “put on” Christ or the new humanity (Rom 13:12–13; 1 Cor 15:44–45; Gal 3:37; Col 3:9–11; cf. also Eph 4:22–25).6 By God’s grace (1 Cor 15:10), or with the help of the Holy Spirit (Rom 15:18– 19), Paul hopes to complete his pastoral ministry successfully, so that at the last judgment he may receive his “reward” (1 Cor 3:14; 9:18), his “crown” (Phil 4:1; 1 Thess 2:19–20), which is not an additional gift on top of salvation, but rather his churches being revealed shining gloriously as churches of blameless sanctification (Phil 1:10–11; 2:15–16; 1 Thess 3:13; 1 Cor 1:8), with which his salvation would be consummated.7

6 J. W. Thompson, Pastoral Ministry according to Paul: A Biblical Vision (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), esp. 20–23, 59. 7  See Essay 8 “The Thessalonian Church as Paul’s ‘hope or joy or crown of boasting’ (1 Thess 2:19–20)” in this volume. Cf. also S. H. Travis, Christ and the Judgment of God: The Limits of Divine Retribution in NT Thought (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 22008), 172–73.

3. His Preaching with Pastoral Applications of the Gospel

377

3. His Preaching with Pastoral Applications of the Gospel Here we cannot discuss the complex question of coherence and contingency in Paul’s theology,8 but are to make a few simple observations of how Paul preaches, making pastoral applications of the gospel to the diverse needs or problems of his different churches. In 1 Thessalonians, Paul apparently does not see any need to expound his gospel in any detail. So he concentrates on encouraging the readers to stand firm in their new faith in Christ Jesus and exhorting them to live a life of sanctification with the hope for the consummation of their salvation at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, addressing their grief and anxiety arising out of two questions concerning eschatology, Paul refers to the familiar kerygmatic formula of the gospel of Jesus’ death and resurrection. In order to assure the Thessalonians about the fate of their fellow believers who died before the parousia of the Lord (4:13–18), Paul teaches them to see that if they truly believe in the gospel of Jesus’ death and resurrection, they should rest assured that God who raised Jesus from the dead “likewise will bring through Jesus those who have fallen asleep” (4:14). And in order to allay their anxiety about the date of the parousia (5:1–11), Paul expounds God’s salvific intent that is implied in the fundamental gospel of Jesus’ vicarious death for us (5:9–10). Thus, by teaching the Thessalonians to appreciate properly the implications of the heart of the gospel, namely, Christ Jesus’ death and resurrection, he both reassures them to have a positive eschatological hope and exhorts them to live a sober and disciplined life in anticipation of the parousia of the Lord.9 In Philippians, Paul is concerned about the church being internally divided while facing outside pressures and persecution. So, again, Paul meets their needs by making the readers appreciate properly the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection. On the one hand, by citing a hymn that movingly depicts Christ’s self-emptying, humiliation, and suffering on the cross (2:6–8; 3:10), Paul exhorts the readers to give up self-seeking, humble themselves, and love others in imitation of Christ in order to achieve unity in the church (2:1–5, 12–30; 4:1–2). On the other hand, by highlighting the crucified Christ Jesus’ exaltation to the universal lordship (2:9–11) and his “power of resurrection” (3:10) or his “power that enables him even to subject all things to himself” (3:20–21), Paul reassures the readers of their ultimate victory through their Lord over the evil forces that  8  Cf. J. C. Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (first paperback edition; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); also Thompson, Pastoral Ministry, who sees the coherence of Paul’s letters in terms of his ministry of shaping the church’s transformation, which is expressed in diverse ways according to the contingency of the congregations to which he sent his letters. 9 Cf. S. Kim, “Jesus Tradition in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11,” NTS 48 (2002): 225–42 (now reprinted as Essay 6 in this volume).

378

Paul the Pastor: His Preaching and Ministry

persecute them now. Holding fast this eschatological hope, the readers are to “stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel” against their opponents, who belong to this world, which is destined to destruction (cf. 3:18–19; 1 Cor 7:31; 15:24). Paul teaches them that this is “the manner of [the communal] life worthy of the gospel of Christ” or of the citizens of God’s kingdom (1:27–28; 3:20–21). Faced with various problems in the Corinthian church, Paul preaches to the believers in that city through his letters, applying the gospel to their problems. We may briefly observe three examples in 1 Corinthians that especially clearly illustrate this point. In 1 Cor 1–4, Paul first deals with internal division in the church. He sees the root cause of the problem in their misunderstanding of the gospel and the spiritual gifts in terms of Hellenistic wisdom/knowledge and rhetorical power. With this misunderstanding, they apparently competed in boasting of these newly acquired gifts in the Hellenistic manner, and this competitive spirit led them to form rival groups, each appealing to its favorite teacher, Paul, Apollos, and Peter, and even to Christ (1:12). Against such aberration, Paul expounds the paradox of the gospel of the crucified Christ being foolishness and weakness to the world and yet the wisdom and power of God to the believers, which destroys the wisdom of the world and nullifies all worldly boasting. Thus Paul corrects the Corinthians’ worldly worldview as well as their worldly estimate of God’s servants. In 1 Cor 8–10, Paul deals with the question about food offered to idols that the Corinthians raised in their letter to him. Seeing its gravity for Christians in a pagan environment and its divisive character within the church, Paul delivers a lengthy, carefully balanced pastoral sermon about it over three chapters (cf. Rom 14:1–15:13). He starts his teaching by laying down the norm whereby the readers are to seek the solution to their question. It is not knowledge that the knowledge-boasters in Corinth tout, but rather the double love command – love of God and love of neighbor (8:2–3). Paul underscores the decisive importance of this norm by exhorting the readers, in the conclusion section of the sermon, to do all things to glorify God and not to offend anybody but to please all people (10:31–33), thus forming an inclusio with his introduction.10 Certainly it is important for Christians to have knowledge that God is one and that the so-called gods and lords to whom the pagans sacrifice foods are no real God but mere idols, and therefore that Christians have freedom to eat foods sold in the market or offered in the pagan neighbor’s home even if the foods offered in those places might have been prepared through the ritual process of offering to pagan gods 10 For more details on the inclusio between 1 Cor 8:2–3 and 10:31–33 and Paul’s exhortations concerning food offered to idols according to the double command of love, see S. Kim, “Imitatio Christi (1 Corinthians 11:1): How Paul Imitates Jesus Christ in Dealing with Idol Food (1 Corinthians 8–10),” BBR 13 (2003): 193–226 (now reprinted as Essay 15 in this volume).

3. His Preaching with Pastoral Applications of the Gospel

379

(8:4–7; 10:25–27). But the Christian shema11 cited in 8:6 makes it clear that we exist for God, the Father, the creator. Therefore, the proper knowledge of the one real God involves the duty, on the one hand, to live for his glory (10:31) and therefore not to provoke him to jealousy with idolatry as the Exodus generation did (10:14, 22), and, on the other hand, to love our neighbors in obedience to “the law of God” or “the law of Christ” as Paul himself does (9:19–22; 10:33; cf. Gal 5:14; 6:2; Rom 13:8–10), and therefore to refrain from offending the “weak” brethren by an indiscriminate use of our freedom to eat meat offered to idols (8:7–13; 10:28–30, 32–33; cf. also 9:20, 22). 1 Thess 1:5–6, 9–10 suggests that proclamation of the one “living and true God” with the concomitant demand for conversion from idols was an essential element in Paul’s gospel preaching. Needless to say, it was only to be expected from a Jewish Christian preacher in the Hellenistic world. So here in 1 Cor 8–10 we can see that Paul is applying that element of the gospel pastorally to the problem that his Corinthian converts are facing, namely, the question of eating food offered to idols. Now the Christian shema confesses the Lord Jesus Christ as the agent of God, the Father, in creation and redemption. Paul unfolds this truth or at least the dimension of Christ being the agent of God’s redemptive work later in the same epistle in terms of Christ Jesus, God’s Son, reigning on behalf of God the Father and exercising his kingly power in subjugating all the evil forces (1 Cor 15:23–28). So, it is possible that in 1 Cor 8:6 and throughout 1 Cor 8–10 Paul is conscious of the kingdom of God, the keyword of Jesus’ gospel, as he is in the parallel passage of Rom 14–15 (see esp. Rom 14:17–20). This possibility is strengthened by the fact that in 1 Cor 8–10 Paul speaks of his imitation of Christ (11:1) and echoes several sayings of Jesus (e. g., the ransom saying of Mark 10:45 [and par.] in 1 Cor 9:19, 22 and 10:33; the stumbling-block saying of Mark 9:42–50 [and parr.] in 1 Cor 8:13; 10:32; also in Rom 14:13, 20–21; the double love command of Mark 12:28–31 [and parr.] in 1 Cor 8:2–3; 9:19–22; 10:31–33, etc.).12 It is because Jesus Christ, the bearer of God’s kingdom, summarized the whole law in terms of the double command of love for God and neighbor that Christians must obey that “law of God/Christ” even in the matter of eating idol food.13 It is striking that in exhorting the knowledge-boasters not to cause the 11 For the interpretation of 1 Cor 8:6 as Paul’s Christian interpretation of the shema of Deut 6:4, see N. T. Wright, “Monotheism, Christology and Ethics: 1 Corinthians 8,” in The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 120–36. 12  See Kim, “Imitatio Christi,” 326–35 above. Jesus’ ruling about food/purity in Mark 7:15, 19 (cf. Matt 15:11) is also reflected here, while it is echoed in Rom 14:14, 20. See n. 53 below. 13 It is for the same reason that Paul says that he is “not under the law (of Moses)” in 1 Cor 9:20, and is able to allow Christians much more freedom in eating idol food than the Jewish halakhic tradition allows (see Kim, “Imitatio Christi,” 340–45 above; contra P. J.  Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles [CRINT; Assen/­ Mastricht: Van Gorcum/Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990], 189–220).

380

Paul the Pastor: His Preaching and Ministry

“weak” persons to stumble, Paul defines the latter as “the brother[s] for whom Christ died” (8:11; also Rom 14:15), clearly suggesting that we should look at our neighbors from the perspective of the gospel of Christ’s vicarious death for all humankind. Thus, Paul’s pastoral response to the Corinthians’ question about idol foods in 1 Cor 8–10 reflects his comprehensive application of his gospel. In 1 Corinthians 15, faced with some deniers of resurrection (15:12), Paul delivers a sermon on resurrection in order to strengthen the Corinthians’ resurrection hope. As can be expected, he starts his sermon with a strong affirmation of the resurrection of Christ by citing his original gospel that he preached to them, and appending to it his list of witnesses to Christ’s resurrection as well as his own testimony (15:3–8). Then, setting forth various arguments for belief in resurrection, Paul expounds the significance of Christ’s resurrection in the framework of Adam–Christ (the end-time Adam) antithesis (15:20–28, 42–50) and concludes his sermon by presenting the glorious resurrection hope for Christians (15:50–57). Galatians presents another, if not the most obvious, example of Paul’s making pastoral applications of the gospel to the needs or problems of his churches. In the epistle, Paul seeks to restore his Galatian converts to “the truth of the gospel” (2:5, 14; 4:16; cf. also 1:6–9), as they are being swayed by the Judaizers who persuade them to be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law. For that purpose, Paul repeatedly refers to God’s redemption through Christ’s vicarious death on the cross (1:3–4; 2:20–21; 3:1, 13; 4:4–5; 6:14), stresses faith as the means of appropriating that redemption (2:18–3:19; 5:2–6; etc.), and exhorts the readers to live by the Holy Spirit, whom they received when they came to believe in Christ (3:1–5; 4:6; 5:5, 16–25; 6:8; etc.). In order to stress the sola gratia/sola fide character of salvation in Christ over against the demand for the works of the law, in Galatians (as later also in Romans) Paul utilizes especially the category of justification for salvation in Christ, whereas in the Thessalonian and Corinthian correspondence he only implicitly alludes to it, as there is no such demand for the works of the law in the churches of Thessalonica and Corinth (cf. 1 Thess 1:10; 3:13; 4:6; 5:9– 10; 1 Cor 1:8; 3:13–15; 4:4–5; 6:11; 2 Cor 5:10; etc.). The gospel of salvation by God’s grace in Christ and its appropriation through faith nullifies any elitism of one group of human beings and discrimination of another group on the basis of human distinctions. So, in Gal 3:23–28, affirming that all human beings, both Jews and Gentiles, become children of God when they are united with Christ through faith-baptism, Paul declares: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”14 In this way, in Galatians, Paul applies 14  As well known, this aspect or significance of Paul’s doctrine of justification has recently been greatly highlighted by the advocates of the New Perspective on Paul, but even within the framework of the old perspective it had already been properly appreciated by N. A. Dahl, “The

3. His Preaching with Pastoral Applications of the Gospel

381

the gospel of justification by grace and through faith to combating the Jewish elitism on the basis of their works of the law and to legitimizing his Gentile converts without the works of the law as God’s people who have proleptically been acquitted of their sins and restored to the right relationship to God. In 1 Cor 1–4 he applies the same gospel to correcting the Hellenistic elitism of the Corinthian Christians who boast of their wisdom and knowledge. When he provides his pastoral counseling on the questions of the conjugal life and divorce in 1 Cor 7:1–16 on the basis of the principle of gender equality and reciprocity – which is remarkable for the ancient world – no doubt he is extending his pastoral application of the gospel to the gender relationship. His allowance for women to pray or preach in public worship service, so long as they cover their head with a veil (1 Cor 11:2–16), also reflects the same pastoral application of the gospel. The same is to be said also about his conception of a believing slave as a “freed person of the Lord” and a believing master as a “slave of Christ” (1 Cor 7:21–22) and about his exhortation for Philemon to receive his runaway slave Onesimus back as a “beloved brother” (Phlm 16) and for the well-to-do members of the Corinthian church to be considerate of their less fortunate brethren at the Lord’s table (1 Cor 11:17–22, 33–34). All these examples impressively demonstrate how consistently Paul pastorally applies the implications of the gospel to various aspects of the life of his converts, thereby building up the church as an eschatological community that overcomes the divisions and injustices of this world. No doubt, at least by the time of launching his worldwide mission, if not long before that time, Paul had a well-thought-out core of his gospel or theology, which he applied to the needs of given situations, expanding some aspects of it or abbreviating or even omitting some other aspects according to the needs. Then, such a process of pastoral and therefore contextual application, in turn, led him to “develop” his theology in the sense of making him think his theology through further in breadth as well as in depth in relation to various specific issues and to articulate it more clearly and specifically. So his pastoral application of the gospel helped him develop his theology. We ascertain his theology from studying his letters, which reflect various pastoral applications of his gospel to his diverse pastoral contexts and needs. So his theology cannot help but be designated as contextual and pastoral.

Doctrine of Justification: Its Social Function and Implications,” in Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977), 108–10, 118–20 (originally in Norsk Theologisk Tidsskrift 65 [1964]).

382

Paul the Pastor: His Preaching and Ministry

Part II: Pastoral Practices in Conformity to the Gospel In order to build up his churches as communities living “worthily of the gospel of Christ” (Phil 1:27) or as the people of God’s kingdom (1 Thess 2:12), Paul himself must be an example of such living and carry out his pastoral work accordingly. Thus we can see his way of life and ministry consciously reflecting the gospel of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection.

1. Preaching the Gospel of Christ Crucified The Christ Jesus whom Paul preaches is the one who sacrificed himself in service of humankind or God’s people (Rom 15:7–8; 2 Cor 8:9; Gal 2:20; Phil 2:6–11). How much Paul appreciates this truth is suggested by his repeated echo of Jesus’ ransom saying in Mark 10:45/Matt 20:28: “For the Son of Man also came not to be served but to serve and give his life as ransom for many (διακονῆσαι καὶ δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν)” (1 Cor 9:19–22; 10:33; Gal 1:4; 2:20; 1 Thess 2:6–8; cf. also 1 Tim 2:5–6; Tit 2:18–19).15 As an apostle or fully empowered agent of Christ (2 Cor 5:20; Gal 4:14), Paul is to represent (Rom 15:18; 2 Cor 3:13) or “portray” (cf. Gal 3:1) this Christ, the servant (διάκονος, Rom 15:8; δοῦλος, Phil 2:7). He does it not only through his verbal description, but also through his own life and ministry in order to make his verbal representation effective. Hence, while echoing the ransom saying of Jesus to depict the self-sacrificing service of Christ (Gal 1:4; 2:20), Paul also echoes it to portray his own ministry (1 Cor 9:19–22; 10:33; 1 Thess 2:6–8), which is in imitation of Christ (1 Cor 11:1). In 1 Cor 9:19–22 and 1 Thess 2:6–8, the allusions to the ransom saying take place in the contexts of explaining his apostolic stance of forsaking payment from the church and working to support himself (1 Cor 9:15–18; 1 Thess 2:5–6, 9–10). This clearly suggests that Paul adopted such self-sacrificing stance under the inspiration of that saying of Jesus. Thus, cherishing the ransom saying, Paul seeks to illustrate through his own sacrificial service the sacrificial service of Jesus Christ, which he preaches. From this, it is well understandable how Paul designates himself as a “servant” or “slave,” not only of God and the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 4:1; Gal 15  For 1 Cor 9:19–22 and 10:33, see Kim, “Imitatio Christi,” 326–27 above. For 1 Thess 2:6–8, see Essay 5.1 (pp. 152–55) including the table of parallels between the passage and Mark 10:35–45. Cf. also R. Riesner, “Back to the Historical Jesus through Paul and His School (The Ransom Logion – Mark 10:45; Matthew 20.8),” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 1 (2003): 171–99, who considers Col 1:13–14; Phil 2:7; Rom 5:15; Gal 2:17 (together with 2:20); 3:13; 4:5; Rom 15:8–9 and some others also as possible echoes. It is quite probable that the sending formulae in Rom 8:3–4 (within the context of Rom 7:24–8:4) and Gal 4:4–5 (together with 3:13) also contain echoes of the ransom saying.

1. Preaching the Gospel of Christ Crucified

383

1:10; Phil 1:1; etc.), but also of his converts (1 Cor 3:5; 9:19; 2 Cor 4:5), and how he refers to his work as διακονία, again, not only of God and the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 11:13; 2 Cor 4:1; 5:18; 6:3), but also of God’s people (Rom 15:25, 31; 2 Cor 11:8). In fact, διακονία/διάκονος is the characteristic term that Paul employs for other Christians’ work and office in the church, as well (1 Cor 3:5; 12:4–11; 16:15; 2 Cor 8:4; 9:1, 12–13; Col 4:17; 1 Thess 3:2; etc.). Since he designates even apostles’ office and work as διακονία/διάκονος (1 Cor 3:5), it is quite likely that he likewise regards the other functions and offices in the church (1 Cor 12:28; cf. Eph 4:11–12), including the office and work of ἐπίσκοπος in Philippi (Phil 1:1; cf. προϊστάμενος, Rom 12:8; 1 Thess 5:12). We can appreciate the significance of such a conception all the more if we bear in mind the fact that, with its root meaning “to wait at the table,” the word διακονεῖν generally carried for the Greeks the undertone of a disdained function of a person of an inferior position, as well as the fact that it is not used in the LXX.16 So Paul’s choice of the διακονία/διάκονος language for Christian ministry shows how much he is conscious that all Christians must carry out Christian ministry in conformity to the gospel of Christ, the servant, in order to build up the church as a true representation of God’s kingdom on earth, an alternative society to the world (cf. Mark 10:41–45 and parr.).17 So, as a “slave” in service of his converts (1 Cor 9:19; 2 Cor 4:5), Paul (and his colleagues) is (/are) ready to “share (μεταδοῦναι) with [them] not only the gospel of God but also [his/their] own lives (τὰς ἑαυτῶν ψυχάς), because [they] ha[ve] become very dear to [him/them]” (1 Thess 2:8), or to “spend most gladly and be spent for [their] souls” (2 Cor 12:14–15). For his pastoral ministry, he uses the imagery of father, mother (Gal 4:19), and nurse (1 Thess 2:7), as well as servant and slave. But even while exercising his fatherly authority in “exhorting,” “encouraging,” and “charging” his converts to live a sanctified life as God’s people (1 Thess 2:11–12; 1 Cor 4:14–21; 2 Cor 10:1–8), he does not become authoritarian (2 Cor 1:24; 10:1–2; 1 Thess 2:7–8) nor seek to be served (2 Cor 12:14), but serves his “children” in the most self-sacrificing way (2 Cor 11:7–9, 20–21; 12:14–17; 1 Thess 2:5–6, 9–10). For Paul, Christ’s death on the cross is the focal point of his service for humankind. Hence Christ as crucified occupies the center of Paul’s “portrayal” of him (Gal 3:1). His preaching of the gospel is so concentrated on Christ crucified (1 Cor 2:2) that he can refer to it simply as “the word of the cross” (1 Cor 1:18) and the opponents to his gospel as “the enemies of the cross of Christ” (Phil 3:18). But, again, Paul portrays Christ crucified not by word only but also by his own life and pastoral conduct. As by faith he “ha[s] been crucified with Christ,” so that “it is no longer [he] who lives, but Christ who lives in [him]”  Cf. H. W. Beyer, διακονέω, TDNT 2:81–83; K. Hess, διακονέω, NIDNTT 3:545. E. Schweizer, “Ministry in the Early Church,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 4:835–36. 16

17 Cf.

384

Paul the Pastor: His Preaching and Ministry

(Gal 2:20), he actualizes in his ministry what has happened in faith, by “always carrying in the body the dying of Jesus” (2 Cor 4:10) or “sharing his sufferings, conforming to his death” (Phil 3:10). He does this by carrying out his missionary and pastoral ministry in extreme deprivation and suffering (see the catalogues of hardship: 1 Cor 4:8–12; 2 Cor 4:7–12; 6:4–10; 11:23–29, 10; etc.).18 Christian Wolff observes parallels between Jesus and Paul in deprivation, renunciation of marriage, humble service, and suffering persecution, and he understands them in terms of Paul’s “following” (ἀκολουθεῖν) of Jesus in the post-Easter situation (although he was not a “disciple” of the historical Jesus).19 Michael J. Gorman also stresses the parallelism between Christ’s kenotic incarnation and cruciform servanthood (Phil 2:6–8 – both “although” and “because” he was “in the form of God;” cf. also 2 Cor 8:9) and Paul’s kenotic and cruciform apostolic existence (1 Thess 2:6–8; 1 Cor 9:19–22 – both “although” and “because” he was an apostle who could claim to his rights and was free), and appreciates Paul’s “imitation” or conformity to Christ (1 Cor 11:1).20 And from Phil 1:27–4:3, James W. Thompson observes how Paul uses the story of Christ’s self-emptying and his own example and that of his associates Timothy and Epaphroditus of living a transformed life of self-sacrifice after Christ’s model, in exhorting the Philippian Christians likewise to live a transformed life of self-sacrifice and build up a community of love and unity.21 Thus, Paul carries out his apostolic mission and pastoral task “worthily of the gospel of Christ” or in conformity to the gospel that he preaches, in order to build up his church as a sanctified community of the citizens of the heavenly kingdom of God on earth, who “live worthily of the gospel of Christ” (Phil 1:27; 1 Thess 2:12).

2. Preaching the Gospel of God’s Grace (a) Preaching the Gospel of Grace gratis In 1 Cor 9:1–14, Paul lists a series of reasons, climaxing with a reference to the Lord Jesus’ “command” (Matt 10:10//Luke 10:7), why, as an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, he has the right to receive financial support from the churches he serves. But in a striking reversal in 9:15–18, Paul declares that he does not make 18  Cf. S. C. Barton, “Paul as Missionary and Pastor,” in The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul (ed. J. G. D. Dunn; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 36, 42. 19  C. Wolff, “Humility and Self-Denial in Jesus’ Life and Message and in the Apostolic Existence of Paul,” in Paul and Jesus: Collected Essays (JSNTS; ed. A. J. M. Wedderburn; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 145–60. 20  M. J. Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 22–27. 21 Thompson, Pastoral Ministry, 46–53.

2. Preaching the Gospel of God’s Grace

385

use of the right, but rather preaches the gospel free of charge. Therefore, at least during his mission in Thessalonica and Corinth,22 he earned his living with his own hard labor rather than requiring his converts in those cities to pay for his upkeep (1 Thess 2:9; 1 Cor 4:12; 2 Cor 6:5; 11:7). Why did he decide on that policy, even in formal disobedience to the Lord Jesus’ “command”? Paul’s contrast in 1 Thess 2:1–11 of his missionary practices with those of charlatan philosophers helps us answer this question. There Paul rehearses his missionary “entry” (εἴσοδος) into Thessalonica and says that his preaching “[did] not spring from error or uncleanness, nor [was] it made with guile” and that he never used “words of flattery” as a “cloak for greed,” “nor sought glory from human beings” or “made demands as apostles of Christ.” Through a comparison of this Thessalonians passage with Dio Chrysostom’s Oration to the Alexan­drians (esp. 32), Abraham J. Malherbe has demonstrated that the vices from which Paul distances himself are those of the charlatan philosophers that Dio criticizes.23 Bruce W. Winter argues that the charlatans who were criticized as seeking money, reputation, and praise by means of flattery and other deceptive rhetorical tricks were really wandering Sophists.24 According to Winter, in the first century the Sophists made an “entry” (εἴσοδος) to a city according to a well-established “entry” convention.25 Paul’s use of εἴσοδος as a quasi-technical term in 1 Thess 1:9; 2:1 and his subsequent description of his “entry” in Thessalonica (2:2–12) suggest that he is contrasting his εἴσοδος with that of the Sophists, as there he denies the vices often attributed to the Sophists and claims the contrary virtues for himself (cf. also Paul’s description of his εἴσοδος in Corinth in 1 Cor 2:1–5; 3:1–2).26 This view is supported by the extensive parallels between 1 Thess 2:1–11, on the one hand, and 2 Cor 1–7 and 10–13, on the other, that I have ascertained elsewhere.27 All this means that Paul deliberately took up an anti-Sophistic εἴσοδος to Thessalonica and Corinth.28

22  Paul received financial assistance from the Philippian church (Phil 1:5; 4:15–16, 18; cf. also 2 Cor 11:9). Cf. S. Walton, “Paul, Patronage and Pay: What Do We Know about the Apostle’s Financial Support?” in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice (LNTS; ed. T. J. Burke and B. S. Rosner; London: T&T Clark, 2011), 220–33. 23  A. J. Malherbe “‘Gentle as a Nurse’: The Cynic Background to 1 Thess ii,” NovT 12 (1970): 203–17, develops the suggestion first made by M. Dibelius, An die Thessalonicher I. II (HNT 11; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1937), 7–11. 24  B. W. Winter, “‘The Entries and Ethics of the Orators and Paul (1 Thess 2.1–12),” TynBul 44 (1993): 54–74; cf. C. vom Brocke, Thessaloniki – Stadt des Kasander und Gemeinde des Paulus (WUNT 2/125; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 143–51. 25  Winter, “Entries,” 57–60. 26 Ibid., 67–68. 27 S. Kim, “Paul’s Entry (εἴσοδος) and the Thessalonians’ Faith (1 Thess 1–3),” NTS 51 (2005): 533–37 (now incorporated into Essay 1 “The Structure and Function of 1 Thessalonians 1–3” in this volume, 25–29). 28 Winter, “Entries,” 68–70.

386

Paul the Pastor: His Preaching and Ministry

This practice was absolutely necessary for Paul as he had to distinguish himself as a genuine envoy of the one true and living God (1 Thess 1:9) from the wandering Sophists and charlatan philosophers in those cities in order to distinguish his message as the gospel of that God (“the word of God,” 1 Thess 2:13) from their human doctrines (“the word of human beings,” 1 Thess 2:13) that sprang from error and impure motives (1 Thess 2:3).29 For his message, the gospel, stands or falls with his integrity as its preacher. With him disparaged as one of the wandering charlatan preachers, his gospel would be disparaged as a false doctrine designed to trick its hearers for money.30 Some Thessalonians appreciated Paul’s anti-Sophistic εἴσοδος and so came to accept his message as “the word of God,”31 but their pagan compatriots persecuted them for their conversion to the Christian faith (1 Thess 2:13–14) and continued to dissuade them from their new Christian faith by slandering Paul’s mission à la the Sophistic trickery (1 Thess 2:17–3:5).32 Therefore, being anxious that the still young Christians might succumb to such a slander campaign, Paul rehearses in 1 Thess 2:1–12 the “anti-Sophistic” entry he made into Thessalonica, in order to consolidate the Thessalonian Christians’ positive appreciation of it (1 Thess 3:6).33 This reading of the evidence of 1 Thessalonians clearly shows how anxious Paul was to distinguish himself and his gospel from the wandering charlatan philosophers and their messages in the Hellenistic cities. For such differentiation, it was essential that Paul preached the gospel free of charge, in contradistinction from the itinerant charlatan philosophers who delivered their lectures and collected money from their audience or pupils. Thereby he could demonstrate not only that his message was truth and not a sham hiding an impure financial motive, but more importantly that it was a true gospel of God’s grace, a free gift. In order to preach the gospel effectively, preventing its being dumped as one of those Cynic or Sophistic doctrines of the happy or successful life, Paul had to demonstrate the “grace” character of the gospel by preaching it gratis.34 Apparently Paul thought that this was the way of true obedience to the Lord’s “command,” to its intent or spirit, though not to its letter.35 It is likely that Paul  Cf. Walton, “Paul, Patronage and Pay,” 223–25. T. Holtz, Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher (EKKNT 13; Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1986; 21990), 94. 31  Note how Paul connects the success of the gospel or the faith of the Thessalonians with his εἴσοδος five times (1:5; 1:9–10; 2:1, 13; 3:6). For the significance of this, see Kim, “Paul’s Entry,” 519–42 (Essay 1, 9–34 in this volume). 32  Holtz, Thessalonicher, 93–94. 33 See Kim, “Paul’s Entry,” 533-34 (Essay 1, 25–34 in this volume). 34 Cf. G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 421. 35  Cf. S. Kim, “Jesus, Sayings of,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 475; D. Horrell, “‘The Lord commanded … But I have not used’: Exegetical 29

30 Cf.

2. Preaching the Gospel of God’s Grace

387

understood that in the Galilean and Judean settings where Jesus could expect some supporters of his kingdom of God movement to welcome his itinerant disciples into their homes during their mission in their towns,36 Jesus gave his disciples that command in order to help them concentrate on preaching the gospel with such financial assistance without diverting themselves to securing their living.37 So Paul understood that the intent of Jesus’ command was effective preaching of the gospel, rather than creation of a new priestly class. Then, apparently Paul found that a literal obedience to Jesus’ command in his different missionary settings would not facilitate but impede his gospel preaching (cf. 1 Cor 9:12) and thus sabotage the intent of that command. Hence he decided on his policy of preaching the gospel free of charge, earning his living by his own labor, in order to obey the intent of the Lord’s command, namely, effective preaching of the gospel. (b) Preaching the Gospel of God’s Grace without Human or Worldly Hilfsmittel (Auxiliary Means) Paul’s refusal to employ human or worldly Hilfsmittel in his preaching is another aspect of his pastoral work in conformity to the gospel of God’s grace. In the course of his debate with the Corinthians who have been influenced by their Hellenistic environment and probably also by the false teachers to estimate wisdom/knowledge (1 Cor 1–4), rhetorical skills (1 Cor 2:1–5; 2 Cor 10:10; 11:6), physical appearance with an air of authority (2 Cor 10:1, 8–10; 11:18, 20), positive self-projection through boasting of one’s pedigree, connection, or other points of perceived superiority (2 Cor 10:12, 18; 11:4–6, 12, 18–23; 12:11), letters of recommendation (2 Cor 3:1), spiritual experiences (2 Cor 12:1–4), etc., Paul makes it clear that he does not employ these “fleshly weapons” for his ministry (2 Cor 10:4). For if he relies on these human means in his preaching ministry, what his audience will get from his preaching is Paul himself, the mere human being or his fleshly wisdom and power, and not Christ Jesus, the wisdom and power of God (1 Cor 1:18–24; 2:5; 2 Cor 4:5–6). Then his preaching will be empty of God’s saving wisdom and power. Paul refrains to boast even of his experiences of visions and revelations through the Spirit, lest he, instead of Christ, should become the center of his hearers’ attention (2 Cor 12:1–8). So, knowing that he “has this treasure [of Christ] in earthen vessels [of his human weaknesses], in order to show that the transcendent power is of God and not of [himself]” and Hermeneutical Reflections on 1 Cor. 9.14–15,” NTS 43 (1997): 600. 36  Cf. G. Lohfink, Wie hat Jesus Gemeinde gewollt? Zur gesellschaftlichen Dimension des christlichen Glaubens (Freiburg: Herder, 1982), 67–68; also G. Theissen, “Legitimation und Lebensunterhalt: Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie urchristlicher Missionare,” in Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums (WUNT 19; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), 207–08 (originally in NTS 21 [1974/75]). 37 Cf. D. A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13 (WBC; Dallas: Word Books, 1993), 272.

388

Paul the Pastor: His Preaching and Ministry

(2 Cor 4:7), he rather “boast[s] of [his] weakness, so that the power of God may rest upon [him]” (2 Cor 12:10). Being confident in the gospel of Christ crucified as God’s wisdom and power unto salvation for believers (1 Cor 1:18–24; 2 Cor 4:3–6) as well as in himself as an apostle commissioned by God to preach this gospel (2 Cor 3:1–4:1, 7; 5:18–20; 6:4; 10:7; 11:23), he focuses on Christ crucified in his preaching (1 Cor 2:2; 2 Cor 4:5), “boast[ing] of the things that show his weakness” (2 Cor 11:30), instead of relying on human wisdom and power as Hilfsmittel or “adulterating God’s word” with them (2 Cor 4:2). In this way, in his ministry he lets Christ, God’s wisdom and power unto salvation, be revealed through his “earthen vessels.” Of course, we should avoid here an extreme literalism in understanding the intent of these statements of Paul. He himself claims that although his rhetorical skills may be weak, his knowledge is not (2 Cor 10:6), and that “among the mature” he does “speak wisdom, though not a wisdom of this age … but … a wisdom of God” (1 Cor 2:6–7). As far as his rhetorical skills are concerned, today there are many scholars who are convinced that Paul followed the conventions of the ancient Greco-Roman rhetorical handbooks in composing his letters,38 and there are also some other scholars who, though not holding that view, still make positive remarks about the high level of Paul’s own rhetorical power evident in his letters.39 So Paul did not just repeat in all his preaching the simple formula of the gospel, that Christ Jesus was crucified for our sins and was raised from the dead. His letters amply display the breadth and depth of his theological thinking, his insights into human existence, his exegetical and argumentative skills, and so forth. So, Paul used deep theological wisdom and effective rhetorical skills in his preaching. How would Paul differentiate his wisdom from that of the philosophers and sophists whom he criticizes? In 1 Cor 2:6–16, he defines his wisdom as “wisdom of God” (cf. also 1 Cor 1:21), the knowledge of God’s thoughts and ways that is provided through the revelation of God’s own Spirit, the knowledge that leads human beings to love him (1 Cor 2:9; cf. also 8:2) and thus to share his glory at the eschaton (1 Cor 2:7). Over against the “wisdom of God,” the “wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age” (1 Cor 2:6; cf. 1:20) would then be that which springs from the futile human mind and leads human beings to 38   E. g., H. D.  Betz, Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); G. A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984); S. K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (LEC; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986); and many recent commentators who follow their pioneering work. 39 E. g., U. von Willamowitz-Moellendorf, Die griechische Literatur des Altertums (= Die Kultur der Gegenwart; ed. P. Hinneberg; Berlin/Leipzig, 1912), 1.8: 232; and G. G. A. Murray, Four Stages of Greek Religion (New York, 1912), 146 – both cited in F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 15–16; see also G. Bornkamm, Paulus (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969), 33.

2. Preaching the Gospel of God’s Grace

389

the idolatry of themselves and creaturely beings as well as to moral corruption (cf. Rom 1:18–31). In his preaching, Paul uses the former, but rejects the latter. He rejects the latter because it distracts us from knowing God truly and loving and obeying him. However, whatever wisdom helps us to know and obey God better, Paul would regard it as a gift of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:8; cf. Phil 4:8) and use for his ministry. Likewise, he would shun any rhetorical device that distorts truth or distracts us from knowing truth; but he would appreciate as a gift of the Spirit any rhetorical skill that helps explain God’s truth to his audience as clearly and persuasively as possible. So, not through the worldly wisdom/knowledge and rhetorical skills, but through the wisdom/knowledge and rhetorical skills provided by the Spirit, Paul preached the gospel and ministered to his converts, thus demonstrating the power of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:4; also Rom 15:18–19; 1 Thess 1:5). It was entirely appropriate that he preached God’s gospel of grace with the help of God’s Spirit rather than human wisdom and skills. However, even while demonstrating the wisdom and power of the Holy Spirit, Paul was extremely careful not to exalt himself as a possessor and dispenser of the Spirit by appealing excessively to his spectacular spiritual gifts and experiences and thus drawing attention to himself rather than to God. This stance – which is thoroughly consistent with his apostolic self-understanding as a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ commissioned to preach the gospel of God’s grace – is well reflected in his polemic against the Corinthians’ enthusiasm for the “super apostles” who boasted of their extraordinary spiritual experiences (2 Cor 12:1–11), as well as in his correction of the Corinthians’ enthusiasm for the gift of speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:1–40). (c) Pastoral Exhortations to Obey the Lord Jesus Christ through the Help of the Holy Spirit, rather than by Doing the Works of the Law In accordance with his gospel of justification by God’s grace and not by the works of the law, Paul would not use as a Hilfsmittel for his ministry his works of the law, his “blameless righteousness” achieved through a meticulous keeping of the law, as well as his privileges as a member of Israel, the covenant people of God (Phil 3:2–6; cf. 2 Cor 11), just as he would not use worldly wisdom/knowledge and rhetorical skills. Neither would he exhort the believers to grow in sanctification by doing the works of the law. Instead, he redefines the covenant people of God as those “who worship [God] by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh,” and dissociates them from the works of the law (Phil 3:2–3). For they are the people of the “new covenant” – “not of the letter” that “kills,” but “of the Spirit” that “gives life” (2 Cor 3:6). They “are discharged from the law, dead to that which held [them] captive, so that [they] serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the letter” (Rom 7:6). They are the people who have appropriated the atonement of Christ Jesus God’s Son

390

Paul the Pastor: His Preaching and Ministry

and now fulfill “the just requirement of the law” by “walk[ing] not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit” (Rom 8:3–4). Having justified them by his grace without works of the law, God sustains them in the right relationship with himself to which he has restored them – again, by his grace without works of the law. That is to say, having “washed … sanctified … justified [them] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit …” (1 Cor 6:11), or “having called [them] … in holiness,” God “gives [them] his Holy Spirit” (1 Thess 4:7–8; cf. also Rom 8:1–17; Gal 4:4–6), so that they may walk in righteousness and holiness, following the leading and enabling of the Holy Spirit. “Having begun by [the operation of] the Spirit,” they, the justified, cannot hope to “be made complete by the flesh,” that is, by the fleshly observance of the law (Gal 3:3).40 Accordingly, it is only to be expected that Paul, commissioned by God to serve the new covenant as a minister (2 Cor 3:6), provides his pastoral exhortations for the new covenant people to walk according to the Spirit, rather than according to the “letter” or the written code of the law, which only incites the flesh to commit sin, which brings death to them (Rom 7:5, 7–25). Paul is convinced, on the one hand, that the fleshly law observance of the Adamic humanity or Israel leads only to sin and death (Rom 7:4–25),41 and, on the other hand, that God’s grace administered through his Spirit enables the believers to fulfill “the just requirement of the law” (i. e., ultimately, fruit of righteousness,42 cf. Rom 6:15–23; 7:4; Phil 1:10) in fulfillment of the prophecy of Ezek 36:27; 37:14; etc. (Rom 8:3–4; 1 Thess 4:8).43 Hence, in giving his pastoral exhortations in 1 Thess 4:1–8 to avoid sexual immorality and to live a sanctified life, the moral injunctions that are all contained in the Torah and the Jewish tradition,44 Paul, the  Cf. G. D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 384–86, 876. 41 Cf., e. g., E. Käsemann, An die Römer (HNT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 21974), 189–202; D. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 423–31. 42 Cf. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 530. 43 For echoes of Ezek 36:27; 37:14 in these passages, cf., e. g., Holtz, Thessalonicher, 167; J. A. D.  Weima, “1–2 Thessalonians,” in Commentary on the NT Use of the OT (ed. G. K.  Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 878–89; H. Hübner, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Band 2: Die Theologie des Paulus und ihre neutestamentliche Wirkungsgeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 301–6; M. M. B. Turner, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 21998), 109; V. Rabens, “The Development of Pauline Pneumatology,” BZ 43 (1999): 178–79; S. Kim, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 158–63. See also the comment on 1 Thess 4:8–9 in my commentary. 44 Cf. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law, 91–92, who stresses the Jewish character of the instructions. Extending Tomson’s view, M. Hooker asks “to what extent Paul’s ethics [in 1 Thess 4:1–12] have been reshaped by his christology,” and even declares that “this teaching comes with a Christian label. But it is difficult to see anything specifically Christian in the content of the teaching” (“Concluding Reflections: ‘Our Gospel Came to You, Not in Word Alone but in Power Also’ (1 Thess 1:5),” in Not in the Word Alone: The First Epistle to the Thessalonians [ed. M. D. Hooker; St. Paul’s Abbey–Rome: “Benedictina” Publishing, 2003], 162; her italics). 40

2. Preaching the Gospel of God’s Grace

391

former rabbinic student, does not appeal to any of the “statutes and ordinances” of the law, even while echoing Ezek 36:27 (1 Thess 4:8), but appeals to God’s call and his provision of the Holy Spirit (4:7–8). It is all the more significant that he does this, explicitly referring to “the will of God” (4:3). Knowing well that for Judaism the will of God is fixed in the Torah (Rom 2:18; Ps 40:8), Paul lays out its requirements not in terms of any commandments of the Mosaic law, but rather in terms of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thess 4:1–2) and the Holy Spirit of God (4:8). This seems to reflect Paul’s understanding that Christ has fulfilled the Torah (and thereby superseded it) as the means of the revelation of the will of God (cf. Rom 10:4) and that it is not observance of the commandments of the law but rather obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son and vicegerent (Rom 1:3–5), following the inner urging of the Holy Spirit, that effects our sanctification, which is the will of God. Richard Hays similarly observes how Paul condemns a man who has an incestuous relationship with a wife of his father without referring to Lev 18:8 (“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife”), although his judgment must ultimately be based on that law (1 Cor 5:1–5).45 With regard to Paul’s dealing with the question of eating idol food (1 Cor 8–10), Hays says, Thus, we see that Paul addresses this pastoral problem at Corinth not by seeking to determine the appropriate halakha in the Torah, not by pointing to the authoritative teaching of Jesus or the pronouncement of an Apostolic Council (Acts 15) but by urging the strong members of the Corinthian church to follow the example of Christ and the example of the apostle by surrendering their place of privilege. The telos of such action is not just to enhance personal virtue and humility but also to secure the unity of the community in Christ. The ethical norm, then, is not given in the form of a predetermined rule or set of rules for conduct; rather, the right action must be discerned on the basis of a Christological paradigm, with a view to the need of the community.46

Hays is correct to note the absence of Paul’s appeal to a halakha in the Torah, and to appreciate “a Christological paradigm” as a decisive ethical norm for Paul.47 However, we would suggest that the Christological paradigm includes not only Christ’s example but also his teaching. We have already seen how in 1 Cor 8–10 Paul echoes Jesus’ ransom saying (Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28) twice (1 Cor 9:19–22 and 10:33; cf. also Gal 1:4; 2:20; 1 Thess 2:6–8) and his skandalon saying (Mark 9:42–50//Matt 18:6–9//Luke 17:1–2; cf. also Matt 17:24–27), again twice (1 Cor 8:13 and 10:32; cf. also 1 Cor 8:9; Rom 14:13, 20–21).48 We should not fail to note how Paul speaks of his imitating Christ and exhorts the Corinthians to imitate him, the imitator of Christ (1 Cor 11:1), immediately 45  R. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation (New York: HarperCollins, 1966), 43. 46  Ibid. (his italics). 47  Cf. also Wright, “Monotheism, Christology and Ethics: 1 Corinthians 8,” 136. 48 See p. 379 above.

