The Church and Its Mission in the New Testament and Early Christianity: Essays in Memory of Hans Kvalbein 3161559096, 9783161559099

Citation preview

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

404

The Church and Its Mission in the New Testament and Early Christianity Essays in Memory of Hans Kvalbein

Edited by David E. Aune and Reidar Hvalvik

Mohr Siebeck

David E. Aune, born 1939; 1970 PhD; taught at several universities, including Saint Xavier University and Loyola University; Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins Emeritus at the University of Notre Dame. Reidar Hvalvik, born 1951; 1994 Dr. theol.; 1994–2005 Associate Professor, since 2005 Professor in New Testament studies at MF Norwegian School of Theology; 2006–07 Research Professor at the Norwegian Institute in Rome.

ISBN 978-3-16-155909-9 eISBN 978-3-16-155910-5 ISSN 0512-1604 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http:// dnb.dnb.de. © 2018 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book is typset by satz&sonders in Dülmen, printed on non-aging paper by GuldeDruck in Tübingen and bound by Großbuchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Table of Contents

Abbreviations

..........................................

VII

David E. Aune Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

Reidar Hvalvik Theology for the Church, Its Mission and the Christian Life: The Scholarly Profile of Professor Hans Kvalbein (1942–2013) . . . . . . . . .

19

Jostein Ådna The Mission to Israel and the Nations: The Understanding of Mission in the Gospel of Matthew Reconsidered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45

Ernst Baasland Mission and Love of Enemy: Matthew 5:43–44 and Luke 6:27–28, 35 (2 Clem. 13.3; Diogn. 5) in Its Graeco-Roman Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63

Johannes Beutler SJ Peter on the Way to His Universal Mission in the Gospel of John

....

85

Reinhard Feldmeier Ecclesia peregrinans: Luke’s Concept of a Missionary Church . . . . . . .

99

Volker Gäckle The Proclamation of the Kingdom of God in Acts

...............

113

Klaus B. Haacker Frustrated Plans and Unexpected Outcome: Acts 16:6–8 Re-considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

129

Rainer Riesner The Gentile Mission of the Hellenists (Acts 11:19–21) and the Jesus Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

145

Christoph Stenschke Migration and Mission in the Book of Acts

163

....................

VI

Table of Contents

Peder Borgen Perspectives for Mission: Galatians 3:1–14 in Context

............

181

Halvor Moxnes Who are the Children of Abraham in Romans 4? Retelling the Memory of Abraham “Our Ancestor” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

193

David E. Aune John’s Prophetic Commission and the People of the World (Rev 10:8–11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

211

Torrey Seland “Like Newborn Infants”: The Readers of 1 Peter as Newly Converted Christians? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

227

Reidar Hvalvik Mass Conversions, Persecutions and Church Growth: Critical Reflections on the Rapid Expansion of the Church During the First Three Centuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

243

Karl Olav Sandnes Households and the Exodus: A Note on Infant Baptism in the Early Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

261

Oskar Skarsaune Mapping ‘πάντα τὰ ἔθνη’: The Geographical Horizon of Early Christian Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

279

Reidar Hvalvik Bibliography of Hans Kvalbein’s Scholarly Publications

...........

299

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

313

Index of Ancient Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

315 337 343

Abbreviations Abbreviations, of the names of biblical books and other ancient sources as well as modern periodicals, reference works and serials, follow the rules recommended by the Society of Biblical Literature, as found in Patrick H. Alexander et al., eds., The SBL Handbook of Style for Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999). This is the style followed with regard to all formalities.

Hans Kvalbein in 2007

Introduction David E. Aune

Hans Kvalbein’s academic career centered in the Norwegian School of Theology (Det teologiske Menighetsfakultet) in Oslo, beginning as a student who graduated in 1966 and then as a member of the faculty, first as an assistant professor (1976) and then as a professor of New Testament from 1985 until his retirement in 2011. While Hans had many academic and theological interests over the years, one of his central concerns was the mission of the church both in the New Testament and in the modern world. When Reidar Hvalvik and I began discussing the possibility of assembling a collection of essays in memory of Hans about two years ago (in 2015), it seemed eminently appropriate to focus on the subject which became the title of this volume: “The Church and Its Mission in the New Testament and Early Christianity.” The present volume consists of fifteen essays by colleagues and friends of Hans Kvalbein focusing on various aspects of the theme of the church and mission in the New Testament and early Christianity as well as a survey of Hans Kvalbein’s academic career and scholarship and a bibliography of his books and articles. The organization of the volume follows the main theme through the Gospels, Acts, Paul, Later New Testament Writings and Early Christianity. Many of the contributors interact with Kvalbein’s views on aspects of the mission of the early church. In the remainder of this introductory essay, I will provide succinct summaries of the various contributions organized under each of the five main headings of the volume.

The Gospels Jostein Ådna has contributed an essay on “The Mission to Israel and the Nations: The Understanding of Mission in the Gospel of Matthew Reconsidered.” This essay is based on issues discussed in a volume edited by Ådna and Kvalbein that was published in 2000: The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles. The author argues that despite the apparent tension in the Gospel of Matthew between the mission to Israel (Matt 10:6; 15:24) and mission to the Gentiles (Matt 28:18–20), the author has not abandoned the mission to Israel, but rather juxtaposes the two missions. For Ådna, the most radical solution to the tension between Matt 10:5–6 and 28:18–20 is to read Matthew as a narrative in which Israel rejects the message of Jesus, leading to their rejection and abandonment, while the universal mission to the Gentiles replaces the failed mission to Israel. The author then turns to an article by Hans Kvalbein entitled “Has Matthew

4

David E. Aune

Abandoned the Jews?” which focuses on the significance of Matt 27:24–25 in which Pilate is presented as washing his hands and declaring himself innocent of the death of Jesus: “[T]hen the people as a whole answered, ‘His blood be on us and on our children!’” Kvalbein rejected the widespread interpretation that this passage constituted a self-imposed curse, implying the rejection of Jesus by the Jews. He goes on to argue that Pilate’s handwashing in no way affects Pilate’s responsibility for the death of Jesus. The Jewish people in Pilate’s courtyard are no more or less guilty for the death of Jesus than are the Romans. Ådna then refers to an article by Ulrich Luz entitled “Has Matthew Abandoned the Jews? A Response to Hans Kvalbein and Peter Stuhlmacher concerning Matt 28:16–20,” 1 in which Luz expresses his discomfort at being portrayed as representing an anti-Jewish interpretation of Matthew. Luz now supports an inclusive interpretation of Matt 28:19, where the expression “all the nations” should be interpreted as including both Jews and Gentiles. The author then turns to the recent monograph of Matthias Konradt (Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew, 2014), who emphasizes the tension between Matt 10:16 and 28:19, asking how the initial focus of Jesus on Israel can be reconciled with the eventual emphasis on the universal mission of the church. Konradt sees a correlation between the missions to Israel and the nations and the Christology of Matthew. Jesus’ messianic mission to Israel is reflected in the Christological title Son of David. While the people generally react positively to Jesus, the religious leaders are presented as hostile to Jesus. However, the crowds in Jerusalem react negatively to Jesus. Parallel to Jesus’ exclusive ministry to Israel is a universal emphasis reflected in the titles “son of Abraham” and “Son of God.” Ådna maintains that Konradt does not fully appreciate the function of the episode narrating the encounter of the risen Christ with the eleven disciples in Galilee (Matt 28:16–20). This episode functions as the central symbolic event in Matthew involving the eschatological reconstitution of Israel, the renewal of fellowship between Jesus and the disciples who had forsaken him and a renewed commission to the disciples with the expanded goal of the mission to the Gentiles. Ernst Baasland asks whether the important early Christian theme of love of enemy plays any role in the early Christian mission in “Mission and Love of Enemy: Matthew 5:43–44 and Luke 6:27–28, 35 (2 Clem. 13.3; Diogn. 5) in Its Graeco-Roman Context.” Baasland asks how a message that made fixed boundaries chaotic could be considered a strategy, since the Christian emphasis on love of enemy both challenged and threatened the basic concepts of empire and nation widely held in the ancient world. In recent studies on identity-making

1 In The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles (WUNT 127; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 63–68.

Introduction

5

and identity-markers there is always an awareness of the fact that all religions and all cultures confront influences or events that threaten their identity. After the Jewish revolt in 66–70 CE, much of Israel was forced to live outside of their homeland, emphasized “the holy land” and were aware of being an elect people, cherishing the promise of taking possession of the land promised by God. The Christian emphasis on love of enemy challenged the Jewish conception of identity, just as it challenged the concepts of empire and nation, both of which presupposed a contrast between aliens and enemies. Does the universal mission reflected in Matt 28:19–20 extend or invalidate the role and identity of Israel? The emphasis on love of enemy in early Christianity broke through fixed boundaries and disrupted otherwise stable social relationships. Baasland discusses the key role that the theme of love of enemy plays in Jesus’ inaugural speech in Matthew and Luke (i. e., the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain), focusing on Matt 5:43–44 and Luke 6:27–28, 35 in which Jesus commands his disciples to love their enemies. The author explores how this theme is treated within Matthew and Luke and how it is developed in various ways in the rest of the New Testament and in early Christian literature, such as in the Didache and Justin Martyr. Baasland explores the variety of ways in which the theme of love of enemy is expressed, including some of the more important synonyms and antonyms of “love” found in Christian contexts. One important synonym of “love” is “pray,” found in Luke 6:27–28 (“Love your enemies ... pray for those who abuse you”), often expressed in exhortations to pray for rulers and for enemies (e. g., Justin 1 Apol. 14–15). Another important synonym for “love” is “bless,” as in Luke 6:28: “Bless those who curse you.” The author then surveys a number of Greco-Roman texts which encourage the replacement of hatred with love. Though Matt 5:44 and Luke 6:27 (“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”) are not quoted in the rest of the New Testament, the basic pattern of thought is found in such passages and Rom 12: 9–21, interpreting the command in creative ways that do not restrict its meaning. The emphasis on living at peace with all people is probably the most sophisticated interpretation of “love of enemy” (cf. Rom 12:18). Another parallel emphasis is treating your enemy like a brother. Apart from the New Testament, many Greco-Roman texts emphasize the replacement of hatred with love, as much as possible. The emphasis on love of enemy reflected a world view which implied a new notion of territory and nation and provided an indispensable framework for Christian mission. In response to persecution, the Christian response was not one of hostility, but rather love of enemy, or in the case of Jews, love of neighbour or brotherly love. Love of enemies was thus a factor in early mission. In “Peter on the Way to His Universal Mission in the Gospel of John,” Johannes Beutler, SJ, argues that the mission of the disciples in the Gospel of John is rooted in the mission of Jesus, who has been sent by the Father (John 20:21). Among the disciples given a mission by Jesus, Peter plays a prominent

6

David E. Aune

role, particularly in the last chapter (John 21:1–14, 15–19). Peter as a missionary is a developing character in John and it is only in John 21, a late first century addition to John that Peter’s calling by Jesus and the significance of his new name “stone” or “rock,” i. e., the foundation of the early church (John 1:40–42) is fully justified. Apart from the confession of Peter in John 6:68–69 (a later addition along with John 21), Peter does not appear until the account of the Passion, Death and Resurrection. After Jesus washes the disciples’ feet (13:6–11), a symbolic act by Jesus that Peter does not understand, Peter appears beside the Beloved Disciple, who lies on the breast of Jesus (13:23) and (representing the rest of the disciples) asks the Beloved Disciple who it is that will betray Jesus (13:24). In several additional scenes, Jesus predicts, despite Peter’s protestations that he will deny him three times (13:36–38) and at the arrest of Jesus Peter cuts off the ear of the servant of the high priest, betraying his lack of understanding (18:10–11). During the trial of Jesus before the Jewish high priest (18:11–27), Peter is presented as explicitly opposed to Jesus and denies him three times, after which he goes off stage until John 20. There, Peter and the Beloved Disciple run to the tomb of Jesus to verify the story of the empty tomb told them by Mary Magdalene, Peter representing the disciples and the Beloved Disciple exhibiting deep insight into the person of Jesus. To this point in John, there is little reason to see Peter as a coming missionary. It is only in John 21 (which Beutler regards as the product of a “rereading” of John) where the mission of Peter is emphasized. Here the most important section is John 21:15–17, where Jesus asks Peter three times if he loves him (an allusion to Peter’s threefold denial of Jesus), to which Jesus replies either “feed my lambs” or “tend my sheep.” This threefold affirmation of Peter’s love for Jesus constitutes the restoration of Peter putting himself alongside the Good Shepherd (John 10) who preceded him. Finally Jesus foretells Peter’s violent death (21:18–19), making Peter a witness to Jesus by his death rather than by his words. Reinhold Feldmeier’s essay “Ecclesia peregrinans: Luke’s Concept of a Missionary Church,” focuses on how the motif of “the Way” and the notion of traveling is centrally important for Luke’s portrait of Jesus as an itinerant preacher as well as for the conception of a missionary church. The tradition of the traveling master accompanied by his disciples goes back to Jesus and is reflected in all three Synoptic Gospels. One of the distinctive features of the Gospel of Luke is the travel narrative, which occupies half of the narrative based on the memory of Jesus’ life as itinerant preacher and healer. Luke both adapts and amplifies Jesus’ life of homelessness and wandering, connected with the motif of being an outsider, beginning with Jesus’ birth in a stable (Luke 2:7). John the Baptist also exemplified life as an outsider and Luke emphasizes the parallel features of the lifestyle of Jesus and John. The historical Jesus did not restrict his message of the dawning Kingdom of God to a few disciples, but rather traveled to where people lived inviting them to change their minds in view of the imminent arrival

Introduction

7

of the Kingdom. A parallel phenomenon is the wandering of Cynic sages, who modeled a life of abstinence and self-denial. Jesus’ command to “follow me” invited people to accompany him in his wandering ministry. Luke’s Travel Narrative (9:51–19:44) is a literary device created by the evangelist to amplify the motifs homelessness and wandering. The goal of Jesus’ wandering is Jerusalem, where the final events of his life play out. Historically, the presentation of continuous travel to Jerusalem is not very convincing, a fact that indicates that the Travel Narrative is a literary motif developed by the evangelist. One of Luke’s favorite words is “the Way” in both the Gospel and Acts, which characterizes the lifestyle of the followers of Jesus. Potential followers of Jesus are urged to leave their families and friends and to follow the new lifestyle of homeless wandering. The final goal of Jesus’ travels is not only Jerusalem, but his being “taken up” and enthroned at the right hand of God. The motif of traveling is not restricted in Luke to the lifetime of Jesus, but is also continued after his resurrection when he meets with two disciples on the way to Emmaus (Luke 24:13–35). The Ascension of Jesus, a motif unique to Luke-Acts, is followed by the formation of the church and its empowerment by the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8). The resultant mission of the church is always understood as an itinerant act. The exaltation of Jesus is the prerequisite for his new constant presence among his itinerant apostles. In Acts, Paul is given the same profile as Jesus and is portrayed as an itinerant preacher who is victorious by enduring resistance and persecution until death. The centrality of the motif of traveling in Luke-Acts is emphasized by calling the church “the Way.” Therefore, “the ecclesia peregrinans corresponds to its wandering master who sends out his disciples at the beginning of the Travel Narrative to testify the propinquity of God’s Kingdom in every town and place (Luke 10:1–12).”

The Acts of the Apostles Volker Gäckle discusses “The Proclamation of the Kingdom of God in Acts.” The author reminds us that the Kingdom of God, the primary theme of the teaching of Jesus, was a subject of central emphasis in Hans Kvalbein’s research. Against the more widespread understanding of βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ as “reign of God,” first proposed by Gustaf Dalman, Kvalbein (following his teacher Sverre Aalen) understood the phrase to mean “place, time or gift of salvation.” While Kvalbein discussed the occurrence of the phrase the Kingdom of God in Paul, John and the Gospel of Thomas, he did not treat its meaning in Acts, and it is that task which Gäckle undertakes in this essay. While the phrase βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ occurs 131 times in the Synoptic Gospels and 35 times in Luke, it occurs just 8 times in Acts, but at very important points in the narrative. Since the phrase occurs twice in the opening (Acts 1:1–14 [vv. 3, 6]) and twice in the clos-

8

David E. Aune

ing sections of Acts (28:17–31 [vv. 23, 31]), it functions as an inclusio framing the Book of Acts. In three further passages, Acts 8:12, 19:8 and 20:5, the phrase βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ is used in an important milestone in Acts. Each of the six remaining uses of the phrase βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ in Acts (1:3; 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31) occur in the context of an extended act of communication. In Acts 1:3 Luke refers to the repeated appearances of Jesus to his disciples during the forty days between his resurrection and ascension, when he speaks to them “the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God,” emphasizing the continuity between the pre-Easter of Jesus and the post-Easter message of his apostles. The forty-day period indicates a time of preparation for the apostles. Therefore τὰ περὶ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ represents the whole content of the truth revealed in Christ. The Christological dimension of βασιλεία-communication is particularly evident in Acts 8:12 and 28:23–31, where the proclamation of the Kingdom is further defined by “the name of Jesus Christ” (8:12) and “the things about the Lord Jesus Christ” (28:23, 31), explicitly emphasizing continuity with the preaching of Jesus. The history of salvation dimension is also emphasized in Acts 20:25 (cf. vv. 24, 27) and 28:23, i. e., Christ as the fulfilment of the Old Testament promises. In Acts, the hidden connection between Jesus’ proclamation of the Kingdom and his own identity and ministry is made explicit. In the Gospel of Luke, the proclamation of the Kingdom is never related to the messianic claim of Jesus, while in Acts the proclamation of the Kingdom of God is a general formulation for the whole salvific plan of God. In Acts, Luke brings together what remains separated in the Gospel of Luke, the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ and Christology are combined in the concept “salvation in Christ.” The βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ in Acts is a general term for the Christian message of salvation in Jesus Christ, including the present sense of the gift of eternal life and the future sense of the coming Kingdom as the place and time of salvation. In “Frustrated Plans and Unexpected Outcome: Acts 16:6–8 Re-considered,” Klaus Haacker reconsiders the issues in the debate on Paul’s route through Asia Minor and whether Paul’s letter to the Galatians was addressed to congregations founded by Paul and Barnabas in the southern part of the Roman province of Galatia (Acts 13–14) or to churches founded during the journey recorded in Acts 16, the northern part of Galatia. Paul’s second missionary journey is often regarded as the decisive event in the spread of the gospel from the Middle East to Europe. One major issue is whether the term “Galatia” in Gal 1:2 (cf. 3:1) has an ethnic or political meaning. As a young man, Paul exhibited a fanatical zeal in persecuting members of the Jesus movement, which he regarded as a threat to traditional Judaism. After his transformation through a revelatory experience of the living Jesus, Paul channeled his zeal and energy in the propagation of his newfound faith. According to the commission Paul received in Acts 22:17–21, he began a lifelong mission to proclaim the gospel to other na-

Introduction

9

tionalities, eventually focusing on gentiles who were sympathetic to Judaism. He began to travel throughout Asia Minor proclaiming the gospel to Jews as well as to gentile sympathizers with Judaism. After having founded churches in the southern part of Galatia during his first missionary journey, Paul intended to continue his campaign into the Roman province of Asia, but was forbidden by the Holy Spirit to do so (Acts 16:6). He then decided to visit the province of Bithynia on the northern coast of Asia Minor but was again divinely forbidden to continue (Acts 16:7). Paul and his companions then received a vision inviting them to visit Macedonia (Acts 16:9–10), where he founded the congregation at Philippi. It is likely that when Paul crossed the sea to Macedonia he began to entertain the notion of visiting Rome, an intention that apparently was frequent frustrated (Rom 1:9–10, 13). This was a decisive step in spreading the gospel from the more oriental regions of Asia Minor to Europe. Paul somehow conceived of the idea to proclaim the gospel in Rome, but was often frustrated by his inability to travel there (Rom 1:13). After Philippi, Paul followed the Via Egnatia to Thessalonica where he founded a congregation, but ended up in conflict with both the people and authorities there, which probably frustrated his plans to continue west to Rome. Paul’s success at Ephesus (Acts 19:8–10) provided another reason to delay going to Rome, though that project remained in his mind (Acts 19:21). Though the story of Paul as told by Luke ends in Rome, it was Paul’s intention to push as far as the Iberian Peninsula (Rom 15:24). While we know that Paul did reach Rome, it is also likely that he reached Spain as well (1 Clem. 5:1–7). Paul’s concern to proclaim the gospel in new areas did not diminish his desire to care to the needs of the congregations he had already founded, though visiting them often proved problematic (e. g., 1 Thess 2:18). Paul’s intention for his second missionary journey was primarily based on his desire to strengthen existing congregations (Acts 15:41; 16:4–5). The author concludes with a reconsideration of Acts 16:6–8 and argues that the North Galatian theory should be dismissed and the biblical maps that include Mysia and Bithynia should be redrawn. Rainer Riesner has contributed an essay on “The Gentile Mission of the Hellenists (Acts 11:19–21) and the Jesus Tradition.” Riesner refers to the tradition that Greek-speaking Jewish believers (Acts 6:1) were driven from Jerusalem just one or two years after the death and resurrection of Jesus and made their way to Antioch where they proclaimed the gospel to Greek-speaking Gentiles (Acts 11:19–21). Unfortunately, Luke does not tell us what motivated some Greekspeaking Jewish believers to take the extraordinary step of expanding the Messianic mission to Gentiles as well as Jews. In this essay, Riesner proposes some possible reasons why this extraordinary step was taken. Even though Acts 11:20 might suggest that Gentiles became part of the Messianic mission for the first time in Antioch, the conversion and baptism of two god-fearers, the Ethiopian eunuch and Cornelius (Acts 8 and 10) suggest that the inclusion of the Gentiles

10

David E. Aune

was a graduate process, though the mission to the Gentiles was carried out on a larger scale in Antioch. The preaching of the Hellenists in Antioch that appealed to Jewish proselytes and god-fearers, was so effective that the authorities designated the new religious group of Jews and Gentiles as Χριστιανοί. Assuming that the martyrdom and speech of Stephen was widely known among the Hellenists, Stephen’s vision of Jesus as the exalted Son of Man had profound consequences for the Gentiles (Dan 7:13–14). The Old Testament expectation of the inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God in the eschaton is a key presupposition of the Gentile mission, though this expectation could be construed as a pilgrimage of Gentiles to Jerusalem only at the end of time. Riesner asks whether there are any sayings of Jesus which could have been cherished by the Antiochene Hellenists and which would have justified an active mission to the Gentiles. The Jerusalem Hellenists may have been responsible for translated many of the sayings of Jesus into Greek and the Q document, which contains many positive statements about Gentiles, may have originated as a book of instruction for Gentile converts; the same may be said about Jesus tradition common to Mark and Matthew. Some Jesus traditions in Q might have been used to legitimate a mission to the Gentiles such as the woes pronounced by Jesus on Chorazin and Bethsaida (Matt 11:21–23 // Luke 10:13–15; cf. Matt 8:11–12 // Luke 13:28–29; Matt 12:41–42 // Luke 11:31–32). Yet another important text is the story of the healing of the servant of the pagan centurion (Matt 8:5–13 // Luke 7:1–10). When the proclamation of Jesus the Messiah spread beyond Galilee, it would have touched Gentiles areas such as Tyre and Sidon and several cities of the Decapolis. Among pre-Matthean traditions, a prime example of a focus on Gentiles is the healing of the daughter of a Gentile woman in the border region between Galilee and the Hellenistic city of Tyre (Matt 15:21–28 // Mark 7:24–30). Matthew 28:16–20, which focuses on a mission to the Gentiles probably contains pre-Matthean features. While the interpretation of the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of Israel was found in Old Testament prophecy and played an important role in defending the Gentile mission, the Jesus tradition also play a similar role. In “Migration and Mission in the Book of Acts,” Christoph Stenschke argues that the theme of migration and dislocation were of central importance to the early Christian mission. Acts contains many examples of both voluntary and forced migration and the author focuses on the opportunities that both played in the early Christian mission. Many examples of migration occur in Acts 1–6, including the miracle of Pentecost, a text which lists Jews who came to Jerusalem from fifteen ethnic groups (Acts 2:9–11). The conflicts narrated in Acts 4–5 are not only a response to the miracles and proclamation of the gospel but also because these Galilean apostles challenged the Jewish leadership on their own turf. Acts 6 mentions a group of Hellenistic Diaspora Jews who were present in Jerusalem for religious reasons. Thus Acts 1–6 indicates that

Introduction

11

the early Christian community contains a variety of people who had various experiences of migration. Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 contains a concentration of themes related to migration and refugee status and the challenges that this involves. Stephen’s speech constitutes a theological foundation for the impending Christian mission to the ends of the earth, since God’s presence, action and salvation are not limited to one people and place. The persecution following the death of Stephen scatters Christians throughout Judea and Samaria (8:1–2). Acts 8 describes the ministry of Philip, one of the migrating Hellenists who had a ministry in Samaria. One early designation for followers of Jesus was “the Way” or “wayfarers” (9:2), referring to both their identity and message. Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus, where he was going to confront Jewish Christians (Acts 9), became paradigmatic for his long career as a migrant missionary. Peter also “goes here and there” (9:32) ministering to believers in Lydda, Joppa and Caesarea. With Acts 11:19, the narrative returns to those Hellenistic Christians who were scattered after the death of Stephen (8:1–4). From Acts 13 onward, Paul become the main character in the narrative, combining periods of intensive travel with various stays in particular cities, always accompanied by a variety of colleagues and workers; e. g. Corinth where he stayed a year and six months (18:11) and Ephesus where he stayed for two years (19:10). Finally, after a two-year stay in Caesarea, followed by a six-month trip on the Mediterranean, Paul came to Rome. In Acts 18:1, the movement of Christians is also attributed to the political situation, in this case, Aquila and Priscilla have been expelled from Rome by Claudius (along with all other Jews and Jewish Christians) after which they meet Paul in Corinth. Like few other books in the New Testament, Acts deals with the phenomenon of “the wandering people of God,” essential for the formation and dissemination of early Christianity in the first century CE. Luke’s portrayal of the followers of Jesus displays an enormous dynamic and mobility. The experiences of the many migrant missionaries led to the full acceptance of Gentiles into the people of God as Gentiles.

Paul In “Perspectives for Mission: Galatians 3:1–14 in Context,” Peder Borgen explores the significance of Gal 3:1–14 for understanding Paul’s mission to the churches of Galatia. Basic to Paul’s position is the belief that the Jewish people believed in one God and from Paul’s perspective this one God was also the God of the Gentiles (Rom 3:29–31). God has a special relationship with the Jewish people through the Scriptures. The way in which the Gentiles are included in the worship and service of the one God is the central focus of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Sometime after Paul had founded the churches of Galatia, he found himself in conflict with his Galatian converts over the role of the

12

David E. Aune

Scriptures in the life of believers. The central issue was the extent to which the regulations and observances of the Jewish Scriptures be regarded as valid for the Gentile converts which made up the congregations of Galatia. For this reason, the proper understanding of the Jewish Scriptures plays a central role in Galatians. The phrase “the works of the law” and the term “faith” are found repeatedly in Gal 3:1–14 and form an antithesis which is central to Paul’s argument. While Paul was a zealous persecutor of Christians he must have assumed that Jesus was crucified for his own crimes. After Paul became a believer, he discovered that rather than dying for his own sins, Christ suffered a victorious death “for us” by having become a curse for us (Gal 3:13). According to Nils Alstrup Dahl, Gal 3:1–14 summarizes contradictory Scriptural passages under the headings “by faith” and “by the works of the law.” According to Paul, those who are of faith are blessed, while those who rely on the works of the law are condemned. Dahl maintains that a real contradiction would have existed only if the law had led to justification and life; Paul maintains that the law was unable to do this and had not even been intended to function in such a way. Borgen argues that we should think in terms of two jurisdictions rather than in terms of supersession. The “Sinaitic jurisdiction” has “the works of the law” as a key phrase, while the “Abrahamic jurisdiction” has “faith” as a key phrase. In Gal 3:16 Paul uses a philological method of exegesis in arguing that the promises were made to Abraham and his “offspring” (singular) not “offsprings” (plural) and Paul understands “offspring” to refer to Christ, as in Gal 3:29: “And if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (understanding Christ as a collective person as in Gal 3:26–29). The promise of the reception of the Spirit is mentioned in Gal 3:14 (“that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith”), but how is the Spirit related to Christ? According to Gal 4:6: “God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts crying ‘Abba, father!’” In sum, Paul’s letter treats problems in churches which were the result of his missionary activity. The letter gives us insight into Paul’s radically new perspective as a missionary to the Gentiles when seen against the background of his former life as a persecutor of Christians. Halvor Moxnes, makes use of recent work on ethnicity and memory to update his discussion of Rom 4 originally treated in his doctoral dissertation of forty years ago in an article entitled “Who are the Children of Abraham in Romans 4? Retelling the Memory of Abraham ‘Our Ancestor’.” Collective or social memory is a reconstruction of the past that adapts historical facts to the beliefs and values of the present. Following Ehud Ben Zwi, Moxnes discusses one topos of the cultural memory of Abraham in Paul: Abraham as ancestor. While Paul’s retelling of the Abraham story in Rom 4 is much less polemical than the retelling in Gal 3, Moxnes focuses on the ancestry of Abraham as the specific way in which non-Jews were included in the people of God. Moxnes reviews the work of Carolyn Johnson Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs: A

Introduction

13

Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul (2007), but criticizes her position on the fixity of Jewish identity since she endows it with qualities that she criticizes, i. e., being “natural” and “unquestionable.” Following Fredrik Barth, Moxnes maintains that ethnicity is not an inherent quality of a group, but rather the product of boundary making in which one group sets up boundaries over against other groups as part of their identity. Common among markers of identity within these boundaries, according to Christopher Stanley, are (1) belief in a shared history, (2) a common culture, and (3) some form of differentiating physical difference. Both Judeans and Greeks, who had different myths of origin and history, were ethnic groups that frequently found themselves in conflict. Paul worked with stories about Abraham that he could expect his audiences of Judeans and god-fearers to be familiar with. Paul begins Rom 4 with a question: “What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh?” in which he probably refers to the traditional memory of Abraham as the ancestor of the Judeans. Since Abraham occupied a strong memory tradition among Judeans, Paul had to draw on other Abrahamic traditions which would overrule those parts of the common memory of Abraham that did not support his position. The paradigmatic text that Paul uses to support his claims is Gen 15:6: “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Rom 4:3). Since Paul mentions only Abraham’s belief as leading to righteousness he excluded other stories from entering the picture, particularly circumcision. Romans 4:11–12 illustrates how memory telling functions. Here Paul raises the daring issue of whether Abraham was circumcised or uncircumcised when he received the blessing of God. By arguing that Abraham’s belief (Gen 15) preceded his circumcision (Gen 17), he claims priority for the former (Rom 4:11). In Rom 4:13–22, Paul redefines ethnic categories by emphasizing that Abraham received righteousness by faith and not the law, he excluded “those of the law,” i. e., Judeans, from becoming heirs of Abraham. Paul does not break with his ethnic group, but includes non-Judeans in the group, though Judeans who are not Christ-believers are excluded. In Rom 4:18–21, Paul introduces a new definition of being a descendant of Abraham: not biology but God’s promise. Since the ancestor is the model of character for his descendants, Abraham’s descendants were those who shared his main characteristic: “faith.” In Rom 4, Paul essentially breaks down the ethnic divisions between Jews and Gentiles.

Later New Testament Writings David E. Aune explores “John’s Prophetic Commission and the People of the World (Rev 10:8–11).” In this essay, the author examines the role of Christian prophecy in the mission of the early church. While the Revelation of John is typically regarded as belonging to the apocalypse genre, it also has similarities

14

David E. Aune

to the later prophetic books of the Old Testament, which some have categorized as proto-apocalyptic or as prophetic apocalypses. In Revelation, John directs a prophetic message of salvation, not only to the people of God (in this case believers in Christ), but also to the people of the world, whether Jews or Gentiles. The author regarded himself as a prophet, evident in the presence of two prophetic commissions, one to Christian congregations (1:9–20), and the other to the people of the world (10:8–11). The prophetic call narrative in Rev 10:8–11 was based on Ezek 2:8–3:4, where Ezekiel uses the metaphor of a scroll for his prophetic message, the form the author gives to Revelation, which conveys his prophetic message. The focus of John’s prophetic call in Rev 10:8–11 is found in v. 11: “And I was told, ‘You must again prophesy about many peoples and nations and tongues and kings.’” This polysyndetic list has six close parallels elsewhere in Revelation. Revelation 5:9 will serve as an example: Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain and by your blood did ransom for God [people] from every tribe and tongue and people and nation [ἐκ πάσης φ υλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους] and made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.

Here the author uses four overlapping ethnic categories to summarize the people of the world who have responded to the gospel who constitute the new people of God, whether Jew or Gentile. In Rev 10:11, God commands the author to prophecy “about many peoples and nations and tongues and kings.” This list of four overlapping categories of people of the world is found seven times in Revelation. An examination of each of these seven passages reveals that some, though by no means all, of the people of the world will respond to the proclamation of the gospel and become followers of Jesus. Though there are many instances in which people of the world do not repent when they experience divine punishment, there are also instances in which people see the light and repent of their evil ways to become followers of the Lamb (11:13). Revelation was written to Christians who needed to learn that salvation was divinely intended for all people and all who respond with repentance and belief will become part of the people of God. In “‘Like Newborn Infants’: The Readers of 1 Peter as Newly Converted Christians,” Torrey Seland focuses on three texts in 1 Peter arguing that the readers addressed in the letter are recent converts who are still in process of being socialized to the Christian world view. The author agrees with Ramsay Michaels that the readers of 1 Peter are those implied or presumed by the author. The readers, who include both men and women, slaves and children, are presumed to have experienced some sort of social ostracism and have endured some kind of harassment. Some of these people are relatively wealthy and they have some knowledge of the stories found in the Hebrew Bible. The author asks whether the implied readers have been Christians for a relatively

Introduction

15

long time or perhaps for just a few years and examined three relevant passages to shed light on this issue: 1 Pet 1:12, 25; 4:3–4 and 2:1–3. In 1 Pet 1:12, 25, the readers are presented as having been recently evangelized. The author presupposes that the readers have been exposed to the preaching of the Word and by positively responding to this message became Christians. The message proclaimed was anchored in the Jewish Scriptures and emphasized the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. In 1 Pet 1:12, 25, the author twice uses the verb εὐαγγελίζω, one of the more common terms for the basic proclamation of the gospel. The author does not reveal the identity of those who proclaimed the gospel to the readers, though several proposals have been made: (1) Peter himself or some of his coworkers, (2) some members of the community may have heard the gospel in Jerusalem at the Pentecost event narrated in Acts 2 and brought it back to the community, (3) the Christians in the area may have been converted through the efforts of Paul or his coworkers or (4) the Christians addressed may have been deported from Rome by the emperor Claudius. Whatever the merits of these possibilities, the author regarded the recipients as first rather than second generation Christians. In 1 Pet 4:2–3 the author reveals some of the social consequences of the readers’ conversion to a new faith. The fact that their neighbors were surprised by the new type of social behavior which these converts were exhibiting again suggests that their conversion occurred relatively recently. First Peter 4:3–4 contains a stereotypical list of vices which characterized their previous lifestyle. J. H. Elliott has suggested that drinking parties such as those suggested in 1 Pet 4:2–3, could have taken place at meetings of clubs and associations. The conflicts which they were experiencing could have arisen because of their withdrawal from such social contexts. Since non-Christians are described as surprised by their behavior, this is another indication that they were recent converts. First Peter 2:1–3 describes the readers as newborn infants who long for pure spiritual milk, a metaphor which suggests that the author regards the readers metaphorically as children who had experienced conversion relatively recently.

Early Christianity Reidar Hvalvik discusses “Mass Conversions, Persecutions and Church Growth: Critical Reflections on the Rapid Expansion of the Church during the First Three Centuries.” The movement that would eventually be called “Christianity” began as a small group within first century Judaism. Three hundred years later, Christianity had spread throughout the Roman Empire and had become the religion favored by the Roman emperor. The growth of Christianity is nothing short of astonishing. For historian Ramsay MacMullen, the phenomenon of mass conversions is necessary to explain the phenomenal growth of early Christianity. MacMullen also alluded to the famous adage of Tertullian that the blood

16

David E. Aune

of the martyrs was the seed of the church and ask how that worked. In this essay, Hvalvik examines the two phenomena which many believe led to the growth of early Christianity, mass conversions and persecution. Acts mentions the conversion of large groups of Jews to Christianity; three thousand in Acts 2:41 and five thousand in Acts 4:4; later in Acts, James mentions the fact that there are many thousands believers among the Jews (21:20). These numbers are often dismissed by historians as pious exaggerations in part because that would mean that a large portion of the population of Jerusalem would have been Christians. Hvalvik asks whether it makes any sense to speak of “thousands” of converts and asks what is known of the population of Jerusalem. Estimates run from 60,000 to 120,000 with the influx of pilgrim during Jewish holy days running from 125,000 to 400,000. With these possible figures in mind Hvalvik judges that 3,000 converts makes some sense. He argues, rightly, that both the terms “Christianity” and “conversion” are anachronistic; “Christianity” was not widely used for the followers of Jesus until the mid-second century, and the Jews to whom the apostles proclaimed the gospel were asked to “repent” not “convert.” Those who responded to the message “reaffiliated” with a subgroup within Judaism. Given the relationship between the 3,000 people who accept the message of Peter on the day of Pentecost and the numbers of those Jews and proselytes who might have been present in Jerusalem (from 185,000 to 380,000), the number of new believers is not at all unreasonable. While “mass conversions” hardly occurred it is entirely possible that a considerable number responded positively to the message of the apostles. Second and third century Christian authors often adopt a triumphalist tone when speaking of the great number of believers there were throughout the Roman Empire despite persecution by the authorities. Hvalvik mentions the fact that there are no impartial sources to help us understand the effect that persecution had on the growth and expansion of Christianity. For outsiders, Christian martyrs were unpatriotic fanatics who threatened social order. Though Christianity was not a legal religion, there is evidence that Roman officials acted relatively reasonably with Christians who refused to sacrifice to the emperors. There is no convincing evidence that during the second and third centuries persecutions, which happened only rarely, were actually good for the church. It is also important to remember that the church experienced backsliding and apostasy. During the persecution under Decius (249–251) many Christians sacrificed to the Roman gods, avoided sacrifice by various means or bribed Roman officials. The persecution under Decius produced both martyrs and apostates. The negative consequences of persecution were much greater than the positive consequences. Karl Olav Sandnes has contributed an essay on “Households and the Exodus: A Note on Infant Baptism in the Early Church,” focusing on whether household baptism included infants. The two opposing positions on the baptism of

Introduction

17

infants are represented by Joachim Jeremias who argued for the practice in the early church and Kurt Aland who argued against it. Both agreed that the first extant evidence appears in the early third century CE. Sandnes asks whether Jewish sources reflect a corporate conception of salvation including children and whether that notion was adopted by early Christians in their discussion of infant baptism. This issue was prompted by the so-called household formula in Acts and the relevance of 1 Cor 10:1–2: “Our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptised into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” Sandnes asks whether Paul draws upon a potential analogy that exceeds the actual use he makes of the Exodus in 1 Cor 10 and thus attests to the presence of a Scriptural pattern that could include children. Feminist studies have demonstrated that marginal groups, like women and children, are almost invisible in the sources. The baptism of households is mentioned six times in Acts, none of which mention women, children or slaves. The wider meaning of οἶκος (“household”) suggests that children are not excluded is found in contemporary Greco-Roman and Jewish sources. In 1 Cor 10:1–5, Paul summarizes the Exodus story in which they key elements (the guiding and protecting cloud and the crossing of the Red Sea) are summarised in the term: ἐβαπτίσθησαν. The phrase “our fathers,” who experienced the Exodus, cannot be taken to exclude either women or children. Sandnes then turns to the theme of the Exodus and children in Jewish tradition (Wis 10:21; Isa 40:11). Though infants are not mentioned explicitly, their presence during the Exodus is assumed, particularly in Philo’s version of the event (Mos. 1.179). Based on Exod 15:1, a tradition of the participation of children in the Exodus is reflected in many Jewish sources. Sandnes then asks if children were included in early Christian interpretations of the Exodus, since the crossing of the Red Sea was understood as a paradigm of baptismal theology and practice. According to Origin, what the Jews understood as a crossing of the sea, Paul calls baptism (1 Cor 5:17). Origen’s justification of infant baptism has no clear connection with his reading of the crossing of the Red Sea; the presence of children at the Exodus event has no relevance for Origen to the question of infant baptism. The author concludes that it is likely that some early Christians baptised infants, while others did not. The story of the Exodus, Sandnes argues, was thought to include the presence of infants. Though the author expected to find an emphasis on the presence of infants in the interpretation of the Exodus found in Origen and Cyprian, both advocates of infant baptism in the early church, he found that these fathers connected infant baptism with other biblical texts. Finally, Oskar Skarsaune has contributed an essay on “Mapping ‘πάντα τὰ ἔθνη’: The Geographical Horizon of Early Christian Mission.” Skarsaune focuses on the question of how early Christians imagined the shape of the earth and the land on it. Taking the gospel to “all the nations” (Matt 28:19) or to the

18

David E. Aune

“end of the earth” (Acts 1:8) evoked concrete images of landscapes and peoples that were on maps of the known world. The Christian mission was concerned with maps from the beginning, particularly ancient Jewish texts which mapped the world and its inhabitants, e. g., the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 and Jubilees 8–9. Genesis 10 is in the context of Gen 12:1–3, which promised blessing to all the peoples of the earth through Abraham and his offspring. Genesis 10 describes who these people are in a genealogical scheme consisting of a list of seventy nations, many named after their lands and cities of fictional forefathers. The world has a tripartite structure, named after the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth, who settled in the north (the sons of Japheth), south (the Hamites) and east (the Shemites). Japheth’s sons (10:2–5) include Gomer (the Greek Kimmerians), Magog (“land of Gog,” perhaps Asia Minor), possibly referring to Gyges (= Gog) the king of Lydia. Gog is the overlord of Tubal (Cilicia) and Meshech (Phrygia). Gyges ruled more or less over Asia Minor. Javan (Greek Ionia) were the people of the Aegean islands and the Aegean coast of Asia Minor. Tarshish is the western limit of the inhabited world north of the Mediterranean. The sons of Ham (10:6–20) were Cush, Egypt, Put (Libya) and Canaan, organized from south to north. The Israelites traced their genealogy through Shem, the first son of Noah and Abraham descended from the line through Eber and his son Peleg. Shem’s descendants included Elam (Persia), Asshur (Assyria), Arpachshad (probably Babylonia), Lud (probably Lydia). The world map in Jubilees 8:10–9:15 was written during the mid-second century BCE, reflecting the inner-Judean conflicts of the Hasmonean period. While the distribution of peoples and lands in Gen 10 is simply stated as a fact, Jubilees tells the story of how the distribution of peoples and lands came about, i. e., they were arranged on the basis of a divinely sanctioned document written by Noah. Unlike Gen 10, Jubilees describes the locations and boundaries of the different peoples with relative specificity. Jubilees followed an Ionian cartographic tradition in which the earth was represented as a disc surrounded by Ocean, with Delphi in the center. However, Jubilees replaced Delphi with Jerusalem. The Ionian map conceived of the earth as a cylinder surrounded by a circular ocean rim on the top end of the cylinder After Plato and Aristotle, the idea of a globular earth gradually triumphed. Jubilees inserted Gen 10 into this Ionian conception, simplifying it by mentioning only of Noah’s sons and grandsons. The New Testament text with the most allusions to Gen 10–11 is Acts 2:9–11, part of the Pentecost story, suggesting that it is an important subtext for Acts 2:9–11. In Gen 11, the seventy nations are dispersed throughout the world, while in Acts 2, people from every nation visit Jerusalem. In Gen 11, people shared one language, but after being dispersed they could not understand each other; in Acts 2, divided tongues were given to the apostles, so that everyone present could understand the languages spoken. Acts 2: 9–11 contains its own mini-table of nations.

Theology for the Church, Its Mission and the Christian Life The Scholarly Profile of Professor Hans Kvalbein (1942–2013) Reidar Hvalvik Hans Kvalbein was born in Oslo 7th of April 1942 and grew up in a family with five resourceful brothers. Among other things, the home was characterized by a great interest in music, and Hans became a capable violinist. It is not impossible that he could have become a professional musician, as his younger brother did 1 – if he had chosen this career. Instead he chose theology, but brought with him the violin for entertainment in various social settings. He graduated from high school with top marks in 1960 and started to study theology at MF Norwegian School of Theology 2 (in Norwegian: Det teologiske Menighetsfakultet). At that time MF had similarities with a seminary, since the great majority of students would become pastors in the Church of Norway, but the study was on the same academic level as at the faculty of theology, the University in Oslo, and lasted for six years (plus an extra year with practical theology). Kvalbein had no intention of becoming a pastor, but was deeply interested in theology in order to have a better knowledge of the basis of his Christian faith. After graduation in 1966, again with the best possible marks, 3 he studied classical Greek and underwent compulsory military service as a chaplain (though not ordained). He was a research fellow at MF in 1969–1971 before he received a scholarship from the Alexander von Humboldt foundation (1971–1972). After a short period as acting assistant professor at MF (autumn 1972 – spring 1973), he was awarded a three-year scholarship from the Norwegian Research Council for Science and the Humanities (1973–1976). He was engaged as assistant professor at MF in 1976, earned a doctorate in theology at the University of Oslo in 1981 and became professor in the New Testament at MF in 1985. After teaching at the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Hong Kong (1985–1986), he continued as professor at MF until his retirement in 2011. He died the 19th of December 2013, at the age of 71. The following is an attempt to draw a picture of Hans Kvalbein, by presenting a selection of his publications – especially those written in Norwegian and thus 1

Aage Kvalbein (b. 1947) is cellist and a professor in cello at the Norwegian Academy of Music. Earlier called “The Free Faculty of Theology” in English. MF is an abbreviation for (part of) the Norwegian name (“Menighetsfakultetet”), nowadays so well-known that it is more or less used as a name. 3 “Laudable with recommendation” (Latin: laudabilis cum litteris commendatitiis). This was earlier the best possible grade in connection with a higher university degree. The name of the candidate was reported to the King of Norway. 2

20

Reidar Hvalvik

less available for a foreign readership. Special focus will be given to the broader context (in the church, academia and society of Norway) which stimulated or prompted his writing. Besides, attention will be given to the most consistent traits in Kvalbein’s scholarship and commitment.

The Bible as Authority and Object of Research Kvalbein was a gifted scholar and an excellent pedagogue. He was eager and exceptionally able to instruct future pastors, ordinary church members and those in charge of the religious education in the schools. This is reflected by the fact that he has written extensively in Norwegian, always in a popular, readable style. In his mother tongue he published numerous articles and some commentaries and introductions to the books of the New Testament. 4 For almost three decades his two volume commentary on Matthew (published 1989 and 1990) has been a standard commentary in Norway, read by a large number of students and pastors. This commentary was the fruit of his lectures on Matthew for undergraduate students at the “Institute for Christian Education,” where he was teaching for several years. This institute was a department at MF for students who would become teachers in religious education in the primary and secondary school. 5 His interest in religious education, which focused on Christianity in Norwegian schools until 1997, 6 is also reflected in his many articles in the journal Prismet – initially with the subtitle “Journal for School and Home.” 7 As early as 1973 he published a lecture in this journal that in many ways indicates Kvalbein’s personal and professional commitments. The title was “The Bible Crisis in Theology and in School.” 8 He characterized it as a crisis that arises in the Christian church “when the Bible no longer is read and understood as the word of God. Then the church has lost its authority; it is like a ship without compass and without rudder. Such a ship will never reach its goal.” 9 These words reveal a reverence for the Bible, which obviously was part of the heritage from his pietistic and low-church background. His theological studies forced him, however, to reflect about the nature of the Bible and its authority, and early in his career as a research fellow, he wrote an article about that topic, questioning the (orthodox Lutheran) theory of verbal inspiration, which, ac4

For further details, see the bibliography at the end of this volume. In Norwegian: Institutt for kristendomskunnskap. This department was established in 1967. 6 Cf. the German “Christentumskunde.” 7 The journal is published by IKO – Church Educational Centre in Oslo, established in 1945 as an independent institution, with special focus on the religious education in schools. 8 “Bibelkrisen i teologien og i skolestua,” Prismet 24 (1973): 257–260, 262–269. All translations from Norwegian publications are my own. 9 “Bibelkrisen,” 257. 5

Theology for the Church, Its Mission and the Christian Life

21

cording to him, lacks a real basis in the Bible itself. 10 More in line with the New Testament is a focus on the historical reliability of the Scriptures, the apostolic authorization, and the uniqueness and exclusivity of “the reality of revelation” 11 which the New Testament conveys. “We have no other historical trustworthy access to this reality of revelation, or better: to this person, the incarnated, crucified and resurrected Jesus Christ, than the New Testament writings. ... The Christian faith is, as faith in the incarnation, directed to the oldest historical sources, that is to the New Testament, and through the New Testament also to the Old Testament.” 12 In this way the Bible becomes the only valid authority in the church. It may be interesting to note that Kvalbein already as a student carried forward a critical view of the theory of verbal inspiration when he (in the lowchurch journal Fast Grunn) had an interview with the German Professor Walter Künneth. 13 The topic was the new confession movement in Germany, and Künneth was asked about possible problems for the movement. He answered, with reference to the pietistic movements: “One has to beware of falling back to a primitive doctrine about a verbal inspiration, namely that every word in Scripture is dictated by the Holy Spirit and thus inerrant.” 14 In the article “The Bible Crisis in Theology and in School,” Kvalbein focused positively on the authority of the Bible, giving attention to three areas: a) the trustworthiness of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, b) the miracle stories, and c) the historical Jesus. With regard to the first question, he stressed that even in the classroom we have to speak about the Bible as the word of God, without denying that it is a historical document, written by many different people over a long period of time. He admitted that “the Bible is filled with problems and stumbling blocks for both faith and thought,” and stressed the necessity to consider God’s revelation in the Old Testament as temporary and advancing; it records a preparatory salvation history that finds its conclusion in Jesus Christ.

10 “Kan inspirasjonstanken begrunne skriftens autoritet?” [Does the Idea of Inspiration Give Reasons for the Authority of Scripture?], Ung Teologi 3.1 (1970): 9–18. Twenty-seven years later Kvalbein published an article in German which – at least to a certain extent – may be seen as a revised and enlarged version of the Norwegian article: “Die Inspirationslehre und die Autorität der Heiligen Schrift,” in Dein Wort ist die Wahrheit: Festschrift für Gerhard Maier: Beiträge zu einer schriftgemässen Theologie (ed. Eberhard Hahn, Rolf Hille and Heinz-Werner Neudorfer; Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1997), 51–64. 11 “Reality of revelation” is a rendering of the Norwegian “åpenbaringsvirklighet” = the German “Offenbarungswirklichkeit” – not easily translated into English. 12 “Kan inspirasjonstanken begrunne skriftens autoritet?” 17–18. 13 Professor in systematic theology in Erlangen 1953–1969. 14 “‘Intet annet evangelium!’ En samtale med lederen for den nye bekjennelsesbevegelsen i Tyskland, professor Dr. Walter Künneth” [‘No Other Gospel!’ A Conversation with the Leader of the New Confession Movement in Germany, Professor Dr. Walter Künneth], Fast Grunn 18 (1966): 201–207, 207.

22

Reidar Hvalvik

For that reason we need to have a certain distance to the Old Testament, recognizing that it contains much that does not have any relevance for us. 15 Concerning the miracle stories, Kvalbein criticized both the medieval understanding of the miracles as evidence for the divinity of Christ and the modern existentialist theology which dismisses the historicity of the miracles. The miraculous element is vital for the Christian faith since it depends on the greatest of all miracles – the resurrection of Christ, understood as a historical event (cf. 1 Cor 15:14). 16 The last question – about the historical Jesus – was, according to Kvalbein, probably the most central point in the current crisis in relation to the Bible because here we are talking about “the crucial question for all church-related preaching and teaching: Who was Jesus really?” 17 Kvalbein illustrated the crisis with reference to current trends in German theology, represented in Norway by the New Testament Professor Jacob Jervell, of the University of Oslo, who in a series of radio programs, among other things, had questioned the virgin birth, Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem and some of his miracles. In addition he denied that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God or the Messiah, and that he did not think about his own death as an atonement for the sins of all people. Kvalbein commended Jervell for stressing other aspects of Jesus: as the friend of the ostracized and sinners, calling people to discipleship and compassionate commitment towards their neighbors. The problem is that these aspects are emphasized at the expense of central parts of the New Testament witness about Christ, such as Jesus being the fulfillment of Old Testament promises and that he came to atone for the sins of the world. 18 Kvalbein was eager to stress that this modern picture of the historical Jesus was not the result of historical research on the sources alone. In other words, the reality is not that scholarship and learning stand against belief, but rather “scholarship against scholarship and belief against belief.” 19 Considering the search for the historical Jesus, Kvalbein underscored the fact that the four Gospels are the only relevant sources for painting a picture of Jesus. If someone wants to present another picture which deviates significantly from that given in the Gospels, there are two possibilities: reduction or speculation. Reduction means deleting certain aspects of the Jesus of the Gospels, claiming them to be historical unreliable. The result is a “reduced Jesus.” Speculation means to add some ideas about how Jesus should and “must” have been, often reflecting a certain world-view and agenda. 15

“Bibelkrisen,” 263 “Bibelkrisen,” 264–265. 17 “Bibelkrisen,” 265. 18 So already in “Forskerferden og de ubesvarte spørsmål” [The Research Quest and the Unanswered Questions], Luthersk kirketidende 105 (1970): 170–175. 19 “Bibelkrisen,” 266. 16

Theology for the Church, Its Mission and the Christian Life

23

Kvalbein’s own conclusion was that a sober historical research in reality has limited possibilities to get behind the Jesus of the Gospels. Some details may be corrected, especially in those cases where the Gospels contradict each other, such as the dating of the cleansing of the Temple or the dating of the day of the death of Jesus. But generally we can trust the picture of Jesus found in the Gospels, which is the oldest and most authentic source “for knowledge about Jesus and belief in him.” 20 Even though Kvalbein early in his career wrote two articles on Paul and a popular commentary on 2 Corinthians, 21 his main scholarly interest came to be (the historical) Jesus and his message, a tone set already in the article referred to above.

German Theology and the Historical Jesus It is difficult if not impossible to understand Kvalbein’s career without referring to German theology. During his days as a theological student many of the textbooks were German, and almost all trendsetting theologians were from Germany. Aspiring students therefore went to German universities. Kvalbein’s first study abroad was in Erlangen (1963–1964); later he went to Tübingen several times for shorter and longer periods (in 1966, 22 1971–1972, 1974). The first indication of his contact with German theology came in the abovementioned interview with Professor Walter Künneth (1966), three years later in an article on the theological position of Künneth, being one of the foremost opponents of Rudolf Bultmann and his program for “demythologizing” the New Testament. 23 Bultmann (and his disciples) contended that only faith in the kerygma of the New Testament was necessary for Christian faith, not any facts regarding the historical Jesus; in reality the New Testament shows no interest in history. Consequently the Gospels do not give access to the historical Jesus, only to the kerygma of the early church. Against this position Künneth emphasized that the Christian kerygma was concerned about history; it can be seen as a report about facts, because God’s revelation has taken place in historical events. Kvalbein concludes: “It is the relation to history which is the burning issue in modern theology. When kerygmatic theology will erase the connection

20

“Bibelkrisen,” 267. See the bibliography at the end of this volume, under the years 1969, 1970 and 1973. 22 This stay (Summer 1996) and the earlier one in Erlangen were financed by Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD). 23 In this article Kvalbein tries to summarize the main points in Künneth’s two books Glauben an Jesus? Die Begegnung der Christologie mit der modernen Existenz (1962) and Entscheidung heute: Jesu Auferstehung – Brennpunkt der theologischen Diskussion (1966). 21

24

Reidar Hvalvik

between the kerygma and factual history, the distinctiveness of the Christian faith is threatened.” 24 There can be little doubt that Kvalbein identified himself with Künneth’s position. In 1970 Jacob Jervell voiced a moderate version of German critical scholarship in the abovementioned radio programs, by questioning the historicity of certain events recorded in the Gospels. He was met with opposition from pastors and professors 25 and Kvalbein wrote a critical article in Luthersk kirketidende, a church magazine aimed primarily at pastors in the Church of Norway. Among the issues he discussed was the “function” of the historical Jesus. “The historical Jesus” can be understood in three different ways: 1) The Jesus of “neutral” historical research, 2) The “real Jesus,” or 3) The “normative” Jesus. The first of these, found through secular historical methods, is of little or no interest for the church since it has no place for miracles and events without analogies. When the historical Jesus is conceived as the “real” Jesus, he is offered as an alternative to the “dogmatic” Jesus found in the Gospels. When this happens, a question immediately arises: Which of the two should be preached in the church? This leads to the third Jesus – the “historical” Jesus as the “normative” Jesus. Kvalbein quotes Jervell saying that the Jesus of the confessions and dogmas does not reach people of today but the historical Jesus has the possibility to reach people right through the centuries. As Jervell says in his book about the historical Jesus: “Today it seems necessary to ‘reduce’ something of what we have in the church, and then by all power and ability to picture the Jesus of history, the man without identity.” 26 Jacob Jervell responded to the criticism by directing many questions to Kvalbein – as Kvalbein had done to Jervell. 27 Jervell upheld the possibility of creating a picture of Jesus before and “behind” the Gospels, though he admitted that the possibility is limited. Among other things, he directs two critical remarks to Kvalbein. First, Kvalbein seems to presuppose that there is “one unified and simplified picture of Jesus” in the New Testament. Second, “for Kvalbein history seems to have stood still between Jesus and the writing of the Gospels.” 28 Kvalbein’s reply to Jervell made clear that the two debaters to a large extent had different agendas. To be noted is Kvalbein’s concluding remarks about the historical-critical method used in gospel research:

24

“Tro på Jesus,” 335. Most notably Edvin Larsson’s essay “Jomfrufødselen” [Virgin Birth] in the newspaper Aftenposten, March 13, 1970. 26 Jacob Jervell, Den historiske Jesus (2nd ed.; Oslo: Land og Kirke, 1969), 93–94. 27 Jacob Jervell, “Kvalbeins ubesvarte spørsmål” [Kvalbein’s Unanswered Questions], Luthersk kirketidende 105 (1970): 266–271. 28 Jervell, “Kvalbeins ubesvarte spørsmål,” 270–271. 25

Theology for the Church, Its Mission and the Christian Life

25

The general historical method, where the principles of analogy and causality are essential critical criteria, must by necessity lead to a levelling of the picture of Jesus in the gospels. If the historical work on the Gospels shall have any theological worth, these principles have to be dethroned, as Jervell commendably does with regard to the resurrection, though not in other parts of the picture of Jesus in the Gospels. 29

The focus on Jesus and his message occupied Kvalbein through his whole life. His last major contribution was his Jesus book from 2008 – with the title (in English translation): Jesus – What Would He Do? Who Was He? An Introduction to the Message of the Three First Gospels. 30 The title and the whole arrangement of the book immediately stimulated some discussion within the New Testament department at MF. 31 Was this a book about the historical Jesus and his “selfunderstanding” or, as the subtitle indicates, about the picture of Jesus and his message according to the three Synoptic Gospels? The tension in the title is not, however, a mistake. It reflects the author’s understanding of the relation between the historical figure Jesus from Nazareth and the Synoptic Gospels. Kvalbein writes that there is “no big gap between what the Gospels record and what Jesus said and did.” This assertion is justified with a reference to Jewish society, which had great respect for tradition: 32 “The handing over of the words of Jesus and the stories about him took place in a milieu where the audience could control what was told them, and they would have reacted if they found great deviations between the different representations.” 33 To a certain extent this may be correct. But what about the Gospel of John? Is not its very existence like a bomb under Kvalbein’s harmonizing model, since it gives a representation of Jesus, which in many ways is very different from that of the Synoptics? 34 With regard to the Synoptic Gospels, Kvalbein claims that the similarities between them are so great that it justifies a unified representation of the life and message of Jesus based on the three first Gospels. Such an arrangement is not meant to be an alternative to separate treatments of the theology of each of the Synoptics, but it is better suited to give a unified and comprehensive picture of Jesus and his message. The presupposition is of course that there is one common theological perspective behind the Synoptics. That this is the case,

29

“Svar til Jacob Jervell” [Reply to Jacob Jervell], Luthersk kirketidende 105 (1970): 291–295, 294. Jesus: Hva ville han? Hvem var han? En innføring i de tre første evangelienes budskap (Oslo: Luther forlag, 2008). 31 The most outspoken critic was Geir Otto Holmås (who wrote a doctoral dissertation on LukeActs), at that time associate professor at MF and lecturing on the Synoptic Gospels. 32 Here Kvalbein has a general reference to the research of Birger Gerhardsson (1961), Rainer Riesner (1981) and Samuel Byrskog (1994). 33 Kvalbein, Jesus, 38. 34 Cf. Mogens Müller’s review of the book in Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 81 (2010): 68–69. In his view the later Gospels are conscious theological attempts to rewrite the story about Jesus – which means that John only seems to stand out. 30

26

Reidar Hvalvik

Kvalbein thinks can be proved by the fact that both Matthew and Luke have based their Gospels on Mark. 35 There is certainly no reason for overemphasizing the differences between the Synoptic Gospels; they unquestionably have very much in common. On the other hand, there are also differences, and both Matthew and Luke made changes in Mark’s text, and made independent marks on the tradition. These facts more or less disappear in Kvalbein’s model. One wonders if this missing focus on each separate gospel is a reflection of a deep-rooted suspicion towards redaction criticism, found e. g. thirty years earlier in a review of one of Jervell’s books. There Kvalbein concentrates on the chapter on redaction criticism, and questions what the author writes about “diverging theologies” in the New Testament. He concludes by maintaining that it is difficult to find room for the “doctrinal unity in the NT” in what Jervell writes about redaction criticism. 36 This may correspond to Kvalbein’s view that theology should serve the church (see below). Speaking about divergent theologies does not do that. Let us return to Kvalbein’s assertion that there is “no big gap between what the Gospels record and what Jesus said and did.” At least there is a time gap. In his review of Kvalbein’s book the Swedish New Testament scholar Tord Fornberg observes that Kvalbein barely asks critical questions about how the Jesus tradition developed; in other words, what happened during the 30–50 years before the Gospels were fixed? Besides he finds methodological shortcomings, for example with regard to judgments about historicity. 37 Similar shortcomings are also mentioned in Gunnar Johnstad’s thorough (and in many ways positive) review of the book. 38 According to Kvalbein it is necessary to undertake a historical evaluation of the Gospels, and he says that he “is open for direct source criticism in the cases where they contradict each other or are contradicted by other sources, for example, in the dating of the day Jesus died before or after Easter.” 39 Besides he is skeptical to the historicity of Matt 27:51–53 (about the opening of graves when Jesus died) because the other Gospels are silent about these remarkable events. He concludes that it probably is best to understand this notice as “a theological interpretation of Jesus’ death and resurrection in the form of a narrative. Jesus’ death is a victory over the death!” 40 In this connec35

Kvalbein, Jesus, 35–36. Review of Jacob Jervell, Da fremtiden begynte: Om urkristendommens tro og tenkning (2nd enl. ed.; 1976), Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 49 (1978): 226–227. 37 Cf. Tord Fornberg’s review of the book in SEÅ 76 (2011): 256–258, 258. In spite of much valuable material about the Synoptic Gospels and its background, Fornberg stresses the author’s methodological weakness (256–257). 38 Gunnar Johnstad, “Hans Kvalbeins synoptiske bibelteologi – en milepæl i norsk nytestamentlig teologi” [Hans Kvalbein’s Synoptic Biblical Theology – A Milestone in Norwegian New Testament Theology], Luthersk kirketidende 144 (2009): 418–422. 39 Kvalbein, Jesus, 38. 40 Kvalbein, Jesus, 370. 36

Theology for the Church, Its Mission and the Christian Life

27

tion Johnstad asks for an explanation of the criteria used to evaluate something as theological interpretations and expressions, and other things as “historical events.” 41 Further Johnstad notes that Kvalbein in the last part of his book asks what kind of picture the Synoptics give of “Jesus’ view of himself ” and if this picture can be traced back to Jesus. In the main Kvalbein answers this question in the affirmative. When Kvalbein in this connection talks about the “self-understanding of Jesus” (p. 216), what does he mean? Is this the self-understanding of the “historical Jesus” or the evangelists’ interpretation of it? Generally Johnstad finds it unsatisfactory that Kvalbein neglects to discuss the methodological questions which arise when one attempts to reconstruct the self-understanding of a person living 2000 years ago, and that he even uses terms like “selfimage,” “self-consciousness,” and “self-understanding” without differentiation and definition. 42 Though Kvalbein’s book provides a lot of important information about the Synoptic Gospels and their background, historical and methodological questions remain unsolved.

Jesus and the Poor As should be evident from what is written above, the young Hans Kvalbein was provoked and challenged by current German New Testament scholarship, represented in particular by Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Käsemann. 43 This does not hinder him from studying in Tübingen where Käsemann was professor (1959–1971). In fact, it was a conscious choice. According to Rune Slagstad 44 who studied in Tübingen at the same time, Kvalbein went there to “take on the theological super-ego of Jacob Jervell, Ernst Käsemann, and his disciples.” 45 Back in Norway Jervell played an important role in many public debates. He liked to challenge traditional positions and he often used pointed formulations. The most notorious example is his comments from 1959 on the gospel text on the first Sunday after Trinity, Luke 16:19–31. He made exegetical comments on the text, meant to assist pastors who soon would preach on this passage. Jervell

41 Johnstad, “Hans Kvalbeins synoptiske bibelteologi,” 421. A similar question was asked to Kvalbein by Jervell in 1970: What is the criterion for saying that some events recorded in the Gospels are historical, while others are labelled metaphors? (see Jervell, “Kvalbeins ubesvarte spørsmål,” 267). 42 Johnstad, “Hans Kvalbeins synoptiske bibelteologi,” 421. 43 Notable is also Kvalbein’s critical review of the Norwegian translation of Ernst Käsemann, Der Ruf der Freiheit (1968); English translation: Jesus Means Freedom (1969). Käsemann received an honorary doctorate at the University of Oslo in 1969. 44 A Norwegian historian, philosopher, and legal theorist, born 1945. 45 In an essay in a Norwegian newspaper: “Et forsvar for teologien: Hvor ble den høyere etiske himmelen av?” Klassekampen, June 11, 2011.

28

Reidar Hvalvik

wrote: “Lazarus is brought to the eternal dwellings because he is a poor and suffering man. ... For God his miserable existence is both prayer and repentance good enough.” 46 This led to a somewhat heated debate about the basis for salvation, and it is said that Jervell’s statement was one of the reasons for Kvalbein’s choice of topic for his dissertation – Jesus and the poor. Jervell’s brief comments on Luke 16 are not referred to in Kvalbein’s dissertation, but Jervell is mentioned in the preface among the many with whom the author has discussed parts of the thesis. 47 The dissertation starts with stating a clear purpose: “This dissertation aims at clarifying the relation of Jesus to economically poor people.” 48 It starts with a discussion of the attitude to poor people and words for “poor” in the Old Testament and ancient Judaism, before it treats a wide range of Synoptic texts which in some way or another refer to the “poor.” When Kvalbein comes to Luke 16:19–31, he stresses that the main character in the parable is the rich man, not Lazarus. Both in vv. 19–23 and 24–26 Lazarus appears as a contrasting figure to the rich man. “Consequently it is beside the point to ask the parable why Lazarus was saved. The parable is one-sidedly concerned with the rich man and his destiny, and the text has only one aim – to warn against his way of life on earth and the destiny after death as a result thereof.” 49 From the conclusion of Kvalbein’s dissertation, two points should be accentuated: 1) There is no basis for saying that Jesus was an advocate for improving the conditions of the poor. In other words, he was no social reformer. On the other hand, he uttered harsh words of judgment against the rich who neglected to help fellow humans in need. 50 2) In some programmatic sayings Jesus used the word “poor” for those receiving salvation. This is in line with Isa 61:1–2 and a broad tradition in the Old Testament and ancient Judaism which used the word in a figurative way, without any reference to social and material poverty. 51 The dissertation was publicly defended at the University of Oslo 21st of November 1981, with professors Ragnar Leivestad and Peder Borgen as ordinary opponents. 52 They presented critical remarks to both methodological

46

In the church magazine Kirkebladet 2 (1959): 172. It should also be mentioned that Kvalbein expressed commendation for Jervell’s work on Luke-Acts (cf. Jervell, Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke-Acts, 1972) in the abovementioned review of Jervell’s book Da fremtiden begynte, 227. 48 Kvalbein, Jesus og de fattige: Jesu syn på de fattige og hans bruk av ord for ‘fattig.’ (Oslo: Luther forlag, 1981; 551 pages), 1. In Norwegian Kvalbein here uses the phrase “de sosialt fattige.” 49 Kvalbein, Jesus og de fattige, 251. 50 Kvalbein, Jesus og de fattige, 429. 51 Kvalbein, Jesus og de fattige, 431. 52 “Opponent” is the title of an examiner at a public defense of a thesis in Norway. Some decades ago his /her role was really that of an opponent – presenting (mainly) criticism of the thesis. In other words, the setting and genre required blame rather than praise. The comments from the opponent(s) could be very extensive and earlier it was not unusual that they were published afterwards – 47

Theology for the Church, Its Mission and the Christian Life

29

questions and to several details in the more than 500-page thesis. In the introduction to his treatment of the Synoptic material Kvalbein argues for using both redaction criticism and tradition criticism in order to reveal Jesus’ own view (and possibly even his phraseology); 53 an approach which means that he was searching for “the historical Jesus.” 54 Kvalbein implements this approach, however, only with regard to a few texts, particularly the Beatitudes, with the following result: only three of the nine beatitudes (Matt 5: 3, 4, 6 || Luke 6:20b–21) are authentic (in a form close to Luke’s), but there are reasons to believe that also the fourth beatitude (which Matthew and Luke have in common) is authentic. 55 So far so good, says Leivestad. 56 But he continues: “When he [Kvalbein] by tradition criticism has come to the result that a word cannot be authentic, he argues that it nevertheless can have been uttered by Jesus. If it is not ipsissima verba, it is ipsissima vox.” 57 In other words: on the one hand Kvalbein accepts the terms of tradition and redaction criticism, on the other he seems to disregard his own research results by arguing that all Beatitudes (and woes) are typical for the preaching of Jesus. One cannot have it both ways, says Leivestad. 58 The major criticism of Leivestad is related to Kvalbein’s use of only two alternatives when it comes to the meaning of “poor”: either economically /socially poor or “poor” used figuratively in a religious-ethical sense. He points to the Hebrew word ‫ענִי‬, ָ which is important in Kvalbein’s discussion. About this word Kvalbein writes that it may refer to need and deficiency in many different connections: “It is never contrasted to ‘rich,’ but rather to words describing men of violence or criminals, and refers particularly to a person who suffers wrong and feels weak and helpless, independent of social status.” 59 “Perfectly correct,” says Leivestad, but this means that it is unnecessary to operate with the contrast between literally and figuratively poor, as Kvalbein does. 60 This has consequences at least when the disputation was regarded to be important. In Kvalbein’s case the comments of both ordinary opponents were published (cf. notes 56 and 62 below). 53 Kvalbein, Jesus og de fattige, 168. 54 This fact is stressed in Birger Olsson’s review of the dissertation, entitled “Jesus og de fattige,” Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 53 (1982): 215–219, 219. 55 Kvalbein, Jesus og de fattige, 327–351. 56 Ragnar Leivestad, “Jesus og de fattige: Opposisjonsinnlegg ved doktordisputas 21.11 1981, noe forkortet og lett bearbeidet,” Norsk teologisk tidsskrift 83 (1982): 1–18, 4. 57 Leivestad, “Jesus og de fattige,” 2. 58 Leivestad, “Jesus og de fattige,” 3. Similar criticism came from Halvor Moxnes, “Urkristen sosialhistorie – eller speilbilde av vår egen tid?” Kirke og kultur 87 (1982): 625–636, 627. Moxnes assesses Kvalbein’s dissertation mostly from an ideological and sociological point of view. In his view Kvalbein’s distinction between economically poor and “poor” as a religious designation (with focus on the latter) is very misleading (630) and supports a pietistic form of Christian faith, typical for the Norwegian lay movement in the church (634–635); cf. the title of the review (“Early Christian Social History or a Reflection of Our Own Times?”). He also criticizes Kvalbein for presenting a misleading and harmonized picture of the social realities in Palestine in the first century. 59 Kvalbein, Jesus og de fattige, 17. 60 Leivestad, “Jesus og de fattige,” 4–5.

30

Reidar Hvalvik

for his whole dissertation. A person may be figuratively poor not only in relation to God, but also in relation to people. Too often Kvalbein claims that “poor” must mean helpless and needy in relation to God. 61 Peder Borgen uttered similar criticism. 62 He thinks Kvalbein’s distinction between the religious and economic poor is inadequate especially since the biblical concept of the poor also includes those who suffer the misery of illness, and because the healing of sickness is part of Jesus’ saving ministry. 63 He also comments that Kvalbein’s spiritual /symbolic interpretation of the miracles (e. g., symbolic blindness, deafness and death), comes close to what is going on in John (especially John 9, as recognized by Kvalbein himself): This interpretation “has affinity to the repercussion of the preaching of Jesus found in the gospel of John.” So why is the Fourth Gospel not included? There is nothing in Kvalbein’s stated purpose which hinders that, since he states that he is investigating “Jesus and the movement he started.” 64 Borgen completed his comments by praising Kvalbein for his thorough and solid work, congratulating him with a work which “will leave its mark both nationally and internationally.” 65 Also Birger Olsson expressed hope that the dissertation could “cleanse” both the current debate and the scholarly literature. 66 This would have required a translation of the dissertation into an international language, which never happened. 67 One could easily imagine that Kvalbein would have written his dissertation in German, since he, as already mentioned above, had close contact with German New Testament scholarship, and not only in a negative way. In the preface to his dissertation he reveals that the decisive breakthrough for his research took place when he was in Tübingen and worked at the Institutum Judaicum, made possible by a scholarship from the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung. He also mentions that he received valu-

61

Leivestad, “Jesus og de fattige,” passim. Peder Borgen, “Jesus og de fattige: Opposisjonsinnlegg ved Hans Kvalbeins doktordisputas desember 1981,” Norsk teologisk tidsskrift 83 (1982): 19–32 (strangely enough neither author nor editor seem to have recognized that the month referred to in the subtitle is wrong: December instead of November). 63 Borgen, “Jesus og de fattige,” 28, 30; cf. Johannes Nissen’s review of the book in Dansk teologisk tidsskrift 47 (1984): 70–73, 72. 64 Kvalbein, Jesus og de fattige, 166. For the same reason Leivestad (“Jesus og de fattige,” 2) asks why the letter of James is not treated in the dissertation. The same question is raised in Johannes Nissen’s review (cf. previous note), 71. 65 Borgen, “Jesus og de fattige,” 31. 66 Olsson (“Jesus og de fattige,” 217) characterizes the dissertation as “good exegetical craftsmanship,” and concludes his review by stressing that Kvalbein has shown convincingly that Jesus was no social revolutionary (which had been a popular opinion in some circles), and that Jesus could use the word “poor” figuratively (219). 67 Some of Kvalbein’s points are, however, presented in a short English article: “Jesus and the Poor: Two Texts and a Tentative Conclusion,” Themelios 12 (1987): 80–87. 62

Theology for the Church, Its Mission and the Christian Life

31

able help from professors Otto Michel and Otto Betz, later also from Martin Hengel and Peter Stuhlmacher.

Theology, Church and Personal Life In order to understand Kvalbein’s commitment to the subject of his dissertation, a passage from his preface should be quoted: The issue about Jesus and the poor involves two topics which are of vital importance for the church today and for anyone who will be a disciple of Jesus in a suffering world. The first is the question about a Christian attitude towards those who suffer from material and social need. The second is the question about who Jesus has in mind when he says that ‘the gospel is preached to them’ and when he offers the kingdom of God to the ‘poor.’ ... It is my prayer that this book not only will create interest for the topic, but that it can contribute to a commitment to the calling which comes from the preaching of Jesus. 68

This illustrates a most important aspect in Kvalbein’s scholarly work: it was always related to life, to the life of the church and the individual Christian. The same concern is also seen in the article about the “Bible crisis” referred to above. While many conservative scholars would easily refer to the problems concerning the attitude to the Bible among German scholars, Kvalbein also included “personal factors.” To his original public, a large group of Christian school teachers, he said: We read too little in the Bible, we use it too little and obey it too little. As examples of missing obedience, he mentioned slander among Christians, dishonesty in financial matters and vagueness in questions related to sexual ethics. The clearest example of the Bible crisis is seen when other people’s need is pushed in the background by the way we use our time and money. And last, but not least, obedience towards the Bible implies that we are willing to receive God’s gift in Christ. 69 This way of understanding theology also comes to the fore when Kvalbein, again in an early article, maintains that theology is a servant to the church. 70 He compares theology with medical studies and legal studies, 71 and stresses that theology has the same practical aim as legal studies, which not only will give

68

Jesus og de fattige, preface (unpaginated). “The Bible Crisis,” 268–269. Cf. the conclusion of his article on the inspiration and authority of Scripture: “our attitude to the authority of the Bible is visible more in our practical attitude to the Bible and allegiance and obedience towards its message, than in our theories about Scripture” (“Kan inspirasjonstanken begrunne skriftens autoritet?” 18). 70 “Teologien, ein tenar for kyrkja” [Theology – A Servant for the Church], Syn og Segn 78 (1972): 259–268. 71 It is interesting to note that the above-mentioned Rune Slagstad argues along the same lines in his essay in Klassekampen almost forty years later. 69

32

Reidar Hvalvik

theoretical reflection about what is right in itself, but will lead to practical decisions about right and wrong in a plurality of practical situations offered by life itself. Properly speaking, theology thus has a normative aim. It will not only clarify historically and theoretically what Christian faith has been until now, but also practically and normatively tell what faith is, and how we can believe and live as Christians today. This understanding of the task and aim of theology, Kvalbein had in common with his teacher and predecessor as professor of the New Testament, Sverre Aalen. 72 After Aalen’s death, his colleague at MF, Edvin Larsson wrote an article in his memory. 73 There he commented that Aalen’s knowledge and cleverness always was mobilized for the service of the church, and that the title of a small article he wrote called “Theology shall serve the church,” could be seen as a motto for his whole lifework. 74 It is appropriate to put the same motto over Kvalbein’s life and vocation. Like his teacher he also served the churches in Norway through his work in the Bible Society. 75 Kvalbein was the scholar responsible for the new translation of the New Testament published in 2005 and as chairman of the translation committee (1999–2006) he was also engaged in the preparation of the Old Testament translation, which appeared (together with the NT from 2005) as “Bible 2011.” Bible translation was one of the matters close to Hans Kvalbein’s heart. In many ways he stood in the tradition of Martin Luther, wishing to present the texts in a forceful and popular language, which could be appreciated by a broad public both in and outside the church. A new translation of the Bible is not, however, always met with enthusiasm, especially when well-known words and passages are changed. 76 Typical was all the reactions to the first words in the Lord’s Prayer. The standard version until 2005 was “Fader vår” with an archaic form of “father” in the very beginning, with the implication that the prayer itself was referred to as “Fadervår” (as one single word). This was replaced by “Vår Far” (“Our father”) which is similar to most English and German translations – but something new in Norway.

72 For a short assessment of Sverre Aalen’s research, see Ernst Baasland, “Synthetischer Dualismus in der Bibel: Zur wissenschaftlichen Lebensarbeit Sverre Aalens (1909–1980),” in Sverre Aalen, Heilsverlangen un Heilsverwirklung: Studien zur Erwartung des Heils in der apokalyptischen Literatur des antiken Judentums und im ältesten Christentum (ALGHJ 21; Leiden: Brill, 1990), xi–xxi. 73 “Professor dr. theol. Sverre Aalen 1909–1980,” Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 51 (1980): 97–107. 74 Larsson, “Professor dr. theol. Sverre Aalen,” 107. 75 Aalen was a central figure in the work of the Norwegian Bible Society from 1955 to 1979, e. g., as member of the central executive committee. He was central in the origin of the so-called “Ungdomsoversettelsen” from 1959 (the NT translated for young people), and one of the key persons behind the new translation of the NT in 1975/1978. 76 Cf. Kvalbein, “Nødvendig forandring i Fadervår: svar til Vinje og Sandved” [A Necessary Change in the Lord’s Prayer: Reply to Vinje and Sandved], in Årbok for Den norske kirke 55 (Oslo: Kirkens informasjonstjeneste, 2006), 21–22.

Theology for the Church, Its Mission and the Christian Life

33

Another notable change was the wording of the sixth petition in the Lord’s Prayer. In earlier Norwegian translation the prayer was rendered as in most English translations: “And lead us not into temptation” (RSV; Norwegian: “Og led oss ikke inn i fristelse”). As is well known, πειρασµός can mean both “temptation” and “trial /test.” By the translation “temptation” one seems to come in conflict with James 1:13, 77 a problem solved by the NRSV in the following way: “And do not bring us to the time of trial.” Kvalbein and his team chose another solution by rewriting the prayer: “Og la oss ikke komme i fristelse” (“And let us not come into temptation”) – obviously inspired by Jesus’ word “pray that you may not enter into temptation” (Matt 26:41; Luke 22:40 RSV) and – at least to a certain extent – chosen out of consideration for pastoral care. 78 Some critics questioned, among other things, this consideration and the “harmonization” with James 1:13 – since one of the principles of the translation was to be as close as possible to the Greek text, its forms and metaphors. 79 As one critic wrote, one should take seriously that the Greek text is “grammatically simple but theologically perplexing,” 80 as the traditional rendering illustrates. Others pointed out the liturgical and ecumenical problems by using a form of the Lord’s Prayer that differed from the most common form of the prayer. 81 Another important, but seemingly less controversial change in the New Testament translation from 2005 was the (almost general) replacement of “brødre” (“brothers”) with the gender inclusive “søsken” (“siblings”) when referring to Christian believers. When the whole Bible appeared in new translation in 2011, it was generally well received, but there are always details that can be discussed. This time one of the critics was Hans Kvalbein, questioning the correctness of talking about people blessing (Norwegian: “velsigne”) God. In his view, only God can bless;

77 “No one, when tempted, should say, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one” (NRSV). 78 Kvalbein defended this translation in the article “Fadervårs sjette bønn” [The Sixth Petition in the Lord’s Prayer], Luthersk kirketidende 147 (2012): 241–242. In the same volume of Luthersk kirketidende there are several articles criticizing this translation; see the following notes. 79 See especially Gunnar Innerdal, “Gud er den som leder” [God is the One Who Leads], Luthersk kirketidende 147 (2012): 216–217 and “Gud bærer oss fortsatt” [God Still Carries Us], ibid., 298–300 and Jan Sogstad, “Gud frister ingen, men han setter oss på prøve” [God Tempts No One, But He Puts Us to Test], ibid., 452–454. 80 So Innerdal (“Gud bærer oss fortsatt,” 298), borrowing an expression from James Charlesworth. 81 See Bjørn Sandvik, “Uro og forvirring om Herrens bønn” [Concern and Confusion about the Lord’s Prayer], Luthersk kirketidende 147 (2012): 213 and “Liturgisk forvirring” [Liturgical Confusion], ibid., 297. Kvalbein wrote an answer to both Innerdal and Sandvik, see Kvalbein, “Svar til Sandvik og Innerdal” [Reply to Sandvik and Innerdal], Luthersk kirketidende 147 (2012): 318–319. His answer hardly solved the case.

34

Reidar Hvalvik

people can praise God, not bless him. 82 Representatives for the Bible Society defended the choice, e. g. by referring to the fact that “blessing” God is common in many other languages. 83 In modern Norwegian it is not. 84 Even if Kvalbein’s objections were not followed in this case, it demonstrated how important it was for him that the language of the Bible communicated to modern men and women.

The Kingdom of God One of the most notable elements in the research and publications of Hans Kvalbein is his great focus on the interpretation of the “kingdom of God,” particularly after 1997. Here we immediately see the legacy from his teacher Sverre Aalen, as Kvalbein also admits. 85 This invites some broader background information. Aalen’s view was that the term βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, should be understood as “house” rather than “reign,” in other words, in spatial terms: “The kingdom of God is ... an idea with affinity to the local sphere. One enters it, it is like a room in a house, a hall. ... This room or house is for men who are in fellowship with God, or with his representative, Jesus, and with each other. Both sides, the room and the fellowship, are included in the idea of the house.” 86 For a long time Aalen’s article seems not to have been noticed, though Hans Conzelmann in his biblical theology says, referring to Aalen, concerning the term the “kingdom of God”: “Jesus takes it over from Judaism, but determines its meaning in an entirely new way by his actualization of the message of the kingdom. One rule of thumb can be made: in Judaism, the expression means the act of God’s rule: with Jesus, it means God’s kingdom.” 87

82 See Kvalbein, “Kan lovprisning av Gud erstattes av ‘velsignelse’ av Gud? Kritisk kommentar til Bibel 2011” [Can Praising of God be Replaced by ‘Blessing’ of God? A Critical Comment to the Bible of 2011], Luthersk kirketidende 147 (2012): 291–294, and “Gud vil ha vår lovsang, ikke vår ‘velsignelse’” [God Wants Our Praise, Not Our ‘Blessing’], ibid., 457–458. 83 Ingeborg Mongstad-Kvammen, Gunnar Johnstad og Anders Aschim, “Å velsigne Gud” [Blessing God], Luthersk kirketidende 147 (2012): 367–368. 84 Cf. Olav Refvem, “Svak argumentasjon i ‘velsignelsesstriden’” [Weak Argumentation in the ‘Controversy about Blessing’], Luthersk kirketidende 148 (2013): 110–113. 85 Hans Kvalbein, “The Kingdom of God in the Ethics of Jesus,” Studia Theologica 51 (1997): 60–84, 65. 86 Sverre Aalen, “‘Reign’ and ‘House’ in the Kingdom of God in the Gospels,” NTS 8 (1961–1962): 215–240, 228–229. This was Aalen’s only contribution to this topic in an international language. 87 Hans Conzelmann, An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM, 1969), 108.

Theology for the Church, Its Mission and the Christian Life

35

To the extent that Aalen’s interpretation was noticed, it may have been seen as (a somewhat peculiar) minority view. 88 In a way this is a bit strange since one of the great critical New Testament scholars from before WW1, Johannes Weiss, had expressed similar views. One reason for the little attention given to Aalen’s interpretation may have been the changes in the scholarly discourse. In the 1960s the focus was one-sidedly on the temporal aspect (present or future), 89 with no attention to a possible spatial and /or soteriological dimension. Seventy years earlier, the scholarly context for Weiss’ Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes 90 was liberal theology where ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ was interpreted as the rule of God in the hearts of humans, or as something that was “both immanent in individual religious experience and to be realized gradually in an ideal society on earth.” 91 Against such an understanding Weiss wrote: “The Kingdom of God as Jesus thought of it is never something subjective, inward, or spiritual, but is always the objective messianic Kingdom, which usually is pictured as a territory into which one enters, or as a land in which one has a share, or as a treasure which comes down from heaven.” 92 The categories mentioned by Weiss seem to be outside the horizon of the discussion of the 1960s. A few years after Weiss’ book appeared, Gustaf Dalman published his very important Die Worte Jesu (1898). The influence of this book has been noticeable until recent times; in many ways it became a starting point for both Aalen and Kvalbein. Dalman wrote: “No doubt can be entertained that both in the Old Testament and in Jewish literature ‫מלְכוּת‬, ַ when applied to God, means always the ‘kingly rule,’ never the ‘kingdom,’ as if it were meant to suggest the territory governed by Him.” 93 J. C. O’Neill has characterized this as, “perhaps the

88 One of the few scholars responding to and going into debate with Aalen’s position was Joel Marcus, “Entering into the Kingly Power of God,” JBL 107 (1988): 663–675. See, however, now the criticism of Marcus by Ben Witherington III, Jesus, Paul and the End of the World: A Comparative Study of New Testament Eschatology (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992), 60–62; Witherington at least partly endorses Aalen’s position (p. 61). See also Maren Bohlen, “Die Einlasssprüche in der Reich-Gottes-Verkündigung Jesu,” ZNW 99 (2008): 167–184 (with references to both Aalen and Kvalbein). 89 Cf. Baasland, “Synthetischer Dualismus,” xx, n. 12. 90 First published by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in Göttingen, 1892. 91 Richard H. Hiers and David Larrimore Holland, “Introduction,” in Johannes Weiss, Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God (transl. and ed. Richard Hyde Hiers and David Larrimore Holland; Scholars Press Reprints and Translations Series; Chico: Scholars Press, 1985; originally published by Fortress Press, 1971) 1–54, 5. 92 Weiss, Jesus’ Proclamation, 133. For various reasons, Weiss’ book had little influence outside Germany; one reason may be the lack of an English translation until 1971; cf. Hiers and Holland, “Introduction,” 34–37. 93 Gustaf Dalman, The Words of Jesus: Considered in The Light of Post-Biblical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language. I. Introduction and Fundamental Ideas. Authorised English Version by D. M. Kay (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902 [German original 1898]), 94.

36

Reidar Hvalvik

most influential sentence ever written” in New Testament studies. 94 Be this as it may, the crucial point is not found in the above quotation from Dalman, but in a sentence following some lines below: “We shall be justified, therefore, in starting from this signification of ‫ ַמלְכוּת‬as employed by Jesus.” 95 This is what is disputed by Kvalbein. 96 In an outline for an unpublished short paper for the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas General Meeting in Berlin 2010 he pointedly wrote: “Do Not Trust the Dictionaries: βασιλεία Means Realm, Not Rule or Reign.” 97 According to him, Jesus used the term differently from the Old Testament and ancient Judaism. In Jesus’ preaching βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ should not be understood as the reign of God but as God’s kingdom, the “area” where God’s gifts of salvation are experienced. Important for Kvalbein, however, was another statement by Dalman, which not only has been overlooked; it also seems to be in direct tension to the quotation above. Dalman writes: The parallels adduced above from the Jewish literature have proved that the true affinity of the idea of the sovereignty of God, as taught by Jesus, is to be found, not so much in the Jewish conception of ‫שׁ ַמיִם‬ ָ ‫ ַמלְכוּת‬as in the idea of the “future age” (‫)העוֹלָם ַה ָבּא‬ ָ or that of the “life of the future age” (‫)חיֵּי ָהעוֹלָם ַה ָבּא‬. This conception is among the Jews, in a similar way, a comprehensive term for the blessings of salvation, just as the “sovereignty of God” is with Jesus; and, further, the “sovereignty of God” is for Jesus invariably an eschatological entity, of which at present can be predicted only because “the end” is already approaching. 98

This means that the “kingdom of God” in the preaching of Jesus corresponds to the Hebrew phrase “the age to come” (‫)העוֹלָם ַה ָבּא‬, ָ 99 a fact that most easily can been seen from the alternation between “kingdom of God” and “the age to come” in Mark 10:17–31 (note vv. 23–25 and 30b; cf. also v. 17). From this also follows that the (futuristic) phrases “coming into” and “inherit” the kingdom of God are important for understanding the concept.” 100 94 J. C. O’Neill, “The Kingdom of God,” NovT 35 (1993): 130–141, 130. Kvalbein seems to mean that O’Neill reached a position similar to Aalen’s, but independently of him; cf. “Wem gehört das Reich Gottes? Von der Botschaft Jesu zum Evangelium des Paulus,” in Logos – Logik – Lyrik: Engagierte exegetische Studien zum biblischen Reden Gottes: Festschrift für Klaus Haacker (ed. Volker A. Lehnert and Ulrich Rüsen-Weinhold; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007), 97–114, 98, n. 3. This may be so, but O’Neill has at least a reference to Aalen in his first note (p. 130). 95 Dalman, The Words of Jesus, 94. 96 Cf. Kvalbein, “The Kingdom of God,” 60–84. 97 See Kvalbein, “Jesus as Preacher of the Kingdom of God,” in The Identity of Jesus: Nordic Voices (ed. Samuel Byrskog, Tom Holmén and Matti Kankaanniemi; WUNT 2.373; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 87–98. 98 Dalman, The Words of Jesus, 135. 99 Kvalbein, “The Kingdom of God,” 65. 100 It is interesting to note that when E. P. Sanders divides the various sayings about the kingdom of God into six categories, he uses “realm” in four of them to describe the meaning of the basileia (E. P Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus [London: The Penguin Press, 1993], 171–175). In the first category, he speaks about the kingdom of God as “a transcendent realm, to which people may

Theology for the Church, Its Mission and the Christian Life

37

In the above-mentioned article by Edvin Larsson, he expressed the following opinion and wish: “Aalen’s studies about the kingdom of God are erudite and original. And one can only hope that they in the future will be received with greater understanding than what has so far been the case.” 101 Kvalbein followed his teacher’s path and substantiated and developed Aalen’s understanding of the kingdom of God in a series of studies, 102 the majority fortunately written in English and German. 103 It seems justified to say that the many articles published by Kvalbein have led to a greater attention to and sometimes endorsement of this alternative interpretation. The most common reaction so far seems to be the growing recognition that βασιλεία should not always be rendered “reign” since it obviously may have a spatial meaning. 104 Typical is Jonathan T. Pennigton’s comment on the reception of Dalman’s view: There have been several sympathetic but reasoned critiques of Dalman which manifest a more balanced view. A close reading of the Gospels reveals that in fact, the uses of kingdom language are too variegated and nuanced to force upon all of them the monolithic conception of kingly rule. In the Gospels βασιλεία is a multivalent term whose semantic range at times includes spatial notions. 105

Among others who more directly support (Aalen’s and) Kvalbein’s interpretation, particularly Dale C. Allison Jr. should be mentioned; in his book Constructing Jesus he offers a long and valuable excursus with the telling heading “The kingdom of God and the World to Come.” 106 Allison explicitly says that the purpose of the excursus is, despite the modern consensus that βασιλεία means rule /reign, to call attention to how often “it rather refers principally to the future time when and to the future place where the petition ‘Your kingdom

look for inspiration and into which they will individually enter at death or at the great judgement” (171). 101 “Professor dr. theol. Sverre Aalen,” 105. 102 The first of these studies was typically published in the Festschrift for Sverre Aalen: “Kirken og Guds rike i Jesu forkynnelse etter de synoptiske evangelier,” in Israel – Kristus – Kirken: Festskrift til Sverre Aalen på 70-årsdagen 7. desember 1979 (ed. Ivar Asheim et al.; Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1979), 141–162. 103 See the bibliography of Kvalbein’s works and Volker Gäckle’s article in this volume, particularly the first pages. 104 Joseph A. Fitzmyer admits this in his commentary on Luke: The Gospel according to Luke I–IX (AB 28; New York: Doubleday, 1981), 156. 105 Jonathan T. Pennigton, Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew (NovTSup 126; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 281–282 (with references to Aalen and Kvalbein in notes 9 and 10); cf. also p. 254 (with reference to Aalen); cf. Patrick Schreiner, The Body of Jesus: A Spatial Analysis of the Kingdom in Matthew (LNTS 555; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), 4–5 (with references to Aalen and Kvalbein i notes 7 and 9). 106 Dale C. Allison Jr., Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 164–204.

38

Reidar Hvalvik

come’ will no longer need to be uttered.” 107 Allison focuses especially on rabbinic sayings about “the world /age to come” and concludes that in the Jesus tradition this is homologous with “the kingdom of God.” 108 Hence he claims that ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, in the Synoptics means “a realm as well as a reign; it is a place and a time yet to come in which God will reign supreme.” This means that the term is polysemous, though most often it means realm: “So even though I have come to the conclusion that ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, is more often than not, in the Jesus tradition, God’s new world, that does not exclude other meanings.” 109 This rather extensive review of the “kingdom of God” research is done for a reason: it meant a lot to Kvalbein. This can also be seen from the fact that more than a hundred (out of 385) pages of his book from 2008 about Jesus, were dedicated to Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom of God. And I know from personal communication that he was very happy about some of the developments in recent scholarship on this topic, particularly Dale Allison’s contribution. 110

Church and Mission Hans Kvalbein grew up in a family with a great commitment for missionary work, linked to the organization Norwegian Lutheran Mission. 111 This organisation belongs to the low-church part of Norwegian church life, and represented an important part of Kvalbein’s family legacy. It may thus be no accident that the very first entry in his bibliography is an article about Ludvig Hope’s understanding of the church. 112 Hope (1871–1954) was a Norwegian lay preacher and later general secretary of the Norwegian Lutheran Mission (1931–1936), one of the most profiled leaders within the Christian lay-people movement in Norway. In his article Kvalbein gives a presentation of the view of the church that comes to expression e. g. in Hope’s book Kyrkja og Guds folk (“The Church and the People of God”), stressing the distinction between the “proper” and “improper” church. Hope was partly influenced 107 Allison, Constructing Jesus, 169. In the footnote to this sentence there are references to both Aalen and Kvalbein, along with other scholars (including Weiss). 108 Allison, Constructing Jesus, 200. 109 Allison, Constructing Jesus, 202. 110 Cf. Kvalbein, “Jesus as Preacher of the Kingdom of God,” 92, n. 13 where he refers to Allison’s “excellent excursus.” 111 In Norwegian: Norsk Luthersk Misjonssamband. The organization was founded in 1891 as Det Norske Lutherske Kinamisjonsforbund (in English: the Norwegian Lutheran Federation for Mission in China). 112 Hans Kvalbein, “‘Kyrkja og Guds folk’: Noen grunntanker i Ludvig Hopes kirkesyn” [‘The Church and the People of God’: Some Basic Ideas in Ludvig Hope’s Understanding of the Church], Luthersk kirketidende 100 (1965): 249–254.

Theology for the Church, Its Mission and the Christian Life

39

by the ideas of the German theologian Rudolf Sohm, viewing all kinds of church organisation, including the organized ministry, as a sign of decay. By stressing that only true believers belong to the real church, Kvalbein thinks that Hope came close to the idea of the “pure congregation.” 113 He comments that Hope advocated a purely “personalist concept of the church,” not including the “administration of the sacraments,” which is part of the definition of the church in the Lutheran Augsburg Confession. 114 This is the closest Kvalbein comes to an evaluation of Hope’s view. Almost forty years later Kvalbein wrote an article called “I Jesu skole: Disippelskap som utgangspunkt for kirkeforskningen” (“In the School of Jesus: Discipleship as a Starting Point for Church Research”). 115 His focus is mainly on the Gospel of Matthew because this gospel is most explicit in its teaching about the church; there the disciples are shown to be models for later generations of Christians. In Matthew the disciples are called to abandon family, work, and possessions, in order to follow Jesus and preach and heal like him (cf. Matt 10). In addition to this group, there are others who accept Jesus’ message and receive Jesus and his itinerant disciples in their homes. This may seem to create two types of disciples: wandering followers and local sympathizers. But this is not a real distinction; in other words, there is no basis for distinguishing between different classes of Christians. 116 The actual application to the readers of the gospel is that in the Great Commission all Christians are conceived as followers of Jesus. This is evident from the clear link between the word for disciple (µαθητής) and the verb used in Matt 28 of the mission to all nations: “making disciples” (µαθητεύω) – through baptism and instruction. 117 Kvalbein writes: That disciples have to receive instruction is not peculiar. This is implicit in the concept of being a disciple. That baptism is mentioned first is more surprising. How can baptism without further explanation be presented as the beginning of discipleship? Here there is an implicit reference to the beginning of the story about Jesus’ ministry, to the baptism of John and to Jesus’ own baptism. Through baptism one becomes a disciple of him who himself was baptized. In this way the new disciple is linked to Jesus himself and the disciples Jesus

113

Kvalbein, “‘Kyrkja og Guds folk,’” 251, 254. Kvalbein, “‘Kyrkja og Guds folk,’” 250. Cf. Confessio Augustana, art. 7: “The Church is the congregation of the saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the sacraments rightly administered. And to the true unity of the Church, it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments.” 115 The article was published in Slik blir kirken til: Kirke i forandring i Det nye testament (ed. Nils Aksel Røsæg and Hans Kvalbein; Trondheim: Tapir Akademisk forlag, 2003), 53–77. 116 Kvalbein, “I Jesu skole,” 64. 117 Cf. Kvalbein, “Discipleship, Kingdom and Conversion: Aspects from Recent Exegetical Discussion on the Mission of the Church,” in Einheit der Kirche: Dritte europäische orthodox-westliche Exegetenkonferenz in Sankt Petersburg 24.–31. August 2005 (ed. Anatoly A. Alexeev et al.; WUNT 218; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 207–229, 213–214. 114

40

Reidar Hvalvik

called to follow him during his ministry in Galilee and Judea. In Matthew baptism functions as the obvious initiation to being a disciple and follower of Jesus – in the same way as baptism in the Pauline letters and generally in the early church functions as initiation rite for belonging to Christ and his church. 118

Kvalbein further discusses leadership in the Matthean community but finds no traces of offices and ordained ministers, rather warnings against both firm structures and charismatic authority (cf. Matt 7:22; 20:20–28; 23:8–12). According to Kvalbein the church is in principle a school or fellowship of disciples with only one teacher, and a family or fellowship of siblings with only one Father. The only hint of a leadership in the Matthean church is found in Jesus’ mentioning of “prophets and wise men and scribes,” whom he will send (Matt 23:34). 119 He also thinks that the reference to “every scribe who has become a disciple [µαθητευθεὶς] of the kingdom of heaven is like a head of a household, who brings forth out of his treasure things new and old” (Matt 13:52 NASB), “refers to someone who has a task and status in the church corresponding to that of the scribes among the Jews in the times of Jesus and Matthew.” 120 In this article from 2003 we see both a heritage from his low-church background and a new orientation, among other things in his emphasis on baptism. In the mission organisation where his family was active the important and regular elements in the worship on Sundays were preaching and prayer, while baptism and Eucharist were not. 121 A six-year long course of theological study should, however, bring new impulses. When Kvalbein, in 1981, wrote a popular booklet on the Lord’s Supper, he directed thanks to his professors Carl Fr. Wisløff and Sverre Aalen who during his theological studies “opened my eyes to the great gift we have in the Eucharist.” 122 Later in life Kvalbein took active part in the local church, and made himself available for various assignments within the church. Among other things, he took active part in bilateral ecumenical conversations between The Church 118 Kvalbein, “I Jesu skole,” 57. Linked to this paragraph Kvalbein has two references. The first is to his own article “The Baptism of Jesus as a Model for Christian Baptism,” Studia Theologica 50 (1996): 67–83 – which may be characterized as Kvalbein’s most original contribution to New Testament scholarship. The second reference is to the dissertation of his teacher and colleague Edvin Larsson, Christus als Vorbild: Eine Untersuchung zu den paulinischen Tauf- und Eikontexten (Uppsala: Gleerup, 1962), where Larsson demonstrates the connection between the concept of discipleship in the Gospels and central motifs in Pauline theology of baptism. 119 Kvalbein, “I Jesu skole,” 68. He finds no basis for a bishop or pope in Matt 16:17–19. Based on the interpretation of this text in the ancient church he says: “By his confession Peter has become spokesman for the faith which is the foundation for the whole church” (66). 120 Kvalbein, “I Jesu skole,” 67. 121 The Kvalbein family did not regularly go to the nearby church, but attended the meetings in the “prayer house” called “Forbundssalen” (later “Misjonssalen”) in the center of Oslo (information from Asbjørn Kvalbein, brother of Hans). 122 Fellesskap ved Herrens bord [Community at the Lord’s Table] (Oslo: Institutt for Kristen Oppseding, 1981), preface (unpaginated).

Theology for the Church, Its Mission and the Christian Life

41

of Norway and The Baptist Union of Norway, initiated by The Church of Norway Council on Ecumenical and International Relations (1987–1989) and in the Working Committee on Homosexuality, appointed by the Bishops’ Conference (1993–1995). In the latter committee Kvalbein was part of the minority, advocating a traditional view of homosexual acts as incompatible with biblical ethics. 123 Let us return to his ecclesiological writings. The church was the first topic in Kvalbein’s list of publications and it continued to be important for him throughout his whole life. In addition to the article about discipleship referred to above, he also published another article in this field as part of a project on ecclesiology at MF, an article on the church as a “wandering people.” 124 There is a clear agenda in the subtitle of the article: “A Biblical-Theological Memento on the Necessity of Breakup.” The church can never be a static entity. This leads us to mission. Here Kvalbein’s engagement is shown not only in theory but in action – by going to the Lutheran Theological Seminary (LTS) in Hong Kong for a year. Two decades later he wrote: “Twenty years ago I had an experience that profoundly influenced my work as an academic teacher of the New Testament. In the academic year 1985–86 I had a leave from my position as professor in Oslo and was sent to Hong Kong as a missionary by the Norwegian Missionary Society.” 125 Kvalbein was deeply influenced and the LTS got a warm friend and supporter for the rest of his life. Kvalbein’s interest in mission also found other means of expression, some of which shall be mentioned here. In 1998 he was one of the conveners to the “Symposium on the Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles,” a conference that resulted in a book with a similar title. 126 In his contribution to the symposium and the book, he stressed that the Great Commission also included the Jewish people. Through a discussion with Ulrich Luz he contributed to a change in the latter’s opinion (see further Ådna’s contribution in this volume). From 2001 to 2006 he co-chaired a seminar on “The Mission of the Church: Exegesis and Hermeneutics” 127 in the framework of Studiorum Novi Testa-

123 See Hans Kvalbein, “Homosexualitet i bibelsk lys” [“Homosexuality in the Light of the Bible”], in Homofile i kirken: En utredning fra Bispemøtets arbeidsgruppe om homofili [Homosexuals in the Church: An Assessment from the Working Committee on Homosexuality, appointed by the Bishops’ Conference] (Oslo: Kirkens informasjonstjeneste, 1995), 119–139. 124 “Et folk på vandring: Et bibelteologisk memento om oppbruddets nødvendighet” [A People on the Move: A Biblical-Theological Memento on the Necessity of Breakup], in Kirke i oppbrudd og forandring: Aktuelle perspektiver på norsk kirkevirkelighet (ed. Leif G. Engedal and Vidar L. Haanes; Trondheim: Tapir, 2003), 17–32. 125 Kvalbein, “Discipleship, Kingdom and Conversion,” 207. 126 Jostein Ådna and Hans Kvalbein (eds.), The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles (WUNT 127; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). 127 The seminar was convened by Professors Hans Kvalbein, Teresa Okure and Daniel Patte.

42

Reidar Hvalvik

menti Societas (SNTS), the international society for New Testament scholars. 128 In the following years he also participated in the SNTS-seminar “History and Theology of Mission in the New Testament: Global Challenges and Opportunities” and read a paper with the typical title “‘Making Disciples’ as an Exegetical and a Missiological Challenge” (Sibiu, Romania in 2007). 129 Discipleship, church and mission undoubtedly were key terms in Kvalbein’s life and scholarly work. Among his relatively late works is an article written in an attempt to influence the ongoing revision of the liturgy in the Church of Norway. 130 Kvalbein was concerned about the wording of the Norwegian version of the Apostolic Creed, namely the translation of the third article: Πιστεύω εἰς τò πνεῦµα τò ἅγιον, ἁγίαν καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν ... . In Norwegian καθολικός is rendered “allmenn” meaning “common” or “general” – which easily can be (mis)understood as being in conflict with “holy.” To use a transliteration of καθολικός is impossible since “catholic” today is commonly understood as “Roman-catholic,” while it in fact means something much broader. Kvalbein quotes St. Faustus of Riez, living in the middle of the fifth century: “What is the Catholic Church save the people dedicated to God which is diffused throughout the world?” 131 On this background he proposes “verdensvid” (“worldwide”) as a better translation. 132 To believe in a worldwide church may help us when dealing with problems in local and national churches, Kvalbein concludes. “And such a confession commits us to think big about the church as God’s people on earth.” 133 The very last scholarly contribution from Kvalbein – published after his death – was an article on the Lord’s Prayer and the Eucharist prayers in the Didache. There he writes both of the people of God and the kingdom of God, and finishes with the following words: The prayers in the Didache are deeply rooted in Jewish piety. At the same time they envision a community being the new people of God on the way to the kingdom prepared for them. They have been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus to be his holy people of Jews

128 Kvalbein was elected member of the SNTS in 1984 and served as a member of the Editorial Board of New Testament Studies 2001–2003. He presented a short paper at the Annual Meeting in Strasbourg in 1996 (“Die Wunder der Endzeit: Beobachtungen zu 4Q521”) and in Berlin in 2010 (see above, in the section on the Kingdom of God). 129 A shortened and revised version of the paper is printed as “Conversion and Discipleship in the Synoptic Gospels: An Exegetical and Missiological Challenge,” in Med Kristus til jordens ender: festskrift til Tormod Engelsviken (ed. Kjell Olav Sannes et al.; Tapir Akademisk forlag, 2008), 89–99. 130 “En hellig, verdensvid kirke” [A Holy, Worldwide Church], Luthersk kirketidende 143 (2008): 3–5. 131 With reference to J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (3rd ed., New York: Longman, 1972), 386. 132 “En hellig, verdensvid kirke,” 5. Kvalbein also considers the options “universal” or “global” but thinks that “worldwide” is most directly connected with the world of humans. 133 “En hellig, verdensvid kirke,” 5.

