The Crucified Apostle: Essays on Peter and Paul (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Book 450) 9783161556104, 3161556100

Citation preview

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

450

The Crucified Apostle Essays on Peter and Paul

Edited by Todd A. Wilson and Paul R. House

Mohr Siebeck

/ eISBN 978-3-16-155610-4

Table of Contents

Editors’ Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VII

Abbreviations for Journals, Major Reference Works, and Series . . . . . .

IX

Abbreviations of Deuterocanonical Works, Pseudepigrapha, Targumic Texts, Apostolic Fathers, and Ancient Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Peter Stuhlmacher Reconciled Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5

Joel Willitts One Torah for Another. The Halakhic Conversion of Jewish Believers: Paul’s Response to Peter’s Halakhic Equivocation in Galatians 2:11–21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21

Christopher A. Beetham Eschatology and the Book of Proverbs in 1 Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47

Paul R. House Scripture, the Day of the Lord, and Holiness. Whole Bible Theology in 2 Peter 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71

John Dennis Jesus as the Scapegoat. Paul’s Atonement Theology in Romans 8:3 in the Context of Romans 5–7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

85

Alexander N. Kirk Future Justification in the Golden Chain of Romans 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

107

Douglas C. Mohrmann Paul’s Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11 as Palimpsest. Literature in the Second Degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

129

VI

Table of Contents

Panagiotis Kantartzis Israel as âχθροÈ and ‚γαπητοÈ in Romans 11:28. An Isaianic Paradox and Its Pauline Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

151

Joel White Identifying Intertextual Exegesis in Paul. Methodological Considerations and a Test Case (1 Corinthians 6:5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

167

Jeff Wisdom Opening the Heart. Compassion and Suffering in Paul’s Apostolic Ministry in the Corinthian Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

189

H. H. Drake Williams III Imitate Me as I Imitate Christ. Considering the Jewish Perspective in Paul’s Use of Imitation in 1 Corinthians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

209

William N. Wilder “To Whom Has the Arm of the Lord Been Revealed?” Signs and Wonders in Paul’s Isaianic Mission to the Gentiles (Romans 15:18–21 and Galatians 3:1–5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

225

Todd A. Wilson Scripting and the Rhetoric of Wilderness in Galatians . . . . . . . . . . . . .

245

Wesley Hill The God of Israel – Crucified? Philippians 2:5–11 and the Question of the Vulnerability of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

261

Sean McDonough Paul and the Semantics of “Justification”. Or What Do We Talk about When We Talk about Righteousness? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

277

Elizabeth E. Shively The σÀmα and the Transformation of Persons in the Letter to the Romans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

297

Michael Allen Self-Denial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

321

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

339

Scripture Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

343 359

Editors’ Preface The editors wish to thank several people for their help. First, we are grateful to Dr. Henning Ziebritzki and the editors of this series for accepting the project for publication and to Klaus Hermannstädter and the staff of Mohr Siebeck for their excellent assistance. Second, we appreciate the fifteen contributors who joined us in this venture for writing stimulating essays on the great apostles Peter and Paul. We particularly thank Prof. Dr. Peter Stuhlmacher for allowing us to include his essay and Wayne Coppins for translating it from German to English. We also thank Chris Beetham for helping with Greek editing. Third, we owe a special debt of gratitude to Heather House, who copy edited the manuscript. The project absolutely could not have been completed without her hard, reliable work. Of course, any remaining mistakes are our responsibility, not hers. Fourth, we thank Calvary Memorial Church, Oak Park, Illinois, and Beeson Divinity School of Samford University, Birmingham, Alabama, for supporting our efforts. Most of all, we are thankful to our friend and colleague Scott Hafemann for providing the inspiration for this project. Hafemann was Todd Wilson’s teacher over fifteen years ago and continues to be an example of scholarship and pastoral engagement to him. They continue their relationship by working together annually at the Center for Pastoral Theology. Hafemann and Paul House have been friends and colleagues since 1986, and their friendship has included scholarly collaboration. All the contributors except Peter Stuhlmacher and Paul House are Hafemann’s former students. Working on this project with others who have benefitted from knowing Scott and his wife, Debara, has given the task joy and purpose. For these and other kindnesses we are very grateful. Todd Wilson

Paul House

Advent 2016

Abbreviations for Journals, Major Reference Works, and Series AB ABD

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992 AcBib Academia Biblica ACCS Old Testament Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Old Testament ACEBT Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese en bijbelse Theologie ACW Ancient Christian Writers AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums AIL Ancient Israel and Its Literature AnBib Analecta Biblica ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers ANTC Abingdon New Testament Commentaries ApOTC Apollos Old Testament Commentary BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research BDAG Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000 (DankerBauer-Arndt-Gingrich) BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament BHT Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Bib Biblica BibInt Biblical Interpretation Series BibSem The Biblical Seminar BN Biblische Notizen BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentaries BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

X ConBNT CTQ CTR DBSup DJG

DPL

EDNT

EKKNT Enc ExAud FAT FRLANT HCOT HNTC HSM HThKNT HTR IBC ICC Int JBL JETS JGRChJ JRT JSNT JSNTSup JSOT JSOTSup

Abbreviations for Journals, Major Reference Works, and Series

Coniectanea Neotestamentica or Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament Series Concordia Theological Quarterly Criswell Theological Review Dictionnaire de la Bible: Supplément. Edited by Lous Pirot and André Robert. Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1928– Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013 Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993 Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. ET. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990–1993 Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Encounter Ex Auditu Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Historical Commentary on the Old Testament Harper’s New Testament Commentaries Harvard Semitic Monographs Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching International Critical Commentary Interpretation Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism Journal of Religious Thought Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

Abbreviations for Journals, Major Reference Works, and Series

JSS JTS LCL LHBOTS LNTS LSJ

LSTS MSU NAC Neot NICNT NICOT NIGTC NovT NovTSup NTD NTL NTOA NTS OECS OTL OTP OTS PG

PNTC ProEccl RB RBL RNT RTL SB SBLDS SBLSP SBT SJT SNTSMS SP

XI

Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Loeb Classical Library The Library of Hebrew Bible /Old Testament Studies The Library of New Testament Studies Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996 The Library of Second Temple Studies Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens New American Commentary Neotestamentica New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Commentary on the Old Testament New International Greek Testament Commentary Novum Testamentum Supplements to Novum Testamentum Das Neue Testament Deutsch New Testament Library Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus New Testament Studies Oxford Early Christian Studies Old Testament Library Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985 Old Testament Studies Patrologia Graeca [=Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graeca]. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857–1886 Pelican New Testament Commentaries Pro Ecclesia Revue biblique Review of Biblical Literature Regensburger Neues Testament Revue théologique de Louvain Sources bibliques Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Studies in Biblical Theology Scottish Journal of Theology Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Sacra Pagina

XII StBibLit SUNT TDNT

TDOT

THKNT TLZ TS TSAJ TynBul VT VTSup WBC WMANT WTJ WUNT WW

Abbreviations for Journals, Major Reference Works, and Series

Studies in Biblical Literature (Lang) Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–1976 Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Translated by John T. Willis et al. 8 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974–2006 Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Theologische Literaturzeitung Theological Studies Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Tyndale Bulletin Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Word and World

Abbreviations of Deuterocanonical Works, Pseudepigrapha, Targumic Texts, Apostolic Fathers, and Ancient Texts 1 Clem. 1 En. 1 Macc 1QHa 1QM 1QpHab 1QS 2 Bar. 2 Clem. 2 Macc 3 Macc 4 Macc 4QMMT Aristotle, Metaph. Aristotle, Poet. Aristotle, Rhet. CD Cicero, Part. or. Cyril, Quod unus DSS Epictetus, Diatr. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. Irenaeus, Epid. Irenaeus, Haer. Isocrates, Ep. Josephus, A.J. Josephus, B.J. Josephus, C. Ap. LAE Let. Aris. Philo, Decal. Philo, Fug. Philo, Her.

1 Clement 1 Enoch 1 Maccabees Hodayota or Thanksgiving Hymnsa Milhamah or War Scroll Pesher Habakkuk Serek Hayahad or Rule of the Community 2 Baruch 2 Clement 2 Maccabees 3 Maccabees 4 Maccabees Miqsat Ma’asê ha-Toraha Metaphysica (Metaphysics) Poetica (Poetics) Rhetorica (Rhetoric) Cairo Genizah copy of the Damascus Document Partitiones oratoriae Quod unus sit Christus (That Christ is One) Dead Sea Scrolls Diatribai Historia ecclesiastica (Ecclesiastical History) Epideixis tou apostolikou k¯erygmatos (Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching) Adversus haereses (Against Heresies) Epistulae Antiquitates judaicae (Jewish Antiquities) Bellum judaicum (Jewish War) Contra Apionem (Against Apion) Life of Adam and Eve Letter of Aristeas De decalogo (On the Decalogue) De fuga et inventione (On Flight and Finding) Quis rerum divinarum heres sit (Who Is the Heir?)

XIV

Abbreviations of Primary Literature

Philo, Mos. 1 De vita Mosis I (On the Life of Moses 1) Philo, Mos. 2 De vita Mosis II (On the Life of Moses 2) Philo, Opif. De opificio mundi (On the Creation of the World) Philo, Spec. 4 De specialibus legibus IV (On the Special Laws 4) Philo, Virt. De virtutibus (On the Virtues) Plato, Leg. Leges (Laws) Plato, Resp. Respublica (Republic) Plato, Tim. Timaeus Plutarch, Mor. Moralia Plutarch, Quaest. conv. Quaestionum convivialum libri IX Quintilian, Inst. Institutio oratoria Seneca, Clem. De clementia Sir Sirach Stobaeus, Ecl. Eclogae Tacitus, Ann. Annales Tg. Isa. Targum Isaiah Tertullian, Prax. Adversus Praxean (Against Praxeas)

Introduction Peter and Paul have fascinated Christians since the first century. This is as it should be. These two Jewish apostles of Jesus of Nazareth played significant roles in the formation of congregations from Jerusalem to Europe. Both ministered among Jews and gentiles. Both made their mark on the New Testament through their own writings and as characters in others’ writings. They had their differences, as Gal 2:11–21 makes plain. Nonetheless, though often pitted against one another in scholarship and popular imagination, 1 Cor 15:1–11 and 2 Pet 3:15–18 indicate they respected one another. They found common ground in the crucified and risen Christ Jesus and in service to Christ’s body, the church. It is fitting, then, that Paul viewed himself as crucified with Christ, yet living (Gal 2:20). Church tradition has it that because of his testimony Roman officials beheaded him, a swifter end for a Roman citizen than crucifixion. Church tradition also holds that Peter was crucified, albeit upside down because he did not feel worthy to die as his friend and master, Jesus, had done. These crucified apostles’ lives, examples, and writings will merit examination and emulation in discipleship and scholarship as long as Christianity endures. This volume seeks to continue the long, rich conversation about these two essential, fallible men. Peter and Paul were saturated in scripture. They quoted, echoed, and alluded to the Law, Prophets, and Writings as they developed deep pastoral theology for churches and people. Their insights inform and inspire exegetes, theologians, pastors, and disciples of all sorts to this day. The contributors to this volume therefore probe old issues, yet hopefully in ways that will provide fresh insight and break some new ground on their chosen topics. No writer will ever issue the final word on these apostles, for their depth seems bottomless and times keep changing. Still, the contributors believe that stating a next word matters enough to make the research contributed here and elsewhere valuable. They also think that the time and trouble taken to learn Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, biblical backgrounds, parallel ancient literature, church history, historical theology, and biblical theology are never wasted. These and other disciplines sustain the life of the mind and thereby homes, churches, communities, and academic institutions. Fifteen of the contributors learned these foundational scholarly commitments when they were students of Scott J. Hafemann, the person to whom this volume is dedicated. Hafemann has taught New Testament for over thirty years. Currently he holds the position of Reader in New Testament at the University of

2

Introduction

St. Andrews in Scotland. Through the years Hafemann has championed original language exegesis, biblical theology, and the importance of Jewish backgrounds of the Bible in his research, while at the same time exhibiting the essential value of quality, personal teaching and mentoring of undergraduate, seminary, and doctoral students. These once-common commitments have become endangered in many places, but as Hafemann would be the first to insist, must never become lost causes if serious biblical studies are to remain healthy. Of course, Hafemann was once a promising young scholar seeking the sort of permanent scholarly values just noted. Such standards are most often bestowed from one generation to another through personal contact rather than transferred through institutional credentialing. Hafemann learned many of these qualities from Peter Stuhlmacher, who supervised his doctoral work at Eberhard-Karls-Universität-Tübingen in the 1980s and who for Hafemann remains an example of Christian scholarship and discipleship. It is therefore appropriate that Stuhlmacher opens the volume by tracing the unity early Christians practiced while maintaining clear diversity of opinion and missional practice. Focusing on 1 Cor 15:1–11, he demonstrates that despite all their heartfelt differences Paul, Peter, John, and James agreed on foundational convictions, and he argues that these convictions can still unify Christ’s body today. Joel Willitts then explores this unity and diversity in the next chapter by treating Gal 2:11–21 as a coherent narrative. From this analysis he determines that Peter and Paul differed over how to walk as Jewish followers of Jesus among gentile believers, not over justification by faith or the necessity of gentile evangelism. With these treatments of historical interaction between Peter and Paul in place, Christopher Beetham and Paul House probe Peter’s use of Proverbs and the whole canon, respectively. Beetham provides criteria for identifying allusions, echoes, and quotations, and stresses how Peter reuses Proverbs’ downto-earth teaching to make eschatological exhortations. House attempts to trace Peter’s wide-ranging use of scripture in his teaching about the need for holy living in light of the coming day of the Lord. Protestant biblical studies have generally focused more on Paul than Peter, and this volume follows this pattern. The next nine essays discuss Paul’s intertextual exegesis in key passages in Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians. Jon Dennis and Alexander Kirk focus on Romans 8. Dennis links Rom 8:3 to the scapegoat ritual in Leviticus 16, while Kirk asserts that Rom 8:30 highlights future justification in light of the book of Romans as a whole. Next, Douglas Mohrmann argues that Romans 9–11 exhibits characteristics of ancient rhetoric, uses biblical texts as witnesses for Paul’s case that God has not cast off the Jews (see Rom 9:6), and presents the history of Israel in a manner intended to place Jews and gentiles in the grand biblical narrative Paul chooses. Panagiotis Kantartzis utilizes relevant passages in Isaiah to explain what Paul means in Rom 11:28 when he calls Israel both enemies of God and beloved of

Introduction

3

God at the same time. In his essay, Joel White weighs in on how to set criteria for intertextual echoes, allusions, and quotations, subjects Beetham raised in his chapter. Using 1 Cor 6:15 as a test case, he decides that Deuteronomy 17 provides the sequence of Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 5–6. All these writers strive to find how, when, and why Paul refers to earlier biblical passages. Taking a more audience-focused tact, Jeff Wisdom describes how Paul opens his heart to the Corinthian church in order to show how much he loves them. Indeed, Wisdom claims, Paul’s suffering for the church at Corinth demonstrates his great love for them. Also dealing with Corinth, Drake Williams takes up Paul’s exhortation that the people imitate him as he imitates Christ (e. g. 1 Cor 4:16). Williams presents evidence from scripture and extra-biblical sources that Paul’s “imitation” comes from Jewish sources. William Wilder then investigates how Paul draws his teaching on signs and wonders in Rom 15:18–21 and Gal 3:1–5 from portions of the exodus narratives to provide evidence of his apostolic ministry and to warn against failing to heed God’s messenger. Todd Wilson likewise analyzes exodus materials in his case to reveal how Paul uses well-known words and phrases to insert the Galatians into the wilderness narrative. Wilson compares how American civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. utilized similar methods of including hearers in the biblical story of perseverance and freedom. Thus, Wisdom, Williams, Wilder, and Wilson all note how Paul utilizes previous biblical texts to reinforce and change congregational behavior. The final four contributors certainly agree that Paul’s intertextual exegesis provides a wealth of information about his pastoral theology. Yet they move forward from the text. Wesley Hill addresses the issue of God’s suffering by discussing Phil 2:5–11. He seeks to elucidate the text’s Old Testament background, then notes how patristic writers, particularly Cyril of Alexandria, may aid a proper understanding how God can empty himself through death on the cross and retain his identity. Sean McDonough considers the thorny matter of what interpreters mean when they use the word “justification.” Noting how commentators and speakers often have only one meaning of the word in mind when they use it, he contends for a nuanced understanding and usage of what remains a very contested term. Elizabeth Shively examines Paul’s theology of the body. Drawing on biblical resources and the works of key scholars, she contends that for Paul the self is a connected whole made up of cognition embodied and embedded in the world. Her study is timely, given current discussions of what it means to be human in an electronic world. Michael Allen also seeks a coherent view of the body in Christian thought. In his case he strives to arrive at a Reformed view of asceticism. Like the other contributors, he utilizes biblical texts, and like Wesley Hill, he cites patristic authors. Yet he takes his analysis a step further by tracing how John Calvin counseled appropriate types of self-denial in his New Testament commentaries and in his Institutes of the Christian Religion.

4

Introduction

In short, these four writers demonstrate that Paul’s works continue to provide insight into ongoing theological and pastoral issues. None of the contributors to this volume claims infallible knowledge of the topics he or she addresses. But together they exhibit core principles that sustain viable New Testament research. The oldest contributor was a student over sixty years ago, and he remembers the end of World War II in Germany. His teachers provide historical links back to the nineteenth century. The youngest received theological training just a few years ago. All have benefitted from the scholarly traditions of deep knowledge of and close attention to biblical texts, careful historical study, belief in biblical unity within diversity, and the vocation of teaching the next generation. Honoring Scott Hafemann may have drawn this varied group together, but his values and theirs have a much older pedigree. They ultimately stem from Peter and Paul, the crucified apostles.

Reconciled Diversity 1 Peter Stuhlmacher* I In August 2008 my friend and colleague the late Martin Hengel and I had the honor of reporting on fundamental questions of Jesus research in the seminar of Pope Benedict XVI. During the course of the meeting each of us was also granted a private audience. In mine I not only discussed private questions with the Pope but also the fact that the New Testament contains essential teaching about the unity of the church of Jesus Christ and the urgency of following this teaching. When I received the second volume of Benedict’s portrayal of Jesus 2 three years later, I found important statements on the unity of Jesus’s disciples in the chapter on Jesus’s high priestly prayer in John 17. Contrary to Rudolf Bultmann’s Protestant exposition of John 17:20–23, Benedict maintains – in my view correctly – that Jesus expects his disciples to strive for a unity that is perceptible on earth. Through this unity, the truth that he has sent them becomes visible to people. In light of Christ’s commission, Benedict is correct to claim that “the struggle for the visible unity of the disciples of Jesus Christ remains an urgent task for Christians of all times and places. The invisible unity of the ‘community’ is not sufficient.” 3 In his catechesis on the origin of the church, Benedict explains that according to the witness of Paul’s letters the church is rooted in the sacrament of the body of Christ, and by virtue of the Eucharistic gift becomes a polyphonic corporeal unity. Thus, the apostle’s famous admonition in Eph 4:3–4 applies to it: “Strive to preserve the unity of the Spirit through the peace that holds you together. One body and one Spirit, just as it was given to you through your calling through a common hope.” 4 In the general audience at St. Peter’s Square in Rome on April 18, 2012, the Pope spoke about “the little Pentecost” of Acts 4:23–31 and referred to the primitive community’s unanimous prayer: “This unity is the fundamental element of the primitive

* Translated by Wayne Coppins 1 With these reflections I take up a topic that has occupied me for some time. See my essay “Biblisch-theologische Erwägungen zur Ökumene,” in Peter Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie und Evangelium, WUNT 146 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 292–301. 2 See Josef Ratzinger, Jesus von Nazareth (Freiburg: Herder, 2011). Cf. Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2011). 3 Ratzinger, Jesus von Nazareth, 2:114. Cf. idem., Jesus of Nazareth, 96. 4 Josef Ratzinger, Auf dem Fundament der Apostel (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 2007), 138–39.

6

Peter Stuhlmacher

community, and it should always be fundamental for the church.” 5 To seek and live out the unity of the church is therefore a mandate issued by Jesus himself. This unity finds its expression in the common confession, in unanimous prayer, and in the Spirit-sustained communal life of all who believe in Jesus and follow after him. Christians have not found their way to such unity. The reasons for this are many. But the New Testament – in contrast to what Ernst Käsemann believed 6 – by no means grounds the division into different confessions and denominations. To this day it has been too little observed and respected that the apostles maintained the fellowship of faith and an ecclesiastical fellowship despite having very different views on important questions. Their example should and can help us to penetrate at last to a unity in reconciled diversity in a Christianity that remains separated confessionally. This unity is vital for the survival of European mainline churches in danger of collapsing.

II In his monumental commentary on 1 Corinthians, Wolfgang Schrage remarks in relation to 1 Cor 15:11 that it is “conspicuous ... that the verse plays, to my knowledge, no role in the ecumenical discussion, although it is precisely here that unity in diversity becomes visible, because as much as they share the resurrection faith, the witnesses mentioned in the text and Paul really do not advocate one and the same theology.” 7 Schrage is correct. With the observation “whether I or they: so we proclaim and so you believed” the apostle Paul explains that Cephas (Peter), the twelve, James the brother of the Lord, and he himself proclaim in common the gospel that is constitutive for the faith of the Christians in Corinth. In 1 Cor 15:3–5 he states this shared gospel: “Christ has died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and he was buried, and he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve.” In vv. 6–8 Paul lists the series of Jesus’s appearances to witnesses that concludes with himself. He then refers back to the witnesses and to the common faith in v. 11. The unity of the proclamation of all these apostolic witnesses is based in the one gospel that in all probability originated

5

Josef Ratzinger, Beten. Die Kunst, mit Gott zu sprechen (Augsburg: Sankt Ulrich, 2013), 164. Cf. Ernst Käsemann, “Begründet der neutestamentliche Kanon die Einheit der Kirche?” in Das Neue Testament als Kanon, ed. Ernst Käsemann (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 124–33; idem., “The Canon of the New Testament and the Unity of the Church,” in Essays on New Testament Themes, trans. W. J. Montague (London: SCM Press, 1964), 95–107. 7 Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, EKKNT 7.4 (Düsseldorf: Benziger, 2001), 108. 6

Reconciled Diversity

7

in the primitive Jerusalem community. It is entirely possible that Peter participated significantly in its formulation. Paul learned and adopted the formula in Damascus or Antioch. For him it is a valid expression of his call experience, and he warns against deviating from it. 8 Paul makes his astonishing statement in 15:11 during a phase of heated theological controversy. While he was active in Syria and Cilicia, i. e., in the “region around Antioch [in Pisidia] and ... his hometown Tarsus” 9 (Gal 1:21), in Antioch (on the Orontes) members of the circle of Stephen, originating from Cyprus and Cyrenaica, had taken the step of proclaiming “the gospel of Jesus the Lord also to the Greeks” (Acts 11:20). Their work was affirmed by the Levite Barnabas from Cyprus, who had been sent from Jerusalem to Antioch. To strengthen the mission among the gentiles, Barnabas brought Paul from Tarsus and the two of them worked together successfully for a year (Acts 11:25–26). They were then sent out by the Antioch community on the so-called first missionary journey. This endeavor led them initially to Cyprus and then to South Galatia (Pamphylia and Lycaonia). When they founded new communities they baptized the converts, but refrained from also circumcising gentiles. Following their return from the journey, Jewish Christians from Jerusalem came to Antioch and raised strong objections to their mission praxis. These newcomers “taught the brethren: if you do not let yourselves be circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). Their intervention led to such a bitter controversy between the emissaries on one side and Paul and Barnabas on the other that the decision was made to send a community delegation to Jerusalem to present the controversial question to the apostles and elders there. The delegation included Paul, Barnabas, a few other Antiochenes, and, at the wish of the Apostle, Titus as well (Gal 2:1). As an uncircumcised gentile convert to Christ, Titus was a living test case for the controversy. For Paul it was all or nothing. His call experience had opened up to him the insight that law-abiding sinners such as himself were accepted by God and acquitted of their guilt, i. e., justified, solely by virtue of the supreme sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus the Son of God. Faith in the living Christ Jesus was the valid way of salvation; no longer was it through the Torah and the practices or works of the law prescribed by it. This insight formed the core of his gospel, and it could not and must not be shaken. According to his own report of the Jerusalem council recorded in Gal 2:1–10, Peter, James, and John, the pillar apostles, affirmed the gospel revealed to Paul. Despite the opposition of

8 Wayne Coppins has rightly pointed out that in 1 Cor 15:1–11 Paul not only stresses the unanimity of the apostolic proclamation of the gospel, but also warns against a departure from this proclamation. Cf. Wayne Coppins, “Doing Justice to the Two Perspectives of 1 Corinthians 15:1–11,” Neot 44.2 (2010): 282–91. 9 Walter Klaiber, Der Galaterbrief (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 2013), 43.

8

Peter Stuhlmacher

converted Pharisees, it was agreed that Paul and Barnabas should henceforth go to the gentiles with the “gospel for the uncircumcised” and Peter should go to the Jews with the “gospel for the circumcised.” Paul and Barnabas accepted only one obligation: to gather a collection for the poor in the Jerusalem community (Gal 2:10; Rom 15:26). They did this to set an example for the unity of Jewish and gentile Christians in the one church of Jesus Christ. Paul stresses that he zealously followed this agreement. Unfortunately, he does not indicate in Galatians or his other letters wherein the difference between his gospel and the “gospel for the circumcision” resided. We can only hypothesize that converted Jews and believing gentiles alike had to confess the Jesus who was crucified and resurrected for us in the sense of 1 Cor 15:3–5. But instead of adhering, like the gentile Christians, only to the “Torah of the Messiah” (Gal 6:2, Rom 8:2) taught by Jesus, which was summarized in the double commandment of love for God and love for one’s neighbor, Jewish Christians continued circumcision and Torah practices they believed did not contradict the instruction of Jesus. The Jerusalem agreement left open some questions that Paul dealt with throughout his ministry. The first controversy broke out in Antioch shortly after the return of the delegates. While visiting the city Peter behaved in strikingly opposing ways. Initially he participated in community meals, which were connected at that time with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. But after people sent by James came to Antioch and objected, he broke off this table fellowship. Barnabas followed his example (Gal 2:12–13). At issue was whether and to what degree baptized Jews could be expected to disregard purity and food commandments while having table fellowship with gentile Christians. The so-called Apostolic decree of Acts 15:28–29, which was probably at first practiced in Antioch after Paul’s departure, regulated the controversy in the sense of requiring only the “minimal requirements that the Mosaic Law had made with respect to the cultic purity of foreigners living in the land” (cf. Lev 17:10–14, 18:6–26). 10 In response to the termination of table and Lord’s Supper fellowship, Paul publicly confronted Cephas, accusing him of hypocrisy and offending against the truth of the gospel (Gal 2:13–14). But he did not prevail. For when the second missionary journey began, Barnabas separated from Paul and traveled to Cyprus with his nephew John Mark, who had already left the apostle during the first journey (Acts 13:13). Together with Silas, Paul first passed through Syria and Cilicia to strengthen the communities founded there, and after that he developed his own missionary approach (Rom 15:14–21).

10

Jürgen Roloff, Die Apostelgeschichte, 2nd ed., NTD 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), 227. Roloff adds that the regulations would correspond also “to the so-called Noachide laws (1 Moses 9.4), which should apply to all people according to Rabbinic theory (Sanhedrin 56b).”

Reconciled Diversity

9

First Corinthians 9:5–6, Col 4:10, and Phlm 24 indicate that the separation did not lead to a permanent break between Paul, Barnabas, and John Mark. The apostle even appears to have made peace with Peter (see below). It was different with the faction of the baptized Pharisees that was temporarily defeated at the apostolic council in Jerusalem. They developed a counter-mission in the communities Paul founded. One branch wanted to continue to make baptized gentiles into Christian proselytes through circumcision. The other only pushed for a stricter keeping of the commandments of the Torah. Paul reacted with extreme forcefulness to these efforts that ran counter to his proclamation of the gospel, namely from the time of his letter to the Galatians to the time of his letter to the Philippians, which was probably first composed during his imprisonment in Rome (cf. Phil 3:2, 18–19). However, even in these epistles reconciling notes are not completely absent (Phil 1:15–18). In light of the sharp attacks against the counter-missionaries, it is significant that the apostle refrained from criticizing the “pillars” (Gal 2:9). His ironic reference to the “super apostles” in 2 Cor 11:5 and 12:11 may be understood in different ways. If one identifies them with the opponents of Paul who are called false apostles and servants of Satan in 11:13–15, then they are “Jewish Christian Hellenistic itinerant preachers who boast of a special gift of the Spirit and belonging to Christ, work with letters of recommendation, and accept payment from the communities with reference to old apostle right.” 11 But if not, then the Jerusalem apostles come into view. It is true that Paul ascribes a high rank to them. But as in 1 Cor 15:9–10, he claims to be equal to the Jerusalem apostles by virtue of his calling and his Spirit-sustained apostolic behavior. 12 When Paul dictated the astonishing sentences of 1 Cor 15:1–11 he already had the controversies in Jerusalem and Antioch behind him. Perhaps he had already made it through the fight with the counter-missionaries in the Galatian communities. If one follows the South Galatian hypothesis, which is likely from a mission historical perspective 13 but is only rarely advocated today, 14 then this is even certain. But the controversies with the opponents in 2 Corinthians (see 11 Friedrich Lang, Die Briefe an die Korinther, 2nd ed., NTD 7 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 359. Christian Wolff, Der zweite Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, THKNT 8 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989), 218, rejects the interpretation that relates them to the pillar apostles and maintains that “Paul would never have expressed himself ... so negatively about the Jerusalem apostles (cf. 1 Corinthians 15.7–11).” 12 For this interpretive possibility, cf. Ernst Käsemann, Die Legitimität des Apostels (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1956), 20–30; and Scott J. Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 430–31, 466. 13 Cf. Theodor Zahn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 2nd ed. (Leipzig: Deichert, 1900), 1:139 ff.; and Theodor Zahn, Grundriß der Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Leipzig: Deichert, 1928), 15–16. 14 Cf. Rainer Riesner, Die Frühzeit des Apostels Paulus, WUNT 71 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 243, 250–59; Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien, WUNT 108 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 453; I. Howard Marshall, New Testament

10

Peter Stuhlmacher

above) still lay ahead of him, as did the collection journey to Jerusalem. According to Rom 15:30–31, he anticipated the trip with some anxiety. As Hengel writes, “The fact that despite all danger and uncertainty Paul dared to travel to Jerusalem was probably based also in the trust in the brother of Jesus’s willingness to negotiate, on the knowledge that he too wanted to maintain the unity of the Jesus community.” 15 The journey leaves no doubt about the apostle’s desire to hold fast to unity with the mother church in Jerusalem. Indeed, Paul lost his freedom in Jerusalem due to striving to maintain the unity of the one church of Jewish and gentile Christians. After imprisonment in Caesarea and Rome, which Acts 23:12–26, 32 and 28:11–31 report, Paul eventually died in Rome. Legend has it that he – unlike Peter, whom Nero had crucified – was beheaded in keeping with his Roman citizenship. 16

III James, the brother of the Lord Jesus, met Paul in Jerusalem several times. The first meeting occurred during Paul’s two-week visit with Peter (Gal 1:18–19). Though critical of Jesus during the latter’s lifetime (Mark 3:21; 4:32–33; John 7:5), James now belonged firmly to the Jesus community, because he had seen the Risen One even before Paul had (1 Cor 15:7). We do not know if Paul also met James during the visit with the Jerusalem apostles and elders mentioned in Acts 9:26–30 and 11:30. But for both the encounter at the apostolic council in 48 AD was decisive. Alongside Barnabas, Paul had become the most prominent and the most controversial gentile missionary. James had taken Peter’s place in the leadership of the primitive community. The Jewish king Agrippa I had executed the Zebedaid James, and had afterward also imprisoned Peter (cf. 1 Thess 2:14–15). The baptism of uncircumcised gentiles such as Cornelius (cf. Acts 10) made him suspicious to the Sadducean nobles, and Agrippa I wanted to do them a favor. Peter was able to escape prison, but had to leave Jerusalem immediately (Acts 12:1–17). The primitive community’s leadership passed to James, who was called “the Just” 17 because of his blameless way of life. Despite the Sadducees, who continued to view the primitive community in a hostile manner, James, Peter, and John the brother of James dared to reject the Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 209; and Donald A. Hagner, The New Testament: A Historical and Theological Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 437. 15 Martin Hengel, “Jakobus der Herrenbruder – der erste Papst?” in Martin Hengel, Paulus und Jakobus, Kleine Schriften III, WUNT 141 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 580. 16 1 Clem. 5.2 and Eusebius, Hist. eccl. II 25.5. 17 For this title cf. Gospel of Thomas 12 and Hengel, “Jakobus der Herrenbruder – der erste Papst?” 557 ff.

Reconciled Diversity

11

objections of converted Pharisees against the Pauline mission praxis. Instead they recognized it as a legitimate way of bearing witness to and realizing the gospel in relation to gentiles. In his essay “James’ Position at the Summit Meeting of the Apostles and the Elders in Jerusalem (Acts 15),” 18 Jostein Ådna has argued persuasively that James’s speech in Acts 15:13–21 stems from historically sound tradition. Based on then-contemporary exegesis of Amos 9:11–12 and by allusions to other statements of the prophets, James expressed to the council the conviction that “now that God has rebuilt the fallen booth of David by establishing the ekklesia of Jesus, the Messiah, the time has come for freely including the Gentiles qua Gentiles into the people of God.” This so-called apostolic decree can also be stated in this way: “The only minimum requirements to be imposed on them are those put down by the Scriptures in Leviticus 17–18 for Gentiles living in the midst of Israel, as is now the situation in the Church (cf. Jer 12.16).” 19 At their last meeting, Paul and James were concerned with the delivery and acceptance of the collection for the poor established at the apostolic council. The apostle had already asked the Christians in Rome to pray “that my service for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints” (Rom 15:31). When he arrived in Jerusalem with the accompanying delegation, to which Luke also probably belonged, they were amicably received by the brothers and found lodging with the Cyprian Mnason (Acts 21:16–17). The following day they were officially received by James and the complete gathering of the elders (Acts 21:18–26). At first the apostle’s report of the results of his mission were met with thanksgiving. But there followed then a reaction that one can only understand if one considers that “true ‘freedom from the law’ (was) not practicable for Jews in Jewish Palestine” and the primitive community, “which had already suffered a series of persecutions (could) not in the long run expose itself to suspicion of a lax praxis of the law.” 20 James did not receive the collection. Instead, he referred Paul to the many Jewish Christians who believed in Jesus Christ and nevertheless were “zealots for the law.” According to James, they harbored the suspicion that Paul taught people to fall away from the Torah. To allay this suspicion, they advised Paul to prove his loyalty to the law by securing the release of four Jewish Christians from Nazirite vows by providing the required sacrifices. The costs were high: “According to Numbers 6.14 ff., ... Paul would have had to pay four one-year old male lambs and ewe lambs, four rams, four baskets with ring bread from fine flour with oil, unleavened wafers

18 Jostein Ådna, “James’ Position at the Summit Meeting of the Apostles and the Elders in Jerusalem (Acts 15),” in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles, ed. Jostein Ådna and Hans Kvalbein, WUNT 127 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 125–61. 19 Ibid., 161. 20 Hengel, “Jakobus der Herrenbruder – der erste Papst?” 574.

12

Peter Stuhlmacher

coated with oil, and the remaining food and drink offering.” 21 Paul could not have paid this expense from the profits of his tent-making. He could only have paid it from the collection. Finally, James reminds his guest of the apostolic decree (cf. Acts 21:25 with 15:20). Since the use of the collection money for the Nazirites corresponded to the purpose of the collection for “the poor among the saints in Jerusalem” (Rom 15:26), it is entirely believable that Paul followed the suggestion of the brother of the Lord the next day. Neither he nor James could foresee that he would be seized in the Temple and taken into Roman protective custody. We do not know what happened with the collection after the apostle’s arrest. The entire scene of Acts 21:18–26 documents James’s readiness to maintain church fellowship with Paul and the gentile Christian communities he founded. But it also documents the high barriers that stood against this fellowship. By following the advice of the Lord’s brother, Paul proved he was capable of becoming a Jew to the Jews (1 Cor 9:20). But above all he showed that he felt responsible for the fellowship of gentile Christians and Jewish Christians in the one church whose head and Lord is Jesus Christ. The conviction that they were bound together through faith in the one and only God, the one Lord Jesus Christ, and the gospel (of 1 Cor 15:3–5) jointly inspired James and Paul. 22 Two circumstances must still be considered: According to Acts, Paul received hardly any Christian support during his imprisonment in Jerusalem. Only his nephew and members of the community from Caesarea looked after him (Acts 23:16, 24:23). The silence of the primitive community can be explained from the increasingly precarious situation in Jerusalem, 23 in which it had to guard against declarations of sympathy for an alleged apostate. Nevertheless, it is not a glorious chapter, for it illustrates the aversion of the radical Jewish Christians of Jerusalem against Paul and his mission. Something of this aversion also runs through the Epistle of James. Whether the Epistle of James as a whole or only some of its significant passages, above all 2:14–26, must be addressed as “anti-Pauline polemic,” as Martin

21

Hengel and Schwemer, Paulus, 386 n. 1600. Hengel, “Jakobus der Herrenbruder – der erste Papst?” 570, writes: “The common christological foundation confession remained ... the decisive bond: In 1 Corinthians 15.11 Paul summarizes the preceding ten verses as a conclusion: ‘whether then it be I or they, so we (all) preach and so you believed.’ James, who is named in the fourth position, is also included here. It is the kerygma of Christ and his salvific work, to which all are obligated even in controversy and that grounds the unity of the church.” 23 “In the years following Nero’s ascension to the throne (54 CE) Jewish nationalism grew in Judea, the influence of the Zealots increased, and an open terror against everything Greek ran rampant, which bore every feature of a culture war (Josephus, A. J. 20.159–60). It was this one development in which the catastrophe of the Jewish war (66 CE) was inexorably prepared” (Roloff, Die Apostelgeschichte, 312). 22

Reconciled Diversity

13

Hengel believes, 24 is less decisive than the fact that the letter fits the time of Paul’s imprisonment much better than the years after his martyrdom and the death of the brother of the Lord in 62 AD. 25 James’s epistle to “the twelve tribes” of the eschatological people of God “who live in the dispersion” (Jas 1:1) reflects the brother of the Lord’s concern over the unsound way of life practiced by Christians outside of Jerusalem. James omits discussion of the gospel that unites them all. It was not controversial. What was controversial was conduct determined and guided by antinomians, who according to the Corinthian letters also created difficulties for Paul (cf. 1 Cor 5:1–13 and 6:12–20). In his epistle, the brother of the Lord shows himself to be a Jew who has become a Christian who – in contrast to Paul – thinks in the categories of Jewish wisdom and can do little with the Pauline sola fide (Rom 3:28). According to his thoroughly Jewish view, only the one who in the obedience of faith has also done (enough) good works can survive the final judgment. James had no access to Paul’s experience and teaching concerning the faith that as God’s gift comes anew to the elect (Gal 3:23–25), that makes one free from the compulsion of the law, and that preserves believers, even in the case of the greatest failure, from ruin in the final judgment by virtue of the intercession of the Risen One (1 Cor 5:5). Still, in 2:14–26 he was at least careful enough to take aim at only a Pauline “foolish one” (2:20) and not the apostle himself. Nevertheless, this epistle from Jerusalem must have wounded Paul, imprisoned most recently in Rome, and his supporters. We do not know whether the apostle also reacted to James’s statements in the manner of Phil 1:13–18. Between 62 and 64 AD Paul suffered martyrdom in Rome. We do not know what charges were formulated against him. By contrast, the charges made against James and some of his fellow Christians in Jerusalem in 62 AD are well known. According to Josephus 26 the Jewish court condemned the men to death by stoning, because they were lawbreakers who had led the people astray, to apostasy through faith in Jesus. 27 The Sanhedrin had made this charge against

24 Martin Hengel, “Der Jakobusbrief als antipaulinische Polemik,” in Martin Hengel, Paulus und Jakobus, Kleine Schriften III, WUNT 141 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 511–48. 25 For the early dating of the Epistle of James cf. also Franz Mußner, Der Jakobusbrief, 3rd ed. (Freiburg: Herder, 1975), 12–23; and Marshall, New Testament Theology, 628. Ulrich Wilckens (Theologie des Neuen Testaments [Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 2005], 1:358) considers whether the epistle could have “been written between 62 and 70 CE,” i. e. after James’s death. This is unlikely, for subsequent to the stoning of their leader the primitive community was in such great affliction that it left Jerusalem in 66 AD and went into exile to Pella in East Jordan (cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. III 5.3). Given this situation a pseudepigraphical writing to Christians outside the Holy Land could scarcely proceed from it. 26 Josephus, A. J. 20.199–203. 27 For this charge cf. Hegesippus’s account of James’s martyrdom in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. II 23.10; and Hengel, “Jakobus der Herrenbruder – der erste Papst?” 556.

14

Peter Stuhlmacher

Jesus (cf. Matt 27:63–64; John 7:12). 28 The court itself could carry out the judgment against James, because Festus, the Roman procurator responsible for the death sentence, had died and his successor Albinus had not yet taken office. Thus, James and Paul went to their deaths in their Lord’s service. They held fast to the unity of the church without being able to settle their differences. The uncertainty with which today’s church encounters Jews who believe in Jesus shows that the differences continue to have an effect. The type of Jewish Christianity that James led in Palestine was decimated after his death during the turmoil of the Jewish revolts against Rome. For this reason, gentile Christians lacked the counterpart with whom they would have had to develop a lasting relationship. To this day it seems self-evident that faith in Christ and observance of the Torah are incompatible, although Peter was entrusted with “the gospel for the circumcised” at the apostolic council (Gal 2:7) and Justin affirms that Jewish Christians who hold fast to the Torah can by all means find ecclesiastical recognition, if they only refrain from persuading gentile Christians “to be circumcised, to celebrate the Sabbath or the like.” 29 These very demands were made by the Ebionites in the second century AD, who considered James the first bishop of Jerusalem and showered Paul with hateful polemic. 30

IV In his profound study Saint Peter: The Underestimated Apostle, 31 Martin Hengel warned – with good reason historically – against underestimating Peter vis-à-vis Paul. It is true that Paul’s letters and Acts always invite one to reflect anew on Paul’s thought world and mission-historical significance. But Paul grants Peter the role of the first witness of the resurrection without hesitation (1 Cor 15:5), reports that he visited Cephas as the first apostle in Jerusalem (Gal 1:18), sees him as the great partner on the mission field entrusted with the gospel for the circumcision (Gal 2:7–8), and even stresses their commonality in the faith in justification by faith alone without practices of the Torah (Gal 2:16). But in Antioch he took him to task over precisely this matter, because at James’s insistence Peter, Barnabas, and other Jewish Christians had withdrawn from table and Lord’s Supper fellowship with the gentile Christians. Peter evidently regarded it as expected that gentile Christians would refrain from eating 28 For the history of law findings cf. August Strobel, Die Stunde der Wahrheit, WUNT 21 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980), 81 ff. 29 Justin, Dial. 47.2. 30 For references see Martin Hengel, “Jakobus der Herrenbruder – der erste Papst?” 568. 31 Martin Hengel, Der unterschätzte Petrus: zwei Studien, 2nd ed. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007); idem., Saint Peter: The Underestimated Apostle, trans. Thomas Trapp (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010).

Reconciled Diversity

15

foods forbidden to Jews at the Lord’s Supper, which was still connected with the community meal in his day, and also not let themselves become guilty of any adulterous behavior (cf. Acts 15:20). Paul regarded this – and he was correct theologically – as imposing practices of the law through the back door and accused Peter of offending against the truth of the gospel (Gal 2:11–14). But when Cephas was called anew by the Risen Christ (cf. Luke 22:32; John 21:15–19), the question of the law did not play the same role as it did with Paul in his calling. Therefore, for Peter his withdrawal from the common table fellowship was not an offense against the gospel of 1 Cor 15:3b–5. So he and his friends accepted the temporary break with Paul. Later, however, Paul condemned the flagrant adultery in Corinth in the strongest terms (1 Cor 5:1–3), counseled the Christians at Rome to show the greatest possible consideration for the Jewish Christian community members’ manner of thinking and behaving (Rom 14:1–12), and clarified that baptized Christians are indeed obligated to follow Jesus’s teaching and to fulfill God’s commandments (Rom 8:3–8, 13:8–10). Thus, the two great apostles’ standpoints are not identical, but comparable. This is also attested by the history of mission. After the Agrippa persecution, Peter no longer had a secure place in Jerusalem and had to turn – in a similar way as Paul – to the mission among Jews and gentiles outside the Holy Land. This change was consistent for him insofar as he had baptized the gentile centurion Cornelius and his household in Caesarea without requiring circumcision (Acts 10). Through the reports of this missionary success (Acts 11:1–18, 15:6–12) he had prepared the way in Jerusalem for the recognition of the circumcision-free gentile mission that Barnabas and Paul practiced, starting from Antioch. In both his Jewish mission in Palestine and gentile mission in foreign lands, the fisherman from Bethsaida, who had received no school education (Acts 4:13), was helped by the fact that he – in contrast to Paul – had accompanied Jesus himself. Jesus had given him the name “Rock” and the commission to advance and complete the gathering of the eschatological people of God, which Jesus had begun with his twelve disciples (Matt 16:16–19; Luke 22:32; John 21:15–17). In his missionary teaching Peter could report authentically about Jesus and the church’s beginnings in Jerusalem. According to ancient church tradition John Mark, the nephew of Barnabas (cf. Acts 12:12, 15:37 with Col 4:10), was Peter’s missionary assistant and the editor of the Jesus tradition vouchsafed to him by Peter; the Gospel of Mark goes back to John Mark. 32 We encounter Peter not only in Antioch (Gal 2:11), but also (together with his wife) on the (Pauline) mission field in Corinth (1 Cor 1:12, 3:22, 9:5). He is the guarantor of

32 Thus Eusebius, Hist. eccl. III 39.15. Martin Hengel has championed the reliability of this tradition in many publications. Cf. his Der unterschätzte Petrus, 58–78; and Saint Peter, 36–48.

16

Peter Stuhlmacher

the counter-missionaries who oppose Paul in Corinth and Rome (2 Cor 11:13, 22; Rom 16:17–18; Phil 1:15; 3:2–3), who appear with letters of recommendation (from Peter?) according to 2 Cor 3:1. Whether 1 Cor 3:11 implies a dig at the “rock” Peter can remain an open question. But Acts and the apostolic letters indicate clearly that the Jerusalemite John Mark and Silvanus worked both with Paul and with Peter (Acts 13:5, 13; 15:27, 37–40 with 1 Thess 1:1; Col 4:10; 1 Pet 5:13; 2 Tim 4:11). First and Second Peter do not attest a fundamental difference between Peter and Paul. The days in which these letters were regarded as authentic and 2 Peter was dated even earlier than 1 Peter 33 are admittedly past. Today many scholars find 1 Peter at most a testamentary summa of the Petrine teaching tradition, which was independent (!) of Paul, first composed by Silvanus after Peter’s martyrdom, and regard 2 Peter as a pseudepigraphical testament composed in the second century and accepted into the ecclesiastical canon only after long discussion. 34 But even in this view the parallelism of Christology and parakl¯esis of the two apostles stands out (cf. Rom 4:25, 8:32 with 1 Pet 2:21–25, 3:18–19; or Rom 13:1–7 with 1 Pet 2:13–17). The designation of Paul as “beloved brother” in 2 Pet 3:15 is only consistent with the second century. It is true that we do not know whether or not Peter and Paul were personally reconciled after the fallingout in Antioch. But it is clear that both upheld the one gospel of 1 Cor 15:3b–5, jointly testified to Jesus as Lord and Messiah, and gave up their lives in his service. According to 1 Clem. 5.1–7, Peter and Paul died in Rome as equally exemplary witnesses and martyrs.

V John and his brother James were among the first four disciples Jesus called at the Sea of Galilee (Mark 1:19). Jesus named the two sons of Zebedee “Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17). Along with Peter they were witnesses of Jesus’s transfiguration (Mark 9:2). Jesus declared their future martyrdom to them (Mark 10:39). They belonged to the first group of resurrection appearance witnesses (1 Cor 15:5; John 21:2), and were members of the primitive community in Jerusalem from the beginning (Acts 1:13). Agrippa I had James beheaded (Acts 12:1). But John continued to be one of the Jerusalem “pillars.” In 48 AD he made, with James 33 Cf. Theodor Zahn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament II, 2nd ed. (Leipzig: Deichert, 1907), 28 ff., 43 ff; and Zahn, Grundriß der Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 58–65. 34 Cf. the careful discussion of the question of authorship in Oscar Cullmann, Petrus. Jünger – Apostle – Märtyrer, 2nd ed. (Munich: Siebenstern Taschenbuch Verlag, 1967), 88 ff; Jens Herzer, Petrus oder Paulus?, WUNT 103 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1998); Hengel, Der unterschätzte Petrus, 18–19; Hagner, The New Testament, 688 ff, 713 ff; and Markus Bockmuehl, Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 29 ff, 126 ff.

Reconciled Diversity

17

the brother of the Lord and Peter, the groundbreaking agreement that Paul and Barnabas should go to the gentiles and Peter (and John?) to the circumcision, i. e., to the Jews (Gal 2:9). According to Eusebius, who appeals to Papias, John went to Ephesus and was buried there. 35 We know just as little about when and why he left Jerusalem as we do about the location and occasion for his martyrdom “by the Jews,” which Papias and other ancient church witnesses mention. 36 The question of whether John was the author of the Fourth Gospel can be answered only hypothetically. The ancient church strongly affirmed it. But Eusebius also reports a “Presbyter John,” who was likewise buried in Ephesus. 37 Papias was still able to ask him about old reliable traditions. Under these circumstances, Martin Hengel’s hypothesis that John the Presbyter was the author of the three Epistles of John (cf. 2 John 1; 3 John 1) and the Fourth Gospel has much in its favor. He is the “other disciple” never mentioned by name in the Gospel (John 18:15; 20:3, 8), “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:21; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20). As an adherent of John the Baptist (John 1:35, 40), he attached himself to Jesus and from the beginning belonged to Jesus’s closest friends, yet not to the Twelve. He regarded John the son of Zebedee as his teacher, and he founded the Johannine school in Ephesus. After his death his students edited the Gospel of John he wrote (John 21:20–25). The ancient church then equated him with his teacher, who was likewise buried in Ephesus. 38 Against this background the Fourth Gospel’s particular contribution to the primitive Christian tradition can be better explained. Peter is definitely acknowledged in John, but is placed in the shadow of the “disciple whom Jesus loved.” This Beloved Disciple, not Peter, receives the place of honor at Jesus’s side at the farewell meal (John 13:23–26). The night of the betrayal he obtains access for Peter into the court of the high priest’s palace (John 18:15–18). While Peter denies Jesus twice (18:25–27), the Beloved Disciple remains loyal to his Lord, and the Crucified One appoints him patron of his mother (John 19:25–27). He comes to the tomb and to faith earlier than Peter (John 20:3–10). He is the first to recognize the Risen Lord at the Sea of Tiberius. The Risen One forgives Peter, appoints him shepherd of his sheep, and instructs him about his eventual martyrdom (John 21:20–24). But “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is permitted to outlive him and become the tradent of the truth (John 21:20–24). Thus, the spiritual precedence belongs not to Peter but to the Beloved Disciple. 35

Eusebius, Hist. eccl. III 39.5–6. The Papias Fragment XI.2 is found in Die Apostolischen Väter, Griechisch-deutsche Parallelausgabe, ed. Andreas Lindemann and Henning Paulsen (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 298–99. The other ancient church sources are named and discussed by Martin Hengel, Die johanneische Frage, WUNT 67 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 88 ff. 37 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. III 39.5–6. 38 Irenaeus, Haer. II 22.5; III 1.1; 3.4; and Hengel, Die Johnanneische Frage, 214 ff, 321 ff. For the possibilities and problems of identifying the author see Hagner, The New Testament, 266 ff. 36

18

Peter Stuhlmacher

The ancient church viewed the Fourth Gospel as the “spiritual Gospel,” and believed it was first composed after the Synoptics. 39 This evaluation corresponds to the special claim that John makes. His Gospel is not only composed in the special “sociolect” of the Johannine school. It also wants to bear witness to Jesus’s history and teaching more authentically than Mark and Luke, the knowledge of which the Gospel presupposes. Even more, by virtue of his spiritual authority and Easter faith-insight, the evangelist wants to guide one’s understanding of the truth that has become manifest in Jesus (John 16:13). This guidance includes the prologue (John 1:1–18), which became foundational for the ancient church’s understanding of Christ, Jesus’s “I Am” sayings, and the Johannine farewell discourses in which Jesus sketches the way of his sheep after Easter. Jesus is the resurrection and eternal life in person (John 11:25); he alone is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6); faith in him guarantees participation in God’s kingdom (John 3:16); and their love for one another is the distinguishing mark by which the disciples of Jesus will be known (John 13:34–35). The witness of John confirms the gospel of 1 Cor 15:3–5, but it leads beyond that confession of faith. The Johannine circle suffered hostility and life-threatening persecution (John 15:18, 21; 16:1–2). Moreover, it had to ward off Christian false teaching (John 6:60, 66; 1 John 4:1; and elsewhere). So it is all the more remarkable that it placed in Jesus’s mouth the prayer for the unity of all his disciples. According to John 17:21–23 the church of Jesus Christ should find its inner perfection in the unity of faith in Jesus and his heavenly Father, and the world that persists in unbelief should recognize in this unity the truth and reality of the love of God in Jesus. This prayer of Jesus causes all differences between the disciples of Jesus to appear unessential so long as they believe and confess that God and Jesus are one and that Jesus has been sent by God to deliver the world from its unbelief. In Eph 4:5–6 the church is defined as the fellowship of those who confess the one and only God and the one Lord Jesus Christ and remain loyal to them in faith. This definition corresponds with John 17:21–23.

VI What comprises the unity of Christianity cannot be controversial according to these texts. As we have seen, the great apostolic witnesses James, Paul, Peter, and John, in spite of considerable differences of opinion, preserved mutual fellowship in faith. To be able to confess the one gospel together and bear witness to it in relation to Jews and gentiles took precedence for them and let them endure

39

Eusebius, Hist. eccl. VI 14.7 with reference to Clement of Alexandria.

Reconciled Diversity

19

their differences. Nevertheless, they looked ahead to an even more far-reaching unity of faith of the eschatological people of God. On the basis of their fellowship of faith, which was already established by Jesus, the unity of the church of Jesus Christ in confession and obedience of faith was an essential object of hope for them. Their solidarity did not preserve the apostles from persecution. They all paid with their lives for belonging to Christ. This gives their witness a singular dignity. The ancient church made it the basis of its regula fidei. 40 We stand today before the apostolic witness in a distinctive historical situation. Christianity is persecuted and suppressed in large parts of the world. Moreover, the time of the great Volkskirchen (people’s churches in Europe) is coming to an end. With this the “Halbchristentum” (half-Christianity), which has been established since the so-called Constantinian turn, also loses its fertile soil. The great churches have tolerated this and even promoted it time and again. But these churches will be forced in the foreseeable future to reflect on themselves anew. In the process they will and must look beyond confessional boundaries that they themselves have drawn. Jesus has promised his church that it will continue to exist forever (Matt 16:18). But this church is not identical with any of our confessional churches! Rather, the concern is with the eschatological people of God headed by the Christ Jesus. It is with the faith and life fellowship of all the men and women who vouch for their Lord and Savior with their life-witness and patiently run in the race that is set before them (Heb 12:1–2). In times of hardship and persecution confessional barriers have already shown themselves to be unessential in the past. What was essential was the standing together of faith-comrades. There are gripping examples from the two great World Wars of Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed Protestants celebrating the Lord’s Supper together in the trenches. We should and may remember both these examples and the biblical reports of the unity of the apostles and their vision for the unity of all Christians. Thanks to this inheritance we do not need to be afraid in the face of the end of the great church-confessional times. Christians are becoming a minority again. As such they will be forced to learn and will be permitted to learn that the apostles bore witness to Christ in reconciled diversity. The one apostolic gospel of 1 Corinthians grounds the fellowship of the church. Today, too, every believer can live and confidently die with this gospel, for Christians do not need more than the certainty that Christ has died and risen for them and all sinners. In his Father’s kingdom, the heavenly Jerusalem, there are many dwellings, which he keeps ready for us (John 14:2).

40 Cf. Peter Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 2nd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 2:311–13.

One Torah for Another The Halakhic Conversion of Jewish Believers: Paul’s Response to Peter’s Halakhic Equivocation in Galatians 2:11–21 Joel Willitts

The story of the incident in Antioch when Peter and other Jewish believers in Jesus Messiah ceased walking “in line with the truth of the Gospel” (2:14) 1 comes as the last of three episodes in the so-called “autobiographical” section of Galatians (2:11–2:21). 2 Most scholars agree that the episode exposes one’s core assumptions about the most important issues in the interpretation of Paul. This is because: (1) Paul’s relationship with Peter and perhaps with Jerusalem is front and center, (2) Paul presents something of a theological summary of his gospel (2:15–16), and (3) Paul makes his provocative, if enigmatic, statement about the law (2:19). In this essay, I offer a fresh interpretation of the episode by pursuing a single exegetical observation. I am certainly not the first to make the point, but within Pauline scholarship there is resistance to a fully developed interpretation based on it. Simply put, the insight is that Paul tells a unified story in Gal 2:11–21 that has a beginning, middle, and end. When interpreters deconstruct the narrative framework, they forfeit a proper understanding of its parts. Such deconstruction has been the norm throughout the passage’s interpretive history. I will argue that when the story is read as a whole, fresh interpretive options emerge. It is not possible to provide a detailed exegetical discussion of all the issues in this episode, for they are legion. However, after (1) making some brief remarks about the epistolary context of the episode, I will (2) present the central point of the story when viewed as an irreducible unity, and (3) suggest reinterpretations of several key issues in light of the whole. The most provocative claim, following from the reevaluation of the storied nature of the passage, 1

All scripture references are from the New International Version unless otherwise noted. I wish to thank several individuals who made contributions to this study at various points in its development. Chief thanks must go to Scott Hafemann, to whom this essay is dedicated. After I presented an earlier draft of this paper at a symposium of the Center for Pastor Theologians, we wrestled together with my argument in typical Hafemann style for another hour or more, with our Greek New Testaments open and terms like “Way-End,” “Fact-Interpretation,” “Cause-Effect,” and “Ground” thrown around freely. Thanks also to the following colleagues and Pauline scholars: Todd Wilson, Mark Nanos, Michael Bird, Anders Runesson, Paula Fredrikson, Isaac Oliver, J. Brian Tucker, and Nijay Gupta. I am grateful to each of them for their input. In every case they helped me more clearly and effectively make my argument, even if in some cases they found it less than convincing. 2

22

Joel Willitts

will be that Paul’s central concern was the necessity of a conversion for Jewish believers in Jesus to live in the pattern of life (halakha) set out by the “truth of the gospel.” According to Paul, Peter’s hypocrisy was his equivocation on the Jesus halakha.