392

Paul the Pastor: His Preaching and Ministry

following on the statements in which he echoes and applies to himself those two sayings of Jesus together in 1 Cor 10:32–33. In fact, in 1 Cor 8–10, Paul does not make such a direct reference to Jesus’ exemplary conduct as he does in Rom 15:1–3, 7–9 or Phil 2:5–8. Rather, he sees Jesus’ example as given in his sayings, especially in the ransom saying, in accordance with which he knows Jesus surrendered his life for the sake of many. We have also seen how Paul sets forth the double love command at the outset (1 Cor 8:1, 3) and at the conclusion (1 Cor 10:31–33) in an inclusio of a chiastic structure, making it the norm whereby the question of eating idol food is to be settled, and we have suggested that in this Paul is reflecting Jesus’ absolute demand of love of God and love of neighbor (Mark 12:28–35 and parr.).49 With the command to love God with our whole being in view, Paul exhorts the knowledge-boasters to avoid idolatry (that would be committed through participation in the banquet held in connection with sacrifice in a pagan temple, 1 Cor 10:14)50 and to do all things to the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31), while with the command to love one’s neighbor as oneself in view, he exhorts them to surrender their right to eat idol food when their eating would cause others to stumble (1 Cor 8:9–13; 10:28).51 So long as eating idol food does not infringe upon the two requirements born of the double love command, Paul treats it as an adiaphoron and allows freedom to eat such food (1 Cor 10:25–27; cf. Rom 14:17). Whereas hardly any Jewish teacher “under the law [of Moses]” would allow such freedom,52 Paul, the former rabbinic student, is able to do it, because he is no longer “under the law (of Moses)” but “in the law of Christ” (1 Cor 9:20–21), and most likely also guided by such teachings of Jesus as those about purity (Mark 7:15//Matt 15:11; Mark 7:19)53 and such conduct of Jesus as his table-fellowship with sinners, tax collectors, etc. (Mark 2:15–17 and parr.; Matt 11:19//Luke 7:34; etc.).54 This dis49  See n. 13 above. See Kim, “Imitatio Christi,” 330–31 above. For a demonstration that in Rom 13:8–10 as well as in Gal 6:2 Paul alludes to Jesus’ commandment of love (Mark 12:28–31 and parr.), see also M. Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.1–15.13 (JSNT 59; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 121–40; also Kim, PNP, 266–68, with an additional observation that Rom 12:1–2 could echo the first element of Jesus’ double commandment of love as Rom 13:8–10 does the second. 50  Cf. N. T. Wright, “Monotheism, Christology and Ethics: 1 Corinthians 8,” 134. 51  Note also how in dealing with essentially the same issue in Rom 14–15 as in 1 Cor 8–10, Paul is similarly guided by the double command of love: love of God (Rom14:6–9) and love of neighbor (14:13–15, 19–21). 52  See Kim, “Imitatio Christi,” 336 n. 53 above, where there is a discussion of the studies on this question by E. P. Sanders (“Jewish Association with Gentiles and Galatians 2:11–14,” in Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John. J. Louis Martyn FS [ed. R. T. Fortna and B. R. Gaventa; Nashville: Abingdon, 1990], 170–88) and P. Borgen (“‘Yes,’ ‘No,’ ‘How Far?’: The Participation of Jews and Christians in Pagan Cults,” in Paul and His Hellenistic Context [ed. T. Engberg-Pedersen; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995], 30–59). 53  Paul’s allusion to the teaching in Rom 14:14, 20 makes this likelihood very strong. See Kim, “Imitatio Christi,” 331–35 above 54  Paul applies the principle of sanctification by association to the mixed marriage of a believ-

2. Preaching the Gospel of God’s Grace

393

cussion should be sufficient to demonstrate that, for Paul, the Christological paradigm as an ethical norm includes not only Christ’s exemplary conduct but also his teaching.55 As a result, we may conclude that when Paul talks of his following “the law of Christ” (1 Cor 9:21; cf. also Gal 6:2 together with 5:14), he has in view not just Christ’s conduct (with its focus on his self-giving defined by his ransom saying and his death on the cross), but also his teaching (with its focus on the double love command).56 Therefore, although being no longer “under the law [of Moses],” Paul does not appeal to the Torah for the believers’ sanctification, but rather, as one “in the law of Christ,”57 he explicitly refers to Jesus’ divorce saying (Mark 10:9– 12//Matt 19:6, 9) in 1 Cor 7:10–11 and his “command” for the preachers of the gospel to get their living by the gospel (Luke 10:7//Matt 10:10) in 1 Cor 9:14.58 By implicitly and explicitly regretting that he does not have the Lord’s “command” concerning the marriage of a believer with a nonbeliever or the marriage of “virgins” (1 Cor 7:12, 25), he suggests that he would cite such a “command” if there were one. In Rom 12:14–21 he echoes a number of Jesus’ sayings collected in the Sermon on the Plain/Mount (Luke 6 and Matt 5) in exhorting the Roman

er with a non-believer in 1 Cor 7:12–16, overturning the principle of defilement by association that motivates all the Jewish efforts for holy separation from the Gentiles (cf. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians [NCBC; London: Oliphants, 1971], 69; C. K.  Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians [BNTC; London: Black, 21971], 165). It is quite probable that coming from a Pharisaic background which held the latter principle in a particularly strict way, Paul converted to the former principle when he learned of Jesus’ teaching about purity, his association with sinners, tax-collectors, etc., and his healing of the “unclean” people by touching (Mark 1:40–45 and parr.; 5:25–34 and parr.; 6:56//Matt 14:36; etc.), as well as when he developed such a theological conviction as that expressed in 1 John 4:4: the Spirit of Christ in believers is greater than the spirit of antichrist in the world (cf. Rom 5:15–20). So, with his new principle of sanctification by association, Paul the apostle could launch his Gentile mission, living like Gentiles among them (1 Cor 9:20), and advocate that Christian believers as bearers of the Holy Spirit could associate themselves with unbelievers and bring salutary influence upon them. 55  For a further criticism of Hays and Horrell for their concentration on Christ’s exemplary conduct at the exclusion of his teaching, see Kim, “Imitatio Christi,” 345–47 above. 56 Cf. H. Schürmann, “Das Gesetz des Christus,” 283–94; C. H. Dodd, “ἔννομος Χριστοῦ,” in More New Testament Studies (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1968; originally in Studia Paulina, J. G. Zwaan FS, Haarlem, 1953), 141–47, with my comment on both authors in Kim, “Imitatio Christi,” 332 n. 40 above. 57  Here we cannot discuss in detail the relationship between the law of Christ and the law of Moses. It should suffice here to affirm that knowing that Jesus summarized the whole law (of Moses) in terms of the double command of love, Paul would have accepted many specific statutes of the OT for love of God and love of neighbor, reinterpreting them in terms of Jesus’ teaching and example, and, above all, in terms of his death and resurrection (cf. Rom 13:8–10; Gal 5:14; 6:2). Cf. J. Barclay, Obeying the Truth: Paul’s Ethics in Galatians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 131–42 (esp. 134). 58  See above our interpretation of 1 Cor 9:14: Paul obeys the intent or spirit (rather than letter) of Jesus’ charge quoted in the verse.

394

Paul the Pastor: His Preaching and Ministry

Christians to love their enemy and not to seek vengeance, and in 1 Cor 4:11–13 he gives himself out as one who practices those teachings of Jesus.59 However, it is plain that on the whole Paul rarely cites Jesus’ sayings.60 Actually he alludes to or echoes Jesus’ teachings far more often than he cites them. Even when he cites them, he does not use them in a legalistic manner, as we can see how he respects the intent of Jesus’ divorce saying and mission charge and yet applies them flexibly in the context of his Hellenistic setting (1 Cor 7:10– 16; 9:14–23). So, Hays is right to point out that Paul does not settle a pastoral problem “by issuing a simple ruling” or by citing “the authoritative teaching of Jesus.”61 As we can see in 1 Cor 8–10 (and Rom 14–15), while echoing the teachings of Jesus, he reasons with his readers and helps them discern how in their situation with their concrete issues they might obey the Lord Jesus Christ whose will is manifested in those sayings of his that are echoed, or how they might imitate him in self-giving love for others. Paul clearly believes that in this process of discerning, the Holy Spirit, whom he understands as the Spirit of God and of his Son Jesus Christ indwelling believers (Rom 8:9–11), leads them (Rom 8:14; Gal 5:18) to discover the will of the Lord Jesus Christ and helps them obey it, so that they may bear the “fruits of righteousness” (Phil 1:11), which are also called “the fruits of the Spirit” (Gal 5:22), as they are the results of the Spirit’s guiding and enabling.62 So, exhorting the Philippian Christians to achieve a communal unity by living “in the manner worthy of the gospel of Christ,” that is, through humility and self-sacrificing love (Phil 1:27–2:30), Paul extols the example of Christ (2:6–11) and immediately adds his charge for them to “work out [their] own salvation [i. e., their communal well-being],” assuring that “God [in his Spirit]63 is at work in [them] both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (2:12–13). The implication of this charge in the context is that the Holy Spirit moves believers to will to imitate Christ’s example of self-humbling and self-sacrificing and enables them to implement that will, so that they may fulfill God’s will, the unity of the church. Thus, by being led by or by walking according to the Spirit, believers fulfill “the just requirement of the law” (Rom 8:4), which may be represented in terms of “the law of Christ.” Hence, Paul generally issues his pastoral exhortations in reference to the work of the Spirit as well as to the lordship of Christ Jesus. 59  Cf., e. g., N. Walter, “Paul and the Early Christian Jesus-Tradition,” in Paul and Jesus: Collected Essays (ed. A. J. M. Wedderbun; JSNT 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 56; Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 90–110. 60  Cf. Kim, “Jesus, Sayings of,” 487–90, for a discussion of the various reasons for this. 61  Hays, Moral Vision, 42–43. 62 So, Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 735 n. 5. 63  There is no reference to the Spirit here, but since the transcendent God dwells in believers in or through his Spirit, an implicit reference to the Spirit can be seen. So, Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 735 n. 5.

3. Preaching the Gospel of Christ Jesus the Exalted Lord

395

3. Preaching the Gospel of Christ Jesus the Exalted Lord For Paul as for the NT as a whole, Christ Jesus’ death on the cross and his resurrection from the dead constitute the center of God’s eschatological saving event whose news is the gospel. God’s raising of Christ Jesus from the dead is interpreted as his exaltation of him as his Son, that is, as the one to whom God has delegated his kingship/lordship, so that he may reign on his behalf as the Lord of all and bring all the creation into subjection to God the creator (Rom 1:3–5; 1 Cor 15:23–28; Col 1:13). Paul is very conscious of having been called to be an apostle of this Lord Jesus Christ, a fully empowered envoy commissioned to proclaim to the world Christ Jesus as the Lord and bring it into the obedience of faith to him and thus to God the Father (Rom 1:1–5; 15:18; 16:26; 1 Cor 1:1; 9:1–2; 2 Cor 1:1; 5:18–21; 10:7–8; Gal 1:1; etc.). So his gospel of the risen Christ as the universal Lord, together with his sense of apostolic commission, leads Paul to a universal mission – a mission that he carries out with the understanding that it is the means of the Lord Jesus Christ’s redemptive work of restoring the whole creation to God’s kingdom (2 Cor 5:18–21; Rom 10:9–17; 1 Cor 4:1; Col 1:23–29; 2 Thess 2:5–8; cf. also Eph 3:1–13).64 Further, Paul’s gospel of God conquering the forces of sin and death through Christ’s death and resurrection nourishes his conviction in the ultimate triumph of his cause, namely, the kingdom of God and his Son Jesus Christ (1 Cor 15:23–28; Phil 3:20–21), and sustains his perseverance in the face of all his adversity and suffering (Rom 8:31–39; 2 Cor 1:9–10; 2:14–16; 4:13–14; Phil 3:10–11; etc.). As an apostle or fully empowered agent of the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Cor 5:20; Gal 4:14), Paul is also conscious of his authority. So, he speaks of his apostolic “authority (ἐξουσία) which the Lord gave [him] for building up” the church (2 Cor 10:8; 13:10). This authority is concerned not only with his right to receive financial support from his churches (1 Cor 9:12; cf. also 1 Thess 2:7), but also 64 Cf. R. Bultmann (Der zweite Brief an die Korinther [KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976], 162), who comments on 2 Cor 5:18: “Die Predigt gehört also selbst mit zum Heilsgeschehen;” idem, The Theology of the NT (ET; London: SCM, 1968), 1:301–03. Cf. also O. Cullmann, “Der eschatologische Charakter des Missionsauftrags und des apostolischen Selbstbewusstseins bei Paulus: Untersuchung zum Begriff des κατέχον (κατέχων) in 2.  Thess. 2,6–7,” in Vorträge und Aufsätze 1925–62 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966; originally 1936), 305– 36; J. Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (London: SCM Press/Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1959), 36–67; H. Stettler, “An Interpretation of Colossians 1:24 in the Framework of Paul’s Mission Theology,” in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles (WUNT 127; ed. J. Ådna and H. Kvalbein; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 198–208; F. W. Röcker, Belial und Katechon: Eine Untersuchung zu 2 Thess 2,1–12 und 1 Thess 4,13–5,11 (WUNT 2/262; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 458–523; S. Kim, “Paul as an Eschatological Herald,” in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice (LNTS; ed. T. J. Burke and B. S. Rosner; London: T&T Clark, 2011), 9–24 (now reprinted as Essay 16 in this volume). See now also Essay 13 “‘The Restraining Thing’ (τὸ κατέχον) and ‘the Restraining Person’ (ὁ κατέχων),” in this volume, esp. pp. 310–12.

396

Paul the Pastor: His Preaching and Ministry

with his ability to exhort, admonish, charge, or warn65 believers for their sanctification and ecclesial health. Sometimes Paul conveys the Lord Jesus’ “command” (παραγγελλία) directly (1 Cor 7:10), but even in the situations for which he has no direct “command” (ἐπιταγή) of the Lord (1 Cor 7:25), he imparts his “commands” (παραγγέλλιαι) for believers by the Lord Jesus’ authority (1 Thess 4:1–2). He can do this as he is the Lord’s fully empowered agent who has the mind of the Lord (1 Cor 2:16) and faithfully executes the Lord’s will (1 Cor 7:25; cf. also 1 Thess 2:4). So Paul demands the Corinthian church to recognize as a “command [ἐπιταγή] of the Lord” his own instruction about an orderly practice of the gift of prophecy in communal worship (1 Cor 14:37–38).66 Expressing such apostolic authority in terms of a “father” (1 Cor 4:14–17; cf. also 1 Thess 2:11–12), Paul warns, disciplines, and rebukes the erring Corinthian church, his children (1 Cor 5 and 6), and even threatens to “punish” (ἐκδικῆσαι) them with the Lord’s authority and power (1 Cor 4:18–21; 2 Cor 10:1–6; 13:1–4, 10). This is an extreme case of his negative use of his Lord-given authority. But it is ultimately a proper use of that authority, because by dealing thus with the rebellion of some Corinthian Christians against his apostleship and his instructions, which he regards as their disobedience to Christ himself, his sender (2 Cor 10:5–6; cf. Gal 4:14),67 Paul seeks to correct their behavior that is destroying the church in order to build it up according to his apostolic commission (2 Cor 10:8; 13:10). However, Paul is most conscious that he should not be authoritarian, even while exercising his apostolic authority (2 Cor 1:24). Therefore, even while reminding his readers of his apostolic authority, he refuses to use it for his own glory or gain, but rather takes up the stance of a slave (1 Cor 9:1–23; 2 Cor 4:5)68 or of a nurse who gently cares for her children (1 Thess 2:5–8). Even while threatening the recalcitrant Corinthians, Paul appeals to them with the “gentleness and meekness of Christ” and even “begs” (δέομαι) that by heeding his appeal, they should avoid creating the situation where he has to come to administer severe discipline (2 Cor 10:1–2; also 1 Cor 4:21). Thus, Paul’s exercise of his apostolic authority for his pastoral work also corresponds to the gospel of Christ Jesus crucified and exalted.

 See n. 5 above. Paul may have in mind the understanding of the agent/messenger sent as the same as the sender/commissioner, which receives a formal expression in the Mishnah (Ber. 5.5). 67  See the preceding note. 68 See section 2.1 above. 65

66 Here

Conclusion

397

Conclusion The Apostle Paul was first and foremost a missionary who preached the gospel to the Gentiles. But he was at the same time a pastor who worked to help his converts grow in faith and love and to build their communities up as God’s people of holiness, righteousness, and unity. Writing his epistles for this pastoral purpose, Paul explained in greater depth the gospel that he had preached or was preaching, and applied it to the diverse needs of various churches. His epistles reveal how he carried out his pastoral ministry in conformity to the gospel that he preached. In accordance with the gospel of Christ Jesus who served God’s people unto death on the cross, Paul thoroughly shaped his pastoral work as the diakonia of a servant or slave and as a participation in the suffering and death of Jesus Christ through his sacrificial service. In accordance with the gospel of God’s grace in Christ, Paul sought to demonstrate the grace-character of the gospel in his ministry, refused to dilute his gospel preaching with any reliance on or boasting in the works of the law or the wisdom of the world, and strove to build up a community of God’s eschatological people that transcended the worldly divisions of race, gender, and class. Likewise, in accordance with his gospel of Christ Jesus the exalted Lord and his self-understanding as an apostle of this Lord, Paul exercised his pastoral authority in teaching, exhorting, and admonishing the believers in order to build his churches up as communities of blameless sanctification. Thus, as a pastor who called his converts to “live in the manner worthy of the gospel” (Phil 1:27; cf. also 1 Thess 2:12), Paul conducted his pastoral ministry “in the manner worthy of the gospel” that he himself preached.69

69  Of course, this study has more or less exclusively depended on Paul’s own testimonies. But we learn from his own letters as well as other NT and Early Christian sources that he had many opponents who disputed both his gospel preaching and pastoral conduct. If we had developed a critical means whereby we could objectively examine their disputes and compare them with Paul’s own testimonies, perhaps we could have drawn a more objective portrait of Paul as a pastor. Obviously, we have not carried out this difficult task here. So this portrait of Paul the pastor cannot help but be judged as one-sided. Nevertheless, it is hoped that it is appreciated at least as a portrait of an ideal pastor that Paul himself sought to be and wanted other preachers and pastors to be as well.

18. Paul and Violence 1. Paul as a Violent Personaccording to a Modern Comprehensive Definition of “Violence” In his fine book, Killing Enmity, T. R.  Yoder Neufeld observes how dramatically the concept of “violence” has broadened in modern discussion.1 It is now used to refer not only to acts that cause physical harm or damage, but also to words that hurt the feelings of others. It is applied not only to personal relationships among individuals, but also to various systems and structures of society and to various trends of culture that affect our lives. Furthermore, what constitutes violence is often determined by the perception of the one who experiences it, regardless of the intent of the perpetrator. Any act or language of individuals or groups or any social and cultural system or structure that anyone feels to be oppressive or abusive of his/her personhood or well-being may be perceived as violence. In discussing violence in the Scriptures, the reader‑ or victim-centered perception of violence means that “a text becomes violent if the interpreter or reader experiences or employs it as such.”2 The NT contains no actual teaching for Christians to exercise physical violence towards others. But there are plenty of criticisms, accusations, and condemnations of Jewish and Gentile persecutors, of false teachers or prophets within the church, and of misbehaving members of the church. Not only is such negative language seen as implying or inciting violence, but also the following teachings of the NT: the household codes that teach submission of a wife to a husband or a slave to a master; distinguishing believers in Christ as those who are to be saved from unbelievers as those who are to be judged;3 teachings on or warnings about God’s judgment; (potentially

1  T. R. Yoder Neufeld, Killing Enmity: Violence and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 1–8. 2 Ibid., 4. 3 See J. S. Vos, “Splitting and Violence in the New Testament: Psychoanalytic Approaches to the Revelation of John and the Letters of Paul,” in Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, vol. 2 of Religion, Psychology, and Violence (ed. J. H. Ellens; Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004), 191–94; Yoder Neufeld, Killing Enmity, 7.

400

Paul and Violence

intolerant) claims of revelatory truth;4 metaphors of warfare and weapons;5 and so forth. The whole notion of atoning sacrifice in the Bible is seen as imbued with violence, and even Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross is condemned as “a metaphor of the worst kind of violence, infanticide or child sacrifice.”6 If “violence” is so defined, Paul is clearly a violent person. For in his letters he uses such language and imparts such teachings that are deemed as evoking violence. So, for example, in Galatians, expressing his strong disappointment and anxiety about the Galatian Christians deserting his gospel and “turning to a different gospel” (Gal 1:6; 4:20), he calls them “bewitched” and “fools” (3:1, 3). He strongly denounces his Judaizing opponents as hypocrites who do not keep the law themselves but, out of their ulterior motives, are “forcing” his Galatian converts to get circumcised and keep the law (6:12–13). He even curses them as false teachers or prophets who “trouble” the young Christians in Galatia by preaching a “perverted gospel of Christ,” “a different gospel,” which is in fact no gospel (1:6–9), and so mislead them, the Spirit-endowed children of God (4:1–7), back into the camp of the fleshly children of the slave woman Hagar (4:21–31). Rehearsing his quarrel with Cephas and Barnabas over the question of table fellowship with Gentile Christians in Antioch, Paul likewise condemns even his fellow apostles as “hypocrites” (2:11–14).7 Just as Paul devalues the circumcision of the Judaizing opponents in Galatia as mere mutilation (apokoptein) of their bodies and castigates them as doomed to God’s judgment for unsettling the faith of the Christians there with their false gospel that requires circumcision (Gal 5:10, 12), so also he vilifies the Judaizing opponents in Philippi as “dogs” (reversing the typical Jewish vilification of the Gentiles) and devalues their circumcision (peritomē) as mere mutilation (katatomē) as well as threatening them with destruction at the last judgment (Phil 3:2, 19). Although it is usually neglected in the context of discussing the issue of violence, it needs to be pointed out that not just these harsh words but that which Paul defends with them, namely, his Gentile mission itself, must have been a violent act to most Jews of his time as well as to Gentiles,8 in fact, a far more “violently” offensive behavior than uttering these words.  Yoder Neufeld, Killing Enmity, 5.  See ibid., 122–49; C. J. Roetzel, “The Language of War (2 Cor 10:1–6) and the Language of Weakness (2 Cor 11:21b–13:10),” in Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity (ed. R. S. Baustan, A. P. Jassen, and C. J. Roetzel; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 87–88. 6  J. H. Ellens, “Religious Metaphors Can Kill,” in The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, vol. 1 of Sacred Scriptures, Ideology, and Violence (ed. J. H. Ellens; Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004), 263. 7  See F. Tolmie, “Violence in the Letter to the Galatians?,” in Coping with Violence in the New Testament ( ed. P. Williams and J. W. Henton; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 74–75. 8  For those Gentiles who do not accept Paul’s gospel, the whole idea of his mission among them would represent his “violent” denial of and attack upon their religions and their way of life. 4 5

1. Paul as a Violent Person

401

In the Corinthian correspondence, he also strongly chastises the Corinthian Christians for their various misdeeds such as rivalry and division (1 Cor 1–4), sexual vices (1 Cor 5–6), litigation (6:1–8), and so forth. He warns the knowledge-boasters of their risky involvement in idolatrous practices, using the example of the Exodus generation of Israelites who were destroyed for their idolatry and immorality (1 Cor 10:1–12). He scolds some rich members who abuse the Lord’s Supper in a manner that shames their poor brothers and sisters, and he threatens them with God’s judgment that already manifests itself in physical illness and death (1 Cor 11:17–22, 27–34). He directs the Corinthian church to “deliver” an incestuous man in their midst “to Satan for the destruction of the flesh” (1 Cor 5:1–5). Calling his unruly Corinthian converts to a life of conscientious self-discipline on the way to the eschatological consummation of their salvation, he holds up his own “pummel[ing]” and “subdu[ing]” of his “body” as a model for their imitation (1 Cor 9:24–27). In 2 Cor 10–13, his anger explodes in bitter and most sarcastic polemic against both his opponents who deny his apostolic legitimacy and slander his financial practices and his Corinthian converts who are swayed by those opponents to treat him with suspicion, the opponents whom he compares even with Satan (2 Cor 11:12–15).9 Having strongly expressed his disappointment at his Corinthian converts’ misdeeds, he threatens to come to them with his apostolic or fatherly authority in order to examine and discipline them, if necessary, with a rod (1 Cor 4:21; 2 Cor 13:1–4, 10). Quite apart from such “violent” language, Paul’s various teachings have also been perceived by some critics as evoking intolerance and violence. To begin with, he claims that by God’s revelation he received the gospel of the crucified Jesus as the risen Lord, the Messiah and God’s Son (Gal 1:11–17; 1 Cor 9:1; 15:3– 8), which means that all human beings, Jews and Gentiles, are justified or saved through faith in that gospel of God’s righteousness (i. e., covenant faithfulness or grace) apart from the works of the law (Rom 1:3–5, 16–17; Gal 1–4). There is a clear division between those who have been transferred from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of God and his Son Jesus through faith in the gospel and have pledged to render “the obedience of faith” to the Lord Jesus, God’s Son and viceroy (e. g., Rom 1:3–5; 10:9–10; Col 1:13–14; 1 Thess 1:9–10), on the one hand, and those who have not been transferred, who are “outsiders” to God’s kingdom or church (1 Thess 4:12), who “do not know God” and “do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (1 Thess 4:5; 2 Thess 1:8), on the other.10 The latter,  9  See Roetzel, “The Language of War,” 84–91, who characterizes Paul’s polemic in 2 Cor 10:1–6 as “martial rhetoric” comparable to war narratives in Hellenistic and Roman literature. 10 See also Paul’s negative presentation of Judaism in such texts as Gal 3–4 and 2 Cor 3, which is criticized as his “caustic interpretation of Scripture” by C. T. Davis III, “The Evolution of a Pauline Toxic Text,” in The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, vol. 1 of Sacred Scriptures, Ideology, and Violence (ed. J. H. Ellens; Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004), 200–02.

402

Paul and Violence

the unbelievers, are such people because their minds are blinded by Satan, “the god of this age,” so they do not understand the gospel of God’s Son Jesus Christ’s decisive victory over Satan in his death and resurrection and his present process of destroying the Satanic forces with God’s kingly power for the consummation of God’s kingdom (1 Cor 15:20–28; 2 Cor 4:4). So they (especially those who persecute Christians) will receive God’s “vengeance” or “punishment of eternal destruction” (2 Thess 1:8–9; 2:10–12; 1 Thess 5:3; Phil 1:28) at God’s judgment at the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ, while believers will have the consummation of their justification, their deliverance from God’s wrath and participation in his glory (Rom 5:6–11; 8:31–39; 1 Thess 1:10; 5:9–10; 2 Thess 1:5; 2:13–14). Warning Christians that at God’s last judgment even they will be judged according to their works (e. g., Rom 2:1–11; 14:10; 2 Cor 5:10), Paul strongly exhorts them to stand fast in the Lord, rendering the obedience of faith to him, so as not to fall back into the Satanic kingdom (e. g., Rom 11:22; 1 Cor 10:12; Col 1:21–23; 1 Thess 3:8) and suffer God’s vengeance at the last judgment (1 Thess 4:3–8). For this reason he urges the Philippian Christians to “work out their salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12). In order to underline the seriousness of Christian discipleship in the present phase of justification on the way to its consummation at the last judgment, Paul describes it as a process of spiritual warfare in which believers are to render their body parts to God as “weapons [hopla] of righteousness” in order to reap “eternal life” (the life of the age to come, i. e., of God’s kingdom), rather than to sin (a metonym for Satan) as “weapons [hopla] of wickedness” so as to reap death (Rom 6:12–23; see also 2 Cor 6:6–7; Eph 6:10–17; 1 Thess 5:8 for further metaphors of weapons for Christian discipleship and mission). Hence, Paul warns: ‘If any one does not love the Lord, let him be accursed [anathema]” (1 Cor 16:22). It is well known that of the two moments of the saving event of Christ Jesus, Paul focuses more on his death than on his resurrection. He repeatedly explains his gospel in terms of Christ Jesus’ death on the cross as a sacrifice of vicarious atonement that God provided for remission of our sins and for our salvation (e. g., Rom 3:24–26; 4:25; 5:6–10; 6:2–11; 8:3–4, 32; 1 Cor 15:3; 2 Cor 5:14–21; Gal 1:4; 2:20; 3:13; Col 1:20, 22; 1 Thess 5:9–10). Hence, he calls the gospel simply “the word of the cross” (1 Cor 1:18; see also Phil 3:19, where he calls the opponents to the [or his?] gospel “the enemies of the cross of Christ”) and says that in his founding mission to the Corinthians he proclaimed nothing but “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor 2:1–2; see also Gal 6:14). To the Galatians he says that during his founding mission to them he “placarded before [their] eyes Jesus Christ as crucified” (Gal 3:1). For Paul, Christ’s self-sacrifice on the cross is significant not only as an event for our atonement, but also as a model for our imitation (Phil 2:5–11; 1 Cor 10:31–11:1; see also Rom 15:7–9). Paul’s theology is so focused on Christ’s death on the cross that scholars like to characterize it as theologia crucis. For those who see the whole idea of atoning sacrifice in the Bible

2. Problems with the Modern Definition of Violence

403

as evoking or inciting violence, Paul’s portrayal of Christ Jesus as crucified for our atonement through his blood is clearly the most extreme form of violence. When Paul stresses through his sending‑ and delivering-formula that it was God himself who sent and delivered his Son Jesus to such a death of bloody sacrifice (Rom 3:24–26; 4:25 [note the divine passive verbs]; 8:3–4, 32; 2 Cor 5:21; see also Rom 5:8), he may be seen as heightening the degree of the cruelty involved in Christ’s death on the cross. According to the modern definition of violence as described above, Paul is clearly a violent person and his teaching is quite violent.

2. Problems with the Modern Definition of Violence Jesus is also a violent person, even though he regards even anger with or abuse of neighbor as tantamount to murder (Matt 5:21–22), and forbids vengeance and teaches love of one’s enemy (Matt 5:38–48). For, as the bearer of God’s kingdom, he not only mightily fights against the kingdom of Satan, subduing Satan and casting out his demons (e. g., Mark 3:22–27; Matt 12:22–30; Luke 11:14–23), but he also imparts similar teachings as Paul’s, often picking debates with Pharisees, scribes, and Sadducees, and he eats and drinks with sinners and tax collectors, offending most of his fellow Jews (just as his apostle Paul later associates himself with Gentiles). Then, he even predicts the destruction of the temple with a violent sign-act (Mark 11:15–19 and parr.).11 But then, according to the modern definition of violence as described above, can there be a human being who is not violent? If anyone who claims to know truth or righteousness and criticizes falsehood or evil is perceived as intolerant and violent, who can be spared the charge of violence? I imagine that some monists who believe there is no real good or evil (but only apparent good and evil) may have no notion of fighting and eradicating falsehood and evil. But the religious conflicts in the predominantly Hindu India suggest that in reality even monistic Hinduism would not tolerate rival religious claims that do not subscribe to its fundamental monistic assumption. In my Korean experiences, even many Buddhists who have a fundamentally monistic worldview make efforts to propagate their views of true knowledge, suppress personal vices and social evils, and promote personal and social good. I do not know whether they endeavor to express such efforts without using language such as “suppressing,” “fighting,” or “eradicating” falsehood or evil, which is said to evoke violence. But I imagine that just as they cannot avoid doing violence to plants in order to sustain their 11  See Ellens, “Religious Metaphors Can Kill,” 258; J. H. Ellens, “The Violent Jesus,” in The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, vol. 3 of Models and Cases of Violence in Religion (ed. J. H. Ellens; Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004), 22–32.

404

Paul and Violence

own existence, even though they strenuously maintain vegetarianism in order to avoid killing animal life, they cannot avoid suppressing personal vices and social evils, even if they might hesitate to use such terms. In fact, they are also keen for social justice and often actively support social underdogs fighting against unjust politico-socio-economic systems. The same holds true, I would think, for gender-justice feminists fighting male-dominant culture and patriarchal family systems. I do not know how many people of racial minorities and the socially underprivileged succeed in avoiding such language in their efforts to secure their human rights and establish social justice. I imagine that even absolute pacifists will not be able to avoid the thought of struggling or fighting against the oppressive and exploitive systems and cultures. If they want to avoid any violent language for such efforts, what language should they use to express that thought? I wonder whether some who sharply criticize Paul or Jesus for their “violent” teachings and language are not themselves proving to be violent in doing so. In reality, can there be any authentic human existence that is not violent according to the contemporary expanded definition of violence? Furthermore, is it desirable to abandon all efforts to criticize (i. e., to distinguish true and false or right and wrong, and sometimes also to blame the false or wrong side), to judge and condemn falsehood and evil, and to punish their perpetrators? If we abandon the whole idea of judging and condemning, how are we to establish justice, order, and peace in society, how are we to prevent society from falling into anarchy, and how are we to protect the weak and the good from the powerful and wicked, the peaceful from the violent? Pointing out how, in his efforts “to establish a thoroughgoing peaceable ethic based on the Sermon on the Mount,” Glenn Stassen recognizes “the need for constraints and even a modicum of force in the interests of protection,” Yoder Neufeld comments that “putting a mugging and a forceful pulling of a person out of danger into the same category” could be seen as “undercutting meaningful ethical discernment and debate.”12 Some extreme anti-violence perspectives may regard even the acts of “discernment and debate” as violence because they involve “criticism” – analyzing right or wrong, and making (at least value) judgments about them. But think 12  Yoder Neufeld, Killing Enmity, 7. He refers here to the works of G. Stassen, Living the Sermon on the Mount: A Practical Hope for Grace and Deliverance (San Francisco: Jossey–Bass, 2006), and G. Stassen with M. W. White, “Defining Violence and Nonviolence,” in Teaching Peace: Nonviolence and the Liberal Arts, ed. J. D. Weaver and G. Biesecker-Mast (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), 17–37. But see W. Wink, “Beyond Just War and Pacifism: Jesus’ Nonviolent Way,” in The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, vol. 4 of Contemporary Views on Spirituality and Violence (ed. J. H. Ellens; Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004), 53–76 (esp. 67–68), who argues that in Matt 5:38–42 Jesus teaches a “coercive” and yet “nonviolent” resistance to evil, which is the third way that overcomes the weakness of the theories of both just war and absolute pacifism (= nonresistance). However, would such nonviolent “coercive” resistance not still be a form of violence according to the modern expanded definition of that word?

2. Problems with the Modern Definition of Violence

405

of what consequences to personal and societal well-being the failure to condemn “mugging” and commend “a forceful pulling of a person out of danger” would bring. If, for fear of perpetrating violence in its new expanded sense, we avoid such common parlance as “we have to fight political oppression and eradicate all sorts of social evil” and abandon the efforts to curb such evils forcefully with the legal means sanctioned in a democratic country, we would actually be contributing to the growth of real violence in society that harms a much greater number of people in much more serious ways than such common parlance can ever hurt society’s sensitive souls. It is necessary to ask those who object to Paul’s and Jesus’ teachings about God’s last judgment as violent teachings whether they then also object to the whole justice system and justice process of any country or society as a violent system and process. One may object to Paul’s insistence that the criterion of God’s judgment is “the obedience of faith” to the Lord Jesus Christ. We may or must condemn a bad justice system and process that delivers unjust judgments and so strengthens injustice rather than justice in society. We must work toward making our justice system just. But if we reject the whole idea of judgment as violence and therefore reject the justice system in principle, how are we to see justice and order established in our society and have the weak protected from the violence of their powerful oppressors? The binding force of the justice system is often felt as restrictive and even offensive – that is, “violent” according to the modern definition of violence. Are we therefore to abolish it altogether and let our society fall into total anarchy? As a society, is it not better to have a small or mild form of “violence” in the justice system than its large and severe form in anarchy? As long as one believes in a transcendent God who rules over his creation and history and holds his human creatures responsible for their deeds, the idea of his judgment over their deeds is unavoidable. His laws or statutes as well as the mention of his judgment often feel inhibitive and even threatening, i. e., “violent” according to the current definition. But the believer takes them as less “violent” than the consequences that his/her neglect of them would eventually bring about for him/herself as well as for others. Should we criticize Paul for teaching about God’s judgment and warning Christians to live a life of true belief and righteous conduct in view of it? Can we not see such a warning, in fact, as an act of love, as it can lead some people to refrain from doing evils that would hurt others and might plunge themselves into the lot of those who turn their back on God’s saving grace offered in Christ? Depending on one’s own belief or worldview, one may hold the whole notion of God’s judgment as mistaken or criticize Paul for teaching about it in a wrong way. But is it right to criticize him for teaching as a theist God’s judgment per se as a violent act? If it is, is not such a criticism or judgment also a form of intolerance or violence for a belief that is different from one’s own? Certainly, some of the language that Paul employs for God’s

406

Paul and Violence

judgment (“vengeance,” “punishment of eternal destruction,” etc.) is harsh and violent (see below section 4 “How Successful is Paul …”). But once his belief in God’s eschatological judgment is granted, may such language not be understood as his traditional way of expressing the fundamental hope for God’s ultimate eradication of evil and a stern warning for people not to exclude themselves from God’s grace? Or for that hope and that warning are we just to state blandly that “God will resolve the problem of evil at the end” and that “it will be bad to be excluded from God’s grace at the end” – without using any metaphor for it out of fear of inciting violence?13 All these considerations show that there must be some limit in applying to Pauline Epistles and other scriptural texts the modern expanded understanding of violence that has been developed from the subjective perspective of the reader. In order to determine whether or not some teachings and language of Paul and others in the New Testament are violent, we must take into consideration not just some (not always intelligent) readers’ feelings about them, but also other factors such as whether the teachings and language are justified, and whether they serve a positive purpose more than yielding a negative effect.

3. How Did Paul Change from a Violent “Zealot” to a “Pacifist” Christianand Apostle? Aside from concerns about a subjective definition of “violence,” my main purpose in this paper is to consider the question, How did Paul change from a violent “zealot” to a Christian and an apostle who teaches the ways of loving one’s neighbor and striving for peace? Among those who discuss Paul’s teaching, language, and conduct in terms of violence, this question or perspective appears largely neglected. 13 In Rom 1:18–32 Paul speaks of God’s wrath being revealed against all ungodly and wicked human beings. He describes God’s wrath in terms of God giving them up (see especially vv. 24, 26, 28) to their debased mind to go on with their inclination to suppress the truth and worship idols rather than God, as well as giving them up to their passion and lust to go on with their impure and evil deeds. He describes God’s wrath in contrast to God’s righteousness being revealed to those who believe in the gospel in terms of his justifying them to have salvation and life (1:16−17). Just as God’s righteousness or justification begins at present and will be consummated at the last judgment, so also God’s wrath or condemnation begins at present and will be consummated at the last judgment. Seeing Paul speak thus of God’s present judgment on ungodly and wicked human beings, some sensitive modern readers may regret that he does not likewise speak of God’s last judgment on them just in terms of God giving them up to reach the end of their self-chosen path of rejecting his saving grace in Christ, instead of “violently” describing final judgment as God’s “vengeance,” “punishment of eternal destruction,” etc. But anticipating that God’s judgment is not far away, Paul is more concerned to issue a stern warning both for believers and unbelievers not to turn their back on God’s grace and meet an unsavory end, than to consider the possible linguistic sensitivity of his readers in a remote future.

3. How Did Paul Change from a Violent “Zealot” to a “Pacifist” Christian

407

(a) The Gospel of Reconciliation and Peace In his own confession, before his conversion Paul was a Pharisee and “zealot” who “persecuted the church of God excessively and tried to destroy her” out of his incomparably great zeal for his ancestral traditions in Judaism (Gal 1:13–14; Phil 3:6; see also Acts 22:3–4; 1 Cor 15:9). Apparently, he regarded the believers in Jesus as the Messiah as blasphemous to God and his law since for him Jesus’ death on a cross clearly proved that he had died under God’s curse declared by his law (Deut 21:23; see also Gal 3:13).14 So, following the tradition of the “zeal” of Phinehas (Num 25:1–5), Elijah (1 Kings 18:36–40; 19:10–18), the Maccabees (1 Macc 2:15–28), and others for the honor of God and the integrity of God’s law, he violently persecuted the church.15 But while traveling on the road to Damascus, according to Luke, in order to persecute Christians there (Acts 9:1–18), Paul saw the crucified Jesus appearing as the risen Lord and God’s Son (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8; Gal 1:15–16). In 2 Cor 5:11–21, against some Jewish Christian opponents who took issue with his past as a persecutor of the church and questioned the legitimacy of his appeal to the Damascus vision of Christophany for his apostleship (note especially the use of exestēmen in 2 Cor 5:13),16 Paul provides an autobiographical account of the theological revolution that the Christophany wrought in him.17 He implicitly admits that 14  James D. G. Dunn and other adherents of the New Perspective on Paul have popularized the view that the pre-conversion Paul persecuted the church because by preaching the gospel to Gentiles without requiring observance of such laws as circumcision, Sabbath, and purity it was infringing upon the integrity of Israel as God’s holy people. See J. D. G. Dunn, “Paul’s Conversion – A Light to Twentieth Century Disputes,” in Evangelium, Schriftauslegung, Kirche: Festschrift für Peter Stuhlmacher zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. J. Ådna, S. J. Hafemann, and O. Hofius; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 90; J. D. G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1991), 121–22, etc. But it is unrealistic to play down the provocation of the Christian proclamation of the crucified Jesus as the Messiah to the “zealotic” Pharisee Paul (see 1 Cor 1:22–23) and to focus only on the supposed preaching of the “Hellenists” to Gentiles. See Kim, PNP, 2–19. 15  The party of Zealots to which Josephus refers in his Jewish War (4:161, 225; 7:268–70; etc.) may have been formed during the Jewish War of AD 66–70, but it is generally agreed that the ideology of “zeal” also inspired many other individuals like Paul and those of the anti-Roman resistance groups before the Jewish War. See W. R. Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956); M. Hengel, The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 AD (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989); R. A. Horsley and J. S. Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs (Minneapolis: Winston, 1985); D. Rhoads, “The Zealots,” ABD 6:1043–54; M. R. Fairchild, “Paul’s Pre-Christian Zealot Associations: A Re-Examination of Gal 1.14 and Acts 22.3,” NTS 45 (1999): 514–32. 16  Note also the marginal annotation in Nestle-Aland 26th and 27th eds. of 2 Cor 12:1 ff. and 1 Cor 14:2 as parallels to this verse (28th ed. replaces the reference to 2 Cor 12:1 ff. with that to 1 Cor 14:15, 28 f.). See also Acts 26:24−25; and especially the Kerygmata Petrou 17:13–19, where “Peter” rejects the appeal of Simon [alias Paul] to a vision as a means of the revelation of God’s Son Jesus as well as of his apostolic call. 17  For the details of and the supporting arguments for the following interpretation of the passage, see S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981; 21984; Grand

408

Paul and Violence

before the Damascus vision of the glorified Lord Jesus Christ (see 2 Cor 3:6, 18; 4:1, 6) he rejected Christians’ claim of Jesus as the Messiah and persecuted them for it. For Jesus had not fulfilled the Jewish messianic expectation of restoring the Davidic dynasty, destroying or subjugating the nations, and ushering in for Israel an everlasting era of justice and peace,18 but instead died a criminal’s death under God’s curse. But through the revelation of the crucified Jesus as the Messiah, God’s Son and the Lord, Paul realized that on the cross Jesus bore God’s curse on our sins in our stead and on our behalf (2 Cor 5:21; Rom 8:3–4; Gal 3:13) and that that was his true messianic act, which was confirmed by God’s resurrecting him from the dead and exalting him to his right hand in heaven. Through the Damascus revelation, Paul realized that Jesus’ true messiahship consisted precisely in his death of vicarious atonement for our sins, which was to make sinners righteous, that is, to restore them to a right relationship with God (2 Cor 5:14–15, 21). Thus, the Damascus revelation made him turn his back on Jewish messianism as a “fleshly” understanding (2 Cor 5:16) and accept the Jerusalem church’s gospel as enshrined in such formulae as those quoted in Rom 1:3–4 and 1 Cor 15:3–5 (or its Semitic equivalent in Rom 4:25). And it made him avail himself of Christ Jesus’ atonement by faith in the gospel and so become a “new creation,” for whom all his sins, including his hostility to Christ Jesus and his persecution of his church, had “passed away” and a “new reality [had] come into being” (2 Cor 5:17; see also Isa 43:18–19). This theological revolution made Paul realize that the Messiah Jesus had decisively defeated our real foe that brings us the ultimate Unheil, that is, not an enemy nation like Rome but the kingdom of Satan who reigns over us in sin and death (i. e., by making us commit sin or transgress against God’s kingship and paying us with death as our wages – Rom 6:23).19 So Paul realized that the GenRapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 311–15; also S. Kim, “2 Cor 5:11–21 and the Origin of Paul’s Concept of Reconciliation,” NovT 39 (1997): 360–84, reprinted in Kim, PNP, 214–38. 18 See J. J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 22010), 77–78, for the view that this constituted “the common core of the Jewish messianism around the turn of the era.” 19 Unlike the author of Revelation, Paul did not yet see Caesar as the incarnate chief agent of Satan or Roman Empire as the embodiment of Satan’s rule. Therefore, in spite of his critical attitude to its negative side (its idolatry, military oppression, exploitation, decadence, etc.), as part of the present evil world under the sway of Satan, he did not seek to subvert it, but by conducting his Gentile mission, taking advantage of its positive side (political unity, the rule of law, relative justice and peace, fast and secure roads and sea routes, etc.), he tried to redeem the peoples within the empire by the gospel of the kingdom of God and his Son, Jesus Christ. Contra N. T.  Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 1271–319, see S. Kim, “Paul and the Roman Empire,” in God and the Faithfulness of Paul: A Critical Examination of the Pauline Theology of N. T. Wright (ed. C. Heilig, J. T. Hewitt, and M. F. Bird; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 277–308 (reprinted as Essay 10 in this volume); also S. Kim, Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and the Empire in the Writings of Paul and Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 3–71. Since Christ Jesus the Lord is engaged in a mopping-up operation not against the Gentile nations but the satanic forces, not against “the flesh and blood, but …

3. How Did Paul Change from a Violent “Zealot” to a “Pacifist” Christian

409

tile nations were the objects not of destruction or subjugation but of redemption. God has exalted the Davidic Messiah as his Son at his right hand, investing him with his kingly power or lordship (Rom 1:3–4), not to destroy the nations but to go on with his mopping-up operation against the Satanic forces (1 Cor 15:23–28) and to redeem Israel and the nations from the Satanic kingdom. Paul was commissioned as an apostle to proclaim this victorious Messiah Jesus, God’s Son, to all the nations and to bring them to render “the obedience of faith” to his lordship (Rom 1:5), so that they might be redeemed from Satan’s kingdom and transferred into the kingdom of God and his Son and obtain salvation in it (Col 1:13–14). In the autobiographical account of his conversion and apostolic call at the Damascus Christophany, Paul makes it clear that Christ’s death of vicarious atonement has resulted in our obtaining God’s righteousness (2 Cor 5:21). But especially in view of his opponents’ insinuation of his past enmity to Jesus Christ (which is also an enmity to God who sent him and delivered him up to his atoning death; Rom 8:3–4, 32; Gal 4:4–5, etc.) as well as of his past persecution of the church, Paul introduces “reconciliation” as a new soteriological term for God’s giving Christ up as an atoning sacrifice: “in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them” (2 Cor 5:19a). And Paul testifies to his own experience of this grace of God in Christ’s atoning death thus: “God reconciled us to himself through Christ” (2 Cor 5:18a; the “we/us” in 2 Cor 5:18–20 being, in the first place, a literary plural for Paul himself). Then, with his opponents’ rejection of his apostleship in view, he goes on to affirm that “God g[ave] us the ministry of reconciliation” (v. 18b) and “entrust[ed] to us the message of reconciliation” (v. 19b). So as an apostle of Christ, he is an “ambassador for Christ” who delivers God’s message of reconciliation to the Corinthians as well as to other Gentile nations, making an appeal, “Be reconciled to

against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph 6:12), in urging Christians, his people, to fight the holy war as his troops, Paul “spiritualizes” or “moralizes” the holy war tradition of the Old Testament and Judaism and teaches them to win the war against the Satanic forces with the weapons of truth, righteousness, faith, love, hope, the gospel of peace, the word of God, and prayer (Rom 6:13–23; 1 Thess 5:8; Eph 6:10–20; see also 2 Cor 6:6–7; 10:1–6). See Yoder Neufeld, Killing Enmity, 138–49 (esp. 142: “Does the violence in the warfare imagery Paul employs in this exhortation valorize violence, or does it by being fused with the exercise of faithfulness, love and hope – virtues that have their most intense demonstration in the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus – subvert, redefine, and finally undo the violence of war? Is it enmity that kills or enmity that is killed? In my view the answer is the latter;” see also 147). But still there may be some readers who feel violence is being advocated even in such metaphors of war and weapons as Paul’s, just as there are some readers who read Eph 6:10–20 as teaching a shamanistic “spiritual warfare” of exorcism, etc. If they insist that we should avoid such metaphors in order not to incite violence, then they should teach us how else we should more irenically, but still effectively, speak of the Lord Jesus Christ’s work and our task of removing or resolving the most serious problem of evil in our lives and in the world.