Theology for the Church, Its Mission and the Christian Life

43

and Gentiles. By God’s gracious revelation through Jesus his Servant they have received the decisive knowledge leading to eternal life. When they share their common meal they give thanks and praise to God who has opened this way of life for them. 134

134 “The Lord’s Prayer and the Eucharist Prayers in the Didache,” in Early Christian Prayer and Identity Formation (ed. Reidar Hvalvik and Karl Olav Sandnes; WUNT 336; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 233–266, 263.

The Mission to Israel and the Nations The Understanding of Mission in the Gospel of Matthew Reconsidered Jostein Ådna

Abstract Starting from the monograph, The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles, which Hans Kvalbein and I edited and published in 2000, the article discusses the understanding of mission in the Gospel of Matthew. In this volume, Hans Kvalbein and Peter Stuhlmacher argued that the tension between the mission to Israel (Matt 10:6; 15:24) and to all the nations (28:18–20) does not mean that Israel has been abandoned because the people have rejected Jesus. On the contrary, the election of Israel is confirmed and the mission to Israel continues side by side with the mission to the Gentile nations. Interacting with research after 2000, especially that of Ulrich Luz and Matthias Konradt, the article examines the results achieved in the volume. Konradt’s monograph, Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew (2014; German original 2007) is especially appreciated for demonstrating the correlation between Matthew’s Christology (with emphasis on “the son of David” and “the Son of God”) and the two missions to Israel and the nations. The continuous mission to Israel (see 10:23) brings about the eschatological restitution of the people, whereas the mission to the nations fulfils the promise of blessing through Abraham and transforms the pilgrimage to Zion into the inclusion of non-Jews in the covenant people, by calling them to become disciples in Jesus’ church. However, the character of the encounter between the risen Christ and the eleven disciples on the mountain in Galilee in Matt 28:16–20 is not appropriately appreciated in Konradt’s presentation. This scene is the symbolic event and location of the eschatological restitution of Israel, including the renewal of the fellowship between Jesus and the disciples who had forsaken him and a renewed commission to the apostolic mission, with all the nations as its expanded goal. 1

Introduction In April 1998 I had the privilege and honour to co-host with Hans Kvalbein a “Symposium on the Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles” and, subsequently, to publish the conference papers with him. 2 One major point of 1 Thanks to John Goldie MA for helpful suggestions for linguistic corrections and improvements. 2 Jostein Ådna and Hans Kvalbein (eds.), The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles (WUNT 127; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). The conference took place on 28–29 April 1998, at the School of Mission and Theology in Stavanger, Norway. On January 1, 2016, this school merged with three other church-oriented educational institutions in Norway to become VID Specialized University.

46

Jostein Ådna

the conference was the understanding of mission in the Gospel of Matthew, to which Kvalbein contributed with the paper “Has Matthew Abandoned the Jews?” 3 I consider this volume in commemoration of Hans Kvalbein a welcome opportunity to approach anew the issue of mission in the Gospel of Matthew. At the time of the conference in 1998 Ulrich Luz’s multivolume commentary on Matthew 4 and his monograph on the theology of the Gospel of Matthew 5 rightly drew much attention. Hence, Luz’s clear-cut position on the issues of mission in Matthew served as a point of orientation for the discussion at the symposium, and both Kvalbein’s essay and the other major contribution to Matthew at the conference, presented by Peter Stuhlmacher, discussed the position of Luz and took a critical stand towards it. 6 When we prepared the conference volume, we invited Ulrich Luz to give a response to Stuhlmacher and Kvalbein, and I appreciate that he did so. 7 In the eighteen years that have passed since the publication of The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles, the German scholar Matthias Konradt has delivered the most significant contributions to the understanding of mission in the Gospel of Matthew. In 2007 he published a monograph 8 which a few years later also appeared in English translation, entitled Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew. 9 Hence, the reconsideration of results achieved at

3 Hans Kvalbein, “Has Matthew Abandoned the Jews? A Contribution to a Disputed Issue in Recent Scholarship,” in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles (WUNT 127; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 45–62. Kvalbein has also written in Norwegian about the understanding of mission in the Gospels and Acts; see Hans Kvalbein, “Misjon i evangeliene og Apostlenes gjerninger,” in Missiologi i dag (ed. Jan-Martin Berentsen, Tormod Engelsviken and Knud Jørgensen; Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1994), 37–64. 4 The original German version, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, consists of four volumes (EKKNT I /1 – I /4), of which the last volume, covering Matt 26–28, was published in 2002. Hence, Luz’s treatment of e. g. Matt 28:16–20 within the scope of this grand commentary was not yet available at the time of the symposium in Stavanger. The English version of this commentary consists of three volumes: Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1–7 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007); Matthew 8–20 (2001); Matthew 21–28 (2005). (Vol. 1, covering Matt 1–7, is translated from the 5th, rev. ed. of EKKNT I /1, published in 2002.) 5 Ulrich Luz, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew (New Testament Theology; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). 6 Peter Stuhlmacher, “Matt 28:16–20 and the Course of Mission in the Apostolic and Postapostolic Age,” in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles (WUNT 127; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,2000), 17–43. 7 Ulrich Luz, “Has Matthew Abandoned the Jews? A Response to Hans Kvalbein and Peter Stuhlmacher concerning Matt 28:16–20,” in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles (WUNT 127; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 63–68. 8 Matthias Konradt, Israel, Kirche und die Völker im Matthäusevangelium (WUNT 215; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). 9 Matthias Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew (Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Studies in Early Christianity; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014). See also Matthias Konradt, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Das Neue Testament Deutsch 1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), and “Die Sendung zu Israel und zu den Völkern im Matthäusevangelium im Lichte seiner narrativen Christologie,” in Matthias Konradt, Studien zum Matthäusevangelium (ed.

The Mission to Israel and the Nations

47

the symposium in 1998 and of the conclusions drawn in the conference volume from 2000 will be examined in appreciative interaction with Konradt’s research. The central interpretative challenge with which anybody investigating Matthew’s understanding of mission is confronted, is accurately formulated in the very first paragraph of Konradt’s book: When considering the theological concept that guided Matthew in retelling the story of Jesus, the question of the relationship between 10.6 and 28.19 arises as a central interpretive problem. More precisely, how is the reader to understand the progression from the exclusive focus of Jesus’ ministry on Israel – as formulated programmatically in Matt 15.24 and in the corresponding instruction to his disciples in 10.6 – to the universal commission in 28.18b–20? How are the initial concentration on Israel and the universalism of the Gospel’s final chapters interrelated in the first evangelist’s theological concept? 10

The Most Significant Conclusions at the 1998 Symposium regarding the Mission to Israel and the Nations in the Gospel of Matthew The most radical solution to the problem raised by the tension between the exclusive mission to Israel in Matt 10:5–6 and the universal mission commissioned in 28:18–20 is to read the Gospel of Matthew as a narrative unfolding Israel’s rejection of Jesus’ call. Israel’s stubborn rejection leads to judgement and abandonment (reflected, inter alia, in Matt 11:20–24; 21:43; 22:7–8; 23:34–39; 27:24–25; 28:11–15) and the universal mission to the Gentiles substitutes for the unsuccessful and failed mission to Israel. In his article, “Has Matthew Abandoned the Jews?” Hans Kvalbein analyses the episode in Matt 27:24–25, apparently the most decisive text within the Gospel for assessing this issue. 11 After Pilate had washed his hands and declared himself innocent of the death of Jesus, “[t]hen the people as a whole answered, ‘His blood be on us and on our children!’” 12 Many scholars have read this as a self-imposed curse, implying a definitive rejection of Jesus by the Jews, resulting in everlasting guilt on their people. 13 Kvalbein challenges the opinion that Alida Euler; WUNT 358; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 115–45. (This article is a slightly revised version of the original publication in ZTK 101 [2004]: 397–425.) 10 Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Gentiles, 1. 11 Kvalbein, “Has Matthew Abandoned?” 49–54. 12 Unless otherwise noted, biblical quotations in English follow the NRSV Anglicized Edition. 13 Kvalbein, “Has Matthew Abandoned?” 50 refers to Luz as a prominent proponent of this interpretation. See Luz, Theology, 135: “Matthew deliberately chooses a solemn, stark formulation for the people’s self-condemnation. Deliberately he allows Jesus’ prophecy of 23:35–36 to resound. [...] The truth of this gruesome scene is, for Matthew, not to be found in history. Within his own lifetime he had experienced the repudiation of Jesus by the entire people of Israel. It is this experience that he has inserted into his Jesus story, explaining its meaning for that people. Matthew 27:25 is a case

48

Jostein Ådna

Matthew presents Pilate as innocent; by his handwashing he can in no way escape the responsibility for his decision. Regarding the role of “the people as a whole” (πᾶς ὁ λαός), Kvalbein considers this phrase to have its background in the Old Testament prescriptions about the handling of capital punishment. The law required involvement of “all the people” when someone was found guilty of blasphemy. 14 Hence, Matt 27:25 is no self-imposed curse placed on the crowd by an author intending to increase their guilt. Taking the complete text of Matthew into consideration, Jesus, voluntarily obeying the will of his heavenly Father, and God both appear responsible for his death on the cross. Humanly speaking the Jewish crowd in Pilate’s courtyard is hardly guiltier than the Romans responsible for the death sentence and the crucifixion, the disciples who fled in the garden, or Judas, who betrayed him. Further, Kvalbein asks if the Great Commission in Matt 28:18–20 is exclusively directed to the Gentiles and implies an abandonment of the mission to the Jews. 15 He argues that the clearly stated universal power of the risen Christ cannot exclude Israel from the realm of his ἐξουσία. This interpretation of the Great Commission, which includes a continued mission to Israel, is in his view also supported by the broader context of the Gospel, and by the historical fact that we have no clear evidence for an abandonment of the Jews from the first two centuries AD. The strong words of judgement to the Jews in the Gospel of Matthew must be seen as reflections of the prophetic sayings urging repentance. They do not exclude a new start for Israel or for the faithful remnant of Israel. 16

of staged dogmatics.” Commenting on the Evangelist’s outlook into his own present day in Matt 28:11–15 (see v. 15b), Luz further writes: “What does that outlook signify? It signifies a devastating verdict on the Jewish leaders’ claims to be the leaders of Israel. Does it signify the end of the election of the chosen people of Israel, who are now left behind in untruth? This would seem to be the inference of 21:43, 23:34–39 and, especially, 27:25. This same inference is suggested by the fact that Matthew now uses, for the first time, the word ‘Jews’. Previously, following Palestinian custom, he only employed this term when the Gentiles spoke of Israel (2:2; 27:11, 29, 37)” (Luz, Theology, 137). During his continued preoccupation with the Gospel of Matthew Luz has modified his assessment of this point in Matthew’s theology over the years (see the next section). 14 Kvalbein, “Has Matthew Abandoned?” 50–51: “That person must be ‘cut off from his people’ and suffer capital punishment, for ‘his guilt remains on him’ (Num 15:30–31). Jesus was accused of blasphemy and had been declared guilty in the Sanhedrin ([Matt] 26:65). Under such circumstances the people would have been involved in his crime if they had not ‘cut him off from his people.’ Their declaration implies their willingness to take the responsibility for his punishment in order to cleanse the land.” Kvalbein (ibid.) refers also to Lev 24:10–16 and Deut 27:14–26. 15 See Kvalbein, “Has Matthew Abandoned?” 54–58. In his 1995 book on the theology of the Gospel of Matthew, Luz assessed Matt 28:18–20 as follows: “I feel that the Great Commission must be understood as [...] a volte-face: from now on the disciples are to turn to the Gentiles. On the surface of the story, ‘now’ means Easter. But to Matthew’s original readers ‘now’ referred to their own day, a time when the Gentile mission was apparently still a new or controversial task for the community. Having failed in Israel, the community has been assigned a new task by its Lord” (Theology, 140). 16 See Kvalbein, “Has Matthew Abandoned?” 54–58, 57: “[T]he many hard words of judgement against Israel in this gospel cannot be read as a definite and fulfilled rejection of them. They are

The Mission to Israel and the Nations

49

The more specific question, of relevance regarding Matthew’s understanding of mission, whether the phrase πάντα τὰ ἔθνη in Matt 28:19 is to be understood in an exclusive (“all the Gentiles”) or inclusive sense (“all the nations”), is addressed explicitly in Peter Stuhlmacher’s article. Whereas some of the twelve occurrences of the term ἔθνος in plural in Matthew denote “Gentiles” as opposed to “Jews” (e. g., 6:32; 10:5, 18; 12:18), all four cases of the expanded phrase πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (24:9, 14; 25:32; 28:19) have an inclusive meaning. 17 The question of the literary genre of Matt 28:16–20 is disputed. Starting from an appreciation of the text’s firm rootedness in biblical and Jewish tradition, Stuhlmacher argues for its classification as a call narrative, reminiscent of the Old Testament stories of the callings of Moses (Exod 3:1–4:17), Gideon (Judg 6:11–24) and Jeremiah (Jer 1:4–10). The text “involves the calling and commissioning of the (Eleven) disciples.” 18 Further, drawing on the biblical-Jewish traditions in which Matt 28:16–20 is deeply rooted, the theological meaning of the location of the recounted incident at the mountain in Galilee, and the eschatological dimensions of the renewed calling of the apostles become apparent on the background of Old Testament texts related to the Feast of Tabernacles. 19

The Response of Ulrich Luz and his Revised Position In his response in the symposium volume to the articles of Hans Kvalbein and Peter Stuhlmacher, Ulrich Luz (see n. 7) expresses his unease at being portrayed as the protagonist for an anti-Jewish interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew: “I have in my former utterances on this issue merely indicated tentatively and provisionally the direction my interpretation is taking.” 20

warnings to the Jews as a people and as individuals to repent and to accept Jesus as Abraham’s son and David’s son and as the Son of God sent to save his people from their sins. The unrepentant attitude of most Jews has not changed God’s care for them and does not close the open invitation. The prophetic words of judgement urge them to repent while there is still time for it.” 17 Stuhlmacher, “Matt 28:16–20,” 19, 27. See also Kvalbein, “Has Matthew Abandoned?” 54: “The mission to the Gentiles is not intended to replace the mission to Israel, but to confirm and expand it to include all nations. The inclusive understanding requires the translation ‘all nations’ to be preferred to ‘all the Gentiles’.” 18 See Stuhlmacher, “Matt 28:16–20,” 20, 25 (quotation from p. 25). 19 See Stuhlmacher, “Matt 28:16–20,” 24–30. Stuhlmacher emphasises his indebtedness to his Old Testament colleague Hartmut Gese with whom he held a doctoral seminar in Tübingen in 1997 on the Psalms in the New Testament. In this seminar they had exposed Matt 28:16–20 within biblical theology, and the insight gained was “that the end of Matthew is a piece of Jewish-Christian tradition and must be seen within the perspectives of tradition of the Old Testament which is open to the New Testament. The parts of this tradition which made up the Feast of Tabernacles, celebrated annually in Jerusalem until the year 70 CE, are especially interesting for the interpretation of Matt 28:16–20” (24). 20 Luz, “Has Matthew Abandoned?” 63.

50

Jostein Ådna

Regarding the understanding of the phrase πάντα τὰ ἔθνη in Matt 28:19, Luz now supports an inclusive interpretation: “To the universal scope of the reign of the Exalted One (28:18) corresponds the universal scope of his commission to proclaim the gospel.” 21 Hence, Israel is not excluded in principle from the missionary activity commissioned and presupposed in Matt 28:19–20; neither do the judgment statements in Matt 21:43; 22:8–10; 23:34–38 “refer [...] to the final judgement on Israel, nor does 27:25, but primarily to the destruction of Jerusalem, which in principle still leaves room for Jews to join the church.” 22 However, although Luz no longer considers the task commissioned to Matthew’s church at the very end of the Gospel to be an exclusive Gentile mission, marking the end of and replacing the former exclusive Israel mission, he nevertheless thinks that Matthew has very modest ambitions and expectations for a continued mission to Israel: In 28:16–20 Matthew does not categorically exclude a continuation of the mission to Israel. Neither does he make a dogmatic, salvation-historical statement claiming that Israel has in principle forfeited its election. However, as he looks back on the painful separation of his congregation from the synagogue, he realizes that for himself and his congregation there are not any longer particularly hopeful prospects for a mission to Israel. He therefore regards the mission to the gentiles as their present task. 23

Finally, regarding the tradition-historical positioning of Matt 28:16–20, Luz limits the extant Old Testament allusions to Dan 7:13–14 and rejects any conscious use of Old Testament texts linked to the Feast of Tabernacles as propagated by Stuhlmacher. 24 Ulrich Luz has confirmed and developed further in more recent publications the modification of some of his earlier verdicts, documented in the response article in the volume The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles. Here, in particular, the fourth volume of his Matthew commentary and the extensively revised fifth edition of the first volume, both published in 2002, should be mentioned (see note 4). 25 However, Luz has also written an article about Matthias Konradt’s monograph Israel, Kirche und die Völker im Matthäusevangelium (see n. 8), in which he retrospectively renders account for the gradual changes in his assessment of Matthew’s theology on the mission to Israel and the nations. 26 21 Luz, “Has Matthew Abandoned?” 64. An inclusive interpretation of the three other occurrences of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη in Matt 24:9, 14; 25:32 has Luz supported in Matthew 21–28, 193, 194, 275. 22 Luz, “Has Matthew Abandoned?” 65. 23 Luz, “Has Matthew Abandoned?” 65. 24 Luz, “Has Matthew Abandoned?” 66–68. 25 The references above are to the original, German version. For Matt 28:16–20, see the English version Matthew 21–28, 614–36, esp. 628–31. 26 Ulrich Luz, “Spaltung in Israel: Ein Gespräch mit Matthias Konradt,” in Evangelium ecclesiasticum: Matthäus und die Gestalt der Kirche. Festschrift für Christoph Kähler zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Christfried Böttrich et al.; Frankfurt am Main: Hansisches Druck- und Verlagshaus, 2009),

The Mission to Israel and the Nations

51

Matthias Konradt: The Correlation between Christology, Ecclesiology and Mission in the Gospel of Matthew As programmatically expressed in the title of the essay “Die Sendung zu Israel und den Völkern im Matthäusevangelium im Lichte seiner narrativen Christologie” (see n. 9), Matthias Konradt sees a correlation between the missions to Israel and to the nations, on the one hand, and the narratively unfolded Christology in Matthew, on the other. Central to Matthew’s christological concept is the interrelatedness of Jesus as Davidic Messiah (see, in particular, the title “Son of David” in Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30–31; 21:9, 15; 22:42–45) and as the Son of God (2:15; 3:17; 4:3, 6; 8:29; 14:33; 16:16; 17:5; 26:63–64; 27:43, 54). Whereas the Davidic king in Old Testament royal ideology was adopted as the Son of God (Ps 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14), in Matthew Jesus is metaphysically the Son of God (Matt 1:18, 20, 23) who is adopted as son of David thanks to his mother’s marriage with the Davidic heir Joseph (see 1:16, 20 [“Joseph, son of David”], 24–25). 27 Matthew describes Jesus’ messianic mission as Son of David as a ministry in and for Israel, from its outset in 4:17 until the passion. Hence, there is an intrinsic link between the mission limited only “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:6; 15:24) and Jesus’ public ministry. 28 In the three encounters between Jesus and non-Jews (8:5–13, 28–34; 15:21–28) it is clearly stated that the recounted healings take place extra ordinem, and therefore these incidents do not undermine or relativize the exclusiveness of Jesus’ ministry to Israel. 29 Immediately after the crowds to whom Jesus ministers have been described as being “harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (9:36), Jesus elects a circle of twelve disciples (10:1–4) and sends them out on a mission (10:5a), guided by the detailed instructions in the so-called mission discourse in Matt 10:5b–42. From the authority given to the disciples in 10:1, the correspondence of the commissioned task with Jesus’ own ministry in 10:7–8 and the characterisation of those to whom the disciples shall go as “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” in 10:6 (cf. 9:36; 15:24), it is apparent that Jesus lets the Twelve be involved in his own messianic mission to Israel. 285–301, see 287–88. “Im Laufe der Arbeit an Band III und IV [of the commentary on Matthew] haben sich mir die Akzente verschoben. Mir wurde deutlich, dass zur Zeit der Abfassung des Evangeliums die Heidenmission mindestens von einem Teil der Gemeinde bereits praktiziert wurde und dass πάντα τὰ ἔθνη mit ‘alle Völker’ übersetzt werden muss” (287). 27 See Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Gentiles, 28–29; he says on p. 286: “For Matthean Christology, this reversal of the ‘adoption’ process is of landmark significance. It is the divine sonship that constitutes the core of Jesus’ messianic identity.” 28 See Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Gentiles, 50–52 for a convincing demonstration that the crowds in Matt 4:25 are depicted as Jewish; this verse’s “geographical details thus articulate the idea that crowds from all of Israel are responding to Jesus’ public ministry” (51). 29 See the detailed argument in Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Gentiles, 55–74.

52

Jostein Ådna

Hans Kvalbein already made a strong point that the mission speech in Matthew 10 does not signal any temporal limitation of the mission to Israel. 30 His observations are supplemented by Matthias Konradt who has produced an excellent analysis of “The Sending of the Disciples to the ‘Lost Sheep of the House of Israel’ in Matthew 10.” 31 The variation in the tenses in verses 5b and 6 – with aorist for the prohibition against taking a road to the Gentiles and entering a city of the Samaritans, signalling that this is a current limitation, and with present imperative for the command to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, signalling that this is a durative task – indicates the enduring nature of the mission to Israel. In particular the comforting words of Jesus in verses 22 and 23 confirm the continuous nature of the mission to Israel: “you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes” (Matt 10:23b). Konradt writes: [B]ecause of [...] the word-for-word (except for the omission of τῶν ἐθνῶν) anticipation of Matt 24.9b, 13 in 10.22 [...], the missions to Israel and to the nations are parallel not only with regard to the experiences the disciples will encounter but also in temporal terms – that is, the timeframe of the mission to Israel is the same as that of the eschatological mission among πάντα τὰ ἔθνη in 24.9–14. 32

According to Matt 24:9–14 persecutions do not invalidate the mission to the Gentiles, and the same applies for the negative experiences among Jews described in Matt 10:16–25. There is a correspondence between the negative reactions to the disciples’ mission foretold in Matthew 10 and hostile opposition to Jesus’ ministry which features throughout the Gospel of Matthew. One of Konradt’s major concerns regarding Matthew’s portrayal of Israel is to show that the Evangelist distinguishes clearly between the normal people, predominantly labelled the ὄχλος/ὄχλοι (“crowd /crowds”), and their religious leaders. Prior to the passion story the crowds react positively to Jesus and recognise and appreciate him as the Son of David. The leaders in Israel, however, are hostile to Jesus and disobedient to his call for repentance. During the last dramatic week in Jerusalem, the role of the crowds changes somewhat; in Matt 26:47, 55; 27:20, 24–25 they unite with the leaders in the task of arresting Jesus and having him sentenced to death. 30 Kvalbein, “Has Matthew Abandoned?” 55–56: In contrast to the parallels in Mark and Luke, Matthew does not report any return of the disciples after a fulfilled task; this implies “that the mission to the Jews is not brought to an end at any point during the earthly ministry of Jesus” (55). Matthew 10:23 confirms that this mission will continue until the parousia; “[f]or Matthew and his readers this must mean that the mission to Israel is still unfinished” (ibid.). Finally, the speech contains some references that transcend a purely Jewish context (see 10:18) and, thus, also functions as “a prefiguration of the mission of the church among the Gentiles” (ibid.). 31 This is the heading of the section in Konradt in Israel, Church, and the Gentiles, 74–85. He refers to Kvalbein, “Has Matthew Abandoned?” 55, in note 379 on p. 83. 32 Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Gentiles, 82.

The Mission to Israel and the Nations

53

However, Konradt sees a distinction in Matthew between the crowds who had encountered Jesus during his public mission and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. When the crowds, following Jesus, arrived in Jerusalem, they were confronted by the city’s inhabitants who were in turmoil because of Jesus’ triumphant entry, and were able to answer their question, “Who is this?” by saying, “This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee” (Matt 21:10–11). The crowds who participated in the arrest of Jesus in Gethsemane and who were present in front of Pilate’s judgement seat belong to the population of Jerusalem and do not come from the crowds appearing frequently in the earlier stages of Matthew’s narrative. Correspondingly, words of judgement upon the lips of Jesus do not refer to all the people, but apply only to the leaders and to Jerusalem, which will be made desolate. Hence, Matthew does not tell about a general rejection of Jesus among the Jews, leading to condemnation of all the people and /or to a replacement of the mission to Israel by a mission to the Gentiles. 33 Parallel to the exclusive orientation of Jesus’ ministry towards Israel, there is a clear universal dimension to the Matthean Jesus story. Based on the references to Abraham in Matt 3:9 and 8:11 it becomes clear that the characterisation of Jesus in 1:1 not solely as “the son of David,” but also as “the son of Abraham,” indicates the universality of salvation, alluding to the promise that in Abraham “all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen 12:3). 34 Further, we observe the inclusion of four non-Jewish women in the genealogy in 1:1–17, the story of the magi in 2:1–12, the interconnection of an Israel-oriented perspective and an outreach to the nations in the fulfilment quotations in 4:15–16 and 12:17–21, the three narratives about healing of non-Jews (8:5–13, 28–34; 15:21–28) and the “underlying universal perspective” recognisable in texts like 5:13–14; 10:18; 12:41–42; 24:14; 25:32 and 27:54. Thus, a universal dimension of Jesus’ mission, exposed and anticipated in the texts referred to above, runs through the whole Gospel. Therefore, the command at the end, in 28:18–20, to make disciples of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη does not come as a total novelty, but appears as the fulfilment and realisation of the universal intent of salvation history since the election of Abraham. 35 We have already noted the interrelatedness of Jesus as the son of David and the Son of God in Matthew’s Christology, brilliantly exposed by Matthias Kon33 See Konradt, Israel, Church and the Gentiles, 89–264, esp. 153–66 with the analysis of Matt 27:11–26, concentrating on 27:25. The short paragraph above can, of course, in no way do justice to Konradt’s detailed discussion in 175 pages, with many subtle exegetical nuances and specifications. For a critical appreciation of this part of Konradt’s monograph, see Luz, “Spaltung in Israel,” 289–97 (esp. 291–95 on Matt 27:25). 34 Konradt, Israel, Church and the Gentiles, 267, n. 12 approves of Kvalbein’s interpretation that the unique designation of Jesus as the son of Abraham in the genealogy introducing the Gospel of Matthew implies that “the people of Israel is elected in order to bring blessing to the nations” (“Has Matthew Abandoned?” 57). 35 See Konradt, Israel, Church and the Gentiles, 265–81 (quotation from p. 280).

54

Jostein Ådna

radt. The christologoumenon of Jesus’ divine sonship is already presented to the readers of the Gospel in the infant stories, but within the narrative the announcement of it is kept as a secret reserved for the circle of disciples (see 14:33; 16:16; 17:5). Only in Jerusalem does Jesus begin to speak about himself as the Son of God, first indirectly (see 21:37, 42–44; 22:2, 41–46), then explicitly during his interrogation in the house of the high priest Caiaphas (26:63–64). Jesus’ claim to divine sonship is presented as the decisive ground for the council’s verdict that he is guilty of blasphemy and deserves death (26:65–66). By what means the exposure of Jesus’ divine sonship is inextricably connected to his passion becomes apparent in 27:54, where the Roman officer and soldiers at the cross, representatives of the nations, in the moment of his death confessed, “Truly, this man was God’s Son!” Finally, a line can be drawn to the emphasis on Jesus as the Son of God when he, as the risen One, in the commission to mission among the nations, includes himself as the Son in the baptism formula. Then, taking up the Immanuel motif of 1:23, which is linked with Jesus’ divine sonship, he assures the disciples that he will be with them always (28:19–20). 36 There is a correspondence between the narrative unfolding of the universal dimension of Matthew’s soteriological concept and of the christologoumenon of the Son of God, on the one hand, and the compositional and temporal positioning of the mission to the nations after the death and resurrection of Jesus, on the other hand.

Matthew 28:16–20: The Eschatological Restitution of Israel and the Universal Scope of the Mission of the Church The mission to Israel, presented and promoted by Matthew as a lasting obligation for the disciples of Jesus, necessitates raising the question about the eschatological restitution of Israel. 37 In the same year as the symposium volume The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles appeared, Axel von Dobbeler published an article in which the relationship between Matt 10:5–6 and 28:18–20 is discussed from the perspective of the restitution of Israel. 38 He distinguishes between the two missions in Matthew not only with regard to different addressees – Israel and the Gen36 For this presentation of “The Narrative Development of Jesus’ Divine Sonship in the Gospel of Matthew,” see Konradt, Israel, Church and the Gentiles, 286–307. 37 For the most important early Jewish texts about the Davidic Messiah’s ministry for the liberation and restoration (of the twelve tribes) of Israel, see Konradt, Israel, Church and the Gentiles, 20–21. 38 Axel von Dobbeler, “Die Restitution Israels und die Bekehrung der Heiden: Das Verhältnis von Mt 10,5.6b und Mt 28,18–20 unter dem Aspekt der Komplementarität: Erwägungen zum Standort des Matthäusevangeliums,” ZNW 91 (2000): 18–44.

The Mission to Israel and the Nations

55

tiles 39 – but also in terms of their character: As signified in the title of the article, the goal of the mission to the Gentiles is their conversion (Bekehrung), whereas the mission to Israel shall accomplish the restitution of the destitute and marginalised in Israel. 40 Likewise, the healing of the needy is an activity restricted to the mission to Israel (10:8). The mission to the Gentiles is about making disciples (second plural imperative: µαθητεύσατε), further defined by the adverbial participles “baptising” and “teaching.” 41 In my opinion, such a distinction regarding the content of the two missions appears as very questionable. Further, von Dobbeler does not offer an explanation for the different timing of the two missions. He has no convincing answer to the question raised by Konradt: “Why does Israel’s restitution begin before Easter and the conversion of the Gentiles not until after Easter?” 42 Matthias Konradt also emphasises the aspect of Israel’s restitution as a decisive element in Matthew’s theological concept. The mentioning of the twelve patriarchs already in Matt 1:2, and the fact that the crowds coming to Jesus in 4:25 came from the territory belonging to the twelve tribes, hint at the restitution of biblical Israel. 43 By introducing the circle of the Twelve (corresponding to the twelve tribes, cf. 19:28) in 10:1–4, “between the prelude to the commission in 9.36–38 and the mission instructions in 10.5 ff [...] Matthew compositionally strengthens the commission’s connection to Israel and thereby indicates that this mission concerns the eschatological restoration of the twelve tribes.” 44 According to Konradt, the aspect of Israel’s restitution also remains valid in the post-Easter period. The inclusive interpretation of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη in Matt 28:19 45 does not imply that the salvation-historical distinction between Israel and the Gentiles has become obsolete and irrelevant. The question is rather “how the conversion of people from the nations relates to the mission to Israel.” 46 Although non-Jews join the fellowship of disciples through baptism, without circumcision, obedience to everything that Jesus has commanded and their exposure to the version of the salvation story in the Gospel of Matthew 39 Von Dobbeler, “Die Restitution Israels,” 31–32 supports an exclusive understanding of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη in Matt 28:19. 40 According to von Dobbeler, “Die Restitution Israels,” 28–30, “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 10:6) does not designate Israel as a whole, but only those Israelites who are “harassed and helpless” (9:36): “[E]s geht um die Not derjenigen in Israel, die unter einer Führungsschicht zu leiden haben, die dem Volk die Haut abzieht [...], es niederwirft und verschmachten läßt” (30). 41 Von Dobbeler, “Die Restitution Israels,” 32–40. 42 Konradt, Israel, Church and the Gentiles, 3. See the criticism of von Dobbeler in idem, 314–15. 43 Konradt, Israel, Church and the Gentiles, 25, 50–51. 44 Konradt, Israel, Church and the Gentiles, 76 (italics mine). See also 86. 45 Konradt, Israel, Church and the Gentiles, 311–16 seems to prefer an inclusive interpretation of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη in Matt 28:19, but he does not consider this to be decisive regarding whether a continued mission to the Jews is foreseen or not; that issue is unequivocally clarified on the basis of Matt 10:23. 46 Konradt, Israel, Church and the Gentiles, 317.

56

Jostein Ådna

give them an Israel-oriented identity. In the Matthean concept of mission Israel does not renounce its unique salvation-historical position, nor does it simply become a nation on the same footing as the Gentile nations. On the contrary, Gentile converts are integrated into “the community of believers in Christ as the (only) legitimate custodian of Israel’s theological tradition” where they “expect their salvation from Jesus as the Messiah of Israel.” 47 This connection between Jews and non-Jews within the united people of God is prefigured in Isa 56:1–8, and the pilgrimage of the nations to Zion is transformed and organically continued in the active mission to Gentiles. 48 However, drawing on the results achieved at the “Symposium on the Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles,” 49 in my opinion it is possible to grasp the character of the eschatological restitution of Israel and its inner connection to the mission to the nations in Matthew even more precisely than has yet been done above. My considerations start from the observation that the mountain in Galilee which was the location of the risen Christ’s encounter with (the eleven) disciples (28:16) was predicted in advance by Jesus, in his exchange with the disciples on their way from the Last Supper to the Mount of Olives (26:32). Furthermore, this location is repeated in instructions to Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph on Easter Sunday (see 28:7, 10): 31

Then Jesus said to them: “You will all become deserters because of me this night; for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ 32 But after I am raised up, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.” (Matt 26:31–32)

In anticipation of what would happen at his arrest the following night Jesus referred to the prophetic text of Zechariah 13:7 where the imagery of the king as a shepherd and the people as his flock is employed. This choice of scriptural reference corresponds optimally to the prominence of the concept of the Davidic Messiah as shepherd in Matthew (see 2:6; 9:36; 15:24). 50 However, this oracle prophesies violent death as the fate of the messianic shepherd and, consequently, a scattering of his flock. Read in line with the earlier shepherd verses in the Gospel, the imminent arrest of Jesus and flight of the disciples (see 26:47–56) reverses the blessed state of the disciples and the crowds under the 47 Regarding the relationship between the missions to Israel and the nations, see Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Gentiles, 316–21. The quotations are taken from pp. 319 and 318 (italics in Konradt). 48 Konradt, Israel, Church and the Gentiles, 321–23. 49 For the following discussion, see especially Stuhlmacher, “Matt 28:16–20,” 24–30. 50 Appropriately, Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Gentiles, 18–49 puts his presentation of Jesus as Davidic Messiah in Matthew under the heading, “Jesus as the Davidic-Messianic Shepherd of Israel”; see esp. 31–39. The vast application in the Old Testament and early Judaism of the metaphors of the people as sheep or flock and the rulers, the king, the Messiah and God as shepherd(s) is presented on pp. 32–34.

The Mission to Israel and the Nations

57

protection and leadership of their messianic shepherd Jesus (see 2:6; 15:24) back to the state of being “like sheep without a shepherd” (9:36). Notwithstanding the negative application of the shepherd and flock imagery in Matt 26:31, the succeeding verse prophesies a radical turning point: In the three passion predictions (16:21; 17:22–23; 20:18–19) Jesus had not only spoken about his suffering and death, but also his resurrection. Once again, Jesus foretells his resurrection, and this time he tells also what will happen after he has been raised up. Then he will go ahead of the disciples to Galilee; and, as the angel and Jesus himself instruct the women on Easter morning to tell the disciples, they shall go to Galilee, where they will get to see him (28:7, 10). The insertion of a contrasting element to the harsh prediction of death and dispersion in Matt 26:31–32 is not coincidental, but inspired by the prophetic text referred to. The quote in verse 31 is part of an oracle that encompasses the verses Zech 13:7–9: 7

Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who is my associate, says the Lord of hosts. Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered; I will turn my hand against the little ones. 8 In the whole land, says the Lord, two-thirds shall be cut off and perish, and one-third shall be left alive. 9 And I will put this third into the fire, refine them as one refines silver, and test them as gold is tested. They will call on my name, and I will answer them. I will say, “They are my people”; and they will say, “The Lord is our God.”

The (deutero- or trito-) Zecharian text unit 13:7–9 is best interpreted as a merging of the Davidic messianic tradition with an apocalyptic tradition that foresees the realisation of the eschatological kingdom of God in connection with persecution and martyrdom. The anointed shepherd falls victim to the fierce endtime struggles, but what first appears to be his failure turns out to be his leading of the flock into a renewed covenantal relation to God. Two-thirds of the flock will perish, but the final third will be purified through the eschatological judgement and enter into re-established relationship with God. 51 Whereas the arrest and execution of Jesus is the counterpoint to the striking of the shepherd and its consequences in Zech 13:7–8, his going ahead of the disciples to Galilee and his encounter with them there correspond to the cleansing and the renewed covenant relationship in Zech 13:9. 52 Jesus’ use of προάγειν (“go ahead of”) shows that in his statement he remains within the messianic shepherd imagery applied by the Zecharian source text (cf. John 10:27). The interpretation of the journey to Galilee and the encounter on the mountain as the messianic shepherd’s steps for restoring Israel seems to find patristic support in the mid-second century Epistle to the Apostles, where the Great Commission is

51 See Hartmut Gese, “The Messiah,” in Hartmut Gese, Essays on Biblical Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1981), 141–66, 151. 52 Neither Luz, Matthew 21–28, 388 nor Konradt, Matthäus, 409–10 sees Zech 13:9 as a tradition-historical background for and counterpart to Matt 26:32 and 28:16–20.

58

Jostein Ådna

rendered as follows: “He answered and said to us, ‘Go and preach to the twelve tribes of Israel and to the Gentiles and to the land of Israel towards East and West, North and South; and many will believe in me, the Son of God’” (Ep. Apos. 30). 53 Why is Galilee made the location of the restitution of the twelve tribes of Israel? The choice of Galilee has a symbolic meaning that accompanies the messianic character of the election of the Twelve. During the decades of the 730s and 720s BC, the territory of the northern tribes was included as provinces in the Assyrian empire and parts of the population deported (see 2 Kgs 15:29; 17:4–6). Ever since the prophet Ezekiel there was an expectation that the new David would re-establish the whole kingdom, the lost North included (Ezek 37:15–28). Of particular interest in this respect is Psalm 80 (ET vv. 1–3, 17): 2

Give ear, O shepherd of Israel, you who lead Joseph like a flock! You who are enthroned upon the cherubim, shine forth 3 before Ephraim and Benjamin and Manasseh. Stir up your might, and come to save us! 4 Restore us, O God; let your face shine, that we may be saved. [...] 18 But let your hand be upon the one at your right hand, the man 54 whom you made strong for yourself.

“The son of man” (Hebrew: ben-adam; Greek [Ps 79:18 LXX]: υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου) at God’s right hand whom he has made strong is the Davidic Messiah (see Ps 110:1–2). Psalm 80 prays that the Lord may keep his protecting hand over him so that he can re-establish fallen Israel. The territories of Ephraim, Benjamin and Manasseh are situated between Galilee in the north and Judah in the south 55 – the part of the Israelite tribal territory that survived both the Assyrian disaster in the 8th century and the Babylonian attack and the exile in the 6th century BC. When God’s glory shines forth upon Ephraim, Benjamin and Manasseh (Ps 80:2–3 [ET 80:1–2]) and the messianic Son of Man succeeds in his mission (v. 18 [ET 17]), the original extension of the territory of the Israelite tribes will be re-established. As already pointed out above, Matthias Konradt sees a clear link between the circle of the twelve disciples chosen by Jesus and the expectation that the eschatological restitution of Israel will include the return and restoration of all twelve

53 For more details of the application of this tradition in Matt 28, see Stuhlmacher, “Matt 28:16–20,” 25–27. The reference to and quotation from Ep. Apos. is taken from Oskar Skarsaune, “The Mission to the Jews – a Closed Chapter? Some Patristic Reflections concerning ‘the Great Commission’,” in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles (WUNT 127; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 69–83, 70–71. 54 My modification of the nrsv in favour of a more direct rendering of the Hebrew ben-adam. 55 See Josh 16–18. Manasseh also had territory to the east of the river Jordan (Num 32:33, 39–42; Josh 13:29–31).

The Mission to Israel and the Nations

59

tribes. According to him, it “is certainly not incidental” that the encounter with the risen Lord on the mountain in Galilee is restricted to the “eleven disciples” (28:16): “Matthew had introduced the twelve disciples in the context of the mission to Israel (10.1–4) in order to make it clear that this mission was concerned with the restoration of the twelve tribes.” 56 There is, however, an important aspect of the encounter on the mountain in Galilee that is mostly overlooked. In deserting and denying the Messiah who had chosen them as a messianic sign of the restitution of Israel, as foundational in his ministry to Israel, and in spite of strong expressions of solidarity and an apparent willingness to die for him (Matt 26:33–35, 56b, 69–75), they had all forsaken their calling and once again become like scattered sheep without their shepherd. Jesus’ call and invitation to a new encounter at the mountain in Galilee is the re-establishment of the broken relationship between the Messiah and those disciples who symbolise the restitution of Israel as the goal of his mission. 57 As Matthias Konradt has demonstrated convincingly, the accomplishment of the very focus of Jesus’ ministry to Israel, to “save his people from their sins” (Matt 1:21), could only be achieved through his death. His blood, poured out on the cross and represented by the wine at the Last Supper, “is poured out for the many for the forgiveness of sins” (26:28). Hence, the foundation of the renewal of the covenant between God and Israel and the restitution of the people is laid only after Jesus’ death and resurrection. 58 The twelve disciples’ involvement in the mission to Israel in Matthew 10 appears therefore ‘only’ as an anticipatory prefiguration of the eschatological restitution of Israel, which can only be accomplished after Jesus’ death and resurrection. In correspondence with Zech 13:9, the encounter at the mountain in Matt 28:16–20 is the renewal of the covenant between God and Israel, symbolically represented by the eleven disciples, whom Jesus graciously welcomes back to himself. The scene is, actually, modelled as a (re)new(ed) calling of the Eleven, as the similarities with the stories of the callings of Moses, Gideon and Jeremiah show (see above). Matthew 28:16–20 contains the form critical characteristics of this genre: (1) A vision of God or a divine figure and a commission given (see Exod 3:2–6, 10; Judg 6:12, 14; Jer 1:4–5). (2) The commission given and the recipient’s refusal of it with reference to his perceived inadequacies (Exod 3:11;

56 Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Gentiles, 319. In Matt 28:16 they are reduced from twelve to eleven because of the betrayal of Judas Iscariot (see 26:14–16, 21–25, 47–50; 27:3–10). This does not affect the symbolic significance of this group, still referred to as “the Twelve” in the tradition of witnesses of Jesus’ appearances in 1 Cor 15:5. 57 Konradt does not neglect the aspect of the renewed fellowship as such; see Konradt, Matthäus, 410: “Denen, die Anstoß nahmen, wird mit Ostern ein Neuanfang gewährt (vgl. [...] 9, 13).” 58 Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Gentiles, 308: “[I]n light of the connection between 26.28 and 1.21, Jesus fulfills his task, oriented – in the first instance – toward Israel, ‘to save his people from their sins’ with his salvific death.” See, further, idem, 340–45.

60

Jostein Ådna

4:10; Judg 6:15; Jer 1:6). (3) The repetition of the commission, supplemented by the promise of God’s support (Exod 3:12; 4:14–16; Judg 6:16; Jer 1:8). Elements 1 and 3 are readily recognisable, in verse 17a (“when they saw [Jesus], they worshipped him”) and verse 20b (“I am with you always, to the end of the age”). The second form critical element is represented by verse 17b, οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν, that should be translated “but they doubted,” including all eleven disciples present, rather than “but some doubted,” as this phrase is rendered by the NRSV. 59 With salvation acquired in Jesus’ death and resurrection and with the restitution of Israel accomplished in the risen Lord’s re-establishment of fellowship with the Eleven, the Kairos (see Matt 8:29) of the outreach to the nations has come. The church of Jesus (Matt 16:18), in the final scene of the Gospel represented by the Eleven, is commissioned with the apostolic mission to make disciples of all the nations by baptising them and teaching them to obey everything that Jesus has commanded. Konradt makes some careful and subtle distinctions between Israel, the people (ὁ λαός) of God and the church (ἡ ἐκκλησία). 60 The church is neither simply an alternative term for Israel nor its replacement or successor, letting Israel disappear by merging into a united humanity. Within the scope of the Gospel of Matthew the church stands out as the replacement of the old leadership in Israel, Jerusalem and the temple. 61 This implies that the church – both in Matthew 10 and 28 represented by the Twelve /Eleven – is the sole and unique body commissioned with the indispensable task of going to “all the cities of Israel” (10:23) and “all the nations” (28:19) with the “gospel of the kingdom” (24:14) to “invite everyone [they] find to the wedding banquet” (22:9). Individuals, Jews and non-Jews alike, enter the eschatologically restored people of God through the mediation of the church’s apostolic mission. In appreciation of the valuable insights obtained in Matthias Konradt’s research on the issues of Israel, the Gentiles and the church in Matthean theology, it is appropriate to end this fresh reconsideration of the understanding of mission in the Gospel of Matthew with a quotation in which he gives a precise description of 59 See Stuhlmacher, “Matt 28:16–20,” 18–19, 25. This interpretation of οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν finds patristic support in Ep. Apos. 19 and 30, and in Acts Thom.; see Skarsaune, “Mission to the Jews,” 71–72. Stuhlmacher concludes regarding the literary genre of Matt 28:16–20: “This threefold structural parallel to the Old Testament accounts extends far enough to see in Matt 28:16–20 a commission story, which wants to lay the foundation for the post-Easter apostolic mission” (25). 60 See Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Nations, 327–53 and the comments in Luz, “Spaltung in Israel,” 299–300. Konradt’s detailed examination of the term λαός is found on pp. 156–59 in the context of clarifying its precise meaning in Matt 27:25. 61 Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Nations, 340: “[T]he ecclesia understands itself as the only legitimate trustee of Israel’s theological tradition. This does not, however, mean that the ecclesia succeeds Israel; rather, this self-understanding should be seen in the framework of a claim to leadership within Israel.”

The Mission to Israel and the Nations

61

how individuals get their share in salvation and are included in the covenant people: The prerequisite for the individual efficacy of the salvation Jesus has brought about is the individual acceptance of that salvation through entry into discipleship (cf. 28.19a). In contrast, this salvation remains inaccessible to those who reject the message of the forgiveness of sins in Jesus’ death. The ecclesia – those who celebrate the Lord’s Supper – thus constitutes the community of those who, by entering into discipleship, have accepted the salvation that has been brought about for everyone with the renewal of the covenant and who have in this sense become participants in the covenant. 62

62

Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Nations, 344.

Mission and Love of Enemy Matthew 5:43–44 and Luke 6:27–28, 35 (2 Clem. 13.3; Diogn. 5) in Its Graeco-Roman Context Ernst Baasland Abstract Did the command to love one’s enemies have an impact on Christian mission? Was it part of a mission strategy? This article analyses the meaning of love of enemy in the Inaugural Speech (Matt 5:44; Luke 6:27, 35) and in its elaboration as virtue ethics in Early Christianity. A comparison with similar texts in the Graeco-Roman world shows its uniqueness. The outside view of the demand in 2 Clem. 13 and the question of space in Diogn. 5 put the commandment into perspective. Love of enemy implies an understanding of space, relationship and identity and from this perspective we see more clearly its impact on mission. 1

Introduction It is very difficult to find scholarly literature on the theme of mission and love of enemy. Adolf Harnack and Eckhard J. Schnabel comment briefly on the subject in their comprehensive studies on the theme and its role in early Christian mission. 2 Could a message that made fixed boundaries and stable social relations chaotic, really be a strategy? Was love of enemies an identity-marker and important for Christian identity? In recent years the issues of identity-making and identity-markers have dominated studies in the fields of missiology and sociology of the New Testament. 3

1 My friend Hans and I were close colleagues for more than twenty-five years. As good colleagues we specialized in different fields of study and we did not always agree when it came to methods, approaches and results. Jesus research was one of our common fields of study and among many other things we worked together on the Norwegian translation of the Apostolic Fathers. We had a common commitment for mission and we were both missionaries for one year, teaching at the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Hong Kong. In order to honour Hans’ memory I have chosen the theme of mission and the concept of love of enemy. 2 The two most comprehensive studies of early Christian Mission make just short comments; see Adolf von Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (4th ed.; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1924), 1:170 ff; cf. idem, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries (2 vols.; trans. James Moffatt; 2nd rev. and enlarged ed.; London: Williams and Norgate, 1908) and Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission (2 vols.; Downers Grove: IVP, 2004), 2:1536–7. 3 Cf. A. F. Walls, The Cross-Cultural Process in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission and Appropriation of Faith (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis Books, 2002) and, e. g., Bengt Holmberg, ed., Exploring Early Christian Identity (WUNT 226; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).

64

Ernst Baasland

Identity-making and the process of establishing identity-markers should of course always be the main focus in such studies. However, every religion and every culture confront influences or events that threaten their identity, and the impact of the factors that are threatening identity-markers should be studied more often. People who strongly defend their identity-markers will easily define those who threaten the identity as “enemies.” It confused the categories when Jewish-Christians like Paul preached and lived among pagans, and pagan Christian preached and lived among Jews. Did preachers of love of enemy achieve the opposite of what was intended?

1. Territory and Identity in Palestine and the Graeco-Roman World Space and territory are fundamental in people’s lives, and also for the notions of love of neighbour and love of enemy. Proximity is in stable society physical, and the categories of family (kinship), neighbour, foreigner and enemy are very distinct: The family lives near, the neighbour lives in areas close by and foreigners live in foreign countries, often far away, and enemies live mostly across the borders. 4 The proximity and the relation to the land are decisive, and the OT uses specific categories and terms in order to characterize the proximity and the relation to the land – as can be seen in the table below (see next page). Unlike “enemy,” “family,” “neighbour” and “foreigner” are basically social categories. Enmity occurs within all social categories. Foreigners are more easily perceived as enemies, but animosity is caused by the struggle about territory, resources, power, etc. and occurs between neighbours and even within families and among friends. The notions of neighbour, alien and enemy changed significantly in the Roman Empire. Wars, roads and communication, commerce and the Roman Empire as such made space and proximity less relevant. Families were scattered, mobility gave people new neighbourhoods, and the status of “stranger” was dependent on the policy in Roman society. Mixed communities were in fact more frequent than ethnic “pure” societies. The Romans attacked enemies outside and inside their Empire that could threaten their rule, and gave only on their 4 The best analysis from this perspective gives Josef Schreiner and Rainer Kampling, Der Nächste – der Fremde – der Feind: Perspektiven des Alten und Neuen Testaments (Die Neue Echter Bibel, Themen, Bd. 3; Würzburg: Echter, 2000) and M. Köckert, “Nächstenliebe – Fremdenliebe – Feindesliebe,” in: Mazel tov: Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zum Verhältnis von Christentum und Judentum. Festschrift anlässlich des 50. Geburtstages des Instituts Kirche und Judentum (ed. M. Witte and T. Pilger; Studien zu Kirche und Israel, NS 1; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012), 31–53. See also Jürgen Becker, “Feindesliebe, Nächstenliebe, Bruderliebe: Exegetische Beobachtungen als Anfrage an ein ethisches Problemfeld,” ZEE 25 (1981): 5–18.

65

Mission and Love of Enemy

Place ‫רץ‬Fָ ֶ‫ – א‬same / territory (in a village, city or country) Family

Different territory

Neighbour

Foreigner

‫רע‬, ‫גר‬

‫גר‬, ‫וֹת‬K‫כריּ‬ ִ ְ ‫ָנ‬, ‫ב‬tָ ‫תוֹשׁ‬,

‫וֹת‬K‫כריּ‬ ִ ְ ‫ָנ‬, ‫וֹי‬S‫ג‬/ ‫הגּוֹים‬

υἱοθεσία οἶκοςοἰκοδοµή οἰκονοµία οἰκείος φίλος/φιλία συγγενεῖς γένος

(ὸ) πλησίος γείτων ἑξῆς αἱ ἐγγύτατα συµ-πολῖται

ξένοι ξενίζεται ἔθνος ἀλλόφυλοι ἀλλότριον πάροικοι παρεπίδηµοί

ἐχθροὶ (‫ב‬fֵ‫)אוֹי‬ πολέµος, πολέµιος ἐναντίος ἔθνος διασπορὰ (‫ח‬ ֲ ‫דּ‬fַ‫)נ‬ ִ

ἀγάπη ἀγαπᾶν φιλεῖν ἀλλήλους

Share, not give false testimony, not covet, etc. ἀγαπᾶν

Not mistreat or oppress, give food and clothing φιλοξενία

µισεῖν πολεµεῖν

‫ית‬Sֵ ‫בּ‬

Same religion, but different parties, etc. More or less the same language. Same traditions, but different stratification. Same ethos and customs, religious practices, festivals, rites, diets, clothing, etc.

Foreigner

Different religion. Different language. Different traditions (myths, stories). Different customs, and partly different ethos, religious practices, festivals, rites, diets, clothing, etc.

own conditions room for people with a specific ethnic identity. In stable and mono-ethnic societies the separation between “we” and “they” is clearly visible, created by space, territory or by culture and religion. Where we have borders (not only geographical ones) we have the notion “we” and “they” and often the concept of “enemy.” After 70 CE, much of Israel was forced to live outside its territory, which was problematic due to their emphasis on being the elect people living in a land given by God. 5 The Jews emphasized the “holy land” in spite of the fact that their ancestor, Abraham, lived as a foreigner in the land, and their lawgiver, Moses, never actually reached the land. The holy land played a crucial role in times of diaspora, based on the on the concept of ‫ץר ֵא‬ ֶ ‫ִשָׂר ֵאל‬ ְ ‫ י‬in Gen 12:2–3, 7; 13:15; 17:8, etc. 6 The promise of God, accordingly, has to do with territory, and every-

5 Erik Peterson, “Das Problem des Nationalismus im alten Christentum,” TZ 7 (1951): 81–91 sees Deut 32:8–9 as the key-text: “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel. For the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.” Cf. W. C. van Unnik, “Christianity and Nationalism in the first Centuries of the History of the Church,” in idem, Sparsa Collecta, Part 3: Patristica, Gnostica, Liturgica (NovTSup 31; Leiden: Brill, 1983), 77–94. 6 Cf. W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974). The borders are always problematic and in this case they are acute: Gen 15:18–21; Exod 23:31; Num 34:1–15; Deut 19:8; Ezek 47:13–20 give a fluid, but greater Israel than the present territory. The phrase “from Dan to Beersheba” (Judg 20:1; 1 Sam 3:20;

66

Ernst Baasland

one who threatens the hold land is an enemy. They perceived πάντα τὰ ἔθνη as something else than the elect people of God. The Christian message of love of enemies challenged this conception of Jewish identity. The inclusion of τὰ ἔθνη into the people of God threatened the concept of God’s vocation of Israel. The Christian concept of love of enemy also challenged the very concept of empire and nation; both concepts presuppose a contrast to aliens or enemies. Christians could include all people, and the great commission in Matt 28:19–20 and its equivalents (Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8, cf. Mark 16:16) gave direction for the mission. The double meaning of (all) nations (either including Israel and foreigners or meaning pagans, excluding Israel) implies the question of whether Matt 28:19–20 extends or invalidates the role of Israel. 7 The first answer is the best and also in harmony with the universal perspective. Early Christian literature did not quote Matt 28:19–20 very often, but it demonstrates clearly the Christian notion of territory and relationship.

2. Matthew 5:43 ff and Luke 6:27, 32, 35 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Contexts What is the meaning and impact of love of enemies in Jesus’ Inaugural Speech (i. e., David Catchpole’s term for the Sermon on the Mount /Sermon on the Plain) 8 compared with Jewish and other Hellenistic texts? 9 At least four positions compete in scholarship: (1) Jesus’ concept of love of enemy is unique, and had great impact on the spread of Christianity; 10 (2) Jesus’ concept is unique,

2 Sam 3:10; 17:11; 24:2, 15; 1 Kgs 4:25, etc.) is also politically controversial. The anthem of the Zionist movement says: “To be a free people in our own land. In the land of Zion and Jerusalem.” 7 Ulrich Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (5th ed.; EKK I /4, Zürich: Benziger, 2002), 449–51 changes the position he had taken in the first edition. In the debate between U. Luz and Hans Kvalbein, I agree with most of the arguments in Kvalbein’s article: “Has Matthew Abandoned the Jews?” in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles (ed. J. Ådna and H. Kvalbein; WUNT 107; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 45–62. Cf. U. Luz’s response, ibid. 63–68. 8 Cf. David Catchpole, The Quest for Q (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 79–134 uses the term “inaugural discourse” for the pre-text of Luke and Matthew. More comprehensive, E. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric in the Sermon on the Mount (WUNT 351; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 36 ff; 143 ff; 528 ff; 619 ff; 626 ff. 9 In his book on Jesus, Hans Kvalbein makes four observations on Matt 5:44–45: (1) it rejects a Jewish interpretation of the OT, (2) enemy love transcends every concept about enemies in Judaism, and (3) it rejects exclusively personal hatred, and it is not a theoretical issue, but (4) will prepare the disciples for persecutions. Cf. Jesus, hva ville han? Hvem var han? En innføring i de tre første evangelienes budskap (Oslo: Luther Forlag, 2008), 223 ff. 10 To an analysis of ancient Indian and Chinese texts (Lao-Tse and in Buddhism), cf. Hans Haas: Idee und Ideal der Feindesliebe in der nichtchristlichen Welt (Leipzig: A. Edelmann, 1927), 37–38. He denies Egyptian parallels except for an Osiris text about forgiving attitude and places a greater emphasis more the Indian texts (45–48), “Buddhist” (49–60) and “Chinese” (Lao Tzu and Confucius, 60–62; 86–96) parallels to Jesus’ teaching.

Mission and Love of Enemy

67

but lost its influence and was interpreted in an inner-circle context in the church; (3) Jesus’ concept of love of enemy is not unique, but has close parallels in Hellenistic and Jewish literature; (4) Jesus’ concept has limitations in war and society, but can as such be criticized (ideologically, from a feminist perspective, etc.).

2.1. Love of Enemy Plays a Key Role in the Inaugural Speech The commandment to love one’s enemies has obviously a key function in the argumentation of the Inaugural Speech. Luke puts the commandment first in Luke 6:27–36, and Matthew puts it at the end of Matt 5:21–48; together with 5:48 it gives the summary statement. It links to the first antithesis (5:21–22) with the related theme of murder and anger. Luke 6:27 ff links the commandment more closely to the final beatitude (µακάριοί ἐστε ὅταν µισήσωσιν ὑµᾶς οἱ ἄνθρωποι, 6:22). Luke repeats the commandment three times and Matthew does basically the same: Matt 5:43 ᾿Ηκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη· ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου καὶ µισήσεις τὸν ἐχθρόν σου. Luke 6:27–28 Αλλὰ ὑµῖν λέγω τοῖς ἀκούουσιν ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑµῶν, καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοῖς µισοῦσιν ὑµᾶς, εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωµένους ὑµᾶς, προσεύχεσθε περὶ τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑµᾶς

ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑµῖν· ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑµῶν καὶ (cf. Matt 5:39ff – Luke 6:29 ff) προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑµᾶς

6:32 καὶ εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑµᾶς, ποία ὑµῖν χάρις ἐστίν;

5:46 ἐὰν γὰρ ἀγαπήσητε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑµᾶς, τίνα µισθὸν ἔχετε;

6:35 λὴν ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑµῶν καὶ ἀγαθοποιεῖτε καὶ δανίζετε

There are minor differences, 11 but both link the commandment “love your enemies” (Luke 6:27, 35; Matt 5:44) to “pray for those who mistreat you” (Luke 6:28; Matt 5:44), and both compare loving neighbours with loving enemies. The model for the saying is obviously Lev 19:18, but both change from “your (sing.) neighbour” (τὸν πλησίον σου) to “your enemy” (plur. τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑµῶν). The apodictic, absolute command has exactly the same wording (ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑµῶν). 12 It requires basically no motivation, but both Matthew and 11 Luke gives additional imperatives and two general, theological sentences with similar form (καθώς, 6:31, 36). Matthew links it to the other antithesis and makes the Golden Rule to a summary statement (7:12). 12 Cf. Tertullian, Pat. 10 has seen this: “and the precept is absolute, that evil is not to be repaid with evil.”

68

Ernst Baasland

Luke give the same motivation: different from pagans and publicans and similar to God, one should have all people in mind. Also Luke 6:28 ff and Matt 5:39 ff give cum grano salis the same extreme examples of what this attitude is all about. Justin and the Didache clearly refer to the Inaugural Speech. Didache 1 sees the command of love of enemy as a consequence of the double commandment and the Golden Rule in its negative form (τούτων δὲ τῶν λόγων ἡ διδαχή ἐστιν αὕτη). 13 The position in the very beginning and the threefold description of love of enemy show its uniqueness and the importance of the commandment in the first century CE. In 1 Apol. 15.9, 13 Justin comes close to Matthew’s antithetical form (ἐγὼ δὲ ὑµῖν λέγω), but he continues with Luke’s formulations (εὐλογεῖτε ... εὔχεσθε).

2.2. The Meaning and Impact of Matt 5:43 ff and Luke 6:27, 32, 35 The commandment is interpreted already in the Inaugural Speech. 14 We have to look at the synonyms and antonyms of the absolute command. The antonyms of love – and the synonyms of love – can only be briefly mentioned. The main antonym is “hate” (µισεῖν, Matt 5:44); other antonyms include “retaliate,” “grudge,” “anger,” “having a heart of stone,” etc. Love and Its Synonyms In most languages and traditions the term “love” has a variety of meanings, and its references, synonyms and antonyms are therefore important for its meaning. The Inaugural Speech refers explicitly to Lev 19:18 and has therefore the same ethical impact. The physical-emotional love (ἔρως) is excluded and it has hardly the meaning of “cling (to).” The term can imply friendship (φιλεῖν), but also mildness (συµπαθεῖν), care (διακονεῖν), having sympathy, seeing the life from the perspective of others (στεργεῖν, cf. φιλόστοργοι in Rom 12:10), giving honour to the other (τῇ τιµῇ προηγούµενοι), demonstrating patience and forgiveness, etc. To love is thus virtually a total commitment.

13 Didache 1.2: πρῶτον ἀγαπησεις τὸν θεὸν τὸν ποιήσαντά σε, δεύτερον τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν· πάντα δὲ ὅσα ἐὰν θελήσῃς µὴ γίνεσθαί σοι, καὶ σὺ ἄλλῳ µὴ ποίει. Extensive argumentation in my article: “The Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount,” Theology & Life 36 (2013): 71–92. Didache comes very close to the Lucan text. 14 For details, see Neuer Wettstein: Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus: Band I /1.2: Texte zum Matthäusevangelium, Teilband 1: Matthäus 1–10 (ed. U. Schnelle; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013) and my book Parables and Rhetoric, 241–254. Cf. also Luise Schottroff, “Gewaltverzicht und Feindesliebe in der urchristlichen Jesustradition, Mt 5,38–48, Lk 6,27-36,” in Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie (ed. G. Strecker; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1975), 197–221; M. Reiser, “Love of Enemies in the Context of Antiquity,” NTS 47 (2001): 411–27; A. Kirk, “‘Love your Enemies’: The Golden Rule and Ancient Reciprocity,” JBL 122 (2003): 667–86.

Mission and Love of Enemy

69

Prayer is nearly synonymous to “love” only in Christian texts and only in Christian texts is it emphasised as an attitude towards enemies. In a Hellenistic context it is surprising when Luke 6:28 says: προσεύχεσθε περὶ τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑµᾶς. Praying means doing good, to wish the very best for somebody. Romans 12:12 (12:16) might reflect this tradition, because the theme of being patient in affliction, faithful in prayer (τῇ θλίψει ὑποµένοντες, τῇ προσευχῇ προσκαρτεροῦντες) is a bit surprising in this context. The closest parallel is T. Jos. 18.2 (“If anyone wishes to do you harm, you shall pray for him”) and 1Qap Gen 20.28–29 regards Abraham’s friendly attitude towards foreign rulers as a model. Christians do sp even more. They pay tribute and honour authorities and rulers that mistreat them. 15 It is an “aristocratic ethos,” not the one you expect from oppressed people. 16 The exhortation to pray for the ruler was repeated verbally in first and second century Christian texts. “Pray for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” exhorts 1 Tim 2:2–3 and Pol. Phil. 12. 17 Justin frequently repeats the theme of praying for one’s enemies. Before his presentation of what Christianity is all about in 1 Apol. 14, he says: “Pray for our enemies, and endeavor to persuade those who hate us unjustly to live conformably to the good precepts of Christ.” To “pray for your enemies, and love them that hate you” is a synonymous exhortation (1 Apol. 15 f; Dial. 96; 133.6) and even outsiders observed this attitude. Tertullian had therefore to confront an odd argument in his Apology: The prayer for the emperor is an attempt to flatter him and to escape persecution (Apol. 31–32). Tertullian responded that this attitude has nothing to do with the present situation. It is based in God’s (ancient) revelation, and “a large benevolence is enjoined upon us, even so far as to supplicate God for our enemies, and to beseech blessings on our persecutors.” Theophilus admonished Christians to be the opposite of “men-pleasers” (= Matt 6:1 ff), and adds: “concerning subjection to authorities and powers, and prayer for them, the divine word gives us instructions, in order that ‘we may lead a quiet and peaceable life’” (Autol. 3.14).

15 Cf. Rom 13:1 ff; Tit 3:1; 1 Pet 2:17, etc. In 1 Pet 2:17 “honor everyone” and “honor the emperor” are on the same level. In Ps 22:12, 28; Mic 2:13 etc. God’s kingship precedes every ruler. Jer 29:7; Isa 60:27–28 etc. ask to pray for the welfare of a city, for oversees peace and for the end of violence. 16 Cf. Gerd Theißen, “Gewaltverzicht und Feindesliebe (Mt 5,38–48/Lk 6,27-38) und deren sozialgeschichtlicher Hintergrund,” in idem, Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums (3rd ed.; WUNT 19; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), 160–97. 17 “Pray also for kings, and potentates, and princes, and for those that persecute and hate you, and for the enemies of the cross, that your fruit may be manifest to all, and that ye may be perfect in Him.” Polycarp refers to Matt 5:48 (“be perfect”), and to the phrase “enemies of the cross” found in Phil 3:18.

70

Ernst Baasland

Blessing is even stronger than praying. As a parallel to prayer, Luke 6:28 has therefore in the first place εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωµένους ὑµᾶς. A curse was perceived as devastating and blessing as its opposite provides healing in every aspect of life. Romans 12:14 repeats the Lukan phrase (εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς διώκοντας – εὐλογεῖτε καὶ µὴ καταρᾶσθε), as do 1 Cor 4:12 and 1 Pet 3:9. 18 We do not find such formulations in other benedictions. In a Jewish context, enemies and those who do not live in accordance with the law were normally cursed. Here one should do quite the opposite: Even the enemy must be blessed with God’s blessings. The “more than”-pattern or more than-ethos permeates the Inaugural Speech, as we see in the key sentence Matt 5:20 (πλεῖον), in the antitheses (Matt 5:21–48; 6:1–18) and in the paraenesis of 6:19 ff; 7:1 ff. The commandment to love one’s enemies has exactly this motivation: To greet and love their friends is nothing special; to greet and love the enemies is what Jesus demands. This type of paraenesis occurs frequently in the ethics of the early church. To love is to accept the best in other cultures and transcend it by doing even better. One should do more than what is expected. Aristides said characteristically: “And their oppressors they appease (lit.: comfort) and make them their friends; they do good to their enemies ... And when they see a stranger, they take him in to their homes and rejoice over him as a very brother; for they do not call them brethren after the flesh, but brethren after the spirit and in God” (1 Apol. 15). The Open Meaning of “Enemy” ᾿Εχθροί is not the opposite of πλησίον, but an immense extension of it. In Lev 19 the neighbour might include aliens, but enemy is a qualitatively different category. The factor of active hatred makes a huge difference, and this destructive factor has to be eliminated according to Matt 5. The term ἐχθροί denotes both individuals and people or nations and even military forces, but πόλεµος is a better term for the latter. Limitations of the general term will always be problematic. During the First World War many scholars tended to restrict ἐχθροί to mean just “personal enemies” and not “national” ones, or to distinguish between primitive hatred and intelligent love of enemy. 19 Already in the early church we see the tendency to give an allegorical interpretation of “enemy.” 20 18 λοιδορούµενοι εὐλογοῦµεν and ὴ ἀποδιδόντες κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ, ἢ λοιδορίαν ἀντὶ λοιδορίας, τοὐναντίον δὲ εὐλογοῦντες ... ἵνα εὐλογίαν. Cf. also 1 Pet 3:16 which reflects the same (ἵνα ἐν ᾧ καταλαλεῖσθε καταισχυνθῶσιν οἱ ἐπηρεάζοντες ὑµῶν τὴν ἀγαθὴν ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστροφήν); see also Jas 3:9 (ἐν αὐτῇ εὐλογοῦµεν τὸν κύριον ... καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ καταρώµεθα τοὺς ἀνθρώπους). 19 Cf. F. Kattenbusch, Über Feindesliebe im Sinne des Christentums (Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Berthes, 1916). 20 Like in Clement of Alexandria, where enemy is understood as sinner (Strom. 4.13,93–94.; 3.12,90).

Mission and Love of Enemy

71

In the OT the notion ἐχθρος (‫ב‬fֵ‫ )אוֹי‬means every enemy of God and his people, and it plays an important role in the Qumran texts, like in the famous dictum that “one shall love all sons of light and hate all sons of darkness.” 21 Also elsewhere it denotes the enmity among Jews, but in rabbinic texts after 70 CE and particularly in the Bar Kokhba revolt the term ‫ב‬fֵ‫ אוֹי‬was increasingly used in the meaning “alien” (ξένοι). Alien or enemy is one who do not have Jewish identity or does not live in accordance with the Jewish practices. In the Inaugural Speech enmity refers primarily to evil actions (πᾶν πονηρὸν, Matt 5:11, 39, 45; Luke 6:22, 35, 45) and persecution. Both Matthew and Luke mention explicitly persecutors as enemies (Matt 5:44: προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑµᾶς and Luke 6:27: καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοῖς µισοῦσιν ὑµᾶς). Enmity is basically about hatred. 22 Matthew mentions both “your enemy” (τὸν ἐχθρόν σου) and “the enemy of yours” (τοὺς (ἐχθροὺς ὑµῶν). The singular (ἐχθρόν) refers to evil activity whereas the plural (ἐχθρούς) has enemies more generally in mind. Hostility comes in both cases from the outside. It is not simply about “you” and “others,” because the text uses the outsiders (ἐθνικοί and τελῶναι as “others”) as negative examples. From the perspective of the Jewish audience pagans and publicans are second-class people. To conclude this section: To love one’s enemies is a command, but should not be reduced to a slogan. It is a concept and its different topics are in a sum the concept of Christian love of enemy. Some of these topics are found in Jewish and Graeco-Roman literature, but not the whole concept.

2.3. Elaboration of the Theme in Christian and Hellenistic Texts Matthew 5:44 and Luke 6:27 is not quoted in the rest of NT, but the pattern of thought and aspects of the concept are visible. It is repeated in the extension of the love command in John, in the narratives of Acts, and in a number of exhortations in the letters of Paul, 1 Peter and James. These authors might have known the synoptic tradition, but emphasise different aspects and uses a different wording. Didache, 2 Clement and Justin on the other hand quote the command. The most extensive treatment is found in Rom 12:9–21. The theme is sincere love (ἀγάπη ἀνυπόκριτος), and its content is repeated through a number of exemplifications. Romans 12 must be read as a whole and many exhortations /

21 1 QS 10.17–18; 1 QM 9.21; 11 QTem. 61.12–14, cf. R. Deines extensive treatment, “Die Abwehr der Fremden in den Texten aus Qumran: Zum Verständnis der Fremdenfeindlichkeit in der Qumrangemeinde,” in Die Heiden: Juden, Christen und das Problem des Fremden (ed. R. Feldmeier and U. Heckel; WUNT 70; Tübingen: Mohr 1994), 59–91. 22 Also in the Gospel of John (“the world hates you,” 7:7; 15:18, etc.); cf. Paul who asked the Galatians: “Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (Gal 4:16).

72

Ernst Baasland

admonitions explain what the command of love of enemy is all about. There are at least ten such exhortations /admonitions: – – – – – – – – – – –

hate evil and do good (ἀποστυγοῦντες τὸ πονηρόν, κολλώµενοι τῷ ἀγαθῷ), brotherly love should be strong (φιλόστοργοι), joy in persecution, faithful in prayer, hospitality (φιλοξενία), bless and not condemn (εὐλογεῖτε καὶ µὴ καταρᾶσθε), bring joy and care to everybody, particularly to people in low position, do not repay anyone evil for evil (µηδενὶ κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ ἀποδιδόντες), live at peace with everyone (µετὰ πάντων ἀνθρώπων εἰρηνεύοντες), do not take revenge (µὴ ἑαυτοὺς ἐκδικοῦντες), and finally: do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (µὴ νικῶ ὑπὸ τοῦ κακοῦ ἀλλὰ νίκα ἐν τῷ ἀγαθῷ τὸ κακόν).

Romans 12:17, 21 represents a broad catechetical tradition in early Christianity, based on Jewish texts and a broad ethical tradition in the Graeco-Roman world. 23 What is typical for the early Christian paraenesis? Is there a tendency to restrict the commandment to Christian circles as J. Becker assumed? 24 Or has W. Bauer correctly seen its growing importance in early Christian texts? 25 Or is a third option more likely? The path to a third option is to see that the command is not simply repeated. At least four additional aspects interpret the command: The Exclusion of Non-Retaliation To do away with the jus talionis-principle is crucial according to Christians, and many texts underline this: – µὴ ἀποδιδόντες κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ, Rom 12:17 (21); 1 Pet 3:9; 1 Thess 5:15. – ἢ λοιδορίαν ἀντὶ λοιδορίας, Rom 12:17; 1 Pet 3:9; 1 Cor 4:12, cf. 1 Tim 5:14. – εὐλογεῖτε καὶ µὴ καταρᾶσθε, Rom 12:14; Jas 3:9, cf. Ps 62:4; T. Benj. 6.5. This admonition has parallels both in Jewish and Graeco-Roman literature. Particularly Joseph and Aseneth (like Sir 10:6; 28:1–6; 31:24) warns against retaliation and hatred, and five times has the same admonition, virtually a maxim: 23 C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical an Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979), 2:645; Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 2006), 771, referring to Prov 17:13; Sir 27:22–28:26; Jos.Asen. 28.14; Ps.-Phoc. 32–34; 63 f; 74 f; 77; 142 f; 151 and Hesiod, Op. 265 f; 327; Theognis, Eleg. 279–82; 325–28; 365 f; 833–36; 1029 f; 1051–54; 1133 f; 1223 f; Menander, Mon. 5, 19, 46, 99, 269, 604, 675. 24 Becker, “Feindesliebe,” 10 ff (concentrates increasingly on brotherly love). 25 Walter Bauer, “Das Gebot der Feindesliebe und die alten Christen,” ZTK 27 (1917): 37–54.

Mission and Love of Enemy

73

“do not repay evil for evil” (Jos. Asen. 23:9; 28:5, 10, 14). Joseph and Aseneth 29.3 says more extensively: “it does not benefit a man who worships God to repay evil for evil nor to trample underfoot a fallen nor to oppress his enemy till death,” which demonstrates the difference to Jesus’ teaching. C. Burchard comments correctly: “Levi exhibits clemency towards a defeated enemy ... Jesus exacts love of one’s persecutors from a subdued minority predicted upon God’s boundless mercy.” 26 Many Graeco-Roman texts encourage the replacement of hatred with love, as much as possible (Sophocles, Aj. 678–683; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 1.78, 87; 6.68 about giving friend and foe treatment) and Epictetus protests against slander, etc. (λοιδορία, cf 1 Cor 4:12; 1 Pet 2:23; 3:9; 1 Tim 5:14) in a similar way. 27 According to Plato (Crito 49c), Socrates evaluated the act of punishment ethically and thought it difficult to distinguish bad treatment from doing evil. Nor does he distinguish between an attitude and the person involved. In his own treatment on righteousness (Resp. 1.33) also Plato went beyond the principle of jus talionis. Seneca argued that revenge is basically evil. It differs from evil only when it comes to timing or sequence of acting (Ira 32.1–33.1), and a peaceful mind has no room for anger (Ira 3.25.3 f; 40.4 f). Seneca and Epictetus have indeed the closest parallels in Hellenistic literature, but the difference remains between this kind of gradual understanding and Jesus’ absolute distinction between doing revenge – acting according to the principle of jus talionis – and doing good according to the principle of generosity or superabundance. To Repay Evil with Good To reject revenge is one thing; to do good even to enemies is the next step. Psalm 37:21 provides the fundamental stance: οἱ ἀνταποδιδόντες κακὰ ἀντὶ ἀγαθῶν. Romans 12 follows up with a threefold argument: ἡ ἀγάπη ἀνυπόκριτος, ἀποστυγοῦντες τὸ πονηρόν, κολλώµενοι τῷ ἀγαθῷ (12:9); προνοούµενοι καλὰ ἐνώπιον πάντων ἀνθρώπων (12:17) and µὴ νικῶ ὑπὸ τοῦ κακοῦ ἀλλὰ νίκα ἐν τῷ ἀγαθῷ τὸ κακόν (12:21). Galatians 6:10 gives the same teaching: ἐργαζώµεθα τὸ ἀγαθὸν πρὸς πάντας, where the “for all” is underlined, and the addition is not a restriction, but rather intensifies: “more so to the people of faith” (µάλιστα δὲ πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως). Linguistically there are few links to the Jesus tradition, but Paul’s text provides a good interpretation of the command in the Inaugural Speech. Many

26 Christoph Burchard, “Joseph and Aseneth: A New Translation and Introduction,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; ed. J. H. Charlesworth; London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1985), 2:247. Cf. T. Jos. 18.1 f; T. Zeb. 8.4–6. 27 Epictetus, Diatr. 3.12.10; 20.9–12; 28.100-102; Ench. 42.

74

Ernst Baasland

philosophers argue similarly that “good” is better than retaliation (Epictetus, Diatr. 2.10.13 f, 22–29, etc.) and Socrates expressed exactly the same. 28 To Live in Peace with All People This perspective gives the most sophisticated interpretation of “love of enemy”: peace instead of enmity, and instead of “we” versus (hostile) “they,” the emphasis is on “all.” This is the theme in Rom 12:18 (µετὰ πάντων ἀνθρώπων εἰρηνεύοντες), which is an application of the general statement in Rom 2:10 (εἰρήνη παντὶ τῷ ἐργαζοµένῳ τὸ ἀγαθόν, ᾿Ιουδαίῳ καὶ ῞Ελληνι). Theophilus said similarly that Jesus’ demand is to render all things to all, “to owe no man anything, but to love all” (Autol. 3.14). This attitude is rare, but occurs occasionally in a Jewish setting, like in T. Benj. 4.2–3 (“a good man ... is merciful to all”) and more so in Graeco-Roman literature. Seneca and others exhort the readers to meet enemies with mild attitudes. 29 To Treat Your Enemy Like Your Brother According to Lev 19:17a, one should not hate one’s brother, whereas Matt 5:46–47 and the NT epistles underline the concept of “brotherly love” and that one should never turn a brother into an enemy. It is clear in Rom 12:13 (ταῖς χρείαις τῶν ἁγίων κοινωνοῦντες), Gal 6:10 (πρὸς πάντας) and 2 Thess 3:15 (“Yet do not regard him as an enemy”). Philo, De virtutibus 106–160 has the closest parallels dealing with the theme of love and the extension of love. De virtutibus 160 makes God’s concern for the animals and plants a model for including also strangers and enemies (ἀλλοφύλός τις ἢ ἐχθρὸς). Philo understands that people react with joy when Flaccus was detained, but that is not the right attitude to have toward enemies (Flacc. 121). “The holy laws” demand ἀνθρωποπαθεῖν. 30 This phrase is not used in the LXX, but communicates this aspect well. 31

28 Socrates is παράδειγµα according to Epictetus (Diatr. 4.5,1–2). Cf. Plutarch, Mor. 21e–f: οὗτος καλὸς καὶ κἀγαθός γενόµενος; Mor. 799c (φιλάνδροπος ἄχρι τῷν πολεµίων). 29 Seneca, Herc. Ot. 1.4; Vit. beat. 20.5; Ben. 4.26.1; 28.1; 7.30.5. 30 Using the category of friendship Plutarch exhorts similarly (τοὺς φίλους εὐεργετεῖν τοὺς δὲ ἐχθροὺς φίλους ποιεῖν, Mor. 218a). 31 Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 2.18 in his treatise of love (as meekness, mildness, patience, liberality, freedom from envy, absence of hatred, etc.) quoted Philo (probably Virt. 120) who used the OT texts in his admonition against bearing malice toward an enemy. Jewish texts have comparable aspects that do not occur in the NT, like using the treatment of animals a model. T. Zeb. 5.1 states: “show mercy to your neighbour, have compassion on all, not only human beings but to dumb animals.” This fits into the tradition of Exod 23:4 (“If you come across your enemy’s ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him”) and Deut 22:1, 4. Philo, Virt. 120 argues that Moses initiated the praxis of Exod 23.

Mission and Love of Enemy

75

God is the One Who Judge and therefore the One Who Repays Romans 12:18–21 quotes Prov 25:21 and Deut 32:35 as proof-texts, and the last one is nearly a locus classicus in the OT (“It is mine to avenge; I will repay”). Jews and Christians share this conviction: God is the only judge, even though there might be differences when it comes to time (immediately or in the age to come) and agents (also Israel or God alone). Some texts in Proverbs are close to the Christian texts. 32 Some Qumran texts have similar formulations, e. g., CD 9.2–3 referring to Lev 19:18. 33 Testament of Gad 6.7 says simply: “forgive your offender and leave vengeance to God.” The strong admonitions in the OT against revenge (based on God’s power to avenge) have few parallels in GraecoRoman literature. Christian texts take a further step: If God avenges, people should leave this task to God alone. To conclude this section: The NT epistles do not quote the Matt 5:44 par., but interpret the commandment in creative ways that do not restrict the command. Every in-group paraenesis has of course particular communities in mind, but this command has a wide outreach. It is therefore misleading to see it adapted to church-related issues (German: Verkirchlichung). 34 It is rather about an adaption to similar tendencies in the Graeco-Roman literature, and particularly to the OT. Justin and others quoted Jesus’ saying, but they also quoted texts from the OT that had a similar message.

2.4. How Unique Is the Command? To love enemies is something peculiar. Even close parallels in Graeco-Roman literature, such as Epictetus, make this clear: “while he is being flogged [δέρειν] he must love [φιλεῖν] the person who flogs him, as though he were the father or brother of all” (Diatr. 3.22.54). Friendship or even sympathy with enemies is not the point, but he warns against hatred and retaliation. Polemics against the OT or Loci Communes? Matthew and Luke see the commandment as something new. The antithetical form (Matt 5:43–44, ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑµῖν, and Luke 6:27, ἀλλὰ ὑµῖν λέγω) and the contrast to Lev 19:18 (ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου) make this clear. These contrasting statements are often understood as polemics against the OT, but I 32 Proverbs 20:22 (“Do not say, ‘I’ll pay you back for this wrong!’ Wait for the Lord, and he will deliver you”), Prov 24:29 (“Do not say, ‘I’ll do to him as he has done to me; I’ll pay that man back for what he did’”), cf. the narrative in 2 Chr 28:8–15. 33 Krister Stendahl, “Hate, Non-Retaliation and Love: 1QS x.17–20 and Rom. 12,19–21,” HTR 55 (1962): 343–55. 34 Becker, “Feindesliebe.”

76

Ernst Baasland

have elsewhere argued against this position. 35 The theses in Matt 5:21–48 are only partly quotations of the OT, and the antitheses are not a refutation or interpretation of the OT. 36 Matthew 5:44 quotes only parts of Lev 19:18, and instead of quoting “as yourself ” (ὡς σεαυτόν – ‫) ְכּמוֹ‬, it is replaced with the provocative addition “and hate your enemy.” It is clear that ‫ע ְו‬/πλησίον has a restricted meaning, 37 but Lev 19:17–18, 33–34 argues quite the opposite and says that the Israelites should love even strangers “as yourself,” and warns explicitly against seeking revenge (‫קּם‬Tֹ ‫א־ת‬ ִ ‫)ל‬ fֹ or bear a grudge (‫א־ת ֹטּר‬ ִ ‫ְל‬ fֹ ‫)ו‬. There is in fact no exhortation about hating one’s enemy in the OT. A comparison with later rabbinic interpretations of Lev 19, e. g. the Sipra text to Lev 19, the Mekilta text to Exod 23:23,4–5, or the Ex. Rabbah text to Exod 18:12, make this clearer. The midrashim and haggadah look into the text and give proper interpretations. Matthew 5:43 ff looks in a new direction. The sixth antithesis deals rather with a general topic, and the topic is “friends and foes.” All antitheses are well-known topoi that partly overlap with OT commandments. Matthew 5:43b reflects the popular maxim found, for example, in Plato’s works: “to do good against friends and evil against enemies” (Pol. 332d; Resp. 1.334b). Like Hesiod, Op. 341–53, this is an example of the jus talionis principle that all the antitheses in Matt 5:21–48 argue against. The point is not certain enemies (mine, personal, religious, hostile people), but to argue against the very notion “enemy” and “hate.” Matthew 5:43b conveys a general topos, and Matt 5:44 is Jesus’ response. Matthew 5:21–48 does not argue against primarily Jewish notions. The first Christians were rather eager to find examples from the OT that prepared for Jesus’ concept of love of enemies. This is the case even in Matt 5:44 ff. If Matt 5:44 is a loci communes and not polemical, the phrase from Lev 19:18 leads in the right direction. Justin, Dial. 85.7 states it explicitly: “Listen, my friends, to the Scripture which induces me to act thus. Jesus commanded to love even [our] enemies, as was predicted by Isaiah in many passages.” He quotes Isa 66 and exactly this text was a key text for the church fathers. 38

35

Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 268–71. One should therefore hardly understand the saying as criticism of J;udaism, either as Jewish interpretation of the type we see in the Qumran texts (1 QS 1.9–10; 9.16, 21; 1QH 6.21) or just a popular maxim. At most it could reflect the Hellenistic accusations of Jewish misanthropy, cf. G. Dautzenberg, “Ihr habt gehört, dass gesagt worden ist: Du sollst deinen Feinden hassen (Mt 5,43ac),” in Studien zum Matthäusevangelium: Festschrift W. Pesch. (ed. L. Schenke; SBS; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk,1988), 49–77, cf. Neuer Wettstein, 482–484. 37 ‫ רע‬means more than just a countrymen, it might even include hostile persons, cf. Köckert, “Nächstenliebe,” 36 ff. 38 Justin uses the text also in Dial. 135.3 (and 136.2; 81.1; 97.2; 114.2; 130.3) and also Theophilus, Autol. 111.14 uses Isa 66:5 (LXX). In Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 2.87.3; 90.2 and Tertullian, Marc. 4.35.8, Isa 66 is a key text. In his Apology (1.13) Tertullian sees love of enemies as the final of four examples of the difference between previous events and now: 36

Mission and Love of Enemy

77

However, Jesus says something more and puts it even clearer. Therefore Christian theologians in the first and second century CE understood the commandment to love one’s enemies as something new and extraordinary: to love those who love us (family, friends) is simply what one expects; to love even enemies is something peculiar. 39 Didache 1.4 has Luke’s formulation (χάρις), whereas Justin, 1 Apol. 15 has the phrase τί καινόν. A Unique Commandment? Justin is obviously aware of the newness of the concept of love of enemy. The Jewish philosopher from Samaria living in Rome was in complete agreement with another Roman intellectual, Athenagoras of Athens. In his apology to the philosopher-emperor Marcus Aurelius (and to Commodus) he sees the love of enemy as something extraordinary: “What, then, are those teachings in which we are brought up? ‘I say unto you, Love your enemies; bless them that curse you; pray for them that persecute you’ ... who of them have so purged their souls as, instead of hating their enemies, to love them” (Leg. 11). 40 The brilliant lawyer Tertullian draws sharply the conclusion: “To love those that hate them [diligere inimicos] – is peculiar to Christian alone [propria bonitas nostra, non communis]” (Scap. 1).

3. Pagan Reactions, Outside Views, and 2 Clem. 13.4 as a Key Text According to the NT and other early Christian literature, persecution, lynching and slander against Christians took place from the very beginning. 41 The extent and the question of consistent ideology and strategy behind the persecution have been and will continue to be a matter of debate. The Christian response to the persecution was never one of hostility, but love of enemy, or in the case of Jews, love of neighbour or brotherly love. Love of enemies was thus a factor in early mission, but outsiders did not always understand its meaning. Christians

– we who formerly delighted in fornication, but now embrace chastity alone – we who formerly used magical arts, now dedicate ourselves to the good – we who valued above all things the acquisition of wealth and possessions, now bring what we have into a common stock, and communicate to everyone in need. 39 Matthew 5:46–47 uses the phrase τί περισσὸν (or τίνα µισθὸν); Luke 6:32–33 prefers the phrase ποία ὑµῖν χάρις. 40 Athenagoras quotes Matt 5:44 (and 5:5) and insists that Christians as extraordinary people should not hate enemies, but rather “love them; and, instead of speaking ill of those who have reviled them ... and to pray for those who plot against their lives ... they never cease with evil intent.” 41 Cf. H. Remus, “Persecution,” in Handbook of Early Christianity: Social Science Approaches (ed. A. J. Blasi, P.-A. Turcotte and J. Duhaime; Walnut Creek, Calif.: AltaMira Press, 2002), 431–52.

78

Ernst Baasland

saw this message as a benefit for all, something that could renew identity and as an expression of benevolence, goodwill. From the outside people were sometimes very critical to its realism as possible behaviour. They perceived often Christians as intruders and their teaching as a threat and menace. The first Christians in Jerusalem, Antioch (Acts 11:26) and all over the Roman Empire were seen as a separate (Jewish) group. Also the first Christians had this outside-perspective (Mark 3:32; 4:11, ἐκείνοις δὲ τοῖς ἔξω and Col 4:5). In the last case it is a about concern for those outside (τοῖς ἔξω). 42 Identitymarkers create an in-group and separate them from out-groups. Jesus and the Jesus-movement differentiated “we” and “they” from the very beginning. This was, however, not based on space, territory or on ethnicity, but on the Christian message and a new cultural identity. Four identity-markers are in general significant: Stories (creed, ideology), ethos (laws, costumes), rites (cult, festivals) and institutions (leaders). Compared with the Jews, the Christians added and interpreted stories and ethical issues, but the rites and institution became increasingly different. Still Jews and Christians were seen as one sect because their stories, ethos, rites and institutions, resulted in a critical attitude towards parts of Roman ethos and customs and particularly the Roman rites. Criticism of the Concept Both Christians and their critics (Trypho, Celsus, and later Porphyry and Julian) refer to outside reactions. 43 The discussion between Origen and Celsus (Cels. 8.35) is illuminating. Celsus is distraught when it comes to “those whose characters have been formed by the teaching of Jesus, and who have heard the words, ‘Love your enemies, and pray for them which despitefully use you, that ye may be the children of your Father.’” Celsus knows Matt 5:44–45 thoroughly, and is critical. He found a better attitude in Zeno’s response to people who said: “Let me perish rather than not have my revenge on thee.” Zeno answered: “But rather let me perish if I do not make a friend of thee.” Celsus finds the same more realistic attitude in Ps 7:4–5 (“if I have returned evil to those who have done evil to me, let me fall helpless under the enemies of mine”). One should notice that Luther interpreted Ps 7 in the same way. 44

42 W. C. van Unnik, “Die Rücksicht auf die Reaktion der Nicht-Christen als Motiv in der altchristlichen Paränese,” in idem, Sparsa Collecta, Part 2: 1 Peter, Canon, Corpus Hellenisticum, Generalia (NovTSup 30; Leiden: Brill, 1980), 301–22; “Die Motivierung der Feindesliebe in Lukas vi 32–35,” in idem, Sparsa Collecta, Part 1: Evangelia, Paulina, Acta (NovTSup 29, Leiden: Brill 1973), 111–26. 43 Cf. J. G. Cook, The Interpretation of the New Testament in Graeco-Roman Paganism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). 44 WA 5, 227.28 ff; 233.26 ff. Celsus and Origen considered Jesus’ teaching as more unique and radical.

Mission and Love of Enemy

79

Tertullian dealt in Ad nationes with rumours about Christians, starting with the astonishing fact that the fast growing church met hatred everywhere, which is even more astonishing because of the teaching of the love of enemies. In his Apology he referred to an outsider’s view: Vide, inquiunt (“Look,” they say). They observed ut invicem se diligant (“how they love one another”). 45 This was true in Carthage and the well-informed Tertullian probably based his observation on many reports. Second Clement 13:4 as Story and Paraenesis Second Clement 13:4 is particularly important when it comes to observations from an outside perspective. The observation links directly to the command to love one’s enemies, which shows the importance of the command (τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ). Here we have nearly the whole semantic field: – the command itself (ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς καὶ τοὺς µισοῦντας ὑµᾶς). – the same motivation (ἀλλὰ χάρις ὑµῖν), here marked with the strong ἀλλὰ as in Luke 6:27 and Matt 5:43–44. – It underlies the argument: “even pagans treat their countrymen well, you even more.” Second Clement (4:3) 13:1–4 confirms Jesus’ saying and also Jesus’ criticism of hypocrisy (καλῶµεν, 2 Clem. 4:1), referring to Matt 7:21 / Luke 6:46 (καλεῖτε) and to Isa 52:5 (2 Clem. 13:2). The author observed the admiration from outsiders: “For the nations [τὰ ἔθνη], hearing from our mouth the oracles of God, marvel at their excellence and worth ... whenever they hear these words, they marvel at the surpassing measure of their goodness [τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς ἀγαθότητος].” He then referred to their criticism: “thereafter learning that our deeds are not worthy of the words which we speak, – receiving this occasion they turn to blasphemy, saying that they are a fable and a delusion.” Outsiders were observing “that we not only do not love those who hate [µισοῦντας οὐκ ἀγαπῶµεν] us, but not even those who love us.” It is indeed ridiculous: “they laugh us to scorn, and the name is blasphemed.” The context of Matt 7 and Isa 52 is very different. Isaiah 52 retells the Exodus story and God’s acts with his people (ὁ λαός µου) against their enemies; the Egyptians and now the Assyrians. Isaiah 52:6–7 states “all day long my name is constantly blasphemed” (διὰ παντὸς τὸ ὄνοµά µου βλασφηµεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν) and continues with the promise that there will be a change; soon will everybody know my name. The obscure quotation in 2 Clem. 13:4 (καὶ πάλιν·οὐαὶ δι᾽ ὃν βλασφηµεῖται τὸ ὀνοµά 45 He adds: ipsi enim invicem oderunt (“for they themselves hate one another”), and et ut pro alteruto mori sint parati; ipsi enim ad occidendum alterutrum paratiores erunt. (“and how they are ready to die for each other, for they themselves are readier to kill each other”), Apol. 39 (CSEL 69).

80

Ernst Baasland

µου) does not refer to Isa 52, but rather to a specific Christian interpretation, perhaps based also on Luke 6:22 (Matt 5:11–12; 10:22; Luke 12:8–9). 46 Nor does 2 Clement quote Isa 52:7: “How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace ... who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, ‘Your God reigns!’” Is there, however, a link between the strong emphasis on love of enemies and the message of the Kingdom of God in Isaiah and in Jesus’ teaching? 47 Second Clement 13 is an extraordinary statement, but also Ign. Trall. 8.2 starts with the love-commandment (µηδεὶς κατὰ τοῦ πλησίον ἐχέτω) and similar to 2 Clement Ignatius warns against the misuse of Jesus’ name (τὸ ὄνοµα µου βλασφηµεῖται). As in 2 Clement the outside-perspective is important. He refers to the fact that ἔθνοι blaspheme the people of God (here called πλῆθος). Tertullian reflects a similar argument, based on the certain conviction: “God certainly forbids us to hate even with a reason for our hating; for He commands us to love our enemies. God forbids us to curse.” He asks: “Is a causeless love perhaps more legitimate than a causeless hatred?” (Spect. 16) and he deals explicitly with revenge: “How often has its vehemence been found worse than the causes which led to it!” and “If I shall not feel pain, I shall not desire to avenge myself ” (Pat. 10). Tertullian refers explicitly to the criticism of odium humani generis and responded: “you choose to call us enemies of the human race, rather than of human error” (Apol. 37). The reaction against Christians is sometimes the opposite of what one might expect. Diognetus 5 states: “They love all men, and are persecuted by all ... they are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honor; they do good, yet are punished as evildoers.” 48 Athenagoras argues similarly that society profits from Christians: “instead of hating their enemies, to love them; and, instead of speaking ill of those who have reviled them ..., to bless them; and to pray for those who plot against their lives” (Leg. 11). These examples show that the concept of love of enemy plays an important role in mission and communication with τοῖς ἔξω.

46 Romans 2:24 (τὸ γὰρ ὄνοµα τοῦ θεοῦ δι᾿ ὑµᾶς βλασφηµεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, καθὼς γέγραπται). Pol., Phil. 10.3 has similarly “per quem nomen domini blasphematur.” 47 Cf. Schnabel, Mission, 501–2: “The first Christians practiced Jesus’ command to love one’s enemies and relinquish force. ... The exhortation to love one’s enemy and relinquish violence is not just a provocative protest against the vicious cycle of violence as a ‘sigh of the oppressed’ but the expression and consequence of the arrival of the kingdom of God.” 48 One can ask: How realistic was this description in Diogn. 5? It might be correct, but it can rather be a paraphrase of the beatitudes. Athenagoras, Leg. 11 said similarly: “they do not rehearse speeches, but exhibit good works; when struck, they do not strike again; when robbed, they do not go to law; they give to those that ask of them, and love their neighbors as themselves.”

Mission and Love of Enemy

81

4. The Impact of Love of Enemy in Mission: Diognetus 5 and Once More “Territory” Mission implies distancing oneself from others, one directs a new message toward others. The new message normally implies a new ideology and world-view as the message of love of enemy illustrates. It had an enormous effect on the conception of territory, space, on ethnicity and on theological thinking and also on early Christian mission. Christianity is basically not dependent on territory and space. The early Christians made the Abraham and Exodus-tradition their own: they saw themselves easily as “foreigners,” “aliens,” living in the “diaspora.” To “inherit the Land” (Matt 5:5) is an eschatological expectation and ἡ γῆ denotes “earth,” “the world.” The perspective is universal, not limited to the land of Israel. Jews and Christians had thus entirely different conception of “enemy.” Diognetus 5.1–2 shows how most Christians understood the relation between their faith and the conception “nation”: 49 “For Christians are not distinguished from the rest of mankind either [οὔτε] in locality [γῆ] or in speech or in customs [φωνῇ – ἔθεσι]. For they dwell not somewhere in cities of their own, neither do they use some different language, nor practice an extraordinary kind of life [οὔτε βίον παράσηµον ἀκοῦσιν].” The author continues: But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. ... They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. ... They are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred (5.9 and 17).

The main maxim is formulated in Diogn. 5.5: They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers [πᾶσα ξένη πατρίς ἐστιν αυτῶν, καὶ πᾶσα πατρὶς ξένη].

This text should be compared with Justin, Dial. 119, which retells the story about Abraham and the election of a new people. Like Paul Justin saw this election as gift to “people of faith.” Faith and not territory or “nation” (τὸ ἔθνος) is the basis. The gift is not limited to a territory and a people. Matthew 28:18–20, Luke 24:47 and Acts 1:8 underline that the whole world is included, like in

49 First Clement 55 has a list of role models for Christian behaviour. The author labels these as pagans (ἔθνοι), and among them is even the Jews Judith (she went into the enemy’s camp, to the pagan Holofernes) and Esther.

82

Ernst Baasland

Gen 12:2–3 (ποιήσω σε εἰς ἔθνος µέγα; ‫ָדוֹל‬ D ‫וֹי גּ‬S‫ָך ְלג‬I ‫שׂ‬ ְ ‫ע‬fֶ ֶ ‫ )א‬or Isa 49:6 about salvation as light for gentiles (εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν). 50 This attitude toward territory and space could be understood as extreme cosmopolitism, in the sense of Diogenes of Sinope or some Stoics, but the roots are in the teaching of Jesus and Paul. Paul’s dictum is “neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11) and Col 3:11 adds nor “barbarian or Scythians.” Barbarian has to do with language, the Scythians with customs. 51 Christians evangelized accordingly among Jews as a peculiar case, as to one of their own. 52 Jews are never seen as an enemy, even though some Jews treat them as such. Romans 11:28 says: “As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account [ἐχθροὶ δι᾿ ὑµᾶς]; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs [ἀγαπητοὶ διὰ τοὺς πατέρας].” Paul and most Christians argue that the promises given to the Jews gave them peculiar status. Hostility against them is excluded. The Love of Enemy as Consistent Thinking in Mission The criticism of the concept of love of enemy was sometimes harsh because it was seen as a consequence of the Christian world-view. Rulers were probably mocking, and it is still striking that Constantine made a religion that preached love of enemies to a religio licita. This message had great political impact because love of enemy was far more than an arbitrary command. It is consistent with the basic doctrine and ethics, and its world view, which implied a new notion of territory and nation. The Christian ethics was at certain points not at all universal. “To love those who love us” is universal, but not “to love those who hate us.” This is an example of the superabundance that characterizes Christian ethics. 53 In the very notion of “love” is normally the presupposition that it must

50 Genesis 12:3 continues with the semantic field of the love of enemy tradition: εὐλογήσω τοὺς εὐλογοῦντάς σε,... ἐν σοὶ πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς. Cf. Aristides, Apol. 2.8; Didasc. 15; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6.6.48,2 (Kerygma Petri). Ascen. Isa. 3.17–18 has in its Christian interpolation 3.13–4.2 a similar pattern of thought: “send out the twelve disciples, and they will teach all nations and every tongue the resurrection of the Beloved.” 51 Herodotus 4.76.1 says Scythians reject Greek and Roman customs, cf. 2 Macc. 4:47; 3 Macc. 7:5; 4 Macc. 10:7. Josephus (C. Ap. 2.269) calls Scythians “little better than wild beasts.” The Scythians were also seen as slaves (Pliny, Nat. 4.80 f; Plutarch, Pomp. 78.4; Dio Cassius 79.5.5–79.6.3. 52 Trypho is, however, critical. He blames Christians that they are not “in any particular” separated and “do not alter your mode of living from the nations,” using the following examples: “in that you observe no festivals or Sabbaths and do not have the rite of circumcision” and “you do not obey His commandments.” He adds: “Have you not read, that soul shall be cut off from his people who shall not have been circumcised on the eighth day? And this has been ordained for strangers and for slaves equally. But you, despising this covenant rashly, reject the consequent duties” (Justin, Dial. 10). 53 Unnik, “Rücksicht” and P. Ricoeur, “The Golden Rule: Exegetical and Theological Perplexities,” NTS 36 (1990): 392–97.

Mission and Love of Enemy

83

be repaid. The very notion of “enemy” presupposes hatred. To repay an enemy with love is always extraordinary. The love of enemies is an exemplification of what the Golden Rule is all about (Luke 6:32; Matt 7:12; Did. 1.2–3), it provides a reason for generous hospitality (φιλοξενία, φιλόξενος, Rom 12:13; 1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:8; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9), for an attitude of kindness, mildness, mercifulness, compassion /charity, etc. Love of enemy opens the possibility of a truly universal ethics, for a unique compassion for everyone, as Justin underlined (1 Apol. 15.9; 16.1: περὶ δὲ τοῦ στέργειν ἅπαντας ... ὑπηρετικούς πᾶσι). This ethics is a consequence of Christian theology. The commandment to love one’s enemies in Rom 12 corresponds with the reflections on one God (Rom 3:30, εἷς ὁ θεὸς), the God for all people (3:29: ἢ ᾿Ιουδαίων ὁ θεὸς µόνον; οὐχὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν; ναὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν), for whom no human differences exists (2:10, προσωποληµψία). The Inaugural Speech has the same argument. The commandment is based on the understanding of God as a God of all. Christians should be merciful (οἰκτίρµονες, Luke 6:36), perfect (τέλειοι, Matt 5:48) like God. In Jesus’ teaching it was part of the message of the Kingdom of God. This kingdom is not a nation. The war-terminology is therefore avoided. Nevertheless, its ethics is an ethics for this world, and not part of the eschatology. This universalism had great impact on mission, and the fact that Jewish and Graeco-Roman texts (particularly Seneca and Epictetus) were a point of reference for a revolutionary message in a world of hostility. Outsiders had to pay attention to or to strongly oppose the message of Christian missionaries.

Peter on the Way to His Universal Mission in the Gospel of John Johannes Beutler SJ

Abstract When Peter is called by Jesus, he receives his new name, but he remains an ambiguous figure in John 13–20. Only in chapter 21, does he appear as a fisherman and a shepherd. His confession of Jesus as “the Holy One” in John 6:68–69 may go back to a “re-reading” of the Fourth Gospel.

Introduction In a volume about mission in the New Testament and in the early Church, a contribution on the Gospel of John should not be missing. Indeed, the idea of “sending” belongs to the central subjects of the Gospel of John. The mission of the disciples for the forgiveness of sins is rooted in the mission of Jesus, sent by the Father: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (John 20:21). The disciples are empowered in their mission by the Holy Spirit, sent by the Father or from the Father (John 14:26; 15:26). Among the individual disciples who receive a mission from Jesus according to the Gospel of John, Peter plays a prominent role. He belongs to the first disciples of Jesus according to the first chapter of John (John 1:40–42), and his role as a missionary is developed in the last chapter (John 21:1–14, 15–19). In the long section about the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus in John 13–20, Peter generally appears beside the Beloved Disciple and seems to depend on him. He even fails, where the Beloved Disciple remains faithful to Jesus. In this contribution we try to show that Peter as a missionary is a developing character. His new name as “stone” or “rock” in John 1:42 will not be justified fully in the course of the Gospel of John in its first edition. It is only in John 21, probably an addition of the Johannine School at the end of the first century that his role becomes more explicit. It is to this later edition of the Fourth Gospel that we also ascribe the confession of Peter in John 6:68–69. It is with pleasure and gratitude that I dedicate these pages to our former colleague and friend Hans Kvalbein. His insightful book Jesus og de fattige, about Jesus and the poor in the Synoptic Gospels 1 helped me to understand better the 1 Hans Kvalbein, Jesus og de fattige: Jesu syn på de fattige og hans bruk av ord for “fattig” (Oslo: Luther forlag, 1981).

86

Johannes Beutler SJ

role of the rich and the poor in the Lukan texts. We later met regularly in the annual meetings of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas (SNTS), not only in Norway (1985), but also in other parts of the world, and we all miss his cheerful character and his warm humanity besides his scholarly gifts.