The Context of the Story To set the stage for the discussion of Gal 2:11–21, I will offer several brief comments about the epistolary context of the paragraph. However, the brevity of these statements should not detract from their significance, for the Antioch episode’s importance in Galatians is only rightly estimated when situated in its context. The three episodes (1:13–2:21) in the autobiography support Paul’s claim in 1:11–12: “I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” Furthermore, taken together, 1:11–2:21 supports Paul’s earlier claim in 1:10 that he is Messiah’s slave. This connection to Gal 1:10, even as far as it is from 2:11–21, becomes important for the interpretation of this culminating unit. Table 1.0: Structure of Paul’s Argument in Autobiography Major claim: Messiah’s slave therefore free of people pleasing (1:10) ↑ Basis for major claim (supporting claim): the divine origin of the gospel (1:11–12) ↑↑ Three pieces of evidences in support of the basis (supporting premise) for major premise (1:13–2:21) ↑↑↑ Evidence #1 – Persecutor to proclaimer (1:13–24) ↑↑↑ Evidence #2 – Paul’s Fourteenth-Year visit to Jerusalem (2:1–10) ↑↑↑ Evidence #3 – Paul’s Confrontation with Peter in Antioch (2:11–21)

Structurally, this final story has some unique features that indicate its role as climax and culmination. It is also true, however, that in this concluding portion of the letter’s first section Paul plants seeds that grow and fully flower in the next, central section (3:1–6:10). Though often unnoticed, the connection with the previous episode is both structurally and linguistically clear. On the structural side, the following features deserve mention. First, the temporal indicator íτε δà (“now when”) that initiates the story (2:11) maintains the passage’s narrative movement. Clearly, Paul intends that the story be understood to have occurred after the previous episode, which relates the visit he made to Jerusalem “fourteen-years later” (2:1). The narrative is carried by additional temporal indicators, πρä τοÜ ... âλθεØn (“before”) (2:12) and two more instances of íτε δà, ‚λλ> íτε (“now when” and “but when”) (2:12b, 2:14a).

One Torah for Another

23

More features connect 2:11–21 to the previous story. The mention of “Cephas” and “James” (2:11, 12; cf. 2:9) and τοÌς âκ περιτοm¨ς (“the circumcision group”) (2:12; note this word is repeated three times between 2:7–9) all provide connections to the previous episode. Most importantly, the verb ‚nαγκάζεις (“to force” in 2:14; “compel” in 2:3) and the notion of τ˜n ‚λήθειαn τοÜ εÎαγγελίου (“the truth of the gospel,” 2:14; cf. 2:5) are repeated. These observations reveal that this Antioch episode is to be read in light of and in connection with the other. I take for granted that the central question of the autobiography continues to be in the background: By what standard or norm does the community of the Messiah structure its life? That question emerged in Gal 1:10 when Paul asked, “Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.” This question of a normative pattern of life is directly related to the revelation of Jesus Messiah (1:11–12), and, as such, it is also an epistemological question. Practical interpretation and sources of authoritative knowing are vitally interrelated. Paul here signals this concern with the verb æρθοποδοÜσιn (“walking in line,” 2:14). He used this verb to describe the pattern of life determined by the truth of the gospel. Peter and the others were not walking in the path cut by this truth. There was a right and wrong way to conduct one’s life in view of the gospel. In each situation in the three stories recounted by Paul since 1:13, he has shown the two diametrically opposed and incompatible patterns of life for a Messiah believer: the Pharisaic-like and the Messianic way. 3 Paul has shown and shows

3 The apparently general statement about people pleasing in Gal 1:10 is narrowed through the course of the autobiography, for in 1:14 Paul names to whom (or what) he was beholden: τÀn πατρικÀn mου παραδόσεωn (“the traditions of the fathers”). The Pharisaic nature of the phrase is confirmed both by the New Testament and Josephus, since both employ nearly the exact phrase when describing Pharisees. Mark 7:5 reads, “So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, ‘Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders (τ˜n παράδοσιn τÀn πρεσβυτέρωn) instead of eating their food with defiled hands?’” Jesus critiques them by stating, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions. ... Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down” (see 7:3–13; Matt 15:2; emphasis added). Josephus’s statement is quite similar: “What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the law of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers (âκ παραδόσεως τÀn πατέρωn)” (A.J. 13:297 [Whiston]; emphases added). In light of these descriptions, it is safe to take Paul’s reference here to the Pharisaic commitment to the oral tradition of the fathers as the authoritative practical interpretation of the Torah. Notice how Paul likewise further defines the Torah in Phil 3:5, κατ€ nόmοn ΦαρισαØος (“as to the law, a Pharisee”). Of Gal 1:13–14, Martin Hengel writes, “The basis for this autobiographical report can only

24

Joel Willitts

again that the latter is the only proper way of life in light of the revelation of the Messiah. 4 In the previous episode (2:1–10), Paul recounted that the Pillars (James, Cephas, and John) had agreed with him and Barnabas that the gospel for gentiles is circumcision-free and, therefore, free from the necessity of gentile ethnic transformation since circumcision is “the sine qua non of becoming a Jew.” 5 Paula Fredriksen usefully describes the ancient implication of being circumcised when she writes, “To change gods fully, to make an exclusive commitment to the Jewish god and to Jewish ancestral practices was tantamount to changing ethnicity: a pagan’s ‘becoming’ a Jew in effect altered his ties to his own pantheon, family, and patria.” 6 Paul was adamant that a non-Jew was not to become a Jew through circumcision and living under the Torah (2:3). 7 As Paul understood it, the theological necessity of ethnic distinction, one of the irreducible elements of the gospel, was the “truth of the gospel” (2:5), for which he was willing to fight. But what this would mean in practice was a question yet to be fully grasped by some elements within the âκ περιτοm¨ς (“circumcised group”) (2:12). What were the consequences, intended and unintended, of such a gospel theology for Jewish practice? What was the appropriate Jewish way of life to follow now in light of the truth of gospel? 8 refer to the study of the law as practiced by the Pharisees” (The Pre-Christian Paul [Philadelphia: Trinity, 1991], 41). In this light, what is more, we are invited to read backward and reinterpret the apparent general rejection of people pleasing in 1:10 as a particular rejection of his former manner of life patterned by the authoritative practical interpretation of the Torah by the Pharisees. 4 John M. G. Barclay agrees that the central issue in Antioch was a “clash between two regulative structures” (Paul and the Gift [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015], 368). Though we agree on this point, I disagree with how Barclay defines the clash in abstract and supersessionistic ways. 5 Paula Fredriksen, “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2,” JTS 42.2 (1991): 546; in agreement see also Michael F. Bird, “The Incident at Antioch (Gal. 2.11–14): The Beginnings of Paulinism,” in Earliest Christian History: History, Literature, and Theology: Essays from the Tyndale Fellowship in Honor of Martin Hengel, ed. Michael F. Bird and Jason Maston, WUNT 2.320 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 352. 6 Paula Fredriksen, “Why Should a ‘Law-Free’ Mission Mean a ‘Law-Free’ Apostle?” JBL 134.3 (2015): 642. 7 Matthew Thiessen has challenged the scholarly assumption that all Second Temple Jews assumed that it was possible for gentiles to become Jewish through circumcision and Torah observance. Thiessen stresses the genealogical necessity for Jewish ethnic identity advocated by at least some Second Temple Jews. See Thiessen’s Contesting Conversion: Genealogy, Circumcision, and Identity in Ancient Judaism and Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); “Paul’s Argument Against Gentile Circumcision in Romans 2:17–29,” NovT 56.4 (2014); and Paul and the Gentile Problem (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015). 8 Hilary Le Cornu and Joseph Shulman have an interesting view. They argue that Galatians is similar in form to 4QMMT as a “halakhic letter” in which “Paul sets out his authority, on the basis of which he proceeds to first rebuke his disciples for straying from the gospel and then lays out for them the ‘path in which they should walk’” (A Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Galatians [Jerusalem: Academon, 2005], lxxiii).

One Torah for Another

25

The term “halakha” refers to a pattern of life governed by the Torah. In Peter Tomson’s words, halakha is “the tradition of formulated rules regulating life”; it “is the detailed formulation about how to act.” 9 Thus, halakha refers to the interpretation and application of the Torah to the ever-changing circumstances of everyday life; it is the “practical interpretation of the law.” In sum, “The halakha encompasses the whole of Jewish life and imparts to it structure and identity.” 10

The Point of the Story Much more careful attention needs to be paid to the story structure of the episode. 11 When one reads it as an irreducible story, one can trace the flow of the narrative to see what precisely Paul thinks he and Peter have in common, and what he thinks is the cause of Peter’s hypocrisy. Most commentators understandably gravitate toward what both Peter and Paul had in common theologically (at least according to Paul’s presentation), namely the essential nature of faith in Messiah and the faith of the Messiah as the basis of justification. This is the point of Gal 2:15–16. Many see this as the thesis statement of the whole letter. I agree that Gal 2:16 succinctly expresses essential elements of the gospel’s truth as Paul saw it. 12 It may even be a thesis statement for Paul’s gospel, but it 9 Peter J. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 19; and Peter J. Tomson, “If this be from heaven ...”: Jesus and the New Testament Authors in their Relationship to Judaism, BibSem (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 87. 10 Peter J. Tomson (“If this be from heaven,” 91) demonstrates beyond dispute that in 1 Corinthians “Paul does not discard [the law], but continues to attach practical importance to the Jewish law and in this ascribes the highest authority to the legal instructions of Jesus” (198–99). This argument, which maintains the place of the Jewish Torah in Paul’s ethics on the one hand, but on the other defines the Torah by Jesus’s authoritative interpretation, represents a significant aspect of my own argument in this essay. See also Tomson’s Paul and the Jewish Law. 11 For a recent example of severing the story at 2:14, see Bird, “Incident at Antioch,” 329–30. Mark Nanos’s interpretation reveals two key points that must guide reading the passage (“What Was at Stake in Peter’s ‘Eating with Gentiles’ at Antioch,” in The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, ed. Mark D. Nanos [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002], 282–318). First, to grasp the meaning of the story, one must take hold of all of it. Second, the point at issue is a halakhic one, how a Jew lives out the will of God. John M. G. Barclay asserts that “2:11–21 is a single literary-rhetorical unit” (Paul and the Gift, 366). And Peter Tomson also rightly states, “Gal 2:11–14 must be read together with the ensuing ‘sermon’; or in other words v14b is the beginning of the sermon” (Paul and the Jewish Law, 229). Such understandings have not been commonplace in the history of interpretation. Likewise, Jan Lambrecht asserts that Paul “returns to the concrete difficulty in Antioch” in 2:18–21 (“Transgressor by Nullifying God’s Grace. A Study of Gal 2,18–21,” Bib 72.2 [1991]: 217–18). See also Michael Bachmann’s interpretation of the passage in Sünder oder Übertreter: Studien zur Argumentation in Gal 2,15 ff, WUNT 59 (Tübingen: MohrSiebeck, 1992). 12 Similarly Barclay, “The Antioch dispute is important to Paul not merely as a historical datum, but because it allows him to explicate ‘the good news’ in precisely these terms” (Paul and the Gift, 366).

26

Joel Willitts

cannot be one for the letter, because it is not even the main point in its own paragraph. The rhetorical flow of Paul’s discourse moves progressively from 2:14c to 2:17 by means of the conjunction δέ (2:17a) and asyndeton (2:15a, 16a). The unit of propositions comprising Gal 2:18–21, with their complex interrelationships, serves to ground and explain the proposition of Gal 2:17. 13 Thus, the central point in the argument of the passage comes in Gal 2:17. Paul presents the statement about “works of the law” and “faith” in Gal 2:16 as a point both he and Peter held in common. As such, it formed a building block in Paul’s argument that reaches beyond itself. This “common” gospel theology is in fact the primary cause of the problem in the first place, not its solution, as many assume. To put it another way, Paul states it as part of the cause of Peter’s problem. The truth of the gospel, upon which they agree, created a new social reality. The gospel reconciles ethnic communities and relativizes distinctions without erasing them, thereby creating intimate social contact between Jews and gentiles; and, consequently, it created halakhic puzzles that needed solving. Thus, for a Torah-observant Jew, the gospel created a new situation that required an appropriate halakha. Paul addressed this very thing at the apex of the passage’s argument in 2:17–21, for the issue Paul takes up with Peter was a halakhic one. Peter’s behavior was not the result of wrong gospel theology, but the wrong appropriation of their shared theology to daily life. In short, Peter’s halakha for the new Messianic moment was inappropriate. Paul interpreted Peter’s conduct as hypocrisy, not heresy. The hypocrisy was the result of a lack of a full understanding of the implication of a conversion to Messianic Judaism. Peter’s withdrawal and separation from the gentiles reflected loyalty to an authoritative halakha not derived from Jesus’s revelation, a halakha that was to now be rejected because of the Messiah’s arrival (1:11–12, 14–15) and in light of the new authoritative Messianic halakhic authority (2:20). 14 In his attempt to maintain the former halakha, Peter was now in violation of the Messianic halakha. As Karin Herdner Zetterholm states in a much more nuanced understanding of Jewish law: A common commitment to Jewish law can lead to very different rulings. ... The assessment depends upon the group to which the individual belongs, upon the personal interpretation of the details of halakah of the individual or group in question, as well as on the partic-

13 Lambrecht understands the structure of the unit similarly (“Transgressor by Nullifying God’s Grace,” 222). 14 Bird also frames Paul’s response halakhically (“Incident at Antioch,” 355), though not in the way I do in this essay.

One Torah for Another

27

ular situation. What is for one group or individual a violation of halakah is for another a legitimate interpretation that is necessary in order to preserve Jewish law! 15

In 2:18–21, Paul revealed his own halakhic conversion, presumably an essential part of what he described in Gal 1:13–16. Paul’s statement is not only existential but also representative: Paul’s “I” is also the Messianic Jewish “I.” 16 What is true for Paul is true for all Jewish believers in the Messiah, including Peter (note the “we” of 2:17). Any other pattern of life for a Jew “in Messiah” was a betrayal of the truth. The way Paul saw it, Peter equivocated on “the truth of the gospel” because he was erroneously afraid that his sharing meals with gentiles made him a sinner because of his close proximity to gentiles, the “sinners.” On this false view, the Messiah then would be an agent of sin (2:18) because it was Messiah’s gospel that put him in that position in the first place. Without hesitation, Paul affirmed that close proximity to gentiles around the table neither made a Jewish believer in Jesus a sinner nor impugned the Messiah’s reputation. But why would Peter have thought it did? Where did he get this false impression – at least as Paul saw it? I suggest a fresh answer to this question. It was a conservative and rigorous form of Pharisaic or Pharisaic-like halakha that scrupulously avoided table fellowship with gentiles. 17 Given the apparent influence of the Pharisaic party generally on the wider populace in the land of Israel, or at least the apparent similarity between Pharisaic views and the views of the wider public, Peter likely inherited this pattern of life from Pharisaic influence in the synagogue as he grew up studying the Torah as a devout Galilean Jew. 18 What is more, Pharisaic prominence among early Jewish followers of Jesus (Acts 15:5) would make it not altogether surprising that the “traditions of the fathers” continued to exercise a significant amount of authority over the halakha of Jewish believers in Jesus from Jerusalem. This passage says little about Peter, but it 15 Karin Herdner Zetterholm, “The Question of Assumptions: Torah Observance in the First Century,” in Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle, ed. Mark D. Nanos and Magnus Zetterholm (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 88. 16 See also Lambrecht, “Transgressor by Nullifying God’s Grace,” 221. 17 E. P. Sanders has stated in no uncertain terms that “Pharisaic purity laws have nothing to do with Diaspora Jews, and Diaspora purity laws have nothing to do with the Pharisees” (“Jewish Association with Gentiles and Galatians 2:11–14,” in The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul & John in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, ed. Robert Tomson Fortna and Beverly Roberts Gaventa [Nashville: Abingdon, 1990], 172). So he dismisses James D. G. Dunn’s argument that Pharisaism played a role in the Antioch episode. As I argue below, this misunderstands the episode as Paul frames it. Notwithstanding the accuracy of Sanders’s view about the lack of evidence for any influence from the Pharisees on the halakha of the Diaspora, the evidence he skillfully advances may simply not address the historical context of Gal 2:11–21. 18 For a discussion of the institutional structure and influence of the public synagogue in the land of Israel in the Herodian period, see Anders Runesson, “Placing Paul: Institutional Structures and Theological Strategy in the World of the Early Christ-believers,” Svensk exegetisk årsbok 80 (2015): 52–56. Recent archaeology has shown the close religious and cultural affiliation between Jews in Galilee and Judea. See David A. Fiensy and James R. Strange, eds., Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods, 2 vols. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014–2015).

28

Joel Willitts

seems reasonable to suppose that Peter had been following a Messianic halakha, but then equivocated on it φοβούmεnος τοÌς âκ περιτοm¨ς (“fearing the circumcision,” Gal 2:12). Apparently at this early stage he had yet to “destroy” (2:18) this authoritative structural norm, as Paul had so clearly and definitively done (1:10; 1:13–17). In the language of Gal 1:10, Peter continued to “please people” by patterning his life according to the norms of a form of Judaism. Paul argued that with the truth of the gospel came a new halakha which determined one’s behavior, the Messiah’s own life (2:20). Jesus’s faithful life set a pattern of behavior for the Messianic community. To live any other way was not just to transgress an idea or an instruction, but to betray the Messiah himself, who loved and had given himself for them, and was now living in and through them (2:20).

Reinterpreting Key Issues Beginning: The Story’s Exposition (2:11) Paul provides an exposition of the story in the first sentence of the paragraph. Although brief, it provides the essential information to orient the reader to the story he is about to tell. He presents three facts: (1) Peter came to Antioch, (2) Paul opposed him openly, and (3) Peter deserved condemnation, not commendation.

Middle: Peter’s Conduct (2:12–13) In terms of proportion, Paul’s response to Peter is significantly longer (2:14b–21) than the introduction. The paragraph emphasizes the speech. Paul tells the reader just enough of the story to give a context for his lengthy monologue. The essential details of the story are as follows. Peter had been in Antioch for an unspecified length of time. At least initially during this time, it was his practice to eat shared meals. At these meals, both Jews and gentiles would eat around the same table. These shared meals were also the setting for the Lord’s Supper in the early church (cf. 1 Corinthians 11). In the ancient world, the practice of eating socially was symbolic and significant, but overly scrupulous Pharisaic Jews even guarded their own table fellowship carefully. Certain pockets of the Pharisee movement and some other overly scrupulous sectarian groups like the Essenes were known for expanding ritual purity laws (reserved for the priestly class in the Torah in their service in and around the tabernacle and temple) into the practices of everyday life of common people. Bert Harrill has noted that the traditions handed down orally from Pharisaic sages “expanded Torah observance beyond its normal applicability within the sacred sphere of the Jerusalem temple and priesthood, into the ‘profane’ world

One Torah for Another

29

of everyday Jewish life among the Gentiles.” 19 And Jewish scholar Shayne Cohen captures well the problem with table fellowship for a Pharisaic Jew when eating with gentiles when he writes that “the purity laws applied outside the temple as well as inside it, and that the food on the table was to be considered as holy as meat on the altar.” 20 It is probably not an overstatement to say that aside from marriage, there was not a more protected social practice for Pharisees and other Torah-observant Jews than table fellowship. In the Jewish Diaspora, there was a much wider spectrum of halakhic views on the question of appropriate proximity to gentiles and shared meals. There was some extreme exclusivism in the Diaspora, but this was a minority position. More Diaspora Jews ate with gentiles under certain controlled conditions than did not. 21 So it was neither “un-Jewish” nor a mark of a lack of Torah observance for Peter to eat with gentiles as a Torah-observant Jew. 22 It is important to note that Paul does not mention what was eaten. It is wrong to assume that at these common meals Peter knowingly ate food that was either not kosher or forbidden by the Torah. 23 The text does not divulge what Peter was eating, but with whom and where Peter was eating; Paul himself states in Gal 2:12 that Peter was eating with gentiles. 24 Then, after the arrival of “certain men from James,” Peter “began to draw back and separated himself ” because he feared “those who belonged to the circumcision group.” The result of Peter’s action could not have been worse. Not only did other Jewish Messiah believers join him, but “even Barnabas was led astray” (2:13). Two further historical questions present themselves. First, who are “those from the circumcision group,” and what, if anything, is their relationship to James? Second, how should we understand Peter’s fear and his consequent actions? The identity of those Paul refers to as “from the circumcision” is unclear. Several possibilities make sense and have been suggested. The number of suggestions reveals the difficulty in ascertaining the group’s identity with any de19 James Albert Harrill, Paul the Apostle: His Life and Legacy in Their Roman Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 29. 20 Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Westminster, 2015), 66 (emphasis added). See also E. P. Sanders, “Did the Pharisees Eat Ordinary Food in Purity?” in Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990), 131–254, for a variation on this conclusion. See also E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE – 66 CE (London: SCM, 1992), 438–40 21 For a summary of the evidence see Sanders, “Jewish Association with Gentiles and Galatians 2:11–14,” 170–88. 22 See also Bird, “Incident at Antioch,” 343–50. 23 See also Nanos, “What Was at Stake in Peter’s ‘Eating with Gentiles’ at Antioch,” 303–04. 24 See also Bird, “Incident at Antioch,” 350; Magnus Zetterholm, “The Didache, Matthew, James – and Paul: Reconstructing Historical Developments in Antioch,” in Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in their Jewish and Christian Settings, ed. Huub van de Sandt and Jürgen Zangenberg, SBL Symposium Series (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 83.

30

Joel Willitts

gree of precision. 25 However, the underspecified nature of the group is actually a clue to its interpretation. It would make the most sense if the “circumcision group” had been previously referenced. What group would this be? The close linguistic connections with 2:7–10 provide the key to the identity of the group. In 2:7–9 the term “circumcision” is used three times to name the field of Peter and the Pillars’ missionary responsibility. It seems necessary to link James and the circumcision group in this context, given the proximity of reference. So the “circumcision group” appearing alongside the reference to James and Cephas makes a reference to Jewish believers in Messiah on mission to Jews the most likely conclusion. These Jewish missionaries have come to Antioch, fulfilling their apostolic responsibility in a city with a large Jewish diaspora population. This is likely why Peter was there as well. What are the implications? At the very least, this means there is no need to assume that the group had any intentions with regard to the gentiles. The agreement made in Jerusalem still held. There is nothing inherently wrong with the missionaries from Jerusalem coming to Antioch on the Jewish mission to Jews. Their presence was benign, except that it caused Peter to act hypocritically. So the condemnation falls squarely on Peter and not on the circumcision group or on James. 26 So what was Peter “afraid of” and why would “drawing back and separating himself ” from the gentiles elevate his fear? The answers are apparent in Paul’s response in 2:17, where he specifically identifies the source of Peter’s fear. Peter was afraid that his close proximity to gentiles around the table, which was an essential element of “seeking to be justified in Messiah,” would besmirch the Messiah because, from a certain halakhic perspective, the Messiah would be promoting sinfulness among Jews. God forbid! Given that fear, Peter’s actions, characterized by Paul as hypocrisy, are at least understandable if still condemnable.

End: Paul’s Response (2:14–21) Paul’s response is bold and public. It is also theologically and hermeneutically rich: ‚λλ> íτε εÚδοn íτι οÎκ æρθοποδοÜσιn πρäς τ˜n ‚λήθειαn τοÜ εÎαγγελίου (“When I saw that they were not walking in line with the truth of the gospel,” 2:14a). Paul singled out Peter and rebuked him in front of all the other Jews who followed his lead. Paul’s speech runs from 2:14b to 2:21. 27 All eight verses 25 For a discussion of the group see Bird, who thinks that these are “non-Christ believing Jews in Antioch” (“Incident at Antioch,” 339). His discussion, like so many others, while well argued, suffers from having little-to-no anchor in the text itself. 26 See similarly J. Louis Martyn, who comments that “[Paul] laid the chief responsibility at Peter’s door” (Galatians, AB 33A [New York: Doubleday, 1997], 244). 27 See likewise Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law, 229.

One Torah for Another

31

comprise the speech as Paul presented it. This basic observation is crucial. Galatians 2:19–21 must be understood in relationship to 2:17–18, and 2:17–21 must be linked with 2:14b–16. Furthermore, this speech must be seen as the narrative response to the situation defined in 2:12–13. Failing to see the unity on both levels, the narrative frame as well as the speech, will lead to misinterpretation. It is not clear that with the “in front of them all” (2:14) Paul intended to include the gentiles affected by their actions. It matters little though, because this speech is not directed toward gentile Messiah believers in Antioch. It is a speech to the Jewish Messiah-believer. It has a very important function in the context of the letter, of course. While it is a speech to the Jewish Christian in the first instance, Paul presents it here in the letter for the benefit of his gentile audience in Galatia. But it is important not to pass by this insight too quickly. Galatians 2:14–21 is one of the very few times in all of Paul’s letters where he specifically directs teaching toward Jewish Messiah believers. The content, then, is rightly understood to be a “halakhic situation.” 28 But what is the Galatian gentile believer to get from it? Before answering that question, it is vital to understand Paul’s point to the Jewish believers. This point is not usually appreciated. You live like a gentile (2:14). Paul begins aggressively, delivering a question that is in effect an assertion, even an accusation: “Peter, you are living like a gentile.” For a Torah-observant Jew, there was probably not a more offensive label. Being compared to a gentile was equivalent to being labeled a “tax collector and sinner” as in the gospel stories. It is harsh, biting language, and it reflects the rhetoric of intra-Jewish conflict. But still, is Paul speaking factually? Has he observed Peter in the act of abandoning his ethnic distinction? And what are we to make of Paul’s accusation that Peter is forcing gentiles to follow Jewish customs? Has Paul witnessed Peter coercing gentiles to perform Jewish practices? Commentators have struggled to make sense of Paul’s opening critique of Peter. The most common explanation takes Paul’s statements factually. With the characterization “living like a gentile,” Paul referred to Peter eating non-kosher food with gentiles. He means that Peter neglected kosher laws (kashrut) when eating with gentiles. “Living gentile-ly” would be an appropriate label for such conduct. Then, once the people from James arrived, Peter began again to practice kashrut out of fear, and this change necessitated separation from gentiles. At first this interpretation seems to best explain Paul’s accusation in 2:14 for two reasons. First, kashrut seems to fit the situation and the focus on Jewish practice: a common meal with a focus on Jewish practice suggests food laws. Second, Peter’s original neglect of the food laws conformed, it is thought, to Jesus’s apparent abolition of food laws according to Mark 7:19.

28

Ibid., 222.

32

Joel Willitts

But on deeper reflection, this common interpretation falls short. The details of the passage simply do not provide enough evidence to support the proposed connection with food laws. The interpretation that Peter had neglected kashrut and that this neglect was what allowed him to share a meal with gentiles rests on a false premise and on unstated assumptions that the story does not substantiate. What Paul reveals is that Peter used to eat with the gentiles, but then did not (2:12–13). So then, how does Paul’s characterization in 2:14 reflect his narration in 2:12–13? The two do not easily cohere. There are a few key points to consider. First, the interpretation reviewed above rests on the incorrect premise that Jewish food laws required separation from gentiles and eliminated the possibility of table fellowship. This is simply incorrect. Diaspora Jews regularly shared meals with non-Jews without compromising their Torah observance. 29 The kashrut alone, therefore, does not explain Peter’s actions. Second, there is no reference to the kind of food eaten at the common meals. There is no hint in the context that the food was either non-kosher or forbidden by the Torah. The topic of food is completely absent. What is of interest is the question of proximity. Third, Peter’s supposed abandonment of his ethnic identity, and that deliberately, would be unexpected to say the least. It must be recognized that practices such as kashrut were elements of ethnicity in the ancient world. When one ceased to practice cultural traditions that defined a specific ethnic identity, one ceased to be true to one’s ethne. 30 Nothing in the context suggests Peter had taken such a step. To the contrary, the previous episode would lead a reader of the letter to the opposite conclusion about Peter’s relationship to Jewish ethnicity. In the earlier episode, Paul emphasized continuation of ethnic distinction with the division of labor between Paul and Peter (2:6–9). So the first step to interpreting Gal 2:14 rightly is to appreciate how strange Paul’s accusation really is. The most difficult element of 2:14 is perhaps the idea that Peter was “forcing gentiles to follow Jewish practices.” There is no evidence of Peter’s direct agency in Paul’s own narration. So again what is the relationship between Paul’s description and the facts of the matter? Is it a transparent representation or a distortion intentionally meant to startle? I think it is the latter. The problem is that we have missed Paul’s use of sarcasm and hyperbole as a strategic rhetorical device. 29 See Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law; Sanders, “Jewish Association with Gentiles and Galatians 2:11–14”; E. P. Sanders, “Purity, Food, and Offerings in the Greek-Speaking Diaspora,” in Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990), 131–254; Sanders, Judaism; and Fredriksen, “Why Should a ‘Law-Free’ Mission Mean a ‘Law-Free’ Apostle?”. 30 See the discussion in Paula Fredriksen, “Judaizing the Nations: The Ritual Demands of Paul’s Gospel,” NTS 56.2 (2010): 232–52.

One Torah for Another

33

To see the presence of sarcasm and hyperbole, first note the more obvious example in 2:15. There Paul names gentiles “sinners” in contrast to “we Jews.” Are we to take Paul literally here? Does Paul really think gentiles are somehow more sinful than Jews? Although the Jew has significant advantages over the gentile according to Paul (Rom 3:1–2; 9:1–5), there are many reasons to answer this in the negative. Of course, Paul does not really believe that God makes this kind of distinction. So what is happening here? Paul took a Pharisaic caricature of gentiles, one he shared before his conversion but no longer, and sarcastically employed it to sharpen the edge of his point against Peter and the others. He turns the caricature on its head to make the point with which both Paul and Peter agree: both Jew and gentile are justified by trust in the Messiah (2:15–16). Their theological agreement undermined the distinction Paul used. So when it comes to 2:14, Paul does not believe Peter was literally acting like a gentile and literally forcing gentiles to become Jewish. 31 From the point of view of a Pharisee, by sharing table fellowship, Peter was “acting like a gentile.” And by withdrawing and separating from social interaction with gentiles, he was compelling them to become Jewish through exclusion. This is the very thing Paul will accuse the Agitators of doing later in the letter (4:17). Even those who take 2:14 to be a factual statement concede that the idea that Peter forced gentiles to become Jewish was by the implication of his actions and not by direct agency, although Paul’s language clearly implies the latter. So they take Paul’s language to be something other than literal in that part of the verse. I suggest the whole statement should be interpreted as rhetorical, hyperbolic, and sarcastic. Its purpose is to jolt and confront. It is a purposeful misrepresentation of the facts, a caricature meant to persuade. Of the works of the law ... by faith in Jesus Messiah (2:15–16). Galatians 2:15–16 ranks as one of the most important sections of Scripture not only in Galatians, but also for Paul generally. Key fronts in current scholarly debate over Paul are present here. These two verses include the concept of justification by faith, as well as the phrases âξ êργωn nόmου (“of the works of law”) and δι€ πίστεως >ΙησοÜ ΧριστοÜ (“by the faith of Jesus Christ”). Each of these topics has a long history of interpretation, and they continue to be points of white-hot debate among Pauline scholars. Instead of dealing with these points in detail, I will present three controlling factors for any interpretation. First, it is worth remembering that these verses are part of a narrative that began in Gal 2:11. This is not abstract theological jargon. Paul’s statements serve a purpose which he defined by placing this sentence within the frame of the narrative. This point is actually quite a novel one. Most commentators believe 31

Sanders agrees: “Paul very often used extreme or hyperbolic language to polarize a situation” (“Jewish Association with Gentiles and Galatians 2:11–14,” 188–89). See also Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law, 230.

34

Joel Willitts

at some point, likely here, Paul turns away from the Antioch incident to focus directly again on the issue in Galatia. The result of this tendency is to excise the theological argument from its narrative context. It becomes a theological abstraction untethered from a concrete historical setting. This approach is questionable and problematic both exegetically and theologically. Here a quotation from the venerable William Ramsay will suffice to reveal the exegetical problem: “Gradually Paul diverges from the situation in Antioch, and at last finds himself in the Galatian question; yet it is impossible to mark where he passes away from the incident at Antioch.” 32 The interpretation offered here assumes the relevance of the whole story for the Galatian context, although indirect and analogical. Second, and related to the first point, the sentence serves a specific function in the narrative. Having gotten Peter’s attention with his sarcastic jab in 2:14, Paul takes up the issue by establishing what the two (along with the other Jewish Messiah believers) have in common. So the teaching of 2:15–16 is what Paul assumes he and Peter share. Within the speech, it serves as his foundation for the main assertions in 2:17–21. This common theology of the gospel sketched here, which relativizes the justifying function of ethnicity, is the basis for a new kind of Messianic halakha. Third, Gal 2:15–16 is one long sentence in Greek. There are seven clause or clause-like syntactical structures. The main verb, and thus the main idea, comes in the third clause, “we too have put our faith in” (16c). The “we” refers to Jewish believers in Messiah (2:15a). To summarize, in these two verses Paul states that he and Peter agree that those whose ethnic identity is shaped by the works of Torah, which is another way of saying of “a Jew,” must also trust in the Messiah for justification. 33 Paul and Peter agree, then, that no one is justified without a trust-relationship with the Messiah. This fact has put Jews and gentiles on a level plane. They are both in need of God’s action in and through the Messiah and they need each other to appropriate the benefits of Messiah faith. 34 Messiah promoter of sin (2:17–18)? In Gal 2:17–18, Paul gets to the heart of the matter. Paul’s own structural clues validate the primacy of this part of the passage. 35 Why has Peter acted the way he has toward the gentile believers? The

32 William Ramsay, A Historical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (1900; repr., London: Forgotten Books, 2012), 305; emphasis added. 33 For the interpretation that takes the preposition âξ êργωn nόmου as adjectival and not adverbial, see Ardel Caneday, “The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ as a Theme in Paul’s Theology of Galatians,” in The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies, ed. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 185–208. 34 This is one of the main thrusts, if not indeed the main thrust, of Paul’s argument in chs. 3–4. 35 Lambrecht similarly takes Peter to be “aimed at” in 2:18 (“Transgressor by Nullifying God’s Grace,” 219).

One Torah for Another

35

cryptic statements in these two verses can be understood best from the perspective I have advocated. Peter believed his close association with the gentiles around the table meant he was sinning, in spite of the shared theology of justification of both Jew and gentile. 36 Such public sin would surely bring reproach on the Messiah as one who facilitated sinfulness. Paul names Peter’s fear: “Peter, you are afraid that the implications of the gospel will besmirch Messiah’s reputation, aren’t you?” Paul’s response is, “Absolutely not!” Paul then conceded that he understood why Peter might have this fear. Paul’s response in 2:18 requires knowing a number of things. First, what was destroyed? Second, what would it mean to rebuild it? Third, what does Paul mean when he said he would really be a lawbreaker? Jan Lambrecht highlights the absence of an objective genitive in the verse, which requires the reader to work to discern what in fact was transgressed. 37 The context of the whole narrative provides the answers. The following is a viable interpretation of this verse: Paul uses the building and tearing down metaphor to describe an interpretative approach to the Torah that would make him out to be a lawbreaker if he associated closely with gentiles in table fellowship (2:11–13). Such was the house, so to speak, that framed his life prior to his revelation of Jesus (1:15), and such was the house he destroyed, when he moved from one house to another. What halakha led to this conclusion, and which one formed the frame of his life? Obviously, for Paul it was his Pharisaic house (1:13–14). The Pharisee movement attempted to bring the purity of the temple into the everyday world of Jews, as I mentioned above. So what is Paul saying here? I will put 2:18 in a syllogism with two conclusions to make the point clear. Table 2.0. Syllogism of Galatians 2:18 Premise #1:

Pharisaic halakha deems Jews who shared intimate contact with gentiles to be sinful. Premise #2: Paul rejected (“destroyed”) the authority of Pharisaic halakha over his life after his conversion. Conclusion #1: Therefore, Paul’s close contact with the gentiles did not mean he was sinful. Conclusion #2: Therefore, the Messiah did not promote sin.

So with this verse, Paul acknowledged the fact that the behavior of close contact with a gentile can be judged as sinful from a certain interpretive perspective on 36 Although I disagree with his abstract understanding of the Torah, John M. G. Barclay nevertheless rightly grasps the contextual nature of the problem as Paul sees it in the Antioch episode in 2:17: “This sentence reflects not a general discovery that all humanity is sinful, but those specific occasions (such as Antioch) when living ‘in a Gentile fashion’ out of loyalty to the good news causes believers to be labeled ‘sinners’ (as defined by the Torah)” (Paul and the Gift, 384). 37 See Lambrecht, “Transgressor by Nullifying God’s Grace,” 223, though I do not agree with his assessment that the law is not the implied object.

36

Joel Willitts

the one hand. But on the other, he denied the validity of that perspective for him and by implication for Peter and the other Jewish believers. Through the Law I died to the Law (2:19). In this last paragraph of chapter two (2:19–21), Paul presents the basis for his rejection of Pharisaic (or any other) halakha over a Jesus Messiah-trusting Jewish believer’s life. This sub-argument supports (γάρ) the primary point that he, Peter, and the Jewish believers are not bringing dishonor on the Messiah by their pattern of living in close social proximity to gentiles. 38 In this verse, Paul describes for Peter and Jewish Messiah believers a Messianic-halakhic conversion. 39 What I mean by a halakhic conversion is the move from one authoritative practical interpretation of the Torah to another – one halakhic house for another – in light of a new historical moment, namely, the revelation of Jesus that Paul described in 1:13–16. 40 In light of the apocalypse of the Messiah, his conversion had a halakhic component. Halakhic alternations were a necessary task for all Jews as they sought to observe the Torah properly in their daily lives. E. P. Sanders notes that the Pharisees developed practices that went beyond what the Law required in many areas of Jewish life, sometimes consciously, but at other times unconsciously. When going beyond the Law’s requirements, Pharisees took the innovation to be the only correct interpretation of the Torah and attempted to enforce it on others, a process that continues even to this day within rabbinic Judaism. 41 The result of such changes was the creation of essentially a new, alternative Torah. In Gal 1:13, Paul was able to speak of his ‚nαστροφήn ποτε ân τÄ >ΙουδαðσmÄ (“previous way of life in Judaism”). This statement implies conversion, but not from one religion to another. Rather it is a conversion from one “way of life” to another within Judaism. 42 Here it is important to acknowledge a fact not often recognized in discussions of Paul and the Law: there is no such thing as the Torah in abstraction. Many contemporary discussions of Paul and the Law implicitly assume an abstract understanding of the Torah. The debate progresses by assuming an independently coherent text whose definition and significance is self-evident.

38 See likewise Martinus C. de Boer, Galatians: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 158; and Lambrecht, “Transgressor by Nullifying God’s Grace,” 220. 39 I was pleased to discover the phrase “halakhic conversion” in Paula Fredriksen’s essay (“Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope”) although I had chosen it before finding it there. She uses it in reference to gentiles becoming Jews. In my usage, it denotes the change from one Jewish halakhic authority to another within Judaism. In this case, the use of the term “conversion” is consistent with recent social science research on conversion. For example see Scot McKnight, “Was Paul a Convert?” ExAud 25 (2009): 110–32. 40 De Boer demonstrates Gal 2:19–21 is a “further interpretation” of his conversion (Galatians, 159). 41 Sanders, “Did the Pharisees Eat Ordinary Food in Purity?” 252. 42 In de Boer’s words, it was a conversion from the “former manner of life as a zealous Pharisee who persecuted the church of God” (Galatians, 92–93, 161).

One Torah for Another

37

Interpreters then attempt to work out Paul’s relationship to this objective thing, called Torah. This is an improper approach given what we know about ancient Judaism. As Karin Herdner Zetterholm writes, “In order to understand Paul’s relation to Jewish law, we need to free ourselves from the common (scholarly) notion of Torah observance as simple clear-cut phenomenon and approach the issue in a more nuanced way.” 43 She goes on to assert rightly that “scholars frequently talk about ‘breaking Jewish law’ as if it were something absolute like running a red light, but Jewish law is generally not as clear-cut, and the assessment of whether a given act is a violation of halakha depends on the perspective of the group and individual making the claim.” 44 At least a good many postmodern interpreters recognize the difference between what the Bible says and their interpretation of it. In ancient times (and admittedly in some segments of the church today) the Bible’s message and its interpretation were not differentiated; instead, they coalesced so that the Bible says different things, sometimes diametrically opposed things, depending on the community reading it. For ancient Jews, as Larry Helyer has so eloquently put it, “particular interpretations of the Torah espoused by the author are also included in the notion of Torah.” 45 The first issue to resolve is the meaning of the first-person singular “I,” the subject of these sentences. Since 2:15 Paul has been using the first-person plural pronoun with ethnic significance, “we Jews” (also 2:17). He changes from the plural pronoun to the singular in 2:18 and uses the singular in the rest of the passage. Has Paul shifted from addressing Jewish Jesus followers to addressing only his existential self? No, although this is most often how these verses are read. It is better to take the discussion since Gal 2:15 as a piece with this unit that serves as its culmination. The “I,” then, should be understood in an incorporative sense, although without denying an existential element is also present; Paul’s “I” represents Jewish believers in Messiah Jesus. 46 What is true for him is also true for Peter and the other Jewish Messiah believers. A second issue to address is the enigmatic statement in 2:19 that begins the section: âγ° γ€ρ δι€ nόmου nόmú ‚πέθαnοn Ñnα θεÄ ζήσω (“For through the Law, I died to the Law, so I might live for God”). Note the instances of “live” in this verse. Paul uses the verb ζάω (“live”) five times in this and the next verse:

43

Zetterholm, “The Question of Assumptions,” 80. Ibid. 45 Larry R. Helyer, Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period: A Guide for New Testament Students (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 125, emphasis added. 46 See similarly Scot McKnight, Galatians, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995), 117–18; and Scot McKnight, “The Ego and ‘I’: Galatians 2:19 in New Perspective,” WW 20.3 (2000); see also Barclay, who refers to Paul as “using himself as a paradigm” (Paul and the Gift, 385). 44

38

Joel Willitts

“I might live for God,” “I no longer live,” “Messiah lives in me,” “The life I now live in the body, I live.” This emphasis connects the section directly to the rebuke in Gal 2:14. As de Boer observes, there is a connection between the “in me” in Gal 1:16 and the “in me” in 2:20. In the former verse “in me” refers to Paul’s manner of life as a zealous Pharisee, while in the latter it refers to his life as a Jewish follower of Jesus and an apostle: “Paul’s current life, which is public and social.” 47 De Boer rightly believes this statement emphasizes a “recognizably historical and human” existence. 48 I take the term “in the flesh” to refer to bodily comportment and nothing more, particularly not to ethical abstract dualistic realities. While Paul does use “flesh” this way (cf. 5:16), it is always within a clear antithesis (e. g. 5:16, “flesh vs. spirit”). No such antithesis occurs here. That Paul uses the term in a variety of ways is clear even in Galatians (cf. 1:16; 2:20; 3:3; 4:13, 14; 5:13, 16, 17, 19, 24; 6:8, 12, 13). Here the point is not dualistic abstract realities, but real living in the context of concrete ethnic difference. There are also direct or indirect references to death in these two verses: “I died”; “I have been crucified”; “I no longer live.” Paul uses life and death imagery to present the revolutionary conversion from one halakha to another. Such stark language is consistent with Paul’s apocalyptic framework (cf. Gal 1:11–12). Furthermore, he actually uses death-life language to describe conversion to Messiah faith in Romans 6. This may also be what Paul is after in his enigmatic marriage analogy in Rom 7:1–6: “Do you not know, brothers and sisters – for I am speaking to those who know the law – that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? ... You have died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that you might bear fruit for God.” Douglas Moo rightly understands the implication of Paul’s metaphor of death and life when he writes, “[Paul] means that he has been released from the binding authority of the law of Moses,” though Moo absolutizes and abstracts the law rather than appreciating its inherent flexibility and subjectivity. 49 So death “to the Law” cannot mean the law in any absolute sense since it is δι€ nόmου (“by Torah”) that Paul has died nόmú (“to Torah”). The irony in Paul’s speech to Peter is sharp when taken from a canonical point of view. The historical reliability of Acts and thus its value as a resource for a discussion about Galatians is debated. This skepticism notwithstanding,

47 De Boer, Galatians, 161–62. I agree with de Boer that in Gal 1:13–16 Paul did not reject Judaism per se, but his former way of being Jewish. Yet I do not agree with what I consider de Boer’s absolutizing and abstracting interpretation. What was brought to an end was not a Torah-structured life, but a Pharisaic-Torah-structured life. 48 Ibid., 162; Martyn, Galatians, 258. 49 Douglas J. Moo, Galatians, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013), 168.

One Torah for Another

39

what Paul records in Gal 2:11–21 has a tantalizing structural parallel to Luke’s account of Peter’s vision in Acts 10. The account is in many respects just the kind of halakhic authoritative conversion I am proposing. Acts 10:9–14 recounts a vision Peter received from God that revised his previous way of conceptualizing the practice of Torah. 50 As Peter states to Cornelius in Acts 10:28, before the vision Peter understood the Torah in a way that forbade him from “associating with or visiting a gentile.” Luke presents the vision in apocalyptic terms by using the phrase “heaven opened,” one common in apocalyptic visions (cf. Mark 1:10; John 1:51; Rev 4:1). It is important to recognize that the Torah does not in fact prohibit what Peter calls “unlawful.” There is no Torah forbidding a Jew from associating with non-Jews, and there are plenty of examples of just this kind of close interaction in the Jewish Scriptures. What is more, the term Luke uses is not the common word for the Torah, nόmος. Instead Luke uses the rare word ‚θέmιτόn. In this context it means something more like “a taboo,” or “an improper activity.” 51 In any case, apparently the practice of not associating or visiting with a gentile was the halakha of some Judean Jews (at the risk of a tautology), but not all Jews at the time. While I cannot claim this was specifically the halakha of Pharisees, it certainly is possible that it was a predominant view among a good number of firstcentury Judeans given the archaeological evidence for the preoccupation with purity. Pharisaism in the pre-70 period was diverse, with at least a liberal and conservative party at the extremes. 52 The New Testament does not differentiate between them, although it does demonstrate that this diversity existed by presenting both conservative and liberal approaches (e. g. Gamaliel in Acts 5:34). E. P. Sanders presents them as non-sectarians, holding to a stricter halakha, but not requiring others to abide by their extension of the Torah’s legislation. 53 It is methodologically odd, however, that he does not allow the evidence of the New Testament to inform his picture of pre-70 Judaism. If he did, his picture, while perhaps not inaccurate on the whole as it stands, would have been nuanced further toward the sectarian pole, which seems appropriate. 54 According to Luke’s account, the Pharisees were scrupulous adherents to ritual purity and separation related to table fellowship (Luke 5:30; 7:39; 11:37; 50 For a thorough discussion of the passage see Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: 3:1–14:28 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015), 2:1727–1829; see likewise Isaac W. Oliver, Torah Praxis after 70 CE: Reading Matthew and Luke-Acts as Jewish Texts, WUNT 2.355 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 320–64. 51 For a thorough discussion of this incident see Keener, Acts, 2:1787–92. 52 For a concise and apt description see Gerd Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 83. 53 Sanders, “Did the Pharisees Eat Ordinary Food in Purity?” 250. 54 See likewise Anthony J. Saldarini’s reference to “a sect-like way of life” according to New Testament allusions (Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001], 138).

40

Joel Willitts

15:2). 55 He also presents Pharisees as a highly influential conservative wing in the early Jewish ekkl¯esia (Acts 15:5); perhaps their outlook was that which the early Jewish ekkl¯esia took as the standard one (Acts 11:3). The ekkl¯esia had not yet consciously and self-critically reflected on every possible implication of Jesus’s teaching and work. The influence of the Pharisaic outlook (or if one prefers, the reflection of the body politic by the Pharisaic outlook) is corroborated by Josephus’s assessment of the Pharisees as having the ear of the populace of Judea and Galilee in contrast to the Sadducees who only influenced the rich. Josephus reports that “the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace obsequious to them, but the Pharisees have the multitude on their side.” 56 The combination of Josephus and the New Testament evidence is strong since it is early and diverse. While Josephus states the fact that the Pharisees exercised influence among the masses, the New Testament demonstrates it through its narratives. This evidence coordinates with the later rabbinic tradition which seems very likely to be organically linked with the pre-70 Pharisaic movement, according to the majority of scholars. 57 Thus, I take Martin Hengel to be largely correct in stating that the Pharisees had “determinative influence” on the Jewish masses – that is, at least as viewed from the vantage point of Paul, the wider New Testament, Josephus, and the rabbinic literature. 58

55 See Lynn Cohick, “Pharisees,” DJG 673–78; Roland Deines, “Pharisees,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John Joseph Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 1061–63. 56 Josephus, A.J. 13.297–298. See summary in Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society, 120, 282. For a critical assessment of this statement see Sanders, who rightly cautions against assuming popularity meant official, public control (Judaism, 389, 402–04). 57 Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Early Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John Joseph Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 280. 58 Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul, 131 n. 226. While Sanders (Judaism, 449) is highly critical of Hengel’s traditional view, he agrees with his premise that the Pharisees and the general populous shared a halakhic pattern of life, merely turning it around in the opposite direction so that it’s the wider Jewish world that determined Pharisaism. Sanders’s critique may be a more historically accurate way of seeing things, but that does not mean that within this so-called “common Judaism” the Pharisees would not be looked upon by their contemporaries as authorities upholding, enforcing, and defining the proper halakha. Furthermore, Hengel and Sanders may not be as far apart as Sanders indicates. Hengel writes that “while as a firmly organized party the Pharisees were a relatively small nucleus, in their views and their scriptural exegesis they were nevertheless representative of the majority of Palestinian Judaism of the time” (The Pre-Christian Paul, 131 n. 226). Sanders agrees, stating that “the general trend ... was certainly there: people were zealous to live according to God’s law. The Pharisees shared in this trend” (Judaism, 449). For agreement with Hengel’s assessment of the Pharisees see Roland Deines, Jüdische Steingefässe und pharisäische Frömmigkeit: Ein archäologisch-historischer Beitrag zum Verständnis von Joh 2,6 und der jüdischen Reinheitshalacha zur Zeit Jesu, WUNT 2.52 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993).

One Torah for Another

41

Second, later rabbinic opinion admonishes avoidance of close contact with “the people of the land.” 59 It stands to reason that they would have an even more exclusive approach to gentiles. 60 Furthermore, later rabbis taught that gentile domiciles were unclean and therefore emphasized separation. 61 In the view of the most recent scholarship, this seems to be an innovation representing increased separation from gentiles by the rabbis. 62 Thus, while it is impossible to be conclusive due to the limits of current evidence, I think it likely that the controlling interpretation of masses generally, and of the early Jewish and Judean ekkl¯esia particularly, was Pharisaic. And it is this fact that created the view Peter (and the other Jews from Judea) espouses about the “unlawful” nature of close association with gentiles around a table (Acts 11:3). Still, even if this Pharisaic hypothesis proves too speculative for some, Thomas Kazen’s conclusion about the preoccupation with purity among those who lived in the land of Israel on the one hand, and their uneasy relationship with gentiles on the other, is important. He states: It is the contention of this study that purity rules influenced the life of ordinary people at the end of the Second Temple period. For some people, such as individuals suffering from skin diseases or constant discharges, it meant certain restrictions on interacting with others. Although gentiles were not formally unclean in themselves according to biblical law, they were regarded unclean in a transferred sense, and were by the first century CE regarded literally so, at least by some Jews. 63

Thus, the merits of the larger thesis that in Gal 2:19 Paul argues for a halakhic conversion that results in intimate Jewish-Gentile social interaction demand attention. In Peter’s vision, the sheet filled with unclean animals represented non-Jews. The command to “kill and eat” (10:13) and the subsequent rejoinder “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” (10:15; emphasis added) was interpreted by Peter to mean, “I should not call anyone impure or unclean” (10:28; emphasis added). Note that Peter understood the “anything” (i. e. the animals) in 10:15 to mean “anyone” (i. e. gentiles) in 10:28. 64 It seems that Luke’s story of

59 Sanders agrees with this, writing, “The objection from the Pharisaic viewpoint was probably that ordinary people had midras impurity. The Pharisees preferred to avoid this impurity when they could” (Judaism, 437). 60 Keener draws this inference from the latter rabbinic evidence (Acts, 2:1790). 61 See ibid., 2:1788, who cites m. ’Ohal. 18:7; b. Pesah.. 9a. 62 On the issue of impurity and the gentiles see Christine Elizabeth Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); and Jonathan Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). 63 Thomas Kazen, Jesus and Purity Halakhah: Was Jesus Indifferent to Impurity? (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 24. 64 A point made also by Bird, “Incident at Antioch, ” 354.

42

Joel Willitts

Peter’s halakhic transformation represents just the kind of dying to a certain interpretation on the Torah which Peter, and the early Jewish ekkl¯esia (Acts 11:3) saw as the unquestioned truth of God’s Law – just the kind of conversion Paul speaks of here in Gal 2:19. Of course, interpreters should not take Paul’s language in Gal 2:19–20 as literal speech, and no one does. Nor can absolutizing interpretations of Paul as either nullifying the Law or denying its continued practical relevance be sustained in view of other evidence. 65 Rather, I suggest we should understand Paul’s enigmatic statement as drawing a clear distinction, perhaps for the first time in Jewish literature, between different Torahs based on the authority from which they derive. In this case, one is based on the traditions of men and the other on Messiah faith (this phrase will be explained below). What we see here is that the Torah is never merely abstract. It is Torah taught and lived by a specific group of Jews. 66 To summarize, with this strange, perhaps even breathtaking, sentence, 67 Paul conveys his conversion from one genre of halakha to another, from the Pharisaic to the eschatological and Messianic. In light of the immediate context of the story Paul has been recounting since 2:11, what seems confusing when abstracted from its narrative sequence becomes clear. Paul again names the autobiography’s central theme: the two opposing structuring principles for the pattern of life Messiah believers are to follow. By means of the one “superior norm,” he has been released from the other. And this halakha of the Messiah, in view of his revelation, is the only appropriate Jewish halakha. To paraphrase: “By means of the new Messianic Torah, Jewish believers have converted from (“died to”) the Pharisaic Torah.” 68

65 Specifically see Gal 5:6, 13–15; 6:2, 15; also 1 Cor 7:17–21. For other alternatives to the traditional understanding of this statement see also Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law, 222–30; Caroline E. Johnson Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 121–23. In Hodge’s view, Paul’s statement means that he now reads Torah within “broader boundaries of the Law (as in Torah, scripture)” which released him to reach out to gentiles (If Sons, Then Heirs, 121–23). My argument shares the same post-supersessionistic perspective by rejecting any idea that Paul ceased patterning his life by Torah, although we differ on our understanding of the details of the argument. I agree that in this context of Gal 2:11–21 the primary significance of the Messianic halakha is the point that close association with a gentile around the table does not mark the Jew out as a sinner. This was Peter’s fear and the cause of his hypocrisy according to Paul (2:17). 66 A story Josephus tells about the Hasmonean high priest Hyrcanus I is a possible structural parallel of different Torahs at work among factions, leading to different sets of practices and what might loosely be called a conversion from one to another. Josephus records that after a dispute with the Pharisees, Hyrcanus I switched his allegiance from a Pharisaic to a Sadducean halakha (A.J. 13.288–98). 67 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 386. 68 Against interpreters like Barclay (ibid.), while Paul is signaling a “profound dislocation,” it is not one in which an abstract Torah no longer defines what “living to God” entails. Rather the dislocation remains within a context of Torah observance.

One Torah for Another

43

The Life I Now Live in the Body (2:20). Paul says that it is as if he no longer lives through his body. His life is so closely aligned with Messiah’s that it is Messiah’s pattern of life lived in and through him. The life a Messianic Jew now lives is by “the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (NET Bible). In agreement with a number of recent interpreters, the subjective view is to be preferred here. To quote de Boer, “As in v. 16, ‘the faith of the Son of God’ (v. 20c) refers to the Son’s own faith, in particular his faithful, atoning death on the cross.” 69 In addition to the more general arguments in favor of the subjective reading, there is the important contextual factor that makes the subjective reading most likely. The context of the Antioch episode, the general thrust of the autobiographical section which began in 1:11–12, and the emphasis on “living” in this paragraph point to a central interest in one’s pattern of life: the faithful life, death, and resurrection of the Messianic Son determines the pattern of life for the believer. It is also worth remembering Gal 1:10 and its drastic alternative of living either for the approval of human authority or the approval of God as Messiah’s slave. At the conclusion of the autobiographical section Paul emphatically returns to this theme, asserting in no uncertain terms that he is Messiah’s slave and lives his life in Messiah’s pattern of self-giving love. The Messianic Son’s faith is the “sacrificial act” of his giving his “life for me.” 70 So the verse’s meaning is best captured as follows: “The life I now live in the body I live in the pattern of the faithful life of the Son of God, a life characterized by love and self-giving.” 71 James D. G. Dunn rightly characterizes the meaning of Paul’s remarks with one significant caveat. Dunn states, “The point then is that Paul does not deny or renounce his continuing Jewishness in order to live as a Christian. His claim is rather that the life he now lives as a Jew born and bred (‘by nature’ – ii. 15; ‘in the flesh’) he now lives by a different orientation – no longer by reference primarily to the law, but now by his faith in the Son of God.” 72 Dunn gets this generally right except he misses the particularity of Paul’s reorientation. It is not a reorientation away from the Torah to the Messiah as Dunn suggests, but a reorientation away from the Pharisaic Torah to the Torah determined by the faith of the Messianic Son. Thus, the oft-asserted Pauline “Christ, not Torah” antithesis must be rejected. 73 Of course, Paul would have chosen Christ over the Torah. But for Jewish Paul, this would have been a false choice. The very point would have been

69

De Boer, Galatians, 162. Martyn, Galatians, 259. See similarly Le Cornu and Shulam, A Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Galatians, 158–60. 72 James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, BNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1993), 146. 73 Bird, “Incident at Antioch,” 358. 70

71

44

Joel Willitts

absurd. Paul does not place an abstract Christ over against an abstract Torah. 74 Rather, in his retelling of the episode in Antioch he places the Messianic halakha over against every other authoritative standard by which the community structures its life. I do not set aside the Grace of God (2:21). In light of the forgoing discussion, what Paul means by the “grace of God” in Gal 2:21 is God’s Torah. 75 ΟÎκ ‚θετÀ

τ˜n χάριn τοÜ θεοÜ·

εÊ γ€ρ

δι€ nόmου

δικαιοσύnη

Šρα Χριστäς δωρε€n ‚πέθαnεn.