410

Paul and Violence

God” (v. 20). So the gospel is God’s “message of reconciliation,” and the apostle Paul is God’s or Christ’s envoy of peace! Such a great theological revolution from the nationalistic and even militant Jewish messianism to the messianism of God’s grace of atonement and reconciliation, which began at the Damascus Christophany, led him to develop from the Jerusalem gospel (Rom 1:3–4) his gospel of justification by God’s grace and through our faith (Rom 1:16–17).20 In Rom 1:1–4, Paul defines “the gospel of God” as concerning God’s Son whom God sent to “be born of the seed of David” (see Gal 4:4; Rom 8:3), gave up to a death of vicarious atonement for our sins (see Rom 4:25; 8:3–4, 32; Rom 3:24–26; 2 Cor 5:21), and raised from the dead and installed as his Son to exercise his power on his behalf (see 2 Sam 7:12–14; Ps 2:7; Ps 110:1).21 The saving act of God announced or narrated in the gospel is the fulfillment of the promises that God had made through his prophets in the Scriptures (Rom 1:2; 15:7−12). So in the gospel, God’s righteousness (his faithfulness to his covenant to care for Israel and all the nations) is revealed (Rom 1:17; see also Rom 3:21–26). Therefore, whoever believes in the gospel, that is, accepts the gospel (see 1 Cor 15:1–5), avails him/herself of God’s righteousness, that is, his grace of sending and offering Christ as the eschatological sacrifice of atonement for his/her sins and installing him as his/her Lord, so that he/she is forgiven or acquitted of his/her trespasses, restored to a right relationship with God, and so transferred from the kingdom of Satan to the kingdom of God, which his Son Jesus Christ the Lord rules on his behalf at present (see 1 Cor 15:23–28; Col 1:13–14). Therefore, the gospel is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes [it]” (Rom 1:16). By formulating this gospel in the most striking terms of “Christ’s death for the ungodly” (Rom 5:6) and “God justifying the ungodly” (Rom 4:5),22 or “God reconciling his enemies to himself” (Rom 5:10; 2 Cor 5:19), as well as stressing God’s love for us, his rebellious creatures (Rom 5:8; 8:32; 2 Cor 5:14; etc.), Paul tries to express the unimaginable wonder of this gospel. Considering his nationalistic and militant messianism in Judaism, we can well appreciate the awe that he feels over this gospel of Christ that resolves the conflict and enmity between God and his creatures and establishes peace between them (Rom 5:1; Col 1:20; Eph 2:14−16). The gospel of justification by God’s grace and through our faith (without the works of the law) establishes a relationship of righteousness and peace not only between God and human beings but also among human beings. For that gospel  See Kim, Origin of Paul’s Gospel, 268–311; also idem, Justification, 15–71. a justification of thus seeing the Jerusalem gospel of Rom 1:3–4 with Paul’s eyes, that is, in terms of the sending‑ and delivering-formulae (Gal 4:4–5; 2:20; Rom 4:25; 8:3–4, 32; etc.) implicit in it, see idem, Justification, 53–55. 22  This formulation is even contrary to the fundamental understanding of God’s law in the OT and Judaism (see Exod 23:7; Prov 17:15; Isa 5:23; CD 1:19). 20

21 For

3. How Did Paul Change from a Violent “Zealot” to a “Pacifist” Christian

411

nullifies all forms of discrimination according to race, gender, social class, intellectual attainment, moral achievement, and so on. Before God all human beings are just sinners, regardless of what they were born with or have achieved in the flesh (see Phil 3:3–4; 1 Cor 1:26–31), and, as ungodly sinners and God’s enemies, they are all justified or reconciled to God by his grace in Christ. Hence Paul declares that the gospel is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first but also to the Greek” (Rom 1:16), and that as the apostle to the Gentiles he has an obligation to preach it “both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish” (Rom 1:14). In the course of arguing for his gospel of “justification not by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” (Gal 2:16), he declares even more comprehensively, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28; see also Rom 1:14, 16; 3:22, 28–30; 10:12; 1 Cor 12:13; Col 3:11). This understanding of the gospel provided him with the theological justification for his Gentile mission, a revolutionary undertaking within the Jewish context. So he was able to preach the gospel to the Gentiles and make efforts to bring them along with Jews into the kingdom of God and his Son or the family of Abraham and God. Then, later in Eph 2:11–22, the fruits of his Gentile mission with the gospel of justification by grace alone and through faith alone that is based on Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross (Eph 2:1–10, 14–15) are celebrated in terms of bringing about reconciliation and peace between Jews and Gentiles as well as between God and human beings and of bringing Jews and Gentiles united together into the household of God. The same understanding of the gospel also enabled Paul to treat man and woman as equals, exhorting husband and wife to submit to each other (1 Cor 7:1–16; see Eph 5:21) and recognizing a woman’s right to lead worship services in the church (provided that she observes the proper dress code; 1 Cor 11:2–16). Furthermore, the gospel of justification by grace and through faith led Paul to exhort free persons and slaves to transcend in the Lord this worldly distinction (1 Cor 7:20–24; Philemon), a truly revolutionary teaching in the ancient world. These examples show how his gospel of justification by grace and through faith effects God’s salvation or healing even here and now by removing or reducing the conflicts, oppression, and violence between different races, genders, and social classes,23 and how that gospel as a post-Easter soteriological form of Jesus’ gospel of God’s kingdom realizes the “justice, peace, and joy [or wellbeing/happiness]” of God’s kingdom (Rom 14:17) here and now, albeit in the form of its firstfruits.24

23 Whenever in history the church preached that gospel aright and believers lived in a manner worthy of the gospel, it advanced human rights and promoted freedom, justice, and peace in many nations; regrettably, though, often by preaching a distorted gospel, the church produced instead “the works of the flesh” (Gal 5:19–21). 24  See Kim, Justification, 117–39.

412

Paul and Violence

(b) Christ Jesus’ Victory over the Satanic Powers through His Self-Sacrifice In speaking of Christ’s defeat of the Satanic forces, Paul does not depict a cosmic war as in some apocalyptic literature. Instead, he simply asserts that Christ’s death of vicarious atonement for our sins on the cross was the means for defeating “the rulers and authorities” and redeeming us from “the elements of the universe” (Gal 3:13–4:11; Col 2:8–23). Sometimes Paul attributes this victory to the initiative of God, who sent Christ Jesus his Son and delivered him to a death of vicarious atonement for us (e. g., Gal 4:1–7; Rom 3:24–26; 4:25; 8:3–4, 32; Col 2:13–15). Other times he expresses this truth by stressing Christ as the initiator of his own redemptive work: “[Christ] gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age” (Gal 1:4; see also, e. g., Gal 2:20; Rom 5:6–11; 2 Cor 5:14–15), the age ruled by “the god of this age” (2 Cor 4:4; see also 1 Cor 2:6–8). Accordingly, Paul stresses the love of God (Rom 5:5, 8; 8:31–32) or the love of Christ (Rom 8:35; 2 Cor 5:14; Gal 2:20). As the former was actually shown in the latter (Christ’s death of vicarious atonement), both refer to the same reality, and so Paul also speaks of “the love of God in Christ” (Rom 8:39). Paul’s gospel proclaims that God or Christ has won victory over the Satanic forces through his love, which is Christ’s self-giving or God’s giving of his Son. Thus, the gospel proclaims the truth that the self-giving love of God or Christ overcomes or resolves the sin of Adamic humanity’s self-assertion or self-seeking under Satan’s instigation (see Gen 3:1–5), the sin that lies behind every act of oppression and violence. Only self-giving love resolves the problem of hate and aggression. Only the divine love of self-giving out of God’s divine fullness (plēroma) can redeem all human beings from the ills of their self-seeking, which is driven by human finitude (i. e., want). Crucifixion was the cruelest form of execution in the ancient Mediterranean world. Christ crucified represents both the ultimate expression of human violence, the most forceful form of human self-assertion, and the ultimate revelation of the divine essence as self-giving love that has overcome it. Therefore, it is quite ironic for some writers to condemn Paul’s gospel of Christ’s atonement as inciting violence. J. H. Ellens provides a good example.25 Seeing the gospel in terms of the OT–Jewish cult of offering sacrifice to God as a propitiation for sins, he condemns it as “a metaphor of the worst kind of violence, infanticide or child sacrifice.” Claiming that the Hebrew system of atonement is “exactly opposite to the Hebrew tradition of the covenant of grace,” he asserts that the gospel of Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross also “radically contradicts the grace ethic it purports to express and cuts its taproot by the domi25 Ellens, “Religious Metaphors Can Kill,” 255–72. The following three quotations from him are from 263. See also J. G. Gager, with E. L. Gibson, “Violent Acts and Violent Language in the Apostle Paul,” in Violence in the New Testament (ed. E. L. Gibson and S. Matthews; New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 13–21 (esp. 16–19).

3. How Did Paul Change from a Violent “Zealot” to a “Pacifist” Christian

413

nant model of solving ultimate problems through resort to the worst kind of violence.” But unfortunately Ellens never properly reflects on the revolutionarily new idea of the gospel, namely, that it is not human beings but God who offers Christ Jesus his Son as a sacrifice of atonement for human sins.26 Nor does he ever properly appreciate what is actually conveyed through that message: God’s love for the fallen humanity or his will to reconcile his rebellious creatures (his “enemies”) to himself. Nor does he show how we can speak about the event of Christ’s crucifixion as God’s saving event in a way that avoids the kind of charges that he lays at Paul’s door. The question here is simply whether there is a way of referring, metaphorically or however else, to the indisputable historical fact of Jesus’ crucifixion, the cruelest form of violence, without evoking an association of violence. Just as some readers manage to read Eph 6:10–20 as encouraging violent warfare or an enthusiastic exorcism, there will be some readers who fail to understand and appreciate the meaning of the gospel of Christ crucified as a message of God’s love and reconciliation and instead regard it as an encouragement to solve problems through resort to violence. But the existence of such readers is no reason for abandoning the gospel of Christ’s atonement on the cross and the war metaphors. (c) The Church as the Troops of the Lord Jesus Christ: Keeping “the Law of Christ” and Imitating Christ Having decisively defeated Satan through his atoning death on the cross and his resurrection, the risen Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, goes on mopping up the satanic forces with God’s kingly power entrusted to him (1 Cor 15:23–28). He does this by reigning over us, the justified and redeemed, that is, by leading and enabling us through his Spirit (God’s Spirit) to obey his reign and bear “the fruits of the Spirit/righteousness” (Gal 5:22–23; Phil 1:11; 2 Cor 9:8–10; Rom 6:12–22; 7:4–6; 8:1–16; Col 1:10; 1 Thess 4:3, 7), instead of obeying Satan’s reign and producing “the works of the flesh” (Gal 5:19–21). In practical terms, this means that at each moment of moral choice the Lord Jesus Christ directs and enables us through his Spirit to do his will or to obey his law (“the law of Christ” [1 Cor 9:21; Gal 5:14; 6:2], namely, his double command of love: to love God and neighbor [Mark 12:28–34 and parr.]) and so to bear “the fruits of righteousness” (Phil 2:12–15), instead of succumbing to the temptation of Satan to satisfy the desires of our flesh and so to bear the fruits of evil.27 26  See R. G. Hamerton-Kelly, Sacred Violence: Paul’s Hermeneutic of the Cross (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 80. 27 Note the contrast between the peace and peace-engendering virtues that Paul mentions in the illustration of “the fruits of the Spirit” (“love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control”) and the violence-engendering vices of “the works of the flesh” (“strife, jealousy, anger, rivalry, dissensions, party spirit, envy, drunkenness”) (Gal 5:19–23; see also 2 Cor 6:4–7). So, reigning over the justified and redeemed, through his Spirit,

414

Paul and Violence

This is the way the Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, continues redeeming us from the kingdom of Satan at present toward the consummation of our salvation at his parousia. To view it from another perspective, this is the way the Lord Jesus Christ, God’s viceroy, is going on destroying the Satanic forces and bringing God’s kingdom to its consummation at his parousia (again 1 Cor 15:23–28). Therefore, those who have been justified, that is, transferred from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of God and his Son (Col 1:13–14),28 are the troops that the Lord Jesus Christ employs in his holy war against the Satanic kingdom. We are to offer our body not to sin (a metonym for Satan) as a “weapon [hopla] of wickedness” but to God (or his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, who reigns on his behalf at present) as a “weapon [hopla] of righteousness” (Rom 6:12–23). Thus, as his troops we have to fight the holy war “against the wiles of the devil, … against the rulers and authorities of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” with the weapons of truth, righteousness, faith, love, hope, the gospel of peace, the word of God, prayer” (Eph 6:10–20; see also 2 Cor 6:6–7; 10:1–6; 1 Thess 5:8), and participate in the Lord Jesus Christ’s work of realizing God’s kingdom of “justice, peace, and joy” (Rom 14:17) here and now. Then at his parousia, the Lord Jesus God’s Son will consummate his victory over the Satanic forces by destroying the last enemy, death, and raising the dead (1 Cor 15:26; 1 Thess 4:13–18) and by consummating our justification through his intercession before the judgment throne of God as well as by redeeming the whole world from the Satanic power of death (Rom 8:17–39), so that God’s kingly reign may prevail over all his creation and universal shalom be established (1 Cor 15:28; Rom 16:20).29 Paul’s lengthy discussion of eating idol food, directed towards ending the Corinthians’ dispute about the issue and restoring their communal peace (1 Cor 8–10), illustrates well the way he thinks Christians should obey the Lord Jesus Christ’s reign through observance of “the law of Christ” in their daily life and establish justice and peace. This is already suggested by his framing of his whole treatment of the issue by an inclusio with the demands for love of God and love of neighbor in 1 Cor 8:1–2 and 10:31–33 (in chiastic structure: 8:1//10:32–33; 8:2//10:31). Paul’s specific instruction on the question of eating idol food may be summarized in three points: (1) Basically, Christians have the freedom of eating meat bought from the market or offered on the table of a non-Christian neighbor’s home (1 Cor 10:25–27).

the Lord Jesus Christ God’s Son goes on realizing God’s kingdom of “justice, peace, and joy” (Rom 14:17), overcoming the evils of self-seeking, conflict, and violence in the Satanic kingdom. 28  See Kim, Justification, 59–71, for justification as lordship-transfer. 29 For more details of this summary statement about the present saving reign of the Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, see Kim, Justification, 73–91.

3. How Did Paul Change from a Violent “Zealot” to a “Pacifist” Christian

415

(2) Yet the knowledge-boasting Corinthians should avoid the danger of idolatry involved in participation in pagan temple meals, etc. (1 Cor 10:1–22, esp. vv. 14–22). (3) They also must sacrifice their right to eat the meat offered at the market or on a neighbor’s table for the sake of the “weak” brothers and sisters, in order not to lay a stumbling block before them if they object to eating it (1 Cor 8:7–13; 10:23–24, 28–30). With the first point, Paul makes it clear that Christians are no longer bound to the Mosaic law. Then, with the second and third points, he indicates that he has in mind, respectively, Jesus’ command to love God wholeheartedly, which excludes any form of idolatry (see 8:2//10:31), and his command to love neighbor as oneself, which requires caring for the neighbor’s interest (see 8:1//10:32–33). In the middle of imparting this teaching, namely in ch. 9, Paul supports this teaching with his own example of self-sacrificing apostolic service for others (love of neighbor): his foregoing of his apostolic right to claim financial support from the church (1 Cor 9:1–18) as well as his missionary policy of “making [himself] a slave to all, that [he] might win the more,” both to the Jews under the law and to the Gentiles outside the law (9:19–23). In that context, implicitly treating the purity regulations of Moses as adiaphora, he declares that he is “not under the law [of Moses]” (9:20), and that he is “in the law of Christ,” suggesting that in that way he really fulfills the legal obligation toward God (9:21), i. e., the obligation to love God. Here it is especially noteworthy that in explaining his missionary policy of “making myself a slave to all, that I might win the more” (9:19), he echoes Jesus’ ransom saying in Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28. It is equally noteworthy that he concludes his extended teaching on the question of eating idol food over three chapters with a double exhortation, first, to love God wholeheartedly (“do all things to the glory of God,” 1 Cor 10:31), and then to love neighbor, which he expresses through the words that strongly echo the same ransom saying of Jesus (1 Cor 10:[32–]33: “just as I try to please all people in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved”) as well as Jesus’ stumbling-block saying (1 Cor 10:32: “Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God” [cp. Mark 9:42–50//Matt 18:6–9//Luke 17:1–2; see also 1 Cor 8:13]).30 Seeing all these, we can affirm that Paul is exactly right to reach the grand conclusion to his extended teaching with this instruction, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1).31 Thus, 1 Cor 8–9 shows how 30  See also Rom 15:1–6, where Paul similarly concludes his extended treatment of the dispute about eating meat (Rom 14:1–23) with an exhortation using words reminiscent of the spirit of the ransom saying: for “the strong” not to seek their own interest but the interest of “the weak” in imitation of Christ (Rom 15:1–3) and so to establish peace and harmony in their church (Rom 14:19; 15:5), glorifying God together (Rom 15:6; see also 14:5–9, 13). 31 For more details of this summary presentation, see S. Kim, “Imitatio Christi (1 Corinthians 11:1): How Paul Imitates Jesus Christ in Dealing with Idol Food (1 Corinthians 8–10),”

416

Paul and Violence

Paul teaches the Corinthian believers to resolve their communal conflict about the issue of idol food by observing “the law of Christ” (the double command of love), which is the way to submit to the Lord Jesus Christ’s reign, as well as how he determines his own apostolic stance in obedience to that law. This discussion shows also that imitating Christ is a way of obeying the Lord Jesus Christ through observance of his law. Paul’s apostolic ministry in obedience to “the law of Christ” is actually to imitate the Christ of the ransom saying (1 Cor 9:19, 22; 10:33). Paul exhorts the Corinthians to fulfill the “the law of Christ” likewise by imitating the Christ of the ransom saying (1 Cor 10:33), following his own imitation of him (1 Cor 11:1). According to the Synoptic witnesses (Mark 10:35–45//Matt 20:20–28; see also Luke 22:24–27), Jesus spoke the ransom saying about his self-sacrificing service for others, in contrast to the Gentile rulers’ domination over others, in order to teach his disciples to give up their self-seeking and domineering impulses and to follow his own example. Paul appreciates the saying not only as an explanation of Christ’s self-surrender for our atonement on the cross (e. g., Gal 1:4; 2:20), but also as the best example of neighbor love (see John 15:13; Rom 5:7–8). So, he fundamentally determines his own self-sacrificing apostolic stance according to that saying (besides 1 Cor 9:19, 22; 10:33, see also 1 Thess 2:5–9), and also exhorts the Corinthians to practice self-sacrifice for the interest of others according to that saying (1 Cor 10:33). It is quite likely that the picture of the God-like Christ’s self-emptying to take the form of a slave, and self-humbling to be obedient to God unto death on a cross (Phil 2:6–8), echoes the ransom saying. Even if the Philippians hymn (2:6–11) is pre-Pauline, in view of his appreciation of the ransom saying, it is highly likely that Paul understands the hymn as portraying the Christ of the ransom saying. Paul offers that hymn to the Philippian Christians in order to exhort them to end their communal dissension and achieve unity through humility and self-sacrificing love for one another after the example of Christ (Phil 2:1–11).32 He further supports this exhortation through the examples of Timothy and Epaphroditus, who imitate Christ in their sacrificial service (Phil 2:19–30), as well as his own example of willingness to sacrifice himself for the sake of the Philippians (Phil 2:17). If Euodia and Syntyche and the people around them achieve unity of mind “in the Lord,” that is, in obedience to the reign of the Lord Jesus, in observance of his law to love neighbor (Phil 4:2), or in imitation of Christ’s (and Paul’s) selfsacrifice to serve others, the Philippian church will have peace and joy (Phil 3:1;

BBR 13 (2003): 193–226 (now reprinted as Essay 15 in this volume), which also shows some more aspects of Jesus’ conduct and teaching that Paul imitates. See also Kim, Justification, 82–85 (esp. n. 12). 32 Cf. Essay 5 above for the view that Jesus’ ransom saying forms a basis for Paul’s theology and functions as a fundamental principle for his apostolic stance.

3. How Did Paul Change from a Violent “Zealot” to a “Pacifist” Christian

417

4:4–9).33 Such a life of imitation of Christ will make us “be transformed into his image from one degree of glory to another” (2 Cor 3:18) until the consummation at his parousia (Phil 3:20–21; Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49). The church, as the community of those who confess Jesus as Lord, should work toward realizing the justice, peace, and joy of his kingdom inside and outside by living such a life of obedience to his reign in imitation of him. The ransom saying may be the best illustration of Christ’s law of neighbor love. However, other sayings of Jesus also provide concrete examples of it (e. g., the stumbling-block saying [Mark 9:42–50//Matt 18:6–9//Luke 17:1–2] echoed in Rom 14:13, 20; 1 Cor 8:13; 10:32). Among them, Jesus’ commands in the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt 5:38–48//Luke 6:29–36) not to take revenge on one’s enemies but to love them are the most striking. In Rom 12:14–13:10, Paul alludes to them and expands on them (see also 1 Cor 4:12–13; 1 Thess 5:15), explicitly referring to the neighbor-love commandment as the summary of all the commandments in the second table of the Ten Commandments (Rom 13:8–10).34 Paul’s purpose there is to exhort the Roman Christians to “live peaceably with all” (Rom 12:18; see also 1 Thess 5:13, 23) by practicing neighbor love to all, even to their persecutors and enemies, including the Roman rulers (Rom 13:1–7). Thus, the church as the troops of the Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, carries out his holy war against the kingdom of Satan and wins victory over Satan’s power of sin through the “obedience of faith” to Christ’s reign, which in practice means observance of his law, the double commandment of love, to bear “the fruits of righteousness,” and to realize the “righteousness/justice, peace, and joy (or wellbeing)” of his kingdom. Christians observe “the law of Christ” by sacrificing themselves to serve others in imitation of Christ Jesus who gave himself as “ransom for many.” So just as Christ Jesus decisively defeated Satan through his selfgiving love for all sinners on the cross, so also his disciples or troops are to go on mopping up the still-active Satanic forces by their self-giving love for others. The self-assertion or self-seeking of the race of the first Adam under Satan’s reign can be beaten only by the self-giving love of the race of the last Adam that has been redeemed into the kingdom of God and his Son Jesus Christ the Lord. The unrighteousness/injustice, conflicts (or violence), and suffering that the former engenders can be overcome only by the latter.

33 Note how in 1 Cor 6:1–8 Paul rebukes the Corinthians for a member of the church suing a fellow member in a worldly court: “It is already a complete defeat for you that you have lawsuits at all with one another. Why do you not rather suffer wrong? Why do you not rather be defrauded?” (v. 7). Paul is clearly lamenting the Corinthian Christians’ lack of willingness to give up self-seeking in obedience to Christ’s command to love neighbor as oneself. 34  See M. Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.15–15.3 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991), 90–160; D. Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 250–70.

418

Paul and Violence

4. How Successful Is Paul in Practicing His Own Teaching of Self-Giving Love, Even for Enemies? How successful is Paul in practicing his own teaching of self-giving love for others that overcomes conflicts and violence and promotes reconciliation and peace? We have already seen above how he fundamentally defines his apostolic role in terms of a self-sacrificing ministry for the church according to Jesus’ ransom saying and how conscientiously he conducts his ministry in imitation of the ministry of the Christ of that saying (see also 2 Cor 12:13–18, esp. v. 15). We have also considered his teaching about God’s last judgment. There, from his theological perspective, we acknowledged its necessity and tried to appreciate its positive intent to encourage Christians to persevere in faith and love until the consummation of their salvation at the eschaton. However, it is quite clear that his language about the destruction of unbelievers and persecutors of Christians at the last judgment is excessively harsh and evocative of violence for modern sensitivity. Paul’s use of such language is traditional, often echoing OT texts or the Jewish tradition (e. g., Rom 12:19, 20;35 1 Thess 2:14–16; 5:3; 2 Thess 1:6–9). Nevertheless, had he borne in mind his own teachings about loving enemies rather than seeking to get revenge on them and about blessing persecutors rather than cursing them (Rom 12:14–21), he certainly could have at least moderated his language about the opponents of the Christian faith and expressed the fate of unbelievers less harshly.36 Paul lashes out in particularly harsh or even violent condemnation against two kinds of people: (1) His Christian opponents (the Judaizers or “false teachers” in the Galatian church and the “super apostles” in the Corinthian church) whom he regards as distorting the gospel and denying his apostleship and thus leading his converts astray from the right faith (see “How Did Paul Change. …?” above); (2) Non-Christian persecutors who hinder his gospel preaching and force his converts to give up their faith in the gospel (e. g., 1 Thess 2:14–16; 2 Thess 1:6–9; see also Phil 1:28–29 and 3:18–19 [?]). To these two groups of people, Paul is not ready to apply his own teaching of enemy love. However, he expresses his love in a moving way to the Corinthian church that was misled by the “super apostles” to doubt the genuineness of his apostleship and his collection for the Jerusalem church but then repented of their 35  If the quotation from Prov 25:21–22 (“you will heap burning calls upon his head”) is to be negatively interpreted in terms of God’s condemnation at the last judgment (see K. Stendahl, “Hate, Non-Retaliation, and Love, 1 QS x, 17–20 and Rom. 12:19–21,” HTR 55 [1962]: 343–55), although a positive interpretation in the sense of “God will make the enemy into your friend” appears more plausible (see J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, WBC 38B [Dallas: Word, 1988], 750–51). 36  See n. 13 above.

4. How Successful Is Paul in Practicing His Own Teaching of Self-Giving Love

419

wrongs (2 Cor 1–9). He expresses his forgiveness of the one particular member of the church who apparently pained him especially severely, and he asks the whole church to forgive him and love him (2 Cor 2:5–11). So it appears that Paul thinks he cannot apply his teaching of enemy love to the “false apostles/teachers” and the non-Christian persecutors so long as they persist in leading Christians astray from the right faith or in preventing others from coming to faith in the gospel of God’s saving grace – because the duty of neighbor love requires him to fight such people rather than to forgive them for their sinful acts, which would be actually to condone them. Even so, Paul’s violent language against “false teachers/apostles” must have contributed much to the rise of the tradition of harsh theological polemic and especially the violent treatment of “heretics” in the history of the church. Nevertheless, it is also to be noted that even in his sharpest denunciations of “false apostles/teachers” or persecutors he never suggests exercising physical violence against them. In this connection, it is noteworthy that in the catalogues of his suffering (1 Cor 4:9–13; 2 Cor 4:7–10; 6:4–10; 11:23–27; 12:10; see also 2 Cor 1:3–11; Phil 1:12–18) Paul expresses little feeling of resentment toward his persecutors and even less of vengeance. In this, he apparently practices his own teaching: “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God” (Rom 12:19).37 Some may point to 1 Thess 2:14–16 to counter this observation. In that passage Paul does express some resentment toward the Jews who persecuted him and hindered him from preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. However, that sentiment is to be understood as part of his lament over their present unbelief in their Messiah Jesus, which he sees as the culmination of their long history of disobedience to God and of persecution of his true prophets (see Rom 9–11). Furthermore, it is to be appreciated that even in that Thessalonians passage in which he is speaking of the Jews who, in alliance with the pagan persecutors, “drove [him] out” of Thessalonica only a few months ago, and gave him such great anxiety about the budding church that he had left behind like “orphans” in Thessalonica (1 Thess 2:17–3:10), he simply leaves them to God’s wrath, with no more than a tinge of resentment. Note also that even while speaking of God’s “destruction” of unbelievers and the persecutors of the church at his last judgment, unlike some apocalyptic literature (e. g., Rev 19:11–20:10) or even the imprecatory Psalms (e. g., Ps 69:23–25; 109:8–11; 140:8–11), Paul has no interest in elaborating on that destruction by drawing a gruesome picture of it. Clearly with the idea of the “destruction” of the enemies of God at the last judgment, he is interested more in affirming that God will clear his creation of all evils and 37  Note that in one of the catalogues Paul says that he responds to his persecutors with the “weapons of righteousness” such as “purity, knowledge, forbearance, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love, truthful speech, and the power of God” (2 Cor 6:6–7), i. e., with the peacepromoting “fruits of the Spirit” rather than the violence-promoting “works of the flesh” (Gal 5:19–23; see also Phil 4:8–9).

420

Paul and Violence

establish universal shalom than in taking comfort in the thought that God will take revenge on those who are enemies on our behalf.38 Clearly, Paul is not perfect in practicing his own teaching of enemy love. However, here we need to ask, “How many of us can claim to respond to our persecutors better than Paul?” In spite of all the negative or even “violent” statements about God’s judgment of unbelievers and evildoers, in his lack of a spirit of vengeance toward his enemies we can recognize the remarkable degree of influence that Jesus’ prohibition of vengeance and his exhortation of enemy love had upon him – the erstwhile Jewish “zealot,” a passionate man who apparently had a temper as a personality trait.39

Conclusion Paul hurls harsh and violent condemnations against the “false apostles/teachers” who lead his converts astray from the right faith, as well as against the opponents of the Christian faith who persecute him, hoping that he will cease to preach the gospel of Christ Jesus and persecute his converts, hoping that they will give up their Christian faith. It is possible for some readers of his letters to focus just on this aspect of his life and teaching and to feel justified in using similarly violent language toward their opponents or even consider themselves inspired to attack them physically, something that Paul never suggests. But such a focus ignores Paul’s gospel of God’s salvation through his and his Son’s self-giving love and his energetic exposition of it in terms of “justification” and “reconciliation,” the metaphors that express most effectively the truth that God’s salvation establishes righteousness/justice and peace not only between God and human beings but also among human beings. It also ignores his impressive apostolic life of self-sacrificing service for others, as well as his emphatic teaching for Christians to live in a manner “worthy of the gospel of Christ” (Phil 1:27), that is, to practice self-giving love for neighbors (including enemies) in imitation of Christ, and in imitation of his own apostolic example. It is the responsibility of exegetes, theologians, and pastors to teach their flock not to focus only on the opening words of Eph 6:10–20 and get encouraged to justify a violent war or inspired to conduct a shamanistic kind of “spiritual warfare,” but to look at the whole text (and do that in light of the whole gospel) to 38  See Vos, “Splitting and Violence,” 193–94. Cf. now Essay 14 “Beloved, never avenge yourselves” above, where it is observed (1) that Paul understands God’s judgment and destruction of the unbelieving evil doers or opponents of Christian faith mainly in terms of his giving them up to their own persistence in rebellion against God or in self-exclusion from God’s saving grace, as well as (2) that he appears to hold on to his eschatological hope of God’s mercy extended to the majority of the disobedient Jews and Gentiles. 39  See G. Bornkamm, Paul (tr. D. M. G. Stalker; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 239.

Conclusion

421

get the real meaning and method of “spiritual warfare.” Likewise, it is their job to teach their flock not to focus just on Paul’s violent language, but to consider his teaching and ministry as a whole to judge whether he remained a violent “zealot” even after he became a Christian,40 or whether, as he claims, he was created anew to be an envoy of God and his Son Jesus Christ for reconciliation and peace to all the nations (2 Cor 5:14–21).

40 So,

Gager, with Gibson, “Violent Acts and Violent Language,” 13–21.

Appendix: Jesus and the Temple* Introduction Jesus’ attitude to the Jerusalem temple is an important and difficult problem that has not yet been sufficiently clarified. Its unusual importance is already shown * This essay was completed in May 1985 during my Alexander von Humboldt fellowship in Tübingen, Germany, and its German version (“Die Vollmacht Jesu und der Tempel: Der geschichtliche Zusammenhang und der theologische Sinn der ‘Tempelreinigung’ Jesu”) was then accepted for publication in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.26.1 (Berlin: de Gruyter). But in spite of the repeated assurances of its editor for a speedy publication of it and even the repeated announcements in the Inhaltsverzeichnis of the next volume of the compendia, it has still not appeared! However, some authors referred to it, having noticed my summary of its content in the introductory part of my sequel article, “Jesus – the Son of God, the Stone, the Son of Man, and the Servant: The Role of Zechariah in the Self-Designations of Jesus,” Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament, E. E.  Ellis Festschrift (ed. G. F.  Hawthorne and O. Betz; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 134–48. Some colleagues privately asked for its manuscripts. Watching how Ed P. Sanders was decisively reshaping New Testament scholarship on the historical Jesus with his publication of Jesus and Judaism in the Fall of 1985 (Philadelphia: Fortress), in which he highlighted the importance of Jesus’ attitude to the temple in understanding his aim, I helplessly waited for publication of my essay in ANRW for all these years. However, since there has been no more communication from the editors or publishers of the compendia for many years, I have decided to publish it as an appendix to this volume – with some strange feeling about publishing at the closing stage of my scholarly life a work produced at its novice stage. I am publishing its original English version here largely as it was in the Spring of 1985. On rereading of it today, I feel the need to improve my argumentation, as well as the need to augment it with discussions of the contributions that other scholars have made on the subject since its completion (cf. esp. J. Ådna, Jesu Stellung zum Tempel: Die Tempelaktion und das Tempelwort als Ausdruck seiner messianischen Sendung [WUNT 2/119; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000]; J. H.  Charlesworth ed., Jesus and Temple: Textual and Archaeological Explorations [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014]; S. J. Joseph, Jesus and the Temple: The Crucifixion in its Jewish Context [SNTSMS 165; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016]; N. Perrin, Jesus the Temple [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010]; idem, Jesus the Priest [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019]; B. Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017]; N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997]). However, I have left the substance of the original essay intact, making only some stylistic improvements and minor changes for clarity here and there. Only at two places some more substantial changes were made: making neater my explanations in the second half of the section 3 C (plus addition of fn. 100 there), and the re-written conclusion, which unfolds a little the extremely condensed original. In spite of the old age of the essay, I hope that at least some readers find some points in it that are worthy of further discussion in scholarship.

424

Jesus and the Temple

by the fact that a word of Jesus about the temple was made the evidence, in fact, the only concrete evidence, for his prosecution at the trial before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:58//Matt 26:61). But this word about the destruction of the temple and building of a new one reflects only an aspect of the unique attitude of Jesus to the temple. Together with it, we need also to consider the four other facts: (1) Although the temple was the center of worship in the Judaism of his days, apparently Jesus did not show enough reverence for it. The three Synoptic Gospels report of his only one visit in the temple during his public ministry – only at the end of it and without mentioning his participation in its sacrifice at all.1 (2) Instead, Jesus carried out the ministry of forgiveness of sins and healing, which were reserved for the atoning sacrifices in the temple. (3) In a series of statements (Mark 7:1–23//Matt 15:1–20) and activities (Mark 1:41 and parr.; 5:1–20 and parr.; 5:21–43 and parr.), Jesus either ignored the Levitical statutes for ritual purity that had the purpose of enabling God’s people to participate in the temple cult, or he determined the question of purity and impurity in a new way. (4) Jesus attacked the corrupt cultic practices of his time (Mark 7:10–12//Matt 15:4–6; Matt 23:23//Luke 11:42; Mark 7:15–20; Luke 11:39–41//Matt 23:25–26). The so-called “temple cleansing” (Mark 11:12–19 and parr.) is the best example of this. All these facts suggest a tension between Jesus’ ministry and the temple cult in Jerusalem. But they also suggest that just as his proclamation of God’s kingdom, his self-designation as the “Son of Man” or his address to God as “abba” (father) so also the topic “Jesus and the temple” could help us find an answer to the decisive question of Jesus’ self-understanding. In this short investigation not all these aspects of Jesus’ attitude to the temple can be dealt with. So, we are going to focus on the so-called “the question about Jesus’ authority” or “Vollmachtsfrage” (Mark 11:27–33 and parr.), which must be seen in connection with both the “temple cleansing” and Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin. Even such a limited investigation can yield a picture of the essential features of Jesus’ relationship to the temple and clarify especially the problem of his self-understanding that has to be assumed as having determined his attitude to the temple.

1  The Gospel of John presents only an apparently different picture. Certainly, unlike the Synoptics, it reports of Jesus’ participation in the Jewish feasts of the Passover (ch. 6), the Tabernacle (chs. 7–9), and the Dedication (10:22–29), which were celebrated in the temple. Besides, John gives the impression that Jesus was executed during the feast of the Passover (chs. 12–19). But on these occasions John does not show Jesus approving the temple cult in a positive way but rather stresses that its true meaning will be fulfilled through Jesus. This is in agreement with the Synoptic (or at least Marcan and Matthaean) accounts, according to which Jesus fulfills the true meaning of the temple. This is to be demonstrated in the following.

1. The Questions about Jesus’ Authority

425

1. The Questions about Jesus’ Authority(Mark 11:27–33// Matt 21:23–27//Luke 20:1–8) (a) Tradition and Redaction There is a general consensus among commentators that the Marcan version of our pericope is the original which Matthew and Luke took over with stylistic improvements.2 Hence this study, in which we hope to penetrate into the historical foundation of the story, will concentrate on the Marcan version. Concerning the Marcan redaction in the pericope there is little consensus. However, Mark 11:27a is generally held to be redactional, with which Mark indicates that the confrontation here reported took place on the third visit of Jesus and his disciples in Jerusalem (cf. 11:11, 15) and one day after his temple action (11:15–19).3 While the majority of commentators take at least part of v. 27b to be traditional, E. J. Pryke seems to view the whole v. 27b to be redactional. He points to the Marcan redactional tendency of using the genitive absolute (here περιπατοῦντος αὐτοῦ) in the opening verse(s) of a pericope for topographical or chronological indication4 as well as to γραμματεύς and ἱερόν, which he numbers among “Marcan redactional vocabulary.”5 But even in his reckoning γραμματεύς is redactional only in 12 out of the total 21 occurrences in Mark and ἱερόν in 6 out of the total 9. So the two words in our verse need not be redactional.6 He seems to determine 2  For details see Gam Seng Shae, “The Question on the Authority of Jesus,” NovT 16 (1974): 3–4, as well as commentaries. Cf. also C. M. Tuckett, The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 66–67, who shows that the interrelationship of Matt 21:23; Mark 11:27; and Luke 20:1 is more smoothly explained on the assumption of the Marcan priority than on the Griesbach hypothesis. 3 But see R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium II. Teil (Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 210, who holds v. 27a also as pre-Marcan. 4 E. J. Pryke, Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 62–63. 5  Ibid., 145. 6  Pryke allows only the three occurrences of ἱερόν in the pericope of the Temple Cleansing to be traditional and declares all the other occurrences in Mark 11–14 to be redactional. But if the ἱερόν in Mark 13:1 f. is also attributed to Marcan redaction, then the temple prophecy, which plays an essential role in the trial of Jesus (Mark 14:58) and is one of the “best attested logia of Jesus in the NT” (Mark 14:58//Matt 26:61; Mark 15:29//Matt 27:40; John 2:19–21; Acts 6:13– 14; cf. Acts 7:48; 17:24; Heb 9:11, 14; cf. O. Betz, “Probleme des Prozesses Jesu,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.25.1 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1982], 630), will have to be judged as having originated from Mark. But this is most unlikely (see infra). We cannot understand why on his arrival at Jerusalem on the occasion of the Passover feast, which was celebrated at the temple, Jesus could not have visited the temple as Mark reports (11:11) and why this be judged as something that Mark for the first time imagined. In the case of Mark 12:35 and 14:49, it is surely more than possible that Jesus “the messianic teacher of wisdom” (M. Hengel, “Jesus als messianischer Lehrer der Weisheit und die Anfänge der Christologie,” Sagesse et réligion [Paris: Presses Université de France, 1979], 147–88; R. Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer [Tübingen:

426

Jesus and the Temple

them as redactional only because in view of the genitive absolute he has decided the whole v. 27b to be redactional. The genitive absolute περιπατοῦντος αὐτοῦ may indeed be redactional. But it is possible that Marcan redaction did not consist in creation of the whole thing or changing the meaning of what he had received from the tradition but simply in giving the form of his favorite genitive absolute to a traditional statement to the effect that when Jesus was in the temple he was approached and questioned by the Jewish authorities. This possibility seems to be suggested by the fact that Pryke himself does not list περιπατεῖν as a Marcan redactional word.7 R. Bultmann believes that οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι in v. 27b is Marcan.8 According to J. Gnilka, the pre-Marcan tradition started: “And the chief priests and … (?) came to him and said to him,” etc., and it can no longer be made certain whether or not “the scribes” and/or “the elders” were originally mentioned in it.9 As said above, Pryke believes that 12 out of the total 21 occurrences of γραμματεύς in Mark are redactional and the occurrence in v. 27 is one of the redactional cases. However, it is quite possible that at least in some of the 12 cases the word itself is part of the traditional material which Mark redacted (if he did). Since “the chief priests and the scribes and the elders” in our verse are probably to be thought of as a delegation of the Sanhedrin, the question whether they belong to the original tradition may be related to the question whether Mark is right in connecting the Vollmachtsfrage with Jesus’ temple action. For, if he reflects the historical reality in this, it is quite possible that after the temple action, a serious challenge to the temple cult, Jesus was questioned by a delegation of the Sanhedrin who represented its three components.10 When Bultmann sees the original tradition of the Vollmachtsfrage only in vv. 28–30 and so eliminates v. 27 completely from it and when Gnilka lets the Mohr Siebeck, 21984]) would have most naturally chosen the temple as the place of his teaching activities during his stay in Jerusalem on the occasion of the Passover feast. Cf. S. Safrai, Die Wallfahrt im Zeitalter des zweiten Tempels (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1981), 261 ff. Since Pryke allows the three occurrences of ἱερόν in Mark 11:15–17 to be traditional, whether the ἱερόν in Mark 11:27b is redactional or not depends on the judgement as to whether or not the Vollmachtsfrage of Mark 11:27–33 was originally connected with the temple action of Mark 11:15–19 as Mark indicates. Reasons will be given below for the judgement that it was. So we take the ἱερόν in Mark 11:27b to be traditional. These considerations lead us to see how natural it is that “das Stichwort ἱερόν ist für die Jerusalemer Stoff der vormarkinischen Passionsgeschichte charakteristisch (vgl. 11,11.15.16. 27; 12,35; 14,49)” (Pesch, Markus II, 269). This examination in connection with the word ἱερόν seems to indicate the limitation of the kind of purely literary critical methods that Pryke uses.  7 Contra J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus. 2. Teilband (Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1979), 137 (n. 8).  8  R. Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 71967), 18. 9  Gnilka, Markus II, 137. 10  See J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (ET; London: SCM, 1976), chs. VIII–X, esp. 179, 222–23, 236–37; E. Lohse, συνέδριον, ThWNT 7: 861–62.

1. The Questions about Jesus’ Authority

427

pre-Marcan tradition start without any chronological or topographical framework, they do so, of course, on the basis of the presuppositions of form criticism, namely that the individual pericopes of the Gospel tradition were originally transmitted as isolated units and that their geographical and chronological framework was created by the Evangelists. But lately these presuppositions have come under heavy criticism.11 Whether our pericope can adequately be explained through the form-critical method will be examined in a moment. However, if we do not oblige ourselves to put too much trust in the above presuppositions of form criticism and if we are not committed to the “methodological doubt,” we may take v. 27 (or at least v. 27b) as the pre-Marcan tradition integral to the story of the Vollmachtsfrage. Then we may find R. Pesch’s comment on v. 27 the best explanation of the context of the story: The fact that although Jesus is said to have “taught daily” in the temple (Mark 14:49; cf. 11:17–18, 35) he is not approached by the authorities while he teaches suggests that here “no stereotype picture is presented; the context since 11:18 conveys rather the impression that the questioners appeared soon after Jesus’ arrival at the temple precinct (while he walked about there; cf. John 10:23), i. e., that they ‘waited’ for Jesus.”12 The traditional character of vv. 28–30 is not disputed. It seems that only Bultmann and Gnilka regard v. 33 as redactional.13 Even Pryke does not view it as such. E. Best observes well: “Surely without v. 33 these (sc. vv. 28–30) lack a telling conclusion.”14 Bultmann lets the original tradition end with v. 30 because he believes that rabbinic controversy-stories usually ended with a counter-question.15 But of course this generalization is wrong because there are many examples of rabbinic controversy-stories which do not end with a counter-question but rather with “a telling conclusion” drawn from the answer of opponent to a counter-question (e. g., b. Sanh. 65b; Gen. R. 27[17c]; Ex. R. 30; Midr. Qoh. 1.7; 5.10).16 In fact, D. Daube has attempted to establish a form of rabbinic controversy-stories that consists of (1) the enemy’s question; (2) the counter-question; (3) the answer which the enemy is forced to give; and (4) the refutation, and has singled out our pericope as one of the examples in the NT that conform to 11 E.  g., G. N. Stanton, “Form Criticism Revisited,” What About the New Testament?, C. F.  Evans Festschrift (London: SCM, 1975), 13 ff.; P. Stuhlmacher ed., Das Evangelium und die Evangelien (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), esp. the essays by P. Stuhlmacher (“Zum Thema: Das Evangelium und die Evangelien,” 75–76), E. E. Ellis (“Gospel Criticism: A Perspective on the State of the Art,” 39 ff.), and B. Gerhardson (“Der Weg der Evangelientradition,” 83 ff.). 12  Pesch, Markus II, 210. 13 Bultmann, Geschichte, 18 f.; Gnilka, Markus II, 137. 14  E. Best, The Temptation and the Passion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 85. 15 Bultmann, Geschichte, 38, 43 ff. 16  See J.-G. Mudiso M. Mundla, Jesus und die Führer Israels (Münster: Aschendorff, 1984), 10, who points out that some of Bultmann’s own examples of NT controversy-stories themselves do not correspond to his claim (e. g., Mark 2:17, 19; 3:24–25; 7:6, 28; 10:6–8; cf. Bultmann, Geschichte, 42–43).