The Call of Peter Peter is first introduced in John 1:40–42 in the course of a day during which John the Baptist leads some of his disciples to Jesus (John 1:35–42). Unlike the Markan tradition (Mark 1:16–20 par. Matt 4:18–22), Peter does not belong to the first two disciples called by Jesus, and he is not even called directly, but introduced by his brother Andrew to Jesus. Andrew plays a dominant role in the Gospel of John. We meet him during the scene of the Multiplication of Loaves (John 6:8) as the brother of Simon Peter and, more importantly, when some Greeks want to see Jesus, as their mediator (John 12:22). Here he figures beside or even after Philip, another prominent character among the first disciples of Jesus. This disciple is called directly by Jesus to follow him, different from other first disciples (John 1:43–44). The reason for the prominence of Andrew and Philip for the Fourth Gospel may lie in the fact that both originated from Bethsaida (John 1:44), a city with Greek culture under the rule of Herod Philip, and may have helped the Christians of Greek origin in the Johannine Communities to find their way to Jesus. On the one hand, Andrew is introduced in John 1:40 as “Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.” This means Peter is a well-known figure for the readers of John, even before he has been named directly for the first time in the following verse. On the other hand, Peter is not called directly by Jesus, but only led do him by his brother Andrew who testifies: “We have found the Messiah.” 2 One striking observation is the fact that Peter is not called in this instance “to follow Jesus.” This will only be mentioned later, in connection with Peter’s destiny to follow Jesus in his violent death (John 13:36), taken up in John 21:19–22. Andrew, in his turn, is called “one of the two who had heard John speak, and followed Jesus” (John 1:40). Andrew becomes the first to express his faith in Jesus in his words to his brother: “We have found the Messiah” (John 1:41). He then leads him to Jesus, who looks at him and says: “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)” (John 1:42 RSV). In the Synoptic tradition, 2 See for this scene and the following ones Tanja Schultheiß, Das Petrusbild im Johannesevangelium (WUNT 2/329; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 80–96; Nicolas Farrelly, The Disciples in the Fourth Gospel: A Narrative Analysis of Their Faith and Understanding (WUNT 2/290; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 89–90.

Peter on the Way to His Universal Mission in the Gospel of John

87

it is only from the formal calling of the Twelve in Mark 3:16–19 par. that Simon receives his new name “Peter.” In John, Simon, son of John, receives his new name right from the beginning, and this seems to be due to his reputation of being of fundamental importance for the belief of the faithful. While kefaʿ in Aramaic means “stone,” the Greek equivalent given by John means “rock” and points to the role of Peter as the foundation or column of the future church (cf. Matt 16:18 and Paul in Gal 2:9). 3 When Jesus speaks of the new name of Simon in the future, this is certainly more than a prediction. By receiving his new name, Peter also receives a commission. At this point, it is not clear when and how Peter will fulfil his new role. Apparently, the author leaves an empty space which the readers have to fill in. This is at least the impression created by the text and observed by recent commentators. 4 If our analysis is correct, the gap may not even be filled during the course of the following narrative. Only a later “re-reading” of the text seems to have seen the need of making the commission of Peter more explicit.

Peter on the Way to Faith and Fidelity If we pass by the confession of Peter in John 6:68–69, we only encounter Peter again at the beginning of the Johannine account of the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus. Here, Peter proves a disciple with a faith that still needs development. This is already the case in the dialogue between him and Jesus following Jesus’ washing of feet of his disciples in John 13:6–11. Peter does not grasp the symbolic meaning of the gesture of Jesus or may even be opposed to it. Once he has understood the necessity of accepting the gesture of Jesus, he even wants it applied to the whole body, misunderstanding the symbolic dimension of Jesus’ action. In his words of interpretation, Jesus affirms that not all of his disciples are now clean. This is a clear reference to Judas, but throws a shadow on the whole group of disciples. In the next scene, Peter appears beside the Beloved Disciple of Jesus who enters the stage here for the first time. This Disciple is lying close to the breast of Jesus according to John 13:23. He is asked by Peter who Jesus was speaking of when he announced that one of their group would betray him (v. 24). As in other cases, Peter speaks for the group of the disciples, but it is only the Beloved

3 Cf. Judith Hartenstein, Charakterisierung im Dialog: Maria Magdalena, Petrus, Thomas und die Mutter Jesu im Johannesevangelium (NTOA 6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Academic Press, 2007), 158–59. 4 Cf. Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina 4; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1998), 55; Jean Zumstein, L’évangile selon Saint Jean (1–12) (CNT deuxième série IVa; Genève: Labor et Fides 2014), 88.

88

Johannes Beutler SJ

Disciple, who lies in the bosom of Jesus (as Jesus in the bosom of the Father: John 1:18), who learns the truth from Jesus and can relay it to Peter and the other disciples. In the next scene, at the beginning of the Farewell Discourse, Jesus announces to Peter his coming threefold denial. Authors point to the wording of Peter’s promise to remain faithful to Jesus to the end: “I will lay down my life for you” (John 13:37). This is a clear echo of the characteristics of the Good Shepherd according to John 10:11, 15, 17. 5 By using this expression, Peter seems to emulate his Lord, but he will fail after only a short time. In the arrest scene, Peter shows again his lack of understanding. When Jesus is about to be detained, he draws his sword and cuts off the right ear of Malchus, a servant of the High Priest (John 18:10). He has not understood that Jesus is ready to drink the cup the Father has prepared for him (v. 11). Again, Peter does not appear as man of little faith, but rather as a disciple of poor understanding of his Lord. In the trial of Jesus before the Jewish High Priest Annas (John 18:11–27), Peter is explicitly opposed to Jesus. John has separated the scenes about Peter’s denial, united in the Synoptics (Mark 14:66–72 par.), and inserted the interrogation of Jesus by Annas between the first denial of Peter and the two following ones. In this way, the evangelist creates a sharp contrast between Jesus, who confesses his identity (as before with his threefold “I am” in the arrest scene) and Peter who repeatedly answers the question about himself with an “I am not” (John 18:17, 25). During this sequence of scenes, Peter increasingly loses his identity. He is just standing in the court of the High Priest and warming himself beside the charcoal fire without any action or further word. 6 With good reason, Jesus skips the answer to the question of the High Priest about his disciples (John 18:19). They have all left him, or rather have been dismissed by him (John 18:8); only the Beloved Disciples has followed him as far as he could into the court of the Palace of the High Priest (John 18:16), without denying his Master. After this, Peter goes off stage. It is only the Beloved Disciple who, together with the women and Jesus’s mother, stands under the cross and receives his last commissioning (John 19:25–27). Rather unexpectedly, Peter reappears in John 20:2. Mary Magdalene has found the tomb empty, and together with the other women, she runs into the

5 See for instance François Tolmie, “The (not so) Good Shepherd: The Use of Shepherd Imagery in the Characterisation of Peter in the Fourth Gospel,” in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language (ed. Jörg Frey, Jan G. van der Watt, and Ruben Zimmermann; WUNT 200; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 353–367, 364–365. 6 A good analysis of this scene is found in Bernadette Escaffre, “Pierre et Jésus dans la cour du grand prêtre (Jn 18,12–27),” RTL 31 (2000): 43–67.

Peter on the Way to His Universal Mission in the Gospel of John

89

city in order to inform Peter and the Beloved Disciples about her discovery. The verse shows several aspects: Peter is still close to the place of the execution of Jesus and, more importantly, to the group of the disciples of Jesus, starting with the women. He is recognized as a leading representative of this group, a kind of spokesperson. He appears again by the side of the Beloved Disciple and is mentioned before him. This prepares for his future role in the community. The same impression presents itself in the following scene. Together with the Beloved Disciple, Peter runs towards the tomb of Jesus for a personal inspection. The two disciples run together. The Beloved Disciple arrives first, but allows Peter to enter the tomb first (John 20:6–8). Apparently, Peter receives respect as the spokesperson of the group of the disciples, but the Beloved Disciples proves closer to Jesus as far as understanding is concerned. 7 In fact, the Beloved Disciple, after his entry into the tomb, sees the linen cloths lying and the napkin, which had covered the head of Jesus, and concludes from this observation that the resurrection of Jesus has occurred. Both, to this point, had not understood Scripture that Jesus would have to rise from the dead (v. 9). Both disciples are here confirmed in their role: Peter in his position of respect among the group of disciples, the Beloved Disciples in his deep insight into the mystery of Jesus, which makes him the privileged witness of Jesus also in the future. There is no report about a first appearance of the risen Jesus to Peter as in Paul (1 Cor 15:5) or in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 16:7; Luke 24:34). Perhaps in dependence on the narrative about the appearance of Jesus to the group of the Eleven in Luke 24:36–49, John tells us about the appearance of Jesus to his disciples on the eve of Passover, without mentioning any particular names (John 20:19–23). Peter seems to be integrated into this group of disciples. The only disciple who is named explicitly is Thomas, who is first absent, then hears the message of the Resurrection, does not want to believe and is convinced of the Resurrection of his Lord by Jesus himself, confessing him his Lord and his God (John 20:24–29). Up to this point, there is little reason to see Peter as the coming missionary. There is not a single confession of his faith, but rather to the contrary, a threefold denial of Jesus. However, Peter is treated with respect, is always close to the Beloved Disciple, is mentioned first among those who are told by the women about the empty tomb and is also granted precedence by the Beloved Disciple when they arrive at the tomb. From all this follows a leading role of Peter in the group of the disciples of Jesus, although before Easter and the Exaltation of Jesus he does not act as a missionary.

7 See for this vision Jürgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes: Kapitel 11–21 (3rd ed.; ÖTK 4/2; GTB Siebenstern; Gütersloh-Würzburg: Mohn-Echter, 1991), 722–23, who ascribes this scene to the Eccclesiastical Redaction.

90

Johannes Beutler SJ

Peter and His Universal Mission It is not before chapter 21 that the mission of Peter comes clearly to the fore. With the majority of continental exegetes, I see in the chapter a later addition to John 1–20 in a new perspective 8 and call it a “re-reading” (relecture). 9 After the conclusion of John 20:30–31, a continuation of the narrative adding simply a third apparition of Jesus is difficult to imagine. It is even less comprehensible why the disciples return to Galilee and resume their previous activity of fishermen, as if Jesus had not sent them out to preach the forgiveness of sins. The main reason for the chapter seems to be that the role of Peter and of the Beloved Disciple needed further explanation, in particular since the Beloved Disciple seems to have died in the meantime. As Jean Zumstein puts it: while in the main part of the Fourth Gospel the question is who is Jesus, the question now is: who are the apostles, mainly Peter and the Beloved Disciple according to Jesus? 10 With this, the interest is no longer Christological, but ecclesiological. As far as Peter is concerned, John 21:1–19 can be divided into two sections: vv. 1–14 the miraculous catch of fish and the apparition of Jesus, vv. 15–19 the commission to Peter and the call to follow Jesus. At this point, we shall also interpret the section about Peter’s confession in John 6:68–69. For reasons to be mentioned later we consider the whole of chapter 6 in the Gospel of John as secondary, another case of “re-reading.” Thus we place this text at the end of our investigation.

The Fisherman (John 21:1–14) The context of this section is characterized by discontinuity. The reader of John 1–20 does not expect a narrative of yet a third appearance of Jesus to his disciples. Even less would one expect Peter and his companions to resume their previous activity as fishermen in Galilee. Thus, the indications of time, space, protagonists and action indicate a complete rupture with the previous narrative context of the Gospel. At first, Peter invites his companions to go fishing. They all follow him, but their efforts remain unsuccessful. At this point Jesus stands, unrecognized, at the shore and invites them to cast the nets again, this time on the right side, and although in the meantime the daylight has come, the disciples catch an amount of fish which they can bring to the land only with difficulty.

8 Cf. Becker, Evangelium, 758–776; Udo Schnelle, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (4th ed.; THKNT 4; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2009), 339–346. 9 In this I follow Jean Zumstein, L’évangile selon Saint Jean (13–21) (CNT Deuxième série IVB; Genève: Labor et Fides, 2007), 298–320. 10 See Zumstein, Évangile (13–21), 300.

Peter on the Way to His Universal Mission in the Gospel of John

91

Here, the Beloved Disciple, named before as one of the seven disciples, enters the scene actively. He comes to the conclusion: “It is the Lord.” At this word, Peter puts on his clothes and jumps into the sea in order to meet Jesus. The scene is reminiscent of the visit of the two disciples to the tomb of Jesus in John 20:3–10. Peter arrives first, but the Beloved Disciple has the deeper insight. When they all arrive and have hauled the net to the shore, Jesus has already prepared for them a meal with bread and fish, roasted on a charcoal, and invites them to eat. Everything in this scene is meaningful: the net which does not break in spite of the great quantity of fish; the number of 153 big fish (a riddle till now); the charcoal which is reminiscent of Peter warming himself up in the courtyard of the High Priest in John 18:18; bread and fish which recall the Multiplication of the Loaves and Fish in John 6:9, 11 with a Eucharistic ring to the bread. Behind the whole scene seems to stand the call of Peter according to Luke 5:1–11. The proposal to see behind the scene also a second tradition about an appearance of Jesus on the shore of Lake Tiberias has not convinced interpreters. 11 Thus, the coincidences and differences of the Johannine text in comparison with the Lukan one are relevant. In Luke, the particular traits of the successful catch of fish are different: two boats, no mention of the number of fish and the net, which does not break, no mention of the meal prepared by Jesus or of the charcoal fire. In Luke, the scene ends with the confession of Peter as a sinner and his call as a fisher of men; in John the call of Peter to serve as a shepherd of the fold of Jesus follows in the next scene (vv. 15–19). In a recent dissertation, Maurizio Marcheselli has focused on two dimensions of the Johannine narrative in John 21:1–14: the catch of the fish and the meal. 12 In the meal, offered by Jesus, there are fish of two sources: those supplied by Jesus and those brought from the sea by the disciples. According to Marcheselli, they stand for two dimensions of this meal: for the Eucharist as the gift offered by Jesus and for mission, realized by the apostles and Peter. As far as basic dimensions of the community are concerned, one might add a third element: the word of Jesus, which has led to the miraculous catch of fish in v. 6. Thus, word, sacrament and ministry meet. 13 Unlike Luke 5:1–11, in John 21:1–14 there is no sending of Peter as a fisher in order to catch men. This dimension seems to have been replaced by the image of the shepherd, which determines the next paragraph.

11 Cf. Rudolf Pesch, Der reiche Fischfang – Lk 5,1-11/Joh 21,1–14 – Wundergeschichte – Berufungserzählung – Erscheinungsbericht (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1969). 12 Maurizio Marcheselli, “Avete qualcosa da mangiare?” Un pasto, il Risorto, la comunità (Biblioteca di Teologia di Evangelizzazione 2; Bologna: EDB, 2006). 13 Cf. Johannes Beutler, “Ein neuer Zugang zu Joh 21,” in idem, Neue Studien zu den johanneischen Schriften /New Studies on the Johannine Writings (BBB 167; Göttingen: V&R Unipress; Bonn University Press, 2012), 181–185, 185.

92

Johannes Beutler SJ

The Shepherd (John 21:15–19) The following scene is added with reference to the preceding one by “when they had finished breakfast.” Jesus now asks Peter three times whether he loves him, the first time even whether he loves him more than the others do. Peter refuses this comparison and only affirms his love for Jesus. Jesus knows that he loves him, and this is enough. The fact that Jesus asks Peter three times about his love for him clearly alludes to the threefold denial of Peter in the court of the High Priest (John 18:15–18, 25–27). The lexical change between ἀγαπᾷς µε and φιλεῖς µε seems to be of stylistic nature. 14 Also the threefold affirmation of Peter that he loves his Lord (with the verb φιλεῖν) does not seem to have a different ring and may go back to more Hellenistic language in comparison with the biblical one used preferably by Jesus (cf. the ideal of Hellenistic ethics of friendship in John 15:13–15). Jesus answers Peter’s threefold confession that he loves him with a threefold commission: “Feed my lambs / tend my sheep” (RSV). Here again, the difference of expression may just be for stylistic reasons. 15 Interestingly enough, the commission entrusted to Peter is more that of the pastor or shepherd than of the missionary. This could be based in the fact that the Fourth Evangelist sees the commission of being a witness entrusted in a particular way to the Beloved Disciple. This comes to the fore again in the following verses. Peter wants to know the fate of this disciple, but is told by Jesus that this does not concern him; he shall only follow Jesus. This is the main command of Jesus for Peter. Jesus predicts that Peter, who once girded himself (remember earlier reference in John 21:7), will be girded by someone else and led where he did not want to go (v. 18), an announcement of the violent death of Peter (v. 19). Thus, Peter is a witness of Jesus, but rather by his death than by his words. The testimony of the Beloved Disciple remains fundamental for the community, as is proclaimed in the last verses of the section (vv. 24–25). Of course, the particular character of Peter’s “pastoring” remains a subject of debate, also between the different Christian denominations and theological schools. Often, interpreters distinguish between the “ministry” entrusted to Peter and the “testimony” of the Beloved Disciple. 16 The problem is how this “ministry” of Peter is to be understood. If it is interpreted as an authority that is forwarded to coming generations, this seems to claim more than the 14 Cf. Johannes Beutler, Das Johannesevangelium: Kommentar (Freiburg: Herder, 2nd ed. 2016), 550, and Kenneth L. McKay, “Style and Significance in the Language of John 21:15–17,” NovT 27 (1985): 319–333. A different view is presented by Dieter Böhler, “Liebe und Freundschaft im Johannesevangelium: Zum alttestamentlichen Hintergrund von Joh 21,15–19,” Bib 96 (2015): 599–608. 15 See the previous note. 16 Cf. for instance Joachim Kügler, “Der ‘gegürtete’ Hirte: Zum Petrusbild des Johannesevangeliums,” Bibel und Kirche 67 (2012): 221–226, 222–223.

Peter on the Way to His Universal Mission in the Gospel of John

93

text allows. 17 Equally unsatisfactory is the idea of concurring communities: the Johannine community or communities under the authority of the Elder or the Beloved Disciple and the communities of the “greater church” (Großkirche), a term used since the times of Rudolf Bultmann for the post-apostolic church, based on the ministry of bishops and presbyters und the influence of Petrine authority. 18 Current exegesis has become more cautious in reconstrucing various kinds of communities on the basis of New Testament texts. 19 What can be noticed in John 21 is a tension between Petrine authority in ministry and the authority of the word as testimony of the Beloved Disciple. These are lasting dimensions of the Christian life. What kind of ministry is entrusted to Peter? Is this a kind of “primacy,” as is sometimes affirmed by Catholic exegetes? 20 Here, caution is recommended. The text itself speaks of tending the sheep or lambs of the Lord: “my sheep / lambs.” This means that Peter should take care of the whole flock of Jesus, but without any reference to the question of one community or “church” or various ones and their relationships. The language of Jesus’ commission is strongly reminiscent of the Discourse on the Good Shepherd in John 10. Here, the Good Shepherd takes care of the flock entrusted to him and each individual sheep in it, which he knows and calls by name. Against the Old Testament background of the chapter, one should think of the People of God once neglected by bad shepherds and now entrusted to Jesus, the only Good Shepherd. It is these sheep of the Lord who are now entrusted to Peter in a flock, which consists of sheep from Israel and from the nations, just as there were many sorts of fish in the one net hauled to the land. For them, Peter should be ready to give his life as Jesus, the Good Shepherd, did for his flock. Precisely because of the connection of our text with John 10, some interpreters tend to see in Peter a rather bad shepherd like the hireling who runs

17 Thus the ministry is understood by Ansgar Wucherpfennig, “Das Petrusamt im Johannesevangelium,” in Neutestamentliche Ämtermodelle im Kontext (ed. Thomas Schmeller; QD 239; Freiburg: Herder, 2010), 72–100; here p. 73. 18 Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes (KEK II, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1941). For a reconstructed Johannine Community, see Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves, and Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times (Toronto: Paulist, 1979); Fernando F. Segovia, Love Relationships in the Johannine Tradition: Agap¯e / Agapan in I John and the Fourth Gospel (SBLDS 58; Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1982). 19 Fernando F. Segovia gave up his earlier position, moving from a sociological to a literary approach: The Farewell of the Word: The Johannine Call to Abide (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991). 20 Schultheiß, Petrusbild, 309, refers here critically to Rudolf Pesch, Die biblischen Grundlagen des Primats (QD 187; Freiburg: Herder, 2001); cf. more recently Thomas Söding, “Die Perspektive des Anderen: Das Johannesevangelium im biblischen Kanon,” in Das Johannesevangelium – Mitte oder Rand des Kanons? Neue Standortbestimmungen (ed. idem; QD 203; Freiburg: Herder, 2003), 258–317: Peter enjoys a “primacy,” but only in the sense that the Beloved Disciple does his service of witness to the church serving Peter and to Peter serving the church (311).

94

Johannes Beutler SJ

away when the wolf is coming and leaves the sheep alone. 21 This interpretation does not seem to do justice to the text. Precisely by his threefold confession of love for Jesus and his readiness to follow him wherever he leads him Peter is restored in his dignity and placed alongside the Good Shepherd who preceded him. 22 One might ask why Jesus asks Peter about his love and not about his faith. The reason lies of course in the lack of faithfulness of Peter during the Passion of Jesus. He did not lack faith, but faithfulness, as has been underlined with good reason. There may be another reason for the vocabulary of love in Jesus’ threefold question. There are allusions to the Love Commandment of Deut 6:4–5 in John 5:42, 44 and 8:41–42. According to Jesus, the Jews should love God and worship him as the only God. In the Farewell Discourse, Jesus invites his disciples to love him and to fulfil his commandments in clearly Deuteronomic language (John 14:15–24). If Jesus in John 21:15–17 asks Peter three times for his love for him, this may be a last echo of the Great Commandment in the Fourth Gospel. 23 In loving Jesus, Peter loves God himself, present in his Word and Son, and fulfils this way the basic commandment of Israel.

The Confessor (John 6:68–69) Interpreters normally have difficulties in understanding the confession of Peter in the name of the Twelve following a schism among the disciples caused by Jesus’ discourse on the Bread of Life in John 6:60–71. After the call of Peter in John 1:40–42, the text seems to confirm a positive role for Peter as spokesperson of the faith of the disciples, before his rather negative image in chapters 13–18, if not 13–20. Among others, François Tolmie has underlined this development and illustrated it with a diagram, which shows the positive role of Peter in John 1:40–41 and 6:68–69 on a high level before the line descends to chapters 13–20, and then rises again in chapter 21. 24 We would propose to add the text from 21 Cf. Markus Öhler, “Der ‘Mietling’ Petrus: Beobachtungen zur Relecture von Joh 10 in Joh 21,” in Im Geist und in der Wahrheit: Studien zum Johannesevangelium und zur Offenbarung des Johannes sowie andere Beiträge. Festschrift für Martin Hasitschka zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Konrad Huber and Boris Repschinski SJ; NTAbh 52; Münster: Aschendorff, 2008), 239–255. 22 This is brought out by Tolmie, “The (not so) Good Shepherd”; cf. Michael Labahn, “Peter’s Rehabilitation (John 21:15–19) and the Adoption of Sinners: Remembering Jesus and Relecturing John,” in John, Jesus, and History, Volume 2: Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel (ed. Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just, S. J., and Tom Thatcher; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 335–348; idem, “Simon Peter: An Ambiguous Character and His Narrative Career,” in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel (ed. Steven A. Hunt, D. François Tolmie and Ruben Zimmermann; WUNT 314; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 151–167; here pp. 163–166. 23 Cf. Johannes Beutler, Do Not be Afraid: The First Farewell Discourse in John’s Gospel (Jn 14) (New Testament Studies in Contextual Exegesis 6; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2011), 57. 24 Cf. Tolmie, “The (not so) Good Shepherd,” 362.

Peter on the Way to His Universal Mission in the Gospel of John

95

John 6 to the positive texts towards the end of the line. The very first text remains rather open and would have to be placed rather on a middle level. The reasons for considering John 6 as a whole as a later “relecture” of its context have been given elsewhere. 25 The chapter does not fit well between chapters 5 and 7, which has led to the hypothesis of a disturbed order, to be corrected into the sequence John 5; 7 and then 6. 26 More recently, this proposal finds few new adherents. Right through the chapter there is a continuous dependence on Synoptic tradition, in particular Mark 6:30–8:33. No other chapter of John shows such a characteristic, and it is generally assumed that Synoptic influence grows in the course of time during the redaction of the Fourth Gospel. Only in John 6, the text speaks of the Eucharist, an element missing in the narrative of the Passion of Jesus and seen as a later addition in John 6 already by Rudolf Bultmann and many of his followers. There are “᾿Ιουδαῖοι” in John 6:41, 52 in Galilee, normally occurring only in Judea or Jerusalem. 27 A decisive argument for the secondary character of John 6 is found in the fact that the text mentions in John 6:4 that the Passover of the Jews was near. In this case, the text does not mention in any way that Jesus had the intention of going on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem as he usually does in the course of the liturgical year of Jewish liturgy. The series of these holidays ranges from a first Passover in John 2:13 to the unnamed feast of John 5:1, probably Pentecost, to Tabernacles in John 7:2 and the last Passover in 11:55. Thus, the Jewish festival calendar seems to structure the whole public life of Jesus. When he celebrates the Passover in Galilee, and when we find here the text about Jesus giving his body and blood, then the conclusion offers itself that a later hand added the chapter, meeting the needs of the early Christian community with its roots in Galilee. The references to the rising of the dead on the last day in John 6:39, 40, 44 attributed by Bultmann to his “ecclesiastical redactor” would fit in smoothly in a text, which as a whole goes back to a later origin. There is an increasing consensus that chapter 6 of the Gospel of John forms a literary unity and that the verses about the Eucharist in John 6:51c–58 belong to this homogeneous text. 28 We tried earlier to show that the chapter has a con25 C. Johannes Beutler, “Joh 6 als christliche ‘relecture’ des Pascharahmens im Johannesevangelium,” in Beutler, Neue Studien, 165–180; idem, Johannesevangelium, 51, 204–206. 26 Thus, with Rudolf Bultmann, still Jürgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes: Kapitel 1–10 (3rd ed.; ÖTK 4/1; Gütersloh-Würzburg: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn-Echter, 1991). 27 This is already observed by Malcolm Lowe, “Who Were the ᾿Ιουδαῖοι?,” NovT 18 (1976): 101–130; cf. also Urban C. von Wahlde, “The Johannine ‘Jews’: A Critical Survey,” NTS 28 (1982): 33–60, 42–44; much earlier C. Dekker, “Grundschrift und Redaktion im Johannesevangelium,” NTS 13 (1966–67): 66–80, who already concludes from the diverging terminology also for other concepts in John 6 to a later hand. 28 This was the unanimous opinion of a seminar of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas on John 6, cf. Critical Readings of John 6 (ed. R. Alan Culpepper; Biblical Interpretation Series, 22; Leiden: Brill, 1997).

96

Johannes Beutler SJ

centric structure, 29 in which the two initial scenes about the Multiplication of the Loaves and Jesus Walking on the Sea form inclusions with the last two: the division in the group of the disciples and the confession of Peter. In the first and the last scene, we find individual disciples named personally, in the second and the second from the end the group of the disciples. Read from a pragmatic perspective, the text leads from the crowds (v. 24) and the “Jews” (vv. 41, 52) to the group of the Twelve and then two individual disciples who offer two alternative ways of taking position in favor of or against Jesus: Peter and Judas. Jesus’ word about himself as the “Bread of Life” in the dialogue scenes of John 6:22–58 have caused a division among the hearers, here named “disciples”: many of them are scandalized by the words of Jesus and later draw back (vv. 61, 66). It is still matter of discussion whether these “disciples” are scandalized by Jesus’ speech referring to himself as the “Bread from Heaven” or by the last verses about the need to eat his flesh and to drink his blood. If, as proposed, the chapter is read as a homogeneous text, the final words of Jesus about his being bread which must be eaten, is not so far away from a bread accepted in faith. In both cases, Jesus has to be accepted as the gift from heaven, be it in the form of the word or of the sacrament. An opposition of these two aspects of the presence of Jesus is perhaps more due to modern denominational thinking than to the mind of the Fourth Evangelist. The fact that the division follows directly Jesus’ words about his presence in the sacramental species may point to a time when the bodily existence and lasting presence of Jesus became a problem for Christians moving toward Docetism and early Gnostic thinking. This would explain why John speaks about the objection of many of the “disciples” of Jesus against his words in John 6:60, since until this moment only Jewish listeners of his discourse have been mentioned. Jesus answers the new situation of scission first by referring to his words as “spirit and life” (v. 63). When many of his disciples have in fact withdrawn, Jesus asks the Twelve (only mentioned here in vv. 67, 70–71 and 20:24): “Do you also wish to go away?” At this moment, Peter responds by saying: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:68–69). Up to this point, Peter had never figured as the spokesperson of the group of disciples or the Twelve. The reason for this may lie in the fact that our text seems to depend on the confession of Peter in Mark 8:27–30. In that passage, Peter gives his answer of faith after a short survey of possible opinions about Jesus. The author of John 6 does not seem to be worried by the fact that in the rest of the Fourth Gospel, Peter does not appear in this role and that he is even presented as a man

29 Cf. Johannes Beutler, “Zur Struktur von Joh 6,” in Beutler, Studien zu den johanneischen Schriften (SBAB 25; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998), 247–262.

Peter on the Way to His Universal Mission in the Gospel of John

97

with little understanding of faith. Apparently, we find ourselves at this point in a situation of the community when Peter has already gained the recognition as spokesperson of the group of disciples and with this of the church. The content of Peter’s confession differs from the one of Mark 8:29: “You are the Messiah.” The expression “The Holy One of God” is still matter of debate. In Mark 1:29, it is a demon, who makes this confession, but from this fact it does not follow that Peter’s confession in John is without value. According to John 17:19, Jesus “consecrates himself ” for his own and in 17:17 he asks his “Holy Father” (John 17:11) to “sanctify” them. Here, we are not far away from the language of John 6:69. Already in chapter 1, Andrew had confessed Jesus as the “Messiah.” Martha will be the first disciple of Jesus who articulates the confession of the Johannine Church (John 11:27): “I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God.” To arrive at this confession is declared to be the purpose of the Fourth Gospel, according to the first conclusion in John 20:31. The scene at the end of chapter 6 ends with a reference to the traitor. No longer Peter (as in Mark 8:33), but Judas is called a Satan, and thus not the whole group of the Twelve will remain faithful to Jesus. Occasionally, the reference to Judas is seen as an indirect hint to the possibility that also Peter might stumble. 30 This possibility remains vague and the proposal to find a reference to Peter here may go back to the custom of reading John 6 as part of the original Fourth Gospel with its rather ambiguous picture of the apostle.

Conclusion No missionary work of Peter is found in the Fourth Gospel. Simon receives his new name as “Peter” (rock) on the occasion of his calling narrated in John 1:40–42. In the original gospel, Peter is presented as a man of little understanding of Jesus and his message, who even proves unfaithful to his Lord. Nevertheless, he is respected as spokesperson of the disciples in the Johannine Resurrection account and his role becomes more explicit in John 21. Here, Jesus enables him to catch an enormous amount of fish. Jesus then asks him for his love and entrusts him with his sheep and his lambs. Here finally, Peter receives the call to follow Jesus, now clearly on a way leading to violent death. At the end in John 6, which we considered to be a secondary “re-reading,” Peter confesses his Lord as the “Holy One of God,” opening the way to early Christian creeds.

30

For this possibility see again Schultheiß, Petrusbild, 101–2.

Ecclesia peregrinans Luke’s Concept of a Missionary Church Reinhard Feldmeier Abstract This article shows how the motif of “The Way” and of travelling is of pivotal importance for Luke’s portrait of Jesus as an itinerant preacher as well as for his concept of a missionary church.

The Wandering Son of Man One of the outstanding characteristics of Luke’s Gospel is the so-called Travel Narrative. As the central section of the Gospel, it covers more than half of Luke’s account of the active life of Jesus. Luke does this not without providing some historical background. The tradition of the wandering master and his disciple followers goes back to Jesus, whose role as an itinerant preacher and healer was part of his lifestyle. 1 Accordingly, we find Jesus in Mark and Matthew wandering throughout Galilee and the neighboring regions. Mark, the earliest gospel, also has a kind of travel itinerary: Towards the end of Jesus’ life he begins in Caesarea Philippi in the north and heads to Jerusalem in the south towards suffering and death, his final destination. “On The Way” (Mark 8:27; 10:32) Jesus gives his followers his last instructions concerning their further life. To use Knut Backhaus’ vivid metaphor, we can say that Christianity started out as a road movie. 2 The fact that Jesus was wandering through the country teaching and preaching, healing and arguing, was immediately connected with his message of the dawning Kingdom of God. Such a message could not be restricted to a few dis-

1 Theissen relates the necessity of wandering to the content of Jesus’ message: “[T]he ethical radicalism of the sayings transmitted to us is the radicalism of itinerants. It can be practiced and passed on only under extreme living conditions: It is only the person who has severed his everyday ties with the world – the person who has left home and possessions, wife and child, who lets the dead bury their dead, and takes the birds and the lilies of the field as his model – it is only a person like this who can consistently preach renunciation of a settle home, a family, possessions, the protection of the law, and his own defense.” (“The Wandering Radicals: Light Shed by the Sociology of Literature on the Early Transmission of Jesus Sayings,” in idem, Social Reality and the Early Christians: Theology, Ethics and the World of the New Testament [trans. M. Kohl; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992], 33–59, 40). 2 Knut Backhaus, Religion als Reise: Intertextuelle Lektüren in Antike und Christentum (Tria Corda 8; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 86: “Das Christentum hat – die pointierte Wortwahl sei gestattet – als road movie begonnen.”

100

Reinhard Feldmeier

ciples like the teaching of the scribes. 3 Likewise, Jesus could not retreat to the periphery of the desert as John the Baptist did. Instead he went where people lived, preaching in their villages in order to exhort them to change their minds (µετάνοια) in view of the dawning Kingdom of God. The Cynics exemplify how wandering was not just a question of communication and personal interaction. This movement, which “had nearly disappeared by the end of the Hellenistic period, reappeared in the political and social context of the Roman Empire, especially in the eastern parts.” 4 Its’ success derives from radical life of wandering, providing a convincing ethical example of abstinence and self-denial. 5 While this is clearly mirrored in Jesus’ wandering (cf. Matt 6:19–34 par.), he adds the element of eschatological expectation: fully aware of the worldly preliminaries and God’s dawning Kingdom, followers are urged to leave their families and extended social background (cf. Mark 3:21, 31–35) and to follow the new lifestyle of homeless wandering (cf. Luke 9:57–62). Jesus’ “nomadic lifestyle was not just means for a message, but part of the message itself,” 6 echoed in the self-designation of the Johannine Jesus as “The Way” (John 14:6). That also formed his disciples: Jesus commanded them to “follow me,” abandoning their regular life (cf. Mark 1:17, 20 par.; 2:14 par.) to become his followers, sharing his way of life as a homeless wanderer (Matt 8:19–22 par. Luke 9:57–60): And there came a scribe and said to him, “Master, I will follow you wherever you go.” And Jesus said to him: “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have a resting-place; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head.” And another of the disciples said to him: “Lord, let me first go and give the last honors to my father.” But Jesus said to him: “Follow me; and let the dead take care of their dead.”

These instructions to the disciples were not bound to a certain place, but meant following Jesus in his wanderings. The context of their community of teaching 3 Cf. Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ: A New English Version (rev. and ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979), 2:332–4. 4 Johannes Hahn, “Das Auftreten und Wirken von Philosophen im gesellschaftlichen und politischen Leben des Prinzipats,” in Dion von Prusa: Das Bild des Philosophen (ed. H.-G. Nesselrath; SAPERE 13; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 241–58, here 252: “Die kynische Bewegung, im ausgehenden Hellenismus fast erloschen, erlebte unter den politischen und sozialen Verhältnissen der römischen Herrschaft gerade in der östlichen Reichshälfte einen neuerlichen Aufschwung.” 5 Cf. Theissen, Social Reality and the Early Christians, 35–40. 6 Backhaus, Religion als Reise, 87: “Der nomadische Lebensstil war nicht nur Mittel zur Verkündigung, er war Teil der Botschaft selbst.”

Ecclesia peregrinans

101

and learning was that of an itinerant community. Thus participating in Jesus’ fate including his suffering 7 the followers also participated in his ministry including his divine authority and power (ἐξουσία). This is testified in the mission speech in Q (Luke 9:1–6 par. Matt 10:1, 5–15): He called the twelve together, and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases. He sent them forth to preach the Kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. He said to them: “Take nothing for your journey neither staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; neither have two coats apiece. Into whatever house you enter, stay there, and depart from there. As many as do not receive you, when you depart from that city, shake off even the dust from your feet for a testimony against them.” They departed, and went throughout the villages, preaching the gospel, and healing everywhere.

The Lukan Travel Narrative In his Gospel, Luke does not just adopt, but also amplifies the motif of homelessness and wandering. Even in the account of Jesus’ birth in Luke 2:3, he has the unborn Jesus travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem in his mother’s womb (Luke 2:1–5). The census, rather than being historical, provides the basis for the travelling of the parents of Jesus. Additional travel notes are used by the evangelist to structure his gospel right from the start (cf. Luke 2:4, 22, 39) and πορεύοµαι is a Vorzugswort in both Luke and Acts. 8 Connected with this motif is that of living as an outsider, which becomes evident when Jesus is born in a stable (Luke 2:7), a motif which Simon predicts at the child’s circumcision (Luke 2:34–5) and which shapes his following life. Living as an outsider already is characteristic for John the Baptist whose character Luke parallels in his prologue with that of Jesus more than any other evangelist. John had left civilization as an apocalyptic prophet to preach his understanding of radical change in the desert. Luke underscores this by further associating

7

Cf. Mark 8:34: “take up his cross and follow me.” Out of 154 occurrences in the New Testament more than half are found in Luke-Acts (Luke: 51, Acts: 37; cf. Matthew: 29). 8

102

Reinhard Feldmeier

John with characteristics of a Cynic teacher, 9 thereby making his role as an outsider more credible to Greek readers. This motif of foreignness is something that later on plays an important role for Jesus and the early Christian movement, which Luke emphasizes with references to the motifs of wandering and The Way. “The Way” (ὅδος) is one of Luke’s favorite words 10 and has a special meaning for him, as can be seen especially in his second book, the Acts of the Apostles, where the metaphor of “The Way” or “the new way” is repeatedly used to designate the missionary church, a subject to which we shall return. 11 But also with regard to the description of the life of Jesus in the gospel, Luke particularly inserts much of the Jesus-tradition he had received from his sources into an account of an ongoing journey with Jerusalem as its destination. 12 Again and again Luke emphasizes in this large composition that Jesus is on his way: 9:51: It came to pass, when the days were near that he should be taken up, he intently set his face to go to Jerusalem; 9:57: As they were going along the road; 10:38: now as they went on their way, he entered a certain village; 13:22: Jesus went through one town and village after another, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem; 13:33: “Yet today, tomorrow and the next day I must be on my way, because it is impossible for a prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem”; 17:11: On the way to Jerusalem Jesus was going through the region between Samaria and Galilee; 18:31: And taking the twelve, he said to them, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished”; 18:35: As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging; 19:1: He entered Jericho and was passing through it; 19:11: While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem; 19:28: After he had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem; 19:41: And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it.

From a historical point of view, the presentation of continuous travel towards Jerusalem is not very convincing. For example, in Luke 17:11, Jesus again is

9 Reinhard Feldmeier, “Endzeitprophet und Volkserzieher: Luke 3,1–20 als Beispiel für prophetisch-weisheitliche Doppelkodierung,” in Jesus als Bote des Heils: Heilsverkündigung und Heilserfahrung in frühchristlicher Zeit: Festschrift Detlev Dormeyer zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. C. Georg-Zöller, L. Hauser, and F.-R. Prostmeier; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2008), 72–84. 10 Out of 101 occurrences in the New Testament 40 are found in Luke-Acts. 11 Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22; as a parallel cf. also 1 Pet 2:2, but also Lucian, Hermotimus 46. 12 For that purpose, Luke has omitted a part of Mark’s gospel (Mark 9:41–10:12) and instead inserted material from Q and his special tradition (including the famous parables).

Ecclesia peregrinans

103

at the border between Samaria and Galilee where the whole journey started in Luke 9:51–52. Nevertheless, the repeated travel notes and way markers distributed all over the narrative – mostly without parallels in the other gospels – come from the hands of Luke and show that the Travel Narrative is a literary motif developed by the evangelist. With it he underscores the homelessness of “the Son of Man” who in this world does not have a place to lay his head” (Luke 9:58). 13 But homelessness is only one side of the coin. Luke makes it clear from the very beginning that Jesus’ homelessness is the result of his ministry to proclaim the Kingdom of God (Luke 9:57–62) and “to seek out and save the lost” (Luke 19:10; cf. Luke 15:1–33). Thus the final destination of Jesus travelling to Jerusalem is not his passion and death but “that he should be taken up” (Luke 9:51), i. e. his homecoming to the Father. This is pointed out at the beginning of the Travel Narrative with the keyword ἀνάληµψις. This “being taken up” is the conclusion of the whole journey of the Lucan Jesus, leading to his enthronement at the right hand of God (Luke 22:69; cf. 20:42–43; Acts 2:33; 5:31 and more). The summary of Jesus’ life at the beginning of Acts culminates in Jesus’ elevation (Acts 1:1–2): The first book I wrote, Theophilus, concerned all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, until the day in which he was received up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

The importance of the ἀνάληµψις is proven by the fact that Luke is the only evangelist who not only stresses (cf. Luke 22:69 different to Mark 14:62) but also stages Jesus’ final exaltation as an Ascension to heaven – and not only once, but twice: In his Gospel, it marks the end of the story of Jesus on earth, and in Acts it marks the beginning of the second book, the story of Jesus as the exalted Lord of his church. Accordingly, despite all the rejection and hostility, despite suffering and death, Jesus’ travel to Jerusalem is in the end the path to final unification with God. This is underlined by the fact that the Travel Narrative is interwoven with eschatological texts. These texts are presented in Mark’s and Matthew’s gospels in one final discourse during the last days of Jesus. In Luke’s Gospel, they are scattered throughout the Travel Narrative. 14 Just as the strangeness of the Son

13 Luke 9:58; cf. the preliminary rejection in the Samaritan village (Luke 9:51–6). Luke had already mentioned at the transfiguration that in this world Jesus walks towards his ἔξοδος (Luke 9:31 – note here the wandering motif as well). 14 Cf. Luke 12:35–48 par. Matt 24:42–51; Luke 17:20–37 par. Mark 13:1–23, 14–16; Luke 19:11–27 par. Matt 25:14–30 (Mark 13:34); further Luke 13:35–36 par. Matt 23:37–39; 14:15–24 par. Matt 22:1–4.

104

Reinhard Feldmeier

of Man is the obverse of his unique attachment to God, 15 so too there is a reverse that corresponds to his homelessness as an itinerant stranger in this world: The destiny of all travel is the way home to heaven as a prerequisite of his new coming as king. 16

The Concomitant Kyrios The significance of the motif of travelling and being on The Way is not restricted to the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ. The risen Jesus Christ is also portrayed as the master who is still on his way with his disciples. This is also a characteristic of the third Gospel: In his Easter account, Luke copies Mark’s story of the angels’ appearance to the women 17 as well as Peters walk and Jesus’ appearance in front of the eleven 18 close to John’s tradition. But the key scene of Luke’s Easter account is a story which can only be found in his Gospel, showing certain features of his editing: 19 The disciples walk to Emmaus. In Luke, this is the first mentioned meeting of Jesus and his followers after his resurrection. Jesus joins two otherwise unknown disciples on a 10 km long journey. The verbs πορεύεσθαι (Luke 24:13) and περιπατεῖν (Luke 24:17) explicitly state that the disciples are on their way while at the same time stating the Jesus approaches them in order to accompany them: ἐγγίσας συνεπορεύετο 20 αὐτοῖς (Luke 24:15): It happened, while they talked and discussed together, that Jesus himself came near, and went with them.

On the journey of Jesus and his disciples together, Jesus first opens the scripture to them as they remember in retrospect (Luke 24:32). Finally, in the house “he took the bread and gave thanks. Breaking it, he gave to them” (Luke 24:30). This is an unmistakable allusion to the Last Supper (Luke 22:19) as well as a prolepsis to Acts where breaking bread becomes a terminus technicus for the Last Supper. When the disciples recognize him Jesus vanishes and they return to Jerusalem to report what has happened to them. The pivotal significance of the motif of The Way can also be seen from the fact that it is explicitly mentioned twice by the two disciples when they look back 15

The attachment is expressed not least in Luke’s portrayal of the praying Jesus. This is underlined by the parable in the last chapter of the Travel Narrative (Luke 19:11–26). 17 Cf. Mark 16:1–8; there Luke also accentuates individually, when he has the angels ask the women: “Why do you search the living among the dead?” (Luke 24:5). 18 Cf. John 20:3, 19–23. 19 Cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke (2 vols.; AB; New York: Doubleday, 1985), 2:1555–6. 20 The imperfect συνεπορεύετο underscores the duration of this event. 16

Ecclesia peregrinans

105

to the encounter with Jesus. After Jesus vanished they are not puzzled about his disappearance but say to each other: “Weren’t our hearts burning within us, while he spoke to us along The Way (ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ), and while he opened the Scriptures to us?” (Luke 24:32). Even after his resurrection Jesus teaches his disciples along The Way by walking with them; the ecclesia peregrinans corresponds to a theologia viatorum. And after their return to Jerusalem they report to the disciples “the things that happened along The Way” (Luke 24:35 [τὰ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ]). This confirms that in Luke’s perspective walking with the elevated Kyrios (as well as walking with the earthly Kyrios in the Travel Narrative) is not a coincidental part of the revelation. Walking with the Lord remains a constitutive part of being together with Christ, even where – as the motif of not understanding already shows – Christ is now present in a new indirect way, in opening the Scriptures and the meal in his memory (or in the words of later theology: in word and sacrament). As the Emmaus story interprets the following time of the church as a time in which the itinerant lord accompanies and leads his people, it seems appropriate to call this the “central story for comprehending the whole of Acts.” 21

The Ascension to Heaven as the Condition for the Possibility of a New Presence But the Emmaus story is not the end of Luke’s first book, the Gospel. Rather the end is characterized by a singular motif of the Lukan Gospel, the Ascension. What the prologue has described in the Magnificat as God’s action and what shaped Jesus preaching is fulfilled in Jesus at the end of the Gospel: God elevates the lowly. 22 In the Ascension Jesus, who has walked the path of serving, 23 finally is appointed his share of God’s honour and power. The use of ἀνάληµψις in Luke 9:51 und ἀναλαµβάνω in Acts 1:2, 11, 22 clearly points to Elijah’s Ascension, to which 4 Kgs 2:9, 10, 11 LXX and again Jesus Sirach 48:9 and 1 Macc 2:58 allude to with this verb. But the mytheme of the Ascension was also known in the greaco-roman world, in Luke’s time probably even more so than amongst Jews. First to mention is the legend of Heracles, to which core the ascension from the Oeta mountain belonged from very early on. 24 Extenuated it can also be found 21

Backhaus, Religion als Reise, 119: “die Verstehensmitte für die gesamte Apostelgeschichte.” Cf. Luke 6:20–26; 14:11; 18:14. 23 Cf. the instruction of the disciples at the Last Supper (Luke 22:27) which encapsulates this again. 24 Mythographi Graeci 2.160 (Apollodoros, Götter und Helden der Griechen: griechisch und deutsch [ed. and trans. K. Brodersen; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2004]). A Munich pelike from the end of the 5th century already shows the hero in a four-in-hand that freely races through the air, pulled by fiery horses, while down the stake with the chest protector the rest of the 22

106

Reinhard Feldmeier

in the legend of Romulus (cf. Livius, Ab urbe condita 1.16). In this legend especially the political dimension of the mytheme becomes obvious which is of importance for the popularity of the ascension motif during Luke’s time: The apotheosis of the city founder provides the religious authorization for Roman rule. Because of this even the imperial cult draws on this mytheme. 25 Accordingly, in Luke the Ascension is the final destination of Jesus’ travelling on earth, whereby he is already appointed as ruler /master (cf. Luke 22:69 different to Mark 14:62; Acts 7:55–56). But as always in the Gospel of Luke, what happens to Jesus is of fundamental significance for his disciples. At first sight the Ascension signifies the disciples’ ultimate deprivation of Christ’s immediate presence. Even the temporary appearance of Christ during the forty days after his resurrection (Acts 1:3) 26 now comes to an end; Jesus is now in heaven while his followers remain on earth. 27 But this clear deprivation of the possibility of an immediate encounter with Christ is compensated if not outdone by the fact that Jesus is now “exalted by the right hand of God, having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:33). The emergence of the church and focus on mission is ultimately a consequence of the Ascension and accordingly is already announced at the same: At the end of the Gospel, Jesus connects his own leave with a new interpretation of the Scriptures in terms of himself and his fate (Luke 24:44–46). Only then does he call on his disciples to “announce repentance and forgiveness of sins to all nations” (Luke 24:47). Jesus also connects the call to universal mission with a promise for his disciples (Luke 24:49): Behold, I send forth the promise of my Father upon you. But wait in the city of Jerusalem until you are clothed with power from on high.

hero is visible. Apollodorus reports – even though with a relativising λέγεται – that the demigod, after falling victim to Nessos’ ruse and withdrawing from his pains by a fiery death, with the sound of thunder, he was elevated by a cloud into the sky, making him immortal. According to Ovid, Heracles has even proven himself to be a “saviour of the earth” (Metamorphoses 9.241), i. e. as a pagan messianic figure, and then is transferred to heaven by his divine father and turned into an orb: “And the almighty father takes him with light clouds, in a four-in-hand guiding him to the stars” (Metamorphoses 9.271–272). 25 Cf. Suetonius, Divus Augustus 100.4; being caught up turned into a “standing requisite of a rulers apotheosis ... a deceased Caesar could only be declared as seated among the Gods when the Roman Senate was able to find a witness that could testify that the person was bodily caught up into the sky.” (Jürgen Roloff, Die Apostelgeschichte [NTD 5, 19th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010], 25: “zum stehenden Requisit der Herrscherapotheose ... Erst dann konnte ein verstorbener Kaiser als unter die Götter versetzt erklärt werden, wenn der römische Senat Zeugen fand, die die leibliche Entrückung in den Himmel bestätigen konnten.”). 26 In the gospel one gets the impression that the ascension is taking place on the same day as the resurrection. 40 days are of course a symbolic number – probably as the 40 days Jesus spent in the desert – and serve the disciples as a preparation to what is yet to come. 27 Stephen sees him in heaven. An exception may be Paul’s vocation, the last act of direct intervention by the exalted Christ.

Ecclesia peregrinans

107

Later on in Acts this promise is specified in an anticipation of Pentecost, when the disciples are promised that they will receive power from above. Being empowered by the Holy Spirit, mission is always understood as an itinerant act, which is mirrored in the structure of Acts (Acts 1:8): But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you. You will be witnesses to me in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth.

In the Pentecost sermon, as has been shown above, Peter again interprets the relation between Christ’s exaltation and the empowerment of Christians, 28 but this time in connection with what has happened at Pentecost with a Trinitarian specification (Acts 2:33): Being therefore exalted by the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this, which you now see and hear.

At the same time, the end of the speech underlines God’s action, which has programmatically been praised in the Magnificat (Luke 1:48–53) and in the Gospel repeatedly been emphasised (cf. Luke 14:11; 16:15; 18:14), that proves itself especially in the crucified (Acts 2:35): Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.

In his sermon at the conversion of the centurion Cornelius, Peter points out, now before Gentiles, that the exalted Christ has empowered the mission to the Gentiles, as the “Lord of all” proclaimed in the good news of peace (Acts 10:34–36) and enabling the forgiveness of sins by believing in him (Acts 10:43), which the Holy Spirit received by the Gentiles later confirms (Acts 10:44–48). The change of spheres of existence and the end of Jesus’ immediate presence following the Ascension do not involve Jesus’ ultimate absence. On the contrary, God’s exaltation of the one who has been humiliated by humankind is the condition for enabling an intensified and universal form of his presence: Christ can now be present anywhere, as it is repeatedly confirmed in Acts. In summa: the exaltation of Jesus is the prerequisite for his new, constant and ubiquitous presence among his itinerant apostles, because the exalted one, by virtue of his seat at the right hand of God, participates in the divine omnipresence and can therefore be present everywhere – at the uttermost parts of the 28

This name is given to the Christian believers only later, cf. Acts 11:26.

108

Reinhard Feldmeier

earth (Acts 1:8) as well as in the innermost part of a human being. Through his presence in the world as well as in believers, the one exalted to God’s right accompanies the spreading church on its way. When the apostles and especially Peter wander as they proclaim God’s Kingdom, 29 they do so by being led and accompanied by him; in his Spirit he always remains the itinerant Lord. Therefore, one can pointedly say with reference to the protagonists of Acts: “Jesus, not Paul is the main protagonist.” 30

The Way: The Wandering Nation of God Rereading the life of Jesus as a Travel Narrative means that already in the Gospel the travelling master is the pattern for the life of the disciples. As members of the familia Dei they become strangers to their own kin (Luke 8:19–21), and as followers of Jesus they necessarily participate in his homelessness, particularly underlined in Luke 9:57–62. 31 In the words of Bo Reicke: “Considering the fact that the Travel Narrative contains so many traditions intended to be instructive for Christian missionaries, one may ask whether Christ is not described here as being on a pilgrimage toward suffering and glorification, because such pilgrimage is the lot of his messengers on this earth.” 32 However, at the same time as those who are on The Way with him they also participate in Jesus’ power over evil spirits (Luke 10:1–12) and as those who take part in the humility of their master they also have the promise of final exaltation (Luke 14:11; 18:14). In the context of the Last Supper Jesus promises his followers even the handing over of the kingdom given to him by his Father (Luke 22:28–30): But you are those who have continued with me in my trials. I confer on you a kingdom, even as my Father conferred on me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom. You will sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Therefore, travelling with their master from Galilee up to Jerusalem (Acts 13:31) and sharing his trials is a preparation of the disciples for their future way, both 29

Cf. the end of Acts (Acts 28:31). Petr Pokorný and Ulrich Heckel, Einleitung in das Neue Testament: Seine Literatur und Theologie im Überblick (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 484: “Jesus, nicht Paulus, ist der Hauptakteur.” 31 This includes, of course, also the complete break with all the securities that possessions provide: “So ... none of you can be my disciple if you do not renounce all your possessions” (Luke 14:33). 32 Bo Reicke, “Instruction and Discussion in the Travel Narrative,” Studia Evangelica 1 (ed. K. Aland et al.; TU 73; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1959), 206–16, here 216. 30

Ecclesia peregrinans

109

in this world and in the world beyond. The starting point is Jerusalem. While in Mark (and Matthew) Jesus meets his disciples in Galilee, Luke deliberately changes his sources: In his Easter Narrative the disciples do not go back to meet their risen Lord in Galilee as the angel in Mark 16:7 commands and as the Gospel of Matthew carries out. Instead they remain in Jerusalem 33 to receive the Spirit and thus “clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49) become prepared for their worldwide mission. While in Mark and Matthew Jerusalem is predominantly the city where Jesus is killed, in Luke Jerusalem ultimately becomes a place of salvation, where the mission of the church starts (Luke 24:47), “a stable and organizing centre of the worship and life of God’s people.” 34 This is important for Acts, Luke’s second book. There Paul is deliberately given the same profile as Jesus and portrayed as an itinerant preacher who is victorious by enduring resistance and persecution until death. His “life as a traveler” 35 becomes a topos; in him “the dynamic power of the gospel is personified.” 36 By using time lapses and ellipses Luke gives the reader and hearer the impression that the apostle is constantly on the move, while a careful evaluation of the sources reveals that Paul has carefully chosen centers for his mission 37 where he stayed for years, founding communities, teaching his collaborators and sending them out on missions. “Both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts share this general Biblical pattern of the journey ... Each of these two travel sections has its’ own peculiar features and can tell us something of the thinking that lay behind Luke’s literary use of the journey motif.” 38 In Rome, the final venue of Paul in Acts 28:16–31, the εὐαγγέλιον reaches the center of the universe. This gives the Christian mission the universal dimension which Jesus had already proclaimed before his Ascension at the beginning 33 “He [Luke] does not know the ‘home-again’ motif [as the other two synoptic Gospels] of the return to Galilee and breaks with the convention of a circular tour. Jesus reaches Jerusalem, and the Galileans do not leave it. Neither the disciples nor the risen one return to Galilee. The panning of the narrative camera does not go from Jerusalem to Galilee but from Jerusalem to Rome. It is only here that the risen one, sublime also at the narrative level, turns into a cosmopolite.” (Backhaus, Religion als Reise, 116: “Er [Lukas] kennt nicht das home again-Motiv [bei den beiden synoptischen Seitenreferenten] der Rückkehr nach Galiläa und bricht mit der Konvention der Rundreise. Jesus erreicht Jerusalem, und die Galiläer verlassen es nicht. Die Jünger wandern so wenig nach Galiläa zurück wie der Auferstandene selbst. Nicht Jerusalem nach Galiläa richtet sich der narrative Kameraschwenk, sondern von Jerusalem nach Rom. Erst hier wird der Auferstandene, sublim auch auf der Erzählbühne, ein Kosmopolit.”). 34 Floyd V. Filson, “The Journey Motif in Luke-Acts,” in Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce on his 60th Birthday (ed. W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin; Exeter: Paternoster, 1970), 68–77, here 69. 35 Udo Schnelle, Paulus: Leben und Denken (2nd ed.; Berlin and Boston: de Gryter, 2014), 1: “Reiseexistenz.” 36 Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 12: “die dynamische, vorwärtstreibende Kraft des Evangeliums personifiziert.” 37 The centers of this Zentrumsmission were especially Corinth and Ephesus. 38 Filson, “The Journey Motif,” 70.

110

Reinhard Feldmeier

of Acts (Acts 1:8) and which he assigns to his disciples. Thus, Jesus’ ἀνάληµψις becomes the hinge between Luke’s two books: The earthly existence of the wandering Jesus is consequently resumed in the spreading of the good news, by his followers travelling to the ends of the world: “The history of the believers resumes Jesus’ path within a new horizon.” 39 The auctor ad Theophilum may not write on this in detail, 40 but he hints at it by ending in Rome, the center of the Empire where the Christians live. Luke’s style of writing gives the reader the impression of an ongoing journey; the story of Christianity’s spreading is a story of being on The Way. Even more: The style of writing includes both listeners and readers in the mission’s dynamic, shining a light on the apostle’s path as a logical resumption of Jesus’ path: While Jesus made his way from Galilee, the periphery of the Holy Land, to Jerusalem, the Holy City and the center of the Jewish world, Paul continues this journey from Jerusalem, the periphery of the Roman Empire, to Rome, its capital and the center of the pagan world. 41 Fittingly, Luke does not recount Paul’s martyrdom at the end of Acts, even though the farewell speech in Ephesus makes clear that he is fully aware of this (Acts 20:22–25) and does not intend to withhold this knowledge from his listeners and readers (Acts 20:37–38). But Luke consciously decides not to report this at the end of his work. Instead, he ends his work with the triumphant note that Paul preaches God’s Kingdom “with all boldness and without hindrance” (Acts 28:31). Luke makes clear that it is not the death of the witness, but rather the triumphal march of the witness which is decisive. This is the perspective on mission that the author of the two works wants to pass on to his listeners and readers. How central the motif of travelling is for the auctor ad Theophilum to determine the identity of the church following Jesus can finally be seen in the fact that he can simply refer to her as “The Way.” Certainly, this metaphor also stands for a certain way of life, 42 but this alone does not explain Luke’s use of the term. It fits with the conclusions reached above that it is Luke who uses this 39 Backhaus, Religion als Reise, 126: “Die Geschichte der Glaubenden ist eine Fortsetzung des Weges Jesu vor neuen Horizonten.” 40 We do not learn anything about the founding of other communities, such as the one in Alexandria. 41 “In the course of the Lukan journey the switch is from Jerusalem to Rome. What used to be the Lake of Galilee is now the Mediterranean Sea. The 200 km which separates Caesarea Philippi from Jerusalem in the Gospel in Mark turns into 2300 km between Rome and Jerusalem and 2600 km between Jerusalem and Ethiopia in Luke-Acts. The borders of the small world of Galilee are burst in favor of the new orbis Romanus.” (Backhaus, Religion als Reise, 116: “Im Lauf der lukanischen Reise vollzieht sich die Rochade des Evangeliums von Jerusalem nach Rom. Was einst der See Gennesaret war, wird jetzt das Mittelmeer. Die 200 km, die das Evangelium zwischen Caesarea Philippi und Jerusalem bei Markus durchwandert, dehnen sich zu den 2300 km zwischen Rom und Jerusalem und den 2600 km zwischen Jerusalem und Äthiopien. Die Grenzen der kleinen Welt von Galiläa werden auf den orbis Romanus hin gesprengt.”). 42 Cf. W. Michaelis: Art. ὁδός κτλ., TWNT 5:42–118, especially 88–95.

Ecclesia peregrinans

111

metaphor: While the term ἐκκλησία for the church is understood in analogy to the constituted community of citizens, ἡ ὁδός emphasizes being on The Way, the migration of “the faithful through world and time.” 43 Thereby, the ecclesia peregrinans corresponds to its’ wandering master who sends out his disciples at the beginning of the Travel Narrative to testify the propinquity of God’s Kingdom in every town and place (Luke 10:1–12).

43

Backhaus, Religion als Reise, 122: “der Glaubenden durch Welt und Zeit.”

The Proclamation of the Kingdom of God in Acts Volker Gäckle Abstract In Acts, the term “kingdom of God” becomes a common term for the Christian message that involves the whole past and future of salvation history with its centre in the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. In acquiring this meaning, it reveals the hidden relationship and inner connection between Jesus’ kingdom-preaching and his own identity and ministry, which is so enigmatic and obscure in the Gospels.

The meaning of the phrase βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ was one of the central fields of Hans Kvalbein’s research. 1 Following his teacher Sverre Aalen, 2 he argued for an alternative understanding of the expression kingdom of God, which is so important for the preaching of Jesus. 3 Against the common contemporary understanding of the term as a nomen actionis denoting the “rule” or “reign of God,” he claims that the terminology occurs distinctively in the preaching of Jesus meaning either “place of salvation,” “time of salvation” or “gift of salvation,” unlike other early Jewish uses of the phrase. 4

1 Hans Kvalbein published more than half a dozen articles on this topic; see the list in the Kvalbein bibliography at the end of this volume. These articles were the starting point of my own work on this topic, along with my acquaintance with Hans Kvalbein. After reading a few of his articles I started an e-mail-conversation with him. He was very interested in my research on this issue and provided many helpful hints and pieces of advice. I had always wished to meet him personally, though this never happened. Accordingly, I am deeply honored to contribute my insights, which are based on his work, to this volume; cf. also Volker Gäckle, “Dimensionen des Heils: Die βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ in der Verkündigung Jesu und den Briefen des Apostels Paulus,” in Der jüdische Messias Jesus und sein jüdischer Apostel Paulus (ed. A. D. Baum, D. Häußer and E. L. Rehfeld; WUNT 2/425; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 175–225; idem, Das Reich Gottes im Neuen Testament: Auslegungen – Anfragen – Alternativen (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 176; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018). 2 Cf. Sverre Aalen, “‘Reign’ and ‘House’ in the Kingdom of God in the Gospels,” NTS 8 (1962): 215–240. 3 The evidence for the term in early Jewish literature, in the Synoptic Gospels and in the rest of the New Testament writings is puzzling. Given that the term is nearly absent in the Old Testament and not unimportant but seldom used in early Jewish literature, the large number of occurences in the Synoptic Gospels (131 times) is striking. This impression is heightened by its relative disappearance again in the Gospel of John, the Pauline writings and the rest of the New Testament in general. If we take a closer look at the usage of the term in the Synoptic Gospels, we realize that it occurs mostly in the mouth of Jesus. This observation means that the term in the Synoptics must go back to Jesus himself, who made it a central topic of his preaching and message. 4 Cf. e. g. Hans Kvalbein, “The Kingdom of God and the Ethics of Jesus,” Studia Theologica 51 (1997): 60–84 (64–71); idem, “Jesus as Preacher of the Kingdom of God,” in The Identity of Jesus: Nordic Voices (ed. S. Byrskog, T. Holmén and M. Kankaanniemi; WUNT 2/373; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 87–98 (88–92).

114

Volker Gäckle

The common understanding of the term goes back to the work of Gustav Dalman, whose important work Die Worte Jesu 5 establishes that the Hebrew malkût and Aramaic malkûtha, when combined with God or heaven as nomen regens, never mean “kingdom” in terms of a dominated or controlled area or territory, but always refer to God’s role: his rule, reign and acting as king. 6 In Dalman’s view this was also the meaning of the term in the mouth of Jesus. Though Kvalbein did not deny the accuracy of Dalman’s insight for early Jewish literature, he strongly disputed its application to Jesus’ usage of the terminology. In an unpublished outline for a short paper for the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas General Meeting in Berlin 2010 7 he points out that Dalman’s and the mainline understandings of the term rest on the presupposition that a certain term or Begriff is linked with a stable and coherent concept, which keeps its meaning in the transition from the one language to another, or one context to another. This allows the abstract meaning of malkût/malkûtha in early Jewish apocalyptic literature to be decisive for the teaching of Jesus too. But modern linguistics asks not only for the meaning of a term in its original setting, but also for its meaning in syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations in the present (con)text. 8 Against this background the spatial, rather than the dynamic, dimension of the expression is dominant in the teaching of Jesus. Aalen’s and Kvalbein’s protest against the consensus understanding of Dalman’s definition were and are not the only critical voices. In Germany, Hans Conzelmann had already expressed doubts in the late 1960’s. He formulated the rough guide: “In Judaism the expression means: the act of the rule of God; by

5 Gustav Dalman, Die Worte Jesu: Mit Berücksichtigung des nachkanonischen jüdischen Schrifttums und der aramäischen Sprache. Bd. 1: Einleitung und wichtige Begriffe: Mit Anhang: A. Das Vaterunser, B. Nachträge und Berichtigungen (2nd ed.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1930; reprint: Darmstadt 1965; first published in 1898). 6 Dalman, Worte Jesu, 77: “Es kann kein Zweifel darüber obwalten, daß sowohl im Alten Testament als in der jüdischen Literatur das auf Gott bezogene malkût stets ‘Königsregiment’, niemals ‘Königreich’ bedeutet.” (ET: “No doubt can remain that wherever malkût occurs in relation to God in the Old Testament, as in the Jewish literature, it means ‘Kingly-rule’ and never ‘kingdom’.”) According to Ludger Schenke, “Die Botschaft vom kommenden ‘Reich Gottes,’” in Jesus von Nazaret: Spuren und Konturen (ed. idem et al.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004), 106–147 (108), the rising nationalistic atmosphere in Germany in the thirties also played an influential role in shaping this claim. To prevent a misunderstanding, Dalman wanted to avoid the German term Reich (kingdom) in favor of the terms Königsregiment (kingly-rule) or Herrschaft (reign). But he never denies the spatial dimension of the term generally. He can concede that Jesus speaks under certain circumstances of the “realm of the rule of God” (“Herrschaftsbereich Gottes”) in Dalman, Worte Jesu, 78, 112. 7 “Do Not Trust the Dictionaries: βασιλεία Means Realm, Not Rule or Reign.” Cf. also Kvalbein, “Kingdom of God,” 64 ff.; idem, “Jesus as Preacher,” 88–89. 8 Kvalbein, “Kingdom of God,” 66; idem, “Jesus as Preacher,” 89, with reference to James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford University Press, 1961). Cf. Wilhelm Egger and Peter Wick, Methodenlehre im Neuen Testament: Biblische Texte selbständig auslegen (6th ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 2011), 165, who assert that a lexeme can have different semantic values in different contexts.

The Proclamation of the Kingdom of God in Acts

115

Jesus: kingdom of God.” 9 More recently, Ludger Schenke has insisted on the consequent eschatological futuristic sense and spatial-temporal connotation of βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ. 10 Meanwhile, a large choir of voices throughout Europe and North America has come to agree with Kvalbein’s basic thesis. 11 In his various articles on the kingdom of God Kvalbein treats a wide range of different texts: not only the Synoptic Gospels, 12 but also the Pauline 13 and Johannine 14 writings, and even the Gospel of Thomas. 15 However, as far as I know, he never treated the use of βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ in the Lukan writings, where the term has another meaning, not totally covered by Kvalbein’s definition in terms of place, time, or gift of salvation. Therefore, I want to give attention to the usage of βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ in Acts and investigate, whether and how far the evidence there fits with Kvalbein’s thesis.

The Kingdom of God in Acts Compared with the preaching and teaching of Jesus, the theme of the kingdom occurs far less frequently in Acts. 16 While there are a total of 131 occurences of

9 Hans Conzelmann, Grundriß der Theologie des Neuen Testaments (3rd ed.; München: Kaiser, 1976), 126: “Man kann die Faustregel aufstellen: Im Judentum bedeutet der Ausdruck: den Akt des Herrschens Gottes; bei Jesus: Gottes Reich.” 10 Schenke, “Botschaft,” 106–107 and passim; cf. similarly Maren Bohlen, “Die Einlasssprüche in der Reich-Gottes-Verkündigung Jesu,” ZNW 99 (2008): 167–184 (183–184.); Jacobus C. de Vos, Heiliges Land und Nähe Gottes Wandlungen alttestamentlicher Landvorstellungen in frühjüdischen und neutestamentlichen Schriften (FRLANT 244; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 131–137, see esp. n. 156. 11 John C. O’Neill, “The Kingdom of God,” NovT 34 (1993): 130–141; Jean Carmignac, Le mirage de l’eschatologie: royauté, règne et royaume de Dieu ... sans eschatologie (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1979); George W. Buchanan, The Consequences of the Covenant (NovTSup 20; Leiden: Brill, 1970); idem, Jesus: The King and his Kingdom (Macon: Mercer, 1984); idem, New Testament Eschatology: Historical and Cultural Background (Lewiston, N. Y.: Mellen Biblical Press, 1993), 90–120; Ben Witherington III, The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1990), 192–198; idem, Jesus, Paul and the End of the World: A Comparative Study of New Testament Eschatology (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992), 49–74; Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.; Oxford Bible Series; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002 [Reprint 2013]), 196; and Dale C. Allison Jr., Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 164–204. 12 Cf. Kvalbein, “Kingdom of God,” and idem, “Jesus as Preacher”. 13 Hans Kvalbein, “Wem gehört das Reich Gottes? Von der Botschaft Jesu zum Evangelium des Paulus,” in Logos-Logik-Lyrik: Engagierte exegetische Studien zum biblischen Reden Gottes, Festschrift für K. Haacker (ed. V. A. Lehnert and U. Rüsen-Weinhold; Leipzig: Ev. Verlagsanstalt, 2007), 97–114. 14 Hans Kvalbein, “The Kingdom of God and the Kingship of Christ in the Fourth Gospel,” in Neotestamentica et Philonica: Studies in Honour of Peder Borgen (ed. D. Aune, T. Seland and J. H. Ulrichsen; NovTSup 106; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 215–232. 15 Hans Kvalbein, “The Kingdom of the Father in the Gospel of Thomas,” in The New Testament and Early Jewish Literature in Greco-Roman Context: Studies in Honour of David Aune (ed. J. Fotopoulos; NovTSup 122; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 203–228. 16 For literature on the topic see Bent Noack, Das Gottesreich bei Lukas: Eine Studie zu Luk.

116

Volker Gäckle

βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ in the Synoptic Gospels and 35 occurrences in Luke’s Gospel, it occurs only very few times in Acts (Acts 1:3, 6; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31). Very often, this infrequent occurrence is taken as evidence of a loss of importance or as a displacement of the kingdom topic through Christology. It is assumed that Jesus’ death and resurrection and the expectation of his Parousia would have suppressed the issue. 17 But a closer look at the literary contexts reveals that the term appears at very prominent and important points in the narrative. We find the term twice in the opening passage and twice in the closing passages of Acts (Acts 1:1–14 [vv. 3, 6]; and 28:17–31 [vv. 23, 31]). The kingdom of God functions like an inclusion that frames the whole book of Acts. For an author as reflective as Luke, this emphasis is not accidental but conceptual. 18 This is underlined by the three further occurrences in Acts 8:12, 19:8, and 20:25. Each passage denotes a more or less decisive landmark or milestone in Acts. In Acts 8:12, Luke reports the first Christian preaching outside of Jerusalem. According to Acts 1:8, this marks the second stage of early Christianity. In Acts 19:8, Luke narrates the public preaching of the gospel in Ephesus, the largest city in Asia. Finally, Acts 20:25 is located in the farewell-speech of Paul to the elders of Ephesus in Miletus, Paul’s last public sermon as a free man. Alfons Weiser observes that the combination of βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ with a verbum dicendi covers all the major geographical, personal and temporal aspects in Luke-Acts: The kingdom is preached in Galilee and Judaea (Luke 4:43–44; cf. Acts 10:37), Jerualem (Acts 1:3), Samaria (Acts 8:12), Asia Minor and Greece (Acts 19:8; 20:25) and Rome (Acts 28:23, 31). It is preached by Jesus (e. g. Luke 4:43–44; Acts 1:3), the disciples and apostles (Luke 9:2, 60; 10:9), Philip (Acts 8:12) and Paul (Acts 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31). Finally, it touches all the stages of the salvation history: the pre-Easter ministry of Jesus (e. g. Luke 4:43–44; 16:16) and 17,20–24 (SymBU 10; Uppsala: Wretmans, 1948); Hans Conzelmann, Die Mitte der Zeit: Studien zur Theologie des Lukas (BHT 17; 6th ed.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1977 [1st ed. 1954]); Rudolf Schnackenburg, Gottes Herrschaft und Reich: Eine biblisch-theologische Studie (4th ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 1965 [1st ed. 1958]); Thomas Wieser, “Kingdom and Church in Luke-Acts.” (Ph.D. diss. Union Theological Seminary, New York, 1962); Martin Völkel, “Zur Deutung des ‘Reiches Gottes’ bei Lukas,” ZNW 65 (1974): 57–80; Otto Merk, “Das Reich Gottes in den lukanischen Schriften,” in Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für W. G. Kümmel (ed. E. E. Ellis and E. Gräßer; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 201–220; Eric Franklin, Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975); Robert F. O’Toole, “The Kingdom of God in Luke-Acts,” in The Kingdom of God in 20th-Century Interpretation (ed. W. Willis; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1987), 147–162; Alfons Weiser, “‘Reich Gottes’ in der Apostelgeschichte,” in Der Treue Gottes trauen: Beiträge zum Werk des Lukas, Festschrift für Gerhard Schneider (ed. C. Bussmann and W. Radl; Freiburg: Herder, 1991), 127–135; Alexander Prieur, Die Verkündigung der Gottesherrschaft: Exegetische Studien zum lukanischen Verständnis von βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (WUNT 2/89; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996). 17 Prieur, Verkündigung, 1–2; Schnackenburg, Gottes Herrschaft, 51, calls it an echo of the manner in which Jesus speaks. 18 Prieur, Verkündigung, 2.

The Proclamation of the Kingdom of God in Acts

117

the disciples (Luke 9:2; 10:9), as well as the post-Easter teaching of Jesus (Acts 1:3) and the mission of the apostles and the early church. 19 So, although the term is less frequent in Acts, it occurs in important contexts and in the mouths of all the protagonists of Luke-Acts: this is sufficient to suggest it must have had a particular relevance for Luke. 20 Further, at least six of the eight passages are not based on tradition, but very likely reflect Luke’s own formulation. Also, and in contrast to the usage in Mark and Matthew, we find the term βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ in Luke-Acts with a verbum dicendi. 21 With one exception (Matt 24:14, diff. Mark 13:10; cf. Matt 13:19), such a formulation occurs only in Luke-Acts in the New Testament, and here mostly in redactional passages. Four of these passages are formulated with the preposition περί (cum genitivo), 22 which is also unique in the New Testament. Not the βασιλεία is proclaimed, but something about (περί) it. Thus, there is a high probability that we have before us a definite Lukan formulation. 23 In Acts we have only two occurences of βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ which deviate from this pattern. In Acts 14:22, we find a clearly traditional formulation. The saying, which reports Paul’s instructions to the believers in Asia Minor at the end of his first missionary journey, has a deep acquaintance with the so-called “entrance requirement” sayings (Einlassworte) of Jesus. 24 The connection of the aspect of entrance into the kingdom with the aspect of suffering follows the precedent of the Beatitudes (Matt 5:10–12, esp. 5:3) and occurs in a comparable way in 2 Thess 1:4–5; 2 Tim 4:18 and Barnabas 7:11. 25 Further, the background

19

Weiser, “Reich Gottes,” 132. Weiser, “Reich Gottes,” 128, underlines this fact: it is not the frequency of the term or the number of occurences, but the compository allocation which makes the term a key concept in Acts. 21 Luke 4:43 (diff. Mark 1:38); Luke 8:1; 9:2; (diff. Mark 6:7); Luke 9:11 (diff. Mark 6:34); Luke 9:60 (diff. Matt 8:22); Luke 16:16 (diff. Matt 11:12). The exact form of the verbum dicendi can vary and occur in multiple forms even in the same verse, like in Luke 8:1 and Acts 19:8. We find four times κηρύσσειν (Luke 8:1; 9:2; Acts 20:25; 28:31) and εὐαγγελίζεσθαι (Luke 4:43; 8:1; 16:16; Acts 8:12), once λαλεῖν (Luke 9:11); διαγγέλλειν (Luke 9:60); λέγειν (Acts 1:3); διαλέγειν (Acts 19:8); πείθειν (Acts 19:8) and διαµαρτύρεσθαι (Acts 28:23). 22 Luke 9:11; Acts 1:3; 8:12; 19:8. 23 Conzelmann, Mitte der Zeit, 33, 104 and passim; Merk, “Reich Gottes,” 205; Prieur, Verkündigung, 4–5. 24 Matt 5:20; 7:21; 18:3; 19:23–24; 21:31; Mark 9:47; 10:15, 23–25; Luke 18:17, 24–25.; cf. John 3:3, 5 and 2 Tim 4:18; 2 Pet 1:11. In a manner Luke 16:16/Matt 11:12; Luke 23:42 and Col 1:13 belong to this category too. Cf. on this issue Hans Windisch, “Die Sprüche vom Eingehen in das Reich Gottes,” ZNW 27 (1928): 163–192; Friedrich W. Horn, “Die synoptischen Einlaßsprüche,” ZNW 87 (1996): 187–203, and Bohlen, “Einlasssprüche,” 167–184. 25 In Luke 24:26, the risen Jesus reminds the two disciples on the way to Emmaus that the Messiah has to suffer in order to enter into his glory (εἰσεθεῖν εἰς τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ). Already in the Synoptic Gospels βασιλεία and δόξα are synonymous terms (cf. Mark 10:37 with Matt 20:21, and Mark 8:38 with Matt 9:1). Furthermore the verb εἰσέρχεσθαι is a terminus technicus in relation to the entrance requirements and has its roots, like the the sayings of the inheritance of the kingdom (e. g. 1 Cor 6:9–10; Gal 5:21), in the Exodus tradition, cf. Bohlen, “Einlasssprüche,” 176, 179; Klaus Haacker, “‘What Must I Do to Inherit Eternal Life?’ Implicit Christology in Jesus’ Sayings about 20

118

Volker Gäckle

of 1 Thess 3:4 suggests it is not unlikely that we have here an authentic saying of Paul, which has its traditional roots in the entrance requirement sayings of Jesus. The meaning of the saying is very clear: the βασιλεία is a future and postmortem place, room or realm of salvation, where believers can enter either after death (cf. Luke 23:43) or after the Parousia of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 15:50). It is a prerequisite, however, that the believer pass through many sufferings and hardships. The result is that this passage fits perfectly to Kvalbein’s first category of the kingdom as the place of salvation. Acts 1:6 is an old crux interpretum, in which the disciples ask the risen Jesus whether he will reestablish again the kingdom for Israel. Many questions are unclear in this passage: Do the disciples mean the same by βασιλεία τῷ Ισραήλ as Jesus does when he talks with them about the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (Acts 1:3)? Does Luke mean the same with the terms? Is the question of the specific moment in time in which the kingdom (of God or for Israel?) will come only an issue for the Jews – and for the disciples as Jews? Or is it a question of Luke too? Did Jesus, in rejecting this question, give a negative answer? Or simply no answer? And what does Luke want to express through this enigmatic and puzzling dialogue? To begin at the end: the question may be motivated by Jesus’ announcement of a general baptism with the Holy Spirit. Against the background of Joel 3:1–5 this could be understood as a sign for the last days, and the disciples want to know whether the restoration of Israel will follow the outpouring of the Spirit. The second possibility is that the disciples thought that the restoration of Israel would happen before the outpouring of the Spirit on the basis of Joel 2:27 LXX, and asked whether this would happen in the very near future before Pentecost. In each case their question in Acts 1:6 reveals a national interest in respect to the restoration of the Davidic kingdom and the fulfilment of the prophetic promises. There is also an intense debate as to whether the question, whatever its background, is answered in Luke-Acts or not. The answer depends on whether the institution of the twelve disciples can be seen as the fulfilment of the restoration of the twelve tribes of Israel. 26 This is perhaps the case in Acts 15:16–18, where James declares the promise of Amos 9:11 fulfilled, but it is very unlikely that the restoration of the circle of the twelve apostles already represents the restoration of Israel. Thus, the question more likely points to a political and future understanding in terms of the eschatological restoration of the Davidic kingdom (cf. Dan 2:44 LXX; 7:27 LXX; As. Mos. 10:1–10; T. Jud. 21–22, 24; T. Dan 5:10–13). Life and the Kingdom,” in Jesus Research: An International Perspective. The First Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, Prague 2005 (ed. J. Charlesworth and P. Pokorný; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 140–153 (148). Thus, this logion is related to Act 14:22 too. 26 This is favored by Prieur, Verkündigung, 105.

The Proclamation of the Kingdom of God in Acts

119

The response of Jesus does not clarify the issue of whether or not there will be a future kingdom for Israel. Does this mean that the moment of its restoration will stay hidden for the disciples, or that the question itself is wrong – like all requests for an eschatological timetable? From Acts 1:8 and the ongoing story, we can only conclude that Jesus and Luke wanted to focus the disciples and readers ethnically on the mission to the Gentiles and geographically to the end of the world – not on an expected restoration of Israel as a nation. The salvation perspective of the risen Jesus is not restricted to Israel, but has a universal horizon. We can also exclude the notion that Luke has a special interest in the moment of the coming kingdom, as Prieur and others suggest in view of Luke 17:20a; 19:11; 21:7 and Acts 1:6. 27 In the cited passages, he is only representing the interest of the Jewish people, the Pharisees or the disciples in this question. The most we can say is that Luke is interested in the Jewish perspective on this question. Neither Jesus nor Luke try to give an answer to this question anywhere. It seems more likely that Luke wants to highlight the current misunderstanding of the disciples with respect to Jesus’ teaching. This then suggests it is plausible that, for Luke, Jesus and the disciples meant something very different when they talked about the βασιλεία. This is strengthened by the observation that Jesus never had a national Jewish kingdom in mind. On the contrary, his preaching completely lacks the political dimension, which is so dominant in many Old Testament and early Jewish kingdom texts. Helmut Merklein points to the fact that, from Deutero-Isaiah to the apocalyptic texts, there is no utterance on God’s kingly rule which does not relate it to Israel. 28 Therefore, it is striking that in Jesus’ preaching, we miss any reflection on the earthly-political component of the rule of Satan and oppression by the Gentiles. 29 To sum up, we can conclude that neither Acts 14:22 nor 1:6 belong to the typical Lukan usage of the term βασιλεία, which is so distinctive through the unique combination of βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ with a verbum dicendi. Accordingly, it is important to focus on the remaining passages.

27

Prieur, Verkündigung, 5. Helmut Merklein, Jesu Botschaft von der Gottesherrschaft: Eine Skizze (2nd ed.; SBS 111; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989), 43, n. 26. 29 Merklein, Jesu Botschaft, 43. Cf. similarly John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Vol. II: Mentor, Message and Miracles (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 331: “Jesus was not interested in and did not issue pronouncements about concrete social and political reforms, either for the world in general or for Israel in particular. He was not proclaiming the reform of the world; he was proclaiming the end of the world.” 28

120

Volker Gäckle

The Proclamation of the Kingdom in Acts The first remarkable similarity between the six remaining occurences of βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ in Acts (1:3; 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31) is that each occurs in the context of a summary of an extended act of communication. 30 However, this form of expression makes it difficult to get an exact grasp of what the author means by this phrase. Therefore, we must consider each passage individually, asking what contents have been condensed into these summaries. In Acts 1:3, after an introductory summary of his first work, Luke describes the forty days between the resurrection and the ascension of Jesus. Besides mentioning the many and repeated appearances and epiphanies of the risen Jesus, the statement contains the information that he told his disciples τὰ περὶ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ. Luke’s choice of the central term of the preaching and teaching of the pre-Easter Jesus here surely reflects a desire to demonstrate and emphasize the continuity and equivalence between the pre-Easter message of Jesus (cf. Luke 4:43; 8:1; 9:2; 16:16) and the post-Easter message of his disciples and apostles (cf. Acts 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31). 31 As eye-witnesses, the disciples and apostles guarantee the continuity and appropriateness of the Jesus-tradition. We do not glean much information about the content and substance of this long term communication, with the exception of the parallel report in Luke 24:44–49 and the instruction not to leave Jerusalem, 32 but to wait for the gift of the Holy Spirit (vv. 4–5), the dialogue about the eschatological restoration of Israel (vv. 6–7) and the missional program for them as spirit-gifted witnesses (v. 8). But it is obvious that the τὰ περὶ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ must have involved much more than the subject covered by the term treated by Jesus in his pre-Easter preaching. The period of forty days indicates a time of preparation for the disciples, just as Moses, Elijah, and Jesus himself were prepared for forty days or forty years for their missions (Exod 24:18; Acts 7:23, 30 [cf. L. A. B. 53:2]; 1 Kgs 19:8; Luke 4:1–2 par.). 33 Thus we can conclude that talking about τὰ περὶ

30 This is equivalent to the use of βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ with a verbum dicendi in Luke’s Gospel. Its use in Luke 4:43–44; 8:1; 9:2, 11; 16:16 has always a summarizing character. 31 Rudolf Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte, Teilband I: Apg 1–12, (2nd ed.; EKK V /1; Solothurn: Benziger, 1995), 62; cf. similarly Weiser, “Reich Gottes,” 130. Prieur, Verkündigung, 85–86, 89–90, also supposes an apologetic intenion – namely an anti-docetic interest in the light of Luke 24:36–43, where the same time and teaching is reported at the end of Luke’s Gospel with an emphasis on the bodily resurrection of Christ. But to transfer this emphasis to Acts 1:3 is highly speculative. The text of vv. 1–8 does not indicate an apologetic reading at all. 32 The mentioning of Jerusalem indicates a range of aspects for Luke. Jerusalem guarantees the continuity of God’s salvation history (cf. Luke 1:8 ff.; 2:25, 36, 38; 24:47; Acts 1:8), is the location of the fulfilment of God’s promises, the centre of the realization of his salvific plans, and the offspring of all sound teaching (cf. Acts 8:1, 4–5, 14; 11:1–18, 22; 15; 18:22; 21:7). 33 In 4 Ezra 14:23–49 and 2 Bar. 76 we read of a 40-day period of instruction and revelation that antecedes the rapture. Of course it is not certain that Luke knows these texts.

The Proclamation of the Kingdom of God in Acts

121

τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ is an act of communication that involves the whole content of the truth revealed in Christ. The term involves the whole story of God’s salvation in the past, present, and future. 34 This should be the message of the apostles and consequently we find parallel terms and formulations for βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ in all the following passages. 35 To proclaim the βασιλεία is the same as to evangelize the name of Jesus, speaking of the “Way” 36 and the word of God, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God, to declare the whole counsel of God, to convince someone about Jesus and to teach about the Lord Jesus Christ. 37 The special and distinct aspects of the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ one can observe in the synoptic preaching and teaching of Jesus are no longer visible, though they may be conveyed in this formula. The term is used now as a general expression for the Christian message in its extension from the Old Testament Law and Prophets (Acts 28:23) up to the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27), involving the past and future of salvation history with its center in the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, and in continuity with his preaching. 38 The christological dimension of βασιλεία-communication is especially apparent in Act 8:12 and 28:23, 31, where evangelizing, testifying to and proclaiming the βασιλεία is either paralleled by, identified with 39 or more closely defined 40 by τοῦ ὀνόµατος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ and [τὰ] περὶ τοῦ [κυρίου] ᾿Ιησοῦ

34

Cf. Prieur, Verkündigung, 93–94. Acts 8:12: Philip evangelised about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ (καὶ τοῦ ὀνόµατος ᾽Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ); Acts 19:8–10: “reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God ... some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way (κακολογοῦντες τὴν ὁδόν) before the congregation ... so that all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord (τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου)”; Acts 20:24–27: “to testify to the gospel of the grace of God (διαµαρτύρασθαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς χάριτος τοῦ θεοῦ) ... whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom ... declaring to you the whole counsel of God (ἀναγγεῖλαι πᾶσαν τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θεοῦ)”; Acts 28:23: “testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus (πείθων τε αὐτοὺς περὶ τοῦ ᾽Ιησοῦ) both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets”; Acts 28:31: “proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ (διδάσκων τὰ περὶ τοῦ κυρίου ᾽Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ).” 36 Cf. Acts 9:2; 18:26; 22:4; 24:14, 22. 37 This is confirmed when we turn the question the other way round: in Acts the verb εὐαγγελίζεσθαι can have not only βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ as an object (8:12), but “the gospel of Jesus (Christ)” (5:42; 8:35; 11:20; 17:18) and related contents too (cf. 8:4; 15:35; 10:36; 13:32–33). Similarly, κηρύσσειν has the kingdom of God as its object twice (20:25; 28:31), but very often “Jesus” or other terms for the Christian message (8:5; 9:20; 10:42; 19:13). 38 Weiser, “Reich Gottes,” 133; Schnackenburg, Gottes Herrschaft, 184; O’Toole, “Kingdom of God,” 153; cf. Gerhard Delling, “Das letzte Wort der Apostelgeschichte,” NovT 15 (1973): 193–204 (194): “eine umfassende Bezeichnung der christlichen Botschaft” (ET: “a comprehensive term for the Christian message”); and Merk, “Reich Gottes,” 206, who points to Acts 10:34–42; Luke 16:16 and the salvation historical framework of Luke’s work; and ibid., 219: “Der Verkündiger im Evangelium des Lukas aber ist in den kerygmatischen Texten der Apg zum Verkündigten geworden” (ET: “The preacher of the Gospel of Luke became the preached in the kerygmatic texts of Acts”). 39 Merk, “Reich Gottes,” 206, cf. also n. 15. 40 See Prieur, Verkündigung, 42–43, 60–61 76–77, 79 for an argument that the concretion of βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ occurs through these formulations. 35

122

Volker Gäckle

Χριστοῦ. From the other sermons in Acts we can conclude that this Christological proclamation involves the whole messianic ministry and identity of Jesus, including his descent from the lineage of David, his sacrificial and salvific death, his resurrection, ascension and parousia “to judge the living and the dead.” 41 Against the background of Luke 4:43; 8:1 and 16:16 it is clear that the formula εὐαγγελίζεσθαι περὶ τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ signals continuity with the preaching of Jesus. Further, Acts 8:12 is framed by occurences of the term “the word (of the Lord)” in 8:4 (εὐαγγελίζόµενοι τὸν λόγον) and 8:25 (διαµαρτυράµενοι καὶ λαλήσαντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου). That the proclamation of the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ contains the whole salvation-history is indicated too in 8:35. To the Ethiopian eunuch, Philip proclaims Jesus (εὐαγγελίσαντο αὐτῷ τὸν ᾽Ιησοῦν) beginning with the Scripture (ἀπὸ τῆς γραφῆς). The salvation-historical dimension is emphasized too in Acts 20:24, 27 and 28:23. In the farewell speech in Acts 20:17–35 the term involves a retrospective summation of the complete preaching and teaching of Paul, 42 and an outlook for the future proclamation of the elders of Ephesus in succeeding the Apostle and continuing the work of the gospel of Jesus. The proclamation of the βασιλεία is the same as Paul’s public preaching and teaching of repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ in Asia (20:20–21), the gospel of the grace of God (20:24) and the βουλὴ τοῦ θεοῦ (20:27). In all this, Christ is presented as the fulfilment of the Old Testament promises and the key person of the whole plan of salvation that reaches to the end of time. 43 An emphasis on completeness is also apparent in Acts 19:8, which must be understood against the background of 18:19–21, 24–28. Against the deficiency of the teaching of Apollos, which prompted heresy and disbelief in the Ephesinian synagoge, Paul proclaims and teaches the full and orthodox Christian doctrine. Furthermore a second, even more important step occurs in this semantic transformation of βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ. We can observe in Acts a change and extension of the content of the term from the pre-Easter Gospel to the postEaster Acts: “Its meaning varies with the contexts, and it is one of the major ways in which Luke moves from ‘Jesus the preacher’ to ‘Jesus the preached’.” 44 41 Prieur, Verkündigung, 46, 59. It is not convincing that Prieur wants to restrict the formulation τὰ περὶ τοῦ κυρίου ᾽Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ to the exalted and glorified Lord in his judicial power (80). 42 The speech has the goal of self-relief. Paul wants to render an account to show that he preached the whole gospel, the plan of salvation and everything necessary for salvation in all times and places (Acts 20:20–21). All references to Paul’s preaching have the goal of proving the completeness of his message, independent of his audience, and its equivalence to the message of Jesus, the apostles and even to the Old Testament scriptures; cf. Prieur, Verkündigung, 126–9, 135–6. 43 Prieur, Verkündigung, 60, 78, 80–83, 115, 160–61, speaks of the Heilsplan and the Heilshandeln Gottes for Jews and Gentiles, which is preached wherever Luke describes the Christian proclamation with a verbum dicendi and βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ; cf. Conzelmann, Mitte, 142, 205. 44 O’Toole, “Kingdom of God,” 147; cf. similarly Weiser, “Reich Gottes,” 133; cf. contrary Constantino A. Ziccardi, The Relationship of Jesus and the Kingdom of God According to Luke-Acts (Tesi

The Proclamation of the Kingdom of God in Acts

123

In the Synoptic preaching of Jesus concerning the kingdom of God, his own relation to this subject is obscure and enigmatic. We have only two passages where Jesus explicitly relates himself to the kingdom. While the logion in Mark 14:25/Matt 26:29/Luke 22:16–18 only reveals that Jesus will be part of the future kingdom, the much-debated so-called exorcism-logion in Luke 11:20/Matt 12:28 proclaims the coming (ἔφθασεν) of the kingdom in the exorcisms of Jesus. This logion is misunderstood in manifold ways: as the realization, actualization, dawning or start of the kingdom of God or even as realized eschatology and Vergegenwärtigung of the future. But this is grossly overstated. In Jesus’ exorcisms we find a patchy and figurative demonstration of the reality of the coming kingdom, already present in heaven. It is by no means the βασιλεία itself. 45 In fact, we find no relationship between sayings in which Jesus makes a messianic claim, 46 and his kingdom sayings. The best explanation is not a denial either of Jesus’ messianic identity, nor of the authenticity of related sayings, but rather the recognition of an implicit distinction in his eschatological perspective into the present time of the fulfilment of salvation (Mark 1:15a: πεπλήρωται ὁ καίρος) 47 and the future time of the parousia, connected with the coming of the kingdom (Mark 1:15b: ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ; cf. Luke 21:31). This was not understood by either his disciples nor by any other contemporaries and perhaps could not be understood (cf. Mark 9:9). But now we find in the kingdom passages of Acts what we miss in all the Synoptic Gospels: the revelation of the hidden relationship and inner connection between Jesus’ kingdom-preaching and his own identity and ministry. 48 The Gregoriana; Serie Teologia 165; Rome: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2008), 19, 90, who claims that the meaning of the term is in continuity from the Gospel to Acts and should not be simply identified with “the name of Jesus” or τὰ περὶ τοῦ κυρίου ᾽Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 45 Cf. Schenke, “Botschaft,” 130; Franklin, Christ the Lord, 24; Michael Wolter, “‘Reich Gottes’ bei Lukas,” in Theologie und Ethos im frühen Christentum: Studien zu Jesus, Paulus und Lukas (ed. idem; WUNT 236; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 290–310 (309), and Gäckle, “Dimensionen des Heils,” 196–202; idem, Reich Gottes, 93–113. 46 E.g. Mark 2:18–22; 8:27–30 par.; Mark 10:45/Matt 20:28; Mark 14:61–62 par.; Luke 10:23–24/Matt 13:16; Luke 4:16–21; Luke 7:18–23/Matt 11:2–6. 47 Cf. Luke 10:23–24/Matt 13:16–17; Luke 7:18–23/Matt 11:2–6; Mark 2:18–22; Luke 4:16–21; see also Gal 4:4–5; 2 Cor 5:18–19; 6:2. 48 This is the central thesis of C. A. Ziccardi’s comprehensive study about The Relationship of Jesus and the Kingdom of God According to Luke-Acts. He argues that Luke relates the kingdom in Acts permanently to Jesus, which is, in general, correct. Unfortunately Ziccardi does not clarify the term βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ not only in Luke-Acts, but generally. He gives only a short introduction on the background of the term, (7–36). Further, he makes the false presupposition, that the term has the same content in Acts as in in Luke’s Gospel. Obviously he did not realize the important connection between βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ and the verbum dicendi for the meaning of this syntagma in Luke-Acts and had no knowledge of Prieur’s study. So he denies the possibility that the term no longer labels the special content of the future kingdom in Acts, but the far broader message of the Christian faith. Probably the main problem of this extensive study is its aim to provide evidence for a dogmatic decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. This leads to many conjectures predominantly in his treatment of Luke 1–4.

124

Volker Gäckle

turning point in Luke-Acts is obviously Easter morning: while in Luke’s Gospel the proclamation of the kingdom is never related to Jesus’ messianic claim, the proclamation of the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ in Acts is a general formulation for the whole salvific plan of God including Moses and the Prophets (28:23), the counsel of God (20:27), and especially the Lord Jesus Christ (28:31), his name (8:12) and the gospel of the grace of God through Jesus, his cross and resurrection (20:24). In Acts the auctor ad Theophilum brings together what remains separated in his Gospel: the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ and Christology combine in the concept “salvation in Christ.” 49 Similar insights are visible despite different terminology in the Gospel of John and the letters of Paul. As Hans Kvalbein and many others recognized, the term (eternal) life is an equivalent for the kingdom of God. 50 While the Synoptic Gospels use (eternal) life only in very few passages (Mark 9:43, 45; 10:17 par.; Matt 19:29/Luke 18:30; Matt 25:46) and frequently βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ or βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, John and Paul use this term only rarely 51 but John particularly uses the term (eternal) life very frequently. 52 To use Hans Kvalbein’s categories, the kingdom of God is the place, time and gift of salvation in the Synoptic Gospels; in the Gospel of John and in Paul, though, it is (eternal) life (cf. Mark 10:15 with Rom 6:23) or simply salvation (σωτηρία). 53 The reason for this difference in terminology for salvation is the greater communicability of the term (eternal) life in the Hellenistic and Roman world. While βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ was very appropriate for expressing the manifold aspects of salvation in a Jewish setting, it was incomprehensible in the Hellenistic and Roman world and accordingly was replaced with (eternal) life. 54 49 Wolter, “Reich Gottes,” 299, points to the fact that after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, each proclamation of the βασιλεία has to be proclamation of Christ. Luke’s intention is to qualifiy the post-Easter βασιλεία-proclamation christologically. 50 Kvalbein, “Jesus as Preacher,” 91; idem, “Kingdom of God,” 67–69; Bohlen, “Einlasssprüche,” 172; Vos, Heiliges Land, 135; Gäckle, “Dimensionen des Heils,” 193–195; cf. Mark 9:43–48 par.; Mark 9:47/Matt 18:9; Mark 10:17, 21, 23–26 par.; Matt 25:34, 46; cf. Luke 13:23, 28–29. 51 In John: 3:3, 5 (cf. Matt 18:3); 18:36. In Paul – 7 times in the undebated letters: 1 Thess 2:11–12; Gal 5:21; 1 Cor 4:20–21; 6:9–10 (2x); 15: [24], 50; Rom 14:17; cf. also Eph 5:5; Col [1:13]; 4:11; 2 Thess 1:5; 2 Tim 4:1, 18. 52 In John: 3:15, 16, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54; 10:28; 11:25–26; 12:25, 50; 16:36; 17:2–3; 1 John 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11; 5:20. Altogether the term ζωή appears 36 times in the Gospel of John and 13 times in the Johannine letters, wherein life and eternal life (17 times in the Gospel and 6 times in der Johannine letters) appear to be used synonymously; cf. Jan G. van der Watt, “The Use of αἰώνιος in the Concept ζωὴ αἰώνιος in John’s Gospel,” NovT 31 (1989): 217–228, and the literature in Jörg Frey, Die johanneische Eschatologie III: Die eschatologische Verkündigung in den johanneischen Texten (WUNT 117; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 261, n. 95. In Paul we find the term in the undebated letters 26 times, e. g. Rom 2:7; 5:21; 6:22–23; Gal 6:8; cf. also 1 Tim 1:16; 6:12; Titus 1:2; 3:7. 53 E.g. Rom 1:16; 10:1, 10; 11:11; 13:11; 2 Cor 1:6; 6:2; 7:10; Phil 1:19, 28; 2:12; 1 Thess 5:8–9. 54 Haacker, “Implicit Christology,” 146: “Therefore the message of God’s kingdom to be revealed or realized soon is nearer to Israel’s hope as a nation, while the expectation of eternal life is more open to a version of the gospel addressing individuals irrespective of their nationality.”

The Proclamation of the Kingdom of God in Acts

125

Against this background we realize that John and Paul did from a post-Easter perspective the same as Luke in his double pre- and post-Easter perspective in the Gospel and the Acts: they combined the proclamation of a future place and time of salvation and the present gift of salvation in terms of (eternal) life, with the messianic identity and redeeming ministry of Jesus. Thus, he is the bread of life (John 6:35), the resurrection and the life (11:25), the way and the truth and the life (14:6) for John. Likewise, for Paul the “gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 6:23). Returning to the kingdom-passages in Acts and raising again the question of the correct translation, it becomes clear that rule or reign would be theoretically possible in all instances, though unlikely. 55 If βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ meant rule or reign, we might expect the logical request for submission to this rule or reign, but in fact, the apostles call for repentance and faith in Jesus Christ to gain salvation and eternal life. 56 On the other hand, Kvalbein’s categories for the understanding of βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ as the place, time and gift of salvation, are also too narrow for Acts. Thus, it is more appropriate to understand the term βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ with the verbum dicendi in Acts as a general term for the Christian message of salvation in Jesus Christ, including in its present sense the gift of eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ, and in its future sense the coming kingdom as the place and time of salvation. 57 Finally we have to treat the question, whether this understanding of βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ as a message or an act of communication is the creation of Luke or the reception of an understanding which was already present in the Jesus tradition.

The “Word of the Kingdom” (Matt 13:19) In my opinion, the evidence of the Lukan usage of βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ in Acts can be linked with a further use of the term by Jesus, not mentioned thusfar. Beneath the three dimensions of the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ distinquished by Hans Kvalbein (place, time and gift of salvation), we can discern a fourth aspect in the so-called Wachstumsgleichnisse. There is a small group of parables, 55 It is striking how Prieur, Verkündigung, 60, 72, 77–8, 80, 93, 115–16, and others hold on to an understanding of βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ in terms of rule or reign in the sense that Acts shows the expansion and realization of the reign of God through the proclamation of the kingdom. But the whole context indicates the communication of a message with a certain content, not the act of reigning, cf. Schnackenburg, Gottes Herrschaft, 189. Obviously Dalman’s predefined and powerful definition of the term, so influential in the twentieth century, was stronger than the syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations in the text of Acts. 56 Accordingly Prieur, Verkündigung, 78, 161, sees in the submission of Jews and Gentiles under the rule of God the central demand of Paul. But apart from his translation of βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ he has no evidence for this assertion. 57 Cf. Gäckle, “Dimensionen des Heils,” 205–206; idem, Reich Gottes, 129–130, 242–243.

126

Volker Gäckle

in which the kingdom is related to a process of growth: the parable of the sower (Matt 13:1–9, 18–23/Mark 4:3–9, 14–20/Luke 8:4–8, 8–10), 58 of the growing seed (Mark 4:26–29), of the mustard seed (Matt 13:31–32/Mark 4:30–32/Luke 13:18–19) and of the yeast (Matt 13:33/Luke 13:20–21). Each of these parables expresses different aspects and emphasizes certain accents. But one pattern is common to all: from a small, plain, unimposing and nearly invisible beginning, a large, visible, tangible, sensible and testable result eventually grows. 59 In order to understand these parables, it is essential first to recognize that they do not describe the future kingdom of God, but its hidden, invisible and plain origin. Only at the end is the result – the fruit, the mustard bush, or the leaven – apparent, visible, or testable. Secondly, the image of the seed relates on the factual level to the word – the message of Jesus, and respectively the gospel (cf. Matt 13:19/Luke 8:11; Mark 4:15–16, 18–20 par.). 60 Thirdly, the point of all these parables is not the process of growth, and much less its measurability. The crucial point is the hidden power and impact of the seed, i. e. the word (of the kingdom), which will become apparent in its glorious result only with the revelation of the kingdom in a final reversal of history. The focus lies not on the continuous process from the tiny beginning to the huge end but on the contrast between the two. 61 A fourth important aspect is the invisible genetic, ontological, and causal kinship and conditional relationship between the seed and its outworking in fruit and shrub. This corresponds to the inherent connection between the initial word, or gospel, and the apparent future kingdom: if the former is not sowed or preached the latter will not grow or become apparent. 62 58

For the term kingdom of God cf. Matt 13:11/Mark 4:11/Luke 8:9–10 and Matt 13:19, where the syntagma λόγος τῆς βασιλείας occurs. 59 The authenticity of the parables is debated for several reasons, mainly because they seemingly presuppose the early Christian mission and church, which could not be realistic in the pre-Easter Jesus movement. But if these parables were denied for the preaching of Jesus, we would at the same time loose the whole basis for the pre-Easter mission of the disciples (Matt 10/Luke 10) and the rationale for the mission of the early church. 60 The interpretation of the seed as a word or a message rests upon a broad ancient and early Jewish tradition, cf. Plato, Phaedr. 260d; 276b–277a; Aristotle, Ath. pol. 14.4; Cicero, De or. 2.261; Xenophon, Hell. 5.1,25; Plutarch, Mor. 394e; 398 f; 399a; idem, Pomp. 18; Cic. 3; Caes. 29.60; Seneca, Ep. 38.2; Hermes Trismegistus, Poimandres 29, and for early Judaism: Philo, Leg. 1.49; Somn. 1.199; 4 Ezra 9.30–31; T. Levi 13.6; Tg. Isa. 28.24. In the New Testament and early Christian literature too, the picture of the seed is used to illustrate the impact of the word or the gospel, cf. 1 Pet 1:23–25; Jas 1:18, 21; Ign. Eph 9.1; Ap. Jas. (NHC I,2) 8; Tertullian, Praescr. 31; Origen, Comm. Jo. 20.2.5 (GCS 10,327–8, 332–3). 61 For the motif of the hidden, invisible and plain reality of God in the Pauline letters cf. Rom 8:23–25; 2 Cor 4:16–18; 5:7; Col 3:3–4. 62 This inner relation is also relevant in the two parables of the kingly meal (Matt 22:1–14) and the big dinner (Luke 14:15–24). Both consist of two scenes: the process of invitation and proclamation is followed at the end either by the banquet for the guests who came, or the exclusion of the invited ones and the wrongly clothed. The invitation and the banquet are closely related. The time of invitation ends when the banquet starts. This means salvation for the ones who came, but damnation for those who were invited, but who rejected the invitation.

The Proclamation of the Kingdom of God in Acts

127

This aspect of the kingdom proclamation of Jesus, however, is not in tension or contradiction with the three aspects that were highlighted by Hans Kvalbein. In fact the concepts are coherent. If the word – the message of the kingdom – is preached, accepted, and believed, it produces its fruit: the gift of salvation and eternal life (cf. Mark 10:14–15, 17–27) – in the heart. But this reality will stay hidden and invisible until the eschatological revelation of the kingdom of God. So there is a hidden and inner relationship between the preaching and proclamation of the word – the gospel, the message of the kingdom – and the eschatological revelation of the kingdom in terms of the place and time of salvation. Thus, Luke’s usage of βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ with a verb of communication has a reference point in the parables of Jesus: the coming kingdom is the result of the present message of the kingdom.

