Pneuma: A Dialectic of Flesh-Spirit at the Root of New Testament Pneumatology (Etudes Bibliques) 9789042945005, 9789042945012, 9042945001

Citation preview

ÉTUDES BIBLIQUES

Πνεῦμα: FROM THE SPIRITUAL CONDITION OF CHRIST TO THE HOLY SPIRIT-AGENT A Dialectic of Flesh-Spirit at the Root of New Testament Pneumatology by John Sunday ADIMULA, CSSp

PEETERS

Πνεῦμα: FROM THE SPIRITUAL CONDITION OF CHRIST TO THE HOLY SPIRIT-AGENT

ÉTUDES BIBLIQUES (Nouvelle série. No 85)

Πνεῦμα: FROM THE SPIRITUAL CONDITION OF CHRIST TO THE HOLY SPIRIT-AGENT A Dialectic of Flesh-Spirit at the Root of New Testament Pneumatology by John Sunday ADIMULA, CSSp

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2021

ISBN 978-90-429-4500-5 eISBN 978-90-429-4501-2 D/2021/0602/62 A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2021, Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium

In loving memory of a caring and compassionate mother, Moriamo Grace Adimula, in gratitude for a life well lived in-the-spirit.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am very grateful to the Holy Spirit who inspired and directed me throughout my doctorate studies (this work is the product of my PhD research). In a very special way, I appreciate His gifts of courage, strength and good health bestowed upon me to complete this work. May the Name of the Lord, who by the light of the Holy Spirit did instruct my heart, be always glorified and worshipped. From the depth of my heart, I express my immense gratitude to my thesis director, Michel Gourgues, O.P., who despite his breathless academic demands, dedicatedly read the manuscript and made useful corrections and contributions. In fact, he allowed me to tap from his wealth of knowledge. Only God can reward you enough and I pray He does. To my Provincial, Very Rev. Fr. Dr. Ayodele Ayeni, C.S.Sp who gave me the opportunity to further my studies to PhD level and offered me relevant intellectual assistance, I cannot thank you enough; I sincerely appreciate your effort and sacrifices towards my studies. I also extend my appreciation to the readers of the manuscript ‒ Michel Proulx, Yvan Mathieu, Aurelie Caldwell, Hervé Tremblay, and Michel Gourgues ‒ I sincerely appreciate all your corrections and contributions. My unalloyed gratitude goes to my late mother, Mrs. Grace Moriamo Adimula whose prayer and support I enjoyed during my studies before her passing onto Glory. I also thank my siblings for their love and support and my good friend Patricia Ofilia Sindzi. For what you are to me and for your contributions to the success of this work, I pray that God will enrich and reward you abundantly. Amen. John S. ADIMULA September, 2020

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS The abbreviations of the books of the Bible used are those of the New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, except otherwise stated.

BIBLE VERSIONS ASV ESV KJV NASB NEB NIV NJB NKJV NRSV RSV

American Standard Version English Standard Version King James Version New American Standard Bible/Version New English Bible New International Version New Jerusalem Bible New King James Version New Revised Standard Version Revised Standard Version

REFERENCE WORKS, PERIODICALS, JOURNALS AND SERIALS AASF AB ABD ACCS.NT AGJU AJBI AJTh ANAWSP AnBib AnGr ANTC APB ATANT AYBC BA BBC BBET BCWT BECNT BETL

Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute American Journal of Theology Abhandlungen der Nordrhein-Westfӓllischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Sonderreihe Papyrologica Coloniensia Analecta Biblica Analecta Gregoriana Abingdon New Testament Commentaries Acta Patristica et Byzantina Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries Bible d’Alexandrie Broadman Bible Commentary Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie Bible Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium

XII

BI Bib BiTS BJRL BK BNTC BP BS BST BThB BZ BZNW CbNT CBQ CCSS CEB.NT CÉv CÉv.S CJ CJCTS CNT CS ECC ECS EDNT EGGNT EKK EQ ÉtB EThS EV EvT ExpTim FN FRLANT FV GJ HBS HNT HTKNT HTS IBC I,BCT IBS ICC Int. IThQ

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Biblical Interpretation Biblica Biblical Tools and Studies Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Bibel und Kirche Black’s New Testament Commentary Bibliothèque de la Pléiade Bibliotheca sacra Bible Speaks Today Biblical Theology Bulletin Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Commentaire biblique: Nouveau Testament Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture Commentaire évangélique de la Bible. Nouveau Testament Cahiers Évangile Cahiers Évangile. Supplément Concordia Journal Clark Jewish and Christian Texts Series Commentaire du Nouveau Testament Commentaire Sator Eerdmans Critical Commentary Epworth Commentaries Series Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Evangelical Quarterly Études Bibliques Evangelical Theological Society Esprit et vie Evangelische Theologie Expository Times Filologia Neotestamentaria Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Foi et vie Grace Journal Herders biblische Studien Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Hervormde Teologiese Studies International Bible Commentary Interpretation, Bible Commentary for Teaching Interpretation Bible Studies International Critical Commentary Interpretation Irish Theological Quarterly

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

IVP NTC JBL JBTC JDT JETS JLBThS JSNT JSNT.S JThI JThS KEK LeDiv LeDivCom LiBi LXX MNTC NAC NBC NCaBC NCBC NIBC NICNT NIGTC NIVAC NT NTA NTCS NTD NTS NT.S NTSCE OThM PCNT PNTC PRS PVTG RaT RB RCarT RelSp RevExp RevSR RHBC RNT RNTS RST RT RThPh

XIII

IVP New Testament Commentary Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Supplement series Journal of Theological Interpretation Journal of Theological Studies Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament Lectio Divina Lectio Divina. Commentaire Lire la Bible Septuaginta/Septuagint Moffatt New Testament Commentary New American Commentary New Biblical Commentary New Cambridge Bible Commentary New Century Bible Commentary New International Biblical Commentary New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Greek Testament Commentary New International Version Application Commentary Novum Testamentum/ Le Nouveau Testament/ New Testament Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen New Testament Commentary Series Das Neue Testament Deutsch New Testament Studies Novum Testamentum. Supplements New Testament Studies in Contextual Exegesis Oxford Theological Monographs Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament Pelican New Testament Commentaries Perspectives in Religious Studies Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece Rassegna di Teologia Revue biblique Revista catalana de Teologia Religions et spiritualité Review and Expositor Revue des sciences religieuses Randall House Bible Commentary Regensburger Neues Testament Reading the New Testament Series Regensburger Studien zur Theologie Roczniki Teologiczne Revue de théologie et de philosophie

XIV

SBEC SBi SBL.DS SBT ScEs SD SDB SémBib SJTh SKKNT SNT SNTSMS SNTU SP SRivBib StEv StT SVTP TD TDNT TJ THKNT TWNT TNTC TZ UBS UBS.HS VS WBC WmBC WMANT WThJ WUNT WW ZBK ZBK.NT ZGRS ZNW

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Studies in Bible and Early Christianity Sources bibliques Society of Biblical Literature. Dissertation series Studies in Biblical Theology Science et esprit Studies and Documents Supplement au Dictionnaire de la Bible Sémiotique et Bible Scottish Journal of Theology Stuttgarter Kleiner Kommentar Neues Testament Studien zum Neuen Testament Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt Sacra Pagina Supplementi alla Rivista biblica Studia Evangelica Studia Theologica (Scandanavian Journal of Theology) Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha Theology Digest Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Trinity Journal Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Theologische Zeitschrift United Bible Societies United Bible Societies. Handbook Series Verbum Salutis Word Biblical Commentary Westminster Bible Companion Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Word World Zürcher Bibel Kommentare Zürcher Bibel Kommentare. Neues Testament Zondervan Greek Reference Series Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft DEAD SEA SCROLLS

1QH 1QM 1QS 4QFlor 4QpGen

Hôdayôt (Thanksgiving Hymns) from Qumran Cave 1 Milḫāmāh (War Scroll) from Qumran Cave 1 Serek hayyaḫad (Community Rule, Manual of Discipline) from Qumran Cave 1 Florilegium (or Eschatological Midrashim) from Qumran Cave 4 Pesher on Genesis from Qumran Cave 4

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

4QpIsaa CD

XV

Pesher on first copy of Isaiah from Qumran Cave 4 Cairo (Genizah text of the) Damascus (Document) OLD TESTAMENT PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

Apocalyptic 1 Enoch 2 Enoch 3 Enoch Sib Or 2 Apoc Bar 3 Apoc Bar

Ethiopic Enoch (2nd century BCE to 1st century CE) Slavonic Enoch (late 1st century CE) Hebrew Enoch (5th to 6th centuries CE) Sibylline Oracles (2nd century BCE to 7th century CE) Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (early 2nd century CE) Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (1st to 3rd centuries CE)

Testaments T. Levi T. Mos T. Abr T. Dan T. 12 Patr

Testament of Levi (probably 2nd to 1st century BCE) Testament of Moses or Assumption of Moses (1st century CE) Testament of Abraham (1st to 2nd centuries CE) Testament of Dan (1st to 2nd centuries CE) Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (current form is Christian, 150–200 CE)

Expansions of Old Testament and Other Legends Jub Asc Isa Apoc Mos Hist Rech

Jubilees (Jewish, 150–100 BCE) Ascension of Isaiah (in three sections: the first Jewish from c. 100 BCE, 2nd and 3rd are Christian. The second from c. 2nd century CE, and the third c. 90–100 CE) Apocalypse of Moses (early to middle 1st century CE) History of the Rechabites (6th century CE)

Wisdom and Philosophical Literature 4 Macc

4 Maccabees (Jewish, c. before 70 CE)

Prayers, Psalms and Odes Ps Sol Pr Man Odes Sol

Psalms of Solomon (Jewish, c. 50 to 5 BCE) Prayer of Manasseh (early 1st century CE) Odes of Solomon (c. 100 CE) APOSTOLIC FATHERS’ WRITINGS

1 Clem 2 Clem

First Clement Second Clement

XVI

Barn Ign Eph Ign Phil Ign Pol Ign Smyrn Irenaeus Haer Justin Dial Mart Pol Herm Sim

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Epistle of Barnabas Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans Irenaeus Adversus Haereses Justin Dialogue Martyrdom of Polycarp Shephard of Hermas (Similitudes)

LIST OF TABLES AND SCHEMATA A. Three Stanzas of Two Lines of the Christological Hymn in 1 Tim 3:16b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. The Sequence of the Lived Experiences of Christ (in Relation to that of the Believers) within the Surrounding Context of 1 Pet 3:18-22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Grammatical Construction in 1 Pet 3:18 and 22 . . . . . . . . D. Correspondences Between 1 Pet 3:18,22 and Rom 8:34 . . . E. Parallelism Between 1 Pet 3:18c,d, 22 and 1 Tim 3:16b: The Greek Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. Parallelism Between Rom 1:3 and 1:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . G. Attestation of the Language of “holiness” in Pauline Corpus Anterior to Romans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. Two Modes of Existence: Antithetical Expressions in 1 Cor 15:42b-47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Common Terminologies in 1 Pet 3:22 Present in Other Similar Passages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J. Christological Motifs in 1 Pet 3:18,22 and their Presence in Other Passages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K. Evolution of πνεῦμα: Different Usages Anterior to Paul and in Pauline Corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31

65 69 85 89 105 134 146 207 208 212

ABSTRACT The Holy Spirit is a personal agent acting in collaboration with the Father and the Son in the New Testament writings. This idea was not obvious at the oral stage of the followers of Christ. This work challenges the authors who see in the oral stage the usage already of the concept of the Holy Spirit as an agent. It critically analyses the controversial texts which have been interpreted in that regard. It then shows that the term πνεῦμα evolved to incorporate the idea of personal agent. In other words, this work aims at demonstrating the gradual evolution and development of the use of the term πνεῦμα to its later designation as πνεῦμα-agent. It investigates into the oral tradition’s usage of πνεῦμα which happens to be used in antithesis with σάρξ in relation to the mystery of Christ to portray his spiritual condition. The term was not used to designate the Holy Spirit as a personal agent but rather as a condition of Christ after his resurrection. Among other texts, this work analyses and explores Rom 1:4 and concludes that the link to the evolution of πνεῦμα from the spiritual condition of the Resurrected Christ to πνεῦμα-Agent is found in this oral tradition creedal formula with the addition of Paul’s idea of the Holy Spirit as Sanctifier.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND KEY TO UNDERSTANDING A. INTRODUCTION It is interesting to note that from the early writings of the New Testament, the Spirit has taken a central part in forming the faith of the early Christian communities. A look at the letters of Paul, especially his first letters written about 20-25 years after the death of Jesus, testifies to this fact. The term “spirit of God” as it is being used in the Old Testament is evident in these early letters.1 From this period, the significance and the functions of the spirit are now thought of and spoken in reference to Christ. An exegete will find it interesting to know how the use of the word πνεῦμα from the early Christian faith expression gradually develops. What was the conception of πνεῦμα between the period of the death of Christ and the first New Testament writings? From the early New Testament writings, one observes that it is a great innovation that πνεῦμα is no more given only to persons of exceptional characters having to exert extraordinary roles. For example, in the Old Testament, the spirit was given selectively and temporarily to indwell certain individuals for special ministries. It was neither universal nor was it permanent. The words of the Psalmist in Ps 51:11, “Do not cast me away from your presence, and do not take your holy spirit from me” make sense in the light of 1 Sam 10:5-13, where the spirit came mightily upon Saul, enabling him to serve as King of Israel. One knows from 1 Sam 16:14 and 18:10 that the spirit departed from Saul and was replaced by an evil spirit sent by God. God was taking away Saul’s kingdom, and so too the spirit that empowered him as king. The spirit then came upon David (cf. 1 Sam 16:13). It is therefore clear why David, to whom Ps 51 is attributed, would be concerned about the spirit of God leaving him, as the spirit departed from Saul.

1 See for example: 1 Thess 4:8; 1 Cor 2:11-12,14; 3:16; 6:11; 7:40; 12:3; 2 Cor 3:3; cf. 2 Cor 1:21-22; 5:5. The biblical quotations used in this work are mostly from the New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition. There are a few personal translations directly from Greek to English.

2

GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND KEY TO UNDERSTANDING

The Spirit lives from now on in each believer2 since all, Greeks as well as Jews, slaves or free at the time of baptism in Christ, are all made to drink of the same Spirit (1 Cor 12:13).3 All believers have been transformed, sanctified, justified, “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11). The Spirit who formerly made the prophets speak in a unique mission (Isa 61:1) now inspires anyone who is called to speak in an assembly gathered in the name of Christ.4 In 2 Cor 13:13 one finds the mention of the Spirit already in the final greetings and benediction of the writer which points to one of the oldest mentions of the Spirit after that of God and Christ: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you”. Even before, in the very first letter of Paul (1 Thess 1:5-6; 4:8; 5:19), the mention of the Holy Spirit is already present. 1 Thessalonians does not contain any development on the Holy Spirit, as it is found in 1 Cor 12-14 and in the following letters. The Spirit is only mentioned four times in passing, while it appears twenty-four times in 1 Corinthians and twenty-seven in Romans.5 It shows that, from its very first lines, 1 Thessalonians presents itself as a well-identified Christian writing. The first six verses indeed contain two mentions of God as “Father” (1:1,3a) two of the “Lord Jesus Christ” (1:1,3b) and two of “the Holy Spirit” (1:5,6). The fact that these designations are used without explanation shows that they were already known, and that the first Christian generation had already tamed what the later tradition will designate as the trinitarian face of God. If already one could talk about the Spirit in this way, as an individual agent distinct in person from the Father and the Son, at the end of the first Christian generation, how does it come about? If it is possible and more usual to retrace the downstream evolution that pneumatology must have known up to the evolved expressions of the fourth gospel, how far can one go back upstream? From the initial period between the death of Jesus and the first letters of Paul, as it is known, there are no written records. One must rely on a few fragments of hymns or confessions of faith, sometimes a few words, sometimes a few lines, disseminated and hidden here and there in the later writings, especially the epistolary corpus of the New 2

1 Cor 3:16; 6:19. “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” (1 Cor 3:16). The Greek word for “you” used here is plural ὑμῖν. 4 Cf. 1 Cor 14:31,37. 5 The term πνεῦμα appears 5 times in 1 Thessalonians with one occurrence not referring to the Holy Spirit. It appears 40 times in 1 Corinthians with 16 occurrences not referring to the Holy Spirit; and 34 times in Romans with 7 occurrences not referring to the Holy Spirit. 3

GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND KEY TO UNDERSTANDING

3

Testament. What place does the mention of πνεῦμα occupy in these oldest vestiges of the Christian faith? In the formulas generally recognised as pre-dating the letters of Paul, only three of them express vividly πνεῦμα. In a striking way, in all the three, this term is put in opposition to that of σάρξ. The texts that contain the ancient Christian proclamation that appealed to that dialectic of flesh and spirit and which will be explored and analysed in this work are: 1 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 3:18 and Rom 1:3-4. Many biblical scholars have found in these texts some traces of the ancient fragments of Christian confessions of faith. Nevertheless, in their interpretations of these texts, there is no uniformity. To what extent do the contexts of these texts show them to be representatives of the ancient Christian formulas? What role does the reality expressed by the word πνεῦμα play and what interpretations can one have concerning its function? In this work, the methodological steps enumerated below as formal analysis will be followed. B. METHODOLOGY: HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHODS The problem of retracing the historical evolution of the notion of πνεῦμα in early Christianity naturally leads to favouring the historico-critical approach. This is partly in order to situate the texts in their context of historical emergence and to examine their contents by using a specific approach aimed at identifying their literary characteristics and theological significance, notably by bringing them together with other texts similarly located from the historical point of view. The methods employed therefore in this work rest on the interpretative and historical situations of the texts concerned.6 In doing that, practical and literal approaches to the texts are visibly engaged. These methods are important in order to arrive at more certain conclusions on each text and to avoid the tendency to overburden the texts with absolute theological content and ideologies domesticated to favour one interpreter or the other or a particular theological belief conditioned by culture and hegemonistic agenda. 6

For more explanation of these methods see: M. GOURGUES 2020; C. R. HOLLADAY 2005, 16-24, 39-57, 227-240, 263-281, 348-360; M. EBNER, B. HEININGER 2005, 1-24, 157-165, 205-218, 325-345, 347-359; D. MARGUERAT et al. 2000, 139-158; B. EHRMAN 2 2000, 13-15, 260-275; V. P. BRANICK 1998, 5-19; R. E. BROWN 1997, 3-47; T. SÖDING, C. MÜNCH 1998, 16-80, 221-304; H. RIEDLINGER et al. 1985, 54-71; C. M. TUCKETT 1987, 41-187; P. GUILLEMETTE, M. BRISEBOIS 1987; H. ZIMMERMANN 1982, 17-49, 77-84, 125178, 215-237; E. KRENTZ 1975, 33-88.

4

GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND KEY TO UNDERSTANDING

Scholars’ various exegetical propositions and positions in historicalcritical research on different texts concerned in this work will be sorted out to see which alternative best fits into the larger argument. In order not to impose later ideologies into the early century tradition, the linguistic, religious, concepts and intellectual horizon of each epoch will be employed. The aim of employing these methods is to sharpen the early traditions’ tenets so that they could fit into dialogue with the later tradition and clarify the development that might have taken place in various interpretative endeavours in the evolution of πνεῦμα and its usage. Formal Analysis The process of asking questions is at the heart of exegetical methods. These questions arise from a critical reading of the texts of the subject matter and from the approaches one employs. Therefore, to begin this work and do it well, one needs to follow some steps. The methodological steps are outlined below. 1. Delimitation Delimitation defines the parameters of this investigation. First of all, in this research, the pericopes are delimited. It will be explained why it has been decided to start a pericope from a particular verse and end it at a particular verse ‒ where does the passage begin and end? What aids in the delimitation of a pericope are its distinctive characteristics such as the style, structure, grammatical construction and so on. The delimitation of a pericope will make it easier to pinpoint the issue at stake. In doing this, two questions may arise, namely, a) can the pericope be isolated from its environment from the logical and semantic point of view? And b) what is the importance of the pericope to its environment? 2. Textual Criticism It is obvious that some texts have some variant readings in their ancient manuscripts and two pericopes in this work are no exceptions. This may be the result of scribal errors, interpolations or textual corruptions.7 At this stage, textual criticism will be applied to the pericopes (as evident in 1 Tim 3:16 and 1 Pet 3:18) in order to determine which variant reading has the highest probability to be the original text. These variant texts could lead to different readings which may eventually lead to different interpretations. 7

B. M. METZGER, B. D. EHRMAN 42005, 250-271.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND KEY TO UNDERSTANDING

5

3. Literary Context: Context of Integration of the Pericope The context in which the text is situated is examined. This will lead to some questions: a) where does the pericope come in relation to its context? b) what comes before and after the delimited pericope? c) how does the examination of the environment of the text throw light on the understanding of the text itself and its role within the context? 4. Structure of the Text Having delimited the pericopes, one has to determine what goes with it. The questions to ask are: a) what is the structure of the delimited pericope? b) Is the structure of the pericope coherent? c) Are there major sections within the text? If there are, how do they relate? For example, in 1 Pet 3:1822 one could easily find a kind of interruption from verses 19-21 showing sections in the passage. In the pericopes delimited, one can easily find that there is an antithesis of flesh and spirit common to them (1 Tim 3:16b; 1 Pet 3:18 and Rom 1:3-4; and even in 1 Cor 15:44-45 where πνεῦμα is contrasted with ψυχή). 5. Exploration of the Pericopes This stage concerns the exegesis, analysis and interpretation of the pericopes. Other relevant passages of the New Testament and Old Testament are also explored as well in order to have a reasonable result. 6. Literary Genre and Primitive Character Having delimited the pericopes and explored them, the genre would be discovered to be, for example, that of hymnal type or containing fragments of creedal confessions especially when their affinities with other primitive hymns or creeds are compared. Since these creedal confessions and other fragments of hymn in the pericopes appeared in the later writings of the New Testament (especially Romans, 1 Timothy and 1 Peter), the question is this: could this be retraced to the period before Pauline writings, in other words, are they primitive formulas appearing in the later writings or borrowed by the later writers? Having come to this stage, the criteria for detecting pre-literary formulas will be applied to the pericopes. In this work, the criteria enumerated by Michel Gourgues in one of his articles will be employed.8 This author mentions six to seven ways of detecting ancient formulas in the New Testament writings. These criteria include rupture from the environment, introductory 8

M. GOURGUES 2016, 221-237.

6

GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND KEY TO UNDERSTANDING

phrases indicating a citation, special beginning, distinctive style, disparity of vocabulary, multiple attestations and reminiscence form or mode of allusion.9 Among these criteria, two of them are more reliable in verifying quotations from pre-literary materials: multiple attestations and uniqueness of vocabulary. A brief description will be given to each criterion here and an elaborate investigation will be made in later chapters as they apply to the pericopes. I) Rupture from the environment: This is a criterion that has to do with a critical look at the environment of the portion of the text in question that is suspected to be containing an ancient formula. The surrounding of the text in question is investigated to see if it corresponds to the portion in question. If by looking at the antecedence and what follows one notices differences from the point of view of the form or the content, then one begins to suspect it to be alien to the original writer. This is obvious, for example, in 1 Tim 3:14-15 and 4:1-7, that form the environment of the proclamation in 1 Tim 3:16. II) Introductory phrases indicating a citation: This is another means which could be used to show that a portion of a text is not original to the writer. When the writer introduces a passage in a special way, it can indicate that the writer is quoting or borrowing from another source. This criterion is evident at the beginning of 1 Tim 3:16. Other similar introductory formulas could be found in 1 Thess 4:14; 1 Cor 12:3; 15:3; Rom 10:9; Eph 5:14; 2 Tim 2:11. III) Special beginning: When a portion of a text has a unique beginning, for example the relative pronoun, ὃς, that is found at the beginning of 1 Tim 3:16b; Phil 2:6-11 and Col 1:15-20, then one may suspect that the portion is borrowed by the author. IV) Distinctive style: On looking at the proclamation in question, one discovers a special way of arrangement with special characteristics, namely, correspondences, parallelism, rhythm, assonances, and other elements that differ from its environment. If this be the case, then it is very likely to be alien to the writer. This is seen in the stylish presentation of 1 Tim 3:16b; 1 Cor 15:3-5 and Phil 2:6-11.

9 The high concentration of these criteria within a text cannot but be striking and shows a high sign of the presence of pre-existing materials, especially with the presence of that of multiple attestations. These criteria are interwoven with those for delimitation and the structure of a text.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND KEY TO UNDERSTANDING

7

V) The disparity of vocabulary: When the vocabulary in the text in question is particular to it and absent or rare in the other works of the author, it may indicate that it is borrowed, possibly from ancient tradition. VI) Multiple attestations: When the same formula is found somewhere else in the writings with similar characters and styles, then one may accept that it is a general and pre-Pauline belief that is being borrowed in the passage in question. VII) Reminiscence form or mode of allusion: Sometimes to detect some traditional formulas from the writings, one may have to do that under the form of reminiscence or allusion. It is good to take the proclamation in Rom 8:34 to illustrate this point: “Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us.” It seems that Paul was making reference to the traditional confession of faith cited in 1 Cor 15:3-5 (“...that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures”), but he does that by mode of allusion while accommodating the formulation to its development. In the same way, he writes in Rom 4:24: “It will be reckoned to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead”.10 Here it seems Paul makes an echo to the proclamation “Jesus Christ is Lord” cited in Phil 2:11 and 1 Cor 12:3. One sees this also in 1 Pet 3:18-22 with reference to 1 Cor 15:3; Rom 1:3-4; 1 Tim 3:16; Rom 8:34; Col 1:16; 3:1. C. STATE OF THE QUESTION: HYPOTHESES OF SCHOLARS AND COMMENTATORS11 With regard to the emergence and the use of the word πνεῦμα from the ancient Christian community of faith, there have been diverse interpretations of some of the expressions (formulas) found in the New Testament writings which have, to a great extent, been regarded as pre-dating them. In interpreting some of these expressions that pertain to the usage and function of πνεῦμα, some commentators have found the concept of the Holy Spirit already in use at the pre-Pauline period while many disagree. This section will focus on the different views and arguments of some scholars and commentators on the two major disputed areas that are taken from 1 Tim 3:16 and Rom 1:4, namely: 10 11

The italics, (Jesus and Lord), is that of this author. Detail analysis will be given under the exploration of each appropriate chapter.

8

GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND KEY TO UNDERSTANDING

1. ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι (“was justified in spirit”) 2. κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης (“according to the spirit of holiness”) 1. “Justified in spirit” (1 Tim 3:16b)12 Among the traditional formulas attesting to the dialectic σάρξ-πνεῦμα in relation to Christ and his resurrection, 1 Tim 3:16 stands out. The phrase ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι remains to be clearly understood. What does this ancient Christological hymn mean by justification in spirit? For Martin Dibelius, justification in the context of 1 Timothy should be seen from the Hellenistic perspective of “divinised” person; meaning that Jesus was deified as he entered the spiritual world. It has also been viewed as the revelation of the true identity of Jesus which is connected to the Easter manifestation. Ceslas Spicq believes that the spiritualised body is justified in order to prove Christ’s divinity. That is to say that Jesus’ identity which he had before the incarnation was justified by his appearance in the spiritual condition brought about by his resurrection. Martin Hengel and Xavier Léon-Dufour see it as a divine sanction which is opposed to the curse of the cross of Jesus. In a similar way, Stephen Fowl considers justification as a divine sanction of Christ from his earthly life. On the interpretation of the whole line, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, three major views could be identified, namely, interpretation referring to: a) The Earthly Life of Jesus b) Jesus Between his Death and Resurrection c) Spiritual Realm a) The Earthly Life of Jesus Those who go by this interpretation see a reference of the anointing of Jesus at baptism to the Holy Spirit. The phrase “in spirit” is read as referring to the action of the Holy Spirit and thereby connected it to the works of Jesus on earth accomplished by the Holy Spirit, including his resurrection from the dead, that it is attributed to the Holy Spirit. Jerome MurphyO’Connor maintains that the phrase refers to the life of Jesus under the action of the Spirit. George Knight also believes that the clause refers to the Holy Spirit. His interpretation is based on the usage of πνεῦμα in its surrounding passage 12 For the references to the views of scholars and commentators on the interpretation of the expression ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι (1 Tim 3:16b), see footnotes on pp. 38-46 where this point will be treated in a more elaborate way.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND KEY TO UNDERSTANDING

9

(1 Tim 4:1). He holds that πνεῦμα, as used here, clearly portrays the action of the Spirit. In the same vein, Robert Falconer holds that the phrase refers to the Holy Spirit. b) Jesus Between his Death and Resurrection Robert Gundry holds this view that the spirit of Jesus went into the Descensus ad Inferos before his resurrection. He associates the clause ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι to the human spirit of Christ and at the same time to the realm in which Christ was vindicated or justified. c) Spiritual Realm Many scholars view the clause as referring to the spiritual condition or realm of Jesus brought about by his resurrection. According to Gordon Fee, the clause should not be read as “to the Holy Spirit” but as a spiritual realm of existence of Christ’s resurrection. Similarly, Stephen Fowl maintains that the clause is a statement of vindication of Christ in the spiritual or heavenly realm. Michel Gourgues also believes that the clause refers to the heavenly condition of the Risen One and not to the paschal apparitions. Other scholars of the same view include Anthony Hanson, Walter Lock, John N.D. Kelly, Victor Hasler, Werner Stenger and Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann. Joseph Reuss seems to combine many ideas into the reading of 1 Tim 3:16. According to him, this text tries to show the two natures of Christ through the opposition flesh-spirit. The revelation of Christ in the flesh opposes his justification in the spirit. He maintains that the revelation in the flesh is the incarnation of Christ, the entrance of Christ into this world when he became man by taking human nature while leaving his divine existence behind to take a human body. He submits that it is by the Spirit that Jesus Christ was justified and attested to as divine and spiritual. It is by the Spirit that God shows that Jesus who was put to death on the cross as a criminal was in reality “just and holy”. It seems clear that Reuss also feels that 1 Pet 3:18 depends on 1 Tim 3:16. He, therefore, concludes that it is by the means of the resurrection which is the work of the Spirit that Jesus Christ becomes divine that he was.13 He quotes Rom 8:11 to show that the resurrection is the work of the Spirit.14

13 This view (of Reuss) is not engaged further at the exploration section because his concluding statement is obviously untenable. 14 J. REUSS 1965, 65-66.

10

GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND KEY TO UNDERSTANDING

2. “According to the spirit of holiness” (Rom 1:4) How does one interpret this expression, κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης within its context? Does it refer to the Holy Spirit? Or does one have to look at it as corresponding to “the flesh,” as “spirit” and “flesh” correspond in human being? This expression is not clear and is disputed by scholars and biblical commentators. The different views on the interpretation of this clause will be categorised into three. Those who see it as referring to: a) the Divine Nature b) the Holy Spirit c) the Manner or Condition of Spiritual Existence a) As the Divine Nature A few commentators such as Leroy Forlines, Charles Hodge, William Sanday ‒ Arthur Headlam, Herman Olshausen, and Nathaniel Smith Richardson have read this clause to be referring to the divine nature of Jesus.15 They see in this passage the two natures of Christ, human and Divine. Verse 3 is seen as referring to the human nature, and in comparison with verse 4, they read the divine nature of Christ. They try to maintain the antithesis flesh-spirit but interpreted it as the two natures of Christ. For these authors, the expression has nothing to do with the two mode of existence, namely, earthly and spiritual. b) The Holy Spirit The argument here is somewhat similar to that of 1 Tim 3:16. It is the Holy Spirit working in Christ who accomplishes Jesus’ resurrection and every other miracle he performs or that is associated with him.16 At the incarnation, Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and was raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit. The expression, κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, is read instrumentally to mean, “by the Holy Spirit”. c) The Manner or Condition of Spiritual Existence Rudolf Schnackenburg opines that κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης does not refer to that Spirit that Jesus possesses and the Spirit that he gives, but it is the spirit that determines his heavenly state, that characterises his mode 15 For the references to these authors see footnote on p. 112 where this point will be treated in a more elaborate way. 16 For the authors who hold this view, see footnotes 74 on p. 113 where this subject is treated in detail.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND KEY TO UNDERSTANDING

11

of existence just as the “flesh” in verse 3 characterises his earthly manner of being. It is not the question of the human and spirit of Jesus or his nature but his modes of existence.17 Eduard Schweizer notes that because of the parallel relationship with κατὰ σάρκα of verse 3, κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης should not be read instrumentally to mean the Holy Spirit. These should be read “in the sphere of the flesh” and “in the sphere of the Spirit”.18 Other scholars with this view include Charles Barrett and Ernst Käsemann.19 John Murray holds that “just as ‘according to the flesh’ (κατὰ σάρκα) in verse 3 defines the phase which came to be through being born of the seed of David, so ‘according to the spirit of holiness’ (κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης) characterises the phase which came to be through the resurrection”.20 He concludes that κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης refers to that stage of pneumatic endowment upon which Jesus entered through his resurrection. From the foregoing, it is obvious that there is no uniformity in the understanding and interpretation of these two clauses, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι in 1 Tim 3:16 and κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης in Rom 1:4, in relation to the mystery of Christ, concerning, in particular, the meaning and function of πνεῦμα at the early stage of Christ’s followers. From all these interpretations, something is obvious: that the clear concept of the Holy Spirit as a Divine Person (Divine Agent) with regard to the usage of πνεῦμα is still opaque at the time of the first Christian communities of faith. D. PLAN: OVERVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THIS WORK An enquiry into the teaching of the New Testament on the evolution of the meaning and function of πνεῦμα must begin with a retrospect. The New Testament writings assume an acquaintance with the primitive faith community’s understanding of the term πνεῦμα and start from it. Before one can follow the Apostolic writers in their advancement upon the conception of this subject matter, one must try to understand what the primitive Christian community’s ideas were. It is on this note that this work will begin following the methodological steps described above. This work will contain two major stages. From these major stages, there will be titles and subtitles to each stage. The first stage will contain the primitive Christian period, the period before the New Testament writings, that 17 18 19 20

R. SCHNACKENBURG 1974, 68. E. SCHWEIZER 1963, 187. C. K. BARRETT 1957, 18; E. KÄSEMANN 1980, 12. J. MURRAY 1959, 11.

12

GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND KEY TO UNDERSTANDING

is, from 30 years to 50 years between the resurrection of Christ and before Pauline writings.21 The stage will examine the pre-Pauline formulas which could be found in the New Testament writings as hymns, creeds or confessions of faith. There are criteria for detecting these ancient traditional hymns and confession of faith.22 They will be employed in this first stage to distinguish ancient traditional vestiges from Paul’s and other New Testament writers (particularly to the limited pericopes of this work). From this stage, it will be discovered that the term πνεῦμα has been part and parcel of the early Christian expression of faith. Three major pericopes will be explored, starting from 1 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 3:18-22 and end with Rom 1:3-4. This order of these passages is influenced by their proximity to the early tradition. In other words, 1 Timothy is chosen first because, literally, the formula in the pericope shows to a large extent to be more representative of primitive Christian confession and more elaborate in that sense than the other two passages. Closer to it is 1 Peter which has the same presentation of the antithesis σάρξ-πνεῦμα, while Romans has an addition of the substantive ἁγιωσύνης to πνεῦμα. Furthermore, this order of passages is based not on the chronological order but on the problematic of the verses concerned in this work which focus on the antithesis of flesh-spirit in relation to Christ. The examination begins from the less difficult verse or verses to the more difficult one. Within the first stage, it will be discovered that the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus from the primitive Christian conception is thought of and spoken of in a dialectic perspective of flesh and spirit. The uses of this antithesis in other New Testament writings and other traditions and cultures will be exposed briefly below in order to make a clear distinction from the one concerned in this work. The terminologies and vocabularies used in employing these opposing realities will be analysed. The second stage will delve into the process of evolution from πνεῦμα, spirit as a condition of Christ’s spiritual or heavenly existence to Πνεῦμα as the Holy Spirit-Agent. Here, Rom 1:3-4 might serve as a revealing passage in this regard with Pauline similar antithetical usage in 1 Cor 15 while describing and explaining the resurrection body of the believers after that of Christ’s. It will be clear that the early Christians knew and spoke of the spirit and that the concept of the Holy Spirit as a personal agent was not attested to at that period ‒ at least as evident in the ancient tradition 21 The first writings of the New Testament came from Paul around 50 and 70 AD; the first letters being 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians (written between 50-55 AD). 22 These criteria have been explained at the introductory section above, pp. 6-7.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND KEY TO UNDERSTANDING

13

formulas. The scope will be widened by researching into other New Testament passages that show some relations to the pneumatic condition of Christ in his resurrection.

AN

E. THE USAGE OF THE DIALECTIC FLESH-SPIRIT (ΣΑΡΞ-ΠΝΕΥΜΑ): EARLY MANNER OF DESCRIPTION APPLIED TO THE MYSTERY OF CHRIST AND OTHER USAGES

This is concerned with the usage of the antithesis of flesh and spirit basically in the New Testament, and also its usage before the New Testament era. It is important to expose this in order to distinguish its early usage in application to Christ in particular and other usages in general. Is there any difference? What are the different ways it is used in the New Testament and how do they contribute to the understanding of the purpose of this work? 1. The Dialectic flesh-spirit Before the Christian Era: A Brief Hint The major interest here would be on the Greek literature because this work is primarily based on the New Testament which was written originally in Greek language. Therefore, it is appropriate to limit the investigation of the usage of the antithesis to the same or similar language which carries probably similar culture. 1.1. Flesh-spirit in Ancient Greek Literature23 Among the ancient Greek writers (Pythagoras, Plutarch, Epictetus), the most obvious usage of the antithesis flesh-spirit shows the dichotomy in man. In other words, it describes the anthropological aspect of human, that is, man is made up of σάρξ (as physical body) and πνεῦμα (as the substance of the soul). It seems obvious then that πνεῦμα and ψυχή are employed synonymously in some early Greek writings and also σάρξ and σῶμα.24 When σάρξ-πνεῦμα is used, it obviously, in most cases, refers to the body without any ethical implication or strict psychological sense like human emotion, inclination or determination. It does not also carry a strict spiritual sense. 23 For an elaborate discussion on this topic see for example the following authors: M. CLARKE 1999; S. D. SULLIVAN 1988; J. BREMMER 1983; B. SNELL 1975; E. ROHDE 1925; E. D. BURTON 1918. 24 Zeno, Fr. 136 (V. Arnim, I.38.6-9), Fr. 140 (V. Arnim, I.38.30-33); Homer in Iliad XXII, 417 where ψυχή was referred to as breath (which ordinarily would have used the term πνεῦμα) which resides in the σῶμα, cf. M. E. ISAACS 1976, 15.

14

GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND KEY TO UNDERSTANDING

The obvious claim one could make about the usage of this antithesis in the ancient Greek literature is that it is used of the anthropological dimension of humans without moral attachment (no moral evil is ascribed to σάρξ in particular), spiritual sense or psychic sense.25 In the same vein, Ernest D. Burton observes that “The entire absence of πνεῦμα as a psychological term or as a predicate of God, absence of any ethical use of the word σάρξ [in early Greek literature] tend to indicate the New Testament usage of these words has been under influences quite different from those which common Greek usage of the century”.26 1.2. Flesh-spirit in the Old Testament (Septuagint LXX): A Short Analysis27 It appears that the decisive background to the antithetical usage of flesh and spirit is traceable to the Old Testament. Three passages will be examined here to show how it is employed. a) Numbers 16:22 This verse was the response of Moses and Aaron to Yahweh when he was about to destroy the congregation because of the revolt of Korah and his company. Moses and Aaron said to God, “O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one person sin and you become angry with the whole congregation?” They addressed God as “God of the spirits of all flesh”. It seems that from its Hebraic understanding, it refers to human beings in their two natures: transcendence and physical. He is formed of spirit and of flesh and he relates with God in his transcendence; a spirit in the flesh formed by God.28 The Septuagint translates it as θεὸς, θεὸς τῶν πνευμάτων καὶ πάσης σαρκός (“the God of spirits and of all flesh”).29 The LXX translation seems clearly to make a distinction between two realms, namely, spiritual and physical. In both readings, there is a kind of distinction between two realities, in humans as two anthropological components and two realms or spheres distinguishing the human realm from the spiritual realm. b) Numbers 27:16 In Num 27:16, a similar expression is found, “Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint someone over the congregation”. This 25

Cf. M. E. ISAACS 1976, 11; E. D. BURTON 1916, 390-413. E. D. BURTON 1916, 397. 27 For more discussion on this subject see for example: D. M. PIKE 2012, 313-327; D. G. FIRTH, P. D. WEGNER 2011; J. R. LEVISON 2002; H. W. WOLFF 2008; L. NEVE 1972. 28 Zech 12:1 cf. Heb 12:9. 29 The English translation is personal to this author. 26

GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND KEY TO UNDERSTANDING

15

statement shows that God knows everything about humans, both the spiritual aspect and the physical aspect. The context clearly refers to humans and not disembodied beings. It stresses the two components of human being. c) Isaiah 31:3 “The Egyptians are human, and not God; their horses are flesh, and not spirit”.

In the Hebrew version, ‫( רוּ ַח‬ruach) is used in antithesis with ‫( ָבּ ָשׂר‬basar). In this context, it appears that the distinction is made between the supernatural and the natural; or better still, the physical world is contrasted with the spiritual world in reference to power or might. 2. Flesh-spirit in the New Testament30 There are varied ways in which the antithesis flesh-spirit is being used in the New Testament. It is found mostly in the Pauline corpus. It occurs about 28 times in the Greek New Testament out of which about 21 times in Pauline texts. In some passages it is not the σάρξ that is contrasted with πνεῦμα but σῶμα.31 The different usages could be grouped under: dualism of humans (anthropological sense), moral (and ethical), physical and spiritual realms, and conditions of existence. Some of the usages have more than one sense in the above grouping, that is, some may carry two senses for example moral and dualism in human beings within the same context. a) Dualism in man (anthropological sense) The New Testament also employs the antithesis flesh-spirit to talk about the human components especially the dualism or the physical and the spiritual aspects of human beings. When Jesus encourages his disciples during his prayer at Gethsemane to stay awake and pray, he observes that the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.32 This seems to make a distinction between the spiritual and physical dimension of the human being. The spiritual aspect is willing to comply with the spiritual activity of prayer, but the physical aspect weakens it; indicating that the human being is made up of spiritual and physical realities. Again, when he appears to his disciples, he shows 30 For an elaborate study of this subject see for example: B. H. THOMAS 2020; W. BO RUSSELL III 1997; F. F. BRUCE 1977, Chapter 19; E. BRANDENBURGER 1968; W. D. DAVIES 1957, 157-182. 31 For example, Rom 8:10; 1 Cor 7:34; 12:13; Jas 2:26; in 1 Thess 5:23 one finds πνεῦμα, ψυχὴ and σῶμα being mentioned. 32 Mt 26:41; Mk 14:38.

16

GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND KEY TO UNDERSTANDING

them his hands and feet and asks them to touch him to know that he is not just a spirit but a man with flesh and blood (Lk 24:39). That is to emphasise the dual nature of being human. The author of the letter to the Colossians writes (Col 2:5), εἰ γὰρ καὶ τῇ σαρκὶ ἄπειμι, ἀλλὰ τῷ πνεύματι σὺν ὑμῖν εἰμι (“For though I am absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in the spirit”), by this, he seems to refer to the two components of human beings to express his desires to be with the brothers and sisters in Colossae. He could not be present physically (that is, his physical body) but in his other human aspect he is with them – a kind of spiritual or psychic communion. b) Moral (and Ethical) Sense The New Testament employs the antithesis in many cases to describe the moral and ethical life of the believers in God. It distinguishes the life of sin from the just life using flesh and spirit respectively. In Rom 8, the author makes many references to the moral life of his audience tagging the flesh as sinful and the spirit as what leads to purity of life. In this way he exhorts the Christians to live according to the spirit and to set their mind on the things of the spirit and not to live according to the flesh for it brings about death (Rom 8:13). The life of the flesh is hostile to God for it goes against the law of God (Rom 8:4-7). The life of the flesh therefore leads to moral decadence and such life cannot please God (Rom 8:8). Christian life is not a life of the flesh but that of the spirit that puts to death the deeds of the flesh. Hence the author of 1 Cor 5:5 would say that a man who committed sexual immorality be handed over to the Satan for the destruction of the flesh. He would not obviously be referring to the physical body of the man in question but his immoral characters and what caused his immoral behaviour (although this may involve mortification of his flesh or body). The author of the letter to the Galatians warns about the spiritual regression by noting that to begin in the spirit and end in the flesh is a backward movement (Gal 3:3). Returning to the Mosaic Law for faster spiritual efficiency is falling to the flesh. It shows a return to the ancestral tradition and rituals which are not the ways of the spirit. The author’s remark or teaching seems to align well with the response of Jesus to the Pharisees and the Scribes on the question on the breaking of the tradition by his disciples without first washing their hands before eating. Jesus answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” (Mt 15:2,20). The two (flesh and spirit) are against themselves, they are opposed to each other: “For the desires of the flesh are against the spirit, and the desires of the spirit are against the flesh” (Gal 5:17). The author would further make

GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND KEY TO UNDERSTANDING

17

a contrast between the works of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit (5:1922). The desires of the flesh prevent one from doing what one ought to do. So, he encourages the believers not to sow in the flesh for the outcome of it is corruption but to sow in the spirit which leads to eternal life (Gal 6:8). Within this moral or ethical sense of the antithesis flesh-spirit is the implication of force. In the effort to live a moral life there is the force from the flesh in the forms of human desires. c) Physical and Spiritual Realms (Conditions of Existence) There are instances where the usage of the antithesis contrasts the realms of existence. It seems that the author of the letter to the Ephesians tries to make a distinction between the physical (material) human existence with the spiritual reality when he writes that: ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἡμῖν ἡ πάλη πρὸς αἷμα καὶ σάρκα, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὰς ἀρχάς, πρὸς τὰς ἐξουσίας, πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ σκότους τούτου, πρὸς τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις “for we are not contending against blood and flesh, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly realms” (Eph 6:12). This indicates two distinct realms opposing themselves. Also, this same idea is present in 1 Pet 4:6 where the human realm contrasts that of God, “For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead, that though judged in the flesh like men, they might live in the spirit like God”. This shows that there are two realms, that of the flesh and the spirit. The three passages of interest in this work where the antithesis flesh-spirit is used in relation to Christ’s mystery make a distinction between two realms or conditions of existence: 1 Tim 3:16b ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί (“was manifested in flesh”) – physical ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι (“was vindicated/justified in spirit”) – spiritual 1 Pet 3:18d θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ (“having been put to death in flesh”) – physical ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι (“having been made alive in spirit”) – spiritual Rom 1:3-4 τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα – physical (“having come of [the] seed of David according to flesh”) τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης – spiritual (“having been appointed Son of God in power according to spirit of holiness”)

18

GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND KEY TO UNDERSTANDING

1 Timothy appears to be concerned with location, ἐν σαρκί, ἐν πνεύματι, as if saying, “in the realm of flesh” and “in the realm of spirit”. Also 1 Peter seems to make a distinction between two entities, opposing themselves, and in Romans, κατὰ σάρκα and κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης portray two distinct and opposing realities. One may remark that these are the only three passages in the New Testament where the antithesis σάρξ-πνεῦμα is employed in describing the mystery of God in direct connection with Christ. The introduction to the Christological hymn in 1 Tim 3:16b begins with: “the mystery of our religion is great” and follows by the relative pronoun, ὅς, without an antecedent. The first line talks about the earthly mode of existence of Jesus: ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί (“was manifested in flesh”). This is followed uniquely by Christ’s victory, presented as: έδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι (“was justified in spirit”). What follows is the praise for the effects of this triumphant entry into the spiritual-heavenly world.33 In 1 Pet 3:18, after mentioning that Christ wanted to lead believers to God by his death destroying sin, comes the formula: θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ (“having been put to death in flesh”) and ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι (“having been made alive in spirit”). The opposition flesh-spirit is found here under a dative form where the event of death unfolded in the flesh gives access to life in the spirit through the resurrection. Here, two domains are opposed, namely, the earthly domain in which Christ’s death took place, and the spiritual realm into which he subsequently introduced his passage, and according to verse 22, it is to heaven, where he now lives at the right hand of God. The death and the resurrection mark the passage from one to the other and only, one would say, two phases of a single homogeneous event, even if succession in time is not denied.34 In Rom 1:3, Jesus is said to have been “born/come from David according to the flesh” (κατὰ σάρκα) and immediately in verse 4 that he was “appointed to be Son of God with power according to the spirit (κατὰ πνεῦμα) of holiness by resurrection from the dead”. Two successive manners of being of Jesus Christ are clearly distinguished but in relation to each other. It is noted also that their respective beginning is equally indicated, that is, the birth and the resurrection; that is to say, his birth ushers in the earthly realm while his resurrection ushers in the heavenly realm. One also notices another form of opposition in this passage (although not really different). On the one hand, the descendant of the line of David is opposed, not only in the genetic sense but also in the sense of qualification as Son 33 34

See also R. SCHNACKENBURG 1974, 70. Cf. R. SCHNACKENBURG 1974, 70-72.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND KEY TO UNDERSTANDING

19

of David, and on the other hand the establishment in power as Son of God (v. 4). The Davidic descent of Jesus belongs to that ancient Christology which can be deduced from Mk 12:35, from the discourses of Acts (in particular 13:23) and 2 Tim 2:8. The phrase κατὰ σάρκα here shows the natural human origin35 and the earthly mode of existence that corresponds to it; while κατὰ πνεῦμα, on the contrary, qualifies the status of the Risen One, of the one who has been exalted. The expression πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, may appear to the eye to mean only Holy Spirit, but may also suggest with greater force the divine sphere of holiness or supra-terrestrial. Taking the three passages together and the way in which this opposition flesh-spirit is being used, one becomes convinced that the two terms refer to the mode of existence. Assuming this is used in only one passage, then it may be more difficult to conclude in this way; but the similarity of the three passages in the mode of usage, suggests this interpretation. The exploration of each passage will further clarify and explain this interpretation. From the foregoing, it becomes clear that the opposition flesh-spirit that is concerned here is neither reflecting on the essence of Christ nor on his two natures. “Flesh” and “spirit” are not to be taken here as anthropological concepts. Only the two stages, separated as well as connected by the resurrection, are highlighted by the itinerary of Jesus. It is only at the summit of this itinerary, at the end of which appears the investiture in sovereignty, that Jesus can be recognised as the promised Messiah, the Son of God, according to the promise made to David (cf. Rom 1:3). Hence, the whole emphasis is on the status of Christ entering the glory of God. He is the conqueror of all the powers opposed to God (cf. 1 Pet 3:22), the redeemer of all the righteous, whose sovereignty is manifested in heaven, praised on earth by his community in worship, but extends to the world all his benefits (cf. 1 Tim 3:16). It is a reflection that is still limited to the two modes of existence of Christ; there is no explicit attention to his preexistence or explicit consideration of his parousia and the future fulfilment of salvation. If, then, the ancient formulas first seek to distinguish the two modes of existence of Christ on earth and in heaven by employing the two terms, 35 Paul equally uses this expression but not in opposition to the spirit, for example in Rom 4:1; 9:3,5. The only passage that could be compared to this is Gal 4:28-29 where Ishmael, born κατὰ σάρκα, persecuted Isaac, born κατὰ πνεῦμα. The latter expression implies that Isaac was born by virtue of the Promise and thereby defines the profound nature of his birth. This applies to Christians who, in the manner of Isaac, are children of the Promise.

20

GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND KEY TO UNDERSTANDING

flesh and spirit respectively, how does the later doctrine develop or what stage(s) does it take to come to the term the Holy Spirit as a divine agent? This is the question that is engaged in the second stage (chapter four). The pneumatic condition belongs to the world of God and, in the resurrected Jesus. This is what seems to be the primitive representation. In 1 Cor 15, in response to the Corinthians, Paul will say that this pneumatic condition to which resurrection has given access to will be shared by believers in the aftermath of the Risen One, who is qualified as the last Adam (15:45). The opposition in this passage does not exactly play between σάρξ and πνεῦμα but between ψυχή and πνεῦμα. If there is a natural body (σῶμα ψυχικόν) – thus designating a human terrestrial mode of existence and corporeity ‒ there is also a spiritual body (σῶμα πνευματικόν) (cf. 15:44b). Immediately the author describes the risen Christ himself from the condition that has become his: “The last Adam”, he will say, has become a life-giving spirit (Ἐγένετο εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν) in comparison with the first Adam (15:45). The spiritual condition of the new Adam will be shared by his descendants. It seems that 2 Cor 3:17 could offer some insight into the investigation in this work when the author writes: “Now the Lord is spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom”. The Greek version is more interesting: ὁ δὲ Κύριος πνεῦμά ἐστιν· οὗ δὲ τὸ Πνεῦμα Κυρίου, ἐλευθερία. In Acts of the Apostles, one notices that Christ, having entered into the πνεῦμα-condition by his resurrection (the world of God), has access to the gift of the Spirit which is a prerogative of God: “Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you both see and hear” (Acts 2:33).

FIRST STAGE:

ORAL TRADITION’S USAGE OF ΠΝΕΥΜΑ IN ANTITHESIS WITH ΣΑΡΞ, PORTRAYING CHRIST’S SPIRITUAL CONDITION (ΠΝΕΥΜΑ-CONDITION)

CHAPTER 1

EXAMINATION OF 1 TIM 3:16 This is an interesting passage in the New Testament that has attracted the attention of many biblical scholars. Every phrase and even every word in this passage has been analysed and interpreted which has led to many write-ups on the passage, but unfortunately, little consensus has been made. The way in which the passage appears within its context, its structure and its composition will continue to interest the scholars as well as lovers of scripture. It has even caught the attention of musicians.1 This passage will be critically examined even though the main interest in this work lies in the first two lines of verse 16b. This will help to arrive at a more reasonable position for the interpretation of the area of concern. 1.1. DELIMITATION (3:16B) 1 Tim 3:16b can stand as a unit of its own because of the following reasons: a) there is no strict link between what comes before and after this pericope. The pericope is inserted in between the author’s announcement of his coming (3:14-15) and the warning against false teachers (4:1-7). b) In addition, the proclamation comes after a quotation formula in which what is quoted has no strict connection, either with the antecedent or with what follows: καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον (3:16a). c) The proclamation begins with a relative pronoun, ὅς, without antecedent. d) This pericope has a unique distinctive style, including rhythm, assonances, correspondences and parallelism of the elements, which detonates with respect to that of its environment. e) There is also a disparity of vocabulary in the pericope that distinguishes it from its environment, especially the verbs used.2

1 See for example on YouTube: Music by Radomir NOWOTARSKI, vocal by Agnieszka KRAUZ-NABIELEC, Hos Ephanerothe: An Early Christian Hymn, https://www.youtube. com/watch?v =YRcJRcYbj-I, accessed on 15-02-2018. 2 More explanation under section 1.6, p. 53.

24

CHAPTER 1

1.2. TRANSMISSION: TEXTUAL CRITICISM The very beginning of the passage offers a case of varia lectio: either two variants of the relative pronoun (ὅ, ὅς) or the substantive (θεός). For the reading of the neuter relative pronoun ὅ, one may believe that its appearance was due to a scribal correction of ὅς to match the gender with that of the word μυστήριον that comes immediately before it.3 The other two variants (ὅς and θεός) attract more debate. The reading of θεός may be due to an accidental misreading of OC as ΘC, the nomen sacrum for θεός, or a deliberate effort to supply a substantive for the six verbs or still to provide greater dogmatic precision. According to Metzger, OC and ΘC are Syriac characters.4 The reading of θεός seems to have come up after the second century, probably by confusing it with ὅς or an intentional alteration in order to explain theologically the magnitude (same level with God) of Christ and also to make sense of the syntax. The Western reading, ὅ, may support the claim that the reading came up after the second century. The ancient versions presuppose either ὅς or ὅ and there seems to be no uncial earlier than the eighth and or ninth century where θεός appears. There is also no patristic writer before the last third of the fourth century that agrees with the reading θεός.5 Virtually most scholars favour the reading ὅς as it appears in better manuscripts and it is very unlikely for a scribe to alter God’s name into a pronoun. In this work, therefore, the reading ὅς is favoured because of its strong external evidence and the probability of transcription which probably gives it more chance than the other reading.6 1.3. LITERARY CONTEXT: RIGHT CONDUCT IN THE HOUSEHOLD OF GOD The concern of the author of 1 Timothy seems to be the combat of the influence of certain practices by false teachers as evident in 1:3 and 4:1. His interest is to preserve the true faith in Christ Jesus. 1 Tim 3:16 is located within the larger context of the whole epistle since it all boils down to fighting against false teaching (ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, 1:3; 6:3), but situated within the immediate context of 3:14‒4:5. After the qualifications of bishops (3:1-7) and deacons (3:8-13), one notices a transition in the thought of the author from verse 14. Here, he 3 4 5 6

As found in D* and the Western tradition. B. M. METZGER 21994, 574. Cf. B. M. METZGER 21994, 573-574. See B. M. METZGER 21994, 573-574.

EXAMINATION OF 1 TIM 3:16

25

engages in a more private communication with his recipient and the mode of language changes from the third person plural to the first person singular of the writer and second person singular of the recipient (as seen also in the author’s parenesis specifically addressed to Timothy in 1:18); the second person singular verb follows in verse 15. He resumes the third person plural in 4:1-5. He talks about his hope of coming and if in case his coming is delayed (v. 15), the Christian community he writes to would know how to behave in the household of God through these instructions.7 The reason for communicating these instructions via a letter is twofold, namely, situational and purposeful. The situation in which the author found himself is that he was absent from the church but he desired to be there, and the purpose is introduced by the conjunction ἵνα, which is followed by the message on how one has to conduct oneself in the household of God. The goal of these instructions is how one ought to behave in the household of God. It is not just a theoretical prescription of behaviour but a description of a pragmatic way of life. The term ἀναστρέφω (to conduct oneself) shows that these instructions are concerned with practice. 1.3.1. The οἶκος Θεοῦ (3:15) The expression is to be translated as the “household of God” where these instructions ought to be lived out. The domestic metaphor applied to the church and its ministry is not uncommon.8 The metaphor οἶκος Θεοῦ is followed by two others, στῦλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα. It is directly described literally as the church of the living God and “the pillar and foundation of the truth”. The mention of ἐκκλησία here adds more information to the household already mentioned in chapter 3 (vv. 4-5) and gets rid of the use of the metaphorical category. It is no longer a personal affair but the concern of the church of the living God. To whom does the expression στῦλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας refer to? There are two interpretations, first, that it refers to the role of Timothy to whom verse 15 is addressed,9 and second, that it refers to the church of the living God.10 The argument for the former is that from the context of 1 Timothy, similar roles were given directly to Timothy to play 7 This manner of writing instruction to a church while absent from it is common, see: 1 Cor 4:19; 16:21; 2 Cor 13:10; Phil 2:19,23,24. 8 1 Cor 4:1; Gal 6:10; Eph 2:19. 9 Cf. A. JAUBERT 1963, 101-108; J. MURPHY-O’CONNOR 1965, 29-76; M. GOURGUES 2007, 173-180; M. GOURGUES 2009, 135-137, 147-148. 10 A. T. HANSON 1982, 82-83; S. E. FOWL 1990, 155-194; É. COTHENET 2004, 24.

26

CHAPTER 1

in the community, to keep the instructions on sound teaching, regarding the truth and doctrine.11 The argument is that if Timothy is given such responsibilities within the epistle, verse 15 should not be an exception. Just as the architectural images of pillar and foundation found expression in the interior of a house, so also is the role expected of Timothy to be carried out within the church community.12 But this interpretation does not respect the syntax of the construction of the verse. The second person pronoun which refers to Timothy is far-placed from the “pillar and the foundation of the truth”. The relative pronoun, “which”, connects more easily to the “household of God” than the second person pronoun. It is the syntax of the verse that might have informed the second interpretation. The author uses an architectural language to describe the household of God with regard to the truth ‒ στῦλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας (“the pillar and foundation of the truth”). It is to the church of the living God that the expression is addressed. In this way, the members of the church community have the role of being “the pillar and foundation of the truth”. The idea that is portrayed here seems to be that these instructions are to be observed in the strict sense within the “household of God” which is the place of worship. But this idea is further expanded by the use of the term οἶκος in 3:4,5 and 12, which portrays a social entity and not just a dwelling place.13 This social entity comprises the household of God, the church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of truth. The idea of the author applies to the broader sense of οἶκος which pictures the way of life of Christians as a whole. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Christian community and her members to play the role of the “pillar and foundation of the truth”. The objection raised against this interpretation is that there is no clear indication of reference to the activity of the church in 1 Timothy in such manner as to the truth. If this act of being the pillar of the truth belongs to the ἐκκλησία community, then it brings into the letter a new perspective.14 One may argue that, even if such activity is not commonly ascribed to the church in the letter, it does not mean that it is not appropriate to have 11

Cf. 4:6,11,13,16; concerning doctrine see 4:6; 6:3. Cf. M. GOURGUES 2009, 135. The individual application of the architectural images is not alien in the New Testament (Gal 2:9; Rev 3:12‒ for the image of the pillar). As regards the image of the foundation: the closer passage in the New Testament is Eph 2:19-20; in Qumran: 1QH 2:9-10; see also J. MURPHY-O’CONNOR 1965, 71-73; C. MARCHESELLICASALE 1995, 267-268. Application of these architectural images to the individuals is also attested to by the early church: see M. GOURGUES 2009, 136 for references. 13 Cf. D. C. VERNER 1983, 109-110. 14 J. MURPHY-O’CONNOR 1965, 68; M. GOURGUES 2009, 135. 12

EXAMINATION OF 1 TIM 3:16

27

it now being ascribed to the ἐκκλησία community in this passage considering the confession that follows the verse (v. 16b) which could be detached from the environment of the letter. This confession that follows might have influenced the author to talk about this activity. Considering what is involved here, that is, being the pillar and foundation of the truth, it should not be left to just an individual. In order to maintain the syntax of the verse, it is appropriate to view the role of being the “pillar and foundation of the truth” being referred to both Timothy and the members of the ἐκκλησία community.15 In fact, Timothy is part of the community; he is the one who receives the instruction and it is not meant for him alone but for the community, οἶκος Θεοῦ. 1.3.2. The Following Context: Opposition of False Practices (4:1-5) Having established or perhaps inserted the “undeniable truth” in 3:16, the author moves from the household of God as a pillar and foundation of truth to the attack of the practices of false teachers in 4:1-5. What is being expressed here is found already to a great extent at the beginning of the letter (1:3-7) where the concern is placed on false teaching and doctrine and those who propagate such teaching. Similar warning against the teaching contrary to that of piety is given in 6:3-4. What is at stake is specifically mentioned in 4:3: “They forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth”; not as in 1:4 which is not as specific as the former, as the call was to instruct certain people “not to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies that promote speculations rather than the divine training that is known by faith”. The “myths and endless genealogies” in 1:4 is wider in scope than the specific interdiction from marriage and foods in 4:3. This passage particularly attacks what could be regarded as false asceticism. In 1 Tim 4:1, he makes recourse to prophetic saying which foretells what the Spirit expressly says about the “later times”. False spirits will rise against the true faith and will cause the people to renounce the truth proclaimed in 3:16b. These are hypocrites and liars who will come with their own teachings in order to impress and seduce believers to fall away from the right teaching.

15

See also L. T. JOHNSON 2001, 231-232; L. T. JOHNSON 1996, 152; M. GOURGUES 2009, 136-137.