428

Jesus and the Temple

this form.17 So v. 33 cannot be declared as redactional either on the form-critical ground or any other ground. Verses 31–32a are a report of the discussion among the Jewish authorities about two alternative answers to Jesus’ counter-question and v. 32b is the inferred reason why the second alternative could not be adopted, either. For Bultmann, the word πιστεύειν here suggests that vv. 31–32 originated from a Hellenist or Mark himself.18 But he gives no reason for this supposition. When already in the OT we have the idea of believing (Glauben schenken) a messenger of God (MT: ‫ = האמין ל‬LXX: πιστεύειν + dat. ; e. g., Ex 4:1, 8–9; 2 Chr 32:15; Jer 40:14), why could the Palestinian tradition not have used the word “to believe” in reference to the John the Baptist?19 Pryke judges vv. 31–32 as redactional because of the parenthetical clause and the explanatory γάρ in v. 32b and because of διαλογίζεσθαι, Ἰωάννης, ὄχλος, προφήτης, and φοβεῖσθαι.20 But the two syntactical features and the words which are regarded by Pryke as indicating the Marcan redaction here are all (except διαλογίζεσθαι) limited to v. 32b. Since even Pryke does not claim that whenever one of these words occurs it is redactional, it is not impossible to think that Mark constructed here a parenthetical clause using the traditional material. Even if διαλογίζεσθαι is Marcan, on that account the whole vv. 31–32a cannot be judged as redactional. Pryke speaks about two grammatical errors of Mark in v. 32a: “He breaks off the second conditional sentence (ἀλλ᾽ εἴπωμεν· ἐξ ἀνθρώπων;) without supplying the apodosis, and replaces it with the explanatory clause ἐφοβοῦντο … Even here instead of writing εῖχον τὸν Ἰωάννην ὄντως ὡς προφήτην, he uses a ὅτι clause: ὄντως ὅτι προφήτης ἦν.”21 But the former is no grammatical error, although stylistically it would be neater if a conditional sentence ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν εἴπωμεν· ἐξ ἀνθρώπων … stood here, building a parallelism to v. 31b, as it is the case in the Matthean and the Lucan parallels. It is possible that the tradition vividly reported the scene of mutual whispering among the Jewish authorities: “if we say, ‘From heaven,’ then he will say …, or then22 shall we say, ‘From men’? …”

17  D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London: Athlone Press, 1956), 151–52. 18 Bultmann, Geschichte, 19. 19  Cf. A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthäus (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1929), 623; E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 171967), 242 (n. 5). As the convenient table in F. Neirynck, “The Redactional Text of Mark,” Evangelica (BETL 60. ed. F. van Segbroeck. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982), 620–21, 627 ff., shows, none of those who have examined the Marcan redactional vocabulary (J. C. Hawkins, L. Gaston, E. J. Pryke, and F. Neirynck), except R. Morgenthaler, includes πιστεύω among his list. 20  Pryke, Redactional Style, 145. 21  Ibid., 43. 22 Cf. J. Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Marci (Berlin: Reimer, 1903), 99: “Ἀλλά heisst oder aber = vella …”

1. The Questions about Jesus’ Authority

429

So, on the literary-critical ground the traditional character of the pericope (vv. 27–33) as a whole cannot be disputed. Only in v. 32b, and possibly also in v. 27a, the Marcan redactional hand can be discerned with some degree of certainty,23 and even there (especially in v. 32b) it is not precluded that Mark made use of some traditional material.24 (b) Form Criticism: Rudolf Bultmann and His Influence Our pericope is generally viewed as a controversy-story, and for its form-critical analysis rabbinic controversy-stories are often adduced as parallels. In rabbinic Schul‑ und Streitgespräche, usually (1) a rabbi is asked about a doctrinal point, a Scriptural interpretation or a point of Jewish religious practice; (2) the rabbi answers by means of a counter-question; (3) the original questioner answers in the way the rabbi expects; and (4) the rabbi derives his concluding answer from the answer of the questioner. Many rabbinic controversy-stories contain more than one course of question and answer between a rabbi and a questioner, but the above is the basic pattern.25 Seeing our pericope in the light of this pattern, Bultmann observes that v. 30 is a counter-question that contains the answer to and repudiation of the attack, in a good agreement with the rabbinic pattern: “As the Baptist had his ἐξουσία from God and not from human beings, so also I!” If the original tradition of our pericope followed the rabbinic pattern, the response of the questioners to this counter-question should have been “From heaven” or at least a quiet consideration among themselves: “If we say: from heaven, then will Jesus also claim this ἐξουσία for himself!” But the present vv. 31–32 in our pericope disturb this rabbinic pattern. So Bultmann views that they are a redactional addition born of a misunderstanding of the point here. Consequently, he declares that only vv. 28–30 constitute “a genuine Palestianian apophthegma,” which he is inclined to seeing as having been produced by the primitive church as an answer to opponents’ dispute about their baptismal practice.26

 Cf. Shae, “Authority,” 4–10, and Mundla, Führer, 8–12, who arrive at a similar conclusion. vv. 31–32a are here rightly judged as traditional, then it is difficult to suppose that the tradition had v. 32 end with the question. Verse 32a must have been followed by something that gave the reason why the Jewish authorities could not adopt the second alternative (i. e., v. 32b). Since it is well established in both the NT and Josephus that John the Baptist was revered by ordinary Jews but rejected by their leaders (e. g., Mark 9:13; Matt 21:23; Luke 7:29–30; Josephus, Ant. 18.116–19), it is highly likely that something to the effect of our v. 32b followed v. 32a in the pre-Marcan tradition. 25 See many examples in Billerbeck I, 660–61, 861–62, 893 ff., etc; Bultmann, Geschichte, 43 ff. 26  For all this, see ibid., 18–19, 40–41 (“… die Streitgespräche sind sämtlich ideale Szenen. … sind sie ideale Szenen, die einen Grundsatz, den die Gemeinde auf Jesus zurückführt, in einem konkreten Fall veranschaulichen”). 23

24 If

430

Jesus and the Temple

This form-critical analysis of our pericope by Bultmann has been largely followed by the majority of the critical commentators on the Synoptic Gospels. However, it is Gam Seng Shae who has developed it most in detail.27 According to Shae,28 the two questions in v. 28 are not two forms of the one and the same question, as generally thought, but two different questions. The two questions represent two stages in the history of the tradition. The first (v. 28a) is repeated in vv. 29b and 33b, while the second question is reflected in the counter-question of Jesus in v. 30. Verse 28b and v. 30 (minus ἀποκρίθητέ μοι) represent a piece of earlier tradition. Citing Bultmann, Shae also thinks that vv. 31–32 logically do not fit the question (v. 28b) and the counter-question (v. 30) as neatly as the response that draws a parallelism between John the Baptist and Jesus would. Therefore, they must be viewed as representing a later stage. So Shae believes that the earlier tradition embedded in the controversy-story ran: 28b τίς σοι ἔδωκεν τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην ἵνα ταῦτα ποιῇς; 29a ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· 30 τὸ βάπτισμα τὸ Ἰωάννου ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἦν ἢ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων;

But since this reconstructed tradition lacks two last members in the rabbinic pattern of controversy-stories, namely (3) the questioner’s answer and (4) the rabbi’s climactic response, Shae conjectures that this earlier tradition originally continued with the following elements: καὶ ἔλεγον αὐτῷ· ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· οὕτως ἐστὶν ἡ ἐξουσία μου ἐξ οὐρανοῦ.

Shae believes that this earlier tradition was originally a form of teaching which was later made a controversy-story. Shae further believes that this Schulgespräch is authentic. The criterion of dissimilarity is for this view. For the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ time did not accept John the Baptist as a prophet (Mark 9:13; 11:31; Matt 21:32; Luke 7:30; Josephus, Ant. 18.116 ff.) and there is a general tendency in the Gospels to subordinate John to Jesus, rather than seeing a parallelism between them in authority as v. 30, according to Shae (and also Bultmann), suggests. On the other hand, Jesus’ high view of John is well attested in the genuine Jesus tradition (Matt 11:11//Luke 7:28; Matt 11:18//Luke 7:23; Matt 11:12//Luke 16:16). However, since “the chief priests, the scribes and the elders” in v. 27b would hardly have affirmed the prophetic authority of John the Baptist as v. 30 according to the form-critical presupposition requires, Share removes v. 27b from the 27 See 28

n. 2 above.  For the following, see his “Authority,” 10–20.

1. The Questions about Jesus’ Authority

431

earlier stage of the tradition, viewing it as an addition to the tradition at the later stage when vv. 31–33 were added. This means that the original tradition had no relation to Jesus’ temple action as our pericope seems to have in its present context in Mark. So Shae begins to speculate on the Sitz im Leben of the original tradition and on the original reference of the ταῦτα in v. 28. Going beyond Bultmann’s conjecture,29 Shae thinks: The word ταῦτα … probably refers to the entire movement that Jesus had initiated with his calling people to join his movement and teaching about the Kingdom of God. The question probably came from former disciples of John (among whom Jesus himself was one) who saw in Jesus’ ministry a new movement emerging, one that is different from that of John …. Jesus’ answer to his questioners is short and decisive: “Just as John’s eschatological baptizing ministry in preparation for the Kingdom comes from God, so does the authority with which I lead the Kingdom of God movement comes from God.”30

By the time this Schulgespräch or “the pre-conflict story” (as Shae calls it) reached Mark, according to Shae, it had developed into a full controversy-story involving the church and the temple with the addition of vv. 27, 31–33. The transformation results in making this later (pre-Marcan) tradition say two things: “(1) Jesus is the true authority who judges the highest Jewish leaders themselves; (and) (2) the Jewish authorities are judged (refused their answer) because of their unbelief in the baptism of John (v. 31 f.).”31 Shae goes on to speculate on the Sitz im Leben of this “pre-Marcan conflict story” and to discuss the meaning of the controversy-story at the stage of the Marcan redaction.32 However, we do not need to summarize these here because what has been summarized of his essay so far is already problematic. For their speculative reconstructions of the original tradition of the Vollmachtsfrage both Bultmann and Shae have to presuppose that it must have conformed to rabbinic Schul‑ und Streitgespräche. On the basis of this presupposition they remove vv. 27, 31–33 of our pericope from the original tradition and replace them with hypothetical sentences. But is this presupposition right? The fact that even in vv. 28–30, or in the original tradition, Shae has hypothetically reconstructed Jesus to appear not as a teacher but rather as “one who is quasi– juridically interrogated”33 and that the point of the debate is not a doctrinal point, a Scriptural interpretation, or a point of religious practice but a personal

 Bultmann, Geschichte, 18 (n. 2).  Shae, “Authority,” 18. 31 Ibid., 20. 32  Ibid., 20–28. We analyze Shae’s thesis extensively here, on the one hand, because it works out most fully the form-critical approach Bultmann initiated and, on the other hand, because it is more or less completely adopted by Gnilka, Markus, II, 136 ff. 33  Pesch, Markus, II, 209. 29 30

432

Jesus and the Temple

challenge,34 should already make us hesitate to force the Vollmachtsfrage into the mold of rabbinic Schul‑ und Streitgespräche.35 Much more seriously, the form-critical conclusions of Bultmann and Shae contradict one of the cardinal presuppositions of their form-critical method. Their form-critical analyses lead them to see the whole point of the allegedly original tradition as being the establishment of Jesus’ authority on the basis of his parallelism or equality to John the Baptist.36 But can we imagine a Sitz im Leben in the history of the primitive church in which this tradition was formed and/or transmitted? It contradicts the known tendency of the primitive church to suppose that it defends Jesus’ authority on the basis of an analogy or equality with that of John.37 If it was John’s followers who raised the challenge against the authority of Jesus or the primitive church,38 they must have raised it because they felt they had a right to do so, and they must have claimed the right by pointing to Jesus’ baptism by John and his having been a disciple of John like themselves. How could then the primitive church imagine to repudiate the challenge by declaring that just as John had his authority from God, so also Jesus has his from God? John’s disciples could quite easily and rightly have demolished this argument by pointing to Jesus’ baptism by John and his having been a disciple of John as well as to the fact that Jesus taught (or was teaching) and behaved (or was behaving) differently from John!39 Shae’s view that the original tradition was therefore an authentic report of an episode during the lifetime of Jesus does not help him to escape from the same difficulty. For it is impossible to imagine that John’s disciples could have been repudiated or won over, even by Jesus, with such an argument that rested on a parallelism or equality between John and himself. Even if it is somehow possible to imagine that Jesus did argue – quite unsuccessfully, therefore – against the challenge of John’s disciples in this way, is it pos34  Shae’s talk of the “pre-conflict story tradition” transformed into a “conflict story” is quite improper. 35  Cf. Pesch, Markus, II, 209; I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (Exeter: Paternoster, 1978), 723. 36 Similarly, also M. Albertz, Die synoptische Streitgespräche (Berlin: Trowitzsch, 1921), 21, 29; V. Taylor, The Gospel according to Mark (London: Macmillan, 21966), 471; Gnilka, Markus, II, 137; Mundla, Führer, 24–25; J. Roloff, Das Kerygma und der irdische Jesus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 21973), 94–95. 37  Cf. Shae, “Authority,” 15; Lohmeyer, Markus, 243. 38  The theories of Bultmann and Shae demand that the original questioners were John’s followers, or at least those who accepted John as a prophet. So explicitly Shae, “Authority,” 18; Gnilka, Markus, II, 137. 39  Even if the challenge came not from John’s followers but some other quarter, this argument based on an analogy between John and Jesus would not have been effective to them. For as Lohmeyer (Markus, 243) incisively remarks, then the decisive question (“wodurch diese Analogie zu rechtfertigen sei”) remains unanswered. If the relationship between Jesus and John in view here is one of analogy, there is no reason why those who accept John to be a prophet commissioned by God should also recognize Jesus as such.

1. The Questions about Jesus’ Authority

433

sible to imagine the primitive church preserving and transmitting the episode while otherwise generally subordinating John to Jesus in their narratives? What interest would it have had in transmitting the Streitgespräch when in it Jesus its Master would clearly appear as a loser or an unconvincing teacher? As for the two questions in v. 28 which Shae sees as providing him with a clue to his tradition-historical reconstruction, it is much more plausible to see them with the majority of commentators as one question phrased in two ways rather than as two different questions representing two different stages of the tradition history. First of all, we are not persuaded by Shae’s dispute about the parallelism of the ἐν ποίᾳ δυνάμει ἢ ἐν ποίῳ ὀνόματι ἐποιήσατε τοῦτο ὑμεῖς; in Acts 4:7 to the two questions in our v. 28. When he sees the former as paralleling to our v. 28a (ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ ταῦτα ποιεῖς;), he apparently fails to see that ἐν ποίῳ ὀνόματι in Acts 4:7 closely parallels to our v. 28b (τίς σοι ἔδωκεν τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην …;), both demanding to name the authoritative commissioner, while ἐν ποίᾳ δυνάμει closely parallels to our v. 28a (ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ …), δύναμις and ἐξουσία here being almost synonymous.40 Secondly, Shae’s claim that the original question of v. 28b “was reinterpreted and subordinated to a new question that expressed the true Christological concern of the early church”41 is very strange. Why is the question in v. 28a more Christologically loaded than that in v. 28b? If the answer to the question in v. 28b is God, then Jesus is claiming to be an envoy commissioned by God with the authority to do “these things.” Then the answer to the question in v. 28a is “the authority given to me by God as his envoy.” So, what is the difference between the two questions in v. 28? In fact, with the conjunction ἤ, the article τήν and the demonstrative adj. ταύτην, the second question makes the point of the first question more precise.42 Given the OT–Jewish background where a prophet or messenger of God can claim to authority only insofar as he is sent and authorized (i. e., given authority) by God (cf. Deut 18:15–22), it is not at all strange to imagine that Jesus, a messianic or prophetic pretender in the eyes of his opponents, should have been asked in this double form. The question about the nature of Jesus’ authority is made more precise or explained by the question about its giver, because its giver determines its nature. Further, it is to be noted that M. Black has listed the two questions in v. 28 among the examples of “parallelism of lines” characteristic of Semitic poetic form.43 40  Cf. W. Foerster, ἐξουσία, ThWNT 2: 301–302; G. Friedrich, δύναμις, EWNT 1, 861 ff.; I. Broer, ἐξουσία, EWNT 2, 24 ff. 41  Shae, “Authority,” 19. 42 So the majority of commentators: e.  g., Lohmeyer, Markus, 241; Taylor, Mark, 470; W. Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Markus (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 81980), 317; Mundla, Führer, 14. 43 M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 31967), 159. F. Neirynck, “Duplicate Expressions in the Gospel of Mark,” Evangelica (BETL 60. ed. F. van Segbroeck. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982), 125, also stresses that “the two questions cannot be isolated: the second gives further precision to and explains

434

Jesus and the Temple

The view of Bultmann and Shae that the internal discussion in v. 31 does not logically fit well with the question in v. 28 and the counter-question in v. 30 is also unfounded. Only those who are pre-determined on the form-critical presupposition that our pericope can make sense only in terms of a parallelism of John the Baptist and Jesus would perceive a logical break between v. 30 and v. 31. But this presupposition has been found implausible above. Together with the nature of the opponents’ challenge in v. 28 and their internal discussion in vv. 31–32, their answer (“We do not know”) and Jesus’ concluding response (“I will also not tell you …”) in v. 33, distinguishing our pericope from the usual form of rabbinic Schul‑ und Streitgespräche, may irritate some determined form-critics. But if we see our pericope without a presupposition that it has to conform exactly to a certain ideal form, we do not see any logical break in it. As will be shown below, our pericope makes a good sense as an “einheitlicher Bericht.”44 Thus, the form-critical approaches of Bultmann and Shae to the Vollmachtsfrage break down. Even though they are allowed to make a substantial surgery in order to fit the tradition into the pattern of rabbinic Schul‑ und Streitgespräche, they fail to produce a convincing explanation of our pericope.45 But even if such a substantial surgery and complicated tradition–historical reconstruction should be able to produce a plausible explanation, that method should be appealed to only when an equally plausible explanation of our pericope is not possible without it. In fact, it is quite possible to make a good sense of our pericope as it is – a good sense which is in line with Jesus’ claim and its ‫ משל‬character which are visible elsewhere as well.46 (c) A New Interpretation Our discussion in the last section has made two points clear: (1) that although the Vollmachtsfrage can be termed as a Streitgespräche or broadly compared with Jewish (or rabbinic) Streitgespräche, some of its distinctive features resist any attempt to force it exactly into the pattern of the latter, and (2) that the oftensuggested view that the point of Jesus’ counter-question lies in a parallelism or analogy between John the Baptist and himself must be abandoned. the first.” Nevertheless, he is apparently inclined to ascribe the second question to the Marcan redaction. But our consideration in this paragraph, as well as Black’s observation, seem to suggest that the double form of the question is traditional. Even if the second question is a Marcan redaction, it does not alter the meaning of the first question; it only brings out the point of the second more precisely. 44  Pesch, Markus II, 209. 45  Cf. Shae, “Authority,” 20, 33, for a strange explanation of “the pre-Marcan conflict story.” 46 Another argument against the form-critical approach of Shae is that by letting Jesus explicitly or implicitly declare the heavenly origin of his authority, it presents Jesus without “messianic secret” and robs our pericope of its ‫ משל‬character. Matt 11:2–6//Luke 7:18–23 indicates that even to the disciples of John Jesus’ self-identification was indirect. Infra n. 56.

1. The Questions about Jesus’ Authority

435

In unfolding an alternative interpretation, we propose that it is best to start with Jesus’ counter-question in v. 30. In a good Jewish (or rabbinic) manner Jesus responds to his questioners with a counter-question. Using a very Jewish circumlocution for God (“heaven”) and also very Jewish contrast (God vs. human beings), Jesus asks them whether they hold “the baptism of John” as having been from God, i. e., commissioned (therefore authorized) by God, or “from human beings,” i. e., initiated merely by creaturely and fallible (or sinful) human beings (therefore without a divine authority and without any right to an absolute claim). Some commentators take “the baptism of John” here to mean John the Baptist and his ministry as a whole which is characterized by his baptismal movement. For this V. Taylor compares it with τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου in Acts 1:22 and 18:25.47 But in both passages in Acts the phrase seems to refer specifically to the baptism of John, and in Acts 1:22 in fact it seems to refer specifically to Jesus’ baptism by John as the point of departure of Jesus’ ministry. It is perhaps significant that the question is not phrased “Did John the Baptist come (ἦλθεν) from heaven or from human beings?” (cf. Matt 11:18//Luke 7:33) or “Was John the Baptist sent (ἀπεστάλη) from heaven or from human beings?” (cf. John 1:6). It is also noteworthy that in Acts 5:38 also the ἐξ ἀνθρώπων vs. ἐκ θεοῦ contrast concern not whether the apostles have been commissioned by God or not, but rather their βουλή and ἔργον have been originated from God or not. So, it is probable that “the baptism of John” in our v. 30 refers specifically to John’s baptism rather than his person and ministry as a whole. Since the latter was characterized by a baptismal movement, there is in fact little substantial difference between the two alternatives. It is only a question of focus and accent. Our consideration seems to suggest that here the attention is focused specifically upon the baptism of John rather than the person and ministry of John as a whole. If so, the counter-question in v. 30 is not whether John in his ministry had an authority from heaven or not, but it is really a question about the nature of John’s baptism: is it something that sprang from the divine counsel or is it just a human idea?48 Many exegetes understand the counter-question in the former sense because of their misunderstanding of its point in terms of an analogy between John and Jesus. But we have seen that it is not a question of analogy between them. If the counter-question in v. 30 specifically refers to the baptism of John, then the αὐτῷ in v. 31 could be neuter and refer to “the baptism of John” in v. 30 rather than the person John. However, the fact that “John” rather than “the baptism of John” stands in v. 32 seems to suggest that the αὐτῷ in v. 31 probably is masculine and refers to John rather than his baptism. Then the questioners are expressing their fear that Jesus would charge them with failing to recognize John as a prophet commissioned by God to administer the baptism of repentance. Most ex47 E. g.,

Taylor, Mark, 470.  Cf. Lohmeyer, Markus, 242.

48

436

Jesus and the Temple

egetes take αὐτῷ as masculine, referring to John, simply because they presuppose that the point of Jesus’ counter-question in v. 30 is an analogy between John and himself. But this presupposition has been shown wrong. Since the verb πιστεύειν can go equally well with a dative referring to the person John who claimed to have been commissioned by God or to the baptism which he claimed to have been commissioned to administer,49 for us the only point that tips the balance in favour of taking the αὐτῷ as masculine is the point observed above, namely the appearance of “John” rather than “the baptism of John” in v. 32b which fulfils the same function as v. 31c. However, taking the αὐτῷ in v. 31 as referring to John rather than “the baptism of John” does not affect our conclusion above that τὸ βάπτισμα τὸ Ἰωάννου in v. 30 refers specifically to the baptism of John rather than John and his ministry as a whole. For then the sense of v. 31c would be: “(If you say the baptism of John was commissioned by God) why did you not believe John as the one who was commissioned by God to administer that baptism?” Verse 32a gives the alternative consideration of the questioners whether they should say that John’s baptism originated from John himself and his fellows so that it had no divine authority and no right to an absolute claim. But the questioners break off this alternative consideration because they realize that this answer is impossible or inexpedient. The reason why it is inexpedient is supplied by Mark (substantially based on the pre-Marcan tradition?50) in v. 32b: the questioners were afraid of provoking the wrath of the crowd who held John to have been a prophet. If the questioners answered that John’s baptism was just a human thing, this would be, in the eyes of the crowd, to denigrate the work of a prophet commissioned by God as a presumptuous (therefore sinful) act of a man and ultimately to reject God’s commission itself. Verse 31a suggests an internal discussion among the questioners.51 But it is difficult to imagine that the original narrator overheard their whispering. It is likely therefore that vv. 31–32a are what the narrator infers from the questioners’ answer οὐκ οἴδαμεν (v. 32a), as having gone through in their minds or whispered among themselves. We have already observed that it is impossible to think that Jesus’ counter-question aimed at inducing the opponents’ response “From heaven” in order to declare “So is my authority also from heaven.” Therefore, it is very likely that the narrator’s inference in vv. 31–32a is in accordance with Jesus’ intention in his counter-question: Jesus intended to charge his questioners of their failure to believe John if they answered they held his baptism to have been commissioned by God and he intended to make it impossible for them to deni-

49 Cf. Bauer–Arndt–Gingrich, s. v. ‫ האמין‬, the Hebrew equivalent of πιστεύειν also takes the dative referring to a person or a thing: e. g., Ex 1:9–10; 1 Kings 10:7//2 Chr 9:6; Isa 53:1; Jer 40:14; Hab 1:5; 2 Chr 32:15. 50  Cf. Pesch, Markus II, 211. 51 Cf. ibid., 211.

1. The Questions about Jesus’ Authority

437

grate John’s baptism as a presumptuous human act in front of the crowd.52 This means that the questioners could not have been the followers or sympathizers of John. It is rightly rejected by many exegetes that Jesus appealed merely to expediency in order to avoid the embarrassing interrogation.53 So we must ask what positive point Jesus was trying to drive at with his charge of their failure to believe John. What might have been the positive reason behind Jesus’ question about the origin and nature of John’s baptism in connection with the origin and nature of his own authority? If, in the event of the questioners turning out to be unsympathetic to John, Jesus intended to charge them of their failure to believe John, how would Jesus have intended to respond if they turned out to be sympathizers of John and therefore naturally answered “From heaven” to his counter-question? What would make Jesus’ counter-question a serious (not merely an expedient) attempt to answer his opponents who questioned about the origin and nature of his authority? If it was not just an expedience, Jesus’ counterquestion would have made sense only if the baptism of John had something to do with the origin and nature of his own authority, or, to be more precise, only if the former had a character of substantiating the latter. This leads us to the Gospel tradition of Jesus’ baptism by John, which tells us that at his baptism by John Jesus was anointed with the Spirit and commissioned by God as his Son (Mark 1:10–11 and parr.). Only because Jesus’ authority and the baptism of John had such a relationship, did Jesus refer to the latter in his counter-question. So, in his counter-question Jesus clearly had his own baptism by John in view, and with his reference to it he implicitly hinted that his authority was “from heaven” (it was God who gave it to him) and that it was the authority of the Son of God.54 If this is so, Jesus’ reference to the baptism of John in connection with the origin and nature of his authority in our pericope incidentally confirms the authenticity of the central assertions of the Synoptic narratives of Jesus’ baptism. It clearly indicates that Jesus was indeed baptized by John and that he understood his baptism as the occasion on (or the medium through) which he had been commissioned by God as his Son or the Messiah. Without such a presupposition about Jesus’ understanding of his baptism by John, it is, in our opinion, impossible to see the rationale behind Jesus’ reference to the baptism of John in the Vollmachtsfrage.

52  Cf. Lohmeyer, Markus, 242–43: “Es ist deutlich dass diese Erwägung, so gewiss der urchristliche Erzähler sie anstellt, doch nicht seine Erfindung ist, sondern ein notwendiger Bestandteil des Gesprächs” (242). 53 E. g., Lohmeyer, Markus, 242; Taylor, Mark, 470. 54  So Grundmann, Markus, 317–18; R. Gundry, Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 420. Best, Temptation, 85–86, recognizes this but seems to attribute it to Marcan redaction, as Shae, “Authority,” 27–28, does.

438

Jesus and the Temple

However, since Jesus received this commission and this authority from God at his baptism by John, i. e., since they were in some real sense mediated through John or through his baptism, a claim to them would be convincing only to those who believed John was a prophet commissioned by God to administer the divine counsel, or John’s baptism as the divine counsel.55 This was the reason why in his attempt to answer the question about the origin and nature of his authority Jesus asked his questioners whether they held John’s baptism to have been commissioned by God or initiated by the presumptuous will of human beings. The opponents found it not expedient to answer in either way. So they answered, οὐκ οἴδαμεν. To them Jesus saw no point of explaining the origin and nature of his authority. For it would not be intelligible or acceptable to them, as they did not accept the very ground (i. e., John’s baptism) on which Jesus based his divine commission and authority. So he had to refuse to give his questioners a definite answer. We have already seen that the inference by the narrator of the questioners’ internal consideration in vv. 31–32a corresponds to what Jesus in his counterquestion intended to happen among them. Jesus saw them being unsympathetic, and so he saw from the outset that he could not make the origin and nature of his authority convincing to them. Nevertheless, since as a matter of historical fact the origin and nature of his authority was connected with the baptism of John, he attempted to answer their question about it, referring to the latter, rather than refusing to answer their question from the beginning, which if not Jesus’ character, then at least the situation made impossible. It is at least theoretically possible that if the questioners had responded to Jesus’ charge of their failure to believe John, by saying, “We did not believe him when he was alive, but now in retrospect we do believe that he was indeed a prophet,” Jesus would have gone on to explain how at his baptism by John he had received the divine commission and authority as God’s Son. It is also possible that even in refusing in the end to answer the questioners unsympathetic to John, Jesus had a hope that they would grasp his claim implicit in his counter-question (if they had ears to hear!). Both this indirect way of answering the question about his authority and his implicit claim to have the divine commission and authority as God’s Son which are visible in our pericope, are characteristic of the Jesus manifested in the Gospel tradition. The counter-question embodying these has a ‫משל‬-character (cf. Mark 4:9), a well-known feature of Jesus: his puzzling self-disclosure can be comprehended only by those who have ears to hear.56 This consideration of our pericope including vv. 31–32a seems to suggest that the questioners were the Jewish authorities as stated in v. 27. But the same con55 Cf.

Grundmann, Markus, 317–18.  Cf. L. Goppelt, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), 222 ff. J. Jeremias, Neutestamentliche Theologie (Gütersloh: Mohn, 31979), 40; Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer, 367 ff.; also S. Kim, “The ‘Son of Man’” as the Son of God (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), esp. 35–36, 99 ff. 56

2. The Historical and Theological Context of the Vollmachtsfrage

439

clusion can be drawn even if we leave out vv. 31–32a from our consideration. The question in v. 28, the counter-question in v. 30 and the conclusion in v. 33 clearly presuppose (1) that the questioners were not sympathetic inquirers with a genuine interest in Jesus’ work nor neutral inquirers who could be won over to Jesus; (2) that they were disturbed by Jesus’ work; and (3) that they believed they had a right to interrogate Jesus. Ordinary people would not have had these three characteristics. The followers of John the Baptist could be considered as having had them. But in the previous section we ruled out the possibility of John’s followers being the questioners. Therefore, vv. 28 and 30 alone (even without vv. 31–32) suggest that the questioners were the Jewish authorities. This is consistent with the explicit statement in v. 27 that the questioners were the chief priests, scribes, and elders.

2. The Historical and Theological Context of the Vollmachtsfrage (a) The “Temple-Cleansing” (Mark 11:15–19 and parr.) What was it about Jesus that could have provoked the Jewish authorities to interrogate him about his authority? D. Daube thinks that they attacked him because he acted like a rabbi without having been ordained and that they questioned his authority to teach as a rabbi (‫רשות‬/‫)רשותא‬.57 This view may be supported by the apparent suggestion of the Matthean and the Lucan contexts of our pericope where Jesus’ teaching in the temple seems to be referred to by the ταῦτα (Matt 21:23//Luke 20:1 f.). But Daube also thinks that in Jesus’ response the word ἐξουσία (‫ )רשות‬took on the sense of “divine authority” and that the verb ποιεῖς in v. 28 indicates that the “controversy was brought about by something more than mere teaching.” In fact, Daube explicitly states that it must have been Jesus’ temple action accompanied by his teaching that caused the controversy, as Mark indicates (Mark 11:15–18).58 If the verb ποιεῖν indicates that the ταῦτα in v. 28 refers to something he did rather than something he said or taught,59 what deed other than Jesus’ temple action could it refer to? Insofar as the life of Jesus is known to us, we can conceive of Jesus’ act (or pronouncement) of forgiveness of sins (Mark 2:1–12 and parr.) and possibly also of his activities on the sabbath (Mark 2:23–28 and parr.; 3:1–6 and parr.) which like his temple action could have provoked the Jewish officials to question his authority to “do these things.” However, the Gospel tradition 57 Daube,

Rabbinic Judaism, 217 ff. (quotation from 220). 59  Ibid., 220; Marshall, Luke, 724. If Jesus’ teaching in the temple disturbed the Jewish authorities, would he not have been asked rather: “In what authority do you teach these things or who gave you this authority to teach these things?”? 58 Ibid.

440

Jesus and the Temple

indicates clearly and more logically that they did not lead to the Jewish officials’ questioning about his authority, but rather that Jesus’ forgiveness of sins led to their condemnation as blasphemy (Mark 2:7 and parr.) and his activities on the sabbath as breaches of the law (Mark 2:23–27 and parr.; 3:1–6 and parr.).60 It is also just conceivable that Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (Mark 11:1–11 and parr.) with its symbolic character (cf. Zech 9:9) could have provoked the Jewish officials’ inquiry about Jesus’ claim. But then would not the question have been rather like the ones which the Jewish delegation from Jerusalem is said to have put to John the Baptist in connection with his baptismal movement: σὺ τίς εἶ; … ὁ προφήτης εἶ σύ; … τί οὖν βαπτίζεις εἰ σὺ οὐκ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς οὐδὲ Ἠλίας οὐδὲ ὁ προφήτης; (John 1:19–25)? Or would it not have been rather like the one which the delegation from John the Baptist put to Jesus: σὺ εἶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος; (Matt 11:2–3//Luke 7:18–19)? For an interrogation about Jesus’ “authority to do these things,” “these things” must have presented not just some claim for Jesus but also involved a violation of the theological perception of the Jewish officials and a direct challenge to them. In contrast to the above three acts of Jesus, his temple action had the special characteristic of inviting a quasi-juridical interrogation rather than a simple inquiry or condemnation. For it was quite apparent to the Jewish officials that it was a sign-act (see below) which not only contained an implicit message about the temple and Jesus himself but also presented a violation of their theological perceptions and a challenge to them as the temple authorities. Thus, the temple action appears to have been the only action of Jesus that could have provoked them to interrogate him about his “authority” for the action. The plural ταῦτα may indicate that the Jewish authorities had in view not only the variety of Jesus’s disturbances in the temple (driving out the sellers and the buyers, overturning the tables and chairs, and forbidding anybody to carry vessels through the temple; Mark 11:15–16 and parr.) but also his teaching activity accompanying them (Mark 11:15–17 and parr.) as well as his entry into Jerusalem (Mark 11:1–11 and parr.).61 It is possible that the Jewish authorities questioned him about his “rabbinic authority,” but Jesus, being no ordained rabbi, implicitly claimed in his response a higher authority, “divine authority.” But it is more probable that being aware of Jesus’ implicit claim to have been sent by God (perhaps even to be the Messiah) and seeing that this claim was reflected in his temple action, they wanted to induce him to declare it openly.62 60 Cf. Mark 7:5//Matt 15:1–2, where, seeing Jesus’ disciples eating with unwashed hands, the Pharisees and the scribes from Jerusalem are said to have disapprovingly asked him why they “transgress[ed] the tradition of the elders.” 61 The ταῦτα cannot refer to the whole activity of Jesus but his specific activities. So F. Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 41974), 171 (n. 3); Roloff, Kerygma, 91 (n. 131). 62 So M. Hengel, “Probleme des Markusevangeliums,” Das Evangelium und die Evangelien (P. Stuhlmacher ed.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), 238; cf. also Pesch, Markus II, 210.

2. The Historical and Theological Context of the Vollmachtsfrage

441

The above consideration suggests that the pericope of the Vollmachtsfrage itself demands a link up with the temple action of Jesus. Now many exegetes think that Jesus’ temple action was a symbolic demonstration of a prophet rather than a large-scale rebellion involving the whole temple or the whole court of the Gentiles where the trade was taking place.63 Being limited in scope, it probably did not merit the intervention of the Roman garrison stationed in the overlooking Fortress of Antonia or the immediate arrest of Jesus by the temple police. It is also probable that in view of the popular support for Jesus the temple authorities “considered it wisest not to act summarily against him”64 (Mark 11:18). However, it is very difficult to believe that after his temple action Jesus was simply let go by the Jewish authorities without any charge. His disturbance of the established practices in the temple which must have been an obstruction of the sacrificial cult in the eyes of the worshippers65 and his challenge against the temple authorities who had authorized the trade in the temple66 would naturally have been reported by the temple police to the captain of the temple and the other chief priests who were the temple overseers.67 Furthermore, the temple action seems to have been accompanied by a teaching that was not favourable to the temple establishment (cf. Mark 11:17). The report of the disturbance and the teaching must have provoked the temple authorities to act against Jesus (cf. Mark 11:18). The gravity of the action certainly demanded that it was responded to at least by an interrogation of Jesus such as the Vollmachtsfrage. This means that we are to judge the Marcan narrative of the two events as linked in terms of the cause and the effect as reflecting the historical reality.68 There is little doubt that in the Marcan context the ταῦτα in v. 28 refers to Jesus’  E. g., M. Hengel, War Jesus Revolutionär? (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1973), 15–16 (33–34 n. 53); Goppelt, Theologie, 147–48; C. K. Barrett, “The House of Prayer and the Den of Thieves,” Jesus und Paulus, W. G. Kümmel FS (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 13; Pesch, Markus II, 200; E. Schweizer, Das Evangelium nach Markus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 126 f.; Grundmann, Markus, 309; D. Flusser, Die letzten Tage Jesu in Jerusalem (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1982), 47. So the traditional designation of the event as “temple cleansing” is a misnomer. 64 Marshall, Luke, 720. 65  For more on this, see infra. 66  Cf. V. Eppstein, “The Historicity of the Gospel Account of the Cleansing of the Temple,” ZNW 55 (1964): 55–56. 67  Cf. Jeremias, Jerusalem, 179–80. 68  This view used to be held by the majority of the commentators before form criticism forced exegetes to consider Gospel pericopes as isolated units. It is recently reaffirmed by, e. g., Taylor, Mark, 468–69; Grundmann, Markus, 316–17; Pesch, Markus II, 210; Marshall, Luke, 724; Daube, Rabbinic Judaism, 220 f.; Roloff, Kerygma, 91–92; Goppelt, Theologie, 148; Hahn, Hoheitstitel, 171. This conclusion is, of course, against the presupposition of form criticism that stories about Jesus were transmitted as isolated units with no biographical interest. Cf. n. 11 above; G. N. Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 117–71; M. Hengel, Zur urchristlichen Geschichtsschreibung (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1979), esp. 26 ff. 63

442

Jesus and the Temple

temple action. Clearly it cannot refer to Jesus’ περιπατεῖν in the temple (v. 27). It cannot refer to his cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11:20–26), either, because like περιπατεῖν in the temple it was also not an act that would have provoked a question about his authority. So, we are led up to Mark 11:18, where it is said that having heard about Jesus’ disturbance and teaching in the temple, “the chief priests and the scribes” sought how to get rid of him. It is these chief priests and scribes reinforced by the elders who found Jesus again in the temple on the next day and came to interrogate him as to the origin and nature of his authority to do the things he did in the temple (vv. 27–28). According to Gnilka, the pre-Marcan tradition of the Vollmachtsfrage mentioned the chief priests, but it is not certain whether they were followed by the scribes and/or elders in the original list of the questioners.69 However, there is perhaps some force in the argument of J.-G. M. M. Mundla, a pupil of Gnilka, who claims “the chief priests, the scribes and the elders” in v. 27 to be pre-Marcan, by pointing out that it would be strange for Mark to add “the elders” in whom he shows no special interest in his Gospel, after mentioning only “the chief priests and the scribes” as seeking to get rid of Jesus in 11:18.70 The chief priests, the scribes and the elders made up the Sanhedrin.71 However, Mark apparently does not understand the questioners to be the whole Sanhedrin. For when he means the whole Sanhedrin, he adds πάντες (14:53) or καὶ ὅλον τὸ συνέδριον (15:1) to the three groups of authorities. So here probably a delegation of the Sanhedrin, made up of a few representatives of the three groups, is in view.72 Apparently the Sanhedrin, having been reported by the captain of the temple about Jesus’ deeds in the temple, dispatched a delegation to interrogate him. If this is true, then the question of the representatives of the Sanhedrin may receive a sharper profile. Here a comparison of our pericope with the speech of Gamaliel in Acts 5:34–39 is helpful. When the Sanhedrin interrogated the apostles for their preaching in the name of Jesus and resolved to put them to death, Gamaliel advises it to leave them alone, arguing that if their Jesus-movement is only of human origin (ἐξ ἀνθρώπων) it will collapse but if it is of divine origin (ἐκ θεοῦ) the Sanhedrin will be fighting against God. For this argument Gamaliel refers to the prophetic or messianic pretender Theudas and the zealotic leader Judas whose endeavors collapsed and thereby proved to have been not of divine origin. O. Betz has convincingly shown that behind Gamaliel’s argument there stands Deut 18:15–22,73 where God promises a “prophet like Moses” and gives a criterion for distinguishing a true prophet from a false one: the message of a false prophet will not come true. There God commands that a false prophet 69 Gnilka,

Markus II, 137.  Mundla, Führer, 9. 71  Cf. Jeremias, Jerusalem, 222. 72 So, Taylor, Mark, 469; Pesch, Markus II, 210; Marshall, Luke, 724. 73  Betz, “Prozess,” 584 ff. 70

2. The Historical and Theological Context of the Vollmachtsfrage

443

who presumptuously claims to speak in the name of God must be put to death. From the collapse of their movements, Gamaliel apparently sees that Theudas and Judas failed to meet the criterion of a true prophet from God. Josephus tells us that, between the death of Herod the Great (4 BC) and the Jewish War (AD 66–70), Theudas and some others rose up claiming the promise of the “prophet like Moses” for themselves. Like Gamaliel, Josephus also applies the criterion of Deut 18:20–22 to them and sees in their destruction the confirmation of them having been false prophets.74 From Gamaliel’s speech and Josephus’ narratives we may infer that Deut 18:20–22 used to be applied to any who claimed to be a prophet or “the prophet like Moses” (Deut 18:15–19). In Deut 18:15–22 it is made clear that a true prophet is one who has been commissioned by God and given the divine message so that he may speak in God’s name and all may obey him, and that a false prophet is one who has not been commissioned by God and yet presumptuously claims to speak a message from God. A true prophet is ἐκ θεοῦ, and a false prophet ἐξ ἀνθρώπων – born of human presumption. This consideration of the content of Deut 18:15–22, Gamaliel’s speech in Acts 5:32–39 and Josephus’ narratives of prophetic or messianic pretenders suggests that the representatives of the Sanhedrin could well have had Deut 18:15–22 and related passages in Deut (13; 17:1–7) in mind when they asked Jesus of the origin and nature of his authority. The alternative (ἐξ οὐρανοῦ vs. ἐξ ἀνθρώπων) set by Jesus concerning John’s baptism in his counter-question (Mark 11:30) suggests that this was the alternative he saw in the question of the representatives of the Sanhedrin about his authority. Apparently, the representatives of the Sanhedrin were aware of Jesus’ implicit messianic claim or at least the messianic expectation of his followers.75 But for them Jesus’ disturbance of the temple cult could not possibly have been an act of a true prophet or the Messiah and his teaching about the temple, though he spoke in God’s name, could not possibly have been the words that God had put into his mouth (Deut 18:18). On the contrary, they were rather clear signs of his being a false prophet who led the people to apostasy with a heretical teaching (Deut 13).76 Hence it was incumbent upon the Sanhedrin, the highest religious and judicial authorities in Israel, to interrogate him and eventually charge him.

74 Josephus, Ant. 18.85–87; 20.97–99, 167–172; J. W. 2.258–63; 7.437–453. See Betz, “Prozess,” 585–88. 75  Cf. Hengel, “Probleme,” 238; Pesch, Markus II, 210. 76  Cf. Betz, “Prozess,” 570–80; P. Stuhlmacher, “Reconciliation in the Preaching and Work of Jesus,” Theology, News and Notes (Pasadena: Fuller Theological Seminary, 1985), 5. See also A. Strobel, Die Stunde der Wahrheit (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980), 82–94, for the view that Jesus was put on trial for being a false prophet who led people astray, in accordance with Deut 13; 17 and 18.

444

Jesus and the Temple

(b) Jesus’ Implicit Answer: The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Mark 12:1–12 and parr.) Our interpretation of the Vollmachtsfrage and of its historical context has yielded the following result: in the wake of Jesus’ temple action a delegation of the Sanhedrin interrogated him, with the hope to charge him of being a false prophet in view, as to the origin and nature of his authority to do the sign-act in the temple. Jesus tried to answer implicitly that he did it with the authority of the Son of God with which he had been commissioned by God at his baptism by John. This conclusion is confirmed by the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Mark 12:1–12 and parr.). It is beyond the scope of our present study to analyze this parable in detail.77 Here it is only necessary to summarize the main point of the parable. Recently K. Snodgrass has, in our judgment, convincingly argued for the authenticity of the parable78 and also for its original connection with the Vollmachtsfrage.79 Since Jesus saw the representatives of the Sanhedrin not accepting the divine commission of John’s baptism and therefore not ready to accept his appeal to it as the ground of his own commission as the Son of God, he refused to answer their question in explicit terms as demanded by them (Mark 11:33). But then he went on to make the point of his counter-question (Mark 11:30) a little more explicit by telling them a parable. Here it is important to note that taking the Vollmachtsfrage (Mark 11:27–33 and parr.) and the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Mark 12:1–12 and parr.) as a unit corresponds better to the pattern of rabbinic Streitgespräche, than the former alone does. For whereas ending a debate with a refusal to answer has no correspondence in rabbinic Streit­gespräche, concluding a Streitgespräch with a parable containing an answer apparently was often used by rabbis (e. g., Midr. Qoh. 1.7; 5.10; b. Sanh. 91a).80 In the Parable Jesus characterizes the Jewish leaders as the stewards of the election privileges of Israel, who rebel against God and kill prophets sent by him. Jesus alludes to himself as God’s Son whom God sends as his eschatological envoy,81 only to suffer the same fate as the prophets at the hands of the Jewish leaders. Jesus warns them of God’s judgement and of his exaltation by God after 77 See

K. Snodgrass, The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983).  Ibid., esp. 72–118. In p. 108, n. 154 he lists those who hold to the authenticity of the Parable, including C. H. Dodd, J. Jeremias, Van Israel, E. Lohmeyer, M. Hengel, M. Ubaut, R. Pesch, H.-J. Klauck, H. Weder, F. Mussner, A. Weiser, X. Leon-Dufour, H. Frankmöller, R. Silva, and A. Friedrichsen. 79  Snodgrass, Parable, 45–46. See further M. Hengel, “Das Gleichnis von den Weingärtnern, Mc 12, 1–12 im Lichte der Zenonpapyri und der rabbinischen Gleichnisse,” ZNW 59 (1968): 38–39; J. A. T. Robinson, “The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen: A Test of Synoptic Relationships,” NTS 21 (1974/75): 444; D. Flusser, Die rabbinische Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 1. Teil: Das Wesen der Gleichnisse (Bern: Lang, 1981), 74. 80  Cf. Billerbeck I. 661, 895–96. 81  Note the υἱὸς ἀγαπητός in Mark 12:6, which echoes the heavenly voice at the baptism of Jesus (Mark 1:11 and parr.). 78

2. The Historical and Theological Context of the Vollmachtsfrage

445

his rejection by them. This Parable was really the answer to the question of the representatives of the Sanhedrin in the Vollmachtsfrage: He was the Son of God, sent by God with divine authority (cf. m. Ber. 5.5) for the last time. With this Parable Jesus brought out more clearly, though still indirectly and implicitly, the point he had tried to make with his counter-question (Mark 11:30).82 Thus, Jesus implicitly indicated to the representatives of the Sanhedrin that he did what he did in the temple as the Son of God.83 This conclusion shows that the widespread view of Jesus’ temple action in terms of a prophetic sign-act is inadequate. It was more than prophetic. It was a messianic sign-act.84 In and through the temple action Jesus expressed his divine Sonship. The temple action was a sign through which Jesus expressed the work that he was commissioned by God to accomplish as his Son. (c) Jesus’ Intention in the Temple Action, His Self-Understanding, and His View of His Death This then must be a key to interpreting Jesus’ intention in his temple action. It must be a welcome key because the Synoptic accounts of the action do not seem to provide in themselves a clear key to interpret its meaning. In fact, the summary of Jesus’ teaching that Mark adds to the scene of the action (11:17 and parr.) could provide a key, but many critics doubt either its authenticity or at least its belonging to the present context. So, we have only the action in Mark 11:15–16 (and parr.) itself to go by. But then, since Mark 11:16 is omitted both in Matthew and Luke, some may, though not frequently, also doubt its authenticity. So, the fundamental datum of Jesus’ temple action is reduced to Mark 11:15 (and parr.): Entering into the temple, Jesus drove out sellers and buyers of sacrificial animals in the court of the Gentiles, overturning the tables of money-changers and the chairs of dove-sellers. This fundamental datum of the temple action alone does not tell us univocally the meaning of the action and Jesus’ intention in it. The ensuing explanatory Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Mark 12:1–12 and parr.) sheds some light on them. But still, we need to look for more keys from a wider context for an adequate interpretation of them. The fact that the action took place in the temple naturally leads us to those OT–Jewish texts where the sanctity of the temple is emphasized. Among them particularly Zech 14:21 is often cited as having motivated Jesus’ action: “So when 82 Hengel,

“Gleichnis,” 38; Snodgrass, Parable, 45–46.  Best, Temptation, 86, recognizes this but seems to attribute it to Marcan redaction. See also J. Schniewind, Das Evangelium nach Markus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 91960), 116–17. 84 So, Betz, “Prozess,” 632 (n. 189): “Auch die Tempelreinigung war eine messanische Zeichenhandlung. Sie löste daher die Frage nach Jesu Vollmacht aus (Markus 11,27–33), die mit dem Gleichnis von den bösen Weingärtnern und der Sendung des Sohnes beantwortet wird (12,1–12).” See also Taylor, Mark, 469. Contra Roloff, Kerygma, 94–98. 83

446

Jesus and the Temple

that time comes, no trader (‫ )כנענ‬shall again be seen in the house of the Lord of Hosts.”85 In addition, we have to consider the prophecy of Jesus about the destruction of the temple (Mark 13:1–2 and parr.; cf. Mark 14:58//Matt 26:61; 15:29//Matt 27:40), whose authenticity can hardly be doubted.86 Although it is not easy to establish through the literary critical method a direct connection of the prophecy with Jesus’ temple action,87 that they must be at least materially connected with each other can hardly be doubted.88 And then we must also consider Jesus’ promise to build a new temple that constitutes together with his alleged threat to destroy the temple in Jerusalem a decisive charge at his trial before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:58//Matt 26:61; Mark 15:29//Matt 27:40). The authenticity of this saying is, of course, very much disputed. However, we find L. Gaston’s conclusion for its authenticity quite convincing. Developing the pioneering works of E. Lohmeyer, H. Windisch and S. Aalen,89 Gaston establishes from Jesus’ frequent sayings of “entering” the kingdom of God in terms of a house the thesis that Jesus conceived of the kingdom of God as a new temple and that he saw the new temple concretely as the community which he was to found. This leads Gaston to affirm that Jesus did claim to build a new temple, confirming the authenticity of Jesus’ promise to build a new temple in three days (Mark 14:58//Matt 26:61; cf. Mark15:29//Matt 27:40) and interpreting the saying in Matt 16:17–19 in this light.90 Again, although it is now perhaps impossible to establish a direct connection of this promise with his temple action through the

85  See, e. g., C. Roth, “The Cleansing of the Temple and Zechariah XIV.21,” NovT 4 (1960): 174–81; Barrett, “House of Prayer,” 19–20; Jeremias, Theologie, 145; Roloff, Kerygma, 96. 86  See Betz, “Prozess,” 632 (n. 190), who points out that it cannot be a vaticinium ex eventu because the temple was not destroyed exactly as it was foretold in the prophecy since Titus deliberately left the west wall of the temple precincts as a sign of his victory; also Taylor, Mark, 501; Grundmann, Markus, 351; Pesch, Markus II, 271; Roloff, Kerygma, 97; G. Theissen, “Die Tempelweissagung Jesu: Prophetie im Spannungsfeld von Stadt und Land,” in Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 21983), 142 ff.; M. Trautmann, Zeichenhafte Handlungen Jesu: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem geschichtlichen Jesus (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1980), 123 ff.; cf. also L. Gaston, No Stone on Another (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 424–25. Contra Gnilka, Markus II, 184. 87  So Trautmann, Handlungen, 124 f. Cf. D. Juel, Messiah and Temple (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977); Gaston, No Stone. 88 Cf. Hengel, Jesus, 34 (n. 54); Flusser, Die letzten Tage, 417 ff.; Grundmann, Markus, 412– 13; Schweizer, Markus, 127, 179; Goppelt, Theologie, 147–48. 89  See H. Windisch, “Die Sprüche vom Eingehen in das Reich Gottes,” ZNW 27 (1928): 163–92; E. Lohmeyer, Kultus und Evangelium (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1942); S.  Aalen, “ ‘Reign’ and ‘House’ in the Kingdom of God in the Gospels,” NTS 8 (1961/62): 215–40. 90 Gaston, No Stone, 161–243 (esp. 229–43). Similarly, also B. F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM, 1979), 181–97. For the authenticity of Jesus’ promise to build a new temple, see also Theissen, “Tempelweissagung,”142 ff.; Betz, “Prozess,” 630; Flusser, Die letzten Tage, 418; Lohmeyer, Markus, 327; Taylor, Mark, 566; Grundmann, Markus, 412; Strobel, Stunde, 63 ff.; cf. also Roloff, Kerygma, 97–98, 104–05; Goppelt, Theologie, 148.