Conclusion In Acts we can observe the development of the phrase βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ from a label for the eschatological place and time of salvation and the present gift of salvation in the preaching and teaching of Jesus to a term for the Christian message, involving the whole story of God’s salvation – past, present, and future – with its centre in the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. In this postEaster message, the relationship between Jesus and the βασιλεία, which remains obscure and enigmatic in the Synoptic Gospels, becomes apparent and clear: Jesus’ ministry, death, and resurrection are the key events for the promised revelation of the coming kingdom, which was the central content of the pre-Easter message of Jesus. The promise of salvation becomes, through the act of salvation, a message of salvation. This leads to a conclusion which it is beyond the scope of this article to probe further: it may be that we can observe in this development the missing link between the preaching of the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ as the main topic of Jesus’ proclamation and the gospel of Jesus Christ (e. g. Rom 1:16), the word of the cross (1 Cor 1:18), the word of reconciliation (2 Cor 5:19) and so on, which express the center of Paul’s gospel.

Frustrated Plans and Unexpected Outcome Acts 16:6–8 Re-considered Klaus B. Haacker Abstract The route of Paul through Asia Minor according to Acts 16 is but one example of a recurring pattern of his whole life: He acts as a man of vision and talent for organizing ambitious ventures but faces unexpected obstacles or completely new turns. The report of Luke in Acts 16 provides important but controversial data for the interpretation of Paul’s passionate letter to the Galatians. The present study ends with a call to dismiss North Galatia and to correct the map concerning Paul’s travels in our Greek New Testaments.

Introduction Paul’s route through Asia Minor has been a topic of scholarly discussion for more than a century – mainly because of its relevance for the interpretation of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Many commentators take it for granted that according to Acts 16:6 and 18:23 Paul evangelized the region around ancient Ankyra (modern Ankara) where invaders of Celtic origin (in Greek “Galatians”) settled down in the 3rd century BC. 1 Their main question is whether Paul’s letter was addressed to congregations founded by Paul and Barnabas in the Southern part of the Roman province named “Galatia” (Acts 13–14) or to churches planted during the journey of Acts 16 (where Luke, however, mentions no church planting in Galatia). In consequence, a major bone of contention is whether or not “Galatia” in Gal 1:2 and “Galatians” in Gal 3:1 should be taken in an ethnic sense or can have a broader meaning on the basis of the political borders. However, the first question to be asked and answered is whether our sources about Paul’s missionary activities do speak of two Galatias or only of one! I shall return to this controversy in the last part of this essay. Primarily I am going to interpret Paul’s travels and other developments which, taken together, illustrate the tension between ambitious projects, great determination and judicious strategy on the one hand – and various unexpected obstacles on the other. Sooner or later Paul accepts or recognizes God’s guidance in what at first sight

1

“Galatia” was also the Greek term for the Roman province named “Gallia” in Latin sources.

130

Klaus B. Haacker

caused frustration. The basic meaning of “mission” (to receive and execute orders of God) is experienced in lessons of submission.

Appointment through Disappointments Paul appears on the scene of history as a young man full of fanatical zeal and persecuting the Jesus movement which he regarded as both an aberration from and a threat to traditional Judaism. 2 Acting like a voluntary inspector, he caused many followers of Jesus to flee Jerusalem. He even secured official support for his private initiative to extend this fight to places as far from Jerusalem as Damascus (Acts 9:1–2; 22:4–5; 26:9–12). The basis of this campaign collapsed when this supposedly dead Jesus addressed him from heaven – in words which alluded to David’s rebuke of king Saul because of his unjust enmity and persecution (Acts 9:4; 22:7; 26:14; cf. 1 Sam 26:18). In a flash he grasped that this Jesus really was the expected son of David (and of God), the Messiah (Acts 9:20, 22; Gal 1:16). This revelatory experience changed his religious convictions completely and became the source of a new driving passion which governed the rest of his life (Phil 3:4–11). In Acts 26:14 Luke has the heavenly Jesus use a proverbial metaphor for being forced to move in a direction against one’s will or inclinations: “It is hard for you to kick against the goads” (ESV). It is not clear whether that refers to Paul’s initial resistance against the gospel as a persecutor up to this very moment or to lessons he will have to learn again and again in the future. 3 This complete reversal of his life did not diminish the energy which Paul invested in his religious commitment. In Damascus he astounds the Jewish congregations who expected an enemy of the Jesus movement and instead find a fervent supporter. With his knowledge of the Scriptures, learned from Gamaliel the Elder (Acts 22:3), he argued in favor of belief in Jesus as Messiah – but in vain. Contrary to most other reports on Christian preaching, Luke wastes no word on his success – except that opposing Jewish plan to kill Paul (Acts 9:19–25). The same story is repeated when Paul returns to Jerusalem (Acts 9:28–29). As a result, the local fellow believers urge him to leave the city and return to Tarsus, his home town (v. 30). What a disappointment this must have been for a young man eager to surpass others in whatever he undertakes (Gal 1:14)! According to Acts 22:17–21 the unexpected result of these troubles was the intention of the Risen Lord to send him as his messenger to people of other nationalities, a task 2

That is the meaning of the term σκάνδαλον in 1 Cor 1:23 and Gal 5:11. Cf. Charles K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (2 vols.; London: T&T Clark, 1998), 2:1158; Frederick F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 501. 3

Frustrated Plans and Unexpected Outcome

131

which young Paul would never have dreamed of! He shrank back from it and even raised an objection against it, but in vain. But here we must exert caution: this commission was not an immediate new project to be tackled on the spot but rather an announcement of future orders which Paul had to wait for (cf. Acts 13:1–3). 4 It took some time until he could (proudly?) insist on his being an “apostle of gentiles” (Rom 11:13). Strangely enough, Paul continued to visit Jewish congregations wherever he had opportunity. But as a rule this ended with a conflict which caused him to turn to gentile sympathizers of Judaism as a more promising audience: those familiar with basic knowledge about God’s revelation in the history of Israel but not particularly interested in living according to the many specific rules of the Torah (written or oral). This pattern may have originated as a result of repeated disappointments before turning into a strategy to reach gentiles at large. From Gal 2:7 we can get the impression that the leaders of the “mother church” in Jerusalem acknowledged Paul’s calling to evangelize among gentiles while declaring evangelism among Jews to be Peter’s province. We do not know how this principle was translated into practice. A possible solution may have been to decide according to the majority of the local populace. As far as I know Paul never decided to address gentiles alone rather than Jews. 5

A Vision of Europe? Paul’s second missionary outreach is often hailed as the decisive event in the spread of the gospel from oriental regions to Europe, the “Western world.” The small congregation of believers in Philippi (in the beginning mainly women!) is regarded as the first spiritual tree to be planted on European soil. 6 And the champion of this innovation is of course the apostle Paul whose theology has been the most influential model of Christian thinking up to this very day, especially in the West. The general public is generally unaware of the fact that this development was far from Paul’s mind when he set out for this journey. His plan had been to evangelize other parts of Asia Minor where he intended to preach in Jewish congregations with the hope of reaching a gentile public prepared for

4 Pace Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien: Die unbekannten Jahre des Apostels (WUNT 108; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998). I guess that Paul used the “hidden years” in his native city of Tarsus to prepare himself for this demanding task. After all, his earlier education in Jerusalem had been thoroughly Jewish (cf. Acts 22:3). In those years in Tarsus he must also have learned his trade which provided an economical basis for his itinerant missionary service (cf. Acts 18:3; 20:34); Jerusalem certainly did not offer facilities for this training. 5 If Paul ever reached Spain (as he intended according to Rom 15:24) he would have found few cities with Jewish inhabitants! But could he have known this when he planned this outreach? 6 The beginnings of Christianity in Rome, which are unknown to us, may well be earlier.

132

Klaus B. Haacker

understanding and believing the gospel of Jesus Christ. (That was the special commission which he had received from God at the turning point of his life.) Having founded communities in the southern part of the Roman province of Galatia during his first journey (together with Barnabas), he now intended to continue his campaign into the Roman province of Asia (the western part of Asia Minor). But this project was thwarted by a veto from the highest possible authority – the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:6). 7 Being explicitly forbidden to preach in the province of Asia he intended to visit the province of Bithynia at the Northern cost of Asia Minor. But this route, too, was closed for him and his companions by another veto of the Spirit (Acts 16:7). 8 Now the little company of travellers was at a loss and needed a vision by night to open their eyes to a new direction in which they should move on by the will of God (Acts 16:9–10). This vision had a singular content in that a member of the people to whom Paul had been sent out appeared to him, calling for “help.” This “humanitarian” motivation for mission struck a new chord in early Christian missiology, implicit in the term εὐαγγέλιον but now made explicit. It is echoed in the words of a slave girl of Philippi who hails Paul and his fellows as “servants of the Most High God who proclaim to you a way of salvation” (Acts 16:17). 9 Later (in v. 30) it is the jailer who, frightened by an earth quake, asks Paul and Silas: “What must I do to be saved?” This experience of a yearning for what the gospel promises must have been a great surprise to Paul and his companions which could only have heightened their sense of a divine calling. It may be one reason why Paul could (somewhat strangely!) refer to his stay at Philippi as “the beginning of the gospel” (Phil 4:15).

All (Kinds of) Ways Lead to Rome A very ambitious idea of Paul was to visit Rome and preach the gospel in the very heart of the Roman Empire. In Rom 1:13 he writes: “I want you to know that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented).” He does not tell them which obstacles stood in his way, but he traces all of them to the will of God. Therefore he solemnly ensures the addressees that his inten-

7 Luke tells us nothing about the “voice” through which the Spirit spoke. It may have been prophets with a message in the name of the Spirit (Acts 11:28; 13:2; 20:10–11) or decisions of congregations (Acts 15:28) or external obstacles interpreted as divinely intended. 8 As for the singular expression “the spirit of Jesus,” see Gustav Stählin, “Τὸ πνεῦµα ῾Ιησοῦ (Apostelgeschichte 16:7),” in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule (ed. Barnabas Lindars and Stephen S. Smalley; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 229–252. 9 The translation in the New English Bible (“a way”) was correct, but was abandoned in the English Standard Version (2001) (“the way”). That girl did not anticipate the full truth of the gospel.

Frustrated Plans and Unexpected Outcome

133

tion was and still is very earnest: “For God ... is my witness that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers, asking that by God’s will I may somehow at last succeed in coming to you” (1:9–10). If we take this at face value, these words point to a series of disappointments over a longer period, probably several years. As a matter of fact, Paul himself in Rom 15:23 speaks of “many years” during which he had the desire to come to Rome. 10 That leads us to suppose that the idea of a mission to Rome was planted in Paul’s mind already when he received the call to cross the sea towards Macedonia. 11 Having founded a congregation in Philippi, he moved on to Thessalonica, following the Via Egnatia which eventually could have led him to Dyrrhachium at the coast of Illyricum. From there he might have used the shortest crossing of the Adriatic Sea to Brundisium. Some scholars have understood the claim of Paul in Rom 15:19 that he delivered (?) 12 the gospel as far as Illyricum to mean that he did continue his journey far beyond Thessalonica (although that is not mentioned by Luke in Acts 17). 13 The phrase “as far as Illyricum,” however, could also mean “as far as the border of Illyricum” at the western or northern end of Macedonia. 14 In 1 Thess 1:7–8 Paul congratulates the Christians in that city for being “an example to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia” because from them “the word of the Lord has sounded forth not only in Macedonia and Achaia.” These words point to an impact of Paul’s preaching on a large area, comparable to Acts 19:10: “... so that all residents of Asia, both Jews and Greeks, heard the word of the Lord.” Acts 17:2 does not yield any information on the length of Paul’s stay at Thessalonica (“only three weeks”) but rather speaks of three occasions for Paul to expound the Scriptures in the local synagogue. The resistance against Paul there mentioned in v. 5 is not introduced as an immediate reaction to his lectures but prompted by his success among people from a wider public mentioned in v. 4. In any case, the dramatic conflict with the populace and the authorities of Thessalonica must have upset Paul’s plan to continue his journey toward the west. The accusation made against him in that city and its sequel in Beroea must have turned the whole province of Macedonia into a minefield that had to be avoided by all means. The next blow to Paul’s Roman aspirations came when he moved from Athens westwards to Corinth and there met Aquila and Priscilla. They had just

10

The difference between πολλῶν and ἱκανῶν ἐτῶν in the manuscripts does not matter much. Before that he had intended to travel to Bithynia which was certainly not on his way to Rome (cf. Acts 16:7). 12 The translation of πεπληρωκέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον is debated. See my comments in Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer (THKNT 6; rev. ed.; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012), 364–5. 13 Cf. Alfred Suhl, Paulus und seine Briefe: Ein Beitrag zur paulinischen Chronologie (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1975), 94. 14 Cf. Suetonius, Tiberius 16. For µέχρι excluding what follows, see 3 Macc 7:16 and Aulus Gellius, Noctes atticae 1.3.20. 11

134

Klaus B. Haacker

come from Rome as victims of the government’s expulsion of Jews because rumors of civil unrest in Jewish congregations had reached the court of emperor Claudius (Acts 18:2 and Suetonius, Claudius 25.4). If a majority of scholars correctly assume that the reason for these “riots” was quarrels about the witness for Jesus in synagogues, then Paul would fare better by postponing his visit to Rome for a while. Apart from that, the fact that Christian groups already existed in the capital may have caused Paul to shrink back from interfering in a difficult situation of existing local groups of believers. After all, his innermost passion had been to plant new churches and not to develop churches founded by others (Rom 15:20). When he finally thought that the auspices for his visit were propitious and wrote his letter to the Romans in order to pave the way, he used his plan to travel further towards Spain as an excuse for his hope to spend some time with the Roman groups of believers and preach the gospel in their city (Rom 15:24, 29). Another reason for postponing his journey to Rome was that he worked too successfully in the province of Asia in order to interrupt that in favor of Rome (Acts 19:8–10). In addition, problems within and conflicts in and with congregations which he had founded in Macedonia and Greece forced him to invest time and energy into their development. 15 Nevertheless, that did not diminish his inner desire to maintain his plan to visit Rome (Acts 19:21: “Paul made up his mind to visit Macedonia and Greece and then to go on to Jerusalem; and he said: ‘After I have been there I must see Rome as well!’”). But then new troubles arose which put a big question mark behind every thought of something “after Jerusalem”! On his way to Jerusalem repeated messages in the name of the Spirit predicted violent opposition against Paul in that city, possibly leading to death as martyr (Acts 20:23; 21:4, 10–14). But at the peak of the conflict in Jerusalem when hatred was about to triumph over justice, the voice of the Lord whispered to him by night: “Take heart! For as sure as you have spoken in my favor in Jerusalem so you will have to witness for me also in Rome” (Acts 23:11). Ironically, the first part of this journey to Rome Paul travelled under military escort to protect him from Jewish fanatics who had sworn a solemn oath to kill Paul (Acts 23:23–33). But that was not the last threat to his life as Luke narrates it in detail in Acts 24–28. Not even a storm on sea could silence the voice that spoke to him: “Don’t be afraid, Paul! You will have to appear before Caesar!” (Acts 27:24). Thus, Paul would have consented to William Cowper’s lines “God moves in a mysterious way His wonders to perform; He plants his footsteps in the sea And rides upon the storm” and might have adapted the third stanza of Amazing Grace to several years of his life: “Through many dangers, toils, and snares, I have already come;

15

See his correspondence with the church in Corinth.

Frustrated Plans and Unexpected Outcome

135

‘tis grace hath brought me safe thus far, and grace will lead me to Rome’”! For him, God had not only given him a task for his life but was moving the points again and again, putting his trust to the test and taking him by surprise.

To the West, to the West! The story of Paul as recalled by Luke ends in Rome, and that was in fact the place where he had to “finish his race” (2 Tim 4:7). But the capital of the empire was only legally his “home town” as a secular citizen – not the center of his world on earth 16 and the climax of his dreams. His spiritual home was Jerusalem where he had been educated by Gamaliel and dedicated to the God of his fathers and his Law. But there also he had received the call to serve nations “far away” (Acts 22:21). How far? Ideally, he had been called to be a witness “before all men” (Acts 22:15), sharing the commission of the apostles to be Christ’s witnesses “to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). But that could only be fulfilled by different persons going to different “ends” of the earth (widely assumed to be a huge plain rather than a globe). From an ancient Mediterranean perspective, that was not a program lasting centuries, for followers of Jesus (including Paul) expected the age of God’s kingdom in the very near future (Rom 13:11). Apparently, as a result of the Spirit’s guidance, according to Acts 16, Paul had become convinced that his part was to bring the gospel as far as the Western border of this “plain.” For him and his contemporaries that was the Iberian Peninsula, politically called “Spain.” And that was Paul’s real destination beyond Rome and after his visit to the capital. Some scholars 17 regard the whole letter to the Romans as a preparation for this outreach of Paul to Spain. As a matter of fact, Paul expected to win the support of the recipients of his letter to the Romans for this great enterprise (Rom 15:24). The word which he uses here (προπέµπω) means “to escort a departing traveler” (Acts 15:3; 20:38; 21:5), serving as a sign of solidarity. This implicit request illustrates that Paul was aware of the necessity for organizing journeys to distant regions with the help of people in different places. The services which he needed and hoped for might have included practical help in matters of geography (illustrated by the famous cups from Vicarello with an itinerary from Gades, modern Cádiz, to

16 Pace Ksenija Magda, Paul’s Territoriality and Mission Strategy: Searching for the Geographical Awareness Paradigm behind Romans (WUNT 2/266; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). 17 Especially Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007). A weakness of Jewett’s argument is his translation of Rom 16:2: “and provide her whatever she might need from you in the matter” (see p. 941 and 945–6) instead of “and support her in whatever matter she might profit from you” (or: “need your help”).

136

Klaus B. Haacker

Rome with distances in miles). 18 The greetings and warm words of appreciation in Rom 16 provide an impression of how he established a network of people sharing his concerns and contributing to his mission. From Luke’s account we know that Paul did come to Rome. But did he ever set foot on Spanish territory? A growing number of scholars regard the evidence in 1 Clem. 5:1–7 and Canon Muratori line 38–39 as a solid basis for answering “Yes.” 19 But the next question is: How did he get there? Well-equipped and with a team of collaborators? Riesner draws our attention to the fact that according to 1 Clem. 5 Paul was not only imprisoned and stoned but also exiled (φυγαδευθής), and this could have happened as a result of his (first) trial in Rome. 20 The term φυγαδευθής could also refer to Paul’s experiences in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:50), Lycaonia (Acts 14:6), Thessalonica and Beroea (Acts 17:10, 14). But used immediately after the phrase “in chains,” the term could have the narrower meaning “condemned to exile” after a trial. A place like Tarraco (Tarragona) 21 with rather few people who understood Greek would (in the eyes of a Roman court) have been a severe punishment for Paul similar to the exile of Ovidius in a place with nobody who spoke Latin. If these suggestions should be right, then the Spanish adventure of Paul might be another example of frustrated plans, perhaps with some surprising results, though no one knows for certain. But the author of 1 Clement (5:6–7) is convinced that Paul’s stay in Spain was a culmination of his career, allowing him to become a herald (κήρυξ) not only for the east but also for the west, “teaching righteousness for all the world” (an echo of the message of Romans). In the long run, Paul had an even stronger influence in Western Europe (and in countries colonized from there) than in churches of the East.

18 Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarello_Cups (last modified on 12 April 2016): “Dated to the 1st century AD, the cups are cylindrical in form and range in height from 9.5–11.5 cm (3.7-4.5 in) and are shaped like Roman milestones. They are inscribed on their outside with an itinerary that goes from Gades (modern Cadiz) over land to Rome, including all the 104 stopping points along the way and the distances between them, for a total of 1840 Roman miles (2,723.2 km (1,692.1 mi).” 19 Cf. Rainer Riesner, “Kam Paulus bis Spanien? (Röm 15,18–29; Jes 66,19-20),” TBei 47 (2016): 92–101. 20 Riesner, “Spanien,” 99. 21 That is the proposal of Riesner, “Spanien,” 100, following John J. Gunther, Paul: Messenger and Exile: A Study in the Chronology of His Life and Letters (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1972) 144–149 and Armand Puig i Tàrrech, “Paul’s Missionary Activity during his Roman Trial: The Case of Paul’s Journey to Hispania,” in The Last Years of Paul: Essays from the Tarragona Conference, June 2013 (ed. Armand Puig i Tàrrech, John M. G. Barclay and Jörg Frey; WUNT 352; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 469–506.

Frustrated Plans and Unexpected Outcome

137

Obstacles of Doubtful Origin Paul’s passion to press on towards new mission fields did not quench his sense of responsibility for the churches he had founded. But time and again his plans to return to these places fell prey to annoying obstacles. These were not immediately interpreted as divine intervention but also attributed to human resistance or weakness, at least at first sight. That is what Paul experienced during his first and longest stay in Greece (part of what is usually called his “second missionary journey,” a misleading phrase because it consisted of longer stays in several cities and filled up to four years of his life). According to 1 Thess 2:17–18; 3:1–5 Paul suffered from an ardent desire to return to the congregation at Thessalonica which he had founded and which had experienced violent opposition from other inhabitants of the city, some of Jewish origin and some of very low social status (Acts 17:1–10; 1 Thess 1:6; 2:14). When Paul in 1 Thess 2:18 mentions several frustrated plans to return to Thessalonica, that may suggest that already in Beroea he had hoped that the turmoil at Thessalonica would die down. Instead, the opponents from there intervened also in Beroea where no local opposition against Paul had arisen. While in Athens, he could only send Timothy to Thessalonica instead of coming personally. And later, having moved to Corinth (where he wrote this first letter to the Thessalonians), the “traffic light” in the direction of Thessalonica continued to be red. And now, in a flash, a new idea came to Paul’s mind: That cannot be God’s will, at least not God’s first choice for him and his friends in Thessalonica. Someone or something must be standing in his way: Satan! (1 Thess 2:18). That is not the only case for Paul to speak of Satan as an enemy of young churches (Rom 16:20; 1 Cor 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 11:14). In 2 Cor 12:7 he mentions Satan as a personal enemy who time and again inflicts pain on him and his repeated prayers to be healed turn out to be in vain. Instead, he is told to accept this handicap as a lesson he must learn (2 Cor 12:9). Paul will have known from the book of Job that God can hide his gracious face for a long while, allowing his servants to be put to the test. By whom? By Satan! But did the addressees of 1 Thessalonians know this story? I think it possible that Paul may have used “Satan” here as a codename for very worldly forces who time and again fought against the earliest Christians: political authorities, in principle – though unconscious – instruments of God, but now opposing the servants of the Good News. The other instances where I think that meaning possible are Rom 16:29 (as a reference to the Roman Empire 22) and 1 Cor

22 In the light of Job 1:6–12 the ultimate divine origin of ruling powers does not exclude the claim of Satan in Luke 4:5 that it is he who appoints the rulers of the earth.

138

Klaus B. Haacker

5:5 (referring to secular jurisdiction 23). In any case: neither human opponents nor supernatural powers could quench Paul’s resolution to return to churches which he had founded in order to strengthen their faith and develop their spiritual understanding. 24 Therefore he continues to pray earnestly to God that he might remove these obstacles (1 Thess 3:10–11). After all, Paul was convinced that he was serving the Lord of history who sets limits to the power of rulers and to the influence of evil spirits.

Back to Galatia! Now I return to Paul’s second journey through Asia Minor, which Luke reports in just a few sentences but which fills hundreds of articles and chapters in commentaries on Paul’s letter to the Galatians and in introductions to New Testament literature. What exactly happened when Paul revisited the congregations he had founded there together with Barnabas? At first we should note that originally Paul’s proposal did not go beyond this pastoral concern for existing communities: “Let us return and visit the brothers in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are” (Acts 15:36). A conflict between Paul and Barnabas about the choice of a collaborator leads to the formation of a new team consisting of Paul, Silas and eventually Timothy. But the purpose of the journey remained the same: to strengthen existing groups of believers, on their way to Asia Minor and then in the region of the first missionary journey (Acts 15:41; 16:4–5). But then a new destination comes into view: the province of Asia, and a new purpose of the journey: to “preach the word” there. That is (with variable verbs) Luke’s expression for evangelism (Acts 8:4; 13:5; 15:36; 17:13; 18:11). I think we can be sure that this idea arose in Paul’s mind on the basis of his personal calling (Gal 1:16). But the when, where and how depended on God’s step-by-step guidance. In this case the call was temporarily put on hold. For us, the when, where and how of the Spirit’s veto are not easy to clarify. As for the question “how?” several possibilities can be imagined: There are instances where a prophet utters a word introduced by “Thus says the Holy Spirit” (Acts 21:11). A similar utterance may be intended when people are described as 23 This interpretation speaks to present problems concerning sexual abuse by officers of the church. 24 When Paul in 1 Cor 3:6 writes: “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth,” he does not say that he was content with planting churches and ceded the follow-up work to others! The eighteen months at Corinth according to Acts 18:11 and the two years mentioned for Ephesus in Acts 19:10 certainly included evangelism and continued teaching among the converts. Even Paul’s first visit to Thessalonica was not only spent with evangelism but also with pastoral care (see 1 Thess 2:2 and 2:11–12).

Frustrated Plans and Unexpected Outcome

139

speaking “through the Spirit” (21:4) or when we read that “while they were worshipping the Lord ... the Holy Spirit said: ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them’” (13:2). The examples from Acts 21 show that the content of such utterances can be a warning rather than a commission. But the Spirit can also speak through the discussion and decision of an assembly such as the missionary conference of Jerusalem narrated in Acts 15. The result of this apostolic council is introduced by the words: “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit, and our decision” (NEB). Ergo, the question how Paul and his team received the veto of the Spirit must be left open. 25 As for the question when and where this veto was received, a problem of textual criticism is worth mentioning: Instead of διῆλθον at the beginning of Acts 16:6, the majority of manuscripts read διελθόντες. At first sight the textual evidence might seem weak because of the late date of these manuscripts. But we shall return to this issue later because of the geographical problems discussed below. On the basis of our standard text we understand that Paul’s team “went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia” (ESV). As a rule, that is taken to mean that they decided to turn to Phrygia and Galatia after having received and responded this veto. 26 William M. Ramsay once proposed an unusual use of the aorist participle κωλυθέντες for an action that followed the action of the main phrase (διῆλθον) in Acts 16:6. 27 C. F. D. Moule 28 conceded that in Acts 25:13 we find another example of such an exception: Agrippa and Bernice “went down ... and greeted Festus” with “greeted” as an aorist participle. Ramsay had also mentioned two more examples: Acts 23:35 (κελεύσας) and 17:26 (ὁρίσας), in my opinion convincingly, and in addition I propose ποιήσας at the beginning of 20:3, εἴπας in 22:24 and κελεύσας in 23:35. 29 Another option which, as far as I know has not yet been proposed, is to look at the text without the punctuation which was of course absent from the original text. It is conceivable that in Acts 16:6 the first sentence ended with χώραν

25

In Acts 20:3, Codex Bezae converts a wise decision of Paul himself into an order of the Spirit. Cf. Kirsopp Lake, “Note XVIII: Paul’s Route in Asia Minor,” in The Beginnings of Christianity Part I: The Acts of the Apostles (ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake; 5 vols.; London: Macmillan, 1920–1933), 5:224–240, 228–229. 27 Cf. William M. Ramsay, St. Paul, the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (3rd ed.; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1897) 211–212 in a note concerning those who prefer the reading of Acts 16:6 beginning with ∆ιῆλθον. Ramsay himself preferred the majority reading of v. 6 (διελθόντες) which allows for the normal function of κωλυθέντες. 28 Charles F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of the New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 100. See also G. M. Lee, “New Testament Gleanings,” Bib 51 (1970): 235–240, here 235–237: The aorist participle of subsequent action (Acts 16:6)? An extra-biblical example of this is Homer, Od. 2.2–3. 29 Possibly also εἰπόντος in Acts 28:25. 26

140

Klaus B. Haacker

(now concluded with a period) and that in the following sentence κωλυθέντες and ἐλθόντες δέ tell us what happened before the team tried to cross the border of Bithynia. This punctuation would minimize the difference between the majority text and our standard critical text. Finally, the possibility cannot be excluded that Luke means that they only travelled through this region without stopping for evangelism (as in Acts 14:24) because of the Spirit’s veto. That would be an implicit parallel to what Codex Bezae explicitly adds at the beginning of Acts 17:15: “He passed without heeding 30 Thessalia for he was forbidden to proclaim the word to them.” So there are several readings of v. 6 which deserve discussion but are difficult to evaluate. As for the ambiguities of the geographical terms in v. 6, a long discussion has not produced compelling conclusions. At the root of the controversy is the fact that the borders of the Roman province which was named after the Celtic part of her population were repeatedly changed. In maps of the Roman Empire the limits of this province vary according to the date chosen as their basis. Before the establishment of this province in 25 BC it had been the territory of the Galatian ruler Amyntas, an ally of the Romans, and included extensive regions in the south with non-Galatian tribes and cities. Now let us turn to a reconstruction of the events following the Spirit’s veto concerning Asia. Of widespread influence is the story as told by Martin Dibelius: As Paul starts out for the second time from Antioch in Syria upon a missionary journey, he first visits the towns in the South of Asia Minor which have already been evangelized. Then we are told that he has been prevented by the Holy Ghost from going to the West coast of Asia Minor (that is along the great road through the valley of the Lyke into the Greek towns of Ephesus, Smyrna and Pergamum in Asia Minor). He goes therefore with his companions through Phrygia and the province of Galatia and wishes to reach the North coast of Asia Minor, Bithynia. Again we read: ‘The Holy Spirit forbade it.’ Thus the only way remaining open to them was to go in a north-westerly direction through Mysia to Troas. 31

This paraphrase of Luke’s account corresponds perfectly to the maps in the appendix of our standard Greek New Testaments, but it reads something into Luke’s text and skips over the geographical information in v. 7, obviously under the influence of the “North Galatian” hypothesis. As for v. 6, Dibelius specifies the veto of the Spirit as a ban on entering the province of Asia. Such a ban is

30 In principle, the verb παρέρχοµαι could also mean “to pass by,” but Thessalia could not be “passed by” during a travel from Beroea to Athens. 31 Quoted from Martin Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (ed. Heinrich Greeven, trans. Mary Ling; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1956), 19. For the original German, see M. Dibelius, “Der erste christliche Historiker,” in Aufsätze zur Apostelgeschichte (ed. Heinrich Greeven; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951; 4th ed. 1961), 108–119, 113.

Frustrated Plans and Unexpected Outcome

141

stated in v. 7 concerning Bithynia, but v. 6 speaks only of a veto concerning preaching in Asia. 32 But this difference has been overlooked by many. 33 What is more important and seriously misleading is that Dibelius ignores the first mention of Mysia in 16:7 as the region from which Paul and his team tried to travel on into Bithynia. 34 According to Dibelius they passed through Mysia only after the Spirit’s second veto which is taken for granted as an event in Galatia. Now let us look at the map of the travels of Paul in the appendix of our Greek New Testaments and see how they localize Galatia, Bithynia and Mysia. I have consulted maps of Asia Minor for many years 35 which confirm the presentation of Mysia as a region in the northwestern corner of Asia Minor while Galatia was far away from Mysia 36 and bordered directly on Bithynia. 37 If Paul had intended to travel from northern Galatia to Bithynia he probably would have chosen a road that led from Ankyra to Nikaia and crossed the border at Iuliopolis, mentioned by Pliny the Younger in a letter to Trajan (Ep. 10.77) and by other ancient authors. 38

32

Cf. Codex Bezae in Acts 17:15 concerning Thessalia! Cf. Robert Jewett, “Mapping the Route of Paul’s ‘Second Missionary Journey’ from Dorylaeum to Troas,” Tyndale Bulletin 48 (1997):1–22, 5: “Having been prevented from traveling on the main highway into Asia, the only alternative, according to the available maps, was to travel north into the cities of North Galatia.” 34 Dibelius may have known but ignored the comment by Franz Overbeck, Kurze Erklärung der Apostelgeschichte (4th ed.; Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1870), 254: “Nachdem die Reisenden von Galatien durch das dazwischen liegende Phrygien nach Asien, d. h. Asia procons. ... gekommen waren, wurden sie vom Geiste ... verhindert daselbst zu predigen. Als sie nun an der nördlichen Grenze von As. proc. gegen Mysien hin gekommen, machten sie den Versuch nordwärts nach Bithynien zu gehen, aber auch davon wurden sie durch den Geist abgehalten.” 35 For example W. M. Calder and G. E. Bean, A Classical Map of Asia Minor. Being a partial revision by permission of Messrs John Murray of J. G. C. Anderson’s Map of Asia Minor (London: The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1958) or the German edition of The Times Atlas of World History (London: Times Books, 1978): Knaurs großer historischer Weltatlas (ed. Geoffrey Barraclough; München: Droemersche Verlagsanstalt, 1979); Historischer Weltatlas (ed. Walter Leisering; Berlin: Cornelsen-Velhagen & Klasing, 1979), 27. 36 It is a mystery to me what “opposite Mysia” in translations of κατὰ Μυσίαν in Acts 16:7 (Jewett, “Mapping,” 3 and others) can mean. You can be “opposite” an English region when you are on the French side of the English Channel, but not “opposite” a region when another region is between you and that region (as Phrygia between Mysia and Galatia). Cf. LSJ, 883 on κατά with accusative of motion, “on, over, throughout a space,” “in later Gr. of motion to a place.” 37 I feel obliged to mention one strange exception: A map on p. XXI of The Cambridge Companion to St Paul (ed. James D. G. Dunn; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2003) localizes Mysia within the province of Bithynia near to the border of Galatia. There is no information about the author or origin of this map, and the editor (my friend since the sixties) could not tell me how it found its way into the book. 38 See maps showing roads in: Th. Pekáry, “Kleinasien unter römischer Herrschaft,” in ANRW II.7.2:59–657, between p. 600 and 601; Stephen Mitchell, “Population and Land in Roman Galatia,” ANRW II.7.2:1053–1081, between p. 1056 and 1057. Later, this road from Nikaia to Ankyra via Iuliopolis became “one of the most important military routes of the empire” (C. Marek, Pontus et Bithynia: Die römischen Provinzen im Norden Kleinasiens [Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2003], 58). 33

142

Klaus B. Haacker

Conclusions (1) Mysia was a part of the Roman province of Asia far away from its border with the province (or region) Galatia in the East. If Paul approached or entered into Mysia, then the first veto of the Spirit was not against entering the province of Asia but only against evangelizing there (unless we suppose that Paul later ignored it intentionally after having first obeyed it). Thus, there is no reason for us to assume that Paul left the well-paved Via Sebaste 39 leading to important Greek cities in Western Asia Minor (or other paved roads) and instead turned to a less comfortable northern route through higher mountains towards regions with rather few cities and (as far as we know) no Jewish congregations which as a rule served as footholds for Paul’s missionary outreach. 40 (2) Luke (or the source behind his “we-style” narrative) does not say that the idea of a mission to Bithynia came to Paul when he had reached Mysia but that he and his team tried to go there from Mysia. If we imagine that the veto of the Spirit against preaching in the Asia was received somewhere near Pisidian Antioch (or even further to the west), and that Paul thought of Bithynia as an alternative for Asia, then the wisest decision would have been to continue the journey towards the western coast of the peninsula where the Roman road system was much further developed than in central Anatolia 41 From Pergamon several roads could be used in the direction of Bithynia. 42 (3) And what about Paul’s letter to the Galatians? We must forget about North Galatia! I subscribe wholeheartedly to the conclusions of Steve Mitchell: There is virtually nothing to be said for the North Galatian theory. There is no evidence in Acts or any non-testamentary source that Paul ever evangelized the region of Ancyra and Pessinus... It is hardly conceivable that the Γαλατικὴ χώρα mentioned here is the region of north Galatia, which lay some 200 kilometres as the crow flies northeast of any natural route between Lystra and the region of Mysia. 43

39 Built in the year 6 BC; cf. R. A. Kearsley, “A Roman Road in Asia Minor,” in New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 9 (2002): 23–26, 24, and Stephen Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor. Vol. 1: The Celts in Anatolia and the Impact of Roman Rule (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 124–133. 40 Cf. Rainer Riesner, Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology (trans. Doug Stott; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 284. 41 Cf. D. H. French, “The Roman Road System of Asia Minor,” ANRW II.7.2:698–729, 707. 42 See Anne-Maria Wittke, Eckart Olshausen and Richard Szydlak, Historischer Atlas der antiken Welt. Der neue Pauly, Supplemente Band 3 (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 2007), 197 (Straßen und Wege im Imperium Romanum). 43 Stephen Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor. Vol. 2: The Rise of the Church (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 3, in similar words in the author’s article on Galatia in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (ed. David Noel Freedman; 6 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 2:870–972, 871.

Frustrated Plans and Unexpected Outcome

143

(4) Important consequences for biblical maps: the maps concerning travels of Paul in our present standard editions of the Greek New Testament (and in other editions of the Bible) draw the line for his second journey (and, on the basis of Acts 18:23, also the third journey) to the outskirts of Ankyra. 44 However, earlier maps did not always presuppose and endorse the North Galatian theory so blatantly. My own copies of Nestle or Nestle-Aland from 1927 until 1971 initially draw the line for the second journey from Pisidian Antioch a bit to the North, but very soon draw the line further west, leaving Galatia far away in the North-East. According to my limited evidence, the present version of the map was introduced in the 26th edition of Nestle-Aland (1979). As for the UBS Greek New Testament, the break is between the corrected third edition (1975) and the fourth revised edition (1983). A similar development can be observed in the development of maps in modern editions of Luther’s Bible. The result is that editions of the New Testament with a claim to authority in the academic world and for the general public are guilty of misleading their users in this respect. In our visual age the voice of the maps can speak louder than the Biblical texts. I criticised this state of affairs already in a review of the 28th edition of Nestle-Aland 45 and meanwhile appealed in vain to the German Bible Society to return to the earlier maps or to offer better solutions in connection with the forthcoming revision of Luther’s Bible.

44 As K. Lake, “Paul’s route,” 239–240 convincingly argued, Acts 18:23 sheds no light on Acts 16:6 but simply alludes to it. 45 “Kooperation und Konkurrenz: Zwei revidierte Neuauflagen des griechischen Neuen Testaments,” TBei 46 (2015): 182–186, 183–184.

The Gentile Mission of the Hellenists (Acts 11:19–21) and the Jesus Tradition Rainer Riesner

To the Memory of Hans Kvalbein, Thorough Scholar and Genuine Christian

Abstract The exposition of the Old Testament and pneumatic experiences played an important role in establishing and defending the Gentile mission, but one should not underestimate the significance of the Jesus tradition. The exaltation of Jesus as the Son of Man posed the question of how the nations would serve him. Within the Jesus tradition, the Antiochean Hellenists and other Messianic believers found at least two aspects that encouraged them to start a mission among the Gentiles. When Jesus was refused by his own people and even had to flee from persecution to pagan regions, he began to change his attitude towards Gentiles. He accepted their faith and granted them healing. This was comparable to the situation of the Jerusalem Hellenists who had to flee from the holy city to the pagan metropolis of Antioch. 1

The Gentile Mission of the Jerusalem “Hellenists” Only one or two years after the crucifixion of Jesus a large number of Greekspeaking Jewish believers, whom Luke calls “Hellenists [῾Ελληνισταί]” (Acts 6:1), were driven from Jerusalem 2 and fled to various regions north of Eretz Israel: “Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that took place over Stephen travelled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, and they spoke the word to none except Jews. But among them were some men of Cyprus and Cyrene who, on coming to Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists /Greeks also, proclaiming the Lord Jesus. The hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number became believers and turned to the Lord” (Acts 11:19–21, nrsv). In Acts 11:20, the vast majority of manuscripts read ῾Ελληνιστάς (B E etc.), but the majority of modern commentators seem to prefer the minority reading ῞Ελ-

1

My gratitude goes to cand. phil. et theol. Anna-Lena Beck for improving my English. For this early dating see Rainer Riesner, Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology (trans. Doug Stott; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 59–74; Dietrich-Alex Koch, Geschichte des Urchristentums: Ein Lehrbuch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 193–94. 2

146

Rainer Riesner

ληνας (P74 ‫א‬c A D*). 3 Even if one adopts, as Nestle-Aland28 and Charles K. Barrett 4 do, ῾Ελληνιστάς as the original reading, the meaning is clear: They were Greek-speaking Gentiles because evangelizing them (ἐλάλουν καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ῾Ελληνιστάς / ῞Ελληνας εὐαγγελιζόµενοι τὸν κύριον [Acts 11:20]) stands in clear contrast to the former exclusive preaching among the Jews (µηδενὶ λαλοῦντες τὸν λόγον εἰ µὴ µόνον τοὺς ᾿Ιουδαίους [Acts 11:19]). It makes no sense to identify the group as Jewish Hellenists, 5 because as Bruce M. Metzger remarked: “In the present passage, where the preponderant weight of the external evidence combined with the strong transcriptional probability in support of ῾Ελληνιστάς the word is to be understood in the broad sense of ‘Greek-speaking persons,’ meaning thereby the mixed population of Antioch in contrast to the ᾿Ιουδαῖοι of ver. 19.” 6 Already John Chrysostom, one of the greatest exegetes of the ancient Church, in referring to Acts 9:29, wrote that Luke used the term ῾Ελληνισταί for those who speak Greek (Hom. 21 [PG 60,164]). In a classical monograph, Joachim Jeremias showed that Jesus entertained hope for the Gentiles by expecting their eschatological pilgrimage to Zion (Matt 8:11 // Luke 13:29; cf. Isa 2:2–4; Mic 4:1–4). 7 Apparently, those Jewish Christbelievers remaining in Jerusalem after the martyrdom of Stephen and the flight of the Hellenists held the same hope for about a decade (see below). 8 Unfortunately, Luke does not tell us what had caused some Greek-speaking Jewish believers in Antioch to take the extraordinary step of expanding the Messianic mission to include Gentiles sometime during the thirties of the first century. In the following, some possible arguments for taking this far-reaching decision will be proposed.

3 E.g. Gerhard Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte II: Kommentar zu Kap. 9,1–28,31 (HThK V /2; Freiburg: Herder, 1982), 89, n. 22; Rudolf Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte (Apg 1–12) (EKK 5/1; Zurich: Benziger and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986), 352, n. 6; Frederick F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans and Leicester: Apollos, 1990), 272; Luke T. Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (SP 5; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992), 203; James D. G. Dunn, The Acts of the Apostles (Peterborough: Epworth, 1996), 154; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 476; Darrell L. Bock, Acts (ECNT 5; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 419–20. 4 C. K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles I: Preliminary Introduction and Commentary on Acts I–XIV (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 550–51. 5 Contra Pierson Parker, “Three Variant Readings in Luke-Acts,” JBL 83 (1964): 165–70, here 167–68; Bruce J. Malina and John H. Pilch, Social Science Commentary on the Book of Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 82. 6 Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 342. 7 Joachim Jeremias, Jesus’ Promise to the Nations (trans. S. H. Hooke; 2nd ed.; SBT 24; London: SCM Press, 1967); Joachim Jeremias, Jesu Verheißung für die Völker (2nd ed.; Franz DelitzschVorlesungen 1953; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1959). 8 Cf. Leonhard Goppelt, Theologie des Neuen Testaments II: Vielfalt und Einheit des apostolischen Christuszeugnisses (ed. Jürgen Roloff; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), 339–41.

The Gentile Mission of the Hellenists (Acts 11:19–21) and the Jesus Tradition

147

The Antiochean “God-fearers” and the Mission of the Hellenists Acts 11:20 could give the impression that some Gentiles became part of the new Messianic community in Antioch for the first time. But by citing the examples of the conversion and baptism of two god-fearers, namely the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26–39) and the Roman centurion Cornelius (Acts 10), Luke hints at the fact that the way to the inclusion of the Gentiles was rather a gradual process. Nevertheless, Luke seems also to be right in noticing that preaching to Gentiles on a larger scale started only in the Syrian metropolis of Antioch on the Orontes. Even a sceptical scholar like Craig C. Hill is “willing to accept as a working hypothesis the association of the Hellenists with the church of Antioch.” 9 Indeed, the presuppositions for a mission of the Hellenists in the third or fourth biggest city of the Roman Empire (Josephus, J. W. 3.29) were very favorable. 10 Josephus wrote about the Jewish community of Antioch before the war of 66–70 C. E. (J. W. 7.43, 45 [Thackeray, LCL]): The Jewish race, densely interspersed among the native population of every portion of the world is particularly numerous in Syria, where intermingling is due to the proximity of the two countries. But it was at Antioch that they specially congregated, partly owing to the greatness of that city, but mainly because the successors of King Antiochus [IV] had enabled them to live there in security ... They were constantly attracting to their religious ceremonies multitudes of Greeks, and these they had in some measure incorporated with themselves [ἀεὶ τε προσαγόµενοι ταῖς θρησκείαις πολὺ πλῆθος ῾Ελλήνων, κἀκείνους τρόπῳ τινὶ µοῖραν αὐτῶν πεποίηντο].

This expansion of the Jewish community of Antioch was not due to an active mission but to the attractiveness of their religion, with its ethical monotheism and the rather intellectual synagogue service, which was centered on the reading and exposition of very ancient holy Scriptures. 11 As can be observed in other cities, the existence of a large body of proselytes and god-fearers was one important factor for the successful preaching of the Messiah Jesus (Acts 13:43, 48; 9 Craig C. Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division within the Earliest Church (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 106. For a defense of the historicity of the Lukan report see Alfons Dauer, Paulus und die christliche Gemeinde im syrischen Antiochia: Kritische Bestandsaufnahme der modernen Forschung mit einigen weiterführenden Überlegungen (BBB 106; Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1996), 12–15; Bock, Acts, 411–17; Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary II: 3:1–14:28 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 1831–50. 10 Cf. Irina Levinskaya, The Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Setting (vol. 5 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting 5; ed. Bruce W. Winter; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans and Carlisle: Paternoster, 1996), 127–35; Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Paul between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM Press, 1997), 196–204. 11 Cf. Martin Goodman, Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing in the Religious History of the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 85; Rainer Riesner, “A Pre-Christian Jewish Mission?” in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles (ed. Jostein Ådna and Hans Kvalbein; WUNT 127; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 211–50, here 229; Michael F. Bird, Crossing Over Sea and Land: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2010), 99–100.

148

Rainer Riesner

14:1; 16:13–14; 17:4, 17; 18:4). 12 Indeed, the preaching of the Hellenists in Antioch was effective to such an extent that the Roman authorities recognized the emergence of an apparently new religious group mixed of Jews and Gentiles, giving them the label Christiani / Χριστιανοί (Acts 11:26). 13 Since there was no pre-Christian Jewish proselyte mission, there was no prototype for the mission of the Hellenists. The Hellenists were in need of proof that such an unexpected action was in accordance with God’s will.

The Exalted “Son of Man” and the Gentiles One may presuppose that knowledge of the martyrdom of Stephen, as one of their leading figures, was wide-spread among the Hellenists. One can also suppose that Stephen’s speech (Acts 7:2–53) is not a wholly Lukan creation, but gives the gist of an actual speech before his accusers. 14 Surely, the Hellenists were deeply impressed by Stephen’s heavenly vision of Jesus which, according to Luke-Acts, Stephen interpreted with the words: “I see the heavens open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God [καὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ]” (Acts 7:56). Of course, this extraordinary experience, as other events in the history of the early Messianic movement (cf. Acts 1:15–20; 2:14–21 etc.), was understood in light of Old Testament prophecy. In the vision of Daniel the exaltation to the throne of God of “one like a Son of Man” had profound consequences for the fate of the Gentiles (Dan 7:13–14, nrsv): As I watched in the night visions I saw one like a human being [‫;כּ ַבר ֱאָנשׂ‬ ְ LXX/Θ: ὡς υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου] coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him. To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages [Θ: πάντες οἱ λαοί, φυλαί, γλῶσσαι] should serve him.

If Jesus was now the exalted Son of Man, as Stephen testified in his vision, then what did this mean for the present situation of the Gentiles? In which way would the nations become capable of serving the Son of Man? An answer could have been found in the Jesus tradition as it was known to the Hellenists. Stephen himself, in defense of his critique, had referred to the prophecy of Jesus concerning the future destruction of the Jerusalem temple (Acts 6:14; cf. Matt 26:61 // Mark 14:58). Wolfgang Kraus very thoroughly examined possible motifs for the Gentile mission by the Hellenists and he stressed the Old Testament expectation of the 12 Cf. Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission I: Jesus and the Twelve (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press and Leicester: Apollos, 2004), 781–90. 13 Cf. Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 110–14. 14 Cf. Bock, Acts, 276–79; Keener, Acts, 1338–42; Klaus Haacker, Stephanus: Verleumdet, verehrt, verkannt (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2014), 41–49.

The Gentile Mission of the Hellenists (Acts 11:19–21) and the Jesus Tradition

149

inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God at the end of time. 15 Indeed, when the Hellenist Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26–39), Isaiah 56:1–8 stands in the background (Isa 56:3, 6–7a, nrsv): Do not let the foreigner joined to the Lord say: ‘The Lord will surely separate me from his people,’ and do not let the eunuch say, ‘I am just a dry tree’ ... And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the sabbath, and do not profane it, and hold fast my covenant – these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer.

Kraus gives only one possible reference to the Jesus tradition as a motif for the Gentile mission, the citation of Isaiah 56:7b in Mark 11:17: “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples [πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν].” But it remains unclear whether he sees it as an interpretation of the Hellenists, 16 as do Martin Hengel 17 and James D. G. Dunn. 18 As important as the recourse to the Old Testament prophecies might have been, it is questionable whether it was sufficient reason for such an extraordinary decision. Only if it had been clear that the end of time had come, could the fulfilment of the prophecies of the inclusion of the Gentiles have begun. The Semitic-speaking believers in Jerusalem were convinced that they lived in the end-time (Acts 2:16–21; cf. Joel 3:1–5). Nevertheless, they did not immediately launch a mission to the Gentiles, but hoped for the conversion of Israel as a prerequisite for the ingathering of the nations. To reinforce this view, they could point out that in the Old Testament an eschatological pilgrimage to Jerusalem is expected and not a centrifugal mission. 19 So one has to ask the question: Do we know anything about the Jesus traditions which were handed down and cherished by the Antiochene Hellenists? Could these traditions have helped or even have justified the far-reaching step of an active mission to the Gentiles?

15 Wolfgang Kraus, Zwischen Jerusalem und Antiochia: Die “Hellenisten,” Paulus und die Aufnahme der Heiden in das endzeitliche Gottesvolk (SBS 179; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1999), 67–81. See also Thomas L. Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (to 135 CE) (Waco: Word Press, 2007); John P. Ware, Paul and the Mission of the Church: Philippians in Ancient Jewish Context (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 57–156. 16 Kraus, Zwischen Jerusalem und Antiochia, 75–76. 17 Martin Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul (with Roland Deines; trans. John Bowden; London: SCM Press and Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991), 82–83. 18 James D. G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem (Christianity in the Making 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 310–11. 19 The exception to the rule, important for Paul and his mission to the Gentiles (Rom 15:16–28), is Isaiah 66:18–21 (see below). Cf. Rainer Riesner, “Die Mission des Paulus: Territorialität, Universalität und Heilsgeschichte,” in ‘Machet zu Jüngern alle Völker’ (ed. Michael Tilly and Loren T. Stuckenbruck [forthcoming]).

150

Rainer Riesner

Possible Ways of the Jesus Tradition from Jerusalem to Antioch In the first decade after Easter the inner circle of “the Twelve” formed a living bridge between Jesus and the newly formed Messianic community of Jerusalem (cf. Acts 1:21–22; 2:42; 6:4). 20 Besides handing down the memorable teaching summaries and parables of Jesus, they spoke to their hearers about the mighty deeds and controversies of their master. Partly intentionally and partly through constant usage, these stories developed into rather short and fixed forms. According to Papias of Hierapolis, Peter already taught in the form of χρεῖαι, that is by forming short memorable anecdotes (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15). As is hinted at by Paul, a kernel of a Passion Narrative was already recited in the earliest communal gatherings (cf. 1 Cor 11:23–25). From its beginnings the Jerusalem community included the “Hellenists” as a group of Greek-speaking believers (Acts 6:1–6). Some of them might have been sympathizers of Jesus even before Easter. In a seminal article, Martin Hengel suggested that the Greek translation of the Jesus tradition already started among these Hellenists in Jerusalem and that those among them who fled to Antioch brought such a tradition along with them. 21 This thesis was widely adopted by other scholars. 22 Philippe Rolland tried to show that the so-called Q-tradition (traditio duplex) was very apt for the mission among god-fearers. 23 According to Burnett H. Streeter, a Greek version of Q was redacted in Antioch 24 and some more recent scholars hold to this opinion as well. 25 For Thomas W. Manson, Q “had its origin as a book of instruction for converts from Gentile paganism [and] it would be natural to connect it with Antioch, the first headquarters of the Gen-

20 For the underlying view of the way of the Jesus tradition see Rainer Riesner, “From the Messianic Teacher to the Gospels of Jesus Christ,” in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus I: How to Study the Historical Jesus (ed. Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 405–46; Rainer Riesner, “The Orality and Memory Hypothesis,” in The Synoptic Problem: Four Views (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Brian R. Dryer; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016), 89–111, 151–63. 21 Martin Hengel, “Between Jesus and Paul,” in idem, Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM Press, 1983), 1–30, here 27–28. First published as “Zwischen Jesus und Paulus. Die ‘Hellenisten’, die ‘Sieben’ und Stephanus (Apg 6,1–15; 7,54-8,3),” ZThK 72 (1975): 151–206 (now expanded in Martin Hengel, Paulus und Jakobus: Kleine Schriften III [WUNT 141; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002], 1–67). 22 Cf. Edvin Larsson, “Die Hellenisten und die Urgemeinde,” NTS 33 (1987): 205–25, here 207–8, 214–15; Troy W. Martin, “Hellenists,” in ABD 3 (1992): 135–36; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 308–11. 23 Philippe Rolland, Les premiers Évangiles: Un nouveau regard sur le problème synoptique (LD 116; Paris: Cerf, 1984), 174–80. 24 Burnett H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (5th ed.; London: Macmillan, 1936), 232–34. 25 Klaus Berger, Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums: Theologie des Neuen Testaments (2nd ed.; Tübingen: Francke, 1995), 352.

The Gentile Mission of the Hellenists (Acts 11:19–21) and the Jesus Tradition

151

tile mission.” 26 Thorleif Boman even draws a direct developmental line from the preaching of Stephen to the Q tradition. 27 One can argue that the hypothetical source Q consisted not of a mere saying collection, but was structured as a rough narrative reaching from the baptism of Jesus on to his Galilean ministry to his passion in Jerusalem. 28 That a source of this kind was compiled in Antioch might be seen in its use in the Gospel of Luke the Antiochean (cf. Acts 11:28 D; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.4.6). 29 The diagram 30 below illustrates the multiple-source-hypothesis which is presupposed in the following. The Messianic communities in Galilee (Acts 9:31) were also in need of an authoritative Jesus tradition. Some material common to the Gospels of Mark and Matthew (e. g. Matt 14:22–15:39; Mark 6:45–8:10) shows a certain interest for Galilee and the regions bordering it in the north and the east. This tradition might have centered first at Capernaum (cf. Matt 9:1) and the former tax-collector Matthew could have played a role in collecting and shaping this tradition (cf. Papias [Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.16]). 31 It may be conjectured that the message about Jesus the Messiah spread also from Galilee to the southern and western parts of Syria (cf. Matt 4:24). In this way the hypothetical Galilean source (an expanded Proto-Mark) could have reached Antioch. There, people combined it with the Antiochean source (Proto-Mark and sayings) and the so-called M-material forming the Gospel of Matthew. A mix of traditions, as John P. Meier dated in the eighties and nineties of the first century, 32 may have occurred already in the sixties. Whereas Syria as the place of the final composition of Matthew seems to be the majority view, some scholars more specifically favour the cap-

26 Thomas W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus: As Recorded in the Gospels according to St. Matthew and St. Luke (London: SCM Press, 1949), 20. 27 Thorleif Boman, Die Jesus-Überlieferung im Lichte der neueren Volkskunde (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967), 112–23. 28 Cf. Eric Franklin, “A Passion Narrative for Q?” in Understanding, Studying, and Reading: New Testament Essays in Honour of John Ashton (ed. Christopher Rowland and Crispin H. T. FletcherLouis; JSNTSup 153; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 30–47; Stephen Hultgren, Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition: A Study of Their Place within the Framework of the Gospel Narrative (BZNW 113; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002). 29 Cf. August Strobel, “Lukas der Antiochener,” ZNW 49 (1958): 131–34; August Strobel, Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzögerungsproblem: Auf Grund der spätjüdisch-urchristlichen Geschichte von Habakuk 2,2 ff (NovTSup 2; Leiden: Brill, 1961), 252, n. 1. For the Antiochean background of Luke see also Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke I–IX (AB 28A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1981), 44–47. 30 The diagram is taken from Rainer Riesner, “The Orality and Memory Hypothesis,” in The Synoptic Problem: Four Views (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Brian R. Dryer; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2016). Used by permission. 31 Cf. Walter Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (3rd ed.; THKNT 1; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1972), 43–44. 32 John P. Meier, “Antioch,” in Raymod E. Brown and John P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1983), 11–86, here 51–57.

152

Rainer Riesner Figure 5.1 Jesus Teaching/ Logia

Galilee Stories   Logia

Twelve/ Peter

Twelve/ Peter

Twelve/ Peter

Passion

Logia

Stories

Family Jerusalem Damascus

Proto-Mark Peter/Mark   Semitic/Greek   Jerusalem/ Caesarea

Hellenist Jewish-Christians

Jewish-Christian Communities

Gentile-Christian Communities

Lukan Special Tradition

Phoenicia Antioch

Galilee South Syria

Mark   Paul

Family/Hebrew   Barnabas/Greek

Matthew

Mark

Syria

Rome

Luke Greece Asia Minor

  oral tradition   literary dependence   memory

ital of the provincia Syria. 33 Indeed, around 110, Ignatius of Antioch knew and used not only a pre-Matthean tradition but the Gospel itself (Ign. Smyrn. 1:1;

33 For example Jean Zumstein, “Antioche sur l’Oronte et l’Évangile selon Matthieu,” SNTU 5 (1980): 122–38; John P. Meier, “Antioch,” 15–27, 45–72; David C. Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998). For other proponents of an Antiochean origin see William D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew I: Introduction and Commentary on Matthew I–VII (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 139; Udo Schnelle, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (9th ed.; UTB 1830; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017), 291.

The Gentile Mission of the Hellenists (Acts 11:19–21) and the Jesus Tradition

153

Matt 3:15; Ign. Phld. 3:1; Matt 15:13, etc.). 34 Against such a localization one can argue that in Antioch it was no longer necessary to plead for the Gentile mission. 35 However, the common dating of Matthew as late as the nineties of the first century is not compelling. 36 If the Gospel was redacted around the troubled years of the Jewish War 66–70 C. E., there might have been an influx of more conservative Jewish believers and some pressure to distance oneself from the Gentiles. Craig A. Evans remarks: “The evangelist Matthew seems to have written his Gospel in a time of transition (sometime prior to the war of 66–70 C. E.), when he and his primary readers, most of them were ethnically Jewish but were evangelizing Gentiles, had been driven out of the synagogue and had begun to form a community of faith distinct from it.” 37 There existed different groups already in the forties including more conservative Jewish-Christians among the community of Antioch (Gal 2:12) 38 and, apparently, this mixture seems to have remained until the time of Ignatius around the turn of the century. 39

The So-called Q-Tradition and the Gentiles Scholars like Burnett H. Streeter 40 and Thomas W. Manson 41 and more recently Dieter Lührmann 42 and Philippe Rolland 43 have emphasized that Q includes some astonishingly positive statements about Gentiles even if negative ones are

34 Cf. Charles E. Hill, “Ignatius, ‘the Gospel’, and the Gospels,” in Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (ed. Andrew F. Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 267–85; Hermut Löhr, “The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch,” in The Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction (ed. Wilhelm Pratscher; Waco Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2010), 91–115, here 101–2; Gregory Vall, Learning Christ: Ignatius of Antioch and the Mystery of Redemption (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2013), 40–44. 35 Ingo Broer and Hans-Ulrich Weidemann, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (3rd ed.; Würzburg: Echter, 2010), 121–22. 36 Cf. Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 599–609; John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans and Bletchley: Paternoster, 2005), 12; Don A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 152–56; Richard T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 19; Craig A. Evans, Matthew (NCBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 4–5. 37 Evans, Matthew, 6–7. 38 Cf. Rudolf Schnackenburg, Matthäusevangelium 1,1–16,20 (NEchtB 1/1; Würzburg: Echter, 1985), 8–9. 39 Cf. Virginia Corwin, St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960), 52–61; Sim, The Gospel of Matthew, 269–82; Vall, Learning Christ, 68–76. 40 Streeter, The Four Gospels, 233. 41 Thomas W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (2nd ed.; London: SCM Press, 1935), 31. 42 Dieter Lührmann, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle (WMANT 33; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 86–88. 43 Philippe Rolland, L’origine et la date des Évangiles: Les témoins oculaires de Jésus (Paris: Éditions Saint-Paul, 1994), 41–46.

154

Rainer Riesner

not totally lacking (Matt 5:47[?]; 6:32 // Luke 12:30). Although the existence of a written source (according to the present author a combination of Proto-Mark and a sayings tradition [Q]) in Antioch already in the thirties is not impossible; it is at least probable that many of its underlying traditions were known in the circles of the Hellenists. Some of these traditions could have been used as a legitimation for a mission to the Gentiles and in this context especially three logia and one story should be mentioned. The first logion is a word of severe judgment that Jesus uttered when the pre-Easter mission of the disciples to Galilee failed (the “Galilean crisis”). For the most part the Matthean and the Lukan versions are nearly in total verbal agreement. We can leave open the question if Matthew has added the end-clause about the inhabitants of Sodom (Matt 11:23b–24; cf. 10:15) or has here reproduced a parallelism as was usual for the memorable oral instruction of Jesus. There are no really persuasive arguments that the kernel of the logion does not go back to Jesus. 44 Originally, the woes against the Galilean towns were meant as a warning for the Jews of Galilee. But after Easter one would be able to notice that at least in the past, Gentiles were spared from divine judgement because of their willingness to repent. Why should this possibility be excluded for the future, especially after the coming of the Messiah (Matt 11:21–23a nrsv // Luke 10:13–15)? Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon. They would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, on the day of judgement it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for you.

The second logion also occurs in the situation in which the preaching of repentance to Galilee failed. 45 Possibly, Matthew has preserved the parallel form of the logion more accurately, but in terms of content, Luke is in substantial agreement. There are good reasons for this logion to be considered a genuine saying

44 Cf. John Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34 (WBC 35B; Dallas: Word Books, 1993), 547–49, 555–57; Wolfgang Wiefel, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (THKNT 1; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1998), 218–220; Franz Mußner, “Gab es eine ‘galiläische Krise’?” in idem, Jesus von Nazareth im Umfeld Israels und der Urkirche (WUNT 111; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 74–85. 45 Paul D. Meyer, “The Gentile Mission in Q,” JBL 89 (1970): 405–17, sees in this text and the next one (Matt 12:41–42 / Luke 11:31–32) creations of prophets inside the Q-community. Against such a creative role of early Christian prophets see James D. G. Dunn, “Prophetic ‘I’-Sayings and the Jesus-Tradition: The Importance of Testing Prophetic Utterances within Early Christianity,” in idem, The Oral Gospel Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 13–40.

The Gentile Mission of the Hellenists (Acts 11:19–21) and the Jesus Tradition

155

of Jesus. 46 The logion looks forward to a future chance for the Gentiles to become part of the kingdom of God. In the time after Easter one could have asked the question whether the coming of the Gentiles will only start with the resurrection of the dead or whether it will precede this eschatological event (Matt 8:11–12 nrsv / Luke 13:28–29): I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown in the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The third logion declares Gentiles of the past, as later the Twelve (Matt 19:28 // Luke 22:28–30), to be future judges of the present people of Israel. Not only does the concealed claim to Messianic authority speak for an authentic word of Jesus but also its very memorable poetical form (Matt 12:41–42 nrsv // Luke 11:31–32): 47 The people of Niniveh will rise up at the judgement with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here! The queen of the South will raise up at the judgement with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and see, something greater than Solomon is here!

After Easter it must have seemed clear to believers that Jesus was the one greater than the prophet Jonah or king Solomon. In the same way, would this not signify a greater hope for the Gentiles than in the former days of the Old Testament figures mentioned in the logion? In both the Matthean and the Lukan tradition this double logion is combined with the announcement of the “sign of Jonah” (Matt 12:39–40 // Luke 11:29–30). At least after Easter, this sign could have been understood in a twofold way, as Brant Pitre writes: “As any first-century Jew would have known, the climax of the book of Jonah is not his miraculous ‘arising’ after being vomited out by the fish; it is the even more miraculous repentance of the Gentile city of Nineveh ... The ‘sign of Jonah’ is both the resurrection of the Son of Man on the third day and the repentance of the Gentiles that will follow his

46 Cf. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus II: Mentor, Message, and Miracles (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 311–17; Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53 (ECNT 3B; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 1230–32, 1238–39; Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 268–70. 47 Cf. Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53, 1088, 1098–99; Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Jesus und das Judentum (Geschichte des frühen Christentums I; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 389; Michael Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium (HNT 5; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 423–26.

156

Rainer Riesner

resurrection.” 48 Contrary to Jesus, some later rabbis denied the authenticity of the repentance of Nineveh (y.Ta’an. 2 [65b]; Pirqe R. El. 43). Could this have been a polemical reaction against Jewish Christians using the story of Jonah as a justification for a Gentile mission? All three sayings of Jesus cited above have common positive statements about some Gentiles in both the past and the future, which stand in stark contrast with the present denial of Jesus by the people of Israel. When the Hellenists were being persecuted and driven out by their fellow Jews from the holy city they could compare their fate with Jesus’ situation after the Galilean crisis. Could it be possible that the failure of the majority of the people of Israel to believe in the Messiah provided the opportunity for the inclusion of the Gentiles? The fourth relevant text is the story of the healing of the servant of a pagan centurion in the service of the Galilean tetrarch Antipas (Matt 8:5–13 // Luke 7:1–10). Jesus grants the healing because he is impressed by the faith of the officer: “Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found such a faith [παρ᾽ οὐδενὶ τοσαύτην πίστιν ἐν τῷ ᾿Ισραὴλ εὗρον]” (Matt 8:10, nrsv // Luke 7:9). John Nolland comments on Luke 7:1–10, where the centurion is characterized as a godfearer: “The report has a strong claim to being part of the oldest tradition of the ministry of Jesus ... In the later church the existence of such a Gentile who had manifested such an outstanding spiritual perception and responsiveness would have served as a strong argument against the exclusion of Gentiles on principle from Christian fellowship.” 49 When an argument arose around 47/48 C. E. in Antioch over the issue of table-fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers, Paul would remind Peter of their common ground: “We [both!] know [ἡµεῖς ... εἰδότες] that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ [διὰ πίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ]” (Gal 2:16; cf. Rom 3:28). This prePauline formula may go back to the earliest period of the Jerusalem community 50 and therefore it may also have been known to the Antiochean Hellenists. Jesus’ word of praise to the centurion, too, could have been understood by Hellenists that faith was the sole requirement for belonging to the eschatological people of God that exists for Gentiles. Even Gerd Theißen who sees Q as the product of the Israel-centred mission of Palestinian itinerant preachers concedes in respect to the aforementioned texts: “Anyone who has these examples

48 Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ (New York: Image, 2016), 188. 49 John Nolland, Luke 1–9:20 (WBC 35A; Dallas: Word Books, 1989), 315, 318. 50 Cf. Michael Theobald, “Der Kanon von der Rechtfertigung (Gal 2,16; Röm 3,28) – Eigentum des Paulus oder Gemeingut der Kirche?” in Worum geht es bei der Rechtfertigungslehre? Das biblische Fundament der ‘Gemeinsamen Erklärung’ von katholischer Kirche und Lutherischem Weltbund (ed. Thomas Söding; QD 180; Freiburg: Herder, 1999), 131–92; Rainer Riesner, “Rechtfertigung aus Glauben – wie früh?” ThBeitr 48 (2017): 201–18, here 207–11.

The Gentile Mission of the Hellenists (Acts 11:19–21) and the Jesus Tradition

157

in mind is at least spiritually prepared to accept the Gentile mission, even if he or she does not actively pursue it in person.” 51

Pre-Matthean Traditions and the Gentiles Whereas Galilee was an almost totally Jewish territory, the bordering regions like the territories of the free Hellenistic cities of Tyre and Sidon, of the Decapolis cities Scythopolis, Gadara and Hippos, and Gaulanitis had a pagan majority. When the preaching about Jesus the Messiah spread across the boundaries of Galilee and reached Diaspora synagogues, then the question about the inclusion of god-fearers would become urgent. There is wide agreement that the final form of the Gospel of Matthew stresses the inclusion of Gentiles. The genealogy of Jesus comprises Gentile women like Rahab and Ruth (Matt 1:5) and the magi from the East are the first to pay homage to the new-born Messiah-king (Matt 2:1–12). The Gospel ends with a strong justification of the mission to the Gentiles by the risen Jesus (Matt 28:18–20 [see below]). After Easter not only some traditions common to Matthew and Luke but also some other pre-Matthean traditions could have been understood as supporting the inclusion of Gentiles. As Gerd Theißen has demonstrated, the story about the healing of the daughter of a Gentile woman in the border region between Galilee and the Hellenistic city of Tyre (Matt 15:21–28 // Mark 7:24–30) shows good Lokalkolorit. 52 Apparently, Matthew knew the story not only in its Markan form, but also in a parallel version, 53 which some scholars assign to the M-source. 54 Especially in the Matthean form, the story could have been understood as a more fundamental statement about the relationship between Jesus’ mission to the people of Israel and the fate of the Gentiles. The woman in Matthew is characterized as a “Canaanite [Χαναναία]” (Matt 15:22), a designation in Second-Temple Judaism evoking the former deadly enemies of the people of Israel (cf. Jub. 22:20–22). First, Jesus rebukes her as she calls for healing with this strong statement: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 15:24). But after her humble petition, Jesus answers her with the words: “Woman, great is your

51 Gerd Theißen, “The Sayings Source: Palestine-Centered Perspectives at the Middle of the First Century,” in idem, The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 203–34, here 226. 52 Gerd Theißen, “The Story of the Syrophoenician Woman and the Border Region between Tyre and Galilee,” in idem, The Gospels in Context, 61–80. 53 Cf. James D. G. Dunn, “Matthew as Wirkungsgeschichte,” in idem, The Oral Gospel Tradition, 120–37, here 128–31. 54 Streeter, The Four Gospels, 260; Marie-Émile Boismard, André Lamouille, and Paul Sandevoir, Synopse des quatres Évangiles en français: Avec parallèles des Apocryphes et des Pères (Paris: Cerf, 1980), 235–36; Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 415.

158

Rainer Riesner

faith [µεγάλη σου ἡ πίστις]! Let it be done for you as you wish” (Matt 15:28). The woman is an example of the fact that people of Tyre (cf. Matt 11:21 // Luke 10:13 [see above]) believed in the preaching of a Jewish prophet not only in the past. If Jesus himself had changed his attitude towards a Gentile woman who wished to have his help through healing, could Gentiles after Easter, with their faith in Jesus and their wish to be saved, still be rebuked by Jewish believers? Burnett H. Streeter commented on this Matthean text: “We should expect that sayings or stories which could be quoted as defining Christ’s attitude towards them [the Gentiles] would be current at a very early time in nearly every church.” 55 It should be noticed that, according to the context, it was after the failure of Jesus’ Galilean mission and on his flight to non-Jewish border regions that this event occurred. Undoubtedly, Matthew 28:16–20 is the carefully formulated climax of the Gospel, but the text was redacted on the basis of an older commissioning tradition. 56 Although Daniel 7:13 is not quoted verbally in Matthew 28:18, “All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me [ἐδόθη µοι πᾶσα ἡ ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς]” alludes to Daniel 7:14a LXX (ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία). 57 According to William D. Davies and Dale C. Allison this allusion “belongs to a pre-Matthean tradition” so that “someone before Matthew interpreted the appearance story by relating it to Daniel’s vision.” 58 In the belief of the witnesses to the resurrected Jesus, he was appointed by God as the exalted Son of Man to whom all the nations should pay homage. 59 In Daniel 7:18 and Matthew alike, the authority of the Son of Man is given to his community. The mission to the Gentiles, in making known to them the kingdom and the teaching of the Messiah and Lord (Matt 28:19–20) could have been seen as the consequence of the fulfilling of the prophecy in Daniel. Here we have a parallel example of how the Antiochean Hellenists already could have interpreted Stephen’s vision of Jesus as the exalted Son of Man (see above) as a justification for their mission to the Gentiles.

55

Streeter, The Four Gospels, 260. Cf. especially Benjamin J. Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning: An Exegesis of Matthew 28:16–20 (SBLDS 19; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974); Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28 (WBC 33B; Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 881–83; Peter Stuhlmacher, “Zur missionsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung von Mt 28,16–20,” in idem, Biblische Theologie und Evangelium: Gesammelte Aufsätze (WUNT 146; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 88–118, here 96–103. 57 Cf. Jane Schaberg, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (SBLDS 61; Chico: Scholars Press, 1982), 111–41; Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew (NAC 22; Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 431; William D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew III: Commentary on Matthew XIX–XXVIII (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 682–83. 58 Davies and Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew III, 678. 59 In Matthew 13:37–43 already, the Son of Man is the ruler of the world whose seed is to be spread in the whole kosmos. Cf. Alexander Sand, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (RNT; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1986), 600–1. 56

The Gentile Mission of the Hellenists (Acts 11:19–21) and the Jesus Tradition

159

In an authoritative Messianic exposition of Old Testament scripture, Jesus combined the figures of the Son of Man in Daniel with the Servant of the Lord (‫)ע ֶבד יהוה‬ ֶ in Deutero-Isaiah. As far as we know, this was an original interpretation no one had made before him in contemporary Second Temple Judaism (Mark 10:45, nrsv // Matt 20:28): 60 The Son of Man [ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου] came not to be served [διακονηθῆναι] but to serve [ἀλλὰ διακονῆσαι], and to give his life as a ransom for many [δοῦναι ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν].

The “many” (πολλοί) is an allusion to the so-called Fourth Servant Song (Isa 53:11–12: ‫)ר ִבּים‬, ַ but there is also an allusion to Isaiah 43:3–4 where God announced what he was willing to do to save the people of Israel: 61 I give Egypt as your ransom (‫כפ ְרָך‬ ְ ָ ), 62 Ethiopia and Seba in exchange for you ... I give people [men] in return for you (‫ְא ֵתּן ָאָדם ַת ְח ֶתּיָך‬ ֶ ‫)ו‬ ָ nations in exchange for your life (‫שׁך‬ ֶ ‫ַפ‬ ְ ‫ְא ִמּים ַתּ ַחת נ‬ ֻ ‫)וּל‬.

But now, with the vicarious death of Jesus as the Servant of the Lord, the situation has changed completely. He gave his life as a ransom so that it is no longer necessary to sacrifice the nations. Peter Stuhlmacher considered it not unlikely that Jesus himself already included the Gentiles in “the many” for whom he died. 63 Probably, the logion about the sacrifice of the serving Son of Man was not only included in the tradition common to Mark and Matthew but also in the pre-Lukan tradition, 64 and could provide believers in different situations with a justification for a mission to the Gentiles. Even Paul used comparable early church traditions about the Son of Man to demonstrate the significance of Jesus’ person for all mankind (1 Cor 15:21–22, 45–49; Rom 5:12–21). 65

60 Cf. Craig A. Evans. “Jesus’ Dissimilarity from Second Temple Judaism and the Early Church,” in Memories of Jesus: A Critical Appraisal of James D. G. Dunn’s Jesus Remembered (ed. Ron B. Stewart and Gary R. Habermas; Nashville: H & B Academic, 2010), 145–58, here 151–52. 61 Cf. Werner Grimm, Die Verkündigung Jesu und Deuterojesaja (2nd ed.; ANTJ 1; Frankfurt / Main: Peter Lang, 1981), 231–77; Peter Stuhlmacher, “Isaiah 53 in the Gospels and Acts,” in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources (ed. Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 147–62, here 150–53. 62 In the Septuagint ‫ ֹכּ ֶפר‬is rendered as λύτρον, ἀντίλυτρον or ἀντάλλαγµα. 63 Peter Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments: Grundlegung Von Jesus zu Paulus (3rd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 127–28. 64 Cf. Rainer Riesner, “Back to the Historical Jesus through Paul and his School (The Ransom Logion – Mark 10.45; Matthew 20.28),” JSHJ 1 (2003): 170–98. 65 Cf. Yongbom Lee, The Son of Man as the Last Adam: The Early Church Tradition as a Source of Paul’s Adam Christology (Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick, 2012).

160

Rainer Riesner

Of course, the Messianic believers did not read the Book of Isaiah in a literary-critical way, but as a unified composition prophesying the fate of Jesus and his community. 66 Israel was called to be God’s servant but they failed because of their blindness (Isa 42:18–19). In their place and for their benefit, God raised a servant who is distinct within the people and of whom God says in the so-called First Servant Song (Isa 42:6–7, nrsv): I have given you as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations (‫לְאוֹר גּוֹיִם‬, LXX εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν). to open the eyes that are blind ...

And later in the so-called Second Servant Song God declares his future plan with the Servant of the Lord (Isa 49:6, nrsv): It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel; I will give you as light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth [LXX ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς].

At the very end of the Book of Isaiah God announces a mission of saved Israelites to the nations reaching “the coastlands far away” (Isa 66:18–21). 67 Jesus had called his disciples to be “the light of the world (τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσµοῦ)” (Matt 5:14). At least, after Easter this logion could have been understood as an appointment for the mission among the Gentiles. 68

Persecution and Charismatic Phenomena: A Later Parallel Development At the beginning of the reign of Agrippa I (41–44 C. E.), the Messianic community of Jerusalem experienced a severe persecution by the Jewish king (Acts 12:1). James, the son of Zebedee, had been executed (Acts 12:2) and Peter had been arrested and had to flee from Jerusalem (Acts 12:3–17). According to an ancient tradition, which is testified by different sources (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.14.6; Jerome, Vir. Ill. 3.5 etc.), Peter reached the city of Rome in the second year of Claudius (42/43 C. E.). 69 Another very ancient and widely diffused no-

66 Cf. Simon Gathercole, Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), 62–63. 67 Cf. Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 245–53 68 Cf. Michael F. Bird, Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission (LNTS 331; London: T&T Clark and New York: Continuum, 2007), 133. 69 Cf. Stanislas Dockx, “Chronologie de Saint Pierre,” in idem, Chronologies néotestamentaires et Vie de l’Église primitive: Recherches exégétiques (2nd ed.; Louvain: Peeters, 1984), 161–78, here 166–71; Helga Botermann, Das Judenedikt des Kaisers Claudius: Römischer Staat und Christiani im 1. Jahrhundert (Hermes E 71; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1996), 137–40; Rainer Riesner, “Paulus,

The Gentile Mission of the Hellenists (Acts 11:19–21) and the Jesus Tradition

161

tice, which even A. von Harnack believed to be trustworthy, 70 also has the rest of the Twelve leave Jerusalem twelve years after the resurrection of Jesus for a mission outside the land of Israel (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6.43.3; Apollonius [Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.8.14], etc.). With the date of the crucifixion in the year 30 C. E., this would suggest 41/42 C. E. The chronological coincidence of the three different reports is noteworthy. 71 It is also striking that, contrary to the case of Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:15–26), the circle of the Twelve which is so strongly connected to the land and the people of Israel (cf. Matt 19:28 // Luke 22:28–30) was not completed anew by replacing James of Zebedee with another apostle. Apparently, the persecution of the Jerusalem community and the dispersion of the Twelve had been understood as a divine indication that one no longer had to work and wait in the holy city for the repentance of the people of Israel as a prerequisite for the Gentile mission. A certain parallel to the start of the Gentile mission by the Jerusalem Hellenists after the persecution by their fellow-Jews seems to be obvious. There is also another possible parallel. Around the time of Agrippa’s persecution, according to Luke-Acts, Peter took a first step towards a mission among Gentiles because of a visionary experience (Acts 10). The decision of the Hellenists to start their Gentile mission in Antioch might have been supported by similar experiences. At least some years later around 46/47 C. E., the start of a mission of Barnabas and Paul from Antioch to Cyprus and Galatia was caused by prophetic inspiration (Acts 13:1–3). Charismatic manifestations on the side of the Gentile converts were seen as a confirmation of their divine call (Acts 10:44–48; cf. Gal 3:1–5).

Conclusion The exposition of the Old Testament together with pneumatic experiences played an important role in establishing and defending the Gentile mission, but one should not underestimate the significance of the Jesus tradition. The exaltation of Jesus as the Son of Man posed the question of how the nations would serve him. Within the Jesus tradition, the Antiochean Hellenists and other Messianic believers found at least two aspects that encouraged them to start a mission among the Gentiles. When Jesus was refused by his own people and even had to flee from persecution to pagan regions, he began to change

Petrus und Rom im Neuen Testament,” in Blutzeuge: Tod und Grab des Petrus in Rom (ed. Christian Gnilka, Stefan Heid, and Rainer Riesner; 2nd ed.; Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2015), 13–31, here 25–28. 70 A. von Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius II /1: Die Chronologie (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich, 1897), 243. 71 Cf. Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 117–23.

162

Rainer Riesner

his attitude towards Gentiles. He accepted their faith and granted them healing. This was comparable to the situation of the Jerusalem Hellenists who had to flee from the holy city to the pagan metropolis of Antioch. Joachim Jeremias has summarized the meaning of the Gentile mission for the early Christians: “Easter saw the dawn of the Last Day. The Gentile mission is the beginning of God’s final act in the gathering of the Gentiles. The Gentile mission is God’s own activity. As God’s eschatological activity it is an anticipation of the visible enthronement of the Son of Man.” 72

72

Jeremias, Jesus’ Promise to the Nations, 74.

Migration and Mission in the Book of Acts Christoph Stenschke

Abstract Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 describes in surprising detail experiences of migration in Israel’s past and its theological implications. According to Acts, many early Christian missionaries served in places that were not their places of origin, voluntarily or by force. In its portrayal, early Christian mission is closely related to migration and dislocation, voluntary or by force, led by the Spirit and for the sake of the Gospel.

Introduction The Book of Acts abounds with accounts of voluntary and forced migration. 1 Its emphasis is on migration experiences in Israel’s past as recalled and interpreted in Stephen’s speech at a crucial junction in the narrative, on the migration of Christians and on its consequences for the spread of the Gospel. Aware of the disruption and social and material consequences that this migration entailed (hardly mentioned in Acts), this essay examines the portrayal of migration in Acts and focuses on the opportunities which migration involved for the first Christians and their missionary endeavor (this is where Luke’s focus is). Therefore, far from doing justice to the complex phenomenon of migration, 2 it ad-

1 In this essay, migration is used in the broadest sense as “descriptive of different forms of transience involving degrees of choice and compulsion,” so Jehu J. Hanciles, “Migration,” Dictionary of Mission Theology: Evangelical Foundations (ed. J. Corrie; Nottingham, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 225–27, 225. For definition, historical survey and various theories of migration see also Jehu J. Hanciles, “Migration and Mission: Some Implications for the Twenty-first Century Church,” International Bulletin of Mission Research 27 (2003): 146–53, 146–47; for recent surveys of the biblical evidence see Jean-Pierre Ruiz, Reading from the Edges: The Bible and People on the Move (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2011) and the following essays in Diaspora Missiology: Theory, Methodology, and Practice (ed. E. Wan; 2nd ed.; Portland: Institute of Diaspora Studies, 2012): Narry F. Santos, “Exploring the Major Dispersion Terms and Realities in the Bible,” 35–52; Ted Rubesch, “Diaspora Distinctives: The Jewish Diaspora Experience in the Old Testament,” 53–86 and Craig Ott, “Diaspora and Relocation as Divine Impetus for Witness in the Early Church,” 87–108. Detailed interaction with the recent research on Acts is not possible; see the discussion in the commentaries of Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009); Eckhard J. Schnabel, Acts (ZECNT; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012) and Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary. I: Introduction and 1:1–2:47 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012); II: Acts 3:1–14:28 (2013) and III: Acts 15:1–23:35 (2014). 2 For surveys see Hanciles, “Migration” (2007) and J. D. Payne, Strangers Next Door: Immigration, Migration and Mission (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2012).

164

Christoph Stenschke

dresses only one aspect. It does not intend to draw a romantic picture or idealise migration. It shows that – despite and in all tragedy which it involved – these movements of early Christians, be they voluntary or forced, opened new opportunities for the Gospel. The portrayal of Acts can encourage the Church today, be it the many Christians “on the move” themselves for whatever reason, or the Church in places to which people migrate or both. In the main part of the essay we follow the narrative of Acts. It is my pleasure to contribute to a volume in memory of Hans Kvalbein. I had the privilege to meet Hans on several occasions. Each time he impressed me by his friendliness and lack of all pretence. Many years ago, he invited me to respond to a presentation in “his” SNTS seminar on early Christian mission. Particularly memorable was his visit in Wuppertal for the celebration of the 65th birthday of his friend Klaus Haacker. Hans had brought along his violin and played for all present a cheerful Norwegian dance. Having the opportunity to get to know a senior scholar in this way is indeed a rare occasion!

Migration and Mission in Acts Many of the people mentioned in Acts – be they Jews, Christians or also Gentiles – appear in places where they were not born. The causes of this and its consequences vary significantly: some moved voluntarily, others followed their leaders or were placed by a higher authority; others had to leave as refugees because of persecution.

Migration in Acts 1–6 Acts 1 finds the larger group of about 120 Galilean disciples in Jerusalem where Jesus commands them to stay and wait for the coming of the Spirit (1:4). He also announces that later on, they will be “on the move” to “all Judea, Samaria and even to the ends of the world” (1:8). The events of the following narrative are the fulfilment of this commission. The miracle of Pentecost is witnessed by Jews from Jerusalem but also by Jews who had returned from the Jewish Diaspora and who now live in Jerusalem. Acts 2:9–11 lists fifteen regions or ethnic groups. In this way, all of Israel is present to witness the coming of God’s eschatological Spirit on Israel gathered and restored in Jesus and the community of his disciples. The many people who come to faith that day will have included Diaspora Jews (including proselytes) who live in the city or who came as pilgrims for the Jewish feast of Pentecost. As they return to their places of residence they spread the good news. From its

Migration and Mission in the Book of Acts

165

very beginning the Church contained people with different geographical and cultural backgrounds. 3 As the group of 120 disciples and many of the recent converts leave their professions and means of living behind, the community can only live through the sharing of goods, which is reported in Acts 2:44–45 and 4:32–5:11. 4 It is their response to poverty caused by migration. The particular circumstances of this congregation require financial assistance from other Christians later on (Acts 11:27–30; 24:17). The fierce conflict in Acts 4–5 is due not only to the miracles and proclamation of the apostles but also to the fact that these Galilean apostles (2:7) challenge the legitimacy of the Jewish leadership on their very own turf, the precincts of the temple in Jerusalem. They are perceived to be “out of place” – a fate which is experienced by many migrants. 5 According to Acts 6, the Christian community includes widows and other Hellenistic Jews from a Diaspora Jewish background who at some point came to Jerusalem for religious reasons. 6 To solve the tensions arising from the neglect of these widows, seven men with Greek names – who themselves probably had a Hellenistic background, including Stephen and Nicolaus, a proselyte from Antioch – are chosen for this task. Before joining the Christian movement, these Hellenistic Jews probably belonged to an expatriate synagogue or synagogues (see 24:12) 7 consisting of “Freedmen (as it was called), Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and others of those from Cilicia and Asia” (6:9). 8 From its beginning the Christian community includes people with various experiences of migration. For different reasons they came to Jerusalem from Galilee and different areas of the Jewish diaspora. With all their appreciation of Jerusalem and its spiritual significance they know that their God is not limited

3 Their universal perspective can be seen in their praise of God as the Creator of heaven and earth (4:24). 4 In this context, Luke introduces Barnabas, a Levite from Cyprus, who either lived in Jerusalem or had come for the feast to Jerusalem and stayed on after becoming a Christian (4:36–37). 5 See, for example, Edward W. Said, Out of Place: A Memoir (London: Granta, 1999). 6 On the Hellenists as Greek speaking Jews see Michael Zugmann, “Hellenisten” in der Apostelgeschichte: Historische und exegetische Untersuchungen zu Apg 6,1; 9,29; 11,20 (WUNT 2/264; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 89–294; particularly on Jewish Hellenists who had returned to Jerusalem from the Diaspora, pp. 271–94. 7 Pervo, Acts, 166: “the grammar allows more than one interpretation ... There may be one, two, or as many as five synagogues,” see also Zugmann, “Hellenisten,” 271–77. 8 On their number and significance see Schnabel, Acts, 344–46. Regarding the freedmen, Schnabel notes (p. 345): “The freedmen were Jews who had been manumitted as slaves by their owners or were descendants of emancipated Jewish slaves. Philo mentions Jews who lived in Rome, most of whom had been taken as captives to Italy (e. g., after Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem in 63 BC) and who continued to live in Rome after emancipation ... Some of these Roman Jews had returned to live in Jerusalem.”

166

Christoph Stenschke

to this place. They bring to the task experiences and abilities, which are highly significant for the spread of the Gospel beyond areas defined by Jewish language and culture.

Migration Experiences in Stephen’s Speech (Acts 7) Perhaps surprisingly, a major concentration of the themes of migration, of refugees, of existence in different places and the spiritual challenges which this involves, appear in Stephen’s speech. These themes make an important contribution to his defence over against the false accusations of having spoken against the temple and the Law (6:13–14). 9 In his summary of Israel’s history from a particular perspective, Stephen describes the fate of Israel’s patriarchs and their descendants as migrants and God’s dealing with Israel outside the later land of promise. 10 At this position in the narrative, the speech anticipates and legitimises the developments, which immediately follow it, i. e., the movement of the Gospel and its heralds beyond the confines of Jerusalem: God’s presence and activity are not limited to this city. With his blessings and activity, God cannot be confined to one place, but is also at work elsewhere. Stephen starts with Abraham’s migration: “The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran” (7:2). Abraham is called to leave his land and relatives behind and wander to a strange country. After leaving the land of the Chaldeans and a stop-over in Haran, “God removed him from there into this land in which you are now living” (7:4). Despite the divine promise and his exemplary obedience, “God did not give him any of it as a heritage ... but promised to give it to him as his possession and to his descendants after him” (7:5). God announced that “his descendants would be resident aliens in a country belonging to others, who would enslave them and mistreat them for four hundred years” (7:6). The history of Israel and of God’s covenants starts with God’s revelation and actions in other regions (God’s glory is not limited to the temple) on behalf of landless migrants, a long stay in a

9 That these were false accusations and not an adequate summary of the theology and proclamation of Stephen and the larger group of Hellenists has rightly been emphasised by Klaus Haacker, Stephanus: Verleumdet, verehrt, verkannt (Biblische Gestalten 28; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 2014). 10 The theme later reappears in Paul’s sermon to the Diaspora Jews and God-fearers of the synagoge of Antioch in Pisidia, itself outside the land of Israel (13:14–52). This summary of the history of Israel speaks of Israel’s stay in Egypt (God made the people great during their stay as migrants in the land of Egypt), the exodus (“and with uplifted arm he led them out of it”) and the wandering in the wilderness (“for about forty years he put up with them in the wilderness”) before God gave them the land as an inheritance (13:17–20). This summary also emphasises that crucial events in Israel’s history happened outside of the land (God increases, leads and bears his people).

Migration and Mission in the Book of Acts

167

foreign country and the experience of massive suppression. However, God also announced their eventual liberation. God was with Joseph, when he was sold off to Egypt (7:9). His presence, his readiness to intervene and his gifts are not limited to the land or the extended family at home: in Egypt, “God rescued him from all his afflictions, and enabled him to win favor and to show wisdom when he stood before the Pharaoh.” Initially this forced migration meant loss of status and poverty. Later the former migrant and slave was appointed ruler over Egypt. Already in the past the migration experience of Abraham’s descendants became a blessing for them and for other people. Later Stephen accounts the famine in Egypt and Canaan and the move of Jacob and his descendants to Egypt were they increased and multiplied (7:14–15). Stephen tells in surprising detail the biography of Moses (7:17–39) who started out as a slave child threatened by murder and exposure and who eventually became a member of the royal household. Later Moses fled and ended up as resident alien and shepherd in Midian (7:29). Forty years later, he was called in the remote wilderness of Mount Sinai – in yet another land – to deliver and lead the people. Even there was “holy ground,” sanctified by the presence of the God of the fathers who reveals himself to Moses (see also 7:38). God was fully aware of the fate of his migrant people and ready to act: “I have surely seen the mistreatment of my people who are in Egypt and have heard their groaning, and I have come down to rescue them” (7:34). Divine seeing, hearing, coming and saving also applied in Egypt. God’s intervention led to the exodus and forty years of wandering in the wilderness (7:36). 11 During this period, the covenant was made, Israel received the living oracles of the law (7:38) and other events occurred that shaped Israel’s identity. God knew of their going through this great wilderness (Deut 2:7). Stephen’s speech emphasises that the times away from the land of Israel (and away from the temple) and the times of migration were periods of intensive experiences of God (delivery, miracles and revelation), but also times of threatened and refused loyalty to God: there were the rejection of Moses, God’s appointed leader of the people, disobedience, the paradoxical desire to return to Egypt (7:39; to the place of misery and of threat to their very existence, 7:19), the incident of the golden calf and further idolatry (7:40–43). Following the Old Testament prophets, the deportation and the period of exile are understood as divine punishment for Israel’s prolonged idolatry (“You took up the tent of Moloch and the star of your god Rephan, the images that you made to worship; so I will remove you beyond Babylon” (7:43). Despite these charges,

11 God’s presence was evident in the wonders and signs that Moses performed in Egypt, the Red Sea and in the wilderness (7:36).

168

Christoph Stenschke

Stephen’s survey indicates that over many centuries Israel experienced God in different places and kept its identity outside of the land. Already during their wandering, the ancestors had the tent of testimony in their midst, made according to a divine pattern (7:44). Wandering about and the presence of God are not mutually exclusive. Something as fragile as a moveable tent can conform to divine pattern. In contrast to “houses made with human hands” (7:48), God is not limited to buildings of stone and certain places. He was with his people as they migrated. 12 Solomon’s temple, “built with human hands,” is seen critically. It is understood as an effort to locate God in one place and thus to domesticate him (7:45–50), and this eventually leads to the accusations of vv. 51–53. 13 In contrast to all human buildings and efforts to confine God on earth, Stephen gets to behold the glory of God in heaven (7:55). There God and Jesus are to be found, not in one particular place. This vision and confession lead to Stephen’s martyrdom. Stephen’s account of the migration history of the patriarchs, Moses and of the people of Israel indicates that God’s presence, calling, provision, compassion and action on behalf of his people are not limited to one place or land. 14 God, whose throne is in heaven and whose footstool is the earth (7:49), is the God of his wandering people, who is with them in salvation and judgement. In Stephen’s perspective, 15 Israel’s past as a migrant people is neither glorified, nor is it suppressed or denied. A nomadic group who ends up in slavery for centuries, first rejects God’s saviour, wanders through the wilderness and is disloyal to its divine deliverer – this is not a flattering account of origin in Greco-Roman culture where honor and shame are pivotal values. While directed at the opponents of the Christian movement and warning them not to repeat the mistakes of the past and calling them to repentance, Stephen’s speech also constitutes an often neglected theological foundation of the impending Christian mission to the ends of the world: as in past times, God will be with those who go to the ends of the earth. His presence, action and salvation are not limited to one people and place. Understood in this way, Stephen’s speech not only brings the Jerusalem-chapters to a close with an urgent warning 12 Acts 7:45 only briefly mentions that the coming of the Israelites meant the dispossession of the people who lived there previously. Their fate is not in view. 13 Without these references to Israel’s continued idolatry, the wilderness period would appear idealised. 14 As was the case with the Christians who were later dispersed from Jerusalem (see below), Abraham and his descendants gained important experiences with their God during their wanderings and fate as migrants, and received decisive new insights. These were only possible as they were “on the way.” 15 This is noteworthy, as the speech was not delivered by one of the main protagonists of the narrative, who belong to the circle of the Galilean apostles of Jesus. The Hellenist Stephen is prepared for and able to deliver this provocative interpretation of the history of Israel and her God whose very being is revealed in this account.

Migration and Mission in the Book of Acts

169

but also has – precisely at this position – an important function in the narrative of Acts. It moves the audience to what is about to happen far away from the temple, at the borders of the land and well beyond. Also there God is with his migrating people and at work (see the explicit statements in that regard in Acts 11:21–22; 14:27; 15:12; 16:14).

Migration and Mission in Acts 8–28 The persecution that arose after the death of Stephen scatters the Christians throughout Judea and Samaria (8:1–2). The first move of the Gospel beyond the confines of Jerusalem is caused by persecution (“a severe persecution began against the church,” 8:1; see also 8:3): “Now those who were dispersed went from place to place, proclaiming the word” (8:4). The first Christian missionaries are migrants who had come to Jerusalem and who now have to leave as refugees. 16 Kahl describes the unique qualification of these Diaspora Jewish Christians: According to Acts, Jewish migrants from the Diaspora played a major role in disseminating the Christian faith. This portrayal is also historically plausible: those Jews who had grown up in the multi-religious setting of the ancient Mediterranean world were better prepared for explicating the significance of the Gospel to non-Jews than their sisters and brothers in the faith in Judea or Galilee. They spoke the same language(s) as the non-Jews – primarily Koine-Greek – and they were able to act in a culturally sensitive manner. The Christbelieving Jews from the Diaspora were able to communicate plausibly the Gospel of God’s salvation which transcends all boundaries. 17

With the word disperse (διασπείρω) Luke draws on the Old Testament motif of dispersion, 18 though with significant changes: now dispersion is not divine judgement through deportation and exile for Israelites who broke the covenant but becomes the experience of the obedient part of Israel and others benefit from it. 19 It is noteworthy that next to the dispersion motif, the movements of 16 See Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission I: Jesus and the Twelve (Downers Grove: InterVarsty Press, 2004), 670–701. Despite their taking the center-stage in Luke’s account, the proclamation of the Gospel is not limited to the apostles or Paul. A variety and large number of Christians participate in this calling; see Christoph Stenschke, “Mission in the Book of Acts – Mission of the Church,” in Mission und Reflexion im Kontext: Perspektiven evangelikaler Missionswissenschaft im 21. Jahrhundert (ed. F. Walldorf et al.; Mission academics 31; Nürnberg: VTR, 2010), 68–90. 17 Werner Kahl, “Migrationserfahrungen als conditio sine qua non für die transkulturelle Ausbreitung des Frühchristentums,” Interkulturelle Theologie 41 (2015): 185–97. All translations into English by the author. The assumptions behind these statements regarding the Christians from Judea and Galilee are questionable in view of the high value of Hellenisation, including the use of Greek, in these areas; for discussion see Zugmann, “Hellenisten,” 205–94. 18 See Izaak de Hulster, “Diaspora I. Hebrew Bible /OT,” EBR 6 (2013): 748–51. 19 Obviously dispersion in the OT was also experienced by faithful and exemplary Israelites such as Daniel and his friends. The nations among whom they lived were blessed through them.

170

Christoph Stenschke

these people are described with the verb “to go about” (διέρχοµαι), which is later used in Acts 10:38 to characterise the ministry of Jesus: “he went about (διῆλθεν) doing good ...” Acts 8 describes the ministry of the evangelist Philip – one of these migrating Hellenists – in Samaria and to the Ethiopian Eunuch. God is at work in Samaria. 20 Acts 8:5–25 is the only account in Acts where seemingly a whole city accepts the Gospel. On the wilderness road to Gaza, Philip meets and evangelises and eventually baptises the Ethiopian who had come for religious reasons to Jerusalem and was now on his return journey to what is today Sudan (8:26–40). 21 Even though the direction of his journey is away from Jerusalem and the temple, he goes on his way rejoicing and takes the Gospel with him (8:39). After his dislocation by the Holy Spirit Philip finds himself in Ashdod and follows the pattern of the Hellenists of Jerusalem: “and as he passed through [διερχόµενος] he preached the gospel to all the towns until he came to Caesarea” (8:40). God’s salvific intention and action are not limited to Jerusalem or the people of Israel. Being forced to leave Jerusalem, being dispersed and embarking as refugees on a migrant existence is not the end of the nascent Christian movement but the origin of world-wide mission. Migration and mission go hand in hand. Acts 9:2 refers to the people called “the disciples of the Lord” (9:1) as “those who belonged to the Way.” “Wayfarers” is a prominent designation of Christians in Acts. “The way” refers to their identity and message (19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22; cf. 16:17: “a way of salvation;” 18:25–26: “the way of the Lord”). 22 Ernst observes that already in the travel narrative of Luke’s Gospel, “Following Jesus and dis-

20 On their way back to Jerusalem, Peter and John start their itinerant ministry of “proclaiming the good news to many villages of the Samaritans,” Acts 8:25; see Christoph Stenschke, Luke’s Portrait of Gentiles Prior to Their Coming to Faith (WUNT 2/108; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 145–47. 21 At the end of the chapter, Philip finds himself in Azotus, the OT Philistine city of Ashdod. From there he wanders north to Caesarea, proclaiming the good news in all the towns. There Paul meets him (Acts 21:8–14); see F. Scott Spencer, The Portrait of Philip in Acts: A Study of Roles and Relations (JSNTSup 67; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). 22 For a survey see Stenschke, Portrait, 327–28 and Paul Trebilco, Self-Designations and Group Identity in the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 247–71. Gerhard Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte II: Kommentar zu Kapitel 9.1–28.31 (HTKNT 5.2; Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 1982), 25 notes: “Because this term can only be found in Acts and because it corresponds to the Lukan conception of the way ... it can be seen as a specifically Lukan designation for Christianity;” for detailed treatment see Eero Repo, Der “Weg” als Selbstbezeichnung des Urchristentums: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und semasiologische Untersuchung (AASF Β 132.2; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1964).

Migration and Mission in the Book of Acts

171

cipleship mean to participate in Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem ... a fellowship of way-farers” (cf. Luke 9:23, 57–62; 18:22, 28). 23 According to Repo: Probably the combination of the concept of the way with the person of Jesus has its origin already in the activities of the historical Jesus. The Synoptic gospels paint the portrait of Jesus as he is “on the journey” (ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ). John uses the verb περιπατεῖν “to walk about” (6:66; 11:54) for the wandering ministry of Jesus. As a teacher Jesus was indeed a true “peripatetic.” Luke emphasised this aspect by composing a special travel narrative [Luke 9:51–19:27] and by selecting from the tradition those narratives, according to which the risen Lord literally appeared to those who were “on the road” (ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, Luke 24:32; Acts 9:17). It is therefore no statistical coincidence that “way” appears so often in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts. 24

The disciples are no longer on their own “ways,” but on the Lord’s way. They are characterised not with static but with dynamic imagery (see also Acts 14:16). This designation agrees with the occurrences of the verb διέρχοµαι (mentioned above), which also characterises the main mode of Christian existence as one of movement. Paul of Tarsus sets out to persecute the Christians in Damascus (9:1–2). His knowledge or assumption that there will be Christians in Damascus proves to be correct (9:10, 19). Presumably they are Hellenistic Jewish Christians who fled from Jerusalem due to the persecution mentioned in Acts 8:1–4. Perhaps they already led other Diaspora Jews to faith in Jesus Christ. Paul encounters the risen and glorified Jesus and receives his divine calling on the road to Damascus (where Paul travelled to persecute the Christians). 25 The location of his calling (on the way, as he approached a Hellenistic city) becomes programmatic for his future ministry. Paul, once part of the religious establishment in Jerusalem, starts his long career as a migrant missionary. 26 At the beginning this meant ministry in Damascus (Acts 9; see Paul’s own account of his early missionary career in Gal 1–2). As a refugee from Jerusalem, Paul returns via Caesarea to his home town of Tarsus in Cilicia (9:30; cf. 22:3) and apparently stays there for a longer period until Barnabas brings him to Antioch

23 Josef Ernst, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (RNT, 2nd ed.; Regensburg: Pustet, 1993), 249; similarly Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I–IX): Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 28; 2nd ed.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1986), 243: “discipleship as following of Jesus along his way.” Repo, “Weg,” 180 concludes: “If we examine those passages in Acts where the faith of the Christians is called the “way,” then we observe that “way” is related in the closest manner to the founder of this religion, Jesus.” 24 “Weg,” 185–86. 25 Later this experience is supplemented by a vision and commission in the temple of Jerusalem (22:17–21). 26 For surveys see Jerome Murphy O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996) and Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission II: Paul and the Early Church (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 923–1485 and idem, Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods (Nottingham: InterVarsity Press and Apollos, 2008).

172

Christoph Stenschke

(11:26). During this period the Gentile Christians of Syria and Cilicia, mentioned in the letter written in Jerusalem after the Apostolic Council (15:23) and later visited by Paul (15:41), probably came to faith through his itinerant ministry. Similarly Peter ministers outside of Jerusalem, “going here and there [διέρχοµαι] among all the believers” (9:32) in Lydda, Joppa and Caesarea (9:32–10:48). After a period of locally confined service in Jerusalem, “going here and there” becomes the new mode of Peter’s ministry. Busse notes regarding the verb διέρχοµαι: 27 The frequent use of the verb (31 occurrences) in Luke-Acts is particularly striking. According to Acts 10:38, the verb is the technical term for the missionary activities of Jesus in the country of the Jews and for the activities of his apostles (Luke 9:6) and other missionaries (Acts 20:6). ... The verb belongs to the Lukan “way”-terminology like διαπορεύοµαι, διαδεύω, διαβαίνω and διαπεράω.

During these wanderings in the border region, Peter receives divine affirmation (9:32–42). Spectacular miracles happen outside of Jerusalem, including the healing of a lame man (see 3:1–8) and the resurrection of Tabitha. On his journeys, Peter stays in the house of “a certain Simon, a tanner” (9:43), a place that was unclean due to the regular handling of unclean material. Going and staying here and there means for Peter to move out of his “comfort zone” and to cross boundaries. However, it also involves new experiences and insights. On the roof of the tanner’s house, Peter receives the vision, which challenges his core convictions and prepares him for the events to come. A military placement brings Cornelius, centurion of the Italian Cohort in Caesarea, first into close contact with Judaism (“a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God,” 10:2) 28 and then made the encounter with Peter and the “conversion” of both men possible. For Cornelius, this placement led to his participation in salvation. At the beginning of his sermon before Cornelius and the other Gentiles assembled in his house, Peter expresses the new insight that he gained on the tanner’s roof and on the way: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does good is acceptable to him” (10:34–35). Without Peter’s moving about, without the experiences of God and the various encounters with people, this recognition would have been impossible. In his sermon, Peter describes the ministry of Jesus as follows: “he went about (διέρχοµαι) doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil” 27 Ulrich Busse, “διέρχοµαι,” Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (ed. Horst R. Balz and Gerhard Schneider; 3rd ed.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011), 1:776–77. The verb is also used in Acts 15:41 of Paul’s ministry: “He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.” 28 See Justin R. Howell, “Cornelius,” EBR 5:793–94.