The second clause in the verse relates to the first. In the second clause, the protasis of the conditional statement, the Torah is emphatically named (taking the first position) and stands in parallel with the first sentence: grace /gift of God = Torah (cf. Gal 3:19; Rom 3:1; 9:4). Structurally the conditional sentence in the second and third clause develop the idea of the first. The grace-gift /Torah of God is not set aside because righteousness comes through the Messiah’s death. 76 The halakhic conversion from Pharisaic halakha to Messianic halakha by no means annuls the Torah for the Jewish believer in Jesus (see similarly Rom 3:31). 77 However, Paul is quick to state that it is not through the patterning of one’s life by Torah, in whatever way it is interpreted, that one gains righteousness. Paul does not agree with some of his Pharisaic contemporaries (1:14) that the solution to Israel’s plight is a more faithful obedience to the Pharisaic Torah. He is after all an apocalyptic thinker along the lines of the writer of 2 Baruch, who combined God’s apocalyptic intervention with faithful obedience to the Torah. From Paul’s perspective, observing the Messianic halakha was not negotiable for a Jew; it was a matter of gospel truth (6:2; 2:5, 13). So it is inappropriate to claim, as some recent interpreters do, that Paul’s apocalyptic framework abrogated Jewish ancestral tradition. Paul’s revelation of Messiah certainly affected

74 Zetterholm agrees with this claim (“The Didache, Matthew, James – and Paul: Reconstructing Historical Developments in Antioch,” 90). 75 See also Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, WBC 41 (Dallas: Word Books, 1990), 94–95; and Le Cornu and Shulam, A Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Galatians, 161. This view, however, is not commonly held. See for example Moo, Galatians, 173; James D. G. Dunn, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, BNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 147; de Boer, Galatians, 163; and Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 387. 76 I can agree, then, with Lambrecht (“Transgressor by Nullifying God’s Grace,” 236) who argues that 2:18 and 2:21 express the same idea, although we understand the elements differently. Lambrecht continues the scholarly trend of presenting the Torah as an antithesis to Christ, a position I reject. 77 See Le Cornu and Shulam (A Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Galatians, 161) who note ‚θετÀ (“to set aside”) carries “strong legal connotations,” thus reinforcing the idea that this term relates to God’s covenant in the Torah.

One Torah for Another

45

its practical meaning, but Paul’s confrontation and instruction to Peter in Antioch reveal an abiding commitment to Torah as the structural norm for Jews. So how did Paul come to know that halakhic conversion was necessary? Because the “gospel happened to Paul” when he encountered the resurrected Jesus. 78 Paul learned through that encounter that merely patterning one’s life rightly after the Torah would not secure eschatological salvation. If it was possible to be saved through faithful Torah observance alone, then Jesus’s death and resurrection made little sense – it would be “for nothing.” But because Jesus died and was raised Paul (and Peter and the Jewish believers in Antioch and the Galatian gentile believers too) came to know that his death was a divine necessity. It was this apocalyptic event and one’s participation in it that secured eschatological righteousness by means of the atoning death of the Messiah (1:4), for it is through Messiah’s death that humans find rescue from the “present evil age,” the ultimate plight of humanity for which Jesus’s death provided the only adequate solution. What is more, Jesus’s apocalyptic appearance brought with it an epistemological implication that Paul understood clearly. The episode in Antioch occasioned by the equivocation of Peter and the other Jewish believers provided a context for Paul to remind and instruct Jewish believers on their obligation to observe the “law of Messiah.”

Conclusion It is important to understand why Paul devotes so much space to an intra-Jewish conflict in a letter to gentile believers in Galatia. Rhetorically, Paul has presented Peter as the paradigm of the Agitator. Peter’s behavior, and also perhaps the motivation behind it, illustrates Paul’s perspective on the Agitators affecting the Galatian churches. By relating the episode in Antioch, Paul has illustrated the kind of problem facing the Galatians from a different perspective, with different motivating factors, and in a different context. The episode provides for Paul’s gentile readers an instructive analogy for their own situation. Furthermore, within the context of the autobiography it demonstrates Paul’s authority to correct the Agitators’ errors. If he had the boldness and the authority to put Peter in his place, then he certainly has the authority to address the Galatian situation.

78

Martyn, Galatians, 144.

Eschatology and the Book of Proverbs in 1 Peter Christopher A. Beetham

The study of the presence and function of Scripture in the New Testament continues to be a topic of significant interest to New Testament scholarship, as is evidenced by a continuing stream of publications since the turn of the century. 1 The following essay seeks to contribute to the ongoing discussion by exploring the use of the book of Proverbs in 1 Peter. 2 While past scholarship has probed Scripture in 1 Peter, no study has focused specifically on Proverbs in 1 Peter. In 1989, William L. Schutter produced a seminal monograph on 1 Peter that explored its author’s hermeneutical approach to the Old Testament /Hebrew Bible. 3 Schutter concluded that 1 Pet 1:10–12 provided the hermeneutical key to

1 This essay is written in celebration of Scott Hafemann and his career as a scholar. It was Hafemann’s explorations of the use of Scripture in 2 Corinthians in a course at Wheaton College, Wheaton, Ill., that introduced me to the possibilities of such study for understanding the New Testament. Besides several monographs worthy of mention, major recent collaborations include Maarten J. J. Menken and Steve Moyise, eds., The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel, LNTS, 5 vols. (London: T&T Clark, 2004–2012); Stanley E. Porter, ed., Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006); G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007); Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, eds., As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 50 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008); the important reissue of D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson, eds., It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008); and Christopher D. Stanley, ed., Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012). 2 Monographs concerning the overall use of Scripture in 1 Peter include Edward W. Glenny, “The Hermeneutics of the Use of the Old Testament in 1 Peter” (ThD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1987); Dan G. McCartney, “The Use of the Old Testament in the First Epistle of Peter” (PhD diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1989); and William L. Schutter, Hermeneutic and Composition in 1 Peter, WUNT 2.30 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989). See also T. P. Osborne, “L’utilisation des citations de l’Ancien Testament dans la première épître de Pierre,” RTL 12 (1981): 64–77; Gene Green, “The Use of the Old Testament for Christian Ethics in 1 Peter,” TynBul 41 (1990): 276–89; John H. Elliott, 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 37B (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 12–17 (survey); D. A. Carson, “1 Peter,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 1015–45; Susan A. Woan, “The Use of the Old Testament in 1 Peter, with Especial Focus on the Role of Psalm 34” (PhD diss., University of Exeter, 2008); Patrick T. Egan, “‘This Word is the Gospel Preached to You’: Ecclesiology and the Isaianic Narrative in 1 Peter” (PhD diss., University of St Andrews, 2011); and Kelly D. Liebengood, The Eschatology of 1 Peter: Considering the Influence of Zechariah 9–14, SNTSMS 157 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014). 3 The work is entitled Hermeneutic and Composition in 1 Peter (see n. 2 above). Because the authorship of 1 Peter is disputed, the author throughout the article will be designated “A1Peter.” For the argument that 1 Peter is pseudonymous, see Elliott, 1 Peter, 118–30. For a treatment that

48

Christopher A. Beetham

understanding the author’s approach to Scripture and that the rest of the most obvious quotations in the letter confirmed his thesis. Schutter argued further that the author (henceforth “A1Peter”) used a pesher method of interpretation akin to that found at Qumran. Among other similarities, this entailed a “radical eschatological viewpoint.” 4 Schutter writes: A picture of Qumran’s hermeneutic has emerged which resembles that of the early Church more nearly than any other whether in content or form. Fairly stable and consistent hermeneutical presuppositions, methods, and techniques endured within the Qumran community seemingly throughout the period in question. The Convenanters live out of a radically eschatological vision, believe they are the End-time people of God, believe their exegesis alone is therefore inspired, believe they and their contemporaries are the objects of scriptural prophecy .... 5

Having examined 1:10–12 in detail, Schutter then surveyed the clearest quotations of the Old Testament in 1 Peter to explore whether his thesis about the eschatology of 1 Peter was validated by their use in their respective contexts. He concluded that his thesis was in fact affirmed by their use. 6 However, due to the assumption that they would add little to his thesis, Schutter largely overlooked the uses of Proverbs in the letter. Three of the possible references to Proverbs in 1 Peter were not examined at all. 7 The other two were discussed briefly; Schutter assumed – with little argument – that they supported his overall thesis. 8 The present essay therefore seeks to build upon Schutter’s thesis and to argue that all four of the references to Proverbs in 1 Peter were made from a “radical eschatological viewpoint.” The essay will argue the thesis that A1Peter’s use of Proverbs suggests that he interpreted the book of Proverbs eschatologically, charging its original temporal horizon and sapiential tradition with apocalyptic freight in light of the revelation of Jesus Christ. Maxims from Proverbs that originally applied to temporal judgment and deliverance are charged with eschatological significance. Their original promises of blessing for the righteous and curses for the wicked in their new context in 1 Peter refer to eschatological deliverance or condemnation on the day of the ultimate visitation of God. The is open to Petrine authorship, see Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 5–19. 4 Schutter, Hermeneutic and Composition in 1 Peter, 109. 5 Ibid., 110. 6 Ibid., 175–76. 7 Schutter writes, “So in all events it would be highly unlikely that anything of a strictly literarycritical nature might be learned from such further study here which might seriously undermine the core of the results obtained so far. In fact, comparatively little evidence of any sort remains” (ibid., 152). He then states that the three references to Proverbs at 2:17, 3:6, and 4:8 “were not examined” due to this rationale. He concludes that with the possible exception of the use at 4:8, the other two are used in a “plain” (i. e., noneschatological) sense (152 n. 161). 8 Ibid., 163–64; 165–66. The two texts were Prov 11:31 LXX in 4:18 and 3:34 LXX in 5:5.

Eschatology and the Book of Proverbs in 1 Peter

49

hermeneutical principle assumed by A1Peter appears to be that God’s activity of executing judgment and deliverance runs on similar principles along a continuum of historical intensity, whether they are accomplished as temporal acts within history (as in Proverbs) or realized at the climactic conflagration of the end of all things (as A1Peter employs them in his letter). To argue for this thesis, the essay will first discuss the quotations of Proverbs in 1 Peter, then the echoes of Proverbs in 1 Peter. Based upon definitions I have developed elsewhere for what constitutes a quotation, allusion, and an echo, I have determined that there are no true allusions to Proverbs in 1 Peter. 9 The current essay will maintain that A1Peter has quoted from Proverbs twice and echoed texts from it twice. It will also suggest that the proposal of a fifth reference – an echo of Prov 24:21 LXX in 2:17 not uncommonly suggested by scholars – is improbable. The essay will thus explore A1Peter’s four references to Proverbs. The references’ original contexts will be explored first to ascertain their original meaning to highlight their eschatological reappropriation and function in their new contexts in 1 Peter. Early Jewish and Christian appropriation of the same texts from Proverbs will be explored briefly so as to see how A1Peter’s use fits within their broader reception history and thus informs his eschatological hermeneutic. 10

Quotations of the Book of Proverbs in 1 Peter For the purposes of this study, a quotation is defined as “an intentional, explicit, verbatim or near verbatim citation of a former text.” 11 A formal quotation is one accompanied by an introductory marker, or quotation formula, whereas an informal quotation lacks such an explicit marker. 12

9 Christopher A. Beetham, Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians, BibInt 96 (Leiden: Brill, 2008; repr., Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), 15–27. 10 All biblical translations in the essay are the author’s except where noted. 11 Beetham, Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians, 17. In a thoughtful review of this monograph, Maarten Menken questioned the setting of a minimum word count for a proposal to be considered a quotation (RBL 12 [2009]:434–37). Instead, he suggested that a quotation might consist of a subject and a predicate, without regard for length or word count. In light of his review, I have revised my definition of what constitutes a quotation by removing the criterion of a minimum word count. However, as can be seen even in this essay, an echo may have a subject and predicate yet still not be long enough with sufficient rare terminology to be adequately explicit to count as a quotation (see below on Prov 10:12 at 4:8). Therefore, Menken’s suggested alternative remains insufficient. Explicitness plays a key role in the decision as to whether a reference back to a prior text constitutes a quotation. 12 Beetham, Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians, 17.

50

Christopher A. Beetham

Table 1: The Quotation of Proverbs 11:31 LXX in 1 Peter 4:18 Proverbs 11:31 MT

Proverbs 11:31 LXX

‫ הן צדיק בארץ ישלם אף כי־‬εÊ å màn δίκαιος mόλις ‌‫ רשע וחוטא‬σ¼ζεται å ‚σεβ˜ς καÈ mαρτωλäς ποÜ φαnεØται If a righteous person in the land will be recompensed, how much more the wicked and the sinner!

If it is only with difficulty that the righteous are saved, where will the ungodly and sinner appear?

1 Peter 4:18 καÈ εÊ å δίκαιος mόλις σ¼ζεται å ‚σεβ˜ς καÈ mαρτωλäς ποÜ φαnεØται And if it is only with difficulty that the righteous are saved, where will the ungodly and sinner appear?

Proverbs 11:31: Text Form and Original Context The chart above shows that the use of Prov 11:31 in 1 Pet 4:18 is a verbatim eleven-word quotation from the LXX. Numerous scholars have recognized the quotation. 13 The MT and LXX differ in five significant ways with the result that the two texts produce different meanings. First, the LXX omits the prepositional phrase “in the land” (‌‫)בארץ‬, perhaps thus widening the sense to include all the righteous in the diaspora and not merely those dwelling in the land of Israel. Second, the LXX replaces the Hebrew verb ‌‫“( שלם‬to be recompensed”) with one that expresses deliverance (σ¼ζω, “to be saved”). Third, the LXX adds the adverb mόλις (“with difficulty”), which accords with nothing in the Hebrew. Fourth, the LXX replaces ‌‫“( אף כי‬how much more”) with ποÜ (“where?”), turning the second line into a question. Fifth, the LXX replaces the Hebrew’s implied verb ‌‫“( שלם‬to be recompensed”) in the second line with φαίnω (“to appear”). The result of these five changes is that the meanings of the two texts differ considerably. The MT’s focus is on recompense and the certainty of it for the wicked. The righteous will be recompensed for their righteousness. If this is true, “how much more” will the wicked be recompensed for their wickedness. The presupposition 13 See Edward Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Essays, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1947), 226; C. Spicq, Les Épîtres de Saint Pierre, SB (Paris: Gabalda, 1966), 160; J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude, HNTC (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), 193–94; Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on 1 Peter, ed. Ferdinand Hahn, trans. John E. Alsup (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 333; Norbert Brox, Der erste Petrusbrief, 2nd ed., EKKNT 21 (Zürich: Benziger, 1986), 223; Glenny, “The Hermeneutics of the Use of the Old Testament in 1 Peter,” 170–77; J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter, WBC 49 (Waco, TX: Word, 1988), 272; McCartney, “The Use of the Old Testament in the First Epistle of Peter,” 96–98; Schutter, Hermeneutic and Composition in 1 Peter, 163–64; Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 172; Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 317; Elliott, 1 Peter, 802–3; Jobes, 1 Peter, 294; Carson, “1 Peter,” 1042; Reinhard Feldmeier, The First Letter of Peter (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008), 228–29; and NA28.

Eschatology and the Book of Proverbs in 1 Peter

51

is that God is just and repays persons in accordance with their deeds. These compensations will be meted out in this life. There is no thought of afterlife in context. On the other hand, the LXX’s focus is on the difficulty of being rescued by God. The righteous live righteously, yet it is only still with difficulty that they experience deliverance. If this is the case with the righteous, then the wicked will never participate in the deliverance of God.

Proverbs 11:31 in Early Jewish and Christian Literature outside 1 Peter Turning to the literature of Second Temple Judaism, Prov 11:31 is not quoted in either the Old Testament apocryphal or pseudepigraphical literature. 14 The DSS (both biblical and sectarian), Josephus, and Philo do not cite it. In summary, Prov 11:31 does not appear in the extant texts of Second Temple Judaism. Turning to explore other early Christian literature, the NA28 suggests an allusion to Prov 11:31 at Luke 23:31, but this is doubtful. Prov 11:31 therefore occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Moreover, no citation of it occurs in the Apostolic Fathers, the New Testament apocryphal literature, or the later Fathers up through Nicaea (325 CE). In short, the literature provides no evidence for how Prov 11:31 was used in the period.

Proverbs 11:31 in 1 Peter 4:18 The quotation of Prov 11:31 LXX occurs within the larger textual unit of 1 Pet 4:12–19. Here, A1Peter understands that his audience is undergoing a πύρωσις (“fiery ordeal”). Immediate context reveals that this encompasses suffering and persecution for their Christian faith (vv. 13b, 14b, 16b). A1Peter understands that the varied levels of persecution that his audience is undergoing are because of several factors, all from God himself. 15 First, in v. 12 the πύρωσις has come upon the audience “for a testing” (πρäς πειρασmόn). That is, God himself is testing his people, refining their faith in the furnace of affliction. 16 A1Peter had written earlier that such testing was for the purpose of a tried faith that would result in “praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1:6–7). While this may refer to honor bestowed upon God (or Christ), the context suggests instead that the honor is to be bestowed upon Christians who have endured faithfully through the furnace of affliction. If this latter interpretation is correct, then God himself tests his people to prepare them for eschatological glorification. Disciples of Christ undergo the pattern 14

Apoc. Dan. 11:11 cites it, but the work is late and Christian. Cf. Michaels: “The most striking feature of this section [4:12–19] is its bold emphasis on the sovereignty and initiative of God, even in the suffering of his own people” (1 Peter, 274). 16 So also Elliott, 1 Peter, 772; and Michaels, 1 Peter, 261. 15

52

Christopher A. Beetham

of their crucified and resurrected Lord, who first endured suffering and subsequently was glorified. 17 When Christ is revealed at the end of history, believers will partake of his glory (5:4). Therefore, God sends the πύρωσις in part to assess the genuineness of faith and to prepare his people for the day of visitation that they might share in his “eternal glory in Christ” (5:10). Second, the πύρωσις has come upon the Christians because the gift of the Spirit has come to rest upon them (v. 14). The audience is being reviled and thus dishonored (a state of significant social consequence in Roman honor /shame culture). A1Peter writes that they are being reviled ultimately “because [íτι] the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon” them. 18 God has sent this Spirit from heaven to advance the gospel (1:12). It is virtually certain that this clause, “the Spirit of God rests upon you,” is picked up from Isa 11:2 LXX. 19 In its original context, the Spirit comes to rest upon an ideal Davidic king (Isa 11:1–2). This gift enables him to judge the earth impartially and to establish the new creation (Isa 11:3–9; cf. Isa 65:17–25). In the new context of 1 Peter, A1Peter understands the promise to be fulfilled in the first coming of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the promised judgment has begun. Yet furthermore, this same Spirit resting on Christ rests upon his people. The gift of the Spirit, sent from heaven, has invaded the world and confronts it for its rebellion and idolatry (1 Pet 4:3–5). The response is abuse and disparagement. As the world reviled Christ, so it now abuses those who partake of Christ by the Spirit. The “fiery ordeal” has come upon the Christians in part because the Spirit of Christ has drawn it upon them with its own holy witness in and through their witness and good conduct. Third, the πύρωσις has come upon the Christians because the eschatological judgment of God has begun. 20 In fact, it has begun first with the people of God (v. 17). Verses 17–18 function as the reason why Christians are commanded to glorify God in the midst of persecution. A reason is offered in v. 17, followed by a restatement of the reason in v. 18. Christians must glorify God while enduring persecution because the judgment has already begun, and only those who endure will be delivered. They must entrust themselves to their faithful creator by continuing to do what is good, knowing they will be delivered from the judgment if they persevere (vv. 18–19). That A1Peter here mentions the judgment as now in progress makes sense in view of his echo of Isa 11:2 LXX in v. 14. The

17

See 1:11; 2:20b–21; 4:1–2, 13; 5:1, 4, 10. Cf. Elliott: “Reproach because of Christ is a sure sign of the Spirit’s immediate presence” (1 Peter, 783). 19 So also Brox, Der erste Petrusbrief, 215; Michaels, 1 Peter, 264; Elliott, 1 Peter, 782; Feldmeier, First Peter, 225; and NA28 side margin. 20 So also Spicq, Les Épîtres de Saint Pierre, 159–60; Michaels, 1 Peter, 270; Elliott, 1 Peter, 797–98; and Feldmeier, First Peter, 228. For a strong argument that eschatology and apocalyptic thought shape all of 4:12–19, see Mark Dubis, Messianic Woes in First Peter: Suffering and Eschatology in 1 Peter 4:12–19, StBibLit 33 (New York: Peter Lang, 2002). 18

Eschatology and the Book of Proverbs in 1 Peter

53

promised messiah had arrived in the person of Jesus, and as foretold he has begun to judge the earth. The πύρωσις threatening to engulf the audience is part of the larger eschatological conflagration that has been thrown upon the earth. If they endure the ordeal – demonstrating the genuineness of their faith – they will be saved. The quotation of Prov 11:31 LXX at v. 18 functions as an interpretive restatement of the principle annunciated in v. 17. If Christians must undergo judgment, then how much more those who disobey the gospel of God. Both groups are judged, but only those who obey the gospel will survive. This principle is restated and supported with the quotation of Prov 11:31. Verse 19 is the logical main point of the unit, and all that preceded supports it. In view of the three reasons for the πύρωσις, Christians are commanded to entrust themselves to their faithful creator. They are to demonstrate that they trust him by continuing to do what is good. They are “blessed” and exhorted to “rejoice” even in the midst of their persecution (vv. 13a, 14a). This is because they will overflow with triumphant exultation when Christ’s glory is unveiled on the day of God (v. 13).

Hermeneutical Reflections: Eschatology and Proverbs 11:31 in 1 Peter 4:18 A1Peter appears to have had no difficulty applying Prov 11:31 to his audience. A maxim from an ancient book of wisdom in Israel is understood to be immediately relevant to gentile Christian communities scattered over Roman provinces of Asia Minor of the first-century AD. The proverb is brought into a thoroughly eschatological context in 1 Pet 4:12–19 and refers to final judgment rather than to the temporal judgment of its original context. 21 The author’s conviction appears to be that God’s judging activity runs along the same principles whether the judgment is decreed within history or at its climactic conflagration. Therefore, in A1Peter’s view, it is appropriate to harness the principle of Prov 11:31 and employ it for a similar yet more deeply significant purpose in 4:12–19. The rhetorical purpose of Prov 11:31 in this new context functions to inform the audience why they are experiencing the “fiery ordeal” by appeal to the recognized authority of Scripture. It ultimately serves to persuade them to remain faithful to God in the midst of their persecution in view of his imminent visitation.

21 So also Brox: “Dieses Schicksal wird durch eine eschatologische Verwendung von Spr 11,31(LXX) bedrohlich veranschaulicht” (Der erste Petrusbrief, 223; emphasis added). Cf. Achtemeier: “Combined with v. 13, vv. 17–18 put the entire passage (vv. 12–19) into an eschatological perspective” (1 Peter, 317; emphasis added).

54

Christopher A. Beetham

Table 2: The Quotation of Proverbs 3:34 LXX in 1 Peter 5:5 Proverbs 3:34 MT

Proverbs 3:34 LXX

‌‫ אם־ללצים הוא־יליץ‬κύριος Íπερηφάnοις ‌‫‚ ולעניים יתן־חן‬nτιτάσσεται ταπειnοØς δà δίδωσιn χάριn He scoffs at the scoffers, but gives grace to the humble.

The Lord opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.

1 Peter 5:5 å θεäς Íπερηφάnοις ‚nτιτάσσεται ταπειnοØς δà δίδωσιn χάριn God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.

Proverbs 3:34: Text Form and Original Context The chart above demonstrates that the use of Prov 3:34 in 1 Pet 5:5 is a sevenword quotation from the LXX. 22 Six words correspond exactly with the LXX, while the seventh replaces κύριος with å θεός, a change of little significance. The Hebrew text does not mention God explicitly, having only the pronoun ‌‫“( הוא‬he”); the LXX has made the referent explicit (κύριος). The Masoretic text uses the verb ‌‫“( ליץ‬to scoff”) and its kindred noun ‌‫“( לץ‬scoffer”); the LXX has translated somewhat more freely and would have had to have used the verb Íπερηφαnέω (“to be proud”) to imitate the Hebrew in its wordplay. Proverbs 3:34 forms part of the larger textual unit of Prov 3:21–35. The unit divides into three subsections. The first is the author’s call to the reader (the “son”) to guard wisdom so that he might walk securely (vv. 21–26). The second subsection consists of five prohibitions that instruct the reader concerning conduct toward neighbor (vv. 27–31). The third subsection functions as the ground to the second (vv. 32–35). 23 It provides four reasons why the reader should heed the author’s prohibitions spoken in the second subsection. Proverbs 3:34 is found within this third subsection. It provides the third reason for why the reader ought to heed the prohibitions of the second subsection. The third subsection consists of four lines of antithetical parallelisms. The son is warned that God curses the wicked but blesses the righteous. Proverbs 3:34 contributes its share to the collage by stating that God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. In context, such “humble” people are those not characterized by the arrogance of those described in the first half of the par-

22 The quotation is widely recognized: Selwyn, Peter, 235; Spicq, Les Épîtres de Saint Pierre, 172; Kelly, Peter and Jude, 206; Goppelt, 1 Peter, 354; Brox, Der erste Petrusbrief, 236; Glenny, “The Hermeneutics of the Use of the Old Testament in 1 Peter,” 177–85; Michaels, 1 Peter, 290; McCartney, “The Use of the Old Testament in the First Epistle of Peter,” 98–99; Schutter, Hermeneutic and Composition in 1 Peter, 165–66; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 333–34; Elliott, 1 Peter, 848; Jobes, 1 Peter, 309; Carson, “1 Peter,” 1042–43; and NA28. 23 Note the ‌‫( כי‬γάρ LXX) at the beginning of v. 32.

Eschatology and the Book of Proverbs in 1 Peter

55

allelism. The humble are the righteous, upon whom God promises to bestow “glory” (v. 35). The rhetorical function of the entire unit is to appeal to the reader’s innate desire to live securely to persuade him to implement the five prohibitions concerning neighbor found in the second subsection.

Proverbs 3:34 in Early Jewish and Christian Literature outside 1 Peter Proverbs 3:34 is not quoted in the Old Testament apocryphal or pseudepigraphical literature. It does not occur among the DSS (sectarian or biblical), Philo, or Josephus. It appears that Jas 4:6 and 1 Pet 5:5 are the only extant documents of the Second Temple period to cite it (on Jas 4:6, see below). James 4:6 is the only other New Testament text to cite Prov 3:34. 24 Its wording is verbatim to that found in 1 Pet 5:5. In fact, the larger context of Jas 4:6–10 shares several parallels in common with 1 Pet 5:5–9, enough so that some scholars have suggested direct literary dependence. 25 It is perhaps better, however, to attribute the parallels to a common stock of early Christian tradition, including the use of specific yet memorable Jewish scriptural texts. Turning to early Christian literature outside the New Testament, 1 Clem. 30:2 quotes Prov 3:34 LXX: Seeing then that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all the things that pertain to holiness, forsaking slander, disgusting and impure embraces, drunkenness and rioting and detestable lusts, abominable adultery, detestable pride. 2 “For God,” he says, “resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” 3 Let us therefore join with those to whom grace is given by God. Let us clothe ourselves in concord, being humble and self-controlled. 26

Clement’s quotation functions similarly to its use in 1 Pet 5:5, supporting an exhortation to communal humility. His use, however, lacks the eschatological immediacy of A1Peter’s hermeneutic. About 110 AD, Ignatius quotes Prov 3:34 LXX: Therefore, the one who does not come to the assembly is himself already proud and has separated himself. For it is written, “God opposes the proud.” Therefore, let us be eager not to oppose the bishop, in order that we might be subject to God. 27

Ignatius urges the fellowships at Ephesus to submit to their bishop. Anyone refusing to submit is proud, and God “opposes the proud.” Proverbs 3:34 is again

The NA28 suggests an allusion at Luke 1:51–52, but this appears doubtful. C. A. Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901), 191–92; and F. W. Beare, The First Epistle of Peter, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1970), 202. 26 Michael Holmes, ed., The Apostolic Fathers, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), 44–45. The traditional date for 1 Clem. is 96 AD (though opinions vary in the literature). 27 Ign. Eph 5:3. 24 25

56

Christopher A. Beetham

used to support an exhortation to humility within the community. The context, however, lacks eschatological features, which are only introduced six chapters later in the letter (at 11:1: “These are the last times”). The proverb is also quoted in full by Clement of Alexandria († ca. 220 AD). He wields it against opponents who taught that marriage was unspiritual. 28 Elsewhere he applied it to Moses, a model of humility. 29 The Treatise against the Heretic Novatian (ca. 255 AD) quotes the proverb against Novatian to warn him of his pride in refusing to grant pardon to the lapsed. 30 In the Apostolic Constitutions (early fourth century AD?) it functions as an exhortation to humility amidst a broader enumeration of Christian moral duties. 31 Slightly later in that same work it is hurled against false prophets. 32 In summary, Prov 3:34 is used by the ante-Nicene fathers as an exhortation to humility or as a warning to heterodox opponents. However, the eschatological hermeneutic that characterizes A1Peter’s use of Prov 3:34 is lacking in all these later Christian appropriations of the maxim.

Proverbs 3:34 in 1 Peter 5:5 The quotation of Prov 3:34 LXX occurs at 5:5 within the larger textual unit of 5:1–7. The unit probably does not conclude with v. 5 (pace NA28). A1Peter introduces the theme of humility in v. 5 and carries it through vv. 6–7. At v. 8, a new topic is introduced (an exhortation to remain vigilant because the devil is close at hand). Therefore, the unit concludes at v. 7. 33 The unit divides into two sections. Verses 1–4 are an exhortation to the elders to shepherd the flock of God. Verses 5–7 are an exhortation for all members to be humble toward one another and before God in order that they might experience eschatological exaltation. Verses 5–7 may be broken down further into two subsections. Verse 5 urges the community members to make humility the hallmark of their relationships with one another. Verses 6–7 encourage the community to make humility the mark of their relationship before God. The quotation of Prov 3:34 LXX is embedded in the first subsection and serves as the ground for why all community members must clothe themselves with humility toward one another. 34

28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 3.6 (ANF 2:390). Ibid., 4.17 (ANF 2:428–29). See Num 12:3. 1.13 (ANF 5:661). 7.5 (ANF 7:466). 8.2 (ANF 7:481). So also Brox, Der erste Petrusbrief, 225. So also Feldmeier, First Peter, 242.

Eschatology and the Book of Proverbs in 1 Peter

57

A1Peter exhorts the elders of each of the local fellowships to “shepherd the flock of God among you” (v. 2a). This is the penultimate point of vv. 1–4. They are to do so willingly, serving as exemplary patterns for the flock (vv. 2b – 3). If the elders serve in this way, then when Christ appears they will be awarded an unfading eschatological victor’s wreath of glory. Verse 4b is the logical main point towards which all of vv. 1–4 moves. In v. 5a the author turns to address the younger men. He commands them to defer to the authority of their elders, who were responsible for providing oversight to the fellowships. The younger men of the community are to be marked by a spirit of humility that shuns pride in their relations with the elders. In v. 5b, A1Peter then addresses all the members of the Christian fellowships and commands them to “cloth themselves with humility in your relationships with one another” (πάnτες δà ‚λλήλοις τ˜n ταπειnοφροσύnηn âγκοmβώσασθε). The reason why the members should do so is given in v. 5c. Quoting Prov 3:34 LXX, A1Peter writes that they should conduct themselves in this way “because [íτι] God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” The reason why every member of the flock of God must clothe themselves with “humility” (ταπειnοφροσύnη) is because God gives grace to such a “humble” person (ταπειnός). In light of the Scripture quoted in v. 5c, the author draws an inference in vv. 6–7. Because God always “opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble,” as Prov 3:34 states, the readers are commanded to “humble themselves under the mighty hand of God.” The obvious reason in light of the logic between v. 5 and v. 6 is so that God will “give grace” to them. Yet the author further explains this “grace” with a purpose clause in v. 6b, introduced by Ñnα. The audience is to humble themselves “that [God] might exalt you at the appointed time.” That is, the promised “grace” for the humble individual ultimately consists in vindication and glory on the day of visitation. The word καιρός, translated here as “the appointed time,” is the same term found at 1:5 (“those being guarded by the power of God through faith for a readied salvation to be revealed in the appointed last day”). Verse 7 connects tightly with v. 6 and provides how the audience is to obey its command to “humble themselves under the mighty hand of God.” Echoing the language of Ps 55:23 LXX, the readers are to cast their every care upon God, presumably in prayer. They are encouraged to do so because God genuinely cares for them (v. 7b). Prayer becomes the means by which one comes humbly under God’s saving might. In summary, the purpose of the quotation of Prov 3:34 LXX in its new context is to support the exhortation to humility at v. 5. Rhetorically, the entire unit thus serves to strengthen these Asia Minor fellowships for endurance in the face of intense societal pressures to compromise their Christian faith. They can find the strength to persevere and to live a life of humility because the grace of eschatological vindication and glory is imminent.

58

Christopher A. Beetham

Hermeneutical Reflections: Eschatology and Proverbs 3:34 in 1 Peter 5:5 A1Peter has directly applied Prov 3:34 to his Christian audience. A maxim from a compilation of wisdom originally written for ancient Israel is understood to be immediately relevant to diaspora Christian communities scattered over several Roman provinces of the late first-century AD. Although noneschatological in its original context, the “grace” that God gives according to Prov 3:34 becomes eschatologically charged when A1Peter embeds it into the new context of 1 Pet 5:1–7. This grace has become the gift of exaltation and glory to be bestowed on the day of God. As seen in the previous units of 1 Pet 4:7–11 and 4:12–19, the denouement has wholly shaped A1Peter’s thought. Eschatology undergirds all of 5:1–7, surfacing explicitly at vv. 1c, 4, and 6. A1Peter writes that he is a partaker of the “glory” to be revealed (v. 1c). When the Chief Shepherd is manifested, elders who have shepherded faithfully will be conferred “glory” (v. 4). Indeed, all members who have humbled themselves before God will be exalted on the day of God (v. 6). The author’s presupposition appears to be that the principle that God “gives grace to the humble” runs on a continuum and holds true whether applied within history or at its climactic conflagration. Therefore, in A1Peter’s judgment, it is appropriate to harness Prov 3:34 and expand its latent meaning to describe eschatological reality.

Echoes of the Book of Proverbs in 1 Peter I have defined echo elsewhere as “a subtle, literary mode of reference that is not intended for public recognition yet derives from a specific predecessor. An author’s wording may echo the precursor consciously or unconsciously and / or contextually or non-contextually.” 35 In light of this definition, I have determined that there are two echoes of Proverbs in 1 Peter. I have also come to the conclusion that despite some scholars’ opinion, there is no echo of Prov 24:21 in 1 Pet 2:17.

35 Beetham, Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians, 24. See the discussion on pp. 20–24 for the rationale behind this definition.

Eschatology and the Book of Proverbs in 1 Peter

59

Table 3: An Echo of Proverbs 24:21 LXX in 1 Peter 2:17? Proverbs 24:21 MT

Proverbs 24:21 LXX

‌‫ ירא־את־יהוה בני ומלך‬φοβοÜ τän θεόn υÉέ καÈ ‌‫ עם־שונים אל־תתערב‬βασιλέα καÈ mηθετέρú αÎτÀn ‚πειθήσùς Fear the LORD, my son, and the king; with those who dissent do not mix.

Fear God, O son, and king, and do not disobey either of them.

1 Peter 2:17 πάnτας τιmήσατε, τ˜n ‚δελφότητα ‚γαπτε, τän θεän φοβεØσθε, τän βασιλέα τιmτε. Honor all; love the family of faith; fear God; honor the king.

Evaluation, Text Form, and Original Context Several commentators have suggested a possible echo of Prov 24:21 LXX in 1 Pet 2:17, 36 while others, such as Selwyn, Kelly, and Boring have simply presupposed it (although without supporting argument). 37 The case for the echo, however, is tenuous. 38 First, the two texts share only three words in common. Second, the words are common words. Third, the word order is dissimilar enough to raise doubts (see chart above). Fourth, whereas the words θεός and βασιλεύς in Prov 24:21 LXX function as the two objects of the same verb (“Fear God ... and king”), in 1 Pet 2:17 βασιλεύς functions as the object of another verb (“Fear God; honor the king”). Fifth, the sense of both texts are different and it is difficult to see how Prov 24:21 would support A1Peter’s argument. While the ancient proverb exalts the human king of Israel to a level of authority comparable to God himself, A1Peter has deftly conveyed that the Roman emperor is lower than God and – as a mere human – is due (only) the “honor” that is due everyone else by virtue of their membership in the human family (“honor [τιmάω] everyone. ... Honor [τιmάω] the king”). The emperor is not, however, to be “feared” as divine. Such level of reverential homage or worship belongs to God alone. In summary, Prov 24:21 provides a genuine parallel of interest for study of 1 Pet 2:17, but there is probably no true echo of the former in the latter. Those 36 Goppelt, 1 Peter, 190; Michaels, 1 Peter, 131; Schutter, Hermeneutic and Composition in 1 Peter, 38; Davids, Peter, 103; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 188; Elliott, 1 Peter, 500; and NA28 margin – all with an appropriate level of caution. Tellingly, Carson does not even mention this possibility (“1 Peter,” 1033). 37 Selwyn, Peter, 174; Kelly, Peter and Jude, 113; and M. Eugene Boring, 1 Peter, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 1999), 116. 38 Cf. McCartney’s doubt: “I have not included this [i. e., the possible reference of Prov 24:21 at 2:17] in my regular discussion above because I am not at all certain that Peter was actually consciously alluding to the Proverb” (“The Use of the Old Testament in the First Epistle of Peter,” 100 n. 94).

60

Christopher A. Beetham

who would defend the echo may be in danger of committing the literary sin of “parallelomania,” against which such studies as the present one must maintain constant vigilance. 39 Table 4: The Echo of Proverbs 3:25 LXX in 1 Peter 3:6 Proverbs 3:25 MT

Proverbs 3:25 LXX

‫ אל־תירא מפחד פתאם ומשאת‬καÈ οÎ φοβηθήσù πτόησιn ‌‫ רשעים כי תבא‬âπελθοÜσαn οÎδà åρm€ς ‚σεβÀn âπερχοmέnας

Do not be afraid of a sudden terror or the storm of the wicked when it comes

And you will not fear a terror coming nor the coming assaults of the ungodly

1 Peter 3:6 ±ς Σάρρα Íπήκουσεn ... ©ς âγεnήθητε τέκnα ‚γαθοποιοÜσαι καÈ m˜ φοβούmεnαι mηδεmίαn πτόησιn As Sarah obeyed ... of whom you have become children, doing what is good and not fearing any terror.

Evaluation, Comparison of Textual Versions, and Original Context A Thesaurus Linguae Graecae search on the term πτόησις demonstrates that the word is exceptionally rare in Greek literature up through the late first-century AD and the writing of the New Testament. It occurs three times in Plato and once in Aristotle, but with no other occurrences in numerous major Classical writers. In Second Temple literature, the word appears only once in the LXX at Prov 3:25, the text under consideration. The term does not surface at all in the Old Testament pseudepigraphical literature or Josephus, and Philo only employs it once. 40 In early Christian literature, it appears just once in the New Testament at 1 Pet 3:6, the text under consideration, and does not appear in the Apostolic Fathers. Furthermore, it is significant that among all these writings, the expression “to fear a terror” (φοβέω/φοβέοmαι + πτόησιn) only occurs in Prov 3:25 LXX and 1 Pet 3:6, the texts under consideration. Second, the two texts share not merely this extremely rare expression of two words; they actually share four words in common in the exact same word order. 41 Third, A1Peter will quote from Prov 3:21–35 again at 5:5 (v. 34). Therefore, A1Peter demonstrates familiarity with Prov 3:21–35 and increases the likelihood that he borrowed its 39

See Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962):1–13. Philo, Her. 251. 41 See the above chart; the οÎ (“not”) of Prov 3:25 has changed to a mή (“not”) in accordance with Greek grammar and does not reflect any meaning difference. 40

Eschatology and the Book of Proverbs in 1 Peter

61

language earlier at 3:6. 42 In conclusion, A1Peter has in all probability echoed Prov 3:25 LXX at 3:6. 43 Other evidence exists that complements and further substantiates the echo. The echo originates from the broader context of Prov 3:21–35. This text divides into three sections. Verses 21–26 contain the author’s summons to the reader to guard wisdom. If the reader keeps wisdom, then even if “sudden terrors” come the reader will not stumble, for God will guard his steps. Since this is true, in vv. 27–31 the author commands the reader to “do good” to his neighbor. The reader can “do good” to their neighbor because God is caring for them; this frees the reader to do what is good to others in the community. Verses 32–35, the third section, provide further support for why the reader should guard wisdom and obey the five prohibitions concerning neighbor in vv. 27–31: God blesses those who keep wisdom, but curses the wicked. The complementary evidence for the proposed echo found in this text is the central exhortation in the LXX, written not once but twice in vv. 27–31, to “do good” to neighbor (vv. 27, 28). The NETS translation of Prov 3:27–28 LXX reads (emphasis added): Do not withhold to do good to the needy, when your hand can help. Do not say, “Go, come back, and tomorrow I will give,” when you are able to do good.

The phrase repeated twice in this text, εÞ ποιεØn (“to do good”), is synonymous with ‚γαθοποιεØn (“to do good”), as seen from Num 10:32 LXX. 44 It is therefore significant that A1Peter at 3:6 encourages the women in their “doing good” (‚γαθοποιοÜσαι). In summary, A1Peter’s expression of “doing good” has been likely influenced by the larger context of the source text he has echoed. 45

Proverbs 3:25 in Early Jewish and Christian Literature outside 1 Peter No extant text of Second Temple Judaism cites Prov 3:25. This includes the Old Testament apocryphal and pseudepigraphical literature, Philo, Josephus, and the DSS. First Peter 3:6 is the first and oldest extant text to borrow its language. The findings are similar in regard to other early Christian use of the text. No

42

Beetham, Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians, 33. Other scholars have overheard this echo: Selwyn, Peter, 185–86; Kelly, Peter and Jude, 132; Goppelt, 1 Peter, 225 n. 51; Brox, Der erste Petrusbrief, 146; Michaels, 1 Peter, 167; McCartney, “The Use of the Old Testament in the First Epistle of Peter,” 119; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 216 n. 156; Elliott, 1 Peter, 574; and NA28 margin. 44 See also BDAG, “εÞ,” 317. 45 I read this initially in Selwyn, Peter, 185, and have developed it here. See also McCartney, “The Use of the Old Testament in the First Epistle of Peter,” 119. 43

62

Christopher A. Beetham

other New Testament author cites Prov 3:25. Nor does the text occur in the Apostolic Fathers, the New Testament apocryphal literature, or the later anteNicene fathers.

The Echo of Proverbs 3:25 in 1 Peter 3:6 The echo of Prov 3:25 occurs at v. 6 of the textual unit of 1 Pet 3:1–6. The unit divides into three parts. In vv. 1–2, A1Peter instructs wives to be subject to their husbands. The purpose of this deference is to win over those husbands who have not embraced the Christian faith. It is pure conduct lived “in fear” before God that will attract these husbands in a winsome way (τ˜n ân φόβú γn˜n ‚nαστροφ˜n ÍmÀn). Because it is precisely their conduct that may win over their husbands, in vv. 3–4 A1Peter therefore exhorts wives to ensure that they pursue inner beauty. They are not to run after external beauty. Such inner beauty is “very precious” before God (v. 4b). In vv. 5–6, A1Peter then reinforces his exhortation to wives to pursue inner beauty. Sarah, wife of Abraham, matriarch of the people of God, conducted herself in such a way. She adorned herself with inner beauty, hoped in God, and yielded to Abraham her husband, even calling him “lord” (see Gen 18:12). A1Peter affirms that the women have become Sarah’s children through the Christian message. Because of their hope in God, wives find the strength to “do good and not fear any terror” (v. 6d). The language echoes Prov 3:25 LXX and its immediate context and is a passage to which A1Peter will return explicitly later at 5:5 (quoting Prov 3:34 LXX; see above). Context suggests, though does not demand, that the “terror” includes the potentially harsh treatment of an unbelieving husband who is unhappy with his wife’s new foreign religion. A1Peter also likely has one eye toward the overall situation of his audience. They are undergoing the eschatological “fiery ordeal” and are threatened with suffering and persecution. If we have overheard a genuine echo of Prov 3:25 at 3:6, a comparison of the larger context of the echoed text with the echoing text raises items of interest. 46 First, the original audience of Prov 3:21–35 are Hebrew male “sons” being prepared for royal position within the government and court of Israel (v. 21). 47 The audience of 1 Pet 3:1–6 is comprised of gentile Christian women. Second, as demonstrated above, the central exhortation to “do good” occurs twice in the echoed text. This is likely the inspiration for A1Peter’s affirmation that wives of his audience are characterized by “doing good.” Third, the echoed

46 Possible “unstated correspondences only come to light when the echoed and the echoing texts are compared and the original context of the echoed text explored” (Beetham, Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians, 22; see pp. 22–24 for discussion). 47 See, e. g., Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1–9, AB 18A (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 10; and James L. Crenshaw, “Proverbs, Book of,” ABD 5:518.

Eschatology and the Book of Proverbs in 1 Peter

63

text interprets itself in the following line of LXX parallelism. This second line is relevant to the situation of the wives in 1 Peter, who face persecution for their faith: And you will not fear a coming terror, nor the approaching assaults of the ungodly. (Prov 3:25)

The reason for this ability not to fear terror or approaching assaults of the ungodly is “because the Lord will be over all your ways” (Prov 3:26a LXX). Christian wives married to unsympathetic and unbelieving husbands could find themselves in precarious positions. Tacitus viewed the Christian faith, being a new and foreign religion, to be a “deadly superstition” and a “mischief,” full of “degraded and shameful practices”; it was marked by “anti-social tendencies” and deserved “ruthless punishment.” 48 Suetonius wrote that “the Christians” were “a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief.” 49 In light of such perceptions, A1Peter seeks to encourage wives to remain true to God while submitting to husbands as far as possible without an apostatizing compromise. They were to adorn themselves with inner beauty, making the faith attractive. They need not fear and should devote themselves to doing what is good, even in view of potential “approaching assaults of the ungodly.” For those women in the audience who overheard the larger context of the echoed text, it whispered to them that God was with them, should their husbands (or others) show aggression. Fourth, the echoed text of Prov 3:21–35 LXX climaxes at v. 35 with the promise that those faithful to God will “inherit glory” (δόξαn ... κληροnοmήσουσιn). In view of the fact that the Christian wives are called “fellow-heirs” (συγκληροnόmοι) of the grace of life in the immediately following v. 7, and that “glory” (δόξα) in 1 Peter is connected to the eschatological “inheritance,” it is perhaps a distant but not impossible suggestion that the language of Prov 3:35 LXX has shaped the designation συγκληροnόmοι of 1 Pet 3:7. 50

Hermeneutical Reflections: Eschatology and the Echo of Proverbs 3:25 in 1 Peter 3:6 If there is indeed an echo of Prov 3:25 LXX in 1 Pet 3:6, then A1Peter has taken up language from an ancient wisdom text composed for Hebrew men of ancient Israel and applied it to Christian gentile women of the Roman empire in

48 Tacitus, Ann. 15.43–44, in The Annals of Imperial Rome, trans. Michael Grant (London: Penguin Classics, 1956). 49 Suetonius, Nero 16, in The Twelve Caesars, ed. Robert Graves, rev. ed. (London: Penguin Classics, 2007). 50 For “glory,” see 1 Pet 1:7, 11; 4:11; 5:10; “inheritance” language is found at 1 Pet 1:4; 3:7, 9.

64

Christopher A. Beetham

Asia Minor. The application of Prov 3:25 to this new situation apparently adopts a hermeneutical posture that Prov 3:21–35 enunciates universal tenets readily applicable to anyone who “fears” the God of Israel, not merely Hebrew men preparing for royal duty in Israel (ân φόβú, 1 Pet 3:2; cf. Prov 1:7). It may also be significant hermeneutically that A1Peter understands his Christian audience to have inherited the titles, prerogatives, and task of Israel. 51 There is no hint of supersessionism in the letter, yet there can be little doubt that A1Peter viewed his Christian gentile audience as members of eschatological Israel. This presupposition possibly softens the difficulties otherwise inherent in such a hermeneutical move. Since the gentile Christian women are assumed to be members of eschatological Israel, the ancient wisdom text of historic Israel applied to them also since they were heiresses of the Scriptures of Israel and living in the days of prophetic fulfillment to which they pointed (1:10–12). A1Peter’s echo of Prov 3:25 LXX ushers the text into an eschatological framework. “Inheritance” language in 1 Peter refers exclusively to the future hope to be bestowed upon the faithful on the day of God. In the immediate context of the echo at 3:7, faithful Christian wives are “fellow-heirs” of the “grace of life,” the eschatological inheritance. Therefore, A1Peter’s echo of Prov 3:25 LXX embeds it into an eschatological context. The threat of persecution surely awakened in some women the terror of potential martyrdom. In its new context, however, an apostasy from the faith arising from terror of persecution brings one to the brink of everlasting shame on the day of God, who is ready to judge everyone impartially according to their deeds (1:17). The women must fear God, not man, lest they forfeit their share of the eternal inheritance. Table 5: The Echo of Proverbs 10:12 in 1 Peter 4:8 Proverbs 10:12 MT

Proverbs 10:12 LXX

‌‫ שנאה תעורר מדנים‬mØσος âγείρει nεØκος πάnτας ‌‫ ועל כל־פשעים תכסה אהבה‬δà τοÌς m˜ φιλοnεικοÜnτας καλύπτει φιλία Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all transgressions (NASB)

51

Hatred stirs up strife, but friendship covers all who are not fond of strife (NETS)

See, e. g., Exod 19:6 in 2:9 and Hos 1:6, 9 in 2:10.

1 Peter 4:8 πρä πάnτωn τ˜n εÊς áαυτοÌς ‚γάπηn âκτεn¨ êχοnτες, íτι ‚γάπη καλύπτει πλ¨θος mαρτιÀn ... above all things, having a fervent love for one another, for love covers a multitude of sins

Eschatology and the Book of Proverbs in 1 Peter

65

Evaluation and Textual Comparison The echo is closer to the MT than to the LXX. The author has probably either quoted a lightly paraphrased Greek translation of an MT text type or offered his own translation of such a text. In the vast number of occurrences of the Hebrew term ‌‫אהבה‬, the LXX authors render it with a word from the ‚γάπ- word group. 52 The LXX’s translation of ‌‫ אהבה‬with φιλία is unique within the LXX outside of Proverbs but is consistent with the translator’s decision to do so within Proverbs LXX. 53 If A1Peter has translated from an MT text type, he has rendered ‌‫אהבה‬ with its more common Septuagintal equivalent. 54 The Hebrew verb ‌‫“( כסה‬to cover”) is normally translated with καλύπτω or its cognates in the LXX (e. g., κατακαλύπτω), and LXX Prov 10:12 confirms this. The Hebrew noun ‌‫ פשע‬is not frequently translated by mαρτία in the LXX but does occur enough to show that the former was considered to be within the semantic range of the latter in Hellenistic Judaism. In summary, A1Peter’s echo of Prov 10:12 at 4:8 suggests that it is a light paraphrase or translation of an MT text type that little resembles the LXX offered in the Rahlfs critical edition. The presence of Prov 10:12 in 1 Pet 4:8 should be classified as an echo. First, there is nothing from the original context that must be brought forward into the new for the new context to be understood fully. This disqualifies it as an allusion. Second, the reference, while having a subject and predicate, nevertheless only shares two words in common (“love covers”), with a third phrase loosely translated yet conceptually synonymous (“multitude of sins” for “all transgressions”). Quotations are intentional and explicit. Authors mean for the audience to recognize them easily as a reference to a previous source. Explicitness of the source text in the new context therefore does play a significant role in aiding the reader to catch an ancient author’s quotation. The reference in 1 Pet 4:8, however, is simply too short to be easily noticed, and with no use of a quotation formula or rare words or irregular grammar, the reader is provided little chance of recognizing the reference without more contextual help. 55 The use of Prov 10:12 in 1 Pet 4:8 is a classic instance of an echo. 56

52

Either with the nouns ‚γάπη or ‚γάπησις, or with a construction built with the verb ‚γαπάω. See Prov 5:19, 10:12, 15:17, 17:9, 27:5. 54 Aquila and Symmachus also translated the Hebrew word with its more common Greek equivalent (‚γάπη). 55 Pace Elliott, 1 Peter, 750 n. 518, the íτι (“for” or “because”) is not a quotation marker but functions to introduce the reason for the exhortation to love fervently. 56 Several scholars have overheard this echo: Kelly, Peter and Jude, 178; Davids, Peter, 157–58; Boring, 1 Peter, 150; Elliott, 1 Peter, 750–51; Jobes, 1 Peter, 278; Carson, “1 Peter,” 1039–40; and NA28 margin (noteworthy for its downgrade to an allusion from NA27’s italicization of the text, indicating the now overturned opinion that it was a quotation). Cf. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 295. Others deny it on the unpersuasive grounds that since everywhere else A1Peter quotes the LXX, and since 53

66

Christopher A. Beetham

Proverbs 10:12 in Its Original Context Because Prov 10:12 is one sentence with two clauses set in an antithetical parallelism, there is little context to aid more specific interpretation of the text. Some scholars, however, understand Prov 10:1–22:16 to contain small collections of individual proverbs that have been grouped together to “provide context for the individual maxims.” 57 These small collections may be identified by repetition of keywords, thematic commonalities, inclusios, or other literary devices. In the case of 10:12, Duane Garrett may be correct to suggest that Prov 10:12–18 is a seven-proverb collection that provides context for mutual interpretation and a fuller understanding of the individual proverbs contained within. The collection appears to be demarcated by the inclusio formed by the words “hatred” (‌‫ )שנאה‬and “conceals /covers” (‌‫ )כסה‬at vv. 12 and 18. 58 The inclusio at v. 18 reads in the MT, “Lying lips cover hatred, and spreading rumor – he is a fool,” whereas LXX reads, “Righteous lips cover [καλύπτω] enmity, but those who bring forth abuse are foolish.” If Garrett is on the right track, then the broader context suggests that the “hatred” that stirs up strife and the “love” that covers transgressions are expressed verbally in words. The collection concerns wise use of the tongue.

Proverbs 10:12 in Early Jewish and Christian Literature outside 1 Peter Proverbs 10:12 is not quoted in either the Old Testament apocryphal or pseudepigraphical literature. The DSS (biblical or sectarian), Josephus, and Philo do not cite it. In summary, Prov 10:12 does not occur in the extant texts of Second Temple Judaism. In turning to early Christian literature outside of 1 Peter, there is general agreement that Prov 10:12 lies behind the wording of Jas 5:20. In fact, however, the wording of Jas 5:20 stands closer to 1 Pet 4:8 than to either the LXX or MT of Prov 10:12. This does not mean, however, that 1 Pet 4:8 is the source. On the contrary, scholarship dates 1 Peter after James. It is possible that both are dependent on common early tradition. Of particular interest are the exact quotations of 1 Pet 4:8 in 1 Clem. 49:5 and 2 Clem. 16:4 (‚γάπη καλύπτει πλ¨θος mαρτιÀn). 59 Both quotations are

Prov 10:12 in 1 Pet 4:8 is closer to the MT it cannot therefore be a reference to the Old Testament proverb (Selwyn, Peter, 217; and Goppelt, 1 Peter, 297; cf. Michaels, 1 Peter, 247). 57 Duane Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, NAC 14 (Nashville: Broadman, 1993), 46–47. 58 The preceding collection of 10:6–11 is demarcated by the inclusio “but the mouth of the wicked conceals violence” (10:6b, 11b). It also concerns the proper use of the tongue. 59 The quotation of 1 Pet 4:8 in 1 Clem. 49:5 provides the terminus ad quem for the latest possible date that 1 Peter could have been written. The majority opinion is that 1 Clem. was written ca. 95–96 AD.

Eschatology and the Book of Proverbs in 1 Peter

67

embedded into eschatological contexts. (This is especially evident in the immediate context of 2 Clem.) Lacking, however, is any display of awareness of the source from which the language ultimately stems (that is, Prov 10:12). The authors therefore appear to employ the language of 1 Pet 4:8 with no awareness of the echo of Prov 10:12 embedded in the quoted text. Similarly, later ante-Nicene fathers quoted 1 Pet 4:8 but never Prov 10:12. 60 Nor is Prov 10:12 cited in the New Testament apocryphal literature. In summary, 1 Pet 4:8 is the only eschatological interpretation of Prov 10:12 among the extant literature of Second Temple Judaism and early Christian literature outside 1 Peter.

Proverbs 10:12 in 1 Peter 4:8 A1Peter echoed Prov 10:12 within the larger textual unit of 1 Pet 4:7–11. The unit develops the reference to the eschatological judgment mentioned in the final two verses of the previous unit that God is ready to judge the living and the dead (4:5–6). 61 In v. 7a, A1Peter explains further that this judgment is not only certain but has “drawn near” (πάnτωn δà τä τέλος ¢γγικεn). In view of this imminent cataclysm, Peter draws the conclusion that his audience must be selfcontrolled and sober for prayers (v. 7b). This self-control and sobriety is to be expressed in three ways. The community is to (1) love one another fervently (v. 8a), (2) show hospitality to one another (v. 9), and (3) serve one another with their spiritual gifts (v. 10). The recipients are “stewards” (οÊκοnόmοι, v.10b) and so are to use these gifts for the glory of God (v. 11a). The echo of Prov 10:12 surfaces at v. 8b. It serves as the ground for why the community should express its sobriety by “having a fervent love for one another.” 62 The reason is because, as Prov 10:12 states, “love covers a multitude of sins.” Members of the community may stumble into sin, perhaps especially in the face of the pressures of persecution or under the weight of the eschatological “fiery ordeal.” If the community loves each other fervently, however, such offenses need not tear it apart. Instead, the community will find ways to restore members who have strayed. This restorative love helps to ensure that members who have sinned may be ready for the imminent final judgment (v.7a). A1Peter has again brought a noneschatological maxim from Proverbs into a thoroughly eschatological context and charged it with significance. 63 No longer does love

60

Clement of Alexandria (ANF 2:293, 340, 362, 429, 602); and Tertullian (ANF 3:639). Elliott, 1 Peter, 743, 744–47. Cf. Elliott, 1 Peter, 750; Feldmeier, First Peter, 218–19. 63 Against Brox, who understands vv. 8–11 to be largely unrelated to its immediate context and thus to be noneschatological paraenesis (Der erste Petrusbrief, 204). In my judgment, this is difficult to maintain. Verses 5–7 and 12–19 surround vv. 8–11 and are charged with an eschatological out61 62

68

Christopher A. Beetham

merely cover sins that may lead to temporal judgment in this life; it now covers sins that otherwise may lead to everlasting shame on the day of God.