2. The Historical and Theological Context of the Vollmachtsfrage

447

literary critical method,91 that they must be at least materially connected with each other can hardly be doubted.92 Finally, we must also consider the connection of Jesus’ temple action with his view of his death. It can hardly be doubted that Jesus reckoned with the possibility of his violent death as a result of his conflicts with the Jewish authorities. It can scarcely be doubted, either, that his temple action was no accident but a pre-meditated sign-act (cf. Mark 11:11).93 Nor can it be doubted that he was aware that a disturbance in the temple like the one he eventually made would lead him to a conflict with the Jewish authorities (if not with the Roman authorities).94 He must not only have reckoned with the possibility of his temple action leading to his prosecution and even to his death but may very well have deliberately “provoked” this process of his prosecution and execution with the temple action.95 Thus, it seems quite possible that he deliberately performed the temple action in order to set in motion his prosecution and execution as it actually did in history.96 If this is so, a precise understanding of Jesus’ view of his forthcoming death would provide another key for interpreting his temple action.97  Cf. Juel, Messiah; Gaston, No Stone. Flusser, Die letzten Tage, 417–18; Roloff, Kerygma, 97–98; Schweizer, Markus, 179; Goppelt, Theologie, 147–48. In spite of his denial of the authenticity of Jesus’ prophecy about the destruction of the temple and his promise to build a new temple (Markus II, 184, 276), Gnilka comes to say in connection with Jesus’ temple action: “Darüber hinaus liegt es nahe zu vermuten, dass der Eingriff in den Tempelbetrieb zeichenhaft auf den eschatologischen neuen Tempel verweisen sollte, der mit dem Gottesreich kommen wird” (Markus II, 131). 93 Cf. Meyer, Aims, 170. In our opinion, Mark 11:11, which gives the impression that Jesus surveyed the terrain before the important (or even fateful) action, is very realistic. For it is not easy to imagine either that Jesus impulsively and quite accidentally, on the spur of the moment, carried out the temple action (in spite of all the romantic depiction of Jesus’ holy and righteous anger at the corruption of the temple!), or that a pilgrim from Galilee on the occasion of the Passover could do as Jesus did, without at least having made himself acquainted with the temple precincts. 94  If the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen belongs to the context of the temple action as we maintain, the reference to the killing of the son in the parable (Mark 12:8) clearly indicates Jesus’ awareness of the outcome of his temple action. 95 Cf. Hengel, Jesus, 15 and Stuhlmacher, “Reconciliation,” 5, who speak of “provocation” in their discussions of Jesus’ temple action; see also Pesch, Markus II, 200; Goppelt, Theologie, 274–75: “So fodert Jesus seine Verwerfung heraus … und er wird ausgeliefert …”).  96  Cf. Stuhlmacher, “Reconciliation,” 7: “Indeed, he even caused the last fatal conflict in Jerusalem himself by his ‘Cleansing of the Temple’.” For the historical connection between Jesus’ temple action and his trial and execution which Mark 11:18 indicates, see Jeremias, Theologie, 145; Goppelt, Theologie, 274–75. Betz, “Prozess,” 596 ff.; Pesch, Markus II, 212; Roloff, Kerygma, 98, 110. Cf. also G. D. Kilpatrick, The Trial of Jesus (London: Oxford University Press, 1953), 10 ff., who, citing J. Wellhausen (Markus, 131), suggests that Jesus’ temple saying(s) (Mark 13:2; 14:58) led the Sanhedrin to charge him.  97  That is, of course, unless his temple action was just an expediency randomly chosen to set in motion the process of his prosecution and execution. Our reflection below will show that it could not have been just that. 91

92 Cf.

448

Jesus and the Temple

Thus far, we have ascertained six keys for interpretation of Jesus’ temple action: (1) Jesus’ concern for the sanctity of the temple (2) His prophecy about the destruction of the temple (3) His promise to build a new temple (4) His view of his own death (5) His consciousness of divine commission as the Son of God It is scarcely possible here to study the pericope of Jesus’ temple action in detail. We have to confine ourselves to ascertaining only Jesus’ intention in it with these five keys. It is quite clear that Jesus saw the temple corrupted and the trade in the temple as a symbol of its corruption. It is very likely that he saw the temple religion as a whole, with its sacrificial system at its center, so incorrigibly corrupt and revolting to God that God’s judgement upon it was inevitable.98 Apparently he saw the degeneration of the temple and the rebellion of the temple establishment against God culminating in their killing of him, God’s Son and last envoy, and so God’s judgement upon the temple and the temple establishment coming with his death, in the form of the destruction of the former. Thus, the first two keys lead us to ascertain that the temple action was intended first of all as a prophetic demonstration of the impending judgment of God in the form of its destruction.99 This is probably indicated in the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Mark 12:1–12 and parr.), which depicts the rebellion of the Jewish leaders (= the temple establishment) against God culminating in their killing the Son (of God) and invevitably incurring God’s judgment (= destruction) upon them.100  98 Cf. Josephus, J. W. 4.323, who says on the destruction of the temple in AD 70: “But it was, I suppose, because God had, for its pollutions, condemned the city to destruction and desired to purge the sanctuary by fire, that he thus cut off those who clung to them with such tender affection.” Cf. also Theissen, “Tempelweissagung,” esp. 149 ff. 99  So, e. g., Hengel, Jesus, 15–16 (34 n. 54); Roloff, Kerygma, 97; Schweizer, Markus, 127–28; Grundmann, Markus, 310; Trautmann, Handlungen, 122–26. It is widely recognized that this is clearly brought out by Mark through his sandwiching of the temple action (Mark 11:15–19) with the Cursing of the Fig Tree (Mark 11:12–14, 20–21). Besides commentaries, see W. R. Telford, The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980). 100 [Addition in Feb 2021]: In 1985, under the dominant methods of form criticism and redaction criticism, general skepticism of the historical reliability of the Gospel material was much greater than it is today. Therefore, I could express myself only in this guarded manner and use the data from the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen in such a timid and limited way (cf. also n. 94 above), even while arguing that the Parable was an integral part of the Vollmachtsfrage. Today, under the more positive atmosphere of Gospel criticism, I suggest that we should not hesitate to use the Parable as the sixth and most direct key to understanding Jesus’ intent in the temple action or the meaning of the event as a whole. But here I can add only a short summary note: In the Parable, Jesus attaches to the parable proper (vv. 1–9) a citation of Ps 118:22–23 (vv. 10–11), and thereby building a word-play based on the Hebrew language between the “son” (‫( )בן‬v. 6) and “stone” (‫( )אבן‬v. 10), he identifies God’s “son” with the “stone” and the “husbandmen” who kill God’s “son” (vv. 7–8) with the “builders” who reject the “stone” (v. 10) (cf. Snodgrass, Parable, 63, 113–18). Although, in the Parable, Jesus speaks only of God’s judgement upon the “husbandmen” in terms of his “destruction” of them for killing God’s “son” (v. 9),

2. The Historical and Theological Context of the Vollmachtsfrage

449

How does Jesus’ view of his death impact our interpretation of the temple action? In spite of the strong skepticism persisting in critical scholarship today, there are scholars who still affirm that Jesus saw his forthcoming death as an atoning sacrifice.101 In my earlier work,102 focusing on an analysis of especially the two “Son of Man” sayings of Jesus, the “ransom” saying (Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28) and the eucharistic saying (Mark 14:21–25 and parr.), I suggested that Jesus interpreted his heavenly call at the baptism of John in the light not only of Ps 2:7; 2 Sam 7:12–16; Isa 42:1 but also of Dan 7 and identified himself with the figure who is described there as appearing “like a son of man” and as enthroned on the throne next to God’s throne (Dan 7:13–14; N. B. the plural ‫כרסון‬/θρόνοι/thrones in Dan 7:9) and endowed with “authority, glory and kingship” (i. e., as the Son of God who, as it were, “inherited” the mandates of God the Father). I suggested that so Jesus understood himself as called to be God’ Son who elevates “the saints of the Most Hight,” the faithful people of God, to a heavenly throne, i. e., who makes them participate in God’s eschatological kingdom or share his kingship (Dan 7:18–28). I also suggested that with the ransom saying and the eucharistic saying he indicated that he was to carry out this messianic mission of “the ‘son of man’,” not by conquering the nations and ruling over them like the kings of the earth (cf. Mark 10:42 and parr.), but rather by offering himself or being offered by God as an atoning and covenant-establishing sacrifice “for many” or all people (Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28; Mark 14:21–25 and parr.). I argued that Jesus did this because he saw his baptismal call also in terms of carrying out the role of the Servant of Yahweh and creating a new people of God (covenant, Isa 42:6; 49:8) whose sins were atoned for (atonement, Isa 53:10–12; cf. also 43:3–4). he seems to include implicitly the destruction of the temple itself in the “destruction” of the “husbandmen”/“builders” (the Jewish leaders/the temple-establishment) as he speaks of God’s vindication of the rejected “stone” to become the “cornerstone” (of a new building, i. e., the new temple) (v. 10). Thus, in the Parable Jesus envisages his death as triggering God’s judgment in the form of the destruction of the temple and as leading to building a new temple. So, seen in the light of Jesus’ implicit explanations in the Vollmachtsfrage and the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, as well as of his prophecy about the destruction of the temple and his promise to build a new temple, his temple action was a sign-act not just of prophesying the impending judgement of God in the form of its destruction, but of his building a new temple as the Messiah (David’s Son/God’s Son and “stone”) in fulfillment of the messianically interpreted prophecies of 2 Sam 7:12–16; Zech 3:8–9; 4:7; 6:12; etc. through his death. Cf. my sequel essay “Jesus – the Son of God, the Stone, the Son of Man, and the Servant,” 135–40, for a fuller explanation of this view. 101  E. g., M. Hengel, The Atonement (London: SCM, 1981); H. Schürmann, Jesu ureigener Tod (Freiburg: Herder, 1975); W. Grimm, Die Verkündigung Jesu und Deuterojesaja (Frankfurt: Lang, 2 1981); O. Betz, Wie verstehen wir das Neue Testament? (Wuppertal: Aussaat-Verlag, 1981); P. Stuhlmacher, “Existenzstellvertretung für die Vielen: Mark 10,45 (Mat 10,28),” Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 27–42; Jeremias, Theologie, 263–84; R.  Pesch, Das Abendmahl und Jesu Todesverständnis (Freiburg: Herder, 1978); I. H. Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper (Exeter: Paternoster, 1980); K. Kertelge ed., Der Tod Jesu (Freiburg: Herder, 1981). 102  Kim, “The ‘Son of Man’,” esp. 15–102.

450

Jesus and the Temple

If this is so, Jesus must have seen his death, first of all, as the eschatological fulfillment of the real meaning and purpose of the temple, the atonement of Israel’s (and the world’s) sins and reconciliation of them with God whereby their covenantal relationship was maintained. Then his temple action must have been intended to indicate that the sacrifices offered at the temple at that time were not only ineffective (because of corruption) but in fact redundant as they were about to be superseded by his eschatological sacrifice. It appears that Jesus wanted to convey this message when he stopped the trade of sacrificial objects and forbade sacrificial vessels to be carried through the temple courts to the altar.103 If the above suggestion about Jesus’s view of his own death is right, then he must have seen it not only as the fulfillment of the real meaning and purpose of the temple but also as the work that would build a “new temple.” By establishing a new covenant, his death would bring into being the eschatological people of God or inaugurate the kingdom of God, which he perceived in terms of a “temple.”104 Thus he would fulfill the expectation that the Messiah would build a new temple.105 We have already seen the possibility that Jesus deliberately provoked  It is sometimes suggested that Jesus’ temple action did not imply any negative judgement upon the sacrificial system of the temple as such. For this view the argument is adduced from the fact that Jesus’ action took place in the outer “court of the Gentiles,” not in the sanctuary where the altar was. Pesch (Markus II, 199) goes further, pointing out that the temple sacrifice was not dependent upon the trade of the sacrificial animals and gifts in the temple precincts because pilgrims could bring their animals and gifts themselves or buy them in the market on Mount Olive. But this argument misunderstands the symbolic nature of Jesus’ temple action. For the symbolic act it was not necessary for Jesus to fight for an entry into the sanctuary in order to disturb the sacrificial processes there. Had he attempted to do that, he would not have been able even to enter the sanctuary (since he was not a priest and therefore was not allowed to enter it), let alone making a symbolic act there (cf. Flusser, Die letzten Tage, 52). Had he wanted to force into the sanctuary he would have needed a sizable fighting force to overcome the temple police, and then it would have been no longer a symbolic act but a deliberate desecration of the temple and a full-fledged rebellion. In order to convey a message against the temple sacrifices, it was enough for Jesus to disturb the trade of sacrificial animals and gifts and carrying of sacrificial vessels (probably used to carry offerings) in the temple precincts. Apparently, Jesus saw the temple precincts as the most suitable place for his symbolic act not only because there he could deal with the trade, the symbol of the corruption of the whole temple cultus, but also because he could draw the attention of the crowd of worshippers to his message to be conveyed through his symbolic act and accompanying word. This consideration suggests that we must understand the ambiguous word in Mark 11:16 as part of his disturbance of the sacrificial activities rather than in terms of m. Ber. 9.5 (cf. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.7). Cf. Telford, Temple, 92–93. 104 For this, see, besides Gaston, No Stone, 161–243, also Windisch, “Sprüche,” 163–92; Lohmeyer, Kultus, 71 ff.; Aalen, “Reign,” 215–40; B. Gärtner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 105 ff.; Betz, “Prozess,” 630 ff.; Jeremias, Theologie, 238; cf. also Roloff, Kerygma, 97–98; Meyer, Aims, 20 ff.; pace G. Klinzing, Die Umdeutung des Kultus in der Qumrangemeinde und im Neuen Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 202–10. 105 Cf. 2 Sam 7:13; Zech 6:12; Tg Isa 53:5; Tg Zech 6:12; Billerbeck I, 1004–05. Cf. also Juel, Messiah, 169–97. 103

2. The Historical and Theological Context of the Vollmachtsfrage

451

his own prosecution and execution by means of his temple action. In the light of this further reflection on Jesus’ view of his own death, we can see that the temple action was actually the means that Jesus deliberately chose to set in motion his atoning and covenant-establishing death in order to fulfill the real meaning and purpose of the temple and build a “new temple,” the people of God’s kingdom. In short, Jesus understood that as “the ‘Son of Man’”/the Son of God of Dan 7 his messianic task was to create the eschatological people of God (“the saints of the Most High”) and inaugurate the kingdom of God, which was to build a new eschatological temple, by fulfilling the role of the Servant of Yahweh of Isa 42– 53. That Jesus had such filial self-understanding and such perception of his messianic task is confirmed by our present investigation. For, on the one hand, we have ascertained from the Vollmachtsfrage Jesus’ claim to have done the temple action as the Son of God, and, on the other hand, we have just seen that Jesus intended to unleash his atoning and covenant-establishing death through the temple action in order to fulfill the real meaning and purpose of the temple and build the “new temple” of the eschatological people of God. Thus, in his temple action Jesus implicitly revealed his understanding of himself as God’s Son, the Messiah, who was to create the eschatological people of God and so build a “new temple” through his atoning and covenant-establishing death. This messianic self-understanding of Jesus was based on Ps 2:7 (which reflects 2 Sam 7:12–16) and Isa 42:1, in the combined light of which he interpreted his call as God’s “beloved Son” that he received at his baptism by John (Mark 1:10–11 and parr.). As the Messiah, i. e., as the Son of David/the Son of God and as God’s beloved Servant, Jesus understood his task in terms of building a “house” (or temple) for God. Apparently he saw in Dan 7 the same divine commission for him as “the ‘Son of Man’”/the Son of God to create the eschatological people of God’s kingdom (“the saints of the Most High”) by fulfilling the role of the Servant of Yahweh of Isa 42–53: ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου … ἦλθεν … διακονῆσαι καὶ δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν (Mark 10:45); ὁ … υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὑπάγει καθὼς γέγραπται περὶ αὐτοῦ … τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν (Mark 14:21, 24). Just as Solomon (the son of David/the son of God) built the (old) temple according to the oracle of Nathan (2 Sam 7:12–14), so he, as the one anointed with the Spirit as (the Son of David)/Son of God at the baptism by John, was to build a temple, though not like the one of stone and wood that Solomon built with human hands, but a new temple consisting of God’s eschatological people created through his atoning and covenant-establishing sacrifice according to the messianically re-interpreted oracle of Nathan.106 Therefore, by 106 The charge that the witnesses made at Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin, namely, that he claimed to build “a temple not made with hands” (Mark 14:58), may reflect this teaching of his. A metaphorical (or “spiritual”) interpretation of the temple and sacrifices in terms of respectively the community of God’s people and its life of prayer, worship and obedience to God’s

452

Jesus and the Temple

provoking his own prosecution and death with the temple action, Jesus launched the process of fulfilling his messianic task of building that new temple as the Son of David/Son of God. Thus, in his temple action Jesus had the intention of (1) symbolically announcing the destruction of the corrupt temple and the rebellious temple establishment through God’s judgement and his building of a new, eschatological temple as God’s Son through his atoning and covenant-establishing death, and (2) initiating the events that would actualize what was symbolically announced. It was Jesus’ temple action that set the whole process of his arrest, trial and execution in motion, i. e., the whole process of his offering himself as an atoning and covenant-establishing sacrifice. It is, in a sense, ironic that he should fulfill the meaning and purpose of the temple and build a new temple by an attack upon the temple that would unleash his death, i. e., by arousing the zeal for the temple among Israel (cf. John 2:17). It is perhaps even a greater irony that it was precisely the high priest who, by condemning Jesus to death because of his temple action and his claim bound up with it, offered him as the eschatological sacrifice to save the whole people of God (in accordance with his high priestly office!) – an irony highlighted very realistically and effectively in John 11:47–53.

3. The Trial of Jesus Thus, Jesus did what he did in the temple as the Son of David/the Son of God, the Messiah. He implicitly answered the question of the representatives of the Sanhedrin about his authority for the temple action by pointing to his divine commission as the Son of God at the baptism by John. Apparently, the representatives of the Sanhedrin grasped to some extent his self-reference as the Son of God, the Messiah, and his intention in his temple action. For this interrogation of Jesus led them to seek a way to get rid of him (Mark 11:18//Luke 19:47; Mark 12:12//Matt 21:46//Luke 20:19) and it eventually led to his arrest and trial by the Sanhedrin. Only in the light of this historical context can we understand the high priest’s questions at the trial of Jesus (Mark 14:58–61//Matt 26:59–66) and the by-standers’ mockery at his crucifixion (Mark 15:29–32// Matt 27:40–41), which both connect Jesus’ saying(s) about the destruction and rebuilding of the temple with his claim to be the Son of God, the Messiah. The former is particularly significant. As Jesus did not respond to the charge of his having said he would destroy the temple (ναός) and build another, the high priest asked him: “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” It appears that Mark designates the charge as “false” because whereas in fact Jesus announced the will already appears in the Qumran literature (e. g., 1QS 5:4–7; 8:4–10; 9:3–6; 4QpsIsad fr. 1). Cf. Gärtner, Temple.

3. The Trial of Jesus

453

destruction of the temple by God in his judgement and his building of a new “temple not made with hands,” the “false” witnesses put the word into Jesus’ mouth: “I will destroy the temple made with hands.”107 And it also appears that Jesus did not respond to the false charge because it was futile for him to explain that he did not actually say, “I will destroy the temple,” but only announced its destruction through God’s judgment. For the Sanhedrin that looked upon Jesus as a false prophet or as a messianic pretender who with his messianic claim could unleash a conflict with the Roman authorities and thus endanger the peace and stability of Israel (cf. John 11:47–48),108 even his announcement of the destruction of the temple through God’s judgement alone would merit his death (cf. Jer 28:1–24).109 Furthermore, if the Sanhedrin or its witnesses comprehended the meaning of Jesus’ linking God’s judgement with his own rejection by Israel (Mark 12:1–12 and parr.), they could press the point in the direction of the false charge. In this situation, what point was there for Jesus to engage himself in a pedantic debate about the exact wording of his announcement of the destruction of the temple? So he did not respond to the false charge. But it is highly significant that from there the high priest went on to ask him a direct question whether he was the Messiah, the Son of God. Otto Betz has repeatedly emphasized that the two questions at Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin were connected with each other on the basis of 2 Sam 7:12– 14.110 Here we are suggesting that the tradition stemming from 2 Sam 7:12–14 (Zech 6:12; Tg Zech 6:12; Tg Isa 53:5; etc.) was already behind Jesus’ temple action and temple sayings, that this implicit claim of Jesus on the basis of 2 Sam 7:12–14 was perceived by the representatives of the Sanhedrin in their preliminary interrogation (the Vollmachtsfrage including the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen), and that that was why at the trial before the Sanhedrin the high priest’s questions were precisely these two: concerning Jesus’ temple saying(s) and concerning his messianic claim, which were in reality but one question whether he was claiming to be the Messiah, the Son of David/the Son of God,

107 So

Betz, “Prozess,” 632.  See Betz, “Prozess,” 596–603 and Stuhlmacher, “Reconciliation,” 5–6, for the view that the temple action was one of the grounds for the Sanhedrin’s view of Jesus as a false prophet and that this view was a decisive ground for the arrest and trial of Jesus. Cf. Jeremias, Theologie, 82–83, 145; Strobel, Stunde, 81 ff. 109  Cf. the case of Jesus, the son of Ananias, reported by Josephus, J. W. 6.300–09. For his prophecy against Jerusalem and the temple c. 62 AD, the Jewish authorities brought him to Albinus, the Roman procurator, probably for his execution. See J. Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu (Regensburg: Pustet, 1969), 243 (cf. also p. 143); Strobel, Stunde, 24 ff.; Betz, “Prozess,” 589 ff.; Theissen, “Tempelweissagung,” 145–46, for the similarities between Jesus, the son of Ananias, and Jesus of Nazareth. See further Theissen, “Tempelweissagung,” 153–58, for the sensitivity of the temple establishment and the Jerusalem inhabitants about a threat against the temple. 110 Most recently, his “Prozess,” 630–33; cf. also Jeremias, Theologie, 247. 108

454

Jesus and the Temple

who was to build a new temple for God according to the promise of 2  Sam 7:12–14.111 Jesus answered the high priest’s question affirmatively and referred to his exaltation and parousia as “the ‘Son of Man’” in reference to Dan 7:13 and Ps 110:1 (Mark 14:62 and parr.). Upon this the high priest concluded the trial with the verdict of “blasphemy” worthy of capital punishment.112 To this day, exegetes debate as to what precisely of Jesus’ answer led to this verdict.113 In view of the narrow definition of “blasphemy” in Mishna, “The blasphemer is guilty only when he explicitly pronounces the name (of Yahweh)” (m. Sanh. 7.5), some have not hesitated to see this verdict as an indication of the historical unreliability of the accounts of Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin in Mark and Matthew. Those who rightly think that at the time of Jesus the charge of “blasphemy” could have been more widely applied consider various grounds for the verdict: Jesus’ confession of his messiahship; the helpless Jesus’ claim to divine sonship; Jesus’ setting himself in the place of God; etc. However, if we are right in seeing the two charges of the high priest’s against Jesus, namely the temple charge and the charge of messianic claim, as in fact constituting one single charge with two moments, we must consider whether the high priest’s verdict of “blasphemy” was not also connected with both moments. In view of the tradition stemming from 2 Sam 7:12–14, Jesus’ confession of his messiahship and divine sonship was, for the high priest and the Sanhedrin, 111  Failure to understand this historical context as well as the OT background of 2 Sam 7:12 ff. has led many to postulate different layers of the tradition or even different traditions of the trial before the Sanhedrin, separating the high priest’s two questions from each other completely. E. g., E.  Linnemann, Studien zur Passionsgeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 109–35 (esp. 125–27); D. R. Catchpole, The Trial of Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 128 ff.; Strobel, Stunde, 62 ff.; Gnilka, Markus II, 276. In spite of his emphasis on the OT–Jewish traditon of 2 Sam 7:12–14; Zech 6:12; Tg Isa 53:5 as the background of the temple charge in Mark 14:58, Juel (Messiah, 208–13) comes down to conclude that the temple saying in Mark 14:58 was developed in the context of Jewish–Christian polemics and inserted by Mark into a traditional account of the trial. This view is, in our opinion, a result of his failure to investigate the historical context of Jesus’ trial properly, and this failure stems from the limitation of the mere redactioncritical method and of its form-critical presupposition. Similarly, J. R. Donahue (“Temple, Trial and Royal Christology,” The Passion in Mark: Studies in Mark 14–16 [W. H. Kelber ed.; Philadelphia, 1976], 77) also recognizes the connection between the temple saying and the question of Jesus’ messiahship on the basis of 2 Sam 7:12–14, but attributes this to Marcan theology. Here again we seem to see the limitation of a thorough-going redaction-critic who sees the Marcan redactional hand everywhere and operate with the assumption that redaction always means unhistorical, which makes it unnecessary to raise a historical question about it. 112  The sequence of the high priest’s question (“Are you the Son of God?”), Jesus’ answer (“… you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven”) (Matt 26:63–64//Mark 14:61–62), and the high priest’s conclusion (“Blasphemy!”) confirm my view that the “one like a son of man” enthroned next to God’s throne and given “authority, glory and kingship” (Dan 7:13–14) is to be interpreted as the Son of God (cf. Kim, “The ‘Son of Man’,” 15–81; see the paragraph under n. 102 above). 113  See Blinzer, Prozess, 188 ff.; Catchpole, Trial, 72–152; Strobel, Stunde, 92–94.

Conclusion

455

tantamount to his admission of the charge brought by the witnesses against him, namely, that he had said he would destroy the temple and build a new one. From his confession of his messiahship, they probably concluded, in spite of his silence on the temple charge, that in his messianic pretension he must have claimed to build a (new) temple in fulfillment of the expectation stemming from 2  Sam 7:12–14; Zech 6:12; etc. and to destroy the existing temple in order to build a new one.114 Here they could well have thought that his sign-act in the temple was a clear piece of evidence for this conclusion. But the helpless Jesus standing before them was the exact opposite of their expected Messiah, and so they must have found his claim to be the Messiah and the Son of God and his prophecy of his exaltation at the right hand of God to be an intolerable infringement upon the majesty and honour of God. At the same time, they must have perceived his alleged threat to destroy the temple as a revolt against God, indeed a blasphemy against God’s name. For the temple was the “House of the Lord,” not just in the sense that it belonged to God, but in the sense that it was the house in which God let his name (‫ )יהוה‬dwell (e. g., Deut 12:5, 11, 21; Temple Scroll 45:12–13; 46:12; 47:4, 11, 18). To destroy the temple was to destroy God’s name!115 Thus, it is probable that the high priest’s verdict of “blasphemy” fell not just upon the helpless Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah, the Son of God, but upon that claim as it was bound up with his intention to build a new temple and his (alleged) threat to destroy the temple in Jerusalem.

Conclusion In the wake of Jesus’ sign-act at the temple of Jerusalem (Mark 11:15–18 and parr.) a delegation of the Sanhedrin interrogated him as to the origin and nature of his authority to do it. Jesus tried to answer them by pointing to his baptism by John the Baptist since at that moment he was anointed with the Spirit and commissioned by God as his Son, the Messiah (Mark 1:9–11 and parr.; cf. Ps 2:7; 2 Sam 7:12–14). However, seeing that his interrogators were not accepting John as a true prophet who carried out the divine counsel, Jesus refused to answer them directly. Yet he went on to tell them the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Mark 12:1–12 and parr.), making his implicit claim clearer: that he did the temple 114  Note the fact that, in all the temple charges, destroying the temple and building a new one are treated as one act with two steps, one following the other (Mark 14:58; Matt 26:61; Mark 15:29; Matt 27:40; John 2:19). 115  It is interesting to note in Acts 6:11–14 that Stephen’s alleged teachings that Jesus would destroy the temple and change the law of Moses are referred to as ῥήματα βλάσφημα εἰς Μωϋσῆν καὶ τὸν θεόν. A threat to destroy the temple was blasphemy! For this crime Stephen was stoned to death in accordance with Mishnaic law and the Roman provision that the Sanhedrin could administer capital punishment if the sanctity of the temple was violated (cf. Josephus, J. W. 6.126).

456

Jesus and the Temple

action as God’s Son, God’s eschatological envoy, who was to build a new temple through his rejection and death at the hands of the Jewish authorities (the temple establishment) in fulfilment of the prophecies of 2 Sam 7:12–14 and Ps 118:22–23. The interrogators grasped Jesus’ claim and led the Sanhedrin to try him officially on the charges of claiming to be the Son of God and of having threatened to destroy the temple and claimed to build a new one, which were in fact one and the same charge of claiming to be the Messiah, the Son of David and the Son of God, who was expected to build the temple according to the tradition stemming from Nathan’s oracle (2  Sam 7:12–14) and its application to Zerubbabel during the building of the second temple (Zech 6:12). The trial ended with the Sanhedrin condemning Jesus to death on the charge of having threatened as a messianic pretender to destroy the temple and thus “blasphemed” God’s name that dwelt in the House of the Lord. And the Sanhedrin persuaded Pilate to execute Jesus as a messianic claimant. In accordance with the Sanhedrin’s charge, the crowd taunted the crucified Jesus for his claims to be “the Messiah (the Son of God), the King of Israel” and to destroy the temple and build a new one (Mark 15:29–32//Matt 27:39–43; cf. also Luke 23:35–37). But this Jesus who was tried and executed for having claimed to build a new temple as God’s Son the Messiah (and to destroy the existing temple in order to do that) was the same Jesus who, having provoked his own prosecution and death through his temple action and his implicit answer to the delegation of the Sanhedrin at their ensuing interrogation about his authority to do the sign-act (Mark 11:27–12:12), told his disciples at his last supper that his impending death was the sacrifice of eschatological atonement and covenantestablishment (Mark 14:21–25 and parr.). Therefore, Jesus’ temple action and his implicit answers at the ensuing interrogation by the delegation of the Sanhedrin and at the trial before the Sanhedrin are to be taken together with his view of his own death that he laid bare at the Last Supper. It thus becomes clear that he saw his death as the event of fulfilling the meaning and purpose of the temple (so making the temple of Jerusalem redundant, though not “destroying” it literally) and building a new temple of the eschatological people of God as the Messiah, the Son of David and the Son of God, according to Nathan’s oracle. Thus, our thesis on the Vollmachtsfrage enables us not only to interpret the meaning of Jesus’ temple action but also to explain consistently the historical logic behind Jesus’ arrest, trial and execution as well as the sequence of the high priest’s interrogations and his verdict of “blasphemy” at the trial. In my judgement, this should be taken as confirming our thesis. Further, it also becomes clear how many of the points that we have ascertained here are accurately reflected in the Johannine account of the temple action and the Vollmachtsfrage (John 2:13–22). Finally, this study on the Vollmachtsfrage clearly reveals the vital importance of the theme “Jesus and the Temple” for ascertaining the historical Jesus’ selfunderstanding and his understanding of his mission.

List of First Publications  1. The Structure and Function of 1 Thessalonians 1–3, and the Occasion and Purpose of 1 Thessalonians This is a slightly revised version of the following two articles: “Paul’s Entry (εἴσοδος) and the Thessalonians’ Faith (1 Thess 1–3),” NTS 51 (2005): 519–42, and “The Structure and Function of 1 Thess 1–3,” in History and Exegesis: New Testament Essays in Honor of Dr. E. Earle Ellis on His 80th Birthday (ed. Sang-Won Aaron Son; New York and London: T&T Clark, 2006), 170–88. They are here reused by permission respectively of Cambridge University Press and Bloomsbury Publishing.

 2. Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel (1 Thess 1:9–10 and Rom 1:3–4) This essay is a revised version of the paper that was originally presented at the meeting of the New Testament Group of the Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical and Theological Research at Tyndale House, Cambridge, U. K., during July 7–9, 2010, where papers were presented in response to the work of Martin Hengel. The paper was then published in Earliest Christian History: History, Literature, and Theology: Essays from the Tyndale Fellowship in Honor of Martin Hengel (WUNT 2/320; ed. M. F. Bird and J. Maston; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 117–41. The paper is presented here with some further revisions.

 6. The Jesus Tradition in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11 A revised version of the paper presented at the Seminar on the Thessalonian Correspondence at the meeting of SNTS in Montreal, Canada, August 1, 2001, which was then published in New Testament Studies 48 (2002): 225–42. It is here re-presented with a slight revision by permission of Cambridge University Press.

10. Paul and the Roman Empire Reprint from God and the Faithfulness of Paul: A Critical Examination of N. T. Wright (WUNT 2/413; ed. C. Heilig, J. T. Hewitt, and M. M. F. Bird; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 277–308.

11. Paul’s Common Paraenesis (1 Thess 4–5; Phil 2–4; and Rom 12–13), the Correspondence between Romans 1:18–32 and 12:1–2, and the Unity of Romans 12–13 Reprinted with slight revision from Tyndale Bulletin 62 (2011): 109–39, by permission.

458

List of First Publications

12. Paul’s Doctrine of Justification in 2 Thessalonians 1–2, and Its Implications for Pauline Theology and 2 Thessalonians A slightly revised and augmented version of “Paul’s Doctrine of Justification in 2 Thess 1–2,” which was published in Biblica 102 (2021): 78–96. It is here reused by permission of Biblica. An abridged version of this essay was delivered as a lecture at the Studientag of the Protestant Theological Faculty, University of Tübingen, on June 23, 2020.

15. Imitatio Christi (1 Cor 11:1): How Paul Imitates Jesus Christ in Dealing with Idol Food (1 Cor 8–10) Reprinted with a few slight modifications from Bulletin of Biblical Research 13 (2003): 193–226, by permission of The Pennsylvania State University Press. An abbreviated version of this essay was presented as a main paper at the annual meeting of Institute for Biblical Research during the Society of Biblical Literature meeting in Toronto on November 23, 2002.

16. Paul as an Eschatological Herald Reprinted from Paul as Missionary (ed. T. J. Burke and B. S. Rosner; London: T&T Clark, 2011), 9–24, by permission of Bloomsbury Publishing.

18. Paul and Violence A lecture delivered on Sept. 28, 2018 at the Symposium on the Theological Interpretation of Scripture at North Park Theological Seminary, Chicago. The lecture was subsequently published in Ex Auditu 34 (2018): 67–89. It is here reused by permission of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Biblical quotations are mostly from NRSV, but some are my own translation.

Bibliography Aalen, S. “‘Reign’ and ‘House’ in the Kingdom of God in the Gospels.” NTS 8 (1961/62): 215–40. Ådna, J. Jesu Stellung zum Tempel: Die Tempelaktion und das Tempelwort als Ausdruck seiner messianischen Sendung. WUNT 2/119. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. –. “The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 as Triumphant and Interceding Messiah: The Reception of Isaiah 52:13–53:12 in the Targum of Isaiah with Special Attention to the Concept of the Messiah.” Pages 189–224 in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources. Edited by B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Aejmelaeus, L. Wachen vor dem Ende: Traditionsgeschichtliche Wurzeln von 1. Thess 5:1– 11 und Luk 21:34–36. SESJ 44. Helsinki: Kirjapaino Raamattualo, 1985. Albertz, M. Die synoptischen Streitgespräche. Berlin: Trowitzsch, 1921. Aletti, J.-N. Justification by Faith in the Letters of Saint Paul: Keys to Interpretation. Translated from French by P. Manning Meyer. Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2015. Allison, D. C. Jr. “The Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels: The Pattern of the Parallels.” NTS 28 (1982): 1–32. Aono, T. Die Entwicklung des paulinischen Gerichtsgedanken bei den Apostolischen Vätern. Bern: Peter Lang, 1979 Aune, D. E.  Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Baker, M. “Paul and the Salvation of Israel: Paul’s Ministry, the Motif of Jealousy, and ­Israel’s Yes.” CBQ 67 (2005): 469–84. Bammel, E. “Romans 13.” Pages 365–83 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Barclay, J. M. G. “Why the Roman Empire Was Insignificant to Paul.” Pages 363–87 in Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews. WUNT 275. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. –. “Conflict in Thessalonica.” CBQ 55 (1993): 512–30. –. “‘By the Grace of God I Am What I Am’: Grace and Agency in Philo and Paul.” Pages 140–57 in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment. Edited by J. M. G. Barclay and S. J. Gathercole. London: T&T Clark, 2006. –. “‘Do We Undermine the Law?’ A Study of Romans 14.1–15.6.” Pages 287–308 in Paul and the Mosaic Law. WUNT 89. Edited by J. D. G. Dunn. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Barr, J. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961. Barrett, C. K.  Acts of the Apostles. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. –. “Das Fleisch des Menschensohnes [Joh 6,53].” Pages 342–54 in Jesus und der Menschensohn. Freiburg: Herder, 1975. –. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. BNTC. London: Black, 1968, 1971.

460

Bibliography

–. The Epistle to the Romans. BNTC. London: Black, 21991. –. “The House of Prayer and the Den of Thieves.” Pages 13–20 in Jesus und Paulus. W. G. Kümmel FS. Edited by E. E. Ellis and E. Grässer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Barton, S. C. “Paul as Missionary and Pastor.” Pages 34–48 in The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul. Edited by J. D. G. Dunn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Bash, A. Ambassadors for Christ: An Exploration of Ambassadorial Language in the NT. WUNT 2/92. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Bauckham, R. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. –. “Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse.” NTS 23 (1977/78): 162–76. –. The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993. Beale, G. K. 1–2 Thessalonians. IVP NT Commentary Series. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003. Becker, J. Paulus der Apostel der Völker. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 31998. ET: Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles. Louisville: Westminster/Knox, 1993. Beker, J. C.  Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. First paperback edition. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Best, E. The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. BNTC. London: Black, 1972. –. The Temptation and the Passion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Betz, H. D.  Galatians. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. –. Nachfolge und Nachahmung Jesu Christi im Neuen Testament. BHTh 37. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1967. Betz, O. Jesus und das Danielbuch: Die Menschensohnworte Jesu und die Zukunftserwartung des Paulus (Daniel 7,13–14). vol. 2 of 2. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1985. –. “Das Mahl des Herrn bei Paulus.” Pages 217–51 in Jesus der Herr der Kirche. WUNT 52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990. –. “Die Übersetzung von Jes 53 (LXX, Targum) und die Theologia Crucis des Paulus.” Pages 197–216 in Jesus der Herr der Kirche. WUNT 52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990. –. “Probleme des Prozesses Jesu.” Pages 565–647 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.25.1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1982. –. Wie verstehen wir das Neue Testament? Wuppertal: Aussaat-Verlag, 1981. Billerbeck, P. (H. L. Strack). Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. München: C. H. Beck, 1922–61. Bird, M. F. “The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2.11–14): The Beginnings of Paulinism.” Pages 329–61 in Earliest Christian History: History, Literature, and Theology. Essays from the Tyndale Fellowship in Honor of Martin Hengel. WUNT 2/320. Edited by M. F. Bird and J. Maston. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Black, M. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 31967. Blinzler, J. Der Prozess Jesu. Regensburg: Pustet, 1969. Bockmuehl, M. “1 Thess 2:14–16 and the Church in Jerusalem.” TynBul 52 (2001): 1–31. Boers, H. “The Form Critical Study of Paul’s Letters. 1 Thess as a Case Study.” NTS 22 (1976): 141–54. Borg, M. “A New Context for Romans XIII.” NTS 19 (1972/73): 205–18.