28

CHAPTER 1

This ascetic way of life is well defined in verse 3. The author clearly mentions that they forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods,16 but doing this does not guaranty that a believer is closer to God. He further states that these material things are created by God and should be gratefully received by those who believe and know the truth. The ascetic way of living seems to separate the material world from the immaterial and thereby condemning the things of the world. But in verses 4 and 5, the author instructs not to reject what God has created but should be received in thanksgiving knowing that they are sanctified by God. The idea of creation in verse 4 refers to the story of creation in Genesis17 which shows that what the scripture has declared good no one can consider bad. The argument of the author supports his audience in their struggle against the asceticism of the false teachers. The issue here seems to be that the essential goodness of creation should be shared in thanksgiving by those who know this truth. The two practices, forbidding marriage and abstinence from foods, could be found among the Gnostics (Saturnin and Marcion’s ascetic practices) as early as the second century.18 Marcion makes a distinction between the God of creation (which he calls evil), and the redeeming God, the God of Jesus Christ. In light of this distinction, he rejects the material existence which implies renunciation of marriage and prohibition of certain foods including Eucharistic wine. 1 Tim 4:3-4 portrays the sovereignty of God over the world and the goodness of God’s creation as against the extreme position of Marcionism. Tertullian in the late second century has argued against the position of Marcion calling Marcionites hypocrite: “You hypocrite.... How hard is this obstinacy of yours! You vilify the things in which you both live and die”.19 The people to rebuke (as regards the true faith) in Titus 1:14 are regarded as those who are “paying attention to Jewish myths or to commandments of those who reject the truth”. The mention of “Jewish myths” and 16

Some other New Testament passages concerning certain attitude about the consumption of food include Rom 14:6; 1 Cor 10:27-30; about marriage: 1 Cor 7:8-9,25-35. In these passages, the author is not specifically talking about teachers teaching false doctrine on these issues but he was giving his opinions on which decision to take depending on the individual state in life and capability; in any decision taken, either to get married or not, or to eat or not, thanksgiving to God should be at the background. 17 Gen 1:8-12,18,25,31. 18 IRENAEUS, Adversus Haereses, I, 28:1; see also M. GOURGUES 2009, 152-153. For more detail see also H. I. MARSHALL 1999, 46-48; N. BROX 1969, 31-43; P. DORNIER 1969, 15-17; M. DIBELIUS, H. CONZELMANN 1972, 65-67; G. HAUFE 1973, 325-339; A. T. HANSON 1982, 25; L. OBERLINNER 1988, 174-182; M. GOULDER 1996, 242-256. 19 A. ROBERT 1896, Book 1, Chapter XIV.

EXAMINATION OF 1 TIM 3:16

29

“commandments” resembles the presentation in 4:1-5 in what it calls “those who reject the truth”. Gourgues points out that linking this abstinence to the Mosaic Law by using the other New Testament passages mentioned above in relation to the technical usage of νομοδιδάσκαλοι (teachers of the law) as found in Judaism does not have the same technical usage in the context of 1 Timothy.20 It is not used in a technical sense but applied generally to all form of law here, because one of what is to be abstained from would not match the Old Testament law, namely, marriage.21 Also the concern in 4:3-5 is not based on Jewish sense of purity but on the goodness of the foods.22 This may suggest that the intention does not emanate from the Mosaic law but from the event (that is, the resurrection) of Jesus as the true teaching has its base from Jesus Christ: “Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ [...is] conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words” (6:3-4). 1.3.3. The Role of 3:16b within its Context: A Story of Christ as a Proof of Faith In 3:14-16, the author tries to establish a reality that appears to have been known already in the community of Christian faith, and in 4:1-5 uses this truth to attack the problem of asceticism by false teachers. It is good to note that what lies behind the proclamation in verse 16b is clear to the immediate audience of the author and it is believed that they understood it well as the author calls it “the mystery of our religion is great” which connects the audience to the story of Christ that follows. It could be pointed out that one of the false teachings in 4:1-5 is the idea of separating the Creator from the creation. In order to counter this notion, the author refers to the story of Christ in verse 16b which shows the manifestation of Christ in his earthly condition and subsequently vindicated and then made known both on earth and in heaven. The activity of God on earth, the material world, is affirmed by the presence of Christ. By analogy, therefore, those who understand this truth (v. 16b), the activities of God on earth, can positively participate and enjoy in the same world, which is the creation of God, and then be vindicated as Christ was. The author’s use of this unit would, therefore, serve as a proof of the authenticity of his 20 The term νομοδιδάσκαλοι (found only in 1 Tim 1:7) may carry the sense of the doctor of the law (Torah) in Lk 5:17; Acts 5:34. 21 Cf. M. GOURGUES 2009, 71. 22 Cf. M. GOURGUES 2009, 152.

30

CHAPTER 1

teaching; and in this way, as Deborah Krause writes, “the hymn, while not original to the letter writer, provides him with a pedagogical tool for imparting the essential elements of the faith and a means of counterbalancing and challenging those ‘other teachings’ that would focus simply on elements of spirit, angels and glory”23 but should also focus on the elements of flesh, nations and world as portrayed in the same pericope. In simple terms, it may be said that the affirmation of the truth and the emphasis on true practice in 3:14-16 provide the basis from which the author combats the false teaching in 4:1-5. 1.4. STRUCTURE OF 3:16B: A SIX-LINE HYMN Ὃς Line 1: Line 2: Line 3: Line 4: Line 5: Line 6:

ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.

was manifested in flesh was justified/vindicated in spirit was seen by angels was proclaimed among nations was believed on in [the] world was taken up in glory.

The presentation of the proclamation is very captivating. The rhythm, assonances, correspondences and parallelism are obvious and striking. From its organisational structure, the proclamation has been viewed in three different ways: a) A single stanza of six lines which treats each line chronologically without emphasising the parallelism of the couplets.24 One author following this structure sees line 1 as the birth of Jesus Christ; line 2 as referring to his baptism, the descent of the Holy Spirit at the baptism, and his temptation; line 3 portraying the angels who visited after Jesus’ temptation; line 4 the proclamation, primarily to the Jews, which started during the ministry of Jesus; line 5 refers to the faith of his first followers; and line 6 the ascension.25 Some added the subsequent glory of Christ to the ascension of line 6.26 Others follow this sequence: line 1 incarnation, line 2 resurrection, line 3 ascension, line 4 preaching of the Good News, line 5 the response to the Good News, and line 6 Christ’s final victory.27 23

D. KRAUSE 2004, 82. See: H. ALFORD 1968, 334; C. K. BARRETT 1963, 65-66; see it also being expressed in B. L. MARTIN 2013, 108; for more explanation on this see R. GUNDRY 1970, 204. 25 Cf. H. ALFORD 1968, 334-335. 26 W. B. WALLIS 1962, 1376. 27 For example, see C. K. BARRETT 1963, 66. 24

31

EXAMINATION OF 1 TIM 3:16

b) Two stanzas of three lines.28 There are nuances of this view. While making reference to Ernest F. Scott who also identifies two strophes but limits them to two lines each (lines 1-2 and 4-5) and adds a refrain to each strophe, Robert Gundry writes: The first strophe ‒ ‘who was manifested in flesh, vindicated in spirit’ ‒ describes the life of Christ on earth. The refrain ‘seen by angels’ celebrates the triumph of his ascension. The second strophe ‒ ‘proclaimed among nations, believed on in [the] world’ ‒ describes the larger life of Christ in the church. The refrain ‘taken up in glory’ again celebrates his triumph, but this time the final glory after the Parousia and last judgment.29

Robert Falconer looks at the parallels between the lines as they follow each other in the strophes, noting that, the first lines of each stanza, 1 and 4, stand for the manifestation and the proclamation of Christ; the second lines, 2 and 5, stand for the vindication and acknowledgement of Christ; and the third lines, 5 and 6, stand for his reception of homage from and in the heavenly world.30 c) Three stanzas of two lines. This work considers that this third structural organisation is preferable to the first two just as it is also widely accepted by most scholars.31 It emphasises the parallelism which is obvious in the proclamation. The parallelism is shown between flesh and spirit which are opposites. It is also shown between angels and nations, world and glory. One observes three times the succession of two lines with the same opposition earth-heaven: Ὃς 1st Stanza

2nd Stanza

3rd Stanza

ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί incarnation (earth- a)

ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις seen by angels (heaven-b)

ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ believed in the world (earth- a)

ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν exaltation vindication- resurrection proclamation to humankind (heaven- b) (heaven- b) (earth- a)

28

W. LOCK 1936, 45; H. I. MARSHALL 1999, 500-502; W. MOUNCE 2000, 216-218; W. J. DALTON 1965, 90; G. D. FEE 2000, 94; J. R. STOTT 1996, 107. 29 R. GUNDRY 1970, 206. 30 R. FALCONER 1937, 138. 31 J. JEREMIAS 1949, 21-23; C. SPICQ 1947, 108; E. SCHWEIZER 1960, 64-65; E. SCHWEIZER 1962, 168-169; S. E. FOWL 1990, 156; W. HENDRIKSEN 1970, 137-139; J. N. KELLY 1969, 92; G. W. KNIGHT 1992, 183.

32

CHAPTER 1

This forms a threefold chiastic pattern a/b, b/a, a/b, which alternates between earth and heaven. In the second stanza, the order is not earth/ heaven as in the first and the third but heaven/earth. In line 3, the number of syllables of the verb stands out differently. The verbs in the first two lines present five syllables each: ἐ/φα/νε/ρώ/θη, ἐ/δι/κα/ιώ/θη; the three last verbs present four syllables each (except the verb “to believe” which has five): ἐ/κη/ρύχ/θη, ἐ/πισ/τε/ύ/θη, ἀ/νε/λήμφ/θη, while the third line presents only two syllables: ὤφ/θη. Using human language, the thought here does not follow a neat chronological sequence but a spatial one. Christ has reunited the earth and the heaven together. Lines 1 and 2 summarise Christ’s work of salvation; lines 3 and 4 proclaim it to both angels and humans while lines 5 and 6 sing the praise of the triumph of Christ. Each line of the proclamation begins with an aorist passive verb with the same assonance ending θη: Line 1: Line 2: Line 3: Line 4: Line 5: Line 6:

ἐφανερώθη ἐδικαιώθη ὤφθη ἐκηρύχθη ἐπιστεύθη ἀνελήμφθη

In each line, except in the third line, the verb is followed by a preposition ἐν, which in turn followed by a substantive dative without an article: ἐν σαρκί, ἐν πνεύματι, ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐν κόσμῳ and ἐν δόξῃ. Intrinsically, 3:16b, beginning with Ὃς, appears to form a six-strophe hymn.32 1.5. EXPLORATION What has been done so far in this chapter could be regarded as general observations of the pericope. There is need for the examination of each clause of the proclamation in order to make a reasonable judgment about the content of the passage. This is what will be done in this section but before delving into verse 16b, analysis of verse 16a will serve as a starting point. 1.5.1. καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον (v. 16a): A Unique manner of Introduction This is composed of the adverb ὁμολογουμένως, “by common confession”, the nominative neuter singular form of the adjective, μέγα, “great”, 32

This will be verified under section 1.6, p. 53.

EXAMINATION OF 1 TIM 3:16

33

the third person singular present active indicative form of the verb εἰμί, “is”, the articular genitive feminine singular form of the noun εὐσεβείας, “of godliness”, and the articular nominative neuter singular form of the noun μυστήριον, “of the mystery.” The conjunction καὶ connects this verse to the meaning of the noun ἀληθείας which ends verse 15. It indicates that the affirmation that follows is identified in specific terms with the noun ἀληθείας. There are varieties of meaning of the adverb ὁμολογουμένως; these include “confess”, “assure,” and “agree”. It can also mean “confessedly”, “assuredly”, “admittedly” or “by common consent”.33 It is variously translated in different versions of the Bible as: “without controversy” (KJV, NKJ, ASV), “without any doubt” (NJB, NRSV), “we confess” (ESV, RSV), “by common confession” (NASV), or “beyond all question” (NIV). Walter Bauer in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, defines it as what “pertains to a matter on which there is general agreement, uncontestable, undeniably, most certainly, beyond question”.34 It has also been defined by Barbara Friberg, Timothy Friberg and Neva T. Miller as “common consent, in the judgment of all, without controversy”.35 For Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, it pertains “to what must or should be admitted or acknowledged publicly”.36 The verb ὁμολογέω in the Johannine literature may show some similarity with the idea in the first line of the proclamation: “every spirit that confesses (ὁμολογεῖ) that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God” (1 Jn 4:2). In 2 Jn 7, the author declares that “many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess (ὁμολογοῦντες) that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist!” The use of this adverb indicates acceptability by common consent of what the author is about to say which is revealed in verse 16b. It is not a hidden knowledge but known publicly. In short, there are two possible meanings that have been used for this word, namely, the Hellenistic form of the word which means “undeniably” and the second meaning is “to confess”. The first is rhetorical while the second is legal with reference to something that should be confirmed.37 33

H. LIDDELL, R. SCOTT 1976, 1226. W. BAUER 32000, 709. 35 B. FRIBERG, T. FRIBERG, N. T. MILLER 2005, 282. 36 J. P. LOUW, E. A. NIDA 1988, 276. 37 For the use of this term in a bit different way in 4 Maccabees (a first century Hellenistic work) and the argument that its usage is different in 1 Tim 3:16 see: 4 Macc 6:31; 7:16; 16:1; Cf. A. T. HANSON 1968, 21-25; S. E. FOWL 1990, 182-183. 34

34

CHAPTER 1

The use of the adjective μέγα shows the greatness and significance of this mystery. In the midst of the current false teachings at the time of the author’s writing, in order to show the superiority of this mystery of piety, he has to refer to it as “great”. In line with this Philip Towner writes: Given the Ephesian setting, whether or not the famous riot associated with Paul’s ministry (Acts 19) was still fresh in mind, it is impossible not to hear in Paul’s statement a subversive echo of the city’s bold claim, ‘Great is Artemis of the Ephesians’ (Acts 19:28, 34; cf. 19:27, 35). And in calling the church to confess so extensive a claim – ‘Great is the mystery of godliness’ – it would be quite appropriate for Paul to intentionally hijack the pagan rhetoric to rewrite this bit of the local religious story in terms of the gospel-promise of a new code of existence, in Christ.38

Therefore, the experience of the author of his surrounding culture and religion could have prompted him to make use of such term in order to make his message clear to his audience who knew also this experience; and to show the superiority of Christianity over the other religions at the time. The adjective could therefore mean, in 3:16, “great,” “greatest,” “mighty,” “large,” in terms of quality and importance. The noun εὐσέβεια refers to “reverence towards the gods or parents; piety or filial respect”.39 Its verb form εὐσεβέω means to “live or act piously or reverently”.40 It comes from the word group σέβομαι which means to “feel awe or fear before God, feel shame”.41 This group of word σέβομαι, therefore, connotes “the appropriate attitude to that which merits reverence, ranging from respect for one’s fellow-men and the rules of society to reverence in public worship”.42 This term, εὐσέβεια, was regarded primarily in the Hellenistic world as religious piety and was held as a virtue and at times as the source of other virtues.43 It appears 57 times in the Septuagint and the noun form 15 times in the New Testament: 10 times in the Pastoral Epistles44 and the rest elsewhere.45 In the non-canonical writings, it is considered in the same line as obeying the law of God,46 and in 38 P. H. TOWNER 2006, 277; see detail of the discussion on the cult of the Artemis in Ephesus in P. TREBILCO 2004, 19-30. 39 H. LIDDELL, R. SCOTT 1976, 731. 40 H. LIDDELL, R. SCOTT 1976, 731. 41 H. LIDDELL, R. SCOTT 1976, 1588. 42 C. BROWN 1971, 90. 43 J. H. MOULTON, G. MILLIGAN 1929, 265. 44 2:2; 3:16; 4:7,8; 6:3,5,6,11; 2 Tim 3:5; Titus 1:1. 45 Acts 3:12, 2 Pet 1:3,6,7 and 3:11. 46 4 Macc 5:18,24,31,38; 6:2,22; 7:1,3,4,16,18; 8:1; 9:6,7,24,29,30; 11:20; 12:11,14; 13:7,8,10,12,26,27; 14:3,6,7; 15:1,2,3,12,14,17,29,32; 16:4,13,14,17,23; 17:5,7; 18:3.

EXAMINATION OF 1 TIM 3:16

35

the canonical portions of the Septuagint, it carries similar meaning with the reverence toward God.47 In the Greek New Testament, μυστήριον occurs 28 times.48 This term has been described as “Secret rite, secret teaching, mystery, a technical term applied in the Greco-Roman world mostly to the mysteries with their secret teachings, religious and political in nature, concealed within many strange customs and ceremonies”.49 It is the revealed information by God.50 Ceslas Spicq makes a broad summary of this term when he writes that: Le mystère, c’est le contenu de la foi, éminemment religieux, puisqu’il est Dieu révélé et communiqué ; non pas une fois pour toutes, mais en permanence, et c’est toute la fonction de l’Église d’en continuer la dispensation. [...] Dans le Nouveau Testament, au contraire, le mystère est un secret divin révélé, dévoilé, communiqué, promulgué avec la plus large diffusion possible, une bonne nouvelle à répandre. […] Étant donné qu’à l’époque, les mystères sont l’ensemble des connaissances salutaires ‒ dessein de Dieu et mise à exécution ‒ que l’homme ne peut avoir que par révélation. […] Chez saint Paul, le vocable, au singulier, devient un terme technique de sa sotériologie et de sa fonction apostolique : la sagesse de Dieu a conçu un plan de salut universel, inconnu aux hommes, jusqu’à ce qu’il ait été dévoilé aux hommes. C’est le Christ qui en est le centre. Le kérygme de l’évangile, c’est la divulgation de l’œuvre de ce Sauveur, espérance de la gloire, par les Apôtres, donc par l’Église qui porte à la connaissance de tous et actualise ce mystère religieux, objet essentiel de la foi.51

The noun μυστήριον in 3:16a means “mystery” which is used in relation to εὐσέβεια. It could be said that the proclamation that follows is the mystery of God that Christ reveals. The term does not portray something that cannot be understood but an aspect of God that is revealed. In line with this, John H. Bernard writes, “[It] does not necessarily carry with it the idea of mysteriousness, in the modern sense of unintelligibility, it simply means a secret, into which some have been initiated”.52 In this sense, those who have been initiated are the believers. These two words together, εὐσεβείας and μυστήριον, as used here, τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον is commonly recognised already as great and it simply refers to the revelation 47

Prov 1:7. Twenty-one out of its occurrences appear in Pauline corpus. Three appear in the Synoptic Gospels in parallel texts: Mt 13:11; Mk 4:11; Lk 8:10. The others occur in Rev 1:20; 10:7; 17:5,7. 49 W. BAUER 32000, 661. 50 W. BAUER 32000, 662. 51 C. SPICQ 41969, 469-470. 52 J. H. BERNARD 1980, p. 62. 48

36

CHAPTER 1

of Christ which is unfolded in verse 16b. This can also be understood as the μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως in 3:9.53 1.5.2. The Six-Line Proclamation: Encompassing Christ Event The proclamation begins with the relative pronoun54 which is very likely referred to Christ because of its content that speaks of Christ Event, described as ἀληθείας at the end of verse 15. 1.5.2.1. Line 1: ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί ‒ Christ’s Earthly Reality This is composed of the third person singular aorist passive indicative form of the verb φανερόω, “revealed” or “manifested”, the preposition ἐν, “in” and its object is the dative feminine singular form of the noun σάρξ, “flesh”. The verb φανερόω occurs 49 times in the Greek New Testament. In the active form, it means “to reveal” or “to manifest” and in the passive form, “to be revealed or manifested”. It appears only here in 1 Timothy. The aorist indicative passive of φανερόω can be found 29 times in the New Testament, 9 of which are in the Pauline Corpus.55 In 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus, the substantive ἐπιφανεία is used to express the idea of apparition or manifestation.56 It is rare to use the aorist of the verb ἐπιφαίνω.57 In their usage, these terms seem to be synonymous or can easily follow each other as it is noticed in 2 Tim 1:10: φανερωθεῖσαν δὲ νῦν διὰ τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, καταργήσαντος μὲν τὸν θάνατον φωτίσαντος δὲ ζωὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου.58 Most usages in the New Testament in relation to Christ portray the divine manifestation of his human history.59 There are numbers of occurrences of the passive form of the verb φανερόω in the Apostolic Fathers in relation to Christ.60 53 See also: M. DIBELIUS, H. CONZELMANN 1972, 61; S. E. FOWL 1990, 183; J. N. KELLY 1963, 89; A. T. HANSON 1982, 84. 54 See the varia lectio under section 1.2, p. 24. 55 Rom 16:26; 1 Cor 4:10,11; 2 Cor 5:10; 7:12; Col 1:26; 3:4; 1 Tim 3:16; 2 Tim 1:10 (if 1 and 2 Timothy are considered originally Pauline). 56 Cf. 2 Thess 2:8; 1 Tim 6:14; 2 Tim 1:10; 4:1,8; Titus 2:13. 57 Titus 2:11; 3:4. See also M. GOURGUES 2009, 139. 58 See also M. GOURGUES 2009, 139. 59 Cf. Jn 1:31; Heb 9:26; 1 Pet 1:20; 1 Jn 1:2; 3:5,8. See M. N. BOCKMUEHL 1988, 87-99; M. N. BOCKMUEHL 1997, 210-214; P. H. TOWNER 2006, 279. 60 1 Clem 50:3; 2 Clem 14:2,3; Barn 5:6; 6:6,9,14; 7:7; 12:9 (“manifested in the flesh”); 14:5; 15:9; 16:5; Ign Eph 19:2; Ign Pol 2:2; Mart Pol 12:3; Herm Sim 4 1:3; 9 1:2.

EXAMINATION OF 1 TIM 3:16

37

With similar presentation of the clause ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί in Rom 1:3 (γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα),61 and coupled with the opposition in the following line with πνεῦμα, this must refer to what the later theologians call the incarnation of Christ in his earthly condition.62 The term incarnation is like the Latin expression in carnis which is translated as “in flesh”; literally, to manifest “in flesh” would connote a previous existence before the manifestation. To buttress this point is the use of the verb φανερόω of the Incarnate One in other passages.63 It is very difficult to see how it could refer to human weakness,64 because ἐν σαρκί should not be interpreted without its context which includes its antithetical usage with ἐν πνεύματι; and the similar usage in the passages mentioned above especially in Rom 1:3 does not in any way portray moral aspect or human weakness. The reference of this clause to the incarnation would make one think of the pre-existence of Jesus. In the text under study, it is the posterior condition of resurrection that is explicitly contrasted with the earthly condition of Christ and not his previous condition of pre-existence.65 However, the use of the verb φανερόω presupposes that he already existed, even though in the mode of invisibility. In order to be able to manifest, one must first exist. Comparing the usage of this verb in other passages, for example, in 2 Tim 1:10, the verb φανερόω is used with reference to the grace of God in verse 9 (of the above passage), of which it is said that it already existed, since it “was given to us in Christ Jesus before all the ages”.66 A similar perspective is found in 1 Tim 6:14, where it is a question of the coming, “manifestation”, of Christ: “Keep the command without spot or blame until the manifestation (ἐπιφανείας) of our Lord Jesus Christ”. The proclamation ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί must, therefore, refer indirectly to the existence of Christ prior to his incarnation.67 61

This passage is treated in chapter three. See also: M. GOURGUES 2009, 139; R. GUNDRY 1970, 209; A. HANSON 1968, 85; N. BROX 1969, 160; K. WENGST 1972, 158; J. N. KELLY 1963, 90; W. METZGER 1979, 73-74. David M. Stanley sees this clause as referring to the crucifixion of Jesus, see: D. M. STANLEY 1964, 193. Some authors have viewed it as referring to the appearances of the resurrected Christ, see for example: C. SPICQ 1947, 472; J. DUPONT 1952, 108-110; B. SCHNEIDER 1967, 367, 384-385; A. DESCAMPS 1950, 84-87. 63 Jn 1:31; Heb 9:26; 1 Pet 1:20; 1 Jn 1:2; 3:5,8. 64 Contra David M. Stanley who sees “flesh” as referring to human weakness, see: D. M. STANLEY 1961, 237; see also W. B. STENGER 1977, 90. 65 See M. GOURGUES 2009, 139. 66 See also Titus 2:11. 67 See also M. GOURGUES 2009, 139-140; R. DEICHGRÄBER 1967, 133; J. N. KELLY 1963, 67. 62

38

CHAPTER 1

1.5.2.2. Line 2: ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι ‒ Heavenly Reality The line is composed of the third person singular aorist passive indicative form of the verb δικαιόω, “justified” or “vindicated”, the preposition ἐν, “in” and the dative singular form of the neuter noun πνεῦμα, “spirit”. The meaning of this clause is disputed. The controversy begins with the right interpretation of the verb δικαιόω. How does one interpret this verb? What does it mean within the context in relation to Christ? Within the thought or idea of the context of this pericope, is “justified” (ἐδικαιώθη) to be understood in relation to the resurrection and the consecutive exaltation to heaven? The verb in the New Testament means: 1) to show to be right or righteous, to be justified;68 2) to declare to be righteous, to pronounce righteous either by human being concerning God,69 concerning human being itself;70 or by God concerning human beings who have been declared or pronounced righteous before God based on the precepts of God. It is the practical observance of the law of God that leads to justification in God’s sight (Rom 2:13). But human beings always fall short of keeping to the complete fulfillment of the demands of God, and in this way, not found righteous before God.71 The verb δικαιόω (“justify”)72 in 3:16b is applied to Christ and it is understood very differently. For example, if justification is related to the resurrection, one could probably say that the resurrection did justice to Christ by showing that his previous existence in the flesh had been that of a righteous man, or by revealing his full identity, until then unrecognised, or by giving him through exaltation the just treatment for his obedience to God. For some scholars, justification is not to be understood in relation to the resurrection but in relation to the earthly existence of Jesus.73 What further complicates this issue is that the term is uncommon in accounting for what the resurrection represents for Jesus in its effects or its outcome in the New Testament. The early Christian expression of faith uses more frequently other terms such as “exaltation” (ὑψόω),74 or “glorification” (δόξα, δοξάζω).75 68

Mt 11:19; Lk 7:35; Rom 3:4. Lk 7:29; Rom 3:4. 70 Lk 10:29; 16:15. 71 Rom 3:9-20; Gal 2:16; 3:10,11; 5:4. 72 For different rendering of δικαιόω see: W. BAUER 32000, 249; B. FRIBERG, T. FRIBERG, N. T. MILLER 2005, 117; G. SCHRENK 1964, 211-219; H. G. LIDDELL, R. SCOTT 1976, 429. 73 Cf. J. MURPHY-O’CONNOR 1984, 183. 74 Cf. Acts 2:33; 5:31; Phil 2:9 (in Philippians it is ὑπερυψόω that is used). 75 Cf. Acts 3:13; 1 Pet 1:21. See also M. GOURGUES 2009, 104. 69

EXAMINATION OF 1 TIM 3:16

39

It is good to begin with this fundamental question whether έδικαιώθη should be translated as “vindicated” (RSV, NEB, NIV, NRSV, NASB, ESV) or “justified” (KJV, NKJV, NJB). On the one hand, there is only a minor semantic difference between the two English verbs “to justify” and “to vindicate”. Both refer to a sense of being “proved or shown right” or “to pronounce free from guilt or blame”.76 On the other hand, the only difference is whether the usage is forensic (that is, a juridical verdict) or pragmatic (that is, an action that proves rightfulness).77 It could be doubtful if such a semantic differentiation is present in the usage of the word where both declaring and showing right are implied. According to the distinction given in Wiktionary about the usual meanings of these two verbs, “justify is to provide an acceptable explanation for; while vindicate is to clear from an accusation, suspicion or criticism.”78 If one is to follow this distinction, it would be more appropriate to translate δικαιόω as “vindicate” than as “justify” within the biblical context of the person of Christ. William Mounce adds that, since the clause most probably refers to the resurrection, the translation “justified” can be placed aside.79 He holds that since the author of the epistle is not the author of the proclamation in this pericope, it does not conflict with his normal usage of the term.80 In any way, what is implied is showing to be right or righteous, and its passive usage shows that there is an agent who performs the action and not himself. Therefore, there will be no special distinction made in the usage of the two terms in this work. How should the term, έδικαιώθη, be understood within the context of this passage? For Martin Dibelius this should be viewed from the Hellenistic perspective of “divinised” person.81 That is to say the vindication of Jesus is equivalent to deification in the sense of an entry into God’s world. It is good to note here that this meaning given to the verb δικαιόω is not found in the rest of the New Testament; and the extra-biblical reference to this, postdates the first century.82 The question that Michel Gourgues 76

Webster Dictionary, 1913. For good argument for the forensic aspect see M. BIRD 2007, 53-54. 78 https://wikidiff.com/justify/vindicate, 25/08/2018. 79 W. D. MOUNCE 2000, 227. 80 The normative lexical meaning of δικαιόω in forensic sense is notable in the Pauline corpus: Rom 2:13; 3:4,20,24,26,28,30; 4:2,5; 5:1,9; 8:30,33; 1 Cor 4:4; 6:11; Gal 2:1617 (4 times); 3:8,11,24; 5:4; and also Titus 3:7. 81 M. DIBELIUS 21931, 39. 82 Ignatius’ Epistle to the Philadelphians (8:2) serves as an earliest example but does not carry this sense. Its usage has no connection with deification but rather to be found worthy or accepted through spiritual exercises of the faithful on behalf of someone else: Παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς μηδὲν κατ᾿ ἐριθείαν πράσσειν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ χριστομαθίαν. ἐπεὶ ἤκουσά τινων 77

40

CHAPTER 1

asks with regard to this argument is that in what way does such an entrance into the world of God represent for Jesus a vindication? Vindication in this sense appears to be equivalent to exaltation. If the author means exaltation why does he not use the term since it was already common among the early Christians?83 Having observed this problem, Eduard Schweizer thinks that the more Hebraic “declared righteous, vindicated, validated” comes to about the same meaning as the Hellenistic “divinized”, for both refer to the entry into the divine sphere. The parallel references he gives from the time of the New Testament and even before do not show an entry into the divine sphere but only have the meaning of vindication.84 The term έδικαιώθη has also been understood in the sense of a revelation of the true identity of Jesus. This revelation has been connected to Easter manifestation. Using 1 Cor 15:44, Ceslas Spicq holds that the spiritualised body is vindicated as a proof of divinity which the Messiah has always had.85 At his resurrection, therefore, appearing in a spiritual condition, Christ was “vindicated” or “justified” by being recognised for what he really was. The question that may be raised in this regard is that, does this reading of the verb έδικαιώθη fit into this pericope? Can one really claim that δικαιόω has something to do with paschal apparitions? This verb does not simply mean, in a general sense, to recognise someone for what one is but, more specifically, to recognise one as just, right, in other words, not only recognising someone’s identity but the fact that one is just.86 According to Martin Hengel and Xavier Léon-Dufour, “vindication” could be understood as a divine sanction which is opposed to the curse of the cross by which Jesus was condemned.87 To this view, one has to observe that the reference to the cross is not explicit in 3:16b. This view λεγόντων ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις εὕρω, ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ οὐ πιστεύω· καὶ λέγοντός μου αὐτοῖς ὅτι γέγραπται, ἀπεκρίθησάν μοι ὅτι πρόκειται. ἐμοὶ δὲ ἀρχεῖά ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, τὰ ἄθικτα ἀρχεῖα ὁ σταυρὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁ θάνατος καὶ ἡ ἀνάστασις αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ πίστις ἡ δι᾿ αὐτοῦ· ἐν οἷς θέλω ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ ὑμῶν δικαιωθῆναι. (“When I heard some saying, if I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity; by which I desire, through your prayers, to be justified”); see E. SCHWEIZER 1955, 64, for references in later literature. 83 M. GOURGUES 2009, 141. 84 Cf. Rom 3:4 (Ps 50/51:6); Ps Sol 2:16; 3:5; 4:9; 8:7. See: E. SCHWEIZER 1960, 65; E. SCHWEIZER 21962, 64. 85 C. SPICQ 1994, 473. 86 See M. GOURGUES 2009, 141. 87 M. HENGEL 1995, 287; X. LÉON-DUFOUR 1972, 60.

EXAMINATION OF 1 TIM 3:16

41

may be too precise to be held on to.88 The mention of the cross and its bold usage in the pre- Pauline tradition was absent. At the oral stage, it was a scandalous thing to be talked about or boast of. Its mention in the hymn of Phil 2:6-11 has been viewed as an addition of the author because structurally, it has no correspondence and the vocabulary is unique.89 The final clause of Phil 2:8, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ (“even death on a cross”), is therefore seen as an emphasis added by the author. This is also similar to the formula in Col 1:15-20, it is very probable a redaction of Paul with the addition of σταυρος which takes a bold step in his theology.90 In 1 Pet 2:2224, the term “cross” is not mentioned, instead it is ξύλον (2:24 “tree”) that is used which is probably an allusion to Deut 21:23 LXX. It is Paul who later developed the importance of the cross of Jesus and read positive meanings into it.91 The term σταυρός appears 10 times in the Pauline corpus while the verb form σταυρόω (“to crucify”) appears 8 times. When describing Christ as the power and wisdom of God, he refers to Christ as the crucified: “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” (1 Cor 1:21-23). Hence, to link vindication in 1 Tim 3:16b to the curse of the cross of Jesus is to impose on the oral tradition what it did not express.92 Stephen Fowl sees ἐδικαιώθη as a divine sanction in favour of Christ’s earlier participation in the carnal condition viewed from the angle of weakness and corruptibility. In his words: “The immediate context, with σαρξ/ πνεῦμα contrast, would indicate that it is Christ’s appearance in the realm of the flesh which required vindication in the realm of the spirit”.93 He continues that this implies that there was something unrighteous about this fleshly realm (though not necessarily about Jesus’ human body). Looking at some of the Pauline corpus, he maintains that one may find reasons why the realm of the flesh was ungodly: 88 For Gourgues, this idea projects to the level of primitive tradition, where there is little question of the cross of Jesus, a vision that will be expressed only later (Gal 3:13): M. GOURGUES 2009, 141; M. GOURGUES 1989, 83-84. 89 See for example M. GOURGUES 2019, 46-47; see also J. MURPHY-O’CONNOR 1995, 232-233; R. P. MARTIN 1980, 99-100. 90 1 Cor 1:21-23; detail usage in 1 Cor 1-2; 2 Cor 13:4; Gal 3:1; 5:11,24; 6:12,14. 91 Cf. Phil 3:18-19; see further references on the above footnote. 92 For more detail on the silence of the cross at the pre-epistolary stage of the Christian community see M. GOURGUES 2019, 75-86. 93 S. E. FOWL 1990, 163.

42

CHAPTER 1

The flesh is the realm in which sin operates (cf. Rom. 7:5, 25). Nothing good dwells in the flesh (cf. Rom. 7:18). It is the source of evil desires (cf. Rom. 13:4; Gal. 5:13ff.) the flesh is mortal and corruptible (cf. 2 Cor. 4:11; Gal. 6:19; and particularly 8:3ff. which discusses Christ’s appearance in the realm of the flesh). [...] any or all of these elements which make the fleshly realm ungodly would also serve to alienate those who dwell in this realm from God. It would be reasonable to assume, then, that Christ’s appearance in this fleshly realm would require God’s justification.94

First of all, there is no word in the text that shows that Christ needs to be justified because the realm of the flesh is sinful in order to pass to the heavenly or spiritual realm. In addition, σαρξ is not used within the moral or the anthropological contexts to denote human corruptibility. Secondly, as Fowl notes that “justification” does not mean justification from sin that Jesus commits, why then must Jesus be justified just because the world of the flesh is corrupt or sinful if this corruption or sinfulness does not affect him? In a bid to get at the meaning of έδικαιώθη, Gourgues traces it back to the Old Testament. He finds the same verb “justify” being used in the book of Isaiah especially the Fourth Song of the Servant of Yahweh with similar context (Isa 52:13‒53:12). It is very likely that this song influenced this passage (1 Tim 3:16) since the first Christian community relies on the texts of Isaiah in interpreting the meaning of Jesus’ death.95 Moreover, the common terminologies of the New Testament used in connection with the resurrection of Christ are found in the Fourth Song of the Servant of Yahweh: ὑψόω, δοξάζω (cf. Isa 52:13 LXX), δόξα (cf. Isa 52:14; 53:2 LXX). Gourgues then gives some meanings to this verb δικαιόω looking at its context. The verb could mean “to be found just, to be found good, to judge appropriately” or “to do justice”, “to justify, to be recognised just, to be cleansed from an accusation”. Since the first two meanings are to be discarded in 3:16b, the third is the object of an extremely diversified understanding.96 From all indication from the different arguments, it is better to put one’s torchlight in the same direction as Gourgues’ in the search for the meaning of δικαιόω within this pericope. In 3:16b the meaning of this verb may be sought from the Septuagint version of the Christological reflection of Isa 53:10-11 (LXX): καὶ βούλεται κύριος ἀφελεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ πόνου τῆς 94 95 96

S. E. FOWL 1990, 163. M. GOURGUES 2009, 140. M. GOURGUES 2009, 140.

EXAMINATION OF 1 TIM 3:16

43

ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ δεῖξαι αὐτῷ φῶς καὶ πλάσαι τῇ συνέσει δικαιῶσαι δίκαιον εὖ δουλεύοντα πολλοῖς καὶ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν αὐτὸς ἀνοίσει. Translated literally as “And the Lord wants to take away his soul from pain, to show him the light and to shape him by the intellect, to justify a righteous one who is good slave to many [δικαιῶσαι δίκαιον εὖ δουλεύοντα πολλοῖς], and it is he who will bear their sins”. In French, it is translated as: “Et le Seigneur veut enlever son âme de la peine, lui montrer la lumière et (le) façonner par l’intelligence, justifier un juste qui est bon esclave pour beaucoup, et c’est lui qui portera leurs péchés”.97 One notes the difference from the Hebrew version whereby it is the Servant who justifies many while in the Greek version it is God who justifies the good servant or slave. The latter favours the story of the suffering Servant who is justified, exalted and glorified by Yahweh. If 1 Tim 3:16b could be traceable to the hymn used by the early Christian communities,98 it is very likely that this portion of Isaiah influenced the composition of the proclamation since it is God who justifies (δικαιόω) the Servant and exalts (ὑψόω) and also glorifies (δοξάζω) him (Isa 52:13). In the same thought, Gourgues notes that: Il est très vraisemblable que les chants du Serviteur aient inspiré le langage appliqué à l’exaltation du Christ. On sait en effet que ces textes uniques [referring to the verses in Isa 52‒53] ont servi très tôt aux premières communautés à rendre compte de sens de la mort de Jésus. C’est sans doute à eux par exemple que fait référence le credo ancien de 1 Co 15,3 : « Christ est mort pour nos péchés selon les Écritures » (cf. Is 53,6.12).99

At the height of the event in Isa 52‒53, the suffering of the Servant is vindicated by seeing “the light”.100 In Jewish literature “light” could mean the immortality of the soul and in some occasions it arguably represents resurrection.101 For example, in the wisdom book of Job, “light” portrays a state of one after being delivered from the “pit” of death. The “pit” most probably stands for death and “the light” (‫ ָבּ ֥אוֹר‬be’or) stands for the resurrection which gives access to light, which is further described as the “light of life” (Job 33:30). After the suffering of the Servant which ended in death (as “he was cut off from the land of the living” Isa 53:8), 97 98

P. GRELOT 1981, 101. As a majority of scholars believe and as it will be verified under section 1.6, pp. 53-

56. 99

M. GOURGUES 2009, 140; see also: P. GRELOT 1981, 140-141. Isa 53:11; also in 1QISaa-b. 101 For the idea of resurrection as “light” see: Job 33:28,30; Ps 49:19; Also 1 Enoch 58:3; 92:3-5; 108:12-13; Ps Sol 3:12; cf. Jn 8:12; 1 Clem 16:9-10; Sib Or 1:379. 100

44

CHAPTER 1

he is to be justified or vindicated for his righteousness by making him see the Light which the resurrection gave access to. If it is correct that the prophecy of Isaiah (LXX) influenced the early Christian communities in building their faith in the person of Jesus Christ and in the interpretation of his events, then this interpretation is appropriate. In her expression of faith, the ancient Christian tradition used frequently the terms exaltation (ὑψόω) and glorification (δοξάζω) in connection with the mystery of Christ,102 and these two terminologies are present in the prophecy of Isaiah with this term δικαιόω.103 Hence, it could be argued that the ancient Christian tradition used the three. As regards the whole clause, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, three major interpretations could be identified, namely, that the event is located within the earthly life of Jesus pointing out the agent as the Holy Spirit, reflected at his baptism; that it is between his death and resurrection; and that it refers to the spiritual realm or spiritual condition that the resurrection gave access to. a) The Earthly Life of Jesus Those who favour this interpretation have viewed this clause following chronologically from the moment of the incarnation that the first clause, ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, represents. This is the view that sees references to “Jesus’ anointing with the Spirit at baptism and to his miracles, exorcisms, preaching, and spotless life through the Holy Spirit”.104 According to this view, the prepositional phrase ἐν πνεύματι, “in spirit”, refers to the Holy Spirit.105 It has been further interpreted as the omnipotence of the Holy Spirit raising Jesus from the dead. The prepositional phrase ἐν πνεύματι is read here as an instrumental dative to refer to the Holy Spirit. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, who holds that the expression έδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι refers to the quality of life of Jesus under the action of the Holy Spirit, argues that this clause should be interpreted in the light of Titus 3:5-7 which affirms the justification of Christians at baptism and describes their renewal by the Holy Spirit.106 The question that comes to mind here is that, is the justification spoken about in 3:16b the same as in Titus? In the former passage, justification is that of Christ and not of the Christians. Moreover, the Spirit that is being referred to in Titus is clearly 102 103 104 105 106

For ὑψόω: Acts 2:33; 5:31; Phil 2:9; for δοξάζω: Acts 3:13; 1 Pet 1:21. Isa 52:13‒53:12 (the Fourth Song of the Servant of Yahweh). R. H. GUNDRY 1970, 213. See for example, B. L. MARTIN 2013, 110, 114. J. MURPHY-O’CONNOR 1984, 183.

EXAMINATION OF 1 TIM 3:16

45

the Holy Spirit without a doubt and not the same spirit as in 3:16b. The contexts of the two passages are not the same. There is no opposition flesh-spirit in Titus as it is obvious in 3:16b and other passages of like manner, Rom 1:3-4 and 1 Pet 3:18.107 George Knight makes allusion to the usage of πνεῦμα in 1 Tim 4:1 (which is the next appearance of πνεῦμα after 3:16b) holding that it is without qualification and for him undoubtedly refers to the Holy Spirit.108 The question that may be raised here is that, is this not an awkward movement to transport the usage of πνεῦμα in 4:1 into the context of the pericope? The usage of πνεῦμα is not the same in both passages. It is particularly used of Christ in 3:16b without an article and the context does not connote any moral (warning or teaching) or anthropological sense. While in 4:1, the context connotes taking caution to avoid false teaching, addressed to the believers. The Spirit is clearly shown to be taking action. Robert Falconer cites Lk 3:22; 9:35; 10:21-24 and Jn 16:14 to argue that this clause refers to the anointing by the Holy Spirit at baptism.109 But the Spirit in the account of Christ’s baptism only confirms Jesus as the Son of God and not as someone who is falsely accused in need of vindication.110 The idea of vindication or justification is not really presented. If the composers of this pericope meant the confirmation of Christ as the Son of God, then it is difficult to see why they would use the verb δικαιόω. This same argument may also be applicable contra Robert Gundry’s position that is mentioned above. It is interesting to note that in 1 Timothy the term πνεῦμα is used three times: 3:16b, 4:1a,1b. Each usage seems to be employed differently within its context. In 4:1b it is termed “deceitful spirits” (in plural) which probably points to human spirits or diabolic spirits as the context suggests with the term “demons” that follows. The πνεῦμα in 4:1a could probably refer to the Holy Spirit even though the text does not specifically qualify the Spirit with “Holy”. It may also refer to the Spirit of God (which is most probable). In fact, there is no usage of the term “Holy Spirit” in 1 Timothy.111 The πνεῦμα in 4:1a has been viewed as the Spirit of prophecy since it is concerned with a revelation: “The Spirit expressly says that 107

See also M. GOURGUES 2009, 140-141. G. KNIGHT 2013, 185. 109 R. FALCONER 1937, 138; others with the similar ideas, see H. ALFORD 1968, 334; C. K. BARRETT 1963, 65-66; W. METZGER 1979, 82-90, he opines that the final act of the justification by the Holy Spirit is the resurrection. 110 Cf. Mt 3:13-17; Mk 1:9-11; Lk 3:21-22; Jn 1:29-34. 111 In the Pastorals it occurs clearly in 2 Tim 1:14 and Titus 3:5; cf. M. GOURGUES 2009, 155. 108

46

CHAPTER 1

in later times....” (4:1).112 Its usage in the present tense here might suggest that even though the revelation was done in the past, its significance continues to be valuable in the present just as some passages do with the term “scripture” when referring to the revelation or past events in the Scripture (for example 1 Tim 5:18), whose value remains permanent. Michel Gourgues writes “Ce dernier [that is the expression in the present form] doit renvoyer à une révélation faite dans le passé mais gardant valeur permanente, comme dans le cas de l’Écriture à propos de laquelle 1 Tm 5,18 emploiera exactement la même tournure au présent”.113 In anyway, the point is that the usage of πνεῦμα in 4:1 is not the same as in 3:16b. Its usage in the latter does not refer to the Holy Spirit. b) Jesus Between his Death and Resurrection The second category of the interpretation of the clause έδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι is mostly the view of Robert Gundry. He sees this clause as a vindication of Jesus Christ during and by his Descensus ad Inferos in spirit form between his death and resurrection.114 His position is being influenced by 1 Pet 3:18. A similar antithesis of flesh-spirit is found in 1 Peter as it is obvious in 3:16b in relation to Christ. In the presentation of 1 Pet 3:18, the two events are “death” and “being made alive”. The two dative opposing pairs modify the two passive verbs. These two datives and those of 1 Tim 3:16b, for Gundry, are synonymous having both a locative sense and referring to Christ as an individual. He writes: In 1 Timothy 3:16, just as ἐν σαρκί surely denotes the individual physical manifestation of Christ as well as the general sphere in which his manifestation took place, so also ἐν πνεύματι denotes the individual human spirit of Christ as well as the general sphere in which his vindication took place. So also in 1 Peter 3:18, the phrase θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ contains a dative of reference (or locative) concerning the physical death of Christ, so that the parallel ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι must likewise contain a dative of reference (or locative) concerning his human spirit rather than an instrumental dative concerning the Holy Spirit (cf, 1 Pet. 4:1, 6).115

From this point, Gundry makes his conclusion that this clause points to the vindication in spirit before the resurrection of Christ during his Descensus ad Inferos in a similar way to that of 1 Pet 3:18-22. The question to 112

See C. SPICQ 41969, 494; C. K. BARRETT 1963, 67. M. GOURGUES 2009, 155. 114 R. H. GUNDRY 1970, 213. 115 R. H. GUNDRY 1970, 211. Other scholars who see a close link in the interpretation of 1 Pet 3:18 to be based on 1 Tim 3:16 include E. G. SELWYN 1958, 277, 325; M-É. BOISMARD 1961, 60-66. 113

EXAMINATION OF 1 TIM 3:16

47

be asked here is how sure is Gundry in viewing θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ as a direct reference to the death of the earthly body of Jesus? This statement is not presented in the same manner as it is found in Col 1:22 which makes it explicit that: “he [Jesus] has now reconciled in his fleshly body through death, so as to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him”. In this quotation, it is clearly stated that “he” died in his flesh. To view it this way, as Gundry has done, entails a logical conclusion (a kind of inference) and not a grammatical one as his argument portrays.116 c) Spiritual Realm or Spiritual Condition Many scholars believe that the clause έδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι refers to the spiritual condition or spiritual realm and not to the Holy Spirit.117 Robert Gundry does not deny that the antithesis of flesh and spirit in 3:16b may denote contrasting realms of being, but he is “doubtful that they do so apart from very particular and individualistic references in context”.118 He concludes in this way that: Just as ἐν σαρκί surely denotes the individual physical manifestation of Christ as well as the general sphere in which his manifestation took place, so also ἐν πνεύματι denotes the individual human spirit of Christ as well as the general sphere in which his vindication took place.119

To view ἐν πνεύματι in reference to the individual human spirit of Christ raises some questions. Would it be right to say that the human spirit of Christ was dead then resurrected especially with regard to 1 Pet 3:18, the passage that Gundry uses to make his argument?120 Can there be a separation between human physical component and human spirit? The text, from its context, should probably not be interpreted in such a way because it is inappropriate to say that the human spirit of Christ was justified or vindicated (raised from the dead). If the interpretation of the verb δικαιόω is appropriate for the prophecy of Isaiah, meaning that the suffering Servant of Yahweh was unjustly condemned, it would imply that this Servant was just. His condemnation 116 For similar concern about this position see also S. E. FOWL 1990, 161; J. N. KELLY 1969, 150-151. 117 S. E. FOWL 1990, 162; G. D. FEE 1994, 766; G. D. FEE 2000, 56; M. GOURGUES 2009, 141. Other scholars who hold a similar view include A. T. HANSON 1968, 86; W. LOCK 1936, 45; J. N. KELLY 1963, 90; V. HASLER 1978, 31; W. B. STENGER 1977, 158-159; M. DIBELIUS, H. CONZELMANN 1972, 62. 118 R. H. GUNDRY 1970, 211. 119 R. H. GUNDRY 1970, 211. 120 See chapter two for more detail on the question pertaining to this interpretation of 1 Pet 3:18, pp. 72-76.

48

CHAPTER 1

culminated in his death. To buttress this interpretation from the prophecy of Isaiah, Michel Gourgues explores some passages in the Acts of the Apostles which indirectly portray the reality that the clause probably expresses.121 If the justification of Christ indirectly speaks of his death (from his unjust condemnation) then the clause indirectly refers to his crucifixion which connects to the Fourth Song of the suffering Servant of Yahweh. This is shown in Acts 13:27-30.122 Indirectly, it may be said that the expression ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι points to show that Jesus was unjustly condemned to death or accused unjustly. In other words, what shows his justification was his resurrection which gave access to the spiritual condition. The resurrection from the dead was the outcome of his being the Just One. Since the verb is followed by ἐν πνεύματι, it would probably point to “where” this justification took place and not to his individual spirit. Coupled with the first line which contrasts the second ‒ flesh and spirit ‒ ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι would refer to the spiritual just as flesh (in the first line) refers to the earthly where his suffering and death took place. Furthermore, πνεῦμα, being employed differently in this context as compared with the other usages in 1 Timothy needs not be overstressed to reflect these other passages (4:1a,b).123 The unjust suffering of Christ took place in the “flesh”, the earthly existence, which gives access to his death; and the term πνεῦμα as used here refers to that spiritual condition that he was given access to by what justifies him (that is, the resurrection).124 It seems more appropriate, therefore, to view the opposition of flesh in line 1 and spirit in line 2 in this manner. The similar representation in Rom 1:3-4 and 1 Pet 3:18d adds more substance to this interpretation.125 The usage of πνεῦμα where it is clearly referring to the Holy Spirit would be obvious in Paul’s own reflections and exploration of the Christian faith, which is evident in his letters, but not in the passages within his letters which are very probably not his own composition but borrowed from the existing Christian communities antecedent to him.126 121

M. GOURGUES 2009, 142. See also Acts 2:36; 3:14-15; 4:10. 123 Moreover, if the pericope is antecedent to the author of the letter, see section 1.6 for the probable origin of the pericope, it could further explain the difference. 124 Similar view in M. GOURGUES 2009, 140-142; W. J. DALTON 21989, 127-132; S. E. FOWL 1990, 159-162; P. H. TOWNER 1989, 89-90; P. H. TOWNER 2006, 280-281; L. OBERLINNER 1980, 165-166; G. D. FEE 1994, 765-766. 125 The two passages will be explored in the subsequent chapters. 126 In Paul’s reflections and theology, the Holy Spirit functions as an individual agent who transforms, justifies and sanctifies the believers, giving to individual believer in the name of Jesus Christ (1 Thess 1:5,6; 4:8; 1 Cor 6:19; 12:3; 2 Cor 6:6; 13:13); exposition of the evolution from spirit to the Spirit (Holy Spirit) in chapter four. 122

EXAMINATION OF 1 TIM 3:16

49

1.5.2.3. Line 3: ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις ‒ Resurrection seen by Angels This is composed of the third person singular aorist passive indicative form of the verb ὁράω, “was seen”, and the dative masculine plural form of the noun, ἄγγελος, “angels”. This is the only line that has no preposition ἐν in between the verb and the name; its participle verb has two syllables and its order of heaven-earth is inverted. One may think that this clause which is different in this sense from the rest of the lines is an evidence of redaction, which means that the author might have retouched the proclamation;127 but this makes no serious influence on the investigation in this work. Can’t one assume that the proclamation is originally composed this way without the preposition and in such order of heavenearth? It is important to note that the verb is used in the same form in 1 Cor 15:3-5 which is likely to be ancient creed cited by the author of the epistle:128 καὶ ὅτι ἐτάφη, καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ κατὰ τὰς γραφάς, καὶ ὅτι ὤφθη Κηφᾷ, εἶτα τοῖς δώδεκα· Although its usage here and in other New Testament passages129 is applied to humans, in 3:16b it is to the angels. The expression has been linked to the earthly event that took place at the tomb of the resurrection and then interpreted the “angels” as the presence of the angels at the tomb of Jesus after his resurrection. The gospel narratives of the paschal event have been used as proofs for this interpretation.130 On another note, the absence of the preposition has also aided Metzger to view the expression as a reference to the post-resurrection appearances of Christ to his apostles in addition to the way he viewed the use of the verb ὁράω. He sees the verb as a technical term used for the appearances of the risen Christ to human beings.131 Hence for Metzger, the term ἀγγέλοις does not refer to the angels in the spiritual realm but to those “messengers” whom the resurrected Christ appeared to,132 or the messengers of the Gospel in the church after the resurrection.133 There are objections to this interpretation. First, as noted by Gourgues, the presence of the angels at the tomb does not speak of seeing Christ resurrecting or 127

See detail in M. GOURGUES 2016, 224. For the indices that show that 1 Cor 15:3-5 is most probably borrowed by the author see: M. GOURGUES 1989, 49-69; M. GOURGUES 2001, 161-174; M. GOURGUES 2019, 26-31. 129 Lk 24:34; Acts 13:31. 130 Mt 28:2-6; Lk 24:23. 131 Cf. 1 Cor 15:5-8; Lk 24:34; Acts 1:2; 9:17; 13:31; 26:16. See also A. SEEBERG 1966, 119-120. 132 W. METZGER 1979, 96-100; also in C. K. BARRETT 1963, 65. 133 J. MURPHY-O’CONNOR 1984, 186. 128

50

CHAPTER 1

seeing the resurrected Christ but announcing the event that has taken place. They bear witness to the resurrection by announcing it; the texts do not speak of the angels “seeing” Jesus resurrecting. Second, if this interpretation places ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις within the earthly existence, it disrupts the order of the alternation of the proclamation (earthly-heavenly).134 From its environment, the expression clearly points to the spiritual, for example, the presence of spirit and glory, coupled with the use of the verb ἀναλαμβάνω; also with the order of the alternation of the proclamation (earthly-heavenly), all support the spiritual dimension. It is very likely that it refers to the angels and not humans (the apostles or human messengers).135 This view is likely appropriate especially when the following line is considered and put side by side with Phil 2:6-10 where the realities of both the earth and the heaven are demonstrated: “so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth” (Phil 2:10). Whose “knee” is to bend in the heavenly realm? It may be said that the angels represent the image of this heavenly throne and that the idea of human is eliminated. The triumph of Jesus is first made known in the heaven after which the announcement is made on earth (among nations). There are other passages that portray the triumph of Christ, his exaltation and victory in the heavenly realm.136 His appearance to the heavenly inhabitants is to announce to them his justification and victory, likewise, the announcement by the angels at the tomb on earth proclaims his triumph. 1.5.2.4. Line 4: ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν ‒ Christ’s Victory Proclaimed to Humankind It is composed of the third person singular aorist passive indicative form of the verb κηρύσσω, “proclaimed”, the preposition ἐν, “among” and the dative neuter plural form of the noun, ἔθνος, “nations”.

134 M. GOURGUES 2009, 143. See other authors who refuted the earthly existence interpretation of the phrase: R. GUNDRY 1970, 214; S. E. FOWL 1990, 165. 135 See M. GOURGUES 2009, 143. Some have linked this line to the Egyptian text on the enthronement drama where the king is exalted by the gods to a divine status and then presented to the heavenly beings: E. NORDEN 1958, 116-120; J. JEREMIAS 1968, 24. Robert Gundry sees this appearance to the spirit in prison following from his position on 1 Pet 3:19 of Descensus ad Inferos: R. GUNDRY 1970, 219. It has also been linked to the image in Asc Isa 11:24-25: M. DIBELIUS, H. CONZELMANN 1972, 62; É. COTHENET 2004, 25. Others refer line 3 to the observation of the revelation of the incarnation of Christ: J. H. BERNARD 1980, 63. 136 Eph 1:2; Heb 1:3-4; 1 Pet 3:22; Rev 5:8-14; also Asc Isa 11:23.

EXAMINATION OF 1 TIM 3:16

51

The verb κηρύσσω occurs 61 times in the New Testament.137 It could portray an official and authoritative approach or way of proclaiming the Gospel. According to Henry Liddell and Robert Scott, it means to “make proclamation as a herald”, a public announcement.138 For Johannes Louw and Eugene Nida it is “to publicly announce religious truths and principles while urging acceptance and compliance”.139 One may notice that in this line and in the following line, “Christology develops naturally into missiology”.140 The question that may come to mind is what is being proclaimed? It is obvious that the text does not specifically state what is being proclaimed but when one considers the relative pronoun that starts the “mystery of piety”, one may find what is being proclaimed. The subject is ὅς which could very likely refer to Christ. So, one could say that ὅς is the subject of this verb κηρύσσω. Therefore, ὅς which refers to Christ is the subject of the proclamation as in Acts 17:3, “this is the Messiah, Jesus whom I am preaching [proclaiming] to you”. What is proclaimed about him is the event of the paschal mystery culminated in the resurrection. Another concern is the scope of this proclamation with reference to the phrase ἐν ἔθνεσιν. In other words, how does one translate the phrase in relation to what is being proclaimed? It seems that the best way is to see ἔθνεσιν as “nations” instead as “gentiles”.141 To view the noun as “gentiles” or “pagan nations” because the early evangelisation of the gospel was to the pagan nations as evident in the early writings of Paul may not be very appropriate.142 If the subject of the proclamation is Jesus and what is being proclaimed specifically about him, from the context of the pericope, is his resurrection, his triumph, one may say that this event was new then, even to his closest friends ‒ the apostles. The proclamation is to the nations which include the Jews and then the Gentiles. The following clause ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ expands the idea of the nations with the usage of κόσμῳ. The proclamation becomes so effective that it is believed in the world. 137 It appears 19 times in the Pauline corpus, 9 times in Matthew, 14 times in Mark, 9 times in Luke, 8 times in Acts, once each in 1 Peter and Revelation. 138 H. G. LIDDELL, R. SCOTT 1976, 949. 139 J. P. LOUW, E. A. NIDA 1988, 256. 140 P. H. TOWNER 2006, 282. 141 See also R. GUNDRY 1970, 216; G. FEE 2000, 55; E. SELWYN 1981, 326. Some have viewed ἔθνεσιν as referring to “Gentiles”: C. K. BARRETT 1963, 66, who chooses “Gentiles” in reference to the mission of Paul related in 1 Tim 2:7; W. LOCK 1936, 46; J. H. BERNARD 1980, 63. 142 1 Thess 1:9-10; 3:6-10.

52

CHAPTER 1

1.5.2.5. Line 5: ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ ‒ The Effect of Christ’s Victory in the World It is composed of the third person singular aorist passive indicative form of the verb πιστεύω, “believed”, the preposition ἐν, “in” and the dative masculine singular form of the noun κόσμος, “the world”. The verb πιστεύω in its passive form is translated as “to be believed in” and carries the sense of trusting or believing someone or something. In other words, it means to “trust, put faith in, rely on a person, thing, or statement”.143 The “world” here parallels the “nations” of the preceding line. The clause describes the realm in which the proclamation is believed.144 The passive έπιστεύθη is rare in the New Testament. In Rom 10:10, this form appears without a personal subject and also in 2 Thess 1:10. By synthetic parallelism this shows the outcome of what is proclaimed in line 4, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, and by antithetical parallelism, it contrasts the realm of “glory” of the following line: ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ. The two lines 4 and 5 above (verbs κηρύσσω and πιστεύω) may not be suitable if they are given the sense of a completed punctual past or a punctual action already accomplished once and for all in the past: in reality, he “was proclaimed” among the nations and he continues to be, just as he “was believed” in the world and he continues to be. Then the aorists could be regarded as inchoative or intrusive marking “the beginning of an action that lasted in the past entering into a continous state or prolonged state”.145 The understanding of those lines would be “he began to be proclaimed among nations”, and “he began to be believed in the world”. 1.5.2.6. Line 6: ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ ‒ Christ’s Exaltation The expression is composed of the third person singular aorist passive indicative form of the verb ἀναλαμβάνω, “taken up”, the preposition ἐν, “in”, and the dative feminine singular form of the noun δόξα, “glory”. It refers to the exaltation of Jesus Christ. The verb is used in similar manner in connection to the ascension of Christ in some New Testament passages.146 The term “glory” used in similar context, that is, with regard 143

H. G. LIDDELL, R. SCOTT 1976, 1407. Some scholars have taken this phrase as a reference to the universal acceptance of the gospel including the Parousia: A. T. HANSON 1968, 86; E. SCOTT 1947, 42; J. N. KELLY 1963, 91; N. BROX 1969, 160. 145 F-M. ABEL 1927, 255 § 55 o; cf. F. BLASS, A. DEBRUNNER 1961, no. 318, § 2. 146 Mk 16:19; Acts 1:2,11,22. Cf. G. LOHFINK 1971, 213; H. I. MARSHALL 1999, 528529. Charles K. Barrett sees it as referring to Jesus’ parousia (C. K. BARRETT 1963, 66). 144

EXAMINATION OF 1 TIM 3:16

53

to the triumph of Christ, is common in the New Testament.147 But the preposition that is used here is ἐν (“in”) unlike εἰς (“into”) as found elsewhere in the New Testament.148 Gourgues notes that the dative form of this term in the proclamation, following the same sequence from the other lines, conveys the sense of stability and not probably a movement (as its close term οὐρανόν which is found in Acts 1:11 portrays similar sense).149 It could mean therefore that the resurrected Christ has henceforth this condition of glory permanently with his Father.150 The “glory” here could be said to be synonymous to heaven. Elsewhere this experience of Christ is employed in connection with that of the believers. The author of 1 Corinthians talks about the believers’ resurrection using the two spheres, earthly and heavenly: “There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies” (1 Cor 15:40). At the resurrection, what is sown is “raised in glory”, ἐγείρεται ἐν δόξῃ (1 Cor 15:43). 1.6. LITERARY GENRE: CHRISTOLOGICAL HYMN OR CREDO? Literally, this passage appears poetic and hymnic in its composition and structure. These terms describe the genre of writing of a passage. To determine whether a passage is poetic or hymnic, there are two main criteria, namely, (i) The style: this involves a certain rhythmical lilt being observed when the passage is read aloud, the presence of parallelismus membrorum (an arrangement into strophes), the semblance of some metre, and the presence of rhetorical devices such as alliteration, chiasmus, and antithesis;151 and (ii) the language: an unusual vocabulary, particularly the presence of theological terms, which is different from the surrounding context.152 These criteria are present to a large extent in this pericope without a doubt. When the passage is read aloud in its Greek version, one But Philip Towner comments that the proclamation does not stress so much on “the event as a chronological terminus; for if chronology were the organizing theme of the poem, we would expect a line dedicated in some explicit way to hope in the parousia (cf. Acts 1:11). Rather, it is the symbolic value of the historical event that predominates: it represents the exaltation of Christ”: P. H. TOWNER 2006, 284. In Lk 9:51 it refers not only to Christ’s exaltation but probably points also to his death and resurrection. The verb is also used in the New Testament as meeting someone (cf. Acts 20:13,14; 2 Tim 4:11). 147 Mt 19:28; 25:31; Lk 24:26; 1 Cor 2:8; 2 Cor 4:4,6; Phil 3:21; Col 3:4; Heb 2:9; 1 Pet 1:11,21; and in John’s Gospel. 148 Acts 1:11; 1 Pet 3:22b. 149 The context in Acts 1:11 favours the interpretation of a movement. 150 M. GOURGUES 2009, 145-146. 151 See explanation under section 1.4 (the structure), pp. 30-32. 152 For similar explanation see: P. T. O‘BRIEN 2013, 188-189.