Hermeneutical Reflections: Eschatology and the Echo of Proverbs 10:12 in 1 Peter 4:8 A1Peter directly applied Prov 10:12 to his Christian audience. An adage from a wisdom collection originally composed for Israel is understood to be applicable to Christian communities scattered over several Roman provinces of the late first-century AD. Other uses of Scripture in 1 Peter reveal A1Peter’s presupposition that these communities form part of the eschatological Israel by virtue of their allegiance to Christ. If this is correct, it would then be comprehensible as to why A1Peter presupposed that the Scriptures of Israel applied immediately to his predominantly gentile audience. The Scriptures were written for Israel, and the Christian communities to which he wrote formed part of the restored Israel that God was building around Christ in the last days. This is confirmed by how A1Peter employed Prov 10:12. He has echoed a noneschatological text and planted it firmly into an eschatological context. Christians must love one another fervently in light of the imminent reality of the end of all things because such love can restore straying sinners to prepare them for final judgment on the day of God.

Summary and Conclusion: Eschatology and the Book of Proverbs in 1 Peter Given the preceding study, three items deserve mention. First, A1Peter has quoted or echoed four different texts from Proverbs. A1Peter has quoted from Proverbs twice (Prov 11:31 LXX in 4:18 and 3:34 LXX in 5:5) and echoed texts from it twice (Prov 3:25 LXX in 3:6 and 10:12 in 4:8). Therefore, Proverbs is a significant scriptural source for A1Peter’s thought, surpassed only by Isaiah (seven times) and Psalms (five times) in number of occurrence. While previous scholarship has noticed the use of Proverbs in 1 Peter, no study has focused exclusively upon their use until now. Second, the essay has demonstrated that A1Peter interpreted Proverbs with an eschatological hermeneutic. Maxims from Proverbs that originally applied to temporal judgment and deliverance are charged with eschatological significance. Their original promises of blessing for the righteous and curses for the wicked in this life now refer to eschatological deliverance or condemnation on look (as Brox himself asserts). How then could vv. 8–11 remain unaffected by its immediate literary context?

Eschatology and the Book of Proverbs in 1 Peter

69

the day of God’s visitation. The hermeneutical principle A1Peter assumed appears to be that God’s activity of executing judgment and deliverance runs on similar principles along a continuum of historical intensity, whether they are accomplished as temporal acts within history (as in Prov) or realized at the climactic conflagration of the end of all things (as in A1Peter). Therefore, Schutter’s thesis also applies to the use of Proverbs in 1 Peter. All four of the references to Proverbs in 1 Peter were made from a “radical eschatological viewpoint.” Yet no study until now has highlighted this radical eschatological hermeneutic into which Proverbs has been pressed into service. Finally, A1Peter’s use of Proverbs provides a window into how an early Christian author used Proverbs as an authoritative guide for the church’s ethical conduct within the eschatologically charged symbolic world that he perceived her to inhabit. A1Peter’s four uses of Proverbs all function to support exhortations to ethical conduct. Moreover, despite the seismological theological shifts that A1Peter has embraced and advocates – such as that gentile Christians in Roman imperial provinces of Asia Minor are full members of eschatological Israel – in his hermeneutic A1Peter in every case shows no hesitation in applying the ancient book of Proverbs of Israel to his contemporary and heavily gentile Christian audience.

Scripture, the Day of the Lord, and Holiness Whole Bible Theology in 2 Peter 3 Paul R. House Like other first-century Christian writers, Peter 1 had access to the thematic material found in the Law, Prophets, and Writings. Furthermore, by the time he sent 2 Peter he had been an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus, had interacted with the other apostles, including Paul, and had engaged in extensive ministry in Palestine, Syria, Rome, and elsewhere. 2 It is hardly surprising, therefore, to find him using texts and concepts from the whole Old Testament, which he calls “the scriptures” (2 Pet 1:20), from the life of Christ, from his acquaintance with other apostles, and from his own teaching in 2 Peter. This chapter will contend that in 2 Peter 3 the apostle engaged in Whole Bible Theology as he corrected false teaching concerning the day of the Lord. It will focus on his use of the prophets in this corrective pericope, yet will also note his pattern of using parts of the whole of scripture in his teaching. This Whole Bible emphasis in 2 Peter is in keeping with Peter’s pattern of preaching in Acts 2–4, as well as with the pattern of apostolic preaching found in Acts 13, 14, 17, etc. 3 This paper will argue that Peter’s treatment of the day of the Lord is not simply in contact with the prophets’ statements about “that day,” but also in total continuity with those statements.

1 Of course the apostolic authorship of 2 Peter is one of the least accepted of all traditional historical views of or in the New Testament. See the chapters by Peter Stuhlmacher and Chris Beetham above. I will not debate the matter. Rather, I will simply note that I am persuaded by the arguments in favor of Petrine authorship found in such works as Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1976), 820–48; Thomas R. Schreiner, 1–2 Peter and Jude, NAC (Nashville: Broadman Press, 2003); Douglas Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 21–26, etc. I look forward to seeing the evidence for Petrine authorship Scott J. Hafemann plans to include in his forthcoming commentary of 2 Peter and Jude. 2 For a lively summary of his ministry see Adolf Schlatter, The Church in the New Testament Period, trans. Paul P. Levertoff (London: SPCK, 1955), 33–48, 252–62. The German edition appeared as Die Geschichte der ersten Christenheit (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1926). 3 See C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1936); and Robert H. Mounce, The Essential Nature of New Testament Preaching (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1960).

72

Paul R. House

The Scriptures and a Sincere Mind: Second Peter in Context It is important to set 2 Peter 3 in its immediate and wider context. Of course, its primary immediate context is 2 Peter itself. Its secondary primary context is 1 and 2 Peter. Its wider context includes the teachings of Jesus and “the scriptures.” 4 Since 2 Peter consciously makes use of these writings and events, it is legitimate to attempt to understand the book in each of these literary-historical settings. As is well known, 2 Peter addresses an audience beset by the twin problems of persecution and false teachers. 5 The book addresses these themes by utilizing a thorough Biblical Theology that encompasses the whole of scripture. After an introduction that identifies Peter as an apostle and describes the recipients as having “equal standing with God” (1:1–2), 6 Peter proceeds to assert the ethical qualities that should characterize those who have “become partakers of the divine nature” (1:4; 1:3–11). These virtues, or “excellencies,” keep readers from being “ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:8). Readers must be diligent in making their “calling and election sure,” for if they “practice these qualities” they “will never fall” (1:10), but shall rather have “an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ” (1:11). The apostle could hardly place the church’s members’ behavior on a higher plane. Indeed, it is his dying wish that they follow the truth they have professed (1:12–15). Upon what authority does he base his ethical admonitions? In 1:16–21 he anchors his teaching in two places. First, he anchors it in his own witnessing of God the Father’s testimony to God the Son on the Mount of Transfiguration (1:16–18; see Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). Though 1:16–18 differs in some details from the Transfiguration accounts in the synoptics, the passage is nonetheless hardly antithetical to them. As Bauckham writes, “He refers to the Transfiguration because he sees in it God’s appointment of Jesus as eschatological king and judge, and features not strictly related to this point need not be 4 I choose the term “the scriptures” because this is the title apostolic writers used for what we, with some justification, call the Old Testament (see Mark 12:24, 14:49; 1 Cor 15:3–4). This term is also what Peter calls Paul’s writings in 2 Pet 3:16. The tendency to speak of apostolic writers’ use of the Old Testament as if they considered it a dated or problematic entity is a later development. Indeed, this development probably stems from the second-century Marcionite controversy. What is intriguing is the fact that many in today’s church seems to accept the validity of Marcion’s belief that the Old Testament is a problem to be solved, while generally affirming the Old Testament as scripture. Yet this attitude that the Old Testament is a different sort of scripture than the New Testament (which contains the true scriptures) clashes with the New Testament’s emphasis on the Old Testament as God-breathed and useful for every aspect of church life (2 Tim 3:14–17). It is also not in keeping with first-century belief that the earlier scriptures were established and useful. 5 For a description of this setting, see Tord Fornberg, An Early Church in a Pluralistic Society: A Study of 2 Peter, ConBNT 9 (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1977), 111–48. 6 Unless otherwise noted, all citations are from the English Standard Version.

Scripture, the Day of the Lord, and Holiness

73

mentioned. In particular, he is not interested in features of the synoptic accounts which suggest the theophany on Sinai and depict Jesus as the eschatological prophet like Moses.” 7 Thus, Peter witnessed God’s assertion that Jesus is Lord and savior (see also 1:1). Ralph Martin adds, “Peter’s seeing the vision and hearing the heavenly voice are then the hallmarks of his authority now committed to this group and used in debate with those who evidently claimed access to superior knowledge and privilege.” 8 Second, he anchors his teaching in the prophetic word found in the scriptures in 1:19–21. In fact, he claims that “we have something more sure, the prophetic word” (1:19). How can this word be more sure? Because it does not arise from “someone’s own interpretation” (1:20) or “the will of man” (1:21), but by writers speaking “from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (1:21). So God’s inscripturated word even exceeds in apologetic power Peter’s own testimony. His assertions are based on actual time and space events. They are not myth even in the most positive, expansive meaning of the term. 9 Yet the prophetic word possesses higher authority. However even during the prophets’ era theirs were not the only religious voices. False teachers arose from the very start (2:1), and they existed in Peter’s era (2:1–3). But Peter asserts that false teachers never triumph. Current false teachers will endure the same judgment as the fallen angels, the people in the era of the flood, and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah (2:4–9). These new deceivers will be judged as surely as their predecessors were. They defame authorities (2:10–14) and promise their hearers freedom (2:18–22), but in reality are simply Balaam-style prophets for hire (2:15–17; cf. Numbers 22–24). 10 Peter’s audience’s experiences with false teachers mirror what the faithful have dealt with throughout biblical history. The apostle cites passages from the Law, more specifically Genesis 6 and 19 and Numbers 22–24, to make his point. As one might expect him to do based on his comments in 1:19–21, then, Peter utilizes whatever texts from the scriptures he believes best apply to his readers’ setting. Thus, by chapter three Peter has already stated the purpose of the letter, which is to remind readers of the qualities befitting Christians (1:3–15). He has asserted his own reliability as an eyewitness (1:16–18) and the “more sure” reliability of the prophetic words in scripture (1:19–20), which he claims derives 7 Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, WBC 50 (Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 205. For a detailed discussion of the similarities and differences between the synoptic accounts and 1:16–18, see Bauckham, 204–12. 8 Andrew Chester and Ralph Martin, The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude, New Testament Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 160. 9 Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, 82–83. 10 This outline of chapter two comes from Bo Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude, AB 37 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), 148.

74

Paul R. House

from the Holy Spirit (1:21; see 2 Tim 3:14–4:2). He has also utilized texts from the Law when denouncing false teachers and explaining their certain judgment. In other words, he has described the reason for engaging in Whole Bible Theology (purity of believers). He has noted the basis for Whole Bible Theology (the accuracy of Holy Spirit-induced scripture and eyewitness apostolic testimony). He has also offered an example of the application of the Law as part one of a Whole Bible Theology treatment of a topic (in this particular case judgment of false teachers). In 2 Pet 3:1 the apostle may well refer readers to yet another authoritative text. He states, “This is the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved.” Though scholars are hardly unanimous on this point, probably a majority of experts conclude that the letter in question is 1 Peter. 11 As Charles Bigg writes, “We cannot feel absolutely certain that 1 Peter is here referred to, any more than we can say with confidence what particular Epistle of St. Paul is meant in 3:15. Yet 1 Peter will satisfy the conditions fairly well. The prophets and evangelists are appealed to (1:10–12), the Passion and Ascension of our Lord are laid down as the historical basis of the gospel, and the Parousia, in particular, is pointed to repeatedly. The last point is here of great weight.” 12 If Bigg is correct, then it is helpful to consider the structure of 1 Peter, especially as it relates to the emphases it shares with 2 Peter 3. In 1 Peter, the apostle addresses a group under great persecution. He reminds them that they are born again to a sure, living hope (1:1–12), and that as such they are called to holiness, to be a holy people, and to quiet living under governmental authority (1:13–2:25). This holy living includes familial relationships (3:1–7) and embraces suffering for the sake of righteousness (3:8–22). The recipients are called to suffer as Christ has suffered (4:1–6), and they are to grasp the fact that judgment day draws near (4:7–16). In fact, judgment has begun with the house of God (4:17), which means the ungodly should fear greatly (4:18–29). In light of these truths, both leaders and people ought to remain watchful, faithful, and obedient in these harsh times (5:1–14). Two aspects of 1 Peter are particularly pertinent to Peter’s Biblical Theology of judgment. First, as in 2 Peter, he cites the scriptures extensively. W. L. Schutter claims that up to one-half of the book consists of quotations, allusions, and themes found in earlier texts. 13 Ralph Martin notes Schutter’s position and concludes, “Whether this is an accurate assessment or not, it remains the case that no New Testament book (with the possible exception of Romans and Hebrews)

11

For a survey of opinions consult, Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 285–86. Charles Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. Peter and St. Jude, ICC, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902), 289. 13 W. L. Schutter, Hermeneutic and Composition in 1 Peter, WUNT 2.30 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989). 12

Scripture, the Day of the Lord, and Holiness

75

is so permeated with Old Testament hints and ideas as well as actual citations as 1 Peter; and that fact has some bearing on the type of document it is and the kind of readers who would be in a position to follow and appreciate this sort of sustained biblical exposition and application.” 14 Martin observes that Peter quotes Isaiah 53 in 2:21–25 and Psalm 34 in 3:10–12. 15 He also cites Isa 40:6, 8 (1:24–25), Isa 28:16 (2:6), Ps 118:22 (2:7), Isa 8:14 (2:8), and Prov 11:31 (4:18). Though fewer quotations from the Law appear than in 2 Peter, Peter quotes Exod 19:5–6 (2:9) at the crucial point where he defines his readers’ role and character. Thus, 1 Peter, no less than 2 Peter, grounds its teaching in Whole Bible Theology. Second, 1 Pet 4:17–19 focuses on judgment, the main theme in 2 Peter 3. Peter asserts that the “end of all things is at hand” (4:7). Thus, the readers must live in a self-controlled, sober, loving, faithful, and caring manner (4:7–11). Such behavior glorifies Christ (4:12). Further, the fact that judgment – the end of all things – is at hand means that the church will suffer (4:12–16). This suffering means that judgment begins with the household of God (4:17). If so, then the ungodly world is in desperate straits (4:18) and the godly person must entrust themselves to God, the faithful creator (4:19). Therefore, this passage uses the certainty of judgment to stir up the readers to moral excellence and encourage them in their hour of persecution; in other words, it uses the judgment theme to underscore the book’s main themes. It also cites concepts and passages found in the Law (4:19; see Genesis 1–2; etc.), the Prophets (4:17; see Jer 25:29), and Writings (4:18; see Prov 11:31) 16 to do so. When readers arrive at 2 Pet 3:2, then, they have already been introduced to the book’s vital judgment theme and have been saturated in Whole Bible Theology. The apostle has traversed the scriptures to encourage, instruct, inform, and warn. His emphasis on judgment is one evident way he warns. This warning is directed at the church, not just at unbelievers. Heeding the warning will guard believers from both unholy living and false teachers.

The Scriptures and the Day of the Lord: An Analysis of Second Peter 3 Second Peter 3 unfolds in two major sections. 17 First, 3:1–10 highlights the certainty of the day of the Lord. Second, 3:11–18 stresses the ethical obligations incumbent on believers given the certain coming judgment. As has been stated, 14

Chester and Martin, The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude, 88. Ibid. See the chapter by Christopher Beetham in this volume. 17 Perhaps due to the tight connections between related subjects in these verses scholars have suggested a wide range of outlines. 15 16

76

Paul R. House

the apostle expects readers to know 1 Peter, especially 4:7–19, and also expects readers to have an excellent grasp of a wide range of biblical material. Peter’s emphasis on judgment in 3:1–10 is hardly theoretical. He considers judgment as certain as the “predictions of the holy prophets” (3:2), which he considers even more certain than his own experience according to 1:19–21, and as certain as “the commandment of the Lord and savior through your apostles” (3:2). All of scripture and the whole of Christ’s teachings and the apostles’ record of that teaching bears witness to these facts. Having anchored what follows in prophetic, Christological, and apostolic authority in 3:1–2, Peter proceeds to cite these authorities to make his case. In 3:3–4 he mentions the presence of scoffers who question whether Christ will ever come. The prophets dealt with the same problem in their own day. For instance, Isa 5:18–29 mentions defiant sinners who dare the Lord to come. Jeremiah 17:15 describes some of Jeremiah’s detractors as challenging the prophet’s predictions of judgment by asking, “Where is the word of the Lord? Let it come.” Apparently Jeremiah’s decades-old message had hardened the hearts of such hearers. Zephaniah 1:12 reports that despite prophetic warnings to the contrary some men in Jerusalem “say in their hearts, ‘Yahweh will not do good, nor will he do ill.’” Peter considers the current setting quite similar, if indeed not identical, to what the prophets faced. Peter does not treat these prophetic texts as one-for-one predictions of what his readers face. He does not imply that Zephaniah predicted their exact situation. Rather, he states the general scriptural teaching concerning scoffers in the last days. Then he applies the scripture to the setting at hand in an accurate, contextual, relevant manner. Peter does not share this information to cause despair in his readers. Rather, he intends for this information to indicate God’s sovereign control over future events. As J. N. D. Kelly writes, “In other words, so far from disconcerting good Christians, the appearance of such people should actually fortify their faith, since it has already been divinely foretold and is indeed sure proof of the approaching end.” 18 It is also proof that the scoffers, who are almost certainly the false teachers introduced in 2 Peter 1–2, 19 face a certain, approaching end. After all, Isa 5:20–23 pronounces woe on those who “call evil good,” who are “wise in their own eyes,” who “are heroes at drinking wine,” and who “deprive the innocent of his right.” Such persons obviously believe the day of the Lord will never come, the very belief the false teachers in Peter’s day seem to claim for their lax morality. Isaiah 5:24 promises these scoffers will be burned up “as the tongue

18 J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude, Thornapple Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1981), 355. 19 Bigg, Peter and Jude, writes concerning 3:3, “With these words St. Peter begins his attack upon the denial of the Parousia, the doctrinal error which underlay the moral extravagance of the false teachers. He has had the subject in view from the outset of the Epistle” (291).

Scripture, the Day of the Lord, and Holiness

77

of fire devours the stubble,” because “they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts, and have despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.” In short, scoffers who through their own self-styled wisdom reject God’s word, call what is evil good, and live profligate lives will encounter purging fire on the day of woe, the day of God’s wrath. Peter knows all this from scripture. Further, Zeph 1:12–16 indicates that the Lord comes looking for scoffers on the day of the Lord. None of them will escape on this dark, bitter, and frightening day. Zephaniah 1:17–18 states that on the day of Yahweh “the fire of his jealousy” will consume the earth suddenly and thoroughly. Once again scoffers meet their end in the fire of divine judgment. Just as Isaiah’s and Zephaniah’s readers could count on Yahweh’s justice prevailing and the wicked falling, so Peter’s readers could expect the same. Judgment means the wicked no longer scoff or persecute those with faith in God. Having rooted his beliefs about the current crisis in the Prophets, in 3:5–7 he goes back to the Law to demonstrate the fundamental nature of the false teachers’ errors. Once again the apostle bases his teaching on the scoffers’ lack of obedience to God’s word. They “deliberately overlook” the fact that long ago God formed the world “out of water and through water” by his word (3:5). God uses these things, his word and water, to destroy the world, according to Gen 6:5–8:19 (3:6). Now this same word reserves the earth for the judging fire (3:7), a concept found in the scoffer passages noted above. So he argues that what was created by the word and judged by water according to the Law is reserved for fire, according to the words of God given to the Prophets. Scholars have long debated the source or sources of Peter’s conviction that worldwide destruction by fire marks the punishment of the wicked. As Moo explains, “This verse has sparked considerable theological controversy. Only here in the entire Bible (and possibly 3:10) do we find a clear reference to the destruction of the world by fire. Because of this, and because it is often suggested that Peter borrowed the idea of a final world conflagration from certain pagan philosophers of his day, some scholars resist the idea that has this teaching here.” 20 Thus, it is necessary to determine at least at a very preliminary level whether Peter utilizes materials from the Old Testament, later Judaism, current philosophical beliefs, his own mind, or all of the above. First, Moo and others 21 may underestimate the Old Testament’s emphasis on consuming fire and the day of the Lord. Most writers note that the Old Testament does include texts that depict judgment by fire, yet some then conclude these references are only about punishing the wicked, not destroying the 20

Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, 172. For example, Kelly, Peter and Jude, writes, “The idea that the world will be finally annihilated by fire appears only in 2 Peter in the New Testament, and is indeed in its fully developed form not biblical at all” (360). 21

78

Paul R. House

earth. 22 Yet Isa 66:15–16 is often cited as a background passage for 2 Pet 3:7. There, in a text whose broader context includes the creation of a new heaven and earth (65:17–25) and concludes with a picture of the wicked dead and burning forever (66:24), Isaiah envisions God coming “with flames of fire. For by fire will the Lord enter into judgment” (66:15b–16a). Thus, while the context (65:17–66:24) does not state explicitly that fire will destroy the world, it does include divine judgment by fire in a context in which the current earth will be transformed, thus resulting in life for the redeemed and endless burning for the wicked. Further, Ps 97:1–5, which is also regularly cited as a possible source for 3:7, includes fire that burns up adversaries all around as one means of divine punishment (97:3). Coupled with lightning, a source of fire, the Lord uses fire to melt the mountains (97:4–5). Again, universal destruction is not made explicit in a single sentence here, but little hope remains for the wicked and little remains of the earth if mountains are melted before Yahweh. Finally, Zeph 1:1–18, which was mentioned above, encompasses all three of the main aspects of 2 Pet 3:1–7. It mentions scoffers (1:12–13). It describes the day of the Lord within a context of God’s fire. In fact, it claims, “In the fire of his jealousy, all the earth shall be consumed; for a full and sudden end he will make of all the inhabitants of the earth” (1:18). This threat comes after God has already declared that he will “utterly sweep away everything from the face of the earth” (1:2), including people and animals (1:3). One could conclude, then, that the destruction 1:2–3 mentions, which is the destruction that sweeps away the scoffers of 1:12–13, will come by a fire that will consume all the earth (1:18). All these metaphors are similar to Peter’s language. Second, many commentators conclude that even if the Old Testament scriptures do not teach a worldwide conflagration, the apocrypha does. Richard Bauckham asserts that “there can be no real doubt that its [3:7] background is to be found in Jewish apocalyptic.” He adds that the Old Testament passages that highlight a fiery end for the wicked led to “the expectation of a universal conflagration,” since “the universal judgment was envisaged by analogy with the Flood as a universal judgment in the past.” Though not universally believed, Bauckham concludes, the idea “occurs in sufficient texts, both Palestinian and Hellenistic, to show that it was a fairly widespread conception.” 23 Reicke agrees when he writes, “Belief in the destruction of the present world through a uni-

22 See Daniel C. Arichea and Howard A. Hatton, The Letter from Jude and the Second Letter from Peter, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 150; and Kelly, Peter and Jude, 360. 23 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 300.

Scripture, the Day of the Lord, and Holiness

79

versal holocaust was widely held in late Judaism and carried over into the early Christian church.” He cites a hymn from 1QH 3:29–35 as evidence. 24 Bauckham’s and Reicke’s viewpoint is certainly plausible. It is indeed a short step from the texts already surveyed to the belief in a worldwide destruction by fire, if any such step actually has to be made, given Zeph 1:1–18. The apocalyptic writers may well have interpreted the prophetic materials as Bauckham and Reicke suggest. One has to observe, however, that Peter could also have taken such a short step on his own. He may have been influenced by the texts Bauckham lists, he may have interpreted the scripture himself, or he may have considered the fairly common belief to be biblical. Third, some experts trace 2 Pet 3:7 to Greek philosophical sources, such as Stoicism, or to Iranian eschatology. 25 Others think that Peter uses imagery drawn from, or at least that is in contact with, non-Jewish sources in order to relate to the audience’s background. 26 Others conclude that Peter “emphasizes the destruction of the world through fire with the idea of soliciting a response among those who were familiar with the outlook of the Stoics.” 27 In other words, he uses a shared belief to call the false teachers into account. Bigg doubts that the Stoic view was close enough to the Old Testament and Second Temple Judaism for such a strategy, 28 but Moo writes, “God may use even pagan ideas to lead the authors of Scripture into the truth he wants them to transmit.” 29 It seems likely given the evidence already presented that the scriptures and early interpretations of those scriptures provide the background for 3:7 (see above). Still, this background helps Peter relate to a variety of audiences, for it shares enough in common with biblically and philosophically-oriented persons to affect both groups. Fourth, 3:7 may well have its roots in the teaching of John the Baptist and Jesus. After all, John states that Jesus will baptize with fire and will burn the chaff with “unquenchable fire” (Matt 3:11–12; Luke 3:17; see Isa 4:4; Mal 3:2; 4:1). Jesus likewise claims that “the weeds” will be burned on judgment day (Matt 13:30). Again, these texts do not explicitly declare worldwide consuming fire in a single sentence, but they do indicate a worldwide purging by fire of all wicked persons. Clearly, the physical world must be affected by such burning. Once in the fire, the wicked will never leave it. John (Luke 3:17), Jesus (Mark 9:48), Paul (2 Thess 1:9), and Peter (2 Pet 3:1–13) all agree on this point.

24

Reicke, Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude, 176. See Friedrich Lang, “πÜρ,” TDNT 6:937–38. 26 J. Daryl Charles, 2 Peter, Jude, Believers’ Church Bible Commentary (Scottsdale, PA: Herald, 1999), 248. 27 Reicke, Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude, 177. 28 Bigg, Peter and Jude, 295. 29 Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, 178. 25

80

Paul R. House

Thus, Peter may well simply reflect the apostolic teaching of Jesus here just as he does in 1:16–21. Taken together these four options reflect Whole Bible Theology brought to bear on a particular topic. Peter addresses scoffers in a manner that fits the scriptures and his own opponents in a point-by-point manner. He also interprets the coming end of the world in a logical way given the scripture’s teachings, as well as those of the apocalyptic writers, John the Baptist, and Jesus. While engaging in his interpretation he utilizes imagery that could well speak to the faithful scripture student or to the syncretistic mixer of scripture and current philosophy. In short, he applies the scriptures appropriately in a particular historical context. So far the apostle has used the Law, Prophets, and Gospels to warn scoffers that the same God who created will judge. They deliberately “overlook” these scriptural ideas, according to 3:5. In 3:8–10 the readers are warned not to overlook God’s fundamental nature, a nature explained from citations found in the Writings, Law, and Prophets (in that order). First, in 3:8 Peter quotes Ps 90:4 to remind readers that “merely human standards of calculation are inappropriate when estimating the slowness or speed with which God fulfills His promises; what we can and must be sure about is that He will fulfill them.” 30 A thousand years is no more than a day to God. Second, since time is not especially relevant to God when he has purposes of his own to fulfill, one cannot charge him with normally construed “slowness” (3:9). Of course, delayed judgment was an issue in the scriptures long before Peter’s time. Sufferers asked “how long” judgment or deliverance would be delayed. Habakkuk 2:3, a day of the Lord passage, which Bauckham considers the likely background for 3:9a, 31 depicts God telling Habakkuk, “If it seems slow, wait for it; it will surely come; it will not delay.” Reicke notes that the Qumran Habakkuk Commentary (1 QpHab 7:6–14) assures its readers that God will keep his promises “in due course, even as He has determined in His inscrutable wisdom.” 32 In other words, the scriptures have already alerted later readers to the problem of waiting for God’s justice. But Peter does more than ask his readers to be patient and trust God’s wise timing. He grounds their patience in theology drawn from Exod 34:6–7 that is reflected in Joel 2:12–14, Jonah 3:8–4:2, Nah 1:3, and elsewhere. In Exod 34:6–7 God’s “slowness” is slowness to wrath, not slowness to justice. The Septuagint word is mακρόθυmος, while Peter uses the very similar mακροθυmεØ. Bauckham writes, “It is that quality by which God bears with sinners, holds back his wrath, refrains from intervening in judgment as soon as the sinner’s deeds deserve 30 31 32

Kelly, Peter and Jude, 361. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 310–11. Reicke, Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude, 179.

Scripture, the Day of the Lord, and Holiness

81

it, though not indefinitely (cf. 4 Ezra 7:33; Sir 5:4–7).” He adds, “God’s forbearance creates an interval, a period of respite, while judgment is deferred and a last opportunity for repentance is allowed.” 33 This trait led to the opportunity for Israel to repent in Joel 2:12–14. It led to Nineveh’s repentance in Jonah 3:8–10, which in turn led to God’s explanation of his concern for the wicked city in Jonah 4:10–11. Clearly, God remains forbearing, unwilling to judge prematurely, and desirous that all should reach repentance (3:9). God’s slowness to anger is not the only divine trait listed in Exod 34:6–7 and reflected in the prophets. Exodus 34:7 states that Yahweh “will by no means clear the guilty.” Nineveh discovers over a century after the great Jonah repentance that God does judge. As Nah 1:3, which is set against Nineveh’s destruction in 612 BC, reads, “The Lord is slow to anger and great in power, and the Lord will by no means clear the guilty.” Thus, Peter knows that in due time the day of the Lord will come (3:10a). God’s slowness to wrath is not moral paralysis. Sadly, because human beings mistake God’s merciful slowness for indifference, weakness, or worse, the day “will come like a thief” (3:10a). Of course, this depiction of the unexpectedness (for scoffers and their followers) of punishment also occurs in Matt 24:43, Luke 12:39–40, 1 Thess 5:2, Rev 3:3, and Rev 16:15. 34 Therefore, this saying of Jesus, which is likely rooted in Hab 2:3 and related passages (see above), spans the whole of the newer scriptures. It “expresses the violence and unexpectedness of the arrival of the Day of the Lord.” 35 It thereby warns all who need to repent to do so before “the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed” (3:10b). Who should take warning from these biblical facts applied to the current situation? Without question, false teachers /scoffers ought to repent. Further, those who follow the false teachers in the greed, arrogance, and passions detailed in 2 Peter 2 must repent as well. This much is obvious. Yet Peter extends the warning to all his readers, concluding the warning with a promise, in 3:11–13. The whole world will be dissolved, so the readers must live “lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God” (3:11b–12a). This warning calls for reverence and obedience. It is not simply an encouragement to prepare for, rejoice in, and run to meet the day “which sets us free from death, sin, and hell,” as Luther rightly asserts. 36 Rather, it is in keeping with warnings for the church to repent, such as those found in Revelation 2–3 and in several extra-canonical sources. 37 This reading coincides with 3:14–18,

33 34 35 36

Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 312. Ibid., 314–15. Fornberg, An Early Church in a Pluralistic Society, 72. Martin Luther, Commentary on Peter and Jude (1523; rpt. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1990),

284. 37

See Bauckham’s summary in Jude, 2 Peter, 313–14.

82

Paul R. House

as will be noted below, as well as with the whole prophetic tradition’s emphasis on preaching repentance to all the covenant people – remnant and rabble alike. Verse 13 highlights God’s promise to those who serve him. This promise of “new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” is rooted in Isa 65:17–25. There the prophet promises joy, the cessation of sickness, freedom and security, and the return of paradise. The serpent shall eat dust, and God’s people will live with him in the absence of sin forever. This promise contrasts strikingly with the wicked, who endure endless burning (66:15–24; see the discussion above). Peter applies these promises to his readers. They will inhabit the new heavens and earth. They will live where “righteousness dwells,” a phrase that may well grow out of the scriptures’ belief that the Messiah, the Righteous One, will reign in righteousness (Jer 23:5–7; 33:16). 38 Bigg suggests it could also come from 1 En. 46:3, which mentions “the Son of Man, who has righteousness, with whom dwells righteousness.” 39 Regardless of the exact origins, the messianic age is most likely intended. At that time God’s people who have hungered and thirsted after righteousness on earth (Matt 5:6) will have that thirst fully quenched (see Isa 32:16–18). Those who took God’s patience as kindness and repented will be vindicated. Thus God’s righteousness will endure forever. All this “will be the precise opposite of the present order, dominated as it is by desire and corruption (1:4).” 40 Second Peter 3:14–18 has fewer references to other scriptures than 3:1–13, but it continues to exhort readers along the lines established there. Since they wait for Isa 65:17–25 to come true, they must strive for purity and peace (3:14). Bauckham writes, “Because a new world of righteousness is coming, which only the righteous can enter, Christians must live righteously now to be fit to enter it. By abandoning the hope for the triumph of righteousness, the false teachers had removed this motive for holiness.” 41 All who love Christ must be “found by him” serving him. Multiple parables and sayings of Jesus make the same point: only those who love and serve Christ inherit the kingdom of God. In 3:15–16, Peter links his exhortation to Paul’s writings, which he calls scripture. Peter returns to God’s forbearance (“slowness to anger”), instructing readers to count this forbearance as salvation (3:15). In contrast to the false teachers, they should understand the respite before the day of the Lord, which is identical to the day of God (compare 3:10 and 3:12), “as an opportunity to secure, through repentance, the salvation which they might have missed if the

38 Edwin A. Blum, “Second Peter,” in Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gæbelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981), 12:287. 39 Bigg, Peter and Jude, 299. 40 Kelly, Peter and Jude, 368. 41 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 326.

Scripture, the Day of the Lord, and Holiness

83

Parousia had come sooner (cf. 2 Clem. 16:1).” 42 They should act as Nineveh did in Jonah’s time. Yet more than appreciation for salvation applies here. Readers are also to consider the delay an opportunity to fulfill their obligation to live “lives of holiness and godliness” (see 3:12), for such lives are the necessary and inevitable evidence of following the scriptures and their apostles rather than the false teachers. As in Isaiah 58–62, true change of heart must accompany coming glory. As in Isaiah 63–65, announcements of judgment should lead to prayers of mercy, holy living, and the expectation of new heavens and earth. Such things are subjects in “all [Paul’s] letters” (3:16). Scholars have suggested that Peter references one or more specific Pauline letters, 43 but an exact identification is probably not possible. Rather, the statement likely refers to the general content of Paul’s epistles. As Moo suggests, “But the point ... is very general – Christians need to live holy lives in light of the coming of Christ – and Paul touches on this subject in virtually every letter he wrote.” 44 Bauckham adds, “The reason why the letter to 2 Peter’s readers is singled out for special mention ... is not that it treated the subject more explicitly or more fully, but simply that it was written to 2 Peter’s readers.” 45 Peter’s reference to Paul in effect calls upon Paul’s writings as support for Peter’s own assertions. Paul provides added apostolic support. Further, Paul’s writings provide support because they are scripture (3:16). Paul’s writings may be difficult to understand, and they can be twisted as other scriptures can, but Paul’s epistles are scripture. His letters “are treated as part of the normative literature or canon of the church.” 46 This intriguing verse leaves open the possibility that Peter considered his own letters the same. Regardless, those who twist scripture do so at their own peril. 47 They will be destroyed. Like those in Israelite history who neglected the prophetic word and experienced the negative effects of the day of the Lord, so are those who reject apostolic teaching. They will not stand on the day of the Lord, the day of God, the day of fire. Peter concludes with yet another stern warning. His readers must be careful not to be moved from their foundation, 48 from their stable position, 49 to errors and lawlessness (3:17). Instead, they must grow in grace and knowledge (3:18). Presumably 1:3–8 outlines what such growth looks like. There is no mid-

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Ibid., 327. See Bigg, Peter and Jude, 299–300, for a survey of options. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, 210. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 330. Reicke, Epistle of James, Peter, and Jude, 183. See Blum, “2 Peter,” 12:289. Bigg, Peter and Jude, 303. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 337.

84

Paul R. House

dle ground. Either readers must grow in grace or they are vulnerable to lawless scoffers who twist scripture to their own destruction and to the destruction of their adherents.

Conclusion Peter’s denunciation of the false teachers, his understanding of the day of the Lord, his construal of the authority of scripture, and his convictions about holy living are all in keeping with prior scripture. He anchors his beliefs about God’s character in Exod 34:6–7, which in turn leads to Joel 2:12–14, Jonah 3:8–10, Nah 1:3, and Ps 90:4. From these texts he asserts that the delay of the day of the Lord stems from mercy, not a lack of truthfulness in the apostolic teaching. He bases his belief that God will destroy the whole world by fire on Genesis 6–9, where he draws an analogy to the flood, on Isa 5:18–24, Isaiah 65–66, and Zeph 1:1–18, where he links fire and the destruction of the world and the wicked, and on Mark 9:48, Luke 3:17, and 2 Thess 1:9, where Jesus, John, and Paul link judgment’s suddenness to the world’s fiery end. He grounds his warnings about holy living on prophetic calls to repentance, as well as on similar statements in Pauline letters. He supports his statements about scripture in 2 Pet 1:16–21 by underscoring the accuracy and applicability of past prophetic words. He warns his readers that a penultimate day of the Lord can occur now. In short, his approach to Whole Bible Theology slowly buries the facile, greedy, licentious false teachers under the weight of scripture. But he also warns his readers that they must repent if they have followed the false teachers. He reminds them that only the righteous inhabit the new heavens and earth (3:10–13; see Isa 32:16–18). He calls them to necessary and normal holy living so they will not leave their stable foundation (3:14–18). In short, he informs them that not following false teachers is not sufficient Christian living. Rather, as was true in prophetic days, holy living must precede one’s coming into God’s new heavens and earth (Isa 63:1–65:16). Those who reject this path must face God’s fire, a fire that removes all stubble in its path, leaving that stubble burning forever (Isa 66:15–24).

Jesus as the Scapegoat Paul’s Atonement Theology in Romans 8:3 in the Context of Romans 5–7 1 John Dennis

Most scholars understand the prepositional phase περÈ mαρτίας in Rom 8:3 to reference the sin-offering in the priestly literature. 2 The evidence commonly cited for this interpretation can be summarized as follows. First, it is argued that περÈ mαρτίας is a technical Septuagint expression that very often translates ‌‫)ל‌(חטאת‬, 3 which means “(for a) sin-offering.” Doug Moo is representative when he concludes that “the phrase so frequently means ‘sin offering’ in the LXX that it is likely to mean that there [Rom 8:3] too.” 4 Second, the sending of God’s son “as a sin-offering” in 8:3 is consistent with the sacrificial expression of Jesus’s death elsewhere in Romans and particularly in 3:25 (i. e. Éλαστήριοn). 5

1 I am honored to dedicate this chapter to Scott Hafemann, my teacher, mentor, and friend. Unless otherwise noted, all translations are my own. 2 See for example Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 484; Wolfgang Kraus, Der Tod Jesu als Heiligtumsweihe: Eine Untersuchung zum Umfeld der Sühnevorstellung in Römer 3,25–26a, WMANT 66 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991), 191–93; Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, KEK 4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 251; Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, EKKNT 6 (Köln: Neukirchener Verglag,1980), 2:127; Peter Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an die Römer, NTD 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1989), 110; Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 533; James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, WBC 38A (Dallas: Thomas Nelson, 1988), 422; Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 480; Richard H. Bell, “Sacrifice and Christology in Paul,” JTS 53 (2002): 5; and N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 220–25. See also H. Riesenfeld, “περί,” TDNT 6:55, who concludes that “in the LXX this phrase [περÈ mαρτίας] is the equivalent of the Heb. ‌‫ חֲטָאָה‬and ‌‫ חַטָּאת‬in the sense of ‘sin-offering.’” 3 ΠερÈ mαρτίας occurs 96 times in the LXX and of these it is used 90 times in sacrificial contexts. The non-sacrificial contexts are Exod 32:30; Lam 3:39; 3 Kgs 15:30; Sir 28:4, 39:5 (the last three occurrences employ the prepositional phrase in the plural: περÈ τÀn mαρτιÀn). The technical use of the phrase to refer to the sin-offering are numerous. See for example Lev 5:8; 6:25, 30; 7:7; 9:7, 10, 22; 10:17, 19; Num 29:11. The technical use is also clearly employed in 2 Macc 2:11; Bar 1:10; and Philo, Spec. 1:226. 4 Moo, Romans, 480. See also Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 251.

86

John Dennis

As James D. G. Dunn puts it, “Given the centrality of cultic imagery in the key gospel statement of 3.21–26, it must be judged highly likely that Paul intended a similar allusion here.” 6

A Response to Arguments against a Sin-Offering Interpretation of Romans 8:3 However, this view is not unanimous. Others have argued that περÈ mαρτίας in Rom 8:3 should be taken in its normal prepositional sense to mean simply “for /concerning sin,” that is, God sent his Son “to deal with sin.” 7 Reading the phrase to connote the Levitical sin-offering loads it with a meaning it cannot bear in the context of Romans 8; there is no sacrificial terminology, no reference to blood, or any allusions to this effect in the context. Rather, the context concerns the condemnation of sin as a cosmic power (7:13–25), not individual acts of sin, which an allusion to the Old Testament sin-offering would seem to require. 8 As Breytenbach writes, “Der Text wird vielmehr von dem Gedanken der Vernichtung der Sündenmacht und der Befreiung des Sünders zum neuen Leben beherrscht.” 9 There is no doubt that Paul portrays sin in Romans 5–7 as a power, perhaps even a “demonic power,” 10 that enslaves human beings to its service. However, this conception of sin by no means exhausts Paul’s view of mαρτία in Romans. “Sin” in the plural appears in 3:25 (“previously committed sins,” προγεγοnότωn mαρτηmάτωn) and is synonymous with “lawless deeds” (‚nοmίαι) in 4:7. 11 In 5 Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 251, argues that since both Rom 3:25 and 8:3 present Jesus’s death in cultic terms, περÈ mαρτίας in Rom 8:3 “nimmt also ausdrücklich die Kreuzeslehre von Röm 3,25 wieder auf.” See also Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an die Römer, 110; Moo, Romans, 481; and James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 218. 6 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 216. Similarly, Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 2.127; and Kraus, Der Tod Jesu als Heiligtumsweihe, 191–93. 7 See Gerhard Friedrich, Die Verkündigung des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament, Biblische Theologische Studien 6 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchen Verlag, 1982), 68–71; C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans: Introduction and Commentary on Romans I–VIII, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 382; T. C. G. Thornton, “The Meaning of καÈ περÈ mαρτίας in Romans viii. 3,” JTS 72 (1971): 516; David Seeley, The Noble Death: Graeco-Roman Martyrology and Paul’s Concept of Salvation, JSNTSup 28 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 29–30; B. Hudson McLean, The Cursed Christ: Mediterranean Expulsion Rituals and Pauline Soteriology, JSNTSup 126 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 46; and C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, BNTC (London: Black, 1957), 147. 8 See Otto Kuss, Der Römerbrief übersetzt und erklart (Regensburg: Pustet, 1957–1978), 2:494; Heinrich Schlier, Der Römerbrief, HThKNT 6 (Freiburg: Herder, 1997), 241; Seeley, Noble Death, 29–30; and Cilliers B. Breytenbach, Versöhnung. Eine Studie zur paulinischen Soteriologie, WMANT 60 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989), 164. 9 Breytenbach, Versöhnung, 164. 10 P. Fiedler, “mαρτία,” EDNT 1:65. 11 “Sins” are also referred to in Rom 11:27.

Jesus as the Scapegoat

87

Rom 5:15–20, the verbal and substantival forms of the term are virtually synonymous with “transgression” 12 in the singular (παράπτωmα) and the plural (παραπτώmατα). 13 This shows that Paul portrays sin as a dominating power as well as acts of lawlessness, unrighteousness, and covenant infidelity. Thus, in the context of Romans 5–7, the “sin” that is finally condemned by God in his Son in 8:3 cannot exclude sin(s) as human acts. In addition to the view that a reference to the sin-offering does not work in the context of Rom 8:3, B. H. McLean has challenged the sin-offering interpretation of περÈ mαρτίας on linguistic grounds. He argues that when the phrase περÈ mαρτίας refers to the sin-offering in the Septuagint, “it is always accompanied by the definite article, unlike Rom. 8:3.” 14 But this is simply not the case. In fact, the phrase clearly refers to the sin-offering in all of its various constructions (arthrous: τä περÈ mαρτίας or τä περÈ τ¨ς mαρτίας and anarthrous: περÈ mαρτίας). And most importantly, there are many instances in the LXX in which the sin-offering (‌‫חטאת‬, ‌‫ לחטאת‬or ‌‫ )החטאת‬is referred to by the anarthrous construction περÈ mαρτίας. 15 In fact, the various constructions of the prepositional phrase seem to be essentially synonymous in some contexts. In Num 6:11, “the priest shall bring one [‘two turtledoves or two young pigeons,’ v. 10] for a sin-offering and one for a whole-burnt offering” (ποιήσει å ÉερεÌς mίαn περÈ mαρτίας 16 καÈ mίαn εÊς åλοκαύτωmα) and in 6:16, a very similar assertion is made: “the priest ... will bring his sin-offering and his whole-burned offering” (å ÉερεÌς ... ποιήσει τä περÈ mαρτίας 17 αÎτοÜ καÈ τä åλοκαύτωmα αÎτοÜ). 18 Similarly, Ezek 43:19 states, “and you will give to the priests ... a bull for a sinoffering” (καÈ δώσεις τοØς ÉερεÜσι ... mόσχοn âκ βοÀn περÈ mαρτίας 19). Just two verses later (43:21) the same animal from v. 19 is referred to as “the bull for a sin-offering” (τän mόσχοn τän περÈ mαρτίας 20). The technical meaning of the anarthrous περÈ mαρτίας “as a /for a sin-offering” is quite evident when the phrase is paralleled with other offerings, as in Lev 7:37: “This is the law of the whole burnt offering and of sacrifice and [the] sin-offering and of the guilt offering” (οÝτος å nόmος τÀn åλοκαυτωmάτωn καÈ θυσίας καÈ περÈ mαρτίας καÈ τ¨ς πληmmελείας), or when it is used adverbially with a verb of offering sacrifice as in Lev 16:9: “And Aaron shall present the goat

12

Cf. Ezek 3:20, 18:24. Even in Rom 7:7–8, “sin” and acts of coveting are closely related. 14 McLean, The Cursed Christ, 46. Similarly, Breytenbach, Versöhnung, 161. 15 See Lev 7:37; 12:6, 8; 15:15, 30; 16:5, 9; 23:19; Ps 39:7. 16 ‌‫לחטאת‬. 17 ‌‫חטאת‬. 18 The article in the phrase τä περÈ mαρτίας in 6:16 stands for the victim in question whereas in 6:11 the victim is designated by mία. 19 ‌‫לחטאת‬. 20 ‌‫החטאת‬. 13

88

John Dennis

... and offer [the goat] for /as a sin-offering” (καÈ προσάξει Ααρωn τän χίmαροn ... καÈ προσοίσει περÈ mαρτίας). Second Maccabees 12:43 is also telling: “and [Judas] sent it [money] to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering” (‚πέστειλεn εÊς Ιεροσόλυmα προσαγαγεØn περÈ mαρτίας). 21 Particularly noteworthy is when the anarthrous phrase parallels an anarthrous noun or nouns for other sacrificial offerings. Baruch 1:10 is a clear case: ‚πεστείλαmεn πρäς Ímς ‚ργύριοn καÈ ‚γοράσατε τοÜ ‚ργυρίου åλοκαυτώmατα καÈ περÈ mαρτίας καÈ λίβαnοn ... καÈ ‚nοίσατε âπÈ τä θυσιαστήριοn κυρίου θεοÜ ™mÀn (“we sent to you silver to buy whole burnt-offerings and sin-offerings ... and offer them on the altar of the Lord our God”). Another clear case occurs when Philo discusses various “sacrifices” (θυσίαι) and states in, “We now proceed to consider the third sacrifice, which is called the sin-offering” (τ˜n δà τρίτηn áξ¨ς âπισκεπτέοn, › καλεØται περÈ mαρτίας). 22 These examples suggest that the anarthrous phrase particularly has hardened (so to speak) into a technical expression to refer to the sinoffering in a way that the other constructions of the phrase have not. Finally, when comparing the syntactical structure of Rom 8:3 with sentences in the priestly literature that employ the anarthrous περÈ mαρτίας, an obvious similarity is evident. For instance, Lev 16:5, 9 and Num 6:11 employ an offeror, a verb of offering or bringing of a sacrifice, followed by a direct object of the sacrificial victim and περÈ mαρτίας. This structure is precisely analogous to Rom 8:3 23: Table 1: Syntactical Structural Similarities in Leviticus, Numbers, and Romans Passages Offeror

Verb

Object

Prepositional Phrase

Lev 16:5 Lev 16:9

[Ααροn] Ααροn

δύο χιmάρους περÈ mαρτίας

περÈ mαρτίας

Num 6:11 Rom 8:3

å ÉερεÌς å θεός

λήmψεται προσοίσει-[τän χίmαροn] ποιήσει-mίαn 24 πέmπψας-τän áαυτοÜ υÉän

περÈ mαρτίας περÈ mαρτίας

The conclusion seems unavoidable that the anarthrous περÈ mαρτίας refers to the sin-offering in Rom 8:3, just as it does in priestly literature, 2 Macc 12:43, Bar 1:10, and Philo’s Spec. 1:226. 21 The same kind of variation occurs in Philo between the arthrous and anarthrous forms of the prepositional phrase when it clearly refers to the sin-offering. The following are the cases in which the anarthrous phrase (περÈ mαρτίας) is used: Spec. 1:226, 247, 251, 252. 22 Ibid., 1:226. See also ibid., 1:194, 247. 23 Similarly, Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, 222, points to Lev 9:2 as the characteristic example that forms a parallel to Rom 8:3. 24 Refers to “two turtledoves or two young pigeons” in v. 10.

Jesus as the Scapegoat

89

A Response to N. T. Wright’s Sin-Offering Interpretation of Romans 8:3 Wright believes that he has answered the question of why Paul refers to the sinoffering in Rom 8:3. First, Wright makes the case that “the context in which the sin-offering is to be used, as laid down in Leviticus and Numbers, is not merely any sin. It is particularly unwilling sins or sins of ignorance. ... The sin-offering covers sinful actions which the sinner either did not know he was committing, or did not know were sinful.” 25 Second, the sins in Rom 7:14–25 that Rom 8:3 is intended to address are precisely sins committed unwillingly or in ignorance. As Wright puts it, “The remedy which the Old Testament offers for this very condition is the sin-offering, and when we meet, in the very passage where Paul is showing how God deals with the condition of 7.14–25, the phrase which elsewhere in the Greek Bible regularly means ‘as a sin-offering,’ there can no longer be any suggestion that the context does not support the sacrificial interpretation” of Rom 8:3. 26 Wright therefore believes that he has appropriately matched background and context in regard to Rom 8:3. 27 However, Wright does not finally establish a coherent connection between background and context in regard to the sin-offering interpretation of περÈ mαρτία in Rom 8:3. Rather, his argument contains a number of missteps. First, Wright unjustifiably limits the background of περÈ mαρτίας, as a reference to the sin-offering, to inadvertent sins only. 28 But what is crucially missed by Wright and other scholars is that there are at least four different, though broadly related, functions of the sin-offering in Leviticus: inadvertent (‌‫ )שְׁגָגָה‬sins (Lev 4:2, 22, 27; 5:15); deliberate sins (Lev 5:1–5), 29 and the two ‌‫ חטאת‬/ περÈ mαρτίας goats on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:5). Second, this restricting of the sin-offering to inadvertent sins leads Wright to ask whether Paul might be thinking of inadvertent sins in Rom 8:3. As shown above, Wright’s answer is in the affirmative. But, it just does not work to treat the problem in Rom 7:14–25 as sinful actions that “the sinner either did not know

25

Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, 223. Ibid., 224. 27 Wright continues to argue for this view in Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 2:898. 28 This is a common assumption made by scholars. This mistaken assumption is particularly evident in Dunn, The Theology of the Apostle Paul, 218–19. 29 The sins mentioned here include failing to bear witness (5:1), violation of purity regulations (5:2–3), and failing to fulfill an oath (5:4). It is crucial to notice that the term for inadvertency (‌‫)שְׁגָגָה‬ is not used in these instances. These sins, which clearly demand a sin-offering and result in forgiveness (5:6–10), are deliberate sins. See further Jacob Milgrom, Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 109 n. 406; and N. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function, JSOTSup 56 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987), 66. 26

90

John Dennis

he was committing, or did not know were sinful.” 30 Wright points to 7:15a as the key assertion for his view: “for I do not understand /know (γιnώσκω) what I am doing.” But vv. 15b–16 explain v. 15a as follows: “for (γάρ) I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate. But, if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law that it is good.” So, the issue in v. 15a cannot be that this Jewish person does not know that his actions are not consistent with God’s law or that he is ignorant of God’s expressed will in the law. The person must be fully aware of the demands of the law, otherwise he would not be concerned that his willing of doing the good law and his actions do not match. In light of Paul’s argument here, Moo may be correct to argue that γιnώσκω in 7:15a means “acknowledge, approve.” 31 Third and finally, how can Rom 8:3 fulfill the function of “fully and properly” condemning the sin that has been the problem from 3:20–7:13 if περÈ mαρτίας refers only to the sin-offerings for inadvertent sins (cf. Leviticus 4)? Jesus’s death as an atonement for inadvertencies in 8:3 would seem to be a rather weak cultic analogy to use in a verse (8:3) that properly concludes “the line of thought that runs from 3.20 ... to 7.13.” 32 In summation, I agree with the view that περÈ mαρτίας in Rom 8:3 refers to the Levitical cult and particularly to the sin-offering therein. But the common, and mistaken, assertion repeated over and over in the commentaries that the sin-offering only deals with inadvertent sins does not comport with the evidence in Leviticus and is not a satisfying background to which Paul would appeal in the context of Rom 8:3. Before I suggest a more appropriate cultic background for περÈ mαρτίας in Rom 8:3, I will focus on Paul’s unique atonement theology in Romans 5–7, in light of which Rom 8:3 must be read.

Paul’s Atonement Theology in Romans 5–7 Romans 5:8–11

33

Paul’s understanding of Christ’s atoning death in 5:6–6:10 is in essence a further development of his statement in 4:25: Christ “was delivered up for our transgressions, and was raised for our justification.” Thus, one should begin here before launching into 5:8–11. Following Paul’s example of Abraham’s justifying faith (4:1–22), 4:23–24 makes it clear that the narrative of Abraham’s faith was

30

Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, 223. Moo, Romans, 457 n. 44. 32 Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 2:897. 33 Romans 5:1–11 maintains a pivotal position in the letter. The themes of chs. 5–8 are introduced in vv. 1–8 and these verses further develop the preceding argument. See Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 1:286–87; Jewett, Romans, 346; and Daniel G. Powers, Salvation through Participation, CBET 29 (Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 89. 31

Jesus as the Scapegoat

91

written for the sake of believers (v. 24) who, like Abraham, are justified by trusting in the one who raised Jesus from the dead. But 4:25 makes an additional point as to how the Christ event provided the means by which God set right those who have faith. In an allusion to Isa 53:6, 12, 34 Paul states that Christ was “delivered up for the sake of our transgressions 35 and raised for the sake of our justification” (çς παρεδόθη δι€ τ€ παραπτώmατα ™mÀn καÈ šγέρθη δι€ τ˜n δικαίωσιn ™mÀn). Paul does not think of the salvific event of “atonement” as accomplished only in Jesus’s death as such, as he shows in 4:25 and details more fully in 5:18–6:11. Rather, atonement is grounded in and effected by Christ’s death and vindication from death to life. Otfried Hofius’s description of atonement in these chapters of Romans as a passing through death to life 36 is a fitting one. Romans 5:8–10 further spells out the essential thought of the terse atonement statement in 4:25 by showing more fully how Jesus’s death and resurrection effects believers’ salvation, justification, and transformation into God’s new eschatological people: (8a) (8b) (9a) (9b) (10a) (10b) (8a) (8b) (9a) (9b) (10a)

συnίστησιn δà τ˜n áαυτοÜ ‚γάπηn εÊς ™mς å θεός íτι êτι mαρτωλÀn înτωn ™mÀn Χριστäς Íπàρ ™mÀn ‚πέθαnεn. πολλÄ οÞn mλλοn δικαιωθέnτες nÜn ân τÄ αÑmατι αÎτοÜ σωθησόmεθα δι+ αÎτοÜ ‚πä τ¨ς æργ¨ς. εÊ γ€ρ âχθροÈ înτες κατηλλάγηmεn τÄ θεÄ δι€ τοÜ θαnάτου τοÜ υÉοÜ αÎτοÜ, πολλÄ mλλοn καταλλαγέnτες σωθησόmεθα ân τ¬ ζω¬ αÎτοÜ. But God demonstrates his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us Much more then, since we have now been justified by his blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through him. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, (10b) much more, since we have been reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

The atoning event in Christ, on the one hand, delivers believers (who were “enemies of God,” v. 10a) from God’s eschatological wrath 37 (v. 9b), but on the other hand it “reconciles” (καταλλάσσω) human beings “to God” (τÄ θεÄ) (v. 10a).

34 Jewett, Romans, 342; Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an die Römer, 67; Powers, Salvation through Participation, 128–30; and Dunn, Romans 1–8, 224–25. 35 The use of “transgression” (παράπτωmα) in 4:25 prepares for its use in relation to Adam in 5:15, 16, 17, 18 and to the law in v. 20. 36 Otfried Hofius, “Sühne und Versöhnung: Zum paulinischen Verständnis der Kreuzestodes Jesu,” in Paulusstudien, WUNT 51 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), 45. 37 As Jewett points out, when æργή (“wrath”) is used absolutely, as it is here, “it refers to the context of the last judgment” (Romans, 363). See also W. Foester, “σ¼ζω κτλ,” TDNT 7:992–93. The fact that the future tense (σωθησόmεθα) is used here makes this certain.

92

John Dennis

Paul does not isolate the benefits of Christ’s death or the benefits of Christ’s resurrection. The salvific Christ event, or atonement, includes the saving significance of Christ’s death and resurrection.