Bibliography

461

Borgen, P. “‘Yes,’ ‘No,’ ‘How Far?’: The Participation of Jews and Christians in Pagan Cults.” Pages 30–59 in Paul and His Hellenistic Context. Edited by T. Engberg-Pedersen. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Bornkamm, G. Paulus. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969. ET: Paul. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Bruce, F. F. 1 and 2 Corinthians. NCBC. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1971. –. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. WBC 45. Waco, TX: Word, 1982. –. Paul: Apostle of Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. Brunt, J. C. “Rejected, Ignored, or Misunderstood? The Fate of Paul’s Approach to the Problem of Food Offered to Idols in Early Christianity.” NTS 31 (1985): 113–24. Bryan, C. Render to Caesar: Jesus, the Early Church, and the Roman Superpower. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Burchard, C. “Nicht aus Werken des Gesetzes Gerecht, sondern aus Glauben an Jesus Christus – seit wann?” Pages 405–15 in Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion 3: Frühes Christentum: Festschrift für Martin Hengel. Edited by H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger, and Peter Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Bultmann, R. “Das Verhältnis der urchristlichen Christusbotschaft zum historischen ­Jesus.” Pages 445–69 in Exegetica. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1960. –. Der zweite Brief an die Korinther. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. –. “Die Bedeutung des geschichtlichen Jesus für die Theologie des Paulus.” Pages 188–213 in Glauben und Verstehen 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1933. –. Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 7 1967. –. “Jesus und Paulus.” Pages 210–29 in Exegetica. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1960. –. Theology of the New Testament. London: SCM, 1968. Calvin, J. The Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981. Campbell, D. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Carter, W. Review of Seyoon Kim, Christ and Caesar in Review of Biblical Literature. July 2009. Catchpole, D. R.  The Trial of Jesus. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Cerfaux, L. Christ in the Theology of St. Paul. New York: Herder, 1959. Charlesworth J. H. ed. Jesus and Temple: Textual and Archaeological Explorations. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014. Chester, A. “Jewish Messianic Expectations and Mediatorial Figures and Pauline Christology.” Pages 17–89 in Paulus und das antike Judentum: Tübingen – Durham – Symposium. WUNT 58. Edited by M. Hengel and U. Heckel. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Cheung, A. T.  Idol Food in Corinth: Jewish Background and Pauline Legacy. JSNTSup 176. Sheffield: Academic, 1999. Cohick, L. H. “Philippians and Empire: Paul’s Engagement with Imperialism and the Imperial Cult.” Pages 165–82 in Jesus Is Lord, Caesar Is Not: Evaluating Empire in New Testament Studies. Edited by S. McKnight and J. B. Modica. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2013. Collange, J.-F. De Jesus à Paul. L’ethique du Nouveau Testament. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1980. Collins, A. Y. and J. J. Collins. King and Messiah as Son of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

462

Bibliography

Collins, J. J.  The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 22010. Conzelmann, H. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969. Cosgrove, C. H. “Justification in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Reflection.” JBL 106 (1987): 653–70. Cranfield, C. E. B.  The Epistle to the Romans. vol. 2 of 2. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979. Crump, D. Jesus the Intercessor: Prayer and Christology in Luke–Acts. WUNT 2/49. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999. Cullmann, O. “Das Rätsel des Johannesevangeliums im Licht der Handschriftenfunde.” Pages 260–91 in Vorträge und Aufsätze 1925–1962. Edited by K. Fröhlich. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966. –. “Der eschatologische Charakter des Missionsauftrags und des apostolischen Selbstbewusstseins bei Paulus: Untersuchung zum Begriff des κατέχον (κατέχων) in 2. Thess. 2,6–7” (1936). Pages 305–36 in ibid. Dahl, N. A. “Formgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zur Christusverkündigung in der Gemeindepredigt.” Pages 3–9 in Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann. BZNW 21. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1954. –. “The Doctrine of Justification: Its Social Function and Implications.” Pages 95–120 in Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977. Daube, D. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: Athlone Press, 1956. Davies, W. D. and D. C. Allison. The Gospel according to Saint Matthew. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. Davis, C. T. III. “The Evolution of a Pauline Toxic Text.” Pages 191–206 in The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, vol. 1 of Sacred Scriptures, Ideology, and Violence. Edited by J. H. Ellens. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004. Dawes, G. W. “The Danger of Idolatry: First Corinthians 8:7–13.” CBQ 58 (1996): 82–98. de Boer, W. P. Imitation of Paul. Kampen: Kok, 1962. Deissmann, G. A.  Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978. Dibelius, M. An die Thessalonicher I, II. HNT 11. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1937. –. “Nachfolge Christi.” RGG (21930), 4:395–96. Dickey, S. “Some Economic and Social Conditions of Asia Minor Affecting the Expansion of Christianity.” Pages 393–416 in Studies in Early Christianity. Edited by S. J. Case. New York: Century, 1928. Dickson, J. P.  Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities: The Shape, Extent and Background of Early Christian Mission. WUNT 2/159. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Dodd, C. H. “ἔννομος Χριστοῦ.” Pages 134–48 in More New Testament Studies. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1968. Donahue, J. R. “Temple, Trial and Royal Christology.” Pages 61–79 in The Passion in Mark: Studies in Mark 14–16. Edited by W. H. Kelber. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Donfried, K. P. “Issues of Authorship in the Pauline Corpus: Rethinking the Relationship between 1 and 2 Thessalonians.” Pages 81–113 in 2 Thessalonians and Pauline Eschatology. P. Porkorný Festschrift. Edited by C. Tuckett. Leuven: Peeters, 2013. –. “Justification and Last Judgment in Paul.” Pages 253–78 in Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

Bibliography

463

– ed. The Romans Debate. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 21991. Downs, David J. The Offering of the Gentiles: Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem in Its Chronological, Cultural, and Cultic Contexts. WUNT 2/248. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Dunn, J. D. G.  Christianity in the Making. Vol 2: Beginning from Jerusalem. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. –. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 21989. –. Jesus and the Spirit. London: SCM, 1975. –. “Paul’s Conversion – A Light to Twentieth Century Disputes.” Pages 77–93 in Evangelium, Schriftauslegung, Kirche: Festschrift für Peter Stuhlmacher zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by J. Ådna, S. J. Hafemann, and O. Hofius. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. –. “Prophetic ‘I’-Sayings and the Jesus Tradition: The Importance of Testing Prophetic Utterances within Early Christianity.” NTS 24 (1978): 175–98. –. Romans 1–8. WBC 38A. Waco, TX: Word, 1988. –. Romans 9–16. WBC 38B. Waco, TX: Word, 1988. –. The Epistle to the Galatians. BNC. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993. –. The New Perspective on Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 22008. –. The Partings of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism. Philadelphia: Trinity, 1991. Dupont, J. “Filius meus es tu.” RSR 35 (1948): 522–43. –. “‘Assis à la droite de Dieu’: L’interprétation du Ps 110,1 dans le Nouveau Testament.” Pages 340–422 in Resurrexit: Actes du Symposium International sur la Résurrection de Jésus (Rome 1970). Edited by B. M. Ahern et al. Citta del Vaticano: Libreria editrice vaticana, 1974. Eckart, K.-G. “Der zweite echte Brief des Paulus an die Thessalonicher.” ZTK 63 (1961): 30–44. Eckert, J. “Zur Erstverkündigung des Paulus.” Pages 279–99 in Theologie im Werden: Studien zu den theologischen Konzeptionen im Neuen Testament. Edited by J. Hainz. Paderborn: F. Schöningh, 1992. Elgvin, T. “‘To Master His Own Vessel’: 1 Thess 4.4 in Light of New Qumran Evidence.” NTS 43 (1997): 604–19. Ellens, J. H. “Religious Metaphors Can Kill.” Pages 255–72 in The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, vol. 1 of Sacred Scriptures, Ideology, and Violence. Edited by J. H. Ellens. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004. –. “The Violent Jesus.” Pages 15–38 in The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, vol. 3 of Models and Cases of Violence in Religion. Edited by J. H. Ellens. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004. Elliott, N. The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008. –. Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1994. –. “Romans 13:1–7 in the Context of Imperial Propaganda.” Pages 184–204 in Paul and Empire. Edited by R. A. Horsley. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997. Ellis, E. E. “Gospel Criticism: A Perspective on the State of the Art.” Pages 25–74 in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien. WUNT 28. Edited by P. Stuhlmacher. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983.

464

Bibliography

Eppstein, V. “The Historicity of the Gospel Account of the Cleansing of the Temple.” ZNW 55 (1964): 43–58. Ernst, J. Die eschatologischen Gegenspieler in den Schriften des Neuen Testaments. BU 3. Regensburg: Pustet, 1967. Evans, C. A.  Mark 8:27–16:20. WBC 34B. Nashville: Nelson, 2001. –. “Romans 12:1–2: The True Worship.” Pages 7–33 in Dimensions de la Vie Chrétienne (Rom 12–13). Edited by L. de Lorenzi. Rome: Abbey de S. Paul, 1979. Fairchild, M. R. “Paul’s Pre-Christian Zealot Associations: A Re-Examination of Gal 1.14 and Acts 22.3.” NTS 45 (1999): 514–32. Fantin, J. D.  The Lord of the Entire World: Lord Jesus, a Challenge to Lord Caesar? NT Monographs 31. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2011. Farmer, W. R. Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. Fee, G. D.  God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. –. The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. –. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Fisk, B. N. “Eating Meat Offered to Idols: Corinthian Behavior and Pauline Response in 1 Corinthians 8–10 (A Response to Gordon Fee).” Trinity Journal 10 (1989): 49–70. Fitzmyer, J. A.  Romans. AB 33. New York: Anchor, 1992. Flusser, D. Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 1. Teil: Das­ Wesen der Gleichnisse. Bern: Lang, 1981. –. Die letzten Tage Jesu in Jerusalem. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1982 Frey, J. “Rechtfertigungstheologie im ersten Korintherbrief.” Pages 1:549–85 in Saint Paul and Corinth: 1950 Years since the Writing of the Epistle to the Corinthians. Edited by C. J. Belezos, S. Despotis, and C. Karakolis. vol. 1. Athens: Psychogios, 2009. Friedrich, G. “Ein Tauflied hellenistischer Judenchristen.” TZ 21 (1965): 502–16. Funk, R. W. “The Apostolic Parousia: Form and Significance.” Pages 249–68 in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox. Edited by W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, R. R. Niebuhr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Furnish, V. P. 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon. 2007. –. Theology and Ethics in Paul. Nashville: Abingdon, 1968. Gager, J. G. with E. L. Gibson. “Violent Acts and Violent Language in the Apostle Paul.” Pages 13–21 in Violence in the New Testament. Edited by E. L. Gibson and S. Matthews. New York: T&T Clark, 2005. Gärtner, B. The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Gaston, L. No Stone on Another. NovTSup 23. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Gathercole, S. J.  The Pre-Existent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. –. Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Gaventa, B. R.  First and Second Thessalonians. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox, 1998. Georgi, D. “God Turned Upside Down.” Pages 148–57 in Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society. Edited by R. A. Horsley. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1997.

Bibliography

465

–. Remembering the Poor: The History of Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem. Nashville: Abingdon, 1992. Gerhardson, B. “Der Weg der Evangelientradition.” Pages 79–102 in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien. WUNT 28. Edited by P. Stuhlmacher. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Gese, H. “Die Sühne.” Pages 85–106 in Zur biblischen Theologie: Alttestamentliche Vorträge. München: Kaiser, 1977. ET: “The Atonement.” Pages 93–116 in Essays on Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981. –. “The Origin of the Lord’s Supper.” Pages 117–40 in ibid. Giblin, G. H.  The Threat to Faith. AnBib 31. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967. Gillman, J. “Paul’s ΕΙΣΟΔΟΣ: The Proclaimed and the Proclaimer (1 Thess 2,8).” Pages 62–70 in The Thessalonian Correspondence. ETL 87. Edited by R. F. Collins. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. Gnilka, J. Das Evangelium nach Markus. EKKNT. 2. Teilband. Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1979. Goppelt, L. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. Gordon, G. L. “The Church Fathers and the Roman Empire.” Pages 258–82 in Empire in the NT. Edited by S. E. Porter and C. L. Westfall. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011. Gorman, M. J.  Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Grimm, W. Die Verkündigung Jesu und Deutero-Jesaja. Frankfurt: Lang, 21981. Grundmann, W. Das Evangelium nach Markus. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 81980. Gundry, R. H.  Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. –. Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Gupta, N. K.  Paul and the Language of Faith. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020. Hafemann, S. J.  Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Hagner, D. A.  Matthew 1–13. WBC. Dallas: Word Books, 1993. Hahn, F. Christologische Hoheitstitel. FRLANT. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 4 1974. Hamerton-Kelly, R. G.  Sacred Violence: Paul’s Hermeneutic of the Cross. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Hannah, D. D.  Michael and Christ. WUNT 2/109. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. –. “The Angelic Restrainer of 2 Thessalonians 2.6–7.” Pages 35–45 in Calling Time: Religion and Change at the Turn of the Millennium. Edited by M. Percy. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Hardin, J. K. Review of Seyoon Kim, Christ and Caesar. Themelios 35.2 (2010): 282–83. Harrison, J. R. “Paul and the Imperial Gospel at Thessaloniki.” JSNT 25 (2002): 71–96. Hartman, L. Prophecy Interpreted: The Formation of Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and of the Eschatological Discourse Mark 13 Par. ConBNT 1. Lund: Gleerup, 1966. Hawthorne, G. F. and R. P. Martin. Philippians. WBC. Nashville: Nelson, 22004. Hay, D. M.  Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. SBLMS 18. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973. Hays, Richard B. “Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ.” CBQ 49 (1987): 268–90. –. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. –. The Moral Vision of the New Testament. New York: HaperCollins, 1996. Heil, John P. “Those Now ‘Asleep’ (not dead) Must be ‘Awakened’ for the Day of the Lord in 1 Thess 5.9–10.” NTS 46 (2000): 464–71.

466

Bibliography

Heilig, C. Hidden Criticism? The Methodology and Plausibility of the Search for a Counter–Imperial Subtext in Paul. WUNT 2/392. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Hengel, M. “Das Gleichnis von den Weingärtnern, Mc 12, 1–12 im Lichte der Zenonpapyri und der rabbinischen Gleichnisse.” ZNW 59 (1968): 1–39. –. “Das Mahl in der Nacht, ‘in der Jesus ausgeliefert wurde’ (1. Kor 11,23).” Pages 451–95 in Studien zur Christologie, Kleine Schriften IV. WUNT 201. Edited by C.-J. Thornton. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. –. “Jesus als messianischer Lehrer der Weisheit und die Anfänge der Christologie.” Pages 147–88 in Sagesse et religion. Edited by E. Jacob. Paris: Presses Université de France, 1979. –. Der Sohn Gottes. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1975. –. “Probleme des Markusevangeliums.” Pages 221–65 in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien. WUNT 28. Edited by P. Stuhlmacher. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. –. “Sit at My Right Hand!” Pages 119–225 in Studies in Early Christology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995. –. The Atonement: A Study of the Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament. Translated by J. Bowden. London: SCM, 1981. –. “The Origins of the Christian Mission.” Pages 48–64 in Between Paul and Jesus: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. –. The Pre-Christian Paul. London: SCM, 1991. –. War Jesus Revolutionär? Stuttgart: Calwer, 41973. –. The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 AD. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989. –. Zur urchristlichen Geschichtsschreibung. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1979. Hengel, M. and M. Schwemer. Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Hock, R. F.  The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Hofius, O. “Sühne und Versöhnung: Zum paulinischen Verständnis des Kreuzestodes Jesu.” Pages 33–49 in Paulusstudien. WUNT 51. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Holtz, T. Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher. EKKNT. Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1990. –. “On the Background of 1 Thess 2:1–12.” Pages 69–80 in The Thessalonians Debate. Edited by K. P. Donfried and J. Beutler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Hooker, M. D. “Adam in Romans I.” NTS 6 (1959/60): 296–306. –. “Concluding Reflections: ‘Our Gospel Came to You, not in word alone but in power also’ [1 Thess 1:5].” Pages 155–66 in Not in the Word Alone: The First Epistle to the Thessalonians. Edited by M. D. Hooker. Rome: Benedictina, 2003. –. “1 Thess 1, 9–10: A Nutshell – but What Kind of Nut?” Pages 435–48 in Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion. Festschrift für M. Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger and P. Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. –. “Paul and Covenantal Nomism.” Pages 47–56 in Paul and Paulinism. Essays in Honour of C. K. Barrett. Edited by M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson. London: SPCK, 1982. Horbury, W. “1 Thess ii.3 as Rebutting the Charge of False Prophecy.” JTS 33 (1982): 492–508. Horrell, D. “‘The Lord commanded … But I have not used’: Exegetical and Hermeneutical Reflections on 1 Cor. 9.14–15.” NTS 43 (1997): 587–603.

Bibliography

467

–. “Theological Principle or Christological Praxis? Pauline Ethics in 1 Corinthians 8.1– 11.1.” JSNT 67 (1997): 83–114. Horn, F. W. “1. Korinther 15,56 – ein exegetischer Stachel.” ZNW 82 (1991): 88–105. Horsley, R. A.  Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance: Applying the Work of James Scott to Jesus and Paul. Atlanta: SBL Literature, 2004. –. ed. Paul and the Roman Imperial Order. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2004. Horsley, R. A. and J. S. Hanson. Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs. Minneapolis: Winston, 1985. Hübner, H. “Pauli Theologiae Proprium.” NTS 26 (1980): 445–73. –. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, vol. 2: Die Theologie des Paulus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Hughes, F. W. “The Rhetoric of Letters.” Pages 14–240 in The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? Edited by K. P. Donfried and J. Beutler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. –. “The Rhetoric of 1 Thess.” Pages 94–116 in The Thessalonian Correspondence. BETL 87. Edited by Raymond J. Collins. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. –. “The Social Function Implied by Rhetoric.” Pages 241–54 in ibid. Hurd, J. C.  The Origin of 1 Corinthians. London: SPCK, 1965. Hyldahl, N. “Auferstehung Christi – Auferstehung der Toten (1 Thess. 4,13–18).” Pages 119–35 in Die Paulinische Literatur und Theologie. Edited by S. Pedersen. Arhus: Forlaget Aros, 1980. Jeremias, J. “Das Lösegeld für Viele (Mk 10,45).” Pages 216–29 in Abba. Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. –. Die theologische Bedeutung der Funde am Toten Meer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962. –. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. ET: London: SCM, 1976. –. Jesus’ Promise to the Nations. London: SCM, 1958. –. Neutestamentliche Theologie. Gütersloh: Mohn, 31979. Jervell, J. The Unknown Paul: Essays on Luke–Acts and Early Christian History. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984. Jewett, R. Romans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. –. The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Johanson, B. C.  To All the Brethren: A Text-Linguistic and Rhetorical Approach to 1 Thess CBNT 16. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1987. Joseph, S. J.  Jesus and the Temple: The Crucifixion in Its Jewish Context. SNTSMS 165. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Juel, D. Messiah and Temple. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977. Jüngel, E. Paulus und Jesus. HUT 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 41972. Käsemann, Ernst. “Gottesgerechtigkeit bei Paulus.” Pages 181–93 in Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen. vol. 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. ET: “‘The Righteousness of God’ in Paul.” Pages 168–82 in New Testament Questions of Today. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969. –. An die Römer. HNT. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 21974. ET: Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

468

Bibliography

Keener, C. S.  Acts. An Exegetical Commentary. vol. 2. 3:1–14:28. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013. –. Acts. An Exegetical Commentary. vol. 3. 15:1–23:35. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014. Keller, W. Gottes Treue, Israels Heil: Röm 11,25–27 – Die These vom “Sonderweg” in der Diskussion. SBB 40. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998. Kennedy, G. A.  New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. Kern, P. K.  Rhetoric and Galatians. SBTSMS 101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Kertelge K. ‘Rechtfertigung’ bei Paulus. Münster: Aschendorf, 1967. –. ed. Der Tod Jesu. Freiburg: Herder, 1981. Kilpatrick, G. D.  The Trial of Jesus. London: Oxford University Press, 1953. Kim, S. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. WBC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan (forthcoming) –. “2 Corinthians 5:11–21 and the Origin of Paul’s Concept of Reconciliation.” NovT 39 (1997): 360–84 (Pages 226–33 in PNP). –. Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and the Empire in the Writings of Paul and Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. –. “Imitatio Christi (1 Corinthians 11:1): How Paul Imitates Jesus Christ in Dealing with Idol Food (1 Corinthians 8–10).” BBR 13 (2003): 193–226. –. “Isaiah 42 and Paul’s Call.” Pages 101–27 in PNP. –. “Jesus, Sayings of.” Pages 474–92 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by G. F. Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, and D. G. Reid. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993 (Pages 259–97 in PNP). –. “Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel (1 Thess 1:9–10; Rom 1:3–4).” Pages 117–41 in Earliest Christian History: History, Literature, and Theology: Essays from the Tyndale Fellowship in Honor of Martin Hengel. WUNT 2/320. Edited by M. F. Bird and J. Maston. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. –. “Jesus – the Son of God, the Stone, the Son of Man, and the Servant: The Role of Zechariah in the Self-Designations of Jesus.” Pages 134–48 in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament, E. E.  Ellis Festschrift. Edited by G. F. Hawthorne and O. Betz. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. –. Justification and God’s Kingdom. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. –. Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel. WUNT 140. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002 (often abbreviated as PNP). –. “Paul and the Roman Empire.” Pages 277–308 in God and the Faithfulness of Paul: A Critical Examination of the Pauline Theology of N. T. Wright. WUNT 2/413. Edited by C. Heilig, J. T. Hewitt, and M. F. Bird. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. –. “Paul as an Eschatological Herald.” Pages 9–24 in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice. LNTS. Edited by T. Burke and B. Rosner. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2011. –. “Paul’s Common Paraenesis (1 Thess 4–5; Phil 2–4; and Rom 12–13): The Correspondence between Romans 1:18–32 and 12:1–2 and the Unity of Romans 12–13.” TynBul 62 (2011): 109–39. –. “Paul’s Entry (εἴσοδος) and the Thessalonians’ Faith (1 Thess 1–3).” NTS 51 (2005): 519–42. –. “Paul and Violence.” Ex Auditu 34 (2018): 67–89.

Bibliography

469

–. “The ‘Mystery’ of Rom 11.25–26 Once More.” NTS 43 (1997): 412–29 (Pages 239–57 in PNP). –. The Origin of Paul’s Gospel. WUNT 2/4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981, 21984; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007. –. “The ‘Son of Man’” as the Son of God. WUNT 30. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011. –. “The Structure and Function of 1 Thess 1–3.” Pages 170–88 in History and Exegesis: New Testament Essays in Honor of Dr. E. Earle Ellis on His 80th Birthday. Edited by Sang-Won Aaron Son. New York and London: T&T Clark, 2006. Klinzing, G. Die Umdeutung des Kultus in der Qumrangemeinde und im Neuen Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. Klostermann, E. “Die adäquate Vergeltung in Rm 1, 22–31.” ZNW 32 (1933): 1–6. Kramer, W. Christ, Lord, Son of God. SBT 50. London: SCM, 1966. Krentz, E. “1 Thess: Rhetorical Flourishes and Formal Constraints.” Pages 287–318 in The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis?. Edited by K. P. Donfried and J. Beutler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Kuck, D. W.  Judgment and Community Conflict: Paul’s Use of Apocalyptic Judgment Language in 1 Corinthians 3:5–4:5. NovTSup 66. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Kümmel, W. G. “Jesus und Paulus.” Pages 439–56 in Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte I. Gesammelte Aufsätze 1933–1964. MATThSt 3. Marburg: Elwert, 1965. Lambrecht, J. “Thanksgivings in 1 Thess 1–3.” Pages 135–62 in The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis?. Edited by K. P. Donfried and J. Beutler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Lang, F. Die Briefe an die Korinther. NTD. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Larsson, E. Christus als Vorbild. Eine Untersuchung zu den paulinischen Tauf‑ und Eikontexten. ASNU XXIII. Uppsala: Gleerup, 1962. Lautenschlager, M. “Εἴτε γρηγορῶμεν εἴτε καθεύδωμεν: Zum Verhältnis von Heiligung und Heil in 1 Thess 5,10.” ZNW 81 (1990): 39–59. Leivestad, R. “Exit the Apocalyptic Son of Man.” NTS 18 (1971/72): 243–67. Lichtenberger, H. Das Ich Adams und das Ich der Menschheit. WUNT 164. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Lightfoot, J. B.  Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. London: Macmillan, 1927. Lindars, B. Jesus Son of Man. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Linnemann, E. Studien zur Passionsgeschichte. FRLANT. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Lohfink, G. Die Himmelfahrt Jesu: Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts‑ und Erhöhungstexten bei Lukas. SANT 2. München: Kösel, 1971. –. Wie hat Jesus Gemeinde gewollt? Zur gesellschaftlichen Dimension des christlichen Glaubens. Freiburg: Herder, 1982. Lohmeyer, E. Das Evangelium des Markus. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 17 1967. –. Kultus und Evangelium. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1942. Lohse, E. “Nachfolge Christi.” RGG (31960), 4:1286–87. Luckensmeyer, D. The Eschatology of First Thessalonians. NTOA 71. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. Luz, U. Das Geschichtsverständnis des Paulus. BevT 49. München: Kaiser, 1968. Lyons, G. Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding. SBLDS 73. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985.

470

Bibliography

Malherbe, A. J.  Ancient Epistolary Theorists. SBLSBS 12. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. –. “Exhortation in First Thessalonians.” NovT 25 (1983): 238–56. –. “‘Gentle as a Nurse’: The Cynic Background to 1 Thess ii.” NovT 12 (1970): 203–17. –. Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophical Tradition of Pastoral Care. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. –. The Letters to the Thessalonians. AB. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Marshall, I. Howard. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. NCBC. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1983. –. Last Supper and Lord’s Supper. Exeter: Paternoster, 1980. –. The Gospel of Luke. Exeter: Paternoster, 1978. Martin, D. M. 1, 2 Thessalonians. NAC. Nashville: Broadman, 1995. Martin, R. P. 2 Corinthians. WBC. Waco, TX: Word, 1986. Martin, R. P. and G. F. Hawthorne. Philippians. WBC. Nashville: Nelson, 22004. März, C.-P. “Das Gleichnis vom Dieb: Überlegungen zur Verbindung von Lk 12, 39 par Mt 24,43 und 1 Thess 5,2.4.” Pages 633–76 in The Four Gospels 1992, F. Neirynck Festschrift. Edited by F. van Segbroeck et al. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Marxsen, W. Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1982. Menken, M. J. J. 2 Thessalonians. New Testament Readings. London: Routledge, 1994. Merk, O. “Nachahmung Christi: Zur ethischen Perspektiven in der paulinischen Theologie.” Pages 172–206 in Neues Testament und Ethik, R. Schnackenburg Festschrift. Edited by H. Merklein. Freiburg: Herder, 1989. Metzger, P. Katechon: II Thess 2,1–12 im Horizont apokalyptischen Denkens. BZNW 135. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. Meyer, B. F.  The Aims of Jesus. London: SCM, 1979. Michel, O. Der Brief an die Römer. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Mitchell, M. M. “New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Example of Timothy and Titus.” JBL 111 (1992): 641–62. –. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation. Louisville: Wesminster/John Knox, 1993. Moiser, J. “Rethinking Romans 12–15.” NTS 36 (1990): 571–82. Moo, D. J.  The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Müller, P.-G. Der erste und zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher. Regensburg: Pustet, 2001. Munck, J. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind. London: SCM, 1959. Mundla, J.-G. Mudiso M. Jesus und die Führer Israels. Münster: Aschendorff, 1984. Murray, G. G. A.  Four Stages of Greek Religion. New York, 1912. Neirynck, F. “Duplicate Expressions in the Gospel of Mark.” Pages 83–142 in Evangelica. BETL 60. Edited by F. van Segbroeck. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982. –. “Paul and the Sayings of Jesus.” Pages 267–31 in L’Apôtre Paul: Personnalite, style et conception du ministere. BETL 73. Edited by A. Vanhoye. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986. –. “The Redactional Text of Mark.” Pages 618–36 in Evangelica. BETL 60. Edited by F. van Segbroeck. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982. Nicholl, C. R.  From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: Situating 1  and  2 Thessalonians. SNTSMS 126. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. –. “Michael, The Restrainer Removed (2 Thess 2:6–7).” JTS 51 (2000): 27–53. Nickle, K. F.  The Collection: A Study in Paul’s Strategy. London: SCM, 1966. Novenson, M. V. “What the Apostles Did Not See.” Pages 55–72 in Reactions to Empire: Sacred Texts in Their Socio-Political Contexts. WUNT 2/372. Edited by J. A. Dunne and D. Batovici. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014.

Bibliography

471

Oakes, P. “Re-Mapping the Universe: Paul and the Emperor in 1 Thessalonians and Philippians.” JSNT 27 (2001): 301–22. Now reprint in pages 135–55 in his Empire, Economics, and the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020. O’Brien, P. T.  Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul. NovTSup 4. Leiden: Brill, 1977. –. Gospel and Mission in the Writings of Paul: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995. –. The Epistle to the Philippians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Pannenberg, W. Christ – God and Man. London: SCM, 1968. Park, J. S.  Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Inscriptions. WUNT 2/121. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Pearson, B. “1 Thess 2:13–16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation.” HTR 64 (1971): 79–94. Peerbolte, L. J. L.  The Antecedents of Antichrist: A Traditio-Historical Study of the Earliest Christian View on Eschatological Opponents. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 49. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Perrin, N. Jesus the Priest. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019. –. Jesus the Temple. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. Pesch, R. Das Abendmahl und Jesu Todesverständnis. Freiburg: Herder, 1978. –. Das Markusevangelium II. Teil. HThKNT. Freiburg: Herder, 1977. Pfitzner, V. C.  Paul and the Agon Motif. NovTSup 16. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Piper, J. “Love Your Enemies:” Jesus’ Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and the Early Christian Paraenesis. SNTSMS. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Pitre, B. Jesus and the Last Supper. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. Plevnik, J. “The Taking Up of the Faithful and the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Thess 4:16–18.” CBQ 46 (1984): 274–83. –. Paul and the Parousia: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997. Porter, S. E. “The Theoretical Justification for Application of Rhetorical Categories to Pauline Epistolary Literature.” Pages 100–22 in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. Edited by S. E. Porter and T. H. Olbricht. JSNTSup 90. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Pryke, E. J.  Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel. SNTSMS. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Rabens, V. “The Development of Pauline Pneumatology.” BZ 43 (1999): 161–79. Räisänen, H. “Jesus and the Food Laws: Reflections on Mark 7.15.” Pages 215–41 in The Torah and Christ. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1986. –. “Zur Herkunft von Markus 7,15.” Pages 209–18 in ibid. Rainbow, O. A. “Justification according to Paul’s Thessalonian Correspondence.” BBR 19 (2009): 249–74. Rhoads, D. “The Zealots.” ABD 6:1043–54. Reiser, M. “Love of Enemies in the Context of Antiquity.” NTS 47 (2001): 418–22. Richard, E. J.  First and Second Thessalonians. SP 11. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995. Richardson, P. and P. W. Gooch. “Accommodation Ethics.” TynBul 29 (1978): 89–142. Riesner, R. “Back to the Historical Jesus through Paul and His School (The Ransom Logion – Mark 10.45; Matthew 20.28).” JSHJ 1 (2003): 171–99.

472

Bibliography

–. Die Frühzeit des Apostels Paulus: Studien zur Chronologie, Missionsstrategie und Theologie. WUNT 71. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. ET: Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. –. Jesus als Lehrer. WUNT 2/7. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 21984. –. “Paulus und die Jesus-Überlieferung.” Pages 356–65 in Evangelium, Schriftauslegung, Kirche. Festschrift für P. Stuhlmacher. Edited by J. Ådna, S. J. Hafemann, and O. Hofius. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. –. “Rechtfertigung aus Glauben – wie früh? Ein chronologischer und exgetischer Beitrag zum Reformationsjubiläum.” TBei (2017): 201–18. Rigaux, B. Saint Paul: Les épîtres aux Thessaloniens. Études bibliques. Paris: Jl. Gabalda, 1956. Röcker, F. W.  Belial und Katechon. Eine Untersuchung zu 2 Thess 2,1–12 und 1 Thess 4,12– 5,11. WUNT 2/262. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Roetzel, C. J. “The Language of War (2 Cor 10:1–6) and the Language of Weakness (2 Cor 11:21b–13:10).” Pages 77–98 in Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity. Edited by R. S. Baustan, A. P. Jassen, and C. J. Roetzel. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Roloff, J. Das Kerygma und der irdische Jesus. FRLANT. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 21973. Roth, C. “The Cleansing of the Temple and Zechariah XIV.21.” NovT 4 (1960): 174–81. Safrai, S. Die Wallfahrt im Zeitalter des zweiten Tempels. Neukirchen: Neukirchener. 1981. Sanders, E. P.  Jesus and Judaism: A Comparison of Pattern of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. –. “Jewish Association with Gentiles and Galatians 2:11–14.” Pages 170–88 in Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John. J. Louis Martyn Festschrift. Edited by R. T. Fortna and B. R. Gaventa. Nashville: Abingdon, 1990. Sandness, K. O.  Paul – One of the Prophets? WUNT 2/43. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Satake, A. “Apostolat und Gnade bei Paulus.” NTS 15 (1968–69): 96–107. Schlatter, A. Der Evangelist Matthäus. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1929. Schlier, H. Der Römerbrief. HThKNT 6. Freiburg: Herder, 1977. Schlueter, C. J.  Filling up the Measure: Polemical Hyperbole in 1 Thess 2.14–16. JSNTSS 98. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Schmidt, D. “1 Thess 2:13–16: Linguistic Evidence for an Interpolation.” JBL 102 (1983): 269–79. Schmithals, W. Paulus und Gnostiker. Hamburg: Herbert Reich–Evangelischer Verlag, 1965. Schnabel, E. J.  Early Christian Mission, II: Paul and the Early Church. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004. Schnelle, U. Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology. Translated by M. E. Boring. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Schniewind, J. Das Evangelium nach Markus. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 91960. Schoon-Janssen, J. Umstrittene ‘Apologien’ in den Paulusbriefen: Studien zur rhetorischen Situation des 1. Thessalonicherbriefes, des Galaterbriefes und des Philipperbriefes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Schrage, W. Der erste Brief an die Korinther (1. Kor 1,1–6,11). EKKNT 7/1. Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1991.

Bibliography

473

–. Ethik des Neuen Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Schreiber, S. Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher. ÖTK 13:1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2014. –. Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher. ÖTK 13:2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Veralghaus, 2017. Schubert, P. Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings. BZNW 20. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1939. Schürmann, H. “‘Das Gesetz des Christus’ (Gal 6, 2): Jesu Verhalten und Wort als letztgültige sittliche Norm nach Paulus.” Pages 283–300 in Neues Testament und Kirche, R. Schnackenburg Festschrift. Edited by J. Gnilka. Freiburg: Herder, 1974. –. Jesu ureigener Tod. Freiburg: Herder, 1975. Schulz, S. Neutestamentliche Ethik. Zürich: Theologischer Verlagshaus, 1987. Schweizer, E. Das Evangelium nach Markus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. –. “Ministry in the Early Church.” Pages 835–36 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary. vol. 4. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Segal, A. F.  Paul the Convert. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. Seifrid, M. Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme. NovTSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Selwyn, E. G.  First Epistle of St. Peter. London: Macmillan, 21955. Shae, Gam Seng. “The Question on the Authority of Jesus.” NovT 16 (1974): 1–29. Siber, P. Mit Christus leben: Eine Studie zur paulinischen Auferstehungshoffnung. ATANT 61. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1971. Silberman, L. H. “Justice and Mercy of God.” Pages 668–69 in Encyclopaedia Judaica, 22007. Smalley, S. S. 1, 2, 3 John. WBC 51. Waco, TX: Word, 1984. Snodgrass, K. The Parable of the Wicked Tenants. WUNT 27. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Söding, Thomas. “Der erste Thessalonicherbrief und die frühe paulinische Evangeliumsverkündigung. Zur Frage einer Entwicklung der paulinischen Theologie.” BZ 35 (1991): 180–203. Stanton, G. N. “Form Criticism Revisited.” Pages 13–27 in What About the New Testament? C. F. Evans Festschrift. Edited by M. Hooker. London: SCM, 1975. –. Jesus and Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. –. Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching. SNTSMS 27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. Stassen, G. Living the Sermon on the Mount: A Practical Hope for Grace and Deliverance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006. Stassen, G. with M. W. White. “Defining Violence and Nonviolence.” Pages 17–37 in Teaching Peace: Nonviolence and the Liberal Arts. Edited J. D. Weaver and G. Biesecker-Mast. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003. Stendahl, K. “Hate, Non-Retaliation, and Love, 1 QS x, 17–20 and Rom. 12:19–21.” HTR 55 (1962): 343–55. Stenger, W. “Biographisches und Idealbiographisches in Gal 1,11–12.14.” Pages 132–40 in Kontinuität und Einheit, F. Mussner Festschrift. Edited by P.-G. Müller and W. Stenger. Freiburg: Herder, 1981. Stettler, H. “An Interpretation of Colossians 1:24 in the Framework of Paul’s Mission Theology.” Pages 185–208 in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles. WUNT 127. Edited by J. Ådna and H. Kvalbein. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000.

474

Bibliography

–. “Did Paul Invent Justification by Faith?” TynBul 66 (2015): 161–96. Still, T. D.  Conflict in Thessalonica. JSNTSS 183. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Stowers, S. K.  Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. LEC. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Strobel, A. Die Stunde der Wahrheit. WUNT 21. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980. –. Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzögerungsproblem auf Grund der spätjüdisch-urchristlichen Geschichte von Habbakuk 2,2 ff. NovTSup 2. Leiden: Brill, 1961. Stuhlmacher, P. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. vol. 1: Grundlegung: Von Jesus zu Paulus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. ET: Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Translated by D. P. Bailey. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018. –. “Christus Jesus ist hier, der gestorben ist, ja vielmehr, der auch auferweckt ist, der zur Rechten Gottes ist und uns vertritt.” Pages 351–61 in Auferstehung – Resurrection: The Fourth Durham–Tübingen Research Symposium. WUNT 135. Edited by F. Avemarie and H. Lichtenberger. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. –. Das paulinische Evangelium: I. Vorgeschichte. FRLANT 95. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968. –. Der Brief an die Römer. NTD. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. ET: Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. –. “Existenzstellvertretung für die Vielen: Mark 10,45 (Mat 10,28).” Pages 27–42 in Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. –. “Jesustradition im Römerbrief?” TBei 14 (1983): 240–50. –. “Matt 28:16–20 and the Course of Mission in the Apostolic and Postapostolic Age.” Pages 17–43 in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles. WUNT 127. Edited by J. Ådna and H. Kvalbein. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. –. “Reconciliation in the Preaching and Work of Jesus.” Pages 2–14 in Theology, News and Notes. Pasadena: Fuller Theological Seminary, 1985. –. Reconciliation, Law, and Righteousness. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. –. Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective, With an Essay by Donald A. Hagner. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Academic, 2001. –. “Zum Thema: Das Evangelium und die Evangelien.” Pages 1–26 in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien. WUNT 28. Edited by P. Stuhlmacher. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Talbert, C. H. “Tradition and Redaction in Rom. XII.9–21.” NTS 16 (1969–70): 83–93. Tan-Gatue, P. The Coherence of Justification in Luke 18:9–14 with Authentic Jesus Tradition. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2021. Taylor, V. The Gospel according to Mark. London: Macmillan, 21966. Telford, W. R.  The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree. JSNTSS 1. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980. Theissen, G. “Die Tempelweissagung Jesu: Prophetie im Spannungsfeld von Stadt und Land.” Pages 142–59 in Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums. WUNT 19. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 21983. –. “Legitimation und Lebensunterhalt: Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie urchristlicher Missionare.” Pages 201–30 in ibid. –. The Religion of the Earliest Churches: Creating a Symbolic World. Edited by J. Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999. Tellbe, M. Paul between Synagogue and State: Christians, Jews, and Civic Authorities in 1 Thessalonians, Romans, and Philippians. ConBNT 34. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2001.

Bibliography

475

Theobald, M. “Der Kanon von der Rechtfertigung (Gal 2,16; Röm 3,28) – Eigentum des Paulus oder Gemeingut der Kirche?” Pages 131–92 in Worum geht es in der Rechtfertigungslehre? Edited by T. Söding. Freiburg: Herder, 1999. Thiselton, A. C.  The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Thompson, J. W.  Pastoral Ministry according to Paul: A Biblical Vision. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006. Thompson, M. Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.1– 15.13. JSNTSSup 59. Sheffield: JSOT, 1991. Thrall, M. E.  The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. ICC. vol. 1. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994. –. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. ICC. vol. 2. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. Tödt, H. E.  The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition. London: SCM, 1965. Tolmie, F. “Violence in the Letter to the Galatians?” Pages 69–82 in Coping with Violence in the New Testament. Edited by P. Williams and J. W. Henton. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Tomson, P. J.  Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles. CRINT. Assen/Mastricht: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Trautmann, M. Zeichenhafte Handlungen Jesu: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem geschichtlichen Jesus. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1980. Travis, S. H.  Christ and the Judgment of God: The Limits of Divine Retribution in New Testament Thought. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 22008. Trilling, W. Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher. EKKNT. Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1980. Tuckett, C. M. “Synoptic Tradition in 1 Thess?” Pages 160–82 in The Thessalonian Correspondence. BETL 87. Edited by R. F. Collins. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. –. The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Turner, M. M. B.  The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 21998. van Unnik, W. “The Christian Freedom of Speech in the NT.” Pages 269–89 in Sparsa Collecta. Part Two. NovTSup 30. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Vögtle, A. “Paraklese und Eschatologie nach Röm 13,11–14.” Pages 557–73 in Dimensions de la Vie Chrétienne (Rom 12–13). Edited by L. de Lorenzi. Rome: Abbaye de S. Paul, 1979. vom Brocke, C. Thessaloniki  – Stadt des Kasander und Gemeinde des Paulus. WUNT 2/125. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. von Bendemann, R. “‘Frühpaulinisch’ und ‘spätpaulinisch’? Erwägungen zu der These einer Entwicklung der paulinischen Theologie am Beispiel des Gesetzesverständnis.” EvT 60 (2000): 210–29. von Willamowitz-Moellendorf, U. Die griechische Literatur des Altertums (= Die Kultur der Gegenwart). Edited by P. Hinneberg. Berlin/Leipzig, 1912. Vos, J. S. “On the Background of 1 Thess 2:1–12: A Response to Traugott Holtz.” Pages 81–88 in The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis?. Edited by K. P. Donfried and J. Beutler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. –. “Splitting and Violence in the New Testament: Psychoanalytic Approaches to the Revelation of John and the Letters of Paul.” Pages 177–98 in Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, vol. 2 of Religion, Psychology, and Violence. Edited by J. H. Ellens. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004.

476

Bibliography

Wagner, J. R. “The Heralds of Isaiah and the Mission of Paul: An Investigation of Paul’s Use of Isaiah 51–55 in Romans.” Pages 193–222 in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins. Edited by W. H. Bellinger Jr. and W. R. Farmer. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International, 1998. Walter, N. “Paul and the Early Christian Jesus-Tradition.” Pages 51–80 in Paul and Jesus. JSNTSS 37. Edited by A. J. M. Wedderburn and C. Wolff. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Walton, S. Leadership and Lifestyle: The Portrait of Paul in the Miletus Speech and 1 Thess SNTSMS. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. –, “Paul, Patronage and Pay: What Do We Know about the Apostle’s Financial Support?” Pages 220–33 in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice. LNTS. Edited by T. J. Burke and B. S. Rosner. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Wanamaker, C. The Epistles to the Thessalonians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Weder, H. Das Kreuz Jesu bei Paulus. FRLANT 125. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. Wedderburn, A. J. M. “Adam in Paul’s Letter to the Romans.” Pages 413–30 in Studia Biblica 1978, III: Papers on Paul and Other NT Authors. JSNTSup 3. Edited by E. A. Livingstone. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980. –. “Paul and Jesus: Similarity and Continuity.” Pages 117–43 in Paul and Jesus. JSNTSup 37. Edited by A. J. M. Wedderburn and C. Wolff. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. –. “Paul and the Story of Jesus.” Pages 161–89 in ibid. Weima, J. A. D. “An Apology for the Apologetic Function of 1 Thess 2.1–12.” JSNT 68 (1997): 73–99. –. 1–2 Thessalonians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. –. “1–2 Thessalonians.” Pages 871–89 in Commentary on the NT Use of the OT. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. –. “‘Peace and Security’ (1 Thess 5.3): Prophetic Warning or Political Propaganda?” NTS 58 (2012): 331–59. –. “What Does Aristotle Have to Do with Paul? An Evaluation of Rhetorical Criticism.” Calvin Theological Journal 32 (1997): 458–68. Weiss, J. Der erste Korintherbrief. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910. Wellhausen, J. Das Evangelium Marci. Berlin: Reimer, 1903. Wengst, K. Pax Romana and the Peace of Jesus Christ. Translated by J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Wenham, D. Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. White, J. L.  The Body of the Greek Letter. SBLDS 2. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1972. White, J. R. “‘Peace and Security’ (1 Thess 5.3): Is It Really a Roman Slogan?” NTS 59 (2013): 382–95. –. “‘Peace’ and ‘Security’ (1 Thess 5.3): Roman Ideology and Greek Aspiration.” NTS 60 (2014): 499–510. Wilckens, U. Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte. WMANT 5. Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1974. –. “Der Ursprung der Überlieferung der Erscheinung des Auferstandenen.” Pages 139–93 in Dogma und Denkstrukturen, E. Schlink Festschrift. Edited by W. Joest and W. Pannenberg. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963. –. Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 1–5). EKKNT VI/1. Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1978.

Bibliography

477

Wildberger, H. Jesaja, 1. Teilband. BKAT. Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1972. Williams, D. M. “The Imitation of Christ in Paul with the Special Reference to Paul as Teacher.” PhD Diss., Columbia University, 1967. Wilson, W. T.  Love without Pretense: Rom 12:9–21 and Hellenistic and Jewish Literature. WUNT 2/46. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Windisch, H. “Die Sprüche vom Eingehen in das Reich Gottes.” ZNW 27 (1928): 163–92. Wink, W. “Beyond Just War and Pacifism: Jesus’ Nonviolent Way.” Pages 53–76 in The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, vol. 4 of Contemporary Views on Spirituality and Violence. Edited by J. H. Ellens. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004. Winter, B. W.  After Paul Left Corinth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. –. “Is Paul among the Sophists?” RTR 53 (1994): 28–38. –. “The Entries and Ethics of the Orators and Paul (1 Thess 2.1–12).” TynBul 44 (1993): 54–74. Witherington, B. F. “Not So Idle Thought about EIDŌLOTHYTON.” TynBul 44 (1993): 237–54. Wolff, C. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. Zweiter Teil: Auslegung der Kapitel 8–16. THNT VII/1. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1982. –. Der zweite Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. THNT VII/2. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989. –. “Humility and Self-Denial in Jesus’ Life and Message and in the Apostolic Existence of Paul.” Pages 145–60 in Paul and Jesus. JSNTS 37. Edited by A. J. M. Wedderburn and C. Wolff. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Wolter, M. Der Brief an die Römer (Teilband 1: Römer 1–8). EKKNT. Ostfildern: Patmos/ Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. The Origin of Christianity and the Question of God 2. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997. –. “Monotheism, Christology and Ethics: 1 Corinthians 8.” Pages 120–36 in The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. –. Paul: A Biography. San Francisco: HarperOne, 2018. –. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. vol. 2. Christian Origins and the Question of God 4. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. –. Paul: In Fresh Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. –. “Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire.” Pages 166–73 in Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation; Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl. Edited by R. A. Horsley. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2000. –. “The Letter to the Romans.” Pages 393–770 in vol. 10 of The New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by Leander E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 2002. –. The Resurrection of the Son of God. The Origin of Christianity and the Question of God 3. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Yeung, M. Faith in Jesus and Paul. A Comparison with Special Reference to ‘Faith That Can Remove Mountains’ and ‘Your Faith Has Healed/Saved You.’ WUNT 2/147. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Yinger, K. L.  Paul, Judaism, and Judgment according to Deeds. SNTSMS. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Yoder Neufeld, T. R. Killing Enmity: Violence and the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.

478

Bibliography

Zerbe, G. Non-Retaliation in Early Church and New Testament Texts: Ethical Themes in Social Contexts. JSPSup 13. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Zimmerli, W. Ezechiel 1. BKAT. Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1969.