54

CHAPTER 1

could notice a melodic ring as a result of its unique rhythmical pattern, assonances, verbal endings and even the prepositional ending: ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.

It presents obviously to a large extent some characteristics of a hymn.153 The distinctiveness and its poetic quality as described under the structure in this chapter could, to a great extent, show its hymnic character. In addition, its affinities with other passages considered as early Christian hymns (Phil 2:6-11 and Col 1:15-20) further strengthen its hymnic nature. The subject of this hymn being Christ tells that it might have been a Christological hymn. It is very likely more of a hymn than an ordinary creed, as John Kelly explains: “that it is a hymn, not a creedal fragment or piece of catechetical material, is borne out by the careful parallelism of Strophes, the rhythmic diction, and the deliberate assonance marked in the Greek by the six third person singular aorist verbs”.154 Its content shows that as a hymn, it celebrates the mystery of “godliness” which is “great”. 1.6.1. 1 Tim 3:16b: Its Elements, Possibility of Origin Where does this Christological hymn come from? Some points will be considered here from the hymn itself: a) The relative pronoun Ὃς that begins the hymn parallels other New Testament passages that have been regarded as an early Christian hymn, namely, Phil 2:6-11 and Col 1:15-20, quoted by the author in his letters. The relative pronoun has no antecedent which caused a literary shift within its context, a sign of an insertion. To begin to search for its antecedent to connect with this unit of the passage within the letter may be imposing too much on the hymn, as Daniel Wallace also submits: “To seek outside the hymn for an antecedent of Ὃς, as some have done, is an unnecessary expedient, which in fact, misreads the genre and misunderstands the force of τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον”.155 Its beginning tells that the 153 154 155

See some features of ὕμνος in S. E. FOWL 1990, 31-32. J. N. KELLY 1963, 89. D. B. WALLACE 1996, 341.

EXAMINATION OF 1 TIM 3:16

55

author borrowed it which means it existed before his writing. That the proclamation refers to Christ is evident from its content which contains Christ Event. If this unit is borrowed, as shown above, because it has no antecedent, as one finds in similar hymns in Phil 2:6 and Col 1:15, coupled with the other passages with the relative pronoun Ὃς being used in like manner,156 then it is most probably a fragment of an early Christian hymn.157 b) The manner in which the hymn is being introduced in verse 16a: καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, especially with the use of the adverb ὁμολογουμένως and with the similar manner of introduction found in other New Testament passages with primitive tradition, prove that it is an early hymn of the first Christian community before the writings; for example: πιστεύομεν ὅτι, “For since we believe that” (1 Thess 4:14 ), παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον, “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received that” (1 Cor 15:3), διὸ λέγει, “Therefore it says:” (Eph 5:14); πιστὸς ὁ λόγος· “The saying is sure:” (2 Tim 2:11). All these manners of introduction show the incontestability of the fact that follows, that the fact was believed before the author’s writing, and that he is only quoting what has been there. c) The uniqueness in vocabulary in the whole pericope gives a strong impression that it is antecedent to the author. All the verbs in this Christological hymn are absent in the other passages of 1 Timothy except for the verb πιστεύω which appears only 2 times (1:11,16) but once in the same form as in 3:16;158 also the substantive “flesh”, σαρκί appears only here, while ἔθνος and ἄγγελος are found only once outside this pericope.159 d) The opposition flesh-spirit in the proclamation is also found in Rom 1:3-4 and 1 Pet 3:18, a characteristic that is common to the early manners of expressing faith in Jesus Christ. These other passages could also contain some pre-literary elements of faith.160 The fact that this passage, with its rhythmic quality, style, poetic quality and internal coherence, which presumably must have taken a lot of reflection to compose, appears in the midst of the epistolary discourse, goes a long way to show that it is not composed with the rest of the epistle. 156

Rom 8:32; Phil 2:6; Titus 2:14; 1 Pet 2:22-24; 3:22. See also M. GOURGUES 2009, 138; J. N. KELLY 1963, 89. 158 In 1:11, however, one finds the same form in the first person singular and not in the third, but the meaning differs. 159 1 Tim 2:7 and 5:21 respectively. 160 This will be elaborated in chapters two and three. 157

56

CHAPTER 1

One may believe that this formula must predate the writings of the author because of its great difference in all ramifications from the rest of the epistle and the other reasons given above which include the affinity it has with other passages with instances of primitive expression of faith.161 The early Christian community expresses her confession of faith based on the death and the resurrection aspects of the mystery of Christ which this pericope simply expresses without further deep theological explanations. Some have placed this pericope within the pre-Pauline Palestinian Jewish-Christian origin because of its parallel with the apocalyptic visions of the bodily transposition from the earth to the heaven as evident in some ancient figures like Elijah (2 Kings 2:1,11) and Enoch (Gen 5:24; Heb 11:5). It is further connected to the Lukan use of language about the events of Christ, for example in Lk 9:51: “When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem”.162 Then the two events, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν and ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, were seen as later development of the very early Christian literature to include the activity of the missionary church within the salvation history wrought by Christ. These activities were believed to be part of the “redeeming work of God in Jesus Christ”.163 That is, the event of Christ is not to be left hidden but proclaimed. In all, it could be said that the pericope is antecedent to the author of 1 Timothy. 1.7. SUMMARY From this chapter, the following points could be deduced: a) That the proclamation in this passage does not have the same structure as the rest of the epistle and can be clearly detached from its environment. b) That from all indication, both within the context of the pericope and its affinities with other passages in the New Testament, it is most probably a Christological hymn in praise of God borrowed by the author from the Christian communities before him. c) That the hymn is most likely from the early Christian communities of faith influenced by the prophecy of Isaiah (the Fourth Song of the Suffering Servant) which the early Christian communities used in her interpretation of the mystery of Christ. 161 162 163

Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3; 15:3; Eph 5:14; Phil 2:6-11; 1 Thess 4:14; 2 Tim 2:11-13. See J. QUINN, W. WACKER 2000, 346. D. KRAUSE 2004, 81.

EXAMINATION OF 1 TIM 3:16

57

d) That the antithesis of flesh‒spirit neither refers to the two categories, human and divine natures, of Christ nor to the Holy Spirit as the agent of Christ’s resurrection. The usage of the antithesis flesh-spirit most probably refers to the terrestrial and heavenly existence of Jesus, that is, his human condition and his spiritual condition respectively. The latter was brought about by his resurrection. In fact, where this antithesis occurs in the New Testament with similar context it is the distinction between the human and the supernatural or terrestrial and celestial that is being stressed. It never refers to either the moral aspect or the anthropological perspectives of Christ, nor in relation to the believers as it is employed elsewhere.164 The major concern in this work hinges on the first two lines of this passage in general, but on the second line in particular, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι. It has to do with the usage of πνεῦμα. From the exploration, it is most likely that it does refer to the spiritual condition of the resurrected Christ and therefore should neither be viewed as one of the human dimensions of Christ nor as the Holy Spirit acting as an agent of resurrection. The following two chapters will explore other passages of similar representation of πνεῦμα in relation with Christ for further clarification on the interpretation of its usage.

164

Cf. Rom 8:4-9,13; Gal 3:3; 5:16-25; 6:8.

CHAPTER 2

EXAMINATION OF 1 PET 3:18-22 It is important to note at the beginning of the examination of this pericope that it is regarded as one of the most complicated passages in the New Testament. In a bid to unravel the secret in this passage, scholars have ended up in giving various interpretations to it. In this regard, John Feinberg notes that: “As one approaches the commentaries on this passage, he [one] is met by a veritable maze of positions. Not only is there variation in understanding of the overall meaning of the passage, but there is also variety in interpretation of almost every element in it”.1 The major concern of this work is in verses 18 and 22 and not really the section on Noah and the spirits in prison, even though the analysis of the whole pericope will be addressed. 2.1. DELIMITATION 1 Pet 3:18-22 can be distinguished from its environment because of the following reasons: a) From the point of view of the theme of the pericope: the author addresses the topic of suffering and steadfastness of the faithful (3:816) and in verse 17, he summarises the essence of suffering for doing good (which starts from verse 13). Immediately in verse 18, the attention is then drawn to Christ as one who died unjustly2 and now at the right hand of God (verse 22); it is no longer on the particular suffering of the believers. After verse 22, the attention returns on the believers, encouraging them to persevere in suffering as Christ did (4:1-2). b) From the vocabulary point of view, the pericope contains two terms that make it stand out from its environment, namely, ἀπέθανεν and ἡμᾶς.3 The verb ἀποθνῄσκω is not used by the author in this epistle 1

J. FEINBERG 1986, 306. If the variant for ἀπέθανεν is retained as the original reading, for there are two variants, ἀπέθανεν and ἔπαθεν. 3 These are variant readings which will be explained under the textual criticism in sections 2.2.1, pp. 59-60 and 2.2.2, p. 60. 2

EXAMINATION OF 1 PET 3:18-22

59

except here; instead it is the verb πάσχω that is used. The author uses consistently the second person pronoun ὑμᾶς in the surrounding context (3:13,15,16; 4:1,4)4 and suddenly uses the first person plural pronoun ἡμᾶς in verse 18. c) The structure of this pericope, to some extent, aids in delimiting it. There are elements of parallelism noticeable in this pericope. The use of ἀπέθανεν in verse 18a parallels that of θανατωθεὶς (μὲν σαρκὶ) in verse 18c, ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι (made alive in spirit) in verse 18d corresponds with δι’ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (through the resurrection of Jesus Christ) in verse 21d, and πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανὸν (gone into heaven) complement ὅς ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ [τοῦ] θεοῦ (who is at the right hand of God) in verse 22.5 2.2. TRANSMISSION: TEXTUAL CRITICISM The pericope presents some textual variants especially in verses 18 and 21. There have been difficulties in arriving at the original readings between the verbs ἔπαθεν and ἀπέθανεν and between the personal pronouns ὑμᾶς and ἡμᾶς both in verse 18, and the difficulty of construing ὃ in verse 21. Here the different views and reasons for either of the variants will be critically examined in order to arrive at a more convincing position. This investigation will begin with the two verbs before the personal pronouns and end with ὃ. 2.2.1. The Textual Variant: ἀπέθανεν or ἔπαθεν (3:18a)? There are diversities of readings in connection with the variation of these verbs. With regard to ἔπαθεν, there are three variant readings, while with ἀπέθανεν, there are five variants.6 The majority members of the Committee of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament that adopted certain variant readings for inclusion in the New Testament text and relegated certain other readings to the apparatus, preferred the reading ἔπαθεν. The reasons given for this preference are: a) That the author of 1 Peter uses the verb πάσχω consistently and in fact it occurs eleven times elsewhere in this letter and that it carries on the thought of verse 17. The verb ἀποθνῄσκω for the other variant In 3:15,16 and 4:4 one finds the form ὑμῶν while in 4:1 it is ὑμεῖς. More explanation on this parallelism and the complement will be given under section 2.6, pp. 86-89. 6 B. M. METZGER 21994, 622-623. 4 5

60

CHAPTER 2

never appears in the epistle and so it introduces a new idea in the text. This proves to be the internal evidence for ἔπαθεν. b) That it is more likely for the scribes to substitute ἀπέθανεν for ἔπαθεν than vice versa while considering the expression περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν. Having presented the above reasons for the preference of ἔπαθεν over ἀπέθανεν, it is important to note that one of the criteria for detecting the more original text in textual criticism is the more difficult the reading is.7 That is to say, when the reading appears on the surface level to be erroneous but a deeper and wider consideration proves itself to be making sense. Therefore, the scribe is tempted to correct for easier variant. In the passage in question, ἀπέθανεν would have appeared “more difficult” to its environment and hence, the scribes may subscribe to amending it to suit the surrounding context. In addition, ἀπέθανεν corresponds in meaning and idea to θανατωθεὶς in the same verse 18. Both carry the meaning of death and the pericope touches on the death of Christ. To further buttress this point, the use of the adverb ἅπαξ which is translated as “once” would favour ἀπέθανεν more than ἔπαθεν in the sense that dying is once, but suffering may reoccur many times. So, it may be said that Christ died once and not that he suffered once. In line with this, one may say that the author borrows from other material some of his terminologies in this passage.8 On the basis of the external evidence, the two are equally favoured, but as for the dating of each reading, that of ἀπέθανεν is attested in the reading of an older witness of less than a century.9 The reading ἀπέθανεν is followed in most recent English versions, and the manuscript evidence, ἀπέθανεν, is stronger even though textual commentators are divided on their preference.10 2.2.2. The Textual Variant: ἡμᾶς or ὑμᾶς (3:18b)? From the point of view of internal criticism, the variant ὑμᾶς is evident from the surrounding context; the author uses it through συ or ὑμεῖς in 3:13,15,16; 4:1,4. One also has to note that the author uses the first 7

Cf. B. M. METZGER 21994, xxvi-xxvii. This will be explained further under the literary genre of this pericope in section 2.6, pp. 87-94. 9 περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμων p72 A 206 429 441 1241 arm. 10 In support of ἔπαθεν see F. H. SCRIVENER, 1867; A. SOUTER 21962; E. NESTLE, K. ALAND 282012; K. ALAND et al. 52014. In support of ἀπέθανεν see B. F. WESTCOTT, F. J. HORT 1966; R. TASKER 1964. 8

EXAMINATION OF 1 PET 3:18-22

61

person plural pronoun in 1:3 (2 times); 2:24 and 4:17. From the point of view of external criticism, it is difficult to pronounce in favour of one or the other variant.11 Both are attested in witnesses of the Alexandrian and Byzantine type, as in the oldest manuscripts. Nevertheless, ἡμᾶς is to be favoured considering from above the argument for ἀπέθανεν which corresponds with θανατωθεὶς showing that the author is not just writing on his own but referring to another material which could probably be from the tradition. 2.2.3. Personal Pronoun: ὃ or ὡς or ᾧ (3:21a)? The variant ὃ should be preferred because of two reasons: a) it is widely and strongly supported by ‫א‬c A B C K P Ψ 33 81 614 1739 Byz it65 vg arm Cyprian Origen1at al; and b) it is a difficult reading that other readings might have tried to ameliorate. It has been omitted in some witnesses ‒ P72 ‫ *א‬255 436 eth ‒ while others substituted for it either ᾧ (69 206 216 241 630 1518) or ὡς (copbovid Augustinevid).12 From the above textual evidences, the variant readings ἀπέθανεν, ἡμᾶς and ὃ are preferred in this work and thereby regarded as the more reliable readings despite the difficulty surrounding their verification. 2.3. LITERARY CONTEXT: SUFFERING AND THE HOPE OF CHRISTIANS Suffering is the major topic that occupies 1 Peter in general. Its idea is present in all the five chapters of this epistle. It is not surprising then that the verb πάσχω appears eleven times13 and the word παθήματα (suffering) appears four times.14 It is interesting that there is no New Testament document that uses the language of suffering more than 1 Peter. The believers were widely despised and rejected, which resulted in many experiencing grievous sorts of “trials” (πειρασμός), as clearly stated in 1:6. To further the discussion on the idea of suffering, the author introduces the concept of hope (1:3,13) encouraging his audience to live a holy life by emphasising an exemplary Christian behaviour and conduct (2:15; 3:1-2) in spite of suffering, knowing that Christians have a wonderful hope. The point was to avoid any cause for bringing a just or legal punishment upon themselves (3:14; 4:15), but instead, to testify to their Lord through 11 12 13 14

See B. M. METZGER 21994, 623, for the witnesses in favour of ὑμᾶς and ἡμᾶς. B. M. METZGER 21994, 623. 2:19,20,21,23; 3:14,17; 4:1(2 times),15,19; 5:10. 1:11; 4:13; 5:1,9.

62

CHAPTER 2

their trials (4:14,16) and to repay the evils inflicted upon them with good deeds (3:17; 4:19). Moreover, the believers were not alone in their sufferings, for others in the scattered worldwide Christian fellowship were experiencing the same fate (5:9), including the writer himself (5:1). The essential truth to keep in mind was that the same God to whom they were committed and for whom they were being persecuted would also enable them to stand firm in their faith and life until they reach their heavenly reward (5:10). 1 Peter contains some passages that are Christological which are geared toward helping the believers endure suffering. In 1:18-19 the author makes it clear that they are ransomed not by the material things of the world but by the precious blood of Christ. It is also emphasised that Christ suffered for their sake, though innocent, “bore their sins in his body on the cross” and healed them by his wounds (2:21-25). He now stands as their shepherd and Lord. Therefore, they should do away with sin and live to righteousness. The passage under investigation constitutes another Christological section in this epistle. In the first two passages the emphasis is based on the question of the purpose of Jesus’ suffering and to remind the readers that this action brought about salvation. In the third passage, the emphasis is further stressed to some far-reaching consequences of salvation and culminated in the kingship and lordship of Christ (v. 22). 1 Pet 3:18-22 is located within the larger section that concerns submission and its consequences (2:13–4:6). Having disclosed the goals of submission (3:8-12), the author narrows it down to submission even under persecution or suffering (3:13–4:6). This latter section is what forms the immediate context of the pericope under investigation. 2.3.1. Innocent Sufferers and Witnesses for Christ (3:13-17) There is a close link to the preceding passage based on the crucial terms of “bad” (or evil) and “good”. In 3:11, in the quotation of Ps 34, both the good and the bad are mentioned; while in 3:12b, in the same quotation, it is only the bad (κακά), but a clear break is also suggested by this reference in the form of a disjunctive rhetorical question introduced by an initial emphatic καὶ that begins verse 13. It is in 3:13 that the “good” (ἀγαθόν) is spoken of. In verse 13, the author tries to ask a question concerning the significance of doing good. It is a clear question which ascertains that doing good cannot be overcome by being harmed for it. He explains this in the following verse (3:14) that doing good even if one has to suffer for it, is a blessing. It is noted that he uses the optative

EXAMINATION OF 1 PET 3:18-22

63

mood15 which portrays the theoretical nature of the point he is making that to do good while suffering for it, is pleasing to God and so there is no need to be afraid or intimidated (v. 14) because there is hope in Christ (v. 15).16 There is probably the influence of Isaiah in both verses (14 and 15). In Isa 8:12, one could notice similar expressions of exhortation that the author of 1 Peter uses in verse 14 that they should not fear and not to be intimidated.17 In doing good under suffering, one should maintain good conduct and clear conscience in order to be victorious even before the persecutors (v. 16). In verse 17, he summarises this teaching into a general rule that it is better to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. This seems to give the basis of the author’s exhortation to focus on the future judgement of God rather than the present judgment of humans. In all, in this passage, there is a mention of “doing good” or “evil” in reversed order (vv. 13 and 17) in the context of suffering (vv. 14 and 17).18 There is also a sequence of references to “good” (vv. 13, 16 and 17) which creates connectivity within the unit in contrast to that found in the preceding paragraph, where the “bad” was in focus. 2.3.2. Living a Pure Life as Followers of the Example of Christ (4:1-6) The use of the conjunction οὖν at the beginning of this section marks a pragmatic rhetorical shift from the theological exposition to a practical exhortation. In verses 1-2 the author draws a practical application from the preceding passage (3:18) of the unjust death of Christ to the earthly life of the believers. He emphasises suffering in the flesh in these two verses so much that he mentions the word σαρκὶ three times in three different applications: the first referring to Christ (Χριστοῦ οὖν παθόντος σαρκὶ), 15

Cf. M. ZERWICK 1966, 7l0. For the apologetic usage of verse 15 see T. E. MILLER 2017, 193-209. Schlosser observes that the expression “in Christ” of verse 16 is inserted in the Greek text between the article with the adjective ἀγαθός and the name. In the many usages of the formula “in Christ” in Paul, one finds constructions that are close to this one (1 Cor 4:17), but there is no direct thematic parallel for the application of the formula to a category as obviously ethical as ἀναστροφή: J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 207-208. See also: L. WEHR 1996, 186. 17 For the comparative analysis of Isa 8:12-13 in 1 Pet 3:14-15 and some other passages of Isaiah and 1 Peter see K. MARCAR 2016, 1-21. 18 Remarkable correspondences exist between verses 13-14b and 17: the rare mode, that is, the optative (πάσχοιτε in v. 14a, θέλοι in v. 17b), the presence of the verb πάσχω in 14a and 17c and the use of a term derived from the root κακ- in 13a and 17c. For more detail see J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 206. One could argue that the optative mode had become so rare in Koine Greek that its presence becomes meaningful. But a verbal mode is just a verbal mode that normally does not say much in the structure. 16

64

CHAPTER 2

the second as a general principle (ὅτι ὁ παθὼν σαρκὶ πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας) and the third to his audience (τὸν ἐπίλοιπον ἐν σαρκὶ βιῶσαι χρόνον). In verse 3, the author mentions what is to be avoided in the flesh and reminds his addressees that they were once into it. Since they are no longer involved in these lustful desires, their unbelieving acquaintances are surprised and hence slander them (v. 4), but there is consequence for their blasphemy, for they will have to give account to the One who judges both the living and the dead (v. 5). This section concludes with a statement of reason, εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ, coupled with purpose, ἵνα, another reference to “preaching the gospel” (1:12,25). It develops verses 3-5 by building on the last part of verse 5, explaining why the gospel is preached to the dead (even though they are already judged). This is in a way saying that the dead live in the spirit and can have some benefits in the kingdom of God. The mention of “spirit” forms a contrastive rhyming sequence in verse 6: κριθῶσι…σαρκὶ… ζῶσι…πνεύματι. 2.3.3. The Connection of 1 Pet 3:18-22 to its Immediate Context 1 Pet 3:18-22 is preceded and followed by paragraphs dealing with suffering. The conjunction ὅτι connects the preceding paragraph to this pericope which shows the intention of the author to encourage the readers to persevere in their own sufferings for there is assurance for them in the triumph of the risen and exalted One (v. 22). This pericope is a way of motivating the Christians to suffer for “doing good” just as Christ did as shown in the previous passages 2:21-25 then culminated in his death in 3:18. The mention and emphasis of the author on the suffering of the believers for the sake of righteousness in 3:13-17 prompt him to bring into the picture the undeserved death of Christ in verse 18a. This elicits an involved treatment of the consequences of his death (vv. 18c,d-21), concluding with a declaration of his triumph (v. 22). Furthermore, after mentioning the fact that Christ suffered unjustly (2:21-22), the author now mentions the fact that he died. What puts this new aspect of his experience in connection with the experience of believers who suffer ἀδίκως (unjustly: 2:19) is no longer the experience of suffering itself but its unjust character: in this case the fact that Christ is dead “righteous for the unrighteous (ἀδίκων: 3:18)”. Obviously, the idea of suffering is not entirely removed, as can be deduced from 3:18b, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ, which will probably echo in 4:1 a similar turn: Χριστοῦ οὖν παθόντος σαρκὶ (“Since therefore Christ suffered in [the]

65

EXAMINATION OF 1 PET 3:18-22

flesh”). But the emphasis in 3:18,22 remains on death: Christ did not only suffer unjustly (2:21-22), he went so far as to die of an unjust death (3:18). The sequence appears to be the following: 1) believers suffer unjustly (2:19); 2) that they refer to the experience of Christ who also suffered (2:21) unjustly (2:22); 3) that they also refer to the experience of Christ who died (3:18a), “righteous for the unrighteous” (3:18b). 4) When the death of Christ is mentioned from the point of view of injustice (3:18a), the author leaves aside this aspect to consider the death of Jesus “in itself”, in what followed: death ‒ resurrection (3:18b) ‒ exaltation in heaven ‒ session at the right hand of God (3:22), which is also likely to support and motivate believers. In between verses 18 and 22, he inserts the passage on preaching to the spirits and baptism (3:19-21). 5) Then comes again to the suffering of Christ, still considered from a new angle, no longer as unjust but as it was lived “in the flesh” (4:1a) and brings it closer again from the experience of the believers who also suffered in the flesh (4:1b-2) in the past, suffering understood in the moral sense. 6) He will come again in 4:12-19 to the participation of the believers in the sufferings of Christ and will again mention, in final, the suffering of the believers (5:10). Points 1-5 can be represented in a table below: Lived Experience By the believers Suffering

2:19b

4:1b

By Christ Within the context Within the pericope 2:21

4:1a

Death Unjust

3:18a 2:19b

In the flesh

2:22 4:1b-2

3:18b 4:1a

William Dalton links verses 18-22 with verse 14 seeing the former as an example of the confidence that Christians have in the face of suffering19 19

W. J. DALTON 21989, 127.

66

CHAPTER 2

while John Kelly connects the blessing that comes from suffering for doing good in verse 14 to verses 18-22.20 For Bo Ivar Reicke, verses 18-22 could be connected to the idea of preaching the gospel to the wicked, which is implied in verses 15-16, with the exhortation to be ready to give a defence of the hope that is in them (the believers).21 It is obvious that each of these authors takes a particular theme within the context and applies it to verses 18-22 and neglects other aspects of the pericope. The context that follows verses 18-22 echoes the principle of verse 17 in 4:1-2, showing Christ as an example of one who physically suffered for “doing good” under the will of God. So Christians are to look up to this example in doing good by rejecting sin even if it involves suffering. Therefore the expression Χριστοῦ οὖν παθόντος (“Since therefore Christ suffered”) at the beginning of the following context (4:1) would embrace all the themes of confidence or fearlessness, blessing and preaching the gospel (by one’s way of living) of Dalton, Kelly and Reicke respectively. Coming back to the dependent conjunction ὅτι, which introduces a dependent clause that grammatically modifies the principle given in verse 17, it could have a causal function in this context. Since verse 17 is also causal, being introduced with the conjunction γὰρ, verses 18-22 are related to the greater context of 13-17. The evocation of baptism was an opportunity to emphasise the salvation already achieved for them in connection with the resurrection and their own commitment to a righteous life, in conformity with that of Christ. This section on the angelic spirits which appears to be off topic helps to highlight the defeat of hostile forces and, more directly, the victory of Christ on these forces. Such a message is obviously likely to confront Christians. They are victims of their entourage and, maltreated for no reason, they may well have thought that their malefactors were under the influence of the forces of evil, whose “devil”, opponent and enemy of Christians (5:8), could well be the leader, the one perpetuating evil. The insistence on the victory of Christ made it possible to renew the hope of these Christians, for the moment confronted with suffering, but called to share the glory of their Lord, as the author has already stated (1:21; 2:4-5) and as he would state (4:13; 5:1).22 The reminder of Christ’s destiny, especially in verse 22, serves as an encouragement and determination for the believers to hold fast to their vital experience. In 2:21-25, the reminder becomes a call, a kind to keep in the 20 21 22

J. N. KELLY 1969, 147. B. I. REICKE 1984, 130. See J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 224.

EXAMINATION OF 1 PET 3:18-22

67

midst of suffering, which leans on the solid foundation of hope.23 It is a living hope which is culminated into an inheritance that is imperishable in heaven (1:4), which is now, once more, reassuring to the believers.24 More than in 2:21-25, the emphasis is put on the triumph of the Paschal Christ, whose remembrance crowns all the development and themes which precede, in particular, the call not to fear of 3:14.25 The author identifies Jesus Christ as the ultimate conqueror of all evil both in the world of the spirit and in the human world.26 2.4. STRUCTURE OF 3:18-22: A TRI-STYLED FEATURE ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἀπέθανεν, bδίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἵνα ἡμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ Θεῷ, cθανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ dζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι· 19 ἐν ᾧ καὶ τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξεν, 20a ἀπειθήσασίν ποτε bὅτε ἀπεξεδέχετο ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ μακροθυμία ἐν ἡμέραις Νῶε κατασκευαζομένης κιβωτοῦ, cεἰς ἣν ὀλίγοι, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ὀκτὼ ψυχαί, διεσώθησαν δι’ ὕδατος. 21a ὃ καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα, bοὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου c ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς Θεόν, dδι’ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 22a ὅς ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ Θεοῦ, bπορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανὸν, cὑποταγέντων αὐτῷ ἀγγέλων καὶ ἐξουσιῶν καὶ δυνάμεων. 18a

18a

For Christ also died for sins once for all, bthe just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, chaving been put to death on one hand in (the) flesh, dbut made alive on the other hand in (the) spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20a who once were disobedient, bwhen the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, cin which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21a And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you ‒ bnot the removal of dirt from the flesh, cbut an appeal to God for a good conscience, dthrough the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22a who is at the right hand of God, bhaving gone into heaven, cafter angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

From the literary point of view, this passage could be grouped into three sections: Section A = Christological event (verse 18) Section B = Deliverance through water (antitype of baptism, verses 19-21) Section C = Christological event (journey to heaven, verse 22) 23 24 25 26

See M. GOURGUES 1978, p. 82. See J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 224. Cf. B. I. REICKE 1984, 201. K. H. JOBES 2005, 244. See also J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 224.

68

CHAPTER 2

It is observed that verses 19-21c cause this division into three which seem to come in between the events that talk directly about Christ.27 A thematic coherence may be observed in this passage, verse 18 is centred on the events of the death and the glorification of Christ, verses 19-20 tell of the mysterious meeting with the more or less distant contemporaries of Noah, verses 21-22 extend this theme in a parallel with Christian baptism and extend the exposition of the event of Christ to the paschal exaltation.28 While verse 18 stresses more strongly the earthly part of the life of Jesus, verse 22 deals with the heavenly aspect. From the Greek text, there are only three “and” in this relatively long text, and each of them supports a word of connotation: either a relative pronoun (vv. 19 and 21), or a conjunction (v. 18). Precisely, section A (v. 18) and C (v. 22) centre on Christ and present his event from death, resurrection to exaltation. These important elements of Christ Event are mentioned twice in this passage:29 18a Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἀπέθανεν 18c θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ 18a Christ died once for sins put to death in (the) flesh 18d ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι 18d made alive in spirit

21d δι’ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 21d ...through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

22a ὅς ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ Θεοῦ Who is at the right hand of God

22b πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανὸν 22b gone into heaven

Verses 18a and 18c concern the death of Jesus, verses 18d and 21d concern his resurrection and verses 22a and 22b his exaltation at the right hand of God in heaven. The Greek version of verses 18c,d and 22b show interesting rhyming participles when put together: θανατωθεὶς σαρκί, ζῳοποιηθεὶς πνεύματι, πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανὸν

These three expressions, when viewed from one stage to the next, form a plausible series through the three aorist passive participles summarising Christ’s redemptive work: death, resurrection and ascension/exaltation. From the formal point of view, the disparity between verse 22a (relative proposition) and verse 22b,c (participial propositions) draws attention. One is surprised not to find the ascension in the normal place between the resurrection and the enthronement. But the reader can restore the usual 27

See M. GOURGUES 1978, 76. J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 210. 29 Whether these mentions are repetitions of the same is another issue, but the fact that they appear twice is clear. 28

EXAMINATION OF 1 PET 3:18-22

69

order by relying on the past time of the two participles; Christ was exalted at the end of his journey after having subjected the spiritual powers to himself. Now, exaltation is his permanent condition.30 The passage ends with phonological prominence in the repeated final – ων sounds, which highlight the power of Christ ‒ ὑποταγέντων αὐτῷ ἀγγέλων καὶ ἐξουσιῶν καὶ δυνάμεων. It is important to conclude the structure of this pericope with the summary of the characteristic of the grammatical construction of verse 18 and 22 which is being interrupted by verses 19-21. The two indicative verbs ἀπέθανεν and ἐστιν are found in two major proclamations relating to Christ: a) “Christ died (ἀπέθανεν)” (3:18) b) “He is (ἐστιν) at the right hand of God” (3:22) To which are attached in each case four clauses relating to: a) The death of Christ and its meaning: once for all / for sins / just for the unjust / to lead us to God: ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς 1) ἅπαξ (once) 2) περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν (for sins) ἀπέθανεν, 3) δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων (just for [the] unjust), 4) ἵνα ἡμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ Θεῷ (in order that He might bring us to God)

18

b) The exaltation of Christ related to what preceded it and what followed it, expressed through four aorist participles in the passive tense: having been put to death, on one hand, in (the) flesh / having been made alive, on the other hand, in (the) spirit / having gone to heaven / having subjected the spiritual powers: 1) θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκί, 2) ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι 22 (ὅς) ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ 3) πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανὸν 4) ὑποταγέντων αὐτῷ ἀγγέλων καὶ ἐξουσιῶν καὶ δυνάμεων

Therefore, one notices a perfect sequence: a) before (3:18b): death (1) – resurrection (2) b) after (3:22): exaltation (3) – session at the right hand – domination (4) 30

J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 223.

70

CHAPTER 2

2.5. EXPLORATION This section is concerned with the analysis and exegesis of the pericope. Each aspect of this passage will be critically interpreted according to the text. 2.5.1. The Unique Nature of Christ’s Dying as Suffering In a bid to buttress his argument on suffering of the believers, the author has to make allusion to the suffering of Christ, culminated in his death, as it could be understood by the relation of θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκί (3:18c) and παθόντος σαρκὶ (4:1), not just as an example but as a unique one stressing on its consequences and benefits to all. 2.5.1.1. The Dying of the Just for the Unjust (v. 18a) The beginning of verse 18 with ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἀπέθανεν, δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἵνα ἡμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ Θεῷ could be regarded as the shortest general summary of the consequence of Christ’s death. With regard to this, John Murdoch Ross states that these words of verse 18a,b are characterised as: “one of the shortest and simplest, and yet one of the richest, summaries given in the New Testament of the meaning of the Cross of Jesus”.31 It is the suffering for what is righteous that brings one closer to the experience of Christ. It is therefore clear that suffering does not necessarily mean that one has done something wrong. With the use of the term καὶ before Χριστὸς one notices a parallel between Christ and the believers. In 2:21-25, Christ is seen as an example for the believers while in this pericope he is not only seen in this same perspective but also as a motivator to persevere in suffering while “doing good”. In line with this William Dalton writes while referring to 3:18 that Christ: “is not presented as an example, but rather as quite unique, beyond imitation; it does not present so much a standard of behaviour as the objective ground and cause of salvation.”32 It is good not to eliminate completely the idea of example from this passage, though the emphasis goes beyond that. The adverb ἅπαξ together with the aorist verb shows that Christ’s death is unique and cannot be repeated. This is in clear contrast to the annual sacrifice offered by the Jewish high priest on the Day of Atonement. 31 32

J. M. ROSS 1918, 151-152. W. J. DALTON 21989, 104.

EXAMINATION OF 1 PET 3:18-22

71

Christ does not need to “offer himself again and again, as the high priest enters the Holy Place year after year with blood that is not his own” (Heb 9:25). It also indicates the absolute efficacy of his sacrifice and shows that it is sufficient (Heb 9:24-28; 10:12). Hence the term “death” should be preferred to “suffering” in this verse. There is no doubt that there are elements of the Septuagint that are present in 1 Peter, but one wonders whether the author is influenced by the technical expressions “for sin” or “for sins”, which refers to sacrifices.33 The account of the Fourth Song of the Servant of Yahweh in Isaiah presents partially these expressions: καὶ κύριος βούλεται καθαρίσαι αὐτὸν τῆς πληγῆς ἐὰν δῶτε περὶ ἁμαρτίας (‫ ‒ ָא ָשׁ ֙ם‬an offering for sin) ἡ ψυχὴ ὑμῶν ὄψεται σπέρμα μακρόβιον καὶ βούλεται κύριος ἀφελεῖν (Isa 53:10 LXX). The suffering of the Servant is put in close relationship with the sins of others.34 This expression is further found in other passages of the Septuagint35 where the offering of blood of animal for sin committed is clearly stated.36 It is the expression περὶ ἁμαρτίας that is translated as “for sin” which is used in the technical way of the sacrifice for sins in the Greek Old Testament and in Lev 4-6 where sacrificial rituals are described.37 This shows that περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν centres on the human sins and that Christ’s suffering which culminated in death is not just an example but a redeeming one. The Christian kerygma is relatively discreet in the exploitation of the motive: the sins are mentioned only three times in direct connection with a verb that expresses the death of Jesus, the three times with the preposition ὑπέρ.38 In 1 Jn 2:2 and 4:10 the preposition περὶ expresses the atonement “for sins”.39 The δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων tells of the character of Christ as he who died and the type of those who benefit from his sacrificial death. Christ is just and sinless (2:22-23) and therefore his death was undeserved, yet he offers himself for the unjust. This is close to Isa 53. The moral character of the two parties is characterised by the use of the antithetical terms without article which could mean something like this: the righteous One taking the place of and dies on behalf of and for the benefit of unrighteous ones. So, Christ’s character as “just” makes him stand for (περὶ) those 33

For documentation see R. J. MICHAELS 1988, 202. Isa 53:4,5,6,10,11,12. 35 Lev 5:7; 6:30; Ezek 43:21. 36 For further discussion see W. J. DALTON 21989, 131 and E. D. HIEBERT 1984, 222. 37 Cf. Lev 4:14; 5:6-7,9,11; see also Ps 39 (40):7 (LXX) and Heb 10:6; see M. GOURGUES 2019, 85. 38 1 Cor 15:3; Gal 1:4; Heb 10:12. 39 J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 225. 34

72

CHAPTER 2

who are unjust and he endures the suffering of death, though undeserved, for those who deserve death. Generally understood, this implies that Christ died for the benefit of all people, for all men and women are unrighteous (Rom 3:10,23). Elsewhere δίκαιος is used as a title for Christ.40 The antithetical pair of δίκαιος and ἄδικος is not used frequently neither in the Septuagint,41 nor in the New Testament.42 The moral or religious sense is clarified when one puts ἄδικος in series with other terms opposed to δίκαιος in a binomial of the same kind, for example: ἁμαρτωλός,43 πονηρός (Mt 5:45; 13:49; 1 Jn 3:12), ἄνομος,44 ἀπειθής (Lk 1:17), and ποιοῦντες κακά (1 Pet 3:12).45 2.5.1.2. The Purpose of His Death (v. 18b) The aim of the death of Christ “once for all” is clear in the expression ἵνα ἡμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ Θεῷ (“in order that he might bring us to God”). Through his atoning death, the sinful, unjust humanity may be restored to communion with God. The use of the dative implies a direct personal relationship with God which Christ, the Just, has brought about. Similarly, the aorist compound verb προσαγάγῃ shows that the aim is to bring (reconcile) the estranged ones who are alienated by sin into an intimate relationship with God. The verb προσάγω is used in the New Testament with the sense of someone being moved towards something.46 The noun form προσαγωγὴ has specific reference to the access that the believers have to God or to his grace through Jesus Christ.47 2.5.2. The Theme of Christ’s Mystery: First Proclamation – Death and Resurrection The concise statement of the death of Christ (18a,b) is followed with the proclamation of the consequences of his sufferings (18c,d θανατωθεὶς, 40

Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1 Jn 2:1,29; and 3:7. Prov 10:31; 13:23; 17:15; 29:27; Wis 4:16. 42 Mt 5:45; Acts 24:15. 43 Cf. Mk 2:7; Lk 15:7; 1 Pet 4:18. 44 Cf. Mt 13:41-43; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:8. 45 J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 225. 46 Cf. Lk 9:41; Acts 16:20; 27:27. 47 Cf. Rom 5:2; Eph 2:18; 3:12. See other usages in Acts 16:20 (here it is the verb προσάγω that is being used), where Luke uses this term with regard to the presentation of someone at a royal Court. In the Old Testament, the idea is also used, for example in Ex 21:6; Num 25:6 and 27:5. It refers to: the consecration of priests for service (see Ex 29:4,8; 40:12; Lev 8:24; and Num 8:9-10); as sacrifices and offerings being presented to God (see Ex 29:10 and Lev 1:2). 41

EXAMINATION OF 1 PET 3:18-22

73

ζῳοποιηθεὶς). His suffering must be understood in the light of these consequences (18c,d, 21d and 22). 2.5.2.1. The Two Antithetical Clauses (v. 18c,d) The first clause θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ is made up of an aorist participle passive, nominative masculine singular of the verb θανατόω; a conjunction μὲν, indicating a contrast or emphasis or continuation; dative feminine singular of the noun σάρξ (flesh). The second clause ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι is made up of an aorist participle passive, nominative masculine singular of the verb ζωοποιέω (“to give life”, “to make alive”); a conjunction δὲ (μὲν ... δὲ on the one hand ... on the other hand), and dative neuter singular of the noun πνεῦμα. As the context suggests, the two clauses provide the outcome of the suffering of Christ: θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ, ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι. His death as a just One and its redemptive role for the unjust is followed by the resurrection, which is to motivate and support believers in two ways: a) Christ died unjustly, as they suffer unjustly; b) this unjust death led to resurrection and communion with God. The verb θανατόω has the fundamental meaning of “put to death” or “hand over someone to be killed” and it could be understood, either literally or spiritually. In the New Testament, the verb ζωοποιέω is used in ten other places to refer: a) to the resurrection of the dead48 and, b) to denote the giving of spiritual life.49 In Rom 8:11 it is used in conjunction with ἐγείρω (“to raise up”) and the author of the epistle to the Romans goes from the participial periphrasis ὁ ἐγείρας to ζῳοποιήσει.50 The same equivalence appears in Eph 2:4-5 and Col 2:12-13 for the verb ζωοποιέω constructed in συν-.51 Since θανατωθεὶς is antithetical to ζῳοποιηθεὶς (to make alive or give life where it had ceased to be before or where it had never been), the meaning must rather be that of “put to death”. The term that follows the dative also requires that the verb be understood in the literal sense because it connotes the idea of a physical death. These clauses form a perfect antithetic parallelism,52 which leads to the interpretation of the antithetical terms, especially flesh and spirit, in relation 48

Cf. Jn 5:21 (two times); Rom 4:17; 8:11; 1 Cor 15:22,36,45. Cf. Jn 6:63; 2 Cor 3:6; Gal 3:21. 50 But see it being reversed in Rom 4:17 (θεοῦ τοῦ ζωοποιοῦντος τοὺς νεκροὺς) and 4:24 (τὸν ἐγείραντα Ἰησοῦν τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν ἐκ νεκρῶν). 51 For more details, see: W. J. DALTON 21989, 137; A. REICHERT 1989, 208-209, 433-437. 52 See also J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 212. 49

74

CHAPTER 2

to each other. In this context, the word σάρξ, “flesh”, must refer to the physical and terrestrial existence of Jesus; by contrast, πνεῦμα, “spirit”, must refer to the spiritual (“celestial”, cf. 3:22b) existence, the one Jesus, ἐν δεξιᾷ Θεοῦ, had access to (cf. 3:22a). The expression θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ refers to the death of Christ as a man on earth. The noun here, σαρκὶ, without an article is qualitative and points to the condition that he assumes at incarnation and as a man among other men in the earthly existence. He is real and not a docetic phantom that appears to be human. With the antithetical structure of the two clauses, ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι must refer to his resurrection. The pair of the two antithetic verbs ending in verse 18 could yet be taken as another variation among the many binomials opposing death and the resurrection of Christ.53 Therefore, there is no need to identify Christ being “made alive” to another reality than the resurrection of the body,54 as against those who propose a reference to a non-corporeal resurrection.55 The grammatical structure in these clauses also implies an antithesis between σαρκὶ and πνεύματι which could be taken as datives of reference (“with regard to flesh ... with regard to spirit”). These two datives cannot refer to the material and immaterial aspect of Jesus because it is not right to say that his immaterial side is “raised up” which will imply that his immaterial side was dead. One cannot also claim that they refer to the two natures, human and divine, of the incarnate Christ because, literally, the clause has to do with making alive which suggests resurrection. The polysemy of the terms σάρξ and πνεῦμα taken in isolation is frequent in the New Testament, used about twenty times,56 precisely 23 times together.57 The Greek dative, used without prepositions in 3:18 and 4:1, as regards σάρξ, could suggest the same values; but their contexts reveal otherwise. Verses 3:18c and 4:1a refer to Christ and point to his human and terrestrial existence. The latter passage locates his suffering within the earthly existence and the former locates his death within the same mode of existence. Its usage in 4:1b suggests a moral interpretation and applies to the believers: “For whoever has suffered in (the) flesh has ceased from sin”, but the earthly connotation of σάρξ may not be left out. The moral struggle with the “flesh” takes place in the earthly existence. The three-time 53

J. H. ELLIOTT 2000, 644. E. D. HIEBERT 1984, 149; H. GIESEN 2004, 413; see also J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 212. 55 See H. WINDISCH, H. PREISKER 31951, 71; C. SPICQ 1966, 136; W. SCHRAGE 1973, 103; K. M. SCHMIDT 2003, 264-265. 56 W. F. MOULTON, A. S. GEDEN 62002, 887-888. 57 See its different usages under the introductory part, pp. 15-18. 54

EXAMINATION OF 1 PET 3:18-22

75

mention of σάρξ in 4:1-2 has three different applications: the first refers to Christ, the second to a general principle and the third refers directly to the author’s audience. It is the first that has a close link with 3:18c as suggested by the rapprochement of θανατωθεὶς σαρκὶ (3:18c) and παθόντος σαρκὶ (4:1a). The σάρξ in 4:1a,b is not contrasted with πνεῦμα as it is the case in 3:18c,d. The contrast makes the case strong for the distinction between two modes of existence in the latter. In 4:2, from its context, σάρξ is the human condition marked by precariousness and weakness which is applied to the believers.58 One must admit that 4:6 is a difficult passage. It could have a moral undertone from its context. After the exhortation to leave the human passions of the flesh (vv. 2-5), the author refers to judgement in the flesh of both the living and the dead. The σάρξ in verse 6 is used in connection with judgement (which is not the case in 3:18c) and the context concerns the believers and the Gentiles. Here, judgement could be seen as the result of the passions of the flesh (sins) extended even to the dead because they once lived in the same human condition (ἀνθρώπους σαρκί). The judgement in the flesh is based on the earthly existence. There is exhortation to live moral life in the spirit. The purpose clause “that” (ἵνα) preceding πνεῦμα could suggest that the judgement in the flesh connotes getting rid of human passions which the author exhorts his audience to do so as to live by the will of God and no longer to human’s desires (μηκέτι ἀνθρώπων ἐπιθυμίαις ἀλλὰ θελήματι Θεοῦ) (v. 2). If the moral undertone is present in this verse and retained, that makes a lot of difference from 3:18c. If this is correct, then, there is a clear difference in the usage of the antithesis σάρξ-πνεῦμα between 3:18c,d and the other passages in this epistle. Verse 18c,d refers precisely to Christ and there are other passages in the New Testament that parallel this verse. In Rom 1:3, κατὰ σάρκα “according to (the) flesh” refers to the coming of Christ into a human genealogy, without the usual negative connotation of “the flesh”. The expression κατὰ πνεῦμα “according to (the) spirit” in Rom 1:4 expresses the condition that the resurrection gave access to. It has nothing to do with moral behaviour or human nature. Also, the parallel is obvious in 1 Tim 3:16b, especially the first two lines: ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί and ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι. This passage, 1 Tim 3:16b, probably a traditional hymn, successively evokes the entry of Christ into the earthly condition and his justification in spirit, which one must see as including not only the resurrection, 58

See also 1:24.

76

CHAPTER 2

but also the larger idea of the exaltation of Jesus in the spiritual sphere.59 2 Cor 13:3-4 is worth mentioning even though it has no lexical element in common with 3:18cd. While trying to prove his authority from Christ and motivating Christ’s active lordship over the Corinthians, the author of the letter to the second Corinthians refers to Christ’s death and being made alive by referring to the antithesis between weakness and strength/ power: “For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God” (2 Cor 13:4). From the context of the antithesis of σάρξ and πνεῦμα in this passage with its parallel presentations in Rom 1:3-4 and 1 Tim 3:16b, the spirit is not to be identified with the soul of Christ, his spirit or the Holy Spirit. The two clauses (θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ and ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι) both refer to the earthly condition and spiritual condition of Jesus before and at his resurrection respectively. The formula δὲ πνεύματι most probably refers to that condition that was given access to by the resurrection. 2.5.3. Proclamation to the Spirits in Prison (vv. 19-21b) This unit is difficult to interpret, and it shifts the flow of the passage. Verse 19 poses some questions that have resulted in viewing this passage in different ways without any agreement until now.60 The questions that come to mind when this verse is read taking into account the whole passage are: who or what does the relative pronoun ἐν ᾧ (“which”) refer to? What is being proclaimed and when is it proclaimed? Who are these spirits in prison and where is the prison? To these questions there are varied interpretations. Few of them will be enumerated here. Before then, it is vital to note that the primary interest of the author in this passage and its context is to encourage his audience to persevere in suffering and so these words might have not proved difficult to them as they do now after many years. In the formula ἐν ᾧ, the pronoun depends on what is prior to it; in other words, it is a question of the antecedent. It could refer to πνεύματι, for the relative pronoun agrees in gender, number, and case, and the noun directly precedes this prepositional phrase. However, the determination of the antecedent that commands this relative ἐν ᾧ is difficult.61 It is noticed from the whole of the epistle that the author employs ἐν ᾧ in a unique 59

See chapter one for its exploration, pp. 38-53; cf. M. GOURGUES 2009, 139-142. From the perspective of this work, this unit or section (19-21) is not very relevant in the same way as verses 18 and 22. 61 See C. L. WESTFALL 1999, 130-131. 60

EXAMINATION OF 1 PET 3:18-22

77

idiomatic way. Each time he employs it,62 he does not have a specific antecedent. Instead he uses it as a subordinate conjunction where the antecedent of the relative pronoun is a verbal thought.63 Taking ἐν ᾧ as a “relative adverb serving as a conjunction”64 and relying on similar usage in 1 Peter, one may connect ἐν ᾧ to the whole or, in a privileged way, to the last line of verse 18. In this case, a temporal connection65 or rather causal66 with the vivification in and through the spirit is possible. One would expect the author to use one of these nuances when he uses this formula ἐν ᾧ in 3:19 as well. Since there seems to be no logical connection with Christ’s death as a cause for him to go and preach, the causal function would have to be connected to the verbal idea of Christ being put to death and made alive. However, this does not seem to be much of an improvement, for why would his death and life be a cause for him to go and preach to spirits? Contextually, the author is trying to show how Christ has died physically for doing what is good. To have shown a cause for Christ to preach to the spirits would be out of place with his immediate intentions. After noting the unjust character of Jesus’ death and its redemptive character (3:18a), the author, referring eventually to a vision and traditional formulas, emphasises that this death led to the resurrection which permits him to go and preach. Since ἐν ᾧ follows the mention of resurrection, it could be understood in the sense of “in such a way that” as in 1:6; 2:12; 3:16. This interpretation is an attempt to explain the link of this passage to the doctrine of the “descent into hell”. Recent exegesis has tried not to link this passage with the doctrine of the “descent into hell”,67 in the sense in which the tradition of the early Christianity presents it, that in his immortal soul, before his resurrection, Christ descends to the abode of the dead and announces to all the dead their liberation. Schlosser enumerates three principal reasons why this passage is not linked to this interpretation:68 1) The verb καταβαίνω “to descend” is not used. It is found, on the other hand, in the mysterious passage that the Jews would have 62

1:6; 2:12; 3:16; 3:19; and 4:4. D. B. WALLACE 1996, 343; W. B. BAUER 32000, 585; B. I. REICKE 1984, 110-115; E. G. SELWYN 1974, 197, 315; M. H. SCHARLEMANN 1989, 317; and P. R. FINK 1967, 33-38. In verses 1:6 and 4:4 this phrase has a causal sense, while in 2:12 and 3:16 it has a temporal sense (B. I. REICKE 1984, 110-115; J. H. ELLIOTT 2000, 652; and P. R. FINK 1967, 34-36. 64 B. I. REICKE 1984, 108. 65 B. I. REICKE 1984, 111. 66 C. SPICQ 1966, 136. 67 K. H. JOBES 2005, 257; J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 228. 68 J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 228. 63

78

CHAPTER 2

erased from the Scriptures.69 This verb is also attested in Eph 4:9 (τὸ δὲ Ἀνέβη τί ἐστιν εἰ μὴ ὅτι καὶ κατέβη [he descended] εἰς τὰ κατώτερα [lower] μέρη [parts] τῆς γῆς), but it is not certain that it talks of a descent into hell, the “lower parts” could designate the earth itself. 2) It is implausible that the Greek term πνεύματι designates the soul of Christ. 3) Most likely, the action is not situated before the resurrection but after. In addition to the third point, the formula, ἐν ᾧ, follows the mention of the resurrection. The author aims to emphasise that the death of Christ led to his resurrection which probably permits him to go and preach. What is being proclaimed may be searched for within the context of the New Testament. In the New Testament, the majority usage of the verb κηρύσσω refers to the preaching of the gospel. This verb, κηρύσσω, means “to announce, to proclaim aloud” as a herald, to make a public proclamation. The author uses the verb εὐαγγελίζω to refer to the preaching of the gospel in this epistle (1:12,25; 4:6). Does it now mean that what is being preached is the gospel? To the “spirits in prison”? If yes, then, it poses a theological difficulty of second chance salvation.70 After death, is there opportunity of repentance on the part of the dead so that the gospel has to be preached to them? A more comfortable content of this proclamation is to say that Christ announces his victory or triumph over evil. To support this point is to apply the neutral sense of this verb to this passage as used in some New Testament passages.71 This verb (κηρύσσω) could mean bringing bad news as well as good news (cf. Jon 1:2; 3:2,4) which conforms to the Septuagint from where the author picks some of his materials. This idea of “announcing his victory” fits verse 22. This proclamation or announcement is good news to the author’s audience, since the primary aim of the author is to encourage and motivate his afflicted audience to endure suffering for doing good. This good news will help them to endure, having in mind that there will be victory in the end. Who then are these spirits in prison to which the announcement is made?72 Verse 20 qualifies these spirits as: ἀπειθήσασίν ποτε ὅτε ἀπεξεδέχετο ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ μακροθυμία ἐν ἡμέραις Νῶε κατασκευαζομένης 69 See Justin, Dial. 72:4 quoted in J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 228: Possibly the pseudo-quotation from Jeremiah, “The Holy Lord God of Israel remembered his dead, who slept in the grave, and descended to them to preach his salvation”. 70 See Heb 9:27; the story of Lazarus in Lk 16:19-31; also, by extension Mt 7:21-23; 13:36-43; Jn 5:28-29. 71 Lk 12:3; Rev 5:2. 72 See a simplified list of different interpretations proposed for “spirits in prison” in S. C. PEARSON 2001, 174-175. More detail explanations in B. I. REICKE 1984, 7-51; W. J. DALTON 21989, 27-50; N. BROX 1979, 182-189; L. GOPPELT 1978, 250-254; O. KNOCH 1990, 101-103; J. H. ELLIOTT 2000, 706-709.

EXAMINATION OF 1 PET 3:18-22

79

κιβωτοῦ (“who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark”). Concerning the identity of these spirits, three major views will be highlighted here. The first view has identified these “spirits” with the “fallen angels” as the “sons of God” mentioned in Gen 6:1-4.73 Those who favour this view point to 2 Pet 2:4-5 and Jude 6 as evidences that this view was known and accepted in the early Christian church and that the time is between Christ’s death and resurrection.74 The second view states that these “spirits” are the disembodied souls of the people75 who perished in the Flood and that Christ before incarnation preached to them through Noah.76 The third view identifies the “spirits” with those that the apostles preached the gospel to after Pentecost. The preaching was done by Christ through the apostles to those people held in the “prison” of sin and Satan. The “prison” here would mean “bondage” or “captivity”‒ a figurative interpretation of prison. So, the reference to Noah’s day is seen as an example of those sinful men and women who perished during the flood.77

73 For the equivalence between “angels” and “spirits” in general, see T. Abr 4:9; Jub 2:2; Odes Sol 8:65-86; Heb 1:14; Rev 1:4; see also A-M. DENIS 1987, 902. In Palestinian Judaism of apocalyptic orientation, “spirit” is a common name for angels (see E. SJÖBERG 1959, 373-374). The term appears insistently in the first development of 1 Enoch on the myth of the fall of the angels (1 Enoch 15; see J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 215). 74 In Lk 24:37,39 the word “spirit” means a ghost or man’s angelic counterpart. In Lk 23:46 and Acts 7:59 “my spirit” is probably a substitute for the personal pronoun. For a full presentation of this view see W. J. DALTON 21989, 135-201. 75 For the equivalence of the spirits and the souls in 1 Enoch, Schlosser observes that “the spirits of the dead” (22:3,9) is close to “the souls of the dead” (9:3,10; 22:3; 102:11; 103:3). The curious expression “the spirits of the souls of the dead” (22:3) must be understood as an explicative redundancy: “the spirits, that is, the souls of the dead” since it is followed in the same verse by “the human souls”: see J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 227; see also A-M DENIS 1987, 818-824. If one takes into account in addition to the only unmistakable parallel of New Testament (Heb 12:23) and 4Q206 (and 1 Enoch 22:3-7), which also bears “the souls of all humans (the human souls)”, one may have some reasons to consider the “spirits” of 1 Pet 3:19 on the anthropological level and see in it the surviving souls of the dead (cf. L. GOPPELT 1978, 247, 249-250; C. PERROT 1980, 241; A. REICHERT 1989, 225247; P. STUHLMACHER 2012, 77). However, a serious objection is made to this reading. While a complement of the name usually accompanies the word “spirit” when it is taken in the sense of the subsisting soul, verse 19 uses “spirits” without complement (K. H. JOBES 2005, 250-251, 259). Although it is not decisive (A. REICHERT 1989, 243-246), this objection leads one to seek a safer explanation which could be found on the side of Jewish angelology as proposed by J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 215. 76 For the history of this view see B. I. REICKE 1964, 37-47; A. C. GAEBELEIN 91970, 78-80; W. KELLY 1970; C. E. CRANFIELD 1960, 102; R. SUMMERS 1972, 164. 77 J. BROWN 1855, 463-475; H. T. GRIFFITH 1946, 214, 216-217. In addition to the biblical account of Noah, local traditions must be taken into account, especially the spread of Noah’s story in Phrygia, where the Jewish presence is assured: see P. R. TREBILCO 1991, 85-103 and Karen H. JOBES 2005, 245-247.

80

CHAPTER 2

Among these three views, it seems that the first view has more ground with consideration within the passage. The second and third views overlook the natural implication of the author’s word order that the preaching was to the imprisoned spirits. The two aorist verbs ἐκήρυξεν and πορευθεὶς do not fit into an extended activity of Christ as portrayed in these two views respectively. With regard to the first view, it has been pointed out that in the Gospels, the term “spirits” has in many occasions referred to as supernatural beings.78 The New Testament vocabulary of spirits illustrates their belonging to the evil forces. They are called unclean (Mt 10:1) and bad or evil (Mt 12:45).79 This idea of the spirits referring to supernatural beings is frequent in the intertestamental literature80 and the reference in 2 Pet 2:4 supports this view. In the New Testament, the term φυλακή is not used directly of a prison of either human souls or demons; rather it is either used of Greco-Roman prisons or the future prison of Satan.81 The idea of Hades as a prison for the condemned human spirits is consistent with the first century idea of a prison; for prisons were not seen as a place of punishment for criminals but as a holding place for those who were to go on trial.82 The expression ἀπειθήσασίν ποτε (“having disobeyed at one time”) implies that their disobedience is deliberate. It is a wilful resistance to authority, yet God remains patient as the compound verb ἀπεξεδέχετο (“was waiting”) indicates. The disobedience might have commenced even before the “building of the ark” but the patience of God extends till κατασκευαζομένης κιβωτοῦ (during the building of the ark). The usage of κατασκευαζομένης κιβωτοῦ in the present participle tense indicates, as Edmond Hiebert notes, the “prolonged activity extending over an unknown number of years. God’s patience with obstinate evil is marvellous, but it does have its limits”.83 2.5.4. The Ark, Water and Baptism (vv. 20c-21) The mention of the ark makes it easy to turn to the other side of the event of the Flood, that is, those who were saved. One sees here two antithetical 78

Mk 1:23-27; 3:11; 5:2,8. Cf. J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 227. 80 Tob 6:6 (6:7 LXX); 2 Macc 3:24; Jub 15:31; T. Dan (in T. 12 Patr.) 1:7; 5:5. 81 Acts 5:19; 8:3; 12:4; 22:4; 2 Cor 6:5; 11:23; Rev 20:7; it is used metaphorically in Rev 18:2, but its meaning is difficult to make concrete. 82 For more on the first century idea of prison see W. J. DALTON 21989, 159. For the biblical and non-canonical biblical references of the prison and its possible usages see J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 227. 83 E. D. HIEBERT 1982, 154. 79

EXAMINATION OF 1 PET 3:18-22

81

functions of this event, namely, it leads to the death of the disobedient ones and at the same time saves the few obedient ones as they “were saved through water”,84 the ark took them through the water to a new world. This scene of the Flood prefigures baptism as the author puts it that: ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα (“baptism which it prefigures now saves you”). This baptism has been interpreted as spirit baptism using 1 Cor 12:13 to buttress it,85 while water baptism has also been preferred.86 But the author makes this type of baptism clear by adding two appositional clauses to it, the first negative and the second positive. He describes baptism negatively as οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου (“not as a removal of dirt from flesh”) which implies that it is not just a rite of physical purification; and positively as συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς Θεόν (“an appeal or pledge to God from a good conscience”). The conjunction ἀλλὰ makes the contrast of the two. The difficult word in the interpretation of the positive description of baptism is the noun ἐπερώτημα (“an appeal”) since it occurs only here in the New Testament. Its verb form ἐπερωτάω could mean “to consult” or “to inquire of”,87 but this meaning will not fit well into this context. To find a more appropriate meaning, one may have to consult its usage in the ancient documents. The ancient documents use this term in a technical sense to designate the process of question-and-answer in the establishment of a formal agreement.88 David Hill sees ἐπερώτημα as “a declaration in response to a formal request”.89 As noted by Edmond Hiebert, this usage is “suitable to the solemnities in connection with Christian baptism, involving the questions asked of the baptismal candidate and his personal response concerning his faith and commitment. Modern interpreters generally view Peter’s expression in the light of this usage”.90 So the believer’s response 84 The subject of the verb διασῴζω “to save” is obviously, from the text, ὀλίγοι τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ὀκτὼ ψυχαί (“a few, that is, eight persons [souls]”) since διεσώθησαν is in the third person aorist indicative passive. Ordinarily one may think of the active role being attributed to baptism itself, but as noted by Schlosser the absence of an article in the original does not invite one to make βάπτισμα the grammatical subject of the verb. Also, the water of the deluge cannot exactly be salvific. For detail see N. BROX 1979, 176; R. J. MICHAELS 1988, 213-214; P. J. ACHTEMEIER 1996, 266; J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 230. But the question is not “who is the subject?” rather “who is operating the salvation?” One may suggest a theological passive; therefore the answer is God himself. One thing is certain, βάπτισμα (v. 21) is not the grammatical subject of the verb with or without an article. 85 M. F. UNGER 1974, 129-131. 86 Cf. K. S. WUEST 1942, 108. 87 H. G. LIDDELL, R. SCOTT 1976, 618. 88 From the Papyri document see J. H. MOULTON, G. MILLIGAN 1952, 231-232; see also B. I. REICKE 1964, 184-185; H. CREMER 1954, 717. 89 D. HILL 1976, 187. 90 E. D. HIEBERT 1982, 155.