Migration and Mission in the Book of Acts

173

(10:38). 29 Despite Jesus’ longer stays in certain places (e. g. in Capernaum, as narrated in Luke’s Gospel), his ministry is summarised and remembered as that of an itinerant preacher and healer. While preaching, the Spirit comes on Gentiles in Caesarea, just as it happened in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. Following the conversion of Cornelius, Peter agrees to stay for some days in his house (10:48). Again his going about, leads him to transgress boundaries. Later he has to defend himself for this behaviour on this Spirit-initiated journey (“You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them,” 11:3). With Acts 11:19, the account returns to those Hellenistic Christians who were scattered from Jerusalem after the death of Stephen (8:1–4). After the focus on Philipp and his ministry in Samaria and southwest Judea in chapter 8, the focus is now on those Hellenists who went North to Phoenicia (see 15:3), across the sea to Cyprus and further North to Antioch (11:19). Initially their ministry is limited to the Jews in these areas. However, some of them, who originally came from Cyprus (like Barnabas, 4:36) and Cyrene in North Africa (see Luke 23:26; Acts 2:10; 6:9), spoke in Antioch not only to Jews but also to Gentiles, proclaiming the Lord Jesus (11:20). Their journey has taken them first from the Jewish diaspora to Jerusalem, now their way takes them from there to Syria and back to the Gentiles. This move and proclamation no longer happens due to special divine prompting (see 8:26–29; 10:9–10), but of their own insight and motivation. The breakthrough to systematic Gentile mission was achieved by migrating refugees with cross-cultural experience. As with the Patriarchs and the wandering people of God in the wilderness, “the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number became believers and turned to the Lord” (11:21). News of these events reached the church in Jerusalem. 30 Barnabas, himself from Cyprus (as were some of these Hellenists, 11:20), is sent by the church to Antioch and sees the grace of God at work (11:23). He spends a whole year there and travels to Tarsus, where Paul stayed (9:30), to bring him along to Antioch. After a brief return to Jerusalem (11:27–12:25, the famine relief visit with the collection of the Antiochene church), Barnabas and Paul later return to Antioch. Together with

29 For a survey of the biography of Jesus in the speeches of Acts, see Christoph Stenschke, “The Presentation of Jesus in the Missionary Speeches of Acts and the Mission of the Church,” Verbum et Ecclesia 35 (2014), article #803. 30 Acts paints a vivid portrait of translocal communication and relationships between the Christian congregations of various places; for a survey see Christoph Stenschke, “‘... sandten die Apostel zu ihnen Petrus und Johannes’ (Apg 8,10): Überörtliche Verbindungen der urchristlichen Gemeinden in der Darstellung der Apostelgeschichte,” ETL 87 (2011): 433–53. Such links encouraged missionary engagement.

174

Christoph Stenschke

Barnabas, Paul starts his migrant missionary career from there. 31 While the Hellenists initially are migrant-missionaries due to persecution, these men later become migrant-missionaries by ecclesial appointment (Barnabas) 32 and /or by appointment of the Holy Spirit and commission of the church (Acts 13:1–3). Following his miraculous escape from prison, Peter leaves Jerusalem to save his life (Acts 12:17). From then onward, according to Acts, he only returns one more time to Jerusalem (15:7–11). From what we know from other New Testament books, Peter migrated over long distances and periods and was active in different places. Apparently he was known to the Christians in Corinth. 33 From Acts 13 onward, Paul becomes the main and almost exclusive protagonist. 34 Due to divine commission (9:15; 13:2; 22:17–22: “far away to the Gentiles”), he combines periods of intensive travel with (at times) longer stays in a geographically vast area (“from Jerusalem and as far around as Illyricum,” Rom 15:19). 35 It appears that wherever and whenever the circumstances allowed, Paul stays sufficiently long in places until congregations are firmly established or other commitments call him elsewhere. Antioch becomes a place of refuge and ministry for the Hellenistic Jews of Jerusalem among Jews and Gentiles. Soon their ministry includes Gentile Christians. With all the ties which the emerging mission kept with Jerusalem (see 15:2), the churches of other places and areas become centres in their own right and start crucial initiatives under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Paul and Barnabas are sent from Antioch. Paul stays there for longer periods and keeps returning to the city and its Christian congregation (Acts 11:25–30; 12:25–13:4; 14:26-15:3, 30–35; 18:22). Presumably his early material support comes from there. Paul stays in Corinth, another centre of early Christian mission, “a year

31 Later on Barnabas sets out with Mark and ministers back in Cyprus where he was born and had previously ministered with Paul (15:39). Later church tradition reports his extensive ministry on the island, for a survey see Markus Öhler, Barnabas (WUNT 156; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). 32 Later on Judas Barsabbas and Silas, themselves leaders and prophets are sent from Jerusalem to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas (15:22, 32–34). 33 See Schnabel, Early Christian Mission I, 702–28. 34 For the biographical presuppositions of this ministry see Kahl, “Migrationserfahrungen,” 194. Kahl notes also with regard to the particular abilities and strengths of Paul and other Diaspora Jewish Christians: “It were the abilities to communicate, which could only be acquired in transcultural contexts and settings, which proved to be decisive for the successful proclamation of the Gospel in the ancient Mediterranean world. This competence is what characterised the Diaspora Jews from the Hellenistic cities of the Roman empire. The Christ-believers among them, who lived and moved as migrants, constituted the backbone of the proclamation of the Gospel in the first century.” In addition, Kahl rightly reminds us that “With his focus on Paul, Luke has only preserved a very small section of the history of the dissemination of the Gospel in the first century ... and after Paul. Some of them are mentioned in Acts more or less in passing. More detailed memories of their efforts have not been handed down to us.” 35 This raises the question of where to draw the line between what we would consider “normal” travelling (with stays or more or less duration at some places) and migration. Here the focus is on Paul’s longer stays in some places.

Migration and Mission in the Book of Acts

175

and six months, teaching the word of God among them” (18:11; “After staying there for a considerable time,” 18:18). There Paul works for his own support. After a brief initial visit (18:19–21), Paul returns to Ephesus to minister there and from this centre for an extended period of ministry (19:1; “two years,” 19:10; three years in Asia, 20:31). Luke’s full portrayal of Paul’s missionary activities, in particular his many wanderings, cannot be described here in detail. Paul is the migrant-missionary par excellence in the New Testament. He himself speaks of his calling and ministry as the course (δρόµος) he has to finish and ministry that he had received from the Lord Jesus. 36 Later Paul is imprisoned for two years in Caesarea. For about six months Paul travels across the Mediterranean to Rome (including a shipwreck and spending a winter on Malta) and stays there as a Roman prisoner for another two years. All this happens not by accident, but in order to fulfil the calling which he received from the risen Lord (9:11–16; 22:17–21; 26:15–18). Luke does not deny or belittle the hardships and suffering which this migrant existence meant for Paul and his missionary companions (see also Paul’s own list of hardships in 2 Cor 11:23–33 and Phil 4:11–12). From his calling onward it is clear “how much he must suffer for the sake of Christ’s name” (Acts 9:16). On these journeys and also during longer stays, Paul is not alone but accompanied by a number of missionary colleagues and co-workers such as Barnabas, Silas and Timothy who share in his migrant-missionary existence and the hardships it entailed. For Paul and those with him, this ministry means loss of status and material means. For some of these journeys and longer stays, Paul is supported by other Christians (see Phil 4:10–20), in other cases he works in his trade to cover his expenses (see Acts 18:3). 37 In his charge to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:18–35, Paul declares that he worked with his own hands to support himself and his companions. In all this he gave an example that by such work he must support the weak. Paul’s material belongings are limited. In addition to what he carries with him while travelling, we only know of the cloak that Paul left with Carpus at Troas, and some books and parchments which he requests Timothy to bring along (2 Tim 4:13). 38 Yet the promise of Jesus to his disciples also applied to Paul (Matt 19:29).

36 Acts 20:24; see Martin Brändl, Der Agon bei Paulus: Herkunft und Profil paulinischer Agonmetaphorik (WUNT 2/222; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 276–79. 37 Steve Walton, “Paul, Patronage and Pay: What do We Know about the Apostle’s Financial Support?” in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice (ed. T. J. Burke and B. S. Rosner; LNTS 420; London: T&T Clark International, 2011), 220–33. 38 On Paul’s economic resources see Christopher R. Little, Mission in the Way of Paul: Biblical Mission for the Church in the Twenty-First Century (Studies in Biblical Literature 80; New York: Peter Lang, 2005), 22–46. The money which Paul later intended to pay or paid for the Nazirite sacrifices in Jerusalem (21:23–26) probably came from the collection which Paul gathered in his Gentile Christian communities for the saints in Jerusalem.

176

Christoph Stenschke

Luke’s focus is on those Christians who have to leave Jerusalem voluntarily or due to persecution (8:3; 9:2), and follows their wanderings and ministry in different places. This focus is noteworthy in view of his otherwise strong interest in Jerusalem in the Gospel of Luke and in Acts 1–7, where the gathering and restoration of Israel takes place and is described in detail. While Luke does not directly criticise those who were able to or wanted to stay behind, he notes nevertheless that distrust, criticism and resistance to the divinely willed and initiated Gentile mission came from some Christians in Jerusalem: when they leave the city, it was only done in order to enforce validity of the Law and Jewish identity in the newly established Gentile Christian communities: “Then certain individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, ‘unless you are circumcised according to the customs of Moses, you cannot be saved’” (15:1). Acts 15:24 indicates that these people belonged to the Christian community of Jerusalem. Acts 21:20 characterises many thousands of the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem as “zealous for the law” (21:20) just as Paul once was. They readily believe the false charges brought against Paul by his Jewish opponents. When Paul is about to demonstrate to them his own Jewish identity and abiding loyalty to Judaism, he is arrested and loses his freedom (21:26–36). In Acts, the crucial impetus came from those who had to leave and migrated.

Migration in Acts 17:26 and 18:1–2 According to Acts 17:26, God “made all nations from one ancestor to inhabit the whole earth and allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they should live.” Schnabel rightly rejects a philosophical understanding of this verse and argues that a historical interpretation of v. 26c–d is more plausible: [T]he “fixed times” are the various epochs in the history of the nations, and the “boundaries of their lands” are the political boundaries between the places where people live – whether cities, regions, provinces, or continents. Paul argues that cities, countries, and empires rise and fall during the course of history, both in terms of their political power and in terms of their political boundaries. The God whom Paul proclaims is the Creator of the world and of the human race, and He is the Lord of the history of the human race. 39

In view of the account of the Patriarchs in Acts 7 and of the commission of Jesus in Acts 1:8, this emphasis (“the boundaries of the places where they should live”) does not imply that any form of migration, of leaving allotted boundaries, is contrary to divine intention.

39

Schnabel, Acts, 735.

Migration and Mission in the Book of Acts

177

Acts 18:1 indicates that the first Christians were not only affected by migration due to their commission by the risen Jesus and Jewish and Gentile persecution but also were affected by the larger politics of their time. In Corinth, Paul meets Aquila and Priscilla, who have recently come from Italy, “because [the Roman emperor] Claudius had commanded all Jews to leave Rome.” 40 The decree affected all Jewish inhabitants, including the Jewish Christians. 41 Probably for good reasons, Luke does not provide the reason for this order. 42 Due to this imperial decree, Paul meets this prominent early Christian missionary couple and works together with them in their common trade as tentmakers and in Christian ministry. 43 According to Acts 18:19, the couple later stays behind in Ephesus (cf. also 1 Cor 16:19). Romans 16:3 indicates that they returned to Rome after the death of Claudius in the autumn of 54 CE. There they could testify to Paul’s gospel and ministry and prepare his visit to Rome and on to Spain. Second Timothy 4:19 suggests that they returned to Ephesus at a later point. Despite all the disadvantages and suffering it must have implied, this expulsion of the Jews from Rome furthered the cause and course of the early Christian mission.

Conclusion On first sight, refugees, dispersion and migration are not major themes in Acts. Yet on closer scrutiny this estimate needs revision. Like few other NT books, 44 Acts deals with the phenomenon of the “wandering people of God” of both covenants, to use an expression that was already coined by Augustine. Therefore Kahl rightly concludes:

40 Acts 18:1–2; see Leonard V. Rutgers, “Roman Policy toward the Jews: Expulsions from the City of Rome during the First Century CE,” in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome (ed. K. P. Donfried and P. Richardson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans: 1998), 93–116. 41 For the wider picture of mobility and migration in the Roman empire see Luuk De Ligt and Laurens E. Tacoma (eds.), Migration and Mobility in the Early Roman Empire (Studies in Global Social History 23/7; Leiden: Brill, 2016). 42 In his Life of Claudius 25, Suetonius indicates that the Jews were expelled from Rome because they constantly made disturbances at the instigation of a certain “Chrestus.” This is usually taken to refer to unrest caused within the Jewish community due to Christian missionary activities. Thus the expulsion probably was a Roman response to the Christian mission; see Michael Wolter, Der Brief an die Römer I: Römer 1–8 (EKKNT VI /1; Ostfildern: Patmos; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2014) 30–40 and Richard N. Longenecker, Introducing Romans: Critical Issues in Paul’s Most Famous Letter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 69–75. 43 See Christoph Stenschke, “Married Women and the Spread of Early Christianity,” Neot 43 (2009): 145–94 and Marie Noel Keller, Priscilla and Aquila: Paul’s Co-Workers in Christ Jesus (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2010). 44 See 1 Cor 10:1–11 and Hebr 3:5–4:13.

178

Christoph Stenschke

The formation and dissemination of early Christianity in the first century is inextricably and essentially linked to experiences of flight and migration. This fact is reflected so strongly nowhere else in the New Testament and developed in a narrative manner than in the Book of Acts, even although it is also more or less clearly discernible elsewhere in the New Testament. 45

Stephen’s speech indicates that such wandering was part and parcel of the lives of the patriarchs and people of Israel in the Old Testament. During crucial periods of their existence they were on the move and gained important insights during their wanderings. During those periods they experienced God’s presence, blessing and salvation in different places, although their relationship with God was also threatened on the way. In contrast to the common ancient Near Eastern concept of national or local deities (cf. 1 Kgs 20:23–28; 2 Kgs 5:17), their God was not limited to particular regions, places and buildings. This relativizes the temple in Jerusalem and the land of Israel, and contributes to the theological foundation for the world-wide ministry and relevance of the Church. For Abraham, God’s call meant nomadic existence without a place of his own in a land that was not his. The journey to Egypt during a time of famine ended in centuries of slavery for Jacob’s descendants. For Moses, God’s appointed saviour, his flight to Midian meant loss of status and wealth and decades of menial labour. Regarding the Christian church, Acts describes incidents of migration due to persecution, due to divine calling (be it the commission of the Twelve, of Paul, and of Paul and Barnabas), due to a commission by churches, or out of own concern for churches and other initiatives. Often there is a combination of several factors. The disciples’ obedience to the commission of Jesus to be his witnesses outside the confines of Jerusalem begins with flight and migration. Like Abraham and his descendants during their wanderings, the early Christian migrant-missionaries experience that their God is with them even away from Jerusalem and the land of Israel. He knows no boundaries, but has all peoples in view (10:34–35: “but in every nation ...”). There is no place where God is not with them. Even in the dungeon of a Roman prison in Philippi, God intervenes; in the midst of a terrible storm somewhere on the Mediterranean Sea, the angel of the Lord finds Paul, comforts and saves him (Acts 27:23–24). In Samaria, Caesarea, Antioch and beyond God affirms their proclamation with signs and wonders and opens the hearts of men and women (16:14). While they meet persecution and fierce resistance in some places, in many cases they and their message are well received. In Luke’s portrayal the followers of Jesus display an enormous dynamic and mobility. Dispersion and migration, which in the Old Testament often are a

45

Kahl, “Migrationserfahrungen,” 185.

Migration and Mission in the Book of Acts

179

form of divine judgement or appear in the positive sense of journey or a wandering existence (see the patriarchal narratives or the Book of Jonah), become in Acts a distinctive trait at least of a part of the Christian community; now not as judgement, but as the consequences of faithful obedience to the commission of Jesus. Luke only hints at the material consequences or difficulties that this migration involved. 46 His focus is on the opportunities that migration, enforced or voluntary, did provide and can provide for the Gospel. Material needs were met by sharing goods locally (in Jerusalem) and trans-locally (the Christians of Antioch share with Jerusalem, 11:27–30), by funding missionaries or labour. In many places the migrant-missionaries are well received and looked after. The experiences of these migrant missionaries and their missionary involvement led to the acceptance of the Gentiles into the people of God as Gentiles. They involved and brought about new and challenging experiences, insights and consequences for the identity and self-understanding of the initially Jewish Christian communities, as, for example, Peter’s surprised insight in Caesarea: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (10:34–35) or the decrees of the so-called Apostolic Council (15:8–11, 14–21). It also affected their behaviour (ready association and table fellowship with Gentiles, including neglecting Jewish concerns for purity, e. g. 10:48; 16:34) and their relationship with their fellow Jews (11:2–3; 15:1–5; 21:20–21). 47 By transgressing boundaries, through flight and migration, the Christians came to realise that the acceptance of the Gentiles into the people of God is the fulfilment of the promises of God (Luke 24:46–49), of the commission of the risen Jesus to his disciples (1:8), of the coming of the Holy Spirit and a consequence of the activities of the hand of God (e. g. 11:21). New insights and development and movement /migration are inseparably linked. After these experiences the early Jewish Christian community of Jerusalem no longer is what it was at the beginning of the book of Acts. In the literary purpose of Acts, in narrating how the Christian community became what it now is (or at least what it should be like!), and in describing its identity and development, Christian migrants through divine commission, divine equipment, 46 While Luke’s Gospel has an emphasis on the proper use of material possessions (see Brian E. Beck, Christian Character in the Gospel of Luke [London: Epworth, 1989], 28–54), the theme is less prominent in Acts; for a recent survey see Christopher M. Hays, Luke’s Wealth Ethics: A Study in Their Coherence and Character (WUNT 2/275; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010). 47 Acts mentions the reaction of some Jewish Christians to these developments, but also the fierce resistance of other Jews, when the Christians accepted Gentiles as Gentiles into the people of God. According to their understanding, Israel’s identity and privileges are relativised and compromised in this way, see Acts 12:1–23 and 21:27–24:9. Both passages appear at strategic places in the midst of accounts of the inclusion of Gentiles. The procedure and behaviour of the migrant part of the Church had severe implications for those who stayed behind.

180

Christoph Stenschke

divine guidance and divine affirmation play a significant role. Not only do Jews from the Jewish diaspora now belong to the Church but also Gentiles who did not first become Jews as proselytes but remained Gentiles and were as such accepted into the community. In this process the Church had to and did learn new things about her God, her Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Gentiles, about her own identity and her behaviour. In that sense there was a clear interaction and literal “feed-back” between those who migrated and those who stayed behind. 48 In particular in view of the abiding ties with the community in Jerusalem, the Christian migrants in Acts are less “immigrants as individuals who uproot themselves from their home country to start a completely new life in a new land.” 49 Rather, they conform to contemporary patterns of international migration, which would perhaps more helpfully be termed “transnational migration” or “transmigration.” This new paradigm suggests that ‘even though migrants invest socially, economically, and politically in their new society, they may continue to participate in the daily life of the society from which they emigrated but which they did not abandon.’ Transmigrants are often bilingual, can lead dual lives, move easily between cultures, frequently maintain homes in two countries, and are incorporated as social actors in both. 50

Acts indicates that migration has the potential for new experiences and insights; it offer challenges and opportunities for transformation.

48

Hanciles, “Migration” (2003), 148. Hanciles, “Migration” (2003), 148. 50 Hanciles, “Migration” (2003), 148. The quotation within the quotation is from Nina Glick Schiller, “Transmigrants and Nation-States: Something Old and Something New in the U. S. Immigrant Experience,” in The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience (ed. Charles Hirschman, Philip Kasinitz, and Josh DeWind; New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1999), 94–119, 94. 49

Perspectives for Mission: Galatians 3:1–14 in Context Peder Borgen

Abstract Sometime after Paul founded the churches in Galatian, he found himself in conflict with the Galatian converts as the result of teachers that had come to Galatia after Paul and promulgated teaching with which Paul sharply disagreed. Since the God of the Jews was also the God of the Gentiles, the question had arisen: to what extent were the laws and observances practiced by the Jewish people incumbent upon the Gentiles? In Galatians 3:1–14, the phrase “the works of the law” and the term “faith” occur several times each and reflect two principles reflecting a situation of debate and conflict. Thus two jurisdictions are at work in Gal 3:1–14: (1) the Sinaitic jurisdiction (with “the works of the law” as a key phrase) and (2) the Abrahamic jurisdiction (with “faith” as a key word). In Gal 3:13, Paul maintains that Christ did not suffer death for his own crimes, but rather suffered a vicarious death “for us.” In Gal 3:16–17, Paul engages in philological exegesis, observing that in the phrase “the promises made to Abraham and his offspring,” the term offspring is singular rather than plural referring to Christ. In Gal 3:14, the phrase “in Jesus Christ” refers to Jesus Christ as a collective person, the fulfilment of the promise made to Abraham and in whom believers find themselves, serving as the basis for Paul’s radically new perspective as a missionary to the Gentiles.

Background As a background for the present analysis of Gal 3:1–14 and related sections it is relevant to begin with the basic observation that the Jewish people believed in One God. 1 This fact is explicitly formulated by Paul in Rom 3:29–31: “... or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one.” 2 Paul’s letter to the Galatians has the same perspective of one God, the Creator, who is the God of the Jewish nation, and is at the same time the God of all nations. God has a special relationship to the Jewish nation and their sacred writings. How are the other nations to be included in the worship and service of this one God? These questions are intensely present in Paul’s letter to the Galatian churches. 1 Cf. Nils Alstrup Dahl, “The Neglected Factor in New Testament Theology,” in idem, Jesus the Christ: The Historical Origins of Christological Doctrine (ed. D. H. Juel; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 153–163. 2 “[A]nd he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised because of their faith.” This is a more balanced statement than is the case by Paul in his struggle and conflict, which are the context of his letter to the Galatians.

182

Peder Borgen

In the letter Paul recounts parts of his own life as well. He had earlier been exceedingly zealous for his ancestral traditions, and had persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. A divine revelation changed his life radically, and he was called to serve as a missionary of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, to the Gentiles. Once he stayed in Galatia because of a bodily ailment. He also preached the Gospel and churches grew and prospered (Gal 4:13–14). From Gal 3:5 we learn that God provided the Galatian churches with the spirit which worked miracles among them. There had, nevertheless, evolved a tension and conflict between Paul and the Galatian converts. Since God is also the God of the Gentiles, how far shall Godgiven laws and observances for the one people, the Jews, be applied to churches in non-Jewish nations? How far are rules and regulations to be kept, interpreted afresh or abolished? Teachers, as “intruders,” had taught the Galatian churches with views and practices with which Paul sharply disagreed. Thus, a primary task for the Jew Paul and other Jews was to deal with the inner-Jewish traditions and observances about and from the one God, and find how to apply them to Christian churches that were worshipping and serving the same one and only God.

The Jewish Scripture In such an inner-Jewish challenge – now with reference to the situation in the churches in Galatia – it is natural that the Jewish Scripture play an important role, such as in Paul’s letter to the Galatians. The topic of the one God who is also the God of the non-Jewish nations, the Gentiles, has a central role in Gal 3:1–14. A good point of departure for studying this passage is to begin with v. 13, the purpose of which follows in v. 14, which speaks of the blessings of Abraham coming upon the Gentiles. The reception of the Spirit through faith is also included. It is to be noticed that Paul even writes in the first person plural, “we.” This reference to the reception of the Spirit refers back to vv. 2 (“you received the Spirit”) and 5 (“He who supplies the Spirit to you”). 3 What is the impact that this new beginning, referred to in vv. 2 and 5, has had on the whole section of vv. 1–12? In Gal 3:2 Paul asks the Galatians whether they received the Spirit by “works of the law” or by “hearing with faith.” Then he makes these terms, on the one hand “faith” and on the other hand “works of the law,” the two themes which are elaborated upon in vv. 5–13.

3 The translation used is taken from J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (London: Black, 1993).

Perspectives for Mission: Galatians 3:1–14 in Context

183

Paul addresses the Galatian congregations in a very pointed way in v. 2: “You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you – you before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly portrayed as crucified [᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς προεγράφη ἐσταυρωµένος].” As already mentioned above, Paul refers back to the initial time when these congregations grew up. Let us see how the phrase “from the works of the law” and related phrases are used in vv. 5–13 and, correspondingly, how the term “faith” and related phrases are used in vv. 5–14. Actually, these two alternatives, introduced in v. 2, are developed further in these verses. On the one hand the term “works of the law” and related words are being used: v. 2: “by works of the law [ἐξ ἔργων νόµου],” v. 5: “by works of the law [ἐξ ἔργων νόµου],” v. 10: “all who rely on works of the law [ἐξ ἔργων νόµου] are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them’” (ἐξ ἔργων νόµου εἰσὶν ὑπὸ κατάραν εἰσίν, γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι ᾿Επικατάρατος πᾶς ὃς οὐκ ἐµµένεi πᾶσιν τοῖς γεγραµµένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόµου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά), v. 11: “by the law is no one justified [ἐν νόµῳ οὐδεὶς δικαιοῦται],” v. 12: “the law does not rest on faith, but he who does them [ὁ δὲ νόµος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ πίστεως, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὰ],” v. 13: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us – for it is written ‘cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree’ [Χριστὸς ἡµᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόµου γενόµενος ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν κατάρα ὅτι γέγραπται, ᾿Επικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεµάµενος ἐπὶ ξύλου].” The word faith is repeated or reflected as follows: Gal 3:2: “by hearing with faith [ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως],” v. 5: “by hearing of faith [ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως],” v. 6: “thus Abraham believed God [καθὼς ᾿Αβραὰµ ἐπίστευσεν τῷ θεῷ],” v. 7: “it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham [οἱ ἐκ πίστεως, οὗτοι υἱοί εἰσιν ᾿Αβραάµ],” v. 8: “the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘In thee shall all the nations be blessed’ [ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοῖ τὰ ἔθνη ὁ θεὸς προευηγγελίσατο τῷ ᾿Αβραὰµ ὅτι ᾿Ενευλογηθήσονται ἐν σοὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη],” v. 9: “So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who have faith [ὥστε οἱ ἐκ πίστεως εὐλογοῦνται σὺν τῷ πιστῷ ᾿Αβραάµ],” v. 11: “He who through faith is righteous shall live [῾Ο δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται],” v. 14: “through faith [διὰ τῆς πίστεως].” Having surveyed, on the one hand, the use of the phrase “by works of the law,” and related expressions and sentences, and, on the other hand, the term “faith” and related terms, phrases and sentences, some comments can now be made on verse 13: the function and meaning of Christ as the crucified one, is characterized as κατάρα, “curse”: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us – for it is written ‘cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree’ [Χριστὸς ἡµᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόµου γενόµενος ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν κατάρα ὅτι γέγραπται· ᾿Επικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεµάµενος ἐπὶ ξύλου].”

184

Peder Borgen

When Paul was a zealous persecutor of Christians, his view must have been very different from that now expressed in his letter to the Galatians. He probably maintained that Jesus was crucified for his own crimes. 4 This is implied by him when he quotes Deut 21:23 (cf. 27:26) in Gal 3:13. In Deut 21:22–23 it is clearly stated that a hanged man is himself accursed by God for his own crimes. However, in 2 Cor 5:21 Paul explains his new view as an apostle of Jesus Christ: he writes that God “made him [Jesus Christ] to be sin.” Thus, instead of Jesus Christ dying for his own sins, Paul in Gal 3:13 interprets his death as “having become a curse for us [γενόµενος ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν κατάρα].” Christ suffered a vicarious death “for us,” as a curse which brought “for us” a way out of the jurisdiction of the Sinaitic law. The purpose was to effectuate “the blessing of Abraham” and “in order that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith” (Gal. 3:14).

Jurisdictions How, then, is Gal 3:1–14 to be understood as a whole? The views of two Norwegian scholars are of interest in this connection. The first one is the former professor at the University of Oslo, and then professor at Yale University, Nils Alstrup Dahl. He has written a relevant study on this question. 5 Also Dr. Kjell Arne Morland has published studies which are relevant for mention here. As noted, there are several scriptural references in the passage. They are not in a direct way examples of contradictory verses or passages as such. As indicated by the key words listed, they represent two opposing principles and reflect a situation of debate and conflict. Nils Alstrup Dahl has, in an essay on contradictions in Scripture, noticed that in Gal 3:1–14 contradictory scriptural passages are summarized on the one hand in the short catchphrase “by faith” (ἐκ πίστεως) and on the other hand in the phrase “by works of the law” (ἐξ ἔργων νόµου). Dahl suggests that they are abbreviations for “The righteous shall live by faith” (Hab 2:4) cited in v. 11, and “He who does them shall live by them” (Lev 18:5) cited in v. 12. 6 According to Paul, since those who are of faith are blessed, those who rely on the works of law stand under condemnation. 7 4 See Peder Borgen, “Openly Portrayed as Crucified: Some Observations on Gal 3:1–14,” in Christology, Controversy and Community: New Testament Essays in Honour of David R. Catchpole (ed. D. G. Horrell and C. M. Tuckett; NovTSup 99; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 345–353, and idem, “Crucified for His Own Sins – Crucified for Our Sins: Observations on a Pauline Perspective,” in The New Testament and Early Christian Literature in Greco-Roman Context: Studies in Honor of David E. Aune (ed. J. Fotopoulos; NovTSup 122; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 18–35, esp. p. 18. 5 Nils Alstrup Dahl, “Contradictions in Scripture,” in idem, Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission (assisted by P. Donahue; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977), 159–177. 6 Dahl, “Contradictions in Scripture,” 169. 7 Dahl, “Contradictions in Scripture,” 170.

Perspectives for Mission: Galatians 3:1–14 in Context

185

What is the concluding solution of the contradiction? Dahl finds that the solution is given by Paul himself, in Gal 3:22. He writes: Thus a real contradiction would have existed only if the Law had been able to lead to justification and life. Paul asserts that it was unable to do this and that it was never even God’s intention for it. The Law served another purpose: “Scripture consigned all things to sin, that what was promised to faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe” (v. 22). Thus Paul finds no contradiction here. Rightly understood, the Law is in harmony with the promises. It had a subordinate function which contributed to the realization of the promises. 8

Dahl’s understanding of the dual use of references to and quotations from Scripture in 3:1–14 and of Paul’s solution given in 3:22, gives a good and relevant meaning. An observation made by Kjell Arne Morland, in his monograph The Rhetoric of Curse in Galatians, emphasized another relevant perspective. He maintained that a main argumentative force of 3:13–14 is seen in its temporal aspect. The Christ event has inaugurated a new era. “It is such a temporal argument which may legitimate Paul’s conscious redefinition of the main mark of identity of the people of God, which again has caused conflict of laws in his interpretation of the Hebrew Bible.” 9 Morland finds that the kernel of this argument is that Christ has brought in a new era where the Mosaic legislation has been superseded. The principle of the “works of the law” is acknowledged as the will of God in the old and now superseded era. The ultimate will of God had not yet been revealed. But Christ has inaugurated the new era of faith. Christ has “redeemed us from the curse of the law.” It is now possible to read the Scriptures in a way that reveals the initial will of God. Morland specifies the point in this way: Now Paul can, as in 2:19, claim that the law has brought an end to the law, and the cross of Christ is the focal point. Now Paul can, as in 3:6, take Abraham as the prototype of faith in distinction to a Jewish way of life. Now Paul can, as in 3:8–10, interpret both Abraham’s blessing and the curse in a new way, with the result that the blessing is for those of faith, and the curse is for those of the law. Now Paul can, as in 3:11–12, play Hab 2:4 off against Lev 18:5. Now he even can, as in 1:8–9, issue covenantal curses on another basis than the law. 10

Morland’s analysis is helpful, but the idea of supersession seems too narrow and one-sided, although the observation of the temporal aspect, centered on the Christ event, is important.

8

Dahl, “Contradictions in Scripture,” 173–174. Kjell Arne Morland, The Rhetoric of Curse in Galatians: Paul Confronts Another Gospel (Emory Studies in Early Christianity 5; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 224. 10 Morland, The Rhetoric of Curse in Galatians, 225. 9

186

Peder Borgen

One should think of different jurisdictions rather than thinking in terms of supersession. In Gal 3:1–14, two jurisdictions are seen at work. (1) One might be called a “Sinaitic jurisdiction,” with “works of the law” as key phrase. It comprises the quotations from Deut 27:26 in v. 10, Deut 21:23 in v. 13 and Lev 18:5 in Gal 3:12. The execution of Jesus Christ, seen as a crucified criminal, belongs here. Formerly, as a persecutor of the disciples of Jesus, Paul must have interpreted the crucifixion as a capital punishment for crimes committed by Jesus himself. Now, as Jesus’ apostle to the Gentiles he changed his views and understood Jesus Christ’s death to be vicarious. In that way Jesus was the redeemer from the curse of the law. “Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified [᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς προεγράφη ἐσταυρωµένος]” (Gal 3:1). (2) The other jurisdiction might be named the “Abrahamic jurisdiction,” with “faith” as a key word. References to Gen 15:6; 12:3/22:18 in Gal 3:7 and Hab 2:4 cited in Gal 3:11, should be listed here. Galatians 3:14a (see also 3:6) should be understood within the Abrahamic jurisdiction: “in order that to the Gentiles the blessing of Abraham might come in Christ Jesus.” Moreover, both Gentiles and Jews are included in Paul’s use of first person plural, “we,” in v. 14b: “in order that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” Here Paul refers back to the reception of the Spirit by the Galatian converts.

Jesus Christ, the Seed of Abraham Galatians 3:13–14 should be cited here: “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse on our behalf, because it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who has been hanged on a tree’ – in order that to the Gentiles the blessing of Abraham might come in Christ Jesus.” The piece of information that it “might come in Christ Jesus,” points forward to v. 16: “But the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his ‘seed’. It does not say, and to his ‘seeds’, as to many, but as to one: ‘and to your seed’ – who is Christ.” Here Paul uses a philological method of exegesis to undergird his Christological application that Jesus Christ is the eschatological fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham and to his offspring: The proposition: “Now the promises were made to Abraham and his offspring.” Philological exegesis: “It does not say: ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many, but referring to one, ‘and to your offspring,’ which is Christ.” 11 Paul’s exegetical 11 This kind of philological exegesis is commonly used. See Mek. Ex. 15:11, 17:9; Philo, Leg. 1:67; Migr. 1 and 43; and then in Gal 3:16. Cf. Peder Borgen, Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo (NovTSup 10; Leiden: Brill, 1965), 64–65.

Perspectives for Mission: Galatians 3:1–14 in Context

187

interpretation in Gal 3:16 points forward to Gal 3:29: “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” The words “if you are Christ’s” refer back to vv. 26–28, where Paul elaborates on the meaning of Christ as a collective person. This central function of Christ is explicated here in Gal 3:26–29: ... for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

When Paul states “you are all one in Christ Jesus,” he sees Christ Jesus as a collective person. Moreover, he connects the role of Christ back to Gal 3:14, where he refers to him as a collective person, expressed in the prepositional phrase “in Christ Jesus.” The identification of Jesus Christ and the seed of Abraham is then explicitly done in Gal 3:29. Thus the view about Christ Jesus formulated in 3:27–29 is an elaborating interpretation of Gal 3:14 and 16: the dual category, exemplified by on the one hand the Gentiles, τὰ ἔθνη, in v. 14, and represented by “Greek” in v. 28, and on the other hand, “Jew” in v. 28 (represented also in Paul’s “we” in v. 14), is in Gal 3:28 expanded into other areas: “slave – free” and “male – female.” Implicitly this list presupposes the view that there is One God, who is the God of the Jews, who is also the God of the Gentile nations, and who is God the Creator, who is beyond all of creation and the various distinctions made in it.

The Spirit The blessing of Abraham, mentioned in Gal 3:14, came in Christ Jesus, and in 3:16, the seed of Abraham was identified with Christ. The promise of the reception of the Spirit is mentioned in 3:14. Then one might ask: How is the Spirit related to Christ? One answer to this question is seen in 4:6: “And in that you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ Consequently you are no longer a slave, but a son, then also heir through God.” Accordingly, slave, slavery, son, sonship and heirship are key ideas in the passage. Legal rules, regulations and practice are reflected, and to some degree modified to better serve the subject matter concerned. 12 Paul identifies himself with others by using the first person plural in vv. 3, 5 and 6. The readers are addressed in second person plural in v. 6a and in singular in v. 7. The legal setting is given in vv. 1–2: the child, like a slave, is under guardians and stewards until the time set by the father. The application follows in vv. 3–7. Verse 3

12

See commentaries, such as Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, 210–12.

188

Peder Borgen

reads: “Thus also we, when we were children, were enslaved under the elemental forces of the world.” Thus there is a cosmic aspect of the law, and cosmic powers brought us, as children, to be enslaved. The God of the Jews is God the Creator and Sustainer of the cosmos, but there are cosmic powers which can be male-functioning relative to law, as is the case here. God intervened: “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent his son, born of woman, born under the law, in order that he might redeem those under the law, in order that we might receive the adoption” (Gal 4:4–5). For the verses Gal 4:6–7, see above. One point should be added here: When the concept of “heir” is used in v. 7: “And if a son, then also an heir through God,” then there is a connection made back to Gal 3:29 where there is a reference to the same concept and word, in plural, “heirs”: “If you are Christ’s, then are you Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise.” Is it possible to relate Abraham to this promise of the Spirit in Gal. 3:14? Richard Hays follows Hans Dieter Betz in making the following observation: “Nowhere in the Old Testament does the promise to Abraham have anything to do with the Spirit.” 13 Hays suggests that Paul follows an unwritten logic like this: (a) Scripture promises that Gentiles will be blessed in Abraham. (b) Gentile Christian communities, who – like Abraham – have come to believe in Israel’s God apart from the Sinai Torah, have experienced the blessing of the Holy Spirit, palpably present in their midst. (c) Therefore, this experienced Spirit must be the promised blessing of which Scripture speaks. 14

H. D. Betz and R. Hays are right when they have noted that nowhere in the Old Testament does the promise to Abraham have anything to do with the Spirit. It remains to ask, however, if there should be relevant Jewish interpretations of Scripture. It might be of interest to look into some of Philo’s expositions. He has an interesting passage about Abraham’s radical experience of the transforming power of the Spirit. The term “promise” is not used as such, but with his experience of the Spirit Abraham is seen as a standard, or model, for other proselytes, Virt. 212–219. A parenthetical observation should be made about Paul and Philo, two outstanding Jews whose lives overlapped each other in time. Paul was a Jew whose activity was concentrated on areas north of the Mediterranean Sea, and Philo, also a Jew, lived south-east of the same sea, in Alexandria. Philo had partly to face similar tensions and challenges within Judaism, for example, that of the One God – the God of the Jewish people – being also the Creator, Sustainer, and the God of all peoples. 13 Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1983), 210. Cf. idem, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989). 14 Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 110.

Perspectives for Mission: Galatians 3:1–14 in Context

189

As a comment on the question of Abraham and the Spirit in Gal 3:14 seen in context, the passage in Philo’s treatise On the Virtues 212–219 seems to be relevant. Here Abraham, being the first proselyte and the founder of the Jewish nation, is seen as a standard, a model for proselytes. Like him they have set out with a vision for a beautiful settlement, in a state of true life and vitality, with truth as director and president (Virt. 219). It should be noted that in the passage of Virt. 212–219, Philo alludes to (at least) four references in Genesis, Gen 12:1, 15:6, 23:6, and 15:12. Genesis 12:1 reads: “Now the Lord said to Abram, ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you.’” Genesis 15:6 reads: “And he [Abraham] believed the Lord; and it was reckoned it to him as righteousness.” Genesis 23:5–6 reads:“The Hittite answered Abraham, ‘Hear us, my lord; you are a mighty prince among us’” (LXX: βασιλεύς, “king”). As for Gen 15:12, the words “As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abraham” were understood by Philo to imply that Abraham experienced ecstasy and was an inspired prophet. In Her. 258 he makes this understanding explicit. He reads: “‘About sunset there fell upon Abraham ecstasy,’ that is what the inspired and God-possessed ones experience.” It proved that he was a prophet. The basic structure of the rather long passage in Philo’s Virt. 212–222 is the same as that found in the shorter passage of Paul in Gal 4:1–7: (1) Cosmic and earthly powers are at work in evil and destructive ways; (2) God and humans act, and a radical change takes place; and (3) the result is that persons experience good fellowship and community life. In both passages the Spirit is at work.

(1) Cosmic and Earthly Powers: Chaldean Astrology in Virt. 212–213 Abraham was a Chaldean by birth, the son of an astrologer, one of those who study the lore of that science and think that the stars and the whole heaven and universe are gods, the authors, they say, of events which befall each man for good or for ill, and hold that there is no originating cause outside the things we perceive by our senses. 15 Philo asks, What could be more grievous than this, that the knowledge of the many, the secondary, the created, leads humans to ignore the One, the Uncreated and Maker of all. Correspondingly, in Gal 4:3 Paul tells about elemental forces of the world, which keep in slavery humans who are under the law. In Gal 4:8–10 the (former) pagan setting is more clearly stated. The Galatians had been in slavery to beings that by nature are no gods. Paul refers

15 Cf. Philo, Spec. 1.15: “Do not when thou seest the sun and the moon and the stars and all the hosts of heaven go astray and worship them.” Spec. 1.20: “And if anyone renders the worship due to the Eternal, the Creator, to a created being and one later in time, he must stand recorded as infatuated and guilty of impiety in the highest degree.”

190

Peder Borgen

further to “weak and beggarly elemental forces.” The Galatians addressees are observing days and months and special times and years.

(2) God and Humans Act, and a Radical Change Takes Place In Virt. 214–217a one reads that Abraham was seeking the One God, and divine inspirations induced him to leave his native country, his race, and paternal home in order to discover the One, who alone is eternal and the Father of all things (Gen 12:1). False creed was replaced by the truth. Abraham is the first person spoken of as believing in God (Gen 15:6). Abraham is the first person spoken of as believing in God since he first grasped a firm and unswerving conception of the truth that there is one Cause above all, and that it provides for the world and all that therein. In Virt. 217a Philo tells that under inspiration Abraham sought a different society than those among whom he settled: a more holy one. Moreover, in Virt. 217b we learn that Abraham himself had a transforming experience by the Spirit: Thus whenever he was possessed, everything in him changed to something better, eyes, complexion, stature, carriage, movements and voice. For the divine Spirit which was breathed upon him from on high made its lodging in his soul, and invested his body with singular beauty, his voice with persuasiveness, and his hearers with understanding.

In Virt. 218–219 Philo tells that Abraham was ranked as a prophet. He put his faith in nothing created rather than in the Uncreated and Father of all. He was as a king by those in whose midst he settled. His spirit was the spirit of a king (Virt. 217). 16 Philo sums up aspects of Abraham’s transformation using almost in hymnlike formulations (Virt. 218): He who craved for kinship with God, and strove by every means to live in familiarity with Him, he who while ranked among the prophets, a post of such high excellence, puts his trust in nothing created rather than in the uncreated and Father of all, he who was, by election of God, the friend of virtue, regarded as king [βασιλεύς] by those in whose midst he settled. He is the standard nobility for all proselytes [οὕτος ἅπασιν ἐπηλύταις εὐγενείας ἐστὶ κανώ].

Correspondingly, Paul in Gal 4:4–5 briefly tells that God brought about the change: “But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.”

16

For Abraham as a prophet, see Her. 258–268.

Perspectives for Mission: Galatians 3:1–14 in Context

191

(3) The Result Is That the People Experience Good Fellowship and Community Life In Virt. 219 we read: “He is the standard of nobility for all proselytes, who, abandoning the ignobility of strange laws and monstrous customs which assigned divine honours to stock and stones and soulless things in general ‘have set out for a better settlement,’ 17 in a commonwealth full of true life and vitality, with truth as its director and president.” Thus, Philo clearly associates Abraham with the Spirit, and as the standard of proselytes. Abraham also made a strong impact on the Gentiles around him, and was regarded as a king. While Philo thought in terms of a settlement and an inspired form of commonwealth, in Gal 4:6–7 Paul thinks in terms of an inspired form of family fellowship: “And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ So through God you are no longer a slave but son, and if a son then an heir.”

Concluding Perspectives It will be helpful to sketch the interpretation of Paul by James D. G. Dunn. David Aune has rightly called him a second important representative of the New Perspective, next to the pioneer, E. P. Sanders. 18 Aune gives a summary of main points in Dunn’s view of Paul: The phrase “the works of the law” is central to Paul. It refers to the social identity markers of Judaism, that is, such ritual practices as circumcision, kosher food regulations, and Sabbath observance. “Works of the law” are not works done to earn God’s favor. For Paul, these Jewish regulations are not integral parts of the covenant. A more fundamental identity marker is the faith in Christ, which corresponded to Abraham’s faith. Later, Dunn has broadened the marks to be “what the law required of Israel as God’s people”, that is, “deeds that the law makes obligatory.” Dunn still maintains that Paul only applies “works of the law” to the relationship between Jews and Gentiles. The phrase refers to “works” which distinguishes Jews from Gentiles, that is, “us” from “them.” The contributions of Sanders and Dunn have opened up to a new and fruitful perspective on ancient Judaism in general as well as on Paul’s struggles and ideas. In the present study I have outlined another angle to follow and another perspective to be considered: Paul’s challenge was to bring scriptural and tradi17

My translation: “have set out for a better settlement.” For this and the following, see David E. Aune, “Recent Readings of Paul Relating to Justification by Faith,” in Rereading Paul Together: Protestant and Catholic Perspectives on Justification (ed. David E. Aune; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 188–245, 209–211. 18

192

Peder Borgen

tional ideas and the Christ event to bear on inner Jewish understandings. What are the actions to be taken in his dealings with the problems caused by other teachers (missionaries)? Paul disagrees sharply with various emphases in their teachings and actions; these incoming teachers had been misleading the Galatian churches. Paul characterized his own background in Gal 1:14: “I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.” As a missionary to non-Jewish people, a basic tenet of his was: “... or is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is One” (Rom 3:29–30). God revealed his Son to Paul in order that he might preach him to the non-Jewish nations (Gal 1:16). His letter deals with problems in churches which were the fruit of his missionary activity. Thus, the letter to the Galatians gives us insight into Paul’s radically new perspective as a missionary to the Gentiles, when seen against his former activities and convictions as a persecutor of the Christians. 19

19 This essay has been written in memory of my good colleague and friend, Hans Kvalbein, who passed away on December 19, 2013. In his research, he placed special emphasis on topics in the areas of mission and social issues, such as the plight of the poor. He contributed significantly to organizing regular national meetings of New Testament scholars in Norway, and was a member of the international New Testament society “Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas.” Here he was an active member of the annual international seminar on research in mission. Moreover, he was active in the local church where he lived, and was an accomplished violinist. I thank God for his faithful service. May his memory be blessed.

Who are the Children of Abraham in Romans 4? Retelling the Memory of Abraham “Our Ancestor” Halvor Moxnes Abstract Revisiting the discussion of Abraham’s children in my doctoral dissertation 40 years ago, this essay views the question of the inclusion of non-Jews among Abraham’s descendants in light of recent discussions of ethnicity. I argue that Paul challenges Judean descendants of Abraham to accept changes in their identity.

Introduction This essay is a rewriting of parts of the discussion of Rom 4 in my doctoral dissertation completed forty years ago, Theology in Conflict: Studies of Paul’s Understanding of God in Romans. 1 When I do this in memory of Hans Kvalbein it is in remembrance of our long shared history in New Testament studies in Norway. At times there were great disagreements between us, both when it came to the historical interpretation of New Testament texts and the hermeneutical use of these texts. However, this did not prevent us from respecting one another, and as times changed, to collaborate in a forum for New Testament scholars from all theological institutions in Norway. And I shall always be grateful for Hans Kvalbein’s generosity, honesty and friendliness in all our contacts. The purpose of my dissertation was to explore Paul’s understanding of God in his letter to the Romans. “God” was a topic that my teacher Nils A. Dahl characterized as “The Neglected Factor in New Testament Theology,” 2 and I tried to go about it not as a study of formulas and designations, but in terms of the function of God language in the context of Paul’s argumentation in the letter. Following up on, but criticizing Bultmann’s famous statement that speaking of God implies to speak of oneself, I suggested that speaking of God implied speaking collectively of the people of God. Taking Rom 4 as my main text, I wanted to study how Paul’s linked his statements about Abraham’s faith in God to the inclusion of Jews and non-Jews in the fellowship of Christ believers. Thus, Paul’s

1 Halvor Moxnes, Theology in Conflict: Studies of Paul’s Understanding of God in Romans (NovTSup 53; Leiden: Brill, 1980). 2 Nils A. Dahl, “The Neglected Factor in New Testament Theology,” Reflections 75 (1975): 5–8; reprinted in Nils A. Dahl, Jesus the Christ: The Historical Origins of Christological Doctrine (ed. Donald H. Juel; Fortress Press, 1991), 153–63.

194

Halvor Moxnes

discussion of Abraham’s faith was not a dogmatic treatise but directly related to the unity of the groups of Christ believers in Rome. When I undertake to revisit parts of my dissertation on Romans 4 it is in order to see it in light of some of the new aspects that have been introduced into New Testament studies, especially through studies of ethnicity and memories.

From Theology to Ethnicity In the forty years since I wrote the dissertation much has happened in Pauline studies. First of all, there is the emergence of the “new Paul,” and later even the “radical Paul” 3 with its criticism not only of a Protestant (especially Lutheran) reading, but also of a Christian reading of Paul. For this “new” or “radical Paul” the Jewish context was not something of the past, but an integral part of who he was as a proclaimer of faith in Christ. But what categories should we use to speak of the integration of different groups in Rome into one community? In the 1970s I was very conscious that I would not use the terms “Jews and gentiles,” which I considered derogatory;,4 so I chose the term “non-Jews,” that is, I chose to see the world like Paul from a Jewish point of view. Ethnic categories have now become absolutely dominant in discussions of the identities of communities. 5 Moreover, biblical studies have also been influenced by kinship studies in social anthropology, so we have become much more aware of the potential of such studies in analyzing the biblical text. This new awareness does not solve the problems of what terms to use. As an historical term I will use Judeans as a translation of Ioudaioi. 6 “Gentiles” and “non-Judeans” are unsatisfactory terms in studies of history or history of religions, speaking from an outside perspective. However, in studies of Paul’s “ethnic map” they may be used to identify Paul’s inside perspective. Finally, memory studies have opened up new dimensions for the study of how biblical authors related to previous authorities and traditions. For instance, investigations of Paul’s use of traditions have mostly focused on his exegesis of biblical texts, with a degree of details that presupposes that Paul used a library of texts and complicated references. 7 In light of memory studies we should instead look at Paul as an author who retells stories of events and historical figures. 3 See Magnus Zetterholm, Approaches to Paul: A Student’s Guide to Recent Scholarship (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 95–163. 4 Philip F. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 75. 5 Sian Jones, The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present (London: Routledge, 1997), 51–55. 6 See the discussion in Esler, Conflict, 63–74. 7 See a similar criticism in Philip F. Esler, “Paul’s Contestation of Israel’s (Ethnic) Memory of Abraham in Galatians 3,” BTB 36 (2006): 23–34, 29.

Who are the Children of Abraham in Romans 4?

195

Memories of an Ancestor To use modern terminology to help us understand the meaning and purpose of Paul’s retelling of the Abraham story, we may say that he is rewriting the memory of Abraham. Barry Schwartz’ Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of National Memory 8 is an instructive example of how the memory of an important individual was invoked to shape the identity of a nation. Studies of individuals belong to the general studies of collective memories and their relevance for a contemporary situation; as Maurice Halbwachs explains: “collective memory is essentially a reconstruction of the past (that) adapts the image of historical facts to the beliefs and spiritual needs of the present.” 9 Schwartz traces the development of the memory of Abraham Lincoln from shortly after his death till after World War II, from the image of a martyr to becoming an idol, representing the ideals of new generations. In line with political developments in the USA, Abraham Lincoln became a model for democracy and new ideals for human welfare; in the era of the civil rights movement he became a protagonist of racial integration. In making their claims about Abraham Lincoln, his admirers in various periods of time were saying something about themselves and their world; the images of Lincoln became models for character-building both for individuals and for American society at large. Schwarz’ study of the memory of Lincoln illuminates the function of the memory of Abraham within Jewish traditions in Antiquity. Ehud Ben Zwi has outlined how one can study the memory of Abraham in the late Persian and early Hellenistic period in Judah. 10 Social memory, he says, “is the public, integrated, and socially integrative representation of the past that is held, shaped and negotiated within a social group, and which holds it together.” 11 Different social groups, says Ben Zwi, “have different cultural memories and thus different ‘Abrahams’.” A reconstruction of these memories is mainly built on the writings of the literati in the groups who established a shared discourse that “included basic assumptions, identity, and boundaries, cultural norms, and fears and hopes.” Since a full reconstruction of the memories of Abraham is beyond the scope of a single essay, Ben Zwi sets a more modest goal: “to draw attention to several central topoi and core concepts in the general ideological discourse of

8 Barry Schwartz, Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of National Memory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000). 9 Maurice Halbwachs, La Topographie légendaire des évangiles en Sainte Terre (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1941), 7. 10 Ehud Ben Zwi, “The Memory of Abraham in Late Persian /Early Hellenistic Period in Yehud / Judah,” in Remembering Biblical Figures in the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods: Social Memory and Imagination (ed. Diana V. Edelman and Ehud Ben Zwi; Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online, September 2013), 1–53. 11 This and the following quotations, Ben Zwi, “Abraham,” 4–6.

196

Halvor Moxnes

the relevant community /ies ... that became associated with the figure of Abraham so that he became a core site of memory that embodied and ‘broadcast’ them.” Ben Zwi will show that “Abraham became a site of memory or cipher intended to evoke and reinforce matters and images at the core of the community’s self-characterization and self-understanding.” The present essay will follow the example of Ben Zwi and choose one topos within the cultural memory of Abraham in the discourse of Paul: Abraham as ancestor is the central topos in Paul’s rewriting of his memory in Rom 4. Paul establishes the social world of family and kinship, he speaks of Abraham, “our ancestor [προπάτορα] according to the flesh [κατὰ σάρκα],” 4:1); he speaks of the addressees as the offspring (σπέρµα) of Abraham; that includes that they are his heirs (κληρονόµοι). This list of “natural terms” for ancestry and descent in kinship and ethnicity categories describes who they are; these identities are ultimately given to them by God. Abraham as ancestor and forefather is a “site of memory” that “served as a memory node binding several other core sites together into a well-crafted web of sites of memory, informed and shaping each other.” 12 Thus, Paul’s retelling of the memory of the ancestry of Abraham belongs together with the way he retells topoi like Abraham’s faith or de-emphasizes or simply omits topoi like Abraham’s circumcision or the sacrifice of Isaac.

Retelling the Abraham Story in a Context of Ethnic Conflicts It is well recognized that the retelling of the Abraham story in Rom 4 is much less polemical than in Gal 3, 13 but there is still no agreement about how it should be interpreted. Since 1980 there has been a steady stream of studies of Paul’s presentation of Abraham and of Rom 4, so that it is impossible to keep ahead of all these studies. 14 But it is surprising that despite their number, these studies have tended to focus on only some aspects of Rom 4. 15 The traditional Protestant exegesis has been to interpret Abraham as an example of justification by faith. 16 Another popular approach has emphasized Paul’s view of salvation history. One important aspect of this approach has been how Paul uses the Abraham story to include the gentiles in the people of God. However, few studies have focused on

12

Ben Zwi, “Abraham,” 37. Esler, “Abraham in Galatians 3,” 23–34. 14 See a review of the literature since 1977 in Gerhard H. Visscher, Romans 4 and the New Perspective on Paul (Studies in Biblical Literature 122; New York: Peter Lang, 2009). 15 Joshua W. Jipp, “Rereading the Story of Abraham, Isaac, and ‘Us’ in Romans 4,” JSNT 23 (2009): 217–42, 217–19. 16 A. T. Hanson, Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology (London: SPCK, 1974), 52–66. 13

Who are the Children of Abraham in Romans 4?

197

the ancestry of Abraham as the specific way in which non-Jews were included in the people of God. A notable exception is Caroline Johnson Hodge’s If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul. 17 The main purpose of her study is to “argue for a new way to read kinship and ethnic language in Paul that dismantles the contrast between a universal “non-ethnic” Christianity and an ethnic, particular Judaism.” 18 Through her analysis she illuminates how the categories of kinship and ethnicity shape not only the relationships between Jews and God, but also between Paul and his gentile audience. Hodges argues that “Paul uses the discourses of kinship and ethnicity to construct a myth of origins for gentile followers of Christ ... By means of this kinship-creation, gentiles are made descendants of Abraham, adopted sons of God and coheirs with Christ.” But she follows this up by saying that “Although Ioudaioi and gentiles now share a common ancestor, Paul does not collapse them into one group (of ‘Christians,’ for example). Gentiles-in-Christ and Jews are separate but related lineages of Abraham.” In the conclusion to her study she discusses the changes this “being inChrist” has done to the ethnicity of the gentiles. They fall “under the umbrella of Jewishness,” but Paul does not imagine them to be Jews; he still speaks of them as gentiles. Hodges suggests that Paul’s description of their identity represents a form of hybridity, but protests against the suggestion “that being in-Christ is a hybrid identity for both Jews and gentiles, I see it as hybrid only for gentiles. Being in-Christ does not require Jews to appropriate Greek or gentile traits. Thus being in-Christ does not involve shifting or mixing for Jews, it is already a Jewish identity” (my italics). 19 But to claim that Paul presupposes a Jewish identity that does not change by being “in-Christ,” that there is no “shifting or mixing,” seems a strange position in light of Hodge’s discussion of ethnicity and kinship. She says that “a fundamental assumption of my work is that kinship and ethnicity are social constructions.” 20 Moreover, “ethnic identity is often constructed upon a naturalized understanding of kinship (e. g. appeals to common ancestry) but it, too, is a mutable construct that can be shaped by various criteria and contexts.” Hodge explicitly distances herself from traditional models in which kinship and ethnicity are “fixed, immutable aspects of identity.” In her view, such constructs are “dynamic discourses which incorporate both fixed and fluid components,

17 18 19 20

16.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. This and the following quotations, Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs, 4–5. Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs, 150. This and all the following quotations in this paragraph are from Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs,

198

Halvor Moxnes

even when there are tensions among these.” 21 Hodge applies this position to Paul also, when she says that Paul understands that being peoples of the God of Israel means being descendants (or literally “seed”) of Abraham and argues that new descendants are created when gentiles are baptized into Christ. Religious ritual authorizes the creation of kinship as Paul draws both upon fixity (“natural,” procreative notions such as “seed of Abraham”) and fluidity (that this identity can be created for gentiles). 22

Hodge follows up these reflections on fixity and fluidity with a critical view of how identities and social relationships like ethnicity and kinship may be endowed with status as “natural” and therefore “unquestionable.” I agree with Hodge’s point about fixity and fluidity, but I find that her own position on the fixity of Jewish identity seems to endow it with those qualities that she criticizes, viz. of being “natural” and “unquestionable.” I take this to be a weak point in her otherwise very challenging reading of the Abraham story. I see the situation that Paul describes as one where God gives the promises and creates a people of Judeans and non-Judeans in the same way. Therefore Paul’s retelling of the Abraham story represents a challenge to Judeans to accept a change of identity, not leaving a Judean identity, but accepting shifts and mixing. A focus on ethnicity will illuminate the importance of the identities involved in the tensions among the various groups in the Roman communities of Christ believers whom Paul addresses in his letter. Hodge presents Paul’s views from within a Judean position; Christopher D. Stanley places Paul more within a Diaspora situation where he is directly confronted with a Hellenistic context and he is aware of the ethnic conflicts of the time. 23 Stanley argues against framing the conflict as a religious one, between Judeans and gentiles, which he considers a negative term constructed by the Judeans. Instead he sees it as an ethnic conflict, since both Greeks and Judeans can be understood as ethnic groups, as the term is understood by contemporary social theorists. They do not define ethnicity as a fixed identity ascribed to an objectively identified group, but rather as a more fluid aspect of the self-definition of a group. In a very influential article the Norwegian anthropologist Fredrik Barth argued that ethnicity was not an inherent quality in a group, but a result of boundary-making whereby a group sets up boundaries against other groups. 24 21 “Fixed and fluid components” is a reference to the model for ethnicity that Denise K. Buell uses in Why this New Race? Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 7–13, 37–41 22 Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs, 16. 23 Christopher D. Stanley, “‘Neither Jew nor Greek’: Ethnic Conflict in Graeco-Roman Society,” JSNT 64 (1996): 101–124. 24 Fredrik Barth, “Introduction,” in Ethnic Groups and Boundaries (ed. F. Barth; Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1969), 9–38.

Who are the Children of Abraham in Romans 4?

199

Barth claims that “ethnic groups are categories of ascription and identification by the actors themselves and thus have the characteristic of organizing interaction between people.” 25 Thus, there is an element of subjectivity and agency in the creation and maintenance of ethnic groups. Barth’s approach has been very influential in studies of ethnicity, but it has also met with criticism. For instance, does Barth’s approach apply to groups other than ethnic ones? Moreover, there is also the so called “primordial approach” which puts more emphasis on the content that is common to members of an ethnic group. 26 Thus, groups may consider that this content functions as a given boundary marker as part of their identity. Common among such identity markers are, according to Stanley: “(1) a belief in a shared history, often grounded in a story or a myth of common origin; (2) a common culture, with special stress on features that distinguish the group from the broader society, including language and /or religion; and (3) some form of physical difference that sets group members apart from others.” 27 For Judeans, Abraham was such a figure who represented a common origin, and therefore issues of kinship and descent were important aspects of ethnicity. Both Judeans and Greeks regarded themselves as ethnic groups within the Greco-Roman world, and there is evidence of conflicts between them. 28 These conflicts may be characterized as “ethnic” because they were not only caused by religion, which has been the popular notion. An ethnic conflict may be caused by competition over scarce social, economic or territorial resources, by changes in political power, or where there are different systems of personal and social values. These were aspects of events in Asia Minor in the second part of the first century before Christ, e. g., with the Roman Civil wars, leading to social unrest in many cities in western Asia Minor. These were events that many had heard about, both Jews and Greeks, and that resulted in antagonism and tensions. Paul, who probably grew up and was educated in Tarsus in Asia Minor, must have been aware of these tensions when he said that “in Christ” there was “no longer Jew or Greek” (Gal 3:28), or asked if God was not God both of Judeans and “nations,” or of both circumcised and uncircumcised (Rom 3:29–30). The point of this emphasis on ethnic identities is an increased awareness of the substantial differences in collective identities between Judeans and Greeks. If these groups had different myths of origin and history, different cultures and languages, customs and ethos, to bring them together in a common identity was a

25 26 27 28

Barth, “Introduction,” 10. Jones, Archaeology of Ethnicity, 65–72. Stanley, “‘Neither Jew nor Greek’,” 111. Stanley, “‘Neither Jew nor Greek’,” 115–23.

200

Halvor Moxnes

formidable task. Apparently, that was what Paul attempted to do with his mission to non-Judeans. 29 Using a model from Fredrik Barth, Philip Esler has suggested that Paul in Romans acts as “an entrepreneur of group identity.” 30 Barth suggested that the process of ethnic identity may be analyzed at three levels. The micro level focuses on persons and their experiences in interpersonal interaction. The median level (where Esler places Paul) depicts the processes that create collectivities and mobilize groups and Barth says that “This is the field of entrepreneurship, leadership and rhetoric.” 31 Finally, the macro level is that of the apparatus of the state. In his relations to his Roman audience Paul is obviously a social entrepreneur; he takes upon himself the role of leadership and he engages in rhetoric to impress the audience with his solutions. Paul is not only working with given ethnic categories in Rom 4, he is actively engaged in redefining their content and in redrawing ethnic boundaries.

Who Was Abraham, Our Ancestor according to the Flesh? I suggest that Paul’s audience would hear Romans 4 as Paul’s retelling of the memory of Abraham, rather than as a literary exercise in rabbinic exegesis. The latter seems to be the way many modern exegete study the chapter, but that requires detailed attention to the written text. I include myself in this category, since my earlier study was an attempt to find elements of a Jewish midrash on God’s promise to Abraham as a basis for Paul’s argumentation. 32 It is of course tempting to enter into a detailed intertextual exegesis since Paul is obviously interacting with biblical texts. But in the case of Abraham, Paul is working with stories about Abraham and how they present various characteristics of him and thereby also of his followers. Stories were “test-cases” telling about how Abraham left his ancestral home with their idols and turned to one God; about the covenant that God established with him, based on circumcision; about the promise of a son, Isaac and a great number of descendants; about his obedience to God, culminating in his willingness to sacrifice his son. These were stories that Paul could expect his audiences of Judeans and god-fearers to know; and these stories made up the material for his retelling of Abraham memories. With his question “What shall we say about Abraham?” in Rom 4:1, Paul sounds like

29

Esler, Conflict, 30–39. Esler, Conflict, 48–49. 31 Frederik Barth, “Enduring and Emerging Issues in the Analysis of Ethnicity,” in The Anthropology of Ethnicity: Beyond “Ethnic Groups and Boundaries” (ed. H. Vermeulen and C. Govers; Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 1994), 21. 32 Moxnes, Theology in Conflict, 195–206. 30

Who are the Children of Abraham in Romans 4?

201

he is invoking a memory of Abraham in response to the questions he raised just before: “Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of gentiles also? Yes, of gentiles also,30 since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith” (Rom 3:29–30). Paul describes Abraham as “our ancestor according to the flesh,” and then he proceeds to tell the Abraham story in a way that makes it relevant for his audiences. But there was a problem for Paul in using the Abraham story, as Joshua W. Jipp points out: “A simple but overlooked fact is that Paul’s gospel is in no way advantaged by appealing to Abraham. In fact it is precisely the contrary, for the figure of Abraham poses enormous problems to Paul’s gospel, and, as we will see, Paul’s interpretation of Abraham bears these polemical marks.” 33 The problems that Paul encounters become visible in his introduction to the Abraham narrative in 4:1. Different translations reflect how interpreters view the contrast between this verse and the implications of Abraham’s fatherhood that Paul draws in the last part of the chapter. Most interpreters take Paul to be the author of the question in 4:1, commonly translated as: “What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh (τὸν προπάτορα ἡµῶν κατὰ σάρκα)?” This translation takes 4:1 as a question posed by Paul and that finds its answer in the immediate context: Abraham gained righteousness since he trusted in God (Rom 4:3–5). With “our ancestor,” Paul identifies himself with his fellow Judeans in the same way as in Rom 9:3 where he speaks of “my own people, my kindred according to the flesh (κατὰ σάρκα).” Other suggestions are based on the presumption that the question in 4:1 introduces the whole of chapter 4, and in particular 4:16–22 where Paul explicitly discusses Abraham as the father of all. Therefore some argue that in continuity with the dialogical form of 3:27–31, 4:1 should be ascribed to an interlocutor of Paul, who “perceptively introduces Abraham, the premier figure of Israel’s Scriptures, and appeals to him as a potentially damaging witness to Paul’s gospel.” 34 If it is an interlocutor who introduces Abraham as “our ancestor,” i. e., according to tradition the ancestor of the Judeans only, Paul is challenged to prove how Abraham can be the forefather of both Judeans and gentiles. Most other interpreters ascribe the verse to Paul. Richard Hays 35 and N. T. Wright 36 consider the role of Abraham as the “father of all” to be the main issue of the chapter, and they suggest different translations that directly introduce this topic.

33

Jipp, “Rereading the Story,” 221. Jipp, ibid., based on Stanley Stowers, Diatribe and Paul’s letter to the Romans (SBLDS 57; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981), 155–58, 171–74. 35 Richard B. Hays, “‘Have We Found Abraham to Be Our Forefather According to the Flesh’: A Reconsideration of Rom 4.1,” NovT 27 (1985): 76–98. 36 N. T. Wright, “Paul and the Patriarch: The Role of Abraham in Romans 4,” JSNT 35 (2013): 207–241. 34

202

Halvor Moxnes

In a free translation, one suggestion is: “So what are we going to say? Are we going to find that Abraham is our ancestor on the basis of genealogy?” or: “our ancestor in a human, fleshly sense?” 37 Finally, since it is the question of Abraham’s fatherhood for “the nations” that is the main issue in 4:16–22, it has also been suggested that “our” in “our ancestor Abraham” refers to the gentiles. 38

Retelling the Abraham Memory: the Story of the Promise Most likely the question in Rom 4:1 refers to the traditional memory of Abraham as the ancestor of the Judeans. Since Paul had to counter a strong memory tradition, he had to find a way to retell the story that could convince his audience to accept a “counter-memory.” To an audience who had some knowledge of the memories of Abraham that meant drawing on some parts of the tradition that Paul could use to overrule other parts that did not support his position. The paradigmatic text that Paul uses to support his claims is Gen 15:6: “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Rom 4:3). In 1980 I tried to show how Paul uses this quotation in a midrashic fashion: it punctuates his argumentation in all sections of chapter 4: 4:3–5; 4:6–12; 4:13–22; 4:23–25. But this chapter is more than an argument based on biblical quotations; Paul’s use of Gen 15:6 brings up a memory of the story of Abraham in Gen 15. In this story God gives Abraham the promise of a great reward. Abraham doubts the promise since he had no son and therefore no heir, so that his property would be inherited by a house slave. But God promises Abraham that he will have an heir from his own issue, and shows him the stars of heaven, with the promise: “So shall your descendants be” (15:5). It was in response to this promise that it was said: “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Rom 15:6). The main aspects of the story in Gen 15 was the promise of a son who should be Abraham’s heir and through him innumerable descendants. There is no circumcision, no law in this story. Since Paul repeats the reference to Abraham’s belief as the only basis for righteousness, it appears that Paul will exclude other stories from entering into the picture, especially stories including circumcision. Thus, with his exclusive focus on this story to re-tell the memory of Abraham, Paul may be accused of de-familiarizing Abraham. Paul’s Abraham might not be recognizable to Judeans who knew and recognized a much broader range of stories. 37

The first quotation is from the Common English Bible; N. T. Wright, “Paul,” 225–28. D. A. Campbell, “Towards a New, Rhetorically Assisted Reading of Romans 3.27–4.25,” in Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible (ed. S. E. Porter and D. L. Stamps; JSNTSup 195; Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 374–75, 387. 38

Who are the Children of Abraham in Romans 4?

203

It may be that Paul brings up references to other stories about Abraham also. In Rom 4:5 Paul describes Abraham as one “who trusts him who justifies the ungodly.” Paul may here refer to the memories of Abraham who rejected idolatry and turned to the worship of the creator God. 39 This transition was a strong tradition in Jewish scriptures from Jubilees to Philo and Josephus, 40 and it was this transition that made Abraham recognized as the first proselyte. The designation of God as one who justifies the ungodly may point to this memory of Abraham, but with a twist: it was a memory, not of Abraham’s rejection of ungodliness, but of God’s justification of him when he was still ungodly!

The Memory of Abraham’s Faith before Circumcision If we think of Ben Zwi’s suggestion that memory sites can make up a “wellcrafted web of sites of memory,” 41 we can see the similarity between Paul’s retelling of the memory of Abraham as ungodly and the retelling of the memory of Abraham’s circumcision in the following section, Rom 4: 9–12. In Gen 17 the story of God’s promise is followed by the command to Abraham and his descendants to be circumcised as the basis for the covenant (17:10–16, 23–27). This was the central “memory node” in Jewish traditions about Abraham. It was repeated and formed the nexus of many retellings. But Paul deconstructs this founding narrative in Judean history of identity by setting the Abraham story of God’s promise without circumcision in Gen 15 up against the narrative in Gen 17. Romans 4:11–12 illustrates how memory telling functions: Paul raises the question of whether Abraham was circumcised or uncircumcised when he received the blessing of God. Knowing that the central Judean memory node was that Abraham received the covenant of circumcision and thereby became the ancestor of the Judeans, this was a daring question to ask. Paul attacks it head on, by bringing in the story of promise without circumcision that happened prior to the story in Gen 17. On that basis Paul can claim priority for that earlier memory of Abraham: “He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised” (Rom 4:11). The function of memory telling about Abraham immediately becomes obvious when Paul continues with “The purpose was to make him the ancestor” –

39 Edward Adams (“Abraham’s Faith and Gentile Disobedience: Textual Links between Romans 1 and 4,” JSNT 19 [1997]: 47–66, 55–59) suggests that the picture of Abraham in Romans 4 represents an antithesis to the ungodliness of those who rejected God in Rom 1:18–32. 40 Nancy Calvert Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism and the People of God: The Significance of Abraham Traditions for Early Judaism and Christianity (JSNTSup 273; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 125. 41 Ben Zwi, “Abraham,” 5.

204

Halvor Moxnes

and the audience waits to hear for whom Abraham became father. In the story in Gen 17, circumcision was “a sign of the covenant” (σηµεῖον διαθήκης) between God and Abraham and his descendants (17:11). In Paul’s deconstruction he speaks of “the sign of circumcision [σηµεῖον ... περιτοµῆς] as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised [σφραγῖδα τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ].” Circumcision is now a “sign” and a “seal,” however, not of the covenant, but of the righteousness by faith that Abraham received as uncircumcised. 42 Thus, Paul turns the main memory site of Abraham’s receiving circumcision as a sign of the covenant with the Jewish people into a secondary site. Instead, Paul claims, it is the story of how Abrahams received the righteousness of God by faith, before circumcision, that is the main memory site. From that follows the logical conclusion that it was the “uncircumcised Abraham” who became the father, first of “all who believe without being circumcised” (4:11). But Paul does not, in contrast to what he seemed to do in Gal 3, reject that Abraham was the ancestor also of the circumcised. But he does redefine the importance of circumcision for their identity, parallel to how he redefined the role of circumcision in the memory of Abraham. The best translation of a difficult grammatical construction appears to be that Paul speaks of one, not two groups, viz. Jewish Christ followers, when he says that Abraham was “the ancestor of the circumcised who are not only circumcised but who also follow the example of the faith that our ancestor Abraham had before he was circumcised.” 43 This is the third time that Paul emphasizes that Abraham had his faith reckoned as righteousness before he was circumcised. Thus, you don’t have to be an exegete to see it; all listeners who had the letter read to them would notice Paul’s insistence at this point. The descent from Abraham was secured; it was still an ethnic category, but it could be obtained outside of circumcision. Paul still recognized it as part of the identity of the circumcised, but it was now a mere “sign” and not its foundation. 44

42 Michael Wolter, Der Brief an die Römer (Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament VI/I ; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener /Patmos, 2014), 289–91. 43 Wolter, Römer, 292–93; Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs, 187–88, n. 27. 44 Hodge, (If Sons, Then Heirs, 87–88), gives an interpretation of Romans 4:9–12 that is different from the one offered here in two distinct ways. First, she takes pistis in the meaning of Abraham’s “faithfulness,” which is difficult to reconcile with faith “in the promise” of God, which is the context in Romans 4. Furthermore, she does speak of Abraham being “the founder of two lineages: the uncircumcised (or “foreskin”) and the circumcised.” However, she does not discuss Paul’s text in detail, so she does not explain how she understands Paul’s explicit criticism of Gen 17 and his devaluation of circumcision.

Who are the Children of Abraham in Romans 4?

205

Who Are the Descendants of Abraham? The next section, 4:13–22, illustrates how Paul works as an entrepreneur of ethnic identities. He does not merely employ ethnic categories but he is redefining them. He takes the main memory stories about Abraham and rearranges the content of ethnicity. He keeps the main category of Abraham’s descent but he retells the stories that go into it. The issue of kinship and descent so to speak trumps all other issues. In this section Paul introduces the promise to Abraham and his descendants that they should “inherit the world,” probably a term that harks back to the promise of the land, but that takes on a universal dimension. 45 Immediately he raises the question of how they should inherit and who should inherit. And once again drawing on his core paradigm for the memory of Abraham, righteousness by faith and not by the law, Paul excludes “those of the law,” a parallel to the circumcised in 4:11–12, from becoming heirs. It sounds very drastic to exclude Judeans from the heritage of the promise; maybe Paul modifies his position in the following section. Since Paul excluded “those of the law” from the inheritance of the promises of God, he introduces his alternative: those “of faith” (4:16–22). But this is a more complicated matter; it requires more time and brings up more examples. Paul also enters into a more narrative mode in his memory of Abraham. He brings his own core story based on Gen 15 once again into dialogue with the memories based on Gen 17, as well as a supporting story the promise to Abraham and Sara of a son in Gen 18. The promise to Abraham and “to his seed” to “inherit the world” established an inclusive group of descendants. Paul started in 4:1 by introducing Abraham as “our ancestor according to the flesh,” a title that appeared to limit the group to one ethnic category, but in this section Paul repeatedly uses expressions like “all” and “many.” Paul here speaks of Abraham as “the father of all of us” (4:16d), and that included “all his descendants” (4:16b), a group that comprised not only “the adherents of the law but also ... those who share the faith of Abraham.” Abraham’s inclusive fatherhood is also supported by a quote from Gen 17:5: “I have made you the father of many nations” (4:17). Paul’s emphasis on the descent from Abraham shows a strong continuity with Jewish genealogy; it is not possible for him to speak of the identity of those who believe in Christ apart from their kinship with Abraham. Paul’s expression in Rom 9:1–5 and 11:1 of his own identity as a Judean clearly shows that he does not break with his ethnic group. But he includes this group with members on the non-Judean groups and points to a new basis for its identity. The main factors, which are legitimized through the example of Abraham, are faith and promise,

45

Wolter, Römer, 296–97.

206

Halvor Moxnes

and they shape the identity of the group. Paul repeats his description of the descendants in terms similar to those he used in vv. 11–12. The phrase οὐ τῷ ἐκ τοῦ νόµου µόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ ἐκ πίστεως ᾿Αβραάµ (4:16), has caused difficulties: who are included in the two groups? 46 From Paul’s exclusion of any association between the promise and “those of the law” (vv. 12, 14), it would appear that “those of the Law” would include Judeans who were also Christ believers, and that the other group were comprised of gentile Christ believers. Thus, “faith” would be the basis for the identity of the descendants of Abraham, and the Jews who were not Christ believers were excluded. However, it is worth considering another possibility that may sound plausible in light of chapter 11. There, Paul speaks of the “mystery” that after a period of rejection, all Israel might ultimately be saved by God’s mercy. And in his list of the advantages that Israel has in 9:4–5, Paul lists also “the promises.” Therefore, it is possible that οὐ τῷ ἐκ τοῦ νόµου µόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ ἐκ πίστεως ᾿Αβραάµ refers to the two groups: Judeans, regardless of their relation to Christ, and Christ believers from among the nations. Paul tells the Abraham story from a perspective in which God intervenes in issues of ethnicity and kinship. Paul links the designation of Abraham as “father of us all” with the formula of God “who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist” (4:17). 47 These are partly traditional and well-known expressions, but they also have obvious contextual references. That God gives life to the dead, a reference to resurrection, provides a link between Abraham’s faith and faith in the God who resurrected Jesus (4:24). That God is creator who “calls into existence the things that do not exist” is a statement that has links to the immediate context of the promise to Abraham. Both in Philo and in other Hellenistic Jewish writings, this form of God language is used in narratives about inclusion of gentiles with Jews. 48 The first century CE Jewish romance Joseph and Aseneth describes how a gentile woman, Aseneth, could become part of the Jewish fellowship by a transition from death to life. 49 Joseph’s prayers for her may reflect a liturgy used when proselytes were received into the synagogue. Here God is addressed as He “who makes all things to live, who calls out of darkness into night and from error to truth, from death to life” (8:10). The language in Rom 4:17 of transition from death to life, from being without existence to becoming is a metaphor for how Abraham could become ancestor for all those non-Jews. Thus, the non-Jews were considered as “dead,” “without life,” so that their inclusion into the descendants of Abraham was an act of creation by God. 46 47 48 49

Wolter, Römer, 301–302. Moxnes, Theology in Conflict, 241–53. See Jub. 16:19; Philo, QG 3.42. Moxnes, Theology in Conflict, 242–45.

Who are the Children of Abraham in Romans 4?

207

In 4:18–21, however, Paul says the same about the Judeans; their existence as Abraham’s kin was also an act of creation from nothingness into existence. Paul linked the promise of numerous descendants and “many nations” to the promise of Isaac, the heir of Abraham. Among the memories about Abraham were also the stories of Abraham’s two sons: Ishmael with Hagar (Gen 16) and Isaac with Sarah, the last one according to the promise of God (Gen 17–18). In his retelling of the promise about Isaac Paul highlights the descriptions of the “dead” bodies of Abraham and Sarah, emphasizing how impossible was the promise of a son. The story of the promise of Isaac was obviously an important part of the Abraham memory cycle. Paul uses it also in Rom 9 where he struggles with the problem that so many Judeans had rejected Christ, and he wonders whether God had rejected his people (9:6–12). Paul says an emphatic “no,” but has to give a redefinition of what it meant to be an Israelite and a child of Abraham: “For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, and not all of Abraham’s descendants are his true children, but ‘It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.’ This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants” (9:6–8). The point that Paul makes is that just as God created true descendants for Abraham through the promise of Isaac, so now also he created descendants for Abraham through the promise of Christ. Paul here introduces a new definition of being a descendant of Abraham: it is not biology that determines the right of descent, but God’s promise. Paul’s discussion in Rom 4:16–22, read together with 9:6–12 can be illuminated by discourses on descent in the Greco-Roman understanding of birth and genealogy, as Caroline Johnson Hodge has outlined it in If Sons, Then Heirs. 50 Kinship and ethnicity in societies in antiquity were based on patrilineal descent and a central point was therefore to protect and legitimize this descent. One of the ways this happened was through the notion of descent as a “natural” phenomenon. On the other hand descent and genealogy was also socially shaped, for instance, by creating genealogies whereby one crafted one’s family into a more illustrious lineage. The same could occur with ethnicity, it was considered as natural, but could be socially constructed. Famous ancestors played a large role in assumptions of kinship and ethnicity; and Abraham was a typical example of someone who was regarded as ancestor of many Jews. Since the ancestor is the model of character for his descendants, Abraham’s descendants were those who shared his main characteristic: “faith.” But πίστις had many meanings, and were used in the memories of Abraham in many different ways. In Jewish memory traditions an important node was the story of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son in obedience to God, with “faith-

50

Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs, 19–42.

208

Halvor Moxnes

fulness” as the main aspect of πίστις. Another perspective on such faithfulness was his entering into covenant with God through circumcision. Paul leaves out both these two central memory stories, and sets forth a characteristic of faith by “hope-against hope,” 51 that focuses on Abraham’s faith in the power of God and his willingness to do what he had promised. As a result the differences between the two groups are minimized, they are one group of descendants.

Conclusions What I could not see in the 1970s was that when Paul speaks of God’s inclusion of Judeans and non-Judeans he is actually speaking with ethnic categories, but redefining them. Kinship and descent are part of what was understood to be part of the content of ethnicity, and now this content was redefined. Paul obviously understood himself within a Judean ethnicity, and in Rom 4 he is engaged in including Greeks and other non-Judean Christ believers into a central strand of that ethnicity, viz. the descent of Abraham. However, that required that he retell the memory of Abraham to make that inclusion possible. The introduction to Paul’s memory of Abraham starts with his acceptance of the traditional Jewish division of the world into two parts, with the question of what Abraham, “our ancestor according to the flesh” gained. And throughout the chapter, Paul uses the terminology of his Jewish, ethnic map. 52 He speaks of circumcised and uncircumcised, of those “who are of the law,” and of those of “many nations.” But it soon becomes clear that Paul is retelling and reshaping memory; in particular, he is breaking down the ethnic map with its divisions between Jews and gentiles. First of all, he breaks down the “natural descent” from Abraham. He speaks of Abraham as the “father of us all,” and it becomes clear that there is no distinction between “those of the law” and “those who share the faith of Abraham” in terms of natural birth. Birth is only by God – “who calls into existence the things that do not exist.” The example of Abraham shows that all are born in the same way, by the power of God. Paul brings forth the image of Abraham’s (almost) dead body to show that he, as ancestor of descendants through Isaac, could not himself produce sons according to the promise. The promise of Isaac as Abraham’s heir and the inclusion of non-Judeans into the kinship of Abraham were events of the same type. To Paul the one was not more “natural” than the other; it was impossible to claim a natural versus a fictive kinship. 51 Paul did not discuss the problem of Abraham’s doubt in Gen 17:17, that had to be overcome in presentations of Abraham’s faith; see similar descriptions also in Heb 11:11–12; Philo, Abr. 111; QG 3.55; Moxnes, Theology in Conflict, 155–63. 52 Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs, 43–66.

Who are the Children of Abraham in Romans 4?

209

Also the Judeans as descendants of Abraham through Isaac had to recognize that they, too, were created by God from nothing. The result is that Paul shapes two groups of descendants of Abraham, consisting of Judeans and non-Judeans; but they are all made descendants in the same way, through God’s promise and his power to do what he had promised. This category of kinship is such an important part of the content of ethnicity so that we must think that Paul wanted to include non-Judeans into the ethnicity of Abraham. However, differences between the two groups remain; Paul’s discourse on Abraham as father seems to present a partial argument, compare the contrast to his very different argumentation in Gal 3, and also the “mystery” about the final salvation of all of Israel in Rom 11 that cannot be rationally defended. How does my reading compare to the studies by Esler and Hodge that I have drawn on in reading Rom 4 in terms of ethnic categories? In his discussion of Paul’s argument in Romans, Esler builds on social identity theories about how to solve intergroup conflicts. 53 In order to bring two subgroups together under a superordinate identity their preexisting identities must be accepted. Esler sees faith and righteousness in Christ as the common elements that the two groups have in common, and suggests that “this is an identity that transcends the fundamental ethnic division among them between Judeans and Greeks.” 54 Esler makes this conclusion after a thorough reading of all of Romans. On the basis of Rom 4, however, I do not find that Paul establishes an identity that transcends the ethnic division, but rather that he includes Greeks in the ethnicity of Abraham. Thus, I sympathize with Hodge’s suggestion that “being in-Christ is not ethnically neutral; rather, it falls under the umbrella of Jewishness.” But Hodge also points out, rightly I think, that Paul does not consider “gentiles-inChrist as Jews,” and that he “does not develop a language of peoplehood for the established communities of Christ followers.” 55 The difficulties in reaching definitive conclusions reflect, I suppose, the fact that Paul himself has not reached firm conclusions; he is also underway in his reflections on the impact of his mission to non-Judeans, “without the Law.” His missionary praxis went ahead of his theological reflections. But there can be no doubt that he reconstructed the collective memory of Abraham in such a way that non-Jews could be included among the descendants of Abraham; cf. Halbwachs’ notion that “collective memory is essentially a reconstruction of the past (that) adepts the image of historical facts to the beliefs and spiritual needs of the present.” 56 But Paul did not undertake this re53 54 55 56

Esler, Conflict and Identity, 27–33. Esler, Conflict and Identity, 360. Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs, 150, 151. Halbwachs, La Topographie, 7.

210

Halvor Moxnes

construction for the sake of the non-Judeans only, he also required the Judeans to identify with a memory of Abraham that downplayed circumcision and that placed them on the same level with the non-Judeans as children of Abraham. Thus, I cannot see that Hodge’s thesis: “being in-Christ does not involve shifting or mixing for Jews, it is already a Jewish identity,” does justice to Paul’s argumentation in Rom 4. Paul did not question that Christ-believers among the Judeans continued to keep their ethnic identity, but so far as their descent from Abraham and his role as a model of identity was concerned, Paul challenged them to accept a reconstructed memory. Thus, both the non-Judeans who were integrated among the descent of Abraham and Judeans who had their ancestry redefined experienced shifting and mixing of their identities. Becoming “in Christ,” nothing remained just the same.

John’s Prophetic Commission and the People of the World (Rev 10:8–11) David E. Aune Abstract The author of Revelation regarded himself as a prophet and claimed that what he was writing was a prophetic work. In keeping with these convictions, he also includes two prophetic call narratives, one in Rev 1:9–20 (in which he is divinely commanded to address Christians directly) and the other in Rev 10:8–11 (in which he is commanded to address the people of the world indirectly). While the first call narrative emphasizes the author’s prophetic commission to Christians, particularly the seven churches in Roman Asia (consisting of both Jews and Gentiles who had become followers of Jesus), the second, modeled after Ezek 2:8–3:4, makes it clear that the Gospel is intended for Gentiles as well as Jews as Rev 10:11 makes clear: “You must again prophesy about many peoples and nations and tongues and kings.” Rather than direct his prophetic message to Gentiles directly, the author makes it clear to his Christian readers that he is indirectly addressing people everywhere. In seven passages in which four ethnic categories are listed, always in a different order, the author prophesies that many, though not all, Gentiles will in fact respond positively to the message of salvation.

Introduction In considering the theme of The Church and Its Mission in the New Testament in this volume, dedicated to the memory of my friend and colleague Hans Kvalbein, I propose to explore some important aspects of the role played by early Christian prophecy in the mission of the church as reflected in the Revelation of John. Even though Revelation is usually categorized generically as an apocalypse, 1 it does have several features not typically found in Jewish apocalypses. For example, it does share a number of features with the later prophetic books of the Old Testament that some have characterized as proto-apocalyptic 2 or as prophetic apocalypses, that is, they are transitional visionary works that share some of the characteristics of Old Testament prophetic works and others with Jewish apocalypses. 3 1 For a summary of the scholarly discussion of this issue, see David E. Aune, Revelation (3 vols.; WBC 52; Dallas: Word Books, 1997), 1:lxx–xc. 2 Michael Stone, Scriptures, Sects and Visions: A Profile of Judaism from Ezra to the Jewish Revolts (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 46; Paul D. Hanson, Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979). 3 Aune, Revelation, 1:lxxvii–xc.

212

David E. Aune

There are two prominent features of the Revelation of John not found in Jewish apocalypses, but which are typical of OT prophecy to which I would like to call attention: 4 First, while all Jewish apocalypses are pseudonymous, that is, they are not attributed to the actual authors of the works, but rather are deceptively attributed to famous ancient Israelites (e. g., Enoch, Abraham, Ezra, Baruch), the Revelation of John is attributed to the actual author, an individual named John, a Jewish Christian who flourished toward the end of the first century CE in western Asia Minor. 5 The primary function of pseudonymous authorship was to impart the authority of a famous ancient Israelite to a religious text written by an otherwise unknown author. The religious authority of the Revelation of John, on the other hand, is based primarily on the author’s repeated claim that what he writes has been revealed to him by God through the agency of angelic beings. In contrast with pseudonymous Jewish or Christian apocalypses, Revelation is set in the real world shared by the author and his audience. Second, and more important for this essay, another fundamental difference between prophetic literature and apocalyptic literature is the type of message presented. 6 In prophecy, the prophetic oracle was addressed directly to the people of God offering them the possibility of repentance and a change of heart made all the more urgent due of the threat of the impending judgment of God. In contrast to prophetic literature, the message of Jewish apocalypses did not include a conditional aspect due to the threat of judgment, but rather emphasized the impending condemnation of Gentiles as ungodly idolaters who will suffer the wrath of a righteous God in an imminent eschatological dénouement. In line with many prophetic messengers of the Old Testament, John directs his prophetic message of repentance, not only to the people of God, i. e., the followers of Jesus (e. g., Rev 2–3), but also to all the people of the world, whether Jews or Gentiles. This reflects the Christian understanding of the people of the world as divided into two groups, not Israel and the Gentiles, but rather those who are followers of Jesus and those who are not.

4 Jewish apocalyptic literature, which flourished from ca. 200 BCE to ca. 200 CE, constitutes a type of eschatological sectarian literature which has its roots in Old Testament prophetic literature. Major examples of Jewish apocalypses include Daniel 7–12, the only apocalypse in the Old Testament (written ca. 165 BCE), the five apocalypses that constitute 1 Enoch: (1) the Book of Watchers, 1–36 (3rd cent. BCE); (2) the Parables of Enoch, 37–71 (1st cent. BCE to 1st cent. CE); (3) the Astronomical Book, 72–82 (4th to 3rd cent. BCE); (4) the Book of Dreams, 83–90 (2nd cent. BCE); (5) the Epistle of Enoch, 92–105 (2nd cent. BCE), 2 Enoch (late 1st cent. CE), 4 Ezra (late 1st cent. CE), 2 Baruch (early 2nd cent. CE), 3 Baruch (1st to 3rd cent. CE) and the Apocalypse of Abraham (1st to 2nd cent. CE). 5 While the Apocalypse explicitly claims to have been written by “John” (1:1, 4, 9; 22:8), it is not at all clear who this individual is; see Aune, Revelation, 1:xlvii–lvi. 6 For the following, see Collins, Apocalyptic Vision, 75–76.

John’s Prophetic Commission and the People of the World (Rev 10:8–11)

213

John’s Prophetic Vocation Though the author of the Revelation of John never explicitly claims to be a prophet, there can be little doubt that he had a prophetic self-understanding. He designated what he was writing as οἱ λόγοι τῆς προφητείας, “prophetic words” (1:3) and as οἱ λόγοι τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου, “the prophetic words of this book” (22:7, 10, 18, 19), making it clear that he considered the book or roll (βιβλίον) he was writing to be a prophetic work. He comes closest to identifying himself as a prophet in Rev 22:9 in a statement that he attributes to a revelatory angel: “I am a fellow servant of you and your brothers the prophets [τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου τῶν προφητῶν] and those who obey the words of this book.” This statement reflects the existence of a group of Christian prophets active in Asia Minor to which John belonged, either as an equal or perhaps as their leader. The existence of a circle of Christian prophets is confirmed in Rev 22:16, where John associates himself with a group whose task it is to communication revelation to the churches: “I Jesus have sent my angel to attest this message to you [ὑµῖν, i. e., “to you prophets”] for the churches.” 7 John refers several times to prophets as an identifiable group (11:18; 16:6; 18:20, 24; 22:6), probably Christian prophets, though OT prophets may also be included. In addition to the passages in which John identifies the scroll he is writing as prophecy and those in which he implies that he is a prophet, Revelation also contains two prophetic commissions. The first is addressed to John by the risen Christ in the vision of “one like a son of man” in 1:9–20, commanding him to write to the seven churches. The second commission is addressed to John by God in 10:8–11, where he is commissioned “to prophecy about” [προφητεῦσαι ἐπί] many peoples and languages and nations and kings. These commissions are important since John presents himself not as the author or originator of his message but rather as a mediator of a message revealed to him by God. Let us examine these commissions in more detail. The first commission in Rev 1:9–20 is framed by two related passages. In Rev 1:11, John is commanded by the risen Christ to write to each of the seven churches: “Write what you see on a scroll [βιβλίον] and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea” (1:11). The command to write is then repeated at the beginning of each of the seven proclamations (2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14). 8 The addressee in each

7 David E. Aune, “The Prophetic Circle of John of Patmos and the Exegesis of Revelation 22:16,” in idem, Apocalypticism, Prophecy and Magic in Early Christianity (WUNT 199; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 250–260. 8 For arguments categorizing the seven texts in Rev 2–3 as proclamations rather than letters, see David E. Aune, “The Form and Function of the Proclamations to the Seven Churches (Rev 2–3),” NTS 36 (1990): 182–204.

214

David E. Aune

instance is the angel of each of the churches, e. g., “to the angel [τῷ ἀγγέλῳ] of the church in Ephesus [2:1],” apparently each angel is regarded as the heavenly representative of one of the earthly Christian communities. John’s commission to write is reiterated several other times in Revelation (14:13; 19:9; 21:5), though these three passages all relate to the body of Revelation (4:1–22:5). The second part of the first prophetic commission occurs in 1:19, which, even though it is placed immediately before the seven proclamations in Rev 2–3, apparently encompasses the entire book: “Therefore write down what you have seen, that is, 9 what is happening now and what shall take place after this [καὶ ἃ µέλλει γενέσθαι µετὰ ταῦτα].” Here there is no mention of the seven churches as there was in 1:11, suggesting that the entire work is written for the benefit of Christians. This is made evident by the fact that following the seven proclamations in Rev 2–3, the body of the Apocalypse is introduced when John is summoned to the heavenly throne room and (in a clear verbal allusion to 1:19) is told: “Come up here and I will show you what must happen after this [δείξω σοι ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι µετὰ ταῦτα]” (4:1). The longest prophetic call narrative is found in Rev 10:8–11: The voice, which I heard from heaven [i. e., God], again spoke to me and said, “Go and take the little open scroll [τὸ βιβλίον τὸ ἠνεῳγµένον] in the hand of the angel standing on the sea and on the land.” Then I went to the angel and asked him to give me the scroll [βιβλαρίδιον]. He said to me “Take it and eat it, and though it will irritate your stomach, it will be sweet as honey in your mouth.” Then I took the scroll [βιβλαρίδιον] from the hand of the angel and tasted it, and it was sweet as honey in my mouth, and when I swallowed it, my stomach became irritated. Then I was told, “You must again prophecy about [προφητεῦσαι ἐπί] many peoples and nations and languages and kings.”

This passage is modeled in part after the much longer call narrative found in Ezekiel 2:1–3:9, but primarily after Ezek 3:1–3. After a brief discussion of call narratives, Rev 10:8–11 will be discussed in more detail.

The Function of Call Narratives Before turning to a close reading of Rev 10:8–11, it is important to say a few words about prophet call narratives. Call narratives, found in both the historical and prophetic literature of the Old Testament, as well as in Jewish apocalyptic literature, function to provide divine authorization to a messenger, typically a prophet, whom God has chosen to reveal his will to a particular audience. Call narratives have been structurally analyzed in some detail by a number of schol-

9

The καί translated “that is” functions epexegetically (Aune, Revelation, 1:67).

John’s Prophetic Commission and the People of the World (Rev 10:8–11)

215

ars. 10 Some important examples of call narratives in OT narrative literature include the calls of Abraham (Gen 12:1–9), Moses (Exod 3:1–21) and Samuel (1 Sam 3:1–14). Call narratives in OT prophetic literature include the calls of Isaiah (Isa 6:1–8), Jeremiah (Jer 1:4–19), Ezekiel (Ezek 2:1–3:11), prefaced by a throne vision in Ezek 1:1–27, and Hosea (Hos 1–3). An example of a throne narrative linked to a commission in apocalyptic literature is found in 1 Enoch 14:8–16:3). 11 Call narratives also occur in the NT, prime examples of which are the three parallel narratives of Paul’s call in Acts 9, 22, 26. Paul provides his own version of his apostolic call in Gal 1:15–16a: “But when God who from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his son to me, so that I might proclaim him to the Gentiles ...” This is clearly modeled after Jer 1:5, where God directly addresses Jeremiah: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you.” Two themes dominate both calls: first, Paul, like Jeremiah, was called by God before he was born, and second, Paul, like Jeremiah was sent to the Gentiles. Just as Paul modeled his apostolic call after the prophetic call of Jeremiah, so John of Patmos modeled Rev 10:8–11 after the prophetic call of Ezekiel.

A Close Reading of Rev 10:8–11 The close relationship between Rev 10:8–11 and Ezek 2:8–3:4 is evident when the two passages are placed side-by-side as we have done below. It is obvious that while John has modeled his call narrative on the one found in Ezekiel, he has also made numerous changes, some of which are more significant than others. John made elaborate use of the Old Testament throughout his work, alluding to both Hebrew and Greek texts scores if not hundreds of times, though due to the elusive character of many these allusions, there is wide disagreement on just how many passages he refers to. 12 While John alludes to a wide variety of OT

10 David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 97–99; Norman Habel, “The Form and Significance of the Call Narrative,” ZAW 77 (1965): 297–323; D. N. Phinney, “Call /Commission Narratives,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011), 65–71; Fred Guyette, “The Genre of the Call Narrative: Beyond Habel’s Model,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 43 (2015): 54–58. 11 Helge S. Kvanvig, “Throne Visions and Monsters: The Encounter between Danielic and Enochic Tradtions,” ZAW 117 (2005): 249–272; Ryan E. Stokes, “The Throne Visions of Daniel 7, 1 Enoch 14 and the Qumran Book of Giants (4Q530): An Analysis of Their Literary Relationship,” Dead Sea Discoveries 15 (2008): 340–58. 12 Jon Paulien, “Elusive Allusions: The Problematic Use of the Old Testament in Revelation,” Biblical Research 33 (1988): 37–53. Paulien himself identifies 288 allusions to the OT in Revelation.

216

David E. Aune

texts in Revelation, he tends to favor Ezekiel as several studies have shown. 13 Beate Kowalski, for example, finds no less than 135 allusions to Ezekiel in Revelation and even claims that the author quotes Ezekiel five times: Ezek 31:8 (Rev 2:7); Ezek 7:2 (Rev 7:1); Ezek 3:3 Rev 10:10); Ezek 27:32 (Rev 18:18); Ezek 11:20 (Rev 21:7). 14 One of these “quotations” is drawn from the narrative of Ezekiel’s prophetic call in Ezek 2:1–3:11, the longest prophetic call narrative in the OT. The specific portion of this call narrative which lies behind Rev 10:8–11 is Ezek 2:8–3:4: Ezekiel 2:8–3:4

Revelation 10:8–11

2:8 “But you, son of man, hear what I say to you, be not rebellious like that rebellious house [of Israel]; open your mouth and eat what I give to you.” 2:9 And when I looked, behold, a hand was stretched out to me, and lo, a written scroll was in it; 2:10 and he spread it before me; and it had writing on the front and on the back, and there were written on it words of lamentation and mourning and woe. 3:1 And he said to me, “Son of man, eat what is offered to you; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” 3:2 So I opened my mouth, and he gave me the scroll to eat. 3:3 And he said to me, “Son of man, eat this scroll that I give you and fill your stomach with it.” Then I ate it and it was in my mouth as sweet as honey. 3:4 And he said to me, “Son of man, go, get you to the house of Israel, and speak words to them.”

10:8 The voice, which I heard from heaven [i. e., God] again spoke to me and said, “Go and take the little scroll [τὸ βιβλίον] which lies open [τὸ ἡνεῳγµένον] in the hand of the angel standing on the sea and on the land.” 10:9 Then I went to the angel and asked him to give me the scroll [βιβλαρίδιον]. He said to me “Take it and eat it, and though it will irritate your stomach, it will be sweet as honey in your mouth.” 10:10 Then I took the scroll [βιβλαρίδιον] from the hand of the angel and tasted it, and it was sweet as honey in my mouth, and when I swallowed it, my stomach became irritated.

10:11 And I was told, [λέγουσίν µοι] “You must again prophesy about [προφητεῦσαι ἐπί] many peoples and nations and languages and kings.”

There are several ways in which the author of Revelation has modified the prophetic call found in Ezek 2:1–3:9: 1). Most importantly, the command given to John which concludes the call narrative in Rev 10:11 has no counterpart in Ezekiel: καὶ λέγουσίν µοι δεῖ σε πάλιν προφητεῦσαι ἐπὶ λαοῖς καὶ ἔθνεσιν καὶ

13 Jean-Pierre Ruiz, Ezekiel in the Apocalypse: The Transformation of Prophetic Language in Revelation 16:17–19:10 (Frankfurt am Main, Bern, New York and Paris: Peter Lang, 1989); Dieter Sänger and Michael Bachmann. Das Ezekielbuch in der Johannesoffenbarung (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004); Beate Kowalski, Die Rezeption des Propheten Ezechiel in der Offenbarung des Johannes (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2004). 14 Kowalski, Die Rezeption des Propheten Ezechiel, 264–65.

John’s Prophetic Commission and the People of the World (Rev 10:8–11)

217

γλῶσσαις καὶ βασιλεῦσιν πολλοῖς, “Then I was told: ‘You must again prophesy about many peoples and nations and tongues and kings.’” The command to Ezekiel in Ezek 3:3, on the other hand, is phrased in this way: “He [God] said: ‘Son of man, go now to the house of Israel, and speak my words to them’” (Ezek 3:3). The difference is quite striking. While Ezekiel is told to address the divine message to Israel, John is told to prophecy about all people, i. e., Gentiles as well as Jews. The command to John is introduced with the phrase καὶ λέγουσίν µοι, literally translated “then they said to me.” Here the third-person plural verb λέγουσιν is an idiom used in Hebrew and Aramaic, 15 as well as Greek, as a substitute for the passive so that the phrase should be translated “I was told.” 16 In this case the passive is a circumlocution for divine activity, i. e., a passivum divinum, which should be understood to mean “God told me.” 17 It is striking that in Rev 11:1, which follows directly after 10:11 (and also lacks any of the author’s typical ways of marking the beginning of a new textual unit), contains a more conventional passive: 18 “Then I was given [καὶ ἐδόθη µοι κάλαµος] a reed, like a staff, with these instructions: ‘Go and measure the temple of God, including the altar area, and count those who worship within it.’” The phrase καὶ ἐδόθη µοι κάλαµος, “then a reed was given to me” is also a passivum divinum, i. e., the use of the passive voice when a divine being, typically God, is understood to be the actor. The adverb πάλιν (“again”) in the phrase δεῖ σε πάλιν προφητεῦσαι ἐπὶ (“it is necessary that you prophecy again about”) indicates that John’s prophetic commission in Rev 1:9–20 (esp. vv. 11, 19) is being reiterated, this time with the indirect audience specified as “many peoples and nations and tongues and kings.” While the preposition ἐπί + dative is ambiguous and can be translated either as “against” or “about, concerning” (as in Barn. 5:30), in this context the more neutral translation “about” or “concerning” is preferable. 19 The peo15 Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A. E. Cowley (2nd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1910), § 144 g; F. Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (Wiesbaden: Harsassowitz, 1963), § 181; J. H. Moulton and W. F. Howard, Accidence and Word Formation, vol. 2 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek (2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928), 447–48. 16 See Aune, Revelation, 2:552–53. 17 For a history of the use of the divine passive, particularly in the Gospels, see Marius Reiser, Jesus and Judgement: The Eschatological Proclamation in Its Jewish Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 266–70. The passivum divinum is used twenty-two times in Revelation: see Aune, Revelation, 2:394–95, 527–28. Closely related to the passivum divinum is the passivum regium, from which it may have originated; see Christian Macholz, “Das ‘Passivum divinum,’ seine Anfänge im Alten Testament und der ‘Hofstil’,” ZNW 91 (1990): 247–53. 18 Most interpreters have divided the section in 10:1–11:13 into two angelic revelations, i. e., 10:1–11 and 11:1–14 (including the present author: Aune, Revelation, 2.547–61), this appears to be incorrect, The sequential use of these two very differently formulated passiva divina is a clear indication that the narrative sequence beginning in 11:1 is in fact a continuation of that found in 10:11. Unfortunately, the compositional complexities of Rev 10:1–11:13 cannot be treated in detail in this essay. 19 The translation “against” (which I argued for earlier, see Aune, Revelation, 2:573–74) reflects a typically negative apocalyptic attitude toward the nations. However, as we shall see below, John’s

218

David E. Aune

ple of the world mentioned in 10:11 constitute the indirect audience of John’s prophetic ministry, since he nowhere addresses them directly. Why an indirect audience? The most likely answer is that he wants his Christian audience to be fully aware that the Gospel message is not limited to the Jewish people, but is intended for all people. For a more detailed discussion of how John understands his indirect audience, see below. (2) In Ezek 2:1–3:2, it is God who gives Ezekiel an open scroll (κεφαλὶς βιβλίου) to eat, on which were written words of lamentation, mourning and woe on both the obverse and reverse of the scroll (2:10), i. e., a negative message. In Rev 10:2a, 9–10, on the other hand, while it is God who speaks to John directly, as in Ezek 2–3, commands him to take the scroll from a mighty angel who appears holding a scroll (βιβλαρίδιον), which he gives to John. This angelic figure, missing from Ezekiel, fits well with the rest of Rev 10, which is dominated by the figure of “another mighty angel” (10:1). (3) In Ezek 3:3, the prophet is told by God to eat the scroll. When he does so, he discovers that it is sweet like honey in his mouth. In Rev 10:9–10, on the other hand, the mighty angel tells John to each the scroll and explicitly tells him that it will be bitter in his stomach (a feature not found in Ezekiel), but sweet as honey in his mouth. When John eats the scroll, this is exactly what he experiences. (4) In Ezekiel, God tells the prophet to go to the house of Israel and speak his very words to them (Ezek 3:4), an entirely negative message, as we have already learned, consisting of words of lamentation, mourning and woe (2:10). He further explains that he is not sending Ezekiel to a people whose language he cannot easily understand and if he were to do so, they would listen to him (Ezek 3:4b–6), but he is sending him to the house of Israel (3:10). In Revelation, on the other hand, John is told that he must again prophesy about many peoples and nations and languages and kings (Rev 10:11). While it is obvious that John modeled his prophetic call in Rev 10:8–11 on Ezkiel, the question remains: Why did John choose to model this call narrative after Ezekiel 2–3 and not after one of the other OT prophetic call narratives mentioned above? The most likely reason that John chose to rework the call of Ezekiel into his own prophetic call is because he was drawn to the figure of the open scroll as a metaphor for the prophetic message. This open scroll, given to Ezekiel by God, represents the prophetic message that Ezekiel must first internalize by consuming it as a necessary prerequisite for its proclamation by the prophet. John regarded the product of his own prophetic commission, attitude toward the people of the world oscillated between positive and negative and therefore the more neutral translation “about, concerning” is preferable. See Craig Koester, Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 38A; New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2014), 483.