Romans 5:12–21 Jewett has rightly described the main theme of Rom 5:12–21 as “the unity of the many in the one, both in Adam and in Christ.” 38 That is, humanity is viewed as either in Adam or in the new Adam. Although debated, it is probably best to take the δι€ τοÜτο at the beginning of v. 12 not as a conclusion (“therefore”) to what precedes, but more as an introduction of the ground or basis of believers’ confidence 39 in the present by means of hope in the future (5:1–11), 40 and even more specifically as the basis for confidence in the new state of righteousness through the death of Christ and salvation “by his life” (v. 10). Believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, are set in right relationship with God through Christ, and this relationship stands in contrast to the present age of Adam. Paul makes clear in his Adam-Christ antithesis in 5:12–21 that Christ, as the antitype of the first Adam (5:14), 41 has reversed the plight of humanity that was set in motion by the Adam of this age: “Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin” (5:12). To put it another way, from Adam death is said to have “reigned ... over” (âβασίλευσεn... âπί) his descendants (v. 14). The result was that “the many” died “through the one [Adam] transgression” (τÄ τοÜ ánäς παραπτώmατι, v. 15). The death in view here is not mere physical death, for the “judgment” (κρίmα) that came from Adam’s transgression “led to” or “resulted in” (εÊς + accusative) “condemnation” (κατάκριmα) 42 (v. 16). The Adam-Christ contrast in v. 17 introduces the reversal, in Christ, of the death that flowed from Adam: “Those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the one, 43 Jesus Christ.” As opposed to being “reigned over” by death (v. 14), the new humanity in Christ will themselves “reign in life through him” (v. 17).

38

Jewett, Romans, 373. “Die Worte δι€ τοÜτο führen somit nicht eine Folgerung aus 5,1–11 ein, sondern einen Abschnitt, der den Realgrund für das dort Gesagte thematisiert” (Otfried Hofius, “Die Adam-ChristusAntithese und das Gesetz. Erwägungen zu Röm 5,12–21,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn, WUNT 89 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996], 178–79). 40 Jewett, Romans, 373; and Moo, Romans, 317. 41 In view of the Adam-Christ contrast, Adam is a “type” (τύπος) of Christ (5:14) in the sense that he is the “antithetical correspondent” to the Christ who was to come. See Jewett, Romans, 378; and G. Schunack, “τύπος κτλ,” EDNT 3:375. 42 The “condemnation” in v. 16 is eschatological and thus parallel to the “wrath” from which believers are saved by the blood of Christ in 5:9. 43 The “one” (εÙς) is the way that Paul contrasts the first and second Adam in Rom 5:12–19. 39

Jesus as the Scapegoat

93

Here Paul is applying Genesis 2–3 to the Christ event. The plight of humanity that resulted from Adam’s sin, transgression, and act of disobedience (5:12–19) seems to stem from his disregard for God’s command not to eat from the tree in the garden (Gen 2:17; 3:3). The result of eating from it would be “death” (Gen 2:17; cf. 3:3–4). Of course the first humans did eat from the tree and the result was the curses of Gen 3:14–19, of which death is the final one. Adam and Eve are then exiled from the garden (Gen 3:23), that is, exiled from the lifegiving creator (Gen 2:7). 44 In Rom 5:18–19 Paul summarizes his basic argument in 5:12–17 by “finally stating the full comparison between Adam and Christ that he began in v. 12, parenthetically remarked on in vv. 13–14, and elaborated on in vv. 15–17.” 45 Paul’s argument in 5:18–19 continues his Adam-Christ antitheses by means of the constructions “as (±ς / ¹σπερ) ... so also (οÕτως καί).” Verse 18a draws a strong inference (“consequently therefore,” Šρα οÞn) from the whole of the argument of 5:12–17. Verse 18 is the inference to be drawn from the Adam-Christ comparisons as well as a kind of summary of the main point of the preceding of the comparisons 46 with the γάρ clause of v. 19 functioning as a further clarification 47 or perhaps a reiteration of v. 18. 48 In v. 18a–b a contrast is drawn between Adam’s “trespass” (παράπτωmα) and Christ’s “righteous act” (δικαίωmα). As the previous section has indicated, the one trespass led to “condemnation” (κατάκριmα) “to all humanity,” but the one righteous act resulted in “the righteousness that leads to life (δικαίωσιn ζω¨ς) for all humanity.” 49 Verse 19 clarifies further the nature of the “trespass” and “righteous act” in v. 18: the “trespass” of the “one man” (v. 18a) becomes “disobedience” (v.1 9a) and the “righteous act” (v. 18b) of the one man becomes his “obedience” (v. 19b). The results that flow from these antithetical acts in vv. 19a–19b are essentially the same as in vv. 18a–18b: from disobedience comes sin (and its consequences) and from obedience comes eschatological life and righteousness. 44 In Rom 5:12–21, Paul is probably also drawing, consciously or subconsciously, on various Jewish traditional reflections on the Fall. The idea that death entered the world as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve is found in various forms in a number of texts that pre-date and post-date Paul (e. g., Wis 2:21–24; Sir 25:4; LAE 26:2; 2 Bar. 19:8; 23:4; 54:15; and 4 Ezra 3:10; 4:30; 6:55–59; 7:116–18). See also Leviticus Rabbah 11:7 and Genesis Rabbah 11:2; 12:6. 45 Moo, Romans, 340. 46 So Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 251; Moo, Romans, 340; and William Sanday and A. C. Headlam, A Critical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902), 141. Contra Jewett, Romans, 385. 47 BDAG, “γάρ” 189, shows that γάρ can function as a “marker of clarification: for, you see.” 48 Moo, Romans, 344. 49 Jewett is correct when he states the following: “In the context of Romans ... the concern is not so much whether salvation is universal in a theoretical sense, a question shaped by later theories of predestination, but whether all believers stand within its scope ... The scope of righteousness in Christ includes all believers without exception, both now and at the parousia” (Romans, 385).

94

John Dennis

Table 2: Comparison of Adam and Christ in Romans 5:18–19 Adam

Christ

v. 18a Consequently therefore as through one [human’s] trespass condemnation came to all humanity

v. 19a For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners

—Αρα οÞn ±ς δι+ ánäς παραπτώmατος εÊς πάnτας ‚nθρώπους εÊς κατάκριmα. v. 18b so also through one (human’s) righteous act the righteousness that leads to life came to all humanity

¹σπερ γ€ρ δι€ τ¨ς παρακο¨ς τοÜ ánäς ‚nθρώπου mαρτωλοÈ κατεστάθησαn οÉ πολλοί v. 19b even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous

οÕτως καÈ δι+ ánäς δικαιώmατος εÊς πάnτας ‚nθρώπους εÊς δικαίωσιn ζω¨ς

οÕτως καÈ δι€ τ¨ς Íπακο¨ς τοÜ ánäς δίκαιοι κατασταθήσοnται οÉ πολλοί

For my purposes it is important to point out that Christ’s “righteous act” (v. 18b) and Christ’s “obedience” (v. 19b) alludes to his death 50 rather than the obedience of his entire life as some have suggested. 51 This is clear for at least two reasons: (1) The entire context from 5:6 to 6:10 concerns Christ’s death that was “for” (Íπέρ) others. 52 (2) The fact that Christ’s “righteous act” in v. 18b parallels his “obedience” in v. 19b recalls Phil 2:8 where Christ’s “obedience” is defined as obedience “to the point of death, even death on a cross.” Although Christ’s resurrection is not explicitly mentioned in 5:18–19, it is surely implied in v. 18b (“righteousness that leads to life”) because all the references to the gift of eschatological life in Romans 5–8 are closely connected to Christ having been raised to new life (6:4, 8, 10; 8:11; and implied in 5:10). In 5:18–19 Paul only explicitly refers to Christ’s obedient death because he wants to contrast it with Adam’s one act of disobedience that led to death.

Romans 6:1–10 What was implied in 5:18–19 about Christ’s death overturning the plight of Adam is made explicit in 6:1–11. Romans 6:1–11 argues that believers in the new Adam, Christ, are not only freed from the eschatological judgment of death and condemnation because of sin but they are also freed from the power of sin in the present. 53 Romans 6:1 introduces an inference that could be drawn 50 Jewett, Romans, 385; U. Wilkens, Der Brief an die Römer, EKKNT 6.1 (Zürich: Benziger Verlag, 1978), 1:326; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 284; and Moo, Romans, 344. 51 Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 191; and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, AB 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 421. 52 Christ’s death was “for” the ungodly (5:6) or “us” (5:8). It revealed God’s love (5:8), effected believers’ justification, delivered from wrath (5:9), and reconciled to God (5:10). 53 Moo, Romans, 350.

Jesus as the Scapegoat

95

from 5:20 (“the Law increased transgression” so that “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more”): “Therefore (οÞn), what shall we say? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase?” Verse 2 makes clear that this is an utterly false inference: m˜ γέnοιτο! “How will we who died to sin still live in it?” 54 It is false, quite simply, because the reign of sin in Adam has been overturned in the new Adam. The parallelism between believers’ “death to sin” in 6:2 (‚πεθάnοmεn τ¬ mαρτίø) and Christ’s “death to sin” in 6:10a (τ¬ mαρτίø ‚πέθαnεn) 55 is crucial to Paul’s understanding of how Christ reversed the plight of Adam for the new humanity. Since Christ has died “to sin” (6:10a), those who have been buried “with him ... in his death” (6:4) and have “identified with” (σύmφυτος) his death (6:5), have likewise “died to sin” (6:2). And again there is the same coupling of death and resurrection in Christ’s atoning event: in v. 10a Christ died “to sin” (τ¬ mαρτίø) and in v. 10b he was made alive “to God” (τÄ θεÄ). Believers in the new Adam have not only died with Christ but also have been raised to God with him (cf. especially vv. 4, 5, 11). If we read Rom 6:1–10 in the context of 5:12–19, then the death that Christ died in ch. 6 must be Adamic death (implied in 5:18–19), that is, Christ died with reference to the death and condemnation that entered into humanity as a result of sin (cf. 5:12, 14, 16). Therefore, the old Adam had to die and did so in and as Christ. The reign of death in the old Adam reached its eschatological apex in the death of the new Adam. This must be, at least in part, what Paul means by saying Christ “died to sin” (6:10a). But Christ’s Adamic death “to sin” cannot be the end of the story. The reign of Adamic death in 5:17a finds its breaking point in Christ’s death, which gave way to resurrection life so that those in the new Adam “will reign (βασιλεύω) in life through the One, Jesus Christ” (5:17b; 6:8). Furthermore, if the story of the Christ event ended in death alone, it would simply have been the death of another Adamic human being with no soteriological, ontological or cosmic effects. Since for Paul God’s redemptive purposes included not only release from the penalty of Adamic sin (θάnατος, 5:12, 14, 17, 21; and κατάκριmα, 5:16, 18) but also resurrection-life, then Christ’s death as such cannot be the last word. Believers undergo their own death and resurrection in their identification with or inclusion in Christ’s death and resurrection. This is made clear in Paul’s use of the prefix συn with the following verbs: “we have been buried with (συnετάφηmεn) him” (6:4); “we have become united /identified with (σύmφυτοι)

54 Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an die Römer, 83, may be correct to say that the false inference that Paul counters here may be due to Paul’s Jewish-Christian opponents’ claim that Paul’s gospel is false or perhaps heretical. 55 I take the dative τ¬ mαρτίø in vv. 2 and 10a as a dative of reference: “we have /he died with reference to sin.”

96

John Dennis

him in ... his death” (6:5); “our old [Adamic] humanity was crucified with (συnεσταυρώθη)” him (6:6); and “we have died with (‚πεθάnοmεn σύn) Christ ... we will also live with (συζήσοmεn) him” (6:8). Christ’s Adamic death was an inclusive death that did not simply “count for” believers from a distance. Thus, Paul’s theology of atonement in 5:12–6:11 is better described as an event in which believers were ontologically involved in Christ’s death to sin and his resurrection to life (6:2, 5, 8, 10). 56 This must be the case because what happened to Christ in his death and resurrection happened to those in him. In short, it was through Christ’s death as Adamic humanity and therefore for Adamic humanity, and not simply in the place of or instead of humanity, that the Adamic plight was reversed.

Romans 7:4–6 Romans 7:4 reiterates the themes of 6:2 and 10 in which believers’ death to the bondage of sin (v. 2) comes by way of inclusion in Christ’s “death to sin” (v. 10). But in 7:4–6, the issue concerns believers’ death to the bondage of the law “by means of Christ’s body” (δι€ τοÜ σώmατος τοÜ ΧριστοÜ) (7:4). The “body of Christ” refers to the crucified body of Christ 57 through which bondage to the law, which dominated Adamic life in the old age, 58 has been overcome for believers. 59 Christ’s “body” in 7:4 recalls “the body of sin” (τä σÀmα τ¨ς mαρτίας) in 6:6, also called “our old humanity” (å παλαιäς ™mÀn Šnθρωπος), 60 that was “abolished” or “done away with” (καταργέω) in Christ’s death “to sin” (6:10). Believers’ Adamic “body of sin” died in the death of the Adamic “body of Jesus.” The themes in 7:4–6 not only point back to 6:2–10, but also forward to 8:1–4. The “release (καταργέω) from the law” in 7:6 is virtually equivalent to the notion of being “set free (âλευθερόω) from the law of sin and death” in 8:2. Furthermore, the means of this release or freedom in both passages is the same: the death of God’s Son. Believers’ death to the law through the “body of Christ” in 7:4, in which the plight of the Adamic humanity was put to death, is now in 8:3 communicated as follows: “God condemned sin in the flesh by sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as a sin-offering (περÈ mαρτίας).” The cry of 7:24, τίς mε ûύσεται âκ τοÜ σώmατος τοÜ θαnάτου τούτου (“who will free me from this 56

Hofius, “Sühne und Versöhnung,” 41. Jewett, Romans, 434; and Dunn, Romans 1–8, 362. 58 Robert Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 299–300. 59 Note the divine passage âθαnατώθητε in 7:4: Believers have died to the law, that is, God has effected their death through Christ’s death. See Dunn, Romans 1–8, 361–62. 60 “The body of sin” and “our old humanity” are synonymous with “this mortal body” (6:12), “my flesh” (7:18), and “body of this death” (7:24). See Dunn, Romans 1–8, 397. 57

Jesus as the Scapegoat

97

body of death”), though already answered in 6:1–7:4 as I have stated above, nevertheless sets up the conclusion to the argument in 5:12–7:24 in familiar ways but with the addition of an explicit reference to Israel’s cult in the περÈ mαρτίας of 8:3. But precisely what kind of cultic event occurs in 8:3?

Atonement Theology in Romans 8:1–3 in the Context of Romans 5–7 Romans 8:1–3 functions as the climax of and resolution to Romans 5–7. This is evident by the fact that the terminology present throughout 5:12–7:25 reappears in 8:1–4: condemnation (κατά κριmα), 61 the law (nόmος), 62 freedom (âλευθερόω), 63 sin (mαρτία), 64 death (θάnατος), 65 and flesh (σάρξ). 66 The eschatological “now” (nÜn) 67 in 8:1 signals that the new age of “no condemnation” in Christ has arrived and offers a stark contrast to the old age of Adam and his progeny (Romans 5), in which the “flesh” and bondage “under sin” (Íπä τ˜n mαρτίαn) (7:14) dominated Adam’s race. The “condemnation” (κατάκριmα, 8:1; cf. 5:16, 18) due sinners is now lifted in this new era because (γάρ) the law now (under the transforming and life-giving Spirit) does not effect condemnation but frees from the condemnation of the law under the old age. Why did this freedom need to happen if the law was “holy and righteous and good” (7:12)? It was because (γάρ) the law was incapable of dealing with the problem of sin on the one hand and effecting new covenant Spirit transformation (8:4; cf. 2:29; 7:6) on the other. The problem of course was not the law, but sin and its place of operation in the flesh that co-opted the good law and brought about a situation in which the law must mediate death (7:9; cf. 2 Cor 3:6–7). “Therefore” (Šρα, 8:1), in the new and final Adam (cf. Rom 5:15–19), God has effected believers’ “freedom from sin and death” (8:2). This point has already been made in 5:12–6:22 and 7:4–6. But that God did so by “condemning” sin in his Son as the sin-offering (8:3) adds a new and decisive element to Paul’s story of the reversal of the plight Adam caused in the old age.

61

5:16, 18. 5:13, 20; 6:14, 15; and 23x in ch. 7. 63 6:18, 22, and the adjective âλεύθερος in 6:20. 64 5:12, 13, 20, 21; and 30x in chs. 6–7. 65 5:12, 14, 17, 21; 6:3, 5, 9, 16, 21, 23; 7:5, 10, 13, 24; and ‚ποθn¤σκω in 6:9 and θαnατόω in 7:4. 66 6:19; 7:5, 18, 25. 67 See also 3:21; 5:9; 6:22; 7:6. So N. T. Wright, “The Letter to the Romans,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 10:575. 62

98

John Dennis

God “Condemned” Sin “in the Flesh” (å θεäς ... κατέκριnεn τ˜n mαρτίαn ân τ¬ σαρκί) The verb κατακρίnω (“to condemn”) is a juridical term meaning something like “to pronounce a sentence of condemnation.” 68 But Fitzmyer’s judgment about its meaning is more to the point: “The vb. katekrinen expresses a negative ‘sentence’ and its execution.” 69 Sin has been dealt an eschatologically decisive and comprehensive sentence of “condemnation” that freed believers from their own sentence of “condemnation” (8:1). 70 In other words, sin, the problem Adam caused, has been eradicated through God’s juridical condemnation of it. The adverbial prepositional phrase ân τ¬ σαρκί modifies κατέκριnεn by indicating the place where sin received God’s final juridical condemnation. This prepositional phrase could be a dative of sphere and thus be rendered “God condemned sin in the realm or sphere of the flesh.” This would of course make sense in the context and it is not far from the meaning here. But Paul intends something more specific. The prepositional phrase ân τ¬ σαρκί most likely refers to the “flesh of Christ” 71 since the adverbial participial clause πέmψας ân åmοιώmατι σαρκäς mαρτίας καÈ περÈ mαρτίας modifies κατέκριnεn by communicating the means of God’s condemnation of sin, namely, by sending his Son ân åmοιώmατι σαρκäς mαρτίας. “In the flesh” then corresponds to ân åmοιώmατι σαρκäς mαρτίας so that both phrases refer to Jesus in his full participation in Adam (cf. 5:14–21). Paul’s use of “flesh” in Romans 7–8 supports this contention. In Romans 7–8, “flesh” (σάρξ) is an eschatological concept 72 that designates humanity in its “belongingness to the age of Adam, that is, under the domination of sin.” 73 It is important to note that elsewhere in Romans, the prepositional phrase ân [τ¬] σαρκί always and only refers to the old age Adamic existence in bondage to sin (7:5, 18, 25; 8:8, 9). Furthermore, σάρξ significantly overlaps with σÀmα (“body”) in Romans 6–8 74 so that both “our old humanity” (å παλαιäς ™mÀn Šnθρωπος) and the “body of sin” (τä σÀmα τ¨ς mαρτίας) in 6:6 likewise 68

BDAG, “κατακρίnω,” 519. Fitzmyer, Romans, 486. F. Büchsel states that when κατακρίnω “refers to human judgment there is a clear distinction between the condemnation and its execution, but this is irrelevant in the case of divine κατακρίnειn, where the two can be seen as one” (“κρίnω, κτλ,” TDNT 3:951). Dunn similarly concludes that the verb is “not just sentence pronounced but sentence effected” (Romans 1–8, 422). 70 See Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 2:898. 71 So ibid. and Dunn, Romans 1–8, 422. 72 Paul’s use of “flesh” (σάρξ) is certainly diverse, with meanings ranging from physical existence to a cosmic power. But it is clear that he never uses it in a neutral sense (See McLean, The Cursed Christ, 142). 73 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 421. 74 In Rom 8:13, “flesh” and “body” are clearly synonymous: “For if you are living according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will 69

Jesus as the Scapegoat

99

“refer to humanity in solidarity with Adam, our belongingness to old era, the age dominated by the power of sin.” 75 Jewett has captured this significant overlap between σάρξ and σÀmα in Romans 6–8 as follows: In Rom 7:24–25, 8:9–11 and 8:13 σÀmα was inserted into contexts where σάρξ would normally have been expected. The purpose of these insertions was to place σÀmα (which could be used to depict the redeemed state of man) in parallel with σάρξ (which is used only to depict the unredeemed state) so that a sort of bridge would be established which would lead to the description of ethics as worship in the body in Rom 12. 76

But even when recognizing this overlap between “flesh” and “body” in Romans 6–8, Paul’s use of “flesh” in 8:3, rather than the generally more neutral “body,” suggests that he intended his readers to be in no doubt about his identification of Jesus with Adam. In Rom 8:3 then, God condemned sin precisely in its place of operation, the “flesh” as dominated by sin (and death). 77 But again, God did this “in the flesh” of Jesus, that is, in his Adamic humanity. 78 This notion is made even more certain in the prepositional phrases ân åmοιώmατι σαρκäς mαρτίας καÈ περÈ mαρτίας.

By Sending His Son in the Likeness of Sinful flesh and περÈ mαρτίας Having established “the flesh” of Jesus as the place where God condemned sin, the modal participial phrase πέmψας ân åmοιώmατι σαρκäς mαρτίας καÈ περÈ mαρτίας reveals the means of God’s condemnation: God condemned sin “in the flesh” of his Son by sending him “in the likeness of sinful flesh and περÈ mαρτίας.” The precise meaning of the first prepositional phrase (ân åmοιώmατι σαρκäς mαρτίας) and its implications for Pauline Christology are hotly debated and cannot be settled here. Suffice it to say that the association between “flesh” and “sin” in the phrase ân åmοιώmατι σαρκäς mαρτίας drives home Paul’s view that God’s Son participated fully in Adam’s plight. The association, or rather inextricable link, between flesh and sin in ch. 7 prepares for the phrase in 8:3. Note the links between “flesh,” “sinful passions,” “the law” and “death” in Rom 7:5, 14, and 18. Particularly noteworthy is the link between “law of God,” “my flesh,” and “law of sin” in 7:25 to which 8:1–4 provides a direct response. It seems

live.” In Romans 6–8, σÀmα and σάρξ overlap. This is especially clear in Rom 8:13, where “σÀmα takes the place of σάρξ” (BDAG, “σÀmα,” 984). 75 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 332. 76 Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms, 290. 77 Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 240. See also Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 2:127. 78 It is important however to insist, against Stuhlmacher (Der Brief an die Römer, 110) and Michel (Der Brief an die Römer, 251), that God condemned sin not Christ. See Dieter Zeller, Der Brief an die Römer, RNT (Regensburg: Pustet, 1985), 153: “Nicht Christus wird verdammt, sondern die Sünde.”

100

John Dennis

that at the very least Paul’s ân åmοιώmατι σαρκäς mαρτίας expresses “the full participation of the Son in the human condition,” 79 or, as Wilckens put it, “Sündenfleisch bezeichnet dem Wirklichkeitsbereich der Sünde, in den hinein Gott seinen Sohn so gesandt hat, daß Christus darin den Menschen als Sündern gleichgeworden ist.” 80 God sent his Son “in the likeness of sinful flesh” but also καÈ περÈ mαρτίας. It may well be that καί here is epexegetical: “in the likeness of sinful flesh even as /that is as a sin-offering.” 81 Even if this is not the case, there is still a close and necessary connection between Christ in the form of sinful Adam and Christ being sent περÈ mαρτίας. Apparently, Christ could be sent περÈ mαρτίας precisely because he shared fully in the Adamic condition. As the unique one who shared in the sinful flesh of Adam’s race, he could now become the place in which sin and death finally came together so that God could finally destroy their power over his people. The intended parallel between God’s “condemnation” (κατακρίnω) of sin in Jesus (v. 3) and the averting of “condemnation” (κατάκριmα) for those in Christ (v. 1) suggests that there is a “theology of substitution” in 8:1–3 in which “the Messiah’s death is the means by which sin is condemned.” 82 Further, Wright correctly sees that this condemnation happens by means of a kind of transference: “The condemnation has clearly been transferred: no katakrima for those in the Messiah, because the one God katekrinen sin in the Messiah’s flesh.” 83 God’s final “condemnation” of sin in the flesh of his Son as the περÈ mαρτίας (8:3) released those in Christ from their sentence of “condemnation” (8:1). Although it was not Christ who was condemned in this juridical-eschatological event of transference for condemnation, it was nevertheless in his human existence, located in the realm of this age of sin, that sin was finally transferred so that it could be condemned and therefore die in Christ. 84 In this regard, McLean’s view that Rom 8:3 (and 2 Cor 5:21 and Gal 3:13) resembles an expulsion ritual analogous to the Scapegoat 85 is on target. McLean however only points to the phrase ân åmοιώmατι σαρκäς mαρτίας and ignores περÈ mαρτίας since he believes the latter means only “to deal with sin.” Stephen Finlan, following McLean, likewise argues for an expulsion ritual interpretation of 8:3 in which Christ’s death is “a penal substitute (by combining the scape-

79

Moo, Romans, 479. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 2:125. 81 Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an die Römer, 107; Bell, “Sacrifice and Christology in Paul,” 5; and Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1998), 402–03. 82 Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 2:898. 83 Ibid. 84 See Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 251. 85 McLean, The Cursed Christ, 143–44. 80

Jesus as the Scapegoat

101

goat and judicial images).” 86 Finlan does not disregard a cultic reference in περÈ mαρτίας since he follows Wright in seeing in the phrase a reference to the sinoffering that atoned only for inadvertent sins. But the sin-offering for sins of inadvertence (cf. Leviticus 4) had nothing to do with the expulsion function of the Scapegoat in Leviticus 16. If in Rom 8:3 Paul was unlikely to have alluded to the sin-offering that dealt only with inadvertences as I maintain above, what other “sin-offering” (‌‫ לְחַטָּאת‬/ περÈ mαρτίας) would have been fit for contextual purpose in Rom 8:3? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to return to Leviticus.

The Sin-Offering (‌‫ )חטאת‬Rituals As already indicated, the sin-offerings during the year dealt with inadvertent sins (Leviticus 4 and Num 15:27–28), deliberate sins (Lev 5:1–4) and various impurities (Leviticus 12, 14–15; Numbers 6). The function of these rituals was to purify the tabernacle because it was believed that Israel’s sins and impurities attached themselves to it. The tabernacle therefore had to be decontaminated, and the priestly application of the ‌‫ חטאת‬blood functioned as the “purging element, the ritual detergent which cleansed the tabernacle and its sancta.” 87 The general pattern of the sin-offering rituals can be illustrated by Lev 4:33–35: the priest lays his hand on the sin-offering, slays it, daubs the blood on the altar, removes the animal’s fat, and offers it up in smoke on the altar. Then the expiation is complete and forgiveness is offered: “Thus the priest shall make expiation (‌‫ כפר‬/ âξιλάσκοmαι) for him regarding his sin which he has sinned and he shall be forgiven.” There are two other sin-offerings that function together in the unique Day of Atonement rituals in Leviticus 16. Both of these are intended to function “for / as a sin-offering” (‌‫ לְחַטָּאת‬/ περÈ mαρτίας) in 16:5. The second, the Scapegoat, provides the best analogy and thus background to Rom 8:3.

The Day of Atonement Sin-Offering Rituals (Leviticus 16) The purification rituals in Lev 11:13–15:31, probably also including the entirety of Leviticus 4–15, lead into Leviticus 16, which reveals that the rituals before ch. 16 must be completed by the Day of Atonement rituals. 88 This Day

86 Stephen Finlan, The Background and Content of Paul’s Cultic Atonement Metaphors, AcBib 19 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014), 115. 87 Jacob Milgrom, “Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly ‘Picture of Dorian Gray’,” RB 83 (1976): 391. 88 Jacob Milgrom writes, “God will tolerate inadvertent wrongs that contaminate the outside altar (4:22 ff.) and the shrine (4:1–22), for they can be purged through purification offerings [sin-

102

John Dennis

is necessary because apparently the sacrificial rites during the year do not deal comprehensively with problem of sin /impurity. There seems to have been “insufficiencies latent in the rituals” during the year, 89 which meant that the stated goal of the sin-offering (and other sacrificial) rituals in Lev 15:31 was not comprehensively effected: “You shall keep the children of Israel separated from their uncleanness (‌‫ טֻמְאָה‬/ ‚καθαρσία), lest they die (‌‫ )מוּת‬through (‌ְ‫ בּ‬/ διά) their impurity (‌‫ טֻמְאָה‬/ ‚καθαρσία) by defiling (‌‫ טמא‬/ mιαίnω) of my tabernacle that is among them.” As Milgrom states concerning this verse, “There can be no doubt that mût [‌‫ ]מוּת‬... denotes death by divine agency.” 90 It is left to the Day of Atonement rituals in Leviticus 16 to do what the previous rituals anticipated: to protect Israel from death.

The Two ‌‫ תאטח‬/ περÈ mαρτίας Goats in Leviticus 16:5 New Testament scholars overlook the fact that both of these goats are designated “sin-offerings” (‌‫ לְחַטָּאת‬/ περÈ mαρτίας): “He shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering (‌‫ שְׁנֵי־שְׂעִירֵי עִזִּים לְחַטָּאת‬/ δύο χιmάρους âξ αÊγÀn περÈ mαρτίας).” In addition, the functions of these ‌‫חטאת‬ goats, though forming a unified whole, are quite different. The first goat will be offered “for /as a sin-offering” (16:9) “for the people” (16.15), the function of which is to expiate the holy place (‌‫( )וְכִפֶּר עַל־הַקֹּדֶשׁ‬16:16). Therefore, the first ‌‫ חטאת‬goat in 16:5 has a similar purification function as all other sin-offerings in Leviticus. But the expiation effected by this goat concerns the sins /impurities of Israel in a more comprehensive way: “Aaron makes expiation for the holy place, from the impurities of the children of Israel, and from their transgressions, in regard to all their sins” (16:16). In addition, it is only on this day that the priest enters inside the veil and daubs the mercy seat with the animal’s blood (16:15–16). Nobuyoshi Kiuchi highlights the unique function of this Day of Atonement act when he points out that the rituals of 4:1–5:14 consistently move out from the outer court to the inner sanctuary. The ritual of Leviticus 16, however, moves in the opposite direction, from the purification of the mercy seat in the holy of holies to the tent of meeting and then further out to the altar offerings]. Conversely, as for the perpetrator of peša ‘rebellious acts’ (16:16), ‘who acts defiantly, reviles the Lord’ (Num 15:30), personal sacrifice will not avail him. The nation as a whole must expiate for him and others like him at the annual Purgation rite of the sanctuary (chap. 16), cleansing the contaminated adytum with the purification blood and transferring the released impurities to ‘the goat for Azazel’ (16:10, 20b–22)” (Leviticus 1–16, AB 3 [New York: Doubleday, 1991], 981). 89 Nobuyoshi Kiuchi argues that “the Day of Atonement ritual aims to overcome the insufficiencies latent in the rituals of 4:1–5:13, particularly in relation to those given for the anointed priest” (Leviticus, ApOTC [Nottingham: Apollos, 2007], 292). A. Schenker suggests that it was the sins that were neglected or forgotten that necessitated the Day of Atonement (“Interprétations récentes du sacrifice hattat,” Bib 75 [1994]: 67). 90 See the irrefutable evidence for this statement in Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 946.

Jesus as the Scapegoat

103

of burnt offering (16:15–29). 91 The ultimate goal of this movement away from that which is most holy is the final banishment of sins and impurities from the camp of Israel, something that the atonement rituals during the year were not intended to accomplish. The ritual for this final goal can begin when the first ‌‫ חטאת‬goat ritual is complete: “When he finishes expiating for /on the holy place, and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat” (16:20). The second goat (Scapegoat) ritual, though unique in that it forms the final stage in the comprehensive banishment of Israel’s sins and impurities (16:21–22), is nevertheless a ritual of “expiation” (‌‫ כפר‬/ âξιλάσκοmαι). But the expiation accomplished through this second goat is not accomplished with blood nor is it directed toward the tabernacle. Rather, the expiation happens “on” this goat so that it can function as the vehicle of final banishment. This goat will be presented alive before the Lord “in order to expiate on /over 92 it [the goat]” (‌‫ לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו‬/ τοÜ âξιλάσασθαι âπ+ αÎτοÜ) so as to send it away to Azazel (‌‫ לְשַׁלַּח אֹתוֹ לַעֲזָאזֵל‬/ ¹στε ‚ποστεØλαι αÎτän εÊς τ˜n ‚ποποmπήn) into the wilderness” (16:10). The expiation “on /over” the live goat happens as follows: Aaron lays his hands “on/over the head” (‌‫א‌שׁ‬f ֹ‫ עַל ר‬/ âπÈ τ˜n κεφαλήn) of the live animal and “confesses over /on it (‌‫לָ‌‌יו‬G ָ‫ ע‬/ âπ+ αÎτοÜ) all the iniquities of the Israelites and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins,” thereby “putting them on /over the head of the goat” (‌‫עִ‌‌יר‬D ָ‫רֹ‌‌אשׁ הַשּׂ‬S ‫ת‌‌ןן אֹתָם‌’‌ עַל־‬Tַ ְ‌‫ו‬f) (16:21). The uses of the preposition ‌‫ עַל‬in 16:10 (“expiate on /over” the goat) and 16:21 (“lay his hand on /over the head” and “confess on /over it”) are clearly related and reveal how the second goat “expiates,” namely, by “bearing /taking” (‌‫ נשֹא‬/ λαmβάnω) on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land (16:22). 93 Aaron thus transfers all of the sins /impurities of the people onto the goat by laying his hands on the animal and confessing Israel’s sins on /over the goat. As Milgrom has shown, “the two-handed ceremonial ... serves a transference function: to convey, by confession, the sins of Israel onto the head of the goat.” 94 That Israel’s sins /impurities are understood to be transferred quite literally on the second goat is made clear by the fact that the person who leads the sinladened goat away to the wilderness must undergo ablutions (16:26) before being allowed back into Israel’s community. 95 This second live ‌‫ חטאת‬goat that was ritually pure in 16:5 has now become, by means of the transference ritual, sin-

91

Kiuchi, Leviticus, 292–93. Kiuchi’s view that ‌‫ עָלָיו‬in 16:10 should be understood as “for him [Aaron]” is possible but unlikely (Leviticus, 297). See Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1023. 93 The point here is that the goat is sent to a place where it cannot return (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1045–46). 94 Ibid., 1041. 95 David P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature, SBLDS 101 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 19; and John E. Hartley, Leviticus, WBC 4 (Dallas: Word, 1992), 242. 92

104

John Dennis

ladened. It is important to recognize here that this goat is not being offered to Azazel, rather, the goat is “sent to Azazel” (‌‫ )לַעֲזָאזֵל‬in 16:10 for the purpose of transporting the sins away from Israel “so that Azazel is merely the place or goal of the disposal (25).” 96 The movement, or rather removal, of all of Israel’s sins and impurities away from the most holy place and the camp of Israel is now comprehensively complete. This is confirmed by the stated purpose of the entire Day of Atonement ceremony: “For on this day expiation shall be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before the Lord” (16:30) and “Now you shall have this as a permanent statute, to make expiation (‌‫)כפר‬ for the children of Israel from all their sins” (16:34).

Conclusion Romans 8:1–3, in the argument of chs. 5–7, functions to bring the story of God’s eschatological defeat of sin in his Son to its final conclusion. Romans 8:1–3 does so by echoing previous assertions made throughout chs. 5–7, and particularly ch. 6. Adam and those in him have been subjected to eschatological condemnation and death because of sin (ch. 5). Even God’s holy law did not eliminate the plight (ch. 7). It was left to Israel’s God to effect the final solution to the problem of sin and he did so in His Son, who shared in Adam’s old age plight. Christ’s “death to [the power of] sin” (6:10) becomes believers’ “death to sin” (6:2; 7:4) because they are “included in” Christ’s Adamic death as them and for them (6:3–5). Another way to put this is that believers have “died to the law,” in so far as the law has been co-opted by sin (7:8), “through the [crucified] body of Christ” (7:4) so that the believer’s “body of sin” might be abolished (6:6). In Rom 8:3, the phase ân åmοιώmατι σαρκäς mαρτίας functions as a sort of shorthand to identify Christ as the one who shared in Adamic humanity so that he could become the place where God finally condemned sin, that is, in his Adamic “flesh” God κατέκριnεn τ˜n mαρτίαn ân τ¬ σαρκί. It is difficult to get around the conclusion that sin was somehow concentrated in or transferred to Christ so that it could be condemned there. How shall we now understand Paul’s phrase περÈ mαρτίας in Rom 8:3? As many interpreters recognize, the phrase is surely a reference to the Levitical sinoffering. The question is, which sin-offering forms the best analogy to the argument of 8:1–3 in the context of chs. 5–7? The sin-offerings that functioned for inadvertent sins (cf. Leviticus 4) must be ruled out. My survey of the various sinofferings in Leviticus above suggests that there is a far greater correspondence between the function of the second goat in Lev 16:5, which was a “sin-offer-

96

Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, 25.

Jesus as the Scapegoat

105

ing” (‌‫טּ‌חַאת‬qָ ְ‫ ל‬/ περÈ mαρτίας), and the function of God’s Son sent περÈ mαρτίας in Rom 8:3. Both atoning events deal with all of the sins of God’s people by means of sin being concentrated in or transferred to the goat (Leviticus 16) and Christ (Rom 8:3) so that they could be banished away from (Leviticus 16) or condemned (Rom 8:3) for God’s people. In regard to Leviticus 16, the sins and impurities of Israel were placed on the pure goat so that they could be taken far away from God’s people. In regard to Rom 8:3, the sin (and death) of old age Adam were condemned in Christ. The περÈ mαρτίας-Scapegoat of Leviticus 16 eradicates sins on a yearly basis, whereas Jesus as the περÈ mαρτίας-Scapegoat in Rom 8:3 eradicates sin finally. An allusion to the second περÈ mαρτίας-goat of Lev 16:5 in Rom 8:3 is therefore entirely appropriate and fits Paul’s argument in Romans 5–8.

Future Justification in the Golden Chain of Romans 8 Alexander N. Kirk

Commentators have long puzzled over the aorist tense (or perfective aspect) of the string of verbs in Rom 8:30: “And those whom he predestined, these he also called; and those whom he called, these he also justified; and those whom he justified, these he also glorified.” 1 This verse and the preceding one (8:29) together form what is commonly known as the “golden chain” of salvation. 2 Within this chain, the aorist tense of the verb “glorified” (âδόξασεn) in particular has provoked discussion.

Future Glorification in Romans 8:30 The majority of interpreters have read this as a reference to future glorification, centered on the redemption of believers’ bodies (8:23). The aorist tense is then explained as a grammatical construction communicating a theological point. As Douglas Moo writes, “Most interpreters conclude, probably rightly, that Paul is looking at the believer’s glorification from the standpoint of God, who has already decreed that it should take place. While not yet experienced, the divine decision to glorify those who have been justified has already been made; the issue has been settled.” 3 Or, as Thomas Schreiner contends, “The aorist signifies the certainty that what God has begun he will finish.” 4 Thus the verb âδόξασεn may perhaps be categorized as what Daniel Wallace calls a “proleptic” or “futuristic” aorist. 5 This understanding, however, has not been universally embraced. Commentators such as Ernst Käsemann and Brendan Byrne have not read âδόξασεn as

1 The Greek of the NA28 is οÏς δà προώρισεn, τούτους καÈ âκάλεσεn· καÈ οÏς âκάλεσεn, τούτους καÈ âδικαίωσεn· οÏς δà âδικαίωσεn, τούτους καÈ âδόξασεn. All translations of ancient sources are mine unless otherwise noted. 2 For a historical survey of the term “golden chain” (catena aurea), concentrating on the Reformation, see J. V. Fesko, “Romans 8.29–30 and the Question of the Ordo Salutis,” JRT 8 (2014): 35–60. The term can be traced back to the ancient church fathers (ibid., 54). 3 Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 536. 4 Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, BECNT 6 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1998), 454. See the long list of theologians espousing this view in Dane C. Ortlund, “Inaugurated Glorification: Revisiting Romans 8:30,” JETS 57.1 (2014): 111–12 n. 6, 7. 5 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 563–64.

108

Alexander N. Kirk

anticipatory. 6 Furthermore, in recent years more commentators have asserted that “glorified” in Rom 8:30 refers to glorification already experienced. 7 Interestingly, the aorist tense of âδόξασεn is one of the primary pieces of evidence set forth by William Walker to support his thesis that 8:29–30 is a non-Pauline interpolation: “The reference in Rom 8:30 to God’s having ‘glorified’ humans would appear to be non-Pauline and, indeed, to represent a kind of ‘realized eschatology’ that appears in the post-Pauline era.” 8 The interpretation of âδόξασεn as properly past /present has now received an extended defense by Dane Ortlund. While Ortlund effectively reiterates that the concepts of glory and glorification in Paul (and the New Testament more broadly) must be understood against the backdrop of inaugurated eschatology, he does not prove that the occurrence of âδόξασεn in Rom 8:30 relates primarily, if not exclusively, to past /present glorification. Ortlund asks, “Instead of viewing justification as only present and glorification as only future, can we not view both activities as both present and future, à la Pauline inaugurated eschatology?” 9 The biblical data Ortlund compiles certainly opens up the range of interpretive possibilities, but what is lacking in his argument is specific support within the immediate context that directs us to interpret glorification as a past / present reality in this particular instance. Ortlund attempts to provide such support by stating that “crucial in determining the meaning and temporal orientation of âδόξασεn in 8:30 is the immediate context of 8:30, and in particular verse 29.” 10 He argues that “‘glorified’ in verse 30 is another way of saying ‘conformed to the image of his Son’ in verse 29” based on “the close link throughout Paul’s letters between glory-language and image-language.” 11 However, although this language and these concepts

6 See Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), 245; and Brendan Byrne S. J., Romans, SP 6 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996), 270. Byrne claims “Paul can write ‘has glorified’ on the basis of a hidden glorification already underway” (270), with reference to 2 Cor 3:18. See also Joachim Meissner, Das Kommen der Herrlichkeit: eine Neuinterpretation von Röm 8,14–30, Forschung zur Bibel 100 (Würzburg: Echter, 2003) and the works listed in Ortlund, “Inaugurated Glorification,” 113 n. 13. 7 See, e. g., Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007), 530; Frank J. Matera, Romans, Paideia (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 205; and Michael Wolter, Der Brief an die Römer: Teilband 1, Röm 1–8, EKKNT 6 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2014), 534. Jewett reads âδόξασεn as an expression of “an enthusiastic baptismal tradition” (530), while Matera declares that “believers already enjoy something of that future glorification because they possess the gift of the Spirit, the firstfruits of the final glorification that they will experience at the general resurrection of the dead” (205). 8 William O. Walker, “Romans 8:29–30 as a Non-Pauline Interpolation,” Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 2.1 (2012): 39. 9 Ortlund, “Inaugurated Glorification,” 120. He does not explore the possibility that âδικαίωσεn in Rom 8:30 should be read as a reference to future justification. 10 Ibid., 116. 11 Ibid., 116–17.

Future Justification in the Golden Chain of Romans 8

109

are clearly related, all that Ortlund demonstrates through his survey of biblical texts is that conformity to Christ is not an exclusively future reality. 12 Once again, this points to the possibility that glorification in 8:30 refers to a past / present reality, but it does not advance a positive argument for such a claim. The deciding factors must be how Paul speaks of glory and glorification in Romans 8 and what the logic of the immediate context is. As Ortlund admits, “The greatest obstacle to what we are proposing regarding Rom 8:30 is that earlier in Romans 8 Paul has spoken of believers’ glory in clearly future terms.” 13 In 8:17 Paul claims that believers are heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, “if indeed we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.” This verse links the believer’s inheritance with their glorification, and makes both contingent upon their suffering with Christ. The moment of inheriting in Paul’s thinking is clearly in the future. 14 Furthermore, in the next verse Paul plainly states that he considers “the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is about to be revealed to [or ‘in’] us” (8:18). The “glory that is about to be to be revealed” (τ˜n mέλλουσαn δόξαn ‚ποκαλυφθ¨nαι), according to the context, is a glory for which creation and believers “eagerly wait” (‚πεκδέχοmαι; 8:19, 23), a hope not yet realized (8:24–25). Finally, in Rom 8:21 the liberation of creation from its bondage to corruption and the obtaining of the freedom of the “glory” (δόξα) of the children of God clearly happens at the end of the age. Even Ortlund recognizes that “‘the freedom of the glory of the children of God’ in verse 21 is parallel to bodily redemption in verse 23,” but then he makes the unusual claim that “bodily redemption is itself an already /not yet eschatological reality for believers.” 15 His apparent rationale for this claim is that “now we have the firstfruits of the Spirit, the first initial ingathering of a final harvest.” 16 While it is true that resurrection broadly conceived can be considered an “already /not yet eschatological reality for believers,” this conception would have to be parsed out as an inaugurated spiritual resurrection (cf. 6:4; 8:10; Col 2:12) that is consummated in the bodily resurrection on the last day. Having the firstfruits of the Spirit guarantees the believer’s bodily redemption, but is no partial experience of it. Thus it seems impossible to say, as Ortlund does, that bodily redemption itself has an inaugurated dimension. Indeed, this assertion runs counter to Rom 7:24 and 8:10, 13.

12

Cf. ibid., 118–19. Ibid., 125. 14 See Rom 4:13; 1 Cor 6:9–10; 15:50; Gal 5:21; Eph 1:14; Col 3:24. Cf. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, WBC 38A (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988), 455–57, 462–64; Moo, Romans, 504–5; and Colin G. Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, PNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012), 340, among others. In Ortlund’s discussion of Rom 8:17 he links glory to suffering, but does not discuss the believer’s future inheritance (“Inaugurated Glorification,” 125–26). 15 Ortlund, “Inaugurated Glorification,” 127. 16 Ibid. 13

110

Alexander N. Kirk

For these reasons, the majority of commentators are on solid ground in interpreting “glorified” in 8:30 in light of the hope for a future bodily resurrection, linked with future inheritance and contingent upon a lifetime of faithful suffering. This understanding is clearly expounded in the immediately preceding context. Furthermore, as will be shown, the logical flow within 8:28–30 itself points to a golden chain of salvation consummated in the future glorification of believers.

Future Justification in Romans 8:30? If “glorified” (âδόξασεn) in Rom 8:30 refers to a future reality, as most commentators agree, a questions arises: Do any of the other verbs in this chain likewise employ the perfective aspect but properly refer to an as-yet-unrealized dimension of salvation? It is obvious that the first three verbs cannot: “foreknew” (προγιnώσκω, 8:29), “predestined” (προορίζω, 8:29), and “called” (καλέω, 8:30) are exclusively past or present soteriological realities for Paul. 17 Yet what about the verb “justified”? Virtually all commentators would agree that Paul’s treatment of justification in the letter to the Romans has both past /present and future dimensions (cf. 5:1 and 2:13). Is it possible that the aorist tense of âδικαίωσεn is utilized in a similar way to âδόξασεn? Could âδικαίωσεn in 8:30 be read with reference to future justification? Intriguingly, from my survey of scholarship it appears as if this possibility has not yet been considered. 18 Most commentators simply assume without comment that Paul intends a reference to past /present justification in 8:30. The lone exception might be James Dunn, who writes: Since the âκάλεσεn denotes divinely accomplished conversion, and the âδόξασεn denotes the completion of God’s saving purpose, the âδικαίωσεn could refer to either of these decisive moments (as, on the one hand, 5:1 and 1 Cor 6:11; or, on the other, 2:13), or indeed to the whole process of salvation linking these two decisive moments – God’s saving action in drawing man into the proper relationship with himself and sustaining him therein

17 It is unclear why or how Ortlund thinks that all five verbs of Rom 8:29–30 (i. e., foreknew, predestined, called, justified, glorified) “should be plugged into Paul’s already /not yet eschatology” (ibid., 130). Certainly the intended ramifications of God’s foreknowledge, predestination, and calling of believers have not yet been fully realized, but where is the Pauline data that specifically describes these divine activities themselves in a future time frame? 18 Reading âδικαίωσεn in Rom 8:30 as a reference to future justification first flashed across my mind as an interpretive possibility while I was sitting in Scott Hafemann’s Pauline Theology course, taught at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in the spring of 2010. Such bolts of insight frequently stimulated my thinking during the courses I had with Scott, as he regularly illuminated Paul’s theology (and the New Testament) in new ways. This essay is thus dedicated to him as my teacher, friend, and brother in Christ.

Future Justification in the Golden Chain of Romans 8

111

(through all the anguish and frustration outlined in vv 12–26) until the final acquittal and glorious conclusion – the whole process seen again from its end point. 19

While Dunn states the possibility that Rom 8:30 should be read in the same time frame as 2:13, he inclines instead for reading âδικαίωσεn as denoting “the whole process of salvation” linking the believer’s conversion to his final glorification. This idiosyncratic interpretation is supported by Dunn’s perspective on δικαιÀn in 8:33, “the present tense [of which] once again reminding us that God’s justifying action is not a once-for-all event (at conversion or whenever), but an ongoing sustaining.” 20 In this essay I submit that “justified” (âδικαίωσεn) in 8:30 is indeed a reference to future (or final) justification: all those whom God called will be justified on the day of judgment. I will support this interpretation by first looking at the immediate context in 8:28–39. In so doing I seek to rebut Walker’s claim that “the subject matter of the verses [29–30] has little if any apparent relation to that of the surrounding material.” 21 Then I will note parallels to Paul’s exposition of future justification in Romans 2, relying heavily upon a novel and compelling reading of that passage offered by Scott Hafemann. The essay will conclude with various potential exegetical and theological implications of reading “justified” in 8:30 in this way. Not all readers will be persuaded by my interpretation. Nevertheless, I hope to plot this interpretive possibility on the map firmly enough so that future commentators on Paul’s letter to the Romans will no longer assume that “justified” in 8:30 refers to a past /present reality, but will feel compelled to defend their viewpoint.

The Future Time Frame of Romans 8:28–39 In Hafemann’s classroom lectures he frequently said, “Context is king.” So if both initial justification (5:1) and final justification (2:13) are potential referents of the verb âδικαίωσεn in 8:30, the deciding factor for our interpretation of this verb must be the immediate context in Romans. As I read it, the rhetorical high point of 8:1–17 is v. 12: “We are obligated, not to the flesh to live according to the flesh,” but (as it is implied), “we are obligated to the Spirit to live according to the Spirit.” Everything else in 8:1–17 supports this central point. This is related to an exhortation that flows as an undercurrent throughout the passage: “Walk /live according to the Spirit!” Then in v. 17 there is a crucial turn in Paul’s argument. The theme of suffering, having been 19 20 21

Dunn, Romans 1–8, 485. Ibid., 503. Walker, “Romans 8:29–30 as a Non-Pauline Interpolation,” 33.

112

Alexander N. Kirk

absent from 5:12 to this point, is reintroduced, reprising Paul’s earlier discussion in 5:1–5. Romans 8:18–39 then explains how believers can overcome the suffering that is necessarily entailed in such a life of obligation to the Spirit. In other words, 8:18–39 provides the believer with motivation for continuing to walk according to the Spirit in spite of the suffering involved. 22 In Paul’s context, the suffering of believers (and Paul’s own as an apostle) called into question whether their lives were indeed blessed by God and destined for glory. Again and again Paul needed to prove that suffering does not invalidate his message or necessarily signify God’s disfavor. Therefore, in 8:18–27 Paul contends that suffering has been woven into the fabric of fallen creation by the design of God; it is also woven into God’s design for our salvation. Nevertheless, suffering is not passively or placidly embraced; rather, we groan under it. Yet this groaning is akin to the groaning of childbirth that gives way to a much more glorious and hoped-for reality: the revelation of a new body. As the whole creation groans, and believers with it, so too does the Spirit. The Spirit does not abandon believers in their experience of suffering; rather, the Spirit enters into it with us, at a deeper level than we even understand. This brings us to 8:28, which I think is the central affirmation of vv. 28–39. By stating that “for those loving God all things [πάnτα] work together unto good [εÊς ‚γαθόn],” Paul, in the flow of his thought, must intend to encompass suffering in the “all things” and the redemption of our bodies (8:23) in the “good.” 23 Thus, the leading affirmation of 8:28–39 prompts us to expect that what follows will demonstrate again how all things, including suffering, are threads woven together by God for the ultimate redemption and glorification of believers. I belabor this point because it must be recognized that the whole of Rom 8:28–39 pertains to suffering that seems to jeopardize the believer’s hope and to the ultimate vindication of God’s people who trust in his overarching purposes. Paul adds a key qualifying clause in v. 28: “for those who are called [τοØς ... κλητοØς] according to purpose.” Notice the place of prominence given in Paul’s logic to God’s calling of believers. God’s purpose inheres to the believer’s calling and that calling is the basis upon which all things work together for the believer’s ultimate good. This verse suggests that in the chain from foreknowledge to predestination to calling to justification to glorification, it is upon the believer’s calling that future expectations are built. Paul did not write, “All things work together unto good for those who are justified according to God’s purpose.”

22 Readers of Hafemann’s work will recognize the themes of suffering and the Spirit, particularly as discussed in Suffering and the Spirit: An Exegetical Study of II Cor. 2:14–3:3 within the Context of the Corinthian Correspondence, WUNT 2.19 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986). 23 In addition, reintroducing the believer’s love for God (8:28) is another signal that Paul is returning to the thought of Rom 5:1–5, in which he declares that “the love of God has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit” (5:5).

Future Justification in the Golden Chain of Romans 8

113

This notion is confirmed in Rom 8:33 when Paul asks the question, “Who will bring charges against the elect [âκλεκτÀn] of God?” Again, the election or calling of believers is the basis upon which they can know that no one is able to undermine their salvation and unravel God’s purpose. In fact, this core identity of believers as those who are loved and called by God (8:28, 33, 39) is stated in the opening of the letter: “to all those in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints [κλητοØς γίοις]” (1:7). In all of Paul’s greetings, identifying his recipients as “called” only occurs elsewhere in 1 Cor 1:2, where it has a significance of its own within that letter. So based upon the prominence and function of God’s calling within the immediate context, one might incline already toward reading the pivot from the present to the future within the golden chain as the pivot from calling to justification. This reading assumes that the string of verbs in Rom 8:29–30 are intended as a chain of logical sequencing, even if there is not a strict chronological sequencing. While this is how the verses have been interpreted for centuries, recent emphasis upon union with Christ has called this understanding into question. 24 For example, after asserting that each of the five divine actions in 8:29–30 should be viewed “as a spoke emerging from the hub of union with Christ,” Ortlund claims that “the connection Paul is drawing is not mechanically chronological, as if individual believers are to plot where they themselves are currently in this chain (between steps 4 and 5? justified but not yet glorified?).” 25 Likewise, he earlier states that 8:29–30 is “not so much a golden chain of salvation – a row of dominos, each soteriological reality knocking down the next in order.” 26 However, Ortlund, among others, has not yet sufficiently attended to the literary structure of these verses. As several scholars have noted, 8:29–30 is an example of a sorites. As J. V. Fesko explains, The sorites (σωρείτης, lit. ‘heaped up,’ also known as climax, gradatio, [degree], catena [chain]) has been attributed to a Greek philosopher, Eubulides of Miletus (fl. 4th century bc), a disciple of Euclid (ca. 435–ca. 365 bc). And from approximately 50 bc to 200 ad this Greco-Roman rhetorical literary device was commonly employed by writers of the period in both secular and sacred writings. 27

24 See A. T. B. McGowan, “Justification and the ordo salutis,” in Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges, ed. Bruce L. McCormack (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006). He concludes, “Some modern Reformed theologians have largely abandoned the use of an ordo salutis method and opted instead to view the various doctrines in the ordo salutis not as a series of connected acts and processes but, rather, as aspects of union with Christ” (162). Cf. Fesko, “Romans 8.29–30 and the Question of the Ordo Salutis,” 39. 25 Ortlund, “Inaugurated Glorification,” 131–32. 26 Ibid., 131. 27 Fesko, “Romans 8.29–30 and the Question of the Ordo Salutis,” 51.

114

Alexander N. Kirk

A sorites is “a logical chain of causes concatenated together to form the ‘heap.’” 28 In such a construction “each step of the chain presupposes the previous step and is logically predicated upon it.” 29 If one remains skeptical of the stair-step nature of this literary device, one need look no farther than Rom 10:14–15a and, significantly, 5:3–5a: “Not only this, but we also boast in afflictions, knowing that affliction produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame.” Both 10:14–15a and 5:3–5a are examples of a sorites. 30 Fesko notes that Paul “bookends Romans 5–8 with two sorites,” 31 but he does not comment on the remarkable parallels between these passages. As I have mentioned, the theme of Rom 8:18–39 is how a believer can persevere in the midst of suffering. In 5:3–5 Paul explains how the believer can boast in affliction. In both expositions the focus is on the future reward that makes present suffering worthwhile. Furthermore, it appears as if Paul has not quite completed his thought in 5:5 by describing how it is that hope does not put us to shame. I submit that 8:28–39 loops back to this earlier line of thought to explain that our hope (cf. 8:24–25) does not put us to shame because God will vindicate those who love him before a world that would seek to shame or condemn them. In other words, the believer’s hope leads not to shame but vindication; God will justify those whom are called according to his purpose. To reiterate, Rom 8:29–30 represents a sorites and within this chain justification is logically predicated upon calling. The logic is manifestly set forth a mere three verses later: “Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect [âκλεκτÀn θεοÜ]? God is the one who justifies [δικαιÀn]. Who will condemn [τίς å κατακριnÀn]?” (8:33–34a). 32 In these verses Paul implies that no one will be able to prosecute successfully a case against God’s elect. As Schreiner rightly points out, the intent of these questions “is not to deny that some may lodge accusations against believers. What Paul insists on is that no accusation will stick, for ‘God is the one who justifies.’” 33 These sentences are important to my argument and must receive a closer examination. As most commentators recognize, the wording of these sentences alludes to Isa 50:7–9a LXX: The Lord became my helper; therefore I was not disgraced but have set my face like a solid rock and know that I will by no means be put to shame [οÎ m˜ αÊσχυnθÀ; cf. Rom 5:5]. For 28

Ibid., 52. Ibid., 54. 30 See ibid., 52–53, and his entire discussion of this construction on pages 51–57. 31 Ibid., 53. 32 I am reading the ambiguous κατακριnωn as κατακριnÀn, in the future tense. However, even if this verb should be accented as κατακρίnωn (present tense), then it – like δικαιÀn – should be considered “gnomic” and as still referring to the final judgment (cf. Moo, Romans, 542 n. 33). 33 Schreiner, Romans, 462. 29

Future Justification in the Golden Chain of Romans 8

115

the one who justified [å δικαιώσας] me draws near. Who is the one judging [å κριnόmεnος] me? Let him oppose me. Who is the one judging [å κριnόmεnος] me? Let him draw near to me. Behold, the Lord helps me; who will harm [κακώσει] me?