82

CHAPTER 2

or answer to the offer of baptism is borne out of συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς (“a good conscience”). In his studies of 3:21, Matthew Crawford dwells on the phrase συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτμα εἰς θεόν (“an appeal to God from a good conscience”) in the description of baptism and favours the interpretation of this verse in light of the formula ἐπερωτηθεὶς ὡμολόγησα from the papyri.91 He notes that the ancient interpreters see ἐπερώτημα (“pledge”) as a formal, contractual agreement and that συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς (“a good conscience”) should be subjectively interpreted in connection with the state of those being baptised while making their profession with a good conscience rather than a “pledge” to maintain a good conscience. Cyril of Alexandria likens the author’s formula to “the confession of faith in Christ”.92 There is, moreover, a certain formal kinship between the Latin technical expression applicatio ad patronum (“the attachment of a client to his boss”) and ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν.93 Schlosser submits that the explanations of ἐπερώτημα remain doubtful. The weakness of the hypothesis adopted comes from the fact that the attestations to the meaning “agreement” or “contract” are more recent than 1 Peter. As for the rival hypothesis, it has the major disadvantage of not being able to rely on the noun itself.94 Despite these differences, if this passage is to be connected to Christian baptism, one may conclude from the negative and positive description of baptism, that the author refers to Christian baptism as an act of obedience (and commitment) that bears witness to the personal and interior union of a believer by faith in the death and the resurrection of Christ; in which the external manifestation does not contradict the inner reality of the one being baptised in Christ.95 The last expression in verse 21 δι’ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ connects the word “save” to show from 91 He notes that “the usage of ἐπερώτημα to refer to the entirety of a contract probably arose from the set formula ἐπερωτηθεὶς ὡμολόγησα encountered frequently in the papyri, such as in P.Oxy. 9.1200, the registration of a deed dated to 266 C.E., and in P Oxy. 9.1208, the public acknowledgement of a contract of sale in 291 C.E. The former document ends with the phrase περὶ δὲ τοῦ ταῦτα ὀρθῶς καλῶς γεγενήσθαι ἐπερωτηθεὶς ὑπὸ σοῦ ὡμολόγησα (‘to your question whether this is done rightly and fairly I have given my assent’), and the latter one reads almost identically περὶ δὲ τοῦ ταῦτα ὀρθῶς καλῶς πεπρᾶχθαι ἐπερωτηθέντες ὑπὸ σοῦ διὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ πατρός σου ὡμολογήσαμεν (‘to your question made through your father whether this is rightly and fairly done we have given our assent’)” M. R. CRAWFORD 2016, 25. 92 Paschal Homilies, 30:3, cited by G. W. LAMPE 1961, 515. 93 P. J. ACHTEMEIER 1996, 271; O. S. BROOKS 1974, 305. 94 J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 231. For more detail on ἐπερώτημα see A. REICHERT 1989, 261269; C. SPICQ 1991, 542-543. 95 Cf. Rom 6:3-5; Gal 3:27; Col 2:12.

EXAMINATION OF 1 PET 3:18-22

83

where salvation comes from: “And baptism ... now saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”. 2.5.5. The Theme of Exaltation: Second Proclamation (verse 22) Verses 21d-22 recount four aspects of the mystery of Christ, namely, resurrection, ascension, session and authority or domination. The mention of ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ at the end of verse 21 allows the author to encode in a simple way the Christological development of verse 22. The story of the death of Christ comes to its conclusion: ὅς ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ Θεοῦ, πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανὸν, ὑποταγέντων αὐτῷ ἀγγέλων καὶ ἐξουσιῶν καὶ δυνάμεων. 2.5.5.1. πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανὸν The notion that Jesus “has gone to heaven” after his resurrection is evident in the New Testament. In Mk 16:19, Jesus “was taken up to heaven and sat at the right hand of God”. Acts 1:10 portrays him as going to heaven physically (also Lk 24:51). In Eph 1:20; 2:6, God seated Christ “at his right hand in heaven”. In Heb 4:14, Christ “passed through the heavens”, entered as a forerunner in the heavenly sanctuary (6:20) and, hence, now “exalted above the heavens” (7:26). The terminology used for the exaltation of Jesus is diverse, yet, it is not difficult for the author to introduce into his argument the expression “gone to heaven” after that of ἐν δεξιᾷ Θεοῦ (“at the right hand of God”). The participle πορευθεὶς being in the aorist must indicate the anteriority of the action compared to that of the main verb ἐστιν (ἐν δεξιᾷ Θεοῦ), as in Rom 8:34. To be at God’s right hand necessarily means that the location is in heaven dogmatically speaking. The proclamation in the aorist passive participle, πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανὸν, describes the exaltation of Christ in the manner of a physical ascent to heaven, in the manner of other passages of the New Testament.96 2.5.5.2. ὅς ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ [τοῦ] Θεοῦ (3:22a) To sit at the right hand of a king in the ancient times, for example, connotes the idea of having access to his power and act on his name, sharing his power and authority.97 This formula “the right hand of God” as used 96

Cf. Mk 16:19; Lk 24:51; Acts 1:9; Eph 4:8; Heb 4:14 and 9:24. Cf. G. CONTENAU 1934, 160; see M. GOURGUES 1978, 38-43, for more references. The right side has a symbolic meaning presumably based on the functional role of the right hand which is evident in many ancient cultures even up to now. It is characterised by 97

84

CHAPTER 2

about the risen Christ in the New Testament is inspired by Ps 109:1 LXX κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου where it is expressly question of a session at the right hand of God. The session at the right hand of God of Ps 109:1a LXX is nevertheless variously understood, even by those who recognise foreign influences in its usage. Gourgues enumerates three interpretations: 1) That the right hand of God could be seen purely from a symbolic point of view. For example, in Israel where the king plays the role of earthly lieutenant of Yahweh and exercises power in his name and under his protection. 2) That the term “right” could be understood in a concrete and material sense. It could also relate to the ceremony of the Temple where the king sits on a throne at the right of the Ark of the Covenant representing Yahweh; or, to the enthronement at the royal palace where the king sits at the right, that is, the south of the Temple, where Yahweh has his throne. 3) That the two meanings above could be retained together, that is, the symbolic meaning and the material sense, according to which the identification of the south with the right allowed Israel to modify or refine (“démythiser”) the representation of a presence in some way physical to the right of God.98 The application of the symbolism of the “right hand of God” to Christ is common in the New Testament to account for the mystery of his exaltation in dependence on Ps 109:1a LXX (κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου), quoted expressly in Mt 22:44; Mk 12:36; Lk 20:42; Acts 2:34; Heb 1:13; and evoked in several other passages belonging to various traditions.99 If the formulation of 1 Peter, with the omission of the definite article before θεοῦ, is correct, then it is unique in the New Testament. It would seem that the author simply adopts a formula already common among Christians to describe the position of Christ and his participation in the dignity and lordship of God the Father, following his resurrection. But this variation initiative, skill, strength, efficiency and enjoys a superiority or pre-eminence in relation to the left hand. In some ancient cultures of human order and relations, and even till today, the right hand raised or stretched is that of greeting and oath-taking, that which expresses provisions of welcome, friendship or favour, a desire for peace and alliance. Gourgues further notes that in Greek as in Latin, “‘droite’ prend le sens de ‘foi jurée’, de ‘garantie’, ‘d’assurance donnée’ ; ‘prendre et donner la main droite’, celui de ‘s’engager mutuellement’, ‘d’échanger des promesses’. En conséquence, le cȏté droit devient symbole de dignité et d’honneur, d’importance, de pouvoir et d’autorité, d’une part, de faveur, d’amitié et de protection, d’autre part” (M. GOURGUES 1978, 38). 98 M. GOURGUES 1978, 42-43. All these could indicate that the dating of Ps 109 LXX goes to the time of the monarchy before the exile. But there is no consensus on this point and some authors even propose the date of its composition as late as the third century: see R. TOURNAY 1960, 5-41; H. G. JEFFERSON 1954, 152-156. 99 With ἐν δεξιᾷ see Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2.

EXAMINATION OF 1 PET 3:18-22

85

cannot serve as a criterion when it comes to determining whether an author intends to quote the text of the LXX or whether it simply depends on the wide use of Psalm 109 in the Christian tradition. Schlosser adds that when the formula with ἐν or its equivalent with the simple dative δεξιᾷ, is not accompanied by the verb “to sit”, then there is hardly any reason to treat it as a direct scriptural reference which is not the case in this passage.100 After mentioning in verse 18c,d the death and resurrection of Christ “put to death in the flesh”, “made alive in spirit”, and before evoking his exaltation in verse 22, “gone to heaven” (πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανὸν), the author, through two traditional formulas, makes reference to the resurrection. The first of these is “who is at the right hand of God”, which is presented in the same way as in Rom 8:34 with the relative clause introduced by ὅς ἐστιν. The sequence described in this passage of Paul, “The Christ Jesus, the one who is dead (ὁ ἀποθανων), or rather who has been resurrected (ἐγερθείς), who is also at the right hand of God” offers a parallel that corresponds fairly close to the three-part sequence of 1 Pet 3 in verses 18 and 22: Rom 8:34 A Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ὁ ἀποθανών B ἐγερθείς ἐκ νεκρῶν101 C ὅς ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ

1 Pet 3:18,22 A’ θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ B’ ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι C’ ὅς ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ Θεοῦ

The presentation of the Christ Event known already by the early Christian tradition in both passages in a very close manner cannot be denied literally. The vocabulary used may be different, but they speak of the same reality and follow the same sequence. 2.5.5.3. Christ Domination This passage reaches its climax by showing the universality of Christ’s dominion. Christ’s resurrection is followed by his ascension which in turn followed by his enthronement. The genitive absolute ὑποταγέντων αὐτῷ ἀγγέλων καὶ ἐξουσιῶν καὶ δυνάμεων strongly emphasises that all things (πάντα) are now subject to the risen Christ in the heavens. If the reference to Ps 110:1 (109:1 LXX) underlies most of the New Testament proclamations concerning Christ “at the right hand of God”, it is probably 100

J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 232. See Acts 2:33; 5:31; Rom 8:34. There is a problem of critica textus in this verse: ἐκ νεκρῶν is not attested by all manuscripts. According to Metzger Bruce (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1st edition, p. 518) “The words ἐκ νεκρῶν […] have the appearance of being an explanatory gloss added by copists to supplement ἐγερθείς. The shorter reading is strongly supported [...]”. 101

86

CHAPTER 2

so for Ps 8:7b LXX (πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ “all things were put by you under his feet”), in connection to the texts that talk about the submission of all things to Christ, who is now the Exalted Lord. Ps 8:7b is in fact cited and interpreted in this sense in 1 Cor 15:27, following a quotation from the second part of Ps 109:1 LXX “until he puts all enemies under his feet” (cf. 1 Cor 15:25). Ps 8:5-7, is again cited and interpreted in this sense in Eph 1:20-22 and in Heb 1:13; 2:5-9, following an application to Christ of Ps 109:1 LXX and a similar affirmation to that of 1 Peter of his dominion over the celestial powers. The idea of “all things” being subjected to Christ is also implied in Phil 2:10-11 where the dominion of Christ over all, both in the heaven and on earth is clearly portrayed but all to the glory of God the Father. Closely connected to the interpretation of 1 Pet 3:22, however, is Eph 1:22, where the close reference to Ps 8:7b LXX comes shortly after that of Christ sitting at the right hand of God in the heavenly places (1:20). There seems to be no explicit attempt made to interpret the term πάντα, but the statement: “far above any Principality, Power, Virtue, Lordship, and any other name that may be named, not only in this age but also in the age to come” (1:21), expresses the idea as eloquently as possible. 1 Pet 3:18-22 concludes with a depiction of Jesus’ triumph, victory, and dominion, a concept that would be repeated in 4:11 and 5:11. This picture of the triumph of Christ finalises the hope of the suffering believers, that in the end, they will triumph and be victorious as their Lord who has subjected all powers. The two Christ’s events that were immediately understood and projected by the early Christian community were his resurrection and exaltation which were linked together. When the exaltation is talked about, it presupposes the resurrection, and when the resurrection is talked about, it anticipated ordinarily the exaltation. This gradually developed into more expositions as evident from Rom 8:34 to Eph 1:20 and Acts 2:32-35, with a more detailed description in 1 Pet 3:18-22 with the sequence: death, resurrection, ascension, exaltation and domination.102 2.6. LITERARY GENRE: ELEMENTS OF CHRISTOLOGICAL HYMN OR BAPTISMAL CREDO OR BOTH? Having come to this stage in the examination and analysis of 1 Pet 3:1822, this section will inquire into its literary genre and source. Scholars and 102

Cf. J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 232.

EXAMINATION OF 1 PET 3:18-22

87

commentators have recognised, to some extent, in this passage some elements of Christological hymn and baptismal credo.103 2.6.1. Christological Hymn: To what extent? In the introduction of his article, “Les éléments hymniques en 1 Pierre 1,3 – 2,10”, Schlosser makes reference to Édouard Cothenet, a recognised specialist, declaring that 1 Peter offers a large sample of hymns that were sung in the early Christian communities at the end of the first century.104 In the research on the hymns in 1 Peter in general, priority has been placed on two passages, namely, 2:21-25 and 3:18-22. With regard to the former, some author has called it a song of Christ that is sung to Christ, Christuslied. There are arguments on the hymnic nature, style and the presence of tradition in this passage.105 But the latter passage is what is relevant for this work, therefore attention will focus on it. Based on the repetitions (or better still, the double mentions) of certain elements observed in this passage and their apparent parallel with 1 Tim 3:16b (which is considered probably Christological hymn),106 some authors state that this passage contain some elements of Christological hymn. One finds double mentions of death (v. 18a,c), resurrection (vv. 18d and 21d) and three elements on exaltation (v. 22: a) “who has gone into heaven”, b) “and is at the right hand of God”, c) “with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him”). Whether these double mentions carry similar ideas should not be a serious point of discussion. Dalton notes that the resurrection mentioned in verse 21d “is not strictly a repetition of the earlier theme ‘being made alive in the spirit’ of 3:18. The resurrection in 3:18 is presented in the historical order, as the decisive stage in the process of Christ’s work of salvation. In 3:21 the writer’s thought moves not in the historical, but in the sacramental order”.107 That one is 103 Some commentators see both formulas in the whole passage while some point out certain areas, see R. BULTMANN 1947, 1-14; O. CULLMANN 1943, 14-16; E. LOHSE 1954, 68-89; C-H. HUNZINGER 1970, 142-156; J. KROLL 1932, 25; K. H. SCHELKE 1961, 102110; J. T. SANDERS 1971, 17-18; E. G. SELWYN 1974, 325; J. JEREMIAS 1949, 194-201; R. DEICHGRÄBER 1967, 173; P. I. LUNDBERG 1942, 101-110; E. SCHWEIZER, 21962, 108; M-É. BOISMARD 1961, 62-67. 104 J. SCHLOSSER 2009, 179. He makes reference to Édouard Cothenet, stating: “le constat manifestement trop enthousiaste [… that 1 Peter] nous offre un large échantillon des hymnes qui étaient chantés dans les communautés de la fin du Ier siècle” (see É. COTHENET 1991, 223-234, 236-238). 105 For the different arguments and views see H. WINDISCH 1951, 65; R. BULTMANN 1967, 285-297; J. SCHLOSSER 2009, 180-183. 106 See chapter one under section 1.6, p. 53 for detail on the hymnic nature of 1 Tim 3:16b. 107 W. J. DALTON 21989, 98.

88

CHAPTER 2

presented in the historical order and the other in the sacramental order may not be a strong enough argument that they do not have the same idea or are not a repetition. Both could be said to carry the same idea but applied in different contexts. The resurrection speaks about one person, Jesus, who basically does not have two resurrections. Even when spoken about in a sacramental way, it must first of all refer to the historical, that is to say, the historical (the fact that it first existed) is at the base of the sacramental. The fact remains that these three elements (death, resurrection, and exaltation) are mentioned two times (three times for exaltation) within the passage. The mention of the “resurrection” in verse 21d “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” does not seem to differ in idea from that of verse 18d, even though it is not a direct quotation of 1:3 (1:3: δι’ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκ νεκρῶν; 3:21: δι’ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). In 18c, unlike 21d, the formulation in the aorist participle passive corresponds exactly to that of 18d (ζῳοποιηθεὶς) and 22b (πορευθεὶς) as if 19-21 interrupts the reminiscence of traditional Christological proclamations. To make the connection and resume the thread of thought interrupted in verse 19, verse 21d brings back the reference to resurrection and verse 22a introduces the relative pronoun ὅς. So, verse 21d literally takes up the thread of verse 18 which was interrupted by verses 19-21.108 The mention of Christ’s exaltation in verse 22 does not also literally show a repetition of the same term, but ὅς ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ Θεοῦ and πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανὸν are closely linked together and it is difficult to separate them when talking about Christ’ exaltation. The double mention of “death” is more certain in this passage. As argued above,109 the verb ἀποθνῄσκω is to be preferred to the verb πάσχω in verse 18a. This verb, ἀποθνῄσκω (“to die”), corresponds in idea and meaning with the verb θανατόω (“to put to death” or “to kill”) used in verse 18c. Its parallel with 1 Tim 3:16b may be sought from the first two lines and the last line of the Christological hymn: “manifested in (the) flesh”, “justified in spirit” and “taken up in glory”. The first formula probably parallels “put to death in the flesh”, the second parallels “made alive in spirit” and the third parallels “gone into heaven”. This is in the sense that, on both sides, it is a question first of earthly experience and then of the spiritual condition of Jesus; in this sense, the two proclamations can be compared. As the two passages (1 Pet 3:18-22 and 1 Tim 3:16b) are presented from the literary point of view, one may not attach a rigorous 108 109

Cf. M. GOURGUES 1978, 85. See section 2.2.1, pp. 59-60 under Textual Criticism for the preference for ἀπέθανεν.

EXAMINATION OF 1 PET 3:18-22

89

parallelism according to which the elements would respond strictly and continuously because neither the ideas nor the vocabulary correspond completely.110 For example, the formulas “manifested in (the) flesh” and “put to death in (the) flesh” though related in wording, do not say exactly the same thing, but they both express the events of Christ at different stages in the same realm of existence (earthly condition). As to the vocabulary and the wording, one may speak more of suggestive comparisons than of literal identity111 but some of the element may still portray close ideas, like “taken up in glory” and “gone into heaven”. It is no doubt that the two passages are not perfectly identical, but the parallelism is striking in the Greek version. One cannot deny the affinities they have: 1 Pet 3:18c,d, 22

1 Tim 3:16b

θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκί,

ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί

ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι,

ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι

πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανὸν,

ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ

In both passages, the verb is in front and the voice is passive. They both contain the antithesis of flesh and spirit and the πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανὸν complements ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ. It is not the completed hymn that the author alludes to here (1 Pet 3:18,22). Marie-Émile Boismard maintains that the rest of the hymn is found in 1:20 and 4:6.112 In 1:20, one finds an antithesis: προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου “(Having been) destined before the foundation of the world”, φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων “manifested at the end of the ages”, whose literary formulation corresponds to that of 3:18 and which could well constitute the beginning of the hymn, Boismard represents it in the following way: 1. (He was) destined before the foundation of the world, 8 1:20 2. manifested at the end of the ages, 7 110

Cf. M. GOURGUES 1978, 84. Cf. M. GOURGUES 1978, 84. 112 M-É. BOISMARD 1961, 62-67; see also, K. WENGST 21973, 163. While some are doubtful that the rest of the hymn in verses 18 and 22 is conserved in 1:20 and 4:6: see J. JEREMIAS 1949, 196-198. On page 196, he states that: “Mir scheint das alles, so geistreich B.s Rekonstruktion ist, äußerst unwahrscheinlich auch die Kombination von 1, 20 mit 3,18ff” (It seems to me that all this, as witty as Boismard’s reconstruction is, extremely unlikely even the combination of 1:20 with 3:18ff); R. DEICHGRÄBER 1967, 170-172; J. T. SANDERS 1971, 17-18. 111

90 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

CHAPTER 2

put to death in (the) flesh 8 3:18 made alive in (the) spirit 7 who is at the right hand of God, 4 having gone into heaven, 5 3:22 Angels, Authorities and Powers have been subjected to him. 6

This would further include the clause in 4:6: “proclaimed to the dead”, which could be followed by “gone into heaven”, and end with the formula of the subjection of the “powers” in verse 22. Concerning the clause in 4:6, Gourgues notes that: “‘évangélisé aux morts’, que l’on croit pouvoir intégrer à la reconstitution [of the hymn], ne forme sans doute antithèse avec ‘parti au ciel’ que si l’on y voit la désignation d’un mouvement de descente. Or, (...) ni 3:19 ni 4:6 ne semblent devoir être lus en ce sens”.113 Gourgues is right that the two do not form antithesis; what could be observed is a successive event, that is, the resurrection of Christ was proclaimed, followed by his exaltation in heaven. One obvious point that could be made as regards this passage is that verses 18 and 22 offer hymnic elements or fractions in which the ideas refer to continuous stages of death, resurrection and exaltation; while verses 19-21 constitute a prosaic interpolation.114 In line with this stand, verses 18 and 22 are grouped together as follow: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h)

Christ died once for sins, (3:18a) just for the unjust, (3:18b) in order to lead us to God, (3:18c) put to death in (the) flesh, (3:18d) made alive in (the) spirit, (3:18e) he is at the right hand of God, (3:22a) having gone into heaven, (3:22b) Angels, Authorities and Powers have been subjected to him. (3:22b)

One may therefore conclude here that, in the light of the table,115 1 Pet 3:18 and 22 echo the early tradition by expressing in different terms the fundamental aspects of the mystery of Christ proclaimed in other New Testament passages that are easier to identify as traditional formulas.

113 114 115

M. GOURGUES 1978, 79, 84-85. M. GOURGUES 1978, 85; W. J. DALTON 21989, 97-98. The table in appendix 2.

EXAMINATION OF 1 PET 3:18-22

91

2.6.2. Baptismal Credo: To what extent? Concerning the elements of a baptismal credo in this passage, Boismard suggests that the first mention of death in verse 18a, the second mention of resurrection in verse 21d and the exaltation of verse 22 form the baptismal formula to which the formula in 4:5 may be added. In the same way Seeberg feels that the article on the judgment preserved in 4:5: “who stands ready to judge the living and the dead” should be added but he differs based on the limit to which the profession of faith is to be applied in this passage. According to him, this text must be considered integrally as a formula of faith.116 Literally, it is better to acknowledge some elements of hymn in this passage and not to consider all of it as credo. Following from the above, one may have the following reconstruction of Boismard: (I believe in) Christ, Who died, Who is risen, Who is at the right hand of God, Who must judge the living and the dead.117

This reconstruction emphasises belief in Christ which shows that the baptised died with Christ and must rise with him and then wait to reign with him at the right hand of God. It contains virtually all the essential elements of a baptismal credo. 3.6.3. 1 Pet 3:18,22: Its Elements, Possibility of Origin If, to some extent, one can locate some forms of hymnic and baptismal credo materials in this passage, what period can one situate these materials? The epistle of 1 Peter where these elements feature is a later one within the New Testament writings. In fact, there is no precision concerning its date. Recent scholarship has pushed the date backward not before 60 CE. Some estimate that it might have been written from 80 CE,118 some agree between the years 81-90 CE,119 while some think that the range to 116

A. SEEBERG 1966, 86-93. M-É. BOISMARD 1961, 109; see also M. GOURGUES 1978, 84. In the footnote of his work Gourgues comments on Boismard’s work: “l’auteur met en parallèle le texte de Rm 8:34 et celui du credo transmis par Justin (….) Comparer le credo baptismal de la Tradition Apostolique d’Hippolyte”. 118 Cf. M. EBNER, S. SCHREIBER 2008, 516-519. 119 R. FELDMEIER 2005, 27. 117

92

CHAPTER 2

consider is 70-90 CE.120 Jacques Schlosser makes four observations which tend not to place 1 Peter at a date prior to the year 70, and some of them may make one go down until the 90 CE.121 This shows that this epistle is later than it was thought to be. The question is: where do these hymnic and baptismal elements originate from ‒ the author or the tradition antecedent to him? It could be noted that almost all the formulas cited are not found in identical form in other New Testament passages where the text of confessions of faith or early hymns is recognised. The only formula with identical presentation found in some New Testament passages is ὅς ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ Θεοῦ (in Rom 8:34 and Col 3:1).122 When the criteria for detecting traditional formulas are applied to this passage, one discovers that the criterion of multiple attestations is more evident.123 The reference to tradition comes out in 1 Pet 3:18-22, where at the beginning (v. 18) and at the end (v. 22) affirmations are found where one can detect from one end to the other affinities with other passages which have been identified as traditional formulas. At the beginning of verse 18, the statement “Christ died for sins, just for the unjust” recalls that of the creed of 1 Cor 15:3; at the end of the same verse 18, “put to death in the flesh”, “made alive in spirit” has the same antithesis “flesh-spirit” as in Rom 1:3-4 and 1 Tim 3:16.124 In addition to this antithesis, it has been discovered that in the study of the early traditional Christian hymns in praise of God from their Jewish and Greek background, one of the major elements is the antithetical nature of their content and style with contrast between the divine and human 120

R. E. BROWN 1997, 722. Similar proposals are made by N. BROX 1977, 4; P. J. ACHTE1996, 50 and J. H. ELLIOTT 2000, 138. Udo Schnelle thinks that the date should be around 90, see U. SCHNELLE 62007, 440. Ingo Broer goes even more backward, proposing the turn of the 1st to the 2nd century, see I. BROER 2001, 620-621. 121 His observations are based on: 1) From the internal evidence of the epistle, the situation of oppression which weighs on all the recipient communities appears to be decisive. On the basis of 4:12-19, it was long thought of an official persecution led by the Roman State, either on the initiative of Nero or that of Domitian. But Domitian’s period (81-96) seems a good frame that estimates that the letter may have been written from 80 CE. 2) The organization of a community which often contributes to date the documents that concern it; 3) The community that is in Babylon (5:13) is probably to be identified with the Christians of Rome. 4) Among the many convergences attested in 1 Peter, some must be taken into account when it comes to determining the date of the epistle ‒ its link with the gospel of Matthew, for examples: 1 Pet 2:12 and Mt 5:16; 1 Pet 3:14 and Mt 5:10; 1 Pet 4:13-14 and Mt 5:11-12. These give some likelihood of the dependence of 1 Peter on the gospel of Matthew (J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 33-34). 122 Cf. M. GOURGUES 1978, 87. 123 See the table in appendix 2. 124 Cf. M. GOURGUES 2016, 225-226. MEIER

EXAMINATION OF 1 PET 3:18-22

93

existence of Christ, his suffering and triumph, his abasement and exaltation.125 At the beginning of verse 22, as already noted above, the proclamation “he is at the right hand of God” has exactly the same wording as Rom 8:34 and Col 3:1; at the end of the same verse, one finds the same mention of “angels, authorities and powers” as in Col 1:16. Concerning the hymnic elements in verses 18 and 22 and their relationship with the tradition prior to the writing of the epistle, Michel Gourgues notes that “si l’on persiste à chercher en 1 P 3:18-22 le texte même d’un fragment antérieur nous favoriserions plutôt, pour notre part, la reconstitution de Dalton, mais amputée des clauses b et c”.126 For William Dalton has maintained that verses 19-21 constitute a prosaic interpolation and that the traces of the early document could be sought for in verses 18 and 22 which offer a hymnic fraction and whose ideas form a continuous event of Christ. He then reconstructed the hymn based on the elements in verses 18 and 22. The two clauses referred to in the above quotation of Gourgues are “Just for the unjust” and “in order to lead us to God” respectively. Then the proposed hymn will be as follow: Christ has died (once) for sins, put to death in the flesh, made alive in spirit He is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, having subjected Angels, Domination and Powers.

The above arrangement presents two parallel stanzas of three lines each. Gourgues then explains why the suppression of clauses b and c: “C’est que divers indices portent à y voir des additions du rédacteur. D’abord, ‘juste pour les injustes’ reflète la problématique de l’épître. Quant à ‘afin de nous mener à Dieu’, c’est une mention qui rencontre parfaitement la perspective théocentrique de la Prima Petri”.127 These two clauses would probably be the direct addition of the author considering the aim of his epistle as a whole. To further buttress the probability of its source from the tradition, though not in a stronger sense, is the distinctive style of verses 18c,d and 22. The rhymes of the participles, θανατωθεὶς and ζῳοποιηθεὶς, when connected to the third passive aorist participle, πορευθείς (v. 22), form 125 Cf. J. KROLL 1968, 3-10. This is evident in the hymn of Phil 2:6-11; for analysis of the materials of tradition in this hymn and the contrasting elements of abasement – exaltation, divine – human, see M. GOURGUES 2019, 42-48. 126 M. GOURGUES 1978, 86. 127 M. GOURGUES 1978, 87.

94

CHAPTER 2

a plausible summary of the redemptive work of Christ which was the central point and the simple way that the early Christian communities employed in their expression of faith in Jesus Christ. In comparison with 1 Tim 3:16b, very probably an ancient hymn, one notices similar style of ending, namely, ‒θη ‒θεὶς. In addition, the verb πορεύω is absent in the rest of 1 Peter except in 4:3 but in a completely different connection. The verb ἀποθνῄσκω does not match the vocabulary of the author in his environment which could point to a borrowed word from the tradition. The use of the first person plural pronoun ἡμᾶς in verse 18 also suggests that the author borrows from a pre-literary material because there is no other logical explanation for the use of this pronoun in 1:3 and 2:24, especially since he uses the second person pronoun in the immediate preceding and following contexts. In all, one could assert that the author without expressly quoting any specific form in its completeness nevertheless refers to various elements of tradition. In a specific way, verse 18c,d which is the direct interest in this work, and the formula, ὅς ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ Θεοῦ, of verse 22 are presented in the same manner as the early Christian communities profess their faith and belief in Christ Jesus. They equally contain the basic elements on which the tradition was built, namely, death, resurrection and exaltation as noticed in other passages with fragments of tradition, for examples: Rom 8:34; 1 Cor 15:3; 1 Tim 3:16b; 2 Tim 2:8. In addition to this, Schmitt submits that “On peut voir dans ces textes [referring to verses 18,22] les strophes d’une hymne christologique ou plutôt des fragments traditionnels de provenance variée”.128 2.7. SUMMARY In this chapter, efforts have been made to analyse 1 Pet 3:18-22, and in the process it has been discovered that the pericope can stand on its own and could be divided into three units because of verses 19-21. The author tries to encourage his suffering audience to persevere and in doing this he refers to the suffering of Christ (2:21-25) which eventually led to his death (3:18). But his death is not the end for he “was made alive” and exalted “at the right hand of God” in heaven; this is also the hope of the believers. In a bid to express his conviction in this passage, the author very probably has touched on some materials which include pieces of Christological 128

J. SCHMITT 1985, 551.

EXAMINATION OF 1 PET 3:18-22

95

hymn and baptismal material with fractions that were being used by the early Christian communities in expressing their faith. It is no doubt that suffering forms the subject of the context of the passage especially the persecution of believers. The author holds the unjust death of Christ as the model for all believers in order to encourage and strengthen those who suffer unjustly. It is a fact that this passage presents some ambiguities that have made it difficult for clear interpretation. Despite the ambiguity, one could notice that the thought of verse 18 can be connected with that of verse 22, and the style of the wording as well. Verse 18c,d which is the main interest in this work resembles other manners of expressing the death and resurrection of Christ by the early Christian communities as evident particularly in the passages with a similar antithetical presentation of flesh and spirit. The usage of this opposition of flesh and spirit in this passage does not mean, as in Paul, the opposition between life or behaviour or ways of living dedicated to sin and life or behaviour led by the Spirit of God.129 In a more restricted sense, this work concerns verse 18d where πνεῦμα is mentioned. From the exploration of this passage, the term πνεῦμα here designates neither the spirit of Christ nor the Holy Spirit that the later tradition and theologians refer to as the distinct entity or “Person” of the Trinity. It rather designates the spiritual condition that was given access to by Christ’s Resurrection. The following points could be deduced from the examination of this passage with regard to the concern of this work: 1. The mention of πνεῦμα appears here to refer to the risen Christ, as the whole of the affirmations in verses 18 and 22, unlike those in verses 19-21 which relate to the believers. 2. It is put in opposition with σάρξ which refers to the earthly condition of Jesus. 3. It neither refers to the Holy Spirit nor to an anthropological dimension, but to the condition of the risen Christ. 4. It appears, if not in the express citation of a traditional formula, at least as an echo of the ancient tradition, antecedent to the author. The next chapter will take on another passage (Rom 1:3-4) where a similar presentation of flesh and spirit is evident. The inquiry into this passage is to discover if the usage portrays the same condition as found in this passage (1 Pet 3:18).

129

See for example Rom 8:4-9,13; Gal 3:3; 5:16-25; 6:8.

CHAPTER 3

EXAMINATION OF ROM 1:3-4 This is an interesting pericope within the epistle in general and within its environment in particular. A critical look at it may suggest an incorporation of some kind of formula. This has caught the attention of scholars and exegetes to decipher what the author means and what he wants to communicate to the Christian community in Rome.1 This pericope shows some elements that can make it stand on its own and it is from there that this chapter begins. 3.1. DELIMITATION (1:3B-4D) The pericope is delimited from verses 3b-4d because, by its notable Christological content, it is distinguished and detached from the environment which is made up of the address of the letter (1:1-7): a) The pericope comes after the introductory phrase, “concerning his Son” which carries the sense that something is about to be said which concerns “his Son”. This manner of introduction is similar to other passages that are distinguishable from their environment in the New Testament.2 b) The use of the verb ὁρίζω is untypical language of the author and its usage appears only here in the author’s writings. Also, the use of the expression πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης is alien to the epistle and in fact to the New Testament. c) This pericope is further distinguished from the way the author uses and arranges his words within the pericope which is different from its surrounding. One notices the wordplay in verses 1-2 which reflects the style of writing of the author, for example, in the terms: εὐαγγέλιον...προεπηγγείλατο; the way he balances the sequence of the prepositional phrases in verse 5: εἰς... ἐν... ὑπὲρ, and also phrases in both verses 1, 6 and 7 are different from the pericope (vv. 3b-4d): A δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (1:1) A’ ἀγαπητοῖς Θεοῦ (1:7) A servant of Christ Jesus beloved of God 1 This pericope will reappear in the final section of this work (chapter four) for further evaluation with respect to the mention of πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης. 2 This will be elaborated under section 3.5, pp. 123, 125-126. See 2 Tim 2:8 “Remember Jesus Christ...”.

EXAMINATION OF ROM 1:3-4

97

B κλητὸς ἀπόστολος (1:1) B’ κλητοῖς ἁγίοις (1:7) B’’ κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (1:6) B called to be an apostle called to be saints called to belong to Jesus Christ

d) Apart from the Christological content of the pericope, one discovers that verses 3b-4d engage only in third person singular pronoun, while all the rest of the surrounding verses engage in “I” and “we” of the author with the description of his ministry (vv. 1-2,5) and the “you” of the Romans (vv. 6-7). In between these verses 1 and 7 lies this pericope with its unique structure characterised by parallelism and assonances which distinguish it from its environment.3 3.2. LITERARY CONTEXT: CHRIST

THE

GOSPEL OF GOD (1:1-17)

Rom 1:3-4 falls within the context of the introduction of the epistle. The actual introductory part of this epistle begins from 1:1 and ends in 1:17, which can be broken into three sections, namely, 1:1-7; 1:8-15 and 1:1617. In the first section which contains proper salutation, the author introduces himself in a more elaborate manner and greets his audience in a stylish way. In this way, he adheres to the typical Greco-Roman format of writing in his days which must include the name of the sender, the recipients, and a brief greeting (“From A to B, Greetings”).4 His unusual manner of elaboration may be due to the fact that he has not known personally in Rome the audience to whom he writes and that the congregation is a large one. He may not also want his position as an apostle to be doubted by his recipients, hence more additional words at the introductory level.5 In the second section, the author expresses briefly the usual thanksgiving (1:8-9) and then his desire to visit the church in Rome (1:10-15); and in the last part, he points out the themes of the gospel and salvation. The major interest here is the immediate context in which the pericope is located (1:1-7). 3.2.1. The Immediate Context: The Exordium, Proper Salutation (1:1-7) In verse 1 the author gives a self-identification of himself as Παῦλος, δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ and ἀπόστολος.6 This form of introduction agrees 3

This will be explored under the structure below, section 3.3, pp. 104-106. For more study on the opening letters of the author see W. G. DOTY 1973, 12-17; C-H. KIM 1972, 9-21; H. KOSKENNIEMI 1956, 155-161; O. ROLLER 1933, 55-61. 5 See also: J. G. DUNN 1988, p. 5; C. J. ROETZEL 2015, 20. 6 He usually associates others with himself in his letters but here it is personal as observed also in Ephesians (and the pastorals). 4

98

CHAPTER 3

with the mode of epistolary address which begins with the declaration of name and follows by the office. The necessity of his office may be to command the authority of the message he is about to communicate. As a slave and apostle of Christ, the author writes not just as a common or ordinary writer but as one with the authority to write about Christ the subject of his gospel.7 In all his letters, the author addresses himself as Παῦλος but in Acts he is known as Saul at the time of his conversion and during his early ministry as a missionary in the church of Antioch.8 He is called Παῦλος for the first time in Acts 13:9.9 Similar usage of the term “slave”, sometimes translated as “servant of Christ”, is found in the New Testament at the beginning of the epistles such as: “Paul and Timothy, the slaves of Christ Jesus,” (Phil 1:1),10 “James, the slave of God and of Jesus Christ” (Jas 1:1), “Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ,” (2 Pet 1:1).11 Elsewhere Paul also refers to himself in the same manner.12 His being slave of Christ shows that the author draws on the Jewish heritage as a “slave of Yahweh” which a Jewish worshiper naturally claims to be.13 Abraham, Moses and some other great figures of the past are sometimes referred to as slaves or servant of Yahweh.14 Furthermore, one may think that he is being influenced by the Old Testament, especially Isa 49:1-8, and the mention of the “holy Scripture” in verse 2 may justify this.15 One may conclude that the author is convinced that his calling to the Gentile world is the fulfilment of the covenanted role and manifesting the role of Jesus as the Servant of Yahweh as presented in Isaiah.16 7

See also S. BRYSKOG 1997, 37-40. Acts 7:58; 8:1,3; 9:1,8,11,22,24; 11:25,30; 12:25; 13:1,2,7,9 (15 times). 9 For more detail on the change of his name from Saul to Paul see: J. H. MOULTON, G. MILLIGAN 1952, 499; G. H. HORSLEY 1981, 89-96; E. SCHÜRER 1987, 132-134; J. G. DUNN 1988, 6. 10 See also Titus 1:1. 11 See also Jude 1. 12 Gal 1:10. For more on the usage of the “slave of Christ Jesus” by the author see: M. J. BROWN 2004, 723-737. 13 See Neh 1:6,11; Ps 19:11,13; 27:9; 31:16 (Ps 18:12,14; 26:9; 30:17 LXX); also in 1QH 7:16; 9:10-11. 14 The term is used of Abraham (Gen 26:24), of Moses (Josh 1:2), and of many prophets: 2 Kings 18:12; Neh 9:14; Ps 105 (104 LXX):26; Dan 9:11; Mal 3:22 (3:24 LXX). Also in Ezra 9:11; Isa 20:3; Jer 7:25; 25:4; 35:15 (42:15 LXX); Ezek 38:17; Dan 9:6; Am 3:7; Zech 1:6; see also Josephus, Ant. 5:39. With this usage by Paul, one may think that he puts himself on the true succession of these prophets. 15 See this being played out in other passages: Rom 15:21 (Isa 52:15); 2 Cor 6:1-2 (Isa 49:8); Gal 1:15 (Isa 49:1); Phil 2:16 (Isa 49:4); Also in Acts 13:47 (Isa 49:6); Acts 26:18 (Isa 42:7). 16 Cf. J. G. DUNN 1975, 112-113; J. G. DUNN 1988, 8. 8

EXAMINATION OF ROM 1:3-4

99

This idea is not also uncommon in both the East and the West so that it does not look strange to the Roman society.17 This title has been linked to that of the slave of Caesar to emphasise the importance of Paul being a slave. The former has some very close relationship with his master, as Michael Brown writes that he “could speak only on behalf of his master, but, given that his master was a son of a god and his word was backed by the full power of the Roman military establishment, the slave’s word would be a powerful medium indeed”.18 Understanding this idea from the Roman imperial society would mean a lot to the Roman audience. The author differs in the word order as regards to the name “Jesus Christ” in his epistles: simply Christ (with or without an article), Christ Jesus, and Jesus Christ.19 Christ means “Messiah” and it is found 529 times in the New Testament. It occurs 382 times in the Pauline corpus and 65 times in this epistle; while Jesus means “Saviour”, his human name. The author uses it 213 times and 36 or 37 times20 in this epistle. Christ is more frequently employed than Jesus by the author. The author is described as an apostle from his experience on the way to Damascus (Acts 9). He is not just a self-acclaimed apostle but he has received such a call: κλητὸς ἀπόστολος.21 He has seen the risen Christ (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8) and is specifically commissioned by God to carry the gospel to the Gentiles (Rom 1:5; Acts 9:15). This is further elaborated in the following phrase: “set apart for the gospel of God”. The Greek term ἀφωρισμένος which is translated as “set apart” could carry the meaning “to mark off boundaries” or “demarcate with boundaries”. It is used in Mt 25:32 in reference to setting apart the sheep from the goats at the judgment.22 This same thought is evident in Gal 1:15-16 where “God who set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles...” Paul has a special responsibility towards the Gentiles. This echoes Isa 49:1 and Jer 1:5. This term (ἀφορίζω) is also used in Acts 13:2 17

G. KITTEL, G. FRIEDRICH 1964, 261-265; W. A. MEEKS 1983, 20-21; M. HENGEL 1977, 51-63. 18 M. J. BROWN 2004, 733. 19 There is a controversy on the word order: Christ Jesus or Jesus Christ. The reading Christ Jesus is attested by P10 B 81 pc ar m vgst Irlat and is noticed in 2:16; 15:16. In Rom 1:1 Metzger favours the order Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ because of the external evidence (cf. B. M. METZGER 21994, 446). Χριστοῦ immediately followed by Ἰησοῦ is also found in Rom 3:24; 6:3,11,23; 8:1,2,34,39; 15:5,16,17; 16:3. The reading Jesus Christ is found 16 times: 1:4,6,7,8; 3:22; 5:1,11,15,17,21; 7:25; 13:14; 15:6,30; 16:25,27; and in papyrus P26; ‫ א‬A G Ψ and byzantine text (Majuscule). 20 It would be 38 times if 16:24 is counted. 21 See also Gal 1:1,15-16. 22 Cf. Mt 13:49, the italic is that of this author.

100

CHAPTER 3

to set apart Barnabas and Saul for the missionary work. So, in his life, he is commissioned for the gospel which is revealed in verses 3-4. The term is not used here in a negative sense of being “separated from” but he is being set apart “for” the service of God. The adjective form of this term κλητὸς appears 10 times23 in the New Testament out of which the author uses it 7 times. This may suggest the importance of the divine call of the author, which demands response. The idea of such call is not new. It is found in the Old Testament that many great figures were called by God: Abraham (Gen 12:1), Moses (Ex 3:4), Jeremiah (Jer 1:4), Amos (Am 7:15), Isaiah (Isa 6), all had divine calls. The author might have seen his call in this same line as it is portrayed in his third account of conversion (Acts 26:16-18), which refers to the vocation of Ezekiel, Jeremiah and the Servant in Isa 42:7. The Greek term ἀπόστολος appears 81 times in the New Testament out of which 34 in the Pauline corpus,24 and 3 times in this epistle. It could mean an “ambassador”, someone who is sent as the author uses it; he is called and sent, and he does not see his call (apostleship) as inferior to others (2 Cor 11:5; 12:11). He is commissioned not by human authorities but divine intervention (Gal 1:1) and he has seen the Lord (1 Cor 9:1). The author adds more explanation on the gospel to which he has been called in verse 2.25 He tries to show that this gospel of God is the continuation of the revelation embodied in the Jewish Scriptures which now has to be extended to the Gentile world. This is shown in threefold ways, namely, (i) it is promised beforehand, (ii) through his prophets and (iii) in the holy Scriptures. It is the gospel of God,26 sometimes the author refers to the gospel of his Son (v. 9), the gospel of Christ (15:19) and at times “my gospel” (2:16; 16:25). This is for the author to show that he is not 23 The number would be 11 if Mt 20:16 is included, for other ancient authorities add to this verse “for many are called but few are chosen”. 24 He uses it in five different ways: personal to himself (1:1; 11:13; 1 Cor 1:1; 9:1,2; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Thess 2:7; 1 Tim 1:1; 2:7; 2 Tim 1:1,11; Titus 1:1 = 15 times), with Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25), with the Twelve (1 Cor 15:7; Gal 1:17,19 = 3 times), with the Apostles of the churches (2 Cor 8:23) and in general (Rom 16:7; 1 Cor 4:9; 9:5; 12:28,29; 15:9; 2 Cor 11:5,13; 12:11,12; Eph 2:20; 3:5; 4:11 = 14 times). 25 The word εὐαγγέλιον appears 76 times in the New Testament out of which it occurs 60 times in the Pauline corpus, 9 times in this epistle. It is only in Titus that it is not found. It means “good news” and in the New Testament Christianity, there is no other good news that is greater than what God has done for humanity through Jesus Christ ‒ human salvation. This is the “message” which the author is set apart to proclaim and live out in his life. 26 Cf. Mk 1:14; Rom 15:16; 2 Cor 11:7; 1 Thess 2:2,8,9; 1 Pet 4:17.

EXAMINATION OF ROM 1:3-4

101

making it up, it is beyond him and it does not even begin with Jesus. It refers to the unchanging purpose of God for his people right from the times of the prophets of God. For the author, the “gospel of God” is being realised in the life of Jesus Christ: his ministry, passion, death, resurrection, and enthronement. This reference to the prophets brings to mind the Old Testament. After this come verses 3-4 to establish a common faith and avoid any form of suspicion to the gospel which is rooted in the tradition before him. He is not preaching some foreign idea with no connection to the prophetic scriptures or something known to him alone but to the believing community. From verses 5-6, one notices that the author comes back to his usual manner of introduction and greeting. He mentions again apostleship as found in verse 1, but here with the first person plural pronoun, which is surprising since in verse 1 he addresses only himself as an apostle. The use of plural here may show some element of sensitivity on the part of the author to be inclusive. Or could it be that the “we” includes the coworkers mentioned in 16:21 (if it is considered as an integral part of the epistle)?27 It could be taken as an editorial plural, instead of using “I” in writing he employs “we” as sometimes in Greek (and some other languages like French and English) the writer may use the plural instead of the singular. Apostleship constitutes bringing obedience of faith among all the Gentiles which include the Roman believers as they are called to belong to Jesus Christ. The term χάρις appears 100 times in the Pauline corpus out of its 155 occurrences in the New Testament. It is used most frequently in this epistle (24 times). It connotes unmerited or unearned favour received. So, the grace and the apostleship the author received are gifts unmerited from Jesus Christ. The use of the first person plural verb may indicate that the author is not limiting this grace to himself but extending it to all believers. These gifts are accompanied with responsibility; it is a grace for service 27

Some commentators have shown that chapter 16 is inappropriate for the church in Ephesus considering its setting, and so must be an integral part of Romans (W-H. OLLROG 1980, 221-244; H. Y. GAMBLE 1977, 31-95; more list of commentators in R. JEWETT 2007, 8-9, 81-82). While some authors believe that chapter 16 was meant for the community in Ephesus which was later joined to this epistle. The supposition is that the author has two destinations, Ephesus and Rome, and since the oldest copy of Romans, P46, has the doxology in chapter 15, the author must have sent a copy to Rome and added chapter 16 to another copy and sent to Ephesus. See T. W. MANSON 1962, 225-241; also in T. W. MANSON 1948, 224-240. For more detail, see J. KINOSHITA 1965, 258-277; W. O. WALKER 2001, 166-199; A. GIGNAC 2014, 34-42. See more advocates for chapter 16 originally meant for the community in Ephesus in J. A. FITZMYER 1993, 57; see also the synthesis in A. GIGNAC 2018, 125-139.

102

CHAPTER 3

which helps the author to carry out his service of the Lord to the people.28 The two are linked together here, χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν. This may suggest that χάρις is given to accomplish the purpose of God through apostleship in the community and not a private gift for private successes, making one acceptable before God. These two distinguished types of grace are what the later theologians refer to as gratia gratis data and gratia gratum faciens respectively. It is now common to say that χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν must be a hendiadys, according to which “grace and apostolate” is to be understood in the sense of “grace of the apostolate”.29 The term ἀποστολή is not common; it is found only 4 times in the New Testament and 3 of them in the Pauline corpus. The Greek word that is rendered by “obedience”, ὑπακοή, is emphasised in the Christian world and given a deeper view. It is not found except in the Septuagint (LXX);30 15 times in the New Testament: 11 in the Pauline corpus (the same number for its verb form, ὑπακούω) and 7 in this epistle (4 times for its verb). The grace, gift and great message of Christ Jesus needs to be received with obedient response, which is connected with faith. The word πίστις is well used by the author. It appears 142 times in his letters out of the 243 occurrences in the New Testament, and 40 times in Romans. The verb πιστεύω occurs 241 times in its different forms in the New Testament out of which 21 times are found in Romans. Literally, the expression εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως could be translated as “to obedience of faith”31 and could mean “the faith” referring to the body of Christian teaching translated as “obedience to the authority of faith” or “obedience which springs from faith” or “obedience which faith demands” or still “obedience which consists in faith”.32 This portrays the importance of both faith and obedience in the grace received in the service for the purpose of God. This service which is the mission of the author is to the Gentiles, in fact to “all Gentiles”.33 This expresses a strong faith for a Jew, a Pharisee and a Hebrew born of Hebrews (Phil 3:4-7) that the author was. This expression of his mission to the Gentiles may indicate that the church 28

Cf. Rom 11:13; 12:7; 15:31; also in 1 Tim 1:12-14. Cf. M. ZERWICK 1966, § 460; F. BLASS, A. DEBRUNNER 1961, 228. 30 The LXX concordance of Hatch-Redpath indicates a single use of ὑπακοή (in 2 Sam 22:36) and in a textual variant; the verb ὑπακούειν, on the other hand, is often used to render different Hebrew terms as reported in the Concordance: E. HATCH, H. REDPATH 1897, 1405. There are 58 occurrences of ὑπακούω in LXX. 31 Cf. 10:3; 16:26; Gal 3:2; 2 Thess 1:8; 1 Pet 1:22. 32 Cf. L. MORRIS 1988, 50. 33 The word ἔθνος appears 29 times in Romans, 54 times in the Pauline corpus and 162 times in the New Testament. 29

EXAMINATION OF ROM 1:3-4

103

in Rome is predominantly Gentile or that he refers to its geographical location. He may also be referring to all Gentiles and then specifically selecting those of the Roman church “who are called to belong to Jesus Christ” (1:6) even though the gospel is for all. In verse 1 the author talks about his call, but here he talks about the Gentiles being called. In all, it is the initiative of God for he is the one who calls. Verse 7 concludes the normal form of his greeting. Here the audience is specifically mentioned as God’s beloved in Rome34 called to sainthood, even though at the last part of verse 6 the audience is already acknowledged but not specified. The term “saints” in the New Testament is frequently used to designate Christians showing the essential character of being Christian, and by virtue of being divinely called. Its usage in the plural form may point to the group of believers, the community of God’s people set apart. Generally, ἅγιος as an adjective is used both of people and of things.35 The verse concludes with what could be regarded as both a blessing and a greeting: χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.36 The rendering of χάρις and εἰρήνη together in the Hebrew Old Testament could already be found in Num 6:25-26, and εἰρήνη reflects the Hebrew usual way of salutation, shalom (‫)שׁלום‬.37 The author ends his salutation by linking “Father” with the “Lord Jesus Christ” as he used to do in his other epistles.38 This portrays the relationship between the two.

34 Some old Latin witnesses omitted ἐν Ῥώμῃ “in Rome” (G 1739mg 1908mg itg Orlat). This expression in 1:7 and 15 is not found in a few manuscripts and that has brought some doubt if the epistle was originally meant for the community in Rome or one of the circular letters sent to Rome as one of its addressees. But chapters 1 and 15 show some personal references that may weaken the circular letter hypothesis. It is more likely that the letter was originally meant for the Christian community in Rome. For more detail on this see H. Y. GAMBLE 1977, 32; F. F. BRUCE 21985, 25-26; L. MORRIS 1988, 2-3. The phrase “To all God’s beloved in Rome” does not connote in particular, an ethno-cultural group whether Judeo-Christian or Gentile-Christians but to all Christians in Rome, as against: J. N. VORSTER 1994, 127-145; S. K. STOWERS 1994, 76-79. 35 It is used of the Holy Spirit, of the holy people (the saints), Christian kiss (16:16), first fruits and the root (11:16), commandment and law (7:12), and of scripture (1:2). 36 The order χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη (“grace to you and peace”) is not the same in syp (the Peshitta text) which has εἰρήνη καὶ χάρις ὑμῖν (“peace and grace to you”). 37 This word “peace” is a way of greeting among the Jews; the author might have used it to express an inner serenity of those who through Christ have found peace with God. For Alain Gignac, the word is an addition which goes to show the Jewish influence in the redaction: A. GIGNAC 2014, 86. 38 A difference is noticed in 1 and 2 Timothy where in the order “our Lord” comes after “Christ Jesus”. One finds “Christ Jesus our Saviour” in Titus and his greeting in 1 Thessalonians ends with “peace”.

104

CHAPTER 3

3.2.2. The Significance of 1:3b-4d within its Context: A Connecting Chord The author is writing to a Roman Christian community that he has never met. In a bid to make his message familiar and understandable right from his introduction, he might have included verses 3b-4d which has a wellknown formulation of the double affirmation “son of David”, “Son of God” for the Jewish Christian community; and the antithesis κατὰ σάρκα, κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης which is not alien to the Hellenistic Christian community.39 This pericope serves as a connecting chord between the gospel proclaimed by the author and the Promise of God to Israel which has helped in building the foundation of Christian belief and teachings at the early stage. It is to show that his message is connected to that of the promised royal Messiah from the Davidic dynasty. It also shows that this gospel focuses on Jesus Christ who is the fulfilment of the Jewish expectations; a fulfilment that will extend to the Gentiles and in fact to the whole world. Hence, this pericope provides a solid ground for the author’s argument for his mission. 3.3. STRUCTURE: A TIDY ANTITHETICAL PARALLELISM? 3 περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ concerning his Son τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ having come from the seed of David κατὰ σάρκα, according to (the) flesh 4 τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει 4having been declared/appointed Son of God in power κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης according to (the) spirit of holiness ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, as from the resurrection of the dead Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. Jesus Christ our Lord. 3

The pericope has a structure that may be seen as containing irregular antithetical parallelism.40 Literally, Jesus is described in earthly and spiritual (heavenly) manners as “son of David” and “Son of God”, and as being born “according to (the) flesh” and “according to (the) spirit”. It is clear to notice the two relative clauses in antithetical parallelism with the parallel verbs as aorist participles (γενομένου and ὁρισθέντος). A set of parallel phrases are attached that make the whole clauses: 39 See pp. 121-123 for the reconstruction of the formula and the two Christian communities: Jewish and Hellenistic. 40 Especially when the beginning of verse 3 and the ending of verse 4 are to be considered within the parallelism; except they are additions; this will be explained under section 3.5 (in particular 3.5.2.2), pp. 123, 125-126.

105

EXAMINATION OF ROM 1:3-4

Physical (Earthly) Spiritual (Heavenly) A having come from the seed of David B having been appointed Son of God in power γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ A A’ according to (the) flesh A A’ κατὰ σάρκα

B’ according to the spirit κατὰ πνεῦμα

The verbs come first in the construction of the sentences. From a more profound look into the pericope, one may have a table like this (excluding the beginning and the ending of verses 3 and 4): 1:3 3b τοῦ γενομένου 3c ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ

1:4 τοῦ ὁρισθέντος

4a 4a

+

υἱοῦ Θεοῦ

4d ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν41 3d κατὰ σάρκα

4b

ἐν δυνάμει

4c

κατὰ πνεῦμα

From the above table verse 3 portrays earthly realities while verse 4 heavenly or spiritual. From the point of view of the vocabulary, the participles used in 3b and 4a are not the same. In that sense they do not correspond in their verbal plan; though the two are parallels but not identical neither in their formulation nor in their signification. Verses 3c and 4a+ are parallels but are not identical in their signification, for “seed of David” and “Son of God” literally do not mean the same thing, as against the argument of Nathan Johnson.42 Even though the interpretation of these terms from the Promise of God to Israel and from the Second Temple Judaism may show a close or mutual connection of the two, that is, being from the seed of David according to the Promise points to the Son of God. Being a descendant of David is not enough to become necessarily “Son of God”.43 Literally, they do not mean the same reality. When 3c is put alongside with 4d one notices the prepositions. In addition, 3c can be regarded as birth into the earthly world and 4d as birth into the spiritual world. The former is spatial while the latter is probably temporal or causal nevertheless the correspondence may be seen as not perfect. With regard to the parallelism between the two, Adele Berlin notes that: 41 The reason for this placement is that 4d can also form antithesis with 3c: the latter ushers in the first phase (physical realm) while the former ushers in the second phase (spiritual realm). 42 N. C. JOHNSON 2017, 467-490. 43 See also A. GIGNAC 2014, 83-84. For the argument that the two are synonymous from the point of view of the Second Temple Judaism, see the above footnote of N. C. Johnson.

106

CHAPTER 3

Not every part of the first line need be paralleled in the second, and, in fact, it rarely is. But it is a mistake to perceive such parallelisms as ‘incomplete’ or otherwise defective. The words which are gapped or left unparalleled are those which the verse wants to deemphasize; the emphasis is on the words that are repeated or paralleled.44

What is obvious is that the parallelism is noticeable even if one cannot describe it as perfect. The expression κατὰ σάρκα is antithetical to κατὰ πνεῦμα. The parallelism is evident, and metrically they form a two-beat rhythm: κατὰ σάρκα = κα-τὰ σάρ-κα κατὰ πνεῦμα= κα-τὰ πνεῦ-μα.

Furthermore, one notices the “α” assonance phonologically: κα-, -τὰ, -κα, -τὰ, -μα.

Let these two verses be arranged based on the grammatical level considering the resemblances not strictly their order in the verses: τοῦ γενομένου τοῦ ὁρισθέντος

ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ ἐξ ἀναστάσεως

κατὰ σάρκα κατὰ πνεῦμα

When the order is followed, the prepositions give an “ABBA” pattern: ἐκ (A), κατὰ (B) / κατὰ (B), ἐκ (A).45 The beginning περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ and the ending Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν could probably be additions from the author to encase the parallelism existing in the passage.46 3.4. EXPLORATION This section will delve into the interpretation and analysis of the pericope in order to have a clear understanding and position which will help in shaping how to proceed in this work. It is no doubt that Rom 1:3-4 has been given different interpretations by scholars and commentators. This passage will be looked at in an objective and exegetical manner so as to have a more favourable result.

44

A. BERLIN 2008, 96. See also: M. W. BATES 2015, 125; N. C. JOHNSON 2017, 482. 46 See more detail under the literary genre and source (section 3.5), pp. 123-126, see also E. KÄSEMANN 1980, 10-12; A. GIGNAC 2014, 83. 45

EXAMINATION OF ROM 1:3-4

107

3.4.1. περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ: The Son of God, the Good News (1:3a) This is composed of the preposition περὶ, “about” or “concerning”, the genitive masculine singular form of the definite article τοῦ, “the”, the genitive masculine singular noun υἱοῦ, “son”, and the genitive masculine third person singular of the possessive pronoun αὐτοῦ, “him”; which is translated literally as “concerning the son of him”. Verse 3 begins with περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ (“concerning his Son”) which refers to the Son of God. It may connect to εὐαγγέλιον or προεπηγγείλατο, but in any case, it does not make much difference since they both refer to the same reality. The phrase shows that Jesus is already believed to be the Son of God by the early Christian community, even though not in the same sense as with the later community. The use of this title “his son” or “Son of God” at the time has a wider reference as it is being used by the oriental rulers and in Judaism as a whole.47 If the introductory formula is Pauline and not part of the pre-Pauline formula that follows, as it appears to be, the title “his Son” carries Pauline understanding (cf. 1:9; 1 Thess 1:10). The designation “son of God” in the pre-Pauline formula that Paul cites (1:4) is very probably not his redaction otherwise its usage (“his Son”) in 1:3 becomes redundant. Its usage may suggest that there is a difference in the sense in which each is viewed. That the gospel concerns his Son, shows the significance and the central role of the Son. It also tells of the relationship between God (the Father) and his Son. Paul’s understanding could favour the transcendent sense; while the early Christian communities see the “son of God” from a messianic perspective. Elsewhere the author preaches and proclaims Jesus as the “Son of God”.48 There must have been a shift in the understanding of the designation “son of God”. There are passages in the Old Testament where this title is being referred to the angels and the children of Israel with God as their “Father” (cf. Jer 3:19); in some cases, it is referred to their kings.49 It signifies an intimate relationship between two parties; a bond of relationship between 47

m. Ta‘an 3.8; Ex 4:22-23; 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7; 89:26-27; Wis 9:7; 18:13; Jer 31:9; Hos 11:1; Jub 1:24-25; T. Mos 10:3; Sib Or 3:702; 1QM 17:8; 1QH 7:29-30; 9:35; 10:27; 11:11. In the LXX these Old Testament texts do not all use the term υἱός, some use the term πρωτοκος (Ex 4:22-23 [2 times]; Jer 38:9; Ps 88:28) and one uses the term τέκνον (Hos 11:1). See also: G. KITTEL, G. FRIEDRICH 1964, 335-362; M. HENGEL 1976, 63-66; J. G. DUNN 1980, 14-15. 48 Gal 1:16; he is reported to have proclaimed Jesus as the Son of God in Acts 9:20; 13:33. 49 Cf. 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 89:27.