Index of Passages Old Testament Genesis 1–3 263 2–3 269 3:1–5 412 12:2–3 247 15:6 110 18:18–19 247 22:18 247 49:10 147 Exodus 1:9–10 436 4:1 428 4:8–9 428 21:12–13 343 21:23–25 313 21:28–29 343 22:2 343 23:7 410 23:31 317 Leviticus 18:8 391 19:18 313–15 24:17–21 313 Numbers 17:17–21 369 25:1–5 407 Deuteronomy 12:5 367, 455 12:11 367, 455 12:21 367, 455 13 443 17 443

17:1–7 443 17:7 314 18 443 18:15–19 443 18:15–22 433, 442, 443 18:18 443 18:20–22 443 19:21 313 21:23 407 29:3 318 32 181, 310 32:21 6, 370 32:35 244, 313–15 32:43 56, 356 Joshua 7:7 317 Judges 2:14 317 6:1 317 6:13 317 2 Samuel 7:12–14

55, 144–47, 242, 356, 410, 451, 453–56 7:12–16 67, 83, 113, 449, 451 7:12 ff. 454 7:13 450 7:13–14 144 1 Kings 10:7 436 13:1 181 13:2 181 13:5 181

480

Index of Passages

13:32 181 18:36–40 407 19:10–18 407 19:18 321 21:35 181 1 Chronicles 15:15 181 2 Chronicles 9:6 436 32:15 428, 436 Ezra 9–10 347 Nehemiah 13:23–30 347 Psalms 2 229 2:7 55, 67, 69, 83, 242, 356, 410, 449, 451, 455 2:7–9 145, 147 2:8–9 145 8 147 8:5–7 144, 145 8:7 145, 146, 288 17:50 56, 356 24:1 336 40:8 75, 391 67:17 LXX 138 68:17 138 68:23–24 318 69:23–25 419 79:15–18 LXX 145 80 147 80:15–18 145–47 80:18 147 81:12 317 87:6 LXX 173 88:6 173 89:4 113 103:3–4 119 109:8–11 419 110 229 110:1 52, 55, 60, 65, 83, 87, 113, 140, 141, 144–47,

159, 165, 242, 288, 356, 410, 454 110:4 65, 141, 144, 165 114:2 367 117:1 56, 356 118:22–23 448, 456 132:11 113 140:8–11 419 143:2 108 Proverbs 8:22–31 159 17:15 410 24:12 287 25:21–22 418 Isaiah 2:2–4 362 2:2–5 366 5:23 410 6 6, 181, 310, 362, 364, 366 7:14 65 11:10 56, 147, 243, 356, 362, 364, 366 11:11–12 364 25:6–9 366 25:6–10 362 25:8–9 364 29:10 318 35:5–6 364 40:5 364 40–65 363 40–66 6 41:8–9 360 42 181, 204, 310, 360, 361, 363, 364, 366 42:1 360, 361, 449, 451 42:6 68, 360, 449 42:6–7 360 42:7 360, 361 42:11 360 42:16 68, 361 42–53 451 43:3–4 152, 154, 156, 159, 160, 162, 449 43:3–5 162 43:18–19 408

Index of Passages

49

181, 204, 310, 359–61, 363, 364, 366 49:1 359, 360 49:6 68, 359, 360 49:8 449 51–55 361, 362, 366 52:1–10 364 52:6–10 364 52:7 111, 361, 363, 366 52:7–8 364 52:7–10 147, 363 52:10 363 52:13 114 52:13–53:12 114, 213 52:15 361, 366 53 54, 111–13, 115, 117, 119, 120, 142, 213 53:1 111, 116, 117, 281, 361, 366, 436 53:5 119 53:10 112, 114, 159, 161–63 53:10–12 112, 115, 119, 159, 160, 162, 164, 169, 449 53:10–13 156 53:11 111, 114, 118 53:11–12 114, 160 53:12 54, 112, 114, 141, 159, 213 53:12 LXX 163 55:3 364 55:3–5 362 55:5 364 56:6–8 362, 365, 366 60:1 364 60:1–5 362, 364 60:1–10 365 60:1–22 366 60:2–3 365 61 361, 363, 364, 366 61:1 361, 363 61:1–2 364 61:1–3 361 66:18–19 365 66:18–21 362 66:19 364 66:19–21 365, 366 66:20 365

481

Daniel 1–6 228 7 119, 137, 141, 143, 144, 146, 147, 180, 182, 223, 224, 226–30, 232–34, 236, 242, 243, 246, 250, 251, 305, 306, 449, 451 7:1–8 228 7:9 147, 449 7:9–14 138, 144, 145 7:9–27 141 7:10 138 7:13 136, 143–46, 454 7:13–14 3, 57, 119, 144, 146, 147, 152, 158, 159, 165, 449, 454 7:14 144, 147, 288 7:18–28 449 7:25 317 9:24–27 143 9:27 300 10:13 300 10:20–21 300 10–12 299–301 11:31 300 11:36–37 297, 300, 301, 306, 311 12:1 300, 301 12:1–3 144, 300 12:2 173 12:2–3 180–82 12:11 300 Amos 4:11 195 9:11–12 364 9:11–12 LXX 364 Micah 4:1–3 362 Habakkuk 1:5 68, 436 2:2–3 298 2:2 ff. 298 2:3 298 2:4 68, 120

482 Zephaniah 3:8–10

Index of Passages

3:8–9 449 4:7 449 6:12 449, 450, 453–56 8:20–23 362 9:9 440 13:7 156 14:21 445, 446

362, 365

Zechariah 2:8–12 362 2:10–11 367 3:2 195

New Testament Matthew 1:23 65 3:17 360 5 393 5:9 258 5:14–16 249 5:20 58, 184 5:21–22 403 5:25 317 5:38–42 313, 404 5:38–48 258, 403, 417 5:43–48 313 6:9–13 57 6:19–21 4, 189, 191 6:25–34 4, 189, 191 6:32 190 8:5–13 117, 120 8:11 58, 335 8:11–12 181 9:6 119 9:12–13 119 9:13 119 10:10 346, 384, 393 10:20 139 10:32 140 10:32–33 61, 65, 137, 139–43, 148, 169, 187, 213 10:34–35 158 10:40 158 11:2–3 440 11:2–6 434 11:4–6 364 11:11 430 11:12 430 11:16–19 159 11:18 430, 435

11:18–19 158 11:19 58, 334, 347, 392 11:25–27 159 11:28–30 159 12:18–21 360 12:22–30 57, 403 12:28 348 13:41 138 14:21–25 162 14:24 160 14:36 393 15:1–2 440 15:1–20 424 15:4–6 424 15:11 332, 334, 379, 392 15:24 57, 158, 348 16:17–19 446 16:21 135 16:26 195 16:27 136–40 17:22 135 17:24–27 328, 391 18:5 348 18:5–6 348 18:6 348 18:6–9 328, 391, 415, 417 19:3–12 184 19:6 393 19:9 393 19:28 184 20:1–16 119, 201 20:8 153, 382 20:18 135 20:20–27 152 20:20–28 153, 416 20:26–28 152

Index of Passages

20:28

3, 6, 58, 64, 118, 119, 135, 142, 143, 148, 151, 153, 156, 158–62, 164, 168, 169, 326, 348, 382, 391, 415, 449 21:23 425, 429, 439 21:23–27 425 21:31–32 335 21:32 430 21:46 452 22:1–10 319, 335 23:23 424 23:25–26 424 23:34–36 159 24 137, 302, 310 24:3 136 24:8 177 24:14 302 24:17–22 310 24:27 135, 136 24:30 135 24:30–31 3, 135, 136, 138, 146, 148, 179, 181–83, 185– 87 24:31 179, 180 24:37 135, 136 24:37–39 177 24:39 135, 136 24:42 178 24:43 179 24:43–44 3, 135, 136, 146, 148, 177–79, 182–84, 186, 187 24:44 135 24:45–51 178, 179, 186, 187 25:14–30 201 25:31 135, 138 25:31–33 136, 138, 187 26:2 135 26:15 317 26:20–25 114 26:24 134, 135, 187 26:31 156 26:45 135 26:57–68 146, 147 26:59–66 452 26:61 184, 424, 425, 446, 455 26:63–64 454

483

26:64 135, 136 27:39–43 456 27:40 425, 446, 455 27:40–41 452 28:16–20 364 28:19–20 302 Mark 1:9–11 455 1:10–11 437, 451 1:11 444 1:40–45 347, 393 1:41 424 2:1–12 57, 117, 119, 439 2:7 440 2:10 119 2:13–17 119 2:15–17 57, 334, 347, 392 2:17 58, 119, 158, 427 2:19 427 2:23–27 440 2:23–28 439 3:1–6 439, 440 3:20–27 307 3:22 307 3:22–27 57, 403 3:24–25 427 4:3–9 142 4:9 438 4:16–20 142 5:1–20 424 5:21–43 424 5:25–34 347, 393 5:34 117, 120 6:56 393 7:1–5 333 7:1–23 424 7:5 440 7:6 427 7:10–12 424 7:15 332, 334, 335, 338, 347, 351, 352, 379, 392 7:15–19 333 7:15–20 336, 424 7:15–23 334, 337 7:19 332, 334, 379, 392 7:28 427 8:15–16 184

484

Index of Passages

8:27–16:20 156 8:31 135 8:34 139, 142 8:36 195 8:38 61, 65, 135–43, 148, 169, 187, 213 9:12 135 9:13 429, 430 9:31 135, 154, 156, 159 9:37 158, 348 9:42 348 9:42–50 328, 330, 335, 337, 347, 351, 352, 379, 391, 415, 417 9:50 258 10:2–12 184 10:6–8 427 10:9–12 393 10:33 135 10:35–44 152 10:35–45 152, 153, 382, 416 10:41 135 10:41–45 383 10:42 449 10:42–44 152 10:43 152 10:43–45 152 10:44 327 10:44–45 153, 327, 328, 347, 351 10:45 3, 6, 58, 64, 118–20, 135, 142, 143, 148, 149, 151–53, 156, 158–62, 164, 167–69, 198, 326, 327, 330, 335, 337, 347–49, 352, 379, 382, 391, 415, 449, 451 10:52 117, 120 11:1–11 440 11:11 425, 426, 447 11:12–14 448 11:12–19 424 11:15 425, 426, 445 11:15–16 440, 445 11:15–17 426, 440 11:15–18 439, 455 11:15–19 403, 425, 426, 439

11:16 426, 450 11:17 441, 445 11:17–18 427 11:18 427, 441, 442, 447, 452 11:20–21 448 11:20–26 442 11:27 425–27, 429–31, 438, 439, 442 11:27–28 442 11:27–33 424–26, 429, 444, 445 11:27–12:11 184 11:27–12:12 456 11:28 430, 431, 433, 434, 439, 441 11:28–30 426, 427, 429, 431 11:29 430 11:30 427, 429, 430, 434–36, 439, 443–45 11:31 428, 430, 434–36 11:31–32 428–31, 434, 436, 438, 439 11:31–33 431 11:32 428, 429, 435, 436 11:33 427, 428, 430, 434, 439, 444 11:35 427 11–14 425 12:1–9 448 12:1–12 158, 444, 445, 448, 453, 455 12:6 444, 448 12:7–8 448 12:8 447 12:9 448 12:10 448, 449 12:10–11 448 12:12 452 12:28–31 330, 392 12:28–34 207, 335, 337, 338, 351, 352, 413 12:28–35 392 12:30 331, 347 12:31 331, 347 12:35 425, 426 13 302 13:1–2 425, 446 13:2 447 13:8 177

Index of Passages

13:9–12 310 13:10 302 13:11 139 13:26 135 13:26–27 3, 135, 136, 138, 146, 148, 179, 181–83, 185–87 13:27 138, 180 14:10 317 14:17–21 114, 149 14:17–25 58 14:21 134, 135, 154, 156, 168, 187, 451 14:21–25 3, 64, 119, 142, 143, 148, 151, 156, 159–61, 164, 449, 456 14:21–26 158, 164 14:22–25 168 14:24 120, 156, 160, 162, 169, 451 14:25 58 14:27 156 14:49 425–27 14:53 442 14:53–65 146 14:58 184, 424, 425, 446, 447, 451, 454, 455 14:58–61 452 14:61–62 146, 147, 454 14:62 135, 136, 145, 454 15:1 442 15:29 425, 446, 455 15:29–32 452, 456 Luke 4:18 158 4:18–19 364 4:43 158 5:17–26 119 5:24 119 5:27–32 119 5:31–32 119 6 393 6:22–23 348 6:27–36 258, 313 6:29–36 417 7:18–19 440 7:18–23 434

485

7:19 335 7:22–23 364 7:23 430 7:28 430 7:29 335 7:29–30 429 7:30 430 7:31–35 159 7:33 435 7:33–34 158 7:34 58, 334, 347, 392 7:41–43 119 7:47–50 117, 120 9:22 135 9:25 195 9:26 135–43, 148 9:43 135 9:48 158, 348 10:7 346, 384, 393 10:16 158 10:18 57 10:21 348 10:21–22 159 11:2–4 57 11:14–23 57, 403 11:20 348 11:39–41 424 11:42 424 11:49–51 159 12:8 140 12:8–9 61, 64, 137, 139–42, 148, 169, 187, 213 12:11–12 139 12:13–21 190, 191 12:22–30 189 12:22–31 190 12:22–34 4, 189, 191 12:22–48 191 12:30 190 12:31–32 189 12:32–48 190 12:33 190 12:33–34 189 12:35–38 189 12:35–48 184, 191 12:35–58 189 12:36–38 178, 179, 182, 186, 187 12:39 179

486 12:39–40

Index of Passages

3, 135, 136, 146, 148, 177–79, 182–84, 186, 187, 189 12:40 135 12:41–48 178, 179, 186, 187, 189 12:49–51 158 12:58 317 13:10–17 57 13:28–29 181 13:29 58 14:15–24 319 14:16–24 335 15:1–2 335 15:1–32 57 15:7 58 15:10 58 15:11–32 119, 335 16:16 430 17:1 348 17:1–2 328, 391, 415, 417 17:19 117, 120 17:22 135 17:24 135 17:26 135 17:26–27 177 17:30 135 18:8 135 18:9–14 119, 120 18:14 58 18:31–32 135 19:1–10 57, 335, 347 19:10 158 19:11–27 201 19:47 452 20:1 425, 439 20:1–8 425 20:19 452 21 178 21:23–24 181 21:27 135 21:34–36 148, 177–79, 186, 187 21:36 135 22:20 160 22:21–23 114 22:22 135, 187 22:24–26 152 22:24–27 416 22:26 152

22:26–27 151, 152 22:29–30 184 22:48 135 22:69 136 23:35–37 456 24:6 135 John 1:1–18 65 1:6 435 1:13 162 1:16 162, 202 1:19–25 440 2:13–22 456 2:17 452 2:19 455 2:19–21 425 3:13–14 160 3:13–17 161, 167 3:14 135 3:16 118, 160 3:16–17 158, 160, 161, 164 3:16–21 319 3:17 118 3:36 161 5:19–24 65 5:27–29 180 6 424 6:35–58 161, 167 6:53 135, 156, 168, 187 6:53–55 161 6:62 135 7–9 424 8:28 135 10:10–11 162 10:11 161, 162, 167 10:15 161, 162, 167 10:17 161, 162, 167 10:18 161, 162, 167 10:22–29 424 10:23 427 11:47–48 453 11:47–53 452 12:23 135 12:34 135, 144 12–19 424 13:1–20 162, 167 13:31 135

Index of Passages

13:31–35 135, 187 14:8–11 65 15:13 161, 162, 167, 416 19:11 317 19:14 144 19:16 317 19:31 144 Acts 1:6–8 302, 310 1:22 435 2 118 2:5 113 2:22–40 113 2:23 114, 156 2:23–24 113–15 2:30–36 113 2:36 115 2:37–40 113 2:38 115, 116 2:38–41 117 2:39 113, 116 2:40 115 2:43–46 190 2–3 118 3 118 3:11–26 113 3:12 113, 115, 117 3:12–21 115 3:13 114 3:13–15 113, 115 3:14 114 3:15 114 3:16 113, 115, 116 3:16–20 117 3:17–18 115 3:18 114 3:18–19 115 3:18–21 113 3:19 114–16 3:19–21 115, 116 3:20–21 115 3:26 114 4:7 433 4:8–12 116, 118 4:10 116 4:32–37 190 4:36–37 98, 137

487

5:32 137 5:32–39 443 5:34–39 442 5:38 435 6:7 110 6:11–14 455 6:13–14 425 7:42 317 7:48 425 7:56 134, 140 9:1–18 407 9:1–22 373 9:20 2, 45, 49, 70, 133, 134, 159 10:1–11:18 103 10:42 302 11:22 98 11:25–26 98 11:27–30 102 13 68 13:16–42 68 13:16–47 69, 70 13:16–48 67, 101 13:16–52 67–9, 294 13:17–37 67 13:22–23 67, 69 13:23 67 13:26 71 13:26–37 69 13:26–41 72 13:32–33 67 13:32–36 69 13:33–35 68 13:38–39 68, 70, 294 13:38–41 70, 72, 101 13:41 68 13:43 68, 72 13:44 68 13:46 68, 70 13:48 68 13:49 68 13–14 98 15 70, 101, 102, 118, 295, 391 15:1–2 102 15:1–35 98 15:7–11 113, 117, 118 15:9 117

488

Index of Passages

15:10 117 15:11 117 15:16–17 364 15:16–18 364 15:18 186 15:22 97, 137, 166, 183 15:28–29 344 15:31 97 15:32 166, 183, 186 16:22–24 217 17:1–7 69, 221 17:1–9 36, 67, 69, 70, 222, 240 17:2–3 69, 72, 73 17:3 69, 70 17:6–7 69, 221 17:6–9 73 17:7 69 17:22–31 53 17:24 425 17:31 295 17:32 241 18:1–17 70 18:4 72 18:4–5 69, 72 18:11 374 18:12–13 72, 73 18:25 435 19:10 374 20:4–5 369 20:31 374 22:3 407 22:3–4 407 22:6–21 373 26:12–18 373 26:16–18 360, 361 26:24 241 26:24−25 407 28:31 68 Romans 1 64, 263 1:1 55, 68, 205, 357, 382 1:1–2 67 1:1–4 2, 45, 49, 61, 68, 140, 410 1:1–5 67, 69, 70, 75, 103, 295, 359, 374, 395 1:1–6 246, 355

1:1–17 1:2 1:2–4 1:2–5 1:3 1:3–4

53, 67, 68 61, 147, 358, 410 2, 67–9, 292 70, 365, 366 60, 67, 357 2, 45, 52, 55–7, 59, 60, 62, 64–6, 68, 70, 76, 83, 87, 114, 115, 117, 126, 133, 134, 141, 143, 145, 147, 148, 205–07, 211, 214, 215, 221, 224, 231, 247, 248, 250, 251, 281, 282, 286, 288, 355–58, 363, 374, 408–10 1:3–5 6, 74, 100, 114, 159, 391, 395, 401 1:3–6 235, 242, 247, 248 1:4 55, 57, 59, 60, 68 1:4–5 281 1:5 68, 75, 147, 182, 204, 207, 283, 293, 302, 321, 359, 365, 409 1:5–6 364 1:6–7 205 1:7 127 1:9 2, 45, 49, 61, 65, 133, 134, 141 1:10–13 37, 38, 355, 369 1:13–15 364 1:14 68, 100, 114, 302, 411 1:14–17 249 1:16 61, 68, 139–41, 148, 187, 280, 287, 358, 410, 411 1:16–17 2, 5, 55, 59, 62, 64, 67–70, 94, 100, 114, 115, 117, 133, 140, 148, 243, 247, 248, 281, 282, 286, 292, 293, 295, 358, 401, 406, 410 1:16–18 61, 67, 76, 140 1:17 60, 61, 68, 358, 410 1:18 61, 161, 261, 264, 265, 273, 275, 286, 317, 319, 358 1:18–21 276 1:18–31 53, 263, 389 1:18–32 4, 25, 59, 64, 88, 127, 244, 253, 260, 261, 263–

Index of Passages

65, 269–75, 277, 286, 292, 293, 307, 316–20, 339, 358, 406 1:18–2:3 53 1:18–2:9 53 1:18–3:20 248, 277, 292, 295 1:19 264 1:19–20 261 1:19–21 261 1:19–23 273 1:20 261 1:21 261, 262, 264, 265, 268, 286 1:21–22 275 1:21–23 264 1:21–25 265, 266 1:22 262, 265 1:22–23 262 1:22–24 261, 262 1:22–31 261, 262 1:23 262, 275 1:24 261, 262, 268, 269, 273, 275, 286, 317, 318, 406 1:24–27 270 1:24–31 264 1:24–32 267, 268 1:25 262, 264, 275, 286 1:25–27 261, 262 1:26 261, 262, 273, 275, 286, 317, 318, 406 1:26–27 262, 268, 269, 273 1:27 268, 275, 318 1:28 261, 262, 264, 265, 273, 275, 286, 317, 318, 406 1:28–31 261–63 1:29 268 1:29–31 262, 269, 273 1:29–32 268 1:31 265 1:31–39 143 1:32 261–63, 275, 318, 319 1–2 5, 53, 295 1–5 211 1–8 282, 292 2:1–3 53 2:1–11 61, 263, 402 2:1–3:20 320 2:2–11 215

489

2:4–6 53, 286, 359 2:4–9 53 2:5 5, 161, 286, 293 2:5–10 203, 208, 313 2:5–11 287, 293, 315 2:5–16 193, 283, 284 2:6 287 2:7 201 2:8 281, 286, 287, 293 2:8–9 286 2:9–10 68 2:10 201, 287 2:12–13 127 2:18 75, 391 2:29 201 2–3 124 3:5 161 3:20 108, 110, 120 3:20–26 68 3:21–25 163 3:21–26 61, 161, 162, 164, 212, 358, 410 3:21–8:39 53, 277, 320 3:21–11:36 266 3:22 111, 411 3:22–23 162 3:22–24 280 3:23 120, 292 3:23–26 213 3:24 205, 289, 290 3:24–25 120, 163 3:24–26 52, 58, 80, 84, 89, 92, 124, 315, 368, 374, 402, 403, 410, 412 3:25 162, 163 3:25–26 81 3:26 111 3:27 120 3:28 108–10, 120 3:28–30 280, 411 3:30 127 3–8 214, 359 4:3 110 4:4 202, 289 4:4–5 197, 290 4:5 321, 410 4:16 289, 290 4:18–21 369

490

Index of Passages

4:22 112 4:24 157, 158 4:24–25 112, 157, 158, 161, 163, 164 4:25 54, 58, 80, 81, 84, 92, 93, 108, 112, 115, 117, 118, 124, 156–60, 162–64, 212, 213, 294, 315, 317, 358, 374, 402, 403, 408, 410, 412 5:1 93, 243, 410 5:1–2 127, 289 5:1–11 124, 201, 243, 358 5:2 205, 206, 208, 211, 283, 288–90, 292 5:3–5 236 5:5 206, 369, 412 5:6 155, 320, 321, 410 5:6–10 402 5:6–11 315, 402, 412 5:7–8 416 5:8 52, 155, 163, 164, 403, 410, 412 5:8–9 50, 54, 215 5:8–10 2, 50–3, 60, 61, 63, 65, 67, 76, 84, 92, 93, 133, 142, 148, 157, 160, 162– 64, 169, 206, 357 5:9 50, 54, 127, 359 5:9–10 54, 138, 211 5:10 50, 52, 54, 60, 163, 164, 294, 321, 410 5:12–21 264, 269, 277, 315 5:15 205, 289, 382 5:15–20 290, 393 5:19 127 5:21 205 5–8 237 6 127, 209, 248 6:1 289 6:1–4 290 6:1–10 206, 208, 265 6:1–11 80, 81, 83 6:1–23 271 6:2 205 6:2–11 402 6:4 80, 83, 265 6:4–9 183

6:6 265 6:9 108 6:11 265 6:11–19 206 6:11–22 206, 249 6:11–23 209, 210, 265, 267, 268, 270, 271, 275, 277 6:12 275 6:12–13 264, 269 6:12–19 275 6:12–22 413 6:12–23 402, 414 6:13 265 6:13–23 409 6:14 341 6:15 289 6:15–23 390 6:16 243 6:18 206 6:19 127, 264, 269 6:19–21 128 6:19–22 88, 127, 289 6:19–23 283 6:20 127 6:20–23 206 6:21 268, 275 6:22 127, 283 6:23 58, 209, 265, 408 6–8 209 7 93–5, 123, 242, 269 7:4 390 7:4–6 206, 413 7:4–25 390 7:5 93, 390 7:6 389 7:7–25 212, 390 7:7–8:13 267, 269, 271, 277 7:8–9 93 7:11 94 7:13 94 7:24–8:4 51, 52, 54, 63, 76, 84, 142, 148, 157, 382 7:25 94 7–8 75, 124, 212, 269, 284, 358, 359 8 60, 67, 86, 123, 295 8:1 359 8:1–2 94, 123

Index of Passages

8:1–4 2, 206, 247 8:1–7 209 8:1–13 271, 283 8:1–16 413 8:1–17 207, 209–11, 215, 390 8:1–39 215 8:2 206 8:2–4 212 8:3 60, 157, 162, 410 8:3–4 51, 60, 61, 68, 83, 92, 93, 118, 124, 133, 148, 157, 158, 160, 163, 164, 212, 213, 315, 357, 374, 382, 390, 402, 403, 408–10, 412 8:3–13 267–69, 275 8:3–17 212 8:4 212, 249, 394 8:5 268 8:5–7 275 8:6 243, 269, 275 8:7 269 8:7–8 269 8:8 268 8:9 139 8:9–10 211, 214 8:9–11 394 8:11 183 8:12–13 269 8:14 394 8:14–17 61, 62, 144, 358 8:15 206 8:15–17 84 8:17 80, 83 8:17–18 283, 288, 292 8:17–39 414 8:18–19 63 8:18–24 186 8:18–39 59, 206, 236, 292 8:19–21 243 8:21 288, 292 8:23 374 8:24–25 289 8:26–27 52, 139 8:28–30 51, 61, 205 8:29 60, 202, 240, 264, 270, 271, 353, 376, 417

8:29–30

491

80, 81, 144, 215, 292, 358 8:29–39 283 8:30 284, 288, 292 8:31–32 412 8:31–34 51, 133 8:31–39 2, 59, 61, 63, 66, 76, 84, 94, 123, 127, 133, 140, 141, 148, 157, 211, 224, 226, 247, 248, 284, 395, 402 8:32 51, 52, 54, 55, 60, 65, 118, 140, 158–62, 164, 247, 402, 403, 409, 410, 412 8:32–34 2, 53, 54, 60, 63, 138, 141, 142, 145, 147, 148, 154, 160, 164, 169, 294, 356, 357, 359 8:33 59 8:33–34 52 8:34 50–5, 59, 61, 139–41, 155, 158, 161, 162, 187, 211, 247, 358 8:35 59, 160, 412 8:35–39 321 8:37 123, 229 8:39 59, 160, 412 9:24 205 9:30–10:21 214 9–11 80, 419 10 282, 318 10:4 75, 342, 391 10:9 61, 240 10:9–10 84, 112, 127, 157, 206, 210, 215, 281, 282, 288, 359, 401 10:9–13 114, 116, 363, 365 10:9–17 395 10:12 411 10:12–13 280 10:14–17 111 10:15 361, 363 10:15–16 366 10:16 281, 361, 363 10:19 370 11 364 11:7–10 318, 319

492

Index of Passages

11:8 319 11:11 370 11:11–32 302 11:13 383, 364 11:13–14 370 11:15 359 11:16 369 11:21–22 211 11:22 402 11:25 318, 364, 370 11:25–26 5, 6, 181, 235, 302, 309, 310, 320, 364, 371 11:25–27 365 11:25–32 320 11:26 320 11:30–36 266 11:36 277 12 257 12:1 260, 265–67, 270, 274, 275 12:1–2 25, 59, 64, 127, 206, 207, 242, 246, 253, 260, 261, 263–66, 267, 270–77, 330, 358, 376, 392 12:1–13:14 258, 267, 271 12:1–15:13 277, 326 12:2 269–71 12:3 182, 204, 215 12:3–8 202, 207, 215, 257, 267, 272 12:6 207 12:7 229 12:8 190, 383 12:9 244, 257 12:9–12 260 12:9–21 256, 258, 260, 266, 267, 272, 276, 277, 315 12:9–13:10 271 12:10 257 12:11 257 12:12 256 12:13 275 12:14 260 12:14–13 229 12:14–21 258, 260, 276, 277, 313, 314, 393, 418

12:14–13:10

259, 267, 272, 276, 277, 417 12:15 260 12:16 256, 257, 260 12:17 257, 260 12:18 257, 260, 272, 276, 417 12:19 244, 260, 313–15, 320, 418, 419 12:19–21 257, 418 12:20 260, 418 12:21 257, 260, 315 12–13 4, 25, 64, 253, 259, 260, 263, 266, 271, 272, 274– 76, 295 12–15 244, 258, 260, 264, 266 13 258 13:1–6 259 13:1–7 56, 218, 226–31, 234, 235, 243–46, 250, 251, 258, 260, 272, 277, 306, 307, 311, 314, 417 13:1–10 260, 276 13:3 284 13:3–4 228 13:4 314 13:7 259 13:8 259 13:8–10 257, 259, 260, 330, 379, 392, 393, 417 13:9–10 207, 259 13:10 259 13:11 259, 311 13:11–14 229, 230, 244, 257, 259, 260, 267, 268, 271, 272, 275–77 13:12 259, 267–70, 273 13:12–13 271, 376 13:13 259, 267–69, 275 13:14 267–71, 273, 275 14:1 348 14:1–23 415 14:1–15:6 333 14:1–15:7 277 14:1–15:13 272, 344, 348, 378 14:2 333, 345 14:5–9 415 14:6–9 392 14:10 313, 332, 402

Index of Passages

14:10–12 14:13

193, 208, 283 328, 332, 333, 379, 391, 415, 417 14:13–15 392 14:13–23 333, 348 14:14 332–36, 338, 345, 379, 392 14:14–20 344, 347 14:15 155, 333, 380 14:17 57, 58, 249, 272, 356, 376, 392, 411, 414 14:17–19 243 14:17–20 379 14:19 272, 415 14:19–21 392 14:20 332–36, 338, 345, 379, 417 14:20–21 328, 379, 391 14:21 333, 345 14–15 249, 271, 328, 334, 336, 344, 345, 379, 392, 394 15 367 15:1–3 6, 151, 155, 157, 167, 168, 323, 347, 349, 392, 415 15:1–6 415 15:3 346 15:5 415 15:6 415 15:7 323, 348 15:7–8 365, 382 15:7–9 392, 402 15:7−12 410, 242, 243, 247, 248, 374 15:7–13 56, 356 15:8 348, 382 15:8–9 382 15:9–12 365, 366 15:12 55, 56, 246, 356, 365, 366 15:13 272 15:14–29 321 15:14–32 6, 366, 367 15:15 182, 204 15:15–16 207, 364, 365 15:15–18 302 15:15–19 209 15:15–24 311

493

15:15–29 370 15:16 266, 367, 370, 375, 376 15:17–19 201, 215 15:17–21 198 15:18 75, 235, 281, 365, 382, 395 15:18–19 369, 376, 389 15:19 370 15:20 364, 374 15:21 361, 366 15:22–24 370 15:22–25 369 15:22–32 355 15:25 383 15:25–27 368 15:25–32 355, 366–70 15:26 127, 367 15:30–32 369 15:31 383 15:32 370 16 96 16:7 364 16:20 247, 358, 414 16:23 245 16:25–26 235 16:26 75, 248, 281, 365, 395 1 Corinthians 1:1 205, 395 1:1–2 127 1:2 88, 127, 205, 249, 365 1:6 281 1:6–8 127 1:6–9 128 1:7–8 62, 63 1:7–9 63, 65, 92, 359 1:8 284, 295, 376, 380 1:8–9 209, 376 1:8–10 215 1:9 62, 205, 206, 358 1:10–13 211 1:12 378 1:13–17 84 1:17 80–2, 361 1:18 166, 167, 241, 383, 402 1:18–24 387, 388 1:18–25 66, 196 1:20 358, 388

494

Index of Passages

1:20–21 167 1:21 94, 388 1:22–23 166, 407 1:23 80–2 1:24 205 1:24–25 167 1:26–31 411 1:30 80, 81, 88, 92, 123, 127 1:30–31 124 1:31 28, 201 1–2 226 1–4 92, 124, 125, 378, 381, 387, 401 1–10 246 2:1–2 402 2:1–5 18, 385, 387 2:2 80–2, 383, 388 2:4 361, 389 2:5 387 2:6 388 2:6–7 388 2:6–8 59, 235, 236, 241, 242, 307, 358, 412 2:6–16 388 2:7 288, 388 2:9 388 2:16 182, 396 3 197, 199, 200 3:1–2 18, 385 3:5 207, 383 3:5–9 364 3:5–10 207, 374 3:5–17 195 3:5–4:5 128, 195 3:8 194, 195, 199–201 3:8–15 194, 195, 197 3:10 182, 204 3:10–15 211 3:10–17 193, 207, 210, 283 3:11 368 3:12 196 3:12–14 202 3:13 200 3:13–15 380 3:14 194, 195, 201, 210, 376 3:14–15 199–201 3:14–17 92 3:15 195, 203, 207, 211

3:16 184 3:16–17 211, 367 3:17 127, 211 3:18 358 3:18–20 196 4:1 310, 382, 395 4:1–5 193, 200, 207, 283 4:4–5 380 4:5 92, 194, 200, 201, 295 4:6 23 4:8–12 384 4:9–13 419 4:11–13 394 4:12 385 4:12–13 417 4:14 375 4:14–15 375 4:14–17 396 4:14–21 28, 383 4:16–17 23, 323, 325 4:17 276, 376 4:18–21 396 4:19 376 4:20 57, 356 4:21 396, 401 5 396 5:1–5 391, 401 5:1–8 314 5:4–5 332 5:5 92, 128, 193, 317 5:6 184 5:7 144, 212 5:9–11 376 5:13 314 5–6 214, 401 6 396 6:1 236, 245, 307 6:1–8 401, 417 6:1–11 58 6:1–12 127 6:2 184 6:3 184 6:6 184 6:7 314, 417 6:9 57, 184, 283 6:9–10 58, 61, 356 6:9–11 87, 88, 92, 211, 283 6:10 57

Index of Passages

6:11

80, 81, 92, 123, 127, 206, 249, 284, 288, 380, 390 6:11–12 83 6:14 183 6:15 184 6:16 184 6:19 127, 184, 211, 367 7:1–16 381, 411 7:10 74, 347, 396 7:10–11 181, 182, 184, 347, 393 7:10–16 394 7:12 182, 347, 393 7:12–14 335, 344, 347 7:12–16 182, 393 7:14 127 7:17 99, 205, 207 7:17–24 202, 205, 249 7:19 81, 92–4, 96, 103, 123 7:20 205, 207 7:20–24 411 7:21–22 381 7:25 74, 182, 332, 347, 393, 396 7:29 311 7:29–31 236, 358 7:31 378 7:34 127 8 329, 330, 336, 339, 343, 379, 391, 392 8:1 331, 337–39, 392, 414, 415 8:1–2 414 8:1–3 207, 331, 336, 337 8:1–11:1 326, 329 8:2 388, 414, 415 8:2–3 378, 379 8:3 331, 337, 338, 392 8:4–6 49, 337 8:4–7 379 8:4–8 345 8:5 236, 242, 307 8:5–6 240, 241 8:6 57, 65, 159, 331, 345, 359, 379 8:7–10 343 8:7–13 333, 336, 340, 343, 344, 379, 415 8:9 328, 333, 348, 391

495

8:9–12 337 8:9–13 392 8:10 336, 338–40 8:11 155, 333, 347, 351, 380 8:12 346 8:13 23, 328, 333, 337, 347, 348, 351, 379, 391, 415, 417 8–9 330, 331, 344, 415 8–10 5, 58, 92, 94, 104, 124, 153, 242, 246, 249, 323, 328–31, 334–41, 344–52, 378–80, 391, 392, 394, 414, 415 9 154, 155, 196–200, 329, 330, 339 9:1 87, 159, 333, 401, 407 9:1–2 154, 395 9:1–14 384 9:1–18 415 9:1–23 396 9:1–27 337 9:4–15 154 9:4–18 196, 198 9:4–22 196 9:5 197 9:6 155 9:8–14 336 9:12 198, 387, 395 9:14 181, 182, 332, 347, 393 9:14–15 346, 386 9:14–17 27 9:14–23 394 9:15 197–201 9:15–18 382, 384 9:16 197, 204, 207, 208, 302 9:16–17 198 9:16–18 197 9:16–27 193, 210, 283 9:17 154, 197, 202 9:18 154, 196–203, 207, 376 9:19 58, 143, 151, 153–57, 160, 165, 167, 168, 198, 199, 327, 333, 352, 379, 383, 415, 416 9:19–22 3, 6, 94, 148, 153, 196, 198–200, 204, 327, 329– 31, 333–36, 338, 340,

496

Index of Passages

341, 344, 346, 347, 349, 351, 379, 382, 384, 391 9:19–23 335, 348, 415 9:19–27 198, 207 9:20 80, 81, 92–4, 96, 99, 336, 340, 341, 379, 393, 415 9:20–21 94, 123, 392 9:20–22 198 9:21 75, 153, 154, 207, 212, 329, 334, 340–43, 345– 47, 352, 393, 413, 415 9:22 58, 143, 151, 153–55, 157, 160, 165, 167, 168, 327, 329, 340, 352, 379, 416 9:23 196, 198, 203, 204 9:23–27 197, 203, 207, 208 9:24–25 196, 197, 203 9:24–27 23, 92, 196, 202, 401 9:26–27 196 9:27 196, 198, 203, 204 9:33 153 10 329, 336, 339, 343 10:1–2 84 10:1–4 212 10:1–12 401 10:1–22 196, 211, 330, 331, 337, 339, 340, 415 10:11 358 10:12 206, 402 10:13 206, 215 10:14 331, 337, 345, 347, 379, 392 10:14–22 337, 339, 340, 343, 415 10:16 184 10:16–17 62, 346 10:19 345 10:22 330, 379 10:23 333 10:23–24 415 10:23–30 331, 337, 343, 344 10:23–33 337, 351 10:23–11:1 330, 331, 335, 339, 346, 347 10:25 335, 336, 338, 343, 347 10:25–27 379, 392, 414 10:25–29 335, 340 10:25–33 333

10:26 336, 345 10:27 335, 336, 338, 343, 347 10:28 331, 339, 347, 392 10:28–29 343 10:28–30 379, 415 10:31 128, 330, 331, 337, 338, 345, 347, 379, 392, 414, 415 10:31–33 207, 331, 378, 379, 392, 414 10:31–11:1 335, 402 10:32 328, 333, 347, 348, 379, 391, 415, 417 10:32–33 327–31, 334, 337, 338, 347, 348, 379, 392, 414, 415 10:32–11:1 336, 337, 349 10:33 58, 143, 153, 154, 156, 157, 160, 165, 167, 168, 326–28, 330, 347, 348, 350, 352, 379, 382, 391, 416 10:33–11:1 3, 6, 118, 143, 148, 151, 155, 346–49 11:1 23, 58, 75, 153, 154, 323, 325–27, 331, 334, 336, 338, 347–52, 378, 379, 382, 384, 391, 415, 416 11:2–16 381, 411 11:17–22 381, 401 11:17–34 249 11:23 45, 135, 148, 164, 166, 168, 187, 325 11:23–24 184 11:23–25 110, 182 11:23–26 3, 58, 108, 134, 135, 143, 148, 156, 157, 160, 165, 167, 169, 187, 212 11:24 160 11:24–25 368 11:25 124 11:26 135, 148, 164, 187 11:27–34 401 11:33–34 381 12:3 84, 206, 209, 210, 215, 240, 288, 359 12:4–11 202, 207, 215, 383 12:8 389

Index of Passages

12:12 80 12:12–13 81, 83 12:13 94, 206, 249, 411 12:27–30 207 12:28 359, 383 12–14 92, 124 13:4–7 350 13:13 376 14:1–40 389 14:2 407 14:15 407 14:18 23 14:28–29 407 14:33 255 14:37 74 14:37–38 396 15 183, 186, 242 15:1–2 48, 112 15:1–5 47, 89, 92, 94, 112, 155, 410 15:2 211 15:3 112, 155, 162, 164, 349, 402 15:3–4 108 15:3–5 1, 48, 49, 58, 80, 110, 112, 113, 118, 165, 374, 408 15:3–8 380, 401 15:8 407 15:8–10 201 15:9 407 15:9–10 182 15:10 13, 198, 202, 204, 209, 215, 284, 291, 376 15:11 89, 112, 155 15:12 186, 380 15:12–28 181 15:14 13 15:20 143 15:20–28 224, 288, 229–31, 237, 241, 247, 248, 250, 251, 380, 402 15:21–23 144 15:23 136, 143, 146 15:23–27 74, 126, 307 15:23–28 2, 55, 57–60, 64, 66, 83, 133, 137, 143, 145–48, 154, 207, 214, 282, 356,

497

357, 374, 379, 395, 409, 410, 413, 414 15:24 57, 144, 356, 378 15:24–26 145, 242 15:24–28 52, 144, 205 15:25–27 144 15:26 242, 357, 359, 414 15:27–28 145 15:28 414 15:35 186, 241 15:42–50 380 15:43 288 15:44 240 15:44–45 376 15:44–54 270, 271 15:45 80 15:49 240, 264, 353, 376, 417 15:50 57, 61, 283, 356 15:50–57 248, 380 15:51–52 181 15:51–53 240 15:51–57 58, 59, 64, 224, 241, 303, 357 15:52 270 15:53–54 270 15:53–57 359 15:54–56 123, 237 15:54–57 93, 94, 123, 214, 242 15:55–56 92–6, 123, 125 15:55–57 94 15:56 80, 81, 93, 94 15:57 94, 123 15:58 13 16:1 127 16:1–4 366, 368 16:3–4 366, 369 16:10 376 16:15 383 16:22 402 2 Corinthians 1:1 127, 395 1:3–7 30 1:3–11 419 1:8–10 240, 245 1:8–2:13 38, 39 1:9–10 395 1:12 27, 127, 361

498

Index of Passages

1:12–2:4 360 1:12–7:16 30, 31 1:14 194 1:15–16 376 1:18–20 2, 45, 49, 62, 358 1:18–22 70 1:19–20 65, 134 1:21 360 1:21–22 360, 361 1:22 360, 374 1:23 360 1:24 27, 383, 396 1–7 15, 25, 27, 28, 30–2, 34, 39, 44, 385 1–9 30, 31, 419 2:1–4 361 2:4 31 2:5–11 419 2:12–17 30 2:12–4:15 33 2:14 229, 241, 251 2:14–16 395 2:14–17 38, 39 2:17 27, 29 2:18–20 133 3 68, 80, 81, 92–4, 123, 212, 214, 401 3:1 387 3:1–6 26 3:1–4:1 388 3:1–4:6 310 3:1–7:4 39 3:4–6 26 3:4–18 26 3:6 389, 390, 408 3:6–8 124 3:7 95, 388 3:9 92, 95 3:12 26, 29, 139 3:12–4:2 26 3:13 382 3:16 365 3:17 80 3:18 240, 264, 270, 271, 288, 353, 376, 408, 417 4:1 383, 408 4:1–2 26 4:2 26, 29, 285, 388

4:3 95 4:3–6 388 4:4 6, 59, 65, 108, 208, 209, 240, 288, 319, 353, 357, 358, 402, 412 4:4–6 360, 361, 365 4:5 26, 27, 383, 388, 396 4:5–6 387 4:6 65, 68, 204, 288, 408 4:7 388 4:7–10 419 4:7–12 384 4:7–16 26 4:8–12 369 4:10 353, 384 4:13–14 395 4:14 183 4:17 288 5:1 184 5:1–10 186 5:5 374 5:9 26, 29 5:10 92, 128, 193, 196, 208, 215, 283, 284, 295, 313, 315, 380, 402 5:10–11 26, 29 5:11 26 5:11–21 95, 311, 316, 407, 408 5:11–6:11 33 5:13 407 5:13–21 315 5:14 93, 124, 163, 410, 412 5:14–15 155, 162–64, 408, 412 5:14–21 92, 93, 95, 402, 421 5:14–6:2 92 5:16 408 5:16–20 163 5:17 225, 408 5:18 383, 395, 409 5:18–20 124, 388, 409 5:18–21 243, 359, 395 5:19 93, 409, 410 5:19–20 26 5:20 163, 382, 395, 410 5:21 80, 81, 92, 93, 124, 162–64, 213, 374, 403, 408–10 6:1 13, 28, 163

Index of Passages

6:1–10 26 6:3 29, 383 6:3–10 27, 231 6:4 388 6:4–7 413 6:4–10 384, 419 6:5 27, 29, 385 6:6 29 6:6–7 402, 409, 414, 419 6:7 26, 29 6:8 26, 29 6:10 348 6:11–13 27 6:13 27 6:14 243 7:2 27, 29 7:2–4 33 7:3 27 7:3–16 30 7:4 26, 29 7:4–16 39 7:5–16 30, 31, 38, 39 7:6–7 30, 376 7:8 376 7:9 195 8:1–4 191 8:2 189, 348 8:4 368, 383 8:9 205, 323, 349, 350, 382, 384 8:14–15 190 8:16–24 366 8:17–23 369 8–9 366, 368 9:1 127, 368, 383 9:3–5 369 9:6–13 190 9:8 284 9:8–10 209, 413 9:12 368 9:12–13 383 9:13 75, 281 9:13–14 368, 369 10:1 28, 29, 387 10:1–2 383, 396 10:1–6 29, 396, 400, 401, 409, 414 10:1–8 383

499

10:2 29 10:3–5 231 10:4 387 10:5–6 396 10:6 388 10:7 388 10:7–8 395 10:8 395, 396 10:8–10 387 10:10 29, 387 10:12 387 10:13–18 198 10:17 201 10:17–18 28, 29 10:18 29, 387 10–13 28–31, 34, 92, 124, 201, 368, 385, 401 11 389 11:2 375, 376 11:3 28, 29 11:3–6 28 11:4–6 387 11:5–15 198 11:6 387 11:7 385 11:7–9 29, 383 11:8 383 11:9 29, 385 11:10 384 11:12 387 11:12–15 401 11:13 28 11:15 29, 315 11:18 387 11:18–23 387 11:20 28, 387 11:20–21 383 11:21–13:10 400 11:23 240, 245, 388 11:23–27 419 11:23–29 384 11:24 102 11:27 29 11:28 376 11:30 388 11–12 29 12:1–4 387 12:1–8 387

500

Index of Passages

12:1–11 389 12:1 ff. 407 12:6 29 12:6–10 28, 29 12:9–10 29 12:10 388, 419 12:11 29, 387 12:13–14 29 12:13–18 29, 418 12:14 375, 383 12:14–15 29, 383 12:14–17 383 12:15 418 12:16 29 12:16–18 28 12:17–18 29 13:1–4 29, 396, 401 13:3 29 13:3–6 29 13:6 29 13:8 28, 285 13:10 395, 396, 401 13:11 255 Galatians 1:1 395 1:3–4 158, 161–64, 248, 349, 380 1:4 59, 118, 148, 153, 156– 60, 163, 165, 167, 225, 357, 382, 391, 402, 412, 416 1:6 205, 284, 289, 400 1:6–9 380, 400 1:10 383 1:11–12 49, 362 1:11–17 103, 373, 401 1:12 204 1:12–17 231 1:13 71, 364, 368 1:13–14 97–9, 292, 310, 333, 336, 362, 407 1:13–17 87, 204, 205 1:14 362, 407 1:15 68, 182, 204, 205, 360 1:15–16 49, 60, 70, 133, 207, 302, 359–61, 407 1:15–17 360

1:16

2, 45, 49, 65, 76, 134, 154, 159, 204 1:17 107, 360 1:18 111 1:18–19 120 1–2 342 1–4 401 2 102, 125 2:1–10 98, 100–02, 366 2:1–16 98 2:2 101, 202 2:2–5 101 2:5 285, 380 2:7 101, 118, 207 2:7–9 310 2:9 118, 182, 204, 364 2:10 368 2:11–14 98, 100, 104, 105, 109, 334, 336, 392, 400 2:11–16 118 2:11–17 109, 110 2:11–21 344 2:12 100, 103 2:13 107 2:13–14 109 2:14 109, 118, 285, 342, 380 2:14–16 107 2:14–21 104 2:15 109 2:15–16 118 2:16 68, 108–11, 118, 120, 411 2:16–21 89 2:17 118, 382 2:18–3:19 380 2:19 80, 83 2:20 60, 65, 76, 111, 118, 148, 153–60, 162, 163, 165, 167, 168, 209, 382, 384, 402, 410, 412, 416 2:20–21 164, 290, 380 2:21 155, 158, 160, 162, 205, 289 3 60 3:1 80, 81, 111, 380, 382, 383, 400, 402 3:1–5 84, 111, 116, 380 3:2 111, 115, 206

Index of Passages

3:3 110, 390, 400 3:5 110, 111, 206 3:10 110 3:13 51, 63, 148, 157, 160, 380, 382, 402, 407, 408 3:13–14 92, 212 3:13–4:11 412 3:14 206 3:21 212 3:21–4:7 75 3:22 111 3:23–25 341 3:23–28 380 3:24–25 341 3:26 80, 280 3:26–28 81, 83 3:27 270 3:28 94, 100, 249, 280, 411 3:37 376 3–4 401 3–5 209, 212 3–6 124, 214 4 60 4:1–7 400, 412 4:4 60, 118, 357, 410 4:4–5 51, 52, 54, 60, 76, 83, 84, 133, 142, 148, 157, 160, 212, 341, 357, 374, 380, 382, 409, 410 4:4–6 61–3, 157, 158, 160, 164, 212, 358, 390 4:5 157, 382 4:6 206, 380 4:6–7 84 4:12 23 4:14 382, 395, 396 4:16 380 4:19 375, 376, 383 4:20 400 4:21–31 400 5 75, 86, 284 5:2–6 380 5:4 211, 289 5:4–5 127, 290 5:5 206, 380 5:6 89, 209 5:7 281, 285 5:10 400