In the verses leading up to this passage, the speaker has described himself as obedient: “The instruction of the Lord opens my ears and I do not disobey nor refuse” (Isa 50:5). Despite this, the speaker has been persecuted for the sake of his righteousness: “I have given my back to whippings and my cheeks to slappings. I did not turn away my face from the shame of spittings” (50:6). When the speaker then transitions into vv. 7–9a, the idea is that the Lord will vindicate his faithful servant over against those who seek to shame, judge, oppose, or harm him. The passage continues, “Behold, all of you will wear out like a garment and, as it were, a moth will consume you” (Isa 50:9b). The judgment that the speaker’s enemies sought to render upon him will be returned upon their own heads. Indeed, the vindication of Israel or God’s suffering servant is a theme that surfaces repeatedly within Isaiah 40–66 LXX, notably at 45:20–25, 53:3–12, and 54:4–17. 34 In Isa 54:17 the Lord promises, “Every voice that will rise against you in judgment – you will defeat all of them. Those who wrong you shall be in it [judgment?]. This is the inheritance of those serving the Lord and you will be righteous to me.” Thus, Paul’s allusion to Isa 50:7–9 in Rom 8:33–34 taps into the theme of God’s ultimate vindication of the faithful over against their enemies. These Isaianic resonances, the future time frame of all of 8:18–39, the unmistakable courtroom language, and the parallels to Romans 2 (see below), all decisively indicate that the scene described in 8:33–34 is the final judgment, in which the enemies of God’s people are arrayed against them. Almost all commentators recognize this, 35 and yet they do not connect this clear time marker to the interpretation of âδικαίωσεn in 8:30, just three or four verses earlier. The allusions to Isaiah also strongly suggest that it is not Satan per se who is the envisioned accuser here 36 and even less so “our own sins.” 37 Rather, it is any person who inflicts suffering upon believers, either in the form of overt persecution (cf. Rom 8:36a) or in the form of slander and denigration (cf. 8:36b). The

34 G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 494–95, 522–23. 35 An exception is Chris VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006), 327–28, who argues that the Last Judgment is not in view in Rom 8:31–39: “The content in Rom 2:15–16 and Rom 14:10–12, which mention the judgment, compared with Rom 8:31–39, which does not mention the judgment, differs too much to dictate that all three texts refer to the same episode” (327). In my view, VanLandingham’s controlling thesis, and not the content of these passages, is dictating this decision. 36 Contra Kruse, Romans, 361. 37 Moo, Romans, 542.

116

Alexander N. Kirk

final judgment will show these attacks to be unjust and baseless. Michael Bird explains, To use the cosmic terminology of Romans 8:18–39, justification is about the long awaited revelation of the sons of God and the public vindication of these sons before the entire world. In the final assize, Christians are seen for who they are, not the scum of the earth or refuse of the empire, but God’s own people. The resurrection is the incarnation of the justification of the saints whereby the pagan world learns (perhaps to its disdain) what God thinks of the Messiah-believers through what he grants to them: glory, honour, righteousness, and life. 38

G. K. Beale even more clearly portrays future justification as the deliverance of believers from the cloud of accusation hanging over them in this hostile world: Although saints have been declared righteous before God and the covenant community in this age, the world has judged them to be in the wrong, with respect to both their belief in Christ and their loyalty to living according to the values of God’s word. The world’s judgment has expressed itself in the execution of saints, imprisonment, social and economic ostracism, and other forms of contempt. In the final end-time courtroom God’s people will be acknowledged before all to have been in the right all along, and their justifying belief and righteous actions will be vindicated and the world’s verdict of “guilty” will be finally and forever overturned. 39

My argument in this section at times fits Beale’s sustained discussion of this matter. 40 However, he still understands âδικαίωσεn in Rom 8:30 as a reference to initial justification. 41 He does not indicate that it could be read otherwise. It is also critical to realize that God himself is not the prosecutor of believers at the final judgment. Clearly, God is the judge presiding over the court; however, he is not pressing his case against believers at the final judgment because his justice has already been satisfied in their case by the death of his Son. 42 Those who bring charges against the elect at their final justification are primarily human opponents and detractors, but Paul’s thought may also include spiritual forces of evil that stand against God’s people (cf. 8:38–39).

38 Michael F. Bird, “Justification as Forensic Declaration and Covenant Membership: A Via Media between Reformed and Revisionist Readings of Paul,” TynBul 57.1 (2006): 122. 39 Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 904. 40 Ibid., 469–526. 41 Ibid., 501. 42 I do not view Jesus’s continuing heavenly intercession (Rom 8:34) as aimed toward the pacification of God the Father, as though he were saying, “Father, forgive the elect! Do not forget that I have atoned for their sins!” Rather, no one will be able to condemn the elect because Jesus’s intercession, like the Spirit’s (8:27), avails for believers in the midst of their suffering and weakness, causing them to walk in a manner pleasing to God (cf. 8:1–4 and my exegesis below). Furthermore, Jesus’s intercession for believers might be against those who persecute them, as Elijah’s “interceding” (ânτυγχάnω) to God was against Israel (11:2). This could be indicated in Paul’s allusion to Psalm 110 (109 LXX).

Future Justification in the Golden Chain of Romans 8

117

My reading of âδικαίωσεn in 8:30 and the surrounding context is further confirmed by 8:35–39. The threat in this passage is future separation from Christ: “Who will separate [χωρίσει] us from the love of Christ?” The list of threats in v. 35b – tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, danger, sword – are all external trials inflicted upon believers by those who would oppose them. 43 Although the law court metaphor is not explicit in vv. 35–39, the scenario is the same: despite appearances to the contrary, God has not abandoned his people to their enemies and he will ultimately vindicate them as “more than conquerors” (8:37) at the final judgment. Thus, I disagree with Beverly Gaventa’s assessment that the apocalyptic has displaced the forensic at the end of Romans 8 and that “the last question [of Rom 8:35] does not pertain to people being judged but to people being pursued by agents who wish them separated from their rightful Lord.” 44 Why pit a “conflict of powers” against vindication in a court of law? 45 Furthermore, the vindication of believers over against their enemies who wrongfully accuse them is manifest in Rom 8:36, in which Paul cites Ps 43:23 LXX. The thought pattern of this psalm is very similar to Isa 50:7–9. The psalmist protests his innocence (43:18–22), claims that he is being persecuted for righteousness’s sake (43:23), and calls out for God to vindicate the faithful (43:24–27). Vindication in this context must be the reversal of the shame and reviling that is being heaped upon the psalmist: “All day long my humiliation is before me and the shame of my face covered me at the sound of the one reviling and babbling, from the face of my enemy and the one persecuting” (Ps 43:16–17 LXX). Therefore, as Robert Jewett has observed, the list of trials in Rom 8:35 could have been used as ammunition for the accusation that God is not truly for those who suffer for Christ: “These seven forms of hardship could have provided the basis for critics within the early church to delegitimize sufferers, a possibility that Paul wished to counter.” 46 Yet, as Jewett notes, the citation of Psalm 43 at this juncture effectively rebuts this charge:

43 Note that sins arising from within are not included on this list. One would assume with Rom 8:13 that if a person did not put to death the deeds of the body (i. e., if they lived according to the flesh), they would be “separated” from Christ in the sense that they would die. However, those in whom the Spirit dwells are not in the flesh (Rom 8:9) and cannot be severed from Christ. 44 Beverly Roberts Gaventa, “Neither Height nor Depth: Discerning the Cosmology of Romans,” SJT 64.3 (2011): 275. 45 Cf. Mark P. Surburg, “Rectify or Justify? A Response to J. Louis Martyn’s Interpretation of Paul’s Righteousness Language,” CTQ 77 (2013): 45–77. He submits, “Paul finds it very natural to set forensic and cosmological categories side by side” (70). This pertains to the entire chapter of Romans 8. With regard to Rom 8:1–4, see the conclusion of David A. Shaw, “Apocalyptic and Covenant: Perspectives on Paul or Antinomies at War?” JSNT 36.2 (2013): 167: “There are therefore good reasons for doubting whether an apocalyptic reading that refuses a role for forensic categories will fare well.” 46 Jewett, Romans, 545.

118

Alexander N. Kirk

This citation makes full sense only if there were contrary voices that Paul wished to counter, arguing, as I have suggested in the preceding verse, that Paul’s sufferings and those of the Jewish Christian exiles in Rome were not for Christ’s sake, but rather disqualified them as genuine disciples. That is, if they were genuinely righteous and filled with the Spirit, they would be blessed with success and prosperity rather than cursed with afflictions. The citation answers the rhetorical need by affirming that believers’ “death all the day long,” being slaughtered “as sheep,” demonstrates their solidarity with Christ. 47

Believers’ suffering does indeed demonstrate their “solidarity with Christ” in his suffering, but in order that they might be glorified with him also (cf. Rom 8:17). Believers are and will be more than conquerors when neither death nor things to come will separate them from the love of God in Christ (8:38–39). Again, all of Rom 8:28–39 logically supports Paul’s main assertion that “all things work together unto good for those who are called according to [God’s] purpose” (8:28). Paul declares that “in all these things” – persecution, death, slander, denigration – “we will be more than conquerors” (8:37). Thus the entire time frame and frame of thought surrounding âδικαίωσεn in 8:30 indicates that this should be read as a reference to future final justification, an event in which God vindicates his people by overturning the false judgment laid upon them by their enemies. It is unnecessary to default to ingrained theological systems to interpret âδικαίωσεn; context is king.

Parallels to Romans 2:12–29 Romans 2, particularly vv. 12–29, provide additional support. Romans 2:12–29 and 8:28–39 are variations on the same theme. N. T. Wright notes the “verbal and thematic ties between Romans 2 and Romans 8” and suggests that Paul “is consciously and explicitly providing in chapter 8 the long-range answers to the questions raised by chapter 2.” 48 The parallels between these passages confirm that âδικαίωσεn in 8:30 should be read in the same time frame as δικαιωθήσοnται in 2:13. The interpretation of Romans 2 and especially vv. 13–15 has been vigorously debated. I find the arguments of Wright, Simon Gathercole, and A. B. Caneday to be persuasive in identifying the doers of the Law (2:13) as actual gentile Christians and not as a hypothetical and non-existent category of people. 49 However, one question that none of these expositions adequately addresses is 47

Ibid., 548. N. T. Wright, “Justification by (Covenantal) Faith to the (Covenantal) Doers: Romans 2 within the Argument of the Letter,” in Doing Theology for the Church: Essays in Honor of Klyne Snodgrass, ed. Rebekah A. Eklund and John E. Phelan Jr. (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2014), 98. 49 See N. T. Wright, “The Law in Romans 2,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001); Simon Gathercole, “A Law unto Themselves: The Gentiles in Romans 2.14–15 Revisited,” JSNT 85 (2002): 27–49; and A. B. Caneday, “Judgment, Behavior, and 48

Future Justification in the Golden Chain of Romans 8

119

how gentile Christians could have what appears to be a preponderance of selfaccusatory thoughts on the day of judgment (see 2:15c). As Schreiner contends, “Any notion that this is saving obedience is ruled out by this clause, for the text emphasizes that ‘accusing’ thoughts predominate.” 50 Thus the discussion of this passage’s interpretation appears to be at a standstill. In a presentation 51 at the 2012 British New Testament Conference and in a forthcoming publication, Hafemann proposes a new reading of Rom 2:14–15 that resolves this interpretive difficulty. In order to understand his reading, it is helpful to have a translation that reflects his view alongside a standard English translation of 2:14–15 and the Greek text of the NA28: Table 1: Comparisons of Romans 2:14–15 ESV

Greek

Hafemann 52

14

14

14

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.

15

They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them[selves] ...

íταn γ€ρ êθnη τ€ m˜ nόmοn êχοnτα φύσει τ€ τοÜ nόmου ποιÀσιn, οÝτοι nόmοn m˜ êχοnτες áαυτοØς εÊσιn nόmος· 15

οÑτιnες ânδείκnυnται τä êργοn τοÜ nόmου γραπτän ân ταØς καρδίαις αÎτÀn, συmmαρτυρούσης αÎτÀn τ¨ς συnειδήσεως καÈ mεταξÌ ‚λλήλωn τÀn λογισmÀn κατηγορούnτωn £ καÈ ‚πολογουmέnωn

For whenever Gentiles, namely, those who do not have the Law by nature, are doing the things of the Law, these ones, even though they do not have the Law with regard to themselves, are the Law,

15

[because] they show forth the work of the Law written on their hearts; [they are the Law] in that their conscience testifies [to their own eschatological standing] and in the midst of one another their thoughts accuse or also defend [others] ...

There are three interpretive decisions made by Hafemann that are noteworthy for the purposes of this essay (underlined above). First, along with Wright, Gathercole, and Caneday, Hafemann reads φύσει as modifying êχοnτα and not Justification according to Paul’s Gospel in Romans 2,” Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 1.2 (2011): 153–92. 50 Schreiner, Romans, 124. Cf. John Piper, The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007), 107–8. 51 Scott Hafemann, “The Covenant Demarcation of Paul’s Apocalyptic Gospel: The Centrality of Romans 2:12–16 and the ‘Obedience of Faith’” (paper presented at the British New Testament Society Meeting, King’s College, London, September 6–8, 2012). 52 This translation is my own, but is drawn from Hafemann’s work.

120

Alexander N. Kirk

ποιÀσιn (v. 14a). The similar function of φύσις in v. 27 is especially pertinent here. Second, while others have already reconfigured the standard punctuation of v. 14a, Hafemann also proposes reading áαυτοØς as modifying êχοnτες and not εÊσιn (v. 14b). This rendering views the grammatical structure of v. 14b in a similar way to v. 14a: íταn γ€ρ êθnη τ€ m˜ nόmοn êχοnτα φύσει τ€ τοÜ nόmου ποιÀσιn, οÝτοι nόmοn m˜ êχοnτες áαυτοØς εÊσιn nόmος·

This way of reading the text emphasizes again that Law-obedient gentiles do not have the Law by nature (or with regard to themselves). Nevertheless, they are “the Law.” Hafemann explains, “Though this point may seem obscure from our distance, its development in 2:15–16 will make clear that to identify Lawobedient ‘Gentiles’ with the Law itself is Paul’s shorthand way of declaring that they will be the embodiment of the Law’s function as the criterion of final, eschatological judgment, both positively and negatively.” 53 In Rom 2:12 Paul has already stated that “as many as have sinned in the Law will be judged [κριθήσοnται] through the Law”; in 2:16 he declares that God will judge “the hidden things of men”; and in 2:27 Paul claims that the one who is uncircumcised from nature will judge (κριnεØ) the Law-transgressing Jews by completing the Law (reading τελοÜσα as a modal participle or participle of means). We may coordinate these statements by reasoning that God himself will judge disobedient Jews through the Law as that Law is embodied or fulfilled in Spirit-circumcised gentiles. It is in this sense that gentiles “are the Law” (2:14b). Third, Hafemann translates mεταξÌ ‚λλήλωn as “in the midst of one another” and not as “within themselves.” The standard interpretation of this phrase – adopted also by Wright, Gathercole, and Caneday – sees these accusing and defending thoughts as within gentile Christians and self-directed. Therefore, it seems as if the people in question are conflicted or confused at the final judgment. However, as Hafemann observes, Paul does not use the reflexive pronoun áαυτÀn, and thus this phrase describes “the judicial role of obedient Gentiles among [all] those being judged” 54 – both Jews and gentiles. My purpose here is not to relate Hafemann’s argument in full or to bolster it in any way from Romans 2. In my view, Hafemann has already offered a robust

53 Scott J. Hafemann, “The Covenant Demarcation of Paul’s Eschatological Gospel: The Centrality of Romans 2:12–16 and the ‘Obedience of Faith,’” in Paul: Servant of the New Covenant (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming). 54 Ibid. See Hafemann’s entire discussion of mεταξÌ ‚λλήλωn.

Future Justification in the Golden Chain of Romans 8

121

and compelling rendering of Paul’s thought. Rather, I suggest that if his interpretation satisfyingly accounts for all the data in Romans 2, then his emphasis upon the judicial function of believers at the final judgment complements the reading I have offered of Romans 8. Both Rom 2:12–29 and 8:28–39 speak of the final judgment and stress that believers will be vindicated from the false accusations of the unbelieving world, whether from hypocritical Jews who presume ethnic and moral superiority or from the pagan world at large that interprets their suffering as a sign of God’s disfavor. In both passages, God is the judge but he is not the one bringing the charges against the doers of the Law or the elect. The shared conceptuality between these two passages, bookending Paul’s discussion of justification in Romans 1–8, leads to interpreting 8:30 as a reference to final justification. If Romans 2 is “the joker in the pack,” 55 then it appears as if the deck of Romans 1–8 has two jokers.

Exegetical Implications for Romans 8:1–4 Any new interpretation of something as minor as the referent of a single verb must demonstrate not only its plausibility but also its import. The remainder of this essay will therefore explore three directions in which my reading of âδικαίωσεn in Rom 8:30 leads. Hopefully this will show that my bone of contention with the consensus interpretation of âδικαίωσεn is a bone with meat on it. First, discerning the future forensic time frame of 8:28–39 has implications not only for reading that section but also the entire chapter of Romans 8 and vv. 1–4 in particular. Chuck Lowe uncovers a problem in these verses and describes it well: Why is there no condemnation for those who are in Christ (Rom 8:1)? For card-carrying evangelicals the reflexive response is: because Christ died in their place and for their sins. Justification through the substitutionary atonement of Christ is one of the first precepts drummed into new believers, and Romans 8:1 is often the prooftext employed to establish the point. Yet while the meaning of this verse may seem self-evident, commentators have considerable trouble with it. The crux of the problem is that 8:1–2 appears to ground escape from condemnation not in the death of Christ as a substitute for sinners, but in the work of the Spirit in transforming sinners: “for the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus freed you from the law of sin and death” (Rom 8:2). At first blush, this seems to suggest that justification depends on sanctification. 56

55 56

231.

Wright, “The Law in Romans 2,” 131. Chuck Lowe, “‘There Is No Condemnation’ (Romans 8:1): But Why Not?” JETS 42.2 (1999):

122

Alexander N. Kirk

Lowe then outlines three approaches that are taken “to harmonize this passage [Rom 8:1–4] with traditional Protestant doctrine.” 57 The predominant solution among broadly Reformed exegetes has been first to view the γάρ in Rom 8:2 as an “evidential γάρ.” According to this view, being set free from the law of sin and death (8:2) is the necessary result of being justified in Christ (8:1), and thus provides evidence by which one can know that justification has genuinely occurred. Schreiner articulates this view: “The logic seems to be that a transformed life is evidence that believers are not guilty in God’s law court.” 58 Kevin McFadden offers a fuller explanation: Thus the Spirit’s liberating work is not the ground of our actual acquittal but rather the ground of Paul’s statement in 8:1 – we can know that “there is now no condemnation” because the Spirit has set us free from sin and death resulting in our new ability to fulfill the law. The traditional Protestant language of “evidence” is thus an appropriate way to view Christian obedience – it proves our justification. Protestant theology has rightly affirmed that our acquittal is not based upon the obedience wrought in us by the Spirit but upon the death of Christ which necessarily results in Christian obedience. 59

As McFadden’s last sentence illustrates, a typical Reformed interpretation of Rom 8:1–4 then maintains that the true ground for the verdict of “no condemnation” (8:1) is God’s condemnation of sin in the flesh of Jesus (8:3c). For example, “For those who are in Christ Jesus there is no divine condemnation, since the condemnation which they deserve has already been fully borne for them by Him”; “God’s verdict of condemnation is broken as sin is punished in the flesh of Jesus. The condemnation by God has been nullified for those in Christ Jesus because he has provided a sin offering”; and “The ground of the verdict of ‘no condemnation’ is the condemnation of sin in the flesh of Jesus. Sin was condemned in his flesh so that those ‘in Christ Jesus’ would not be condemned.” 60 In this reading, the γάρ at the start of v. 3, unlike the γάρ in v. 2, is a “causal γάρ.” I am not persuaded by this construal of Rom 8:1–4, linked as it is to the default understanding of âδικαίωσεn in 8:30. Rather, by discerning the orientation in Romans 8 toward the future, final justification, there is an alternative reading.

57

Ibid. Schreiner, Romans, 404. Cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, Introduction and Commentary on Romans I–VIII, vol. 1 of The Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 374: “The implication of the γάρ is that the fact that this further liberation has taken place is confirmation of the reality of the fundamental liberation described in v. 1.” 59 ¯ Kevin W. McFadden, “The Fulfillment of the Law’s DIKAIOMA: Another Look at Romans 8:1–4,” JETS 52.3 (2009): 496. 60 Cranfield, Romans, 1:373; Simon J. Gathercole, “The Doctrine of Justification in Paul and Beyond: Some Proposals,” in Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges, ed. Bruce L. McCormack (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 224; and McFad¯ den, “The Fulfillment of the Law’s DIKAIOMA,” 495, respectively. 58

Future Justification in the Golden Chain of Romans 8

123

The Greek text of 8:1 is ΟÎδàn Šρα nÜn κατάκριmα τοØς ân ΧριστÄ >Ιησου. Every English translation of this verse I have seen renders it as “there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,” or something similar. However, the main verb in this verse is elided in the Greek. While it appears universally assumed that this elided verb must be âστίn, is it not possible that the implied verb is actually êσται (future active indicative)? In that case the verse would be translated, “therefore, now there will be no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” 61 Even if it is correct to read âστίn as the elided verb, I would suggest that the meaning could be paraphrased, “there is therefore now no threat of future condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Wright perceives this possibility: In both Romans 2 and Romans 8 Paul is talking about the final day of judgment, “the day when God judges all human secrets” through the Messiah, Jesus (2:16). The “condemnation” which is done away for those “in the Messiah” in 8:1 and 8:33–34 [and Rom 8:30?!] is the ultimate condemnation spoken of in 2:1–11, the death-sentence which follows the negative verdict. 62

When viewed in this way, one can allow γάρ in 8:2 to retain its usual, causal sense. By claiming that the release from the Law of sin and death through the Spirit brings about the verdict “no condemnation,” Paul is not saying anything substantially different from what he says in Rom 8:6 or 13: life according to the flesh leads to death; life according to the Spirit leads to life. Far from succumbing to the false accusations that this world hurls against believers, those in Christ Jesus will be vindicated on the last day by the divinely-empowered conduct of their earthly lives (cf. 2:13). No one can condemn those whom God will justify (8:33–34). 63 Nevertheless, Lowe goes too far when he claims that “it is evident why there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ: not because of his death as their substitute, but because he gives the Spirit of life to transform them.” 64 The problem is not in what Lowe affirms but in what he denies. Whereas the common Reformed reading of Rom 8:1–4 effectively bypasses v. 2 and fails to integrate 61 The so-called eschatological nÜn in 8:1 does not necessitate that condemnation is strictly or primarily a present reality. Cf. Moo, Romans, 472: “The ‘now’ alludes to the new era of salvation history inaugurated by Christ’s death and resurrection (see also 3:21; 5:9; 6:19, 22; 7:6).” 62 Wright, “Justification by (Covenantal) Faith,” 102. F. Gerald Downing may be right that it is anachronistic to distinguish between the “death-sentence” and the “negative verdict” in ancient courts, as Wright does (“Justification as Acquittal? A Critical Examination of Judicial Verdicts in Paul’s Literary and Actual Contexts,” CBQ 74 [2012]: 298–318). Yet this concession would not thereby endorse his broader conception of justification. 63 As I read it, the logic of Rom 8:1–2 is mirrored in 8:34. In both cases, it is the present work of the Spirit or Christ upon which basis Paul can assert that there will be no future condemnation. There will be no condemnation for those who have been set free to walk according to the Spirit. Likewise, there will be no condemnation of those for whom Christ is interceding. 64 Lowe, “‘There Is No Condemnation’ (Romans 8:1): But Why Not?” 242.

124

Alexander N. Kirk

v. 4 with v. 3, Lowe is here neglecting v. 3. Rather, v. 3 and v. 4 should together be read as supporting v. 2. It is both the atoning death of Jesus and the pouring out of the Spirit by which God grants the life that the Law could not deliver, weakened as it was by the flesh. While it is certainly true that believers have been justified by the blood of Christ (3:25; 5:9), this act of propitiation satisfies God’s righteous wrath against human sin. Having thus been cleansed and forgiven, the Holy Spirit may then dwell in us so that we may render to God the obedience of faith, which fulfills the essence of the Law. As doers of the Law, believers will ultimately be vindicated (or “justified”) before a hostile world. The condemnation of sin in Jesus’s flesh results in living according to the Spirit (note the Ñnα in 8:4), but both are necessary within God’s purpose. I submit that this reading of 8:1–4 makes more sense of the passage, but also accords with the proposed interpretation of âδικαίωσεn in 8:30. Both the beginning and the end of Romans 8 are focused on final condemnation and final justification.

The Relationship between Initial and Final Justification Rethinking the referent of âδικαίωσεn in Rom 8:30 also prompts a reassessment of the relationship between initial and final justification. This relationship, commonly described as the relationship between justification by faith and judgment according to works, continues to bedevil theologians. In a 2009 article, Dane Ortlund delineates fourteen ways “scholars have sought to square Paul’s teaching on justification by faith with that of judgment according to works.” 65 Simon Gathercole notes this as an area warranting further work: On the issue of justification, the relationship between final justification (Rom. 2:13) and present-past justification (Rom. 4:3) has still not been satisfactorily discussed in the secondary literature on Paul. A simple waving of the “now /not yet” wand over the texts is not quite satisfactory, especially if it is correct to describe Paul as viewing the criteria for past and future justifications slightly differently. 66

More recently, some Reformed scholars have strongly reacted to Wright’s statement that final justification is on the “basis” of the entire Christian life. 67 For

65 Dane C. Ortlund, “Justified by Faith, Judged according to Works: Another Look at a Pauline Paradox,” JETS 52.2 (2009): 324. 66 Simon J. Gathercole, Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 266. 67 Thomas R. Schreiner lists four statements of this kind in four of Wright’s published works (“Justification: The Saving Righteousness of God in Christ,” JETS 54.1 [2011]: 20 n. 7). Wright repeats this claim in his book Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2013), 938, 940.

Future Justification in the Golden Chain of Romans 8

125

example, Schreiner chastises Wright for his use of this word: “The word ‘basis’ lacks clarity, for it suggests that our works are part of the foundation for our right standing with God.” 68 While interpreters should carefully weigh Paul’s choice of words and their own, the distinctions I have drawn between initial and final justification may, at least partially, alleviate Schreiner’s concern. If in final justification God himself is not bringing the charges against the elect (8:33), then the foundation of the believer’s right standing with God is not at issue. The acquittal or verdict of “righteous” rendered for the elect would not be the answer to God’s accusation that “there is no one who understands ... there is no one who does good” (3:11, 12) or that “all have sinned and are lacking the glory of God” (3:23). Rather, the justification of the elect would be in response to those who seek to falsely accuse or condemn them, namely, the human opponents invoked by the allusion to Isa 50:7–9 in Rom 8:33–34 and the citation of Ps 43:23 LXX in Rom 8:36. 69 This would also include any Law-breaking Jew who questions the authenticity of a heart-circumcised gentile (cf. 2:17–29) and possibly evil spirits who attempt to separate believers from the love of God (cf. 8:38). When viewed in this way, Christian obedience or Spirit-empowered works can indeed be the basis upon which God justifies or vindicates his elect. This analysis suggests that while there is certainly much continuity between initial and final justification, the two should not be so strongly correlated so that the cause or “basis” of one verdict must necessarily be the basis of the other, resulting in the well-known paradox that Ortlund outlines. Perhaps it is better to imagine two sessions of the heavenly court. The final session of the court is held on the day of judgment. God is both the judge and the prosecutor, and sinful humanity is in the dock. For believers only, this session is proleptically brought into the present when God justifies by Jesus’s blood those who believe. Then, when believers come to the final session of the court, it is not as if their case is retried. There is no double jeopardy for the elect. Rather, the final session of the court now involves both the arraignment of the wicked by God and the arraignment of the elect by the wicked. God resolves both cases simultaneously by rendering to each according to his works (Rom 2:6), yet God uses the vindication of the doers of the Law to judge the transgressors of the Law (2:27). The redemption of believers’ bodies will effectively demonstrate to all the impartial68

Schreiner “Justification: The Saving Righteousness of God in Christ,” 21. This same perspective on final justification is evident in 1 Cor 4:1–5. See Alexander N. Kirk, The Departure of an Apostle: Paul’s Death Anticipated and Remembered, WUNT 2.406 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 145: “When the Lord comes he will manifest Paul’s integrity publicly and vindicate him in spite of whatever erroneous charges the world has brought against him. Paul might appear to the world to be a spectacle, a fool, dishonored, and scum (1 Cor 4:9–10, 13), but the Corinthians ought to know better. Everyone will see Paul for who he truly is when the Lord discloses his heart to all.” See my discussion of this passage on pages 136–46. 69

126

Alexander N. Kirk

ity of God’s judgment (2:11), the efficacy of Christ’s atoning death (and heavenly intercession), and the ethical fruitfulness of the Spirit’s indwelling, even in the midst of suffering.

Justification, Assurance, and Romans 8 Finally, the third ramification of reading âδικαίωσεn in Rom 8:30 as a reference to final justification is that it spurs reevaluation of the relationship between justification and assurance, and rethinking of the theme of Romans 8. Justification is often aligned with the doctrine of Christian assurance based, at least in part, on the consensus interpretation of 8:30. Theologians reason that if we know ourselves to be justified, then we can be certain that God will eventually and necessarily glorify us. For example, John Piper speaks of the “pastoral preciousness” of justification (and “double imputation” in particular). 70 He calls justification “a key to the doctrine of assurance” 71 and claims, “When we deny and withhold the great achievement of Christ’s imputed perfect righteousness through faith alone, we rob people of one very precious remedy for their lack of assurance.” 72 N. T. Wright also connects assurance to justification and to 8:30 in particular: “Romans 5–8 is, in fact, a single great argument for assurance, the Christian doctrine that ‘those whom [God] justified he also glorified.’” 73 Commentators on Romans commonly identify assurance as the theme of chapter 8. For example, Moo writes, It is those blessings and privileges conferred on believers by the Spirit that are the theme of this chapter. If we were to sum up these blessings is a single word, that word would be assurance. From “no condemnation” at the beginning (v. 1) to “no separation” at the end (v. 39), Paul passes in review those gifts and graces that together assure the Christian that his relationship with God is secure and settled. 74

Likewise, Schreiner agrees that “the assurance belonging to believers” is the main theme. 75

70 John Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002), 125. 71 “Interview with John Piper About the Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright,” Desiring God, http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/interview-with-john-piper-about-the-futureof-justification-a-response-to-n-t-wright. 72 “Justification and the Diminishing Work of Christ,” Desiring God, http://www.desiringgod. org/messages/justification-and-the-diminishing-work-of-christ. 73 N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 225. 74 Moo, Romans, 468. 75 Schreiner, Romans, 395.

Future Justification in the Golden Chain of Romans 8

127

Nevertheless, if my reading of 8:28–39 is closer to Paul’s intended meaning, then the calling of God features as the primary doctrine upon which assurance is built. As was already noted, the core identity of the Roman believers, as expressed in the letter’s opening, is that they are the beloved of God and called to be saints (1:7). This verse, like 8:28, indicates that God’s purpose is inherent in his activity of calling – he calls believers with a goal in mind (cf. Rom 9:11–12; 2 Thess 2:14; 2 Tim 1:9). There is a hope that belongs to their calling (Eph 1:18; 4:4). Assurance is linked explicitly with God’s calling in 1 Cor 1:7b–9: “as you are eagerly awaiting the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will establish you unto the end, blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, through whom you were called [âκλήθητε] into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord.” Likewise, 1 Thess 5:23–24 also points to the divine activity of calling as the basis for the believer’s assurance: “Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you thoroughly, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blamelessly at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is the one calling [å καλÀn] you; he will do it.” In contrast, I could not find a single example of Paul linking assurance of salvation to justification in a similar way. The sole possible exception might be Rom 5:9, although in the very next verse Paul uses the doctrine of reconciliation within the same logic. This is not to deny the doctrine of justification any part in a believer’s assurance, but only to suggest that it has no distinct function in that way – no more so than the doctrine of reconciliation, for example. Justification is hardly “a key to the doctrine of assurance” as Piper avers, and even less so can 8:30c define assurance, as Wright declares. Furthermore, it seems to me that Romans 8 was written not primarily to confer assurance but rather to exhort Christians to walk and live according to the Spirit (cf. 8:12, as discussed above), even in the midst of adversity. I believe that Paul employs the aorist tense of δικαιόω in 8:30 for the same reason he employs the aorist tense of δοξάζω: to communicate that final justification and final glorification are as sure as the sovereign purpose of God. And yet this knowledge is intended to bolster the believer’s endurance as they face those who would stand against them (8:31), falsely accuse them (8:33), seek to condemn them (8:34), persecute and even kill them (8:35–36a), and consign them to death (8:36b). Perhaps modern Western commentators have not yet probed this dimension to final justification because their experience is so dissimilar to the Christian experience in the first century. Perhaps we hardly yearn for vindication because we hardly suffer together with Christ. 76 And yet, if Christians in the West increasingly encounter opposition – or deepen their solidarity with brothers and

76 It is sad and ironic that often the harshest criticism Western theologians face is from within the academy and church.

128

Alexander N. Kirk

sisters in Christ worldwide who do – then perhaps we will all appreciate more this particular link in Paul’s unbreakable chain of salvation: all those whom God called will be justified on the day of judgment over against any created thing that would condemn them (8:30b).

Paul’s Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11 as Palimpsest Literature in the Second Degree Douglas C. Mohrmann

Romans 9–11 has garnered considerable scholarly attention. Within these chapters, several verses continue to generate debate, for example 9:15, 33; 10:4, 5–6, and 11:26. Specific instances of Paul’s quotations of the Old Testament likewise attract new commentary, so research into quotations and allusions abound. Questions about the function of chs. 9–11 within the book linger, with more recent attention placed on its rhetorical function. 1 The now rather infamous statement of C. H. Dodd that these chapters were “incorporated here wholesale to save a busy man’s time and trouble” has been rightly criticized. 2 More recent commentators have shown a greater appreciation for these chapters’ contribution to the letter’s theological argument. 3 A few results have approached the status of consensus. It may help to recall a few of them. It is clear to all that Romans 9 initiates a new line of thought. Paul leaves his triumphal sentiments of ch. 8 to adopt a solemn, even tragic tone in ch. 9, and 11:33–36 provides an obvious ending for the section. In ch. 12 the apostle employs an instructional tone. Further, many commentators recognize that Rom 9:6 is a key text, if indeed not the thesis, for the whole passage. 4 Several scholars note that a theodicy, or defense of God’s promises, is an important feature. 5 At the very least, interpreters of these chapters now regularly recognize that Paul was wrestling with issues of great historical and theological

1

E.g., Ben Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004). C. H. Dodd, Epistle to the Romans (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1932), 163. 3 This was emphasized earlier by Krister Stendahl, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” HTR 56 (1963): 199–215. 4 E.g., C. E. B. Cranfield, Introduction and Commentary on Romans 9–16, vol. 2 of The Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979), 473; Hans Hübner, Gottes Ich und Israel: Zum Schriftgebrauch des Paulus in Römer 9–11 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 16; Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, EKKNT (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1993), 2:191; Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 551; and Frank Matera, Romans, Paideia (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 212–13, 218. 5 E.g., Brendan Byrne, Romans, SP (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996), 282–83; B. J. Oropeza, “Paul and Theodicy: Intertextual Thoughts on God’s Justice and Faithfulness to Israel in Romans 9–11,” NTS 53 (2007): 57–80; Craig S. Keener, Romans, New Covenant Commentary Series (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2009), 117; and A. Katherine Grieb, “Paul’s Theological Preoccupation in Romans 9–11,” in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9–11, ed. Florian Wilk and J. Ross Wagner, WUNT 257 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 391–400. 2

130

Douglas C. Mohrmann

importance. Finally, the numerous quotations from the Old Testament indicate to many commentators Paul’s desire to integrate the significance of Jesus’s life or his own apostolic mission into his ancestral faith, and that the quotations represent, in some way, the basis of his attempt to construct his identity in relation to his audience. 6 In this essay I will explore the rhetorical relationship between author and audience in Romans 9–11 in hopes of clarifying the section’s structure and purpose. I will contend that Paul uses a forensic argument to present Israel’s history and scriptures in a highly unusual and dramatic manner in order to defend God’s promises to Israel. I will begin by using terms borrowed from classical rhetoric to reveal the structure of this forensic argument, paying close attention to the use of the narrator’s and characters’ voicing and focalization. Next, I will examine the substructure of Israel’s historical narrative. Finally, I will compare this narrative to other renderings of Israel’s history in the Second Temple period to understand better Paul’s theological and rhetorical strategy. At several points I will rely on Gérard Genette’s theory of hypertextuality. 7

Rhetorical Framework of Romans 9–11 The rhetorical framework of Romans 9–11 further illustrates that these chapters form a distinct section in the letter. Richard Longenecker has classified this section as “remnant rhetoric,” by which he means that Paul based his theological argument on remnant theology from the Old Testament. 8 He appeals to this idiosyncratic classification because of what he considers a scarcity of GrecoRoman “rhetorical conventions.” 9 This conclusion seems to be made without regard for the works of Jean Noël Aletti (1991), Charles Cosgrove (1996), Johann Kim (2000), Ben Witherington (2004), or Filippo Belli (2010), all of whom

6 A key point established by Christopher Stanley in Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature, SNTSMS (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) and elaborated in his “‘Pearls before Swine’: Did Paul’s Audiences Understand His Biblical Quotations?” NovT 41.2 (1999): 129. 7 The title of this article is inspired by Gérard Genette’s important work, Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree, trans. Channa Newman and Claude Doubinsky (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997). Focalization (or point of view) will be developed here with the help of his work on narrative. See Genette’s Narrative Discourse Revisited, trans. Jane E. Lewin (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988), 64–78. 8 Richard Longenecker, Introducing Romans: Critical Issues in Paul’s Most Famous Letter (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011), 409–15. 9 Ibid., 411. Contrast Christopher Bryan, Preface to Romans: Notes on the Epistle in its Literary and Cultural Setting (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 160, “The section [chs. 9–11] is in some ways the most rhetorically striking of the entire letter, and makes extensive use of virtually the entire range of techniques.”

Paul’s Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11 as Palimpsest

131

have argued extensively for a recognition of classical rhetorical features in these chapters. 10 Classical rhetoric includes the following elements: (1) exordium, an introduction that includes a statement about the speaker’s character or about values the speaker and audience share (ethos); (2) narratio, an account of what has happened; (3) propositio, or thesis statement; (4) probatio, the main body of the argument, buttressed by the offering of logical evidence and the calling of witnesses; (5) refutatio, answers to counter arguments; and (6) peroratio, a final appeal that includes pleas for sympathy. This portion of the essay will argue that contrary to Longenecker’s assertion there are significant signals that Paul has employed forensic rhetoric here. 11 His propositio (thesis) is that God’s word has not failed (9:6). 12 The implicit charge against which Paul argues, therefore, is that Israel’s widespread rejection of Jesus as Christ demonstrates that God has abandoned his promises to Israel, a subject he broaches in 3:1–8.

Exordium and Propositio The exordium (introduction) in 9:1–5 naturally sets the ethos of the section. Two things may be inferred from Paul’s abrupt solemnity in 9:1. First, his testimony indicates that he is personally involved in the case. 13 His persona will

10 Jean Noël Aletti, Comment Dieu est-il juste? Clefs pour interpréter l’épître aux Romains (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1991). Cf. Jean Noël Aletti, God’s Justice in Romans: Keys for Interpreting the Epistle to the Romans, trans. Peggy Manning Meyer (Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2010); Charles H. Cosgrove, “Rhetorical Suspense in Romans 9–11,” JBL 115 (1996): 271–87; Johann D. Kim, God, Israel, and the Gentiles: Rhetoric and Situation in Romans 9–11, SBLDS 176 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000); Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans; and Filippo Belli, Argumentation and Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11, AnBib 183 (Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2010). This essay is closest to Kim’s work. 11 Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), 257–58, describes these chapters as reflecting a “forensic situation,” but he does not clarify this with specific analysis. One may compare this present work with the analysis of Kim, God, Israel, and the Gentiles, 116–17, who likewise contends that this is an example of forensic rhetoric. The outline of these chapters and movements in Paul’s argument as presented here will vary from his proposal. 12 See e. g., Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, BECNT 6 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 472. To state the problem as a “Defense of the Gospel” as Moo does is too narrow and fails to explain why Paul surveys the history of Israel (see Romans, 547). Kim states that 9:6a “introduces God as a defendant” (God, Israel, and the Gentiles, 124). It is preferable to say that his word, promises, or Scripture are being tried; cf. Belli, Argumentation and Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11, 73. Noting this difference may seem pedantic, except that the reliability of God’s word is relevant to both Jews and gentiles, especially given the grandiose promises Paul makes in ch. 8. The implied question behind this propositio could be phrased thus: If God’s past word to the Jews cannot be shown to be reliable, how can the gentiles trust the new promises of salvation in the gospel? That gentile interests are present may be confirmed by the direction of Paul’s argument toward the salvation of both Jew and gentile. 13 Also observed by Byrne, Romans, 283.

132

Douglas C. Mohrmann

feature repeatedly and prominently later in the probatio (arguments). Second, his references to truth (‚λήθειαn), lies (ψεύδοmαι), and testimony (συmmαρτυρούσης) indicate that a forensic rhetoric will be employed. 14 Paul laments (λύπη mοί âστιn mεγάλη καÈ ‚διάλειπτος æδύnη τ¬ καρδίø mου) for his own people, ethnic Israel, and his sentiments appear exacerbated (‚nάθεmα εÚnαι) because of Israel’s past favor with God (9:3–5). Although Witherington claims that chs. 9–11 are a refutatio (answer to counter arguments), he rather reluctantly concedes this emotional dimension in 9:1–5. 15 Johann Kim, by contrast, rightly emphasizes the appropriateness of emotions in an exordium. 16 Paul’s lament resurfaces later in the argument, particularly at 10:1–3, 11:1–2, and 11:14. The essence of Paul’s propositio that “God’s word has not failed” (9:6) also returns at critical points. 17 It recurs at the beginning of his probatio in 9:1, in 11:1, and in 11:11 (and perhaps implicitly at 9:20; 10:16, 19). 18 Finally, the theme is evident in 11:29, which is part of his peroration (conclusion). So Paul’s argument opens with an assertion that God’s word has not failed, and ends with the affirmation that God’s word is “irrevocable” (‚mεταmέλητα).

Narratio As was noted above, in the common sequence of classical rhetoric, a narrative section, or narratio, follows the exordium. 19 Several ancient rhetoricians note that this part should be short, providing background and the argument in brief. 20 If more narrative is necessary, it may be woven through the probatio.

14 Kim, God, Israel, and the Gentiles, 121. Witherington notes that this is a clear rhetorical signal, adding “The rhetorically astute audience would recognize this as a prelude to a specific kind of argument, namely one having to do with a testimony of witnesses” (Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 249). The particularity of Paul’s argument within these chapters is what has prompted confusion, such as in Dodd’s attempt to separate it too much from chs. 8 and 12. Its connectedness, not least at a thematic level, makes it preferable to see in chs. 9–11 a heightened rhetoric, even a dramatic climax within Paul’s letter. 15 Witherington earlier concedes that emotion is fitting for the ethos or exordium, but is not common in a refutatio; see his Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 238. Note also Quintilian Inst. 5.13.2. 16 Kim, God, Israel, and the Gentiles, 121–22. 17 Jean Noël Aletti, “L’argumentation paulinienne en Rm 9,” Bib 71 (1987): 43. In his subsequent work, Aletti has contended for a propositio in each of the three movements of the probatio, namely at 9:6a, 10:4, and 11:1a; see God’s Justice in Romans, 172. 18 Belli, Argumentation and Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11, 85, 364, also recognizes a return to the propositio in 9:14 and 11:1. 19 According to Aristotle, Rhet. 1414a, narrative is only essential for forensic rhetoric and not for epideictic or deliberative. Quintilian describes the order of the narratio between exordium and probatio; see Inst. 4.84–87. It appears that Belli, Argumentation and Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11, 66, has looked past this element of forensic rhetoric, contending instead that the text moves directly to the probatio. 20 Aristotle, Rhet. 1414–1417 as well as Quintilian, Inst. 2.4.3 and 4.2.1, 52–61.

Paul’s Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11 as Palimpsest

133

In this case Paul begins his narratio in 9:6 and continues it through v. 13. 21 A rhetorical question in v. 14 signals a new movement in his speech. However, as will be argued below, Paul continues to add historical narrative well into ch. 11. Paul’s narratio reviews the history of God’s word. Not surprisingly he begins with the story of Abraham (9:7). Given Paul’s letter to the Galatians, this move is expected. There he had argued that Abraham’s story represents God’s word in an even more enduring fashion than the Mosaic covenant (Gal 3:6–21). That the apostle returned to Abraham with such detail in Romans 4 further reflects how he views this story as a bridge between God’s word and his present circumstances (cf. 4:23–25). The narratio recalls the first three generations of the Patriarchal period found in Genesis. Crucially, Paul’s use of these narratives anticipates the key elements of his upcoming argument. Paul depicts God’s promises as never including all genetic Israel. 22 The examples of Isaac, Jacob, and Esau quickly familiarize the audience with the notions of election and reversal. 23 The story of Isaac depicts election, while the passing over of Esau for Jacob portrays reversal. 24 Through the particulars of the patriarchal stories, then, Paul introduces his audience to the probatio. 25 One may glance forward briefly into the probatio to see this. First, the story of Moses and Pharaoh defends the notion of election (9:15–18), which is explained further through the themes of remnant in 9:27, 29; 11:1–5 and root in 11:16, 18. Second, the prophecies of Hosea and Isaiah advance the notion of reversals (9:24–32; cf. also 11:17–19). 26 These very ideas persist throughout the argumentation and finally prove essential to Paul’s peroratio (11:28–32). Before moving to a discussion of the probatio, however, a few comments about Paul’s narration (or voice) are in order. As was noted above, the point of the narratio, or διήγησις as the Greeks called it, 27 is for the narrator to present his case in brief. Quintilian opined that it should not include digressions, apostrophe, or prosopoeia. 28 An analysis of this narratio indeed reveals

21 Kim notes similarly the typical placement of the narratio, but he claims that “in Rom 9–11 the narratio is missing” (God, Israel, and the Gentiles, 123–24). The analysis below will discuss the narratio at length. 22 His use of λόγος in v. 9 connects the promise of Gen 18:14 directly to his propositio. 23 Belli’s treatment of this passage, as well as chs. 9–11 overall, underestimates Paul’s intention to explain the mystery of God’s word, a trait here labelled “reversal.” His preference to emphasize God’s “calling” does not capture sufficiently Paul’s surprise and anxiety demonstrated throughout the text; see his Argumentation and Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11, 82–84, 130, 410. Byrne, Romans, 292, rightly observes this here, but he does not appear to see this pattern, for example, in 9:24–29. 24 Craig Keener, Romans, 117 n. 9, records rabbinic views of Esau. 25 Cf. C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1957), 183. 26 James D. G. Dunn, Romans, WBC 38B (Dallas: Word, 1988), 2:572. 27 See Plato, Resp. 392–393; and Aristotle, Poet. 24 for discussion of διήγησις and mίmησις. 28 Cf. Quintilian, Inst. 4.2.61, 104–110.

134

Douglas C. Mohrmann

that Paul writes this section plainly. For example, his allusions (hypertexts) to the Old Testament history (hypotexts) are rather straightforward, as the table illustrates: Table 1: Narrator’s Use of Scripture (Romans 9–11) Hypertext

Introductory Formula

Hypotext

9:7 9:9 9:12 9:13

– âπαγγελίας ... å λόγος οÝτος âρρέθη αÎτ¬ καθ°ς γέγραπται

Gen 21:12 Gen 18:14 Gen 25:23 Mal 1:2–3

Moving forward into the argumentation proper, introductions to his hypotexts change dramatically. Furthermore, it is instructive to observe how Paul’s final reference to the patriarchs, taken from Malachi, will help the audience transition from narratio to probatio. This is done first through the severity of its content (“love” vs. “hate”), which anticipates Paul’s upcoming portrayal of God’s severity (9:15; 11:22), and second by an introduction of a first person speaker (“I love”), who is not Paul. This latter comment will be crucial in the following observations about voicing in the probatio. The common introductory formula καθ°ς γέγραπται, implies that the quotation comes through the narrator’s voice, but 9:13 embeds an implied speaker, God (i. e. God through the prophet Malachi). 29 The implicit switch to God’s voice signals to the reader why Paul’s probatio must begin with a direct question about God’s righteousness (v. 14).

Probatio Since this section is quite long, the following comments will primarily emphasize rhetoric along with select comments on content. As many scholars have noticed, Paul’s rhetorical questions in chs. 9–11 evoke a diatribe with imagined interlocutors who may even reply to Paul’s questions. 30 However scholars identify the personae behind these replies, it is obvious that Romans 9–11 has a dialogical character. 31 For example, an interlocutor speaks in 9:19–20, saying (âρεØς), “Why does God still find fault in us? And who can resist his will?” 29 This is not an example of προσωποποιòα; pace Belli, Argumentation and Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11, 82. 30 Rudolf Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (1910; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984). This study has been picked up more recently by Stanley Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letters to the Romans, SBLDS 57 (Chico, CA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1981). 31 So also, Moo, Romans, 552. The use of direct address (9:20; 10:1; 11:13, 25), imperatives (11:18, 20, 22) and liberal use of the second person (9:17, 20, 26; 10:6, 8–9, 19; 11:13, 17, 20–22,

Paul’s Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11 as Palimpsest

135

This text indirectly questions God’s word and character. 32 The voice of the interlocutor in v. 14 is naturally mediated through the narrator’s voice; nevertheless, using both direct and indirect speech shifts the focalization (or point of view) away from the narrator. 33 It helps the writer create distance between the narrator’s content and the opponent’s. With that distance established, then, the narrator dramatically counters that voice by sternly replying in vv. 20a and 21–23. Paul and his interlocutor are not the only voices heard in the probatio, however. Starting in v. 15 and repeatedly afterward, Paul’s text hosts many voices, particularly through introductions to quotations from the Old Testament. 34 If one imagines the quotations themselves as the content of the speeches, Paul’s case comes to life and one is able to hear various characters or personified entities speak. 35 Paul uses the same verb (λέγω) when speaking for these characters as he does when giving his own testimony (e. g. in 9:1; 11:1) or when quoting the interlocutors (9:19; 11:19). In addition, he regularly uses the present tense to heighten awareness of these voices. 36 Therefore, Paul has personified the introductions to his hypotexts, giving other characters voices to speak. That Paul is using a rather rare technique to introduce his hypotexts is clear from from table 2. This technique is occasionally found in the New Testament, but never in this concentration, so it is not unreasonable to the conclude that Paul was creating an unusual text through it. 37 How are we to account for this phenomena?

24–25, 28) add to this dialogical character. In ch. 11 is it obvious that Paul thinks it is possible that a member of the real audience, a gentile believer, could be his dialogue partner (cf. v. 13) who may reply to Paul’s questions (v. 19). Back in 9:19–20 the identity of the interlocutor is not as obvious; it could be that this interlocutor would represent his kinsmen who have not recognized the Christ. 32 See Kim, God, Israel, and the Gentiles, 125–26. 33 Genette, Palimpsests, 287–92; and Genette, Narrative Discourse Revisited, 64–78. 34 Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 249. 35 Quintilian, Inst. 9.2.30–36, recognizes that these phenomena are variously named in his day. Προσωποποιòα may be reserved for personifications, and διάλογος or sermoncinatio may be used when historical characters are brought into a conversation. 36 Plato and Aristotle describe this as mίmησις; see for example Aristotle, Rhet. 1404a. Genette discusses the use of present tense in narrative, where preterite usually reigns (Narrative Discourse Revisited, 82). In homodiegetic narrative, the effect moves the text toward monologue, while in heterodiegetic narrative it makes the story atemporal. 37 Contra N. T. Wright, “Israel’s Scriptures in Paul’s Narrative Theology,” Theology 115.5 (2012): 325.

136

Douglas C. Mohrmann

Table 2: Characters and their use of Scripture (Romans 9–11) Hypertext

Character and Introductory Formulae

Hypotext

9:15 9:17 9:25 9:26 9:27–28 9:29 10:5 10:6–7 10:6

(God) τÄ MωôσεØ γ€ρ λέγει (Scripture) λέγει ... ™ γραφ˜ τÄ Φαρα° (God /Scripture) ân τÄ Ησαòας ... κράζει Íπàρ τοÜ >Ισραήλ (Isaiah) καθ°ς προείρηκεn >Ησαòας (Moses) Mωôσ¨ς ... γράφει (The-righteousness-from-faith) οÕτως λέγει embedded speech (Israel) m˜ εÒπùς ân τ¬ καρδίø σου embedded speech (Israel) ¢ (The-righteousness-from-faith) ‚λλ€ τί λέγει (Scripture) λέγει ... ™ γραφή (Isaiah) >Ησαòας ... λέγει (Moses) Mωôσ¨ς λέγει (Isaiah) >Ησαòας ... ‚ποτολm” καÈ λέγει (Isaiah) πρäς ... τän >Ισρα˜λ λέγει (Scripture) λέγει ™ γραφή (Oracle) λέγει αÎτÄ å χρηmατισmός (David) ∆αυÈδ λέγει

Exod 33:19 Exod 9:16

10:7 10:8 10:11 10:16 10:19 10:20 10:21 11:2–3 11:4 11:9–10

Isa 10:22–23 Isa 1:9 Lev 18:5 Deut 9:4; 30:12–13

Deut 30:14 Isa 28:16 Isa 53:1 Deut 32:21 Isa 65:1 Isa 65:2 1 Kgs 19:10 1 Kgs 19:18 Ps 68:23–24

Personified Introductory Formulae outside of Romans 9–11 Rom 4:6–8 12:19 15:12

∆αυÈδ λέγει λέγει κύριος >Ησαòας λέγει

Ps 31:1–2 Lev 19:18 Isa 11:16

Outside the Pauline Corpus Matt 22:43 Acts 2:17 2:25 2:34 7:48–50 Heb 1:6–8

∆αυÈδ ân πnεύmατι καλεØ ... λέγωn λέγει å θεός ∆αυÈδ γ€ρ λέγει εÊς αÎτόn ∆αυÈδ ... λέγει å προφήτης λέγει (God) λέγει ... λέγει

2:12 3:7–11 10:5–8

(Jesus) λέγωn λέγει τä πnεÜmα τä ‰γιοn εÊσερχόmεnος εÊς τän κόσmοn λέγει

Ps 110:1 Joel 3:1–5 Ps 16:8–11 Ps 110:1 Isa 66:1–2 Deut 32:43; Ps 104:4; Ps 45:6–7 Ps 22:22 Ps 95:7–11 Ps 40:6–8

Paul’s Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11 as Palimpsest

137

“Scripture speaks” outside of Romans 9–11 Rom 4:3 Gal 3:8 4:30 1 Tim 5:18

™ γραφ˜ λέγει προðδοÜσα δà ™ γραφ˜ λέγει ™ γραφή λέγει γ€ρ ™ γραφή

Outside the Pauline Corpus John 19:37 áτέρα γραφ˜ λέγει Jas 4:5 ™ γραφ˜ λέγει

Gen 15:6 Gen 22:18 Gen 21:10 Deut 25:4 Zech 12:10 ?

The answer comes through recognizing that these all fall within the probatio, the place in a trial where it would be appropriate to introduce testimony, evidence, and argumentation. The resulting rhetorical effect is to dramatize his argument. 38 For his Roman audience, Paul brings to life witnesses and their respective evidentiary testimony. It appears that Paul has imagined a collection of witnesses who may come forward and support his propositio that “God’s word has not failed.” On numerous occasions Paul calls God himself, or Scripture as a circumlocution for God, as a witness (9:15, 17, 25; 10:11; 11:2, 4). This would be appropriate because the “word of God” is being contested. At other points, Moses offers witness (10:19; cf. 10:5 where he “writes,” γράφει) along with Isaiah (9:27, 29; 10:16, 20, 21) and even David (11:9). Perhaps it is not a coincidence that these three personae are resurrected as representatives for the Law, Prophets, and Psalms (cf. 4QMMT ii.95–6; Luke 24:44). 39 In other words, as author and audience test the case about God’s word, Scripture itself is given an opportunity to testify, along with three key spokespersons who stand in for major components of Scripture. The narrator uses these characters to testify about the very matters that surfaced in the narratio, namely election and reversal. The argumentation on election (9:15–29 and 11:1–12) gains credence through the following voices: God as Scripture or Oracle, Isaiah, and David. The argumentation regarding reversal (9:30–10:21; 11:13–24), that is the mysterious hardening of Israel and

38 This conclusion is supported by observations that the occasions of personified introductory formula in Matthew and Acts, as cited above, occur within speeches, namely in that of Jesus, Peter, and Stephen. The remaining examples, found in Hebrews, might be appreciated as part of the book’s many deliberate oral qualities. See Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 13–14, who describes the work as an “epideictic oration” with “homiletic features.” 39 The “Prologue” to Sirach also implies that Scripture may be divided three ways. The observations here are not meant to imply that there is a fixed canon of Scripture that all Jews would recognize; see Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 90–91, for more clarification.