108

CHAPTER 3

God and his people. Now, when the Messiah is referred to as the son of God, the idea might have not been something that is above the common human level according to the literary meaning. At the time of Jesus, those who called him by this title as being the promised Messiah that Israel was expecting might probably not have the idea of someone transcendent but simply a messiah. There seems to be a difference in idea of this title with regard to Jesus as the Messiah at the confession of Peter: “Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah (Christ), the Son of the living God’. And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven’ ” (Mt 16:16-17). Through the intervention of the Father, Peter reveals the divine sonship of the Messiah (his transcendent character) which probably was not understood from this sense by the early community, since the narrative stage was later than the oral stage. The usage of the title or designation “son of God” in other passages in this letter by the author could also point to its transcendent meaning not just the messianic aspect. In 1:4 the author must have added “in power” in order to emphasise its transcendent character and to discourage any form of adoptionism. The context of 5:10 could also point to a transcendent understanding of “his Son” by the author. To be justified by the blood of “his Son” through his death and then reconciled with God will not only show the messianic understanding of the title but also Jesus’ transcendent character through which the believers are reconciled with the Father. From the usages in the rest of this letter, it seems clear that the author goes beyond the messianic sense to transcendent.50 3.4.2. γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ: The Messianic Promise (1:3b,c) This is composed of the genitive masculine singular aorist participle middle of the verb γίνομαι,51 γενομένου “became into being” or “born”, 50

Other passages include 1:9; 8:3,29,32. This term could portray ordinary natural reproduction even back before the New Testament era, see: T. MURAOKA 2009, definition 2.b; Gen 4:18; 11:28; 21:3; 24:4. It could also refer to a change in status or mode of existence: Rom 2:25; 4:18; 6:5; 7:4; 9:29; 11:5,17,25; 15:8; 1 Cor 3:18; 4:9; 9:20,22; 13:11; Gal 3:13; Col 1:23. In any way the verb is read in this pericope, it should not pose any problem because if it is taken to be a change in the mode of existence, a means is required to achieve that change which is through natural reproduction. The clause itself has also been read to have at the background the participation of Virgin Mary as the woman through whom Jesus naturally was born. Verse 4 has been linked with 9:5 and Gal 4:4-5 in order to show Mary’s involvement in the background. With respect to this, Matthew Bates quotes Irenaeus, Haer. 3.16.3 as saying: “one God, who did by the prophets make promise of the Son, and one Jesus Christ 51

EXAMINATION OF ROM 1:3-4

109

the preposition ἐκ “from”, “out of”, the genitive neuter singular noun of σπέρμα, σπέρματος “seed” or “offspring” and the genitive masculine singular noun Δαυὶδ. That the Messiah will be born from the line of David is obvious in the Old Testament teachings, especially as proclaimed in verse 2, διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις.52 It is also attested to in the extrabiblical literature.53 This is a clear indication to the promise of God to Israel which the people of the Old Testament waited for its fulfilment. That promise of a royal Messiah which is to come from Davidic dynasty is realised in the person of Jesus as the author obviously asserts by the use of this clause. It shows that Jesus is the anointed son of David, the righteous branch who will reign as king and execute justice and righteousness in the land.54 The manner in which the author refers to this assertion shows that it is a common belief that needs no further explanation. It seems that at the time before the writings of the author, Jesus had already been recognised by the Christian communities as that Messiah who descended from the line of David. The reference to Jesus as a descendant from the line of David is common in the New Testament even in the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke.55 On his part, Jesus did not refer to himself as the “son of David” (Mk 12:35-37) even though when it was used directly on him he did not reject it (Mk 10:47-52). The idea of the messianic “descent from David” has been read pejoratively by many commentators.56 It has been upheld that this idea points to the earthly existence that is characterised by weakness and lowliness. our Lord, who was of the seed of David according to his birth from Mary (qui de semine Dauid secundum eam generationem quae est ex Maria //τὸν ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ τὴν ἐκ Μαρίας γέννησιν); and that Jesus Christ was appointed the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of Holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, as being the first begotten in all the creation; the Son of God being made the Son of man (Filius Dei hominis Filius factus //τὸν ϒἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀνθρώπου ϒἱὸν γεγονότα)” (M. W. BATES 2015, 119). 52 Cf. Isa 11:1,10; Jer 23:5-6; Ezek 34:23-24. 53 4Q252 5:1-4; 4Q174 (4QFlor); Ps Sol 17:23; for detail see G. VERMES 1972, 224, 227, 246; J. R. HARRIS 1911, 155. 54 Isa 11:1,10; Jer 23:5-6; 33:14-18; Ezek 34:23-31; 37:24-28; Ps Sol 17:23-51; 4QFlor 1:10-13; 4QpGen 49; 4QpIsaa 2:21-28; Shemoneh Esreh 14-15. 55 Mt 1:1-16,20; Lk 1:27,32,69; 2:4; 3:23-31; Jn 7:42; Acts 2:30; Rev 5:5; 22:16; quoted in 2 Tim 2:8; also used in Mt 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:9,15. Jesus is referred to as the “son of David” 12 times. 56 For example, Augustine of Hippo is quoted by Nathan C. Johnson (2017, 469) as arguing that “Ut infirmitas pertineat ad David, vita vero aeterna ad virtutem dei”, translated in English as “weakness pertains to David, but eternal life to the power of God”. See also F. HAHN 51995, 253-258; A. J. HULTGREN 2011, 49-50.

110

CHAPTER 3

Hence two-stage Christology is seen in this passage whereby from the Davidic lowly state, Jesus ascends to another state where he is enthroned as the “Son of God”. This view has been linked to Phil 2:6-11,57 where the human-earthly form of Jesus comes out very clearly; for he was born “in human likeness” and died on the cross. The emphasis of the pejorative sense is on the weakness of that state. He was then exalted and enthroned. Nathan Johnson refutes the understanding of the messianic descent from the Davidic line from this pejorative sense.58 The argument is that this idea is not in isolation of the “Son of God” and therefore should be read together in the manner of equality. The “son of David” from the understanding of the Second Temple Judaism is a sine qua non for the “Son of God”. Therefore the two are equivalent, “to be named ‘son of God’ is to be the Davidic scion, heir to the throne and promise”59 and in fact, “being from the seed of David can be restated as being God’s son”.60 If it is understood in this way, then reading “son of David” in a pejorative sense will equally mean the same to the “Son of God”. But the fact remains that “descent from the line of David” naturally portrays human genealogy of the Messiah. In the simple usage of language, it points to earthly realm within the context of this passage, and the usage of the “Son of God” makes it clearer by complementing the former. If the idea of the “descent from the line of David” brings to mind God’s Son, will that remove the understanding that both tell of two opposing realities? That he descended from the Davidic stock should not be seen from the point of view of weakness but as an access to the fulfilment of God’s Promise. Furthermore, it could also be suggested that both have been Christianised and therefore the Jewish viewpoint should not be overstressed since at the turn of the era, the core Jewish messianic tenets rest on the Davidic traditions.61 3.4.3. The Two Antithetical Terms: κατὰ σάρκα (1:3d) and κατὰ πνεῦμα (1:4c) The term σάρξ occurs about 147 times in the New Testament out of which 91 occur in the Pauline corpus, where it is used in a variety of ways, 57

See F. HAHN 51995, 255-256. N. C. JOHNSON 2017, 467-490. This author concludes his thesis by stating that: “I suggest that there is a dynamic interplay of equivalence and development between seed of David and son of God rather than a firm antithetical barrier”. 59 N. C. JOHNSON 2017, 474. 60 N. C. JOHNSON 2017, 490. 61 See F. HAHN 51995, 258. See also W. HORBURY 1985, 34-53; F. G. MARTÍNEZ 1995, 159-189; J. J. COLLINS 22010, 78-79; G. VERMES 1973, 131. 58

EXAMINATION OF ROM 1:3-4

111

though at times they are difficult to really distinguish. It is used anthropologically referring to the body constituent of the human person in its weakness and frailty,62 earthly or human existence,63 human attainment (Phil 3:3). It is also used with regard to the suffering body of Christ64 and of the author’s.65 Its moral usage could be seen overlapping in many passages from physical or natural weakness or limitations to moral weakness, impurity and iniquity (for example 6:19). In Romans the word appears more than 20 times and could be grouped, though with the difficulty of clear separation and tendency of overlapping, into three significations:66 1) physical human condition and kindred,67 2) human finitude (6:19), and 3) human condition under the influence of sin (moral aspect).68 The Greek expression κατὰ σάρκα appears 22 times in the New Testament69 out of which 21 occurrences in the Pauline corpus. It is only in Jn 8:15 (and 1 Pet 4:6, it reads: κατὰ ἀνθρώπους σαρκί) that this expression is found again in the New Testament. Apart from its usage in 1:3 in this epistle it appears again 7 times. Among the 7 times, 5 are close to moral usage,70 4:1 is used with reference to Abraham to show that no matter the achievement “according to the flesh” it is God who justifies. In 9:3 and 5 the emphasis seems to be on biological relationship and kindred. The first refers to the author being cut off from his people “according to the flesh” while the second refers to the Messiah (or Christ) coming from a particular kindred. It is the latter that is close to 1:3. In all the occurrences in the New Testament, it is only in 9:5 and in 2 Cor 5:16 that Christ is mentioned and referred to from the human point of view. In 1:3 the usage of κατὰ σάρκα is not complete unless verse 4 is read alongside with it. The clause in verse 4, κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, is composed of the preposition κατά “in terms of” or “according to”, the accusative neuter singular noun πνεῦμα “spirit” and the genitive feminine singular noun (substantive) ἁγιωσύνης “holiness”. Jesus is described as being born from the seed of David κατὰ σάρκα, and immediately in verse 4 he is said of being “appointed Son of God in power” κατὰ πνεῦμα. 62

See for example: 1 Cor 15:50; Gal 1:16; Eph 6:12. See for example: 9:5; Phil 1:24. 64 See for example: 2 Cor 12:7; Col 1:22-24. 65 See for example: Gal 4:13-14; Phil 1:22-24. 66 See also A. GIGNAC 2014, 84. 67 2:28; 4:1; 9:3,5,8; 11:14. See also 1 Cor 10:18. 68 3:20; 7:5,18,25; 8:3-9,12,13; 13:14. 69 Jn 8:15; Rom 1:3; 4:1; 8:4,5,12,13; 9:3,5; 1 Cor 1:26; 10:18; 2 Cor 1:17; 5:16 (2 times); 10:2,3; 11:18; Gal 4:23,29; Eph 6:5; Col 3:22; in 1 Pet 4:6 it reads: κατὰ ἀνθρώπους σαρκί. 70 8:4,5,12,13. 63

112

CHAPTER 3

The two, κατὰ σάρκα and κατὰ πνεῦμα, are used in an antithetical manner. Within the author’s writings, the only passages with such antithetical usage of these same expressions are 8:4,5; Gal 4:29. In Rom 8, it is the moral perspective that seems to be portrayed, trying to encourage the believers not to live according to the flesh but rather to walk according to the spirit. In Gal 4:29, the point seems to be making a distinction in human status. Ishmael is described as being born κατὰ σάρκα, and he persecuted Isaac who was born κατὰ πνεῦμα. This implies that Isaac was born by virtue of the Promise which defines the nature of his birth. The insight to this begins from verse 21 where references were made to the “child of the slave” and “child of the free” of the two sons of Abraham; an allegory of Hagar and Sarah as a slave woman and a free woman respectively. Between these two passages (Rom 8 and Gal 4), the latter comes close to 1:3-4 but the context is different in meaning. The passage under investigation does not portray any form of exhortation to moral living as found in Rom 8. Gal 4:29 differs from 1:3-4 in the sense that the use of κατὰ πνεῦμα to describe Isaac portrays his profound nature of birth as a child of the Promise. It does not connote spiritual reality or relate to any form of resurrection. As the author of the Galatians further indicates, this applies to his audience as well, that is, in the manner of Isaac, born κατὰ πνεῦμα, Christians are children of the Promise. By extension, one could say that Christians are also born κατὰ πνεῦμα in this sense. Furthermore, Gal 4 does not refer to Christ, it refers to two brothers at two different levels whereas 1:3-4 refers to only one person, Christ Jesus. It also carries a negative connotation of one persecuting the other. Therefore, the usage of κατὰ σάρκα in 1:3 has to do with the earthly existence of Jesus which should not be read as a negative qualification from Davidic line. These two clauses in verses 3 and 4 refer directly to Christ and are well distinguished from other similar usages. As to what they mean in relation to Christ in the pericope has brought about controversial interpretations among scholars and commentators. There are three interpretations to this passage as discussed below. 3.4.3.1. κατὰ σάρκα and κατὰ πνεῦμα: As the Human and the Divine Natures Some authors have interpreted these clauses as the human and the divine natures of Christ.71 The argument is that the first clause “according to the 71 For example, the following commentators hold this view: L. F. FORLINES 1987, 13; W. SANDAY, A. C. HEADLAM 1902, 9; H. OLSHAUSEN 1983, 66-67. C. HODGE 1860, 20; N. S. RICHARDSON et al. 1857, 249; I. B. GRUBBS 1913, 27-28.

EXAMINATION OF ROM 1:3-4

113

flesh” shows the human nature and therefore its antithesis must refer to his divine nature. Charles Hodge writes in this regard: As σάρξ means his human nature, πνεῦμα can hardly mean anything else than the higher or divine nature of Christ. [...] The genitive ἁγιωσύνης is a qualification of πνεῦμα, Spirit of holiness; the Spirit whose characteristic is holiness. This expression seems to be here used, to prevent ambiguity, as Holy Spirit is appropriated as the designation of the third person of the Trinity. As the word holy often means august, venerandus, so ἁγιωσύνης expresses that attribute of a person which renders him worthy of reverence; πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης is therefore, Spiritus summe venerandus, the θεότης, divine nature, or Godhead, which dwelt in Jesus Christ; the Logos, who in the beginning was with God, and was God, and who became flesh and dwelt among us. That πνεῦμα does not here mean the spiritual state of exaltation of Christ, is plain; first, because the word is never so used elsewhere; and, secondly, because it is inconsistent with the antithesis to κατὰ σάρκα.72

But a more critical investigation into this passage will show that it does not refer to the categories that the later tradition used of Christ. If the formula is considered with the phrase “in power” which aims at downplaying the perceived adoptionism that the original might have appeared to portray, then it is difficult to read into it a separated human and divine nature of Christ.73 The incorporation of this formula at the beginning of the letter (Romans) would not intend two separate natures of Christ but unity. The phrase κατὰ πνεῦμα would not also refer to the human spirit of Christ assuming this is thought of. Being born from the seed of David “according to the flesh” cannot imply that he has only the physical body (the flesh) without his human spirit. It would also imply that he does not have his human spirit until he was “appointed to be Son of God according to the spirit”; or if resurrection is talked about here, then it would mean that his spirit died. Whether the claim is to his divine nature or his human spirit, it will be difficult to prove. 3.4.3.2. κατὰ σάρκα and κατὰ πνεῦμα (ἁγιωσύνης): As the Holy Spirit? The second interpretation is based on the second clause. Since κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης comes close to the resurrection, the argument is that it refers to that agent that made resurrection of Jesus possible and that agent is seen as the Holy Spirit.74 It is the same Holy Spirit that made the Incarnation 72

C. HODGE 1860, 30-31. See pp. 121-123 for the reconstruction of the formula (3b-4d). 74 This view is shared by R. FALCONER 1937, 138; G. W. KNIGHT 1992, 185. Similar view in M. W. BATES 2015, 124; C. E. CRANFIELD 2004, 64; for more detail see: U. WILCKENS 1978-1982, 65; D. J. MOO 2000, 50; G. D. FEE 1994, 482-484. 73

114

CHAPTER 3

possible and the miracles that Jesus performed. The clause κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης is therefore read instrumentally to mean the Holy Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead. One objection to this is that the text does not state that the Holy Spirit is the agent and the clause may very likely not be read instrumentally “by the Holy Spirit”. What complicates this further is the expression itself κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης which is never found anywhere else as it appears here. The word ἁγιωσύνη could be found in 2 Cor 7:1 and in 1 Thess 3:13 but used differently in another sense. The expression πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης could correspond to Isa 63:10 and Ps 51:11. But in the Septuagint, ἁγιωσύνη is not used instead it has τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιόν (Isa 63:10; Ps 50:13 LXX). Moreover, the resurrection of Jesus is never ascribed to the Holy Spirit anywhere in the New Testament, it is frequently ascribed to God,75 rarely to the Father (Rom 6:4) and rarely to Jesus himself (Jn 10:18). This is further reinforced by the antithetical requirement for σάρξ. Hence it is very unlikely that the clause refers to the Holy Spirit.76 3.4.3.3. κατὰ σάρκα (1:3d) and κατὰ πνεῦμα (1:4c): As A Condition of Existence or the Spiritual Condition that was Given Access to by the Resurrection The third interpretation focuses the clauses on the manner of existence, but nuances abound in the process of argument. It takes into consideration the antithesis and holds that the first clause refers to the earthly mode of existence of Jesus which he entered by his incarnation into David’s royal stock; while the second clause refers to the spiritual mode of existence which he entered by his resurrection. So, it is not the question of Jesus’ nature or agent of his resurrection but his modes of existence.77 It could also be described as two phases which came to be through being born of the seed of David κατὰ σάρκα and through the resurrection.78 With the presence of the antithesis and the preposition κατά which could be translated here as “with respect to”, the first clause could mean “with respect to flesh” he was born from the seed of David which points to his genealogy that can only be spoken about within the earthly existence; 75 Acts 2:24,32; 3:15,26; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30,33-34; 17:31; Rom 8:11 (a particularly revealing passage, indicating that it is God who raised Jesus and that the Spirit is the Spirit of him who raised Jesus);10:9; Eph 1:20. 76 Similar view by R. SCHNACKENBURG 1974, 68; E. KÄSEMANN 1980, 11; J. A. FITZMYER 1993, 236. 77 Cf. R. SCHNACKENBURG 1974, 68. 78 J. MURRAY 1959, 11. Similar view: E. SCHWEIZER 1963, 180-189; C. K. BARRETT 1957, 18; E. KÄSEMANN 1980, 12.

EXAMINATION OF ROM 1:3-4

115

and the verb γίνομαι adds strength to this. Then “with respect to spirit” he was “appointed Son of God by resurrection from the dead”. Hence, “flesh” is what he has uniquely in common with Davidic line while “spirit” is what he has uniquely with God within this context – two conditions of existence, one physical, the other spiritual. Now, what incorporates him into the earthly existence is the “flesh”, the earthly condition; and what the resurrection gave access to is here referred to as the “spirit”, spiritual condition. Therefore, κατὰ πνεῦμα does not refer to the human spirit, divine nature and the Holy Spirit but rather to the spiritual condition which is heavenly that Christ has in common and uniquely with God. So, each of the two phases has its unique characteristic which allows each event to take place. The passages that show that the Holy Spirit is not regarded as the agent of Christ’s resurrection, but the Father may support this interpretation. For example, one reads in Eph 1:20: “He [God] put this power to work in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places”. There is a “condition” here which is activated and through which access is gained to the resurrection and then exaltation in heaven. And in Jn 10:18 Jesus is reported to have said while talking about his death and resurrection that “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again”. Then he concludes by saying “I have received this command from my Father”. There is a close link in these two passages. The “power” is what both Jesus and God have uniquely in common and that is what gave access to the resurrection. In the latter passage, God puts this “power” to work to raise Jesus even though Jesus has this “power” to take up his life again (Jn 10:18) but the command is from his Father. One finds in 1 Cor 15:44 a close usage of πνεῦμα in relation to the condition to which the resurrection gave access to. While talking about the resurrection, the author of 1 Corinthians makes a distinction between death, which is bodily, and the resurrection, which is spiritual. Unlike the antithesis being played out between flesh and spirit, here the opposition plays out between σῶμα ψυχικόν (physical body) and σῶμα πνευματικόν (spiritual body). This indicates that the condition at the resurrection is spiritual and opposes to the earthly condition; so that if there is a “physical body”, there is also a “spiritual body” which the resurrection gave access to. There are two other passages with similar presentation of the antithesis of flesh and spirit that are directly concerned with Christ and could be compared with this passage. One of these passages is 1 Pet 3:18 where

116

CHAPTER 3

the clause “made alive in spirit” refers to the spiritual condition that the resurrection gave access to.79 The second passage is 1 Tim 3:16b which has the first two lines similar to this passage. Both passages (1 Tim 3:16b and Rom 1:3b-4) present the same realities of insertion into earthly existence and resurrection: ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί and ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι (1 Tim 3:16b) portray similar realities as γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα (Rom 1:3) and ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ (ἐν δυνάμει) κατὰ πνεῦμα (Rom 1:4) respectively.80 These three passages in their usage of πνεῦμα do not show that they refer to the Holy Spirit. The author would certainly not be using σάρξ and πνεῦμα as competing forces in the life of Jesus as much as in the believer’s.81 3.4.4. ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει: Resurrection and Enthronement (1:4a) It consists of the genitive masculine singular aorist participle passive verb ὁρίζω, (ὁρισθέντος), “appointed” or “declared”, the genitive masculine singular of the noun υἱός (υἱοῦ) “son”, the genitive masculine singular noun θεός (Θεοῦ) “of God”, the preposition ἐν “in” and the dative feminine singular noun δύναμις (δυνάμει) “power”. The usage of the verb ὁρίζω in this passage is ambiguous and has led to different interpretations.82 Its appearance only here within the corpus of the author further complicates the matter. One notices the verb being prefixed in 8:29-30 προορίζω (“to predestine”), but it cannot be compared to the usage here because it is not used in the same sense, for the prefix determines the meaning. It has been variedly translated as “designate”, “appoint”, “decide”, “determine”, “demarcate”, “boundary”, “mark out”. The question is where can the use of ὁρίζω be traced from in order to help in the interpretation of this verse? Nicholas Dodson and Brian Scalise search outside the New Testament for fitting meanings.83 The 79

See chapter two for detail of the exploration, pp. 72-76. It is very likely that the formula the author refers to here, simply employed the opposition κατὰ σάρκα and κατὰ πνεῦμα and that he added the substantive, ἁγιωσύνη: more explanation under section 3.5.2.1, pp. 121-123. 81 See for example Gal 5:16-17; 6:12-14. 82 Some have read into this passage the concept of adoptionism: E. KÄSEMANN 1980, 11-12; L. GASTON 1987, 113; B. D. EHRMAN 2012, 111. B. D. EHRMAN 2014, 218-225 (Bart uses the terminology “exaltation christology” in his description of adoptionism: B. D. EHRMAN 2014, 230-232); A. Y. COLLINS, J. J. COLLINS 2008, 117-118; R. BULTMANN 1952, 49-50. Others have avoided this interpretation: A. NYGREN 1978; R. F. FAY, C. F. LANGE 1976; R. C. LENSKI 1961; R. G. GRUENLER 1995, part I; J. G. DUNN 1998, chap. 4. 83 N. DODSON, B. SCALISE 2016, 1-14. 80

EXAMINATION OF ROM 1:3-4

117

outcome of their research favours the translation “appointed”.84 There are other passages in the New Testament where the verb form occurs apart from 1:4.85 Among the occurrences in the New Testament, only three refer to Christ and it is used in the passive.86 For example, in Lk 22:22 it is translated as “appointed” and refers to the death of the “Son of Man” which was “appointed” or “determined”; that is, his “going” has been appointed. One may say that this appointment is devoid of time, that is, not in time. Acts 2:23 which also refers to the death of Christ situates the appointment in the plan of God which is timeless. The third passage (Acts 10:42) refers to Jesus having been appointed (ordained) by God as judge of the living and the dead. Other passages do not refer to Jesus: one refers to the disciples and is in the active voice (Acts 11:29); two refer directly to God who appointed “a man” whom he also raised from the dead and who appointed (or set) a certain day (Acts 17:31 and Heb 4:7 respectively – still in the plan of God); and the last passage refers to the creation and its boundaries (Acts 17:26) where the verb is translated as “having determined” and the noun as “boundaries”. In all these passages that do not refer to Christ, the voice is active. But its usage in 1:4 is passive and refers to Christ, so the first three passages are close, which translate the verb as “appointed” with the sense of timelessness situated in the plan of God. The reference to the Son of Man’s death in Lk 22:22 as being “appointed” or “determined”, which in Acts 2:23 is in the “determinate plan” of God is devoid of time. The translation of ὁρισθέντος as “appointed” in the sense of timelessness should be favoured. This might have made the Old Latin textual tradition to prefix προ- to ὁρισθέντος In order to fix the limits of the semantic value of ὁρίζω outside the New Testament usage in assessing its meaning in this pericope, their investigation covers its usage in the extra-canonical literature (Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha) and the Septuagint. One may ask why their research must go into extra-canonical literature. A quick response to this question is: If the pericope is part of early Christian confession of faith (as a majority of scholars and commentators have shown: See few authors: R. JEWETT 1985, 99-122; G. R. OSBORNE 2004, part 1; J. D. DUNN 1998, 3; J. A. FITZMYER 1993, 229-230) and pre-dates the writings of the New Testament, investigation into the meanings of this verb ὁρίζω from the historical point of views and manners of usage may probably throw some light into its manner of usage in early Christian worship. In addition, it is increasingly believed that the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha are valuable tools for New Testament research (See R. BAUCKHAM 2008, 9). Different forms of this verb ὁρίζω occur only once in 3 Macc in the Old Testament Apocrypha, 7 times (3 times in Sib Or and 1 time each in 1 Enoch, Apoc Mos, Pr Man, and Hist Rech) in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, and 21 times in the Septuagint (LXX). 85 Lk 22:22; Acts 2:23; 10:42; 11:29; 17:26,31; Heb 4:7. 86 Lk 22:22; Acts 2:23; and 10:42. 84

118

CHAPTER 3

in order to emphasise that the decision to appoint pre-date to eternity, which might carry the meaning “predestined, predetermined” as seen in the Vulgate which reads, qui praedestinatus est.87 Jesus is appointed “Son of God in power”. The phrase ἐν δυνάμει should rather go with the verb “appointed” than with the phrase (or title) “Son of God”. The author uses the expression in a few numbers of times in connection with the action of God,88 which would rather favour relating ἐν δυνάμει to the verb than to the title. The expression would indicate that the divine sonship of Jesus has been “revealed” and exalted (cf. Phil 2:9) by the resurrection and not that the resurrection made him Son of God: the Son of God, so to say, is not tampered with. He shares with God not only his power in status (cf. Eph 1:20-23) but the “executive authority” and glory (cf. 1 Pet 1:21) which he can execute by himself and through the means of agents as the author of the epistle seems to show elsewhere.89 The use of the word “appointed” could be regarded as functional, regarding Christ’s role in God’s government of the world and not a statement about his essence before or after the resurrection. 3.4.5. ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν (1:4d) This is composed of the preposition ἐξ, “from” or “by”, the genitive feminine singular form of the noun ἀνάστασις (ἀναστάσεως), “resurrection” and the genitive masculine plural form of the adjective νεκρός (νεκρῶν), “of the dead”. This expression ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν has been viewed to emphasise primarily the general resurrection of the dead and not particularly that of Christ, even though that of Christ made it possible.90 According to this view, the phrase could be best translated as “from the resurrection of the dead”.91 But when one considers the proper context of the pericope, one discovers that this interpretation does not tally with the flow of the subject of the pericope. The events in the pericope point specifically to Jesus; for example, the coming from the Davidic dynasty, the appointment as Son of God, all refer specifically to Christ. To specifically remove the last event from Christ breaks the logic. In the New Testament, the passage that is closer to this expression is found in Acts 26:23: εἰ παθητὸς ὁ Χριστός, εἰ πρῶτος ἐξ ἀναστάσεως 87

See also J. G. DUNN 1988, 14. 15:13,19; 1 Cor 2:5; 4:20; 15:43; 2 Cor 6:7; 1 Thess 1:5. 89 Rom 8:10; 1 Cor 15:45; Gal 2:20; Col 2:6-7. See also J. G. DUNN 1988, 14. 90 J. G. DUNN 1973, 56; R. JEWETT 2007, 105; R. JEWETT 1985, 115. 91 Not as “from his resurrection from the dead” as did L. MORRIS 1988, 47. What matters most is the sense of the phrase. For more on this see J. G. DUNN 1988, 15, 23-24. 88

EXAMINATION OF ROM 1:3-4

119

νεκρῶν φῶς μέλλει καταγγέλλειν τῷ τε λαῷ καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (“that the Christ must suffer, and that, by being the first to rise from the dead...”) which has a time qualification (“the first”) which is absent in this pericope and this makes the comparison a bit difficult. It is no doubt, from the writings of the author, that he views the resurrection of Jesus as being the beginning of the general resurrection; that is, Jesus being the first fruits of the final resurrection.92 But this pericope does not categorically mean the phrase refers specifically to the general resurrection, hence the interpretation should not be forced specifically to refer to the general resurrection. From the immediate context, one could hold that it refers to Christ specifically (as other events do) and secondarily or by extension to the general resurrection Christ being the first fruit. 3.4.6. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (1:4e) This is composed of the genitive masculine singular noun, Ἰησοῦ, “Jesus”, the genitive masculine singular noun Χριστοῦ, “Christ”, the genitive masculine singular article, τοῦ, “the”, the genitive masculine singular noun, κυρίου, “Lord” and the genitive first person plural of the possessive pronoun, ἡμῶν, “of us”. The clause sums up the pericope with the full title of the person for whom the gospel is written about. The name Ἰησοῦ is identified with the historical identity and saviourhood, Χριστοῦ to the anointing for the official mission, and κυρίου is the favourite of the author as it appears about 274 times in his corpus out of the 716 occurrences in the New Testament. The latter points to his lordship having been exalted at the right hand of God with authority and power both in heaven and on earth as a result of the resurrection shown by its close link with ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν (cf. Phil 2:6-11). This idea of Jesus’ universal Lordship is often connected in the New Testament to his resurrection and exaltation to a place of power and authority.93 3.5. LITERARY GENRE: ELEMENTS OF EARLY CHRISTIAN CREEDAL FORMULA? The pericope has been shown to be distinct from its environment because of some characteristics it possesses such as style of introduction, proper vocabulary and the unique structure.94 But what could be said about its genre? 92 93 94

Cf. Acts 4:2; 23:6; 26:23; 1 Cor 15:20,23. Cf. Mt 28:18; Acts 2:32-36; Phil 2:11; also in Rom 10:9. See section 3.1, pp. 96-97.

120

CHAPTER 3

3.5.1. Literary Genre: Hymn, Creed – Liturgical Elements Many scholars and commentators have proposed some kinds of genre for this passage. Some have seen in it some elements of creed,95 while others refer to similar elements as hymn96 and yet others just view them as liturgical elements. What could be said generally about these views is that they all have to do with ways of expressing one’s faith.97 The reasons given for the kinds of genre lie in the construction and the vocabularies in the pericope. The participial constructions of the verbs and their Semitic placement, that is, the verb coming first, have the same presentation as the Christological hymn in 1 Tim 3:16b. To further strengthen this is the metric in the two antithetical parallel clauses showing a two-beat rhythm that gives an appropriate intonation: κατὰ σάρκα and κατὰ πνεῦμα (κα-τὰ σάρ-κα // κα-τὰ πνεῦ-μα). Rom 1:3b-4d 1 Tim 3:16b γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ κατὰ πνεῦμα ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι

Both passages carry similar ideas. The first line portrays coming into earthly existence which later theologians refer to as the Incarnation while the second line points to Christ’s resurrection which embraces his enthronement. Similar characteristics found above could also be regarded as reasons for the presence of elements of creed. The antithetical parallelism gives an aura of a solemnity appropriate for use in a religious community of faith. Also the arrangement of the participles which come before the subordinate clauses is similar to the quite generally identified creedal elements in 2 Tim 2:8 (the mention of the Davidic filiation in Rom 1:3b is formulated in exactly the same terms ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ “Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, a descendant of David”) and probably to the formula in 1 Pet 3:18cd.98 Some authors even see in this pericope (1:3b-4d) “liturgical fragment” which differentiates its nature of composition from the “rest of the prescript”.99 95

See for example A. M. HUNTER 1961, 24. See for example D. J. MACLEOD 2005, 81-93; U. WILCKENS 1978-1982, 56-61. 97 A few authors have regarded the liturgical elements as “protocreed”, that the creedal status of these elements was not clear at the time of the writer, but that they imparted the creed formulation in the Christian Community afterwards. For this view see: M. W. BATES 2015, 108; J. N. KELLY 1950, 13-23, 62-99. The fact must remain that for the author to make reference to them, and if they later formed a systematic part of the later Christian community, means that they form a strong part of the early Christian confession of faith in the person of Christ. 98 See Ign Smyrn 1.1; W. KRAMER 1966, 108. 99 E. KÄSEMANN 1980, 10; see also E. NORDEN 41956, 254-255. 96

EXAMINATION OF ROM 1:3-4

121

What could be asserted without much stress on the passage is that it contains elements of creedal formula. Since some elements of creed could also be used in a hymn in the expression of faith, it is better here to view these elements as creedal. If this passage shows this type of genre, where does it come from? In other words, what is its source? 3.5.2. Rom 1:3b-4d: Its Elements, Possibility of Origin As to the source of the pericope, there is no consensus among scholars and commentators, especially as regards different portions within the pericope. Two major hypotheses will be explained here. The first one goes from the historical setting and development proposing a gradual modification which was finally modified by the author of the epistle, while the second one places the original material from the early Christian community before the writing of the epistle from verses 3b to 4d. 3.5.2.1. First Hypothesis: Three Stages of Development This involves a historical development of the original material from the Jewish Christian community passed on to the Hellenistic Christian community and later modified by the author to what it has been until now. This view is well defended by Robert Jewett who makes a detailed and complex explanation on it. He holds that the pericope as it is now passed through three stages of development. The first stage contains the original material which he reconstructed as follows:100 3b 3c 4a 4d

τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν

This reconstruction shows that Jesus was born into the Davidic dynasty in accordance with the messianic promises. Theologically, it portrays that the original text reveals that for the Jewish Christians Jesus was seen as an adopted son of God. There is absence of ἐν δυνάμει and of the antithesis σάρξ-πνεῦμα from the original material as shown above. In the second stage, Jewett maintains that this material was received by the Hellenistic Christian community who, in order to fit into its ideas, redacted the original and added κατὰ σάρκα and κατὰ πνεῦμα. The former addition was to downplay the descent of Jesus from the Jewish Messianic promise from the Davidic dynasty and the latter was to weaken the idea 100

R. JEWETT 2007, 104.

122

CHAPTER 3

of adoptionism by emphasising the divine aspect in Christ’s spiritual existence: “the redemptive power of Christ derives from his spiritual authority rather than from his Davidic origin”.101 Then Jewett reconstructed from the Hellenistic redaction as follows: 3b 3c 3d 4a 4c 4d

τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ κατὰ πνεῦμα ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν

The inclusion of κατὰ σάρκα and κατὰ πνεῦμα helps to show the event of Christ’s resurrection not “fused” together with that of the general resurrection which the original material supposed “as one event ushering in the new age”.102 The final stage involves the redaction done by the author of the epistle. The modifications are to suit his purpose and mission of reconciliation between the two factions in the Christian community in Rome, namely, the Jewish Christians and the Hellenistic Christians.103 3b 3c 3d 4a 4b 4c 4d

τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν

According to Jewett’s proposal, the addition of ἐν δυνάμει by the author was aimed at countering the idea of adoptionism perceived in the original material. With the addition, therefore, he holds that “Christ was appointed by the ‘power’ of God prior to the resurrection”.104 However, 101

R. JEWETT 2007, 106; R. JEWETT 1985, 116. R. JEWETT 2007, 105; see also R. JEWETT 1985, 115. 103 R. JEWETT 1995, 89-108; R. JEWETT 1982, 5-20. The very early historical-critical investigation into the audience in Romans was entirely believed to be Jewish-Christians (see C. WEISZACHER 1876, 248-249). Later, attention was shifted to include the Gentiles which was influenced by some passages in the letter: 1:5,13; 11:13; 15:14-19 (C. WEISZACHER 1876, 250-255; C. K. BARRETT 1957, 22; T. R. SCHREINER 1998, 13). It could be noted that the early believers (in Christianity) were Jewish converts (1:16; 2:9,10 – Jews first and then to the Greek; 3:9,29-30; 9:24; 10:12) even though the Gentiles later outnumbered the Jewish converts and that probably led to the discrimination of the Jewish minority by the Gentile majority (see for example 11:17-24; 14:1; H-W. BARTSCH 1968, 285-287; H-W. BARTSCH 1967, 40-41; W. WOLFGANG 1991, 95-101). 104 R. JEWETT 2007, 107; see also R. JEWETT 1985, 118. 102

EXAMINATION OF ROM 1:3-4

123

in his previous work that contains his original proposal of the reconstruction of the passage, Jewett holds that ἐν δυνάμει was part of the original material, the position he viewed later as distinctively the addition of the author.105 As regards the addition of ἁγιωσύνης to κατὰ πνεῦμα, Jewett links it to two passages in the New Testament, 2 Cor 7:1 and 1 Thess 3:13 where ἁγιωσύνη is found. The aim of the addition was geared toward curbing unrestrained licentious behaviour and disregarding of convention (that is, libertinism) in the Hellenistic faction of the Christian church in Rome. In brief, according to him, the aim of the redaction by the author is to unite the Jewish Christian and Hellenistic Christian together which will also help him in his mission to Spain.106 3.5.2.2. Second Hypothesis: From 3b-4d This view holds that only the first part of the pericope verse 3a: περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ and the last part, verse 4e: Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν were not part of the original material but rather are additions of the author.107 This position is based on the parallel structure, the uncommon vocabularies and verb style found from verse 3b. The author uses περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ and Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν to encase the parallel structure of the formula in verse 3b-4d. The latter is common to the author as nuances of it could be found in his letters (about 26 times). If the former should be regarded as part of the original material, its reference (“his Son”) to the “appointed sonship in v. 4 would lose its emphatic quality through anticipation and redundancy”.108 The combination of Ἰησοῦ 105 His previous work which contains his original position could be found in R. JEWETT 1971, 95-116, 136-139, 160-163. For more discussion on this see: E. SCHWEIZER 21962, 91; W. KRAMER 1966, 110; K. WENGST 1972, 114; H. SCHLIER 1972, 209-210. 106 R. JEWETT 2007, 108; R. JEWETT 1985, 118-120. The references in the letter to travel to Spain by the author (15:24,28) made many commentators to see it as a missionary letter and judged it as the primary reason for writing and to visit the church in Rome for their support, cf. J. A. FITZMYER 1993, 79; R. JEWETT 2007, 87-88; W. G. KÜMMEL 1975, 305307; K. HAACKER 1999, 12-13; P. STUHLMACHER 1994, 5-6; P. STUHLMACHER 1991, 333345; R. D. AUS 1979, 232-262; B. NOACK 1965, 155-166. There are some commentators who hold that Romans is a letter of defence against the misunderstandings of Paul’s gospel by his opponents or a defence of God’s righteousness, see: E. KÄSEMANN 1980, 71-84, 101104; P. STUHLMACHER 1994, 8-10; K. A. GRIEB 2002, 19-43. 107 See M. W. BATES 2015, 110. But Rudolf Bultmann differs from this position. He holds that περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ was part of the original material (R. BULTMANN 1952, 49). See E. KÄSEMANN 1980, 10, for more argument against Bultmann’s position. The opening to the formula περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ is used to introduce what follows while Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν is very probably the author’s addition to encase and conclude the formula. 108 R. JEWETT 2007, 107.

124

CHAPTER 3

Χριστοῦ occurs about 15 times in this epistle, its reverse Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ about 3 times in this same epistle. But if all the occurrences of Χριστός are counted, at any case, immediately followed by Ἰησοῦς it will be 11 occurrences. The combination of κύριος with any of them occurs 16 times, with the addition of ἡμῶν 12 times. Therefore, in this pericope, the expression must likely be the construction of the author. Coming back to Jewett’s complex and intelligent proposal one may say that his work was aimed at removing the difficulty of aligning the wordings, vocabularies and parallelism found in the pericope to fit together. Though it is important to note that in textual criticism, the more difficult reading of the text, the more chances of it being the original. Jewett’s proposal may be appropriate because a difficult text calls for explanation. To suppose a gradual move from the Jewish Christian setting to the Hellenistic Christian setting, and additions to the supposed original material in order to explain the difficulty is a fascinating endeavour. It is no doubt that some scholarly works have shown from the early Christian period that both the Jewish and the Hellenistic Christians were already mixed together. In other words, they had interpenetrated one another, and this would indicate that they had some common grounds in their faith belief.109 It is very probable that the two factions were into the same belief of “charismatic apocalyptic piety”110 evidenced in the usage of the term πνεῦμα in the letter as a whole (34 times) and the emphasis placed on it in the ancient proclamation in 1:4. But it is important to note that, that was not the very beginning of Christian community; that they came together sometime, means that there was a time they were not together and very probably there must have been some differences in their approaches to faith belief. Hence, the confession of faith that the author borrowed in his letter serves as a unifying kerygma for both factions. In addition to this, Robert Jewett writes: “The citations of creedal formulas and hymnic fragments in 3:25-26; 4:24-25 (...); 8:32-34; 10:9; 11:33-36; and 13:11-12 are drawn from various traditions in the early church”,111 which aimed very probably at addressing the two groups concerned in the letter. The proposal that ἐν δυνάμει and ἁγιωσύνης were additions to the original material appears to be more tenable than being originally part of the formula. In particular, the term ἁγιωσύνη is not found in the other passages with ancient formula especially those that have common presentation 109 110 111

Cf. M. HENGEL 1974. R. JEWETT 2007, 73. R. JEWETT 2007, 71.

EXAMINATION OF ROM 1:3-4

125

with 1:4. The antithesis is always between σάρξ and πνεῦμα in those passages that refer to Christ with respect to his resurrection (1 Tim 3:16b, 1 Pet 3:18d). Verse 4c will not ordinarily be an exception, the substantive ἁγιωσύνη must have been added probably by the author since the idea is already obvious in his other letters. As early as in 1 Thess 4:3,7, the author without using the term ἁγιωσύνη, asserts that God calls believers to sanctification (ἁγιασμῷ) and in verse 8 he goes on to mention the Holy Spirit which is an indication that the idea is already becoming clear to the author (but not to the early community). In 1 Cor 1:2 one notices the verb ἁγιάζω already in use as evident also in Rom 15:16 followed by Πνεύματι Ἁγίῳ (ἡγιασμένη ἐν Πνεύματι Ἁγίῳ). In these letters (1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians), the idea of holiness is evoked, in some cases, the idea is explicit that the Spirit is the agent of sanctification. This may justify Jewett’s proposal that in 1:4, ἁγιωσύνη is an addition of the author after the mention of πνεῦμα. Yet it seems not enough to rely only on the passages where one finds only this substantive to prove his stand. The idea is not limited to those passages with only the substantive; the idea is the author’s and it is easy to see why he would have added it to this passage.112 If this process of argument is correct, then the original material contrasts κατὰ σάρκα with κατὰ πνεῦμα. The phrase ἐν δυνάμει is found elsewhere in the author’s writings113 and it is most probable that he inserted it into the formula already existing since the expression is already in use by him. As regards the author soliciting for the cooperation of the Roman church in his mission to Spain as one of the reasons for his redaction (as Jewett maintains), which was aimed at bringing the two parties together, the formulation in 1:3b-4d, therefore, would then form a “kerygmatic consensus” between the two groups. The pericope could be said to be antecedent to the author apart from the terms of ἐν δυνάμει and ἁγιωσύνης. Verse 3a could also be regarded as the author’s addition as similar manners of introducing a formula are found in other passages with elements of early tradition borrowed by the author. In 2 Tim 2:8, while making reference to the tradition (which is regarded as creedal), the author begins by: “Remember Jesus Christ...” then followed by the confession of faith of the early tradition: “raised from the dead, a descendant of David”. 1 Cor 15:3-5 could also be seen 112 More explanation and investigiation in chapter four, the following chapter, that deals with the passage from πνεῦμα–condition to Πνεῦμα–Agent. 113 15:13,19; 1 Cor 2:5; 4:20; 15:43; 2 Cor 6:7; Col 1:29; 1 Thess 1:5; 2 Thess 1:11.

126

CHAPTER 3

as being quoted by the author from the kerygmatic material whose manner of introduction is similar to that of 1:3. One could claim therefore that περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ introduces the formula that follows.114 The use of the verb ὁρίζω appears only here in the author’s writings.115 This language is untypical of the author. Generally, the author in his letters does not present the Spirit as acting upon Christ; it proceeds from him or even represents him.116 In connection with the usage of terms is the use of the dualism fleshspirit. The use of the antithesis in verses 3d and 4c makes sense of the pericope. Its usage is untypical of the author’s usage elsewhere. The author uses it in the moral and the anthropological perspectives to refer to weakness, corruptibility and the distinction between morality and immorality. Its usage here is Christological and does not in any way portray purity or impurity. In sum, the following observations from the pericope have made many scholars to regard 1:3b-4d as materials from the ancient tradition anterior to Paul excluding ἐν δυνάμει and ἁγιωσύνης:117 1. The citation formula (περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ) that introduces the traditional formula would make one expect a quotation or a borrowed material to follow. 2. The placement of the participles at the beginning of the subordinate clauses, also found in other New Testament confessional materials (for example 1 Tim 3:16). 3. The existing parallelism between τοῦ γενομένου and τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ; ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ and ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν; κατὰ σάρκα and κατὰ πνεῦμα. It can be understood that ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ forms antithesis with both υἱοῦ θεοῦ and ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν. 4. The absence of articles with many of the nouns in the formula. 5. Disparity of vocabulary: the term ὁρισθέντος is not Pauline vocabulary. 114 “By introducing the credo with these words, however, Paul thwarts adoptionist inferences and qualifies the Davidic sonship by stressing that Jesus was the Son of God prior to his earthly appearance” (R. JEWETT 2007, 107); same idea in P. STUHLMACHER 1967, 382. 115 The form of the verb ὁρίζω appears only once each in Luke and Hebrews and 5 times in Acts. 116 Cf. 8:9; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19. 117 Cf. K. WENGST 1972, 112-114; V. H. NEUFELD 1963, 50; H. ZIMMERMANN 1982, 198; J. BECKER 1976, 23-24; R. JEWETT 1971, 453-456; R. JEWETT 2007, 98; W. KRAMER 1966, 109-111.

EXAMINATION OF ROM 1:3-4

127

6. The idea that the opposition σάρξ-πνεῦμα portrayed here is different from its anthropological or moral usage by Paul. 7. There is no mention or reference to the cross. This is characteristic of the oral stage of Christianity and not Pauline attitude (1 Cor 2:2). 8. The idea of adoptionism could be perceived in the formula which ordinarily Paul would not have expressed but rather the pre-existence of Christ. 9. The reference to the physical descent of Jesus from Davidic origin is unusual in Paul. 10. There is a smooth transition from 1:3a and 4e which could read like this “3aConcerning his Son, 4eJesus Christ our Lord”, then verse 5 follows also smoothly. 3.6. SUMMARY: ΚΑΤᾺ ΠΝΕΥΜΑ, FROM THE ANTERIOR TRADITION REFERS TO THE SPIRITUAL CONDITION OF THE RISEN CHRIST What could be deduced from this pericope as regards the main interest in this work is that the dualism flesh-spirit is used antithetically and does carry neither the moral nor the anthropological usage as the author employs it elsewhere in his letters. The usage here is Christological which points respectively to Jesus’ coming into earthly existence and to his entrance into the spiritual existence by his resurrection and consequently his enthronement (cf. 1 Tim 3:16b). In a specific way, the investigation in this work bothers on the usage of the expression κατὰ πνεῦμα (taking that the substantive, ἁγιωσύνη, is an addition of the author and not part of the original traditional material) which does refer to neither the divine nature of Christ nor the Holy Spirit but to the spiritual condition in the event of the resurrection, as understood by the tradition prior to the author. The following are the outcome of this analysis concerning κατὰ πνεῦμα as employed in the original material before Paul’s redaction: 1. It is a unique expression used of Christ and nowhere else is it found in the same sense. 2. It does not stand for the “Third Person” of what will be called later the Trinity. The Third Person of the Trinity is designated in other different ways as πνεῦμα ἁγιον or τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον with the context showing that it refers to a Person who acts. 3. It is directly used in opposition with σάρξ which suggests to some extent that it cannot refer to the Holy Spirit. It is unlikely to use the Holy Spirit directly in contrast with σάρξ except when it is about the

128

CHAPTER 3

works or fruit they produce (e.g. Gal 5:19-22. In this sense the contrast is not direct and it is within the moral perspective which is different from the passages under investigation here). 4. The event of the resurrection of Christ is never attributed to the Holy Spirit in the New Testament as the Agent, but rather to the Father, God or even to Christ himself (but still under the command of “my Father”‒ John 10:18). 5. The term πνεῦμα in relation to Christ points to his elevated state, the spiritual condition or existence brought about by his resurrection. In itself, it does not simply imply his divinity. It is clear that πνεῦμα in this passage does not refer to the Holy Spirit that the later tradition calls the Third Person of the Trinity. Having concluded the analysis and interpretation of this passage, the first stage of this work comes to an end. From the investigations carried out on the three passages (which form the first stage of this work) where πνεῦμα is mentioned in relation with Christ, there is no mention of the Holy Spirit as an agent (πνεῦμα-Agent). If this is correct, how does the epistolary stage come about this aspect of Christian belief already present in the first recorded epistle of the New Testament (1 Thessalonians)? How does it evolve and where can it be traced from and connected to? This is what the second stage will investigate and explore in the following chapter: the passage from πνεῦμα of the oral stage as a spiritual condition to πνεῦμα as an Agent.

SECOND STAGE:

TRANSITION FROM ΠΝΕΥΜΑ-CONDITION TO ΠΝΕΥΜΑ-AGENT

CHAPTER 4

PASSAGE FROM ORAL TRADITION’S USAGE OF ΠΝΕΥΜΑ-CONDITION TO ΠΝΕΥΜΑ-AGENT OF THE LATER TRADITION From the three passages explored already in the preceding chapters (1 Tim 3:16, 1 Pet 3:18-22 and Rom 1:3-4), it seems very clear that they could be classified as showing traditional vestiges and references which each author of the different letters referred to in order to make their point well explanatory to their audience. If this is correct, then it could be said that the usage of πνεῦμα as spiritual condition in these passages, as it has been argued, is anterior to the New Testament writings. Its usage does not portray the concept of the Holy Spirit as individual entity acting as a personal agent in conjunction with the Father and the Son, as it will be expressed in a typical way in passages like Gal 4:6 for example: “God sent in our hearts the Spirit of his Son who calls out: ‘Abba, Father’”. The understanding of πνεῦμα prior to the Pauline corpus could be said to have followed that of the period before the beginning of Christian community, that is, the Old Testament era, with some adaptations to the person of Christ; meaning that, πνεῦμα was not viewed as detached in its function from God (Yahweh). Among these three passages, Rom 1:4 may serve as a revealing one for the gradual transition from the usage of πνεῦμα as a condition of Christ’s spiritual existence to Πνεῦμα as individual agent. A further examination of this passage in this light may lead one somewhere. The reason for singling out Rom 1:4 is the difference it has with the other two passages, 1 Timothy and 1 Peter: 1 Tim 3:16b: ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι 1 Pet 3:18: θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ, ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι

These two passages have great similarities in the structure, style, tenses and mode even in assonances. Compare the two with Rom: κατὰ σάρκα, κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης

One observes that the presentation from the tradition maintains the opposition σάρξ and πνεῦμα which the first two passages observed perfectly.

132

CHAPTER 4

Rom 1:4 has an addition of the substantive ἁγιωσύνη which qualifies πνεῦμα. As already argued in chapter three, what is most probably original to the text before the author of the letter to the Romans, is the antithesis σάρξ-πνεῦμα without ἁγιωσύνης. This hypothesis will better explain why the three passages could connect in their usage of the opposition σάρξπνεῦμα and further point to their background from the tradition. The substantive ἁγιωσύνη is most probably the addition of the author. If this is correct, then the author might have the idea of the Holy Spirit already before the redaction. Since the term Holy Spirit has already appeared before this epistle, it could be said that when the author of Romans was writing, the idea of πνεῦμα as an agent was gradually being expressed and understood. He would not have intended altering the tradition’s presentation of the opposition σάρξ-πνεῦμα as evident in the other passages. As the preceding clause in Rom 1:3 states κατὰ σάρκα, it would have altered the presentation if he had changed κατὰ πνεῦμα directly to πνεῦμα ἁγιον as an agent, hence the addition of the substantive. This does not change the meaning that the formula carries in Rom 1:4 at the oral stage. If it is clear that the early Christian tradition did not use the term πνεῦμα to designate the Holy Spirit as individual agent, as shown in the three passages explored in this work in relation to Christ’s mystery, then how come as early as in 1 Thessalonians the mention of πνεῦμα ἁγιον? How does πνεῦμα pass from the early tradition to the Holy Spirit in the later tradition? This question supports the argument that the three passages were fundamentally originated from the early tradition. It is also an indication that the term πνεῦμα as an individual agent was an evolution from the early tradition in the New Testament writings by the redaction of the author. With the addition of ἁγιωσύνη to the formula κατὰ πνεῦμα, Rom 1:4 seems to give an impression of Spirit as agent. But how? 4.1. ROM 1:4,

ΠΝΕΥΜΑ ἉΓΙΩΣΥΝΗΣ:

A RE-EVALUATION

As noted already, this expression has no equivalence both in the Old Testament and the New Testament texts. It could be found in the Testament of Levi 18:11 concerning the future empowerment of the tribe of Levi (“And he shall give to the saints to eat from the tree of life, and the spirit of holiness shall be on them”), and in a later amulet concerning the withdrawal of the spirit of holiness from the tabernacle (ἀνέχωρει τὸ ἁγιωσύν[ης πν]εῦμα).1 But the term ἁγιωσύνη (“holiness”) is found in 1

Cf. R. KOTANSKY 1994, 4-5.

PASSAGE FROM ORAL TRADITION’S

133

1 Thess 3:13 and 2 Cor 7:1 within different contexts. It is used in these two passages to express moral obligations of the believers: “And may he so strengthen your hearts in holiness (ἐν ἁγιωσύνῃ) that you may be blameless before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints” (1 Thess 3:13); and “since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and of spirit, making holiness (ἁγιωσύνην) perfect in the fear of God” (2 Cor 7:1). Some biblical scholars, like Robert Jewett, have linked this moral context to the substantive ἁγιωσύνη in 1:4, stating that “these passages provide an initial clue to Paul’s intention here [Rom 1:4] as well. (...) One suspects a similar concern in Rom 1:4 because the belief in having transcended the realm of σάρξ by virtue of one’s adherence to the realm of πνεῦμα could easily lead to a lack of concern over ethics and even to libertinistic excesses”.2 This application of the moral contexts of these two passages to 1:4 may appear too narrow and probably inappropriate to the context of the pre-Pauline formula. The context in 1:3-4 does not evoke any moralistic understanding and it does not show vividly how Paul would impose such understanding to it. It could be probable that the addition of the substantive also helped in curbing libertinism in the sense of taking seriously the πνεῦμα as spiritual condition celebrating divine power; but to maintain that “the qualification of spirit as the ‘spirit of holiness’ made clear that the divine power celebrated in the confession entailed moral obligations”3 might appear imposing on the context a different idea altogether. If ἁγιωσύνης is an addition of Paul, it marks a transformation of the opposition “according to the flesh / according to the spirit” relative to the condition of the incarnate Christ (κατὰ σάρκα) and then his condition consecutive to the resurrection (κατὰ πνεῦμα). The point of view, which was first and exclusively Christological in 1 Timothy and 1 Peter, receives with this addition, a certain inflection of another order. But if holiness is seen as the ideal and purpose to be sought by believers in Pauline letters and if this holiness is due to the gift of the Spirit, then κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης in Rom 1:4 is to be understood in the sense of “according to the Spirit which sanctifies” and the moral aspect, without being exclusive since the perspective remains fundamentally Christological, may be included in the transformation brought about by Paul which his letters express.4 Yes, the divine power is being celebrated as the new condition of the Risen One, his pneumatic condition, but not within the moral perspective. 2 3 4

R. JEWETT 2007, 106. R. JEWETT 2007, 106-107. 1-2 Thessalonians; 1-2 Corinthians; Galatians; Romans.

134

CHAPTER 4

The “spirit of holiness” would still imply, within its context, the spiritual condition that the Resurrected One now shares with his Father (cf. Acts 2:33), though with some idea of the Spirit (as nuances of this idea could be found in Pauline corpus). It is appropriate that the new life advocated by Paul in Romans and elsewhere involves righteousness and moral obligation, “a repudiation of fleshly passions”,5 but the pre-Pauline tradition which 1:4 belongs to does not have this anthropological interpretation. In other words, it is difficult to incorporate the idea of fleshly passions into this passage. If the moral reason on the part of the believers is not enough to explain the addition of the substantive, then what other probable reason could be offered? Although the term “holiness” also appears in 1 Thessalonians and 2 Corinthians, its idea is not limited to these two passages (1 Thess 3:13 and 2 Cor 7:1). It is a vocabulary Paul employs because he has it already. Different forms of the term within its grammatical family are employed by the author and in most cases portray taking action. From Pauline letters anterior to Romans and even in Romans, one could note the following points regarding the vocabulary of “holiness”: a) That the use of the language of holiness is well attested to as shown in the table below:6 1 Thess

2 Thess

1 Cor

Rom

Total

4

1

67

2

79

20

4610

ἁγιάζω

1

ἁγιασμός

3

1

18

ἅγιος

5

1

12

ἁγιότης ἁγιωσύνη Total

2 Cor

8

Gal

111

1 1

1

1

312 63

R. JEWETT 2007, 107. The table is made from the statistic concordance of R. MORGENTHALER 1982, 67; and also from the nominal concordance of W. F. MOULTON, A. S. GEDEN 62002. 7 1 Thess 5:23; 1 Cor 1:2; 6:11; 7:14 (2 times); Rom 15:16. 8 In 1 Corinthians, there is no explicit connection between sanctification and the Spirit. It is striking, however, that the idea of sanctification of believers is introduced at the end of chapter 1 (v. 30) and that in the next chapter the Spirit is mentioned 7 times as the author of God’s gifts to the believers. 9 1 Thess 4:3; 4:4; 4:7; 2 Thess 2:13; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 6:19; 6:22. 10 1 Thess 1:5,6; 3:13; 4:8; 5:26; 2 Thess 1:10; 1 Cor 1:2; 3:17; 6:1,2,19; 7:14,34; 12:3; 14:33; 16:1,15,20; 2 Cor 1:1; 6:6; 8:4; 9:1,12; 13:12,13,14; Rom 1:2,7; 5:5; 7:12 (2 times); 8:27; 9:1; 11:16 (2 times); 12:1,13; 14:17; 15:13,16,25,26,31; 16:2,15,16. 11 2 Cor 1:12. 12 1 Thess 3:13; 2 Cor 7:1; Rom 1:4. 5 6

PASSAGE FROM ORAL TRADITION’S

135

b) that in certain passages, in particular (•), holiness is expressly presented as performed by the Holy Spirit; c) that in others (••), without both holiness and the Holy Spirit being explicitly related to each other, the mentions of both appear in the surrounding verses (or context), one on the other, as is the case especially at the beginning of Romans. (•) Explicit links or connections (••) Mentions that are close ➔ ἁγιάζω + πνεῦμα

•1 Cor 6:11: ἡγιάσθητε (were sanctified) (...) ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν (“by the Spirit of our God”)

•Rom 15:16: ἡγιασμένη ἐν Πνεύματι Ἁγίῳ (“having been sanctified in the Holy Spirit”) ἁγιασμός + πνεῦμα ••1 Thess 4:3: θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν (“[the] will of God, your sanctification”) 4:4: ἐν ἁγιασμῷ καὶ τιμῇ (“in holiness and honour”) 4:7: ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς (...) ἐν ἁγιασμῷ (“God has called us [...] into holiness”)

➔1 Thess 4:8: (…) τὸν Θεὸν τὸν καὶ διδόντα τὸ Πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ τὸ ἅγιον εἰς ὑμᾶς (“[...] God [who] also gives his Holy Spirit to you”)

•2 Thess 2:13: ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ Κυρίου, ὅτι εἵλατο ὑμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς εἰς σωτηρίαν ἐν ἁγιασμῷ Πνεύματος (“[...] beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from [the] beginning unto salvation in the sanctification of the Spirit”) ἅγιος + πνεῦμα ••Rom 1:7: κλητοῖς ἁγίοις (“called saints”)

➔ Rom 1:4: πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης (“spirit of holiness”) 4.1.1. “Holiness” in 1:4: Its Idea in Some Pauline Letters As early as in 1 Thess 4:3,4,7, the author already made use of the noun ἁγιασμός in verse 7 (“holiness”, “consecration”, “sanctification”) in the dative form, ἁγιασμῷ, in relation to living a life pleasing to God. Holiness is seen as that which corresponds to the will of God on believers (4:3) and, equivalent to 4:7, as what he calls them to. In 4:4, holiness is seen

136

CHAPTER 4

from the side of the believers as it is lived by them. God calls believers to holiness and gives them the gift of the Holy Spirit (4:8). Both the purpose and the means are given by God. The usage is found within the moral exhortation but its connection to God in verse 3 seems to show that it is God who sanctifies, hence ‘Someone’ is taking action: Τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν (“For this is the will of God, your sanctification”). It is interesting to note that immediately, in the following verse (4:8), the author employs πνεῦμα ἁγιον which seems to go together showing that God gives the Holy Spirit to make believers live in holiness. Since from verse 3, one understands that it is God who sanctifies, from verse 7-8, one could say that this sanctification is done in the Holy Spirit, the gift of God to the believers. First, it is the sanctification (holiness) that comes from God in the Holy Spirit (4:7-8), and second, the believers, having been sanctified, are called to take moral actions (4:4). The interest here, therefore, is the first. One could view verses 3,7-8 like this: God did not call you to impurity but to holiness because he has given you the Spirit who sanctifies you, your sanctification, being the will of God. “Therefore whoever rejects this rejects not human authority but God, who also gives his Holy Spirit to you” (4:8). There is an action being played here by the Holy Spirit: sanctification. In the same vein, the verb ἁγιάζω is used in 1 Cor 1:2 in the plural form, ἡγιασμένοις referring to the church of God in Corinth. To be “sanctified in Christ Jesus” probably connotes the idea of inheriting the life that Jesus has brought about through his paschal mystery. In 1 Cor 6:11 the verb form ἡγιάσθητε is employed and connected to the Spirit in the dative neuter singular: καὶ ταῦτά τινες ἦτε· ἀλλὰ ἀπελούσασθε, ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσθητε, ἀλλὰ ἐδικαιώθητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν. It shows clearly that the believers are washed, justified and sanctified in Christ Jesus by the Spirit. This notion becomes clearer within Romans. Similar idea appears in Rom 15:16 where the author uses the verb ἁγιάζω (to sanctify) in the perfect participle passive form, ἡγιασμένη (“having been sanctified”) and connects it with ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (“by/ in the Holy Spirit”), making it clear that it is the Holy Spirit who sanctifies believers and makes them acceptable to God. Paul recounts the grace of God given to him “to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified [made holy] by/in the Holy Spirit”. The expression ἡγιασμένη ἐν Πνεύματι Ἁγίῳ (“having been sanctified or made holy in the Holy Spirit”) has been associated either to the individual

PASSAGE FROM ORAL TRADITION’S

137

believer13 or to the believing community.14 The former is being sanctified by the Holy Spirit individually while in the latter, the presence of the Holy Spirit in the congregation of believers makes them holy. What is obvious is that the Holy Spirit is acting. This shows that in Romans and two other preceding letters (1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians) one finds the representation of the Holy Spirit as agent of sanctification of believers. The same representation is found in 2 Thess 2:13.15 Therefore, conscious already of his usages of ἁγιάζω and ἁγιασμός in connection with πνεῦμα, the author most probably then added the substantive ἁγιωσύνη to the traditional formula he borrowed in Rom 1:4. So, in line with this representation of the Holy Spirit as an agent or factor of sanctification of believers, should not one understand Rom 1:4 in the sense of “according to the Spirit who sanctifies (believers)”? One then sees the transition: the passage, while referring originally to the condition of the risen Christ as in the traditional formula which it echoes, integrates the reference to the Holy Spirit and his function of sanctification. This passage then becomes a witness of the passage or transition from the spiritcondition to the Spirit-agent. 4.2. 1 PETER: A WITNESS TO NUANCES IN THE USAGE OF ΠΝΕΥΜΑ A clue to the passage from πνεῦμα referring to the condition of the Risen Christ (1 Pet 3:18) to πνεῦμα (1:2), πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ (1:11), πνεῦμα Θεου (4:6,14) and πνεῦμα ἁγιον (1:12) referring to the Holy Spirit, could probably be traceable also to 1 Peter. It is observed that this epistle plays with these terms, and gradually comes to mention only once πνεῦμα ἁγιον. At the beginning of the letter, the author employs simply πνεῦμα within the context of sanctification (1:2). It is striking to find exactly the same turn as in 2 Thess 2:13, ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος. The context would have suggested the usage of the Holy Spirit as an agent of sanctification, but 1 Peter simply employs πνεῦμα which still has the meaning of the Holy Spirit doing his function as the sanctifier. One notices in this verse (1:2) the usage of the three Agents of what the later theologians called the Trinity: κατὰ πρόγνωσιν Θεοῦ Πατρός, ἐν ἁγιασμῷ Πνεύματος, εἰς ὑπακοὴν καὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (“according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctification of the Spirit unto the obedience Cf. F. GODET 1977, 478; G. D. FEE 1994, 627; H. BALZ 1990, 16-20. Cf. J. A. FITZMYER 1993, 712; R. JEWETT 2007, 908. 15 Although its authenticity is still debated, but if it is considered as Pauline, one sees more usage of holiness attached to the function of the Holy Spirit. 13 14

138

CHAPTER 4

and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ”). The appearance of the three divine Agents seems to be parallel with the Pauline usage in 2 Cor 13:13 which gives some clear insight into the faith in the Trinity.16 Already then from the beginning of the letter, the function of the Spirit is obvious as One who sanctifies as in Pauline passages above. About what or who the usage of the three Agents refers precisely to within the verse, there are some different views: 1) To the apostle,17 2) To the chosen,18 and 3) To the apostle and the chosen or elected.19 The use of ἁγιασμῷ portrays an action of being sanctified and very probably not to the state of holiness (or morality) of the chosen people. In the same vein, Jacques Schlosser notes that “La référence à ‘élus’ et le parallélisme littéraire étroit entre la première et la deuxième expression invitent à penser que le texte renvoie à l’acte (sanctification) plutôt qu’à l’état (sainteté), et que l’esprit [the πνεῦμα] est celui de Dieu plutôt que celui de l’homme”.20 The πνεῦμα is definitely not the human spirit but the divine. It is the Spirit who sanctifies the chosen people; their divine election is realised through sanctification whose agent is the Spirit. The notion of ἁγιασμός rests on the divine and not on the moral efforts of the believers, as Jacques Schlosser writes that “Il ne s’agit donc pas, en l’occurrence, d’une tâche à accomplir par le croyant dans le prolongement du baptême reçu, mais de l’œuvre de l’Esprit”.21 This is how the reference to the redaction in Rom 1:4 should be understood; there is no moral implication (contra Robert Jewett).22 The term πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ is used in 1:11 which reflects the usage of πνεῦμα in relation to Christ. The spirit is spoken of not as individual entity but as the spirit of Christ, just as the Old Testament makes use of πνεῦμα in relation to God or Yahweh. Being used within the context of the prophets prophesying, understood along the Old Testament time, the “spirit of Christ” may point to the pre-existent Christ. Jacques Schlosser observes that “Pierre est pourtant le seul auteur du NT à attribuer au Christ ou à son Esprit une présence active dans les prophètes d’autrefois”.23 The Cf. E. G. SELWYN 1974, 247-250; E. M. BORING 1999, 53. Cf. J. N. KELLY 1969, 42; this is the position of the Greek Fathers. 18 By most authors: J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 52; P. J. ACHTEMEIER 1996, 86; W. C. VAN UNNIK 1980, 61; F. H. AGNEW 1983, 69. 19 F. W. BEARE 1970, 75-76; E. G. SELWYN 1974, 119; E. D. HIEBERT 1980, 70. 20 J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 52. 21 J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 52-53; also E. G. SELWYN 1974, 249; see also E. SCHWEIZER 4 1998, 21-22. 22 For Jewett’s moral explanation to the addition of ἁγιωσύνη, see R. JEWETT 2007, 106-107. 23 J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 79. 16 17

PASSAGE FROM ORAL TRADITION’S

139

idea of the involvement of Christ (pre-existent) in the Old Testament is evident in 1 Cor 10:4: “and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ”. He is also referred to as being from the foundation of the world (cf. 1 Pet 1:20). This might show the unity and continuity of both the Old Testament and the New Testaments.24 Within the context, one would have expected the use of πνεῦμα ἁγιον since it has to do with testifying in advance to the sufferings destined for Christ, but in compliance with the tradition, the author employs πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ. The Spirit is the principal agent of the prophetic work of salvation, grace and the glory in Christ. He does not only inspire the prophets,25 the intermediaries, but he is the subject of the prophetic action.26 In verse 12 of the same chapter, one discovers that the author employs πνεῦμα ἁγιον (which appears only here in the epistle) in the dative form, πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. He refers to the Holy Spirit as the one sent from heaven. The Holy Spirit is here performing an action and the context clearly shows that he accompanies evangelisers of the Good News (even though it does not have an article, the context expresses his action). He reveals the Good News that was hidden under the hollow of prophecy.27 One finds the antithesis σάρξ-πνεῦμα in 4:6 being used in relation with the dead. The context seems to have a moral undertone. The author refers to the judgement in the flesh of both the living and the dead; and judgement comes because of the passions of the flesh. To get rid of the passion is to embrace the will of God and live in spirit like him (ἵνα κριθῶσι μὲν κατὰ ἀνθρώπους σαρκί, ζῶσι δὲ κατὰ Θεὸν πνεύματι). The idea of two modes of existence may not be ruled out completely, for the judgement in the flesh is based on the earthly life (which the dead had in common with the living, ἀνθρώπους σαρκί) and living up to the exhortation to follow the will of God will bring about spiritual existence (a future consequence).28 In 4:14, the author would go back to the term πνεῦμα Θεου resting on believers who suffered insults for the sake of Christ. The idea of πνεῦμα is not separated from God as it is being used in the Old Testament. One observes the usage of πνεῦμα in different forms at the beginning of the letter in association with ἁγιασμός and the clear statement about πνεῦμα ἁγιον being sent from heaven. It is important to note once again Cf. J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 79; J-C. MARGOT 1960, 25. As seen in the ancient Judaism: see E. SJÖBERG 1959, 379-380. 26 Cf. J. SCHLOSSER 2011, 78. 27 See Eph 3:5; see also P. PRIGENT 2006, 31. He notes that “Le Saint Esprit révèle clairement l’Évangile qui était caché au creux des prophéties”. 28 For more detail on this interpretation see p. 75. 24 25

140

CHAPTER 4

that the New Testament affirms the usage of this term as a functioning agent as early as in 1 Thessalonians, for it is the Spirit who sanctifies and inspires (1 Thess 4:3,7-8). The Holy Spirit is mentioned three times in 1 Thessalonians (1:5,6; 4:8 and nowhere in 2 Thessalonians, however, in 2 Thess 2:13 one finds same formula as in 1 Peter, ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος). Going through the passages that contain early formulas and early Christian vestiges, it is noticed that τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἁγιον was never mentioned. The interest of the early Christian community was basically on the mysteries of the incarnation, passion, death, resurrection-exaltation of Christ. Thus, one observes that, like Paul in Romans, 1 Peter testifies to the dual usage of the term πνεῦμα designating, on the one hand, as in the previous tradition, the condition of the risen Christ, on the other hand, the Holy Spirit as agent, put in relation sometimes with God, sometimes with Christ. 4.3. PAUL’S REDACTION IN ROM 1:4, AFFINITY IN 1 THESS 1:5 OTHER SIMILAR PASSAGES

AND

Rom 1:3b-4d could be put side by side with 1 Thess 1:5. The former is very likely not originally the author’s composition. It speaks of the early Christian confession of faith in the promised Messiah who was to come from the seed of David. The early Christian communities saw this Messiah in Christ Jesus and distinguished his human existence and heavenly exaltation: according to (the) flesh and according to (the) spirit respectively. There was no Holy Spirit as an agent mentioned here. The author of 1 Thess 1:5 writes: ὅτι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐγενήθη εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν λόγῳ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν Πνεύματι Ἁγίῳ (“because our message of the gospel came to you not in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit....”). These two passages have some similarities of terms, namely, “in power” and the idea of the Spirit. The additions by the author to the pre-Pauline tradition in Rom 1:4 are the phrase ἐν δυνάμει and the substantive ἁγιωσύνης. His addition of “in power” could portray that Jesus was appointed prior to his resurrection in power in order to discourage any idea of adoptionism.29 Its usage in 1 Thess 1:5 has the believers in view but employed in connection with the gospel, “the gospel came to you in power”. But in Rom 1:4 it is referred to Christ very probably emphasising the transcendent perspective of being 29

Cf. H. SCHLIER 1972, 210; R. JEWETT 2007, 107.