John’s Prophetic Commission and the People of the World (Rev 10:8–11)

219

not as an oral proclamation, but rather as a βιβλίον (“scroll”) identical with the Book of Revelation (1:11; 22:7, 10, 18, 19). In addition to these five instances in which βιβλίον refers explicitly to Revelation, the term is also used of three other scrolls: 20 (1) the βιβλίον sealed with seven seals (5:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9), (2) τὸ βιβλίον τῆς ζωῆς, “Book of Life” (13:8; 17:8; 20:12), (3) the unrolled scroll (βιβλαρίδιον) which John is commanded to eat (10:2, 9, 10) also designated as a βιβλίον (10:8). There has been a continuing debate over whether or not the sealed scroll in Rev 5 and the open scroll of Rev 10 are different ways of referring to the same scroll or are two different scrolls. 21 The view of this author is that they are not the same. Even though Ezek 2–3 is the source of the scroll imagery in both Rev 5 and 10, the scrolls do not symbolize the same thing. The only link between the scroll sealed with seven seals in Rev 5 and Ezek 2–3 is the fact that the scroll is written on both sides (Ezek 2:10). It is therefore an exaggeration to regard Rev 5 and 10 as literary doublets. 22 A major similarity between the scrolls described in Ezek 2:9–10 and Rev 10:2, 9 is that they are both open (making the imagery rather awkward), while the scroll in Rev 5 is sealed with seven seals that provide the narrative framework in Rev 6:1–8:1 signaled by the successive opening of each seal. The scroll sealed with seven seals in Rev 5 is referred to only as a βιβλίον (5:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9), while the open scroll in Rev 10 is called both a βιβλαρίδιον (10:2, 9, 10) and a βιβλίον (10:8), both of which mean “scroll.” The term βιβλίον, though it appears to be a diminutive, actually never had a diminutive meaning, 23 since the suffix – ιον in this word has the meaning “something made of [papyrus].” 24 The first occurrence of βιβλίον in 5:1 lacks a definite article, i. e., it is anarthrous, a grammatical indication reflecting the author’s assumption that this particular βιβλίον is unfamiliar to the readers. The remaining six occurrences have definite articles, i. e., they are anaphoric, reflecting the author’s assumption that they are the same βιβλίον mentioned in 5:1. The terminology in Rev 10 is more complex, since the author uses two forms meaning “scroll,” i. e., τὸ βιβλίον ἠνεῳγµένον (10:8) and βιβλαρίδιον (with the archaic form βιβλιδάριον as a vari-

20 In addition there are the βιβλία that are opened during the last judgment (mentioned twice in Rev 20:12, an allusion to the judgment scene in Dan 7, where βίβλοι ἠνεῴχθησαν, “the books were opened” (Dan 7:10), probably referring to the early Jewish tradition of two heavenly books, one containing the deeds of the righteous and the other the deeds of the wicked. 21 Two scholars who regard the scrolls of Rev 5 and 10 as identical are Frederick D. Mazzaferi, The Genre of the Book of Revelation from a Form-Critical Perspective (BZNW 54; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1989) and Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies in the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 243–266. Some of those who regard the scrolls as different include two very early commentators on the Apocalypse, Origen and Oecumenius; see Leslie Baynes, “Revelation 5:1 and 10:2a, 8–10 in the Earliest Greek Tradition: A Response to Richard Bauckham,” JBL 125 (2010): 801–816. 22 Roland Bergmeier, “Die Buchrolle und das Lamm (Apk 5, 10),” ZNW 76 (1985): 235–40. 23 Walter Petersen, Greek Diminutives in – ion: A Study in Semantics (Weimar: R. Wagner, 1910), 11; D. C. Swanson, “Diminutives in the Greek New Testament,” JBL 77 (1958): 139. 24 Swanson, “Diminutives,” 140.

220

David E. Aune

ant reading for βιβλαρίδιον). 25 The conglutinative suffix – αριδιον, like the suffix – ιον, has the meaning “made of,” “consisting of,” and is therefore a synonym of the noun βιβλίον. 26 Using more than one word based on the βιβλ- stem referring to the same scroll might seem peculiar, but there is a close parallel in Hermas Vis. 2, where the term βιβλαρίδιον, referring to the scroll that Hermas must copy first appears without the definite article (2.1.3), then is referred to three times with two occurrences of the term τὸ βιβλίδιον, both with the definite article (2.1.4; 2.4.1) and finally with one occurrence of τὸ βιβλίον with the definite article (2.4.2), all referring to the same scroll. The first occurrence of βιβλαρίδιον in Rev 10:2 is anarthrous, while the occurrences of τὸ βίβλιον in v. 8 and the two occurrences of τὸ βιβλαρίδιον in vv. 9–10 all have the anaphoric article, indicating that these βιβλ- nouns again refer to the βιβλαρίδιον mentioned in 10:2 and are therefore synonymous. 27 Thus, despite the use of two different suffixes with of the βιβλ- root, all of these nouns refer to the same entity, just as in Hermas. However, since βιβλαρίδιον in 10:2 is anarthrous, it does not refer grammatically to the βίβλιον in Rev 5. While the phrase το βιβλίον in 10:8 has an anaphoric article (referring back to the synonymous βιβλαρίδιον in 10:2), the term βιβλαρίδιον introduced in 10:2 is anarthous and therefore grammatically cannot refer to the βιβλίον of Rev 5. The use of the definite article with all of the βιβλ- nouns after Rev 10:2 indicates that the author regarded them all as synonyms. 28

John’s Direct and Indirect Audiences John’s prophetic ministry is directed to two different but overlapping audiences. In the earlier commands to write (Rev 1:11; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14), John is commissioned to address seven specific Christian communities, though by implication all Christian communities are addressed. In Rev 1:19, an explanatory continuation of Rev 1:11, the content of John’s prophetic ministry is specified (“Therefore write down what you have seen, that is, what is happening now and what shall take place after this”), but there is no mention of the audience, though the Christian communities mentioned in 1:11 are implied. After John has finished writing the seven proclamations, the body of John’s prophetic message (4:1–22:5) is introduced in 4:1 with an invitation to enter the heavenly world where John is told that future events will be revealed to him: “Come up here and I will show you what must happen after this.” Though neither 1:19 nor 4:1 specifies the audience for whom John is prophesying, it seems evident

25 The textual variants in the occurrence of each of these nouns are extremely complex, though it appears that βιβλαρίδιον is arguably the originally reading in the four occurrences in Rev 10:2, 8–10; see Aune, Revelation, 2:549, 552. 26 Petersen, Greek Diminutives, 227. 27 The two forms βιβλαρίδιον and βιβλάριον are used synonymously in Hermas Vis. 2.1.3–4, with βιβλαρίδιον anarthrous in 2.1.3 and βιβλάριον with an anaphoric definite article in 2.1.4. 28 Baynes, “Revelation 5:1 and 10:2a, 8–10,” 805.

John’s Prophetic Commission and the People of the World (Rev 10:8–11)

221

that what follows is somehow intended for both the followers of Jesus and the people of the world, whether Christians, Jews or Gentiles. In Rev 10:11, the indirect audience is specified: “You must again prophesy about many peoples and nations and language and kings.” The fact that Christians are being told that John’s prophetic ministry is intended for all people everywhere indicates that John regards this as something that they need to know, doubtless reflecting the assumption among many early Jewish Christians that only Jews could be followers of Jesus, e. g., Acts 11:18b: “And they glorified God, saying, ‘Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life’” (cf. Acts 10:45; 11:1; 14:27; 26:20; Gal 3:8; Eph 3:6). John breaks with this tendency as well as the tendency found throughout Jewish apocalyptic literature to restrict the grace of God to the people of God, i. e., a core group of obedient Jews. The indirect audience is described using a polysyndetic list of four overlapping audiences. Polysyndeton is a literary style that consists of a list of a number of items joined by conjunctions, intended to produce the effect of extensiveness, abundance and completeness. 29 In four instances (5:9; 7:9; 13:7; 14:6), the effect of the polysyndetic list is amplified by prefacing it with an adjective meaning “all” or “every.” The list of four categories in 10:11 has six close parallels in Revelation, but for whatever reason, the categories are never listed in the same order, suggesting that the variation must be intentional: (1) 5:9: “[people from] every tribe and language and people and nation,” (2) 7:9: “a very large multitude ... from every nation and tribe and people and language,” (3) 10:11: “many peoples and nations and tongues and kings,” (4) 11:9: “[some of] the peoples and tribes and languages and nations,” (5) 13:7: “every tribe and people and language and nation,” (6) 14:6: “every nation and tribe and language and people,” (7) 17:15: “peoples and multitudes and nations and languages.” Two of these labels occurs only once: kings (10:11), and multitudes (17:15). These seven ethnic lists (only “kings” in Rev 10:11 is a non-ethnic social category) are similar to, and perhaps ultimately inspired by the seven asyndetic lists of three ethnic categories in the Aramaic section of Daniel, always consisting of the same sequence of plural nouns: “peoples, nations and languages” (3:4, 7, 29; 4:1; 5:19; 6:25; 7:14). 30 These three ethnic categories are used by the author of Daniel to describe the varied populations within the empires ruled by the Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar (3:4, 7, 29; 4:1), Belshazzar (5:19), and the Persian king Darius (6:25). Rather than referring to the population of the entire world, these lists mention only those who are living within the confines

29 David E. Aune, “Polysyndeton,” in idem, The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric (Louisville and London: John Knox Press, 2003), 367. 30 The fact that there are seven lists of ethnic categories in Daniel, just as there are in Revelation, supports the view that these lists influenced the author of Revelation.

222

David E. Aune

of the Babylonian and Persian empires. An exception is found in the throne vision in Dan 7:1–28, where the one like a son of man “was given dominion and glory and kingdom that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him” (7:14). This last list is closest in meaning to the seven lists in Revelation, since it refers to “all peoples, nations and languages” in the world, rather than within a particular empire. Of the seven lists of ethnic categories found in Revelation, four have a predominantly positive emphasis (Rev 5:9; 7:9; 14:6–7), two have both positive and negative features (11:9; 13:7–8), while one is neutral (10:8–11). The first positive list of ethic categories, found in Rev 5:9, occurs (like Dan 7:14) within the narrative setting of a throne vision and is part of a hymn sung by the twentyfour elders before the throne of God. This list emphasizes the universal response to the gospel made evident by the fact that the author uses the partitive genitive as the object of the verb “ransomed” (ἠγόρασας) making it necessary to supply an object for the verb in English, in this case a logical choice is “people” who have been ransomed by the blood of the Lamb, i. e., the church is comprised of people of every national origin: Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain and by your blood did ransom for God [people] from every tribe and tongue and people and nation [ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους] and made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.

The second ethnic list in Rev 7:9, again includes a partitive genitive, though this time the object of the verb εἶδον is made explicit in the phrase “a great multitude” standing before the throne and before the Lamb: After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no man could number, from every nation [ἐκ παντὸς ἔθνους καὶ φυλῶν καὶ λαῶν καὶ γλωσσῶν] and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes with palm branches in their hands.

Revelation 7:9–17 is an eschatological scene before the throne of God in which a great and innumerable multitude the redeemed is gathered before God. This great multitude of the redeemed consists of both Jews and Gentiles and is identical with the people mentioned in Rev 5:9, who have been ransomed “from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.” The third ethnic list is found in our base text in Rev 10:8–11 which contains one outlying term which is not ethnic but social: “You must again prophecy about many peoples and nations and tongues and kings [δεῖ σε πάλιν προφητεῦσαι ἐπὶ λαοῖς καὶ ἔθνεσιν καὶ γλώσσαις καὶ βασιλεῦσιν].” Here the plural term βασιλεῖς, “kings,” is a social category mentioned seventeen times in Revelation. Several times the term has a very positive sense, since the Lamb is described as being king of kings (17:14; 19:16) and ruler of the kings of the earth

John’s Prophetic Commission and the People of the World (Rev 10:8–11)

223

(1:5). The category “kings” occurs only in the list of otherwise ethnic terms in Rev 10:11. Kings are mentioned in a list of people holding a variety of social stations and ranks in Rev 6:15: “Then the kings of the earth and the great men and the generals and the rich and the strong, and every one, slave and free, hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains ...” In Revelation, the plural form “kings” are typically metonyms for the armies they lead (16:12, 14). In an eschatological passage in Rev 17:18, the Lamb is depicted as having dominion over the kings of the earth (17:18). The Great Harlot, a metaphor for Rome is the one with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication (17:2; 18:3, 9), and with the wine of whose fornication the dwellers on earth have become drunk (17:2) – here kings and dwellers on the earth are related. Kings can be regarded as subject to the Lamb and who, in the eschaton, shall bring their glory to the New Jerusalem (21:24). Yet elsewhere in Revelation the Whore of Babylon is described as having dominion over the kings of the earth (17:18), who figuratively commit fornication with her (18:3), i. e., join her in resisting God. In association with the Beast, the kings of the earth will make war against Christ depicted as the Rider on the White Horse (19:19). The “kings of the earth” (6:15; 17:2, 18), the “kings of the east” (6:5; 16:12) or the “kings of the whole world” (16:14) are hostile to God and the Lamb and assemble for war against them. The picture is therefore mixed. While most references to earthly kings depict them as hostile to God and the Lamb, they can also be presented as subject to God and the Lamb. The fourth ethnic list is found in a highly symbolic narrative of the prophetic ministry and death of the two witnesses in Rev 11:4–13. The ethnic list itself is found in Rev 11:9, which describes a surrealistic scene in which people from everywhere in the world gaze on the dead bodies of the two witnesses who had been killed by the beast and demonstrate their hostility toward the two witnesses by refusing them burial: For three days and a half, [some] of the peoples [ἐκ τῶν λαῶν καὶ φυλῶν καὶ γλωσσῶν καὶ ἐθνῶν] and tribes and tongues and nations gaze [βλέπουσιν] at their dead bodies and refuse to let them be buried in a tomb.

Here again, the partitive genitive functions as the subject of the verb (here βλέπουσιν). This is not the end of the story, however, for while some of the people of the world are rejoicing over the death of the two witnesses, a voice from heaven summons them and they return to life and ascend to heaven. This scene is followed by an earthquake which causes the destruction of a tenth part of the city and the death of 7,000 of its inhabitants (Rev 11:13): And at that hour there was a great earthquake, and a tenth of the city fell; seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the rest were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.

224

David E. Aune

As a result of this judgment, an unspecified number of survivors “gave glory to the God of heaven [ἔδωκαν τῷ θεῷ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ],” i. e., they were converted. 31 While the plagues visited upon the people of the world elsewhere in Revelation do not always result in repentance (6:15–17; 9:20–21; 16:9, 11), in this instance that is precisely what happens. The fifth ethnic list in Rev 13:7–8 is used in both a negative and positive way: Also it [the Beast] was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it [the Beast] over every tribe and people and tongue and nation [ἐπὶ πᾶσαν φύλην καὶ λαὸν καὶ γλῶσσαν καὶ ἔθνος] and all who dwell on the earth will worship it, every one whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain.

In v. 7, all the people of the world are characterized as under the authority of the Beast as the phrase “all who dwell on the earth will worship it” seems to clearly indicate. As we learn in v. 8, however, there is a group of unspecified size who do not worship the Beast, that is, “every one whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain.” The sixth ethnic list is found in Rev 14:6–7, where the task of proclaiming the “eternal gospel” to those who dwell on the earth is given to an angel flying in midheaven: Then I saw another angel flying in midheaven, with an eternal gospel to proclaim [εὐαγγέλιον αἰώνιον εὐαγγελίσαι] to those who dwell on the earth, that is, 32 to every nation and tribe and tongue and people [ἐπὶ πᾶν ἔθνος καὶ φυνὴν καὶ γλῶσσαν καὶ λαόν] and he said with a loud voice, ‘Fear God and give him glory, for the hour of his judgment has come; and worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the fountains of water.’

The noun εὐαγγέλιον (“gospel”), so common in the Pauline letters, occurs only here in revelation with obvious eschatological significance, since the final judgment has now come and repentance to escape divine judgment is necessary. Since this proclamation consists in an appeal directed toward the people of the world to fear God (i. e., regard him with awe and reverence), give him glory and worship him as the creator, it is framed as a thoroughly Jewish proclamation with no explicitly Christian features (unlike Rev 5:9, which specifically refers to the atoning death of the Lamb). Converts from paganism to Judaism could be described simply as “those who fear God” (e. g., οἱ φοβούµενοι in Acts 13:16, 26). Though nothing is said of the response to the proclamation made by the angel, the important thing is that the proclamation is an open invitation to all people to respond to the message by fearing God and giving him glory. 31

Aune, Revelation, 2:628; Koester, Revelation, 504. This is an instance of καί expexegeticus in which the phrase “those who dwell on the earth” is explained as “every nation and tribe and tongue and people.” 32

John’s Prophetic Commission and the People of the World (Rev 10:8–11)

225

The seventh and final ethnic list is found in Rev 17:15: And he said to me, “The waters that you saw, where the harlot is seated, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues [λαοὶ καὶ ὄχλοι εἰσὶν καὶ ἔθνη καὶ γλῶσσα].”

This ethnic list is part of John’s vision of the Whore of Babylon in Rev 17:1–18. As part of the initial vision, John is told by his angelic guide: “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who is seated upon many waters, with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and with the wine of whose fornication the dwellings on earth have become drunk” (17:1–2). The angelus interpres eventually interprets of the waters on which the harlot was seated as “peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues” (17:15), i. e., people of the world who have subordinated themselves to Babylon.

Summary In this essay, I have explored the theme of the Church and its mission in the Revelation of John. While Jewish apocalypses typically draw a sharp line between a particular group of Jews who regard themselves as the people of God who will be divinely preserved when eschatological judgment falls upon the world and its godless inhabitants, Revelation is theologically aligned with those early followers of Jesus who regarded Gentiles, i. e., people belonging to the nations of the world, as also possible recipients of the mercy and grace of God. While Revelation was primarily directed toward Christians, urging them to forsake various practices and associations the author regarded as inconsistent with their calling as followers of Jesus (particularly emphasized in Rev 2–3). In Rev 10:8–11, a prophetic call narrative modeled after Ezek 2–3, the author reveals that the people of the world are the indirect audience of his prophetic message. In Rev 10:11, God commands the author to prophecy “about many peoples and nations and tongues and kings.” This list of four overlapping categories of people of the world is found seven times in Revelation. An examination of each of these seven passages reveals that some, though by no means all, of the people of the world will respond to the proclamation of the gospel and become followers of Jesus. Some of the people of the world have been ransomed for God (5:9) and in the eschaton will stand before the throne and the Lamb praising the God who grants salvation (7:9). They are predestined for salvation, because their names have been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb (Rev 13:8). Though there are many instances in which people of the world do not repent when they experience divine punishment, there are also instances in which people see the light and repent of their evil ways to become followers of the Lamb (11:13). Revelation was written to Christians who needed to learn that salvation was divinely intended for all people and all who respond with repentance and belief will become part of the people of God.

“Like Newborn Infants” The Readers of 1 Peter as Newly Converted Christians? Torrey Seland

Abstract In this article, three texts are studied in order to investigate if it is plausible that the author considered his readers to be not only first generation Christians, but perhaps as having been Christians for just a few years, still living on ‘milk,’ but encouraged to grow and proceed.

Introduction In a study published in 2005 on acculturation and assimilation in 1 Peter, I argued, in opposition to the views on acculturation of both John H. Elliott and David Balch, 1 that the burning issue in 1 Peter was not how to cope with current Greco-Roman society (social acculturation and assimilation issues), but that “the Christians of 1 Peter are first generation Christians, that is, they are still in a process of being socialized into the Christian world view.” 2 I also argued that they were perceived of as in a kind of liminal situation as newly converted Christians, and that their attitudes to Greco-Roman institutions were a secondary aspect of the author’s strategy in this letter, and thus more a consequence of the intended primary acculturation into the Christian faith and ways of living than as a program of acculturation or assimilation to Greco-Roman society. 3 An important premise in this view is the issue of whether or not the readers can really be understood as relatively new as Christians. In the present study, 1 See their articles in Charles H. Talbert, ed., Perspectives on First Peter (Special Studies Series; Macon, Ga: Mercer University Press, 1986). 2 See Torrey Seland, “‘Conduct Yourselves Honorably among the Gentiles’ (1 Peter 2:12): Assimilation and Acculturation in 1 Peter,” in Seland, Strangers in the Light: Philonic Perspectives on Christian Identity in 1 Peter (BIS 76; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 147–89, here citing from p. 148. 3 Cf. here the positive assessment of David G. Horrell, “Between Conformity and Resistance: Beyond the Balch-Elliott Debate towards a Postcolonial Reading of First Peter,” in Reading First Peter with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of First Peter (ed. Robert L. Webb and Betsy Bauman-Martin; LNTS 364; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 111–43, especially p. 116: “These are not, then, people for whom the wider culture is alien and strange, but people whose conversion to Christianity has created an alienation, the consequences of which need to be worked out. As Seland suggests, it might therefore be more appropriate to consider the process of acculturation into the Christian way of life, since this is the novum to which readers of 1 Peter are adapting.” See now also Travis B. Williams, Good Works in 1 Peter: Negotiating Social Conflict and Christian Identity in the Greco-Roman World (WUNT 337; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 18, note 11.

228

Torrey Seland

I would like to elaborate on this question, trying to substantiate my view that they were fairly recently converted Christians. I might admit that there is no single statement in the letter providing a clear-cut answer, but, as I will argue, the cumulative effect of some passages supports the conclusion that the addressees were considered first generation Christians, probably as having been Christians 4 for just a few years.

Some Contours of the Readers’ Social Circumstances and Profiles according to 1 Peter For many scholars, there is little evidence for an historical investigation of the real social conditions and the social and demographic profile of the early Christians to which the First Letter of Peter is addressed. What we have in 1 Peter is primarily the author’s perception of the readers, that is, of his implied or presumed readers. According to Ramsey Michaels: 5 Any discussion of the audience of 1 Peter should begin with a caution: the fact that the epistle is directed to a circle of churches located over a wide geographical area and apparently far away from the author and his own congregation means that he may not have known specifically the ethnic and social composition of his audience. The question of audience must therefore be addressed from the author’s limited point of view. What assumptions – right or wrong – did he make about the individuals and congregations to whom he was writing?

Here Michaels, in my view, points quite correctly to the plausible lack of knowledge on the part of the author of 1 Peter concerning the nature and conditions of his intended readers. In the following pages, I deal not so much with who or how the readers really were, but how we meet them in the letter; that is, what we can gather from the text of this letter is how the author perceived them. In fact, there is not much to go by in a search for the social profile of the readers as perceived by the author of 1 Peter, but there are some clues. The readers are presumed to have suffered some sort of social ostracism from their local communities; they are described as those who have to endure various forms of harassment (1:6; 2:20; 3:9, 14, 17; 4:12, 14–16; 5:8–9). Terms for suffering (πάσχω; 12 times and πάθηµα; 4 times) are used more often in this letter than in 4 My use of the term “Christian” may seem anachronistic to some, but since the letter itself uses this term (1 Pet 4:16), I feel free to adopt it. On the history of the term see now David G. Horrell, “The Label Χριστιανός (1 Pet 4.16): Suffering, Conflict, and the Making of Christian Identity,” in Horrell, Becoming Christian: Essays on 1 Peter and the Making of Christian Identity (LNTS 394; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 164–210: “1 Peter marks a crucial point in the process whereby this hostile label comes to be borne with pride by insiders, later becoming their standard self-designation” (p. 210). 5 J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter (WBC; Waco, Texas, 1988), xlv.

“Like Newborn Infants”

229

any other book of the New Testament. The Christians are suffering temptations or testing (1:6: ποικίλοις πειρασµοῖς); they are spoken against (2:12: καταλαλοῦσιν ὑµῶν: cf. 3:16); they are reviled (3:9: λοιδορία), abused (4:4: βλασφηµέω) and reproached (4:14: ὀνειδίζω). Scholars have for a long time been looking for the specific historical conditions to which these passages may refer. At the present stage of research it seems, however, that there is a kind of agreement that their sufferings were probably more due to local harassment than to official persecutions by Roman authorities. 6 Furthermore, the Christian readers are understood to consist of both men and women, slaves and children (3:1–2); some of the women have non-Christian husbands; some of the slaves suffer from harsh masters (2:18–20). Some, but not all, of these Christians are poor. The warnings against adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes, presuppose readers with some status and wealth. They are also understood as having some knowledge about people and stories found in the Hebrew Scriptures (e. g., 3:6; 3:20), though it is not stated from what educational context this knowledge is derived. It is not easy to determine whether the author perceives the readers to be Jewish or non-Jewish Christians. 7 I have argued in another study that the author perceives them as former Gentiles, and that his descriptions of several of their social conditions are due to his ways of describing them by way of terms and images taken from descriptions of Jewish proselytes. 8 But the question remains: were they perceived as having been Christians for a long time, or does 1 Peter rather reveal that the author considered them as relatively new Christians, that is, first generation Christians, and even perhaps Christians for just a few years? I will argue my case by having a closer look at three relevant passages: 1 Pet 1:12, 25; 4:3–4 and 2:1–3.

6 Cf. Travis B. Williams, “Suffering from a Critical Oversight: The Persecutions of 1 Peter within Modern Scholarship,” CBR 10 (2012): 275–92, and his Persecution in 1 Peter: Differentiating and Contextualizing Early Christian Suffering (NovTSup 145; Leiden: Brill, 2012). 7 See my brief discussion in “Crucial Issues in the Quest for the First Readers of 1 Peter: Reassessing an Old Question,” in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes (ed. David du Toit; BZNW 200; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), 43–58. 8 Cf. here especially Torrey Seland, “Paroikos kai parepidemos: Proselyte Characterizations in 1 Peter?” in Seland, Strangers in the Light: Philonic Perspectives on Christian Identity in 1 Peter (BIS 76; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 39–78. That does not mean that I consider them to have been former proselytes, as Jennifer Bird seems to have misunderstood my view; see her Abuse, Power and Fearful Obedience: Reconsidering 1 Peter’s Commands to Wives (LNTS 442; London: T&T Clark, 2011), 4, note 11.

230

Torrey Seland

The Recipients as Newly Evangelized: 1 Pet 1:12, 25 According to my reading of 1 Peter, the author perceives the preaching of the Word to have been pivotal in the lives of his readers. The role of the Word is presented as crucial in three different contexts: (1) in the initial missional works of those who ministered the Gospel to the readers (1:12, 25; 2:9), (2) in the Christians’ present proclamation (2:9), and (3) in their apologetic efforts toward their neighbors (3:15). 9 It is the first aspect that is in focus here. The author of 1 Peter presupposes that his readers had been exposed to some sort of preaching of the Word, and that by way of that preaching they became “Christians” (1 Pet 4:16): In 1 Pet 1:3–12 it is stated that they have been born anew to a living hope (ἀναγεννήσας ἡµᾶς εἰς ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν; see also 1:23, 25), to an imperishable inheritance kept in heaven. This great salvation is something about which the ancient prophets prophesied. It was revealed to these prophets that they served not themselves but generations and times to come, that is, they were serving people like the readers “in regard to the things which have now been announced to you by those who have preached the good news to you through the Holy Spirit sent from Heaven [ἃ νῦν ἀνηγγέλη ὑµῖν διὰ τῶν εὐαγγελισαµένων ὑµᾶς [ἐν] πνεύµατι ἁγίῳ ἀποσταλέντι ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ].” The author of 1 Peter is here anchoring the message proclaimed to the readers in the ancient Scriptures, and in the message of the venerated prophets. The message is also linked to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (1:3). This message, furthermore, has been “disclosed, announced, proclaimed, taught” (BDAG) by those who “preached the gospel” to them (διὰ τῶν εὐαγγελισαµένων ὑµᾶς; 1:12). The use of the verb εὐαγγελίσασθαι here is crucial, since it is the most important term in the New Testament for proclaiming the message of Jesus Christ: “εὐαγγελίζεσθαι is not just speaking and preaching; it is proclamation with full authority and power.” 10 It is one of the most common terms used for the propagation of the Gospel. It is not a term for teaching children or catechumens, but for the introductory proclamation of the message of salvation (e. g., Luke 2:10; Acts 8:4.35: 13:32: 17:18; Gal 1:8, 16: Rom 1:15; 1 Cor 15:2; Eph 2:17; 3:8). Hence Elliott is probably correct when he states that “The entire phrase (by those ... you; 1:12) refers to earlier missionaries who first evangelized the addressees.” 11

9 For the issues inherent in section (2) and (3) mentioned above, see my “Resident Aliens in Mission: Missional Practices in the Emerging Church of 1 Peter,” BBR 19 (2009): 581–88. Here I expand somewhat on section a) from this study (pp. 580–583). 10 G. Friedrich, “εὐαγγελίζοµαι, εὐαγγέλιον, κτλ,” TDNT 2:707–737, 720. 11 John H. Elliott, 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 37B; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 350; cf. J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude (BNTC; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1969), 63: “probably here a reference to their recent conversion.”

“Like Newborn Infants”

231

Hence, in using this verb (1:12, 25), the author uses one of the most common terms among the early Christians denoting the propagation and offering of the Gospel. 12 Its popularity can be gathered from its prevalence in most of the New Testament writings, the Johannine writings being the major exception. 13 The even greater prevalence of the noun in the New Testament confirms the popularity of the concept. It is, furthermore, important to note what this preaching has brought forth. As the reference to the preaching of the Word of God to the readers is emphasized at the end of both 1:3–12 and 1:22–25, it underlines the role of the Word in bringing forth the gifts of God here mentioned: by way of the Word, the readers are born anew to a living hope (1:3, 23); they have been partakers of an inheritance kept in heaven (1:4); and it has made them able to gain the salvation of their souls (1:9). 14 First Peter 1:23–25 thus contains a description of the imperishable seed from which the readers have been born again; the living and enduring Word of God. 15 This description draws upon Isa 40:6–8. It breaks off, however, at 40:9, and in its place the author of 1 Peter offers a pesher-like comment: “And this is the word that was preached to you [τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν τὸ ῥῆµα τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν εἰς ὑµᾶς].” Here the reference to Isa 40:9 as its pretext is not to be mistaken as the author anchors the steadfastness and trustworthiness of the proclaimed word to the words of the ancient prophet. While thus the point of the author of 1 Peter is to anchor the belief of his readers in the Scriptures, he also provides evidence to us as readers of his letter concerning the importance of the early preaching of the Word of God. The διά refers to the means of their rebirth, and the εἰς ὑµᾶς at the end of the statement emphasizes also the role of this preaching in their renewal. He could simply have written ὑµῖν, but the expanded form εἰς ὑµᾶς emphasizes the role of this preaching to them. 16 The author does not tell who these early preachers were, or when they preached in these areas, but they are probably perceived to have been the primary means of the readers’ conversion. Three views have been in vogue in recent historical research concerning how the Gospel was preached in the regions

12 Scholars have suggested that it was Paul who established the term in the vocabulary of early Christianity, but he was probably not the first to take up this phraseology because the way it is used demonstrate that it was familiar to his readers. Cf. Friedrich, TDNT 2:729. 13 We might also note that the verb is not to be found in Mark and the Pastoral Epistles. 14 Hence εὐαγγελίζεσθαι means to offer salvation. It is the powerful proclamation of the good news, the impartation of σωτηρία (Friedrich, TDNT 2:720). See further on the role of the word of God in the new birth: Martin Williams, The Doctrine of Salvation in the First Letter of Peter (SNTSMS 149; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 138–48. 15 On the word of God as the “Gospel,” see Michael W. Pahl, “The ‘Gospel’ and the ‘Word’: Exploring Some Early Christian Patterns,” JSNT 29 (2006): 211–27. 16 Cf. Elliott, 1 Peter, 392.

232

Torrey Seland

of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia (1:1): (1) Peter himself 17 and / or some of his co-workers may have preached in these areas, (2) some of the Christians may have confronted the Gospel in Jerusalem at the Pentecost event as recorded in Acts 2, and brought it back home, or (3) the Christians in the area may be the fruit of some missionary activities by Paul and his co-workers. In her recent commentary, however, Karen H. Jobes has offered another and more innovative theory: she argues that the Christians addressed in this letter were people deported from Rome by the emperor Claudius; that is, they were part of the peoples sent out from Rome in order to colonize these regions (1 Pet 1:1). 18 This theory would then explain their status as παροίκοι and παρεπιδήµοι (1:17; 2:11) and it would also explain how they had a relationship with Peter, and even how they became Christians; they had been evangelized (1:25) in Rome and been in contact with Peter there. Jobes’ theory is bold, but there is no more substantial evidence in the letter for this theory than the theories that they were evangelized in situ, a view Jobes surmises, “is based on sheer speculation.” 19 Be that as it may; it remains that according to 1:3–12 and 1:22–25, the evangelistic preaching of the word of God is set forth as the source of life for these Christians. The importance of the proclamation of the Gospel is also emphasized by the important saying in 1 Peter 2:9, where it is emphasized as one of the duties of the Christians to “proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” Hence we conclude this section by suggesting that the author of 1 Peter understood his readers as consisting of those who were among the first who became Christians in these areas; they were not second generation Christians, being taught by some leaders or catechists in the churches, but are perceived as the first generation of pioneering Christians in the areas to which he addressed his letter.

17 This is now strongly argued by Ben Witherington III, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1–2 Peter (Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Vol. 2; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2007). 18 Cf. her commentary: Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 8–41. See now also her more recent article in which she defends her view: Karen H. Jobes, “‘Foreigners and Exiles’,” in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes (ed. David du Toit; BZNW 200; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), 21–41. 19 Jobes, 1 Peter, 26. For a further criticism of Jobes’ view, see David G. Horrell, “Aliens and Strangers? The Socioeconomic Location of the Addressees of 1 Peter,” in Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception (ed. Bruce W. Longenecker and Kelly D. Liebengood; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 176–202, 187–88.

“Like Newborn Infants”

233

The Recipients as Newly Converted and their New Ways of Living: 1 Pet 4:2–3 The next text segment to be discussed deals with some of the social consequences of the readers’ conversion to their new faith and new styles of living. Their neighbors and other onlookers are described as surprised by the new type of social behavior exhibited by the Christians, thus suggesting that the readers were considered by the author to have been converted quite recently, possibly within the range of a few years. In 1 Peter 4:3–4, the author writes (NRSV): You have already spent enough time in doing what the Gentiles like to do, living in licentiousness, passions, drunkenness, revels, carousing, and lawless idolatry. They are surprised that you no longer join them in the same excesses of dissipation, and so they blaspheme.

The paraenetic context of these two verses is given in the immediate proceeding context. Having outlined what comfort there is for the suffering Christians in the fact that Christ too suffered (3:18–4:1), the author exhorts the readers to live no longer according to human desires (ἀνθρώπων ἐπιθυµίαις), but by the will of God (θελήµατι θεοῦ) (4:2). Then follow our passage: “You have already spent enough time in doing what the Gentiles like to do ...” (4:3a). The passage contains a list of vices (4:3b), which is considered by many scholars as being a fairly conventional catalogue. Comparable lists of vices frequently referred to include Rom 1:18–31; Mark 7:20–23; 1 Cor 5:11; 6:9–10; 1 Tim 6:3–5; Did. 5:1–2; and Barn. 20:1. The terms used and thus the vices listed, however, are not among the most common in the other New Testament lists: ἀσελγεία is lexicalized by BDAG as “lack of self-restraint which involves one in conduct that violates all bounds of what is socially acceptable” (cf. Eph 4:19; Jude 4: 2 Pet 2:2); ἐπιθυµία on the other hand, may be used in either a positive or negative way, as a desire for something, close to longing for something, or as a desire for something forbidden (the references are too many to be mentioned here); οἰνοφλυγίαις is a hapax legomenon in the New Testament, and is usually translated as “drunkenness” (cf. Philo: Mos. 2.165; Spec. 4. 91). Together with κῶµος 20 and πότος, 21 these terms denote social events and gatherings in which drinking and drunkenness played a relatively large part. And as if these characterizations were not enough, the author adds the description ἀθεµίτοις εἰδωλολατρίαις, (‘lawless idolatry,’ NRSV), which does not have a common Greek social background, but rather a Jewish and Christian background, since charges of idolatry are most relevant for monotheistic faiths,

20 κῶµος was originally a festal procession in honor of Dionysos, later a joyous meal or banquet; in the New Testament, LXX and Philo only in a negative sense of “excessive feasting” (BDAG ad κῶµος). 21 πότος; “a social gathering at which wine was served, drinking party,” (BDAG ad πότος).

234

Torrey Seland

not polytheistic religious systems. Hence the vices, which by many commentators are summarized as being relevantly characterized as sexual indulgence and drunken festivals, are summarized by the last description as “lawless idolatry.” The comparisons with other lists mentioned above should not be overdone: E. J. Richard states that “the terms rarely appear in the LXX, at the same time the series does not match any known vice list.” 22 At best one or two of these terms are found in other New Testament lists. R. B. Vinson is probably right in stressing the fact that the present list is relatively short, and “appears to be focused on sins and temptations associated with parties, festivals and other celebratory moments.” 23 We might elaborate a little on the social context of these issues here. On the one hand, it may be the case that the author is describing what most Greek readers were accustomed to indulge in regularly, and thus seen by the wider community to represent rather normal behavior. 24 The various collegia and associations were fairly common in the cities, and they had gatherings in which wine was customary and drunkenness was not unusual. On the other hand, several writers, both then and now, pinpoint that these behaviors were particularly dominant in some associations. While several of the descriptions from antiquity may be somewhat exaggerated, they are probably not completely out of touch with what were well known aspects. Hence Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE–50 CE) could describe these phenomena thus (Flacc. 136): In the city there are clubs [θίασοι] with a large membership, whose fellowship is founded on no sound principle but on strong liquor and drunkenness and sottish carousing and their offspring, wantonness. “Synods” [σύνοδοι] and “divans” [κλιναι] are the particular names given to them by the people of the country.

Feasts and gatherings were typical traits of the Greco- Roman clubs and associations, according to our other sources too. 25 In Flacc. 4, Philo mentions their sacrifices and their conviviality. But it is in his descriptions of these aspects that he is most expressive and negative. He emphasizes eating and drinking (Spec. 2.193; Legat. 312) and he mentions intrigues and even poisoning as occurring in these associations (Spec. 3.96, cf. Contempl. 40–41, perhaps also Cher. 22 Earl J. Richard, Reading 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter (Reading the New Testament; Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2000), 170. 23 Richard B. Vinson, Richard F. Wilson and Watson E. Mills, 1 & 2 Peter, Jude (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2010), 190. Cf. Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on 1 Peter (ed. F. Hahn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 285, who says that none of the “vices” mentioned are on the edge of society, “but of the social and religious lifestyle of society as a whole. By renouncing this way of life, Christians remove themselves from the life in society that they have shared before.” 24 So, e. g., Vinson, Wilson and Mills, 1 & 2 Peter, Jude, 193. 25 R. MacMullen, Roman Social Relations 50 BC to AD 284 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974); F. Poland, Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1909), 502.

“Like Newborn Infants”

235

91–92 and Plant. 100). 26 Philo’s emphasis is especially notable when we study his comparisons of Jewish gatherings and feasts with those of the Greco-Roman associations. His description of the latter, however, also indicates that he is no neutral observer, but an ardent critic, judging them according to his Jewish standards. 27 Recent research has provided a more nuanced picture of the life and activities of such clubs and associations. 28 What remains, however, is that they are still considered as relevant contexts for the life of the early Christians. 29 J. H. Elliott has, in his commentary on 1 Peter, suggested that it is quite possible that drinking parties such as those indicated by the terms used in 1 Pet 4:2–3 could have taken place in meetings of clubs and associations. They were important means of social networking, and “It is conceivable that the Petrine author presumed that some of the addressees had been members of associations such as these, where banquets, wine bouts, and the like were a matter of course.” 30 This perspective was taken somewhat further by T. B. Williams in his study on Persecution in 1 Peter. He takes his point of departure from 1 Pet 4:3–4 which seems to state that one of the primary reasons why the readers were experiencing conflicts was because they had withdrawn from the social activities in which they had formerly been involved. 31 When trying to pinpoint the social context or activities from which they have withdrawn he ends up at the doors of the clubs and associations. As they were pivotal social and religious institutions in the cities, withdrawal from their gatherings because of their social and religious aspects were bound to elicit tensions. Williams fills out the possible scenarios by suggesting that if the club concerned consisted primarily of those related to a particular household, or if it was made up by members of one’s profession,

26 Cf. here the prohibition of sorcery given in the law of an association of Philadelphia in Lydia; see Stephen Barton and G. H. R. Horsley, “A Hellenistic Cult Group and the New Testament Churches,” JAC 24 (1981): 8–10. 27 On Philo and the Greco-Roman clubs and associations, see further my “Philo and the Clubs and Associations of Alexandria,” in Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (ed. John S. Kloppenborg and Stephen G. Wilson; London: Routledge, 1996), 110–27. 28 See here especially the works of Philip A. Harland, Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations: Claiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003); idem, Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations: Claiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society (2nd rev. ed.; Ontario: Philip A. Harland Web Edition, 2013). 29 The studies relevant are far too many to be listed here. But a few might be mentioned: Richard S. Ascough, Paul’s Macedonian Associations; The Social Context of Philippians and 1 Thessalonians (WUNT 2/161; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003); E. Ebel, Die Attraktivität früher christlicher Gemeinden: Die Gemeinde von Korinth im Spiegel griechisch-römischer Vereine (WUNT 2/178; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004); Philip A. Harland, Dynamics of Identity in the World of the Early Christians: Associations, Judeans, and Cultural Minorities (London: T&T Clark, 2009); Andreas Gutsfeld and Dietrich-Alex Koch, eds., Vereine, Synagogen und Gemeinden im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien (STAC 25; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). 30 Elliott, 1 Peter, 725 31 Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 240.

236

Torrey Seland

“tensions would have been felt not just on the monthly occasion of the group’s meeting, but on a daily basis in the carrying out of one’s occupation.” 32 First Peter 4:3–4 should thus be read as stating that those who may have been the Christians’ former compatriots, co-club members or co-symposiacs “are surprised that you no longer join them in the same excesses of dissipation, and so they blaspheme.” Hence, the Christians are considered as having dissociated themselves from some of their former groups and social ways of life, and the non-Christians are surprised, a surprise that also led to criticism and blasphemy. “To blaspheme” (βλασφηµέω) may mean a direct reviling of (the name of) God, but it may also indicate that the Christians are reviled and slandered because of their withdrawal (compare 2:12; 3:9, 14, 16; 4:14), or possibly both. 33 Since non-Christians are described as surprised (ἐν ᾧ ξενίζονται; present, indicative, passive), this suggests that the Christians’ break from their former settings was not something that happened long ago, but relatively recently; hence they are thought by the author to have been rather new Christians, so new that the others were still surprised at their withdrawal and new way of life. We have evidence from both Jewish and Christian texts reflecting the change of attitudes and way of life of those converted to Christianity or Judaism. One might point to the ποτέ – νῦν patterns in several of the New Testament letters (Gal 4:8–9; Eph 2:11–22; 5:8–9; 1 Thess 1:9). In Philo we have several passages describing the contrast of life before and after conversion (Virt. 178–179; 102–104; Spec. 1.51–52, cf. 1 Pet 1:14; 2:9, 25). 34 With regard to the differences between Philo and 1 Peter, one might take Philo’s descriptions of converts to Judaism into consideration: “abandoning their kinsfolk by blood, their country, their customs and the temples and images of their gods, and the tributes and honors paid to them, they have taken a journey to a better home, from idle fables to the clear vision of truth and the worship of the one and truly existing God” (Virt. 102). Despite some exaggeration, one should notice that there are several social issues mentioned in this statement that might have provoked criticism from neighbors and co-workers of those converting to Judaism, or to the Christian groups 1 Peter deals with. 35 Accordingly, Philo also exhorts his fel32 Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 245. In addition, he also points to the pervasiveness of the imperial cult, and its many festivals and celebrations (pp. 245–254). 33 Elliott, 1 Peter, 727. On blasphemy in a wider biblical context, see my “Religious Offenses,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Bible and Law Vol 2: Mag–Wom (ed. Brent A. Strawn; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 213–19. 34 See further here Seland, “Conduct yourselves,” 167–89. 35 See further on the cost of conversion: J. de Waal Dryden, Theology and Ethics in 1 Peter: Paraenetic Strategies for Christian Character Formation (WUNT 2/209; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 91–116; Karl Olav Sandnes, A New Family: Conversion and Ecclesiology in the Early Church with Cross-Cultural Comparisons (Studies in the Intercultural History of Christianity 91; Bern: Peter Lang, 1994); W. A. Meeks, The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two Centuries (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), 19–36 (Chapter Two: Turning: Moral Consequences of Conversion),

“Like Newborn Infants”

237

low Jews to receive the incomers, “to love the incomers, not only as friends and kinsfolk, but as themselves both in body and soul” (Virt. 103). Hence, the cost of conversion should thus not be overlooked, and the reaction of ‘the others’ not be diminished: 1 Peter characterizes it as both “surprise” and “maligning.” The conversion of his addressees may thus, according to the author of 1 Peter, have both been recent, quite clear-cut and consistent.

The Recipients Like Newborn Infants Craving Milk (1 Pet 2:1–3) The last passage I will examine here in arguing for our view that the author considered his readers to be relatively new as Christians, is 1 Pet 2:2–3: “Like newborn infants, long for the pure, spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow into salvation – if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good” (NRSV). The context of this passage is ethical and paraenetic, cf. the preceding v. 1: the readers are admonished to “rid yourselves ... of all malice, and all guile, insincerity, envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk ...” For some scholars, v. 2 signals that the author considers his readers as young Christians, that is, not necessarily young in age, but they have not been Christians for a very long time. 36 This is not, however, the majority view, and Jobes is probably right when she states that “Those interpreters who saw this epistle as originally a baptismal homily or liturgy found support in 2:2 for the addressees as new believers.” 37 But this baptismal or liturgical view of the character of 1 Peter has very few – if any – supporters today, and the majority of commentators also do not seem to favor the view that readers were or were perceived as recent converts. 38 We will nevertheless argue for such an understanding of the author’s view of the readers’ conversion. The combination of milk as nurture for young persons or recent converts is a topic (topos) that is used in educational and paraenetic settings in other Jewish and Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999). 36 See. e. g., Kelly, Epistles of Peter and of Jude, 84; W. Grundmann, “Die ΝΗΠΙΟΙ in der urchristlichen Paranäse,” NTS 5 (1958/59): 188–205, 191; Steven J. Kraftchick, “Reborn to a Living Hope: A Christology of 1 Peter,” in Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students (ed. Eric F. Mason and Troy W. Martin; Sources for Biblical Study 77; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014), 83–98, 85. 37 Karen. H. Jobes, “Got Milk? Septuagint Psalm 33 and the Interpretation of 1 Peter 2:1–3,” WTJ 63 (2002): 1–14, 1. 38 See, e. g., Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 145; Jobes, 1 Peter, 131–32; Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (NAC; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 99. Achtemeier and Schreiner argue historically, however, when saying, “The assumption that all the readers addressed in the vast area of northern Asia Minor would be recent converts all but defies the imagination” (Achtemeier 145, quoted by Schreiner 99). Besides the question of the imaginative ability, the question also hinges on the understanding of the expression “recent converts.”

238

Torrey Seland

and early Christian literature. Philo of Alexandria compares elementary teaching to milk, and urges the necessity that students move on to more mature food. In his case, that means moving on from the encyclia paideia to wisdom, which here should be understood as philosophy or even the Jewish Torah. The ethical and paraenetic associations also present in Philo’s admonitions are given in order to promote the acquisition of the virtues (Agric. 9). This view is present in several of Philo’s other works (see especially Migr. 29, Congr. 19, and Prob. 158–160, and De congressu in general). To Philo, milk belongs to the primary stages, but there should be a progression as time goes by, from milk to more solid food for grown-ups, or from the encyclia to philosophy. Hence, the soul as well as the body need a progression in food and nurturing, and thus the virtues will follow in the maturation process. Similar thoughts are also to be found in 1 Cor 3:1–4, and especially in Heb 5:12–14. Scholars dealing with 1 Pet 2:1–3 often emphasize the difference between 1 Peter and texts from 1 Corinthians and Hebrews. 39 But the main point here is not that in the latter two the authors are urging the readers’ progression, but the fact that they all associate milk with the initial phases of Christian life and ethos. “Milk” is not inherently bad, either in 1 Corinthians or in Hebrews, but it belongs to a stage which the readers of these two letters should have left behind, becoming more mature and grown up Christians. In 1 Pet 2, on the other side, the author is not so much arguing for such progression, but is urging the readers to focus on the “pure, spiritual milk, so that they may grow.” 40 While in 1 Corinthians and Hebrews the readers are considered as Christians who have not progressed adequately, but are in danger of backsliding into their former more immature stage, the readers of 1 Peter are exhorted to focus on the real good milk, the pure spiritual milk (NRSV) in order to grow and get stronger. The main crux in the passage is, however, what does this enigmatic expression τὸ λογικὸν ἄδολον γάλα indicate? This expression is notoriously difficult, as even a brief glance at some of the relatively recent Bible translations demonstrate. 41 Karen H. Jobes correctly states that “modern interpreters almost unanimously understand the referent of the “pure spiritual milk” metaphor to

39

See, e. g., Jobes, “Got Milk?” 1. Achtemeier underplays the aspect of growth when he says that “The point here is not that the readers are to advance beyond the stage of being immature Christians; rather the point is that their desire for such milk is to be as constant and unrelenting as the infant’s desire for its milk” (Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 146). So also Scot McKnight, 1 Peter (NIV Application Commentary Series; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 104–5. 41 See, e. g., the following translations: AV, KJV 1900: “the sincere milk of the word”; RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV: “the pure spiritual milk”; NCV: “the pure and simple teaching”; NASB95, NKJV: “the pure milk of the word.” Concerning Norwegian translations, see NO (Norwegian translation) 1930: “den åndelige, uforfalskede melk”; NO1978/85: “den ekte, åndelige melk”; NO2005/2011: “ordets rene melk.” 40

“Like Newborn Infants”

239

be the word of God, whether in the form of the apostolic preaching or inscripturated in the Bible.” 42 She herself, however, presents a modified version, 43 and we shall also present a third view, which is fairly recent. Jobes argues that “if Peter specifically had the word of God in mind when he wrote logikon gala, he surely could have used the epexegetical genitive τὸ γάλα τοῦ λόγου ... to refer directly back to 1:23 without ambiguity.” 44 Furthermore, drawing not at least on the use of Psalm 33 LXX in the text, she proposes that the milk in view is not specifically limited to the word of God, but the readers are “to crave the Lord God for spiritual nourishment.” 45 This interpretation, she claims, also includes the admonishment of v. 1, as it emphasizes that “Peter’s readers are to crave the Lord by adopting attitudes and behaviors that will sustain the new life they have begun by faith in Christ.” 46 Hence her view represents a somewhat wider view than the majority view which focuses primarily on the word of God: to Jobes the milk is a metaphor of God’s sustaining grace in Christ: “to crave ‘pure spiritual milk’ means to crave what nurtures the growth of spiritual life after rebirth into the new reality that Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension has created. This certainly includes the word of God in both its printed and preached forms as foundational, but is not limited to it.” 47 The third view to be mentioned here, is argued by Philip L. Tite. 48 He asks for a more culturally informed view of the source domain of the metaphors used: “one possible, indeed likely, cultural referent for the exhortation ... is the Roman practices and ideological beliefs regarding milk, wet nurses and the ideal mother for the moral development of the infant.” 49 Most commentators, according to Tite, have been hindered in their understanding of 1 Peter by anachronistic assumptions about the affective relationship between mothers and newborns, reading modern conceptions about mother-child relations into the text. Most 42

Cf. Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter, 132, where she refers to 11 other commentators offering a similar

view. 43 Her view was first presented in an article in 2002 (Jobes, “Got Milk?”), and then in her commentary of 2005 (Jobes, 1 Peter). Marietije du Toit supports Jobes’ view in her article “The Expression λογικόν ἄδολον γάλα as the Key to 1 Pet 2:1–3,” HTS Teologiese Studies – Theological Studies 63 (2007): 221–29, and Jobes herself defended it further in an issue of Leaven which was dedicated to this text in 2012: See Karen H. Jobes, “‘Got Milk?’ A Petrine Metaphor in 1 Peter Revisited,” Leaven: A Journal of Christian Ministry 20 (2012): 121–26. See here also, in the same issue: Cliff Barbarick, “Craving the Milk in 1 Peter: The Pattern of Christ as Salvific Nourishment,” Leaven: A Journal of Christian Ministry 20 (2012): 133–40, and Ken Durham, “How Can We Crave the Milk? A Response to Jobes, Liebengood and Barbarick,” Leaven: A Journal of Christian Ministry 20 (2012): 141–44. 44 Jobes, 1 Peter, 133. 45 Jobes, 1 Peter, 140. 46 Jobes, 1 Peter, 140. 47 Jobes, “‘Got Milk?’ A Petrine Metaphor in 1 Peter Revisited,” 125. 48 Philip L. Tite, “Nurslings, Milk and Moral Development in the Greco-Roman Context: A Reappraisal of the Paraenetic Utilization of Metaphor in 1 Peter 2.1–3,” JSNT 31 (2009): 371–400. 49 Tite, “Nurslings, Milk and Moral Development,” 373.

240

Torrey Seland

common here is the assumption that the milk the infant received was from its mother. But if 1 Peter was written from Rome, and addressed to various communities within Asia Minor, the recipients would have picked up other family structures and feeding practices of newborn babies as relevant for their understanding of the text. Thus, in the network of a Roman household, the child would possibly also have been taken care of by a wet nurse. Now there were two kinds of wet nurses: free mercenary nurses and slave nurses. 50 In the case of the former, the relationship of the wet nurse and infant would last for approximately two years; in the latter case, when a household nurse was involved, the relationship would have lasted longer, and could result in stronger affectionate feelings between the two. The selection of a wet nurse could be a subject of debate, in which also the possible quality of the milk was considered relevant. This is important because “The character of the individual nursing the child is not only important for the social impressions made upon the infant, but also due to the quality of the milk; that is, the milk as a vehicle for the development of the character of the child.” 51 Readers would know the view that just as the fetus takes on qualities from the parents, so will also a child be formed by the milk supplied after birth. Hence, the moral development of a child was closely linked to the question of who functioned as wet nurse. 52 Given the several other metaphors used in this letter that are related to the larger metaphor of οἶκος, these birth and feeding metaphors fit well into the letter. Finally, Tite too suggests that for the readers the adjective λογικόν would probably have recalled the phrase διὰ λόγου ζῶντος θεοῦ καὶ µένοντος of 1:23: “Thus, through the causal clause, the author effectively brings together the entire metaphoric thrust of the exhortation, refers to the “high quality word-likemilk” that is divinely derived, Christologically “tested” or confirmed (“tasted”), and thus of an imperishable or eternal nature.” 53 Hence we are again directed back to the medium by which they were made Christians: “Ancient writers were very concerned with the development of a nursling, and it is this concern that the Petrine author draws upon in constructing his metaphorical exhortation” 54 to his readers. The readers are thus not encouraged to proceed and leave the state of milk-nourishment behind them, but to long for and make use of the milk that provides suitable nourishment for them, that is, nourishment that is both relevant for their brief time as Christians and which promote their growth as Christians.

50 51 52 53 54

Tite, “Nurslings, Milk and Moral Development,” 378. Tite, “Nurslings, Milk and Moral Development,” 383. Tite, “Nurslings, Milk and Moral Development,” 388. Tite reads the εἰ of 2:3 as causal (“Nurslings, Milk and Moral Development,” 393). Tite, “Nurslings, Milk and Moral Development,” 395.

“Like Newborn Infants”

241

Hence, these verses should be read as confirming our suggestion that the author considers his readers as being rather recently converted, and the readers are thus encouraged to long for the nourishment that belongs to their state as Christians, just as the newborn babies long for milk.

Conclusions The main point of departure for the focus of this study was our suggestion that the burning issue in 1 Peter is not so much how its readers were to cope with Greco-Roman society (social acculturation and assimilation issues), since, according to the author, the Christians of 1 Peter were first generation Christians that were in need of being socialized into the Christian world view. An important presumption of this view was the issue of whether or not it could be substantiated that the author considered the readers to be rather new Christians; hence we have dealt with three passages considered vital in this regard. Investigating 1 Pet 1:12–25, we found that in the descriptions of means by which the readers came to be Christians, the verb εὐαγγελίζω plays a major role. This term is not, however, a term used for teaching children or catechumens, but for the introductory proclamation of the message of salvation. Hence we suggested that the author did not consider the readers as second generation Christians, being taught by some leaders or catechists in the churches, but as first generation pioneering, possibly quite recently converted Christians. The second passage, 1 Pet 4:2–3, deals with some of the social consequences of the readers’ conversion to their new faith and new ways of living. Their neighbors and other onlookers are described as surprised by the new forms of social behavior exhibited by the Christians. Such a surprise would be understandable if it was a recent change in the behavior of the Christians. Hence, this supports the view that the readers were considered by the author to have been converted quite recently, possibly within the range of a few years. The third passage, 1 Pet 2:1–3, is asking the readers to, “like newborn infants, long for the pure, spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow into salvation – if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good” (NRSV). This passage is often read as having a somewhat different focus than 1 Cor 3:1–4 and Heb 5:12–14, where the readers are admonished not to remain on the level of milk (drinking), but to progress to a more mature level. However, 1 Pet 2:1–3 also deals with and exhorts progress, but emphasizes the enjoyment of “pure, spiritual milk” so they may grow into salvation. The latter aspect indicates that the author considered his readers to be in need of the consolidation of their new status as Christians. Hence, 1 Peter sees the readers as “children,” as newly born Christians who are to grow. And the means by which they are to grow is milk, here explicated

242

Torrey Seland

as τὸ λογικὸν ἄδολον γάλα. The readers are not regarded as having been Christians for a long time; they are still in the easy-food nurturing stage, but are urged to grow by the word of God. Perhaps I might end here by mentioning, in this volume dealing with the early church and its mission, and dedicated to the memory of a respected scholar and friend, that it is well-known from missionary endeavors around the world that it is extremely important that those newly converted are given further Christian knowledge and education, beginning with the foundational issues (milk), and hoping and working for progression. The author of 1 Peter seems to presuppose that this was also the actual situation for his readers.

Mass Conversions, Persecutions and Church Growth Critical Reflections on the Rapid Expansion of the Church During the First Three Centuries Reidar Hvalvik Abstract In order to explain the rapid growth of Christianity during the early centuries, two factors are often emphasized: mass conversions and the positive effect of the persecutions (“the blood of the Christians is seed”). In this article the supposed evidence for these explanations is critically examined. With regard to mass conversions the high numbers in the early chapters of Acts (e. g., the 3,000 in 2:41) are scrutinized. When using updated information about the number of inhabitants in Jerusalem and the number of visitors coming to the festivals, it becomes clear that the impact of these conversions probably was far more limited than often supposed. With regard to the persecutions in the first three centuries, an impartial examination of the evidence shows that their effect on the Church was very ambiguous – to say the least. The main problem was not the number of martyrs, but rather the number of apostates. This means that the history of the early church is not only about triumph and growth, but also of defeat and decay.

Introduction: The “Mysterious” Growth The movement which later became known as “Christianity,” began as a small group within first-century Judaism. The author of Acts uses the word αἵρεσις (in a non-derogatory sense) of the followers of Jesus of Nazareth (αἵρεσις τῶν Ναζωραίων – Acts 24:5), a term he also uses of the Sadducces (5:17) and the Pharisees (15:5) 1 – thus indicating that the Nazarenes comprised one Jewish group among others. 2 Three hundred year later the followers of Jesus of Nazareth had been known as Christians for a long time, they were spread throughout the Roman Empire and Christianity had become the favored religion by the Emperor. In many ways this early expansion of Christianity is extraordinary and unparalleled. One of the most recent scholarly contributions in this field opens with the following words: “The growth of the Christian church in the Roman Empire is mysteri-

1 One of my earliest scholarly contributions, a chapter on the Pharisees and Sadducees, was included in a book edited by Hans Kvalbein (Blant skriftlærde og fariseere: Jødedommen i antikken [Oslo: Verbum, 1984]). This essay is written in memory of Hans, who was a close friend and colleague for more than thirty years. 2 A similar use of the word αἵρεσις is found in Josephus (cf. Ant. 13.171; 20.199; Vita 10; 12; 191).

244

Reidar Hvalvik

ous” 3 and in his classical work Adolf Harnack used the word “astonishing” of the same growth. 4 Nevertheless, theologians, historians and sociologists have tried to solve the “mystery,” giving a lot of different explanations and pointing to various decisive factors. One of the influential books on this subject is Ramsay MacMullen’s Christianizing the Roman Empire (A. D. 100–400). 5 In a chapter where he stresses the importance of miracles to the spread of the Christian faith, he asks if it is necessary to distinguish “between moments that gained single individuals for the church from moments that won over large or small groups.” His answer is that “the only purpose served by the distinction is to explain better the rate of change we are observing.” He continues: In the whole process, very large numbers are obviously involved. ... it would be hard to picture the necessary scale of conversion if we limited ourselves to contexts and modes of persuasion that concerned only single individuals talking to each other. If the evidence for steady evangelizing in private settings, however, is combined with the evidence for successes en masse, the two in combination do seem to me adequate to explain what we know happened. 6

In other words, “mass conversions” are necessary to explain the growth of the early church. 7 In the paragraph following directly after the quotation above, MacMullen writes: “There remains a single odd factor: the role persecutions played in conversion. ‘The blood of martyrs watered the churches and reared up many times as many champions of piety,’ so it was said back then, and often has been since.” 8 These statements from MacMullen will set the agenda for this essay. Firstly, I will look into the phenomenon of “mass conversions” in the early history of the Jesus movement, focusing on the early chapters of Acts, where “mass conversions” are first recorded. Secondly, I will critically examine the widespread assumption that the persecutions helped the growth of the church.

3 Alan Kreider, The Improbable Rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 1. 4 Adolf Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries (2 vols.; trans. James Moffatt; 2nd rev. and enlarged ed.; London: Williams and Norgate, 1908), 2:336. 5 New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984. 6 MacMullen, Christianizing, 29. 7 For a rather devastating critique of this view, see Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), ch. 1. Though I am basically in agreement with Stark with regard to the decisive factors for the growth of the early church, I think his rejection of “mass conversions” is too simplified. 8 MacMullen, Christianizing, 29–30. The text quoted is from Basil, Ep. 164

Mass Conversions, Persecutions and Church Growth

245

Mass Conversions? The growth of the number of believers was early seen as a sign of the success of the Jesus movement. Already on the Day of Pentecost the author of Acts relates that “about three thousand persons” came to faith in Jesus as the Messiah (Acts 2:41); a little later it is said that “many of those who heard the word believed; and they numbered about five thousand” (4:4). 9 The narrative continues in a similar way: “more than ever believers were added to the Lord, great numbers of both men and women” (5:14), “the number of the disciples increased greatly” (6:7), and so on (cf. 9:31; 11:21, 24; 12:24; 14:1). The fantastic success of the Gospel is also the point in the statement of James about the “many thousands [µυριάδες] of believers” among the Jews (21:20). These descriptions are certainly not exact numbers, but rather “the visible expressions of the divine blessing resting on the Church.” 10 For that reason they are often totally dismissed by scholars. 11 A lengthy quotation from Jack T. Sanders illustrates a widespread position: Of course, the early chapters of the Book of Acts record mass conversions of thousands of Jews in Jerusalem; but these narratives are clearly fanciful and idealized, as can be seen most readily by contrasting the cumulative effect of the conversion narratives through Acts 6.7 with the persecution narrative in Acts 8. The conversion narratives would lead us to believe that a large proportion – if not nearly all – of the population of Jerusalem became Christians within the space of a few days, whereas when the persecution breaks out it empties Jerusalem of all Christians save the apostles; yet the population of Jerusalem seems hardly diminished. This contrast remains when in the concluding narratives we learn both that there were tens of thousands of Jewish Christians (Acts 21.20) and that “all the multitude of the Jews” (Acts 25.24) opposed Paul before the Roman governor – statements that appear to contradict each other. Consequently, few modern scholars think that there were mass conversions to Christianity in Jerusalem in the days of the apostles. 12

This quotation invites several questions and comments. First, Sanders is undoubtedly right that the record in the early chapters of Acts is idealized and can hardly be taken at face value. He seems to find the numbers totally unrealistic and concludes that mass conversions did not occur. I agree with regard to the numbers – at least partly (for reasons that will be given below). In fact I agree 9 If no other source is indicated, Bible quotations are taken from New Revised Standard Version (1989). 10 Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 189. 11 Keith Hopkins writes: “... to put it bluntly, most ancient observations about Christian numbers, whether by Christian or pagan authors, should be taken as sentimental opinions or metaphors, excellently expressive of attitudes, but not providing accurate information about numbers” (“Christian Number and Its Implications,” JECS 6 [1998]: 185–226, at 188). 12 Jack T. Sanders, “Conversion in Early Christianity,” in Handbook of Early Christianity: Social Science Approaches (ed. Anthony J. Blasi, Paul-Andre Turcotte, and Jean Duhaime; Walnut Creek, Calif.: AltaMira Press, 2002), 619–41, at 619–20.

246

Reidar Hvalvik

also with regard to “mass conversions to Christianity” though for quite different reasons than Sanders. In the following I will split up the terminology and treat the question about “masses” separately from the question of “conversion.” Both terms are puzzling when used about what was going on in Jerusalem in the early days of “the sect of the Nazarenes.” I will start with the “masses” or more precisely, the high numbers found in the early chapters of Acts, especially 2:41 and 4:4, where “fixed” numbers are given. Commenting on Acts 4:4 (referring to “about five thousand” believers), Luke Timothy Johnson says: “The point here is not the actual number, but the evidence of substantial growth among the populace.” 13 I think few New Testament scholars will disagree. A question, however, remains: What does “substantial growth” really mean? Should we imagine hundreds or thousands – as the texts says? In the following I will conduct an arithmetical “experiment.” Without taking the numbers in Acts 2 and 4 at face value, I would like to know if they – at least to a certain extent – make sense. Or put in another way: is it at all possible to think that “thousands” can reflect historical realities? For the sake of the argument let us imagine that a total of 3,000 accepted the words of the apostles during the first days and weeks after Pentecost. I deliberately use the number and terminology from Acts 2:41 – without taking the number as a historical fact and not limiting the positive response to the Day of Pentecost, though I to a certain extant have to relate to the historical setting presupposed in that text. Would such a number make sense at all? In the quotation from Jack Sanders above, the numbers are dismissed among other things, because the narrative in Acts “would lead us to believe that a large proportion – if not nearly all – of the population of Jerusalem became Christians within the space of a few days.” Such a statement presupposes information about a more or less fixed number of inhabitants in Jerusalem early in the first century. Do we have such information? The answer is No, though we have some estimates. Sanders’ way of expression seems to presuppose a rather low estimate. In all probability he is dependent on Joachim Jeremias’ calculation of the population of Jerusalem: “about 20,000 inside the city walls at the time of Jesus, and 5,000 to 10,000 outside. This figure, of from 25–30,000, must be the upper limit.” 14 Jeremias’ calculations seem also to be the basis for Haenchen’s comment to Acts

13 Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina 5; Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1993), 76. 14 Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period (trans. F. H. and C. H. Cave; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 84.

Mass Conversions, Persecutions and Church Growth

247

4:4: “after Peter’s second sermon one-fifth or one-sixth of them would have become Christians.” 15 It must immediately be admitted that we have little if any solid evidence for estimating population in antiquity. In more recent studies, however, the calculations of the population of Jerusalem are considerably higher than Jeremias’ estimate. One reason is that modern archaeology has given a better basis for calculating population density. 16 Thus Magen Broshi concludes that Jerusalem at the time of Jesus had a population of about 60,000, 17 while Wolfgang Reinhardt writes: “A figure of 60,000 is a conceivable lower limit, though it is more probable that the figure was up to 100–120,000 inhabitants in the forties.” 18 In order to evaluate the likelihood of the number 3,000, we also have to take into account that the setting – at least for Acts 2:41 – is Pentecost /Shavuot. At the great festivals the number of people in Jerusalem increased substantially, due to the influx of many pilgrims (cf. Acts 2:9–11). Jeremias, who has the most conservative estimate, speaks about some 125,000 visitors. 19 E. P. Sanders, on the other hand, gives a much higher number: Between 250,000 and 400,000 Palestinian Jews, plus a large number (‘tens of thousands’) of pilgrims from the Diaspora at Passover. 20 Menashe Har-El argues that in the Second Temple period “one million pilgrims from all over the country, as well as the Diaspora, made the journey [to Jerusalem] on feasts days three times a year,” 21 while Lee Levine is more moderate: If we estimate the permanent population of Jerusalem at the time to have been 60,000 to 80,000 ..., then doubling, tripling, or perhaps even quadrupling the number for the pilgrimage festivals may be entirely reasonable. We would thus be talking about a group of

15

Haenchen, Acts, 215, n. 2. See Jonathan L. Reed, Archeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-examination of the Evidence (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000), 73–75 and the literature referred to there. 17 Magen Broshi, “Estimating the Population of Ancient Jerusalem,” BAR 4, no. 2 (1978): 10–15. 18 Wolfgang Reinhardt, “The Population Size of Jerusalem and the Numerical Growth of the Jerusalem Church,” in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting (ed. Richard Bauckham; vol. 4 of The Book of Acts in Its First-Century Setting, ed. Bruce W. Winter; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 237–65, at 263 (cf. 237). This article gives a most useful survey of the discussion. Add to this the comments in Reta Halteman Finger, Of Widows and Meals: Communal Meals in the Book of Acts (Grand Rapids.: Eerdmans, 2007), 110–113. 19 Jeremias, Jerusalem, 84. Concerning Passover he writes: “there can be no doubt that the influx of pilgrims at Passover time from all over the world was immense, and amounted to several times the population of Jerusalem” (ibid.). 20 E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief: 63 B.C.E.–66 C.E. (London: SCM Press, 1992), 127. Sanders makes a comparison with Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca before World War II (recorded to be 108,000), and writes: “Before the airplane, pilgrimage to Mecca was more difficult than pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and the local population was also smaller than that of Jerusalem and its environs. Thus I think it safe to guess that attendance at festivals in Jerusalem exceeded that at pre-war Mecca by a substantial margin” (ibid., 127–28). 21 M. Har-El, “Jerusalem and Judea: Roads and Fortifications,” BA 44 (1981): 8–19; quoted with approval by Reinhardt, “The Population Size,” 262. 16

248

Reidar Hvalvik

between 125,000 and 300,000; the total probably depended on the specific holiday and the political-religious climate at the time. 22

For the sake of the argument, let us use these relatively moderate numbers proposed by Lee Levine and make two different calculations: (1) presupposing that the ordinary population of Jerusalem was 60,000 and that the number of pilgrims at Pentecost was 125,000, and (2) presupposing the numbers 80,000 and 300,000 respectively. 23 Given such presuppositions, we can go back to our number and ask: Does the number 3,000 make any sense within the setting of the festival of Shavuot? According to the first calculation (a total of 185,000), a crowd of 3,000 will comprise 1.62 % of the people present in Jerusalem during the festival; according to the second calculation (a total of 380,000) the number will comprise 0.79 % of the people in Jerusalem at that time. Both numbers are very far from “a large proportion ... of the population of Jerusalem.” 24 The purpose of the above calculations is not to claim that the numbers given in Acts are historically correct, but – as said above – to see if the number 3,000 makes some sense when more factors are taken into consideration. I think it does, especially if we avoid modern conceptions and anachronistic terminology. What I have in mind is the following – and here I come to my second main comment (and objection) to the quotation from Sanders. For one thing, we should probably not think of the number 3,000 as a record of “individual conversions.” 25 As in other conversion narratives in Acts, we should imagine that the number includes whole households (cf. Acts 11:14; 16:15, 31–33; 18:8). Admittedly the Law only required that male Israelites went up to Jerusalem at the festivals (Deut 16:16), but there is evidence for the practice that the whole family made the journey. Josephus records that at Passover “all the people streamed from their villages to the city and celebrated the festival in a state of purity with their wives and children, according to the law of their fathers” (Ant. 11.109; trans. Marcus, LCL; cf. Luke 2:41–42). Further, we should definitely avoid referring to what took place in Jerusalem at Pentecost (and later) as “conversions to Christianity.” 26 For one thing, referring to “Christianity” at this early stage is clearly anachronistic. The same holds true for the term “conversion.” In a book by two influential American sociologists of religion, Rodney Stark and Roger Finke, “conversion” is defined as 22 Lee I. Levine, Jerusalem: Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (538 b.c.e.–70 c.e.) (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2002), 251; on p. 343 he differs a little: “between 60,000 and 70,000.” The numbers of ancient authors are much higher. An example: According to Josephus there were on one occasion 2.7 million and on another 3 million pilgrims in Jerusalem at Passover (Bell. 6.425 and 2.280). 23 These numbers are not the lowest estimates, but certainly very modest. 24 Cf. the quotation above from J. T. Sanders, “Conversion,” 619. 25 So rightly Finger, Of Widows and Meals, 113. 26 J. T. Sanders, “Conversion,” 619.

Mass Conversions, Persecutions and Church Growth

249

“shifts across religious traditions” and is reserved for “‘long-distance’ shifts in religious allegiance, those involving a shift across traditions, as from Judaism or Roman paganism to Christianity ....” 27 This definition obviously does not cover what happened in response of the preaching of Peter at Pentecost. Certainly, Peter’s speech includes the verb µετανοέω, a term elsewhere used in relation to Gentiles and their turning to God, 28 but it is also used in connection with John the Baptist addressing fellow Jews. 29 When used in relation to Jews there is no question of conversion in the sense mentioned above, but repentance with regard to moral conduct and way of life (cf. Luke 3:10–14). 30 In Peter’s speech in Acts 2, repentance is clearly related to his accusation that the audience, i. e. the Jews in Jerusalem, in some way was responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus (2:23b, 36–38). 31 Thus the audience is asked to repent, not to convert “from Judaism to Christianity.” Such an idea is totally meaningless within the context. When the audience “received his [Peter’s] word” (2:41), they did not shift religion; they first and foremost accepted that Jesus from Nazareth was the promised Messiah – at that time part of Jewish expectations, at least in some, mainly apocalyptic, circles. This means that what was going on in Jerusalem and Judea in the early days of the Jesus movement, should rather be designated as “reaffiliation,” a word that refers to “shifts within religious traditions.” Stark and Finke stress that this is much less dramatic than conversion: “Rather than shifting their religious tradition, most of the time, people merely join a new group within their prior tradition, as when Baptists become Catholics, or Sunni Muslims become Shi’ites.” 32 This seems to correspond to Luke’s reference to the Jesus movement as a αἵρεσις within ancient Judaism (cf. Acts 24:5). It also matches the way the Jesus believers was perceived by Roman authorities – at least according to Luke’s presentation: they were Jews (Acts 18:15; cf. 16:20). On this basis, we should be very careful when using the term “conversion” in relation to Jews, at least in the first century. For a long time this insight has been a commonplace when referring to Paul’s Damascus experience. While New

27 Rodney Stark and Roger Finke, Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 114. 28 Acts 17:30; 26:20; cf. the noun µετάνοια in Acts 11:18; 26:20. 29 Cf. Luke 3:3, 8; Acts 13:24; 19:4. 30 From a historical point of view the baptism referred to in Acts 2:41 would – by those being baptized – probably have been perceived as a sign of repentance – in line with the baptism of John the Baptist (Luke 3:3), a baptism referred to several times in Acts (1:22; 10:37; 13:24; 19:4). Within the narrative of Acts, however, baptism is surely seen as a “Christian” baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, conveying the gift of the Spirit (2:38; cf. 19:1–6) – and similar to the baptism of Gentiles (cf. 8:38; 10:47–48). 31 Cf. Acts 3:13–14; in Acts 4:10 and 5:30 the accusation is more precisely directed to the members of the Sanhedrin; cf. 13:27–28. 32 Stark and Finke, Acts of Faith, 114.

250

Reidar Hvalvik

Testament scholars earlier spoke about Paul’s conversion, it is now common to speak about Paul’s calling or simply “the Damascus experience.” In his classical treatment of the topic, Krister Stendahl stresses that there was a greater continuity between “before” and “after” than often presupposed: “Here is not that change of ‘religion’ that we commonly associate with the word conversion.” 33 As I have tried to demonstrate elsewhere, Paul – according to Acts – continued to live as a Jew after the Damascus experience. 34 In all probability this also holds true for the “historical Paul.” It probably also holds true for the great majority of Jewish believers in Jesus during the first century and even later. Admittedly there are elements in Paul’s theology, for instance his hint about the “church of God” as something other than Jews and Greeks /Gentiles (1 Cor 10:32), which encouraged a new identity. 35 For most Jewish believers during the early decades of the Jesus movement this way of thinking would, however, probably be very strange. They understood themselves as Jews, as members of the elected people to whom God has given so many promises. That some of the promises were now fulfilled did not disturb their Jewish identity. They continued to live as Jews and to participate in the traditional worship in the synagogue. If we return to Acts 2 and imagine that actually some 3,000 people responded positively to the apostles’ preaching on the day of Pentecost and the following weeks – what would the implications be? First, if we take into account the calculations above, the lowest number (a total of 185,000 present in Jerusalem on Pentecost) implies that people living permanently in Jerusalem will comprise 32.4 %, while the pilgrims coming to the festival would comprise 67.6 %, of the total. 36 With the higher numbers (a total of 380,000), the inhabitants in Jerusalem would comprise 21 %, the visitors 79 %. 37 If we further presuppose that the 3,000 were equally divided between inhabitants and visitors, the first calculation would imply that 630 permanent residents responded positively to the gospel, and 2370 visitors; the second calculation would give the number 972 and 2028 respectively. Besides, if we think that the number 3,000 include (at least part of) households, we could perhaps divide the number by three. In that case we can imagine that 210 (or 324) households in Jerusalem were included, and 790 (or 676) families of visitors.

33 Krister Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), esp. 7–23, here 7. 34 Reidar Hvalvik, “Paul as a Jewish Believer – According to the Book of Acts,” in A History of Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries (ed. O. Skarsaune and R. Hvalvik; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007), 121–53. 35 The inclusion of gentiles – so important to Paul – was, of course, another main challenge to Jewish identity. 36 The numbers presupposed are 60,000 inhabitants and 125,000 visitors (see above). 37 The numbers presupposed are 80,000 inhabitants and 300,000 visitors (see above).

Mass Conversions, Persecutions and Church Growth

251

If we for the sake of the argument speculate a bit further: let us imagine that there were a considerable group of pilgrims from Rome. In order to make a calculation, let us say that they actually comprised 3 % of the total number of visitors. With the lower number of visitors (125,000), this would mean 3,750 persons from Rome; with the higher number (300,000) as much as 9,000. If we further imagine that the group from Rome was representative for the whole group of visitors, the implications would be that 61 (or 71) 38 individuals accepted the message of the apostles; representing some 20 (or 24) Jewish families. Let us imagine these families coming back to Rome. What did they do? Of course, they continued to go to the synagogue where they belonged. What else should they do? They probably spoke about what they had experienced in Jerusalem to their fellow Jews. At first this may have aroused mainly curiosity, later probably dispute and even quarreling among Jews in Rome. It is likely that a situation like this is reflected in the edict of Claudius. In his De vita Caesarum the Roman historian Suetonius writes: “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome” (Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit). 39 There is no scholarly consensus concerning the dating of this edict, but 49 C. E. seems to be the most likely date. 40 There can, however, be little doubt that the Chrestus referred to in the edict, is related to Christus, or more precisely: followers of Christ. 41 The interesting thing is that the Roman authorities still in the late forties perceived the debate concerning Christ as an inner Jewish question. From Paul’s letter to the Romans (written sometime between 56 and 58) we know of several house churches comprised of both Jews and Gentiles (cf. Rom 16). 42 And by the year 64 the authorities (read: Nero) were able to distinguish the Christians from the Jews (and others) in Rome. 43 But that is another story. There are many “ifs” in the presentation above. As far as I can see, however, the calculations done are neither unreasonable nor improbable. I think they represent a sober picture of the possible implications of 3,000 persons accepting the message of Peter and the other apostles on the day of Pentecost and the 38

Based on the percentages 1.62 and 0.79 (see above). Divus Claudius 25 A. Translation J. C. Rolfe, LCL. 40 For a broader discussion, see Reidar Hvalvik, “Jewish Believers and Jewish Influence in the Roman Church until the Early Second Century,” in A History of Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries (ed. O. Skarsaune and R. Hvalvik; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007), 179–216; 180–84. 41 Cf. Shlomo Simonsohn, The Jews of Italy: Antiquity (Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies 52; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 31. Simonsohn’s survey of the events is, however, marred by his statement about “Orthodox Jews” in opposition to the “Judaeo-Christians” (ibid.). 42 See Hvalvik, “Jewish Believers and Jewish Influence,” 193. 43 See Tacitus, Ann. 15.44.2 concerning Nero blaming the Christians for the fire in Rome, and the recent treatment by James S. McLaren, “Early Christian Polemic against Jews and the Persecution of Christians in Rome by Nero,” in Religious Conflict from Early Christianity to the Rise of Islam (ed. Wendy Mayer and Bronwen Neil; Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 121; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), 39–50. 39

252

Reidar Hvalvik

following weeks. When using updated information about the number of inhabitants in Jerusalem and visitors to the festivals, and breaking down the figures, we find that the total impact is much more limited than often supposed. Besides, by using adequate terminology (avoiding anachronistic terminology like “conversion to Christianity”), we get a more precise idea of what was going on in the early days of the Jesus movement. We must conclude that “mass conversions” 44 in the modern sense of the term, hardly occurred, but a considerable number of people seems to have been affected by the message of the apostles. That is however, not the same as claiming that the numbers found in Acts explain the rapid growth of “Christianity” during its first decades.

The Blood of the Martyrs Early Christian writers continued to report about the increasing number of people coming to faith in Jesus. At the end of the second century Tertullian proudly writes: “We are but of yesterday, yet we have filled every place among you – cities, islands, fortresses, towns, marketplaces, camp, tribes, town councils, the palace, the senate, the forum; we have left nothing to you but the temples of your gods” (Apol. 37.4). 45 Again we have to be cautious. This is not a historical record but an encomium of the progress of Christianity. 46 The same is certainly also the case with Tertullian’s hyperbolic saying that the Christians comprise “a great multitude of men – almost the majority of every city (pars paene maior civitatis cuiusque)” (Scap. 2.10). 47 The triumphalistic tone by early Christian authors is also evident when it comes to persecutions. A representative statement is found in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho 110.4: 48

44 According to Stark and Finke (Acts of Faith, 126) such a thing as “mass conversion” does not occur. This seems unfounded; see the material about mass conversions in relation to modern revival movements in Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary. Vol. 1: Introduction and 1:1–2:47 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 998–99. This is part of his extensive discussion of the high numbers in Acts (995–99). 45 Translations from Tertullian are quoted from Tertullian, Apologetical Works and Minucius Felix, Octavius (trans. R. Arbesmann, E. J. Daly, and E. A. Quain; FOC 10; New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1950). 46 See the valuable discussion in G. W. Clarke’s introduction to The Octavius of Marcus Minucius Felix (trans. G. W. Clarke; ACW 39; New York, N. Y.: Newman Press, 1974), 32–48. 47 MacMullen argues that civitas for Tertullian (as for Augustine) means both urbs and territorium, not just a conurbation, and translates: “almost a majority everywhere” (Ramsay MacMullen, The Second Church: Popular Christianity A. D. 200–400 [WGRWSup 1; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009]), 173, n. 15. 48 Translation from Saint Justin Martyr: The First Apology, the Second Apology, Dialogue with Trypho, Exhortation to the Greeks, Discourse to the Greeks, The Monarchy of the Rule of God (trans. Thomas B. Falls; FOC 6; New York: Christian Heritage, 1948).

Mass Conversions, Persecutions and Church Growth

253

Now it is obvious that no one can frighten or subdue us who believe in Jesus throughout the whole world. Although we are beheaded and crucified, and exposed to wild beasts and chains and flames, and every other means of torture, it is evident that we will not retract our profession of faith; the more we are persecuted, the more do others in ever-increasing numbers embrace the faith and become worshippers of God through the name of Jesus.

It is noteworthy that similar, though more sophisticated views are found by modern scholars. According to Keith Hopkins, the Roman persecutors, or at least stories about Roman persecutors, helped Christianity (during the first two centuries) to survive and prosper because they “allowed Christians to nurture a sense of danger and victimization, without there ever having been a real danger of collective extirpation.” 49 Surely Hopkins has a point, but he is close to romanticizing when he says that “in terms of number, persecution was good for Christianity.” 50 This opinion was found in several ancient Christian authors, among whom Tertullian is the most famous. Formally addressing the Roman authorities, he says: “Yet, your tortures accomplish nothing, though each is more refined than the last; rather they are an enticement to our religion. We become more numerous every time we are hewn down by you: the blood of Christians is seed (semen est sanguis Christianorum)” (Apol. 50.13). There are, however, good reasons to be cautious and not taking this statement at face value, for Tertullian is certainly exaggerating. As W. H. C. Frend soberly comments, with reference to Tertullian: “For some individuals, perhaps former Stoics like himself, the courage of the Christians in the face of death provided the impulse to ‘enquire further’, as he says, ‘into what lay within their religion and having inquired to join it’ (Apol. 50.15). But for countless others, the Christians were simply fanatics ... who wished to die (Apol. 50.3).” 51 We have no impartial or unbiased sources to inform us about the impression made by the martyrs. In the common exalted style of the acts of the martyrs we find some references to people coming to faith when they saw the Christian martyrs, 52 but even in these biased sources this is not a common feature. There is some notice of sympathy among the spectators, but in one of the clearest

49

Hopkins, “Christian Number and Its Implications,” 198. Hopkins, “Christian Number and Its Implications,” 198. 51 W. H. C. Frend, “Martyrdom and Political Oppression,” in The Early Christian World (2 vols.; ed. Philip F. Esler; London: Routledge, 2000), 2:815–68, 826. 52 Cf. The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas 17.3; quoted from Herbert Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford Early Christian Texts; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 125. Cf. also the Martyrdom of Marian and James 10.1: “Meanwhile, the blood that was shed over many days was bringing many of the brethren (numeroa fraternitas) to the Lord” (Musurillo, Acts, 207). This saying seems to mean that Christians were strengthened in their faith and commitment, rather than that pagans were converted. 50

254

Reidar Hvalvik

cases, the sympathy with Bishop Fructuosus, it is due to his good reputation – prior to his martyrdom – both among pagans and Christians. 53 For most outsiders the Christian martyrs were not only fanatics; even worse, they were traitors threatening the order and stability of the Empire. It must have been very difficult for pagans to understand why Christians could not participate in the common sacrifices. In The Acts of the Scillitian Martyrs one of the accused Christians, Speratus, refers to their good morals and stresses that “we hold our own emperor in honour.” To this the proconsul responded: “We too are a religious people and our religion is a simple one: we swear by the genius of our lord the emperor and we offer prayers for his health – as you also ought to do” (1.3). When Speratus then says, “I do not recognize the empire of this world ... I acknowledge my lord who is the emperor of kings and of all nations (imperatorem regum et omnium gentium)” (1.6), 54 he would clearly be understood as a traitor. Who among the pagan bystanders would join such people? They deserved to die. Thus the spectators cried: “Christianos ad leonem” (Tertullian, Apol. 40.2). This impression is supported by the fact that many Roman officials seem to have acted rather reasonably towards Christians. Admittedly, Christianity was not a legal religion, but many judges tried with stealth and guile to hinder Christians from becoming martyrs. An interesting witness to this attitude is found in The Martyrdom of St Conon. 55 There the prefect (tendentiously called “tyrant” in the text) tries to persuade Conon to sacrifice: “Simply take a little incense, some wine, and a branch and say: ‘Zeus all highest, protect this people.’ Say this and I shall demand nothing further of you” (4.4). 56 By not doing this, Conon appeared as a person who thwarted the welfare of the Roman people. Such a fanatic and unpatriotic attitude did not arouse compassion and sympathy on the part of pagans. On the contrary, the Christians were regarded as “atheists” (cf. Mart. Pol. 9.2) and Bishop Polycarp was accused of being “the destroyer of our own gods, the one who teaches many not to sacrifice or worship the gods” (Mart. Pol. 12.2; trans. Ehrman, LCL). This lack of loyalty towards the common traditions which served to uphold the whole empire was certainly not suitable for recruiting new followers. It seems that Frend is correct when he claims that “Martyrdom was not to be a

53

Musurillo, Acts, 179 (Mart. Fruct. 3.1). Musurillo, Acts, 87. The interrogation took place in 180 C. E. We cannot simply assume that the Acts of the martyrs records actual interrogations, but in this case this may be so. 55 Musurillo, Acts, 186–193; the texts is supposedly reflecting an event that took place during the Decian persecution. 56 During the first two centuries Christians were not normally asked to curse or revile Christ – though this also occurred (cf. Pliny, Ep. 10.96 and Mart. Pol. 9.3) 54

Mass Conversions, Persecutions and Church Growth

255

seed for Christians generally, until the Great Persecution (303–12) produced a gradual but permanent revision of attitudes towards them.” 57 At that time the number of Christians was remarkably greater than at the time of Polycarp or Cyprian. They were much more visible in the society and we may assume that lots of pagans knew about Christians. In this situation Christian martyrdoms could have the effect Tertullian claimed. In retrospect Lactantius similarly saw the Great persecution as fruitful for the church; he even claimed that it was permitted by God. His reflections are worth an extended quotation: There is a further reason why he lets persecution come upon us: it increases the number of God’s people, and it is not difficult to show why or how that happens. 19 First, many are put off the worship of gods by their loathing for cruelty; who wouldn’t shudder at sacrifice like that? Second, some are simply content with virtue and faith. A certain number suspect there is good reason for worship of gods being thought bad when so many people who do think so would rather die than do what others do in order to live. 20 Someone else wants to know what that good is which is defended even unto death and which is preferred to all the happy precious things there are in this life, and which people aren’t put off by loss of goods or life or by pain and disembowelling. 21 All that has great effect, but the principal reasons for growth in our numbers have always been these: first, people standing by hear us say amidst the tortures that we do not sacrifice to stones shaped by human hands but to a living God who is in heaven. Many realize this is true and take it to heart. 22 Second, as tends to happen when things are unclear, and people are asking each other what the cause can be of this great determination, lots of things get learnt of relevance to the faith which are not face value as historical record but reflects some reality spread around and picked up as rumours, and because they are good things, they are bound to satisfy. 23 Further, when vengeance follows, as it always does, that is a strong encouragement to believe. A reason of no small weight is this, that when unclean spirits of demons burrow, by permission, into the bodies of many people and then get ejected, all who are restored to health stick by the faith whose effectiveness they have experienced. 24 All these reasons combined bring a great many people to God, in wonderful fashion. (Inst. 5.22.18–24). 58

Does this mean that, in the end, persecutions were good for the church? Around 300, when the number of Christians was relatively high, 59 this may have been the case. But that is certainly only part of the answer. For a long time persecutions probably were a real threat to the church. And I am not thinking about the number of martyrs; the number was not very high.

57

Frend, “Martyrdom and Political Oppression,” 826. Translation from Lactantius, Divine Institutes. Translated with an Introduction and Notes by Anthony Bowen and Peter Garnsey (Translated Texts for Historians 40; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2003), 328–29. 59 See Stark, The Rise of Christianity, 4–13. It must, however, be stressed that the numbers given by Stark do not represents facts; they are estimates (ibid., 11) – comparable with proposals made by other scholars before and after him. 58

256

Reidar Hvalvik

In his well-known book, The Rise of Christianity, Rodney Stark has a separate chapter on persecutions where he writes: “persecutions rarely occurred, and only a tiny number of Christians ever were martyred – only ‘hundreds, not thousands’ according to W. H. C. Frend.” 60 It is certainly true that the number of martyrs often has been exaggerated – as is the growth of the Christians – in the ancient Christian sources. 61 Nevertheless, I think Stark underestimates the problems which were linked with the persecutions. The problem was not the number of martyrs, but rather the number of apostates. This is a factor which seldom is taken seriously into account when writing on the growth of the early church. In reality, however, the church experienced backsliding and apostasy from the very beginning. In the Synoptic Gospels “falling away” is part of Jesus’ teaching, especially related to persecutions (cf. Matt 13:20–21; Mark 4:16–17; Luke 8:13 – concerning “the ones sown on rocky ground”: “when trouble or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away”). 62 In the eschatological discourse in Matt 24, Jesus both warns against being led astray (v. 3) and predicts that “many will fall away” during tribulations (v. 10). Also the later Pauline letters witness an awareness about people leaving the faith and the Christian fellowship (1 Tim 4:1; 6:10, 21; Tit 1:14; cf. the warning in Heb 3:12). This contradicts the text quoted above, where Justin boasts: “It is evident that we will not retract our profession of faith” (Dial. 110.4). Realities were different – both before and after Justin’s time. An interesting witness about apostasy is the letter of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan about the Christians in Bithynia, early in the second century. Pliny refers to people who according to informers were Christians, but they themselves denied it. “They said that in fact they had been, but had abandoned their allegiance, some three years previously, some more years earlier, and one or two as many as twenty years before. All these as well worshipped your statue and images of the gods, and blasphemed Christ” (Ep. 10.96.6). 63 People once numbered among the believers did not always remain Christians. This became very evident during the persecutions under Decius (249–251). Even if the restoration of traditional Roman piety was Decius’ aim, his edict from the end of 249 or beginning of January 250, had enormous consequences

60 Stark, Rise of Christianity, 179; he is referring to W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of a Conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), 413. Frend is here referring to the victims under Decius and Valerian, not the persecutions in general. Besides, later, in connection with the Diocletian persecution, he estimates 3,000–3,500 martyrs (ibid., 537). 61 This well-known point is recently (over)stressed by Candida Moss, The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom (New York: HarperCollins, 2013). 62 Mark (the text quoted) and Matthew use the verb σκανδαλίζω, Luke ἀφίστηµι. 63 Translation from Pliny the Younger, Complete Letters (trans. P. G. Walsh; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).

Mass Conversions, Persecutions and Church Growth

257

for the Christians: All inhabitants in the empire were ordered to perform sacrifice and burn incense to the gods and to the well-being of the Emperor in the presence of a Roman magistrate, and to get a written certificate (libellus) that this had been done. Anyone who refused to do so by a specified date risked imprisonment, torture and possibly death. 64 The result of this edict was – from the point of view of the church – most discouraging: In many places a majority of Christians seem to have made the required sacrifices or avoided it by bribery or other such means. 65 Bishop Cyprian, one of our best sources for this persecution, writes that it “has ravaged the major part of our flock” (Ep. 11.1.2). 66 Even if we take due account of rhetorical hyperbole, it seems clear that the majority of Christians in Carthage had lapsed. After the persecution Cyprian reports about thousands who wanted to return to the Christian community by obtaining certificates of forgiveness from the confessors. 67 He also reports about whole communities that had been led by their bishops into apostasy 68 and apostate bishops who, after the persecution, fought for reinstatement 69 or joined schismatic groups. 70 In Alexandria the situation was – if possible – even worse. Bishop Dionysios reports (according to Eusebius) that the edict created great fear among Christians, especially among the more socially eminent, including those in official employ (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.41.10–13): 71 And many of the more eminent came forward immediately in some instances through fear; others who held public positions were forced to do so by their official duties; still others were drawn on by those about them. As they were called by name they approached the impure and unholy sacrifices, some pale and trembling ... but some others ran to the altars more boldly, maintaining stoutly by their boldness that they had never been Christians even formerly, and concerning these the Lord’s prediction is most true that they shall ‘hardly’ be saved [cf. Matt 19:23]. Of the remainder, some followed each of these; others fled; some were caught, and of these some went so far as ‘bonds and prisons’ [cf. Heb 11:36]; some,

64 Frend, “Martyrdom and Political Oppression,” 827–29; cf. Moss, The Myth of Persecution, 145–151. 65 See W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 319 ff. and Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians (London: Penguin, 1986), 454 ff. For the two different groups of lapsi, sacrificati (those who actually sacrificed) and libellatici (those who obtained certificates without performing the sacrifices), see Cyprian, Ep. 20.2.2. 66 Translation from The Letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage (4 vols.; trans. and ed, G. W. Clarke; ACW 43–44, 46–47; New York, N. Y.: Newman Press, 1985–1989). 67 Cyprian, Ep. 20.2.2. 68 Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 55.11.1 f and 59.10.3 with extensive notes in Clarke’s translation. 69 Cyprian, Ep. 65; 67.6.1 f. 70 Cyprian, Ep. 59.10.2. 71 Translation from Eusebius Pamphili, Ecclesiastical History (2 vols.; trans. Roy J. Deferrari; FOC 19 and 29; Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1953 and 1955). For the situation in Smyrna in Asia Minor, see Walter Ameling, “The Christian lapsi in Smyrna, 250 A. D. (Martyrium Pionii 12–14),” VC 62 (2008): 133–60.

258

Reidar Hvalvik

too, after they had been confined for more days, then abjured themselves even before they came to trial; and still others, after remaining firm for a time against the tortures, subsequently renounced their faith.

The persecution under Decius was not the only crisis that the church had to face during the first centuries. But it illustrates that persecutions not only resulted in martyrs, but also apostates. Besides there was another consequence which very often is ignored: the disorder and schism that tormented many congregations after the persecutions. Graeme Clarke has aptly summarized the situation after Decius: “Decius’ religious rally had left behind a longlasting legacy of disorder and disarray within the Christian ranks, with dissensions over the proper conditions for readmitting the fallen bitterly dividing the churches everywhere, and with bishops challenged for spiritual leadership by surviving (and, by definition, inspirited) confessors.” 72 Occasionally persecutions may have had a positive outcome for the church. But in all probability the negative consequences were generally much greater. The morality and integrity of the church were challenged and often seriously damaged by the conduct of great numbers of Christians who became backsliders. In fact even the very unity of the church was at risk, as can be seen from the controversy between Pope Cornelius and the anti-pope Novatian. 73

Concluding Remarks Many surveys of the growth and expansion of the early church report enthusiastically about the “mysterious growth” of the church, focusing on the many conversions. Numbering converts is, however, not sufficient – especially when we have no secure figures. And even if some of the high numbers of “converts” should be close to historical realities, the impact may be modest. Besides, conversion is a complex phenomenon. Within the field of psychology of religion one speaks about the “old conversion paradigm,” where the prototype is the conversion of Paul, i. e. the way his “conversion” earlier was understood. Typical for this paradigm is, among other things, that it occurs suddenly, it occurs once, it is permanent and behavior change follows from belief change. 74 No doubt this 72 Graeme Clarke, “Third-Century Christianity,” in The Cambridge Ancient History: Second Edition, Volume XII: The Crisis of Empire, A. D. 193–337 (ed. Alan K. Bowman, Peter Garnsey and Averil Cameron; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 589–671; esp. 625–35, quotation from p. 635. 73 See the following entries in Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity (3 vols.; ed. Angelo Di Berardino; translated from Italian; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2014): H. J. Vogt, “Lapsi, Problem of the” (2:510–20), H. J. Vogt, “Novatian” (2:933–35) and P. Mattei, “Novatianists” (2:936–38) – with further literature. 74 Ralph W. Hood, Jr., Peter C. Hill, and Bernard Spilka, The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach (4th ed.; New York: Guilford Press, 2009), 206–43, esp. 211–15.

Mass Conversions, Persecutions and Church Growth

259

paradigm is presupposed in many treatments of the growth of the early church. This influences, for example, the way one imagine the “mass conversions” in Acts: a huge number of “Christians” in the early days of the Jesus movement in Jerusalem and Judea. As I have tried to demonstrate, the conversions were not “conversions to Christianity” but rather some kind of reaffiliation within ancient Judaism. The “old paradigm of conversion” (inter alia with the view that conversion was permanent) may also have made scholars more or less “blind” to the possibility and reality of apostasy and backsliding. According to the “new paradigm,” conversion occurs gradually, it is not permanent; it may occur several times. 75 In other words, conversion is “a process of religious change” 76 which in fact may include backsliding. 77 Besides, backsliding may even be permanent, 78 and has to be taken into account when one writes about the growth of the early church. It is not only a history of triumph and growth, but also of defeat and decay. Against this background it may be appropriate to quote Harnack: “Augustine, in his rhetorical fashion, thinks Christianity must have reproduced itself by means of miracles, for the greatest miracle of all would have been the extraordinary extension of the religion apart from any miracles.” 79

75

Hood, Hill, and Spilka, The Psychology of Religion, 217. So Lewis R. Rambo in his classical treatment Understanding Religious Conversion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), 5. 77 Rambo (Religious Conversion, 136) comments: “Few people experience surrender as a final achievement, without reservations or backsliding. Surrender is a process in which the person disconnects himself or herself from old ways and patterns and gradually is able to consolidate the new life into a firmer, growing commitment.” 78 This is very common with regard to conversions to many of the new religious movements in the second half of the twentieth century; cf. Hood, Hill, and Spilka, The Psychology of Religion, 233–234. In this context the phenomenon is called “deconversion.” 79 Harnack, Mission and Expansion, 2:335, n. 2. 76

Households and the Exodus A Note on Infant Baptism in the Early Church Karl Olav Sandnes

Abstract Point of departure for this article on infant baptism is the collective nature of salvation from Egypt. Relevant Jewish sources show awareness that children and infants participated in this event. How this comes into play in the two most distinguished proponents of infant baptism (Origen and Cyprian), is the focus of this article.

Introduction In a volume dedicated to the memory of our colleague and friend Hans Kvalbein, it is natural to address some aspects of discipleship, a theme which he often considered. The classical debate on infant baptism between Joachim Jeremias and Kurt Aland 1 can serve as a starting point. Jeremias and Aland differed strongly on the question of whether historically, young children were baptised. Jeremias answered the question affirmatively, whereas Aland denied the practice outright. 2 They agreed, though, that the first extant evidence for infant baptism is found from the third century, in casu with Tertullian 3 and Origen. According to Aland, this evidence indicates that infant baptism represented an 1 Joachim Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries (London: SCM, 1960); Kurt Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants? (London: SCM, 1961); Joachim Jeremias, The Origins of Infant Baptism: A Further Study in Reply to Kurt Aland (London: SCM, 1962). For more recent presentations, see Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak: Faith and Life in the First Three Centuries (3rd ed.; Abilene: Acu Presso, 1999), 53–64; Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 362–79; Odd M. Bakke, When Children Became People: The Birth of Childhood in Early Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 223–46. 2 In Did the Early Church Baptize Infants? Aland argues that the church should baptise infants today as it is in accord “with a profounder understanding of the teaching of the New Testament” (113). 3 Bapt. 18. Although Tertullian favors postponement of baptism, he acknowledges Matt 19:14 par (“Do not prevent them coming to me”): ait quidem dominus. Some have taken this passage as a proof text for infant baptism. It takes some hermeneutical reflection to do so, though, as the text does not address the issue. As pointed out by David F. Wright, “‘Out, In, Out: Jesus’ Blessing of the Children and Infant Baptism,” in Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies (ed. S. E. Porter and A. R. Cross; JSNTSup 234; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 194–202, this view was likely not the dominant use of Jesus’ dictum as it appears only in Tertullian and the Apostolic Constitutions (Apost. Const. 6.15.5–7; Marcel Metzger, SC 329:344–45). The latter is directed against postponement of baptism, in other words, pace Tertullian. Infant baptism is here seen as unfolding the instruction given in Eph 6:4 (ἐκτρέφετε αὐτὰ ἐν παιδείᾳ θεοῦ) and as based on the

262

Karl Olav Sandnes

innovation, while to Jeremias, it proves a well-established practice. Crucial to this discussion is the so-called οἶκος phrase in the Book of Acts. 4 Did these households include young children? In addressing the issue of household baptism, Friedrich Avemarie states that these texts leave open the question of children but nonetheless are important for the question of infant baptism: “Die Oikos-Formeln deshalb aber als nicht aussagekräftig beiseite zu schieben wäre voreilig. Denn es eignet ihnen ein hermeneutisches Potential, das über das, was der Text des Lukas nachprüfbar expliziert, hinausweist.” 5 This hermeneutical potential represents an imaginative power that the texts can trigger by inference. This potential is a challenge for present-day theologians engaging in the dispute over infant baptism. The present article attempts to determine whether the relevant Jewish sources reflect a corporate idea of salvation which included children, and whether this idea was picked up in early Christian discourses on infant baptism. In other words, is the ‘hermeneutical potential’ historically grounded? This research was triggered by the so-called household formula in Acts and particularly 1 Cor 10:1–2: “Our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptised into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” According to Robin M. Jensen, this text is the earliest example of baptismal typology 6 and, although certainly popular, has not received much attention with regard to infant baptism. 7 According to Jeremias, 1 Cor 10:1–2 is very much in line with the οἶκος phrase of Acts. 8 The present article starts with the following question: Does Paul draw upon a potential analogy that exceeds the actual use he makes of the Exodus in 1 Cor 10 and thus attests to the presence of a Scriptural pattern that could include children? Likely no ancient reader of the biblical narrative would argue that children did not take part in the Exodus. The question is whether they were part of the cultural idea of the Exodus, so that the reference to Exodus implicitly conveys this notion. Furthermore, does the early Christian debate on infant baptism pick up on this notion? Certainly, infant dictum of Jesus. From this, we gather that the question of infant baptism did not rely entirely on texts addressing baptism and children expressis verbis. 4 For other attempts to address this phrase, see Hermut Löhr, “Kindertaufe im Frühen Christentum,” in Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity (ed. D. Hellholm et al.; BZNW 176.2; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 1531–52. 5 Friedrich Avemarie, Die Tauferzählungen der Apostelgeschichte: Theologie und Geschichte (WUNT 139; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 102. 6 Robin M. Jensen, Baptismal Imagery in Early Christianity: Ritual, Visual, and Theological Dimensions (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 20–23. 7 See Joachim Jeremias, “Der Ursprung der Johannestaufe,” ZNW 28 (1929), 312–20, esp. 314–17. Löhr, “Kindertaufe,” 1532, states that the question of infant baptism has to be solved through indirect evidence or inference only and mentions which texts may be helpful in this regard. He does not list 1 Cor 10. 8 Jeremias, Infant Baptism, 23. In idem, Origins of Infant Baptism, 32, 85, this text becomes more important.

Households and the Exodus

263

baptism was disputed. Origen says in Hom. Luc. 14:5 (Luke 2:21–24) that he once again (retracto) addresses this issue, which is frequently disputed among the brethren (frequenter inter fratres quaeritur). 9 The dispute at which he hints concerns children and sin: when do they commit sin? Origen’s proof text is Job 14:4–5 LXX where it states that no one is clean, even those who live for only one day. As we proceed, we need to keep in mind that the early church did not universally embrace liturgical practices. Hence, the question of infant baptism cannot be separated from the pluriform nature of early Christian theology and liturgical practices. 10

Households – Without Children? The context of the debate on the baptism of households has changed. Feminist studies have taught us that marginal groups are almost invisible in the sources, which do not account for the roles of either women or children in the life of the early Christianity. Recently, Marcia J. Bunge edited The Child in the Bible, 11 describing this new awareness and the concealment of children in antiquity in general and in early Christian sources in particular. 12 With reference to Pauline dicta on house churches, Beverly R. Gaventa says that, “in the same way that the presence of women in these communities is now understood to extend well beyond the explicit naming of female believers, the presence of children may also be assumed.” 13 There is a new awareness of the social structures at work in these texts, suggesting a fresh look at household conversions. 14 The baptism of households is indicated in Acts 11:14; 16:15, 31–34; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16; 16:15. These texts address a microcosm of society: the family. Including textual variants, six families are involved. Children or infants are un-

9 For the Latin text, see Origenes, Homilien zum Lukasevangelium, Erster Teilband (trans. H.-J. Sieben; Fontes Christiani 4.1; Freiburg: Herder, 1991). 10 Paul F. Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and Methods for the Study of Early Liturgy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 47–53. 11 Marcia J. Bunge, ed., The Child in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008). 12 See also Peter Balla, The Child-Parent Relationship in the New Testament and Its Environment (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005); Reidar Aasgaard, “Children in Antiquity and Early Christianity: Research History and Central Issues,” Familia 33 (2006): 2–46; C. B. Horn and R. R. Phenix, eds., Children in Late Ancient Christianity (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 58; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). For the role of children in the New Testament, see Sharon Betsworth, Children in Early Christian Narratives (LNTS 521; London: T&T Clark, 2015), although the Book of Acts is left out. 13 Beverly R. Gaventa, “Finding a Place for Children in the Letters of Paul,” in The Child in the Bible (ed. M. J. Bunge; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 233–48, esp. 235. 14 See Nicholas H. Taylor, “The Social Nature of Conversion in the Early Christian World,” in Modelling Early Christianity: Social-Scientific Studies of the New Testament in Its Context (ed. Ph. F. Esler; London: Routledge, 1995), 128–36, esp. 132–33.