501

5:12 400 5:14 207, 257, 330, 379, 393, 413 5:16–24 210, 215 5:16–25 283 5:16–26 207, 209 5:18 341, 394 5:19–21 75, 210, 276, 283, 411, 413 5:19–23 413, 419 5:21 57, 58, 61, 211, 283, 356 5:22 243, 394 5:22–23 206, 209, 249, 283, 350, 413 5:22–25 276 6:1–5 332 6:2 75, 207, 212, 330, 342, 379, 392, 393, 413 6:7–8 283 6:8 210, 211, 380 6:10 229 6:12 80, 81 6:12–13 400 6:14 80, 81, 201, 380, 402 6:14–15 225 Ephesians 1:13 285 2:1–10 411 2:5 289 2:7 289 2:7–8 205 2:8 289 2:11–22 243, 249, 411 2:14–15 411 2:14–16 410 3:1–13 302, 310, 371, 395 3:2 204 3:7 204 3:8 204 4:3 243 4:5 240 4:7–12 202, 207 4:11–12 383 4:22–24 270, 353 4:22–25 376 5:2 158, 160, 161 5:5 249

502

Index of Passages

5:21 411 5:25 158, 160, 161 6:8–9 196 6:10–17 231, 402 6:10–20 242, 249, 409, 413, 414, 420 6:12 231, 409 6:14 243 6:15 243 Philippians 1:1 383 1:5 37, 38, 190, 385 1:6 209, 215, 376 1:7 204 1:7–8 37, 38 1:9–11 42, 290, 376 1:10 284, 390 1:10–11 127, 203, 295, 376 1:11 127, 206, 209, 215, 249, 283, 394, 413 1:12–13 245 1:12–14 241 1:12–18 419 1:13 239, 240 1:19 139, 211 1:19–20 61, 139, 140, 148, 187 1:19–26 235, 239, 240 1:20 68, 139 1:21–26 303 1:27 229, 241, 375, 376, 382, 384, 397, 420 1:27–28 378 1:27–30 226, 236, 249, 254, 307 1:27–2:11 272 1:27–2:18 254 1:27–2:30 394 1:27–4:3 384 1:28 402 1:28–29 418 1:29 215 1–2 80 2 257 2:1–4 257 2:1–5 377 2:1–11 416 2:1–30 353

2:2–3 257, 260 2:4–11 346 2:5–8 323, 392 2:5–11 83, 349, 402 2:6 353 2:6–7 350 2:6–8 377, 384, 416 2:6–11 74, 224, 238–40, 248, 250, 251, 356, 374, 382, 394, 416 2:7 382 2:9–10 52 2:9–11 57, 66, 126, 238, 288, 359, 377 2:11 240 2:12 209, 238, 239, 402 2:12–13 209, 211, 215, 291, 394 2:12–15 413 2:12–16 284 2:12–17 283 2:12–30 377 2:13 209, 215, 238 2:14–18 198, 200 2:15 29, 127, 128, 232, 236, 307 2:15–16 202, 203, 249, 376 2:16 202 2:17 416 2:19–30 416 2–3 246 2–4 4, 25, 64, 253, 295 3 71, 78, 79, 81, 90, 91, 95, 106, 129, 130, 201, 239, 295 3:1 238, 239, 416 3:1–17 239 3:2 400 3:2–3 389 3:2–6 389 3:2–11 124 3:3 124 3:3–4 411 3:3–10 204 3:4–6 98, 336, 362 3:4–7 195 3:4–14 207 3:4–16 238

Index of Passages

3:5–6 97, 99, 310, 333 3:6 71, 127, 407 3:8 195 3:8–21 238 3:9 111 3:10 323, 377, 384 3:10–11 183, 353, 395 3:10–17 349 3:12 207 3:12–14 202, 208 3:12–15 196 3:14 203, 207, 210 3:17 23, 323, 325 3:17–19 274, 275 3:17–21 274, 275, 277 3:17–4:9 276 3:18 383 3:18–19 254, 378, 418 3:18–21 239 3:19 400, 402 3:20 376 3:20–21 66, 224, 238–40, 248, 257, 259, 271, 275, 353, 376–78, 395, 417 3:21 264, 270, 288 4 80 4:1 193, 194, 202, 203, 206, 207, 210, 376 4:1–2 377 4:2 256, 416 4:2–3 254, 256, 272 4:2–9 243, 253, 255–57, 259, 260, 266, 267, 271, 272, 275–77 4:4 61, 253, 256 4:4–6 253, 254, 260 4:4–9 257, 417 4:5 253, 254, 256 4:6 253, 255, 256, 260 4:7 254, 255, 257 4:8 256, 257, 389 4:8–9 255, 419 4:9 254, 255, 257 4:10–20 275 4:15–16 190, 385 4:18 385 4:22 240, 241, 245

503

Colossians 1:5 285 1:6 285 1:10 413 1:13 57, 61, 356, 359, 374, 395 1:13–14 2, 6, 55, 57–60, 64, 65, 74, 126, 130, 133, 143, 148, 153, 205, 207, 208, 214, 248, 282, 288, 356, 357, 359, 382, 401, 409, 410, 414 1:13–20 65, 66 1:15 240, 353 1:15–17 228 1:15–20 65, 224, 374 1:20 402, 410 1:21–23 193, 283, 402 1:22 127, 128, 402 1:22–29 302 1:23–29 310, 395 1:24 303, 304, 395 1:24–29 371 1:28 375 1:29 209, 284, 291 2:8–15 248 2:8–23 412 2:12–15 208 2:13–15 412 2:14–15 224 2:15 229, 251 2:16 344 3:1–4 183 3:5 270 3:5–11 270, 273, 277 3:8–11 273 3:8–12 270 3:9 270, 271 3:9–10 270, 271, 353 3:9–11 376 3:10 241, 270, 271, 376 3:11 94, 249, 411 3:24 202 3:24–25 196, 203 3:25 315 4:10–11 356 4:11 57 4:17 383

504

Index of Passages

1 Thessalonians 1:1 84, 97, 126, 137, 184 1:2 1, 12, 14, 34–6, 126 1:2–5 9, 13, 38, 45 1:2–6 36, 37 1:2–10 9, 14, 39, 43, 88 1:2–3:10 42 1:2–3:13 14, 25, 37–9, 42 1:3 40, 42, 72, 84, 89, 209, 283, 284, 291, 375, 376 1:3–4 13 1:4 12, 40, 63, 77, 84, 87, 96, 126, 127, 190 1:5 9–15, 33–6, 46, 47, 49, 50, 63, 67, 281, 386, 389, 390 1:5–6 1, 35, 36, 85, 139, 147, 359, 379 1:5–8 88 1:5–10 24, 42, 365 1:6 9, 10, 20, 21, 23, 35–7, 40, 47, 84, 126, 148, 255, 323, 348 1:6–7 325 1:6–8 142 1:6–10 9, 45, 126 1:6–3:13 43 1:7 88 1:7–8 35, 142, 190 1:7–10 32, 33, 40, 191 1:8 10, 11, 15, 42, 46, 48, 72, 88, 291, 359 1:8–9 14 1:8–10 12, 37 1:9 11, 18, 49, 87, 190, 217, 385, 386 1:9–10 1, 9–15, 33, 35, 45–51, 53, 59, 63–5, 67, 70, 71, 74, 76, 77, 90, 128, 133, 134, 147, 165, 174, 221, 248, 281, 286, 355, 359, 374, 375, 379, 386, 401 1:10 2, 3, 9, 11, 42, 47, 49, 50, 53, 54, 61, 63–7, 70–2, 74, 76, 81–4, 96, 126–28, 133, 138, 140–43, 146, 148, 154–57, 164–69, 186, 187, 189, 205,

206, 211, 217, 221, 237, 248,284, 289, 291, 294, 295, 380, 402 1–3 1, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30–2, 34, 35, 37–44, 46, 198, 385 2 17, 22, 154, 155, 385 2:1 1, 9–16, 18, 25, 33–5, 202, 385, 386 2:1–2 13, 24 2:1–4 15, 125, 217 2:1–7 21 2:1–8 33 2:1–11 385 2:1–12 1, 9, 11, 13–34, 36–9, 41, 44, 154, 155, 220, 221, 385, 386 2:1–3:10 24, 43 2:2 16, 20, 23, 25, 26, 29, 34, 217, 220, 240, 245 2:2–6 74 2:2–12 9, 11, 13–6, 35, 221, 385 2:3 20, 21, 23, 26, 29, 36, 151, 386 2:3–4 151 2:3–5 26 2:3–6 375 2:3–10 27 2:3–12 23, 217 2:4 21, 23, 26, 29, 151, 154, 396 2:5 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 34 2:5–6 151, 382, 383 2:5–8 151, 162, 396 2:5–9 151, 416 2:5–16 15 2:6 26, 29, 152 2:6–7 152 2:6–8 3, 58, 148, 152–57, 160, 165, 167–69, 382, 384, 391 2:6–9 143 2:7 17, 29, 152, 154, 375, 383, 395 2:7–8 27, 151, 383 2:8 20, 27, 32, 151, 152, 154, 220, 383 2:8–12 21

Index of Passages

2:9

20, 22, 25, 27, 29, 34, 152, 155, 190, 191, 220, 385 2:9–10 382, 383 2:10 20, 22, 25, 27, 29, 34, 88, 126, 220 2:10–12 375 2:10–13 88 2:11 20, 21, 25, 34 2:11–12 1, 23, 27, 45, 57, 189, 220, 283, 356, 375, 383, 396 2:12 14, 20, 28, 58, 61, 63, 74, 76, 77, 84, 87, 96, 126, 127, 190, 205, 217, 220, 221, 283, 288, 359, 365, 374, 376, 382, 384, 397 2:13 1, 9, 11–4, 24, 34–6, 38, 39, 46, 67, 68, 88, 126, 209, 220, 386 2:13–14 35–7, 139, 386 2:13–15 142, 148 2:13–16 14, 15, 35, 39, 42, 217, 218 2:13–3:10 18 2:13–4:1 35 2:14 18, 23, 36, 37, 40, 190, 255, 325 2:14–15 47 2:14–16 20, 35, 74, 418, 419 2:14–3:8 38, 39, 44 2:15 82 2:15–16 37, 73, 80 2:17–18 307 2:17–3:5 36, 37, 40, 375, 386 2:17–3:8 9, 37–9 2:17–3:10 14, 15, 20, 24, 25, 37, 39, 41, 419 2:17–3:13 14, 41 2:18 15, 18 2:19 136, 193, 194, 203, 207, 210 2:19–20 4, 142, 193, 194, 202, 203, 376 2:20 193, 194 2–3 24, 25, 41 3:1–5 18

505

3:1–10 15, 30, 35, 36 3:2 72, 88, 89, 291, 383 3:3 18, 32, 89 3:3–4 18, 33, 36 3:3–5 14, 36 3:3–6 139 3:3–8 142, 148 3:3–9 37 3:4 20, 40, 45, 255 3:5 14, 15, 18, 20, 72, 88, 89, 202, 291 3:6 1, 10–5, 19, 20, 24, 25, 30, 36, 72, 88, 89, 291, 375, 386 3:6–8 14, 126, 171 3:6–9 12, 13, 34, 42 3:6–10 1, 30, 31 3:7 19, 21, 72, 88, 89, 291 3:7–8 12, 36 3:8 19, 61, 63, 85, 89, 139, 206, 402 3:9 14, 19, 21, 36, 39 3:9–10 9 3:9–13 38 3:10 18, 38, 42, 72, 88, 89, 186, 217, 291, 375 3:10–11 32 3:10–13 32 3:11–13 1, 2, 22, 42, 83, 84, 89, 126, 289 3:12 20, 22, 139, 375 3:12–13 53, 63, 70, 72, 76, 84, 85, 87, 126–29, 138, 142, 146, 148, 209, 237, 248, 283, 284, 288, 290, 294, 295, 359 3:13 54, 63, 64, 76, 81, 88, 126–28, 136, 138–41, 156, 165, 168, 169, 186, 187, 202, 203, 211, 300, 376, 380 4 85 4:1 21, 22, 38, 43, 273, 275, 375 4:1–2 21, 45, 63, 74, 75, 220, 274, 375, 391, 396 4:1–8 21, 70, 71, 74, 75, 85, 87, 90, 96, 126, 127, 221,

506

Index of Passages

254, 267, 270, 272–75, 277, 289, 375, 390 4:1–12 22, 43, 221, 390 4:1–5:24 42, 43 4:2 22, 85, 86, 375 4:3 21, 71, 74, 75, 85, 87, 126, 206, 272–74, 391, 413 4:3–5 87 4:3–6 75, 86 4:3–7 190 4:3–8 21, 75, 87, 88, 185, 220, 274, 402 4:4 273–75 4:4–5 272–74 4:5 47, 190, 272, 273, 275, 401 4:6 20–2, 45, 74, 211, 273– 75, 295, 375, 380 4:7 20, 21, 77, 84, 85, 87, 126, 127, 205, 206, 272, 274, 413 4:7–8 126, 207, 209, 390, 391 4:8 21, 63, 75, 82, 84, 85, 87, 92, 126, 129, 209, 211, 212, 284, 390, 391 4:8–9 2, 212, 390 4:9 11, 20, 22, 85, 257 4:9–10 42, 190, 191, 257, 260, 275 4:9–11 87 4:9–12 33, 85, 189, 191, 376 4:10 11 4:11 20, 22, 45, 190, 191, 375 4:11–12 4, 74, 218, 260 4:12 190, 191, 220, 221, 259, 401 4:12–5:11 298 4:13 171, 173–75, 180, 190, 276 4:13–18 3, 4, 138, 171, 174, 179, 189, 217, 219, 220, 236, 237, 303, 312, 377, 414 4:13–5:8 165, 169 4:13–5:11 24, 42, 43, 63, 64, 83, 134–38, 146, 148, 149, 156, 168, 171, 174, 176, 183, 187, 188, 191, 221,

224, 236, 237, 240, 243, 254, 257, 259, 272, 275, 276, 377, 395 4:14 1, 3, 47, 63, 64, 70, 72, 74, 76, 80, 82, 89, 126, 142, 148, 156, 164–66, 169, 171–76, 180, 181, 183, 186, 187, 217, 375, 377 4:14–5:11 176 4:15 136, 137, 171, 172, 175, 177, 180, 181 4:15–17 135, 171, 172, 185 4:16 3, 172, 179, 180, 300 4:16–17 146, 172, 175, 179–83 4:16–18 176 4:17 63, 172, 174, 175 4:18 20, 21 4–5 4, 21–5, 42–4, 63, 64, 89, 236, 237, 246, 253, 260, 271, 272, 274–76, 295 5 85, 178, 236 5:1 11, 184, 186, 190, 276 5:1–2 45, 259 5:1–7 173 5:1–10 173 5:1–11 3, 130, 171, 173, 174, 176–79, 183, 187, 189, 217, 219, 220, 226, 229, 237, 259, 267, 271, 312, 377 5:2 3, 135, 136, 177–79, 182–85, 259 5:2–3 177 5:2–7 182, 183, 189, 191 5:2–9 190 5:2–11 11 5:3 4, 174, 177, 178, 185, 215, 217, 236, 245, 250, 307, 402, 418 5:4 177, 179, 182 5:4–5 85, 185, 187 5:4–7 178 5:4–8 178 5:5 259 5:6 173 5:6–8 173, 185, 259 5:7 259, 267 5:7–8 259

Index of Passages

5:8

72, 173, 231, 259, 291, 402, 409, 414 5:8–9 376 5:8–11 236 5:9 53, 63, 77, 85, 86, 164, 174 5:9–10 1, 3, 47, 50, 51, 53, 54, 61, 63, 64, 70–2, 74, 76, 81, 82, 84, 96, 126–28, 133, 142, 143, 148, 156, 157, 164–69, 173, 174, 185, 187, 217, 237, 248, 259, 289, 291, 294, 295, 349, 375, 377, 380, 402 5:10 63, 77, 80, 155, 172–75 5:11 20, 21 5:12 375, 383 5:12–13 190, 256, 257, 275 5:12–14 255, 256, 272 5:12–15 42 5:12–22 43 5:12–24 253, 255–57, 259, 260, 272, 276, 277 5:13 20, 21, 255, 257, 417 5:13–23 257 5:13–24 266, 267 5:14 4, 20, 21, 190, 255, 256, 275 5:14–15 254 5:14–21 253 5:15 229, 255–57, 313, 315, 417 5:16 253, 256 5:16–18 253 5:16–22 254, 260 5:17 253, 256 5:18 253, 260 5:19 257 5:19–20 84, 85 5:19–22 126, 255, 276 5:21–22 257 5:23 20, 70, 72, 81, 126–28, 136, 146, 202, 203, 254, 255, 257, 283, 288, 376, 417 5:23–24 20, 77, 84, 85, 88, 126, 128, 295 5:24 84, 126, 127

507

2 Thessalonians 1:3–4 72, 291, 376 1:3–7 280 1:3–10 279, 283 1:4 279, 283, 287 1:4–5 280 1:4–7 301, 308 1:4–12 287 1:5 5, 57, 61, 279, 280, 282, 283, 287, 291, 293, 294, 356, 402 1:5–7 313 1:5–9 291 1:5–10 128, 279, 280, 285, 290, 295, 313, 315, 316, 319 1:5–12 4, 70, 74, 279, 287, 291–93, 295 1:6 279, 280, 287, 291, 320 1:6–7 280, 316 1:6–9 418 1:7 187, 279, 280, 283, 287, 300 1:8 72, 75, 215, 217, 281, 282, 286, 287, 290–94, 320, 401 1:8–9 279, 280, 282, 402 1:8–10 5, 280, 286, 293, 316 1:8–12 288 1:9 283, 287, 291, 320 1:10 72, 279–83, 286, 287, 290–92 1:10–12 280, 287, 291 1:11 72, 209, 283, 284, 290, 291 1:11–12 279, 283, 285, 289, 290, 292 1:12 283, 284, 290, 291 1:17 287 1–2 4, 5, 53, 64, 74, 131, 279, 285, 289, 290, 292, 294, 295 2 236 2:1 136, 285, 303, 312 2:1–2 285 2:1–3 289 2:1–8 4, 279, 310

508 2:1–12

Index of Passages

184, 224, 234, 236, 245, 297, 298, 395 2:3 297, 311 2:3–4 234, 297, 300, 306, 311 2:3–8 5, 285, 305, 306, 309, 311 2:3–10 233, 245 2:3–12 300, 315 2:4 29, 286, 301, 306, 311, 318 2:5 297, 312 2:5–6 312 2:5–8 395 2:6 300–02, 304, 311 2:6–7 298, 299, 301, 302, 304, 310, 312, 371, 395 2:6–8 297 2:7 29, 235, 299–301, 303, 304, 306, 308 2:8 136, 217, 234, 285, 297 2:8–10 300 2:9 29, 217, 309, 319 2:9–10 234, 285 2:9–11 286, 297 2:9–12 279, 285, 287, 288, 290, 291, 318, 319 2:9–14 70, 74, 128, 280, 285, 287, 289, 292, 293, 295 2:9–17 4, 279, 291–93, 295 2:10 285–87, 291, 292, 294, 318 2:10–12 5, 288, 293, 402 2:10–14 288, 300 2:10–17 287 2:11 72, 285, 286, 290, 291, 318, 319 2:12 72, 280, 285–87, 290–94, 297, 319 2:13 72, 126, 217, 290–93 2:13–14 128, 279, 285–92, 297, 402 2:13–17 291, 292 2:14 281, 283, 284, 290, 292 2:15 74, 289

2:16 289–92 2:16–17 279, 285, 289, 290 2:17 289–91 3:2 72, 217, 291 3:3 291 3:6 22 3:6–12 290 3:6–15 4, 275, 289 3:7–8 190 3:7–10 22 3:7–12 23 3:9–10 190 3:10 22, 190 3:13 190 1 Timothy 2:1–2 245 2:2 225 2:5–6 58, 154, 159, 164, 167, 326, 352, 382 2:6 155, 160, 162, 164 4:3–5 344 6:15 225 2 Timothy 4:8

207, 215

Titus 2:13–14 58, 154, 155, 164, 167 2:18–19 382 3:1 225, 245 Philemon 10 375 16 381 Hebrews 4:14–16 52 7:25 50 9:11 425 9:14 425 12:2 348 James 2:14–26 118 5:7 136 5:8 136, 253 5:14–15 118

Index of Passages

1 Peter 1:7 200 2:11–12 33 2:13–17 225, 245 3:8–12 276 3:15 32 2 Peter 1:16 136 3:4 136 3:10 177, 182 3:16 104 1 John 2:18–27 139 2:18–29 140 2:22–23 139, 140 2:28 136, 139, 140 3:16 161, 162, 167 4:4 393 4:9–10 118, 160–64, 167 2 John 8 195

Revelation 2:14 344 2:20 344 3:3 177, 182 4–5 65, 234 5 233 6:9–11 302 7 233 11 233 11:13 321 11:15 144, 321 12 233, 234 13 233, 305 13–19 306 14 233 16:15 177, 182 17 233 17–20 305 18–20 315 19:11–20:10 419 19:11–20:15 242 19–20 233 19–21 321 19–22 144 20:1–3 300

Old Testament Apocrypha 1 Macc 2:15–28 407

48:3 181 48:5 181

2 Macc 13:14 155 7:37–38 155

Tob 8:3 300 13:11 362, 365 14:5–7 362, 365

4 Macc 17:21–22 155 6:28–29 155 Sir 24:3–12 159

Wis 6:1–5 228 9:10–17 159

509

510

Index of Passages

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 1 Enoch 1:6–9 138 10:11–12 300 10:4 300 18:12–19:2 300 21:1–6 300 48:4–5 362 54:4–6 300 90:33 362

Sib. Or. 3:710–30 362

2 Bar 23:5 304 51:11 304 68:5 362

T. Levi 18:2–9 362 18:4–5 365

4 Ezra 4:36 304 4:40 304 11–12 305

Or. 3:715–24 365 T. Jud. 24:6 362 25:5 362

T. Naph. 8:3–4 362 T. Sim. 7:2 362

Jub. 48:15–16 300

Philo Legatio ad Gaium 225

Legatio 140–161 228 161 228

Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.7 450 Ant. 4.113 265 18.85–87 443 18.116–19 429 18.116 ff. 430 20.97–99 443 20.167–172 443

J. W. 2.89 265 2.258–63 443 4.161 407 4.225 407 4.323 448 6.126 455 6.300–09 453 7.268–70 407 7.437–453 443

511

Index of Passages

Qumran Literature 1QH 4:36–37 110

ii 7–8

4QMMT (=4Q398) 14–17 ii 3 110

1QpHab 8:1–2 120

4QpsIsad fr. 1

1QS 3:5–6 110 5:4–7 451 5:5–6 367 5:20–23 111 5:21 110 6:13–23 111 8:4–10 367, 451 9:3–6 367, 451 9:12–15 110 10:17–20 418 4Q398 ii 3

110

451

CD 1:19 410 16:5 110 Temple Scroll 45:12–13 455 46:12 455 47:4 455 47:11 455 47:18 455

110

Targum Tg Isa 42:1 360 53 213 53:1 111 53:4 112 53:5 112, 450, 453, 454

53:11 112 53:12 112, 159 Tg Zech 6:12

450, 453

Rabbinic Literature Talmud

Midrash

b. Sanhedrin 65b 427 91a 444 97b 302, 304

Midr. Ps 14 304

b. Yoma 86b 304 y. Ta’anit 1:64a

302, 304

Midr. Tehillim on Ps 2:7 145 Midr.Qoh. 1.7 5.10

427, 444 427, 444

512

Index of Passages

Mishnah m. Berakhot 5.5 396, 445 9.5 450 m. Gittin 9.2 347

Gen. Rab. 27[17c] 427 Ex. Rab. 30 427 L. A. B. 51:5 304

m. Sanhedrin 7.5 454

Early Christian Writings Chrysostom Hom. 2 Thess. Hom. 4

Tertullian 305

1 Clem 61 225 Mart. Pol. 8.2 245 9.2–3 245 10.1 245 10.2 246 Kerygmata Petrou 17:13–19 407 Acts John 109 187 Gosp. Phil. 15 187 Gosp. Thom. 21 103

179, 182 179, 182

Apol. 30–34 225 32 305 Res. 24.18 305 Theodore of Mopsuestia PG 66, 936 298 Theodoret of Cyrrhus PG 82 664D–666B 298 665A 302 Hippolytus Comm. Dan. 4.21 305 Augustine City of God 20.19 298

Greco-Roman Literature Dio Chrysostom

Tacitus

Oration to the Alexandrians (Or. 32) 17, 385

Annales 13.50–51 258

Index of Authors Aalen, S. ​446, 450 Ådna, J. ​213, 423 Aejmelaeus, L. ​177–80 Albertz, M. ​432 Aletti, J.-N. ​284, 295 Allison, D. C. ​179, 328 Aono, T. ​104, 344 Aune, D.  E. ​182 Baker, M. ​370 Bammel, E. ​258 Barclay, J. M. G. ​19, 25, 32, 183, 209, 219, 225–27, 232, 233, 237, 239, 243, 245, 333, 393 Barr, J. ​77, 130, 294 Barrett, C. K. ​168, 199, 241, 263, 393, 441, 446 Barton, S. C. ​384 Bash, A. ​31 Bauckham, R. ​65, 178, 182, 321 Beale, G.  K. ​299 Becker, J. ​78, 109, 110 Behm, J. ​268 Beker, J.  C. ​377 Best, E. ​13, 46, 134, 177, 181, 193, 194, 256, 257, 280, 298, 299, 306, 308, 427, 437, 445 Betz, H. D. ​323, 324, 388 Betz, O. ​111, 136, 143–45, 159, ​213, 425, 442, 443, 445–47, 449, 450, 453 Beyer, H.  W. ​383 Billerbeck, P. ​429, 444, 450 Bird, M. F. ​104, 105, 107, 108, 122, 125 Black, M. ​433 Blinzler, J. ​453 Bockmuehl, M. ​35 Boers, H. ​14, 35 Borg, M. ​258 Borgen, P. ​336, 392

Bornkamm, G. ​60, 61, 64, 66, 369, 388, 420 Broer, I. ​433 Bruce, F. F. ​177, 178, 326–28, 340, 385, 388, 393 Brunt, J.  C. ​344 Bryan, C. ​232 Bultmann, R. ​121, 137, 149, 166, 324, 325, 395, 426–32, 434 Burchard, C. ​109, 110 Calvin, J. ​302 Campbell, D. ​277 Carter, W. ​218 Catchpole, D.  R. ​454 Cerfaux, L. ​134, 187 Charlesworth, J.  H. ​423 Chester, A. ​165 Cheung, A. T. ​339, 340, 342–45 Cohick, L.  H. ​240 Collange, J.-F. ​324 Collins, A.  Y. ​141 Collins, J. J. ​141, 408 Conzelmann, H. ​327 Cosgrove, C.  H. ​208 Cranfield, C. E. B. ​55, 141, 265 Crump, D. ​140 Cullmann, O. ​110, 302–05, 308–10, 395 Dahl, N. A. ​324, 380 Daube, D. ​427, 428, 439, 441 Davies, W.  D. ​179 Davis, C.  T. ​401 Dawes, G. W. ​340, 343 de Boer, W. P. ​324 Deissmann, G.  A. ​223 Dibelius, M. ​17, 299, 324, 385 Dickey, S. ​189

514

Index of Authors

Dickson, J. P. ​361, 363 Dodd, C. H. ​328, 332–34, 393, 444 Donahue, J.  R. ​454 Donfried, K. P. ​208, 221 Downs, D. J. ​366, 367 Dunn, J. D. G. ​50, 55, 78, 97–100, 102–05, 107, 108, 122, 125, 158, 159, 182, 183, 208, 212–15, 258, 259, 263, 268, 269, 318, 350, 407, 418 Dupont, J. ​134, 140, 187

Gnilka, J. ​426, 427, 431, 432, 442, 446, 447, 454 Goppelt, L. ​438, 441, 446, 447 Gordon, G.  L. ​245 Gorman, M.  J. ​384 Grimm, W. ​152, 159, 449 Grundmann, W. ​433, 437, 438, 441, 446, 448 Gundry, R. H. ​334, 437 Gupta, N.  K. ​88

Eckart, K.-G. ​35 Eckert, J. ​125, 130 Elgvin, T. ​273 Ellens, J. H. ​400, 403, 412, 413 Elliott, N. ​218, 231 Ellis, E.  E. ​427 Eppstein, V. ​441 Ernst, J. ​298 Evans, C. A. ​156, 160, 168, 263

Hafemann, S.  J. ​27 Hagner, D. A. ​283, 387 Hahn, F. ​440, 441 Hamerton-Kelly, R.  G. ​413 Hannah, D.  D. ​299–301 Hanson, J.  S. ​407 Hardin, J. K. ​218, 219 Harrison, J.  R. ​219 Hartman, L. ​177, 179, 180 Hawthorne, G. F. ​193, 203 Hay, D.  M. ​140 Hays, R. B. ​232, 233, 345, 346, 391, 393, 394 Heil, J.  P. ​173 Heilig, C. ​227, 237 Hengel, M. ​44–6, 52, 53, 55, 64–6, 77, 79, 81, 88, 97, 107, 112, 125, 130, 136, 144, 145, 155, 156, 166, 292, 293, 407, 425, 440, 441, 443–49 Hess, K. ​383 Hock, R.  F. ​27 Hofius, O. ​62, 93, 163, 178, 208 Holtz, T. ​11, 19, 32–4, 36, 37, 46, 87, 134, 172, 177, 183, 194, 256, 257, 259, 273, 386, 390 Hooker, M. D. ​46–9, 134, 211, 263, 390 Horbury, W. ​36 Horn, F.  W. ​94 Horrell, D. ​329, 330, 339, 340, 345, 346, 386, 393 Horsley, R. A. ​231, 407 Horst, J. ​256 Hübner, H. ​130, 212, 390 Hughes, F.  W. ​43 Hurd, J.  C. ​330 Hyldahl, N. ​171, 175, 179, 180

Fairchild, M.  R. ​407 Fantin, J.  D. ​240 Farmer, W.  R. ​407 Fee, G. D. ​193, 202, 329, 332, 339, 343, 386, 390, 394 Fisk, B. N. ​339, 340 Fitzmyer, J. A. ​50, 141, 258, 261 Flusser, D. ​441, 444, 446, 447, 450 Foerster, W. ​243, 433 Frey, J. ​94 Friedrich, G. ​46, 134, 187, 433 Funk, R.  W. ​14 Furnish, V. P. ​102, 324, 325, 327, 328, 332 Gager, J. G. ​412, 421 Gärtner, B. ​450, 451 Gaston, L. ​428, 446, 447, 450 Gathercole, S. J. ​158, 211 Gaventa, B.  R. ​298 Georgi, D ​56, 218, 369, 370 Gerhardson, B. ​427 Gese, H. ​62, 208, 266 Giblin, G.  H. ​307 Gibson, E. L. ​412, 421 Gillman, J. ​32

Index of Authors

Jenni, E. ​204 Jeremias, J. ​110, 119, 159, 167, 366, 426, 438, 441, 442, 444, 446, 447, 449, 450, 453 Jervell, J. ​344, 369 Jewett, R. ​43, 44, 55, 183, 189, 218, 258, 259, 264 Johanson, B. C. ​24, 25, 32, 34 Joseph, S.  J. ​423 Juel, D. ​446, 447, 450, 454 Jüngel, E. ​121 Käsemann, E. ​55, 59, 205, 248, 261, 263, 269, 282, 390 Keener, C. S. ​68, 114, 117, 118 Keller, W. ​365 Kennedy, G.  A. ​388 Kern, P.  K. ​44 Kertelge, K. ​206, 449 Kilpatrick, G.  D. ​447 Kim, S. ​1, 9, 17, 25, 42, 43, 46, 47, 54–6, 58, 59, 64, 68–70, 74, 75, 77, 79, 82, 86, 88, 92, 95, 97, 98, 102, 112, 122, 125–28, 130, 133–36, 138, 140, 142, 146, 149, 153, 156–59, 162, 165, 168, 181, 184, 187, 189, 204, 206, 209, 211–14, 217–22, 226, 232, 243, 245, 249, 265, 273, 279, 281, 283, 288, 289, 293, 295, 297, 299, 306, 310–12, 315, 316, 318, 330, 346, 349, 353, 360, 363, 377–79, 382, 385, 386, 390, 392–95, 407, 408, 410, 411, 414–16, 423, 438, 449, 454 Klein, G. ​369 Klinzing, G. ​450 Klostermann, E. ​261 Kramer, W. ​47, 52, 54, 155, 157 Krentz, E. ​43, 44 Kuck, D.  W. ​195 Kümmel, W. G. ​324, 325 Lambrecht, J. ​15 Lang, F. ​163 Larsson, E. ​324 Lautenschlager, M. ​173 Leivestad, R. ​168 Lichtenberger, H. ​46, 269 Lightfoot, J.  B. ​253 Lindars, B. ​168

515

Linnemann, E. ​454 Lohfink, G. ​176, 387 Lohmeyer, E. ​428, 432, 433, 435, 437, 444, 446, 450 Lohse, E. ​324, 426 Luckensmeyer, D. ​203 Luz, U. ​175, 185 Lyons, G. ​20–2, 24 Malherbe, A. J. ​13, 17, 19–22, 24, 25, 34, 37, 40, 41, 44, 46, 47, 154, 171–74, 177, 181, 185, 193, 219, 273, 375, 385 Manson, T. ​369 Marshall, I. H. ​13, 14, 17, 21, 50, 171, 172, 176, 177, 179, 180, 183, 186, 235, 256, 257, 298–300, 307, 326, 432, 439, 441, 442, 449 Martin, D.  M. ​298 Martin, R. P. ​163, 193, 203 Marxsen, W. ​14 März, C.  P. ​179 Maurer, C. ​162 Menken, M. J. J. ​299 Merk, O. ​323–25, 327 Metzger, P. ​297, 301, 303, 305, 307, 308 Meyer, B. F. ​446, 447, 450 Michel, O. ​50, 263, 265 Mitchell, M. M. ​30, 31, 43, 44 Moiser, J. ​258 Moo, D. J. ​50, 55, 212, 258, 263, 270, 317, 390 Morgenthaler, R. ​428 Müller, P.-G. ​298 Munck, J. ​303, 370, 395 Mundla, J.-G. Mudiso M. ​427, 429, 432, 433, 442 Murray, G. G. A. ​388 Neirynck, F. ​157, 181, 428, 433 Nicholl, C. R. ​299–301, 303 Nickle, K.  F. ​370 Novenson, M.  V. ​225 O’Brien, P. T. ​37, 38, 193, 367 Oakes, P. ​217, 219 Pannenberg, W. ​62 Park, J.  S. ​186

516

Index of Authors

Pearson, B. ​35 Peerbolte, L. J. L. ​306 Perrin, N. ​423 Pesch, R. ​425–27, 431, 432, 434, 436, 440– 44, 446, 447, 449, 450 Pfitzner, V. C. ​234 Piper, J. ​253, 256, 276 Pitre, B. ​423 Plevnik, J. ​176 Porter, S.  E. ​44 Pryke, E.  J. ​425–28 Rabens, V. ​75, 212, 390 Rainbow, O. A. ​77, 282, 283, 293, 294 Räisänen, H. ​334 Reiser, M. ​316 Rhoads, D. ​407 Richard, E.  J. ​203 Richardson, P. ​335 Riesner, R. ​17, 34, 58, 64, 79, 109–12, 116, 118–20, 122, 153, 167, 293, 327, 374, 375, 382, 425, 438 Rigaux, B. ​142, 298 Röcker, F. W. ​297, 298, 301, 303–05, 307, 310, 395 Roetzel, C. J. ​400, 401 Roloff, J. ​432, 440, 441, 445–48, 450 Roth, C. ​446 Safrai, S. ​426 Sanders, E. P. ​206, 211, 336, 347, 392, 423 Sandness, K.  O. ​36 Satake, A. ​204 Schlatter, A ​428 Schlier, H. ​259 Schlueter, C.  J. ​35 Schmidt, D. ​35 Schmithals, W. ​14, 29 Schnabel, E.  J. ​365 Schnelle, U. ​78, 94, 106–08, 123, 295 Schniewind, J. ​445 Schoon-Janssen, J. ​22, 25 Schrage, W. ​62, 324–27, 329, 330, 346 Schreiber, S. ​96 Schrenk, G. ​243 Schubert, P. ​37, 38, 40, 43 Schulz, S. ​324

Schürmann, H. ​325, 327, 328, 330, 332, 393, 449 Schweizer, E. ​133, 187, 383, 441, 446–48 Schwemer, A. M. ​64, 77, 79, 81, 88, 97, 107, 125, 130, 292, 293 Segal, A.  F. ​336 Seifrid, M. ​103, 104 Selwyn, E. G. ​256, 276 Shae, Gam Seng ​425, 429–34, 437 Siber, P. ​172, 185 Silberman, L.  H. ​316 Smalley, S.  S. ​139 Snodgrass, K. ​444, 445, 448 Söding, T. ​78–83, 85, 87–93, 97 Stählin, G. ​328 Stanton, G. N. ​217, 220, 427, 441 Stassen, G. ​404 Stendahl, K. ​418 Stenger, W. ​362 Stettler, H. ​109, 110, 112, 119, 120, 303, 304, 395 Still, T.  D. ​34 Stowers, S.  K. ​388 Strobel, A. ​298, 299, 304, 305, 308, 443, 446, 453, 454 Stuhlmacher, P. ​50, 52, 54, 62, 71, 124, 140, 142, 156, 160, 164, 167, 178, 179, 183, 208, 213, 258, 261, 283, 303, 363, 364, 427, 443, 447, 449, 453 Talbert, C. H. ​256, 276 Tan-Gatue, P. ​119 Taylor, V. ​432, 433, 435, 437, 441, 442, 445, 446 Telford, W. R. ​448, 450 Tellbe, M. ​32 Theissen, G. ​105, 107, 108, 387, 446, 448, 453 Theobald, M. ​109, 110 Thiselton, A.  C. ​62 Thompson, J. W. ​374, 376, 377, 384 Thompson, M. ​258, 259, 264, 265, 270, 271, 326–28, 330, 333, 334, 348, 351, 392, 394, 417 Thrall, M. E. ​27, 28, 124, 368 Tödt, H.  E. ​168 Tolmie, F. ​400

Index of Authors

Tomson, P. J. ​331, 336, 339–45, 347, 379, 390 Trautmann, M. ​446, 448 Travis, S. H. ​196, 200, 201, 208, 376 Trilling, W. ​298 Tuckett, C. M. ​177–79, 181, 425 Turner, M. M. B. ​212, 390 van Unnik, W. ​68 Vögtle, A. ​259 vom Brocke, C. ​18, 34, 385 von Bendemann, R. ​77, 93, 94, 122 von Willamowitz-Moellendorf, U. ​388 Vos, J. S. ​33, 399, 420 Wagner, J. R. ​361–63, 366 Walter, N. ​157, 177, 183, 332, 394 Walton, S. ​20, 385, 386 Wanamaker, C. ​21–5, 32, 34, 38, 41, 43, 44, 46, 134, 172, 178, 179, 193, 256, 273, 280 Wedderburn, A. J. M. ​263, 350 Weder, H. ​350, 444 Weima, J. A. D. ​20, 32, 34, 44, 236, 298– 301, 306, 307, 390 Weiss, J. ​327 Wellhausen, J. ​428, 447 Wengst, K. ​258

517

Wenham, D. ​58, 140–42, 177–79, 181, 183, 187, 258, 310, 326–28, 348, 417 White, J. L. ​14, 15 White, J.  R. ​236 White, M.  W. ​404 Wilckens, U. ​46, 133, 134, 156, 187, 261, 263 Wildberger, H. ​362 Williams, D.  M. ​324 Wilson, W.  T. ​315 Windisch, H. ​446, 450 Wink, W. ​404 Winter, B. W. ​18, 19, 44, 335, 385 Witherington, B. F. ​43, 339 Wolff, C. ​163, 329, 350, 384 Wolter, M. ​317, 318 Wright, N. T. ​4, 56, 68, 208, 218, 223–51, 306, 317, 356, 379, 391, 392, 408, 423 Yeung, M. ​120 Yinger, K. L. ​195, 196, 200, 201, 203, 208, 211, 215 Yoder Neufeld, T. R. ​399, 400, 404, 409 Zerbe, G. ​315 Zimmerli, W. ​362 Zobel. ​204

Index of Subjects 1 Thessalonians as a post-Antiochian controversy letter  2, 122–29 apology or apologetic purpose  5, 16–20, 25, 30–4, 44 atonement  49–51, 59, 61, 63, 65, 142–43, 160–62, 167, 169, et passim authenticity of 2 Thessalonians  293, 295 Basissatz or Grundsatz (foundation ­statement of the justification doctrine) ​ 109–22 Christian freedom  335–45 collection journey of Paul to Jerusalem  6, 365–71 contextualization of the justification doctrine in 1 Thessalonians and 1–2 Corinthians  2, 77, 122–28, 209 continuity and unity of Paul’s gospel  2, 4–5, 63, 67–131 counter (or anti)-imperial interpretation  4, 6, 56, 217–51, 306 “crown of boasting,” ​4, 142, 193, 194, 202, 210, 376 Cynic philosophers  1, 17, 18 Damascus event  6, 45, 87, 95, 98, 101–06, 120–22, 144–46, 159, 204–05, 310, 316, 407–10, et passim Day of the Lord  3, 4, 62, 135, 178–79, 183, 185, 195, 220, 259, 279, 285, 287, 289, 291, 293, 297, 311–12 development in Pauline theology  2, 77–122, 125, 130, 136–37, 142, 155, 277, 293, 335 dying (or death-)formula  47, 52, 155, 162–65, 165, 167–68

“entry” (εἴσοδος, or apostolic conduct)  1, 10, 15–20, 220, 385, et passim eschatology  2–3, 80, 85–7, 171–88, 297– 312, 355–71, et passim eucharistic (Last Supper) saying (Mark 14:21–25 and parr.), 3, 58, 119–20, 142– 43, 148–49, 151, 155–69, 449 faith, to believe  88–91, 290–93, et passim form criticism, form-critical  1, 14, 15, 38, 39, 427, 429–32, 434, 441, 448, 454 fruits of righteousness/sanctification  202, 206–07, 209–10, 213, 215, 283, 394, 413, 417 Gentile mission  71, 99, 101, 108, 121, 295, 303–04, 311, 353, 368, 411, et passim giving-up (or delivering) formula  60, 157, 158, 160–65, 165, 167–68, 318 glory  16, 61, 74, 145, 152, 202, 220, 280, 283, 288, 290, 292, 317, et passim God’s “righteousness” or covenant faithfulness 61–3 good works  118, 202, 209, 213, 215, 284, 287, 289–91 gospel  54–63, 65–6, et passim grace  6, 77, 117, 120, 155, 158, 161, 163, 201, 204–13, 289–91, et passim idlers, idleness  4, 9, 22, 150–51, 189–91 idol food  323–53, 379–80, 391–92, 414–16 imitation of Christ  5, 7, 153, 323–53, 377, 379, 382, 415–18, 420 intercession of Christ  52–4, 59, 61, 63, 65, 137–42, 169, et passim “Jesus–Paul debate,” or continuity between Jesus and Paul  3, 5, 6, 118–22, 133, 149, 166, 170, 350–53, 391

520

Index of Subjects

Jesus’ sayings or Jesus tradition  3–4, 134–43, 146–49, 151–70, 177–89, 191, 326–37, 346–52 judgment of God  5, 208–11, 279–95, 313– 21, et passim justification  2–5, 50–64, 67–131, 160, 163, 194, 205–15, 223, 243, 245, 247–51, 279– 95, 315, 320–21, 344, 355–58, 380–81, 389, 402, 406, 410–11, 418, 420 kingdom of God  2, 3, 6, 55–9, 205–09, 220–21, 246–49, 279–84, 309–11, 446, 450–51, et passim “law of Christ,” ​7, 75, 153–54, 212, 329– 32, 334–36, 338, 342–43, 345–46, 352, 379, 392–94, 413–17 law (of Moses)  71–6, 91–5, 103, et passim lex talionis  313–21 Lordship-change  59, 61, 65, 126, 130, 282, 418 “man of lawlessness, the” or “the lawless man,” ​4, 5, 234–36, 245, 279, 285–86, 288–89, 293, 297, 299–311, 318–19, 371 model, Paul as a  20–5, 44, 401 “mystery,” ​5, 181, 298–301, 308, 310, 371 “New Perspective” on Paul  2, 71, 93, 125–26, 211–13, 247, 295, 380, 407 “obedience of faith,” ​75, 147, 214, 235, 242, 248–49, 280–84, 287–88, 321, 359, 365, 395, 401–02, 405, 409, 417 Peter’s Pentecost and Temple sermons and his Jerusalem Council speech  113–18 parousia (second coming) of Christ  144, 146, 148, 169, 171–89, 203, 217–18, 234–37, 239–40, 242, 279–80, 282–83, 285–86, 288–89, 294, 298–305, 307–12, 364–65, 414, et passim pastoral practices of Paul  15–20, 26–9, 151–53, 373–97 Paul’s conversion/call  6, 97–100, et passim Pisidian Antioch, Paul’s sermon at (Acts 13:16–48), 67–72, 101, 294–95

pre-Pauline confessions/tradition/material  46, 80–4, 87, 97, 108–10, 112, 116–17, 120–21, 130, 134, 136, 159, 374, 416 present reign of God’s Son Jesus Christ, the Lord  55–9, 85–7, 204–10, 245–49 ransom saying (Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28), 3, 142–43, 151–65, 326–28, et passim redemption  6, 50–9, 63–5, 77, 96–7, 117, 124, 128, 130, 139, 157, 160–67, 212–13, 237, 266, 282, 292–94, 357–59, et passim “restrainer, the” (κατέχον/κατέχων) 5, 297–312 reward  193–215, 279, 280, 285, 313–14, 318, et passim rhetorical criticism  1, 25, 42 Roman Empire  4, 217–51, 305–11, et passim sanctification  77, 82, 84–9, 96–7, 126–30, 209, 214, 255, 274–75, 283–84, 288–90, 292–93, et passim saving plan of God  5, 6, 14, 181, 231, 298–99, 305, 309–12, 371 sending formula  60, 83, 118, 157–59, 161, 164, 167, 357, 382 sleep, asleep  143, 172–74, 178–80, 259, 377 Son of God  2–4, 45–66, 157–61, et passim Son of Man  3–4, 133–49, 151–70, et passim Sophists 18 summary of the gospel  1, 46–9, 53, 65, 67, 112, 128, 134 thanksgiving section  34–42 temple 423–56 trial of Jesus  452–55 violence, or anti-violence interpretation  6–7, 399–421 “work of faith,” ​40, 42, 88, 89, 283–84, 290–01 wrath of God  10, 51, 53, 54, 261, 273, 313–14, et passim work of the Holy Spirit  2, 85–8