PASSAGE FROM ORAL TRADITION’S

141

“Son of God”. One would say that the gospel that Paul refers to is Christ (the subject of the gospel he preaches is Christ himself, “we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus the Lord” 2 Cor 4:5)30 which has become his.31 It is the gospel of God which he preaches with Christ as the subject.32 There seems to be a link between the two passages: Christ is at the background. Christ is the gospel that came to the believers “in power” (1 Thess 1:5); it is the same Christ who is referred to as being appointed Son of God “in power” (Rom 1:4). In this way, it goes with the Pauline teaching on the pre-existent Christ.33 The phrase “in power” is found in 1 Thess 1:5 followed by the Holy Spirit. It seems that this sequence was already clear in the author’s mind and probably conceived in the redaction of Romans. Conscious already of the tradition before him and not wanting to alter it, the author added the substantive ἁγιωσύνη to the πνεῦμα. This probably shows a passage from πνεῦμα employed within the context of pre-Pauline tradition as a condition of the resurrected Lord, presented in antithesis σάρξ-πνεῦμα, to the Πνεῦμα as Agent through whom the message of the gospel came to the believers: “our message of the gospel came to you not in word only, but also in power (ἐν δυνάμει) and in Holy Spirit (ἐν Πνεύματι Ἁγίῳ)”.34 The message (the word) is received in joy inspired by the Holy Spirit (1 Thess 1:6). Paul would elsewhere compare the resurrection of Jesus with that of the believers within the same spiritual condition after the resurrection (1 Cor 15).35 So there is a link between what Jesus passed through and what the believers will pass through. Within the same letter to the Romans, Paul employs ἐν δυνάμει in relation to πνεῦμα. Within the homiletic benediction that concludes his discourse on Christian unity in 15:13 is found the phrase ἐν δυνάμει Πνεύματος Ἁγίου (“in the power of the Holy Spirit”). It is by the power of the Holy Spirit that the believers keep hope in God. In 15:19, while talking about the things Christ has accomplished through him in word and deed, Paul again employs the phrase ἐν δυνάμει Πνεύματος Ἁγίου (“in the power of the Holy Spirit”)36 in connection to the mighty signs and 30 Cf. 2 Cor 4:5 (οὐ γὰρ ἑαυτοὺς κηρύσσομεν ἀλλὰ Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν Κύριον “we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus the Lord”); 10:14; Eph 3:8 (εὐαγγελίσασθαι τὸ ἀνεξιχνίαστον πλοῦτος τοῦ Χριστοῦ “to preach the unfathomable riches of Christ”); Col 1:27-29. 31 Cf. Rom 2:16; 16:25. 32 Cf. Rom 15:16; 2 Cor 11:7; 1 Thess 2:2,8,9; see also 1 Pet 4:17. 33 Cf. K. WENGST 1972, 114; C. BURGER 1970, 31-32; R. JEWETT 2007, 107. 34 1 Thess 1:5. 35 1 Cor 15 will be explored in detail in section 4.4 below. 36 The phrase in some ancient authorities read “of the Spirit” or “of God”.

142

CHAPTER 4

wonders. The power of the Spirit makes the exalted Christ present in the community (15:17-18) and brings about obedience to the gospel (15:18). These two passages (15:13,19) could have some closeness with 1:4 “in power according to the spirit of holiness”: 1:4: ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης 15:13: ἐν δυνάμει πνεύματος ἁγίου 15:19: ἐν δυνάμει πνεύματος (variants: θεοῦ or ἁγίου)

In 1 Cor 2:4, δύναμις (this time not with the expression ἐν δυνάμει) is linked with πνεῦμα: ἐν ἀποδείξει Πνεύματος καὶ δυνάμεως (“in demonstration of the Spirit and of power”). Paul expresses that his preaching and words were not of human wisdom but “demonstration” (ἀποδείξει)37 of the Spirit and of power, linking the two together. The two expressions are virtually used synonymously in some of his writings. These passages are arranged below: 1 Thess 1:5: ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ 1 Cor 2:4: ἐν ἀποδείξει πνεύματος καὶ δυνάμεως Rom 1:4: ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης 15:13: ἐν δυνάμει πνεύματος ἁγίου 15:19: ἐν δυνάμει πνεύματος (variants: θεοῦ or ἁγίου)

Noted that 1 Thessalonians was written before Romans, the author has already the idea and the term πνεῦμα ἁγιον with ἐν δυνάμει, and then incorporated this idea into Rom 1:4. One could say that the evolution of πνεῦμα from the sense of the ancient formula towards the Holy Spirit begins gradually from Rom 1:3-4 following from 1 Thessalonians (1:5) and 1 Corinthians. 4.4. PNEUMATIC CONDITION OF THE RESURRECTED CHRIST, AN EARLY CHRISTIAN USAGE: PAUL’S APPLICATION TO THE RESURRECTION OF THE BELIEVERS (1 COR 15) The contexts of the three passages under investigation in this work have in common the resurrection of Christ. Within this context of the resurrection is found the antithesis of flesh and spirit. In this same sense, a close context is found in 1 Cor 15:45 where similar antithesis is used, this time between ψυχή and πνεῦμα. 37

A rhetorical term used only here by Paul to show a convincing logical argument: cf. J. E. CHIU et al. 2018, 1300.

PASSAGE FROM ORAL TRADITION’S

143

4.4.1. The Condition of Resurrection of the Last Adam (1 Cor 15:45) This verse is located within the larger context of the discussion on the resurrection (the whole chapter 15). Paul first made allusion to the resurrection of Christ from the dead from what he received as testimony of the tradition before him (15:3-4) and used it as the standing point for his belief, then gave arguments in favour of the resurrection of the believers. The two verbs παραλαμβάνω (“to receive”) and παραδίδωμι (“to hand on”), both found in 1 Cor 15:3, portray vocabularies of the tradition and show that Paul was borrowing from it. From verses 35-49, he particularly took up the question on the resurrection body and tried to respond to it through analogical arguments. For the sake of clarity, it is important to explore this passage. The immediate context could be delimited. 4.4.2. Delimitation (vv. 35-49) Literally, 15:35-49 could be distinguished from its environment. From the grammatical point of view, verse 35 begins with indefinite pronoun τις (“someone”) with an unidentified person. This does not appear within its environment. Also, the second person pronoun is used in the singular form, σὺ (vv. 36, 37) while it is in the plural form within its environment. From the point of view of the discussion, the preceding verses, immediately before verse 35, are concerned with direct moral exhortation to avoid sin, and this is resumed in verse 50: “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”. 4.4.3. Literary Context: From the Known to the Unknown The concern of the author is to clear the confusion and doubts surrounding the doctrine of the resurrection. In verse 35, two related questions are asked regarding the nature of the resurrection body, “how are the dead raised?” and “with what kind of body do they come?” Simply put, the questions are “how” and “what”. The rest of the verses are devoted to answering these questions. In verses 36-38, the author employs agricultural terms (the verb σπείρω appears three times, also the use of the nouns κόκκον [grain], σῖτος [wheat], and σπερμάτα [seeds]) to suggest through images the process and how resurrection could take place. It is a familiar analogical example which begins from the known to the unknown. In agricultural parlance, what is sown must die before it grows into a new life; and the body that

144

CHAPTER 4

comes out is not directly the same as that which was sown. The new body is the handiwork of God (v. 38). Each seed has its own body. There is a kind of contrast made between “before and after”,38 a grain is sown (before) and after death, it comes out in a new body (after). Verse 39 contains another example, this time not from the agricultural world, but from different kinds of flesh: of human beings, animals and fish. It is the same God who gives to each flesh as he chooses (v. 38). Verse 40 makes the distinction between heavenly and earthly bodies, each in its own glory. Verse 41 concludes the examples employed to describe resurrection body. Obviously, there are three examples within this context: seeds, flesh and celestial bodies. The application of these examples begins from 42-49. The verb σπείρω which appears in 36-37 reappears from 42-44, now applied to the resurrection of the dead (v. 42a). It forms contrast with the verb ἐγείρω: “what is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable”.39 This unit is composed in antitheses: to sow – to raise, perishable – imperishable, dishonour – glory, weakness – power, natural or physical (ψυχικόν) – spiritual (πνευματικόν), soul – spirit, first (man) – second (man), and earthly – heavenly. In order for the body to be raised, it has to be sown like seeds or grains or wheat (v. 36) which comes first, while the raising comes second. This answers the “how” question of the resurrection body posed in verse 35. The question on what body is answered by the transformation which the seed, for example, undergoes. It is not a question of change but transformation into a new body, the second phase. The substantive phrases provide this answer of “what”: imperishable, glory and power. The example of the seed sowing portrays a time axis (before, first and after, second), while the example of the earthly and heavenly bodies with the celestial realities portrays a space axis, and God has power to transform in both axes. The two axes continue to play out in the following verses (46-49) with the terms first and last (time axis), earthly and heavenly or spiritual (space axis). Verse 46 expresses time sequence of the two Adams mentioned in verse 45. The rest of the verses contain one form or another, blending both axes. The idea of εἰκὼν (“image”) mentioned in verse 49 reflects Gen 1:2627; 9:6. The distinction made between earthly and heavenly also goes with the image of the two ἄνθρωποι. The believers have borne the image 38 39

Cf. N. BONNEAU 1993, 86-87. The emphasis is that of this author.

PASSAGE FROM ORAL TRADITION’S

145

of the earthly man; they will also bear the image of the heavenly man, the divine image. The first is the image of the earthly man which all bear at creation but will be finally realised in the second image, the spiritual.40 The new creation is then inaugurated by the last Adam who bears the image of the invisible God (cf. Col 1:15). The believers are renewed into the image of the last Adam. The rest of the following verses of the chapter are devoted to the application of the arguments to the resurrection of the believers: “What I am saying, brothers, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable (...). For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable. (...) For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality” (15:50-53). 4.4.4. Structure: Three-Step Stages of Argument The section on the resurrection body (15:35-49) has an interesting structure which could be grouped into three parts: 1. On the questions of the resurrection body: how and what (15:35) 2. Examples cited in answering the questions (vv. 36-41) 2.1 Agricultural terminologies (vv. 36-38) 2.2 Human and Animal flesh (vv. 39-40) 2.3 Celestial realities (vv. 40-41) 3. Application of the examples 3.1 e-ratione (vv. 42-44) 3.2 e-scriptura (15:45) The beginning of the section (v. 35) contains the questions on which the following verses rest. From verses 36-37, the first example begins with the verb “to sow” and the terms like seeds, grains and wheat show how familiar it is to the agricultural environment. The second example is found in verse 39: the difference of flesh of human beings, animals and fish. Verse 40 could be regarded as a pivot between the preceding example and the following one.41 It makes a distinction in the space axis: earthly and heavenly. The third example could be situated from 40-41, the celestial bodies.42 Cf. G. D. FEE 2007, 119. Cf. N. BONNEAU 1993, 84. 42 On the division of the examples made from 35-41, there are different opinions: 1) some authors have only noticed one example by claiming that verses 39-41 are extension of 40 41

146

CHAPTER 4

The e-ratione and the e-scriptura are forms of argument found in the rabbinic literature.43 The former has to do with analogical argument from observable realities to prove the resurrection, while the latter seeks scriptural grounds for the proof of the resurrection. Under the application, one notices the use of antitheses, featuring in all the expressions. It is interesting when these are displayed: First (Earthly) Second/Last (Spiritual) 42b σπείρεται ἐν φθορᾷ, ἐγείρεται ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ It is sown in corruptibility it is raised in incorruptibility 43a σπείρεται ἐν ἀτιμίᾳ, ἐγείρεται ἐν δόξῃ It is sown in dishonour it is raised in glory 43b σπείρεται ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ, ἐγείρεται ἐν δυνάμει It is sown in weakness it is raised in power 44a σπείρεται σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἐγείρεται σῶμα πνευματικόν It is sown a natural body it is raised a spiritual body. 44b Εἰ ἔστιν σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἔστιν καὶ πνευματικόν If there is a natural body there is also spiritual 45a Ἐγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν 45b ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν the first man, Adam, became a living soul the last Adam into a life-giving spirit 46 ἀλλ’ οὐ πρῶτον τὸ πνευματικὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ ψυχικόν, ἔπειτα τὸ πνευματικόν But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual 47a 47b ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ the first man was from the earth, made of dust the second man is from heaven

The above schema presents a characteristic style comprising of antitheses, assonances, correspondence, parallelism and rhythm of elements. The use of πρῶτος and δεύτερος (15:48) portrays a chronological distinction while that of ψυχικόν and πνευματικόν (15:44,46) shows a spatial distinction. In between the “first” and the “second” is transformation which takes place at death to bring about the second. The repeated use of the verb σπείρω goes back to the example in 36-37. The outcome is what the verb ἐγείρω stands for, which tallies with the question in verse 35.

verse 38, see C. BURCHARD 1984, 234-235. 2) For two examples see R. MORISSETTE 1972, 208-228; C. K. BARRETT 21971, 370-371; F. BAUDRAZ 1965, 127-128; H. CONZELMANN 1975, 280-282; C. WOLF 1982, 195-197; G. SELLIN 1986, 211-220. 3) For three examples: a) of the seed (vv. 36-37), b) of different kinds of flesh (vv. 38-40), c) the celestial bodies (v. 41), see W. L. CRAIG 1980, 55-56; W. D. DAVIES 1949, 305; G. W. DAWES 1990, 687688; he proposes first example from 36-38, second example in verse 39 and third example from verses 40-41. This is also the proposition of Michel Gourgues, see: M. GOURGUES 2011, 118-121. 43 Cf. R. MORISSETTE 1972, 208-228; see also K. USAMI 1976, 468-493.

PASSAGE FROM ORAL TRADITION’S

147

4.4.5. Exploration: Two Modes of Body of the two Adams described as σῶμα ψυχικόν and σῶμα πνευματικόν In 1 Cor 15:44-45, one observes the contrast between ψυχὴ and πνεῦμα. In verse 44 the contrast is employed with the two adjectives ψυχικόν and πνευματικόν attached to σῶμα, while the following verse drawing from verse 44 contrasts soul and spirit with the first man Adam and the last Adam respectively. The mention of Adam in this pericope is the second occurrence in chapter 15. It first appears in 15:21-22 contrasting Christ without an obvious step or anticipation leading to the analogical usage of Adam and Christ. The analogy was used by Paul to demonstrate the certainty of the resurrection of the believers from that of Christ who is the first fruits (ἀπαρχὴ: 15:20,23) from the dead. Death and resurrection make the distinction between the two men. Both (death and resurrection) came from man; the former came from Adam while the latter came from Christ: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (15:22). Elsewhere Paul talks about sin and not directly death, even though, the cause of death is sin (cf. Rom 5:12-21). And this is the reason for his analogy, that sin is the cause of death which came from Adam, the first man. Henceforth all who come from him inherit death as heirs of their human progenitor. But now there is a divine intervention which is culminated in the resurrection of another Man; and all who are in him, as their progenitor (15:23), shall share in his resurrection.44 Having employed three different examples to demonstrate the nature of resurrection, Paul uses scriptural text in verse 45 and through that means comes to distinguish between the first and the last Adam with ψυχὴ and πνεῦμα respectively; and their different bodies, one is σῶμα ψυχικόν and the other is σῶμα πνευματικόν. The first Adam is ψυχὴν ζῶσαν (“a living soul”) with σῶμα ψυχικόν (“natural body”) and the last Adam πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν (“a life-giving spirit”) with σῶμα πνευματικόν (“spiritual body”) (15:44). By virtue of his resurrection, Jesus acquires a body that fits his new mode of existence, that is, the life of πνεῦμα (contrasted with the earthly life of ψυχὴ), which is here described as σῶμα πνευματικόν. Those who are in him will also share in his pneumatic condition and be transformed into σῶμα πνευματικόν. 44 Cf. G. D. FEE 2007, 115. For more discussion on the analogy of Adam and Christ in 15:21-22, see J. G. DUNN 1973, 127-141; M. BLACK 1954, 70-79; J. JERVELL 1960; E. BRANDENBURGER 1962, 78-96; R. SCROGGS 1966, 86-87.

148

CHAPTER 4

Very probably Paul is being influenced by Gen 2:7 in verse 45, since 45a is almost a literal quotation of the Septuagint version of Gen 2:7 as shown below: 1 Cor 15:45a Ἐγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν Gen 2:7 (LXX) και ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν

From the two passages above, πρῶτος and Ἀδὰμ are not present in Gen 2:7 which could be said to be additions of Paul. He is interpreting the Old Testament text following his own conviction that follows in 45b: ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν (“the last Adam became a lifegiving spirit”). The last expression is not in isolation for it depends grammatically on the verb ἐγένετο. The point Paul is trying to prove is that there is a future resurrection body which the last Adam already has; and being the first fruit to resurrect, he is distinguished from the living ψυχὴ of the first man. The death brought about by the first man in the natural body is not the end because through the resurrection of the last Adam all shall have access to the new body, σῶμα πνευματικόν. The term ψυχὴν ζῶσαν perhaps provokes that of πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν. With the idea of the living soul in Gen 2:7 and being convinced that the life of πνεῦμα is the condition of resurrection (pneumatic or spiritual condition) and that the new body of resurrection must also be that of the life of πνεῦμα, Paul logically employs πνεῦμα to contrast ψυχὴ while retaining the “living”. Furthermore, since through the first Adam all inherited death but through the last Adam all shall be made alive, Paul concludes that the last Adam became life-giving πνεῦμα because through him all shall be brought to life, a life without corruption or decay, but that of σῶμα πνευματικόν. 4.4.5.1. Christ the Last Adam as πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν (15:45b) The contrast between Adam and Christ made in 15:21-22 makes immediatly clear that the last Adam in 15:45b refers to Christ. The same verb is used in the analogy of Adam and Christ in verse 22 and first and last Adam in verse 45: the verb ζῳοποιέω (“to give life to” or “to make alive”). It is in Christ that all will be made alive (ζῳοποιηθήσονται: 15:22) at the resurrection and then the believers will share in his new σῶμα πνευματικόν. Being the first fruit, he became a life-giving πνεῦμα through his resurrection. In addition, the argument in chapter 15 also points to Christ whose resurrection is the point of Paul’s argument for the future resurrection of the believers. The expression in 45b does not appear in biblical text as that of v. 45a, but it cannot be totally separated from 45a. It is grammatically linked by

PASSAGE FROM ORAL TRADITION’S

149

the verb ἐγένετο which is also present in Gen 2:7 LXX. As already noted, Paul probably derived the phrase life-giving πνεῦμα from his own interpretation of the function of the first Adam in contrast with the last Adam. If the first Adam brought death which all inherited, the last Adam brought life, not just life but pneumatic life, hence the qualification of life-giving with πνεῦμα. Furthermore, the phrase might be linked to the immediate context of Gen 2:7: “then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living soul”. The two passages (Genesis and 1 Corinthians) are similar. The first Adam became a living soul, a literal quotation in 1 Cor 15:45a. What makes man alive is the breathing into him of the breath of life by God. Two things are both involved in the two passages: there is one who gives life and the other is ‘lifeless’. In this sense, the last Adam performs the function of God as life giver which is the function of Christ after his resurrection. The role God played in the beginning of creation by breathing life into the first man, Adam, and he became a living being and henceforth his progeny, Christ will do eschatologically as he will breathe life into the dead and they will live anew. Since resurrection is in the spiritual axis, its “body” must also be pneumatic. Hence, very probably Paul interprets the πνοὴν ζωῆς (Gen 2:7 LXX: breath of life) into πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν (1 Cor 15:45).45 The mention of the first man coming from the dust in 1 Cor 15:47 suggests that he has the whole of Gen 2:7 in mind and so makes his interpretation from it to explain his point on the resurrection, hence the allusion to πνοὴν ζωῆς.46 His knowledge of the Old Testament might have suggested, therefore, this interpretation47 coupled with his own exegesis. The phrase πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν (1 Cor 15:45) should not be taken as the Holy Spirit.48 The context does not portray what the later tradition would call two agents of the Trinity or that the Holy Spirit is the agent of Christ’s resurrection. First of all, as stated already, the New Testament does not ascribe the resurrection of Christ to the Holy Spirit; it is ascribed to God, to the Father and rarely to Christ himself.49 Secondly, the context is on the argument on the resurrection of the believers using Christ’s 45 See also G. D. FEE 2007, 118; S. HULTGREN 2003, 353, 361 (he observes that “It is more likely, however, that the term πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν is Paul’s own”). 46 Cf. R. SCROGGS 1966, 86-87; S. HULTGREN 2003, 361. 47 See also Ezek 37:13-14. 48 As against the authors who see the reference to the Holy Spirit: R. GAFFIN 1998, 580-581; B. L. GLADD 2009, 305-306. 49 Acts 2:24; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30,33-34; 17:31; Rom 6:4; 8:11; 10:9; Eph 1:20; Jn 10:18. The last passage contrasts with the others. Here, it is Christ himself

150

CHAPTER 4

resurrection as a ground for their future resurrection. Gordon Fee notes in this regard that “the language [of 15:45b] has been dictated both by the Genesis text and the concern to demonstrate that Christ is the foundation of believers’ receiving a ‘spiritual body’”50 through their future resurrection. The emphasis is then placed on the two modes of existence: natural or physical and spiritual. The first Adam is described by the physical mode (the natural body) and the last Adam by the spiritual mode. The phrase which concerns the last Adam in the spiritual mode must refer to the spiritual condition of his new existence brought about by resurrection and characterised by σῶμα πνευματικόν. The opposition between ψυχὴ and πνεῦμα, σῶμα ψυχικόν and σῶμα πνευματικόν further suggests the distinction between two modes of existence and discourages the idea that the phrase refers to the Holy Spirit. This understanding is like that of Rom 1:3-4 (and 1 Tim 3:16b; 1 Pet 3:18) where also the emphasis is on the two modes of existence of Christ. The first mode describes the earthly existence (κατὰ σάρκα) and the second mode the spiritual brought about by the resurrection (κατὰ πνεῦμα). Hence πνεῦμα as used here designates a new life in which believers will partake in at their resurrection. It is a body made in the image of the last Adam.51 The argument of the author in this context is soteriological in describing the nature of future resurrection in the life of πνεῦμα, that is, the new life which is pneumatic. Thirdly, grammatically, the phrase has no article which further suggests that Paul was not referring to the Holy Spirit. In line with this, Gordon Fee opines that “he [Paul] almost certainly does not intend to say that Christ became the life-giving Spirit, but rather a life-giving spirit”.52 It does not also portray a Spirit Christology whereby Christ and the Spirit are viewed virtually as the same person.53 Paul does not seem to interchange Christ and the Spirit in 15:45b but emphasising the condition of Christ’s resurrection in the spiritual mode. It is through him that believers will be made alive in the pneumatic world after death (which is characterised by the natural body – the physical mode). It is most certain that πνεῦμα, even with its combination with life-giving, is not used interchangeably with Christ in the context, that is, πνεῦμα as the Holy Spirit; who has the power to lay down his life and to take it up again, though he receives the command from his Father. 50 G. D. FEE 2014, 790. 51 Cf. G. D. FEE 2014, 790; G. D. FEE 2007, 118. 52 G. D. FEE 2007, 118. 53 For this view see J. G. DUNN 1973, 139-141.

PASSAGE FROM ORAL TRADITION’S

151

rather it portrays a pneumatic life of the condition of the resurrection in the spiritual realm. In the same view, Gordon Fee writes that “Christ is not the Spirit; rather, in a play on the Genesis text, Paul says that Christ, through his resurrection, assumed his new existence in the spiritual realm, the realm, of course, that for believers is the ultimate sphere of the spirit [that is, spiritual sphere], in which they will have ‘spiritual’ bodies, adapted to the final life of the spirit”.54 The aim of Paul is to demonstrate two kinds of bodies, namely, natural (physical) and spiritual which fall each into different realms of existence. And he wishes to demonstrate to the believers, as Gordon Fee notes, that “death became a human reality because of the first ἄνθρωπος (human being); similarly, resurrection will become a future reality for believers because of the resurrection of the second ἄνθρωπος, Christ Jesus”.55 4.4.6. Source or Origin: Rabbinic Thought, Old Testament and Paul’s Exegetical Influence? The question of the origin or source of 1 Cor 15:45 has had many views from scholars. The mention of Adam,56 the first and the last, has led to research into both the biblical, extra-biblical and non-biblical studies. In a bid to finding Paul’s influence or background to the expression “‘the first man, Adam, became a living soul’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit”, four sources have been proposed, namely, Philo or Alexandrian tradition, Gnosticism, Rabbinic literature and Old Testament, and Paul’s theological reflections on his experience with the Risen Lord. Many scholars do combine the last three as forming the background of Paul’s usage of those terms in verse 45. A brief exposé of these sources is worthy of notes. 4.4.6.1. Philonic View of Adam There are scholars who have linked Paul’s usage of Adam to Philo. They hold that Paul was being influenced by philonic view of the “two men” schema that was popular among the Corinthians and that he was polemicizing against it in 15:45. This view was thought to have been introduced in Corinth by the Jewish teachers from Alexandria. In his teaching, Philo gives priority to the ontological ideal man (heavenly man) over the empirical (earthly Adam), which influenced the Corinthians’ belief in the 54 G. D. FEE 2007, 118. For more on the rebuttal of the Spirit Christology in 15:45, see G. D. FEE 1994, 320. 55 G. D. FEE 2007, 516. 56 See also Rom 5:12-21 and 1 Cor 15:22.

152

CHAPTER 4

vertical view of the heavenly ideal body over the earthly or natural body; while Paul was trying to counter this belief with the eschatological and horizontal notion of redemption.57 Scholars have noted that this philonic view does not represent Paul’s background58 because, as Stephen Hultgren writes, “both Philo and Paul call the earthly man ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος”, and “there are no equations heavenly man = first man and earthly man = second man in Philo, and so 1 Cor. 15.47 cannot represent a reversal of Philo”.59 Stephen Hultgren convincingly notes that “even if Paul were in fact reversing Philo’s order, such an explanation would still not tell us what the origin of Paul’s thought about the ‘two Adams’ is. At most it might explain the mind-set against which Paul reacts. To find the origin of Paul’s own thought we must search elsewhere”.60 Since this view is not satisfactory, some scholars have offered Gnosticism as the background of Paul’s thought. 4.4.6.2. Gnosticism The argument from the Gnostic point of view is based on the idea of “two ἄνθρωποι” (heavenly ἄνθρωπος or πνευματικὸς ἄνθρωπος and earthly Adam or ὁ γήϊνος Ἀδάμ) and Urmensch myth.61 Based on the influence of Gnosticism, the Corinthians believe that resurrection has already taken place and they see themselves as already putting on the spiritual body. Paul then polemicizes against this belief in 1 Cor 15:45-49.62 The two ἄνθρωποι are normally connected using the myth of the primordial fall: that the heavenly man falls into the material world and takes the body of the earthly Adam, then becomes imprisoned by living in all people as the “inner man” or spirit waiting for the liberation of the material world. So, the Corinthians believed that they were already bearing the identity of the heavenly ἄνθρωπος. Paul’s concern then was to undermine this belief 57 Cf. W. SCHRAGE 1999, 303; B. A. PEARSON 1973, 15-26; A. C. THISELTON 2002, 1284; G. SELLIN 1986, 156-160; R. HORSLEY 1976, 269-288. 58 See S. HULTGREN 2003, 343-370; B. L. GLADD 2009, 297-309; G. D. FEE 2014, 791. 59 S. HULTGREN 2003, 350. 60 S. HULTGREN, 2003, 344. 61 For the proponents of this theory see R. REITZENSTEIN 1978, 436-450; E. BRANDENBURGER 1962, 78-96; W. SCHMITHALS 1971, 140-141, 169-170; J. JERVELL 1960, 260, 263, 267; C. H. KRAELING 1966, 174-180. The Gnostic Urmensch-redeemer myth was believed to be a pre-Christian myth that Christian evangelists appropriated and transformed to the stories of Christianity especially in John’s Gospel. For detail see K. HAMMANN 2013, 318319. But the foundation of human problems differs in both Christianity and redeemer myth. The former places it on sin while the latter on fate. See also S. KIM 1981, 162-194. 62 See W. SCHMITHALS 1971, 155-159; J. SCHNEIWIND 1952, 110-139; E. BRANDENBURGER 1962, 70-71, 74-75.

PASSAGE FROM ORAL TRADITION’S

153

by using the same terminologies to explain that the heavenly body will come about after resurrection thus opposing the γνῶσις (knowledge) of the Gnostics. The supposed Gnostic background of Paul’s thought has been proved to be untenable by many scholars.63 It has been noted that the oriental Urmensch myth was not popular or common enough as early as the first century to have taken such recognition and widespread knowledge. Also, Paul was not arguing against any idea of “over-realised” eschatology and not reversing the order of the “two ἄνθρωποι”;64 his concern, as noted by Stephen Hultgren, is the “doubts about the possibility of resurrection or about the nature of the resurrection body (cf. 1 Cor. 15.35), an idea foreign to Greek thought”.65 This theory is not satisfactory in explaining Paul’s thought. 4.4.6.3. Rabbinic Exegesis and Old Testament The exegesis of the Palestinian Judaism has also been offered as the background to Paul’s usage of the two Adams in 1 Cor 15:45. The interest here is on the exegesis of Gen 2:7 (Midrash) since it almost tallies with verse 45. The understanding of the formation of the body by the rabbis is that there are two formations, one for this world and the other for the future. This understanding is based on the rabbinic exegesis (in the rabbinic Midrash) of Gen 2:7 which falls within the same resurrection body context.66 The idea is that Paul might have known this type of exegesis in Palestine. But it is pertinent to note that most of the traditions in rabbinic literature, including the midrashim used in reference to Paul’s thought here are later than the New Testament.67 4.4.6.4. Paul’s Theological Reflection There is an argument that the origin of Paul’s idea could be sought for from his personal experience of the Risen Christ.68 The question here is S. KIM 1981, 168-178; S. HULTGREN 2003, 358-359; C. COLPE 1961, 171-208. Cf. S. HULTGREN 2003, 358-359; H-H. SCHADE 1981, 81-83. For more detail on the belief on over-realised eschatology by the Corinthians see: A. J. WEDDERBURN 1987, 637; M. C. DE BOER 1988, 104-105; G. SELLIN 1986, 23-30. 65 S. HULTGREN 2003, 359. 66 Cf. S. HULTGREN 2003, 362. 67 See more of the argument from midrashim in S. HULTGREN 2003, 360-366. He thought that Paul knew probably a rabbinic kind of exegesis and applied it to his interpretation of Gen 2:7. For the use of rabbinic literature and caution to be taken in applying it to the New Testament texts see: G. W. BUCHANAN 1977, 111-122. 68 The notion that Paul’s experience of Christ is enough to explain his interpretation of last Adam as Christ is supported by S. KIM 1981, 265-266. 63 64

154

CHAPTER 4

why did he identify Christ with the last Adam? The idea of the image of man of the dust and man of heaven in verse 49 is found elsewhere in Paul’s letters.69 He talks of the believers conforming to the image of the Son within the context of the future glory (Rom 8:29). The agent of this transformation or conformation from one degree of glory to another comes from the Lord whom Paul also associates with the spirit (2 Cor 3:18). In the preceding verse (2 Cor 3:17) he writes: ὁ δὲ Κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν· οὗ δὲ τὸ Πνεῦμα Κυρίου, ἐλευθερία (“Now the Lord is the spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom”). The context of the above passage lies with the emphasis of Paul on the work of the Spirit in contrast between the new covenant and the old one. His usage of the verb ἐστιν should be taken as representational and not ‘equal to’ as he uses it in Gal 4:25. In the latter passage, Hagar would not be taken as the Mount Sinai (τὸ δὲ Ἄγαρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ) but that she represents or corresponds to it. If this notion is read into 2 Cor 3:17, it would portray that the expression “the Lord is the spirit” means that the Lord represents the work of the Spirit, following also from its context. Paul, being conversant with the Old Testament is not alien to the κύριος in the Exodus which refers to the work of the Spirit.70 It would not portray that the Lord equals the person of the Spirit, but rather the work of the Spirit in bringing believers into freedom.71 Paul’s experience has led him talk of the new creation in Christ whom he came to know as the image (likeness) of God (2 Cor 4:4) and now as the agent of transformation of the believers into his own image,72 as the Lord, who lives now as a life-giving πνεῦμα (1 Cor 15:45). Elsewhere he writes: “Our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. He will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself” (Phil 3:20-21). What could be deduced from all these proposed sources is that philonic and Gnostic views might be far from Paul’s thought directly in 1 Cor 15. The two views are not strong enough to stand for Paul’s background of the two Adams. His experience could probably not be taken in isolation 69

Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; 4:6; Phil 3:20-21. Ex 34:34; cf. 2 Cor 3:13-14. 71 Cf. C. K. BARRETT 1973, 123; he notes that “it is in the realm of action...rather than of person...that the terms Lord and Spirit are identified”. For this thought see also G. D. FEE 2007, 177-179. 72 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18. 70

PASSAGE FROM ORAL TRADITION’S

155

from his knowledge of the Old Testament, in particular, Gen 2:7, and probably too some kind of Palestinian exegesis. His experience allows him to concretise the background in Gen 2:7 (LXX) in his interpretation of the last Adam as Christ. He understands the event of his conversion as a new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:17).73 4.5. ROM 1:4

AND

1 COR 15:45B: A SUMMARY

The two epistles have the same author which makes the comparison understandable and probably written about the same time range.74 The prePauline tradition quoted or cited in Rom 1:4 has the same resurrection context as the discussion in 1 Cor 15. This justifies similarity in comprehension between the two. The resurrection of Christ gave him pneumatic access to the heavenly prerogatives. In Romans, πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης (from the oral tradition’s understanding) and πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν in 1 Corinthians point to spiritual condition of Christ after his resurrection. From a first look, these phrases would seem to connote the idea of the Holy Spirit as an Agent. In the later tradition of Paul, the idea and concept of ΠνεῦμαAgent has become expressible (e.g. 1 Thess 1:5; 2 Cor 13:13). With this notion, his addition of ἁγιωσύνη to the oral tradition in Rom 1:4 could show that there is an idea of Πνεῦμα-Agent familiar already to Paul. It could be stated that Rom 1:4 shows the passage from πνεῦμα-condition (evident in the three passages of pre-Pauline tradition) to Πνεῦμα-Agent in the later tradition. Therefore, while maintaining the tradition’s understanding of πνεῦμα-condition, the passage, with its addition, integrates the reference to the Holy Spirit.

A

4.6. ACTS 2:1-36: THE OUTPOURING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AS CONSEQUENCE OF RESURRECTION-EXALTATION AND SHARING IN THE DIVINE PREROGATIVES

One more clarification of the passage of πνεῦμα as a spiritual condition brought about by the resurrection to the Πνεῦμα as Agent could be See also S. HULTGREN 2003, 369-370. The epistle to the Romans was probably written around 55-57 CE in Corinth at the latter part of Paul’s third missionary journey (Acts 20:3–21:16). For different views on the date and place, see T. H. CAMPBELL 1955, 80-87; T. SÖDING 1991, 31-59; J. A. FITZMYER 1988, 82-89; J. A. FITZMYER 1993, 85-87. 1 Corinthians was probably written at Ephesus around 55 CE during Paul’s third missionary journey (Acts 19:1–20:1). 73 74

156

CHAPTER 4

explored in Acts 2 within the same context of resurrection and subsequent exaltation at the right hand of God.75 4.6.1. Heavenly Prerogative: From the Spiritual Condition to the Outpouring of the Holy Spirit The issue in Acts 2 borders on the extraordinary manifestations experienced by the disciples of Jesus – the speaking in different languages and its understanding by different groups. This was what created tensions and the reactions and counter-reactions both from the people who saw and heard what was happening and the disciples themselves, in particular Peter. Peter stood up and spoke in defence of what was taking place and it led to some arguments which he proved from the scriptures while narrating the part played by the Israelites in the story and earthly events of Jesus. His sermon brought out the fundamental Christian principle and message centred on the theological terms of promise and fulfilment. The promise rests on the future outpouring of the Spirit which is being fulfilled in Christ. His points of argument could be classified into three: a) A proof of Jesus’ resurrection (with biblical reference – Ps 16:8-11). b) A proof of Jesus’ exaltation and his heavenly reign at God’s right hand (with biblical reference – Ps 110:1a). c) The sharing in the heavenly prerogative: outpouring of the Holy Spirit (with biblical reference – Joel 2:28-32). In his speech, Peter began with the third point since what provoked his reaction borders on the issue of speaking in different languages brought about by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the disciples and concluded with it. He cited the scripture to remind his audience about the promise of God concerning his Spirit in the prophecy of Joel: “in the last days it will be, God declares, that I will pour out [ἐκχεῶ, the verb ἐκχέω] my Spirit upon all flesh” (Joel 2:28-32 [3:1-5 LXX]; Acts 2:17).76 This argument was to authenticate the strange behaviour exhibited by the disciples that they were not drunk but under the influence of the Spirit of God promised long ago. He would come back to it later as the outcome of the triumph of Jesus. 75

Cf. 1 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 3:18,22. Peter’s quotation of Joel has been linked to a kind of exegesis called pesher, since his argument begins from event and then points to the prophetic texts: see R. I. PERVO 2009, 79 (he sees Acts 2:17-21 as “a kind of inverted pesher exegesis”); D. DIMANT 1992, 244-251. 76

PASSAGE FROM ORAL TRADITION’S

157

In the second point, while addressing the Jews, he argued that it was Jesus whom they crucified who has been raised from the dead. He employed Ps 16:8-11 and connected it to the resurrection of Jesus. This Davidic psalm about the Holy One not experiencing corruption does not apply to David because he “died and was buried and his tomb is with us to this day” (2:29),77 but to one of his descendants, “David spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah (Christ) saying, ‘He was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh experience corruption’” (2:31). It could therefore be said that David’s body was buried and his grave is still where it is, no indication of his rising from the dead; but “this Jesus God raised up” from the dead because the Psalm applies to him as the Holy One, the servant of Yahweh. After the argument on the resurrection, Peter came back to the third point. The resurrection gave access to a new life at the right hand of God. Jesus is exalted at the right hand of God where he received the promise of the Father. The pneumatic condition of the Resurrected Christ gives him access to the promise of the Holy Spirit, a prerogative of heaven, and he pours it out: τῇ δεξιᾷ οὖν τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑψωθεὶς τήν τε ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ Ἁγίου λαβὼν παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐξέχεεν τοῦτο ὃ ὑμεῖς καὶ βλέπετε καὶ ἀκούετε (2:33).78 The demonstrative pronoun, τοῦτο (“this”), is neuter singular and must require a neuter correspondence which fits very well with the preceding clause τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ Ἁγίου (“of the Holy Spirit”); so it is the Holy Spirit that is poured out.79 In the prophecy of Joel, it is God who pours (note the same verb ἐκχέω) his Spirit and the abode of God is heaven. Therefore, to pour out the Spirit, a prerogative of heaven, requires one to be in heaven, hence Jesus having been exalted at the right hand of God in heaven, a new condition of life, a pneumatic life, pours out the Spirit. Verses 32-33 contain the mystery of Christ in sequential events – resurrection, exaltation/ascension, sessio ad dexteram, and ends with the gift of the Spirit. The outpouring of the Spirit inaugurates the last days of the salvation history. The quotation of Ps 110:1a (109:1 LXX) in 2:34-35 is used to prove Jesus’ exaltation as the messianic Κύριος at the right hand 77 For the tomb of David see: Neh 3:16; Josephus, The Jewish War, 1:61; Ant. 7:393; 13:249; 16:179-183; see also J. A. FITZMYER 1998, 257. 78 The expression τῇ δεξιᾷ (also in Acts 5:31) should not be read instrumentally but with local sense because of its context. Immediately after this usage with the verb “to exalt” ὑψόω the author quoted literally Ps 110:1a (109 LXX) with ἐκ δεξιῶν, and the action of pouring of the Spirit supports the local sense, for more detail see, M. GOURGUES 1978, 168. 79 For Luke, Jesus received the Holy Spirit at his baptism (3:22), in Matthew it is the Spirit of God (3:16).

158

CHAPTER 4

of God (sessio ad dexteram).80 This Psalm has been applied to Jesus by the early Christian communities as the Lord and Messiah.81 What Peter does here with these psalms is similar to what the evangelist reported of Jesus in Mk 12:35-3682 concerning the question on the identity of the Messiah. When Jesus confronted the scribes on why they call the Messiah the son of David, he quoted Ps 110:1a (109 LXX) to portray that even David himself calls him Lord, so how come he is his son? By quoting the Psalm, Jesus implies that the conception they have about the Messiah was narrow.83 The Messiah is more than the son of David, he is the Lord of David because the latter calls him Lord. By implication, Ps 110:1a (109 LXX) has David as the author and “my Lord” (the dative Lord) does not refer to David but to the Messiah. In Mk 14:61-62, Jesus’ response to the question of the high priest if he was the Messiah was affirmative: Ἐγώ εἰμι. So, the Psalm refers to him as the Lord and Messiah (Acts 2:36).84 Does his exaltation at the right hand of God, having been a man, son of David (Rom 1:3) connote adoptionism? It does not necessarily portray an adoption, but rather a kind of movement. He is pre-existent Son before his incarnation. He has been the Son of God, but having come to the earth, he became the Messiah and not just a Messiah but a messianic King. As a King there should be for him a place to rule. His kingship is 80 For the discussion on the expression “sit at right hand”, see: M. GOURGUES 1978, 163-184; E. FRANKLIN 1975, 29-41; R. F. O’TOOLE 1979, 106-114. The motif of sitting “at the right hand of God” is present in all the New Testament traditions except the Johannine: a) synoptic (3×) Mk 12:36; 14:62 (par. Mt 26:64; Lk 22:69); 16:19. b) Acts (3×) 2:3435; 5:31; 7:55-56. c) Pauline corpus (3×) Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1. d) Hebrews (5×) 1:3,13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2. e) Other (1×) 1 Pet 3:22. In all 15 times (or 19 times if the parallels are counted). The term also appears in Mk 10:37; 16:5 but in different contexts. 81 On the question of the identity of messiah being the son of David in Mk 12:35-36, Jesus quoted Ps 110:1a to reveal the lordship of Messiah, and in Mk 14:61-62 the high priest asked him if he is the Messiah (Christ), the son of the Blessed One, his response was affirmative: Ἐγώ εἰμι. For detail see M. GOURGUES 1978, 131-141. The consequences of its application to Jesus are: he is the exalted One at the right hand of God; Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36); Leader and Saviour (Acts 5:31); superior to angels with excellent name (Heb 1:3-4); sharing in the heavenly power and prerogatives of God (pouring out of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:33, repentance and forgiveness of sin in Acts 5:31); defence (Acts 7:55-56); as One who intercedes (Rom 8:34); for support in apostolic mission (Mk 16:20); as high priest (Heb 8:1; 10:12; 12:2); universal Lord (Eph 1:20; 1 Pet 3:22); eschatological Son of Man (Mk 14:62). 82 Par. Mt 22:41-46; Lk 20:41-44. 83 That the Messiah was the son of David was common then, see for example: 2 Sam 7:1116; Isa 9:5; 11:1; Jer 23:5; Ezek 34:23. 84 On the significance of the quotation of Ps 110:1 (109:1 LXX), see: M. GOURGUES 1978, 163-183; C. K. BARRETT 1994, 150-151; D. P. MOESSNER 1998, 215-232; D. M. HAY 1973; D. JUEL 1988, 145-148.

PASSAGE FROM ORAL TRADITION’S

159

not the ordinary conception of an earthly or political king but divine. Hence his “palace” must be divine as well– which is at the right hand of God in heaven. Instead of reading into it adoptionism, it is appropriate to see in it the Son of God who is a messianic King being installed (taking his place) ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ. From the pneumatic condition of Jesus expressed in the formula in 1 Timothy, 1 Peter and Romans granted by the resurrection, Paul, having already the idea of sanctification and holiness in his letters and in particular his teaching about the sanctification of the believers by the Holy Spirit (Rom 15:16), redacted the tradition he employed in Rom 1:4 with the addition of ἁγιωσύνης. His addition most probably portrays the idea of the Spirit, though not explicitly; which the Resurrected One, Exalted One at the right hand of God in heaven now has access to and pours out on the believers. Henceforth, he sanctifies (and justifies the beliefs of the disciples in Acts 2) those who believe and makes them call God Abba Father (Rom 8:15).

PERSPECTIVE, CONCLUSION AND CONTRIBUTIONS It is important to note that the coming to the consciousness of the Holy Spirit as a personal agent acting in the lives of believers was as a result of gradual Christian reflections and development on the saving work of God. In the Jewish religion, the Jews recognised Yahweh in their histories as a saving God who delivered and loved them through their difficult journey of faith and beliefs. Then at a point in time in history, Jesus came into the picture and through his passion, death and resurrection, the early Christian communities recognised this saving power of God in their lives. They, therefore, came to the conclusion that the promise of God was realised in Jesus Christ. The same works and actions of Yahweh were seen as being performed by him. Later on, the Christian communities through their further reflections on the life, death and resurrection of Christ and his promise of the Spirit came to experience the same work and actions of God being performed by the Holy Spirit. The foundation of these beliefs was not philosophical in thinking but rather Christian reflection. Later development then involved philosophical terms such as, “Three Persons”, “hypostatic union”, and “one Nature”. The interest here is not on the philosophical usage or language of πνεῦμα but on the Christian reflection and exegetical evolution of πνεῦμα from its early usage to its designation by the later tradition as the Holy Spirit. The concern that may arise as regards the development or evolution of πνεῦμα to the Holy Spirit is to bring in the incarnation (conception) of Jesus and his baptism; that the action of the Holy Spirit had already been obvious even right before his birth. The perspective here is different: 1) the two events of conception and baptism were later narratives of later development. 2) The concern here is on the texts as they are available from the pre-Pauline Christian testimonies (in particular 1 Tim 3:16b; 1 Pet 3:18 and Rom 1:4) where pre-literary vestiges or references could be traced. These come before the writings and the narratives. 3) The later development and theological reflections depended on the oral expressions of faith. Without repeating and reiterating the contributions of this research, gradually accumulated and exposed at the end of each step (chapter), the general conclusion will be to retrace the basic axes of the research and to identify the major acquisitions. From the exegetical point, there is no attestation of πνεῦμα as an agent designating the Holy Spirit, the one that was to be defined later as the third person of the Trinity, at the oral stage of Christian

PERSPECTIVE, CONCLUSION AND CONTRIBUTIONS

161

expressions of faith. The antithesis σάρξ-πνεῦμα used in describing the mystery of Christ is unique to the early tradition and Paul never used it in the same way. A close context is found in 1 Cor 15:45 but the antithesis plays between ψυχή and πνεῦμα. The three passages that are available, pointing back to the oral tradition, contain the expression of belief in the person of Jesus by employing flesh-spirit antithesis to describe his mystery. In those passages, πνεῦμα was used as a spiritual condition given access to by the resurrection. In his exegetico-theological approach and reflection, Paul brings the idea of the Holy Spirit into the creedal formula in Rom 1:4 with the addition of ἁγιωσύνης. He seems to have picked up from the early tradition’s idea of πνεῦμα in relation to Christ’s mystery and expounded it within the same resurrection context to the believers. His theology and exegesis expand the idea of πνεῦμα with his addition to the pre-Pauline creed and his own exegesis in 1 Cor 15:45b. The idea of the Holy Spirit as agent of sanctification is evident in his corpus and that idea cannot be ruled out in his theology and interpretation of the mystery of Christ. The term πνεῦμα is employed in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.1 It was thought of in relation to Yahweh and other supernatural means (like wind and breath) that God uses to accomplish his works. From the early Christian tradition, the idea of the Old Testament was carried over, but gradually connected to Jesus having seen him as the Messiah and Lord. From further insight and reflections on the mystery of God by Paul, and later by the evangelists, the Christian faith became conscious of πνεῦμα as personal agent; hence the three agents are used together in 2 Cor 13:13 Ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν (“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, [be] with you all”). This work is divided into two major sections, namely, the pre-Pauline usage of πνεῦμα as a condition of Christ’s spiritual existence and the epistolary (or Pauline) usage as the Holy Spirit-Agent. In the first section, effort is made to investigate the available material of the oral tradition regarding the usage of πνεῦμα in relation to Christ. In doing this, three passages are identified, and in fact, the only passages in the New Testament where the term πνεῦμα is employed in describing the mystery of Christ in antithesis with σάρξ. Each of the passages is explored and critically analysed chapter by chapter making the first section three chapters. In chapter one, the analysis or examination of 1 Tim 3:16 is carried out, being the clearest and most elaborate testimony of the oral tradition among 1

See the chart in appendix 3.

162

PERSPECTIVE, CONCLUSION AND CONTRIBUTIONS

the three passages. This is followed by 1 Pet 3:18 because of the similarity in the usage of antithesis, σάρξ-πνεῦμα. The last chapter of the first section examines Rom 1:3-4 because of its closeness to the idea of πνεῦμα-agent found already in the Pauline corpus. This third chapter shows the addition of Paul to the creedal formula, and by his additions, the passage gives a hint to the transition from the spirit-condition, which the formula originally referred to, to the Spirit-Agent, which it now integrates. The second section investigates the passage from πνεῦμα-condition, employed also by Paul to explain the resurrection of the believers after that of Christ in 1 Cor 15, to Πνεῦμα-Agent, acting as sanctifier as evident in the Pauline corpus. It forms the last chapter of this work where effort is made to portray how Paul’s additions to Rom 1:4 integrate the reference to the Holy Spirit, to the spiritual condition of the risen Christ originally referred to by the tradition. The idea of the substantive ἁγιωσύνη already present in Pauline corpus (either the verb ἁγιάζω or the noun ἁγιασμός, ἁγιος and even the substantive ἁγιωσύνη) shows the function of the Spirit as one who sanctifies or makes holy. This suggests that the formula in Rom 1:4 could be understood as “according to the Spirit who sanctifies”. Hence it could be said that Rom 1:4 testifies to the transition from spirit-condition to the Spirit-Agent of sanctification. CONTRIBUTIONS The following are the major contributions of this work: 1. This work broadens the scope of arguments on the three passages (1 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 3:18-22 and Rom 1:3-4) with pre-literary materials. a) Arguments that favour the textual variant ἀπέθανεν (the verb ἀποθνῄσκω) in 1 Pet 3:18 and other variants. b) Arguments that favour Paul’s redaction in Rom 1:4 with the addition of ἐν δυνάμει and in particular the substantive ἁγιωσύνη. 2. A systematic presentation of the connections of the three pre-Pauline passages (1 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 3:18-22 and Rom 1:3-4), exposing their similarities; and by extension, Pauline passage, 1 Cor 15:44-45. 3. Arguments for the gradual exegetical evolution of πνεῦμα as a spiritual condition after the resurrection to Πνεῦμα as a personal agent, with Rom 1:4 as a revealing passage: “according to the Spirit who sanctifies (makes holy)”. • Reawakening the thought for the conscious usage of πνεῦμα as a personal agent.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. TOOLS AND PRIMARY SOURCES 1.1. Biblical Sources ALAND 52014 - Kurt ALAND et al., The Greek New Testament, Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 52014. ALFORD 1968 - Henry ALFORD, The Greek New Testament, (Vol. 3), London, Rivingtons, 1865; reprint: Chicago IL, Moody, 1968. METZGER, EHRMAN 42005 - Bruce M. METZGER, Bart D. EHRMAN, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, London, Oxford University Press, 42005. NESTLE, ALAND 282012 - Erwin NESTLE, Kurt ALAND, Novum Testamentum Graece, Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 282012. SCRIVENER 1867 - Frederick H. SCRIVENER, He Kaine Diatheke. Novum Testamentum. Text us Stephanici A.D. 1550, London, Whittaker Et Soc, Bell Et Daldy, 1867. SOUTER 21962 - Alexander SOUTER, Novum Testamentum Graece, Oxford, Clarendon, 21962. TASKER 1964 - Randolph V. TASKER (ed.), The Greek New Testament, Being the Text Translated in the New English Bible 1961, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1964. WESTCOTT, HORT 1966 - Brooke F. WESTCOTT, Fenton J. HORT, The New Testament in the Original Greek, New York NY, American Bible Society, 1966. 1.2. Extra-biblical Literature CHARLESWORTH 1983-1985 - James H. CHARLESWORTH (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, (2 Vols.), London, Darton, 1983-1985. DE JONGE 1978 - Marinus DE JONGE et al. (eds.), The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text (PVTG 1) Leiden/Boston MA, Brill, 1978. DENIS 1970 - Albert-Marie DENIS (ed.), Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum Quae Supersunt Graeca, Leiden/Boston MA, Brill, 1970. DENIS 1970 - Albert-Marie DENIS, Introduction aux pseudépigraphes grecs d’Ancien Testament (SVTP 1) Leiden/Boston MA, Brill, 1970. DUPONT-SOMMER 1961 - André DUPONT-SOMMER, The Essene Writings from Qumran, Oxford, Blackwell, 1961. DUPONT-SOMMER, PHILONENKO 2002 - André DUPONT-SOMMER, Marc PHILONENKO (eds.), La Bible: Ecrits intertestamentaires (BP 337) Paris, Gallimard, 2002. LOHSE 1964 - Eduard LOHSE (ed.), Die Texte aus Qumran, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964.

164

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.3. Concordances BACHMANN, SLABY 261987 - Horst BACHMANN, Wolfgang A. SLABY (eds.), Concordance to the Novum Testamentum Graece of Nestle-Aland and to the Greek New Testament, Berlin, de Gruyter, 261987. DENIS 1987 - Albert-Marie DENIS, Concordance grecque des pseudépigraphes d’Ancien Testament: concordance, corpus des textes, indices, Louvain-la-Neuve, Université Catholique de Louvain, 1987. KOHLENBERGER, GOODRICK, SWANSON 1997 - John R. KOHLENBERGER, Edward GOODRICK, James SWANSON (eds.), The Greek-English Concordance to the New Testament, Grand Rapids MI, Zondervan, 1997. MORGENTHALER 1982 - Robert MORGENTHALER, Statistik Des Neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes, Zürich, Gotthelf-Verlag, 1982. MOULTON, GEDEN 62002 - William F. MOULTON, Alfred S. GEDEN (eds.), A Concordance to the Greek Testament, Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 62002.

2. COMMENTARIES 2.1. Selected Commentaries on 1 Timothy BARRETT 1963 - Charles K. BARRETT, The Pastoral Epistles in the New English Bible: With Introduction and Commentary, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1963. BERNARD 1980 - John H. BERNARD, The Pastoral Epistles: With Introduction and Notes, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1899; reprint: Grand Rapids MI, Baker, 1980. BROX 1969 - Norbert BROX, Die Pastoralbriefe (RNT 7) Regensburg, Pustet, 1969. DIBELIUS 21931 - Martin DIBELIUS, Die Pastoralbriefe, Tübingen, Mohr, 21931. DIBELIUS, CONZELMANN 1972 - Martin DIBELIUS, Hans CONZELMANN, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Hermeneia), Philip BUTTOLPH, Adela YARBRO (trans.), Helmut KOESTER (ed.), Philadelphia PA, Fortress, 1972. DONFRIED 2008 - Karl DONFRIED (ed.), 1 Timothy Reconsidered, Leuven, Peeters, 2008. FALCONER 1937 - Robert FALCONER, The Pastoral Epistles, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1937. FEE 2000 - Gordon D. FEE, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus (NIBC 13) Peabody MA, Hendrickson, 2000. GOURGUES 2009 - Michel GOURGUES, Les deux lettres à Timothée. La lettre à Tite (CbNT 14) Paris, Cerf, 2009. HANSON 1966 - Anthony T. HANSON, The Pastoral Letters: Commentary on the First and Second Letters to Timothy and the Letter to Titus, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1966. HANSON 1968 - Anthony T. HANSON, Studies in the Pastoral Epistles, London, SPCK, 1968. HANSON 1982 - Anthony T. HANSON, The Pastoral Epistles: Based on the Revised Standard Version, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1982.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

165

HASLER 1978 - Victor HASLER, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus (ZBK 12) Zürich, Theologischer Verlag, 1978. HENDRIKSEN 1970 - William HENDRIKSEN, Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles, Grand Rapids MI, Baker, 1970. JEREMIAS 1968 - Joachim JEREMIAS, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus (NTD 9) Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968. JOHNSON 2001 - Luke T. JOHNSON, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (AB 35A) New York NY, Doubleday, 2001. JOHNSON 1996 - Luke T. JOHNSON, Letters to Paul’s Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Valley Forge PA, Trinity Press, 1996. KELLY 1963 - John N. KELLY, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, London, A & C Black, 1963. KNIGHT 1992 - George W. KNIGHT III, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1992. KRAUSE 2004 - Deborah KRAUSE, 1 Timothy, London/New York NY, T & T Clark, 2004. LOCK 1936 - Walter LOCK, The Pastoral Epistles, Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1936. MARCHESELLI-CASALE 1995 - Cesare MARCHESELLI-CASALE , Le Lettere Pastorali: Le due lettere a Timoteo e la lettera a Tito (Scritti delle Origini Cristiane 15) Bologne, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 1995. MARSHALL 1999 - Howard I. MARSHALL, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (ICC 38) Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1999. MOUNCE 2000 - William D. MOUNCE, Pastoral Epistles (WBC 46) Nashville TN, Thomas Nelson, 2000. OBERLINNER 1988 - Lorenz OBERLINNER, Die Pastorale Briefe: Kommentar zum ersten Timotheusbrief, (Vol. 1), (HTKNT 11) Freiburg, Herder, 1988. REUSS 1965 - Joseph REUSS, Les deux lettres à Timothée, Paris, Desclée, 1965. QUINN, WACKER 2000 - Jerome QUINN, William WACKER, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (ECC 1) Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 2000. SCOTT 1947 - Ernest F. SCOTT, The Pastoral Epistles (MNTC 13) London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1947. SPICQ 1947 - Ceslas SPICQ, Les épîtres pastorales (EtB) Paris, Gabalda, 1947. SPICQ 41969 - Ceslas SPICQ, Saint Paul: Les épîtres pastorales (EtB), (Vol. 2), Paris, Gabalda, 41969. STOTT 1996 - John R. STOTT, The Message of 1 Timothy & Titus (BST) Leicester, InterVarsity, 1996. TOWNER 2006 - Philip H. TOWNER, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (NICNT) Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 2006. 2.2. Selected Commentaries on 1 Peter ACHTEMEIER 1996 - Paul J. ACHTEMEIER, 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter (Hermeneia) Minneapolis MN, Fortress Press, 1996. ARICHEA, NIDA 1994 - Daniel C. ARICHEA, Eugene A. NIDA, A Handbook on The First Letter from Peter, New York NY, United Bible Societies, 1994. BEARE 1970 - Francis W. BEARE, The First Epistle of Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes, Oxford, Blackwell, 1970.