138

Douglas C. Mohrmann

acceptance of gentiles, may be heard from God as Scripture, Moses, and Isaiah. These are weighty voices for weighty subjects. The most peculiar character to speak in these chapters is The-righteousnessfrom-faith (10:6–8), a clear example of προσωποποιòα. This character quotes Deuteronomy 9 and 30 for Paul, who will join his voice directly to it in 10:8: “This is the word which we preach.” This character could be, therefore, a standin for Paul himself or for God as Scripture. 40 The exact point of this speech is difficult to assess, but there is a contrast (‚λλά, v. 8) between writing and speaking and between Law and confession of Jesus as Lord. Clearly, 10:4 was meant to help his contrast by shifting attention from the Law to Christ. The payoff for Paul is twofold: (1) his use of this strikingly unusual personification signals that both Jew and gentile may gain access to salvation through a common confession, and (2) a conjoining of his voice with that of Righteousness would enhance his reputation with his Roman audience. The first contributes to the argument regarding God’s reversal, since now both Jew and gentile have equal access to God’s promises, while the second contributes to the rhetorical impact of Romans 9–11. More observations on the rhetorical impact of these chapters may be made by considering Paul’s persona and testimony within the probatio. 41 As has already been observed, the exordium indicates that he is personally engaged in this case. His concern for Israel unfolds explicitly in 10:1–11:14, when the underlying narrative has moved away from the past and into the present. Paul’s own testimony (mαρτυρÀ) exposes both the admirable zeal and the ignorance of his countrymen (10:2–3). His argumentation combines both sympathetic prayer (10:1) and strident accusation (10:18–19). In addition, Paul submits the testimony of his very life as evidence in 11:1–2, leaving readers with a clear sense that he, as part of the remnant of Israel, personally illustrates God’s election. It is also important to notice how he strengthens this testimony by drawing a parallel between his life and Elijah’s ministry. 42 His point is not so much to re40 Douglas C. Mohrmann, “Boast Not in your Righteousness from the Law: A New Reading of Romans 10.6–8,” JGRChJ 2 (2001–2005): 95. Joseph R. Dodson appears to agree that Paul equates himself and his message with this personification. He writes, “Such is the nature of Paul’s appeal to authority that to reject his gospel is to disagree with Righteousness herself, who correctly interprets Scripture and proclaims truth” (“The Voices of Scripture: Citations and Personifications in Paul,” BBR 20.3 [2010]: 428). 41 Stanley K. Stowers likewise appears to stress this feature of Romans 9–11, writing, “An adequate reading must include the realization that the most fully developed authorial persona appears in chapters 9–11” (A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994], 291). 42 This assertion may be contrasted with the observations and conclusions of John Barclay, “Paul’s Story: Theology as Testimony,” in Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 150–52. Barclay’s intention is to reflect on Paul’s theology through his testimony, so he claims that this testimony does not imply Paul stands with the remnant or elect because of his ethnicity, but because of God’s grace. While

Paul’s Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11 as Palimpsest

139

turn to Israel’s history here (as in ch. 9), but to connect himself with a great hero of Israel. This obviously allows him to project a greater authority, since as the picture of Elijah’s prophetic role is joined with the picture of his own role the two converge into a double exposure (11:2–6). 43 That is to say, Elijah’s life explains Paul’s life through their similar experiences of a waning remnant. This historical association must also portray Paul’s calling from God as a prophetic one, a description or function he has not been shy to embrace before. 44 This conclusion may be illustrated through the following verses. Once Paul has established his prophetic role, David is invited to offer his testimony (vv. 9–10). This speech is immediately interpreted and applied by Paul, speaking in the first person (vv. 11–12). He then reaffirms his vocation as apostle to the gentiles in 11:13 (cf. 1:1, 5). In other words, 11:1–14 is crucial within these chapters for the presentation of Paul’s persona, which is achieved by repeated and strategic use of first person (11:1, 11, 13–14). He has effectively asserted his prophetic and apostolic qualifications. It may also be inferred that Paul’s voice should be given the same authoritative weight as his other human witnesses. While Moses, Isaiah, and David represent God’s past oracles, so now Paul is God’s present oracle. It may be argued that this inference would always be possible from his confident exposition of Scripture, but here it is achieved with especial vividness. Paul’s persona is emerging upon the stage of human history during a trial of God’s word, so the stakes in this argument are high. If God’s word is not reliable, then the promises of ch. 8 would surely ring hollow. One may sense from this prophetic emphasis that the argument is about to pivot in a crucial way from the past or present into the future. Indeed, the rest of the argumentation (11:15–24) will rest almost entirely upon Paul’s persona, and no more explicit quotations or personified introductory formulae are offered. It is also here that Paul creatively develops a metaphor to compare God’s work among the Jews and gentiles with the imagery of Root and Branches (vv. 16–24). A repetition of second person and direct address (vv. 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24) likewise tightens the bond between author and audience, implying the first person presence of Paul throughout the final movement of the probatio.

this ultimately would be true, it does not catch the thrust of Paul’s testimony as rebuttal. Romans 11:1 revisits the implied challenge against the propositio. Paul’s own Israelite story is a witness for God’s faithfulness first and foremost to Israel. The story of his own stumbling must be inferred here; it is not explicit (cf. 11:11). His solidarity with the ethnic remnant is explicit: οÕτως οÞn καÈ ân τÄ nÜn καιρÄ λεØmmα κατ> âκλογ˜n χάριτος γέγοnεn (v. 5) and ™ δà âκλο㘠âπέτυχεn (v. 7). 43 Employing first person in vv. 3–4 helps affect this double exposure, since Paul himself stands behind the first person at the beginning and ending of this section (vv. 1, 11). 44 The clearest examples are 1 Corinthians 12–13 and 2 Corinthians 2–3. See Scott J. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 40, as an affirmation of Paul’s references to his own call through allusion to Moses and the prophets.

140

Douglas C. Mohrmann

Peroratio A peroratio revisits key themes, summarizes, and motivates the audience to adopt the speaker /author’s conclusion. 45 Kim’s analysis maintains that the peroratio begins at 11:33, but it is more likely to begin earlier. 46 First, the author recapitulates several key themes and ideas from the probatio in these verses as a means to remind the audience of its most salient features. The following list attempts to demonstrate this: v. 25 v. 26 v. 27 v. 28 v. 29 v. 30 vv. 31–32

“hardening” (9:18; 11:7); “Israel” (9:6b, 27, 31; 10:19, 21; 11:2, 7); “saved” (9:27; 10:1, 9–10, 13; 11:11, 14); “Jacob” (9:13); “covenant” (9:4); “gospel” (10:15); “election” (9:11; 11:5, 7); “beloved” (9:13, 25); “fathers” (9:5, 10); “calling” (9:7, 12, 24–26; 10:12–14); “disobedience” (10:21; 11:20, 23; cf. also 9:30, 32–33; 10:3, 6, 8–10, 14, 16–17); “mercy” (9:15–16, 18, 23); “all” (cf. 9:6–7; 10:4, 11–13, 16).

Second, since the peroratio should not be reduced to a mere compilation of themes, it may be noted that this section also artfully concludes the matter with carefully balanced lines (11:28, 30–32) and succinct aphorism (v. 29). Third, it is likely that Paul continues to use direct address in 11:25–36 so that his audience would incline toward his conclusion, namely that the gentile believers in Rome must understand God’s word is still in effect (not least with regard to the Jewish members) and that the Jewish believers may take comfort from those promises. The symmetry of vv. 30–31 forges an inextricable link between God’s plans for both the gentiles and the Jews. 47 Fourth, and perhaps most effectively, Paul summarizes his foregoing arguments about election and reversal through a new word, “mystery” (mυστήριοn, v. 25). This single word captures his extended metaphors (potter /clay and root /branches) and undercuts the objections of his interlocutors. Fifth, the doxology in vv. 33–36 gives a final poetic expression of the mystery in God’s relationship with humanity. The doxology, therefore, strikes a powerful emotional cord, silencing any remaining protests against God’s word and his justice. The vividness of Paul’s persona quickly fades in the peroratio after v. 25, to be subsumed into mere narration (vv. 26–36). Just as this fades, the dramatic introductory formulae are also discontinued: 48 45

See Quintilian, Inst. 4.1.28; 6.1.1, 12; and Cicero, Part. or. 15.52–17.60. Kim, God, Israel, and the Gentiles, 116–17. By contrast, Joseph A. Fitzmyer sees this as the beginning of Paul’s conclusion (Romans, AB 33 [New York: Doubleday, 1993], 618). 47 Cranfield, Romans, 2:582; and Fitzmyer, Romans, 627–28. 48 The narrator was less obvious in the probatio, citing Scripture only twice in 9:33 and 11:8. 46

141

Paul’s Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11 as Palimpsest

Hypertext

Introductory Formula

Hypotext

11:26–27

καθ°ς γέγραπται

Isa 59:20–21

What the author has accomplished, however, is to establish himself as a person with prophetic and apostolic authority. This posture serves him well in the peroratio. The case has thus ended, and with a doxology Paul returns to the praise he had left off in 9:1, following 8:31–39. That no other voices speak in the peroratio also implies that this text’s authority rests solely upon Paul.

Narratological Analysis of Romans 9–11 A narrative substructure within this rhetorical framework adds to the argument’s coherence and guides its train of thought. 49 Elements of the exordium evoke memories of Israel’s past. In 9:4–5 Paul lists several advantages his people Israel have received from God: adoption, glory, covenants, the law, worship, promises, patriarchs, and the messiah. Obviously, allusions to Old Testament stories lie beneath each of these words. 50 Two points may be gleaned from this list. First, Paul recognizes here a fuller history of Israel than he has time to mention explicitly. These advantages and subsequent mention of Israel’s key historical figures (Abraham, Moses, etc.) hint at that larger history. Together, they could help a reasonably informed reader remember many fuller stories. 51 Second, they are posed as identity markers for Israel, not as mere historical artifacts (cf. 3:1–2). As Jewish readers /listeners followed Paul’s argument, these advantages would serve as touchstones for their identity. This explains why the author must immediately address the deeper issues of Israelite identity (9:6b–7). In other words, Israel’s history will both serve Paul’s theological argument pertaining to God’s word or justice and also address Jewish participation in the advantages of that history. Paul’s goal was that these elements of Israelite faith would evoke, on the one hand, a certainty about God’s reliability, an issue of interest for the hope promised in ch. 8, and, on the other hand, an ambiguity about the identity of God’s people, an issue opened earlier in the epistle by Paul’s indictment of all humanity, particularly in chs. 1–3 and 7. This latter point is likely a live issue among the struggling mixed congregations of Rome. Carol Newsom’s work on identity formation in the Second Temple period is apropos here. She writes: 49 See also Ben Witherington, Paul’s Narrative Thought World (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 2. 50 Bryan, Preface to Romans, 169–70. Many of these will find explicit expression in the remainder of Romans 9–11, while others will remain allusive (e. g. λατρεία; however cf. 12:1). 51 See Wright, “Israel’s Scriptures in Paul’s Narrative Theology,” 323–29. Although he neglects 9:4–5 and ch. 11, he rightly claims that Paul’s argument moves through Israel’s story.

142

Douglas C. Mohrmann

Every culture has a complex repertoire of identifying signs that are located in various parts of its collective discourse and that will articulate that culture differently. A text or speaker who invokes one or another term will evoke communities of correspondingly different dimensions and orientations. Ancestral terms are a prime example. Whether one invokes Abraham or Jacob evokes an Israel whose relationship to gentiles is differently oriented. But all terms of value, not just ancestral terms, perform this function. An Israel evoked in terms of ... an appeal to “all who repent of transgression” evokes an Israel internally differentiated on moral grounds rather than one unified as descendants of a common father. 52

While her attention is primarily focused on locating identity behind texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls, an application of these ideas in Rom 9:1–5 and 6–8 is appropriate. She goes on to write that identity signs are of even greater significance in times of “social instability,” a description which is apt for the situation among the early congregations in Rome. Therefore, as Paul evoked traditional Jewish ideological signs, he made identity a key issue for this argument. Indeed, by the end of this argument, principally through the tree metaphor, Paul grafts gentiles into this same history. 53 The following outline organizes the probatio to highlight a more extensive and intentional use of narrative, along with the testimony already noted above: Past 9:15–23 Narrative & Illustration: Story of Moses – Potter & Clay; Argumentation: God’s election 9:24–29 Narrative: Story of the prophets; Argumentation: Election (remnant) and reversal 9:30–33 Narrative: Story of gentiles, Jews, and Jesus; Argumentation: Reversal Present 10:1–4 Testimony & Narrative: Jewish zeal ignores Christ (and the Law); Argumentation: Reversal 10:5–17 Testimony: Moses writes Law and Paul preaches Jesus as Lord; Argumentation: Reversal (all may be saved) 10:18–21 Testimony & Narrative: Gentile response and Jewish disobedience; Argumentation: Reversal 11:1–6 Testimony & Narrative: Paul’s own life; Argumentation: Election (remnant) 11:7–12 Narrative: Israel (in part) is hardened, gentiles not; Argumentation: Election and reversal 52 Carol Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 9–10. The issue of identity was invoked in an anticipatory way in 2:28–29. 53 See Bruce W. Longenecker, “Sharing in Their Spiritual Blessings?: The Stories of Israel in Galatians and Romans,” in Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 60.

Paul’s Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11 as Palimpsest

143

Future 11:13–24 Testimony & Illustration: The hardening will be temporary – Roots & Branches; Argumentation: Reversal It is with these points in mind that I note that Romans 9–11 gradually shifts its focus from the past to the present and to the future. 54 Romans 9:6–29 moves essentially in a straight chronological line from Abraham to Isaiah. 55 This review covers Israel’s history from the patriarchs until the exodus (9:6–18). The eras of the monarchy and exile appear only implicitly (9:20–29) through the prophetic presence of Hosea and Isaiah, again in chronological order. Their history recedes to the background as the author presents a peripetia, or sudden reversal in the storyline. 56 The extended metaphor of the Potter and Clay, along with the interjected text at 9:24 (“we,” ™mς οÎ mόnοn âξ >Ιουδαίωn ‚λλ€ καÈ âξ âθnÀn), signal a redefinition of the people of God (λαός mου) that Hosea and Isaiah make clearer by their testimony. 57 The surprising election of gentiles was predicted in Israel’s own history, in other words. This metaphor of the Potter and Clay also anticipates Paul’s application of the tree metaphor (ch. 11), in that they both depict the reversal of Israel’s dominant position in salvation history, a story earlier typified by Jacob /Moses (Jews) against Esau /Pharaoh (gentiles). 58 Romans 9:30–33 covers the recent history of Jesus’s arrival and Israel’s stumbling that followed. Its opening (9:30) is likely an allusion to the success of the gentile mission, which the author places in stark contrast with the controversial legacy of Jesus’s life among the Jews and perhaps with the struggling Jewish mission (9:31–33). 59 According to Paul, the religious standing of Jews and gentiles in relation to the “stone” is at issue, continuing the ambiguity of identity that 9:24–29 raises by quoting Hosea and Isaiah. Romans 9:30–33 acts as a hinge

54 Ibid., 61. Matera, Romans, 253, likewise recognizes this temporal movement, but divides the text differently. 55 When the author brings forward implications of this past for the present, he signals with οÞn or Šρα οÞn (vv. 14, 16, 18, 30) and when he pulls back to look at the past he often employs γάρ (vv. 15, 17, 19b). 56 Käsemann, Romans, 274, rightly senses that here “1:16 is paradoxically reversed.” Cf. Aristotle, Poet. 1452a. 57 Byrne, Romans, 304. 58 The connections between these extended metaphors are not only conceptual (cf. “honor” and “dishonor” with “broken off” and “grafted in”), but also verbal (φύραmα in 9:21, 11:16; as well as âρεØς οÞn in 9:19, 11:19). For a discussion of possible intertextual echoes in these images, see Oropeza, “Paul and Theodicy,” 68–69, 75. 59 Cf. Dunn, Romans, 2:591–94. Susan Grove Eastman, “Israel and the Mercy of God: A Re-reading of Galatians 6.16 and Romans 9–11,” NTS 56 (2010): 390–94, is right to conclude that Paul recognizes a Jewish mission in Galatia, but goes beyond the evidence in Romans 9–11, stating that he has abandoned hope for it, except through an eschatological revelation (11:25–26), since 11:24 alludes to a positive parallel in missions to reverse the negative one here in 9:30–33.

144

Douglas C. Mohrmann

in the storyline connecting the narrative of the past with the narrative of the present that follows. Romans 10 records Paul’s current concern for his countrymen, a theme that continues through 11:12. As was noted above, this part is where Paul’s personal story rises to defend God’s word. His first-person singular testimony (10:2, 8, 18–19; 11:1, 11) facilitates this defense. Furthermore, it should not surprise readers that a significant emphasis on preaching occupies this section (see 10:8–12 and 14–17). Rom 10:19 also introduces παραζηλόω, which the author will develop in the next movement as his preaching strategy among the Jews (11:13–32). 60 It is probably significant that εÎαγγελίζω occurs three times in Romans (1:15, 10:15, 15:20) to connect the emphasis of Paul’s presence in this historical sweep of past, present, and future with the letter’s so-called apostolic parousia. 61 The overlap of Paul’s experiences with Moses (10:19), Isaiah (10:20–21), and Elijah (11:3) expresses the prophetic nature of Paul’s era. This section reveals that Paul saw himself as both the preaching prophet who announces the sins of his own people as well as the apostle to the gentiles. As a final observation on Romans 10, it is important to note how Paul’s positive and reconstructive discourse in vv. 6–13 will aid the reconstruction of his readers’ identity. The public speech-act of confession binds the identity of all believers, regardless of former ethnic identities. 62 Paul’s evocation of traditional language in this discourse, which we may pinpoint as arising from Deuteronomy 30, Isaiah 28, and Joel 3, brings confessing gentiles into the common space of traditional Jewish identity. 63 Romans 10:1–11:12 reflects Paul’s view of his role in this history and also articulates new ideological signs for these new communities, including those of his readers. 64 This is not to say that Paul hopes their identities will be entirely homogenized. Given the regularities of the problems between Jewish and gentile worshippers in Paul’s early church communities, this would not be feasible. Paul’s intent, however, does seem to be to bring them into the same space of identity with regard to their confession and recognition that Jewish scriptures are formative. 65

60 Richard H. Bell, Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9–11, WUNT 63 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 358, 361. 61 Douglas C. Mohrmann, “Semantic Collisions at the Intertextual Crossroads: A Diachronic and Synchronic Study of Romans 9:30–10:13” (PhD diss., The University of Durham, 2001), 2, 180, 270–72. 62 Anthony C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 591, 616–18. 63 Newsome, The Self as Symbolic Space, 11. 64 Romans 10:2–5 is still deconstructing Jewish identity, but 10:4 also hints at the reconstruction to come. 65 This formulation of gentile identity is preferred to that of Matera, who writes, “Paul is insistent that gentiles should maintain their own identity rather than adopt a Jewish identity” (Romans, 279). Matera ignores how gentile identity is being transformed within the Christian community

Paul’s Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11 as Palimpsest

145

Paul directs the reader’s attention toward the future in the next section, Rom 11:13–36. 66 Certainly, the argument may glance backwards as it progresses (11:17, 19, 20a, 21a, 24a), but this does not detract from the overall movement. Paul’s choice of the future tense (11:14, 21–24, 26), unfulfilled prophecy (11:26–27), commands (11:18, 20, 22), timeless aphorism (11:22a, 29), and doxology (11:33–36) indicates this forward-looking orientation. The Root and Branches image wonderfully captures the past dynamics of God’s mercy and hardening as a means to predict the future of God’s work. The root imagery taps into Israel’s identity, depicting their past holiness (11:16). It is in accord with that depiction that their present and future need for pruning is imagined. 67 But this illustration is hardly for the Jews alone. Just as the Jews’ heritage and status are affirmed, so also the metaphor is applied to the gentiles as a warning not to neglect that Jewish heritage and identity – as Paul has modified it – and even to welcome it as their own. Otherwise, they too will suffer pruning. Their future rests on that same identity (11:21). Therefore, Romans 9–11 builds its case for the reliability of God’s word through explicit or implicit references to Israel’s history. Paul employs that history, albeit selectively, to trace God’s work of election and reversal from the deep and recent past to the present and future. 68 This temporal fabric provides coherence to Paul’s argument that God’s word was, is, and will be dependable. By starting with the patriarchs, Paul reminds his audience of the promises of God. Moving to the exodus, he reveals God’s redemption, election, and wrath. Hints of Israel’s sin and exile provide the backdrop to the recalcitrant Jews that Paul encountered in his ministry. That same history provided Paul with a model for God’s present and future pruning and grafting work. Finally, at the end of this text, the author reaches once again into Israel’s past in order to find hope for God’s ultimate plan for both Jews and gentiles. It would surely be a mistake to conclude that Paul’s attention to the reliability of God’s word was a matter of importance only to Jews. Rather, this analysis attempts to demonstrate how the recasting of identity, both for Jewish and gentile

(cf. 12:1–2). New sacred texts, religious vocabulary and imagery, practices, and co-worshipers would all have an impact on their identity. 66 It is at this point where the epistolary genre most clearly infringes on the argumentation in chs. 9–11. As Longenecker notes, this section could function to “assuage corporate tensions within the Christian communities in Rome” (“Sharing in Their Spiritual Blessings?” 76). 67 Contra Mark D. Nanos, “‘Broken Branches’: A Pauline Metaphor Gone Awry (Romans 11:11–24),” in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9–11, ed. Florian Wilk and J. Ross Wagner, WUNT 257 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 340–41. 68 George J. Brooke, Reading the Dead Sea Scrolls: Essays in Method (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 21–23, discusses what he calls “alternative pasts” in the use or reuse of Israel’s history among texts of the DSS.

146

Douglas C. Mohrmann

believers, is molded within God’s word. 69 In Paul’s estimation the hope of both groups depends upon that word. The previous chapter anticipates this reading in passages such as 8:2–4, and the succeeding section builds upon it in 12:1 (θυσίαn ζÀσαn γίαn εÎάρεστοn τÄ θεÄ, τ˜n λογικ˜n λατρείαn ÍmÀn) and especially in 13:8–10.

Recasting Israel’s History: Literature in the Second Degree Given this consideration of the narrative substructure in Romans 9–11, I will now turn to Gérard Genette’s writings. His work on hypertextuality has been a leading light for exploring larger scale relationships between texts. While extensive research has been done on individual quotations or allusions as part of discussions of intertextuality, Genette’s theory of hypertextuality may aid consideration of larger-scale borrowings. His Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree discusses the myriad of ways authors transform their hypotexts. 70 He posits three primary ways authors work with their hypotexts: expansions, reductions, and transformations. 71 He breaks these down into several subspecies. Some scholars have attempted to apply Genette’s theory to ancient texts and modern texts. 72 George Brooke, for example, has shown this approach to be valuable for his work in the Dead Sea Scrolls. 73 As Dead Sea Scrolls scholars have grappled with the so-called “re-written scriptures” found at Qumran, it has become clearer that authors from the Second Temple period regularly took up biblical narratives for new and adapted purposes. 74 Examples of amplifications (such as the Genesis Apocryphon) show clear dependence on known hypotexts (Genesis), but the relationship between hypertext and hypotext is intricate and complex. Texts such as the Temple Scroll cannot be appreciated merely by compiling intertextual links, because its transposition of narrator from Moses to God has radically transformed its hypotexts. Clearly Romans 9–11 is a condensation of Israel’s history. 75 Paul has selected portions of Israel’s history from Genesis through Kings, extracting principles 69 Cf. W. S. Campbell, review of God, Israel, and the Gentiles, by Johann Kim, JSS 47.2 (2002): 365–66. 70 See n. 7. 71 Ibid., 161–65. 72 Philip Alexander, Armin Lange, and Renate Pillinger, eds., In the Second Degree: Paratextual Literature in the Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Culture and Its Reflections in Medieval Literature (Leiden: Brill, 2010). 73 Ibid., 43–64. 74 E.g. ibid., 43–98. 75 Cf. Genette, Palimpsests, ch. 49. His explorations of condensations include digest, abridgement, résumé, and summary; see ibid., 238. (His discussion of reductions covers seven chapters

Paul’s Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11 as Palimpsest

147

he found operative in his own ministry. This general technique was hardly unique at the time. Within the stream of literature from the Second Temple period, many more examples of reductive adaption were produced: Nehemiah 9; Daniel 9; historical psalms such 78, 105 and 106, 135 and 136; CD 3; Acts 7; and others. These works condensed Israel’s broad history into brief allusions, selectively and interpretively joining certain threads to weave new historical retellings. Specific rhetorical purposes compelled authors to adapt Israel’s history for praise, penitential prayers, expressions of political ideology, indictments of Israel, and community formation. Of course, it is interesting to discuss specific instances of borrowing in either direct quotations or indirect allusions, but Genette’s work helps us appreciate a work’s overall dependence on its hypotext. The reader’s task is thus changed from discussions of translation techniques, Vorlage, midrash, pesher, catchwords and the like to apprehending the hypertext’s rhetorical purposes. A brief look at one example may aid the task of reading Romans 9–11. The sectarian tendencies of the early Christian community are often compared to those found in the literature of Qumran. It is helpful to study how the role of Israel’s history is used in the Cairo Genizah copy of the Damascus Document (CD). 76 In sum, CD was created to help shape the identity of the covenanters, as was Romans 9–11, as I have already discussed. 77 CD 1.18 indicates that what follows will identify the covenanters’ opponents, probably the Pharisees, in distinction to themselves (2.2). 78 Israel’s history, according to the author of CD, would reveal its enemies’ evil, while also being a life-giving well for their community (cf. 3.16) This history quickly moves from the Watchers and Noah (2.18–3.1) to the three patriarchs (3.2–4), the exodus (3.5), the wilderness wandering (3.6–8), the missteps of the conquest (3.9–11), and the judges (3.12) before it begins blurring times between past and present (3.12–20). It resumes with the exile (3.21–4.4), then moves to the present (4.4–9), and then steps into the future (4.10–14). The touchstones of the past are selectively remembered to articulate the author’s conflict. 79 The parchment of Israel’s history, which spanned the many scrolls of scripture from Genesis to Kings, was scraped clean, picked up again as a palimpsest, rewritten and condensed in summary form,

and many more examples.) He states that a chief function of condensation is didactic. A summary retains a mere fraction of the hypotext, while it simultaneously reduces and adapts. 76 The constitutional qualities of CD and the general theological value of Romans make this comparison more valuable as well. 77 Brooke, Reading the Dead Sea Scrolls, 37–50, offers systematic discussion of conversion, identity formation, and deviance as part of the tasks with texts such as CD. 78 All references to CD come from Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, vol. 1. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997). 79 Newsome, The Self as Symbolic Space, 64, describes such contested use of shared signs as “cross talk.”

148

Douglas C. Mohrmann

and transformed into a new story – even though it would require scarcely two columns of text in CD. 80 This example illustrates, just as Romans 9–11 does, how writers in the Second Temple period took up Israel’s great narrative and employed it for their own social-rhetorical settings. 81 The authors of both texts thought it a valuable exercise to remember Israel’s story for guidance for their groups’ respective present and future endeavors. Not only do they share a broad tendency with their hypertexts, they even share some of the same allusions. Obvious examples include allusions to the covenants, the patriarchs, and the exodus. More specific examples are found as well: Lev 18:5 appears in CD 3.16–17 and Rom 10:5, while perhaps Joel 3:5 echoes in CD 4.4 and Rom 10:13. Furthermore, competition with a Pharisaic interpretation of sacred texts may have been at play in both (cf. CD 1.18 and Rom 10:2–3). It is also important to see that both authors resort to “hidden matters” (‌‫נסתרות‬, 3.14 and ‌‫ברזי פלאו‬, 3.18) and “mystery” (mυστήριοn, Rom 11:25) as a definitive feature in their authoritative readings of shared ideological signs. 82 Opponents were likewise linked to “stubbornness of heart” (‌‫שרירות לבם‬, 3.11–12) or being “hardened” (âπωρώθησαn, Rom 11:7). Another hypertextual factor comes into play with Paul’s rendition of Israel’s story, and this is through the nature of translation. In his book Genette devotes a chapter to translation. 83 As students of Romans 9–11 can attest, the quip traduttore traditore may be rather obvious at times (e. g. Rom 9:24; 11:26–27). 84 While it is beyond the scope of this essay to rehearse specific transformations of Paul’s Hebrew or LXX Vorlagen, it may be immediately recognized that tracking Greek quotations, and especially allusions, back to Israel’s authoritative Hebrew or Aramaic texts can be a stiff challenge. It is also well known, but important to remember, that Rabbinic Judaism eventually ruled against the use of Greek translations, since they believed that Greek versions had betrayed the authentic Hebrew. 85 Finally, a third application of Genette’s theory may aid this reading of Romans 9–11, namely his discussion of “transmodalization.” At first this term 80 One fascinating difference between this rendition and the biblical story is the author’s assertion that Israel sinned in Egypt (CD 3.4–5). 81 These observations should relieve the tension that besets Longenecker in “Sharing in Their Spiritual Blessings?” 80–84. As Paul’s rhetorical situation changed between Galatia and Rome, it is to be expected that his rendering of Israel’s history would show signs of adaption. 82 Newsome writes of CD 3.12–16, “Knowledge of the ‘hidden things’ is thus a gracious divine response to the initial and continuing commitment of its members” (The Self as Symbolic Space, 71). See also “holy spirit” in CD 2.12 (‌‫ )רוח קדשו‬and Rom 8:2–3 as the divine force behind the authoritative interpretation of the Law. 83 Genette, Palimpsests, 214–18. 84 E,g., Gert J. Steyn, “Observations on the Text Form of the Minor Prophets Quotations in Romans 9–11,” JSNT 38.1 (2015): 53–57; and Cranfield, Romans, 2:577–79. 85 Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000), 38.

Paul’s Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11 as Palimpsest

149

may appear to represent a mere transformation of genre, say, from historical narrative to hymn (e. g. Psalm 78), or even to an epistolary argument (Galatians 3; Romans 4). However, as Genette explains, this is more severe and would be more akin to the relationship between a novel and its screenplay. 86 I have argued that Romans 9–11 goes beyond a simple genre shift, since it has transformed historical narration into a forensic debate dramatized through vocalized performances of God and key heroes of Scripture. This shift also allows Paul to manipulate time, as would be typical of dramas, yet without violating historical narration. Furthermore, Paul’s characters help him articulate contrary emotions and critical perspectives, which Genette calls focalization. 87 Paul as narrator does not merely opine about Israelite history or about the Jews’ present obduracy. His characters voice approval and condemnation to help argue his case. There are several rhetorical benefits to this tactic, because Paul is able, on the one hand, to distance himself from a topic, and, on the other hand, to gain additional authority through his characters. The discussion of election and reversals are such weighty topics that Paul’s voice clearly benefits from the additional testimony of Moses, Isaiah, and David.

Conclusion There are four conclusions that may be drawn at this time. First, on the matter of rhetoric, Romans 9–11 goes beyond addressing a topic, however pressing, such as the reliability of God’s word or Israel’s resistance to the Gospel. 88 Written to recipients who are mostly unknown to Paul, Romans is meant to give him a chance to establish his credibility. Paul’s skill in reciting and arranging sacred texts establishes him as an apostolic and prophetic leader. 89 The concentration of intertexts in Romans 9–11 is not just impressive, it is without precedent in the New Testament. 90 This authority may thus be transferred from author to text (cf. 2 Pet 3:15–16). Second, the alignment of his voice with the voices of

86 Genette, Palimpsests, 277–78, 284. There is a significant difference between the use of time, for example, in narration and drama. In drama, time is greatly compressed for the sake of performance. Speech also is transformed into direct address within drama. Genette puts it succinctly: “What the theater can do, narrative can do as well, whereas the reverse is not true” (ibid., 280). 87 Ibid., 286–87. 88 Käsemann, Romans, 253–55, surveys opinion on the leading topics in Romans 9–11, concluding that the main topic is “the relationship between the doctrine of justification and salvation history.” Fitzmyer agrees (Romans, 541). Other suggestions have been predestination vs. human responsibility, israelkritisch vs. kirchenkritisch, and theodicy. A better way forward is to keep the discussion tied to the purposes and occasion of the letter overall. 89 Stanley, “‘Pearls before Swine,’” 129. 90 Fitzmyer, Romans, 542. Moo calculates that nearly one third of Paul’s quotations fall within this passage (Romans, 550).

150

Douglas C. Mohrmann

God, Moses, Isaiah, or David clearly bolsters his authority (cf. Rom 1:5, 15:15) and clarifies his identity. This section combines autobiographical details and rhetorical flourishes, and these would have been highly effective means of introducing himself. Third, this section of the letter directly addresses Jewish and gentile identity. Paul’s use of tree imagery roots both Jewish and gentile identity within Israel’s history. Consequently, Israel’s story becomes the gentile believers’ story. They share a common confession and a common historical connection. It is not difficult to imagine how this common space would offer pastoral value to Rome’s mixed congregations. Fourth, it may be inferred that Paul believes that these texts and voices still have relevance for the Jewish and gentile Roman believers. 91 In other words, the ongoing affirmation of Genesis, Exodus, and other scriptures means that this new generation of believers must continue to engage these ancient texts. 92 The hypotexts’ ongoing authority is thereby guaranteed. Romans 13:8–10 is direct evidence of this. Therefore, “Christ as end of the Law” cannot mean that the Law is no longer relevant, for the Law and Moses still speak. Romans 9–11 should be a caution to impulses, past and present, to sever Christian confession from the sacred legacy of the Jews. 93

91 This conclusion builds on observations made by George Brooke in “Hypertextuality and the ‘Parabiblical’ Dead Sea Scrolls,” in In the Second Degree: Paratextual Literature in the Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Culture and Its Reflections in Medieval Literature, ed. Philip Alexander, Armin Lange, and Renate Pillinger (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 51–62. Brooke writes, “So ongoing Mosaic discourse in the rewritten Torah texts may well be an acknowledgement of the Torah’s authority, but it is also an assertion of it, perhaps in the face of those who would challenge it” (52). See also Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 12–18. 92 Not surprising, then, is Marcion’s rejection of much of this text, saving only 10:1–4 and 11:33–36; see Adolf von Harnack, Marcion: das Evangelium Von Fremden Gott (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1924), 49. 93 Cf. R. Kendal Soulen, “‘They are Israelites’: The Priority of the Present Tense for Jewish-Christian Relations,” in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9–11, ed. Florian Wilk and J. Ross Wagner, WUNT 257 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 498–502.

Israel as âχθροÈ and ‚γαπητοÈ in Romans 11:28 An Isaianic Paradox and Its Pauline Application 1 Panagiotis Kantartzis In this essay I will explore the use of the radical 2 expression âχθροÈ δι+Ímς as it appears in Rom 11:28. More specifically, I will examine the term âχθροÈ as it is juxtaposed in the same verse with ‚γαπητοÈ. How can we account for the strong language of enmity, and how can we understand the paradox of its appearing alongside the language of love? What makes the endeavor even more difficult is relating the verse to the broader context of vv. 24–26, a passage that is a tangled web of hermeneutical difficulties. Many commentators have regarded âχθροÈ as carrying an active sense. 3 The argument used to support this viewpoint concerns Paul’s use of the same term to refer to human enmity toward God, as opposed to God’s enmity toward human beings (Rom 5:10, 8:7; 1 Cor 15:25; Phil 3:18; cf. Rom 8:7), 4 or more appropriately to human enmity “with regard to the gospel,” namely due to their resistance to its proclamation and acceptance. So, here the gospel would refer to “the proclamation of salvation” that evokes Israel’s obtuse enmity. 5 The other option is to understand this term according to its passive meaning, “denoting that Israel stands under God’s enmity and displeasure.” 6 Adherents of this position note the structure of this verse, where “enemies” stands as parallel to “beloved.” So, the argument goes, just as ‚γαπητοÈ means “beloved by God” so too âχθροÈ refers to “enmity of God.” 7

1 I am deeply indebted to Dr. Scott Hafemann for teaching me to love the unity of the Scriptures and for being an example of humble service and passionate love for our Lord. 2 N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (London: SPCK, 2013), 2:1254. 3 Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans, AB 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 625. 4 James Dunn, Romans 9–16, WBC 38B (Dallas: Word, 1988), 685. 5 Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 707. Colin Kruse provides this interpretative rendering of the verse, “They showed themselves to be enemies of God when they rejected his gospel” (Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Pillar New Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012], 445). 6 Thomas Schreiner, Romans, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 625. 7 Ibid., 625; C. E. B. Cranfield, Introduction and Commentary on Romans 9–16, vol. 2 of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979), 580; and Judith Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance: Staying in and Falling Away, WUNT 2.37 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990), 189.

152

Panagiotis Kantartzis

A third way is a “fusion” 8 between the notion of hating God and being hated by God, a proposal accepted by many commentators. 9 Kruse notes that one can discern that Paul has sounded a “dual note” through Romans 9–11 when, on the one hand he is speaking of Israel as “hated,” hardened and rejected by God (cf. 9:13, 17–23, 11:7b–10, 15, 25), and on the other as disobedient, unbelieving and stubborn (9:31, 17–23; 11:11, 12, 20, 23, 30–31). 10 This position appears to be the most appealing. Nonetheless, it has to account for the two difficulties already mentioned. The first concerns the especially harsh language used to describe God’s approach with Israel, i. e. the fact that Paul calls Israel his âχθροÈ. The second arises from the parallelism latent within the structure of the verse. How is it possible for Israel to be both “enemy” and “beloved” of God? How can God both judge unrepentant Israel and at the same time 11 remain faithful to his covenant to Israel? This paradox becomes all the more extreme if the nÜn of verse 31 is original. 12 My proposed solution to these difficulties is to suggest that the context of Isaiah, specifically the Isaianic theology of Yahweh as Divine Warrior and especially the dimension of Yahweh’s war as “catharsis,” forms the backdrop 13 of 11:28, something that aids interpretation in two ways. First, it helps explain the term “enemy” in metaphorical terms within the context of the imagery of Yahweh as warrior. Second, it explains the apparently contradictory pairing of

8

Jewett, Romans, 707. Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, ed. and trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), 315; Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 730; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 685; Schreiner, Romans, 625. 10 Kruse, Romans, 445. 11 Of course a further way to solve the tension is to treat the two divine actions as consecutive. Now, Israel experiences the enmity, but the salvation of Israel “at the end of history ... is the fulfilment of the covenantal promises that were made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Schreiner, Romans, 626–27; emphasis added). 12 Concerning the textual issues see Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1252; Jewett, Romans, 694; and Dunn, Romans 9–16, 677. Schreiner accepts the nÜn as original, but he interprets it as denoting that “the salvation of the Jews can now occur at any time” (Schreiner, Romans, 628). 13 There are several types of studies that examine the Old Testament background of the book of Romans. Some focus primarily on linguistic matters related to Paul’s use of the Greek text of the Old Testament, e. g., Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature, SNTSMS 74 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); and Timothy H. Lim, Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997). Other studies focus more on the Old Testament as contextual frame of thought for the book of Romans: e. g., Richard H. Bell, Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9–11, WUNT 2.63 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994); Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scriptures in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), Mark A. Seifrid, “Romans,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 607–94. Finally, there are studies that focus on the use of a book of the Old Testament as a contextual framework for Romans, e. g. ShiuLun Shum, Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans, WUNT 2.156 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). 9

Israel as âχθροÈ and ‚γαπητοÈ in Romans 11:28

153

“enemy” with “beloved,” resulting in a God who judges and redeems at the same time. This analysis makes use of the concept of “intertextual echo,” a phrase coined by Richard Hays. 14 J. Ross Wagner utilizes the concept and explains it as the attempt to “listen for the resonances of the wider Isaianic settings of the texts that Paul appropriates through citation or allusion.” 15 Due to limited space and the scope of this study, I will not dedicate much time to the analysis of verbal connections of Rom 11:26–28 with various Isaianic texts, since this has been undertaken at length with great success elsewhere. 16 I will place my emphasis on the broader context of the “book of Isaiah” 17 and the ways in which it forms the backdrop of Paul’s thought. In this respect, I concur with Wagner’s position that Paul is influenced not only by particular verses from Isaiah but even more so by Isaiah’s larger “story” about Israel. A further dimension to this approach is the suggestion that chs. 9–11 are “a retelling of the story of Israel, from Abraham to Paul’s present day.” 18 This “larger story” is what I will try to unravel by dealing with several key texts. Isaiah 59:20–21, 27:9, and 2:3 are the main Isaianic passages Paul draws from. 19 Taking these passages as my starting point, I will incorporate various other pertinent passages. The starting point for my analysis is the observation that the two main texts Paul uses in his quotation in 11:25–26, namely Isaiah 59 and 27, 20 both refer in their immediate context to the Divine Warrior motif.

14 Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 19. See also his subsequent discussion in The Conversion of Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 163–89. 15 J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter of the Romans (Boston: Brill, 2003), 18. 16 For a detailed analysis see ibid., 280–86. Cf. also Bell, Provoked to Jealousy. 17 I approach Isaiah as a “book” and thus read it synchronically, that is, in its final and full form. Of course we need to realize the complexities associated with this approach, such as the variants in Paul’s references to the Isaianic text. For a description and defense of the synchronic approach, see Roy F. Melugin, “The Book of Isaiah and the Construction of Meaning,” in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, ed. Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans, VTSup 70 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 39–56; Se-Hoon Jang, “Hearing the Word of God in Isaiah 1 and 65–66: A Synchronic Approach,” in The One Who Reads May Run: Essays in Honour of Edgar W. Conrad, ed. Roland Boer, Michael Carden, and Julie Kelso, LHBOTS 553 (London: T&T Clark, 2012), 42–58; Rolf Rendtorff, “The Book of Isaiah: A Complex Unity, Synchronic and Diachronic Reading,” in New Visions of Isaiah, ed. Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic), 40; Rolf Rendtorff, Canon and Theology: Overtures to Biblical Theology, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993), 27–30; R. E. Clements, “Beyond Tradition History: DeuteroIsaianic Development of First Isaiah’s Themes,” JSOT 31 (1985): 95–113; and R. E. Clements, “The Unity of the Book of Isaiah,” Int 36 (1982): 117–29. 18 N. T. Wright, “The Letter to the Romans,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 10:622. 19 Christopher R. Bruno, “The Deliverer from Zion: The Source(s) and Function of Paul’s Citation in Romans 11:26–27,” TynBul 59 (2008): 119–34. 20 Isaiah 2:3 is part of the Isaianic backdrop but is not as significant as these two passages.

154

Panagiotis Kantartzis

Isaiah 59:20–21 in Context This passage is one of many 21 within the book that features the imagery of Yahweh as Divine Warrior. The critical question in each of these instances is, who is the enemy of Yahweh here? To answer this question, however, it is necessary to pay close attention to the passage’s wider context. In this text, vv. 15b–20 function as the answer to the lament in vv. 9–15a and to the indictment of vv. 1–8. 22 So, v. 4 mentions the lack of “judgment” (‌‫ )מִשְׁפָּט‬and “righteousness” (‌‫)צֶדֶק‬, which the people lament in v. 9. This lament concludes with the following verdict: “Justice (‌‫ )מִשְׁפָּט‬is turned back, and righteousness (‌‫ )צְדָקָה‬stands far away” (v. 14a). The criticism, then, concerns Israel’s various levels of moral failure, particularly with regard to its social life. It is this sin of Israel that keeps Yahweh away (vv. 1–2, 9–11). As long as there is no judgment and righteousness among them, there will be no judgment and righteousness for them. This situation, though, is about to change. Yahweh has seen 23 and is ready to intervene as Divine Warrior. The critical question is, against whom? A synchronic reading of ch. 59 makes it clear that Israel’s wickedness and injustice prompts Yahweh the Divine Warrior to put on his armor and intervene. 24 Verse 20 explains that his enemies are those within Israel who do not “turn away from their transgression.” Verse 18c complicates things somewhat, for it refers to the nations. 25 It is worth noting, however, that the nations are not mentioned by name. Moreover the ones referred to are not neighboring countries but distant ones. 26 Thus the emphasis remains on Israel and the reference in v. 18c, expounded in v. 19, simply denotes that Yahweh’s intervention as Divine Warrior was perceived by all the nations. 27 It marks out the scope of Yahweh’s appearance. Regardless of whether the nations are included or not, what is certain is that Yahweh’s war is waged first and foremost (if not exclusively) with the wicked men and women of 21

See e. g. Isa 11:10–16, 17:12–14, 26:20–27:1, 34:1–8, 42:10–17, 49:24–26, 51:9–11, 63:1–6. See Paul Hanson, The Dawn of the Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 120. 23 This is possibly a response to Isa 58:3a. See P. Smith, Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito-Isaiah: The Structure, Growth and Authorship of Isaiah 56–66, VTSup 62 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 123. 24 Christopher R. Seitz, “The Book of Isaiah 40–66,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 4:501. 25 Note that the Septuagint omits v. 18c altogether and that the Masoretic Text is very problematic (Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary, trans. David M. G. Stalker, OTL [London: SCM, 1969], 351). I believe the text should be maintained as it is since it relates to a phenomenon that appears often in Isaiah. Joseph Blenkinsopp describes this phenomenon as “cosmic contextualizing” (Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 19 [New York: Doubleday, 2000], 452). The term refers to the move from a reference to a specific nation to a more general reference to a plurality of nations. See also Isa 13:1–13, 24:1–6, 30:27–28, 34:1–6. 26 Jan L. Koole, Isaiah III: Isaiah 56–66, trans. Antony P. Runia, HCOT (Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 3:203. 27 Cf. Seitz, The Book of Isaiah 40–66, 501. 22

Israel as âχθροÈ and ‚γαπητοÈ in Romans 11:28

155

Israel. Yahweh’s judgment falls chiefly on the wicked “within the walls” of Israel, despite having universal implications. Ultimately, the dividing line is between the enemies of Yahweh in general (v. 18) and “to those in Jacob who turn from transgression”(v. 20). 28 What is the character of this war? Based on the previous conclusion, I suggest that Yahweh’s war can be characterized as “purifying.” Yahweh intends to purge Israel of wicked people so that Zion can become a dwelling place “to those in Jacob who turn from transgression” (v. 20). On the other hand, Claus Westermann notes that the appearance of Yahweh as Divine Warrior in ch. 59 ought to be deemed “language that is not appropriate.” 29 R. N. Whybray makes this point even more forcefully, claiming that “the traditional picture of Yahweh as warrior, appropriate when the enemies in question are foreign peoples, as they are in 63:1–6, is strange and hardly appropriate in a context of internal struggles within the Jewish community.” 30 These responses might be due to an inability to recognize the new dimensions that Yahweh’s appearance takes on within the book of Isaiah. Yahweh’s war turns into a war of spiritual catharsis, with a new aim of purification. To that end, the appropriate weapons must be used (i. e. righteousness, salvation, vengeance, and zeal). Ulrich Berges summarizes this point well when he writes, “The salvation announcement is conditioned by the framework in two ways: on the one hand, Zion can shine in the divine light only when all enemies have been destroyed, and on the other hand the promises in 60–62 pertain only to those in Jacob ‘who turn from transgression’ (59:20). The ‘eternal covenant’ (61:8; cf. 59:21) is fulfilled only with them and their offspring (59:21; 61:9), and Yahweh’s spirit rests only on them (59:21; 61:1).” 31 Consequently, it is through the appearance of Yahweh as Divine Warrior that Yahweh “battles” and “redeems” Israel at the same time; Israel is both “enemy” and “beloved.” That judgment and mercy are not two opposing, distinct, or sequential actions is made evident by observing that the verb ¡ξει, used in v. 20 to refer to God’s coming in salvation, is also used twice in v. 19 to describe God’s coming judgment (¡ξει γ€ρ ±ς ποταmäς βίαιος ™ æρ㘠παρ€ κυρίου, ¡ξει mετ€ θυmοÜ, LXX). But how does God judge and redeem Israel at the same time? For an answer, it is necessary to turn to another passage.

28 W. A. M. Beuken, “Servant and Herald of Good Tidings: Isaiah 61 as an Interpretation of Isaiah 40–55,” in The Book of Isaiah, ed. Jacques Vermeylen (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), 424. 29 Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 350. 30 R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981), 226. 31 Ulrich F. Berges, The Book of Isaiah: Its Composition and Final Form, trans. Millard C. Lind (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012), 397–98.

156

Panagiotis Kantartzis

Isaiah 1:9 and 24–26 This passage is relevant to my discussion for two reasons. The first is its thematic connection to ch. 59. In both passages, Zion is being judged for failing to fulfill its mission. Through this judgment, though, God is working salvation for Zion. Additionally, this thematic link is reinforced by a verbal connection. Steck observes that only in Isa 1:24 and 59:18 do the word pair translated “enemies /adversaries” and “foes” appear together. 32 A second reason is the fact that Paul directly quotes Isa 1:9 in Rom 9:29, thus incorporating it into the nexus of Isaianic passages that form his backdrop. The theme of Isa 1:24–26 is how Zion moves from being a “whore” to becoming once again a “city of righteousness,” “faithful Zion.” As in 59:20–21, God proclaims that he will intervene as a Divine Warrior to “get relief from my enemies and avenge myself on my foes” (v. 24). Who are the “enemies” of Yahweh in this passage? The context makes it clear that his foes are all who practice injustice and profanity within Israel. 33 Thus, despite the fact that this phraseology is often used in reference to judgment upon a foreign enemy, 34 here it is unexpectedly used to refer to Israel. 35 Moreover, the word âχθρός, which appears in Rom 11:28, also occurs in the LXX (τÀn âχθρÀn, genitive plural). A key question is whether this judgment is total and comprehensive. The passage notes that God’s “war” has a purifying quality. Through judgment he is bringing about Zion’s transformation. H. G. L. Peels comments, “The imagery of ‘purifying’ in v. 25, used in conjunction with v. 22, indicates that it is a judgment intended to refine rather than to devastate totally.” 36 This leads inescapably to the idea of the remnant. Sin and injustice are so pervasive that they pertain not only to the “leaders of Sodom” but also to the “people of Gomorrah” (v. 10). Since Yahweh’s judgment refers to the majority of Israel, after the judgment only a remnant will survive. The idea of a remnant is also present in 1:9: “If the Lord of hosts had not left us a few survivors, we should have been like Sodom, and become like Gomorrah.” What appears here then is the dual effect of judgment and redemption resulting from God’s intervention. 37 To summarize, Yahweh, in 32

O. H. Steck, “Jahwes Feinde in Jesaja 59,” BN 36 (1987): 54. See the interpretive addition in the LXX: oÎαÈ οÉ Êσχύοnτες Ισραήλ (“woe to the strong of Israel”). 34 See Deut 32:41, 43; Nah 1:2. 35 H. G. L. Peels, The Vengeance of God: The Meaning of the Root NQM and the Function of the NQM – Texts in the Context of Divine Revelation in the Old Testament, OTS 31 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 113. 36 Ibid., 113 37 The same duality also occurs in Isa 61:2, where God’s revenge and comfort operate at the same time. It is interesting to note that unlike 1:24, the object of God’s revenge is not made clear in 61:2. It is fair to conclude, however, that it is again the unjust and sinner within Israel (Koole, Isaiah III, 274; and Berges, The Book of Isaiah, 420–21). 33

Israel as âχθροÈ and ‚γαπητοÈ in Romans 11:28

157

fighting against his enemies in Israel, is purifying Zion through the creation of a remnant. 38

Isaiah 63 Several commentators 39 highlight the thematic connections between Isa 59:15b–20 and 63:1–6, where Yahweh comes as a warrior dressed in armor (59:17–20) to carry out vengeance on his enemies and to redeem his people (59:16) without anyone else (59:16). It has been suggested that these two passages may have been placed on either side of chs. 60–62 as a framing device. 40 Yahweh appears in Isaiah 59 as “the one who is coming.” The same description of him also appears in 40:10: “Behold, the Lord God comes with might.” Crucially, 62:11 repeats the same description: “Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold, your salvation comes; behold, his reward is with him, and his recompense before him.’” It is no coincidence then that the vision in 63:1–6 begins with the question, “Who is the one who is coming?” Chapter 63 explains that Yahweh is coming and is bringing the good tidings for Zion that he has defeated Edom. Yahweh’s appearance as Divine Warrior in ch. 63 contains particular similarities with his appearance in ch. 59. 41 In both passages Yahweh the Divine Warrior acts alone, surprised that there is no one prepared to help him. His arm moves, bringing about victory. More importantly, the intervention of Yahweh the Divine Warrior in 59:17 and 63:4 brings about both judgment and salvation. This dual aspect of Yahweh’s intervention also occurs in 61:2 (“to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor, and the day of vengeance of our God”). Once again: Who is the enemy? The obvious answer is Edom. Nonetheless, does the judgment announced in Isaiah 63 have at least the possibility to

38 See Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 351; and Barry Webb, The Message of Isaiah, Bible Speaks Today (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996), 229. This dual aspect of YHWH’s intervention is also present in Isa 61:2, a verse dependent on Isa 59:17 (cf. Beuken, “Servant and Herald of Good Tidings,” 422). 39 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 248; Jacob Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile: The Author of Third Isaiah as Reader and Redactor of the Book, Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 47–48. 40 Matthew J. Lynch, “Zion’s Warrior and the Nations: Isaiah 59:15b–63:6 in Isaiah’s Zion Traditions,” CBQ 70 (2008): 244–63. 41 Fredrick Holmgren points out that about twelve common words appear in both passages (“Yahweh the Avenger,” in Rhetorical Criticism: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg, ed. Jared J. Jackson and Martin Kessler [Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1974], 147). Stromberg thinks Isa 59:15–20 is a later adaptation of 63:1–6 and a reinterpretation in terms of inner-community concerns found in 56–59 and 65–66. He thus concludes that “the judgment which is applied solely to the nations in 63:1–6 is to fall upon the community in 59, because of their iniquity spelt out in the whole of the chapter” (Isaiah After Exile, 37).

158

Panagiotis Kantartzis

include unrepentant Israelites also? I believe that it does for the following reasons. First, Edom is merely the location where Yahweh’s battle takes place. As Joseph Blenkinsopp rightly points out, Edom is presented not as the victim but as the scene of Yahweh’s judgment. 42 The identity of Yahweh’s enemy is not revealed, 43 which at the very least allows for the possibility of including the unfaithful in Israel. 44 Second, the image in vv. 2–3 of Yahweh trampling his enemies as one tramples grapes in a winepress also occurs in the book of Lamentations to describe God’s judgment of Israel. There, the author laments the fact that Yahweh is acting as Israel’s enemy (Lam 2:5), who “on the day of his fierce anger” (1:12) “has trodden as in a winepress” (1:15b). Westermann argues that the Lamentations passage provides the origin of the Isaiah passage. 45 Third, Edom has a unique characteristic. Besides being Israel /Jacob’s enemy, Edom is also presented as his brother. 46 For example, Obadiah presents the Edomites as the descendants of Esau (vv. 6, 9, 18) and brothers of Judah (vv. 10, 12, 15). Obadiah 18 contrasts the descendants of Esau with the descendants of Jacob. The same thing happens in Amos 1:11. This dual function of Edom as enemy and brother might be the reason why it is chosen as a symbol of the nations in general and of the unrepentant in Israel. 47 Unique among the nations, Edom is both brother and enemy at the same time, just as the unfaithful Israelites are! Esau and Jacob were both Abraham’s descendants, but only Jacob stood in the line of promise. So, Edom can serve as a symbol of divisions within Israel’s community. 48 Ulrich Berges proposes that Edom’s collapse functioned as a warning for Israel. As God returns from Edom after her judgment, so those “from Israel who block the advent of salvation by their anti-social and syncretistic behavior” 49 are also now to be judged. 42 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 249. Edom is also the starting point of Yahweh’s war in Judg 5:4, Hab 3:3, and Deut 33:2. 43 Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 383. 44 Cf. Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 518. 45 Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 382. 46 See the discussion in Bert Dicou, Edom, Israel’s Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story, LHBOTS (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994). 47 Childs, Isaiah, 518. 48 Ibid., 518–19. Other scholars have proposed alternative explanations for this focus on Edom’s status as Israel’s brother. Elie Assis proposes that because of the story of Jacob and Esau, in the Israelite conscience Edom is a rival to her claim to election. When that election was put in doubt during the exilic era, it was only natural for prophets like Second Isaiah, who wanted to reassure Israel of her election, to focus on their hatred of this particular nation (“Why Edom? On the Hostility towards Jacob’s Brother in Prophetic Sources,” VT 56 [2006]:1–20). Ehud Ben Zvi likewise considers this motif a way for Israel to stress her unique election, but he also thinks it is way to express anger over Edom’s unbrotherly mistreatment of Israel (A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Obadiah [Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999], 230–46). 49 Berges, The Book of Isaiah, 399.

Israel as âχθροÈ and ‚γαπητοÈ in Romans 11:28

159

Isaiah 61 The same principle applies to Isa 61:1–3, a scene that includes both the nations (see vv. 4–7, 11) 50 and the wicked of Israel. The passage mentions the poor, captives, and persons who are bound, thus revealing injustice and social inequalities in Israel’s society. 51 The oracles are directed at those who “mourn,” who in 57:18–20 are contrasted with the “wicked.” Within these oracles the dividing line between the nations surrounding Israel and the wicked of Israel becomes blurred. So, once again, Yahweh’s war is against the wicked in Israel, and once again this war has the dual function of purification and catharsis.

Isaiah 27:9 in Context Isaiah 27:9 belongs to a section that stretches from ch. 24 to ch. 27. This part of the book has sparked much discussion and disagreement. Since Bernhard Duhm’s work in 1892, 52 these four chapters have often been regarded as a selfcontained entity. The presence of themes such as the resurrection of the dead (26:14, 17) and a general eschatological concern have led many commentators to compare it to books like Daniel, even giving it the name “The Revelation of Isaiah,” 53 although this denotation has now been challenged by many. 54 I begin with 26:20–27:1. 55 First, 26:21 describes Yahweh’s “exodus.” The verb “going out” (‌‫ )יצא‬occurs frequently in relation to the onset of war. 56 Israel believes Yahweh “goes out” to battle at their side. This conviction is evident through the frequent complaint in Psalms, “But you have rejected us and disgraced us and have not gone out with our armies” (Pss 44:9 [10 MT], 60:12, 108:12; emphasis added). God goes out from where he is to wage war against his enemies, and his appearance shakes and lays bare the whole cosmos. While things are being “laid bare,” Yahweh’s people are warned to hide until God’s anger has passed them by. Next, 27:1 describes the day of Yahweh’s “going out for battle” announced in 26:21.

50

For further arguments see Peels, Vengeance of God, 168. Ibid. Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1922). 53 See William R. Millar, Isaiah 24–27 and the Origin of Apocalyptic, HSM 11 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976), 1–22, 54–63, 69–102, 104–108, 119–121. 54 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 346. 55 For the relationship between 27:1 and 26:21, see Edward Kissane, 1–39, vol. 1 of The Book of Isaiah, rev. ed. (Dublin: Browne and Nolan, 1960), 284; and Millar, Isaiah 24–27 and the Origin of Apocalyptic, 54–55. 56 See Judg 20:14, 20, 21. 51 52

160

Panagiotis Kantartzis

Once again I return to the key question that concerns us in this whole discussion: Who is God’s enemy? There is mythological 57 language in 27:1 that is difficult to decipher. In the passage’s history of interpretation there have been numerous attempts to unlock the mystery by identifying various elements with particular historical entities. 58 Yet many scholars believe the existence of so many different proposals in itself indicates that the prophet is not referring to one nation but to the nations collectively, or even to evil “in all its ontological dimensions.” 59 In 27:4 the focus of God’s war shifts to the “thorns and briars.” This verse is part of the new song for God’s vineyard (Isa 27:2–5) that contrasts with the first vineyard song in Isa 5:1–7. Who are these “thorns and briars”? Some have suggested that the “thorns and briars” are foreign invaders. 60 But I find that the metaphor better fits with a description of the “internal process or decay and degeneration, thus the sin or rebellion of Israel or Judah against Yahweh.” 61 There are two reasons for this conclusion. One is the fact that in Isaiah 5 the threat of punishment by “thorns and briars” is followed by a series of “woes” related to injustice and disintegration within the community. A second reason is that the very image of “thorns and briars” does not refer to something that comes from the outside but to something that grows, unnaturally in this case, from the inside. Thus, this second song of the vineyard promises that God will fight against the “thorns and briars” in his vineyard, thereby regenerating and restoring it. This “pruning” is described in v. 7 as a “striking down” performed by God. It is explained that this does not entail total or absolute devastation. It is by judging that he contends (v. 8). So, it is “by this” that God will purge Jacob’s iniquity and remove his sin. Therefore, this is another occasion of Yahweh’s purging and purifying war against Israel. Israel is judged and atoned for, smitten and purged.