264

Karl Olav Sandnes

mentioned, as are wives and slaves. Assuming the absence of these groups is tantamount to undermining the idea of a household in general, not least in the collectively oriented ancient society. Although corporate, hierarchical and patriarchal structures made these groups invisible, even though they still existed. References, such as Acts 7:20 (the new-born child Moses was brought up “in his father’s house”) and 21:5 (“all with wives and children;” cf. 1 Tim 3:4–5, 12; and Tit 1:6–7), are important reminders of a context inclusive of children. Ferguson refers to Ignatius, Smyrn. 13:1 (“I greet the households of my brothers with the wives and children”) and Pol. 8:2 (“I greet all by name and the widow of Epitropus with all the household of her and her children”). By implication, Ferguson surmises that οἶκος does not include children, unless explicitly mentioned. 15 If this logic is applied to wives, though, it is obviously questionable. A wider meaning of οἶκος suggesting that children are not excluded is found in contemporary Greco-Roman and Jewish sources. 16 The question should be one of exclusion rather than inclusion. According to Cicero, “the first bond of union is between husband and wife; the next, that between parents and children; then we find one home (una domus) with everything in common. And this is the foundation of civil government, the nursery, as it were of the state” (Off. 1.54). The last sentence firmly roots this logic in the so-called oikonomia literature. 17 Of special relevance are the celebrations of festivals which include all members of the household. This is clearly the case during Passover in Exod 12:3 and 21, when the celebration took place κατ᾽ οἴκους πατριῶν, κατ᾽ οἰκίαν, κατὰ συγγενείας ὑµῶν. According to Exod 16:16, the heads of the households were to collect manna for their families (σὺν τοῖς συσκηνίοις ὑµῶν), literally, for “those living in the same tent.” Deuteronomy 16:11 and 14 speak of festivals including “your son and daughter, your servant and maid,” echoing the Sabbath commandment in Deut 5:14. This commandment refers to the delivery from Egypt, implying that all generations and people of different standings and positions within the household are included. In Deut 6:20–25, this inclusion comes together in a liturgical setting through the mention of the son of posterity: “the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand” (v. 21). 18 The next verse

15 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 178. I find Joel B. Green, ‘“Tell Me a Story;’ Perspectives on Children from the Acts of the Apostles,” in Child in the Bible (ed. M. J. Bunge; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 215–32, to be more balanced. 16 A good example is Philo Migr. 217, which speaks about the “wife and children and all else that is our own” (LCL); the Greek text has: τὰς ἐπὶ γυναικὶ καὶ τέκνοις καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις οἰκείοις. 17 See Karl Olav Sandnes, A New Family: Conversion and Ecclesiology in the Early Church with Cross-Cultural Comparisons (SIHC 91; Bern: Peter Lang, 1994), 47–48; and David L. Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter (SBLMS 26; Chico: Scholars Press, 1981). 18 According to the Passover Haggadah, the son of posterity is the youngest son.

Households and the Exodus

265

mentions the signs and wonders performed against Pharaoh and against his house (ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ). From a narrative perspective, this unit must include firstborn children. These texts are liturgical rather than historical, 19 as hinted in Deut 6:20 where LXX has αὔριον, meaning “tomorrow” or “in the future.” They perpetuate the Exodus, which, of course, is highly important for the question of the cultural idea of the Exodus. According to Patrick D. Miller, Deuteronomy, owing to its didactic character, presents the tradition handed down to children. He argues that in Deuteronomy, both “the little ones” and the next generation refer to children. A key text is Deut 1:39: “And as for your little ones, whom you thought would become booty, your children who today do not know right from wrong, they shall enter there [the land]; to them I shall give it, and they shall take possession of it.” The Hebrew text here has ‫ְט ְפּ ֶכם‬ ַ ‫ ו‬and ‫ֵיכם‬ ֶ ‫וּבנ‬. ְ Those who are vulnerable to kidnapping and cannot distinguish between right and wrong are young children. 20 The LXX shortens the two terms into πᾶν παιδίον νέον, 21 furthering emphasising that the little ones are “new or fresh children.” 22 This interpretation finds opposition in 1 Cor 7:14. Paul addresses households divided when not all members embrace the Christian faith. 23 He assumes the presence of children who are not baptised. 24 Households where only one spouse was a believer included unbaptised children. This demonstrates how complex the historical situation was. It is by no means certain what can be inferred about infant baptism from this passage; perhaps only that matters of faith, including whether offspring were to be baptised, were disputed in such 19

This pointed was also made by Patrick D. Miller, “That the Children May Know: Children in Deuteronomy,” in Child in the Bible (ed. M. J. Bunge; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 45–62, esp. 56. 20 This brings to mind the Apostolic Tradition 21, which says that parvuli are to be baptised first and that among these some can speak for themselves (qui possunt loqui pro se). 21 For the text-critical considerations involved, see Carmel McCarthy, Deuteronomy: Introduction and Commentaries on Deuteronomy (Biblia Hebraica Quinta 5; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007) 54. 22 See BDAG s.v. and LSJ s.v. The adjective νέον combined with παιδίον does not necessarily refer to young children but might include youths. The context is decisive. In Deut 1:39, νέον works like ἐκ νεότητος (Gen 48:15; Plato, Gorg. 510D; Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 1103b24). In all these examples, νέος refers to nursing or instruction starting from childhood. In Plato, Leg. 887D, νέος refers to suckling infants to whom lullabies were sung. The instruction stating “My child, you are young (νέος)” (888A) implies that νέος might also refer to somewhat older children. In Sobr. 6–11, Philo discusses what it means for a son to be νέος. He argues that this is not a reference to age but to maturity and understanding. The discussion proceeds from the facts that νέος, in its literal sense, refers to children, mostly young ones, and that Philo, as is often the case, presents a symbolic understanding of what this means. 23 For this situation, see Sandnes, Family, 21–31. 24 I agree with Wolfgang Schrage, Der Erste Brief an die Korinther (1 Kor 6,12–11,16) (EKK7.2; Zürich: Benziger and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1995), 107 and Judith M. Gundry-Volf, “The Least and the Greatest: Children in the New Testament,” in The Child in Christian Thought (ed. Marcia J. Bunge; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 29–60, esp. 51.

266

Karl Olav Sandnes

families (cf. συνευδοκεῖ, v. 12). Paul considers unbaptised children “holy,” but his logic does not imply that the non-believing spouse or children were considered saved: “Die Nichtchristen werden durch den christlichen Ehepartner geheiligt, nicht die Christen entheiligt.” 25 “Paul is setting forth a high view of the grace of God at work through the believer toward members of his or her own household.” 26 This situation is not identical to what οἶκος references represent, since no household conversion has taken place here. Nevertheless, the text assumes the presence of children in such families and looks upon them as affected by their family members’ embrace of the Christian faith. The collective perspective found in the household references takes us to the pool from which Paul draws his Scriptural proof in 1 Cor 10: the Exodus traditions. 27

Paul on Baptism in 1 Corinthians 10 “Die Taufe im Urchristentum war – wie die Johannestaufe – eine Taufe von Erwachsenen” – so Ferdinand Hahn concludes the question of infant baptism in the early church, 28 drawing analogies to the baptism of John. 29 John’s ritual clearly entailed repentance, cleansing, personal commitment and confession of sin, summarised in the sentence βάπτισµα µετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁµαρτιῶν (Mark 1:4). John, living in the desert, urged people to practise justice and piety (Josephus Ant. 18.116–19; cf. Life 10–12). This is not a children’s world. The context of Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 10:2 is likely similar. A logic according to which the people of Israel were rescued corporately is implied, but is the presence of children also to be assumed? The text is embedded in a discourse on mastering desires. 30 Paul’s point does not naturally concern children, so his argument has no immediate bearing on the question of infant baptism.

25

Schrage, Korinther, 104. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 302. As pointed out by Gundry-Volf, “The Least and the Greatest,” children are rarely mentioned in the New Testament “and only in relation to parents” (48). There is hardly any independent interest in children. 27 Ethelbert Stauffer, “Zur Kindertaufe in der Urkirche,” Deutsches Pfarrerblatt 49 (1949): 152–54. 28 Ferdinand Hahn, “Kindersegnung und Kindertaufe im Ältesten Christentum,” in idem, Studien zum Neuen Testament. Bd. II: Bekenntnisbildung und Theologie in Urchristlicher Zeit (WUNT 192; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 665–75, esp. 670. 29 See Hans Kvalbein, “The Baptism of Jesus as a Model for Christian Baptism: Can the Idea Be Traced Back to New Testament Times?” ST 50 (1996): 67–83; Michael Labahn, “Kreative Erinnerung als Nachösterliche Nachschöpfung,” in Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity (ed. D. Hellholm et al.; BZNW 176.2; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 337–76. 30 Karl Olav Sandnes, Belly and Body in the Pauline Epistles (SNTSMS 120; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 199–211. 26

Households and the Exodus

267

In his study Taufe und Typos: Elemente und Theologie der Tauftheologie in 1. Korinther 10 und 1. Petrus 3, Karl-Heinrich Ostmeyer argues that the typology underlying Paul’s argument represents “eine aufs äusserste komprimierte und in sich geschlossene Tauftheologie.” 31 Paul’s baptismal theology draws on the traditions of Israel crossing the Red Sea. This event prefigured baptism: “Der ‘praktische Wert’ einer solchen Theologie der Tauftypologien lässt sich u. a. daran ablesen für welche Problemkreise sie Lösungsansätze bietet; dazu zählen z. B. ... die Kindertaufe.” 32 Paul draws a parallel with the fathers in the desert, wanting his readers to learn from their failures. By including the formerly pagan Corinthians among “our fathers,” he exhibits an inclusive reasoning about the Exodus event. His argument builds upon a contrast between the people’s complaints and the gifts conferred by God upon all. The believers in Corinth find themselves in a similar situation as their ancestors. They both faced temptations, and Paul urges his readers to stand firm; in short, to master their desires. First Corinthians 10:1–5 give the Exodus story in a condensed form. Its key elements – the guiding and protecting cloud and the crossing of the Red Sea – are summarised in one term: ἐβαπτίσθησαν. These events prefigure Christian baptism, and Paul tells a baptismal story. The baptismal aspect is tangential to the aim of his argument and is not pursued. Nevertheless, it is valid to ask what concerning baptism can be extracted from this text. Baptism is an act of deliverance. The passive voice (ἐβαπτίσθησαν) implies an act of God, while the term comprises a series of events related to Israel’s rescue. The baptismal bath, as such, is not considered here as θάλασσα and is not to be identified with water as the means of baptism; rather, it is a reference to the threatening waters from which the people were saved. 33 However, saving waters are found in verses 3–4 (cf. 1 Cor 12:13). Through baptism, the people are brought into a new relationship, liberating them from bondage. Furthermore, baptism implies ethical demands. Finally, the cloud symbolising God’s presence, guidance and protection could be a reference to the Spirit. 34 All these points are present in other Pauline passages on baptism; therefore, this passage appears to be a key text in Paul’s baptismal theology.

31 Karl-Heinrich Ostmeyer, Taufe und Typos: Elemente und Theologie der Tauftypologien in 1. Korinther 10 und 1. Petrus 3 (WUNT 2/118; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 206. 32 Ostmeyer, Taufe und Typos, 4, does not develop this idea. 33 The same view is presented by also Ostmeyer, Taufe und Typos, 71–73, 140–42, 201–3. For such use of water in a biblical context, see also Karl Olav Sandnes, “Markus – en Allegorisk Biografi?” DTT 69 (2006): 275–97, esp. 290–95. Philo, Contempl. 86, attests to the idea that the sea was a source of salvation for Israel and a source of perdition for the enemy. 34 See Per Lundberg, La typologie baptismale dans l’ancienne Église (Leipzig: Alfred Lorentz, 1942), 140–42.

268

Karl Olav Sandnes

Can children also be envisaged here, in line with the fact that οἱ πατέρες ἡµῶν cannot be taken to exclude women? That women are not mentioned is a reminder of the patriarchal, male- and adult-oriented perspective. Commenting on infant baptism in Paul’s theology, James D. G. Dunn wisely states that “too little time had elapsed for new questions to be thrown up to stimulate his further theologising.” 35 Therefore, some of our questions remain somewhat unresolved. This invites pursuing the baptismal analogies upon which Paul draws and considering them in light of how such traditions were perceived in ancient Judaism and whether they were used in early Christian baptismal theology. In short, this insight encourages readers to see if Paul’s Exodus analogy has been unpacked. The Old Testament texts emphasise that nothing – not even Joseph’s bones (Exod 13:19) – was to be left behind when Israel departed from Egypt. The Septuagint adds that the departure from Egypt took place in the fifth generation. Both pieces of information indicate a collective movement. This is not without bearing on a hermeneutical reading of Paul’s typology in 1 Cor 10, but was such a reading relevant to early advocates of infant baptism?

Exodus and Children in Jewish Traditions The departure from Egypt and the passage through the Red Sea are recalled in Wis 10:15–11:4, a text that echoes 1 Cor 10:1–5: “She [i. e. Wisdom] guided them along a marvellous way, and became a shelter to them by day, and a starry flame through the night. She brought them over the Red Sea, and led them through deep waters, but she drowned their enemies, and cast them up from the depth of the sea” (Wis 10:17–18). This passage owes much to Exod 14:28 LXX, which says that none of the Egyptians escaped the water (καὶ οὐ κατελείφθη ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐδὲ εἷς), 36 in contrast to the salvation of all of Israel: οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ ἐπορεύθησαν διὰ ξηρᾶς ἐν µέσῳ τῆς θαλάσσης ... ἐρρύσατο κύριος τὸν Ισραηλ (Exod 14:29–30 LXX). This language of praise aligns with the view that all of Israel is included. In 1 Cor 10, Paul reasons in similar inclusive terms. According to this sapiential text, the people responded by singing hymns in one accord (ὁµoθυµαδόν) (Wis 10:20), a rephrasing of Exod 15:1. However, the hymn sung by Moses and his sister is seen in a wider perspective: “For Wisdom opened the mouths of those who were mute, and made the tongues of infants [νηπίων] speak clearly” (Wis 10:21). Here, the events of the Exodus are recalled as including participation by all of Israel. This text rephrases the enigmatic Ps 8:3

35 36

James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 459. See also Ps 106:11 LXX.

Households and the Exodus

269

LXX. God has provided a defence against enemies ἐκ στόµατος νηπίων καὶ θηλαζόντων (cf. Matt 11:25; 21:16). This merging of the Exodus event and Ps 8 brings children into the picture and gives rise to a figurative description of the Israelites in Egypt: they were like new-born babes whose umbilical cords had not been cut and who had not yet been washed or wrapped in swaddling clothes (Tg. Ezek 16:4). 37 Wisdom of Solomon 10 speaks in the vein of Isa 40:11, where the prophet compares salvation to the delivery from Egypt. God is the Deliverer who has a special concern for the little ones and the weak: “He will gather the lambs in his arms.” This figurative speech sums up the rescue from exile and specifically mentions children. Isaiah 40:11 serves as an introduction to texts such as Isa 43:16 and 51:9, dealing with a renewed Exodus, a motif at the center of Paul’s theology. 38 The all-encompassing nature of the rescue from Egypt is an important element in the traditions upon which Paul draws in 1 Cor 10:1–4. Though infants are not mentioned directly, their presence during the Exodus is clearly assumed, particularly in Philo’s version of the event, described in Mos. 1.179: “the Hebrews with their women and children, still mere infants [παίδιων ἔτι κοµιδῇ νηπίων], crossed on a dry road in the early dawn, it was otherwise with the Egyptians.” The contrast between none of the Egyptians and all of Israel naturally involves children. This passage should be seen against the backdrop of Philo’s frequent reference to the crossing of the Red Sea as a flight from passion (Spec. 2.145–49; Sacr. 63). He based that interpretation on the reference to “having the loins girded” in Exod 12:11. 39 In that discourse, a focus on children or infants is not expected, but in accordance with commonly held views of childhood, 40 Philo sometimes considers infants and children to be exposed to passions and pleasures due to their lack of reason. Unless properly ruled, the soul is easily controlled by passions during childhood. In short, childhood is in need of the “healing treatment” provided by education and philosophy (Her. 293–297; Congr. 81), 41 but in general, children are not relevant to Philo’s allegorizing of the Exodus as controlling the passions. Nonetheless, children and infants are mentioned as participants in the crossing of the Red Sea. In Spec. 2.145–147, Philo presents what he calls the facts of history before proceeding to his allegorical exposition. One such fact is the Jewish celebration of Passover memorialising “the great migration from Egypt” by more than two

37

See The Targum of Ezekiel (trans. S. H. Levey; Edinburgh: The Aramaic Bible, 1987). This part of the book of Isaiah played a significant role in shaping Paul’s theology; see e. g. Florian Wilk, Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus (FRLANT 179; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998). 39 Sandnes, Belly and Body, 108–32. 40 Bakke, When Children Became People, 15–55. 41 This condition also applies to women, as iconically stated in QE 1.8 on Exod 12:5b. 38

270

Karl Olav Sandnes

million people, both men and women (146). Thus, when Philo is not focusing on the allegorical implications of Exodus, he renders a picture that is more inclusive of women. Although not mentioned, infants are not excluded, as suggested, for example, by Mos. 1.330–331 which assumes their presence: “but our sons who are mere children and daughters [νήπιοι] and our wives and our great stock of cattle will be left behind” (330). In the second century B. C. E., Ezekiel the Tragedian staged his drama of the Exodus event, Exag¯og¯e, in the style of Greek tragedies. With regard to the crossing of the sea, he states: “Some were engaged in caring for the young together [οἱ µὲν τέκνοισι νηπίοις δίδουν βοράν] with their wives, work out with toil, with many flocks and herds and household stuffs. And they all, unprotected, without arms, on seeing us sent up a doleful cry, against heaven they inveighed, their fathers’ God” (207–210). 42 This description is aimed at enhancing the wondrous act of God in the crossing of the sea. While the Egyptians prepared for battle and slaughter (193–203), the Hebrews continued their daily routines with their families and childrearing. Based on Exod 15:1, a tradition of children’s and infants’ participation in the praise after the rescue at the Red Sea was established. 43 Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael Shirata I, commenting on Exod 15:1, quotes R. Jose the Galilean, who read this passage in the light of Ps 8:3; Job 3:16; Joel 2:16; Jer 9:20, and Lam 4:4. All these passages speak of small children and suckling infants who opened their mouths to praise God. 44 Thus, contemporary Jewish sources considered children to be participants in the Exodus. The crucial question, then, is whether this penetrated the cultural idea of what happened at the Exodus. Did it become an inherent part of how Exodus was understood? Philo suggests so, but this tradition only becomes explicit when he deviates from his allegorical reading of that passage. However, the emphasis on all Israel and other biblical passages about infants taking part in praising God during the Exodus suggests that Philo brings out explicitly what he implies more often. Therefore, we seek corroboration of this tradition in evidence from early Christianity. The two most explicit advocates of infant baptism often stretched the biblical evidence to support their case, so it is expected that they might convey such a cultural idea.

42 OTP 2:817. For the Greek text, see Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Vol. 1 (ed. B. Snell; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 298–99. 43 For Targum references, see David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 43; New York: Doubleday, 1979), 222–23; Pierre Grelot, “Sagesse 10,21 et le Targum de l’Exode,” Bib 42 (1961): 49–60; Étan Levine, “Neofiti 1: A Study of Exodus 15,” Bib 54 (1973): 301–30, esp. 307. This brings to mind Elizabeth’s praise in Luke 1:41–44; even τὸ βρέφος participates in the praise. 44 Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Vol. 2 (trans. J. Z. Lauterbach; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1976), 11–12.

Households and the Exodus

271

Baptism and Exodus in Early Christian Interpretation: Were Children Included? The crossing of the Red Sea was a favorite of several biblical analogies which provided early Christianity with paradigms for baptismal theology and practice. 45 Philo of Alexandria seems to have paved the way for drawing theological lessons from this diabasis. 46 From Paul (1 Cor 10) to Justin (1. Apol. 62) and onwards, the Exodus became a source from which much could be drawn, including the use of milk and honey in the baptismal liturgy. 47 The Exodus event and the crossing of the Sea in particular served as points of departure for creative imaginations about baptism, whether ethical in nature or inspired by water as a symbol of the threatening abyss, signifying Satan’s defeat. Tertullian (Bapt. 9) asks what figurative meaning the Exodus has for baptism (quae figura manifestior in baptismi sacramento?) 48 and finds that it is an act of liberation (liberantur). While mastering sinful desires and the defeat of Satan were the dominant allegoric interpretations of the Exodus, did some scholars consider it to encompass children? We turn to Origen and Cyprian, the two most distinguished proponents of infant baptism and the first to offer a theological rationale for the practice.

Origen According to Gunnar af Hällström, Origen saw Exodus 14 as “the text par excellence when explaining what baptism is all about” and made the crossing of the Red Sea “the image of reference for his treatment of baptism.” 49 Origen himself clearly states so in Rufinus’ Latin translation: his verbis (= 1 Cor 10:2) Apostolos

45 See Lundberg, La typologie, 10–29. Origen’s Comm. Jo. 6.43.226–249 may serve as a collection of some of these analogies. 46 Sandnes, Belly and Body, 112–32. 47 Barn. 6:8–19 and Trad. ap. 21.27–30. For this practice, see Nils A. Dahl, “La terre où coulent le lait et le miel selon Barnabé 6.8–19,” in Aux Sources de la tradition Chrétienne: Mélanges offerts à M. Maurice Goguel (Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1950), 62–70; and Anders Ekenberg, “Initiation in the Apostolic Tradition,” in Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity (ed. D. Hellholm et al.; BZNW 176.2; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 1011–50, esp. 1033–34. 48 Franz J. Dölger, “Der Durchzug Durch das Rote Meer als Sinnbild der Christlichen Taufe: Zum Oxyrhynchus-Papyrus Nr. 840,” in idem, Antike und Christentum: Kultur-und Religionsgeschichtliche Studien, Bd. II, (Münster: Aschendorff, 1930), 63–69. Lundberg, La typologie, 116–35; Jean Daniélou, The Bible and Liturgy (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1960), 86–98. 49 Gunnar af Hällström, “More than Initiation? Baptism According to Origen of Alexandria,” in Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity (ed. D. Hellholm et al.; BZNW 176.2; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 989–1009, 994.

272

Karl Olav Sandnes

docet baptisma mysteria contineri (Hom. Exod. 5.2). The crossing of the Red Sea is a pool of baptismal theology from which Origen regularly draws. The expectations concerning infant baptism created by this statement are not met, even though Origen was one of its strongest advocates. If Origen saw such a connection, he does not describe it explicitly. We know from other texts that he considered infant baptism to have been practiced since the apostles. 50 The following discussion attempts to construct what his argument might have been. Homiliae in Exodum 5, which addresses 1 Cor 10:2, is devoted to the question of allegorical interpretation. Origen says that the Old Testament, if not treated allegorically, remains a “foreign document [peregrinum instrumentum]” to Christians. Paul introduced this principle (regula) in 1 Cor 10:2, paving the way for a general approach to the Bible of the Jews (instrumentum Iudaeorum) (Hom. Exod. 5.1). The reference to Exodus in 1 Cor 10:2 justifies the spiritual reading. What the Jews perceived as a crossing of the sea, Paul calls baptism (1 Cor 5:17). 51 This approach to the Old Testament is the major concern of the text, but Origen does not address directly the question of our concern. Nonetheless, some important building blocks are discernible. From the water emerged (adscendere) homo novus, able to sing a canticum novum – clearly echoing several biblical texts. Among these, the crossing of the Red Sea is of particular importance, 52 reminding us of the reception of Exod 15:1 as inclusive of children. Origen, instead, mentions the drowning of the Egyptians, which he takes to imply that those baptised take upon themselves the task of fighting the enemy of ignorance. Again, this perspective is not necessarily inclusive of children, much the same as Hahn’s comment on the baptism of John and Philo’s mastery of passions. More interestingly, however, in Hom. Exod. 5.5, Origen cites the tradition (audivi a majoribus traditum) that the Red Sea was divided into separate paths for each tribe: 53 plures divisiones ... non una. Psalm 135:13 LXX provides the scriptural basis for this reading. The Hebrew text mentioning the parting of the sea became in the Septuagint a plural (εἰς διαιρέσεiς), 54 rendered in divisiones in Latin. The crossing, thus, is seen to have been performed by a group (cf. above on Exod 12:3, 21). This reading of the Exodus might have been inspired by the conquest of the promised land by the tribes and thus reflects scribal activity emphasising that the people in their entity were present (cf. Josh 3:17). 50

Hom. Lev. 8.3; Hom. Luc. 14.5; Comm. Rom. 5.19. GCS 184.8–10. 52 Exod 15:1; Isa 42:10; Eph 2:15; Rev 5:9, 14:3, 15:3. 53 For this tradition in Jewish literature, see Origen, Homilies on Genesis and Exodus (trans. R. E. Heine; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1982), 283, note 58. 54 The variations found in Aquila and Symmachus further emphasise that the crossing took place in groups; see F. Field, Hexaplorum Quae Supersunt Tomus II (Hildesheim: Olms, 1964), 290. Aquila: εἰς ἀποτµήµατα; Symmachus: εἰς τοµάς. 51

Households and the Exodus

273

According to the book of Joshua, Israel entered the land organised in tribal groups. This is stated repeatedly (Josh 3:12; 7:14) and occurs almost stereotypically in chapters 13–21 which describe where each tribe settled. 55 It is worth noting that by tribe implies by family; in most instances, κατὰ φυλάς is equivalent to κατὰ δήµους and κατ᾽ οἶκον. Furthermore, the return from the second exile is addressed in similar terms. 56 When the people returned from Babylon, they gathered in Jerusalem ὡς ἀνὴρ εἷς (Ezra 3:1). Ezra 8:21 speaks of the return as a “safe journey for ourselves, our children, and all our possessions [ὁδὸν εὐθεῖαν ἡµῖν καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις ἡµῶν καὶ πάσῃ τῇ κτήσει ἡµῶν].” In short, the traditions that produced the idea of a tribal Exodus bring us very close to the idea of God granting salvation to entire households. The Exodus and households are brought together in a way relevant to the question of how the Exodus was perceived. This tradition looms large in Origen’s exegesis of Exodus but is not connected with children in particular, given his primary interest in fighting the Enemy. Origen’s Homilies on Joshua (In Jesu Nave homiliae xxvi.) 5 57 takes Josh 4:1–5:9 as its point of departure and begins with the description in 1 Cor 10:2 of Israel crossing the Red Sea. The connection between this crossing and Christian baptism is made not only in Paul’s text but also in the crossing of Jordan. Here, Origen works with a cluster of motifs: Exodus, baptism and the crossing of Jordan, with Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan linking the incidents. 58 The writer moves freely among these analogies, facilitated by the fact that Joshua and Jesus are the same name in Greek. 59 The crossing of the Red Sea casts three discernible influences on baptismal theology. First is the Pauline tradition, visible not only in Origen’s citation of 1 Cor 10:2 but also in a number of Pauline passages on baptism, including Tit 3:3 and 5. Such admonitions to leave sin behind loom large in the homilies. Secondly, Greek moral philosophy on the mastery of desires and the pursuit of virtue, referenced by the verb proficio and the noun progressus (Hom. Jes. Nav. 5.6), plays an important role. 60 Thirdly, the Philonic legacy of interpreting Egypt as a symbol of idolatry and desire (Hom. Jes. Nav. 5.6 cf. 55

See, for example, Josh 13:28, 31; 15:12; 16:5; 17:6; 18:20; 19:9, 16, 23, 31, 39. See Bernhard W. Anderson, “Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (ed. B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson; New York: Harper, 1962), 177–95. 57 For the Latin text, see Origène, Homélies sur Josué (ed. A. Jaubert; SC 71; Paris: Cerf, 1960); and Origen, Homilies on Joshua (trans. B. J. Bruce; FC 105; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2002). 58 See also Comm. Jo. 6.43.251. 59 See Hom. Jes. Nav. 6; Comm. Jo. 6.43.226; Origène, Commentaire sur Saint Jean. Livres VI et X (ed. Cécile Blanc; SC 157; Paris: Cerf, 1970), 301. 60 This corresponds to the philosophical idea of making progress; see Tor Vegge, Paulus und das Antike Schulwesen: Schule und Bildung des Paulus (BZNW 134; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 305–29; Karl Olav Sandnes, The Challenge of Homer: School, Pagan Poets and Early Christianity (LNTS 400; London: T&T Clark, 2009), 33–36. 56

274

Karl Olav Sandnes

4.1) 61 and the Exodus as an allegory for circumcision can be traced throughout Origen’s works. 62 Origen’s comments center on the crossing (transire and cognates), and Egypt is a symbol of everything the baptised must leave behind, particularly fornication and idolatry. These are the precise references of Josh 5:9: “Today I have taken away the reproach of Egypt [τὸν ὀνειδισµὸν Αἰγύπτου] from the sons of Israel.” 63 The baptisand’s crossing involves a battle (Jericho) with the enemy, says Origen, similar to the spiritual battle mentioned in Eph 6, which Matt 15:19 describes in terms of the evil in human hearts. Origen finds a clear reference to Christian baptism in Josh 5:2, where Joshua is urged to circumcise Israel “again” or “a second time.” Codex A closely follows the Hebrew text in using ἐκ δευτέρου here. This adverb is not translated in other manuscripts, which simply state περίτεµε τοὺς υἱοὺς ᾿Ισραήλ. Origen here proceeds from the tradition of the Hebrew text. A second circumcision makes no sense, he says, if not understood spiritually. Therefore, the second circumcision performed with a sharp stone refers to Christian baptism, as supported by the description of Christ as a rock in 1 Cor 10 (Hom. Jes. Nav. 5.5; cf. 26.2). This metaphor further emphasises the ethical consequences of baptism: “to put aside the reproach of Egypt, that is, the allurement of fleshly vices.” Origen’s commentary on John 1:28 (Comm. Jo. 6.45.233–234) aligns well with his homily on Joshua, particularly Josh 5:2 and 9. In the first verse, Joshua circumcises the people immediately after the crossing of the Jordan, an event which Origen calls “the baptism of Jesus.” Those who left Egypt uncircumcised now undergo this ritual. The crossing and the ritual of a second circumcision are for Origen an important baptismal text; on this very day (ἐν τῇ σήµερον ἡµέρα), the “reproach of Egypt” was put aside. This baptismal interpretation of the second circumcision accords with Philo’s symbolic interpretation of circumcision as a cutting away of desires. 64 Children still have not entered this picture, but Comm. Jo. 6.48.249 is worth mentioning. In the immediate context, a contrast is made between the river Jordan, called here the only good river (6.47.245), and the river of Egypt. Regarding the latter, Origen states, based on Ezek 29:2–4, that it is ruled by the Great Dragon, Pharaoh. Origen here urges a contrast between the rivers. A key point is that the river of Egypt could not kill even the child (παιδίον) Moses, clearly a reference to Exod 1–2. This analogy suggests that Jordan – that is, the baptism of Jesus – saves even a child! This logic seems implicit in the analogy Origen makes here, but he never states so explicitly. 61 The latter text speaks about catechumens forsaking Egypt; for them, the Red Sea has already parted. Elsewhere, Origen treats baptism and the parting of the Red Sea as identical (e. g. Hom. Jes. Nav. 26.2). 62 Sandnes, Belly and Body, 112–13, 123–31. 63 For “the reproach of Israel,” see Origène, Commentaire sur Saint Jean Livres VI and X, 51–52. 64 Sandnes, Belly and Body, 108–35.

Households and the Exodus

275

This exposition of 1 Cor 10 and the crossing of the Red Sea and the Jordan does not address the question of children, despite the mention of the child Moses. The ethical nature of the argument and its moral – philosophical twist makes this a context less likely to focus on children. This likely is why Origen treats infant baptism and the Exodus as different discourses and makes no attempt to bring the latter to bear on the first. His justification for infant baptism does not seem to have influenced his reading of the crossing of the Red Sea and the texts he found relevant to that discussion. Origen does not indicate that the presence of children at the Exodus event has any relevance to the question of infant baptism.

Cyprian In a letter to Fidus (Ep. 64), Cyprian addresses the issue of infant baptism (1:1). Fidus holds the opinion that infants should not be baptised within the second or third day after their birth. Cyprian’s epistle implies that Fidus argued this based on “the law of ancient circumcision” (2:1). Accordingly, he held the eighth day to be the appropriate time for baptism (cf. Phil 3:5). In the response, Cyprian gives a theological rationale for the baptism of newly born infants. His main argument is that God’s grace should not be withheld from any. He argues from the story of Elisha raising a young boy from the dead (2 Kgs 4): But in this incident what is being illustrated is divine and spiritual equality, according to which all men are equal and alike because they have all once been made by God. ... Unless you are prepared to claim that even that very grace which is given to the baptised is distributed in greater or lesser degree according to the ages of the recipients. (3:1) 65

According to Inta Ivanovska, Cyprian considered “every new-born child a religious being by the very fact of having been created by God.” 66 Infants and those older enjoy exactly the same share of divine bounty. If mercy is not given with measure, neither is it given according to age, contends Cyprian. Ep. 64:5–6 states six times that “no one is to be hindered [prohiberi non debet].” 67 Children have

65 The Letters of St. Cyprian, Vol. 3: Letters 55–66 (trans. G. W. Clarke; ACW 46; New York: Newman Press, 1986), 110–11. For the Latin text, see Cypriani Epistulae (ed. G. V. Hartel; CSEL Vol. 3.2; Vindobonae: Geroldi Filium Bibliopolam Academiae, 1871). In ANF 5, Ep. 64 is numbered as letter 58. 66 Inta Ivanovska, “Baptized Infants and Pagan Rituals: Cyprian versus Augustine,” in Children in Late Ancient Christianity (ed. C. B. Horn and R. R. Phenix; Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 58; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 45–73, esp. 47. 67 Cf. Oscar Cullmann’s thesis on “hindrance” as a baptismal liturgical expression; see Oscar Cullmann, Baptism in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1978), 71–80. Cullmann makes no reference to Cyprian, though. The Latin text is found in Heinrich Kraft, Texte zur Geschichte det Taufe,

276

Karl Olav Sandnes

not committed any sin, but through Adam (5), they have contracted the contagion of death. This theological justification is substantiated by two arguments. First, Cyprian draws upon Paul’s interpretation of the axiom of God’s impartiality. In the name of divine impartiality, Paul dissolves the distinction between Jews and Gentiles through faith in Christ 68 and so supports some degree of universalism within the church. To Cyprian, this is crucial to the question of infant baptism. With this axiom, Cyprian resolves the question of the appropriate age for baptism. God does not give the Holy Spirit according to age or measure, says Cyprian. His argument is an extension of Paul’s statement in Gal 3:28 and proceeds from the hermeneutical potential of this Pauline passage. Second, Cyprian addresses Fidus’s reference to the law of ancient circumcision. Physical circumcision is a shadow (in umbra) (64.4.3) of the spiritual, which is baptism. According to Cyprian, circumcision on the eighth day prefigured the first day, the day of Christ’s resurrection: “That image has ceased now that the reality has superseded it and when we have been given circumcision of the spirit” (4.3). This typological reasoning implies an argument from the lesser to the greater: if physical circumcision was performed after eight days, spiritual circumcision should be performed even earlier. Thus runs Cyprian’s argument: “Every man without exception has the right to be admitted to the grace of Christ” (5.1). This statement references the insight given to Peter in Acts 10:28: “The Lord has said to me that I should call no man common or unclean.” Consequently, the text about Cornelius’s baptism becomes a Scriptural proof for infant baptism. It is interesting to note how Cyprian uses theological hermeneutics to justify infant baptism. Where then is Exod 14 or 1 Cor 10 in this picture? The Exodus tradition does not appear in this epistle. However, Cyprian uses a typological reasoning which paves the way for children to be baptised before their eighth day. Cyprian finds a remedy for the lack of Exodus traditions in Ep. 69 69 which addresses the baptism of those who are too sick or weak to be immersed. Cyprian argues that sprinkling with water has exactly the same effect as bathing in the waters of salvation: both make legitimi Christiani. Regarding this question, Cyprian reasons in very much the same way as in Ep. 64. He argues that God’s grace is distributed with no distinction to sex or age and bolsters this argument with God’s impartiality (Ep. 69.14). Scriptural proof is “the sacramental story” of Exodus. For Cyprian, this story displays God’s impartiality; it is seen as sacramentum aequalitatis (Ep. 69.14.1). The “sacrament of Besonders der Kindertaufe in der Alten Kirche (Kleine Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen 174; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969). 68 See Jouette M. Bassler, Divine Impartiality: Paul and a Theological Axiom (Chico: Scholars Press, 1982). 69 The Letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage, Vol. 4: Letters 67–82 (trans. G. W. Clarke; ACW 47; New York: Newman Press, 1989). In ANF 5, Ep. 69 is numbered as letter 75.

Households and the Exodus

277

equality” is shown in the distribution of manna to all, regardless of age or gender. Epistle 69.15 makes it clear that this sacramental story implies the crossing of the Red Sea and equally includes all believers. The crossing of the sea prefigured baptism (sacramentum baptismum), says Cyprian, explicitly referring to 1 Cor 10. 70 According to his argument, the water is primarily the place where evil powers (i. e. Pharaoh) are drowned. According to Cyprian, this drowning of the enemy occurs regularly through the activities of exorcists. The sick who receive urgent baptism are the beneficiaries of an Exodus-like baptism. 71 Cyprian does not explicitly include children in his argument, but the fact that his argument runs parallel with Ep. 64, makes this a fundamental assumption here as well. Here, 1 Cor 10 is a baptismal text that naturally falls into a context emphasising that God makes no distinction in age.

Conclusions It is likely that some early Christians baptised infants, while others did not. The point of departure for this article has been the idea of corporate baptism which includes both children and infants. The key text has been Paul’s dictum on the Exodus and baptism in 1 Cor 10, which certainly was among the most important texts on baptism in the early church. Did this typology also convey a collective

70 Thus, also in Ep. 73.17.2 (in ANF 5 numbered as letter 72), Cyprian speaks of the ancient baptism of Moses and the Law received by the Jews as prefiguring Christian baptism; 1 Cor 10 is implicit here. The baptism of Jesus supplemented the baptism already received by Jews; see Michael A. Fahey, Cyprian and the Bible: A Study in Third-Century Exegesis (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Biblischen Hermeneutik 9; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971), 409–10. 71 D. Perry (www.baptism.org.uk /BI59.pdf, accessed March 11, 2016) argues that Ep. 64 on infant baptism should be understood against the background of the plague that struck North Africa in 252 C. E., described in Cyprian’s De Mortalitate (ANF 5: Treatise 7). The high mortality raised the question of emergency baptism. This crisis is the background of Cyprian’s letter to Fidus: “that we must do everything we possibly can to prevent the destruction of any soul” (2:1). In the face of the plague, Cyprian emphasises God’s grace, which includes all – even infants. According to Perry, Ep. 64, therefore, reports how the church behaved during the plague; it “is not a guide to its regular practice. Therefore Letter 64 is inadmissible as evidence for a normative infant baptism.” The idea of the plague as the backdrop for Cyprian’s baptismal view finds only extra-textual support. In Ep. 69, the idea of emergency baptism appears not due to the plague but as a benefit for those who are sick. For them, baptism is performed by sprinkling rather than immersion. The issue is the validity of such baptism, not the plague. Perry underestimates the theological rationale given in Ep. 64. Cyprian’s reference to infants being tainted with Adam’s sin is not accounted for by reference to the plague. Furthermore, that Cyprian is also a spokesman for children’s participation in Holy Communion (On the Lapsed 9 and 25) demonstrates that Ep. 64 arises from theological conviction and practice. Perry’s exegesis of Ep. 64 results from a misreading of Cyprian’s Treatise 7 which runs contrary to Cyprian’s main thrust. Cyprian sees the plague from a biblical perspective; it belongs among the signs characterising the long-predicted end times. His consolation is that this is not an emergency situation; to the contrary, the Church has prepared for it. Therefore, it is unlikely that the plague suddenly prompted Cyprian to produce the theology found in Ep. 64.

278

Karl Olav Sandnes

understanding of baptism, like the so-called ‘household formula’ of Acts? This question led to the investigation of whether the cultural idea of the Exodus was encompassing children. Did this story include the presence of infants? In this article I have argued in the affirmative based on the development of this tradition in Deuteronomy and the progression of the Exodus by group or by family. Furthermore, the reception of the crossing of the Red Sea was informed by Exod 15:1, along with texts about children and infants singing God’s praise. Ezekiel the Tragedian and not the least Philo explicitly acknowledge the presence of infants. Philo views the crossing of the sea as an allegory for fighting passions and pleasures, so children are not his focus, but against the odds, they nonetheless do occasionally emerge. I expected to find the presence of infants affirmed by Origen and Cyprian, devout advocates of infant baptism in the early church. First Corinthians 10 was certainly important in their expositions of baptism, but, especially in Origen’s writings, it was primarily embedded in the discourse of fighting evil. Origen and Cyprian cast their nets wider than the literal biblical texts, 72 but did not necessarily see the hermeneutical potential of such texts as relevant to the question of infant baptism. They drew their arguments in favour of infant baptism from other biblical discourses. Cyprian, however, connects 1 Cor 10 with Gal 3:28 and Acts 10 in a way that paves the way for combining children and baptism.

72 E. E. Popkes, “Die Tauftheologie Cyprians. Beobachtungen zu Ihrer Entwicklungsgeschichte und Schrifthermeneutischen Begründung,” in Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity (ed. D. Hellholm et al.; BZNW 176.2; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 1045–64, rightly points out that Cyprian understands Christian baptism in the light of wider Scriptural reflection.

Mapping ‘πάντα τὰ ἔθνη’ The Geographical Horizon of Early Christian Mission Oskar Skarsaune Abstract In this article an attempt is made to discover which mental and concrete “maps” of the known world are presupposed when well-known texts on mission in the New Testament speak about “all the nations” (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη), or bringing the Gospel “to the end(s) of the earth.”

Introduction My close friend and good colleague Hans Kvalbein was a man devoted to Christian mission. Everyone who met him could sense that. Perhaps less known was one of his special talents: he was very good at reading maps and finding his way. I know this well because I have travelled with him in places unknown to us both. Christian mission has been related to maps right from its biblical beginnings. There is much geography in the Bible, both testaments, and also in early Christian literature after the New Testament, but it is rarely made the object of special study. For my part, two recent studies have spurred my interest in the geographical dimension of biblical and early Christian texts dealing with mission and mapping the peoples to be reached by it. In his fascinating book Bible and Mission, Richard Bauckham devotes a whole chapter to “Geography – Sacred and Symbolic.” 1 James M. Scott has written an extensive monograph on Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity, packed with interesting observations and theories. 2 In the present study, I will focus more than these two scholars

1 Richard Bauckham, Bible and Mission: Christian Witness in a Postmodern World (Carlisle: Paternoster /Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 55–81. There is also much to be learned from his study “James and the Jerusalem Church,” in The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting (ed. Richard Bauckham; vol. 4 of The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting, ed. Bruce W. Winter; Carlisle: Paternoster /Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 415–80, especially the part entitled “Jerusalem at the Centre,” 417–27. 2 James M. Scott, Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity: The Book of Jubilees (SNTSMS 113; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). See also his earlier studies: “Luke’s Geographical Horizon,” in The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting (ed. David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf; vol. 2 of The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting, ed. Bruce W. Winter; Carlisle: Paternoster /Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1994), 483–544; and “Acts 2:9–11 As an Anticipation of the Mission to the Nations,” in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles (ed. Jostein Ådna and Hans Kvalbein; WUNT 127; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 87–123.

280

Oskar Skarsaune

have done on the cartographic question – how did early Christians imagine the earth’s shape and the shape of the lands on it? But like them, I will zoom in on the one New Testament text that most explicitly contains a kind of “map” of “all nations” to be reached by the Gospel, Acts 2:9–11. Here I propose an alternative interpretation that combines the valuable insights of these scholars. In this way I want to honor Hans’ memory, the man of mission and the excellent map reader.

The Shape of Jewish and Christian World Maps in Antiquity The first believers in Jesus were Jews living in the Land of Israel. Quite naturally, their geographical horizon was primarily Jewish. Accordingly, in order to understand the geographical horizon of early Christian writers, beginning in the New Testament, we should go first and foremost to the ancient Jewish texts which in one way or other mapped the world and its different peoples. Among these, Genesis 10 and Jubilees 8–9 stand out as the most important and influential. This is not to say that we should neglect other cartographic traditions, but as we will see, the most important of these, Ionian cartography, had already been integrated into the Jubilees text. More will be said about antique cartography when I comment on this text.

The “Table of Nations” in Genesis 10 The influence of this Table on almost all later Jewish and Christian mappings of the world and of the peoples in it can hardly be overestimated. 3 This, of course, has to do with its setting in the Torah, the part of the canon of the Hebrew Bible that first attained canonical status. There is also a significant literary context: In Gen 12:1–3 we have what could be called the first text on mission in the Bible: Through Abraham and his offspring blessing will come to “all the families [‫כּל‬Fֹ ‫חת‬tֹ ‫שׁ ְפּ‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬/ πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ] of the earth.” 4 Who and how many these “families” were, and why they became so widely scattered over the whole earth, is told in Gen 10–11. 5 Genesis 10 so to speak lists the peoples that are the addressees of the blessing.

3

See the very full review in Scott, Geography. Here and elsewhere in this essay quotations from the Bible follow the NRSV version, unless otherwise indicated. 5 “All the families” in Gen 12:3 picks up “These are the ‫חת‬tֹ ‫שׁ ְפּ‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬of the sons of Noah” at the end of the Table of Nations in Gen 10:32. 4

Mapping ‘πάντα τὰ ἔθνη’

281

At first appearance, the list of ancestors of peoples in Gen 10 looks like a genealogy in the style of Gen 5, but on closer inspection, there is a very distinct geographical dimension here. The genealogical scheme is superimposed on a listing of seventy peoples, many of which are named after their lands or cities. 6 Many of the names were no doubt geographical names in the first place, but have been used in this table as names of the supposed forefathers of the peoples living in the lands or cities with the same names. Not infrequently, the fiction of a forefather is dropped, and we have ordinary people-names in the plural. There are also explicit comments of a geographical nature throughout the list. I shall comment on the most salient features of the Table read as a map. I have spelled out the structure of the list, and given some of the certain or very probable identifications of peoples and /or locations in the table of Figure 1. 7 The basic division of the habitable parts of the earth is tripartite, organized after the three sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Their offspring migrated and settled in three directions, north (the Japheth sons), south (the Hamites), and east (the Shemites). As we shall see, such a tripartite pattern for the map of the world was the rule rather than the exception for antique world-maps in general. 8 1. First, Japheth’s sons are enumerated (10:2–5), beginning with the furthest north, north of the Black Sea. Gomer, the Kimmerians of Greek literature, and his three “sons,” especially the Scythians (here probably hiding behind the name Ashkenaz), were regarded as living in the northernmost part of the inhabited world. 9 With Ma-gog (probably Land of Gog) we may be entering Asia Minor, the most plausible identification being the kingdom of Lydia under king Gyges (= Gog). In Ezek 38:2 and 39:1 the head of the land of Magog is said to be Gog, and he is the overlord of Tubal (Cilicia) and Meshech (Phrygia), occur-

6 In this number, the names of the three sons of Noah and the empire-builder Nimrod are not counted. The Masoretic Text has 70 names of peoples, and in traditions based on the Hebrew text (mostly Jewish), this became the normative number of “all the nations.” In the Septuagint, however, the count stops at 72, and in later traditions based on the Greek text of Gen 10 (mostly Christian), this became the normative number. For a full discussion of the issue, see Scott, “Excursus: The 70 or 72 nations of the world,” in idem, Geography, 51–54. In the following analysis of Gen 10 Hebrew, I lean heavily on the extensive discussion in Claus Westermann, Genesis I. Teilband: Genesis 1–11 (BKAT I.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1974), 662–706. 7 The design of the table is adopted from Scott, Geography, 26. My brief geographical comments are mostly condensed from Westermann, Genesis. 8 For a succinct overview, see Wanda Wolska-Conus, “Geographie,” in RAC 10 (1978), cols. 155–222. 9 See Jer 51:27 and Col 3:11. Bauckham, Bible and Mission, 68–69 mentions the attractive proposal that in Col 3:11 “barbarian and Scythian” may refer to the southernmost and northernmost nations.

Figure 1: The Table of Nations in Genesis 10 Oskar Skarsaune 282

Gomer (1) –––––– Magog (2) Madai (3) JAPHETH ––

Javan (4) –––––––

Gomer is probably the Kimmerians, North of the Black Sea, Ashkenaz probably the Scythians. These are the peoples of the utmost north. Magog perhaps means “Land of Gog” = king Gyges in Lydia. Madai are the Medes of western Persia (see comment in text). Javan are the Greeks in general or the Ionians in particular. Tarshish is probably the port city of Tartessus in Spain, the proverbial utmost west. Kittim lived on Cyprus, Rodanim on Rhodos.

Ashkenaz (8) Riphath (9) Togarmah (10)

Elishah (11) Tarshish (12) Kittim (13) Rodanim (14)

Tubal: Cilicia Meschech: Phrygia Tiras: Ancient city on Cyprus

Tubal (5) Meschech (6) Tiras (7)

Cush (15) ––––––

Seba (19) Havilah (20) Sabtah (21) Raamah (22) ––– | Sheba (24) Sabteca (23) | Dedan (25) Nimrod

HAM –––––

Egypt (16) ––––––

Ludim (26) Anamim (27) Lehabim (28) Naphtuhim (29) Pathrusim (30) Casluhim (31) – Philistines (33) Caphtorim (32)

Put (17)

Canaan (18) ––––

SHEM ––––

Sidon (34) Heth (35) Jebusites (36) Amorites (37) Girgashites (38) Hivites (39) Arkites (40) Sinites (41) Arvadites (42) Zemarites (43) Hamathites (44)

Elam (45) Asshur (46)

Elam: westernmost part of Persia Ancient Assyria, southern Mesopotamia

Arpachshad (47) –

Shelah (54) – Eber (55) – Peleg (56) Joktan (57) –– Lydia?

Lud (48) Aram (49) ––––––

Uz (50) Hul (51) Gether (52) Mash (53)

Aram is the northwestern part of Mesopotamia and included Syria

Figure 1: The Table of Nations in Genesis 10

Cush: the lands south of Egypt, here also including peoples on the eastern shore of the Red Sea, the Arabian Peninsula. Seba: city in Ethiopia (Josephus), likewise Sabteca? Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah: places in the south- west of the Arabian Peninsula. Sheba: the Arab Sabeans in the same area, and often the utmost south.

Lehabim: Libyans Naphtuhim: peoples of Lower Egypt? Pathrusim: peoples of Upper Egypt? Caphtorim: the Cretans Put: Libya Canaan: the area populated by his descendants could be described as “Greater Land of Canaan.” Heth: Hittite city south of Phoenician Sidon. Jebusites: Jerusalemites. Amorites: people of the central mountain-range in Canaan. Girgashites: Canaanite people, exact location unknown. Hivites: Canaanites living near Gibeon and Schechem. Arka was a Phoenician city north of present Tripoli. Sin: Phoenician city close to Arka. Arvad: Phoenician city north of Sidon. Zemar: Phoenician city slightly south of Arvad. Hamath: now Hama in Syria, the only inland Phoenician city. Almodad (58) Sheleph (59) Hazarmaveth (60) Jerah (61) Hadoram (62) Uzal (63) Diklah (64 Obal (65) Abimael (66) Sheba (67) Ophir (68) Havila (69) Jobab (70)

The names that can be localized point to the Arabian Peninsula, primarily the southern part.

Mapping ‘πάντα τὰ ἔθνη’

283

ring after Javan in Gen 10:2. Gyges ruled over more or less all of Asia Minor. 10 Javan is the Hebrew rendering of Ionia, and was in its strict sense the peoples of the Aegean islands and the Aegean coastlands of Asia Minor. Among Javan’s sons, Tarshish stands out as the western limit of the inhabited world north of the Mediterranean. 11 Madai is the odd man out in this list, since he is quite certainly to be identified with the Medes. Here he is, surprisingly, associated with the Asia Minor region or north of it. Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible we meet the Medes in Persia, and Jubilees has noticed this discrepancy and “solved” it (see below). The list of Japheth’s sons and grandsons closes like this: “From these the coastland peoples spread” (10:5). They were the peoples to the north, northwest of the land of Canaan, most of them on the Black Sea coastlands, some on the Aegean and Mediterranean isles, some on the Asia Minor coastlands. They represented the furthest north (proverbially the Scythians /Ashkhenaz) and the furthest west, Tarshish in Spain. 2. The sons of Ham were: Cush, Egypt (Mizraim), Put (Libya), and Canaan (Gen 10:6–20). The list seems organized from south to north, Cush being the lands south of Egypt. As sea traffic across the strait connecting the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden was intense, both the coastlands of the Red Sea – on the west side, present day Sudan, Eritrea and Ethiopia, and on the east side the coast of the Arabian Peninsula – were taken together as peopled by Cushites. Among the sons and grandsons of Cush, Seba and Sabteca were surely associated with the African coastlands of the Red Sea, Seba being a city in Ethiopia, the southernmost land south of Egypt. 12 Most of the others are names of Arabian cities, lands, or tribes. Sheba was certainly the Arab Sabeans, in the southwest of the peninsula. From them came the Queen of Sheba visiting Solomon (1

10 Neither the author /editor of the list nor its readers may have been aware of this veiled reference to Lydia implied by the name Magog, since later in the list Lud /Lydia is named as one of Shem’s sons, see below. 11 Tarshish is mentioned 20 times in the Hebrew Bible, often in the composite “Tarshish-ships” (1 Kgs 10:22; 22:49; 2 Chr 20:36–37; Ps 48:8; 72:10; Isa 2:16; 23:1, 10; 60:9; Ezek 27:25; Jonah 1:3; 4:2). Tarshish is mentioned in several of these texts as a sea-trade city, a port with which the Phoenicians had much commerce. “Tarshish-ship” seems to mean simply “long distance vessel” in some of the occurrences. They are mentioned as technological wonders in others. No doubt Tarshish was located in the very far west; this is clearly implied in texts like Ps 72:10: “May the kings of Tarshish and of the isles render him [the king in Jerusalem] tribute, may the kings of Sheba and Seba bring gifts” – i. e. the kings of the utmost west and south. When Jonah was called to go east to Nineveh by the Tigris, he wanted to flee to the west the farthest and fastest he could get, and boarded a ship bound for Tarshish. For other examples of Tarshish as the utmost west, see Isa 66:19; Jer 10:9; Ezek 27:12; 38:1. This makes plausible the suggestion that we may have to do with the Phoenician port of Tartessos in Spain, west of Gibraltar. 12 Ethiopia as the southernmost people of Africa: Jer 49:6 (Cush here probably refers to Nubia / Ethiopia).

284

Oskar Skarsaune

Kgs 10:1–10). 13 Sheba was often named as the utmost south, often paired with Tarshish as the furthest west. 14 As a kind of excursus, we hear about Nimrod, also a son of Cush (10:8–12). Here we have to do with something completely different than in the rest of the Table. Nimrod is neither the forefather of a people or tribe, nor a geographical name; therefore he is not numbered among the seventy peoples. He is a single individual, the archetypical founder of empires. With him the succession of multi-national empires in Mesopotamia was inaugurated. He is credited with founding two Mesopotamian empires, first one around Babel in the land of Shinar in southern Mesopotamia, then one further north around Nineveh, “the great city” (10:10–12). Here the Table becomes political rather than geographical. As we shall see, the phenomenon of colonization and empire-building was always conceived as problematic within a tidy and peaceful arrangement of peoples living side-by-side in their allotted lands. Nimrod, being a Hamite, conquers land and builds empires in Mesopotamia, Shem’s heartland. Whereas the list elsewhere enumerates the 70 peoples “in their lands, with their own language, by their families in their nations” (10:5, 20, 31), the Nimrod passage stands out, complicating the nice picture painted in the rest of the list. We have a first anticipation of the several multi-national empires established by empire founders, the first grand-style colonizers invading lands not their own. Genesis 10 here anticipates a polemic that is spelled out in full in Jubilees and later tables. 15 The second son of Ham was Egypt, the third Put or Libya. With Egypt and Libya, the list seems to turn westwards, and one would expect Canaan, the 13 In 1 Kgs 10, Solomon is described as a king excelling “all the kings of the earth in riches and in wisdom”; therefore “the whole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom” (10:23–24). This is illustrated by the Queen of Sheba coming to Solomon from the utmost south, and the “Kings of Arabia” sending him gold in bounty (10:15). Solomon’s worldwide trade was made possible by a fleet of “ships of Tarshish” being built in the utmost west (10:22). 14 In the idealized description of the Davidic king’s universal reign in Ps 72, we meet the following descriptions of “the ends of the earth”: “May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth ... May the kings of Tarshish and of the isles render him tribute, may the kings of Sheba and Seba bring gifts. May all kings fall down before him, all nations give him service” (72:8–11). One could speculate that “from sea to sea” described the north-south axis (Black Sea – Indian Ocean) and the River (Ephrates? Tigris?) – ends of the earth (in the west) the east-west axis, which then in synonym parallelism is inversely repeated in Tarshish ( – Jerusalem) and Sheba / Seba ( – Jerusalem). In Isa 60:6, Jer 6:20, and Ezek 27:22–29; 38:13 we have other examples of the same. 15 See especially the brief summary of Gen 10 in Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus 2.32 (ca. 180 c.e.), where Greece /Rome are mentioned as late newcomers who illegitimately imposed their culture and religion on the old and established cultures in Shem’s land, first and foremost that of the Jewish people. See the extensive treatment in Scott, Geography, 126–34, and the very brief comments on Theophilus, Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. I.10.2), and Tertullian (Adv. Iud. 7.4) in Skarsaune, “Fra Jerusalem til jordens ender – også dens østlige? Om misjonens geografiske perspektiver i Det nye testamente og i oldkirken,” in Videre med evangeliet: Festskrift til misjonslederen Egil Grandhagen (ed. Hans Aage Gravaas et al.; Oslo /Trondheim: Akademika, 2012), 245–58, here at 253–55.

Mapping ‘πάντα τὰ ἔθνη’

285

fourth son, to settle west of Libya. Instead, he populates what was “the land of Canaan” prior to the Israelite conquest, not in the west along the African coast, but rather like a northern offshoot of Ham’s territory along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. 16 We shall see shortly how the author of Jubilees saw and “solved” this problem with Canaan being in the “wrong” place. As for the sons of Egypt, we notice that the Cretans (Caphtorim) are reckoned among them. We shall see the relevance of this later. 3. We now come to Shem, the first son of Noah through whom the Israelites traced their own genealogy (10:21–31). This is hinted at right in the beginning (10:21): Shem is said to be the father of “all the children of Eber.” The author / editor probably presupposed that informed readers or listeners would recognize that the line through Eber and his son Peleg (10:24–25) was the line ending in Abraham (spelled out extensively in the Nachtrag of the Table in Gen 11:10–26). Shem had five descendants: Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram (10:22). If we begin from the east, Elam was the ancient name of the southwestern part of Persia with capital Susa. Asshur (Assyria) was the great power in eastern Mesopotamia with which Israel had many dealings and conflicts throughout the period of the kings. Arpachshad is probably not a geographical name at all, but the name of a supposed forefather of the line of descendants leading to Abraham. In 10:24–25 we have a list of Arpachshad’s descendants, and this looks like a genuine genealogy in the sense that the names are not intended to signify the territories of tribes, but are meant simply as person names. This genealogy is repeated and carried on to Abraham in 11:10–26, and this is genealogy proper, not a map. But attempts at identifying Arpachshad and his descendants with Babylon have a point: It was common knowledge in Israel that their forefathers, the family of Abraham, had been at home in Babylonia for generations. This is not the case, however, with the inserted list of the sons of Joktan (brother of Peleg, the ancestor of Abraham), 10:26–29. By their names, these sons are placed in the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula – thus their territory here overlaps with a part of the Hamites’ territory, and there is some overlap in names as well: Seba /Saba, Sheba, and Havila, all three are named first as Hamites, then again as Shemites. Maybe conflicting traditions are the explanation of this; and maybe these conflicting traditions reflect some uncertainty

16 By implication, this places the Land of Canaan in the center of the world: Japheth’s land is north (and west) of it, Shem’s land is east of it, and Ham’s land is south (and west) of it. In Gen 10 this is treated as a fact, not a problem, but the central position of Canaan receives its true significance in Gen 12:1–2: The only land allotted to a people by God in Genesis is the land of Canaan, allotted not to Canaan but to Abraham and his offspring. The offspring of Abraham, destined to bring blessing to all peoples on earth, were thus placed strategically at the earth’s center.

286

Oskar Skarsaune

of the exact distinction between Hamitic and Shemitic tribes in these faraway regions. Lud as one of Shem’s sons is often seen as enigmatic, because Lydia in Asia Minor would seem misplaced when the other of Shem’s descendants so clearly belong to the Mesopotamian area, or east and south of it. But one should observe that Lydia was an inland kingdom in Asia Minor, not a Greek one, and geographically connected with Upper Mesopotamia. As we shall see, the map of Jubilees 8–9 has no problems with placing Lud in inland Asia Minor, while the Javanites are expressly described as an island- and coast-people, just as in Gen 10:5. Aram was a numerous people in western Mesopotamia, extending into Syria. They play a great role throughout Israelite history. Looking back on this survey, the main point is clear, despite some confusing aberrations: The world is basically divided into three parts, each inhabited by the descendants of one of Noah’s three sons: Japheth’s offspring in the northnorthwest, Ham’s offspring in the south, but with an offshoot on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean, the “land of Canaan,” joining Japheth’s area in the north. East of Canaan’s land Shem’s territory extended eastwards all the way to Elam, the utmost east. By implication, the land of Canaan is placed in the center of the earth. In 1 Chronicles (1:5–23) the entire Table of Nations from Gen 10 is quoted in full, but set in an entirely different context, viz. a genealogy from Adam to Judah and David, and the other tribes. The map of the world implied is not significantly different, but Jerusalem is clearly placed at the world’s center. 17 This brings us to the next important Jewish map of the world.

The Map of the World in Jubilees 8.10–9.15: Postcolonial Criticism The book of Jubilees was probably written around the mid-second century b.c.e. 18 Originally written in Hebrew (fragments of which were found at Qumran), it was later translated into Greek (not preserved, but quoted in Greek

17 See the analysis in Magnar Kartveit, Motive und Schichten der Landtheologie in I Chronik 1–9 (Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International, 1989), 110–114. 18 See the extensive discussion of the book’s date in James C. VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees (HSM 14; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977), 214–85; and also Klaus Berger, Das Buch der Jubiläen (JSHRZ II.3; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1981), 299–300; O. S. Wintermute, “Jubilees (Second Century b.c.): A New Translation and Introduction,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols., ed. James H. Charlesworth; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985) 2:35–142, here at 43–44. In the following, I quote Jubilees in Wintermute’s translation.

Mapping ‘πάντα τὰ ἔθνη’

287

writers) and Syriac (quoted in one Syriac writer), and from Greek into Latin (one quarter of the text) and Ethiopian. Only the Ethiopian text contains the whole book. 19 Jubilees reflects inner-Judean conflicts in the early Hasmonean period, and was probably written in circles similar to those who settled at Qumran. Its literary format is a creative and interpretative re-telling of Genesis and the first chapters of Exodus. 20 It is when the author comes to re-writing Gen 10 that the passage is found that concerns us here, 8.10–9.15. Although clearly being founded on a close reading of Gen 10, our author’s rendering is marked by some interesting new elements. 1. While Gen 10 is mainly descriptive, stating who the descendants of Noah were and where they lived, Jubilees tells a story of how this distribution of lands came to be. Noah called together his three sons and their sons, and they “took the document” describing the lots of land allotted to each of them “from the bosom of Noah, their father” (8.11). The distribution of land which is merely stated as a fact in Gen 10, is here made authoritative, divinely sanctioned, by a “document” written by Noah. The distribution of land is described in two rounds. First the three parts of the earth allotted to Noah’s three sons are delineated (Shem 8.12–21; Ham 8.22–24; Japheth 8.25–30). Then we have a detailed description of the subdivisions within each part for their sons (sons of Ham 9.1; sons of Shem 9.2–6; sons of Japheth 9.7–13). 21 The story of the partitioning ends with Noah making his sons and grandsons swear a solemn oath not to exceed the portions allotted to each of them (9.14–15). This is an important point in Jubilees: Not all grandsons of Noah honored this oath; this gave rise to conflict and wars. 22 2. While Gen 10 does not describe in any detail the location and boundaries of the different peoples and tribes, Jubilees does so explicitly, which made it possi19

For this, see VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies, 1–18. There has been a lively debate on how to name this genre, and how to sub-divide it according to clear criteria. See the overview of the discussion and the contribution to it in Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, “The Book of Jubilees as Paratextual Literature,” in In the Second Degree: Paratextual Literature in Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Culture and Its Reflections in Medieval Literature (ed. Philip S. Alexander, Armin Lange and Renate J. Pillinger; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 65–95. 21 A distant echo of this allotment idea may be heard in the early Christian legend of the twelve Apostles preparing their world-wide mission (Matt 28:19–20) by dividing the entire world between them by throwing lots, Acts of Thomas 1; Origen in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 3.1.1–2; Didascalia Apostolorum 6.8, and comments in Skarsaune, “Fra Jerusalem til jordens ender,” 256–58. 22 See especially Jubilees 11.1–6. The echo of this is not to be overheard in Acts 17:26: “From one ancestor he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live.” (Cf. Scott, “Luke’s Geographical Horizon,” 541–43. Scott also points to Deut 32:8 as another subtext for Acts 17:26.) This does in no way legitimate Boer apartheid theology, whereas it does prohibit every form of colonization. 20

288

Oskar Skarsaune

Figure 2: A medieval T–O world map, oriented with east in our north. Most maps of this kind have the crossbar of the T closer to the east, making the areas of Asia, Europe and Africa comparable in size. Reproduced from Zacharias Lilius, Orbis breviarum, Florence, 1493.

ble for Philip S. Alexander to reconstruct the map of the world as imagined by the book’s author (see Figure 3). 23 According to Alexander, the Jubilees author had two sources for his picture of the world. The first is the map of the world implied in Genesis 10 as described above. The other is the cartography of the Ionian tradition. This tradition was shaped by Hecataeus of Miletus ca. 500 b.c.e. and was later continued and improved. A few years after Hecataeus such a world map was engraved on a bronze plate used in political negotiations to induce the Spartans to support the Miletans in a revolt against Persia. 24 “The earth was represented as a disc surrounded by Ocean ... The centerpoint of this disc, the omphalos of the world, was Delphi ... The world was divided into three major parts or continents ...,” Europe in the north, Asia in the east, and Africa (often named Libya) in the south. 25 The division between Europe and Africa was easy: the Mediterranean. The borders between Europe / Asia and Africa /Asia were more difficult. One school let waters (seas and rivers) be the defining borders: the Don (Greek Tanais, Tina in Jubilees) in the north, 23 Philip S. Alexander, “Notes on the ‘Imago Mundi’ of the Book of Jubilees,” Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982): 199–213, figure at 213. 24 See Alexander, “Notes,” 198–99; Wolska-Conus, “Geographie,” cols. 156–59. 25 Alexander, “Notes,” 198.

Mapping ‘πάντα τὰ ἔθνη’

289

the Nile (Jubilees: Gihon) in the south, and the eastern coasts of the Sea of Azov (Greek Maeotis, Me’at in Jubilees), the Black Sea, the Aegean and the Mediterranean in between. 26 The simplest version of this type of map is called a T–O map: a T is inscribed within the world circle. Antique maps were most often drawn with east at the circle’s top (see Figure 2). Adjusted to our customary orientation with north at the top, this results in a circular map with a T lying on its side, i. e. a horizontal line from west to east, ending in the middle of a vertical line north-south, most often placed somewhat east of the circle’s center. The horizontal line would follow the mid-line of the Mediterranean, the vertical line following the Don – Nile course. This simplified map was often used in later Christian tradition, as in Figure 2. 27 The Ionian type of map normally presupposed that the earth was shaped like a cylinder, with the circular land of the earth, surrounded by a circular ocean rim, on the top end of the cylinder. After Plato and Aristotle, the idea of a globeshaped earth gradually won out, but this did not lead to a complete re-drawing of the traditional world map. The main difference was that the circular earth map became an oval instead, with greater extension west – east than north – south. This was understood as a flat projection of the spherical land. The map of Jubilees is of the Ionian type, and seems to presuppose the ordinary Ionian theory of a circular inhabitable land. But there are some significant modifications: The Don – Nile line is not straight, but rather U-shaped (see Figure 3). In this way, the map is also adapted to the climate zone type of maps: the Japheth sons inhabited the cold north, the Shem sons are in the temperate middle zone (the privileged zone), the Ham sons inhabit the (too) hot southern zone. The most significant modification of the Ionian map that the author of Jubilees has made is that the omphalos of the world is moved from Delphi to Jerusalem: “Mount Zion was in the midst of the navel of the earth” (8.19). This could be regarded as self-explanatory in a Jewish writer, but one could say in defense of it that Jerusalem is quite close to the crossing point of the east – west line through the middle of the Mediterranean and the north – south line from Don to the Nile, at least much closer than Delphi in Greece. In other words, according to this cartographic tradition, Jerusalem lay at the center where the three continents met. 3. Into this basically Greek picture of the world the author of Jubilees has inscribed the Genesis 10 Table of Nations, but simplified it by only taking account 26 This tradition lives on to this day in the view that the Bosporus, the Marmara Sea and the Dardanelles mark the border between Europe and Asia. 27 See Wolska-Conus, “Geographie,” cols. 166–68 and Alexander, “Notes,” 202.

290

Oskar Skarsaune

Figure 3: The Jubilees world-map as reconstructed by Philip S. Alexander, reproduced with permission.

of Noah’s grandsons, thus reducing the peoples from 70 to 16. Compared with Gen 10, some interesting similarities and differences appear: A. Jubilees takes Gen 10:22 at face value: Lud, meaning Lydia, Asia Minor east of the Ionian coastlands, was a son of Shem, and accordingly belonged together with Upper Mesopotamia as Shem’s allotted land. This means that those of Japheth’s sons in Gen 10:2–4 that modern scholars locate in inland Asia minor (see above), had to be relocated further west by the Jubilees author (see Alexander’s map for details). B. A strange feature of the Genesis 10 Table is that Media (Madai) is reckoned among Japheth’s sons, despite the fact that Media was located east of Southern Mesopotamia. Jubilees solves this riddle (10.35) by saying that Madai was allotted land in the northwest of Europe, but his lot was not to his liking, so he migrated to his present dwelling, called Media after him, near the dwelling of the Shemite Arpachshad, his wife’s brother (i. e. Babylonia and Arabia).

Mapping ‘πάντα τὰ ἔθνη’

291

C. More serious is the problem with Ham’s son Canaan occupying land that by right should belong to one of Shem’s sons, viz. Arpachshad, Abraham’s ancestor (Gen 10:15–19). Again, Jubilees constructs a story of illegitimate relocation: Canaan was assigned the land west of Libya, extending all the way to the Ocean (the Atlantic), but when the Hamites during the dispersion wandered westwards, Canaan’s eyes fell on the land later named after him, and he settled there. In other words, when Abraham later claimed this land according to God’s promise, this was not an example of illegitimate usurpation of another’s land, but of righting an old wrong (10.27–34). D. While, as we noticed, there were some Hamites on both sides of the Red Sea according to Gen 10, this is not the case in Jubilees, where the border between Ham and Shem is moved westwards to the Nile. Compared with Gen 10, in Jubilees Shem’s land is expanded westwards in the south. E. By omitting the grandsons and further descendants of the three sons of Noah, Jubilees has nothing to say about the empire-founder Nimrod. This does not mean, however, that the phenomenon of colonization and imperialism is entirely absent in the Jubilees picture of the world. 28 The Judeans of the middle of the second century b.c.e., when Jubilees was written, had witnessed an unprecedented conflict between their religion and that of the Seleucid empire under whose domination they lived. Antiochus 4. Epiphanes had tried to convert Jerusalem into a wholesale Hellenistic polis, including the replacement of Yahweh by Zeus as the deity worshipped in the Jerusalem temple. In other words, “Javan” had first, since Alexander the great, gained political control over large parts of Shem’s allotted land. Now, under the Seleucid king, this process was brought to its ultimate climax through an attempted dethronement of Yahweh in his temple in Jerusalem. In stark contrast, Jubilees carefully delineates the only land rightfully allotted to Javan, and with which he had solemnly sworn to be satisfied: “every island and the islands which are toward the side of Lud” (9.10), which Alexander interprets as “Greece, the Aegean islands and Ionia.” 29 However that may be, one thing is clear: Javan had no right to invade the portion of Shem, including Judea and Jerusalem, and impose his culture and religion in these parts of the earth. The anti-colonial and anti-imperialist tendency of Gen 10 (the Nimrod passage) is here continued, but exemplified by reference to that empire which in the time of Jubilees was perceived as the most destructive. The implied retort of Jubilees is poignant: The omphalos of the world is not Javan’s Delphi, but Shem’s Jerusalem, and Shem’s rightfully allotted portion of the world is the privileged part in every respect: It is the pleasant middle zone between the uncomfortable north and

28 29

See again Jubilees 11.1–6, cf. above, note 22. Alexander, “Notes,” 209.

292

Oskar Skarsaune

south, it comprises the most sanctified places on earth: the Garden of Eden and Mount Zion on the central east-west axis, and Mount Hermon, Mount Zion and Mount Sinai on the central north-south axis. If the whole world is to be rightfully dominated from one place, this place is the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. In 9.15, the oath sworn by all sixteen grandsons of Noah says that for them who transgress their borders, “God will judge them with a sword and with fire on account of all the evil and pollution of their errors ...” 30 In some Jewish writings immediately after the book of Jubilees one may detect traces of a similar view of the world, but the dependence of these texts on Jubilees is at best only possible, and in later (rabbinic) writings Jubilees is only given scant attention. It is otherwise in Christian literature, where many echoes of this book may be found. 31

Luke Mapping πᾶν ἔθνος ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν in Acts 2:9–11 The one text in the New Testament in which most allusions to Gen 10–11 occur, is no doubt the Pentecost story in Acts 2. I shall therefore concentrate on this text here. The allusions come mostly in the form of anti-typical juxtapositions of motives. (In some of them, the interpretation of Gen 10–11 in Jubilees 8–10 is very relevant.) 32 They may be listed as follows: 1. In Gen 11, all the seventy nations were dispersed throughout the entire habitable world, to its ends. In Acts 2, “devout Jews from every nation under heaven were living in Jerusalem” (v. 5), now they “gathered” (v. 6) to hear the apostles addressing them understandably in their own languages. 2. In Gen 11 all humans had one united tongue, which then was divided so they could not understand each other. In Acts 2:2–4 divided tongues were imparted to the apostles, resulting in uniting all present in understanding the languages spoken. 33 3. Acts 2 contains its own “table of nations” in vv. 9–11. In the NRSV version it reads like this, including its introductory and concluding frame (A – A′ ):

30

For this anti-colonial interpretation of Jubilees 9.10, see Scott, Geography, 34, 42, and 150. See the extensive review in Scott, Geography, 35–43 (Jewish) and 44–170 (Christian). 32 For the following, see especially Scott, Geography, 44–96. 33 The idea of a reversal of the Gen 11 story (about not understanding the languages of others) is already envisaged in the Hebrew Bible: “At that time I will change the speech of the peoples to a pure speech, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him with one accord” (Zeph 3:9), cf. Bauckham, Bible and Mission, 62–63. 31

Mapping ‘πάντα τὰ ἔθνη’

293

The crowd gathered and was bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in the native language of each. Amazed and astonished, they asked, A “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language? B Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, C Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, B′ and visiting Romans, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs – A′ in our own languages we hear them speaking about God’s deeds of power” (2:6–11). 34

It should not be farfetched to assume that Gen 10 is a subtext here, considering the strong presence of Gen 11:1–9 in vv. 1–8 (the tongues story). The Tower of Babel story ends in Gen 11:9 by saying that from Babel (Land of Sinear) “the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.” This picks up the end of the Table of Nations in Gen 10:32: “These are the families [‫חת‬Wֹ ‫שׁ ְפּ‬ ְ ‫]מ‬ ִ of Noah’s sons, according to their genealogies, in their nations [‫ם‬qֶ ‫;]בּגוֹיֵה‬ ְ and from these the nations spread on the earth after the flood.” 35 In a similar way, Luke prepares the detailed list of peoples in Acts 2:9–11 by the general statement in 2:5: “There were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem.” Just as the general statement in Gen 11:9 is made concrete by the list of peoples in Gen 10, so the general statement in Acts 2:5 is made concrete in 2:9–11. But there also seem to be other subtexts here, first and foremost among them Isa 2:2–4 (par. Mic 4:2–3) and Isa 66:18–21. If one reads the former text in the light of the latter, the following picture emerges: God will gather all nations and tongues in Jerusalem to see his glory (Isa 2:3a; 66:18–19a), then some of them will return to their lands of origin, bringing with them the message of God’s Torah and his word and the glory to be found in Jerusalem (Isa 2:3b; 66:19b), and then they will return to Jerusalem once more, bringing with them the exiled Israelites that are scattered among them (Isa 66:20). There is a rhythm of movement towards Jerusalem and movement out from Jerusalem, and in Luke’s days it lay near to hand for a believer in Jesus to see an incipient fulfilment of these prophecies in Jews and proselytes coming from far away to Jerusalem and – at least some of them – returning to their homelands with the message they had heard from the Apostles. In this way, Torah went forth from Zion and the word

34 I have adjusted the NRSV translation “visitors from Rome” to “visiting Romans” so as to bring out the Greek ἐπιδηµοῦντες ῾Ρωµαῖοι more clearly. 35 Cf. note 5 above.

294

Oskar Skarsaune

of the Lord from Jerusalem (Isa 2:3b). 36 Using these subtexts as a background, one can better understand how Luke in Acts 2 considers born Jews and Jewish proselytes from all over the diaspora who have come to Jerusalem as being in themselves a beginning of the fulfilment of these Isaianic prophecies, and even more so when they would bring the good news to Jews and Gentiles back home. 37 Having said this much about probable subtexts, I would like to add that for Luke’s list of peoples in Acts 2:9–11 to function well in the mouth of assembled Jews in Jerusalem at Pentecost, the list had to be realistic. Luke had to name peoples from which there actually came Jewish pilgrims or immigrants in noticeable numbers. That was not the case with many of the peoples in Gen 10 – that list had a completely different raison d’être. On the other hand, some lands and cities not mentioned in Gen 10 were by Luke’s time significant homes of Jewish diaspora communities. Luke’s list omits places very far away both north and south. In the north, only different lands in Asia Minor are mentioned, in the south only the Arabs, probably the Nabatean Arabs, some of which had been forcefully converted to Judaism under the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannai (103–76 b.c.e.). Along the east-west axis, the Parthians in the east and the Romans in the west represented the farthest places from which Jewish pilgrims or immigrants came. These peoples also lent their names to the two dominant empires in Luke’s days: the Parthian in the east and the Roman in the west. All this has realism to it; the Parthians ruled over much of the old and large Jewish Diaspora centered in Babylonia. The Jewish community in Rome was of more recent date, but had already grown strong and influential since the days of Augustus, and two-way traffic between Rome and Jerusalem was frequent. 38 After these preliminaries, which suggest the possibility that Gen 10 is an important subtext behind Acts 2:9–11, I want first to present the theory of James

36 For this entire passage, see the much fuller treatment of this theme in Bauckham, Bible and Mission, chapter “Seeking and sending – or: from here to there, from there to here,” 72–80, and also Scott, “Luke’s Geographical Horizon,” 505–7. 37 Commentators sometimes take the κατοικοῦντες ᾿Ιουδαῖοι of 2:5 as meaning that the nonlocal Jews assembled around the Apostles were not festival pilgrims, but immigrants to Jerusalem, living there on a permanent basis. I think this is a too clear-cut distinction. Pilgrims from far away would certainly stay longer than the one day of Pentecost; staying in Jerusalem for all the three pilgrim festivals would probably not be unusual. Others would stay in Jerusalem for a period making business there, others for some years for study purposes, like the young Saul /Paul. At any time there would be a large group of Diaspora Jews in Jerusalem, only some of them had come to end their lives there, most of them would sooner or later return to their homelands. For an extensive review of the evidence, see Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the time of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1969), 62–71. 38 For the history of the Jewish community in Rome, see John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117CE) (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 282–319.

Mapping ‘πάντα τὰ ἔθνη’

295

M. Scott, who perhaps more than any other scholar has tried to make Gen 10 the essential clue to understand Luke’s list in Acts 2. 39 1. Scott argues that “Judea” in a list of diaspora lands based on Gen 10 is odd, and suggests that it may be a corruption of another name, e. g. Galatia. I find this unconvincing and based on an over-literal take on Luke’s narrative. It would be strange indeed if local Jerusalemites and Judeans were missing in the crowd that gathered around the Apostles and were addressed by them. In Peter’s speech in 2:14–36 the Judean Jews even seem to be the primary addressees (see vv. 22–23; 36). The list therefore makes good sense as comprising (a) the Jews of Judea and (b) those of the Diaspora. In that case, one nation (the Jews of the land) plus fourteen nations in the Diaspora (housing Jews) are enumerated. Fourteen is a multiple of seven, like seventy, and would function excellent as a pars pro toto of the seventy nations of the earth. We have seen other reasons already to understand the list that way. By placing Judea between Mesopotamia (east) and Cappadocia (north) Luke has effectively placed it in the center of the entire Diaspora. 2. Scott also argues that in structuring the list, one should not ignore its peculiar syntax, which divides the list clearly into three parts: (a) the three first names are people names, (b) the next nine names are land names, introduced by “and those living in.” Except for the first, Mesopotamia, the eight next ones are named in pairs: Judea and Cappadocia etc. (c) The three last names are again people names, the section beginning with “and resident” Romans etc. In this way, the list has a 3 + 9 + 3 structure, and Scott finds this to be a clear pointer to the three sons of Noah scheme in Gen 10 and Jubilees 8–9. But this numerical pattern seems a very abstract way of applying the three sons scheme, and when Scott comes to showing this in detail, he gets into trouble, because, relying on the early third century Hippolytus’ Diamerismos, he distributes the three families of Noah’s sons like this: Shem: Parthians, Medes, Elamites, those living in Mesopotamia, [Judea?] Japheth: Cappadocia, Pontos, Asia, Ham: Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, Libya, Japheth: Romans. Ham: Cretans, Shem: Arabs.

39 In “Luke’s Geographical Horizon” Scott did so only in general terms, saying that Acts 2:9–11 “shares the apparent lack of structure and uniformity often found in the Table-of-Nations tradition,” 528. Bauckham therefore presented an alternative theory (see below) which made Scott elaborate his own theory in more detail in Geography, 68–84. It is this latter version of his theory that I present in the following.

296

Oskar Skarsaune

This is rather artificial, especially calling Phrygia and Pamphylia in Asia Minor Ham’s territory, for which there is no precedent, neither in Gen 10 nor in Jubilees or in any other pre-Lukan source. And the alleged grammatical structure of 3 + 9 + 3 names does not tally with the Shem – Japheth – Ham scheme at all. I would propose an alternative explanation for the grammatical change from people names to land names between names three and four: Saying “those who live in Mesopotamia” instead of “Mesopotamians” was very natural because “Mesopotamians” do not occur in the Septuagint, and was, to my knowledge, no usual name for a people, since Mesopotamia comprised many nations. I suspect that Luke chose this area name to hold the names of diaspora peoples down to 14, and once he had switched from people names to land names, he continued in this style until the next change, with the Romans, when he switches back to people names. That change could be motivated by purely stylistic concerns, the three last names matching the three first in talking about peoples instead of places. The whole list, including its frame, has a basic chiastic structure (A – B – C – B′ – A′ ). Also, the “Romans” would match the “Parthians” in evoking the concept of the two dominant empires. That, I would suggest, is all there is to it. Richard Bauckham has analyzed the list without reference to the three sons of Noah scheme. Instead, he emphasizes the geographical aspect. To him, the list is structured with (a) peoples in the east, counted from the easternmost Parthians towards Judea, the latter not to be counted among the Diaspora locations, but rather being the center around which the others branch out in the four compass directions. (b) Next we have the northern lands, from Cappadocia to Pamphylia, all of them in Asia Minor, then (c) the western nations, named in a clockwise order from Egypt to Crete, and finally (d) the one people in the south, the Arabs. As Scott also acknowledges, this scheme’s simplicity and clarity speaks for it. But perhaps unlike Bauckham, I think this geographically oriented scheme may well be combined with the Shem – Ham – Japheth scheme of Gen 10, especially the way this scheme is placed on the map in Jubilees 8–9. My proposal is the following: Basically, the scheme according to the sons of Noah can easily be combined with an east – north – west – south scheme. In the map of Jubilees, the lands of Japheth are placed in Europe (north and west of Jerusalem), the lands of Shem in Asia (east of the Don and the Nile and the seacoasts connecting them, hence including inland Asia Minor), and the lands of Ham in Africa (south and west of Jerusalem). The lands in the west are thus divided by the Mediterranean between the European west (Japheth) and the African west (Ham). Since in Luke’s list the European west is omitted, it was natural for him to include Rome among the southern westerns (the Hamites). Jewish pilgrims and immigrants from Rome would normally arrive by ship, as would Jews coming from Crete, Libya, and Egypt (Alexandria). If we explain the inclusion of the Romans among the Hamites in this way, how do things look then?

Mapping ‘πάντα τὰ ἔθνη’

297

I believe the clue is to observe that in the Jubilees map, and probably also in the Genesis 10 list, the interior of Asia Minor, viz. Lud/Lydia is not Japheth land, but belongs to Shem. It is the isles of the Aegean Sea and the coastland of Asia Minor (Ionia /Javan) that belongs to Japheth. This gives us the following structure: East/Asia (Shem): Parthians, Medes, Elamites, Mesopotamia, [center: Judea], Cappadocia. North/Europe (Japheth): Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, seen as coastlands of the Black, the Aegean, and the Mediterranean Seas. South and west/Africa (Ham): Egypt, Libya [westernmost: Rome], Cretans. South, and east of the Nile (Shem, closing the circle): Arabs.

Read this way, Luke’s list in Acts 2:9–11 easily fits into the tradition that begins with Genesis 10, continues in Jubilees 8–9, and is further continued in Theophilus of Antioch and other second century Christian authors, and also in a broad stream of lists as well as drawn maps in Christian tradition well into medieval times. 40

Conclusion When we modern readers read the typical mission-texts in the New Testament, saying that the Gospel about Jesus should be brought out to “all nations” or “from Jerusalem to the end(s) of the earth,” we may naturally think that these sayings are as abstract as if they said that the Gospel should be brought to all and everywhere. When studied more closely, one finds, however, that Jewish and early Christian authors of antiquity had rather concrete notions about what “all nations” meant, and how they were placed on the world-map of those times. “The ends of the world” could actually be named, easily in the west (the Atlantic coast of Europe and North Africa) and south (Indian Sea), more vaguely, and changing with time, in the east and north, because here the knowledge of coastlines grew with time. In the east, India (sometimes including Indo-China) and China, north of it, were the easternmost countries (in Jubilees simply India); in the north, mountain-ranges had to do the job as delimiting the furthest north (as in Jubilees). One could also name the northernmost known people, most often the Scythians. “All nations” had names, and they added up to seventy (or in the Septuagint tradition: seventy-two). Going with the Gospel to πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (Matt 28:19) or to ἔσχατον τῆς γῆς (Acts 1:8) was therefore evocative of concrete images of landscapes and peoples, to be counted as well as named, and to be placed on the map of the known world at that time. Mission has had to do with maps from the very beginning.

40

See reviews in Wolska-Conus, “Geographie,” cols. 183–218; and Scott, Geography, 97–170.

Bibliography of Hans Kvalbein’s Scholarly Publications Reidar Hvalvik Below are listed Kvalbein’s (mainly) scholarly publications both in Norwegian, English and German. Some of the publications are of a more popular character, though based on scholarly work. The publications for each year are listed in the following order: books (including chapters /articles in books), journal articles, reviews. Articles in newspapers are not included. 1965 – “‘Kyrkja og Guds folk’: Noen grunntanker i Ludvig Hopes kirkesyn” [‘The Church and the People of God’: Some Basic Ideas in Ludvig Hope’s Understanding of the Church]. Luthersk kirketidende 100 (1965): 249–254. 1966 – “‘Intet annet evangelium!’ En samtale med lederen for den nye bekjennelsesbevegelsen i Tyskland, professor Dr. Walter Künneth” [‘No Other Gospel!’ A Conversation with the Leader of the New Confession Movement in Germany, Professor Dr. Walter Künneth]. Fast Grunn 18 (1966): 201–207. 1967 – “Teologistudiet trenger fornyelse” [Renewal is Needed in Theological Education]. Luthersk kirketidende 102 (1967): 75–78. 1969 – “2. Kor. 5,1–10 og spørsmålet om ‘mellomtilstanden’ hos Paulus” [2 Cor 5:1–10 and the Question about the Intermediate State in Paul]. Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 40 (1969):179–195. – “Jesu dåp: En utlegning til Mt. 3,13–17” [The Baptism of Jesus: An Interpretation of Matt 3:13–17]. Prismet 20 (1969): 279–283. – “Tro på Jesus: Grunntrekk i Walther Künneths syn på avgjørende spørsmål i moderne tysk teologi” [Faith in Jesus: Basic Features in Walter Künneth’s Assessment of Crucial Questions in Modern German Theology]. Fast Grunn 21 (1969): 330–343. – “Käsemann på norsk” (Anmeldelse av Den kristne frihet) [Käsemann in Norwegian (Review of Jesus Means Freedom)]. Luthersk kirketidende 104 (1969): 339–343. – “Svar til Inge Lønning” [Reply to Inge Lønning]. Luthersk kirketidende 104 (1969): 419–420. – Review of Friedrich Mildenberger, Ohne Gott leben – vor Gott: Bemerkungen zur gegenwärtigen Diskussion der Gottesfrage. Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 40 (1969): 226–227.

300

Reidar Hvalvik

– Review of Claus Westermann, Anfang und Ende in der Bibel. Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 40 (1969): 226–227. 1970 – Hovedtanker i Johannes-evangeliet [Main Ideas in the Gospel of John]. Oslo: Lunde forlag, 1970. 117 pp. (12th printing 2012). – “Eskatologi og antropologi hos Paulus” [Eschatology and Anthropology in Paul]. Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 41 (1970): 203–214. – “Forskerferden og de ubesvarte spørsmål” [The Research Quest and the Unanswered Questions]. Luthersk kirketidende 105 (1970): 170–175. – “Svar til Jacob Jervell” [Reply to Jacob Jervell]. Luthersk kirketidende 105 (1970): 291–295. – “Kan inspirasjonstanken begrunne skriftens autoritet?” [Does the Idea of Inspiration Give Reasons for the Authority of Scripture?]. Ung Teologi 3.1 (1970): 9–18. – Review of Henry Daniel-Rops, Daglig liv i Palestina på Jesu tid (1969). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 41 (1970): 319–320. – Review of Anton Grabner-Haider, ed., Praktisches Bibellexikon (1969). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 41 (1970): 317–319. – Review of Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction 1–3 (1966–1968). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 41 (1970): 316–317. – Review of Albert Schweitzer, Jesu liv i forskningens lys (1969). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 41 (1970): 163–165. – Review of Olav Uglem, Innledning til Det nye testamente (1969). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 41 (1970): 144–145. 1971 – “Underfortellingene: Hensikt – historisitet – budskap” [The Miracle Stories: Purpose, Historisity, Message]. Prismet 22 (1971): 129–140. – Review of Ebbe Arvidsson, Stilar och litteratur i Bibeln (1969). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 42 (1971): 157. – Review of Gerhard Delling, Studien zum Neuen Testament und zum hellenistischen Judentum (1970). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 42 (1971): 145–147. – Review of Kirche aktuell 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970. Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 42 (1971): 157. – Review of Helge Mæhlum, Die Vollmacht des Timotheus nach den Pastoralbriefen (1969). Fast Grunn 24 (1971): 58–59. – Review of Rudolf Pesch, Jesu ureigene Taten? Ein Beitrag zur Wunderfrage (1970). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 42 (1971): 143–145. – Review of Jürgen Roloff, Das Kerygma und der irdische Jesus: Historische Motive in den Jesus-Erzählungen der Evangelien (1971). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 42 (1971): 215–218.

Bibliography of Hans Kvalbein’s Scholarly Publications

301

– Review of Karl Hermann Schelkle, Theologie des Neuen Testaments: Band 3: Ethos (1970). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 42 (1971): 218–222. – Review of Heinz-Dietrich Wendland, Ethik des Neuen Testaments (1970). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 42 (1971): 218–222. 1972 – “Teologien, ein tenar for kyrkja” [Theology – A Servant for the Church]. Syn og Segn 78 (1972): 259–268. – Review of Klaus Haacker, Die Stiftung des Heils: Untersuchungen zur Struktur der johanneischen Theologie (1972). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 43 (1972): 233–235. – Review of J. Leipoldt and W. Grundmann, eds., Umwelt des Urchristentums 1–3 (1967–1970). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 43 (1972): 155–158. – Review of E. Lohse, Umwelt des Neuen Testaments (1971). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 43 (1972): 155–158. 1973 – “Fortolkning til Annet korintierbrev” [Commentary on Second Corinthians]. Pages 3–117 in Hans Kvalbein and Ole Øystese, Annet korintierbrev, Brevet til Galaterne. Bibelverket. Oslo: Luther forlag /Lunde forlag, 1973. – “Jesu syn på seksualliv og ekteskap” [Sex and Marriage according to Jesus]. Pages 11–51 in Ernst Baasland and Hans Kvalbein, Seksualliv og ekteskap – hva sier Bibelen? Oslo: Credo 1973. – “Bibelkrisen i teologien og i skolestua” [The Bible Crisis in Theology and in the School]. Prismet 24 (1973): 257–260, 262–269. – “Jesu lidelse og død: Momenter til gjennomgåelsen av pasjonshistorien” [The Passion and Death of Jesus: Moments to the Examination of the Passion Story]. Prismet 24 (1973): 65–68, 70–74. 1974 – “Apokalyptiske motiver hos Paulus” [Apocalyptic Motives in Paul]. Pages 148–171 in Fremtiden i Guds hender: En bok om jødisk og kristen apokalyptikk. Oslo: Collegium Judaicum, 1974. – “Apokalyptiske motiver i Qumranlitteraturen” [Apocalyptic Motives in the Qumran Literature]. Pages 109–123 in Fremtiden i Guds hender: En bok om jødisk og kristen apokalyptikk. Oslo: Collegium Judaicum, 1974. – “Jesu oppstandelse og himmelfart: Momenter til gjennomgåelsen av påskebudskapet” [The Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus: Moments to the Examination of the Easter Message]. Prismet 25 (1974): 109–116. – “Evangelisten Lukas – En historiker i arbeid” [The Evangelist Luke – A Historian at Work]. Fast Grunn 27 (1974): 55–60. – “Jesu messianske programtale: Lukas 4,16–22” [The Messianic Inaugural Speech of Jesus: Luke 4:16–22]. Fast Grunn 27 (1974): 118–124.

302

Reidar Hvalvik

– “‘Salige er dere fattige ...’: Lukas 6,20–26” [‘Blessed Are You Who Are Poor’: Luke 6:20–26]. Fast Grunn 27 (1974): 180–188. – “Mennesker i samtale med Jesus: Lukas 10,25–42” [People in Conversation with Jesus: Luke 10:25–42]. Fast Grunn 27 (1974): 249–256. – “Liknelser om Guds kjærlighet til synderen: Lukas 15” [Parables about God’s Love for the Sinner: Luke 15]. Fast Grunn 27 (1974): 307–315. – “Gud eller Mammon? Lukas 16” [God or Mammon? Luke 16]. Fast Grunn 27 (1974): 382–389. – Review of Peter Schäfer, Die Vorstellung vom Heiligen Geist in der rabbinischen Literatur (1972). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 45 (1974): 137–138. 1975 – Review of Bent Noack, Tegnene i Johannesevangeliet (1974). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 46 (1975): 296. – Review of Gerhard Schneider, Parusiegleichnisse im Lukas-evangelium (1975). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 46 (1975): 295–296. – Review of Heinz Schürmann, Das Lukasevangelium I: Kommentar zu Kap. 1,1–9,50 (1969). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 46 (1975): 293–295. 1976 – Godt budskap for fattige: Tekster fra Lukas-evangeliet [Good News to the Poor: Texts from the Gospel of Luke]. Oslo: Lunde forlag, 1976. 116 pp. (6th printing 1999). – “Filantropi og diakoni: Omsorg for medmennesker i de antikke kulturer og i Det nye testamente” [Philantropy and Diaconia: Caring for Fellow Humans in the Ancient Cultures and in the New Testament]. Pages 33–68 in Diakoni og kirke. Edited by Andreas Aarflot. Oslo 1976. – “Et studium i glede” [A Study in Joy]. Pages 142–150 in Studium i glede. Oslo: Skrivestua, Menighetsfakultetet, 1976. 1978 – “Die Gemeindefakultät in Oslo: eine Schwester des Albrecht-BengelHauses.” Pages 101–108 in Die Hoffnung festhalten: Festgabe für Walter Tlach zum 65. Geburtstag von den Lehrern und Studenten des Albrecht-BengelHauses in Tübingen und seinen Freunden dargebracht. Edited by Gerhard Maier. Neuhausen: Hänssler, 1978. – “Å være far – hva kan Bibelen lære oss?” [Being a Father – What Can We Learn from the Bible?]. Pages 12–15 in Å være far: Studie- og samtalehefte. Oslo: Institutt for kristen oppseding /IKO’s læremidler, 1978. – “Omsorg for mennesker i nød: Et hovedmotiv i nytestamentlig etikk” [Caring for People in Need: A Main Motive in New Testament Ethics]. Ung Teologi 11; Tilleggshefte 1 (1978): 23–38.

Bibliography of Hans Kvalbein’s Scholarly Publications

303

– Review of Jacob Jervell, Da fremtiden begynte: Om urkristendommens tro og tenkning, 2nd ed. (1976). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 49 (1978): 226–227. – Review of Bent Noack, Jesus Ananiassøn og Jesus fra Nasaret: En drøftelse av Josefus, Bellum Judaicum VI, 5, 3 (1975). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 49 (1978): 68–69. 1979 – “Kirken og Guds rike i Jesu forkynnelse etter de synoptiske evangelier” [The Church and the Kingdom of God in the Preaching of Jesus according to the Synoptic Gospels]. Pages 141–162 in Israel – Kristus – Kirken: Festskrift til Sverre Aalen på 70-årsdagen 7. desember 1979. Edited by Ivar Asheim et al. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1979. 1981 – Fellesskap ved Herrens bord [Community at the Lord’s Table]. Oslo: Institutt for Kristen Oppseding, 1981. 48 pp. (2nd printing 1982). – Jesus og de fattige: Jesu syn på de fattige og hans bruk av ord for “fattig” [Jesus and the Poor: Jesus’ View of the Poor and His Use of Words for “Poor”]. Doctoral thesis. Oslo: Luther forlag, 1981. 551 pp. 1982 – “Den kristne dåps opprinnelse” [The Origin of the Christian Baptism]. Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 53 (1982): 171–184. – “Den uavsluttede rettssaken: Om Johannesevangeliet som vitnesbyrd” [The Ongoing Lawsuit: The Gospel of John as Testimony]. Ung Teologi 15.1 (1982): 83–97. 1983 – “Fra melk til fast føde: Til spørsmålet om en kristen basiskunnskap i urkirken” [From Milk to Solid Food: Concerning Basic Christian Knowledge in the Early Church]. Pages 74–86 in For kirke og skole: Festskrift til dosent dr. theol. Ole Modalsli på 70.-årsdagen 1. april 1983. Edited by Ivar Asheim et al. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1983. – “Himmel og helvete er ennå ikke opprettet” [Heaven and Hell Are Yet Not Established]. Pages 144–146 in Himmel og helvete. Edited by Sverre Inge Apenes. Oslo: Cappelen, 1983. – “Dødsriket og fortapelsen” [Hades and Hell]. Luthersk kirketidende 118 (1983): 510–518. – Review of Birger Gerhardsson, Hör, Israel! Om Israel och den gamla bekännelsen (1979). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 54 (1983): 306–308. – Review of Birger Gerhardsson, The Mighty Acts of Jesus according to Matthew (1979). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 54 (1983): 308–309.

304

Reidar Hvalvik

– Review of Birger Gerhardsson, “Med hela ditt hjärta”: Om Bibelns ethos (1979). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 54 (1983): 309–311. – Review of A. Nissen, Gott und der Nächste im antiken Judentum (1974). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 54 (1983): 311–312. 1984 – “Essenerne – Qumransamfunnet” [The Essenes – the Qumran Community]. Pages 129–137 in Blant skriftlærde og fariseere: Jødedommen i oldtiden. Edited by Hans Kvalbein. Oslo: Verbum, 1984. – “Hermas’ Hyrden, kap 50–77” (oversettelse og noter) [Hermas, The Shepherd, chs. 50–77 (translation and notes)]. Pages 312–333 in De apostoliske fedre i norsk oversettelse med innledninger og noter. Edited by Ernst Baasland and Reidar Hvalvik. Oslo: Luther forlag, 1984; 2nd ed. 1997. – “Hvem ville Jesus være?” [Who Would Jesus Be?]. Pages 31–40 in Hvem er Jesus: forelesninger ved Menighetsfakultetets 75-års jubileum. Edited by Torleiv Austad and Øyvind M. Wee. Oslo: Luther, 1984. 1985 – Review of Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, Glaube und Handeln in der Theologie des Lukas (1983). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 56 (1985): 229–230. – Review of Walter E. Pilgrim, Good News to the Poor: Wealth and Poverty in Luke-Acts (1981). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 56 (1985): 228–229. – Review of Eduard Schweizer, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (1982). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 56 (1985): 227–228. – Review of David Peter Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts (1982). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 56 (1985): 230–232. 1987 – “Endetiden hos Jesus og Paulus” [Eschatological Times by Jesus and Paul]. Prismet 38 (1987):137–143. – “Jesus and the Poor: Two Texts and a Tentative Conclusion.” Themelios 12 (1987): 80–87. 1988 – “Go Therefore and Make Disciples ... The Concept of Discipleship in the New Testament.” Themelios 13 (1988): 48–53. 1989 – Fortolkning til Matteusevangeliet, Bind 1 [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Vol. 1]. Bibelverket. Oslo: Nye Luther forlag /Lunde forlag, 1989. 328 pp. (Reprinted together with vol. 2, Oslo: Luther, 1998). – “Seksualitet og ekteskap: aktuelle bibeltekster for undervisningen” [Sex and Marriage: Relevant Bible Texts in Education]. Prismet 40 (1989): 245–249.

Bibliography of Hans Kvalbein’s Scholarly Publications

305

– Review of Hans Dieter Betz, Essays on the Sermon on the Mount (1985). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 60 (1989): 143. – Review of Jan Lambrecht, Ich aber sage euch: Die Bergpredigt als programmatische Rede Jesu (Mt 5–7; Lk 6.20–49) (1984). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 60 (1989): 143–144. – Review of Poul Nepper-Christensen, Matthæus-evangeliet: En kommentar (1988). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 60 (1989): 58. – Review of José Cárdenas Pallares, A Poor Man Called Jesus: Reflections on the Gospel of Mark. Themelios 14 (1989): 67. – Review of Georg Strecker, Die Bergpredigt: Ein exegetischer Kommentar (1984). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 60 (1989): 144. 1990 – Fortolkning til Matteusevangeliet, Bind 2 [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Vol. 2]. Bibelverket. Oslo: Nye Luther forlag /Lunde forlag, 1990. 311 pp. (Reprinted together with vol. 1, Oslo: Luther, 1998) – “Israel – landet og folket” [Israel – The Land and the People]. Prismet 41 (1990): 251–255. – Review of Tord Fornberg, Matteusevangeliet 1:1–13:52 (1989). Svensk Pastoraltidskrift 32 (1990): 463–465 1991 – “Embete og nådegaver” [Ministry and Charisms]. Pages 105–118 in Kvinner i Bibelen, i kirken, i misjonen. Edited by Gunnar Eikeli. Oslo: Nye Luther, 1991. – “Bibelske barneskjebner” [Fates of Children in the Bible]. Inter Medicos 34.4 (1991): 11–15. – “Dommen og fortapelsen i Matteusevangeliet: Hva sier tekstene og hva sier de ikke” [The Judgment and Perdition in Matthew: What Do the Texts Say and What Do They Not Say]. ΙΧΘΥC – Menighedsfakultetets studenterblad 18 (1991): 12–22. – “Slaget ved Harmageddon: krig som endetidstegn i det Nye Testamente” [The Battle at Armageddon: War as an Eschatological Sign in the New Testament]. Prismet 42 (1991): 51–54. – Review of Eckhart Rau, Reden in Vollmacht: Hintergrund, Form und Anliegen der Gleichnisse Jesu (1990). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 62 (1991): 292. – Review of Udo Schnelle, Antidoketische Christologie im Johannesevangelium: Eine Untersuchung zur Stellung des vierten Evangeliums in der johanneischen Schule (1987). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 62 (1991): 293–294. – Review of Tim Schramm and Kathrin Löwenstein, Unmoralische Helden: Anstössige Gleichnisse Jesu (1986). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 62 (1991): 293. 1992 – “Er Jesus blitt for snill? Jesus-bildet i Det nye testamente og i kristendomsundervisningen” [Has Jesus Been too Kind? The Picture of Jesus in the New

306

Reidar Hvalvik

Testament and in Christian Education]. Pages 129–147 i Veiviser til verdier: Fagdidaktiske artikler om Bibelen i grunnskolen til 25-årsjubileet for Avdeling for kristendomskunnskap ved Det teologiske menighetsfakultet. Edited by Brynjar Haraldsø, Hans Kvalbein and Axel Smith. Oslo: Verbum, 1992. – “Døden i bibelsk lys” [The Death according to the Bible]. Klassisk Forum 1992, no. 2: 61–73. – “Sykdom og urenhet” [Illness and Impurity]. Inter Medicos 35.1 (1992): 15–18. 1993 – “Dåpen som livsprogram – ‘huset’ som dåpsopplæringens sted: nytestamentlige perspektiver” [Baptism as a Program for Life: The ‘House’ as the Place for Baptismal Instruction: New Testament Perspectives]. Luthersk kirketidende 128 (1993): 214–217. – (together with Gunnar Johnstad, Ernst Baasland and Oddvar Johan Jensen, eds.). Evangelie-synopse: Etter teksten i Det norske bibelselskaps oversettelse av 1978/85. Oslo: Bibelselskapet, 1993. 1994 – “Da disiplene ble kristne: Apg 11,26” [When the Disciples Became Christians: Acts 11:26]. Pages 211–231 in Ad Acta: Studier til Apostlenes gjerninger og urkristendommens historie, tilegnet professor Edvin Larsson på 70-årsdagen. Edited by Reidar Hvalvik and Hans Kvalbein. Oslo: Verbum, 1994. – “Misjon i evangeliene og Apostlenes gjerninger” [Mission in the Gospels and Acts]. Pages 37–64 in Missiologi i dag. Edited by Jan-Martin Berentsen, Tormod Engelsviken and Knud Jørgensen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1994. – Review of Samuel Byrskog, Jesus the Only Teacher: Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism, and the Matthean Community. Svensk teologisk kvartalskrift 70 (1994): 185–189. 1995 – “Homosexualitet i bibelsk lys” [Homosexuality in the Light of the Bible]. Pages 119–139 in Homofile i kirken: En utredning fra Bispemøtets arbeidsgruppe om homofili [Homosexuals in the Church: An Assessment from the Working Committee on Homosexuality, appointed by the Bishops’ Conference]. Oslo: Kirkens informasjonstjeneste, 1995. – “Jesus som opprører” [Jesus as a Rebel]. Religion og livssyn 7 (1995) no. 2: 24–30. – “Konflikter og konfliktløsning i nytestamentlig perspektiv” [Conflicts and Conflict Resolution in a New Testament Perspective]. Halvårsskrift for praktisk teologi 12 (1995) no. 2: 12–21.