166

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BONY 2004 - Paul BONY, La première épître de Pierre. Chrétiens en diaspora (LiBi 137) Paris, Cerf, 2004. BORING 1999 - Eugene M. BORING, I Peter, Nashville TN, Abingdon, 1999. BROWN 1855 - John BROWN, Expository Discourses on the First Epistle of the Apostle Peter, (Vol. 2), Marshallton DE, National Foundation for Christian Education, 1855. BROX 1979 - Norbert BROX, Der erste Petrusbrief (EKK 21) Zürich/NeukirchenVluyn, Benziger Verlag/Neukirchen Verlag, 1979. CALLOUD, GENUYT 1982 - Jean CALLOUD, François GENUYT, La première épître de Pierre. Analyse sémiotique (LeDiv 109) Paris, Cerf, 1982. CALVIN 1992 - Jean CALVIN, “La première épître de Pierre”, in: Jean CALVIN, Commentaires de Jean Calvin sur le Nouveau Testament : Les épîtres catholiques, (Vol. 2), Marne-la-Valle/Aix-en-Provence, Editions Kerygma/Editions Farel, 1992, 79-166. COTHENET 1997 - Édouard COTHENET, “Les épîtres de Pierre”, in: Édouard COTHENET, Michèle MORGEN, Albert VANHOYE, Les dernières épîtres. Hébreux – Jacques – Pierre – Jean – Jude (Commentaires) Paris, Bayard, 1997, 145172. CRANFIELD 1960 - Charles E. CRANFIELD, I & II Peter and Jude: Introduction and Commentary, London, SCM Press, 1960. DALTON 1990 - William J. DALTON, “The First Epistle of Peter”, in: Raymond E. BROWN, Joseph A. FITZMYER, Roland E. MURPHY (eds.), The Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs NJ, Prentice Hall, 1990, 903-908. ELLIOTT 2000 - John H. ELLIOTT, 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 37B) New York NY, Doubleday, 2000. FELDMEIER 2005 - REINHARD FELDMEIER, Der erste Brief des Petrus (THK 15) Leipzig, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2005. FITZMYER 1968 - Joseph A. FITZMYER, “The First Epistle of Peter”, in: Raymond E. BROWN, Joseph A. FITZMYER, Roland E. MURPHY (eds.), The Jerome Biblical Commentary, (Vol. 2), Englewood Cliffs NJ, Prentice Hall, 1968, 362-368. FORBES 2014 - Greg W. FORBES, 1 Peter (EGGNT), Andreas J. KÖSTENBERGER, Robert W. YARBROUGH (eds.), Nashville TN, B & H Academic, 2014. GAEBELEIN 91970 - Arno C. GAEBELEIN, The Annotated Bible, Chicago IL, Moody Press, 91970. GOPPELT 1978 - LEONHARD GOPPELT, Der erste Petrusbrief (KEK 12) Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. GOPPELT 1993 - LEONHARD GOPPELT, A Commentary on 1 Peter, Ferdinand HAHN (ed.), Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1993. GRUDEM 1988 - Wayne A. GRUDEM, The First Epistle of Peter (TNTC) Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1988. HIEBERT 1984 - Edmond D. HIEBERT, First Peter: An Expositional Commentary, Chicago IL, Moody Press, 1984. JOBES 2005 - Karen H. JOBES, 1 Peter (BECNT) Grand Rapids MI, Baker, 2005. KELLY 1969 - John N. KELLY, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude, London, A & C Black, 1969. KNOCH 1990 - Otto KNOCH, Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief. Der Judasbrief (RNT) Regensburg, Friedrich Pustet, 1990.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

167

MACKNIGHT 1969 - James MACKNIGHT, A New Literal Translation from the Original Greek of All the Apostolic Epistles, with a Commentary, and Notes, (Vol. 5), Grand Rapids MI, Baker Book House, 1969. MARGOT 1960 - Jean-Claude MARGOT, Les épîtres de Pierre. Commentaire, Genève, Labor et Fides, 1960. MARSHALL 1991 - Howard I. MARSHALL, 1 Peter (IVPNTC) Grant R. OSBORNE (ed.), Downers Grove IL /Leicester, InterVarsity, 1991. MICHAELS 1988 - Ramsey J. MICHAELS, 1 Peter (WBC 49) Waco TX, Word Books, 1988. PERROT 1980 - Charles PERROT (ed.), Études sur la première lettre de Pierre (LeDiv 102) Paris, Cerf, 1980. PRIGENT 2006 - Pierre PRIGENT, Suivre le Christ. Commentaire de la première épître de Pierre, Lyon, Éditions Olivetan, 2006. REICKE 1964 - Bo Ivar REICKE, The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude (AB 37) Garden City NY, Doubleday, 1964. ROSS 1918 - John M. ROSS, The First Epistle of Peter: A Devotional Commentary, London, The Religious Tract Society, 1918. SCHELKE 1961 - KARL H. SCHELKE, Die Petrusbriefe, der Judasbrief, Freiburg/ Basel/Wien, Herder, 1961. SCHLOSSER 2001 - Jacques SCHLOSSER, La première épître de Pierre (CbNT 21) Paris, Cerf, 2011. SCHREINER 2003 - Thomas R. SCHREINER, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (NAC 37) Nashville TN, Broadman and Holman, 2003. SCHWEIZER 41998 - Eduard SCHWEIZER, Der erste Petrusbrief (ZBK.NT 15) Zürich, Theologischer Verlag, 41998. SELWYN 1974 - Edward G. SELWYN, The First Epistle of St. Peter, London, Macmillan, 1974. SPICQ 1966 - Ceslas SPICQ, Les épîtres de saint Pierre (SBi) Paris, Gabalda, 1966. SUMMERS 1972 - Ray SUMMERS, “1 Peter”, in: Clifton J. ALLEN (ed.), The Broadman Bible Commentary, (12 Vols.), Nashville TN, Broadman Press, 1972. WUEST 1942 - Kenneth S. WUEST, First Peter in the Greek New Testament for the English Reader, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1942. 2.3. Selected Commentaries on Romans ACHTEMEIER 1985 - Paul J. ACHTEMEIER, Romans (IBCT) Atlanta GA, Westminster, 1985. ALETTI 1998 - Jean-Noël ALETTI, “Romans”, in: William R. FARMER (dir.), A Catholic and Ecumenical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century (IBC) Collegeville MN, Liturgical Press, 1998, 1553-1600. BARRETT 1957 - Charles K. BARRETT, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (BNTC 6) London/Peabody MA, A & C Black/Hendrickson, 1957-1991. BARTH 1972 - Karl BARTH, L’épître aux Romains, Pierre JUNDT (trans.), Genève, Labor et Fides, 1972. BARTH 1956 - Karl BARTH, Petit commentaire de l’épître aux Romains, Joseph PARLIER, Fernand RYSER (trans. & dir.), Genève, Labor et Fides, 1956. BRUCE 1986 - Frederick F. BRUCE, Épître aux Romains, Fontenay-sous-Bois/Farel, Cergy-Pontoise/Sator, 1986.

168

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BRUCE 21985 - Frederick F. BRUCE, The Letter of Paul to the Romans, Leicester/ Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 21985. BYRNE 1996 - Brendan BYRNE, Romans (SP 6) Collegeville MN, Liturgical Press, 1996. COFFMAN 1983 - James B. COFFMAN, “Commentary on Romans”, in: James Burton COFFMAN Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, Abilene TX, Abilene Christian University Press, 1983. CRANFIELD 2004 - Charles E. CRANFIELD, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, (2 Vols.), Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 2004. DUNN 1988 - James G. DUNN, Romans 1-8 (WBC 38A) Dallas TX, Word Publisher, 1988. FAY, LANGE 1976 - Ron F. FAY, Christian F. LANGE, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, Grand Rapids MI, Zondervan, 1976. FITZMYER 1990 - Joseph A. FITZMYER, “The Letter to the Romans”, in: Raymond E. BROWN, Joseph A. FITZMYER, Roland E. MURPHY (eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1990, 830-868. FITZMYER 1993 - Joseph A. FITZMYER, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AncB 33) New York NY, Doubleday, 1993. FORLINES 1987 - Leroy F. FORLINES, Romans (RHBC) Richmond TX, Randall House Publications, 1987. GIGNAC 2014 - Alain GIGNAC, L’épître aux Romains (CbNT 6) Paris, Cerf, 2014. GODET 1977 - FRÉDÉRIC GODET, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Talbot W. CHAMBERS (rev. & ed.), Grand Rapids MI, Kregel, 1977. GODET 1968 - Frédéric GODET, Commentaires sur l’épître aux Romains, Genève, Labor et Fides, 1968. GRUBBS 1913 - Isaiah B. GRUBBS, An Exegetical and Analytical Commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, George A. KLINGMAN (ed.), Cincinnati OH, F.L. Rowe, 1913. GRUENLER 1995 - Royce Gordon GRUENLER, “Romans” in: Walter ELWELL (ed.), Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, Grand Rapids MI, Baker, 1995, part I. HAACKER 1999 - Klaus HAACKER, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer (THK 6) Leipzig, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1999. HAHN 2017 - Scott W. HAHN, Romans (CCSS) Grand Rapids MI, Baker, 2017. HARRINGTON 1998 - Daniel J. HARRINGTON, Romans: The Good News according to Paul, New York NY, New City Press, 1998. HODGE 1860 - Charles HODGE, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, New York NY, Robert Carter & Bros., 1860. HULTGREN 2011 - Arland J. HULTGREN, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 2011. HUNTER 1975 - Archibald M. HUNTER, The Epistle to the Romans, London, SCM Press, 1975. JEWETT 2013 - Robert JEWETT, Romans: A Short Commentary, Minneapolis MN, Fortress, 2013. JEWETT 2007 - Robert JEWETT, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia) Minneapolis MN, Fortress, 2007. JOHNSON 1997 - Luke T. JOHNSON, Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary (RNTS) New York NY, Crossroad Publishing Company, 1997.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

169

KÄSEMANN 1980 - Ernst KÄSEMANN, Commentary on Romans, Geoffrey W. BROMILEY (trans.), Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1980. KECK 2005 - Leander E. KECK, Romans (ANTC) Nashville TN, Abingdon, 2005. LEENHARDT 31995 - Franz J. LEENHARDT, L’épître de saint Paul aux Romains (CNT 6) Genève, Labor et Fides, 31995. LEGASSE 2002 - Simon LEGASSE, L’épître de Paul aux Romains (LeDivCom 10) Paris, Cerf, 2002. LENSKI 1961 - Richard C. LENSKI, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Minneapolis MN, Augsburg Publishing House, 1961. LOHSE 2003 - Eduard LOHSE, Der Brief an die Römer (KEK 4) Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. LONGENECKER 2011 - Richard N. LONGENECKER, Introducing Romans: Critical Issues in Paul’s Most Famous Letter, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 2011. MOO 1996 - Douglas J. MOO, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT) Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1996. MOO 2000 - Douglas J. MOO, Romans (NIVAC 6) Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 2000. MORRIS 1988 - Leon MORRIS, The Epistle to the Romans, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1988. MOUNCE 1995 - Robert H. MOUNCE, Romans (NAC 27) Nashville TN, Broadman & Holman, 1995. MURRAY 1959 - John MURRAY, The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1959. NYGREN 1978 - Anders NYGREN, Commentary on Romans, London, Augsburg Fortress, 1978. O’NEIL 1975 - James C. O’NEIL, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (PNTC) Baltimore MD, Penguin, 1975. OSBORNE 2004 - Grant R. OSBORNE, Romans (NTCS), Grant R. OSBORNE, Stuart D. BRISCOE, Haddon ROBINSON (eds.), Downers Grove IL, InterVarsity Press, 2004. PENNA 2004 - Romano PENNA, Lettera ai Romani, (Vol. 1), (Scritti delle origini cristiane 6) Bologne, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2004. SANDAY, HEADLAM 1902 - William SANDAY, Arthur C. HEADLAM, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1902. SCHMITHALS 1988 - Walter SCHMITHALS, Der Römerbrief. Ein Kommentar, Gütersloh, Mohn, 1988. SCHREINER 1998 - Thomas R. SCHREINER, Romans (BECNT 6) Grand Rapids MI, Baker, 1998. STUHLMACHER 1994 - Peter STUHLMACHER, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, Scott J. HAFEMANN (trans.), Louisville KY, Westminster, 1994. THEOBALD 1992 - Michael THEOBALD, Römerbrief, (Vol. 1), (SKKNT 6) Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1992. VIARD 1975 - André VIARD, Saint Paul. Épître aux Romains (SBi) Paris, Cerf, 1975. WILCKENS 1978-1982 - Ulrich WILCKENS, Der Brief an die Römer, (3 Vols.), (EKK 6) Zürich/Neukirchen, Verlag, 1978-1982. WITHERINGTON, HYATT 2004 - Ben WITHERINGTON III, Darlene HYATT, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 2004.

170

BIBLIOGRAPHY

2.4. Selected Commentaries on 1 Corinthians BARRETT 21971 - Charles K BARRETT, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, London, A & C Black, 21971. BAUDRAZ 1965 - Francis BAUDRAZ, Les épîtres aux Corinthiens, Genève, Labor et Fides, 1965. BRAY 1999 - Gerald BRAY (ed.), 1‒2 Corinthians (ACCS 7) Downers Grove IL, InterVarsity, 1999. COLLINS 1999 - Raymond E. COLLINS, First Corinthians (SP 7) Collegeville MN, Liturgical Press, 1999. CONZELMANN 1975 - Hans CONZELMANN, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Hermeneia) Philadelphia PA, Fortress, 1975. FEE 2014 - Gordon D. FEE, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT) Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 2014. FITZMYER 2008 - Joseph A. FITZMYER, First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, New Haven CT/London, Yale University Press, 2008. HORSLEY 1998 - Richard A. HORSLEY, 1 Corinthians (ANTC) Nashville TN, Abingdon, 1998. MURPHY-O’CONNOR 1998 - Jerome MURPHY-O’CONNOR, 1 Corinthians, New York NY, Doubleday, 1998. QUESNEL 2018 - Michel QUESNEL, La première épître aux Corinthiens (CbNT 7) Paris, Cerf, 2018. SCHRAGE 1999 - Wolfgang SCHRAGE, Der erste Brief an die Korinther: 1 Kor 15, 1-16,24 (EKKNT 7) Neukirchen, Neukirchener Verlag, 1999. THISELTON 2002 - Anthony C. THISELTON, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 2002. WITHERINGTON 1995 - Ben WITHERINGTON III., Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1995. WOLF 1982 - Christian WOLF, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. Zweiter Teil: Auslegung der Kapitel 8-16 (THK 7) Berlin, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1982. ZELLER 2010 - Dieter ZELLER, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (KEK 5) Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010. 2.5. Other Biblical Commentaries BARRETT 1973 - Charles K. BARRETT, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians Peabody MA, Hendrickson, 1973. BARRETT 1994 - Charles K. BARRETT, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, (Vol. 1) Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1994. BROWN, FITZMYER, MURPHY 1990 - Raymond E. BROWN, Joseph A. FITZMYER, Roland E. MURPHY (eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs NJ, Prentice Hall, 1990. CHIU 2018 - José E. CHIU et al. (eds.), The Paulist Biblical Commentary, New York NY/Mahwah NJ, Paulist, 2018.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

171

FITZMYER 1998 - Joseph A. FITZMYER, The Acts of the Apostles (AB 31) New York NY, Doubleday, 1998. MALHERBE 2000 - Abraham J. MALHERBE, The Letters to the Thessalonians (AB 32B) New York NY, Doubleday, 2000 MARTIN 1980 - Ralph P. MARTIN, Philippians (NCBC) Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1980. METZGER 21994 - Bruce M. METZGER, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, London/New York NY, United Bible Societies, 21994. O’BRIEN 2013 - Peter T. O’BRIEN, The Epistle to the Philippians (NIGTC) Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 2013. PERVO 2009 - Richard I. PERVO, Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia), Harold W. ATTRIDGE (ed.), Minneapolis MN, Fortress, 2009. RICHARD 1995 - Earl J. RICHARD, First and Second Thessalonians (SP 11) Collegeville MN, Liturgical, 1995. 3. MONOGRAPHS AND ARTICLES 3.1. Studies and Works on 1 Timothy 3:16 and Its context BOCKMUEHL 1988 - Marcus N. BOCKMUEHL, “Das Verb φανερόω im Neuen Testament”, BZ 32 (1988) 87-99. COTHENET 2004 - Édouard COTHENET, “La prière chrétienne selon les épîtres pastorales”, EV 112 (2004) 21-27. DEICHGRÄBER 1967 - Reinhard DEICHGRÄBER, Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit: Untersuchung zu Form, Sprache und Stil der früchristlichen Hymnen (SUNT 5) Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967, 133-137. FOWL 1990 - Stephen E. FOWL, The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul: An Analysis of the Function of the Hymnic Material in the Pauline Corpus, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1990, 155-194. FRARY 2003 - Stephen W. FRARY, “Who Was Manifested in the Flesh? A Consideration of Internal Evidence in Support of a Variant of 1 Tim 3:16a”, FN 16 (2003) 3-18. FUSCO 2001 - Vittorio FUSCO, Les premières communautés chrétiennes. Traditions et tendances dans le christianisme des origines (LeDiv 188) Paris, Cerf, 2001, 120-127. GOURGUES 1989 - Michel GOURGUES, “La foi chrétienne primitive face à la croix. Le témoignage des formulaires pré-pauliniens”, ScEs 41 (1989) 49-69. GOURGUES 2007 - Michel GOURGUES, “‘Colonne et socle de la vérité’. Note sur l’interprétation de 1 Tm 3,15”, ScEs 59 (2007) 173-180. GOURGUES 2016 - Michel GOURGUES, “Les formes pré-littéraires, ou l’Évangile avant l’écriture”, in: Bernard POUDERON, Enrico NORELLI (dir.), Histoire de la littérature grecque chrétienne des origines à 451, II. De Paul de Tarse à Irénée de Lyon, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 2016, 221-237. GLOER 1984 - Hulitt W. GLOER, “Homologies and Hymns in the New Testament: Form, Content and Criteria for Identification”, PRS 11 (1984) 115132.

172

BIBLIOGRAPHY

GUNDRY 1970 - Robert H. GUNDRY, “The Form, Meaning and Background of 1 Timothy 3:16”, in: Ward W. GASQUE, Ralph P. MARTIN (eds.), Apostolic History and the Gospel. Festschrift F.F. Bruce, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1970, 203-222. HANSON 1968 - Anthony T. HANSON, “The Foundation of Truth: I Timothy 3.15”, in: Anthony T. HANSON, Studies in the Pastoral Epistles, London, SPCK, 1968, 5-20. HANSON 1968 - Anthony T. HANSON, “An Academic Phrase: I Timothy 3.16a”, in: Anthony T. HANSON, Studies in the Pastoral Epistles, London, SPCK, 1968, 21-28. JAUBERT 1963 - Annie JAUBERT, “L’image de la colonne (1 Timothée 3,15)”, in: Studiorum Paulinorum Congressus Internationalis Catholicus 1961, (Vol. 2), (AnBib 18) Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963, 101-108. JERVIS 1999 - Ann JERVIS, “Paul the Poet in First Timothy 1:11-17; 2:3b-7; 3:14-16”, CBQ 61 (1999) 695-712. KREMER 1965 - Jacob KREMER, “‘Aufgenommen in Herrlichkeit’ (1 Tim. 3,16): Auferstehung und Erhöhung nach dem Zeugnis der paulinischen Schriften”, BK 20 (1965) 33-37. LANE 1964 - William L. LANE, “1 Tim. 4.1-3: An Early Instance of Over-Realized Eschatology”, NTS 11 (1964) 164-167. LÉON-DUFOUR 1972 - Xavier LÉON-DUFOUR, Résurrection de Jésus et message pascal, Paris, Éditions du Seuil, 1972. LÖNING 1996 - Karl LÖNING, “‘Saüle und Fundament des Wahrheit’ (1 Tim 3,15): Zur Ekklesiologie der Pastoralbriefe”, in: Rainer KAMPLING, Thomas SÖDING (eds.), Ekklesiologie des Neuen Testaments. Festschrift Karl Kertelge, Fribourg/ Basel, Wien/Herder, 1996, 409-430. MACLEOD 2002 - David J. MACLEOD, “Christology in Six Lines: An Exposition of 1 Timothy 3:16”, BS 159 (2002) 334-348. MANNS 1981 - Frédéric MANNS, “L’hymne judéo-chrétien de 1 Tim. 3,16”, TD 29 (1981) 119-122. MARTIN 2013 - Brice L. MARTIN, “1 Timothy 3:16: A New Perspective,” EQ 85 (2013) 105–120. METZGER 1979 - Wolfgang METZGER, Der Christushymnus 1 Timotheus 3,16: Fragment einer Homologie der paulinischen Gemeinde, Stuttgart, Calwer, 1979. MURPHY-O’CONNOR 1984 - Jerome MURPHY-O’CONNOR, “Redactional Angels in 1 Tim. 3:16”, RB 91 (1984) 178-187. MURPHY-O’CONNOR 1965 - Jerome MURPHY-O’CONNOR, “La ‘vérité’ chez saint Paul et à Qumrân”, RB 72 (1965) 29-76. O’CALLAGHAN 1972 - Jose O’CALLAGHAN, “1 Tim 3,16; 4,1-3 en 7Q4?”, Bib 53 (1972) 362-367. REDALIE 2008 - Yann REDALIE, “‘Sois un modèle pour les croyants’ Timothée, un portrait exhortatif, 1 Tim 4”, in: Karl P. DONFRIED (ed.), 1 Timothy Reconsidered (Colloquium Oecumenicum Paulinum 18) Leuven, Peeters, 2008, 87-107. SANDERS 1971 - Jack T. SANDERS, The New Testament Christological Hymns: Their Historical Religious Background, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1971, 17-18, 95-96.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

173

SCHNACKENBURG 1974 - Rudolf SCHNACKENBURG, “La christologie dans le Nouveau Testament et le dogme”, in: Mysterium Salutis: Dogmatique de l’Histoire du Salut 10, Paris, Cerf, 1974, 66-71. SCHRENK 1964 - Gottlob SCHRENK, “δικαιόω”, in: TDNT 2, 1964, 211-219. SCHWEIZER 1962 - Eduard SCHWEIZER, “Two New Testament Creeds Compared: 1 Cor. 15,3-5 and 1 Tim. 3,16”, in: William KLASSEN, GRAYDON F. SNYDER (eds.), Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation. Festschrift Otto A. Piper, London, SCM, 1962, 16-22. STENGER 1977 - Werner B. STENGER, Der Christushymnus 1 Tim. 3:16: Eine Strukturanalytische Untersuchung (RST 6) Frankfurt, P. Lang, 1977. STENGER 1969 - Werner B. STENGER, “Der Christushymnus in 1 Tim. 3,16: Aufbau – Christologie – Sitz im Leben”, TZ 78 (1969) 33-48. VERNER 1983 - David C. VERNER, The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles (SBL.DS 71) Chico CA, Scholars Press, 1983, 109-110. YAMAUCHI 1973 - Edwin M. YAMAUCHI, Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidences, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1973, 49-51. 3.2. Studies and Works on 1 Peter 3:18-22 ACHTEMEIER 1993 - Paul J. ACHTEMEIER, “Suffering Servant and Suffering Christ in 1 Peter”, in: Abraham J. MALHERBE, Wayne A. MEEKS (eds.), The Future of Christology, New York NY, Crossroad, 1993, 176-188. BOISMARD 1961 - Marie-Émile BOISMARD, Quatre hymnes baptismales dans la première épître de Pierre, Paris, Cerf, 1961. BREYTENBACH 2005 - Cilliers BREYTENBACH, “‘Christus litt euretwegen’: Zur Rezeption von Jesaja 53 LXX und anderen jüdischen Traditionen im 1. Petrusbrief”, in: Jörg FREY, Jens SCHRÖTER (eds.), Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament (WUNT 181) Tübingen, Mohr, 2005, 437-454. BROOKS 1974 - Oscar S. BROOKS, “1 Peter 3:21‒ The Clue to the Literary Structure of the Epistle”, NT 16 (1974) 290-305. BULTMANN 1947 - Rudolf BULTMANN, “Bekenntnis‒ und Liedfragmente imersten Petrusbrief”, Conjectanea Neotestamentica XI (1947) 1-14. CAMPBELL, VAN RENSBURG 2008 - Douglas N. CAMPBELL, Fika J. VAN RENSBURG, “A history of the interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-22”, APB 19 (2008) 73-96. COOK 1980 - John D. COOK, “1 Peter iii.20: An Unnecessary Problem”, JThS 31 (1980) 72-78. COTHENET 2004 - ÉDOUARD COTHENET, “1 P 3, 18-20 dans l’exégèse récente”, in: Rémi GOUNELLE et al., 1 Pierre 3,18-22 et la descente du Christ aux enfers (CÉv.S 128) Paris, Cerf, 2004, 93-100. COTHENET 1991 - Édouard COTHENET, “II. La Iere épître de Pierre” in: Pierre GRELOT (dir.), La liturgie dans le Nouveau Testament, Paris, Desclée, 1991, 223-238. CRAWFORD 2016 - Matthew R. CRAWFORD, “‘Confessing God from a Good Conscience’: 1 Peter 3:21 and Early Christian Baptismal Theology”, JThS 67 (2016) 23-37. CULLMANN 1943 - Oscar CULLMANN, Les premières confessions de foi chrétiennes, Paris, PUF, 1943.

174

BIBLIOGRAPHY

DALTON 1979 - William J. DALTON, “The Interpretation of 1 Peter 3,19 and 4,6: Light from 2 Peter”, Bib 60 (1979) 547-555. DALTON 21989 - William J. DALTON, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits: A Study of 1 Peter 3:18–4:6, (AnBib 23) Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 21989. DANIELOU 1950 - Jean DANIELOU, Sacramentum futuri. Études sur les origines de la typologie biblique, Paris, Beauchesne, 1950, 55-94. FEINBERG 1986 - John FEINBERG, “1 Peter 3:18-20, Ancient Mythology, and the Intermediate State”, WThJ 48 (1986) 303-336. FINK 1967 - Paul R. FINK, “The Use and Significance of EN HOI in 1 Peter”, GJ 8 (1967) 33-38. FRINGS 1925 - Joseph FRINGS, “Zu 1 Petr 3,19 und 4,6”, BZ 17 (1925) 75-88. GIESEN 2004 - Heinz GIESEN, “Hoffnung auf Heil für alle ‒ Heilsgegenwart für die Glaubenden (1 Petr 3,18-22)”, in: Heinz GIESEN, Jesu Heilsbotschaft und die Kirche. Studien zur Eschatologie und Ekklesiologie bei den Synoptikern und im ersten Petrusbrief, Leuvain, Peeters, 2004, 93-150. GOURGUES 1978 - Michel GOURGUES, A la droite de Dieu. Résurrection de Jésus et actualisation du Psaume 110 :1 dans le Nouveau Testament (EtB) Paris, Gabalda, 1978, 75-87. GOURGUES 2001 - Michel GOURGUES, “La résurrection dans les crédos et les hymnes des premières communautés chrétiennes”, in: Odette MAINVILLE, Daniel MARGUERAT (eds.), Résurrection. L’après-mort dans le monde ancien et le Nouveau Testament (Le Monde de la Bible/Sciences Bibliques) Genève/ Montréal/Paris, Labor et Fides/Médiaspaul, 2001, 161-174. GRUDEM 1986 - Wayne A. GRUDEM, “Christ Preaching Through Noah: I Peter 3:19-20 in the Light of Dominant Themes in Jewish Literature”, TJ 7 (1986) 3-31. HANSON 1982 - Anthony HANSON, “Salvation Proclaimed: 1 Peter 3:18-22”, ExpTim 93 (1982) 100-112. HERZER 1998 - Jens HERZER, Petrus oder Paulus? Studien über das Verhältnis des Ersten Petrusbriefes zur paulinischen Tradition (WUNT 103) Tübingen, Mohr, 1998, 196-214. HIEBERT 1982 - Edmond D. HIEBERT, “The Suffering and the Triumphant Christ: An Exposition of 1 Peter 3:18-22”, BS 139 (1982) 146-158. HILL 1976 - David HILL, “On Suffering and Baptism in 1 Peter”, NT 18 (1976), 181-189. HUNZINGER 1970 - Claus-Hunno HUNZINGER, “Zur Struktur der Christus-Hymnen in Phil 2 und 1 Petr 3”, in: Eduard LOHSE, Christoph BURCHARD, Berndt SCHALLER (eds.), Der Ruf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde. Festschrift für Joachim Jeremias, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970, 142156. JEREMIAS 1949 - Joachim JEREMIAS, “Zwischen Karfreitag und Ostern”, ZNW 42 (1949) 194-201. KELLY 1970 - William KELLY, Preaching to the Spirits in Prison, 1 Peter III. 18-20, Denver CO, Wilson Foundation, 1970. KLUMBIES 2001 - Paul G. KLUMBIES, “Die Verkündigung unter Geistern und Toten nach 1 Petr 3,19f. und 4,6”, ZNW 92 (2001) 207-228. LOHSE 1954 - Eduard LOHSE, “Paränese und Kerygma im I Petrusbrief”, ZNW 45 (1954) 68-89.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

175

LUNDBERG 1942 - Per I. LUNDBERG, La typologie baptismale dans l’ancienne Église, Uppsala, Almqvist & Wiksells, 1942. MARCAR 2017 - Katie MARCAR, “In the Days of Noah: Urzeit/Endzeit Correspondence and the Flood Tradition in 1 Peter 3-4”, NTS 63 (2017) 550566. MICHAELS 1967 - Ramsey MICHAELS, “Eschatology in 1 Peter iii.17”, NTS 13 (1967) 394-401. MILLER 2017 - Timothy E. MILLER, “The Use of 1 Peter 3:13-17 for Christian Apologetics”, BS 174 (2017) 193-209. OMANSON 1982 - Roger OMANSON, “Suffering for Righteousness’ Sake (1 Pet 3:13– 4:11)”, RevExp 79 (1982) 439-450. OSTMEYER 2000 - Karl H. OSTMEYER, Taufe und Typos. Elemente und Theologie der Tauftypologien in 1 Korinther und 1 Petrus 3 (WUNT 2/118) Tübingen, Mohr, 2000, 145-161. PEARSON 2001 - Sharon C. PEARSON, The Christological and Rhetorical Properties of 1 Peter (SBEC 45) Lewiston NY, E. Mellen Press, 2001, 153-202. PERROT 1979 - Charles PERROT, “La descente aux enfers et la prédication aux morts”, in: Charles PERROT (ed.), Études sur la première lettre de Pierre, Paris, Cerf, 1979, 231-246. PIERCE 2011 - Chad T. PIERCE, Spirits and the Proclamation of Christ: 1 Peter 3:1822 in Light of Sin and Punishment Traditions in Early Jewish and Christian Literature (WUNT 2) Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2011. PUIG I TARRECH 1980 - ARMAND PUIG I TARRECH, “Le milieu de la première épître de Pierre”, RCarT 5 (1980) 368-376. REICKE 1984 - Bo Ivar REICKE, The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism: A Study of 1 Pet. III 19 and Its Context, New York NY, AMS Press, 1984. REICHERT 1989 - Angelika REICHERT, Eine urchristtliche Praeparatio ad Martyrium. Studien zur Komposition, Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes (BET 22) Francfort, P. Lang, 1989, 199-294. RUDMAN 2004 - Dominic RUDMAN, “1 Peter 3-4 and the Baptism of Chaos”, in: Jacques SCHLOSSER (ed.), The Catholic Epistles and the tradition, Leuven/ Dudley MA, Leuven University Press/Peeters, 2004, 397-405. SCHARLEMANN 1989 - Martin H. SCHARLEMANN, “He Descended into Hell: An Interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-20”, CJ 15 (1989) 311-322. SCHLOSSER 2009 - Jacques SCHLOSSER, “Les éléments hymniques en 1 P 1,3 – 2,10”, in: Daniel GERBER, Pierre KEITH (eds.), Les hymnes du Nouveau Testament et leurs fonctions (LeDiv 225) Paris, Cerf, 2009, 179-208. SCHMIDT 2003 - Karl M. SCHMIDT, Mahnung und Erinnerung im Maskenspiel. Epistolographie, Rhetorik und Narrativik der pseudepigraphen Petrusbriefe (HBS 38) Freiburg, Herder, 2003, 263-270. SCHMITT 1985 - Joseph SCHMITT, “Résurrection de Jésus dans le kérygme, la tradition, la catéchèse”, in: SDB 10, 1985, 487-582. SCHRAGE 1973 - Wolfgang SCHRAGE, Der erste Petrusbrief, in: Horst BALZ, Wolfgang SCHRAGE, Die “Katholischen” Briefe. Die Briefe des Jakobus, Petrus, Johannes und Judas (NTD 10) Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. SCHWEIZER 1952 - Edward SCHWEIZER, “1 Petrus 4,6”, TZ 8 (1952) 152-154. SEEBERG 1966 - Alfred SEEBERG, Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit, München, Kaiser, 1966, 86-93.

176

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SHIMADA 1979 - Kazuhito SHIMADA, “The Christological Credal Formula in 1 Peter 3, 18-22‒ Reconsidered”, ASBI 5 (1979) 154-176. VAN UNNIK 1979 - Willem C. VAN UNNIK, “Le rôle de Noé dans les épîtres de Pierre”, in: Jacques CHOPINEAU (ed.), Noé, ‘homme universel (colloque de Louvain 1978) Brussels, Institutum Judaicum, 1979, 207-239. WEBB 2007 - Robert L. WEBB, “Intertexture and Rhetorical Strategy in First Peter’s Apocalyptic Discourse: A Study in Sociorhetorical Interpretation”, in: Robert L. WEBB, Betsy BAUMANN-MARTIN (eds.), Reading First Peter, London, T & T Clark, 2007, 98-108. WESTFALL 1999 - Cynthia L. WESTFALL, “Relationship Between the Resurrection, the Proclamation to the Spirits in Prison and Baptismal Regeneration: 1 Peter 3:19-22”, in: Stanley E. PORTER, Michael A. HAYES, David TOMBS (eds.), Resurrection (JSNT.S 186) Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press 1999, 106-135. WOLFF 2005 - Philippe WOLFF, “Die Auferstehung Jesu Christi im Ersten Petrusbrief”, in: Anna PASSONI DELL’ACQUA (ed.), “Il vostro frutto rimanga” (Gv 15,16) (SRivBib 46) Bologne, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2005, 257266. 3.3. Studies and Works on Romans 1:3-4 ALLEN 1970 - LESLIE C. ALLEN, “The Old Testament Background of (ΠΡΟ) ΟΡΙΖΕΙΝ in the New Testament”, NTS 17 (1970) 104-108. BATES 2015 - Matthew W. BATES, “A Christology of Incarnation and Enthronement: Romans 1:3-4 as Unified, Nonadoptionist, and Nonconciliatory”, CBQ 77 (2015) 107-127. BETZ 1968 - Otto BETZ, What Do We Know about Jesus?, London, SCM, 1968, 87-98. BOISMARD 1953 - Marie-Émile BOISMARD, “Constitué fils de Dieu (Rom., I,4)”, RB 60 (1953) 5-17. BROWN 2004 - Michael J. BROWN, “Paul’s Use of Δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ in Romans 1:1”, JBL 120 (2004) 723-737. BURNET 2001 - Régis BURNET, “Les adresses pauliniennes. Simple adaptation ou véritable ‘christianisation’ ?”, SémBib 102 (2001) 29-42. BYRSKOG 1997 - Samuel BYRSKOG, “Epistolography, Rhetoric and Letters Prescripts: Romans 1:1-7 a Test Case”, JSNT 65 (1997) 27-46. CALHOUN 2011 - Robert M. CALHOUN, Paul’s Definition of the Gospel in Romans 1 (WUNT 2) Tübingen, Mohr, 2011, 92-106. DODSON, SCALISE 2016 - Nicholas DODSON, Brian SCALISE, “An Inquiry in the Early Creed of Romans 1:3-4: Does the Word ὉΡΙΖΩ Support an Adoptionistic Christianity?”, Eruditio Ardescens 2 (2016) 1-14. DULING 1973 - Dennis C. DULING, “The Promises to David and Their Entrance into Christianity ‒ Nailing Down a Likely Hypothesis”, NTS 20 (1973) 5577. DUNN 1973 - James G. DUNN, “Jesus – Flesh and Spirit: An Exposition of Romans 1:3-4” JThS 24 (1973) 40-68. DU TOIT 1992 - Andreas B. DU TOIT, “Romans 1,3-4 and the Gospel Tradition: A Re-Assessment of the Phrase ΚΑΤΑ ΠΝΕΎΜΑ ΑΓΙΩΣΎΝΗΣ”, in:

BIBLIOGRAPHY

177

Frans van SEGBROECK et al. (eds.), Four Gospels 1992. Festschrift Frans Neirynck, (3 vols.), (BETL 100) Leuven, Peeters, 1992, 249-256. DU TOIT 1989 - Andreas B. DU TOIT, “Persuasion in Rom 1:1-17”, BZ 33 (1989) 192-209. EHRMAN 2014 - Bart D. EHRMAN, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, New York NY, HarperOne, 2014, 218-232. FITZMYER 1995 - Joseph A. FITZMYER, Spiritual Exercises Based on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, New York NY, Paulist Press, 1995, 16-21. GIGNAC 2006 - Alain GIGNAC, “Espaces géographiques et théologiques en Rm 1:115 et 15:14-33. Regard narratologique sur la ‘topologie’ paulinienne”, BI 14 (2006) 385-409. HAYS 2005 - Richard B. HAYS, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 2005, 109-111. HENGEL 1976 - Martin HENGEL, Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion, John BOWDEN (trans.), Philadelphia PA, Fortress, 1976, 63-66. HESTER 2004 - David J. HESTER, “The Rhetoric of Persona in Romans: ReReading Romans 1:1-12”, in: Sheila E. MCGINN (dir.), Celebrating Romans: Template for Pauline Theology. Festschrift Robert Jewett, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 2004, 83-105. HOOKE 1963 - Samuel H. HOOKE, “The Translation of Romans 1:4”, NTS 9 (1963) 370-371. HORBURY - William HORBURY, “The Messianic Associations of ‘The Son of Man’”, JThS 36 (1985) 34-53. JIPP 2009 - Joshua W. JIPP, “Ancient, Modern, and Future Interpretations of Romans 1:3-4: Reception History and Biblical Interpretation”, JThI 3 (2009) 241-59. JEWETT 1971 - Robert JEWETT, Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Sayings (AGJU 10) Leiden, Brill, 1971, 95-116,136-39,16063. JEWETT 1995 - Robert JEWETT, “Ecumenical Theology for the Sake of Mission: Rom 1:1-17+ 15:14-16:24”, in: David M. FLAY, Elizabeth E. JOHNSON (eds.), Pauline Theology: Romans, (Vol. 3), Minneapolis MN, Fortress, 1995, 89-108. JEWETT 1985 - Robert JEWETT, “The Redaction and Use of an Early Christian Confession in Romans 1:3-4”, in: Dennis E. GROH, Robert JEWETT (eds.), The Living Text: Essays in Honour of Ernest W. Saunders, Lanham MD, University Press of America, 1985, 99-122. JEWETT 1982 - Robert JEWETT, “Romans as an Ambassadorial Letter,” Int 36 (1982) 5-20. JOHNSON 2017 - Nathan C. JOHNSON, “Romans 1:3-4: Beyond Antithetical Parallelism”, JBL 136 (2017) 467-490. KELLY 1950 - John N. KELLY, Early Christian Creeds, London, Longman, 1950, 13-23, 62-99. KINOSHITA 1965 - Junji KINOSHITA, “Romans‒ Two Writings Combined”, NT 7 (1965) 258-277. KOWALSKI 2010 - Marcin KOWALSKI, “‘Slave of Christ, God’s Cultic Minister, Debtor of Greeks and Barbarians’. Pauline Apostolic Credentials in Rom 1,117”, ZN 53 (2010) 3-23.

178

BIBLIOGRAPHY

KRAMER 1966 - Werner KRAMER, Christ, Lord, Son of God (SBT 50) London, SCM, 1966, 19-128. KUHN 1984 - Heinz-Wolfgang KUHN, “Röm 1,3f und der davidische Messias als Gottessohn in den Qumrantexten”, in: Christoph BURCHARD, Gerd THEISSEN (eds.), Lesezeichen für Annelies Findeiss zum 65. Geburtstag am 15. März 1984, Heidelberg, Wissenschaft-theologisches Seminar, 1984, 103-112. LANGEVIN 1977 - Paul-Émile LANGEVIN, “Quel est le ‘Fils de Dieu’ de Romains 1,3-4?”, ScEs 29 (1977) 145-177. LINNEMANN 1971 - Eta LINNEMANN, “Tradition und Interpretation in Röm 1,3f”, EvT 31 (1971) 264-276. MACLEOD 2005 - David J. MACLEOD, “Eternal Son, Davidic Son, Messianic Son: An Exposition of Romans 1:1-7,” BS 162 (2005) 76-94. MANSON 1948 - Thomas W. MANSON, “The Letter to the Romans – and Others”, BJRL 31 (1948) 224-240. OLSHAUSEN 1983 - Hermann OLSHAUSEN, Studies in the Epistle to the Romans, Edinburgh, Klock & Klock, 1983. PESCH 1989 - Rudolf PESCH, “Das Evangelium Gottes über seinen Sohn: Zur Auslegung der Tradition in Röm 1,1-4”, in: Karl KERTELGE, Traugott HOLTZ, Claus-Peter MÄRZ (eds.), Christus bezeugen: Festschrift für Wolfgang Trilling zum 65. Geburtstag (EThS 59) Leipzig, St. Benno, 1989, 208-217. POYTHRESS 1975 - Vern S. POYTHRESS, “Is Romans 1:3-4 a Pauline Confession After All?” ExpTim 87 (1975) 180-183. RUGGIERI 1968 - Giuseppe RUGGIERI, Il figlio di Dio davidico: Studio sulla storia delle tradizioni contenute in Rom 1,3-4 (AnGr 166) Rome, Pontifical Gregorian University, 1968. SCHLIER 1972 - HEINRICH SCHLIER, “Zu Röm 1, 3f.”, in: Heinrich BALTENSWEILER, Bo REICKE (eds.), Neues Testament und Geschichte. Festschrift für Oscar Cullmann, Zürich, Theologischer Verlag, 1972, 207-218. SCHNEIDER 1967 - Bernardin SCHNEIDER, “Κατὰ Πνεῦμα Ἁγιωσύνης (Rom. 1, 4)”, Bib 48 (1967) 367-387. SCHWEIZER 1955 - Eduard SCHWEIZER, “Rom 1:3f und der Gegensatz von Fleisch und Geist vor und bei Paulus,” EvT 15 (1955) 563-571. SCHWEIZER 1963 - Eduard SCHWEIZER, “Rm. 1,3f und der Gegensatz von Fleisch und Geist vor und bei Paulus”, in: Neotestestamentica. Deutsche und englishe Aufsätze 1951-1963, Zürich, Zwingli, 1963, 180-189. SCHWEIZER 1971 - Eduard SCHWEIZER, “σάρξ”, in: TDNT 7, 1971, 98-151. SCOTT 1992 - James M. SCOTT, Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of ΥΙΟΘΕΣΙΑ in the Pauline Corpus (WUNT 48) Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1992, 229-236. UMOREN 2008 - Anthony I. UMOREN, Paul and Power Christology: Exegesis and Theology of Romans 1:3-4 in Relation to Popular Power Christology in an African Context (NTSCE 4) Frankfurt am Main, Lang, 2008. VORSTER 1994 - Johannes N. VORSTER, “The Context of the Letter to the Romans: A Critique on the Present State of Research”, Neotestamentica 28 (1994) 127-145. WHITSETT 2000 - Christopher G. WHITSETT, “Son of God, Seed of David: Paul’s Missionary Exegesis in Romans 1:3-4,” JBL 119 (2000) 661-681.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

179

YOUNG 2012 - Stephen L. YOUNG, “Romans 1:1-5 and Paul’s Christological Use of Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17: An Underutilized Consideration in the Debate”, JSNT 34 (2012) 277-285. 3.4. Studies and Works on 1 Cor 15:44-45 and Its Context ABERNATHY 2002 - David ABERNATHY, “Christ as Life-Giving Spirit in 1 Corinthians 15.45”, IBS 24 (2002) 2-13. ASHER 2001 - Jeffrey R. ASHER, “Σπείρεται: Paul’s Anthropogenic Metaphor in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44”, JBL 120 (2001) 101-122. BLACK 1954 - Matthew BLACK, “The Pauline Doctrine of the Second Adam”, SJTh 7 (1954) 70-79. BONNEAU 1993 - Normand BONNEAU, “The Logic of Paul’s Argument on the Resurrection Body in 1 Cor 15:35-44a”, ScEs 45 (1993) 79-92. BURCHARD 1984 - Christoph BURCHARD, “1 Korinther 15:39-41”, ZNW 75 (1984) 234-235. CRAIG 1980 - William L. CRAIG, “The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus”, in: Richard FRANCE, David WENHAM (eds.), Gospel Perspectives, (Vol. 1), Sheffield, JSOT, 1980, 47-74. DE BOER 1988 - Martinus C. DE BOER, The Defeat of Death: Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5 (JSNT.S 22) Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1988. DUNN 1973 - James G. DUNN, “1 Corinthians 15:45‒ Last Adam, Life-Giving Spirit”, in: Barnabas LINDARS, Stephen S. SMALLEY (eds.), Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: Studies in Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule, London, Cambridge University, 1973, 127-141. GAFFIN 1998 - Richard GAFFIN, “‘Life-Giving Spirit’: Probing the Center of Paul’s Pneumatology”, JETS 41 (1998) 573-589. GLADD 2009 - Benjamin L. GLADD, “The Last Adam as the ‘Life-Giving Spirit’ Revisited: A Possible Old Testament Background of one of Paul’s most Perplexing Phrases”, WThJ 71 (2009) 297-309. GOURGUES 2011 - Michel GOURGUES, “Je le ressusciterai au dernier jour”. La singularité de l’espérance chrétienne (LiBi, 173) Paris, Cerf, 2011, 117126. HORSLEY 1976 - Richard HORSLEY, “Pneumatikos vs. Psychikos: Distinctions of Spiritual Status among the Corinthians”, HTR 69 (1976) 269-288. HULTGREN 2003 - Stephen HULTGREN, “The Origin of Paul’s Doctrine of the Two Adams in 1 Corinthians 15.45-49”, JSNT 25 (2003) 343-370. JONES 2006 - Peter JONES, “Paul Confronts Paganism in the Church: A Case Study on First Corinthians 15:45”, JETS 49 (2006) 713-737. JOERIS 2016 - Stefen JOERIS, “The Pauline Reception of Creation in the AdamChrist Typology of 1 Corinthians 15”, SNTU 41 (2016) 27-39. KLINGHARDT 2015 - Matthias KLINGHARDT, “Himliche Körper: Hintergrund und argumentative Funktion von 1 Ko 15,40f”, ZNW 106 (2015) 216-244. MASTON 2016 - Jason MASTON, “Anthropological Crisis and Solution in the Hodayot and 1 Corinthians 15”, NTS 62 (2016) 533-547.

180

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MATAND BULEMBAT 1997 - Jean-Bosco MATAND BULEMBAT, Noyau et enjeux de l’eschatologie paulinienne : de l’Apocalyptique juive et de l’eschatologie hellénistique dans quelques argumentations de l’Apôtre Paul, Berlin, de Gruyter, 1997, 23-75. MORISSETTE 1972 - Rodolphe MORISSETTE, “La condition de ressuscité, 1 Cor 15,3549: Structure littéraire de la péricope”, Bib 53 (1972) 208-228. NORDGAARD 2001 - Stefan NORDGAARD, “Paul’s Appropriation of Philo’s Theory of ‘Two Men’ in 1 Corinthians 15.45-49”, NTS 57 (2001) 348-365. PADGETT 2002 - Alan G. PADGETT, “The Body in Resurrection: Science and Scripture on the ‘Spiritual Body’ (1 Cor 15:35-58)”, WW 22 (2002) 155-163. PEARSON 1973 - Birger A. PEARSON, The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in Corinthians: A Study in the Theology of the Corinthian Opponents of Paul and Its Relation to Gnosticism (SBL.DS 12) Missoula MT, Scholars Press, 1973. SCHMISEK 2015 - Brian SCHMISEK, “The ‘Spiritual Body’ as Oxymoron in 1 Corinthians 15:44”, BThB 45 (2015) 230-238. SCROGGS 1966 - Robin SCROGGS, The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology, Philadelphia PA, Fortress, 1966. SZYMIK 2005 - Stefan SZYMIK, “Textkritische und exegetisch-theologische Untersuchung zu 1 Kor 15,49”, RT 52 (2005) 117-133. TEANI 1994 - Maurizio TEANI, Corporeità e risurrezione. L’interpretazione di 1 Corinzi 15,35-49 nel Novecento, Rome, Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1994. TEANI 2000 - Maurizio TEANI, “L’argumentazione paolina in 1 Cor 15,35-49”, RaT 41 (2000) 537-550. USAMI 1976 - Kûshi USAMI, “‘How are the Dead Raised?’ 1 Cor 15:35-58”, Bib 57 (1976) 468-493. VINCENT 2001 - Jean-Marcel VINCENT, “‘Avec quel corps les morts reviennentils?’ L’usage des Écritures dans 1 Corinthiens 15,36-45”, FV 100 (2001) 63-70. 4. OTHER WORKS AGNEW 1983 - Francis H. AGNEW, “1 Peter 1:2: an Alternative Translation”, CBQ 45 (1983) 68-73. AUS 1979 - Roger D. AUS, “Paul’s Travel Plans to Spain and the ‘Full Number of the Gentiles’ of Rom xi.25”, NT 21 (1979) 232-262. BALZ 1990 - Horst BALZ, “ἅγιος κτλ.,” EDNT 1 (1990) 16-20. BARTSCH 1968 - Hans-Werner BARTSCH, “Die historische Situation des Römerbriefes”, StEv 4 (1968) 281-291. BARTSCH 1967 - Hans-Werner BARTSCH, “Die antisemitischen Gegner des Paulus im Römerbrief”, in: Willehad P. ECKERT, et al. (eds.), Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament? Exegetische und Systematische Beiträge (Abhandlungen zum Christlich-jüdischen Dialog 2) München, Kaiser, 1967, 27-43. BAUCKHAM 2008 - Richard BAUCKHAM, “The Continuing Quest for the Provenance of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,” in: Gerbern S. OEGEMA, James H. CHARLESWORTH (eds.), Pseudepigrapha and Christian Origins: Essays

BIBLIOGRAPHY

181

from the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, New York NY/London, T & T Clark/Continuum International Publishing, 2008, 9-29. BECHTLER 1998 - Steven R. BECHTLER, Following in His Steps: Suffering, Community, and Christology in 1 Peter (SBL.DS 162) Atlanta GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 1998. BECKER 1976 - Jürgen BECKER, Auferstehung der Toten im Urchristentum, Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1976. BERLIN 2008 - Adele BERLIN, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 2008. BEST 1969-1970 - Ernest BEST, “1 Peter and the Gospel Tradition”, NTS 16 (19691970) 95-113. BIRD 2007 - Michael BIRD, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification, and the New Perspective, Eugene OR, Wipf and Stock, 2007. BO RUSSELL 1997 - Walter BO RUSSELL III, The Flesh/Spirit Conflict in Galatians, Lanham MD, University Press of America, 1997. BOCKMUEHL 1997 - Marcus N. BOCKMUEHL, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity (WUNT 36) Tübingen, Mohr, 1990; reprint: Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1997. BRANDENBURGER 1962 - Egon BRANDENBURGER, Adam und Christus: exegetischrelionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Röm 5 12-21 (1 Kor 15) (WMANT 7) Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchen Verlag, 1962. BRANDENBURGER 1968 - Egon BRANDENBURGER, Fleisch und Geist: Paulus und die dualistische Weisheit (WMANT 29) Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchen Verlag, 1968. BRANICK 1998 - Vincent P. BRANICK, Understanding the New Testament and Its Message: An Introduction, New York NY, Paulist, 1998. BREMMER 1983 - Jan BREMMER, The Early Greek Concept of the Soul, Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press, 1983. BROER 2001 - Ingo BROER, Einleitung in das Neue Testament: Die Briefliteratur, die Offenbarung des Johannes und die Bildung des Kanons, (Vol. 2), Würzburg, Echter Verlag, 2001. BROWN 1997 - Raymond E. BROWN, An Introduction to the New Testament, New York NY, Doubleday, 1997. BROX 1977 - Norbert BROX, “Situation und Sprache der Minderheit im ersten Petrusbrief”, Kairos 19 (1977) 1-13. BRUCE 1977 - FREDERICK F. BRUCE, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1977. BUCHANAN 1977 - George W. BUCHANAN, “The Use of Rabbinic Literature for New Testament Research”, BThB 7 (1977) 111-122. BULTMANN 1967 - Rudolf BULTMANN, Exegetica. Aufsätze zur Erforschung des Neuen Testaments, Erich DINKLER (ed.), Tübingen, Mohr, 1967. BULTMANN 1952 - Rudolf BULTMANN, Theology of the New Testament, (Vol. 1), London, SCM, 1952. BURGER 1970 - Christoph BURGER, Jesus als Davidssohn: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (FRLANT 98) Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. BURTON 1918 - Ernest D. BURTON, Spirit, Soul and Flesh: Historical and Linguistic Studies, (Vol. 3), Chicago IL, University of Chicago Press, 1918.

182

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BYRNE 1979 - Brendan BYRNE, ‘Sons of God’ ‒ ‘Seed of Abraham’: A Study of the Idea of the Sonship of God of All Christians in Paul Against the Jewish Background (AnBib 83) Rome, Biblical Institute, 1979. CAMPBELL 1998 - Barth L. CAMPBELL, Honor, Shame, and the Rhetoric of 1 Peter (SBL.DS 160) Atlanta GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 1998. CAMPBELL 1955 - Thomas H. CAMPBELL, “Paul’s ‘Missionary Journeys’ as Reflected in His Letters”, JBL 74 (1955) 80-87. CHEVALLIER 1980 - Max-Alain CHEVALLIER, “Comment lire aujourd’hui la première épître de Pierre. De l’actualisation interne à l’Écriture à l’actualisation contemporaine”, in: Charles PERROT (ed.), Études sur la première lettre de Pierre (LeDiv 102) Paris, Cerf, 1980, 129-152. CLARKE 1999 - Michael CLARKE, Flesh and Spirit in the Songs of Homer: A Study of Words and Myths, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1999. COLLINS 2008 - Adela Yarbro COLLINS, John J. COLLINS, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 2008. COLLINS, 22010 - John J. COLLINS, The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 22010. COLPE 1961 - Carsten COLPE, Die religionsgeschichtliche Schule: Darstelling und Kritik ihres Bildes vom gnostischen Erlösermythus, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961. CONTENAU 1934 - Georges CONTENAU, La civilisation des Hittites et des Mitanniens, Paris, Payot, 1934. COTHENET 1982 - ÉDOUARD COTHENET, “La portée salvifique de la résurrection du Christ d’après 1 Pierre”, in: Aloyse SCHMID, Martin BENZERATH (eds.), La Pâque du Christ mystère du salut. Festschrift für François-Xavier Durrwell (LeDiv 112) Paris, Cerf, 1982, 249-262. DAS 2007 - ANDREW A. DAS, Solving the Romans Debate, Minneapolis MN, Fortress Press, 2007. DAVIES 1990 - Glenn N. DAVIES, Faith and Obedience in Romans: A Study in Romans 1-4 (JSNT.S 39) Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. DAVIES 1957 - William D. DAVIES, “Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Flesh and Spirit”, in: Krister STENDAHL (ed.), The Scrolls and the New Testament, New York NY, Harper & Row, 1957, 157-182. DAVIES 1949 - William D. DAVIES, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, New York NY, Harper & Row, 1949. DAWES 1990 - Gregory W. DAWES, “‘But if you can gain your freedom’ (1 Corinthians 7:17-24)”, CBQ 52 (1990) 681-697. DEICHGRÄBER 1967 - Reinhard DEICHGRÄBER, Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit. Untersuchung zu Form, Sprache und Stil der früchristlichen Hymnen (SUNT 5) Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967. DESCAMPS 1950 - Albert DESCAMPS, Les justes et la justice dans les évangiles et le christianisme primitif hormis la doctrine proprement paulinienne, Gembloux, Universitaires de Louvain, 1950. DIMANT 1992 - Devorah DIMANT, “Pesharim, Qumran”, ABD 5 (1992) 244-251. DINH SI 2009 - Paul N. DINH SI, La foi et la justice divine. Métaphores et métonymies, clefs pour une lecture rhétorique de l’épître aux Romains 1-4 (RelSp) Paris, Cerf, 2009.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

183

DOTY 1973 - William G. DOTY, Letters in Primitive Christianity, Philadelphia PA, Fortress Press, 1973. DUNN 2009 - James G. DUNN, Christianity in the Making: Beginning from Jerusalem, (Vol. 2), Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 2009. DUNN 1998 - James G. DUNN, The Christ and the Spirit: Pneumatology, (Vol. 2), Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1998. DUNN 1980 - James G. DUNN, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, Philadelphia PA, Westminster, 1980. DUNN 1998 - James G. DUNN, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1998. DUNN 1975 - James G. DUNN, Jesus and the Spirit, London, SCM, 1975. DUNN 1972 - James G. DUNN, “Rediscovering the Spirit”, ExpTim 84 (1972) 712. EBNER, SCHREIBER 2008 - Martin EBNER, Stefan SCHREIBER (eds.), Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Studienbücher Theologie 6) Stuttgart, Calwer, 2008. EBNER, HEININGER 2005 - Martin EBNER, Bernhard HEININGER, Exegese des Neuen Testaments. Ein Arbeitsbuch für Lehre und Praxis, Paderborn, Schöningh, 2005. EHRMAN 2014 - Bart D. EHRMAN, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, New York NY, HarperOne, 2014. EHRMAN 2012 - Bart D. EHRMAN, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, New York NY, HarperOne, 2012. EHRMAN 22000 - Bart D. EHRMAN, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, New York NY, Oxford University Press, 22000. FEE 1994 - Gordon D. FEE, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul, Peabody MA, Hendrickson, 1994. FEE 2007 - Gordon D. FEE, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study, Peabody MA, Hendrickson Publishers, 2007. FEE 1994 - Gordon D. FEE, “Christology and Pneumatology in Romans 8:9-11 ‒ and Elsewhere: Some Reflections on Paul as a Trinitarian”, in: Joel B. GREEN, Max TURNER (eds.), Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ; Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1994. FIRTH 2011 - David G. FIRTH, Paul D. WEGNER (eds.), Presence, Power, and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, Downers Grove IL, IVP Academics, 2011. FITZMYER 1988 - Joseph A. FITZMYER, “The Pauline Letters and the Lucan Account of Paul’s Missionary Journeys”, in: David L. LULL (ed.), SBL 1988 Seminar Papers, Atlanta GA, Scholars Press, 1988, 82-89. FOSTER 2005 - Paul FOSTER, “The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch and the Writings That Later Formed the New Testament,” in: Andrew F. GREGORY, Christopher M. TUCKETT (eds.), The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005, 159-186. FRANKLIN 1975 - Eric FRANKLIN, Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acts, Philadelphia PA, Westminster, 1975. FRIESEN, SCHOWALTER, WALTERS 2010 - Steven J. FRIESEN, Daniel N. SCHOWALTER, James C. WALTERS (eds.), Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies on Religion and Society, Leiden, Brill, 2010.

184

BIBLIOGRAPHY

GAEBELEIN 91970 - Arno C. GAEBELEIN, The Annotated Bible, Chicago IL, Moody Press, 91970, 78-80. GAMBLE 1977 - Harry Y. GAMBLE, The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans: A Study in Textual and Literary Criticism (SD 42) Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1977. GASTON 1987 - Lloyd GASTON, Paul and the Torah, Vancouver, University of British Columbia, 1987. GATHERCOLE 2002 - Simon J. GATHERCOLE, Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1-5, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 2002. GENEST 1995 - Olivette GENEST, Le discours du Nouveau Testament sur la mort de Jésus: épître et Apocalypse, Québec, Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 1995. GIGNAC 2018 - Alain GIGNAC, “Débuter et finir Romains. Des mots pour dire le Messie”, in: Maxime ALLARD, Emmanuel DURAND, Marie DE LOVINFOSSE (eds.), Fins et commencements. Renvois et interactions. Mélanges offerts à Michel Gourgues (RiTS 35) Leuven/Paris/Bristol CT, Peeters, 2018, 125139. GOULDER 1996 - Michael GOULDER, “‘The Pastor’s Wolves’, Jewish Christian Visionaries behind the Pastoral Epistles”, NT 38 (1996) 242-256. GOURGUES 2020 - Michel GOURGUES, Repères pour une exploration historicocritique du Nouveau Testament (CÉv 192) Paris, Cerf, 2020. GOURGUES 2019 - Michel GOURGUES, « Plus tard tu comprendras » : La formation du Nouveau Testament (LiBi 196) Paris/Montréal, Cerf/Médiaspaul, 2019. GOURGUES 1992 - Michel GOURGUES, Prier les hymnes du Nouveau Testament (CÉv 73) Paris, Cerf, 1992, 44-49. GOURGUES 1989 - Michel GOURGUES, Le Crucifié. Du scandale à l’exaltation (Jesus et Jesus-Christ 38) Paris, Bellarmin/Desclée, 1989. GRELOT 1981 - Pierre GRELOT, Les poèmes du Serviteur. De la lecture critique à l’herméneutique (LeDiv 103) Paris, Cerf, 1981. GRIEB 2002 - Katherine A. GRIEB, The Story of Romans: A Narrative Defense of God’s Righteousness, Louisville KY, Westminster, 2002. GRIFFITH 2002 - Henry T. GRIFFITH, The Apostle Peter: Outline Studies in His Life, Character, and Writings, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans 1946. GUILLEMETTE, BRISEBOIS 1987 - Pierre GUILLEMETTE, Mireille BRISEBOIS, Introduction aux méthodes historico-critiques (Héritage et projet 35) Montréal, Fides, 1987. GUNDRY 1967 - Robert H. GUNDRY, “‘Verba Christi’ in 1 Peter: Their Implications Concerning the Authorship of 1 Peter and the Authenticity of the Gospel Tradition”, NTS 13 (1966-1967) 336-350. HAHN 51995 - Ferdinand HAHN, Christologische Hoheitstitel: Ihre Geschichte im frühen Christentum, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 51995. HAMMANN 2013 - Konrad HAMMANN, Rudolf Bultmann: A Biography, Philip E. DEVENISH (trans.), Salem OR, Polebridge Press, 2013. HARRIS 1911 – Rendel J. HARRIS, The Odes and Psalms of Solomon, Cambridge, University Press, 1911. HAY 1973 - David M. HAY, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS 18) Nashville TN, Abingdon, 1973.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

185

HENGEL 1995 - Martin HENGEL, Studies in Early Christology, Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1995. HENGEL 1977 - Martin HENGEL, Crucifixion: In the Ancient World and the Folly of the Cross, London, SCM, 1977. HENGEL 1974 - Martin HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine in the Early Hellenistic Period, (2 Vols.), Philadelphia PA, Fortress, 1974. HIEBERT 1980 - Edmond D. HIEBERT, “Designation of the Readers in I Peter 1:12”, BS 137 (1980) 64-75. HOLMES 1999 - Michael W. HOLMES, (ed.), The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translation, Grand Rapids MI, Baker Books, 1999. HOLLADAY 2005 - Carl R. HOLLADAY, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament: Interpreting the Message and Meaning of Jesus Christ, Nashville TN, Abingdon, 2005. HORSLEY 1981 - Greg H. HORSLEY, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, (Vol.1), Australia, Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, 1981. HUNTER 1961 - Archibald M. HUNTER, Paul and His Predecessors, Philadelphia PA, Westminster, 1961. JEFFERSON 1954 - Helen G. JEFFERSON, “Is Psalm 110 Canaanite?”, JBL 73 (1954) 152-156. JERVELL 1960 - Jacob JERVELL, Imago Dei: Gen 1, 26f. im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulinischen Briefen (FRLANT 58) Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960. JUEL 1988 - Donald JUEL, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity, Philadelphia PA, Fortress, 1988. KIM 1972 - Chan-Hie KIM, The Form and Structure of the Familiar Greek Letter of Recommendation (SBL.DS 4) Missoula MT, Scholars Press, 1972. KIM 1981 - Seyoon KIM, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel (WUNT 2) Tübingen, Mohr, 1981. KIRK 2008 - Daniel J. KIRK, Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 2008. KOSKENNIEMI 1956 - Heikki KOSKENNIEMI, Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. (AASF 102) Helsinki, Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1956. KOTANSKY 1994 - Roy KOTANSKY, Greek Magical Amulets: The Inscribed Gold, Silver, Copper, and Bronze Lamellae, Part I, Published Texts of Known Provenance (ANAWSP 22) Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag, 1994. KRAELING 1966 - Carl H. KRAELING, Anthropos and Son of Man: A Study in the Religious Syncretism of the Hellenistic Orient, New York NY, AMS Press, 1966. KRENTZ 1975 - Edgar KRENTZ, The Historical-Critical Method, Philadelphia PA, Fortress, 1975. KROLL 1968 - Josef KROLL, Die christiliche Hymnodik bis zu Klemens von Alexandria, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968. KROLL 1932 - Josef KROLL, Gottund Hölle. Der Mythus vom Descensuskampfe, Berlin, de Gruyter, 1932. KÜMMEL 1975 - Werner G. KÜMMEL, Introduction to the New Testament, Nashville TN, Abingdon, 1975.

186

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LAU 1996 - Andrew Y. LAU, Manifest in Flesh: The Epiphany Christology of the Pastoral Epistles (WUNT 86) Tübingen, Mohr, 1996. LEVISON 2002 - John R. LEVISON, The Spirit in First Century Judaism, Boston MA, Brill, 2002. LOHFINK 1971 - GERHARD LOHFINK, Die Himmelfahrt Jesu, München, Kösel, 1971. MANSON 1962 - Thomas W. MANSON, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, Manchester, University Press, 1962. MARCAR 2016 - Katie MARCAR, “The Quotations of Isaiah in 1 Peter: A TextCritical Analysis”, JBTC 21 (2016) 1-21. MARGUERAT 2000 - Daniel MARGUERAT et al., Introduction au Nouveau Testament. Son histoire, son écriture, sa théologie, Genève, Labor et Fides, 2000. MARTÍNEZ 1995 - Florentino G. MARTÍNEZ, “Messianic Hopes in the Qumran Writings”, in: Florentino G. MARTÍNEZ, Julio T. BARRERA (eds.), The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Leiden, Brill, 1995, 159-189. MEEKS 1983 - WAYNE A. MEEKS, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul, New Haven CT, Yale University, 1983. MICHAUD 2001 - Jean-Paul MICHAUD, “La résurrection dans le langage des premiers chrétiens”, in: Odette MAINVILLE, Daniel MARGUERAT (eds.), Résurrection. L’après-mort dans le monde ancien et le Nouveau Testament (Le Monde de la Bible/Sciences Bibliques) Genève/Montréal/Paris, Labor et Fides/Médiaspaul, 2001, 111-128. MOESSNER 1998 - David P. MOESSNER, “Two Lords ‘at the Right Hand?’ The Psalms and an Intertextual Reading of Peter’s Pentecost Speech (Acts 2:1436)”, in: Richard THOMPSON (ed.), Literary Studies in Luke-Acts. Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson, Macon GA, Mercer University Press, 1998, 215232. MURPHY-O’CONNOR 1995 - Jerome MURPHY-O’CONNOR, “Tradition and Redaction in Col 1:15-20”, RB 102 (1995) 231-241. MURPHY-O’CONNOR 1981 - Jerome MURPHY-O’CONNOR, “Tradition and Redaction in 1 Cor 15:3-7”, CBQ 43 (1981) 582-589. NEUFELD 1963 - Vernon H. NEUFELD, The Earliest Christian Confessions, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1963. NEVE 1972 - Lloyd NEVE, The Spirit of God in the Old Testament, Tokyo, Seibunsha, 1972. NOACK 1965 - Bent NOACK , “Current and Backwater in the Epistle to the Romans”, StT 19 (1965) 155-166. NORDEN 1958 - Eduard NORDEN, Die Geburt des Kindes, Stuttgart, Teubner, 1958. NORDEN 41956 - Eduard NORDEN, Agnostos Theos. Untersuchung zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 4 1956. NOVAKOVIC 2012 - Lidija NOVAKOVIC, Raised from the Dead according to Scripture: The Role of Israel’s Scripture in the Early Christian Interpretations of Jesus’ Resurrection (CJCTS 12) London, T & T Clark, 2012. OBERLINNER 1980 - Lorenz OBERLINNER, “Die ‘Epiphaneia’ des Heilswillens Gottes in Christus Jesus: Zur Grundstruktur der Christologie der Pastoralbriefe”, ZNW 71 (1980) 192-213.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

187

OLLROG 1980 - Wolf-Henning OLLROG, “Die Abfassungsverhältnisse von Röm 16” in: Dieter LÜHRMANN, Georg STRECKER (eds.), Kirche: Festschrift Günther Bornkamm zum 75 Geburtstag, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1980. OSBORNE 1981 - Thomas P. OSBORNE, “L’utilisation des citations de l’Ancien Testament dans la première épître de Pierre”, RTL 12 (1981) 64-77. O’TOOLE 1979 - Robert F. O’TOOLE, “Luke’s Understanding of Jesus’ ResurrectionAscension-Exaltation”, BThB 9 (1979) 106-114. PIKE 2012 - Dana M. PIKE, “Exploring the Biblical Phrase ‘God of the Spirits of all Flesh’”, in: Andrew C. SKINNER, Morgan D. DAVIS, Carl W. GRIFFIN (eds.), Bountiful Harvest: Essays in honour of S. Kent Brown, Provo UT, Brigham Young University, 2012, 313-327. REITZENSTEIN 1978 - Richard REITZENSTEIN, The Hellenistic Mystery Religions: Their Basic Ideas and Significance, John E. STEELY (trans.), Pittsburgh PA, Pickwick Press, 1978. RICHARDSON 1857 - Nathaniel Smith RICHARDSON et al., Church Review and Ecclesiastical Register, (Vol. 10), London, Trubner & Co., 1857. RIEDLINGER 1985 - Helmut RIEDLINGER et al., Die historisch-kritische Methode und die heutige Suche nach einem lebendigen Verständnis der Bibel, Freiburg, Katholische Akademie, 1985. RIGAUX 1973 - Beda RIGAUX, Dieu l’a ressuscité. Exégèse et théologie biblique, Gembloux, Duculot, 1973, 53-105. ROETZEL 2015 - Calvin J. ROETZEL, The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context, Atlanta GA, John Knox, 2015. ROHDE 1925 - Erwin ROHDE, Psyche: The Cult of Souls and Belief in Immortality among the Greeks, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1925. ROLLER 1933 - Otto ROLLER, Das Formular der paulinischen Briefe. Ein Beitrag zur Lehre vom antiken Briefe, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1933. SCHADE 1981 - Hans-Heinrich SCHADE, Apokalyptische Christologie bei Paulus: Studien zum Zusammenhang von Christologie und Eschatologie in den Paulusbriefen, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. SCHLOSSER 2006 - Jacques SCHLOSSER, “La résurrection de Jésus d’après la Prima Petri”, in: Jacques SCHLOSSER, A la recherche de la parole. Études d’exégèse et de théologie biblique (LeDiv 207) Paris, Cerf, 2006, 445-462. SCHMITHALS 1971 - Walter SCHMITHALS, Gnosticism in Corinth: An Investigation of the Letters to the Corinthians, John E. STEELY (trans.), Nashville TN, Abingdon, 1971. SCHNEIWIND 1952 - Julius SCHNEIWIND, “Die Leugner der Auferstehung in Korinth”, in: Ernst KÄHLER (ed.), Nachgelassene Reden und Aufsätze, Berlin, Alfred Töpelmann, 1952, 110-139. SCHNELLE 62007 - Udo SCHNELLE, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 62007. SCHÜRER 1987 - Emil SCHÜRER, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, (Vol. 3), Geza VERMES, Fergus MILLER, Martin GOODMAN (eds.), Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1987. SCHWEIZER 21962 - Eduard SCHWEIZER, Erniedrigung und Erhöhung bei Jesus und seinen Nachfolgern, Zürich, Zwingli-Verlag, 21962. SCHWEIZER 1960 - Eduard SCHWEIZER, Lordship and Discipleship, London, SCM, 1960.

188

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELLIN 1986 - Gerhard SELLIN, Der Streit um die Auferstehung der Toten: Eine religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchung von 1 Korinther 15 (FRLANT 138) Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. SHELTON 1991 - James B. SHELTON, Mighty in Word and Deed: The Role of the Holy Spirit in Luke‒Acts, Peabody MA, Hendrickson, 1991. SJÖBERG 1959 - Erik SJÖBERG, “Geist im Judentum”, TWNT 6 (1959) 373-387. SNELL 1975 - Bruno SNELL, Die Entdeckung des Geistes, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1975. SOARDS 1994 - Marion L. SOARDS, The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns, Louisville KY, Westminster, 1994. SÖDING 1991 - Thomas SÖDING, “Zur Chronologie der paulinischen Briefe: Ein Diskussionsvorschlag”, BN 56 (1991) 31-59. SÖDING, MÜNCH 1998 - Thomas SÖDING, Christian MÜNCH, Wege der Schriftauslegung. Methodenbuch zum Neuen Testament, Freiburg/Basel, Herder, 1998. STANLEY 1964 - David M. STANLEY, “The Divinity of Christ in the New Testament Hymns”, in: Luke C. SALM (ed.), Studies in Salvation History, Prentice Hill PA, Englewood Cliffs, 1964. STANLEY 1961 - David M. STANLEY, Christ’s Resurrection in Pauline Soteriology (AnBib 13) Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1961. STEGMAN 2017 - Thomas D. STEGMAN, Written for Our Instruction: Theological and Spiritual Riches in Romans, Mahwah NJ, Paulist, 2017. STOWERS 1994 - STANLEY K. STOWERS, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews and Gentiles, New Haven CT, Yale University Press, 1994. STUHLMACHER 1991 - Peter STUHLMACHER, “The Theme of Romans”, in: Karl P. DONFRIED (ed.), The Romans Debate, Peabody MA, Hendrickson, 1991, 333-345. STUHLMACHER 2012 - Peter STUHLMACHER, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments: Von der Paulusschule bis zur Offenbarung. Der Kanon und seine Auslegung, (Vol. 2), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. STUHLMACHER 1967 - Peter STUHLMACHER, “Theologische Probleme des Römerbriefpräskripts”, EvT 27 (1967) 374-389. SULLIVAN 1988 - SHIRLE D. SULLIVAN, Psychological Activity in Homer, Ottawa, Carleton University Press, 1988. THOMAS 2020 - Brian H. THOMAS, Living in the Flesh by the Spirit: The Pauline View of Flesh and Spirit in Galatians, Eugene OR, Wipf and Stock, 2020. TOURNAY 1960 - Raymond TOURNAY, “Le Psaume CX”, RB 67 (1960) 5-41. TOWNER 1989 - Philip H. TOWNER, The Goal of Our Instruction (JSNT.S 34) Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. TREBILCO 1991 - Paul R. TREBILCO, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor (SNTSMS 69) Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991. UNGER 1974 - Merrill F. UNGER, The Baptism and Gifts of the Holy Spirit, Chicago IL, Moody Press, 1974. VAN RENSBURG 2006 - Fika J. VAN RENSBURG, “A code of conduct for children of God who suffer unjustly: Identity, Ethics and Ethos in 1 Peter”, in: Jan G. VAN DER WATT (ed.), Identity, Ethic, and Ethos in the New Testament (BZNW 141) Berlin/New York NY, de Gruyter, 2006, 473-509. VAN UNNIK 1980 - Willem C. VAN UNNIK, “The Redemption in I Peter I, 18-19 and the Problem of the First Epistle of Peter” in: Willem C. VAN UNNIK,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

189

Sparsa Collecta II: 1 Peter, Canon, Corpus Hellenisticum, Generalia (NT.S 30) Leiden, Brill, 1980. VERMES 1973 - Geza VERMES, Jesus the Jew, Philadelphia PA, Fortress, 1973. VERMES 1972 - Geza VERMES, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, London, Penguin, 1972. WALKER 2001 - William O. WALKER, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters (JSNT.S 213) Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. WEDDERBURN 1987 - Alexander J. WEDDERBURN, Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology against its Graeco-Roman Background (WUNT 44) Tübingen, Mohr, 1987. WEHR 1996 - Lothar WEHR, Petrus und Paulus Kontrahenten und Partner. Die beiden Apostel im Spiegel des Neuen Testaments, der Apostolischen Väter und früher Zeugnisse ihrer Verehrung (NTA 30) Münster, Aschendorff, 1996. WEISZACHER 1876 - Carl WEISZACHER, “Ueber die älteste römische Christengemeinde”, JDTh 21 (1876) 248-310. WENGST 1972 - KLAUS WENGST, Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums (SNT 7) Güttersloh, Gerd Mohn, 1972. WINDISCH 1951 - Hans WINDISCH, Die katholischen Briefe (HNT 15) Tübingen, Mohr, 1951. WOLFF 2008 - Hans Walter WOLFF, Antropologia do Antigo Testamento, São Paulo, Hagnos, 2008. WOLFGANG 1991 - Wiefel WOLFGANG, “The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity”, in: Karl P. DONFRIED (ed.), The Romans Debate, Peabody MA, Hendrickson, 1991, 95-101. ZIMMERMANN 1982 - Heinrich ZIMMERMANN, Neutestamentliche Methodenlehre: Darstellung der historisch-kritischen Methode, Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1982. 5. DICTIONARIES, ENCYCLOPEDIAS AND LEXICONS ABEL 1927 - Félix-Marie ABEL, Grammaire du Grec biblique : suivie d’un Choix de papyrus, Paris, Gabalda, 1927. BALZ, SCHNEIDER 1990 - Horst BALZ, Gerhard SCHNEIDER (eds.), Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, (Vol. 1), Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1990. BALZ, SCHNEIDER 1980-1983 - Horst BALZ, Gerhard SCHNEIDER (eds.), Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, (3 Vols.), Stuttgart, Verlag Kohlhammer, 1980-1983. BAUER, 32000 - Walter B. BAUER, A Greek-English Lexicon of New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Frederick W. DANKER (ed.), Chicago IL, University of Chicago Press, 32000. BLASS, DEBRUNNER, FUNK 1961 - Friedrich BLASS, Albert DEBRUNNER, Robert W. FUNK, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Chicago IL, University of Chicago Press, 1961. BROWN 1986 - Colin BROWN (ed.), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, (Vol. 3), Grand Rapids MI, Zondervan Publishing House, 1986.

190

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CREMER 1954 - Hermann CREMER, Biblico Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek, William URWICK (trans.), Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1954. FRIBERG, MILLER 2005 - Barbara FRIBERG, Timothy FRIBERG, NEVA F. MILLER, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Grand Rapids MI, Baker, 2005. LAMPE 1961 - Geoffrey W. LAMPE (ed.), A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford, Clarendon, 1961. LIDDELL, SCOTT 1976 - Henry G. LIDDELL, Robert SCOTT, A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, Clarendon, 1976. LOUW, NIDA 1988 - Johannes P. LOUW, Eugene A. NIDA, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, London, United Bible Societies, 1988. MONTANARI 2015 - Franco MONTANARI, The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, Madeleine GOH et al. (eds.), Leiden/Boston MA, Brill, 2015. MOULTON, MILLIGAN 1952 - James H. MOULTON, George MILLIGAN, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and Other NonLiterary Sources, London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1952. MURAOKA 2009 - Takamitsu MURAOKA, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Leuven, Peeters, 2009. SPICQ 1991 - Ceslas SPICQ, Lexique théologique du Nouveau Testament. Réédition en un volume des Notes de lexicographie néo-testamentaire, Fribourg en Suisse/ Paris, Cerf, 1991. SPICQ 1994 - Ceslas SPICQ, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, (Vol. 1), Peabody MA, Hendrickson, 1994. WALLACE 1996 – Daniel B. WALLACE, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Grand Rapids MI, Zondervan, 1996. ZERWICK 1966 - Max ZERWICK, Graecitas Biblica Novi Testamenti, Rome, Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1966.

INDEX OF SOME GREEK TERMS ἁγιάζω 125, 134, 135, 136, 137, 162 ἁγιασμός 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 162 ἅγιος 134, 135, 162 ἁγιότης 134 ἁγιωσύνης 12, 111, 113, 114, 116, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 132, 133, 134, 137, 138, 140, 141, 155, 159, 161, 162 ἀναλαμβάνω 50, 52 ἀνάστασις 118 ἀναστρέφω 25 ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ 52, 54, 89 ἀπαρχὴ 147 ἀπέθανεν 58, 59, 60, 61, 69, 88, 162 ἀποδείξει 142 ἀποθνῄσκω 59, 88, 94, 162 βάπτισμα

81

γενομένου 17, 104, 105, 106, 108, 116, 120, 121, 122, 126 δικαιόω 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47 δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων 69, 71 δόξα 38, 42, 52 δοξάζω 38, 42, 43, 44 ἐγείρω 73, 144, 146 ἐγένετο 146, 148, 149 ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι 8, 9, 11, 17, 18, 30, 31, 38, 44, 46, 47, 48, 54, 57, 75, 89, 116, 120, 131 ἔθνος 50, 55 ἐκκλησία 25, 26, 27 ἐκχέω 156, 157 ἐν δυνάμει 17, 118, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 140, 141, 142, 162 ἐν πνεύματι 18, 32, 37, 44, 46, 47, 48 ἐν σαρκί 18, 32, 37, 46, 47 ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν 105, 118, 119, 121, 122, 126 ἔπαθεν 58, 59, 60 εὐαγγελίζω 78 εὐσέβεια 33, 34, 35, 54 ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν 24

ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί 17, 18, 30, 31, 36, 37, 44, 54, 75, 89, 116, 120, 131 ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι 17, 18, 46, 59, 68, 69, 73, 74, 76, 85, 89, 131 θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ 17, 18, 46, 47, 59, 64, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 76, 85, 89, 131 κατὰ πνεῦμα 18, 19, 75, 105, 106, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 132, 133, 150 κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης 8, 10, 11, 17, 18, 104, 111, 113, 114, 122, 131, 133, 142 κατὰ σάρκα 11, 17, 18, 19, 75, 104, 105, 106, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 120, 121, 122, 125, 126, 131, 132, 133, 150 κηρύσσω 50, 51, 52, 78 μυστήριον

23, 33, 35, 54, 55

νομοδιδάσκαλοι ξύλον

29

41

ὁ γήϊνος Ἀδάμ 152 ὁμολογουμένως 23, 32, 33, 55 ὁράω 49 ὁρίζω 96, 116, 117, 126 ὁρισθέντος 17, 104, 105, 106, 116, 117, 120, 121, 126 παθόντος σαρκὶ 63, 64, 70 παραδίδωμι 143 παραλαμβάνω 143 πάσχω 59, 61, 63, 88 περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἀπέθανεν 68 περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ 106, 107, 123, 126 πνεῦμα 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 37, 38, 45, 46, 48, 57, 73, 74, 75, 76, 95, 111, 113, 115, 116, 125, 128, 131, 132, 13, 135, 137, 138,

192

INDEX OF SOME GREEK TERMS

140, 141, 142, 147, 148, 149, 150, 154, 155, 160, 161, 162 πνεῦμα ἅγιον 114, 127, 132, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142 πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης 19, 96, 113, 114, 132, 135, 155 πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν 20, 146, 147, 148, 149, 155 Πνεῦμα Κυρίου 20, 154 πνευματικὸς ἄνθρωπος 152 πνοὴν ζωῆς 149 πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανὸν 69, 68, 83, 88, 89 σάρξ 13, 14, 15, 20, 36, 42, 55, 73, 74, 75, 76, 95, 110, 113, 114, 116, 125, 127, 133, 161

σάρξ-πνεῦμα 8, 12, 13, 18, 41, 75, 121, 127, 132, 139, 141, 161, 162 σταυρος 41 στῦλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα 25, 26 σῶμα 13, 15, 20, 147 σῶμα πνευματικόν 20, 115, 146, 147, 148, 150 σῶμα ψυχικόν 20, 115, 146, 147, 150 ὑψόω

38, 42, 43, 44, 157

φανερόω 36, 37 ψυχή 5, 13, 15, 20, 142, 147, 148, 150, 161 ψυχὴν ζῶσαν 146, 148

INDEX OF AUTHORS ACHTEMEIER, P. J. 81, 82, 92, 138, 165, 167, 173 ALAND, K. 60, 163 ALFORD, H. 30, 45, 163 BARRETT, C. K. 11, 30, 45, 46, 49, 51, 52, 114, 122, 146, 154, 158, 164, 167, 170 BATES, M. W. 106, 109, 113, 120, 123, 176 BAUCKHAM, R. 117, 180 BEARE, F. W. 138, 165 BERNARD, J. H. 35, 50, 51, 164 BOCKMUEHL, M.N. 36, 181 BOISMARD, M-É. 46, 87, 89, 91, 173, 176 BONNEAU, N. 144, 145, 179 BORING, E. M. 138, 166 BRANDENBURGER, E. 15, 147, 152, 181 BROWN, C. 34, 189 BROWN, J. 79, 166 BROWN, M. J. 98, 99, 176 BROWN, R. E. 3, 92, 166, 170, 181 BROX, N. 28, 37, 52, 78, 81, 92, 164, 166, 181 BRUCE, F. F. 15, 103, 167, 168, 181 BULTMANN, R. 87, 116, 123, 173, 181 BURTON, E.D. 13, 14, 181 CAMPBELL, T.H. 155, 182 CHIU, J. E. 142, 170 COLLINS, J.J. 110, 116, 182 CONZELMANN, H. 9, 28, 36, 47, 50, 146, 164, 170 COTHENET, É. 25, 50, 87, 166, 173, 182 CRANFIELD, C. E. 79, 113, 166, 168 CRAWFORD, M.R. 82, 173 CULLMANN, O. 87, 173 DALTON, W. J. 31, 48, 65, 70, 71, 73, 78, 79, 80, 87, 90, 166, 173 DEICHGRÄBER, R. 37, 87, 89, 171, 182 DENIS, A-M. 79, 163, 164 DESCAMPS, A. 37, 182 DIBELIUS, M. 8, 9, 28, 36, 39, 47, 50, 164

DIMANT, D. 156, 182 DUNN, J.G. 97, 98, 107, 116, 117, 118, 147, 150, 168, 176, 179, 183 EBNER, M. 91, 183 EHRMAN, B.D. 3, 4, 116, 163, 177, 183 ELLIOTT, J.H. 74, 77, 78, 92, 166 FALCONER, R. 9, 31, 45, 113, 164 FEE, G. D. 9, 31, 47, 48, 51, 113, 137, 145, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 164, 170, 183 FELDMEIER, R. 91, 166 FINK, P.R. 77, 174 FITZMYER, J. A. 101, 114, 117, 123, 137, 155, 157, 166, 168, 170, 171, 177, 183 FORLINES, L. F. 10, 112, 168 FOWL, S. E. 8, 9, 25, 31, 33, 36, 41, 42, 47, 48, 50, 54, 171 GAFFIN, R. 149, 179 GAMBLE, H.Y. 101, 103, 184 GIGNAC, A. 101, 103, 105, 106, 111, 168, 177, 184 GLADD, B.L. 149, 152, 179 GODET, F. 137, 168 GOPPELT, L. 78, 79, 166 GOURGUES, M. 3, 5, 9, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 55, 67, 68, 71, 76, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 146, 157, 158, 164, 171, 174, 179, 184 GRELOT, P. 43, 184 GUNDRY, R. 9, 31, 37, 44, 46, 47, 50, 51, 172, 184 HAHN, F. 109, 110, 184 HANSON, A. T. 9, 25, 28, 33, 36, 37, 47, 52, 164, 172, 174 HASLER, V. 9, 47, 165 HENDRIKSEN, W. 31, 165 HENGEL, M. 8, 40, 99, 107, 124, 177, 185 HIEBERT, E.D. 71, 74, 80, 138, 166, 174, 185

194

INDEX OF AUTHORS

HILL, D. 81, 174 HODGE, C. 10, 112, 113, 168 HORSLEY, G.H. 98, 185 HORSLEY, R. 152, 170, 179 HULTGREN, A.J. 109, 168 HULTGREN, S. 149, 152, 153, 155, 179 HUNTER, A. M. 120, 168, 185 HUNZINGER, C-H. 87, 174

MOO, D.J. 113, 169 MORGENTHALER, R. 134, 164 MORISSETTE, R. 146, 180 MORRIS, L. 102, 103, 118, 169 MOUNCE, W. D. 31, 39, 165 MURPHY-O’CONNOR, J. 8, 25, 26, 38, 41, 44, 49, 170, 172, 186 MURRAY, J. 11, 114, 169

ISAACS, M.E.

NORDEN, E.

13, 14

JAUBERT, A. 25, 172 JEREMIAS, J. 31, 50, 87, 89, 165, 174 JERVELL, J. 147, 152, 185 JEWETT, R. 101, 117, 118, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 133, 134, 137, 138, 140, 141, 168, 177 JOBES, K. H. 67, 77, 79, 166 JOHNSON, L. T. 27, 165, 168 JOHNSON, N.C. 105, 106, 109, 110, 177 KÄSEMANN, E. 11, 106, 114, 116, 120, 123, 169 KELLY, J. N. 9, 31, 36, 37, 47, 52, 54, 55, 66, 120, 138, 165, 166, 177 KIM, C-H. 97, 185 KIM, S. 152, 153, 185 KNIGHT, G. W. 8, 31, 45, 113, 165 KNOCH, O. 78, 166 KRAMER, W. 120, 123, 126, 178 KRAUSE, D. 30, 56, 165 KROLL, J. 87, 93, 185 KÜMMEL, W.G. 123, 185 LÉON-DUFOUR, X. 8, 40, 172 LEVISON, J.R. 14, 186 LOCK, W. 9, 31, 47, 51, 165 LOHSE, E. 87, 169, 174 MACLEOD, D.J. 120, 172, 178 MANSON, T.W. 101, 186 MARCAR, K. 63, 175, 186 MARCHESELLI-CASALE, C. 26, 165 MARSHALL, H. I. 28, 31, 52, 165, 167 MARTIN, B.L. 30, 44, 172 MARTIN, R.P. 41, 171 MARTÍNEZ, F.G. 110, 186 MEEKS, W.A. 99, 186 METZGER, B. M. 4, 24, 59, 60, 61, 85, 99, 163, 171 METZGER, W. 37, 45, 49, 172 MICHAELS, R. J. 71, 81, 167, 175

50, 120, 186

OBERLINNER, L. 28, 48, 165, 186 OSBORNE, G.R. 117, 169 PEARSON, B.A. 152, 180 PEARSON, S.C. 78, 175 PERROT, C. 79, 167, 175 PERVO, R.T. 156, 171 QUINN, J.

56, 165

REICHERT, A. 73, 79, 81, 82, 175 REICKE, B. I. 66, 67, 77, 78, 79, 81, 167, 175 REUSS, J. 9, 165 ROSS, J. M. 70, 167 SANDERS, J. T. 87, 89, 172 SEEBERG, A. 49, 91, 175 SCHARLEMANN, M.H. 77, 175 SCHELKE, K.H. 87, 167 SCHLOSSER, J. 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 87, 92, 138, 139, 167, 175, 187 SCHMIDT, K.M. 74, 175 SCHNACKENBURG, R. 10, 18, 114, 173 SCHNEIDER, B. 37, 178 Schrage, W. 74, 152, 170, 175 SCHREIBER, S. 91, 183 SCHREINER, T. R. 122, 167, 169 SCHWEIZER, E. 11, 31, 40, 87, 114, 123, 138, 167, 173, 175, 178, 187 SCOTT, E. F. 52, 165 SELLIN, G. 146, 152, 153, 188 SELWYN, E. G. 46, 51, 77, 87, 138, 167 SPICQ, C. 8, 31, 35, 37, 40, 46, 74, 77, 82, 165, 167, 190 STANLEY, D.M. 37, 188 STENGER, W.B. 9, 37, 47, 173 STOTT, J. R. 31, 165 STOWERS, S.K. 103, 188 STUHLMACHER, P. 79, 123, 126, 169, 188

195

INDEX OF AUTHORS

THISELTON, A. C. 152, 170 TOWNER, P. H. 34, 36, 48, 51, 53, 165, 188 VERNER, D.C.

26, 173

WACKER, W. 56, 101, 189 WALLACE, D.B. 54, 77

WEHR, L. 63, 189 WENGST, K. 37, 89, 123, 126, 141, 189 WESTFALL, C.L. 76, 176 WINDISCH, H. 74, 189 WOLFGANG, W. 122, 189 WUEST, K.S. 81, 167 ZIMMERMANN, H.

3, 126, 189

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE AND OTHER BIBLICAL SOURCES OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 1:26-27. 2:7 LXX. 4:18. 5:24. 6:1-4. 9:6. 11:28. 12:1. 21:3. 24:4. 26:24.

144 148, 149, 153, 155 108 56 79 144 108 100 108 108 98

Exodus 3:4. 4:22-23. 21:6. 29:4,8. 29:10. 34:34. 40:12.

100 107 72 72 72 154 72

Leviticus 1:2. 4-6. 4:14. 5:6-7,9,11. 5:7. 6:30. 8:24. Numbers 6:25-26. 8:9-10. 16:22. 25:6. 27:5. 27:16. 14

72 71 71 71 71 71 72 103 72 14 72 72

Deuteronomy 21:23.

41

Joshua 1:2.

98

1 Samuel 10:5-13. 16:13.

1 1

2 Samuel 7:11-16. 7:14. 22:36.

158 107 102

2 Kings 2:1,11. 18:12.

56 98

Ezra 9:11. 98 Nehemiah 1:6,11. 9:14.

98 98

Tobit 6:6.

80

2 Maccabees 3:24.

80

Job 33:28,30. 33:30.

43 43

Psalms 2:7. 8:5-7. 8:7 LXX. 16:8-11. 18:12,14 LXX. 19:11,13. 27:9. 30:17 LXX. 31:16. 39 (40):7. 49:19. 50:6. 50:13.

107 86 86 156, 157 98 98 98 98 98 71 43 40 114

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE AND OTHER BIBLICAL SOURCES

51:11. 89:26-27. 105:26. 110:1 (109 LXX). Proverbs 1:7. 10:31. 13:23. 17:15. 29:27.

1, 114 107 98 84, 85, 86, 156, 157, 158 35 72 72 72 72

Wisdom of Solomon 4:16. 72 9:7. 107 18:13. 107 Isaiah 6. 100 8:12-13. 9:5. 11:1. 11:1,10. 20:3. 31:3. 42:7. 49:1. 49:1-8. 49:4. 49:6. 49:8. 52:13. 52:13–53:12. 52:14. 52:15. 53:2. 53:6,12. 53:8. 53:10. 53:10-11. 53:11. 61:1. 63:10.

63 158 158 109 98 15 98, 100 98, 99 98 98 98 98 42, 43 42, 44 42 98 42 43 43 71 42 43 2 114

Jeremiah 1:4. 1:5. 3:19. 7:25. 23:5-6. 25:4. 31:9. 33:14-18. 35:15. 38:9.

100 99 107 98 109, 158 98 107 109 98 107

Ezekiel 34:23. 34:23-31. 37:24-28. 38:17. 43:21.

109, 158 109 109 98 71

Daniel 9:6. 9:11. 98

98

Hosea 11:1.

107

Joel 2:28-32. 3:1-5 LXX.

156 156

Amos 3:7. 7:15.

98 100

Jonah 1:2. 3:2,4.

78 78

Zechariah 1:6. 12:1.

98 14

Malachi 3:22.

98

NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 1:1-16,20. 3:13-17.

109 45

5:10. 5:11-12. 5:16.

92 92 92

197

198

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE AND OTHER BIBLICAL SOURCES

5:45. 7:21-23. 9:27. 10:1. 11:19. 12:23. 12:45. 13:11. 13:36-43. 13:41-43. 13:49. 15:2,20. 15:22. 16:16-17. 19:28. 20:16. 20:30-31. 21:9,15. 22:44. 25:31. 25:32. 26:41. 26:64. 28:2-6. 28:18.

72 78 109 80 38 109 80 35 78 72 72, 99 16 109 108 53 100 109 109 84 53 99 15 158 49 119

Mark 1:9-11. 1:14. 1:23-27. 2:7. 3:11. 4:11. 5:2,8. 10:47-52. 12:35. 12:35-36. 12:35-37. 12:36. 14:38. 14:61-62. 14:62. 16:19.

45 100 80 72 80 35 80 109 19 158 109 84, 158 15 158 158 83, 158

Luke 1:17. 1:27,32,69. 2:4. 3:21-22. 3:22. 3:23-31. 5:17.

72 109 109 45 45, 157 109 29

7:29. 7:35. 8:10. 9:35. 9:41. 9:51. 10:21-24. 10:29. 12:3. 15:7. 16:15. 16:19-31. 20:41-44. 20:42. 22:22. 22:69. 23:46. 24:23. 24:26. 24:34. 24:37,39. 24:39. 24:51.

38 38 35 45 72 53, 56 45 38 78 72 38 78 158 84 117 158 79 49 53 49 79 16 83

John 1:29-34. 1:31. 5:21. 5:28-29. 6:63. 7:42. 8:12. 8:15. 10:18. 16:14.

45 36 73 78 73 109 43 111 114, 115, 128, 149 45

Acts of the Apostles 1:2. 49 1:9. 83 1:10. 83 1:11. 53 2. 156, 159 2:1-36. 155 2:17. 156 2:17-21. 156 2:23. 117 2:24. 149 2:24,32. 114 2:29. 157 2:30. 109 2:31. 157 2:32-35. 86, 119

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE AND OTHER BIBLICAL SOURCES

2:33. 2:34. 2:34-35. 2:36. 3:12. 3:13. 3:14. 3:14-15. 3:15. 3:15,26. 4:2. 4:10. 5:19. 5:30. 5:31. 5:34. 7:52. 7:55-56. 7:58. 7:59. 8:1,3. 8:3. 9. 9:15. 9:17. 9:20. 10:40. 10:42. 11:25,30. 11:29. 12:4. 12:25. 13:1-2,7,9. 13:2. 13:9. 13:23. 13:27-30. 13:30,33-34. 13:31. 13:33. 13:47. 16:20. 17:3. 17:26. 17:31. 19. 19:27,35. 19:28,34. 20:13,14. 22:4. 22:14. 23:6.

20, 38, 44, 85, 134, 157 84 157, 158 48, 158 34 38, 44 72 48 149 114 119 48, 114, 149 80 114, 149 38, 44, 85, 158 29 72 158 98 79 98 80 99 99 49 107 114, 149 117 98 117 80 98 98 99 98 19 48 114, 149 49 107 98 72 51 117 114, 117, 149 34 34 34 53 80 72 119

24:15. 26:16. 26:16-18. 26:18. 26:23. 27:27. Romans 1:1. 1:1-2,5. 1:1-7. 1:1-17. 1:2. 1:2,7. 1:3.

1:3-4.

1:4.

1:5. 1:7. 1:8-9. 1:8-15. 1:9. 1:10-15. 1:16. 1:16-17. 1:17. 2:9,10. 2:13. 2:16. 2:25. 2:28. 3:4. 3:9-20. 3:9,29-30. 3:10,23. 3:20. 3:22. 3:24. 4:1. 4:2,5.

199

72 49 100 98 118, 119 72 96, 97, 99, 100 97 96, 97 97 103 134 18, 19, 37, 75, 105, 107, 108, 111, 114, 116, 120, 126, 127, 132, 158 3, 5, 7, 12, 17, 45, 48, 55, 76, 92, 95, 96, 104, 112, 116, 120, 121, 123, 125, 126, 131, 133, 142, 150, 162 7, 10, 11, 75, 105, 107, 108, 114, 116, 118, 119, 124, 125, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 140, 141, 142, 155, 159, 160, 162 99 96, 97, 135 97 97 107, 108 97 122 97 97 122 38, 39 99, 100, 141 108 111 38, 40 38 122 72 111 99 99 19, 111 39

200

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE AND OTHER BIBLICAL SOURCES

4:24. 4:17. 5:1,9. 5:2. 5:5. 5:12-21. 6:3-5. 6:3,11,23. 6:4. 6:5. 7:4. 7:5,25. 7:12. 7:18. 7:25. 8. 8:1,2,34,39. 8:3-9,12,13. 8:3,29,32. 8:4,5. 8:4-7. 8:4-9,13. 8:8. 8:10. 8:11. 8:13. 8:15. 8:27. 8:29. 8:29-30. 8:30,33. 8:32. 8:34. 9:1. 9:3,5. 9:3,5,8. 9:5. 9:24. 9:29. 10:3. 10:9. 10:10. 10:12. 11:5,17,25. 11:13. 11:14. 11:16. 11:17-24. 12:1,13. 12:7.

7 73 39 72 134 147, 151 82 99 114, 149 108 108 42 103, 134 42 99 112 99 111 108 112 16 57, 95 16 15, 118 9, 73, 114, 149 16 159 134 154 116 39 55 7, 83, 85, 86, 92, 93, 94, 158 134 19, 111 111 108, 111 122 108 102 6, 56, 114, 119, 149 52 122 108 100, 102 111 103, 134 122 134 102

13:4. 13:14. 14:1. 14:6. 14:17. 15:6,30. 15:8. 15:13. 15:13,19. 15:16. 15:17-18. 15:19. 15:21. 16:3. 16:7. 16:16. 16:25. 16:25,27. 16:26.

42 99, 111 122 28 134 99 108 134, 141, 142 118, 125, 142 99, 100, 125, 134, 135, 136, 141, 159 142 100, 141, 142 98 99 100 103 100, 141 99 36, 102

1 Corinthians 1:1. 1:2. 1-2. 1:21-23. 1:26. 1:30. 2:2. 2:5. 2:8. 3:16. 3:17. 3:18. 4:1. 4:4. 4:9. 4:10,11. 4:19. 4:20. 5:5. 6:11. 6:19. 7:8-9,25-35. 7:14. 7:34. 7:40. 9:1. 9:1,2. 9:5. 9:20,22.

100 125, 134, 136 41 41 111 134 127 118, 125 53 1, 2 63, 134 108 25 39 100, 108 36 25 118, 125 16 1, 2, 39, 134, 135, 136 48 28 134 15 1 99, 100 100 100 108

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE AND OTHER BIBLICAL SOURCES

10:4. 10:18. 10:27-30. 12:3. 12:13. 12-14. 12:28,29. 13:11. 15.

15:45-49. 15:47. 15:49. 15:50. 15:50-53. 16:21.

139 111 28 1, 6, 7, 48, 56, 134 2, 15, 81 2 100 108 12, 20, 141, 142, 154, 155, 162 6, 7, 55, 56, 71, 92, 94, 143 143 6, 7, 49, 125 49 100 99 100 119, 147 147, 148 147, 148, 151 73 147 86 86 145, 153 143, 145 53 53, 118, 125 20, 40, 115, 147 5, 147, 162 20, 118, 142, 143, 145, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155, 161 152 149, 152 154 111 145 25

2 Corinthians 1:1. 1:17. 1:21-22. 3:3. 3:6. 3:13-14. 3:17. 3:18. 4:4.

100, 134 111 1 1 73 154 20, 154 154 154

15:3. 15:3-4. 15:3-5. 15:5-8. 15:7. 15:8. 15:9. 15:20,23. 15:21-22. 15:22. 15:22,36,45. 15:23. 15:25. 15:27. 15:35. 15:35-49. 15:40. 15:43. 15:44. 15:44-45. 15:45.

201

4:4,6. 4:5. 4:11. 5:5. 5:10. 5:16. 5:17. 6:1-2. 6:5. 6:6. 6:7. 7:1. 7:12. 8:23. 10:2,3. 11:5. 11:5,13. 11:7. 11:18. 11:23. 12:7. 12:11. 12:11,12. 13:3-4. 13:4. 13:10. 13:13.

53 141 42 1 36 111 155 98 80 48, 134 118, 125 114, 123, 133, 134 36 100 111 100 100 100, 141 111 80 111 100 100 76 41, 76 25 2, 48, 138, 155, 161

Galatians 1:1. 1:1,15-16. 1:4. 1:10. 1:15. 1:15-16. 1:16. 1:17,19. 2:9. 2:16. 2:16-17. 2:20. 3:1. 3:2. 3:3. 3:8,11,24. 3:10,11. 3:13. 3:21. 3:27. 4:4-5. 4:6.

100 99 71 98 98 99 107, 111 100 26 38 39 118 41 102 16, 57, 95 39 38 41, 108 73 82 108 126, 131

202

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE AND OTHER BIBLICAL SOURCES

4:13-14. 4:23,29. 4:28-29. 4:29. 5:4. 5:11,24. 5:16-17. 5:16-25. 5:17. 5:19-22. 6:8. 6:10. 6:12,14. Ephesians 1:1. 1:2. 1:20.

111 111 19 112 38, 39 41 116 57, 95 16 17, 128 17, 57, 95 25 41, 116

1:20-22. 1:20-23. 1:21. 1:22. 2:4-5. 2:6. 2:18. 2:19. 2:19-20. 2:20. 3:5. 3:8. 3:12. 4:8. 4:9. 4:11. 5:14. 6:5. 6:12.

100 50 83, 84, 86, 114, 115, 149, 158 86 118 86 86 73 83 72 25 26 100 100, 139 141 72 83 78 100 6, 55, 56 111 17, 111

Philippians 1:1. 1:19. 1:22-24. 1:24. 2:6. 2:6-10. 2:6-11. 2:8. 2:9. 2:10-11.

98 126 111 111 55 50 6, 41, 54, 56, 93, 119 41 38, 44, 118 6, 86

2:11. 2:16. 2:19,23,24. 2:25. 3:4-7. 3:18-19. 3:20-21. 3:21.

7, 119 98 25 100 102 41 154 53

Colossians 1:1. 1:15. 1:15-20. 1:16. 1:22. 1:22-24. 1:23. 1:26. 1:29. 2:5. 2:6-7. 2:12. 2:12-13. 3:1. 3:4. 3:22.

100 55, 145 6, 41, 54 7, 93 47 111 108 36 125 16 118 82 73 7, 84, 92, 93, 158 36, 53 111

1 Thessalonians 1:1,3. 2 1:5. 118, 125, 140, 141, 142, 155 1:5,6. 2, 48, 134, 140 1:6. 141 1:9-10. 51 1:10. 107 2:2,8,9. 100, 141 2:7. 100 3:6-10. 51 3:13. 114, 123, 133, 134 4:3. 134, 135 4:3,7. 125 4:3,7-8. 140 4:4. 134, 135 4:7. 134, 135 4:8. 1, 2, 48, 134, 135, 136, 140 4:14. 6, 55, 56 5:19. 2 5:23. 15, 134 5:26. 134

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE AND OTHER BIBLICAL SOURCES

2 Thessalonians 1:8. 102 1:10. 52, 134 1:11. 125 2:8. 36 2:13. 134, 135, 137, 140 1 Timothy 1:1. 1:3. 1:3-7. 1:4. 1:7. 1:9. 1:11. 1:12-14. 1:18. 2.2. 2:7. 3:1-7. 3:4,5,12. 3:8-13. 3:9. 3:14-15. 3:14-16. 3:15. 3:16.

4:1. 4:1-5. 4:1-7. 4:3. 4:3-4. 4:3-5. 4:7,8. 5:18. 6:3. 6:3-4. 6:3,5,6,11. 6:14.

100 24 27 27 29 72 55 102 25 34 55, 100 24 26 24 36 6, 23 29, 30 25 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 19, 23, 24, 27, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 75, 76, 87, 88, 89, 92, 94, 116, 120, 125, 126, 127, 131, 150, 156, 160, 161, 162 24, 27, 45, 46, 48 25, 27, 29, 30 6, 23 27 28 29 34 46 24, 26 27, 29 34 36, 37

2 Timothy 1:1,11. 1:10. 1:14. 2:8.

100 36, 37 45 19, 94, 96, 109, 120, 125

2:11. 2:11-13. 3:5. 4:1,8. 4:11.

6, 55 56 34 36 53

Titus 1:1. 2:11. 2:13. 2:14. 3:5. 3:7.

34, 98, 100 37 36 55 45 39

Hebrews 1:3-4. 1:13. 1:14. 2:5-9. 2:9. 4:7. 4:14. 8:1. 9:24. 9:24-28. 9:25. 9:26. 9:27. 10:6. 10:12. 11:5. 12:2. 12:9. 12:23.

50 84, 86 79 86 53 117 83 84, 158 83 71 71 36, 37 78 71 71, 84, 158 56 84, 158 14 79

James 1:1. 2:26.

98 15

1 Peter 1:2. 1:3. 1:3,13. 1:4. 1:6. 1:11. 1:11,21. 1:12. 1:12,25. 1:18-19. 1:20.

137 61, 88, 94 61 67 61, 77 61, 137 53 137 64, 78 62 36, 37, 89, 139

203

204 1:21. 1:22. 1:24. 2:4-5. 2:12. 2:13–4:6. 2:15. 2:19. 2:21. 2:21-22. 2:21-25. 2:22. 2:22-23. 2:22-24. 2:24. 3:1-2. 3:8-16. 3:11. 3:12. 3:13. 3:13-17. 3:13–4:6. 3:14. 3:14-15. 3:16. 3:17. 3:18.

3:18,22. 3:18-22. 3:19. 3:19-21. 3:21. 3:22. 4:1. 4:1-2. 4:1-6. 4:2. 4:3. 4:4. 4:5. 4:6.

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE AND OTHER BIBLICAL SOURCES

38, 44, 66, 118 102 75 66 77, 92 62 61 65 65 64, 65 62, 64, 66, 67, 70, 87, 94 65 71 41, 55 41, 61, 94 61 58 62 62, 72 62 62, 64 62 61, 62, 67, 92 63 77 62 3, 4, 5, 9, 17, 18, 45, 46, 47, 48, 55, 59, 63, 64, 65, 69, 74, 75, 76, 77, 87, 90, 94, 95, 115, 125, 131, 137, 150, 160, 162 65, 85, 89, 91, 156 5, 7, 12, 46, 58, 62, 64, 66, 86, 87, 88, 92, 93, 94, 131, 162 50, 77, 90 65, 76, 88, 93, 94 61, 82, 87, 88 19, 50, 53, 55, 64, 69, 74, 83, 86, 90, 158 59, 61, 64, 65, 66, 74, 75 58, 66, 75 63 75 94 59, 77 91 17, 75, 78, 89, 90, 111, 139

4:6,14. 4:11. 4:12-19. 4:13. 4:13-14. 4:14. 4:14,16. 4:15. 4:17. 4:18. 4:19. 5:1. 5:1,9. 5:10. 5:11.

137 86 65 61, 66 92 139 62 61 61, 100, 141 72 62 62, 66 61 61, 62, 65 86

2 Peter 1:1. 1:3,6,7. 2:4. 2:4-5. 2:8. 3:11.

98 34 80 79 72 34

1 John 1:2. 2:2. 2:1,29. 3:5,8. 3:7. 3:12. 4:2. 4:10.

36, 37 71 72 36, 37 72 72 33 71

2 John 7.

33

Jude 1.

98

Revelation 1:4. 1:20. 3:12. 5:2. 5:5. 5:8-14. 10:7. 17:5,7. 18:2. 20:7. 22:16.

79 35 26 78 109 50 35 35 80 80 109

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE AND OTHER BIBLICAL SOURCES

205

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA Ethiopic Enoch 9:3,10. 15. 22:3. 22:3-7. 58:3. 92:3-5. 102:11. 103:3. 108:12-13.

(1 Enoch) 79 79 79 79 43 43 79 79 43

Sibylline Oracles 1:379. 43 3:702. 107 Testament of Levi 18:11. 132 Testament of Moses/Assumption of Moses 10:3. 107 Testament of Abraham 4:9. 79

Jubilees 1:24-25. 2:2. 15:31.

107 79 80

Ascension of Isaiah 11:23. 50 4 Maccabees 6:2,22. 6:31. 7:16. 8:1. 11:20.

34 33 33 34 34

Psalms of Solomon 2:16. 40 3:5. 40 3:12. 43 4:9. 40 8:7. 40 17:23-51. 109 Odes of Solomon 8:65-86. 79

Testament of Dan 1:7. 80 5:5. 80

APOSTOLIC FATHERS’ WRITINGS 1 Clement 16:9-10. 50:3. 2 Clement 14:2,3.

43 36 36

Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp 2:2. 36 Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 1:1. 120

Epistle of Barnabas 5:6. 36 6:6,9,14. 36 7:7. 36 12:9. 36 14:5. 36 15:9. 36 16:5. 36

IrenaeusAdversusHaereses 3.16.3. 108

Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 19:2. 36

Shephard of Hermas (Similitudes) 4 1:3. 36 9 1:2. 36

Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians 8:2. 39

Justin Dialogue 72:4. 78 Martyrdom of Polycarp 12:3. 36

206

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE AND OTHER BIBLICAL SOURCES

QUMRAN 1QH 7:16. 7:29-30. 9:10-11. 9:35. 10:27. 11:11. 1QISaa-b

98 107 98 107 107 107 43

1QM 17:8. 4Q174. 4Q206. 4Q252 5:1-4. 4QFlor 1:10-13. 4QPGen 49. 4QPIsaa 2:21-28.

107 109 79 109 109 109 109

APPENDIX 1 The table below illustrates the Greek terms used in the passages similar to 1 Pet 3:22. Passages

Terms

1 Pet 3:22

ἀγγελος

Rom 8:38

ἀγγελος

ἐξουσία

δύναμις δύναμις

ἀρχή

1 Cor 15:24

ἐξουσία

δύναμις

ἀρχή

Eph 1:21

ἐξουσία

δύναμις

ἀρχή

Eph 3:10

ἐξουσία

ἀρχή

Eph 6:12

ἐξουσία

ἀρχή

Col 1:16

ἐξουσία

ἀρχή

Col 2:10,15

ἐξουσία

ἀρχή

κυριότης

θρόνος

κυριότης

Among the terms found in verse 22, ἐξουσία is the most frequent one followed by δύναμις. The term ἐξουσία is used elsewhere for civil authorities (e.g. Lk 12:11; Rom 13:1; Titus 3:1). The rare one is “the angels” of verse 22, which is found only once in the other list (Rom 8:38). The “powers” is the object of three other mentions (Rom 8:38; 1 Cor 15:24 and Eph 1:21).

APPENDIX 2 The chart below shows the Christological motifs in 1 Pet 3:18,22 and their presence in other passages: Also present in:

Christological Motifs in 1 Pet 3:18,22 Attestations a) the mention of Christ’s Dying as suffering (θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ) (3:18a,c)

Heb 9:26 also v. 28.

1 Pet 2:22-23 also Isa 53:9.

b) the formula “for sins” (3:18a)

1 Cor 15:3

Acts 3:15 c) the couple: death-resurrection (3:18cd) (also in Acts 2:23-24; Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34).

Text of the passages For then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself. 22

He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. 23 When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but entrusted himself to the one who judges justly. For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins, in accordance with the scriptures. and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.

Rom 8:34

Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us.

Rom 14:9

For to this end Christ died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.

209

APPENDIX 2

Also present in:

Christological Motifs in 1 Pet 3:18,22 Attestations

d) the dialectic flesh-spirit (3:18cd)

e) the theme of exaltation (3:22a)

Text of the passages 3

1 Cor 15:3-4

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins, in accordance with the scriptures, 4and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures.

1 Thess 4:14

For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died.

Rom 1:3-4

3

1 Tim 3:16b

He was revealed in flesh, vindicated in spirit

Mk 16:19

So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.

(also in Lk 24:51).

the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared/appointed to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead,

Acts 2:33

Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you both see and hear.

Heb 4:14

Since, then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession.

(also Phil 2:9; Heb 6:20).

210

APPENDIX 2

Also present in:

Christological Motifs in 1 Pet 3:18,22 Attestations f) the formula: at the right hand of God (3:22a)

Mt 22:44

Text of the passages The Lord said to my Lord,

Also in Mk 12:36; “Sit at my right hand, 14:62; 16:19; until I put your enemies Lk 20:42; 22:69; under your feet” Mt 26:64 (also: Acts 2:33-34; 5:31; 7:55-56).

Rom 8:34

Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us.

Eph 1:20

God put this power to work in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places,

Col 3:1

So if you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.

Heb 8:1

Now the main point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,

(also in 1:3,13; 10:12; 12:2).

far above all rule and g) dominion with regard to Eph 1:21 (also in Phil 2:9-11). authority and power and the heavenly powers dominion, and above every (3:22b) name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come. Col 1:16

for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers – all things have been created through him and for him.

211

APPENDIX 2

Also present in:

Christological Motifs in 1 Pet 3:18,22 Attestations Col 2:15 Also in Ps 109:1a LXX; 8:7b; Heb 1:4

Text of the passages He disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in it.

The above table shows the multiple attestations of the Christological motifs present in 3:18,22. It practically demonstrates some elements of Christ Event reflecting greatly the early tradition. As already stated earlier in this work that the death, the resurrection and the exaltation of Christ occupied the faith confession of the early Christian community, this is evident in some passages with fragments or allusions or citations from the tradition (lines c, e and f of the above table); these elements are also present in 3:18cd and 22a. The use of the opposition flesh-spirit is also clear from the table in expressing Christ Event in relation to his successive and complementary manners or conditions of being (line d). The death of Christ is “for sins”, it is sacrificial and redemptive, stated clearly in 3:18a which reflects the tradition that was handed over (for example the use of the verbs παραλαμβάνω [“to receive”] and παραδίδωμι [“to handover”] to introduce the credo in 1 Cor 15:3) to the author of 1 Corinthians (line b). The dominion over all powers completes the expression of Christ Event which is clearly mentioned in 3:22b, already present in Col 1:16, Eph 1:21 (line g). This evidence, without doubt, shows that 3:18 and 22 reflect significantly the early Christian tradition.

APPENDIX 3 The use of πνεῦμα prior to the Pauline corpus (both in the Old Testament and the Christian oral tradition) and by Paul is demonstrated in the chart below:

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IX

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XI

LIST OF TABLES AND SCHEMATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XVII

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XIX

GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND KEY TO UNDERSTANDING . . . . . . . A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Methodology: Historical-Critical Methods . . . . . . . . . . . C. State of the Question: Hypotheses of Scholars and Commentators D. Plan: Overview of the Order of the Work . . . . . . . . . . . E. The Usage of the Dialectic σάρξ-πνεῦμα: An Early Manner of Description Applied to the Mystery of Christ and Its Other Usages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Dialectic flesh-spirit Before the Christian Era: A Brief Hint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Flesh-spirit in Ancient Greek Literature . . . . . . . . 1.2 Flesh-spirit in the Old Testament (the Septuagint): A Short Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Flesh-spirit in the New Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 3 7 11

13 13 13 14 15

FIRST STAGE ORAL TRADITION’S USAGE OF ΠΝΕΥΜΑ IN ANTITHESIS WITH ΣΑΡΞ AS SPIRITUAL CONDITION OF CHRIST

CHAPTER 1: EXAMINATION OF 1 TIM 3:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Delimitation (3:16b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Transmission: Textual Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Literary Context: Right Conduct in the Household of God . . 1.3.1 The οἶκος Θεοῦ (3:15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.2 The Following Context: Opposition of False Practices (4:1-5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.3 The Role of 3:16b within its Context: A Story of Christ as a Proof of Faith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23 23 24 24 25 27 29

214

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.4 Structure of 3:16b: A Six-Line Hymn . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.1 καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον (v. 16a): A Unique Manner of Introduction . . . . 1.5.2 The Six-Line Proclamation: Encompassing Christ Event . . 1.5.2.1 Line 1: ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί ‒ Christ’s Earthly Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.2.2 Line 2: ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι ‒ Heavenly Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.2.3 Line 3: ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις ‒ Resurrection seen by Angels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.2.4 Line 4: ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν ‒ Christ’s Victory Proclaimed to Humankind . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.2.5 Line 5: ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ ‒ The Effect of Christ’s Victory in the World . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.2.6 Line 6: ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ ‒ Christ’s Exaltation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Literary Genre: Christological Hymn or Credo? . . . . . . . 1.6.1 1 Tim 3:16b: Its Elements, Possibility of Origin . . . . 1.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 2: EXAMINATION OF 1 PET 3:18-22 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Delimitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Transmission: Textual Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 The Textual Variant: ἀπέθανεν or ἔπαθεν (3:18a)? . . 2.2.2 The Textual Variant: ἡμᾶς or ὑμᾶς (3:18b)? . . . . . . 2.2.3 Personal Pronoun: ὃ or ὡς or ᾧ (3:21a)? . . . . . . . . 2.3 Literary Context: Suffering and the Hope of Christians . . . . 2.3.1 Innocent Sufferers and Witnesses for Christ (3:13-17) . 2.3.2 Living a Pure Life as Followers of the Example of Christ (4:1-6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 The Connection of 1 Pet 3:18-22 to Its Immediate Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Structure of 3:18-22: A Tri-Styled Feature . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.1 The Unique Nature of Christ’s Dying as Suffering . . . 2.5.2 The Theme of Christ’s Mystery: First Proclamation– Death and Resurrection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.3 Proclamation to the Spirits in Prison (vv.19-21b) . . . . 2.5.4 The Ark, Water and Baptism (vv. 20c-21) . . . . . . .

30 32 32 36 36 38 49 50 52 52 53 54 56 58 58 59 59 60 61 61 62 63 64 67 70 70 72 76 80

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2.5.5 The Theme of Exaltation: Second Proclamation (v. 22) 2.6 Literary Genre: Elements of Christological Hymn or Baptismal Credo or Both? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.1 Christological Hymn: To what extent? . . . . . . . . . 2.6.2 Baptismal Credo: To what extent? . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.3 1 Pet 3:18,22: Its Elements, Possibility of Origin . . . 2.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 3: EXAMINATION OF ROM 1:3-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Delimitation (1:3b-4d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Literary Context: Christ the Gospel of God (1:1-17) . . . . . 3.2.1 The Immediate Context: The Exordium, Proper Salutation (1:1-7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 The Significance of 1:3b-4d within its Context: A Connecting Chord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Structure: A Tidy Antithetical Parallelism? . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ: The Son of God, the Good News (1:3a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2 γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ: The Messianic Promise (1:3b,c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3 The Two Antithetical Terms: κατὰ σάρκα (1:3d) and κατὰ πνεῦμα (1:4c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3.1 κατὰ σάρκα and κατὰ πνεῦμα: As the Human and the Divine Natures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3.2 κατὰ σάρκα and κατὰ πνεῦμα (ἁγιωσύνης): As the Holy Spirit? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3.3 κατὰ σάρκα (1:3d) and κατὰ πνεῦμα (1:4c): As A Condition of Existence or the Spiritual Condition that was Given Access to by the Resurrection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.4 ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει: Resurrection and Enthronement (1:4a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.5 ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν (1:4d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.6 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (1:4e) . . . . . . . . 3.5 Literary Genre: Elements of Early Christian Creedal Formula? 3.5.1 Literary Genre: Hymn, Creed– Liturgical Elements . . 3.5.2 Rom 1:3b-4d: Its Elements, Possibility of Origin . . . 3.5.2.1 First Hypothesis: Three Stages of Development 3.5.2.2 Second Hypothesis: From 3b-4d . . . . . . . .

215 83 86 87 91 91 94 96 96 97 97 104 104 106 107 108 110 112 113

114 116 118 119 119 120 121 121 123

216

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.6 Summary: κατὰ πνεῦμα, From the Anterior Tradition refers to the Spiritual Condition of the Risen Christ . . . . . . . . . 127 SECOND STAGE TRANSITION FROM ΠΝΕΥΜΑ-CONDITION TO ΠΝΕΥΜΑ-AGENT

CHAPTER 4: PASSAGE FROM ORAL TRADITION’S USAGE OF ΠΝΕΥΜΑCONDITION TO ΠΝΕΥΜΑ-AGENT OF THE LATER TRADITION . . . . . 4.1 Rom 1:4, πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης: A Re-Evaluation . . . . . . . 4.1.1 “Holiness” in 1:4: Its Idea in Some Pauline Letters . . 4.2 1 Peter: A Witness to Nuances in the Usage of πνεῦμα . . . 4.3 Paul’s Redaction in Rom 1:4, Affinity in 1 Thess 1:5 and Other Similar Passages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Pneumatic Condition of the Resurrected Christ, an Early Christian usage: Paul’s Application to the Resurrection of the Believers (1 Cor 15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 The Condition of Resurrection of the Last Adam (1 Cor 15:45) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2 Delimitation (15:35-49) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3 Literary Context: From the Known to the Unknown . . 4.4.4 Structure: Three-Step Stages of Argument . . . . . . . 4.4.5 Exploration: Two Modes of Body of the two Adams described as σῶμα ψυχικόν and σῶμα πνευματικόν . . 4.4.5.1 Christ the Last Adam as πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν (15:45b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.6 Source or Origin: Rabbinic Thought, Old Testament and Paul’s Exegetical Influence? . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.6.1 Philonic View of Adam . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.6.2 Gnosticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.6.3 Rabbinic Exegesis and Old Testament . . . . . 4.4.6.4 Paul’s Theological Reflection . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Rom 1:4 and 1 Cor 15:45b: A Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Acts 2:1-36: The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit as a Consequence of Resurrection-Exaltation and Sharing in the Divine Prerogatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.1 Heavenly Prerogative: From the Spiritual Condition to the Outpouring of the Holy Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . .

131 132 135 137 140

142 143 143 143 145 147 148 151 151 152 153 153 155

155 156

PERSPECTIVE, CONCLUSION AND CONTRIBUTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 160

TABLE OF CONTENTS

217

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 INDEX OF SOME GREEK TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 INDEX OF AUTHORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 INDEX OF SCRIPTURE AND OTHER BIBLICAL SOURCES . . . . . . . . 196 APPENDIX 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 APPENDIX 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 APPENDIX 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706