Bibliography of Hans Kvalbein’s Scholarly Publications

307

1996 – “De første kristne i Roma” [The First Christians in Rome]. Pages 131–144 in To gode keisere? Roma under Traianus og Hadrianus. Edited by Johan Henrik Schreiner and Knut Ødegård. Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo, Det historiskfilosofiske fakultet, 1996. – “The Baptism of Jesus as a Model for Christian Baptism: Can the Idea be Traced Back to New Testament Times?” Studia Theologica 50 (1996): 67–83. – Review of Simon Chow, The Sign of Jonah Reconsidered: A Study of Its Meaning in the Gospel Tradition (1995). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 67 (1996): 64–66. – Review of David Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (1995). Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 67 (1996): 63–64. 1997 – “Die Inspirationslehre und die Autorität der Heiligen Schrift.” Pages 51–64 in Dein Wort ist die Wahrheit: Festschrift für Gerhard Maier: Beiträge zu einer schriftgemässen Theologie. Edited by Eberhard Hahn, Rolf Hille and HeinzWerner Neudorfer. Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1997. – “La hans blod komme over oss og våre barn: Var Matteusevangeliet jødefiendtlig?” [Let His Blood Be on Us and on Our Children: Is the Gospel of Matthew Anti-Jewish?]. Pages 55–69 in Matteus och hans läsare – förr och nu: Matteussymposiet i Lund den 27–28 sept 1996: En hyllning till professor Birger Gerhardsson som fyllde 70 år den 26 september 1996. Edited by Birger Olsson, Samuel Byrskog and Walter Übelacker. Religio 48. Lund: Teologiska Institutionen, 1997. – “The Kingdom of God in the Ethics of Jesus.” Studia Theologica 51 (1997): 60–84. – “Vokt dere for de falske profeter: Nytestamentlige synspunkter på læretukt i kirken” [Be Aware of the False Prophets: New Testaments Views on Church Discipline]. Ung Teologi 30.4 (1997): 5–18. – “Die Wunder der Endzeit: Beobachtungen zu 4Q521 und Matth 11.5p.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 88 (1997): 111–125. – “Skyldens mange navn og tunge realitet” [The Many Names and the Heavy Reality of Guilt]. Tidsskrift for sjelesorg 17 (1997) no. 1: 23–26. – (with Sverre Aalen). “Ehre (δόξα).” Pages 305–309 in vol. 1 of Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament. Neubearbeitete Ausgabe. Edited by Lothar Coenen and Klaus Haacker. 2 vols. Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1997–2000. 1998 – “Hat Matthäus die Juden aufgegeben? Bemerkungen zu Ulrich Luz’ Matthäus-Deutung.” Theologische Beiträge 29 (1998): 310–314.

308

Reidar Hvalvik

– “Kan vi tale om en Gudsrike-etikk i de synoptiske evangelier?” [Is there a Kingdom-of-God-Ethics in the Synoptic Gospels?]. Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 69 (1998): 3–28. – “The Kingdom of God in the Ethics of Jesus.” Communio viatorum 40 (1998): 197–227. – “The Wonders of the End-Time: Metaphoric Language in 4Q521 and the Interpretation of Matthew 11.5 par.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 18 (1998): 87–110. 1999 – “Thomasevangeliet: en præsentation og vurdering” [The Gospel of Thomas: A Presentation and an Assessment]. Til tro 31 (1999) no. 1:4–7. 2000 – “Has Matthew Abandoned the Jews?” Pages 45–62 in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles. Edited by Jostein Ådna and Hans Kvalbein. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 127. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. – “Poor /Poverty.” Pages 687–691 in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner. Leicester: InterVarsity, 2000. – “στέφανος.” Pages 1112–1115 in vol. 2 of Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament. Neubearbeitete Ausgabe. Edited by Lothar Coenen and Klaus Haacker. 2 vols. Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1997–2000. 2001 – “Hva betyr ‘Guds basileia’ i Jesu forkynnelse?” [What Does the basileia of God Mean in Jesus’ Preaching?] Ung Teologi 34.1 (2001): 47–53. – “Problembasert læring: En ny utfordring til teologistudiet – og en til prester i tjeneste” [Problem-based Learning: A New Challenge in the Study of Theology and to Pastors in Service]. Luthersk kirketidende 136 (2001): 81. – Review of Johannes Nissen, New Testament and Mission: Historical and Hermeneutical Perspectives. Norsk tidsskrift for misjon 55 (2001): 259–263. 2002 – “The Kingdom of God and the Kingship of Christ in the Fourth Gospel.” Pages 215–232 in Neotestamentica et Philonica: Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen. Edited by David E. Aune, Torrey Seland and Jarl Henning Ulrichsen. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 106. Leiden: Brill, 2002. – “Luthers lære om de to riker og Jesu forkynnelse om Guds rike” [Luther’s Teaching on the Two Kingdoms and Jesus’ Preaching on the Kingdom of God]. Pages 256–268 in Teologi for kirken: Festskrift til professor dr.theol. Torleiv Austad på 65-årsdagen. Edited by Jan-Olav Henriksen, Gunnar Heiene and Svein Olaf Thorbjørnsen. Oslo: Verbum, 2002.

Bibliography of Hans Kvalbein’s Scholarly Publications

309

2003 – “Et folk på vandring: Et bibelteologisk memento om oppbruddets nødvendighet” [A People on the Move: A Biblical-Theological Memento on the Necessity of Breakup]. Pages 17–32 in Kirke i oppbrudd og forandring: Aktuelle perspektiver på norsk kirkevirkelighet. Edited by Leif Gunnar Engedal and Vidar L. Haanes. Trondheim: Tapir Akademisk forlag, 2003. – “I Jesu skole: Disippelskap som utgangspunkt for kirkeforskningen” [In the School of Jesus: Discipleship as a Starting Point for Church Research]. Pages 53–77 in Slik blir kirken til: Kirke i forandring i Det nye testamente. Edited by Nils Aksel Røsæg and Hans Kvalbein. Trondheim: Tapir Akademisk forlag, 2003. – (with Bjørn Helge Sandvei). “Ragnar Skouge Leivestad (1916–2002).” Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 74 (2003): 53–54. 2004 – “Damaskusskriftet” [translation of the Damascus Document]. Pages 35–50 in Dødehavsrullene. Edited by Torleif Elgvin. Oslo: De norske bokklubbene, 2004. – “Misjon i Det nye Testamente” [Mission in the New Testament]. Pages 37–73 in Missiologi i dag. 2nd edition. Edited by Jan-Martin Berentsen, Tormod Engelsviken and Knud Jørgensen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 2004. – “Bibeltekst og antisemittisme” [Bible Text and Anti-Semitism]. Ung Teologi 37.4 (2004): 87–93. 2005 – “The Authorization of Peter in Matthew 16:17–19: A Reconsideration of the Power to Bind and Loose.” Pages 145–174 in The Formation of the Early Church. Edited by Jostein Ådna. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 183. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2005. – “Jødene i Johannesevangeliet” [The Jews in the Gospel of John]. Ung Teologi 38.2 (2005): 65–69. 2006 – “The Kingdom of the Father in the Gospel of Thomas.” Pages 203–228 in The New Testament and Early Christian Literature in Greco-Roman Context: Studies in Honor of David E. Aune. Edited by John Fotopoulos. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 122. Leiden: Brill, 2006. – “Nødvendig forandring i Fadervår: svar til Vinje og Sandved” [A Necessary Change in the Lord’s Prayer: Reply to Vinje and Sandved]. Pages 21–22 in Årbok for Den norske kirke 55. Oslo: Kirkens informasjonstjeneste, 2006 – “Er det noen kunst å lese Bibelen?” [Is Bible Reading an Art?] Review of The Art of Reading Scripture, edited by Ellen F. Davis and Richard Hays. Luthersk kirketidende 141 (2006): 495–499.

310

Reidar Hvalvik

2007 – “Lærd Jesus-meditasjon fra en mystiker på pavetronen: Joseph Ratzinger / Benedikt XVI, Jesus fra Nasaret, Del 1: Fra dåpen i Jordan til forklarelsen på berget.” [Scholarly Jesus Meditation from a Mystic on the Papal Throne: Joseph Ratzinger /Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth: Vol. 1: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration]. Luthersk kirketidende 142 (2007): 638–641. – “Veiledning for livet: etiske implikasjoner i Fadervår” [Guidance for Life: Ethical Implications in the Lord’s Prayer]. Luthersk kirketidende 142 (2007): 211–218. – “Wem gehört das Reich Gottes? Von der Botschaft Jesu zum Evangelium des Paulus.” Pages 97–114 in Logos – Logik – Lyrik: Engagierte exegetische Studien zum biblischen Reden Gottes: Festschrift für Klaus Haacker. Edited by Volker A. Lehnert and Ulrich Rüsen-Weinhold. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007. – Review of Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission /Urchristliche Mission. Theologische Literaturzeitung 132 (2007): 542–546. 2008 – Jesus: Hva ville han? Hvem var han? En innføring i de tre første evangelienes budskap [Jesus – What Would He Do? Who Was He? An Introduction to the Message of the Synoptic Gospels]. Oslo: Luther forlag, 2008. 428 pp. (2nd printing 2012). – “Baptism of Jesus.” Pages 55–58 in Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Craig Evans. New York: Routledge, 2008. – “Conversion and Discipleship in the Synoptic Gospels: An Exegetical and Missiological Challenge.” Pages 89–99 in Med Kristus til jordens ender: festskrift til Tormod Engelsviken. Edited by Kjell Olav Sannes et al. Tapir Akademisk forlag, 2008. – “Discipleship, Kingdom and Conversion: Aspects from Recent Exegetical Discussion on the Mission of the Church.” Pages 207–229 in Einheit der Kirche: Dritte europäische orthodox-westliche Exegetenkonferenz in Sankt Petersburg 24.–31. August 2005. Edited by Anatoly A. Alexeev et al. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 218. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. – “En hellig, verdensvid kirke” [A Holy, Worldwide Church]. Luthersk kirketidende 143 (2008): 3–5. – “Kvinnen som Jesus selv ba oss huske, men som kirken har glemt” [The Woman Jesus Asked Us to Remember, Forgotten by the Church]. Luthersk kirketidende 144 (2009): 453. – Review of Notto R. Thelle, Gåten Jesus: én fortelling – mange stemmer (2009). Luthersk Kirketidende 144 (2009): 132–135.

Bibliography of Hans Kvalbein’s Scholarly Publications

311

– Review of Per Bilde: Den historiske Jesus (2008). Luthersk kirketidende 144 (2009): 186–189. 2010 – “Har bekjennelsesskriftene glemt Jesu virke på jorden? Evangelienes Jesusbilde som utfordring til dogmatikken” [Have the (Lutheran) Confessions Forgotten the Public Ministry of Jesus: The picture of Jesus in the Gospels as a Challenge to Dogmatics]. Pages 39–52 in Kirkens bekjennelse i historisk og aktuelt perspektiv: Festskrift til Kjell Olav Sannes. Edited by Torleiv Austad, Tormod Engelsviken and Lars Østnor. Tapir Akademisk Forlag, 2010. – “Agnus Dei: ‘som bar bort verdens synd’” [Agnus Dei – That Took Away the Sin of the World]. Luthersk Kirketidende 145 (2010): 288. – “Kristen i krigstjeneste – kan en kristen være soldat?” [Christian in Military Service: May a Christian Be a Soldier?]. Fast Grunn 63 (2010): 30–40. 2011 – (with Torleiv Austad and Lars Østnor). Troens ABC: Kjernestoff i kristen trosopplæring. Oslo: Luther forlag, 2011. – “Global Strategies and Local Methods of Missionary Work in the Early Church: Jesus, Peter and Paul: A Response to Eckhard Schnabel.” Pages 47–50 in The Church Going Global: Mission and Globalisation: Proceedings of the Fjellhaug Symposium 2010. Edited by Tormod Engelsviken, Erling Lundeby and Dagfinn Solheim. Oxford: Regnum Books, 2011. 2012 – “Fadervårs sjette bønn” [The Sixth Petition in the Lord’s Prayer]. Luthersk kirketidende 147 (2012): 241–242. – “Kan lovprisning av Gud erstattes av ‘velsignelse’ av Gud? Kritisk kommentar til Bibel 2011” [Can Praising of God be Replaced by ‘Blessing’ of God? A Critical Comment to the Bible of 2011]. Luthersk kirketidende 147 (2012): 291–294. – “Gud vil ha vår lovsang, ikke vår ‘velsignelse’” [God Wants Our Praise, Not Our ‘Blessing’]. Luthersk kirketidende 147 (2012): 457–458. – “Svar til Sandvik og Innerdal” [Reply to Sandvik and Innerdal]. Luthersk kirketidende 147 (2012): 318–319. 2013 – “‘Thy Kingdom Come’: A Critical Remark to Ratzinger’s Kingdom-Concept.” Pages 147–161 in The Gospels: History and Christology: The Search of Joseph Ratzinger – Benedict XVI. Vol. 2. Edited by Bernardo Estrada, Ermenegildo Manicardi and Armand Puig i Ta.rrech. Citta del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2013.

312

Reidar Hvalvik

– “Hellig krig i Det nye testamentet?” [Holy War in the New Testament?]. Teologisk tidsskrift 2 (2013): 154–172. – “Kirken og Guds rike i Jesu forkynnelse etter de synoptiske evangelier” [The Church and the Kingdom of God according to the Teaching of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels]. Lære og liv: Et tidsskrift for Kirkelig fornyelse 40 (2013) nos. 2–3:10–23. – “You are Witnesses in the Power of the Spirit: A Missiological Reading of Luke 24:44–49.” Theology & Life 36 (2013): 93–104. 2014 – “Jesus as Preacher of the Kingdom of God.” Pages 87–98 in The Identity of Jesus: Nordic Voices. Edited by S. Byrskog, T. Holmén and M. Kankaanniemi. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/373. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. – “The Lord’s Prayer and the Eucharist Prayers in the Didache.” Pages 233–266 in Early Christian Prayer and Identity Formation. Edited by Reidar Hvalvik and Karl Olav Sandnes. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 336. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. A note about the Norwegian journals frequently referred to in the bibliography Some of Kvalbein’s articles were published in Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke (1930–2011), a Norwegian peer-reviewed journal covering all theological disciplines and edited by professors at MF Norwegian School of Theology. In 2012 this journal merged with another similar journal, Norsk teologisk tidsskrift (1900–2011; edited by professors at the Faculty of Theology at the University of Oslo). The new peer-reviewed journal is simply called Teologisk tidsskrift, with one editor from each of the two faculties. Ung teologi is a journal published by the students at MF Norwegian School of Theology (started in 1968); also professors often have published in this journal. Luthersk kirketidende (established in 1863) is a journal aimed primarily at pastors in the Church of Norway. In addition to exegetical and homiletical articles on the lectionary texts and debate articles, the journal also contains more scholarly articles on various theological topics. Prismet is a journal in the field of religious education, published by IKO – Church Educational Centre. Fast Grunn is a conservative journal aimed at lay people in the low-church movement, linked to the Lutheran Mission in Norway.

List of Contributors Jostein Ådna, Professor of New Testament, Faculty of Theology, Diakonia and Leadership Studies, VID Specialized University, Stavanger (Norway) David E. Aune, Walter Professor of New Testament & Christian Origins Emeritus, University of Notre Dame (USA) Ernst Baasland, Professor of New Testament Emeritus, MF Norwegian School of Theology, Oslo and VID Specialized University, Stavanger (Norway) Johannes Beutler SJ, Professor of New Testament and Fundamental Theology Emeritus, Philosophisch-Theologische Hochschule Sankt Georgen, Frankfurt am Main (Germany) Peder Borgen, Professor of New Testament Emeritus, University of Trondheim (Norway) Reinhard Feldmeier, Professor of New Testament, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (Germany) Volker Gäckle, Professor of New Testament, Internationale Hochschule Liebenzell, Bad Liebenzell (Germany) Klaus B. Haacker, Professor of New Testament Emeritus, Kirchliche Hochschule Wuppertal /Bethel (Germany) Reidar Hvalvik, Professor of New Testament, MF Norwegian School of Theology, Oslo (Norway) Halvor Moxnes, Professor of New Testament Emeritus, Faculty of Theology, University of Oslo (Norway) Rainer Riesner, Professor of New Testament Emeritus, Institut für Evangelische Theologie, Technische Universität Dortmund (Germany) Karl Olav Sandnes, Professor of New Testament, MF Norwegian School of Theology, Oslo (Norway) Torrey Seland, Professor of New Testament Emeritus, VID Specialized University, Stavanger (Norway) Oskar Skarsaune, Professor of Church History Emeritus, MF Norwegian School of Theology, Oslo (Norway)

314

List of Contributors

Christoph Stenschke, Professor of New Testament, Department of Biblical and Ancient Studies, University of South Africa, Pretoria and Biblisch-Theologische Akademie, Bergneustadt (Germany)

Index Index of Ancient Sources 1. Hebrew Bible /Old Testament Genesis 5 10 10–11 10:2 10:2–4 10:2–5 10:5 10:6–20 10:8–12 10:10–12 10:15–19 10:20 10:21 10:21–31 10:22 10:24–25 10:31 10:32 10:33 11 11:1–8 11:1–9 11:9 11:10–26 12:1 12:1–2 12:1–3 12:1–9 12:2–3 12:3 12:7 13:15 15 15:5 15:6 15:12 15:16–21 15:18–21 16 17

281 18, 280–281, 285, 287–288, 290–291, 293–297 18, 280, 292 283 290 19, 281 283 283 284 284 291 284 285 285 290 285 284 293 260 18, 292 292 293 293 285 189–190 285 18, 280 215 66, 82 53, 82, 186, 280 63, 65 66 202, 205 202 13, 186, 189–190, 202 189 65 65 207 203–204

17–18 17:5 17:11 17:18 17:10–16 17:17 17:23–27 18 22:18 23:5–6 23:6 48:15

207 205 204 65 203 208 203 2–5 186 189 189 265

Exodus 1–2 3:1–21 3:1–4:17 3:2–6 3:11 3:12 4:10 4:14–16 12:3 12:11 12:21 14 14:28 14:29–30 13:19 14 15:1 16:16 23 23:4 23:31 24:18

274 215 49 59 59 60 60 60 264, 272 269 264, 272 271 268 268 268 276 17, 268, 270, 272, 278 264 75 75 65 120

Leviticus 18:5 19 19:17 19:17–18 19:18 19:33–34 24:10–16

184–186 70, 76 74 76 67–68, 75–76 76 48

316

Index

Numbers 15:30–31 32:33 32:39–42 34:1–15

48 58 58 66

Deuteronomy 1:39 2:7 5:14 6:4–5 6:20 6:20–25 6:21 16:11 16:14 19:8 21:22–23 21:23 22:1 22:4 27:14–26 27:26 32:8–9 32:35

265 167 264 94 265 264 264 264 264 65 184 184, 186 75 75 48 184, 186 65 75

Joshua 3:12 3:17 4:1 5:2 5:9 7:14 13–21 13:28 13:29–31 13:31 15:12 16–18 16:5 17:6 18:20 19:6 19:16 19:23 19:31 19:39

273 272 273 274 273–274 273 273 273 58 273 273 58 273 273 273 273 273 273 273 273

Judges 6:11–24 6:12 6:14 6:15 6:16 20:1

49 59 59 60 60 66

1 Samuel 3:1–14

215

3:20 26:18

65 130

2 Samuel 3:10 7:14 17:11 24:2 24:15

65 51 65 65 65

1 Kings 4:25 10 10:1–10 10:15 10:22 10:23–24 19:8 20:23–28 22:49

65 284 283–284 284 283–284 284 120 178 283

2 Kings 4 5:17 15:29 17:4–6

275 178 58 58

4 Kingdoms (LXX) 2:9 2:10 2:11

105 105 105

1 Chronicles 1:5–23

286

2 Chronicles 20:36–37

283

Ezra 3:1 8:21

273 273

Job 1:6–12 3:16 14:4–5

137 270 263

Psalms 2:7 7 7:4–5 8:3 22:12 22:28 33 37:21 48:8 62:4 72 72:8–11

51 78 78 268, 270 69 69 239 73 283 72 284 284

317

Index of Ancient Sources 72:10 78:18 [LXX] 80:1–2 80:1–3 80:2–3 80:17 80:18 110:1–2 135:12

283 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 272

Proverbs 7:13 20:22 24:29 25:21

72 75 75 75

Isaiah 2:2–4 2:3 2:16 6:1–6 23:1 23:10 40:6–8 40:9 40:11 42:6–7 42:10 42:18–19 43:3–4 43:16 49:6 51:9 52 52:5 52:6–7 52:7 53:11–12 56:1–8 56:3 56:6–7 56:7 60:6 60:9 61:1–2 66:5 (LXX) 66:18–19 66:18–21 66:19 66:20

146, 293 293–294 283 215 283 283 231 231 17, 269 160 272 160 159 269 82, 160 269 79–80 79 79 80 159 149 149 149 149 284 283 28 76 293 149, 160, 293 283, 293 293

Jeremiah 1:4–5 1:4–10 1:4–19 1:5 1:6

59 49 215 215 60

1:8 6:20 9:20 10:9 51:27

60 284 270 283 291

Lamentations 4:4

270

Ezekiel 1:1–27 2–3 2:1–3:2 2:8-3:4 2:1–3:9 2:1–3:11 2:8-3:4 2:9–10 2:10 3:1–3 3:3 3:4 3:4–6 3:10 7:2 11:20 27:22–29 27:25 27:32 29:2–4 31:8 37:15–28 37:25 38:1 38:2 39:1 47:13–20

215 218–219, 225 218 211, 216 214, 216 215–216 215 219 218–219 214 216–218 218 218 218 216 216 284 283 216 274 216 58 283 283 281 281 66

Daniel 2:44 [LXX] 3:4 3:7 3:29 4:1 5:19 6:25 7 7–12 7:1–28 7:10 7:13 7:13–14 7:14 7:18 7:27 [LXX]

118 221 221 221 221 221 221 219 212 222 219 158 10, 50, 148 158, 221–222 158 118

Hosea 1–3

215

318

Index

Joel 2:16 2:27 3:1–5

270 118 118, 149

Amos 9:11

118

Jonah 1:3 4:3

283 283

Micah 2:13 4:1–4 4:2–3

69 146 293

Habakkuk 2:4

184–186

Zephaniah 3:9

292

Zechariah 13:7 13:7–8 13:7–9 13:9

56 57 57 57, 59

2. Deuterocanonical Works Wisdom 10:15-11:4 10:17–18 10:20 10:21

268 268 268 17

Sirach 10:6 27:22–28:26 28:1–6 31:24 48:9

72 72 72 72 105

1 Maccabees 2:58

105

2 Maccabees 4:47

82

3 Maccabees 7:5 7:16

82 133

Assumption of Moses 10:1–10 118 2 Baruch 76

120

1 Enoch 1–36 14:8–16:3 37–71 72–82 83–90 92–105

212 215 212 212 212 212

Ezekiel the Tragedian 193–203 270 207–210 270 4 Ezra 9:30–31 14:23–49

126 120

Joseph and Aseneth 8:10 23:9 28:5 28:10 28:14 29:3

206 72 72 72 72 72

Jubilees 8–9 8–10 8:10–9:15 8:11 8:12–21 8:19 8:22–24 8:25–30 9:1 9:2–6 9:7–13 9:10 9:14–15 9:15 10:27–34 10:35 11:1–6 16:19 22:20–22

18, 280, 286, 295–297 292 18, 286–287 287 287 289 287 287 287 287 287 291–292 287 292 291 290 287, 291 206 157

Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 53:2 120

3. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

3 Maccabees 7:5 7:16

82 133

Ascension of Isaiah 3:17–18

4 Maccabees 10:7

82

82

319

Index of Ancient Sources Pseudo – Phocylides 32–34 63–64 74–75 77 142–143 151

5. Philo 72 72 72 72 72 72

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Testament of Benjamin 4:2–3 74 6:5 72 Testament of Dan 5:10–13

118

Testament of Gad 6.7

75

Testament of Joseph 10.1-2 18.2

73 69

Testament of Judah 21–22 24

118 118

Testament of Levi 16.6

126

Testament of Zebulon 5.1 75 8:4–6 73

4. Dead Sea Scrolls

De Abrahamo 111

208

De agricultura 9

238

De cherubim 1.91-92

234–235

De congressu 19 81

238 269

De vita contemplative 40–41 234 In Flaccum 1.21 4 136

74 234 234

Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 258 189 258–268 190 293–97 269 Legum allegoriae 1 1.49 67 312

186 126 186 234

De migratione Abrahami 1 186 43 186 29 238 217 264

1QapGen (Genesis Apocryphon) 20.28-29 69

De vita Mosis 1.179 1.330 1.330-331 2.165

17, 269 270 270 233

1QH (Hodayot) 6.21

76

De plantatione 100

234

71

Quod omnis probus liber sit 158–160 238

CD (Damascus Document) 9.2-3 75

1QM (War Scroll) 9.21

1QS (Rule of the Community) 1.9-10 76 9.16 76 9.21 76 10.17-18 71 10.17-20 75 11QTem (Temple Scroll) 61.12-14 71

Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3.42 206 3.55 208 Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum 1.8 (Ex 12:5) 269 De sacrificiis 6–11 63

265 269

320 De somniis 1.199

Index

126

De specialibus legibus 1.15 189 1.20 189 1.51-52 236 2.145-147 269 2.145-149 269 2.146 270 2.193 234 3.96 234 4.91 233 De virtutibus 102 102–104 103 106–160 120 178–179 212–213 212–219 212–222 214–217 217 218 218–219 219

236 236 237 74 75 236 189 188–189 189 190 190 190 190 189, 191

6. Josephus Contra Apionem 2.269

82

Jewish Antiquities 11.107 13.171 18.116-119 20.199

248 243 266 243

Jewish War 7.43 7.45

147 147

Vita 10 10–12 12 191

243 266 243 243

7. New Testament Matthew 1:1 1:1–17 1:2

51 53 55

1:5 1:16 1:18 1:20 1:21 1:23 1:24–25 2:1–12 2:2 2:6 2:15 3:9 3:16 3:17 4:3 4:5 4:6 4:15–16 4:17 4:18–22 4:48 5 5:3 5:4 5:5 5:6 5:10–12 5:11–12 5:11 5:13–14 5:14 5:20 5:21–22 5:21–48 5:39 5:39 ff. 5:41–48 5:43 5:43–44 5:43 ff. 5:44 5:44–45 5:44 ff. 5:45 5:46 5:46–47 5:47 5:48 6:1 ff. 6:1–18 6:19 ff. 6:19–34 6:32 7 7:1 ff. 7:12

157 51 51 51 59 51, 54 51 53, 157 48 56–57 51 53 153 51 51 55 51 53 51 86 83 70 29, 117 29 77, 81 29 117 80 71 53 160 70, 117 67 70, 76 71 67 67 67, 76 4–5, 63, 75, 79 66, 68 5, 63, 67–68, 71, 75–77 66 76 71 67 74, 77 154 69 69 70 70 100 49, 154 79 70 83

321

Index of Ancient Sources 7:21 7:22 8:5–13 8:10 8:11 8:11–12 8:19–22 8:22 8:28–34 8:29 9:1 9:14 9:23 9:27 9:36 10 10:1 10:1–4 10:5 10:5–6 10:5 ff. 10:5–15 10:5–42 10:6 10:7–8 10:8 10:15 10:16 10:16–25 10:18 10:22 10:23 11:2–6 11:12 11:20–24 11:21 11:21–23 11:23–24 11:25 12:17–21 12:18 12:23 12:28 12:39–40 12:41–42 13:1–9 13:11 13:16 13:16–17 13:18–23 13:19 13:20–21 13:22 13:31–32 13:33 13:37–43

79, 117 40 10, 51, 53, 156 156 53, 146 10, 155 100 117 51, 53 51, 60 117, 151 261 257 51 51, 55–57 52, 60, 126 51, 101 51, 55, 59 49, 51–52 3, 47, 54 55 101 51 3, 45, 47, 51–52, 55 51 55 154 4 52 49, 52–53 52, 80 45, 52, 60 123 117 47 158 10, 154 154 269 53 49 51 123 155 10, 53, 154–155 126 126 123 123 126 117, 125–126 256 157 126 126 158

13:52 14:15–30 14:22-15:39 14:33 15:13 15:19 15:21–28 15:22 15:24 15:28 16:16 16:18 16:21 17:5 17:22–23 18:3 18:9 19:23–24 19:28 19:29 20:18–19 20:20–28 20:21 20:28 20:30–31 21:9 21:10–11 21:15 21:16 21:31 21:37 21:42–44 21:43 22:1–4 22:1–14 22:2 22:7–8 22:8–10 22:9 22:41–46 22:42–45 23:8–12 23:34 23:34–38 23:34–39 23:35–36 23:37–39 24 24:3 24:9 24:9–14 24:10 24:13 24:14 24:42–51

40 103 151 51, 54 153 274 10, 51, 53, 157 51 3, 45, 47, 51, 56–57, 157 158 51, 54 60, 87 57 51, 54 57 117, 124 124 117 55, 155, 161 124, 175 57 40 117 123, 159 51 51 53 51 269 117 54 54 47–48, 50 103 126 54 47 50 60 54 51 40 40 50 47–48 47 103 256 256 49–50, 52 52 256 52 49–50, 53, 60, 117 103

322 25:14–20 25:32 25:34 25:46 26:14–16 26:21–25 26:28 26:29 26:31 26:31–32 26:33–35 26:41 26:47 26:47–50 26:55 26:56 26:61 26:63–64 26:65 26:69–75 27:3–10 27:11 27:11–26 27:20 27:23 27:24–25 27:25 27:29 27:37 27:43 27:54 28 28:7 28:10 28:11–15 28:16 28:16–20

Index

28:19–20 28:20

103 49–50, 53, 56 124 124 59 59 59 123 57 56–57 59 33 52 59 52 59 148 51, 54 48 59 59 48 53 52 52 4, 47, 52 47–48, 50, 53 48 48 51 51, 53–54 58, 60 56–57 56–57 47–48 56–59 4, 10, 45–46, 49–50, 54, 60, 158 59 60 4, 50, 158 3, 47–48, 50, 53–54, 81, 157 4, 17, 47, 49–50, 55, 60–61, 297 5, 50, 54, 66, 158, 287 60

Mark 1:4 1:15 1:16–20 1:17 1:20 1:29 1:38

266 123 86 100 100 97 117

28:16–22 28:17 28:18 28:18–20 28:19

2:14 2:18–22 3:16–19 3:21 3:31–35 3:32 4:3–9 4:11 4:14–20 4:16–17 4:24 4:26–29 4:30–32 6:30–8:33 6:34 6:45–8:10 7:20–23 7:24–30 8:27 8:27–30 8:29 8:33 8:34 8:38 9:9 9:41-10:12 9:43 9:43–48 9:45 9:47 10:14–15 10:15 10:17 10:17–27 10:17–31 10:21 10:23–25 10:23–26 10:30 10:23–25 10:32 10:37 10:45 11:17 11:58 13:1–23 13:10 13:14–16 13:34 14:15–16 14:18–20 14:25 14:61–62 14:62 14:66–72 16:1–8

100 123 87 100 100 78 126 78, 126 126 256 151 126 126 95 117 151 233 10, 157 99 96, 123 97 97 101 117 123 102 124 124 124 117, 124 126 117, 124 36, 124 126 36 124 117 124 36 36 99 117 123, 159 149 148 103 117 103 103 126 126 123 123 103, 106 88 104

323

Index of Ancient Sources 16:7 16:16

88, 109, 117 66

Luke 1–4 1:8 ff. 1:48–53 2:1–5 2:3 2:4 2:7 2:10 2:21–24 2:22 2:25 2:34–35 2:36 2:38 2:39 2:41–42 3:3 3:8 3:10–14 4:1–2 4:5 4:16–21 4:43 4:43–44 5:1–11 6:20–21 6:20–26 6:22 6:27 6:27–28 6:27–36 6:27 ff 6:28 6:28 ff. 6:31 6:32 6:35 6:36 6:46 7:1–10 7:9 7:18–23 8:1 8:4 8:4–8 8:8–10 8:9–10 8:11 8:12 8:19–21 8:25 8:32–33

123 120 107 101 101 101 6, 101 230 263 101 120 101 120 120 101 248 249 249 249 120 137 123 117, 120, 122 116, 120 91 29 105 67, 80 5, 66–68, 71, 75, 79 4–5, 63, 67 67 67 5, 68–69 67 67 66–69, 83 4–5, 63, 66–68 67, 83 79 10, 156 156 123 117, 120, 122 122, 230 126 126 126 126, 256 122 108 122 77

8:35 9:1–6 9:2 9:6 9:11 9:11–17 9:23 9:31 9:51 9:51–52 9:51–60 9:51-19:44 9:57 9:57–62 9:58 9:60 10 10:1–12 10:9 10:13 10:13–15 10:23–24 10:38 11:20 11:29–30 11:31–32 12:8–9 12:30 12:35–48 13:18–19 13:20–21 13:22 13:23 13:28–29 13:29 13:32 13:33 13:35–36 14:11 14:15–24 15:1–33 16:15 16:16 16:19–23 16:19–31 16:24–26 17:11 17:18 17:18–23 17:20 17:20–37 18:1–2 18:14 18:17 18:22 18:24–25

122, 230 101 116–117, 120 172 117, 120 103 171 104 102–103, 105 103 103 7 102 100, 103, 108, 171 103 116–117 126 108, 111 116–117 158 10, 154 123 102 123 155 10, 154–155 80 154 103 126 126 102 124 10, 124, 155 146 230 102 103 105, 107–108 126 103 107 116–117, 120–122 28 28 28 102 230 123 119 103 177 105, 107–108 117 171 117

324

Index

18:28 18:30 18:31 18:45 19:1 19:10 19:11 19:11–26 19:28 19:41 20:24 20:42–43 21:7 21:31 22:16–18 22:27 22:28–30 22:40 22:69 23:26 23:42 23:43 24:4–5 24:5 24:6–7 24:8 24:13 24:13–35 24:15 24:17 24:19 24:26 24:30 24:32 24:34 24:35 24:36–49 24:44–46 24:44–49 24:46–49 24:47 24:49

171 124 102 102 102 103 119 104 102 102 175 103 119 123 123 105 108, 155, 161 33 103, 106 173 11 118 120 104 120 120 104 7 104 104 104 117 104 104–105, 171 88 105 88 106 120 179 66, 81, 106, 109, 120 106, 109

John 1–20 1:18 1:28 1:35–42 1:40 1:40–41 1:40–42 1:41 1:42 1:43–44 1:44 2:13

90 88 274 86 86 94 6, 85–86, 94, 97 86 85–86 86 86 95

3:3 3:5 3:15 3:36 4:14 4:36 5 5:1 5:24 5:39 5:42 5:44 6 6:4 6:8 6:9 6:11 6:22–58 6:24 6:27 6:35 6:40 6:41 6:47 6:51–58 6:52 6:54 6:60 6:60–71 6:61 6:63 6:66 6:67 6:68–69 6:69 6:70–71 7 7:2 7:7 8:41–42 9 10 10:1–12 10:11 10:15 10:17 10:27 10:28 11:25 11:25–26 11:27 11:54 11:55 12:22 12:25 12:50

117, 124 117, 124 124 124 124 124 95 95 124 124 94 94 90, 95–97 95 86 91 91 96 96 124 125 124 95–96 124 95 95–96 124 96 94 96 96 96, 171 96 6, 85, 87, 90, 94 97 96 95 95 71 94 30 6, 93 7 88 88 88 57 124 125 124 97 171 95 86 124 124

Index of Ancient Sources 13–16 13–20 13:6–11 13:23 13:24 13:36 13:36–37 13:37 14:6 14:15–24 14:26 15:13–15 15:18 15:26 16:16 16:36 17:2–3 17:11 17:17 17:19 18:8 18:10 18:10–11 18:11 18:11–27 18:15–18 18:16 18:18 18:19 18:25 18:25–27 18:36 19:25–27 20 20:3 20:3–10 20:6–8 20:9 20:19–23 20:24 20:30–31 20:31 21 21:1–14 21:1–19 21:6 21:7 21:15–17 21:15–19 21:18 21:18–19 21:19 21:19–22 21:24–25

94 85, 94 6, 87 6, 87 6, 87 86 6 88 100, 125 94 85 92 71 85 117 124 124 97 97 97 88 88 6 88 6, 88 92 88 91 66 88 92 124 88 6 104 91 88 88 89, 104 96 90 5, 85, 97 6, 85, 90, 93–95, 97 6, 85, 90–91 90 91 92 6, 94 6, 85, 90–92 92 6 92 86 92

Acts 1 1–6 1–7 1:1–2 1:1–14 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:6 1:8 1:11 1:15–20 1:15–26 1:21–22 1:22 2 2:2–4 2:5 2:6 2:6–11 2:7 2:9–11 2:10 2:14–21 2:14–36 2:16–21 2:22–23 2:23 2:33 2:35 2:36 2:36–38 2:38 2:41 2:42 2:44–45 3:1–8 3:13–14 4 4–5 4:4 4:10 4:24 4:32–5:11 4:36 4:36–37 5:14 5:17 5:30 5:31 5:42

325 164 10, 164 176 103 7, 116 105, 116 7–8, 106, 116–118, 120 164 7, 116, 118–119 7, 18, 66, 81, 107, 110, 116, 120, 135, 164, 176, 179, 297 105 148 161 150 105, 249 15, 18, 232, 246, 249–250, 292, 294–295 292 292–294 292 293 165 10, 18, 164, 247, 280, 292–297 173 148 295 149 295 249 103, 106–107 107 295 249 249 16, 245–246, 249 150 165 172 249 246 10, 165 16, 245–247 249 165 165 172 165 245 243 249 103 121

326 6 6:1 6:1–6 6:4 6:7 6:9 6:13–14 6:14 7 7:2 7:2–53 7:4 7:5 7:6 7:9 7:14–15 7:17–39 7:19 7:20 7:23 7:26 7:29 7:30 7:34 7:36 7:38 7:39 7:40–43 7:43 7:44 7:45 7:45–50 7:46 7:48 7:51–53 7:55 7:55–56 7:56 8 8–28 8:1 8:1–2 8:1–4 8:3 8:4 8:4–5 8:5 8:5–25 8:12 8:14 8:25 8:26–29 8:26–39 8:26–40 8:35

Index 165 145 150 150 245 165, 173 166 148 11, 163, 166, 178 166 148 166 166 166 167 167 167 167 264 120 287 167 120 167 167 167 167 167 167 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 106 148 11, 170, 172 169 120, 169 11, 169 11, 171–172 169, 176 121, 138, 169 120 121 170 8, 116–117, 120–121, 124 120 170 173 147–148 170 121

8:38 9 9:1 9:1–2 9:2 9:4 9:10 9:11–16 9:15 9:16 9:17 9:19 9:19–25 9:20 9:22 9:28–29 9:29 9:30 9:31 9:32 9:32–42 9:32-10:48 10 10:1 10:2 10:9–10 10:34–35 10:34–42 10:34–46 10:36 10:37 10:38 10:42 10:43 10:44–48 10:45 10:47–48 10:48 11:1–8 11:2–3 11:3 11:14 11:18 11:19 11:19–21 11:20 11:21 11:21–22 11:22 11:24 11:25–30 11:26 11:27 11:27–30 11:27-12:25 11:28

249 11, 171, 215 170 130, 171 11, 102, 121, 170, 176 130 171 175 174 175 171 171 130 121, 130 130 130 146 130, 171, 173 151, 245 11 172 172 147, 161, 278 175 172 173 172, 178–179 121 107 121 116, 248 170, 172–173 121 107, 172 107, 161 221 249 172, 179 120 179 172, 221 248, 263 221, 249 11, 146, 172 9, 145 8, 121, 145–147, 173 173, 179, 245 169 120 245 174 78, 107, 148, 172 169 165, 179 173 132, 151

Index of Ancient Sources 12:1 12:2 12:3–17 12:17 12:21–23 12:24 12:25-13:4 13 13–14 13:1–3 13:2 13:5 13:14–52 13:16 13:17–20 13:24 13:26 13:27–28 13:31 13:32–33 13:43–48 13:50 14:1 14:6 14:16 14:22 14:24 14:26-15:3 14:27 15 15:1 15:1–5 15:3 15:5 15:7–11 15:8–11 15:12 15:14–21 15:16–18 15:23 15:24 15:28 15:30–35 15:35 15:36 15:39 15:41 16 16:4–5 16:6 16:6–8 16:7 16:9–10 16:13–14 16:14 16:15

160 160 160 174 179 245 174 11, 174 8, 129 131, 161, 174 132, 139, 174 138 166 224 166 249 224 249 108 121 147 136 148, 245 136 171 116–117, 119 140 174 221 120 176 179 135, 172 243 174 179 169 179 118 172 176 132 174 121 138 174 9, 138, 172 129 9, 138 9, 129, 132, 139 8–9, 129 9, 132–133, 141 9, 132 148 169 248, 263

16:17 16:20 16:31–33 16:34 16:34–35 17 17:1–10 17:2 17:4 17:5 17:6 17:7 17:10 17:13 17:14 17:15 17:17 17:18 17:26 17:30 18:1 18:1–2 18:2 18:3 18:4 18:8 18:11 18:15 18:18 18:19 18:19–21 18:22 18:23 18:24–28 18:25–26 18:26 19:1–6 19:4 19:8 19:8–10 19:9 19:10 19:13 19:21 19:23 20:3 20:5 20:6 20:10–11 20:17–35 20:18–35 20:20–21 20:22–25 20:23 20:24 20:24–27

327 132, 170 249 248 179 263 133 137 133 133, 148 133 140–141 140–141 136 138 136 140–141 148 121 139, 176 249 11, 177 176 134 131, 175 148 248, 263 138, 175 249 175 177 122, 175 120, 174 129, 143 122 170 121 249 249 8, 116–117, 120, 122 121, 134 102, 170 11, 138, 175 121 9, 134 102, 170 139 8 172 132 122 175 122 110 134 8, 122, 124 121

328 20:25 20:27 20:31 20:34 20:37–38 20:38 21 21:4 21:5 21:7 21:8–14 21:10–14 21:11 21:20 21:20–21 21:23–26 21:26–36 21:27-24:9 22 22:3 22:4 22:4–5 22:7 22:15 22:17–21 22:17–22 22:21 22:24 23:11 23:23–33 23:35 24–28 24:5 24:12 24:14 24:17 24:22 24:32 25:13 26 26:4 26:5–18 26:9–12 26:14 26:20 27:23–24 27:24 28:16–31 28:17–31 28:23 28:23–31 28:25 28:31

Index 8, 116–117, 120–121, 124 8, 121–122 175 131 110 135 139 134, 139 135, 264 120 170 134 138 16, 176, 245 179 175 176 179 215 130–131, 171 102, 121, 170 130 130 135 130, 175 174 135 139 134 134 139 134 243, 249 165 102, 121, 170 165 121, 170 102 139 215 130 175 130 130 221, 249 178 134 109 8, 116 8, 116–117, 120–122, 124 8 139 8, 108, 110, 116–117, 120–121, 124

Romans 1:9–10 1:13 1:15 1:16 1:18–31 1:18–32 2:7 2:10 2:24 3:27–31 3:28 3:28–29 3:29–30 3:29–31 3:30 4 4:1 4:3–5 4:5 4:6–12 4:9–12 4:11 4:11–12 4:12 4:13–22 4:14 4:16 4:16–22 4:17 4:18–21 4:23–25 4:24 5:11–12 5:12–21 5:20 5:21 6:22–23 6:23 8:23–25 9 9:1–5 9:3 9:4–5 9:6–12 9:29–31 10:1 10:10 11 11:1 11:11 11:13 11:28 12 12:9

9, 133 9, 132 230 124, 127, 192 233 203 124 74, 83 80 201 156 192 199 181 83 12–13, 193, 196, 201–202, 204, 208–210 196, 201–202, 205 201–202 203 202 203–204 13, 203–204 13, 203–204 72, 206 13, 202, 205 206 205–206 201–202, 204, 207 205–206 13, 207 202 206 206 159 134 124 124 124–125 126 207 205 201 206 207 11 124 124 206, 209 205 124 131 82 71, 73, 83 73

329

Index of Ancient Sources 12:9–21 12:10 12:12 12:13 12:14 12:16 12:17 12:18 12:18–21 12:21 13:1 ff. 13:11 14:17 15:6 15:16–28 15:19 15:20 15:23 15:24 15:29 16 16:3 16:20 16:29 1 Corinthians 1:16 1:18 1:23 3:1–4 3:6 4:12 4:20–21 5:5 5:11 5:17 6:9–10 7:5 7:12 7:14 10 10:1–2 10:1–4 10:1–5 10:1–11 10:2 10:3–4 10:32 11:23–25 12:13 15:2 15:5 15:14 15:21–22 15:24

71, 75 68 68–69 74, 83 72 69 72–73 74 75 72–73 60 124, 135 124 202 149 133, 174 134 133 9, 131, 134–135 134 251 177 137 137 263 127 130 238 138 70, 73 124 59, 137–138 233 17, 272 117, 124, 233 137 265 265 17, 262, 265, 268, 270, 274–278 17, 262 269 17, 267–268 177 266, 271–273 267 250 150 267 230 88 22 159 124

15:45–49 15:50 16:15 16:19

159 118, 124 263 177

2 Corinthians 1:6 2:11 4:16–18 5:7 5:18–19 5:19 5:21 6:2 7:10 11:23–33 12:7 12:9 11:14

124 137 126 126 123 127 184 123–124 124 175 137 137 137

Galatians 1–2 1:2 1:8 1:14 1:15–16 1:16 2:7 2:9 2:16 2:19 3 3:1 3:1–2 3:1–5 3:1–12 3:1–14 3:2 3:3 3:3–7 3:5 3:5–13 3:5–14 3:6 3:7 3:8 3:8–10 3:9 3:10 3:11 3:11–12 3:12 3:13 3:13–14 3:14 3:16

171 8, 129 230 130, 192 215 130, 138, 192, 230 131 87 156 185 12, 196, 204, 209 8, 129, 186 187 161 182 11–12, 181–182, 184–186 182–183 187 187 182–183, 187 182–183 183 183, 186–187 183, 186–187 183, 221 185 183 186 183–184, 186 185 183–184, 186 12, 181–184, 186 185–186 12, 181–184, 186–189 12, 186–187

330

Index

3:16–17 3:22 3:26–28 3:26–29 3:27–29 3:28 3:29 4:1–7 4:3 4:4–5 4:6 4:6–7 4:7 4:8–9 4:8–10 4:13–14 5:11 5:21 6:8 6:10

181 185 187 12, 187 187 82, 187, 199, 278 12, 186–188 189 189 123, 188, 190 12, 71, 187 188, 191 188 236 189 182 130 117, 124 124 73–74

Ephesians 2:11–22 2:15 2:17 3:6 3:8 4:19 5:5 5:8–9 6

236 272 230 221 230 233 124 236 274

Philippians 1:19 1:28 2:12 3:4–11 3:5 4:10–20 4:11–12 4:15

124 124 124 130 275 175 175 132

Colossians 1:13 3:11 4:5 4:11

117, 124 82 78 124

1 Thessalonians 1:6 1:7–8 1:9 2:2 2:11–12 2:14 2:17–18 2:18 3:1–5

137 133 236 138 124, 138 137 137 9, 137 137

3:4 3:10–11 3:11 5:8–9 5:15

118 138 281 124 72

2 Thessalonians 1:4–5 1:5 3:15

117 124 74

1 Timothy 1:16 2:2–3 3:2 3:4–5 3:12 4:1 5:14 6:3–5 6:10 6:12 6:21

124 69 83 264 264 256 72–73 233 256 124 256

2 Timothy 4:1 4:7 4:13 4:18 4:19

124 135 175 117, 124 177

Titus 1:2 1:6–7 1:8 1:14 3:1 3:3 3:5 3:7

124 264 83 256 69 273 273 124

Hebrews 3:5-4:13 3:12 5:12–14 11:11–12 11:36 13:2

177 256 238 208 257 83

James 1:13 1:18 1:21 3:9

33 126 126 72

1 Peter 1:1 1:3 1:3–12

232, 239 230–231 230–232

331

Index of Ancient Sources 1:6 1:9 1:12 1:12–25 1:14 1:17 1:22–25 1:23 1:23–25 1:25 2 2:1–2 2:1–3 2:2 2:2–3 2:9 2:11 2:12 2:17 2:18–20 2:20 2:23 2:25 3:1–2 3:6 3:7 3:9 3:14 3:15 3:16 3:17 3:18-4:1 3:20 4:2 4:2–3 4:3 4:3–4 4:4 4:9 4:12 4:14 4:14–16 4:16 5:8–9

228–229 231 15, 229–231 241 236 232 231–232 230–231, 239 126, 231 15, 229–232 238 15 15, 229, 237–238, 241 102, 237 237 230, 232, 236 232 229, 236 69 229 228 73 236 229 229 228 70, 73, 228, 236 228, 236 230 236 228 233 229 233 15, 233–234, 241 233 15, 229, 233–234, 236 229 83 228 229, 236 228 228, 230 228

2 Peter 1:11 2:2

117 233

1 John 1:2 2:25 3:15 5:11 5:20

124 124 124 124 124

Jude 4 Revelation 1:1 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:9 1:9–20 1:11 1:19 2–3 2:1 2:7 2:8 2:12 2:18 3:1 3:7 3:14 4:1 4:1–22:5 5 5:1 5:2 5:3 5:4 5:5 5:8 5:9 6:1–8:1 6:15 6:15–17 7:1 7:9 7:9–17 9:20–21 10 10:1 10:1–11 10:1–11:13 10:2 10:8 10:8–10 10:8–11 10:9 10:9–10 10:10 10:11 11:1 11:1–14 11:4–13

233 212 213 212 223 212 14, 211, 213, 217 213–214, 217, 219–220 214, 217, 220 212, 214, 225 213–214, 220 216 213, 220 213, 220 213, 220 213, 220 213, 220 213, 220 214, 220 214, 220 219–220 219 219 219 219 219 219 14, 219, 221–222, 224–225, 272 219 223 224 216 221–222, 225 222 224 219 218 217 217 218–220 219–220 220 13–14, 211, 214–216, 218, 221–222, 225 219 218, 220 216, 219 14, 211, 216–218, 221, 223, 225 217 217 223

332 11:9 11:13 11:18 13:7 13:7–8 13:8 14:3 14:6 14:6–7 14:13 15:3 16:6 16:9 16:11 16:12 16:14 17:1–2 17:1–18 17:2 17:8 17:14 17:15 17:18 18:3 18:9 18:18 18:20 18:24 19:6 19:9 19:19 20:12 21:5 21:24 22:6 22:7 22:8 22:9 22:10 22:16 22:18 22:19

Index 221–223 14, 223, 225 213 221, 224 222, 224 219, 225 272 221 222, 224 214 272 213 224 224 223 223 225 225 223 219 222 221, 225 223 223 223 216 213 213 222 214 223 219 214 223 213 213, 216, 219 212 213 213, 219 213 213, 219 213, 219

Targum Isaiah 28.4

126

Targum Ezekiel 16:4

269

y.Ta’anit 2 [65b]

156

9. Apostolic Fathers Barnabas 6:8–19 7:11 20:1

271 117 233

1 Clement 5 5:1–7 5:6–7 55

136 9, 136 136 81

2 Clement 4:1 4:3 13 13:2 13:3 13:1–4 13:4

79 79 63, 80 79 4, 63 79 77, 79

Didache 1 1:2–3 1 1:4 5:1–2

58 83 68 77 233

Diognetus 5 5:1–2 5:5

4, 63, 80–81 81 81

Hermas

8. Rabbinic Works (Talmud, Midrash, Targums) Exodus Rabbah Exod 18:12

76

Mekilta 5:11 15:1 17:0

186 270 186

Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 43

156

Visions 1 2.1.3 2.1.3-4 2.1.4 2.4.1 2.4.2

220 220 220 220 220 220

Ignatius Ephesians 9:1

126

333

Index of Ancient Sources Philadelphians 3:1

153

6.6.48,2 6.43.3

Polycarp 8:2

264

Cyprian

Smyrnaeans 13:1

264

Trallians 8:2

80

Martyrdom of Polycarp 9.2 254 9.3 254 12.2 254 Polycarp Philippians 1:2 3:18 10:3

69 69 80

10. Other Early Christian Writings Acts of the Scillitian Martyrs 1.3 254 1.6 254 Acts of Thomas 1

287

Apostolic Constitutions 6.15.5-7 261 Apostolic Tradition 21 21:27–30

265 271

Aristides 1 Apology 2.8 15

82 70

Legatio pro Christianis 11 77, 80 136

Clement of Alexandria Stromateis 2.18 2.87.3 2.90.2

Letters 2.1 11.1.2 20.2.2 55.10.3 55.11.1-2 59.10.2 64 64.1.1 64.2.1 64.4.3 64.5 64.5-6 64.5.1 65 67.6.1-2 69 69.14 69.14.1 69.15 73.17.2

277 257 257 257 257 257 277 275 275 276 276 275 276 257 257 276–277 276 276 277 277

De lapsis 9 25

277 277

De mortalitate 5 7

277 277

Didascalia Apostolorum 6.8 287 15 82 Epistula Apostolorum 30 58

Athenagoras

Canon Muratori 38–39

82 161

75 76 76

Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica 2.14.6 3.1.1-2 3.4.6 3.39.15 3.39.16 5.8.14 6.41.10-13

160 287 151 150 151 161 257

Irenaeus Adversus haereses 1.10.2

284

334

Index

Jerome De viris illustribus 3.5

Homiliae in Leviticum 8.3 272 160

Justin 1 Apology 5.9 5.13 14 14–15 15 15–16 15.9 16.1 62

68 68 69 5 77 69 83 83 271

Dialogue cum Tryphone 10 82 81.1 76 85.7 76 96 69 97.2 76 110.4 252, 256 114.2 76 119 81 130.3 76 133.6 69 135.3 76 136.2 76

Homiliae in Lucam 14.5

263, 272

In Jesu Nave homiliae 4.1 274 5 273 5.5 274 5.6 273 6 273 6.6 273 26.2 274 Tertullian Adversos Judaeos 7.4

284

Apologeticus 1.13 31–32 37 37.4 39 40.2 50.3 50.15

76 69 80 252 79 254 253 253

De baptismo 9 18

271 261

Lactantius

Adversus Marcionem 4.35.8 76

Divinarum institutionum 5.22.8-24 255

De patientia 10

Martyrdom of St. Conon 4.4 256

De praescriptione haereticorum 31 126

Origen

Ad Scapulam 1 2.10

77 252

De spectaculis 16

80

Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 6.43.226 273 6.43.226-249 272 6.43.251 273 6.45.233-234 274 6.47.245 274 6.48.249 274 20.2.5 126 Commentarii in Romanos 5.19 272 Homiliae in Exodum 5.2 271–272 5.4 272

67, 80

Theophilus Ad Autolycum 2.32 3.14 111.14

284 69, 74 76

335

Index of Ancient Sources

11. Greco-Roman Literature

Herodotus

Apollodorus

Historiae 4.76.1

Metamorphoses 9.271-272

106

Hesiod

Ath¯ena¯ın politeia 14.4

126

Opera et dies 265–266 327 341–353

Ethica nicomachea 1103b24

265

Aristotle

Noctes atticae 1.3.20

133

De oratore 2.261 De officiis 1.64

126 264

82

Diogenes Laertius Lives 1.78 1.87 6.78

106

Lucian Hermotimus 46

102

Menander

Dio Cassius Roman History 79.5.5-79.56.3

139

Livy /Livius Ab Urbe Condita 1.16

Cicero

72 72 76

Homer Odyssey 2.2-3

Aulus Gellius

82

73 73 73

Monostichoi 5 19 46 99 269 604 675

72 72 72 72 72 72 72

Plato Epictetus Diatribai (Dissertationes) 2.10 73 2.13-14 73 2.22-29 73 3.12.10 73 3.22-54 75 4.5.1-2 73 20.9-12 73 28.100-101 73 Enchiridion 42

73

Hermes Trismegistus Poimandres 29

126

Crito 49C

73

Gorgias 519D

265

Leges 887D 888A

265 265

Phaedrus 260d 276b – 277a

126 126

Politicus 332d

76

Respublica 1.33 1.34b

73 76

336

Index

Pliny the Elder Naturalis historia 4.80-81

32.1-33.1 40.4-5 82

Pliny the Younger Epistulae 10.77 10.96 10.96.6

141 254 256

Plutarch Moralia 21c – f 218a 394w 398 f 399a 799c

73 75 126 126 126 73

Caesar 29.60

126

Cicero 3

126

Pompeius 18 78.4

126 82

73 73

Suetonius Augustus 100.4

106

Claudius 25 25.4

177, 251 134

Tiberius 16

133

Sophocles Ajax 678–83

73

Tacitus Annales 15.44.2

251

Theognis

Seneca De beneficiis 4.26.1 4.28.1 7.30.5

75 75 75

Hercules Oetaeus 1.4

75

De ira 3.25.3-4

73

Elegiacus 279–82 325–28 365–66 833–36 1029–30 1051–54 1133–34 1233–34

72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72

Xenophon Hellenica 5.1 5.25

126 126

Index of Modern Authors

Index of Modern Authors Aalen, S. 7, 32, 34–38, 40, 113, 114, 307 Aarflot, A. 302 Aasgaard, R. 263 Achtemeier, P. J. 237–238 Adams, E. 203 Ådna, J. 3–4, 41, 45, 66, 147, 279, 308–309 Aland, K. 17, 108, 261 Alexander, P. S. 287–288, 291 Alexander, T. D. 308 Alexeev, A. A. 39, 310 Allison, D. C. 37–38, 115, 152, 158 Ameling, W. 257 Anderson, B. W. 273 Anderson, P. N. 94 Apenes, S. I. 303 Arbesmann, R. 252 Arvidsson, E. 300 Aschim, A. 34 Ascough, R. S. 235 Asheim, A. 37, 303 Aune, D. E. 115, 191, 211–215, 217, 220–221, 224, 308 Austad, T. 304, 311 Avemarie, F. 262 Baasland, E. 4–5, 32, 35, 66, 76, 301, 304, 306 Bachmann, M. 216 Backhaus, K. 99–100, 105, 109–111 Bakke, O. M. 261, 269 Balch, D. L. 264 Balla, P. 263 Balz, H. R. 172 Barbarick, C. 239 Barclay, J. M. G. 136, 294 Barraclough, G. 141 Barrett, C. K. 130, 146 Barth, F. 13, 198–200 Barton, S. 235 Bassler, J. M. 276 Bauckham, R. 219, 279, 281, 292, 294–295 Bauer, W. 72 Baum, A. D. 113 Bauman-Martin, B. 227 Baynes, L. 219–220 Bean, G. E. 141 Beck, A. L. 145 Beck, B. F. 179 Becker, J. 64, 72, 75, 89–90, 95 Ben Zwi, E. 12, 195–196, 203

Berardino, A. De 258 Berentsen, J.-M. 46, 306, 309 Berger, K. 150, 286 Bergmeier, R. 219 Betz, H. D. 305 Betz, O. 31 Beutler, J. 5–6, 91–92, 94–96 Bilde, P. 311 Bird, J. 229 Bird, M. F. 147, 160 Black, M. 100 Blanc, C. 273 Blasi, A. J. 77, 245 Blomberg, C. L. 158 Bock, D. L. 146–148, 155 Bohlen, M. 35, 115, 117, 124 Böhler, D. 92 Boismard, M.-E. 157 Boman, T. 151 Borgen, P. 11–12, 28, 30, 184, 186 Bottermann, H. 160 Böttrich, C. 50 Bowen, A. 255 Bowman, A. K. 258 Bradshaw, P. F. 263 Brändl, M. 175 Brodersen, K. 105 Broer, I. 153 Broshi, M. 247 Brown, R. E. 93, 151 Bruce, B. J. 273 Bruce, F. F. 130, 146 Buchanan, G. W. 115 Buell, D. K. 198 Bultmann, R. 23, 27, 93, 95 Bunge, M. J. 263–265 Burchard, C. 73 Burke, E. J. 175 Busse, U. 172 Bussmann, C. 116 Byrskog, S. 25, 36, 113, 306, 312 Calder, W. M. 141 Cameron, A. 248 Campbell, D. A. 201 Carmignac, J. 115 Carson, D. A. 153 Catchpole, D. 66 Cave, C. H. 246 Cave, F. H. 246

337

338 Charlesworth, J. H. 33, 73, 118 Chow, S. 307 Clarke, G. W. 252, 257–258, 275–276 Coenen, L. 307–308 Cohen, S. J. D. 237 Collins, J. J. 213 Conzelmann, H. 34, 115–117, 122 Cook, J. G. 78 Corrie, J. 163 Corwin, V. 153 Cowley, A. E. 217 Cowper, W. 134 Cranfield, C. E. B. 72 Cross, A. R. 261 Cullmann, O. 275 Culpepper, R. A. 95 Dahl, N. A. 12, 181, 184–185, 193, 271 Dalman, G. 7, 35, 36, 114, 125 Daly, E. J. 252 Daniélou, J. 271 Daniel-Rops, H. 300 Dauer, A. 147 Dautzenberg, G. 76 Davies, W. D. 65, 152, 158 Davis, E. E. 309 Decker, C. 95 Deferrari, R. J. 257 Deines, R. 71 De Ligt, L. 177 De Wind, J. 180 Delling, G. 121, 300 Dibelius, M. 140–141 Dobbeler, A von 54–55 Dockx, S. 160 Dölger, F. J. 271 Donaldson, T. I. 149 Donfried, K. P. 177 Donahue, P. 184 Dryden, J. de W. 236 Dryer, B. R. 151 Duhaime, J. 77, 245 Dunn, J. D. G. 141, 146, 149, 154, 157, 181, 187, 258 Durham, K. 239 Ebel, E. 235 Edelman, D. v. 195 Ekenberg, A. 271 Elgvin, T. 309 Elliott, J. H. 15, 230–231, 235–236 Ellis, E. E. 116 Engedal, L. G. 309 Engelsviken, T. 46, 306, 309, 311 Ernst, J. 171 Escaffre, B. 88

Index Esler, P. E. 194, 196, 200, 209, 253, 263 Estrada, B. 311 Evans, C. A. 153, 159, 310 Fahey, M. A. 277 Falls, T. B. 252 Farrelly, N. 86 Fee, G. D. 266 Feldmeier, R. 6–7, 71, 102 Ferguson, E. 261, 264 Field, F. 272 Filson, F. V. 109 Finger, R. H. 247–248 Finke, R. 249, 252 Fitzmyer, J. A. 37, 104, 146, 151, 171 Fletcher-Louis, C. H. T. 151 Fornberg, T. 26 Fotopoulos, J. 184, 309 France, R. T. 153 Franklin, E. 116, 151 Freedman, D. N. 142 French, D. H. 142 Frend, W. H. C. 253, 255–257 Frey, J. 88, 124, 136 Friedrich, G. 230–231 Gäckle, V. 7–8, 113, 123, 125 Garnsey, P. 255, 258 Gasque, W. W. 109 Gathercole, S. 160 Gaventa, B. R. 263 Gempf, C. 279 Georg-Zöller, C. 102 Gerhardsson, B. 25, 303, 304 Gese, H. 49, 57 Gill, D. W. J. 279 Gnilka, C. 161 Goodman, M. 147 Goppelt, L. 146, 234 Grabner-Haider, A. 300 Grässer, E. 116 Gravaas, H. A. 284 Green, J. B. 264 Greeven, H. 149 Gregory, A. F. 153 Grelot, P. 270 Grimm, W. 159 Grovers, C. 200 Grundmann, W. 151, 237, 301 Gundry-Volf, J. M. 265–266 Gundry, R. H. 153 Gunther, J. J. 136 Guthrie, D. 300 Gutsfeld, A. 235 Guyette, F. 215

339

Index of Modern Authors Haacker, K. 8–9, 117, 124, 133, 148, 166, 301, 307–308 Haanes, V. L. 309 Haas, H. 66 Habel, N. 215 Habermas, G. R. 159 Haenchen, E. 245, 247 Hagner, D. A. 158 Hahn, E. 21, 234, 266, 307 Hahn, J. 100 Halbwachs, M. 195, 209 Hällström, G. af 271 Hanciles, J. J. 163, 180 Hanson, A. T. 196 Hanson, P. D. 211 Har-El, M. 247 Haraldsø, B. 306 Harland, P. A. 235 Harnack, A. von 63, 161, 244, 259 Harrelson, W. 273 Hartel, G. v. 275 Hartenstein, J. 87 Hauser, L. 102 Häußer, D. 113 Hays, C. M. 179 Hays, R. B. 188, 201, 309 Heckel, U. 71, 108 Heid, S. 161 Heiene, G. 308 Heine, R. E. 272 Hellholm, D. 262, 266, 271 Hengel, M. 31, 131, 147, 149–150, 155 Henriksen, J.-O. 308 Hiers, R. H. 35 Hill, C. C. 147 Hill, C. E. 153 Hill, P. C. 258–259 Hille, R. 21, 307 Hirschmann, C. 180 Hodge, C. J. 12–13, 197–198, 204, 207–209 Holland, D. L. 35 Holmås, G. O. 25 Holmberg, B. 63 Holmén, T. 36, 113, 312 Hood, R. W. 258–259 Hook, S. H. 146 Hope, L. 38, 39, 299 Hopkins, K. 245, 253 Horn, C. B. 263, 275 Horn, F. W. 117, 304 Horrell, D. G. 184, 227–228, 232 Horsley, G. H. R. 235 Howard, W. F. 217 Howell, J. R. 172 Hubbard, B. J. 158 Huber, K. 94

Hulster, I. de 169 Hultgren, S. 151 Hunt, S. A. 94 Hvalvik, R. 3, 15–16, 43, 250–251, 304, 306, 312 Innerdal, G. Ivanovska, I.

33 275

Jackson, F. J. F. 139 Janowski, B. 159 Jaubert, A. 273 Jensen, O. J. 306 Jensen, R. M. 262 Jeremias, J. 17, 146, 162, 246–247, 261–262, 294 Jervell, J. 24–25, 27–28, 300, 303 Jewett, R. 72, 135, 141 Jipp, J. W. 196, 201 Jobes, K. H. 232, 237–239 Johnson, L. T. 146, 246 Johnstad, G. 26–27, 34, 306 Jones, S. 194, 199 Jørgensen, K. 46, 306, 309 Juel, D. H. 181 Just, F. 94 Kahl, W. 169, 174, 178 Kampling, R. 64 Kankaanniemi, M. 36, 113, 312 Kartveit, M. 286 Käsemann, E. 27, 299 Kasinitz, P. 180 Kattenbusch, F. 70 Kautzsch, E. 217 Kearsley, R. A. 142 Keener, C. S. 147–148, 155, 157, 163, 252 Keller, M. N. 177 Kelly, J. N. D. 42, 230, 237 Kirk, A. 68 Koch, D.-A. 145, 235 Köckert, M. 64 Koester, C. 218 Kohl, M. 99 Konradt, M. 3, 45–47, 50–57, 59–61 Kowalski, B. 216 Koyzis, N. C. 203 Kraft, H. 275 Kraftchick, S. J. 237 Kraus, W. 149 Kreider, A. 244 Kügler, J. 92 Künneth, W. 21, 23, 299 Kvalbein, H. 3, 19–43, 45–48, 52, 63, 66, 85, 113–115, 124, 147, 192–193, 243, 266, 279, 299–312

340 Kvanvig, H. S.

Index 215

Labahn, M. 94 Lake, K. 139, 143 Lambrecht, J. 305 Lamouille, A. 157 Lange, A. 287 Larsson, E. 24, 32, 37, 40, 150 Lauterbach, J. Z. 270 Lebahn, M. 266 Lee, G. M. 139 Lee, Y. 159 Lehnert, V. A. 36, 115, 310 Leipoldt, J. 301 Leisering, W. 141 Leivestad, R. 28–30 Levey, S. H. 268 Levine, É. 270 Levine, L. I. 247–248 Levinskaya, I. 147 Liebengood, K. D. 232 Lindars, B. 132 Ling, M. 140 Little, C. R. 175 Löhr, H. 153, 262 Lohse, E. 301 Longenecker, B. W. 232 Longenecker, R. N. 177 Lønning, I. 299 Lowe, M. 95 Løwenstein, K. 305 Lührmann, D. 153 Lundberg, P. 267, 271 Lundeby, E. 311 Luz, U. 41, 45–50, 53, 57, 66, 307 Macholz, C. 217 MacMullen, R. 15, 234, 244, 252 Mæhlum, H. 300 Magda, K. 135 Malina, B. 146 Maloney, L. M. 157 Manicardi, E. 311 Manson, T. W. 150–151, 153 Marcheselli, M. 91 Marcus, J. 35 Marek, C. 141 Martin, R. P. 109 Martin, T. W. 237 Mason, E. F. 237 Mattei, E. 258 Mayer, W. 251 Mazzaferi, F. D. 219 McCarthy, C. 265 McKay, K. L. 92 McKnight, S. 238

McLaren, J. S. 251 Meeks, W. A. 236 Meier, J. P. 119, 151–152, 155 Merk, O. 116–117, 121 Merklein, H. 119 Metzger, B. M. 146, 261 Meyer, P. D. 154 Michaelis, W. 110 Michaels, J. R. 14, 228 Michel, O. 31 Mildenberger, F. 299 Millar, F. 100 Miller, P. D. 265 Mills, W. E. 234 Mitchell, S. 141–142 Moffatt, J. 63, 244 Mongstad-Kvammen, I. 34 Moo, D. J. 153 Morland, K. A. 185 Moss, C. 256–257 Moule, C. F. D. 139 Moulton, J. H. 217 Moxnes, H. 12–13, 193, 200, 206, 208 Müller, M. 25 Murphy O’Connor, J. 171 Mußner, F. 154 Musurillo, H. 253–254 Neil, B. 251 Nepper-Christensen, N. 305 Nesselrath, H.-G. 100 Neudorfer, H.-W. 21, 307 Nissen, A. 304 Nissen, J. 30, 308 Noack B. 115, 302–303 Nolland, J. 153–154, 156 Ødegård, K. 307 Öhler, M. 94, 174 Olsson, B. 30 O’Neill, J. C. 35–36, 115 Ostmeyer, K.-H. 257 Østnor, L. 311 O’Toole, R. F. 116, 121–122 Ott, C. 163 Overbeck, F. 141 Øystese, O. 301 Pahl, M. W. 231 Pallares, J. C. 305 Parker, P. 146 Paulien, J. 215 Payne, J. D. 163 Pekáry, T. 141 Pennington, J. T. 37 Perry, D. 277

Index of Modern Authors Pervo, R. 163, 165 Pesch, R. 91, 93, 120, 146, 300 Petersen, W. 219–220 Peterson, E. 65 Phenix, R. R. 263, 275 Phinney, D. N. 215 Pilch, J. H. 146 Pilgrim, W. E. 304 Pillinger, R. J. 287 Pitre, B. 156 Pokorny, P. 108, 118 Porter, S. E. 151, 202, 261 Pratscher, W. 153 Prieur, A. 116–122, 125 Prostmeier, F.-R. 102 Puig i Tarrech, A. 136, 311 Quain, E. A.

252

Radl, W. 116 Rambo, L. R. 259 Ramsay, W. M. 139 Ratzinger, J. 310 Rau, E. 305 Reed, J. L. 247 Refvem, O. 34 Rehfeld, E. L. 113 Reicke, B. 108 Reinhardt, W. 247 Reiser, M. 217 Remus, H. 77 Repo, E. 170–171 Repschinski, B. 94 Richard, E. D. 234 Richardson, P. 177 Ricoeur, P. 82 Riesner, R. 9–10, 25, 68, 136, 142, 147–151, 156, 159–161 Rolfe, J. C. 251 Rolland, P. 150, 153 Roloff, J. 106, 109, 300 Røsæg, N. A. 39, 309 Rosenthal, F. 217 Rosner, B. S. 175, 308 Rowland, C. 151 Rubesch, T. 163 Ruiten, T. G. A. M. van 287 Ruiz, J.-P. 163, 216 Rüsen-Weinhold, U. 36, 115, 310 Rutgers, L. V. 177 Said, E. W. 165 Sand, A. 158 Sanders, E. P. 35, 247 Sanders, J. T. 245, 248 Sandevoir, P. 157

341

Sandnes, K. O. 16–17, 43, 236, 264–267, 269, 271, 273–274, 312 Sandvei, B. H. 309 Sandvik, B. 33 Sänger, D. 216 Sannes, K. O. 42, 310 Santos, N. F. 163 Schaberg, J. 158 Schäfer, P. 302 Schelkle, K. H. 301 Schenke, L. 76, 114–115, 123 Schiller, N. G. 180 Schmeller, T. 93 Schnabel, E. J. 63, 80, 148, 163, 165, 169, 171, 174, 176, 310–311 Schnackenburg, R. 116, 121–125, 153 Schneider, G. 146, 170, 172, 302 Schnelle, U. 68, 109, 152, 305 Schrage, W. 265–266 Schram, T. 305 Schreiner, J. 64, Schreiner, J. H. 307 Schreiner, P. 37 Schreiner, T. R. 237 Schultheiß, T. 86, 93, 96 Schürer, E. 100 Schürmann, H. 302 Schwartz, B. 195 Schweitzer, A. 300 Schweizer, E. 304 Schwemer, A. M. 131, 147, 155 Scott, J. M. 279–281, 284, 287, 292, 295 Seccombe, D. P. 304 Segovia, F. F. 93 Seland, T. 14–15, 115, 227, 229–230, 235–236, 308 Sieben, H.-J. 263 Sim, D. C. 152 Simonsohn, S. 251 Skarsaune, O. 17–18, 58, 60, 250, 284, 287 Slagstad, R. 27, 31 Smalley, S. S. 132 Smith, A. 306 Snell, B. 270 Söding, T. 93, 156 Sohm, R. 39 Solheim, D. 311 Spencer, F. S. 170 Spilka, B. 258–259 Stanley, C. 13, 198–199 Stählin, G. 132 Stamps, D. L. 202 Stanton, G. 115 Stark, R. 244, 249, 252, 255–256 Stauffer, E. 266 Stendahl, K. 75, 250

342 Stenschke, C. 10–11, 169–170, 173, 177 Stewart, R. B. 159 Stokes, R. E. 215 Stone, M. 211 Stott, D. 142, 145 Stowers, S. 201 Strawn, B. A. 236 Strecker, G. 305 Streeter, B. H. 150, 153, 157–158 Strobel, A. 151 Stuckenbruck, L. T. 149 Stuhlmacher, P. 4, 31, 45–46, 49, 58, 60, 158–159 Suhl, A. 133 Swanson, D. C. 219 Talbert, C. H. 227 Taylor, N. H. 263 Thatcher, T. 94 Theißen, G. 69, 99–100, 157 Thelle, N. R. 319 Theobald, M. 156 Thorbjørnsen, S. O. 308 Tilly, M. 149 Tite, P. I. 239–240 Toit, D. du 229, 232 Toit, M. du 239 Tolmie, F. 88, 94 Trebilco, P. 170 Tuckett, C. M. 153, 184 Turcotte, P.-A. 77, 245 Uglem, O. 300 Ulrichsen, J. H. 115, 308 Unnik, W. C. van 65, 78, 82 Vall, G. 153 VanderKam, J. 286–287 Vegge, T. 273 Vermes, G. 100 Vermeulen, H. 200 Vinson, R. W. 234 Visscher, G. H. 196

Index Vogt, H. J. Völkel, M.

258 116

Wahlde, U. C. von 95 Walls, A. F. 63 Walsh, P. G. 256 Walton, S. 175 Wan, E. 163 Ware, J. P. 149 Watt, J. G. van der 88, 124 Webb, R. L. 227 Wee, Ø. M. 304 Weidemann, H. U. 153 Weiser, A. 116–117, 121 Weiss, J. 35 Wendland, H.-D. 301 Wenham, D. 307 Westermann, C. 280, 300 Wiefel, W. 154 Wieser, T. 116 Wilk, F. 269 Williams, M. 231 Williams, T. B. 227, 229, 235–236 Willis, W. 116 Wilson, R. F. 234 Windisch, H. 117 Winston, D. 270 Winter, B. M. 147, 247, 279 Wintermute, O. S. 286 Wisløff. C. F. 40 Witherington, B. 35, 115, 232 Witke, A.-M. 142 Wolska-Conus, W. 281, 288–289, 297 Wolter, M. 123–124, 155, 177, 204–206 Wright, D. E. 261 Wright, N. T. 201–202 Wucherpfennig, A. 93 Zetterholm, M. 194 Ziccardi, C. A. 122–123 Zimmermann, R. 88, 94 Zugmann, M. 165, 169 Zumstein, J. 87, 90, 152

Index of Subjects

343

Index of Subjects Abraham 12–13, 18, 45, 53, 65, 69, 81, 155, 166–168, 178, 181–191 passim, 193–210 passim, 212, 215, 280, 285, 291 – faith of Abraham 191, 193–194, 196, 203, 205–206, 208 – blessing of /through Abraham 45, 184–188, 280, 285 Abrahamic 12–13, 181, 186 Acts of the Apostles 7–11, 15–18, 46, 101–111 passim, 113–127, 129–143, 145–162 passim, 163–180, 243–252 passim, 262, 278 Adam 276–277, 286 Africa 173, 277, 283, 288, 296–297 age to come 36, 38, 75 Alexandria 110, 188, 257, 296 ancestor(s) 12–13, 17, 65, 168, 176, 193, 195–197, 200–208, 262, 267, 281, 285, 291 Antioch 9–10, 78, 140, 145–162 passim, 165, 171, 173–174, 178–179 Antioch, Pisidian 136, 142–143 apocalypse(s) 13–14, 211–212, 214, 225 apostasy 16, 256, 259 apostle 97, 109, 122, 131, 161, 184, 186 apostolic council 139, 172, 179 Asia 288–289 Asia Minor /Province of Asia 8–9, 18, 116–117, 121–122, 129, 131–134, 138–142, 152, 165, 175, 199, 211–213, 232, 237, 240, 281, 283, 286, 290, 293, 295–297 Babylon /Babylonia 18, 167, 221, 223, 225, 273, 285, 290, 294 backsliding 16, 238, 256, 258–259 baptism 9, 16–17, 39–40, 54, 55, 118, 147, 151, 249, 261–278 passim, 303, 396, 307, 310 – infant baptism 16, 17, 261–278 passim Barnabas 8, 117, 129, 132, 138–139, 152, 161, 165, 171, 173–175, 178 believer(s), Jewish 9, 16, 145–146, 153, 158, 250 Beloved Disciple 6, 85, 87–93 Beroea 133, 136–137, 140 Bethsaida 10, 86, 154 Bible 20–22, 31–34, 272, 279–280, 301, 303–306, 309, 311 – Hebrew Bible 14, 185, 229, 280, 283, 292 – Septuagint 159, 268, 272, 281, 296–297 – translation(s) 32–34, 143, 238–239 Bithynia 9, 132–133, 140–142, 232, 256

blaspheme /blasphemy 48, 54, 79–80, 233, 236, 256 bless 5, 69, 72, 77, 88, 183–185 – bless God 33–34, 311 blessing of God (God’s blessing) 13, 18, 36, 45, 53, 70, 178, 203, 245 blood 4, 14–15, 47, 59, 95–96, 222, 236, 243–244, 252–253, 307 Caesarea 11, 99, 152, 170–173, 175, 178–179 Caesarea Philippi 99, 110 call narrative 14, 49, 211, 212–216, 218, 225 Canaan 18, 167, 282–286, 291 Carthage 79, 257 child /children 4, 12, 14, 17, 47, 78, 99, 101, 167, 187–188, 193, 207, 210, 229–230, 239–241, 248, 261–266, 268–278 Chorazin 10, 154 Christian(s) 11–12, 14–17, 31–32, 39, 66, 69, 72, 75–83, 86, 96, 107, 110, 133, 137, 162–165, 168–177, 179, 184, 192, 197, 211, 214, 221, 225, 227–242 passim, 243, 245–247, 251–259, 272, 277, 280, 306–307 – Gentile Christians 152, 156, 172, 174–176, 188 – Jewish Christians 11, 49, 64, 152–153, 156, 169, 171, 174, 176–177, 179, 212, 221, 229, 245; see also believer(s), Jewish Christology 4, 8, 45, 51, 53, 116, 124 church(es) 3–4, 6–7, 15–16, 20–21, 24, 26, 31–32, 38–42, 45–46, 50, 52, 54, 56, 60, 66, 70, 79, 87, 93, 97, 103, 105–106, 108–111, 126, 129, 131, 134, 136–138, 156, 158, 164–165, 169, 174, 178–180, 211, 222, 228, 232, 241, 243–245, 251, 255–258, 276–278, 299, 301, 303, 306–307, 309–310, 312 – church of God 182, 250 – Church of Norway 19, 24, 32, 38, 40–42 – churches in Galatia 8–9, 11–12, 129, 181–182, 192 – early church 6, 13, 16–17, 23, 41, 45–46, 54, 56, 70, 85, 117, 126, 159, 242–244, 256, 258–259, 261, 263, 266, 277–278, 303, 311 – the seven churches 211, 213–214 Cilicia 18, 165, 171–172, 281–282 circumcision 13, 55, 82, 101, 176, 181, 191, 196, 199–205, 208, 210, 274–276 city, holy 110, 145, 156, 161–162

344

Index

Claudius 11, 15, 134, 160, 177, 232, 251 Clement of Alexandria 70, 74, 76, 82 Clement, Second 79–80 Commission, Great 39, 41, 48, 57, 66 commission, prophetic 13, 211–225 passim confess /confession 6, 24, 40, 42, 54, 85, 87–92, 94, 96–97 congregation(s) (Christian) 8–9, 12, 14, 39, 50, 129, 131–134, 137–138, 165, 173–174, 183, 228, 258 congregations, Jewish 130–131, 134, 142 conversion 9, 15–16, 55, 107, 147, 149, 172–173, 227, 230–231, 233, 236–237, 241, 243–252 passim, 258–259, 266, 310 Corinth 11, 109, 133–134, 137–138, 174, 177, 267 Cornelius 9, 107, 147, 172–173, 276 covenant 45, 57, 59, 61, 82, 149, 160, 167, 169, 191, 200, 203–204, 208 creed 42, 78, 190 curse 4–5, 12, 47–48, 69, 77, 80, 183–186, 254 Cyprian 17, 255, 257, 261, 271, 275–278 Damascus 11, 130, 152, 171 David /Davidic 49, 51, 53–54, 56–58, 118, 122, 130, 284, 286 David, son of 4, 45, 51–53, 130 Decius 16, 256, 258 Delphi 18, 288–289, 291 Diaspora 10, 65, 81, 157, 164–166, 169, 171, 173–174, 180, 198, 247, 294–296 Didache 5, 42–43, 68, 71, 77, 312 Diognetus 80–81 disciple(s) 4–8, 23, 31, 39–40, 42, 45, 47–49, 51–60, 66, 82, 85–94, 96–97, 99–100, 104–111, 116–120, 123, 126, 154, 160, 164–165, 170–171, 175, 178–179, 186, 245, 304, 306 discipleship 22, 39–42, 61, 261, 304, 309–310 Easter 26, 48, 55–57, 89, 104, 109, 123, 127, 150, 154–155, 157–158, 160, 162, 178, 301 ecclesia peregrinans 6, 7, 99, 105, 111 Egypt 18, 159, 166–167, 178, 261, 264, 268–269, 273–274, 282–285, 293, 295–297 Emmaus 7, 104–105, 117 emperor, the 15–16, 69, 77, 134, 177, 232, 243, 254, 256–257 enemy /enemies 4–5, 63–85 passim, 130, 137, 157, 267–269, 272–274, 277 ethics 31, 41, 63, 70, 82–83, 92, 302, 307–308 ethnicity 12–13, 78, 81, 193–210 passim Eucharist 40, 42, 91, 95, 312

eunuch, Ethiopian 9, 122, 147, 149, 170 Europe 8–9, 115, 131, 136, 288–290, 296–297 exodus 16–17, 79, 81, 117, 166–167, 261–262, 265–278 ἐξουσία 48, 101, 158 Ezekiel 14, 58, 214–218 faith 8, 12–13, 15, 19, 21–24, 32, 40, 73, 81, 86–89, 94, 96–97, 122–123, 125, 138, 145, 153, 156–158, 162, 164, 169, 171–172, 181–188, 190–191, 193–194, 196, 201, 203–209, 227, 233, 239, 241, 244–245, 252–253, 255–256, 258, 265–266, 276, 299 family 39–40, 64–65, 77, 99, 152, 167, 191, 196, 207, 240, 248, 263, 266, 273, 278, 285 festival(s) 65, 78, 82, 95, 234, 236, 243, 247–248, 250, 252, 264, 294 foreigner(s) 64–65, 149 forgiveness 59, 61, 68, 85, 90, 106–107, 257 Galatia 8–9, 11, 129, 132, 138–143 Galatians 8, 11–12, 71, 73, 129, 138, 142, 181–192 Galilee 4, 10, 40, 45, 49, 53, 56–59, 90, 95, 99, 102–103, 108–110, 116, 151, 152, 154, 157, 165, 169 genealogy 18, 53, 157, 202, 205, 207, 281, 285–286 Gentile(s) 3–4, 9–14, 41, 43, 45–61 passim, 82, 107, 119, 122, 125, 131, 145–162 passim, 164, 172–174, 176–177, 179–183, 186–188, 191–192, 194, 196–198, 201–202, 206, 208–209, 211–212, 215, 217, 221–222, 225, 229, 233, 249–251, 276, 294, 308 geography /geographical 17, 51, 65, 116, 119, 135, 139–140, 165, 174, 228, 279–297 passim God 5, 11–12, 14, 28, 30, 33–36, 42, 48, 56–59, 67, 69–70, 72, 74–75, 79–80, 83, 89, 94, 103–105, 107–108, 121–122, 124, 130, 132, 134–135, 137–138, 158–160, 162, 165–170, 172–173, 175–180, 183–185, 187–193, 196–209, 212–218, 221–222 – creator 165, 176, 181, 187–189, 203, 206, 224 – gift(s) of God 31, 36, 81, 125, 167, 204, 231, 267 – grace of God 121–122, 124, 173, 221, 225, 239, 266, 275–277 – kingdom of God 6–8, 31, 34–38, 42, 57, 80, 83, 99–101, 103, 113–127 passim, 155, 303, 307–308, 312 – of the fathers 135, 167, 270 – of the Gentiles 11, 187, 192, 201

Index of Subjects – of the Jews /Israel 11, 181, 187–188, 192, 198, 201 – people of God 10–11, 13–14, 38, 42, 56, 60, 65–66, 80, 93, 109, 149, 156, 173, 177, 179, 185, 191, 193, 196, 198, 212, 221, 225, 299 – presence of God 11, 166–168, 178, 267 – promise(s) of God 13, 60, 65, 120, 179, 200, 203–204, 207, 209, 291 – reign /rule of God 7, 34–36, 38, 80, 113–114, 119, 125 – revelation of God 21, 23, 43, 69, 131, 166 – Son of God 4, 22, 45, 49, 51, 53–54, 58, 97 – the one God 11, 83, 94, 181–182, 187–188, 190, 192, 201 – throne of God 148, 222 – will of God 132–133, 137, 148, 185, 233 – word of God 20–21, 121, 175, 231–232, 239, 242 god-fearers 9–10, 13, 147, 150, 157, 166, 200 Gog 18, 281–282 gospel (message) 3, 14, 17, 39, 60, 109, 121–122, 124, 126–127, 130, 132–133, 135, 152, 163–164, 169–170, 179, 211, 218, 222, 224, 230–232, 245, 250, 280, 297, 299 – spread of the gospel 8–9, 131, 163, 166, 169 – proclamation /preaching of the gospel 8–10, 14–16, 31, 50, 101, 116, 122, 127, 134, 169–170, 174, 182–183, 225, 230–232, 279 gospels, synoptic 6–7, 25–27, 85, 89, 109, 113, 115–117, 123–124, 127, 171, 256, 303, 308, 310, 312 Greece 116, 134, 137, 152, 284, 289, 291 Greek 9–10, 18–19, 33, 58, 81–82, 86–87, 102, 129, 136, 140–143, 145–146, 150, 152, 165, 169, 187, 197, 199, 215, 217, 234, 270, 273, 281, 286–289, 293 Greeks 13, 81, 86, 133, 147, 198–199, 208–209, 250, 282 Ham 18, 281–284, 287, 289, 291, 295–297 Hasmonean(s) 18, 287, 294 hate 68–69, 71–72, 74, 76–77, 79–82 Hebrew (language) 29, 36, 58, 114, 152, 215, 217, 265, 272, 274, 281, 283, 286 heir(s) 12–13, 51, 155, 187–188, 191, 196–197, 202, 205, 207 Hellenistic 66, 68, 71, 73, 76, 92, 100, 124, 157, 171, 173, 195, 198, 206, 291 Hellenists 9–11, 66, 145–150, 152, 154, 156, 158, 161–162, 165–166, 168, 170, 173–174 holy 42, 74, 190 Holy One, the 85, 96–97

345

household 16–17, 40, 167, 172, 235, 240, 248, 250, 261–278 passim identity 4–5, 8, 11, 13, 15, 24, 51, 56, 63–66, 71, 78, 88, 110, 113, 122–123, 125, 167–168, 170, 176, 179–180, 185, 191, 193–200, 203–206, 209–210, 250 – Jewish identity 13, 66, 71, 176, 197, 210, 250 immigrants 180, 294, 296 infants 14–17, 227, 237, 241, 261, 263, 265, 268–270, 275, 277–278 Isaac 155, 196, 200, 207–209 Israel 3–5, 10, 45–61 passim, 65–66, 75, 81, 93–94, 107–108, 118–120, 124, 131, 145, 149, 155–157, 159–161, 163–164, 166–170, 176–179, 188, 191, 206, 209, 216–218, 266–270, 273–274, 280, 285, 305 Israelite(s) 18, 76, 207, 212, 248, 269, 285–286, 293 James 16, 118, 245 – letter of James 30, 71 Japheth 18, 281–282, 287, 289, 291, 295–297 Jerusalem 4, 7, 9–10, 15–16, 18, 49–50, 52–54, 60, 65, 78, 95, 99, 102–110, 116, 120, 130, 131, 134–135, 139, 145–146, 148–152, 156, 160–162, 164–166, 168–176, 178–180, 232, 243, 245–252, 259, 273, 279, 282–284, 286, 289, 291–294, 296–297 – pilgrimage to Jerusalem 10, 95, 149, 247 – population of Jerusalem 16, 53, 245–248 Jesus – appearance of Jesus 89–91, 104, 106, 158 – ascension of Jesus 7–8, 103, 105–107, 109, 113, 120–122, 124, 127, 239, 301 – at the right hand of God 7, 58, 103, 106–108, 148 – baptism of Jesus 39, 273–274, 277, 299, 307, 310 – birth of Jesus 6, 22, 101 – commission of Jesus 45, 50, 54–55, 60, 164, 176–179 – death /passion /execution of Jesus 4, 23, 27, 47, 59–61, 85, 87, 94, 95, 109, 116, 122, 127, 145, 159, 186, 249, 301 – divine sonship of Jesus 51, 54 – exaltation of Jesus 7, 89, 103, 107–108, 110, 145, 161 – faith in Jesus 86, 125, 185, 245, 252, 299 – followers of Jesus 21, 39–40, 130, 135, 178, 211–212, 221, 225, 243 – historical Jesus 6, 21–25, 27, 29, 171 – inaugural speech of Jesus /Sermon on the Mount 5, 63, 66–73 passim, 83

346

Index

– ministry of Jesus 30, 39, 47, 51–53, 59, 95, 99, 102–104, 116, 125, 127, 151, 156, 170, 172, 311 – mission of Jesus 4–5, 51, 53, 85, 157 – parousia of Jesus 52, 116, 118, 122–123 – picture /portrait of Jesus 6, 22–25, 27, 99, 171, 305, 311 – rejection of Jesus 4, 47, 53, 103 – resurrection of Jesus 6–9, 15, 22, 25–26, 54, 57, 59–60, 82, 85, 87, 89, 97, 104–107, 113, 116, 120–122, 124–125, 127, 155–156, 161, 206, 230, 239, 276, 301 – risen Jesus 89, 104, 117–120, 157, 177, 179 – teaching /preaching /message /saying of Jesus 3, 7–8, 10, 25, 28–31, 33, 36, 38, 52, 56, 60, 66, 70, 73–80, 82, 92–93, 96, 99, 101, 105, 113–120, 122–123, 126–127, 150, 152, 155–156, 164, 176, 303, 312 – tomb of Jesus 6, 88–89, 91 – tradition 10, 26, 38, 73, 102, 120, 125, 145–162 passim – trial /arrest of Jesus 6, 52–53, 56–57, 88–89 Jesus movement 8, 78, 126, 130, 244–245, 249–250, 252, 259 Jew(s) 3–5, 9–11, 13, 16–17, 36, 40–42, 45–61 passim, 64–66, 71, 75, 77–78, 81–82, 94–96, 105, 118, 131, 134, 145, 154–156, 161, 164–165, 169, 171–174, 177, 179–182, 186–188, 192–193, 197–199, 201, 206–210, 211–212, 221, 225, 237, 245, 247, 249–251, 272, 277, 280, 292–295, 308–309 Jews and /or Gentiles /Greeks 13–14, 41, 45, 50, 54, 56, 122, 125, 133, 148, 174, 187, 191, 194, 197, 199, 208, 211–212, 222, 250–251, 276, 294 John, Gospel of 5, 25, 30, 71, 85–97, 113, 120, 124, 300, 303, 308–309 Jonah 155–156, 179, 283 Joshua 273–274 Jubilees 18, 203, 280, 283–292, 295–297 Judaism 8–9, 15–16, 28, 34, 36, 56, 66, 114, 126, 130–131, 172, 176, 188, 191–192, 197, 224, 236, 243, 249, 259, 268, 279, 294 – ancient /early /first-century Judaism 15, 28, 36, 56, 126, 191, 245, 249, 259, 268, 279 – Second Temple Judaism 157, 159, 247 Judea 11, 40, 95, 107, 164, 169, 173, 176, 249, 259, 291, 293, 295–297 Judeans 13, 193–194, 198–203, 205–210, 291 judgement 28, 37, 47–50, 53, 57, 154–155, 168–169, 179, 212, 219, 224–225, 305 jurisdictions 12, 181, 184, 186

justify /justification 6, 12, 80, 156, 181, 183, 185, 196, 201, 203 Justin (Martyr) 5, 68–69, 71, 75–77, 81, 83, 252, 256, 271 kingdom of God; see God kings /kings of the earth 14, 69, 211, 213–214, 216–218, 221–223, 225, 254, 283–285 Kyrios 104–105 Lamb, the 222–225 lambs 6, 92–93, 97, 269 land, holy 5, 65, 110 λαός 48, 60, 79 Law /Torah 121, 131, 135, 166, 176, 182, 185, 188, 206, 209, 238, 248, 277, 280, 293 – works of the Law 12, 156, 181–186, 191 Libya 18, 282–285, 288, 291, 293, 295–297 life, eternal 8, 43, 96, 124–125, 127 literature, Jewish 35–36, 66, 113–114 Lord (Jesus) 8, 42, 48, 59, 88, 89, 91–93, 96–97, 100, 103, 105, 107–109, 121–122, 124–125, 130, 133–134, 138–139, 145, 158, 170–171, 173, 175–176, 180, 237, 241 Lord’s Prayer 32–33, 42, 309–312 love 4–6, 68, 71, 73–74, 92, 94, 97, 149, 237, 302 – love of enemy 4–5, 63–83 Lud 18, 282–283, 285–286, 290–291, 297 Luke, gospel of 6–8, 99–111 passim, 116, 121, 123–125, 151, 170, 173, 176, 179, 302 – travel narrative (in Luke) 6–7, 99, 101–105, 108, 111, 170–171 Lydia 18, 281–283, 286, 290, 297 Macedonia 9, 133–134 Magog 18, 281–283 map(s) 9, 17–18, 129, 140–141, 143, 279–297 passim – ethnic map 194, 208 Mark, Gospel of 10, 26, 52, 99, 102–104, 109–110, 151–152, 159, 231, 256 – Proto-Mark 151–152, 154 martyrdom 10, 57, 110, 146, 148, 168, 254–255 martyrs 16, 134, 195, 243–244, 252–258 passim – blood of the martyrs 15–16, 243–244, 252–253 Mary Magdalene 6, 56, 88 Matthew, gospel of 3–4, 39, 45–61, 103, 109, 151, 153, 157–158, 304–305, 307 meal 43, 91, 105, 126, 233 Mediterranean, the 11, 18, 110, 175, 178, 188, 283, 285–286, 288–289, 296–297

Index of Subjects memory 6, 12–13, 32, 105, 152, 193–196, 201–205, 207–210 Mesopotamia 166, 282, 284–286, 290, 293, 295–297 Messiah 10, 22, 51, 54, 56, 58–59, 86, 97, 117, 130, 147, 151, 154, 156–158, 245, 249 messianic 4, 8–9, 35, 51, 56–59, 106, 122–125, 145–148, 150–151, 155, 159–161, 301 migration 10–11, 111, 163–180 passim, 269 migrant(s) 11, 167–168, 170–171, 174–175, 178–179 milk, spiritual 15, 227, 237–242 mission 38, 41–42, 45–61 passim, 63, 192, 280, 297 – apostolic mission 45, 60 – (early) Christian mission 4, 5, 10–11, 18, 63, 81, 83, 109, 163–164, 168, 174, 177, 279 – in the Gospel of Matthew 3, 45–61 – of Jesus 4–5, 51, 53, 85, 106, 157–158 – of Paul 8, 11, 132–133, 136, 142, 200, 209 – of the (early) church 3–4, 7, 13, 17, 45–46, 54, 77, 106, 109, 117, 126, 211 – of the disciples 85, 117, 126, – of the Hellenists 145–162 passim – to the Gentiles /nations 3–4, 9–10, 39, 45, 107, 119, 145–162 passim, 173, 176 – to Israel /the Jews 3–4, 45–61 passim – universal /worldwide mission 4–5, 109, 170, 287 missionary /ies 6, 11–12, 41, 63, 83, 85, 89, 92, 163, 169, 171–172, 174, 177–179, 181–182, 192, 230 missionary activity 12, 50, 108, 129, 172, 175, 177, 192, 232 missionary journey 8–9, 117, 137–138, 140–141 mother 56, 239–240 – of Jesus 51, 88, 101 Mysia 9, 140–142 nations 3–4, 14, 17–18, 39, 45–61 passim, 65–66, 70, 79, 82, 93, 106, 135, 145, 148–149, 158–161, 169, 176, 181–183, 187, 192, 199, 202, 205–208, 211–225 passim, 254, 279–297 passim – table of nations 18, 280, 282, 286, 289, 292–293, 295 Nazarenes 243, 246 neighbour 5, 64–65, 67, 70, 74, 77 Noah 18, 280–281, 285, 287, 291–292, 295–296 offspring 12, 18, 120, 181, 186–187, 196, 234, 265, 280–281, 285–286

347

Old Testament 8, 10, 14, 21–22, 28, 32, 35–36, 48–51, 56, 60, 93, 113–114, 119, 121–122, 145, 148–149, 155, 159, 161, 167, 169, 178, 188, 211–212, 214–215, 268, 272 omphalos (of the world) 288–289, 291 Origen 17, 78, 261, 263, 271–275, 278 Pamphylia 293, 295–297 πάντα τὰ ἔθνη 17, 49–53, 55, 65, 183, 279, 297 paraenesis /paraenetic 70, 72, 75, 79, 233, 237–238 Passover 89, 95, 247–248, 264, 269 Paul 8–9, 11–13, 15, 17, 23, 64, 71, 73, 81–82, 87, 89, 108–110, 116–118, 122, 124–125, 127, 129–143 passim, 149–150, 152, 156, 159, 161, 166, 169–178 passim, 181–192 passim, 193–210 passim, 215, 231–232, 245, 249–251, 258, 262–263, 265–269, 271–273, 276–277, 294, 299–301, 304, 311 – gospel of Paul 127, 177, 201 – letters of Paul / Pauline letters 40, 113, 115, 126, 224, 256 Pentecost 10, 15–16, 18, 95, 107, 118, 164, 173, 232, 245–251, 292, 294 people, Jewish 4, 11, 41, 119, 181, 188, 218, 284 persecution 5, 7, 11, 15–16, 52, 57, 66, 69, 71–72, 77, 109, 130, 145, 160–161, 164, 169, 171, 174, 176–178, 229, 235, 243–245, 252–258 Peter 5–6, 11, 15–16, 40, 85–97, 104, 107–108, 131, 150, 152, 156, 160–161, 170, 172–174, 179, 247, 249, 251, 276, 295, 309, 311 – commission to Peter 87, 90, 92–93 – confession of Peter 85–97 passim Peter, First letter of 14–15, 71, 227–242 Philip (one of the seven) 11, 116, 121–122, 149, 170, 173 Philippi 9, 131–133, 178 Philo 17, 74, 188–191, 203, 206, 234–236, 238, 265, 269–271, 278 Phrygia 18, 139–141, 281–282, 293, 295–297 Pilate 4, 47–48, 53 pilgrim(s)/pilgrimage 10, 16, 45, 56, 95, 108, 146, 149, 164, 247–248, 250–251, 294, 296 Polycarp 69, 254–255 poor, Jesus and the 27–31, 85, 303–304 population 16, 53, 58, 140, 146–147, 221, 245–248 pray /prayer 5, 28, 33, 40, 42, 58, 67–69, 72, 77–78, 80, 104, 133, 137–138, 149, 172, 206, 254

348

Index

Prayer, the Lord’s 32–33, 42, 309–312 prophecy 14, 212–214, 217, 222, 225 – Christian prophecy 13, 211 – Old Testament prophecy 10, 148, 158, 212 prophet(s) 14, 40, 53, 58, 101–102, 121, 124, 132, 138, 154–155, 158, 167, 174, 189–190, 211, 213–215, 218–219, 230–231, 269, 307 promise(s)/promise(d) 5, 8, 12–13, 18, 22, 45, 53, 60, 65, 79, 82, 88, 106–108, 118, 120, 122, 127, 132, 166, 175, 179, 181, 184–188, 198, 200, 202–209, 249–250, 272, 291 proselyte(s) 10, 16, 147–148, 164–165, 180, 188–191, 203, 206, 229, 293–294 Q

10, 101–102, 150–151, 153–154, 156

Red Sea 17, 167, 267–275, 277–278, 282–283, 291 repentance 14, 28, 48, 52, 106, 122, 125, 154–156, 161, 168, 212, 221, 224–225, 249, 266 Revelation of John 13–14, 211–225 righteous /righteousness 13, 73, 136, 183–184, 189, 201–205, 209, 212, 219 rock, the 6, 85, 87, 97 Romans (people) 48, 64, 140, 293–296 Rome 9, 11, 15, 77, 109–110, 116, 132–136, 152, 160, 165, 175, 177, 194, 223, 232, 240, 251, 284, 294, 296–297, 307 Sabbath(s) 82, 149, 191, 264 sacrifice(s) 159, 175, 234, 255 – of Isaac 196, 200, 207 – to the emperor /Roman gods 16, 254, 257 salvation 7–8, 11, 14, 17, 28, 36, 53, 56, 60–61, 82, 109, 113, 115, 118–119, 121–127, 132, 160, 168–170, 172, 178, 209, 211, 225, 230–231, 237, 241, 261–262, 267–269, 273, 276 salvation history /salvation-historical 8, 21, 50, 53, 55–56, 113, 116, 120, 122, 124, 196 Samaria 11, 77, 102–103, 107, 116, 164, 169–170, 173, 178 Satan 97, 119, 137, 271 Scripture(s), the 11–12, 21, 31, 76, 89, 104–106, 122, 130, 133, 147, 183–185, 188, 230–231, 300 – Jewish /Hebrew Scriptures 12, 15, 182, 201, 203, 229 scroll 14, 213–214, 216, 218–220, 222 Servant of the Lord 159–160 Shem 18, 281–282, 285, 287, 289–291, 295–297 shepherd 6, 51, 56–59, 85, 88, 91–94, 167 Sidon 10, 154, 157, 282 Silas 132, 138, 174–175

sin 184–185, 263, 266, 273, 276–277, 311 slave(s) 14, 17, 82, 132, 165, 167, 187, 191, 202, 223, 229, 240, 264 Son of Man /son of man 10, 52, 58, 99–100, 102–103, 145, 148, 155, 158–159, 161–162, 213, 216–217, 222 space 63–65, 78, 81–82, 87, 90 Spain 9, 131, 134–136, 177, 282–283 Spirit /Holy Spirit 7, 9, 12, 21, 85, 103, 106–109, 118, 120, 132, 134–135, 138–142, 163–164, 170, 173–174, 179–180, 182, 184, 186–191, 230, 249, 267, 276, 312 Stephen 10–11, 106, 145–146, 148, 151, 158, 163, 165–169, 173, 178 synagogue(s) 50, 133–134, 147, 153, 157, 165, 206, 250–251 Syria 18, 140, 147, 151–152, 172–173, 282, 286 temple 23, 60, 148, 165–171, 178, 217, 291–292 temptation 33, 229, 234, 267 territory 5, 35, 55, 58, 64–66, 78, 81–82, 114, 136, 140, 157, 285–286, 296 Tertullian 15, 69, 76–77, 79–80, 252–255, 261, 271, 284 Theophilus of Antioch 69, 74, 284, 297 Thessalonica 9, 133, 136–138 Thomas, Gospel of 7, 115, 308–309 Timothy 137–138, 175 tongue(s) 14, 18, 81, 211, 217, 221–225, 268, 292–293 tradition(s), Jewish 17, 49, 126, 182, 195, 203, 219, 268 Trajan 141, 256 tribes of Israel, twelve 54–55, 58–59, 108, 118, 160, 272 – restoration of tribes of Israel 54–55, 58–59, 118–120, 176 Tyre 10, 154, 157–158 virtue(s)

63, 190, 255, 273

Way, the 5–7, 11, 99–100, 102, 104–105, 108, 110–111, 121, 170 women 14, 17, 53, 57, 88–89, 104, 131, 157, 178, 229, 245, 263, 268–270 world 13–14, 18, 22, 31, 42, 81, 83, 86, 99, 103–104, 108–111, 119, 135–136, 147, 158, 160, 176, 188–189, 190, 194, 205, 208, 212, 221–225, 242, 247, 253–254, 279–280, 285–292, 297, 311 – ancient world 4, 169, 174 – ends of the world /earth 11, 110, 135, 155, 164, 168, 284, 297

349

Index of Subjects – Graeco-Roman world 63–64, 72, 106, 124, 199 – inhabited world 18, 281, 283, 292 – map(s) of the world 280–281, 283, 286, 288–290, 297 – people of the world 14, 211–225 passim

world view worldwide

5, 14, 22, 81–82, 227, 241 42, 109, 170, 178, 284, 287, 310

Zion 45, 56, 80, 146, 289, 292, 293 – pilgrimage to Zion 45, 56, 146