57 Neil Forsyth, The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989), 448–51; John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 177. On the other hand, see John N. Oswalt, “Recent Studies in Old Testament Eschatology and Apocalyptic,” JETS 24.4 (December 1981): 289–301, especially 297. 58 Rebecca S. Watson, Chaos Uncreated: A Reassessment of the Theme of “Chaos” in the Hebrew Bible, BZAW 341 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005), 329; and Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea,143. 59 Childs, Isaiah, 196. 60 For instance, Assyrian oppressors (John Hayes and Stuart Irvine, Isaiah, the Eighth-Century Prophet: His Times and His Preaching [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1987], 316) or the Samaritan army (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 374). 61 John T. Willis, “Yahweh Regenerates His Vineyard: Isaiah 27,” in Formation and Intertextuality in Isaiah 24–27, ed. J. Todd Hibbard and Hyun Chul Paul Kim, AIL 17 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013), 205. Willis eventually leaves the matter open and accepts the possibility of both foreign enemies and /or Israelite opponents.

Israel as âχθροÈ and ‚γαπητοÈ in Romans 11:28

161

An important question is whether the idea of a remnant is present. The passage seems to speak generally about “Jacob” as the object of God’s forgiving and saving activity. However, the metaphor of thorns and briars already points to a division within the community. God fights against the thorns and briars, namely the wicked unrepentant in Israel, and “on that account” forgives and redeems Israel. Of ever greater interest, however, is God’s relationship with Israel in 26:20–21 and its connections with the story of Noah and the flood. 62 According to Hibbard, “The Noah text offers a portrait of God’s salvation which is redeployed here in the hope of God’s intervention in this eschatological moment in the life of the community.” 63 If this connection is valid, then this text essentially offers a portrayal of God redeeming a faithful remnant through judgment. Thus, once again another passage describes Yahweh’s war as an act of purification through which God refines a remnant.

Isaiah 2:3 in Context Paul departs from the Hebrew text of Isaiah 59 in Rom 11:26, where he uses the preposition âκ (“from”) Zion instead of “for the sake of Zion.” It has been suggested that Paul’s citation resonates with several texts that depict God’s deliverance as coming “from Zion.” J. Ross Wagner states correctly that Isa 2:3–4 is a striking example of such a passage, 64 so I will examine it as part of the broad Isaianic background of Paul’s quotation. Most commentators agree that Isa 2:1–4:6 forms a distinct unit within the book. 65 Others prefer to relate 2:1–4 to chapter one. 66 While viewing 2:1–4 in relation to ch. 1 is not unreasonable, the relationship with what follows has greater significance, especially the connection with 4:1–6. Isaiah 2:2–4 and 4:1–6 should be viewed as bookends to the section’s judgment sayings. 67 H. G. M. Williamson even argues that 4:2–6 was written to be a climactic conclusion to this whole section. 68 Thus, 2:2–4 states God’s intention for Zion to be

62 Seitz, Isaiah 1–39, 196; Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 572; Childs, Isaiah, 192; and J. Todd Hibbard, Intertextuality in Isaiah 24–27: The Reuse and Evocation of Earlier Texts and Traditions, FAT 2.16 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 161–62. 63 Hibbard, Intertextuality in Isaiah 24–27, 162. 64 Craig A. Evans has suggested that Num 24:17 provides the backdrop for Paul’s use of âκ in “Paul and the Prophets: Prophetic Criticism in the Epistle to the Romans (with special reference to Romans 9–11),” in Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999),115–28. 65 Seitz, Isaiah 1–39, 38; H. G. M. Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 305. 66 See, for example, Berges, The Book of Isaiah, 46. 67 J. Magonet, “Isaiah 2:1–4:6: Some Poetic Structures and Tactics,” ACEBT 3 (1982): 71–85. 68 Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 305.

162

Panagiotis Kantartzis

the focal point of peace and blessing for the nations. In the following passages, however, Zion is not in a position to do this. For this reason she will be judged, but despite the judgment a faithful remnant will survive and in this way the vision of 2:2–4 will still be fulfilled. 69 So 2:3 is part of a larger narrative in which God redeems Zion through judgment by purifying a remnant. Thus, the question that sets the narrative plot in motion is how the oracle presented in 2:1–4 will be fulfilled when there is sin in Israel. The answer is given in 4:1–6. They will be rescued through judgment, 70 and a faithful remnant will be purified. 71 As Gerhard Hasel observes, what is true of the remnant is also true of Isaiah, for “Isaiah’s own experience of cleansing demonstrates that judgment and salvation are the two sides of Yahweh’s action.” 72 The idea of judgment and salvation is correlated here with the notion of the remnant.

Isaiah 37:32 I now turn briefly to a passage that has no clear relation to Paul’s quotation in Rom 11:26–27 but contributes to the book of Isaiah’s broad understanding of Yahweh’s war against Israel. Gerhard Hasel offers the most thorough analysis of this passage in his important work concerning the concept of “remnant” in Genesis and Isaiah. There he makes the distinction between two types of remnant. In Isa 37:31 he finds the historical type, which refers to the “escaped survivors of the house of Judah in Zion /Jerusalem.” 73 Then, in v. 32 he finds the eschatological type, which is identical to that of Isa 1:21–26 and 4:2–3. He comments, “It is not at all contradictory for Isaiah to prophesy the ruin of Judah and at the same time to speak of the future remnant which will go forth from Zion / Jerusalem.” 74 I believe it is probably incorrect to discuss two kinds of remnant in this short passage. Hasel argues that the first is the “sign” that guarantees the second. 75 However, v. 30 already mentions a sign and it seems improbable that God gives a second one. I believe that it is more appropriate and probable that v. 32 looks beyond its original fulfilment (in v. 30) to the future. Here there occurs again the paradox of talking at the same time about ruin and restoration. Once again, the concept of the remnant holds the paradox together.

69

Ibid. Williamson suggests that v. 2 refers to those who have escaped military defeat, something that can be related to 3:25, which depicts God’s judgment in military terms (ibid., 310). 71 Gerhard F. Hasel, The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah, Andrews University Monographs 5 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1972), 261–62. 72 Ibid., 262. 73 Ibid., 338. 74 Ibid. 75 Ibid. 70

Israel as âχθροÈ and ‚γαπητοÈ in Romans 11:28

163

Isaiah 29 as Context I include this passage because like Isa 37:32 it belongs to the nexus of Isaiah’s understanding and presentation of the Divine Warrior motif. More particularly, it includes the dialectic of Israel being both the subject of Yahweh’s war-judgment and the beneficiary of his redemption. Chapter 28 concludes with a reference to Yahweh’s wonderful plan (‌‫)הָצֵע‬. The plan was revealed in v. 21, which reads, “For the Lord will rise up as on Mount Perazim; as in the Valley of Gibeon he will be roused; to do his deed – strange is his deed! and to work his work – alien is his work!” The plan, as it is explained in ch. 29, is that Yahweh will again fight for Israel as he did for David against the Philistines in Perazim and for Joshua in Gibeon. This time, however, his war will be strange and alien because he will turn against his own people. Then 29:3 states, “And I will encamp against you all around, and will besiege you with towers and I will raise siege works against you.” As David “encamped” around the city in the past (v. 1), so now God will “encamp” to besiege Jerusalem (v. 3). He will use the Assyrians as his instrument. The result will be the humiliation of Jerusalem. Suddenly, however, things change (v. 5). Yahweh, the Divine Warrior turns and fights against the Assyrians. Many scholars believe this dramatic change is a result of later editorial activity, so some propose the existence of various layers in the passage. R. E. Clements provides a classic example of this type of exegesis. He suggests that only vv. 1–4 come from Isaiah, arguing that vv. 5–7 were added in the context of a proposed Josianic edition. This edition is marked by the doctrine of the “inviolability of Jerusalem,” which, according to Clements’s analysis, was developed and propagated after Jerusalem’s miraculous deliverance in 701 BC. 76 Finally, v. 8 is in prose and appears to have been added later still. 77 What generates this type of exegesis is the difficulty of coming to terms with the fact that this passage speaks at the same time about God’s judgment on Jerusalem by the Assyrians and God’s deliverance of Jerusalem by his judgment on the Assyrians. For Clements the best explanation is that a redactor during Josiah’s time edited and developed the original message of Isaiah to fit his contemporary situation. 78 A similar suggestion builds on the ambiguity of v. 6. Is God’s visitation to Jerusalem for punishment or for salvation? Childs suggests that v. 6 was originally part of a message against Jerusalem. Then v. 5 was inserted by a redactor to

76 John H. Hayes, “The Tradition of Zion’s Inviolability,” JBL 82 (1963): 419–26. See also R. E. Clements, Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem: A Study of the Interpretation of Prophecy in the Old Testament, JSOTSup 13 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980); and J. J. M. Roberts, “The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition,” JBL 92 (1973): 329–44. 77 Clements argues that 29:5–8 “broadens” and “corrects” the orientation of 29:1–4 (Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem, 46–47). 78 Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 235.

164

Panagiotis Kantartzis

transform the threat into a promise. 79 Of course that leaves unanswered why the proposed redactor wanted to make such a change. On the other hand, I believe that J. Cheryl Exum is correct when she argues that the language of this passage is characterized by ambiguity that “creates suspense and effects the transition to stanza 3, where their meaning is resolved.” 80 Read synchronically, 81 vv. 5–8 and particularly v. 7 are connected to vv. 1–4, for they explain the way Yahweh will fight against Jerusalem (v. 2). He will use various nations to fight against her. In vv. 1–4 readers easily recognize the reference to Assyria, even though the great foreign enemy is not named. However, in vv. 5–8 the perspective broadens, since the text refers not to a single nation but to a multitude of nations that fight against Jerusalem and are finally judged by Yahweh. The result of this broadening is that the reference moves away from historical realism to realities that are vague and ambiguous. Reading the passage as a unity yields the paradox of the theology of Yahweh’s presentation as Divine Warrior in the book of Isaiah. God is at the same time against and for his people. It is important to note the terms used in 29:5c. God’s action will come “suddenly, in an instant.” The second phrase (“in an instant”) occurs often in relation to God’s unexpected and surprising judgment of his people (Isa 48:3; cf. also Jer 4:20, 6:26, 15:8; Mal 3:1) and the nations (Isa 47:11; cf. also Jer 18:22, 51:8; Ps 64:5, 8). Particularly in Isa 47:11 this word has the sense of something that is incomprehensible. It seems the prophet himself marvels and wonders at the change in v. 5. If the unit ends in 29:14, then note the emphasis on the “wondrous” nature of Yahweh’s actions. The prophet apparently wants to highlight and uphold the passage’s tension, not explain it.

Conclusion My primary goal has been to propose the narrative and conceptual world of the Isaianic theology of Yahweh as Divine Warrior as a possible backdrop for the reference to Israel as both âχθροÈ and ‚γαπητοÈ in Rom 11:28. That proposal, first of all, helps explain the term âχθροÈ in a metaphorical, not literal, sense. It is a way of referring to God’s judgment on iniquity and unbelief wherever these emerge, even in Israel.

79

Βrevard S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis, SBT 2.3 (London: SCM, 1967), 57. J. Cheryl Exum, “Of Broken Pots, Fluttering Birds and Visions in the Night: Extended Simile and Poetic Techniques in Isaiah,” CBQ 43 (1981): 344. 81 This is not an arbitrary conclusion, for the passage’s unity can be argued and sustained. See Willem Beuken, Isaiah 28–39, vol. 2 of Isaiah II, HCOT (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 87–88. 80

Israel as âχθροÈ and ‚γαπητοÈ in Romans 11:28

165

It also maintains and even makes sense of the dialectic of judgment and salvation, of woe and weal that exists side by side in Rom 11:28, how Israel can be at the same time âχθροÈ and ‚γαπητοÈ of God. According to the Isaianic understanding of the Divine Warrior theme, God punishes and redeems Israel at the same time by purifying a remnant. Hasel summarizes well this Isaianic perspective when he comments: Isaiah’s remnant motif is a part of his proclamation of judgment and salvation and thus is a key element of his theology. Depending on the historical situation and his particular emphasis Isaiah uses the remnant motif in a negative sense as a threat of dire judgment or employs it in a positive sense to exhort, to summon to repentance, and to instill hope. The bipolarity comes to expression when one group is threatened and another group is encouraged to trust in God. This bipolarity is present from the outset of his prophetic work and it is preserved throughout his long ministry. This is to say that there is no time in his work where the remnant motif was used only in a positive or only in a negative sense. 82

Brueggemann refers to this “bipolarity” of the notion of the “remnant” when he writes that “in it we may see a threat, only a remnant but we also see a promise – there will be a surviving community.” 83 There is, however, one more implication. The background of the Isaianic theology of Yahweh’s war may offer a suggestion to the tangled issues concerning the meaning of Rom 11:24–26. It is interesting to note that after his analysis of the “Isaianic saga,” and its bearing on Paul’s treatment of it in Romans 11, Wagner concludes that “[a]stonishingly, however, only an elect remnant of Israel have responded to the good news that God has acted to redeem his people.” 84 According to my analysis, there is nothing astonishing about that. On the contrary, the Isaianic theology should lead one to expect that God’s judgment does not annul his promise. Rather, it fulfils it through the emergence of a remnant. God, committed to his covenant, judges disobedient Israel, thereby purifying a remnant of ethnic Jews who believe in the Gospel and οÕτως πς >Ισρα˜λ σωθήσεται. 85

82

Hasel, Remnant, 400–01. Walter Brueggemann, Isaiah 1–39 (Louisville, KY: Westminster, 1998), 298–99. 84 Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, 292. 85 The idea that “all Israel” refers to the totality of the remnant of ethnic Israelites is also argued by the following authors: G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 710; O. Palmer Robertson, “Is There a Distinctive Future for Ethnic Israel in Romans 11?,” in Perspectives on Evangelical Theology: Papers from the Thirtieth Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, ed. Kenneth S. Kantzer and Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1979), 209–27, Ben L. Merkle, “Romans 11 and the Future of Ethnic Israel,” JETS 43 (2000): 709–21; and Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 139–47. For a more reluctant view, see Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 448–51. 83

Identifying Intertextual Exegesis in Paul Methodological Considerations and a Test Case (1 Corinthians 6:5) Joel White

Recent years have seen an explosion of interest in the phenomenon of intertextuality in the New Testament, especially with regard to Paul. 1 Initial methodological reflection among New Testament exegetes focused primarily on determining the presence and function of Old Testament quotations in New Testament texts. It has, however, become increasingly clear that intertextual approaches must also enable scholars to determine the presence and function of less transparent interactions between texts and the “pre-texts” 2 that may be embedded in them. This article represents my modest attempt to make a methodological contribution to this important endeavor, particularly with reference to the task of uncovering traces of Paul’s exegesis of Old Testament texts that lie behind his theology and ethics as we encounter them in New Testament texts. 3

1 The following are among the many works in the last thirty years that make or contain important methodological contributions to the topic of intertextuality with particular reference to Paul: Dietrich-Alex Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus, BHT 69 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986); Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989); Hans Hübner, “Intertextualität: die hermeneutische Strategie des Paulus,” TLZ 116 (1991): 881–98; Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, eds., Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, JSNTSup 83 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993); Timothy W. Berkley, From a Broken Covenant to Circumcision of the Heart: Pauline Intertextual Exegesis in Romans 2:17–29, SBLDS 175 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000); Christopher D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York: T&T Clark, 2004); Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, eds., As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 50 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008); Steve Moyise, Paul and Scripture: Studying the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2010); and Christopher D. Stanley, ed., Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation, Early Christianity and Its Literature 9 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012). 2 The discipline continues to labor under a lack of agreed-upon terminology. I follow Annette Merz, Die fiktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus: intertextuelle Studien zur Intention und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe, NTOA / SUNT 54 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht /Fribourg: Academic Press, 2004), 5–6, who recommends the term “pre-text” for the text being alluded to in the New Testament text. 3 Scott Hafemann deserves much of the credit for inspiring my hunger to work with both Testaments of the Christian Bible. It was his exegesis course on 1 Corinthians that made me aware of the rich intertextual allusions that Paul’s epistles contain. I first presented my thesis on 1 Cor 6:5 at the 56th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Washington, D. C., on November 16, 2006. I am now grateful that I delayed it in favor of other projects (I never dreamed a decade would

168

Joel White

Methodological Considerations Those Elusive Allusions In the English-speaking world Richard Hays deserves much of the credit for making New Testament scholars aware of the need for a more sophisticated approach to intertextuality. In his 1989 monograph Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, Hays applies the concept of “metalepsis” 4 or “echo,” as developed by the American literary critic John Hollander in The Figure of Echo, 5 to Pauline texts. It was Hollander who initially differentiated between allusions and echoes. He did so on the basis of authorial intent. Allusions are intended by the author; echoes may or may not be. As far as Hollander is concerned, whether the author or the reader is aware of a connection to a pre-text is of no great consequence. 6 Hollander’s literary critical interests lie wholly in the capacity of echoes to generate new figures of speech by means of the interplay among various texts and in the way these new figures shape the imaginations of authors and readers. 7 It is not surprising, then, that Hays’s description of “echo,” drawing heavily as it does on Hollander’s work, shares its opacity: “The concept of allusion depends both on the notion of authorial intent and on the assumption that the reader will ... recognize the source of the allusion, the notion of echo, however, finesses such questions. ...” 8 For Hays, Quotation, allusion and echo may be seen as points along a spectrum of intertextual reference, moving from the explicit to the subliminal. As we move farther away from overt citation, the source recedes into the discursive distance, the intertextual relations become less determinate, and the demand placed on the reader grows greater. As we near the vanishing point of the echo, it inevitably becomes difficult to decide whether we are really hearing an echo at all, or whether we are only conjuring up things out of the murmurings of our own imaginations. 9

Hays, it seems, is reluctant to discuss the question of authorial intent when dealing with the phenomenon of echoes. This poses a problem when it comes to

pass before I would return to it!) so that I can now dedicate this updated version to my esteemed teacher, mentor, and friend. 4 Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 20, defines metalepsis as “a diachronic trope ... [by which] a literary echo links the text in which it occurs to an earlier text, [and] the figurative effect of the echo can lie in the unstated or suppressed (transumed) points of resonance between the two texts.” 5 John Hollander, The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981). 6 Cf. Hollander, Figure of Echo, 64. 7 Ibid., ix. 8 Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 29 (emphasis added). 9 Ibid., 29 (emphasis added).

Identifying Intertextual Exegesis in Paul

169

assessing Hays’s imaginative, often-provocative interpretations of specific passages in Paul, for it is not always apparent whether Hays views his echoes as allusions to pre-texts that are intended by the author or simply as associations that arise in the minds of the readers. 10 Clearly, some definitions are needed at the outset. I propose the following: 11 Quotation: a conscious and more or less verbatim citation of an earlier text by the author of a later text; Allusion: a verbal or thematic connection to an earlier text that is intended by the author of a later text; and Echo: a verbal or thematic connection to an earlier text that cannot be shown to be intended by the author of a later text.

The Methodological Challenge When seeking to identify the presence of allusions to Old Testament texts in New Testament texts modern interpreters need to be aware of two equal and opposite dangers. On the one hand, they need to avoid the tendency to wrench allusions from texts where none exist. Dale Allison refers to the phenomenon as “auditory hallucinations.” 12 It is precisely because of this danger that one should distinguish between echoes and allusions, for it is quite possible that in any given New Testament text there are coincidental terminological connections to Old Testament texts that are not intended by the author. “Parallelomania” is the term Samuel Sandmel used to describe this problem. 13 On the other hand, interpreters of the New Testament need to make sure that exaggerated methodological caution does not cause them to neglect allusions that are in fact intended by the author. Allison warns lucidly of this danger: It is useless to complain about improbable literary complexity or subtly encoded messages. Why expect an ancient Jew to have floated everything with meaning to the surface of his text, so that its contexts should be as visible to us, bad readers with poor memories, as to those who shared his small literary canon and memorization skills? We, who are temporally estranged from the biblical writers, must not confuse our eyes and ears with the eyes and ears of those who first read, let us say, Isaiah or Matthew. If there is always the danger ... of overinterpreting texts, we must equally beware of underinterpreting texts. Much of what was once unconcealed has become, with time’s passage, hidden. 14

10 Cf. Alec J. Lucas, “Assessing Stanley E. Porter’s Objections to Richard B. Hays’ Notion of Metalepsis,” CBQ 76 (2014): 110–11, for a similar critique. 11 The definitions are loosely adapted from Detlef Häußer, Christusbekenntnis und Jesusüberlieferung bei Paulus, WUNT 2.110 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 53–54. 12 Dale C. Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 18. 13 Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962): 1–13. 14 Allison, The New Moses, 92–93.

170

Joel White

Allison’s remarks illuminate a problem plaguing all modern attempts to interpret ancient texts. Allusions presuppose that the author and the intended readers of a text share a literary canon. In the case of New Testament texts this consists primarily of the Old Testament. Because the initial readers share the New Testament authors’ literary canon, they have an interpretive advantage over modern readers who simply are not as familiar with that canon. Even New Testament scholars may overlook allusions to the Old Testament in New Testament texts that would have been readily transparent to the first readers.

The Use of Criteria Richard Hays Exegetes who hope to isolate Old Testament pre-texts in New Testament texts thus face distinct methodological challenges that go well beyond those that arise when working with clear quotations. Thankfully, even though his description of echoes and allusions remains ambiguous, Hays sought to address this problem by developing seven criteria for identifying intentional allusions to the Old Testament in Paul. 15 These criteria can be formulated as succinct questions as follows: 1. Availability: Was the source of the presumed allusion accessible to the author? 2. Volume: What is the level of terminological or syntactical agreement between the presumed Old Testament pre-text and the New Testament text? 3. Recurrence: Does the author allude to the same Old Testament pre-text elsewhere in his writings? 4. Thematic coherence: How well does the presumed allusion fit in the author’s argument? 5. Historical plausibility: Could the author have expected his audience to understand the allusion? 6. History of interpretation: Have other readers past or present recognized the same allusion? 7. Satisfaction: Does the presumed allusion make sense; that is, does it illuminate the New Testament author’s discourse and adequately explain the intertextual dynamics of the New Testament text? Hays’s criteria have gained a measure of acceptance and are often applied to exegetical discussions of individual texts, but the method is not without his detractors. Stanley Porter, for instance, dispenses with the idea in a rather cursory

15

Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 29–32.

Identifying Intertextual Exegesis in Paul

171

manner. 16 He dismisses Hays’s first criterion of availability as “clearly inadequate,” because Hays did not define it clearly enough. 17 Volume is rejected because it defines one metaphor by means of another. 18 Porter’s critique of recurrence is based on the fact that it is of no use in identifying a singular echo. 19 Porter discards Hays’s final four criteria by noting that Hays readily admits that they are more subjective than the first three. 20 Christoph Heilig has offered more substantial criticism of Hays’s criteria. 21 Heilig first draws attention to the fact that “usually a much weaker concept of ‘criterion’ is used in biblical studies compared to philosophical discourse” and in the former denotes something more akin to “symptom” or “mark,” rather than “necessary consequence.” 22 Hays, of course, is well aware that he is not using the term in a carefully proscribed scientific sense, but not everyone who has subsequently appropriated his criteria has applied them with the same level of hermeneutical sophistication. Also of import is Heilig’s contention that Hays’s seven criteria can be reduced to the two elements that constitute Bayes’s theorem for establishing the veracity of historical inferences. 23 The first is background plausibility, which may be defined as the probability that a hypothesis is correct apart from the new evidence to be considered. The second is explanatory potential, which denotes the ability of a hypothesis to account satisfactorily for the new evidence and do so better than other hypotheses. 24 Heilig assigns Hays’s first and third through sixth criteria to the category of background plausibility and Hays’s second and seventh criteria to the category of explanatory

16 Cf. Stanley E. Porter, “Allusions and Echoes,” in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 50 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 38–39. For a discussion of Porter, see Lucas, “Assessing Stanley E. Porter’s Objections to Richard B. Hays’ Notion of Metalepsis,” 110–11. 17 It is true that Hays could have been more precise in his description of this criterion, which muddles the question of whether “the proposed source of an echo [was] available to the author and / or the original readers” (cf. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 29, with Porter, “Allusions and Echoes,” 38). Hays clearly has particularly the author in view here, and he would have done well to leave it at that, since the question of whether the allusion is accessible to the audience comes into focus in Hays’s fifth criterion. Still, it is clear enough, at least in my estimation, what Hays has in mind. 18 Cf. Porter, “Allusions and Echoes,” 38. Mixing metaphors is seldom wise, but it seems to me that “volume” is merely the extension of the “echo” metaphor rather than a completely new one. Further, it is not clear to me why it is necessary to avoid metaphorical language in labels, providing one defines it, as Hays quite adequately does in this case. 19 Ibid. This would only be problematic, however, if Hays considered it a criterion that must necessarily be fulfilled in order to confirm the presence of an echo, which he does not. 20 Ibid., 38–39. 21 Christoph Heilig, Hidden Criticism? The Methodology and Plausibility of the Search for a Counter-Imperial Subtext in Paul, WUNT 2.392 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 35–36, 40–43. 22 Ibid., 25. 23 On which see ibid., 27–35. 24 Ibid., 28–30.

172

Joel White

potential. 25 He argues cogently that simplistic application of Hays’s criteria can lead “the uncritical interpreter to overemphasize certain factors since ... [they] are only sub-factors of other criteria.” 26 Heilig’s helpful discussion reminds biblical scholars not to neglect the philosophical hermeneutical dimensions of this topic. I will incorporate Heilig’s simple bifurcation in my methodology below. Timothy Berkley One problematic facet of Hays’s approach that has received insufficient attention is that the concept of allusion as he uses it is actually quite variegated. It encompasses everything from a passing nod to an Old Testament event that serves purely illustrative purposes (cf. e. g. 2 Cor 11:3) to complex interaction with Old Testament texts and traditions that precede the actual composition of New Testament texts and influence them to a substantial extent. Timothy Berkley describes the latter, which is the focus here, as “intertextual exegesis,” and he is to be commended for moving the discussion forward at this crucial point. Berkley is interested in uncovering “intentional interpretation [of Old Testament texts by New Testament authors] done to explain the meaning of scripture for application to a contemporary situation.” 27 Concentrating on Pauline texts, he has attempted to develop a methodology that facilitates the identification and illumination of the Apostle’s interpretive interactions with Old Testament texts that inform his allusions to those texts. 28 This is a manifestly difficult undertaking, since the Apostle’s intertextual exegesis is generally not contained in any single passage. Rather, it precedes the writing of a text 29 in much the same way that a modern exegete’s lengthy grappling with a text precedes his exposition of its significance. Berkley is aware that his enterprise demands methodological scrutiny, and he has also developed seven criteria, 30 listed below: 1. Common vocabulary: This is virtually identical with Hays’s criterion of volume. 2. Vocabulary clusters: This criterion differs from that of common vocabulary in terms of the quantity of vocabulary correspondences. Berkley has in mind New Testament texts that display not merely a connection to an individual verse in the Old Testament, but also to larger Old Testament contexts or themes. The greater the level of vocabulary correspondence between Old 25 26 27 28 29 30

Ibid., 41–42. Ibid., 42. Berkley, From a Broken Covenant to Circumcision of the Heart, 11. Ibid., 17–66. Ibid., 58. Ibid., 60–64.

Identifying Intertextual Exegesis in Paul

173

Testament and New Testament contexts, the greater the probability of intertextual exegesis, or as Berkley puts it, “The likelihood that an Old Testament passage serves as a Pauline exegetical reference is heightened when several significant vocabulary correspondences can be drawn between the Pauline text and an Old Testament context.” 31 3. Links with other texts: This criterion seeks to determine whether connections to more than one Old Testament text can be established, since it is “characteristic of Pauline exegesis to link texts together by use of hook-words in the formation of a complex of mutually interpreting texts.” 32 Here Berkley has in mind the well-known early Jewish and rabbinic hermeneutical technique of gezerah-shavah. A number of authors have demonstrated that this technique was known to and used by New Testament authors. 33 Therefore, if it can be shown that a New Testament text is linked by terminological or thematic correspondences to more than one Old Testament text, this serves to strengthen the probability that intertextual exegesis has played a role in its composition. 4. Explication: This criterion combines Hays’s thematic coherence and satisfaction and seeks to determine whether a presumed allusion fits well in its New Testament context and illuminates Paul’s argument better than other interpretive options. 5. Recurrence: Berkley appropriates this criterion of Hays’s without revision. 6. Common themes: This criterion complements Berkley’s third criterion (links with other texts), which seeks to illuminate connections between various Old Testament texts. This one looks for connections to other Pauline texts. If it can be shown that Paul discusses the same Old Testament theme in other passages and this can be substantiated by common vocabulary, then the probability of an allusion to the Old Testament is increased. 7. Common linear development: If it is possible to show that a Pauline text containing a presumed allusion to a particular Old Testament text displays a similar thematic development to that Old Testament text, especially if this can be demonstrated by the use of common vocabulary, then this would strengthen the presumption that an allusion was intended. In spite of their differing emphases, Hays’s and Berkley’s criteria have much in common. Both authors emphasize common vocabulary, repetition, coherence, 31

Ibid., 61. Ibid., 22. 33 Cf. Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 2nd ed. (Carlisle, PA: Paternoster, 1995), 34, 115–117; and Carol K. Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil and the Glory of the New Covenant: The Exegetical Substructure of II Cor 3,1–4,6, AnBib 116 (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1989), 26–27. For thorough discussions of gezera schavah-exegesis in rabbinic literature see David Instone-Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis Before 70 CE, TSAJ 30 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1992), 18; and Günther Stemberger, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch, 8th ed. (München: C. H. Beck, 1992), 28–29. 32

174

Joel White

and the ability of the postulated allusion to make sense of the New Testament context as important indicators of the presence of an allusion. The differences between them are in part due to their varying emphases. As was noted above, Hays’s criteria are designed to facilitate the identification of all manner of allusions, from the briefest evocation of an individual verse to oblique references to major themes of the Old Testament. Berkley, on the other hand, is particularly interested in identifying traces of Old Testament exegesis in Paul. Depending on the type of intertextual reference in a given text, one list may be more beneficial than the other, but both represent solid attempts to clarify a sometimes nebulous task. My Earlier Attempt at Formulating Criteria My own interest in allusions to the Old Testament in Paul and particularly in the possibility of reconstructing Paul’s exegesis of Old Testament texts led me to propose the following criteria, which represented my attempt to distill from Hays’s and Berkley’s lists those that may be deemed of primary importance for identifying Old Testament allusions in New Testament texts: 34 1. Level of agreement analyzes terminological, syntactical, and thematic agreement between Old Testament and New Testament texts. The higher the level of agreement, the more likely that an allusion is present. 2. Old Testament intertextual links recognizes the widespread use of the exegetical method known as gezerah-shavah in early Judaism and seeks to determine the presence of thematic or terminological connections to more than one Old Testament text that may have influenced the manner in which the allusion is applied in its New Testament context. If these can be shown to be present, then one can be fairly confident the author intends a complex allusion to several texts sharing a common theme. 3. Coherence analyzes the specific contribution of the proposed allusion to the author’s immediate argument or flow of thought in its New Testament context. If the argument becomes clearer or the flow of thought smoother by means of illumination of the allusion, then the probability that an allusion is present increases. 4. Explicatory potential examines whether the proposed allusion contributes to a better understanding of the larger context, whether neighboring pericopes, larger sections of texts, or even whole books. The likelihood that an allusion is present increases to the extent that this may be shown to be the case.

34 Joel White, Die Erstlingsgabe im Neuen Testament, Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 45 (Tübingen: Francke, 2007), 11–12.

175

Identifying Intertextual Exegesis in Paul

An Attempt at Synthesis Further reflection on the matter has led me to the conclusion that my earlier list is not quite adequate, and I now propose a synthesis of the insights gleaned from all three methodological contributions. This can be represented graphically as follows: Table 1: Establishing a Synthesized Criteria from Hays, Berkley, and White Hays’s Criteria

Berkley’s Criteria

White’s Criteria

Synthesis

1. Common Vocabulary 2. Vocabulary Clusters

1. Level of Agreement

1. Level of Semiotic Agreement

3. Links with Other Texts 6. Common Themes

2. Old Testament Intertextual Links

2. Evidence of Gezerah-shavah

1. Availability 2. Volume

3. Recurrence

5. Recurrence

4. Thematic Coherence 7. Satisfaction

4. Explication

3. Recurrence in Paul 3. Coherence

4. Lucidity

4. Explicatory Potential

5. Illuminatory Potency

5. Historical Plausibility 6. History of Interpretation 7. Common Linear Development

6. Common Trajectory

A comparison of the first three columns reveals many commonalities and several differences between the lists. Most saliently, both Berkley and I dispense with three of Hays’s criteria. To my mind, none of them is particularly useful, except in the most banal cases, for assessing the probability that an Old Testament pretext is present in a New Testament text. 1. The criterion of availability, in the sense that Hays uses it, can be assumed to be a priori satisfied when we are dealing with allusions to the Old Testament in Paul. The Pauline corpus makes clear that he was very familiar with the

176

Joel White

scriptures contained in the LXX 35 and, in all likelihood, the Hebrew Vorlagen (where these existed) as well. 36 It therefore seems unnecessary, at least to me, to make the effort to prove this on a case-by-case basis. 2. The criterion of history of interpretation seems to me to be of less importance on a purely pragmatic level. It is, of course, useful to know if other exegetes concur with one’s own identification of an Old Testament allusion in Paul, but consensus is not what moves the scholarly discussion forward. That happens, rather, when someone proposes a new reading of a text, which often involves positing an allusion to a pre-text that no one previously has seen or at least bothered to document. Applied with rigor, Hays’s criterion calls into question any such reading a priori, and while methodological skepticism is a healthy part of the reception of new ideas in any discipline, it certainly should not be used to rule out new insights due to a theoretical deduction rather than on the basis of the evidence. 3. The criterion of historical plausibility, at least in the form that Hays presents it, seems to me to be untenable, despite the fact that its implicit use in New Testament exegesis is quite common. This becomes apparent when we note that perhaps the most frequent objection to proposed allusions to the Old Testament by New Testament authors that presuppose any degree of complexity is that they would have been unintelligible to the original readers. How would Gentile believers in Corinth or Thessalonica, it is often asked, be able to catch some obscure allusion to the Old Testament in Paul’s letters? This, however, is surely a misguided approach. The problem lies in its undifferentiated use of the term “reader.” Hays is certainly aware of the generally accepted difference between the “real reader” and the “implied reader” of a text, 37 but this is not adequately reflected in his formulation of the criterion. However, the difference is quite important, for it is readily apparent that an author may presume a level of competence among his implied readers that his real readers have not attained. On this latter point, I find Christopher Stanley’s classification of reader competencies in Paul’s audiences much more useful than the binary “either they get it or they don’t” approach that many scholars unconsciously adopt. Stanley differentiates between three different groups of real readers among Paul’s addressees: (1.) The informed audience knows the Old Testament texts to which Paul is alluding quite well and is able to interact with them on a conceptual level

35

Cf. Moyise, Paul and Scripture, 6–12. Cf. Joel White, Review of Hebräer von Hebräern: Paulus auf dem Hindergrund frühjüdischer Argumentation und biblischer Interpretation, by Markus Tiwald, Jahrbuch für evangelikale Theologie 23 (2009): 308–11. 37 Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 29. 36

Identifying Intertextual Exegesis in Paul

177

as they read Paul’s letters. (2.) The competent audience knows the Old Testament well enough to follow Paul’s argument in its rhetorical context. (3.) The minimal audience has minimal or no knowledge of the Old Testament and is therefore not able to follow an argument based on intertextual references to the Old Testament. According to Stanley, Paul would have been aware that all three audiences were represented in his churches. 38 Stanley’s approach has the felicitous result of freeing modern exegetes from the impossible task of trying to determine on the basis of lengthy and complex study whether the churches to which Paul’s letters are addressed were capable, based on their ethnic, economic, or social makeup, of comprehending allusions to the Old Testament and interpreting them correctly. If Stanley is right, then Paul simply assumed that at least some of the members of the churches were well-versed in the Old Testament and would have been able to instruct the others. In other words, an informed audience made up at least part of Paul’s implied readers. What percentage of his real readers actually belonged to the informed audience is not a cause for serious exegetical concern, thankfully. With regard to the other criteria there is significant overlap, as well as a number of emphases, that are, to my mind, important to retain: 1. It seems to me that Berkley’s first two criteria (common vocabulary and vocabulary clusters) are in fact a single criterion that corresponds to Hays’s volume and my level of agreement. I would propose the label semiotic agreement, since the correspondences between New Testament text and Old Testament pre-text are not confined to vocabulary, but may also involve common themes or syntax, all of which may be used to mark the allusion. 2. What I initially termed Old Testament intertextual links corresponds, as the table makes clear, to Berkley’s links with other texts and common themes. It is apparent upon closer examination that we are both interested in uncovering gezerah-shavah exegesis (see above), and it is perhaps beneficial to make that transparent by denoting this criterion evidence of gezerah-shavah. 3. I did not initially include Hays’s and Berkley’s criterion of recurrence. My concern was that it tends to prejudice exegetes against one-time allusions, which it would be foolish to rule out a priori. If one recognizes this danger, however, there seems to be no reason not to include it. 4. Berkley’s criterion of explication corresponds to my coherence and combines Hays’s criteria of thematic coherence and satisfaction. What we all seem to have in mind is the question of whether uncovering a potential allusion to the Old Testament adds surplus value to our understanding of the New Tes-

38 Christopher D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 62–71.

178

Joel White

tament text. In other words, does it make better sense of Paul’s argument? I propose calling this simply lucidity. 5. What I termed explicatory potential (the ability of a proposed allusion to contribute to a better understanding of the larger context) should, I believe, be retained as a discrete criterion, but due to the term’s ambiguity and similarity to Bayesian terminology I now prefer the label illuminatory potency. 6. Finally, further study has convinced me that Berkley’s criterion of common linear development as described above may well be, in those instances where it can be demonstrated, extraordinarily helpful. 39 In the interest of economy of language I would rename this common trajectory.

A Catalog of Weighted Criteria At this point it is important to recall my earlier discussion of Heilig. He argues, as was noted, on the basis of Bayes’s theorem that Hays’s “criteria” can be assigned to two overarching categories, explanatory potential and background plausibility. The same holds true, of course, for mine. To be sure, a measure of subjectivity is unavoidable even here, but it seems proper to assign the six criteria to these overarching categories in the order of their relative importance as follows: A. Explanatory Potential 1. Semiotic agreement 2. Common trajectory 3. Evidence of gezerah-shavah B. Background plausibility 1. Recurrence 2. Lucidity 3. Illuminatory potency These assignments correspond to the focus of the individual criteria. The three criteria relegated to the category of explanatory potential constitute prima facie evidence for the presence of an allusion in that they highlight correspondences between a given New Testament text and its Old Testament pre-text(s). The three criteria subsumed under the category of background plausibility are all concerned with characteristics of the New Testament text that, apart from the actual evidence for an Old Testament allusion, lend credence to the assumption that this one is present. These Bayesian categories indicate that one cannot 39 For a salient example cf. Joel White, “N. T. Wright’s Narrative Approach,” in God and the Faithfulness of Paul: A Critical Examination of the Pauline Theology of N. T. Wright, ed. Christoph Heilig, J. Thomas Hewitt, and Michael F. Bird, WUNT 2.413 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 181–204, esp. 199–201.

Identifying Intertextual Exegesis in Paul

179

simply count up the number of criteria that are satisfied in a given case, but must use them instead for determining whether both background plausibility and explanatory potential may be deemed sufficiently proven. An actual allusion should have a certain measure of both. This set of weighted criteria holds some promise of providing an acceptable level of methodological reliability when considering potential allusions to the Old Testament in Paul, regardless of their complexity. None of them are completely objective, to be sure, but neither are they purely subjective. Some are quantifiable; none are exclusively a matter of textual aesthetics. By no means will they guarantee infallible results, but if they are applied with caution, they may help exegetes avoid gross mistakes and work with greater acuity when dealing with complex intertextual phenomena.

A Test Case: 1 Corinthians 6:5 (Explanatory Potential) First Corinthians 6:5 is well suited to serve as a test case for two reasons. First, 1 Corinthians 5–7 is not a locus classicus for studying Paul’s use of the Old Testament. Paul is not propounding his soteriology or Christology here, but discussing concrete ethical problems in Corinth. There are relatively few Old Testament quotations in the text, and it is often argued that theological reflection on the Old Testament did not play a major role in the formulation of Paul’s ethics. Adolf von Harnack, for instance, argued famously that Paul only engaged with Old Testament texts when his churches were threatened by Judaizing influences. 40 Second, 1 Cor 6:5 is not seen by the majority of commentators to contain an allusion to the Old Testament. Thus, skepticism with respect to my thesis that the verse contains a rather complex Old Testament allusion can be presumed to be fairly high. From a methodological standpoint, such initial skepticism makes for a good test case. The text of 1 Cor. 6:5 is as follows: πρäς ânτροπ˜n ÍmØn λέγω. οÕτως οÎκ ênι ân ÍmØn οÎδεÈς σοφός, çς δυnήσεται διακρØnαι ‚n€ mέσοn τοÜ ‚δελφοÜ αÎτοÜ;

A literal translation reads, “I say this to your shame: is there not a single wise person among you who would be able to judge between his brother?” Most commentators explain the grammatical anomaly here as an ellipse or a haplography: the original text would have read, on this presumption, ‚n€ mέσοn τοÜ ‚δελφοÜ

40

Adolf von Harnack, “Das Alte Testament in den Paulinischen Briefen und in den Paulinischen Gemeinden,” Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften PhilosophischHistorische Klasse (1928): 124–41.

180

Joel White

καÈ τοÜ ‚δελφοÜ αÎτοÜ. 41 Only occasionally has an allusion to Deut 1:16b been posited. 42 It is this possibility that I wish to examine with reference to my criteria, beginning first with category A, the explanatory potential of the posited allusion.

Semiotic agreement The text of 1 Cor 6:5 compares with Deut 1:16b as follows: 1 Cor 6:5

Deut 1:16b LXX

οÕτως οÎκ ênι ân ÍmØn οÎδεÈς σοφός, çς δυnήσεται διακρØnαι ‚n€ mέσοn τοÜ ‚δελφοÜ αÎτοÜ

κρίnατε δικαίως ‚n€ mέσοn ‚nδρäς καÈ ‚n€ mέσοn ‚δελφοÜ καÈ ‚n€ mέσοn προσηλύτου αÎτοÜ

Deut 1:16b MT ‫ושׁפטתם צדק בין־אישׁ‬ ‌‫ובין־אחיו ובין גרו‬

The LXX renders the Hebrew literally, resulting in a pleonastic, rather wooden translation. There is lexical agreement between 1 Cor 6:5 and Deut 1:16b with regard to the ‚n€ mέσοn ‚δελφοÜ as well as the verb κρίnειn / διακρίnειn. Further, 1 Cor 6:5 and Deut 1:15 both make use of the term σοφός. The thematic agreement between Deut 1:15–16 and 1 Cor 6:1–6 is readily apparent. Deuteronomy 1:15–16 provides for the appointment of wise men over the people of Israel and gives them authority to judge legal disputes. The most difficult cases are to be brought to Moses, but local judges should tend to the majority of disputes. First Corinthians 6:1–6 discusses a similar problem in the church in Corinth. Thus, the level of lexical, thematic, and even semantic agreement between these two texts may be judged to be quite high.

Common Trajectory Sean McDonough argues cogently that Paul’s discussion of ethical problems in 1 Corinthians 5–6 follows the same basic trajectory as that of a parallel text to Deuteronomy 17. 43 He notes that Paul closes his ethical instruction in 1 Corinthians 5 with a direct quotation from Deut 17:7 and that both Deut 17:8–11 and 1 Cor 6:1–8 then take up the issue of legal disputes among members of the community. According to McDonough,

41 Cf. the apparatus of NA27 (the variants are dropped in NA28) and C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, HNTC (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1968), 138. 42 Cf. Raymond F. Collins, 1 Corinthians, Sacra Pagina 7 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999), 234. 43 Cf. Sean McDonough, “Competent to Judge: The Old Testament Connection between 1 Corinthians 5 and 6,” JTS 56 (2005): 99–102.

Identifying Intertextual Exegesis in Paul

181

Beginning in [Deut] 17:8, the discussion turns to the question of judging difficult cases within Israel ... [which] is of course directly relevant to the main problem Paul addresses in I Corinthians 5–6. ... It seems beyond coincidence that Paul should first discuss the expulsion of a notorious sinner from the community in I Corinthians 5, in accord with Deut. 17:2–7; explicitly cite Deut. 17:7 in 5:13 and then immediately move on to the question of difficult cases of judgment, just as the writer of Deuteronomy had done in 17:8 ff. 44

A comparison of the two texts in question does indeed reveal a similar thematic progression: Table 2: Parallels between Deuteronomy 17 and 1 Corinthians 5–6

instructions concerning the removal of the sinner from the community âξαρεØς / âξαράτε τän ποnηρän âξ ÍmÀn αÎτÀn instructions concerning the resolution of legal disputes

Deuteronomy 17

1 Corinthians 5–6

Deut 17:1–7a

1 Cor 5:1–13a

Deut 17:7b

1 Cor 5:13b

Deut 17:8–11

1 Cor 6:1–6

In my opinion McDonough’s analysis offers the most satisfactory explanation for the curious progression of themes in 1 Corinthians 5–6 that has long been a matter of discussion among commentators. Paul serves up a “vice sandwich” here with discussions of sexual immorality in 1 Cor 5:1–13 and 6:12–20 flanking a completely different topic: the propensity of some believers in Corinth to settle their grievances with other members of the church before a court of law. Other proposed solutions, such as the thesis that Paul’s flow of thought reflects a consciously chiastic ordering of material, 45 are less convincing. It is certainly true, as many commentators argue, that κρίnειn serves as a catchword connecting 1 Corinthian 5 and 1 Cor 6:1–6, 46 but that does not contradict McDonough’s thesis. Indeed, it supports it by highlighting the common thematic progression between 1 Corinthians 5–6 and Deut 17:1–13. If McDonough is right, then Deut 17:8–11 is in Paul’s mind as he writes 1 Cor 6:1–6. This should not, however, be taken to imply a one-for-one correspondence between the two texts. Paul does not appropriate the commands of Deut 17:8–11 into his ethical argument. That text limits the jurisdiction of village elders in Israel. They are authorized to handle the easier cases, but more serious disputes, especially criminal cases, are to be brought to the priests 44

Ibid., 100. Cf. Collins, 1 Corinthians, 15. 46 Cf. e. g. Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, EKKNT 7.1 (Zürich: Benzinger, 1991), 403. 45

182

Joel White

and Levites in the cultic center that God will later choose. Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 6:1–6 is very different. The problem in Corinth is alluded to in 1 Cor 6:1 and 6:6: One member of the church has sued another member of the community. Paul does not explain the precise nature of the problem, but it would seem to be a civil dispute, since he recognizes the jurisdiction of the state in criminal matters (cf. Rom 13:1–4). First Corinthians 6:7 probably indicates that the plaintiff feels that he has been defrauded, perhaps in a business deal. In any case, Paul regards the matter as a minor dispute (κριτήριοn âλαχιστοn). This explains the a maiore ad minus logic in 1 Cor 6:2–3: If believers will have jurisdiction over angels, indeed over the entire cosmos, how much more should they be able to judge such comparatively insignificant matters competently.

Evidence of gezerah-shavah Deuteronomy 17:8–11 does not, then, directly support Paul’s contention that the Corinthians are competent to solve smaller disputes within the community. Rather, it forces exegetes to delve deeper in the search for more complex intertextual phenomena. Sometimes, as was noted above, Paul simultaneously alludes to several Old Testament texts that are part of a larger literary or theological tradition. In other words, he interprets the Old Testament according to the principle of gezerah-shavah. 47 In the present case this possibility should be seriously considered since there are clear terminological and thematic links between Deut 17:8 (the verse immediately following the one quoted in 1 Cor 5:13) and Deut 1:16b (the verse that serves as the immediate referent of Paul’s allusion in 1 Cor 6:5). These include, as the table below makes clear, the word group κρίnειn / κρίσις (bolded), the repeated use of the prepositional phrase ‚n€ mέσοn (underlined), and the injunction in the immediate context to bring difficult cases to Moses. Deut 1:16b

Deut 17:8

κρίnατε δικαίως ‚n€ mέσοn ‚nδρος καÈ ‚n€ mέσοn ‚δελφοÜ καÈ ‚n€ mέσοn προσηλύτου ‚υτοÜ

â€n δà ‚δυnατήσù ‚πä σοÜ û¨mα ân κρίσει ‚n€ mέσοn αÙmα αÚmατος καÈ ‚n€ mέσοn κρίσις κρίσεως καÈ ‚n€ mέσοn φ˜ φ¨ς καÈ ‚n€ mέσοn ‚nτιλογία ‚nτιλογίας ûήmατα κρίσεως ân ταØς πόλεσιn ÍmÀn

47 Though these sorts of spontaneous intertextual jumps based on commonalities of vocabulary and theme may seem strange today, they were quite common in rabbinic exegesis. They were likely the stuff of exegetical exercises practiced in the first century AD by, for example, the pupils of Gamaliel in Jerusalem, among them Saul of Tarsus. Cf. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 115–19.

Identifying Intertextual Exegesis in Paul

183

Gezerah-shavah exegesis of these texts might explain the contours of Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 6:1–6 as follows: As he considered how to respond to the case of incest in Corinth (1 Cor 5:1–13), Paul reflected on Deut 17:1–7 and appropriated this text, especially Deut 17:7, which he quotes in 1 Cor 5:13, for his ethical instruction on the matter. The provisions in Deut 17:8–11 regarding the adjudication of difficult legal cases prompt Paul to address the problem of the Corinthian Christians’ onerous lawsuits. Further, the wording of Deut 17:8 causes him to think of another Deuteronomic text that dealt with the settling of legal disputes, Deut 1:16–17. It is this second text that emphasizes the competence of local judges and elders in smaller conflicts and to which Paul alludes in 1 Cor 6:5. I can only briefly discuss how Paul would have understood this second text from Deuteronomy. It is virtually certain that he would have interpreted Deut 1:9–17 in light of Num 11:16–30, since Num 11:16–30 describes the same incident as Deut 1:9–17, albeit in more detail and with an entirely different purpose in view. Still, both texts relate the appointment of leaders subordinate to Moses: in Deut 1:9–17 it is an indefinite number of wise men from among the clan leaders; in Num 11:16–30 it is the seventy elders. Both texts view this new institution as an outgrowth of Moses’s exasperation: “I am not able to bear the burden of this people alone” (cf. Num 11:14 with Deut 1:9). Further, in both texts, the leaders share the same competencies. Paul certainly would have been aware of Moses’s pious wish that God would impart the same Spirit that came to rest on the elders to all of his people (Num 11:29). This tradition would seem to be the origin of the important biblical theological hope of universal possession of the Spirit that is taken up by the prophet Joel and viewed by Peter as fulfilled at Pentecost in Acts 2. It also follows from Moses’s prophetic desire that this would be accompanied by much broader competence on the part of God’s people to discern his will, as Jeremiah’s prophecy of the new covenant envisions (Jer 31:27–40). Be that as it may, taken together Deut 17:8 and 1:16b would have reminded Paul of another text that also discusses the competence of God’s people to judge, this time in a highly-charged eschatological context: Daniel 7. In that chapter Daniel recounts a vision in which the saints of the Most High play an important role in the judgment (cf. Dan 7:22: καÈ τ˜n κρίσιn êδωκε τοØς γίοις) of those powers symbolized by the horns aligned against God (cf. Dan 7:26–27). First Corinthians 6:2 (£ οÎκ οÒδατε íτι οÉ ‰γιοι τän κόσmοn κριnοÜσιn) and 1 Cor 6:3 (οÎκ οÒδατε íτι ‚γγέλους κριnοÜmεn) clearly take up this tradition. Paul would have been inspired by the grand perspective that God’s people would share with the Son of Man the competence to judge the entire cosmos. Given the future destiny the Spirit was already preparing them for, he hoped to convince the Corinthians that they had more than sufficient resources at their disposal to address comparatively banal problems in the church.

184

Joel White

A Test Case: 1 Corinthians 6:5 (Background Plausibility) I now consider the criteria that establish category B, the background plausibility of the posited allusion.

Recurrence There are no clear allusions to Deut 1:16 or Deut 17:8 elsewhere in the Pauline corpus.

Lucidity As noted above, this criterion seeks to determine whether the proposed allusion contributes to the understanding of Paul’s argument. I think that this can be shown to be the case with regard to the intertextual exegesis I posit behind Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 6:1–6. As he reflected on the specific problem in Corinth, Paul was struck by the disparity between the difficulty of the believers in Corinth to solve their minor disputes and the unparalleled judicial competence that Daniel’s Son of Man will one day impart to the saints. It is the tension between these differing realities – one on the ground and the other in the clouds, as it were – that Paul exploits in his ethical admonition. He views the dispute in Corinth as a small matter. Reflecting on Deuteronomy 17, he thinks about the comparatively limited competencies of the people of God under the old covenant resulting from their limited access to the Spirit of God. Yet even they (i. e. their local leaders) were given jurisdiction over smaller matters (cf. Deut 1:16–17). Nonetheless, Moses longed for the day when the Spirit of God, who enabled him to rule on difficult cases and who enabled the elders to judge wisely in daily decisions, would come upon the entire people of God so that they would be empowered to judge all things by his Spirit (Num 11:29). The vision of the Son of Man in Daniel 7 confirmed to Paul that God’s people would one day receive this judicial competency. Thus, although Paul’s argument is formally structured as a maiore ad minus, it presupposes an overarching metanarrative that moves in the opposite direction (a minori ad maius): if the elders under the old covenant were competent to settle disputes locally, how much more should the Christians in Corinth, who now possess the Spirit of God under the new covenant, be able to settle their disputes without resorting to worldly judges (whom they will one day judge!). Without question Paul believed that the new covenant was qualitatively better than the old covenant precisely with regard to the Spirit. First Corinthians 2:9–16, which makes liberal use of the word group κρίnειn, provides ample evidence in support of that contention. Second Corinthians 3:7–18 may also be mentioned here, as well. In that passage there is an example of explicit intertextual exegesis in which Paul takes up a similar theme and also argues in a

Identifying Intertextual Exegesis in Paul

185

minori ad maius fashion that there was a heilsgeschichtliche difference in competencies between Moses and the people of Israel, that this difference no longer pertains under the new covenant, and that therefore the people of God now enjoy a Moses-like quality in their relationship to God. The combination of the quotation from Deut 17:7 in 1 Cor 5:13, the structural similarity between the course of the arguments in 1 Corinthians 5–6 and Deuteronomy 17, and the allusion to Deut 1:16b in 1 Cor 6:5 all lead to the conclusion that Paul had interacted with the Deuteronomic texts previous to writing 1 Corinthians 5–6, and further, that four texts (Deut 1:9–17 = Num 11:16–30, Deut 17:8–11, and Dan 7:21–27) provide the narrative subtext for his argument in 1 Cor 6:1–6. The resulting argument draws its power from the metanarrative it taps into. The allusions to Daniel function not as some dull diatribal sword, but rather as a sophisticated theological argument that assumes that the church has in principle already proleptically attained its exalted position in the new covenant and promotes an ethic that corresponds to that position. It is at this point that Stanley’s contribution becomes important. As previously noted, the standard argument against interpretations such as the one I have offered above is that very few of the original readers would have been able to grasp its myriad subtleties. That, it may be freely admitted, is certainly true. Nonetheless, closer reflection makes it clear that all of Stanley’s audiences would have profited from Paul’s argument. The minimal audience would have certainly understood the imperative force of the admonition, “Don’t take other believers to court!” The competent audience would have understood the a maiore ad minus form of the argument based on the Danielic tradition of the Son of Man: one day we are going to judge the world, so we are certainly capable of dealing with smaller matters within our own community. The informed audience would have been able to detect complex allusions to several Old Testament texts, all of which have to do with the judicial competence of the people of God. They would have been capable of grasping, or at least intuiting, the sweeping metanarrative that informs Paul’s argument, and they may well have sensed that it is situated much more closely to the coherent (apocalyptic) center of Paul’s theology 48 than it would seem at first glance.

Illumination of Larger Contexts I can only deal briefly with the final criterion here. In my opinion, uncovering the intertextual exegesis that informs Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 6:1–16 contributes to a better understanding of the larger context in at least two areas. 48 Cf. J. Christaan Beker, Paul, the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 135.

186

Joel White

First, it reveals how the rather abstract “nouetic pneumatology” that Paul articulates in 1 Cor 2:10–16 functions on a practical level. The Spirit, who is clearly identical with the nοÜς ΧριστοÜ and who lives in and among believers, enables them to access the “deep things of God.” Believers therefore have the potential to attain a radically new level of discernment and are thus able to “interpret spiritual matters to spiritual people.” 49 Read alone, however, the text seems to raise more questions than it answers. What does Paul envision here? When we read 1 Cor 6:1–6 in light of 1 Cor 2:10–16 and particularly against the background of the intertextual exegesis that, according to my proposal, Paul had previously engaged in, then it becomes clear that this spiritual discernment is actually quite practical in nature. It would seem to be very close to the concept of wisdom that characterizes Jewish wisdom literature. The emphasis rests squarely on the ability of believers to live in peace with each other. In Corinth that implies that the believers should be able to deal with the tensions and conflicts that arise on a daily basis and thereby preserve the unity of the body. Thus, both here and throughout 1 Corinthians, one is confronted with a pragmatic pneumatology that stands in stark opposition to the spiritualized, esoteric attitude of the pneumatics in Corinth. Second, awareness of the intertextual exegesis behind 1 Cor 6:1–6 lends credence to Hays’s thesis that Paul is trying to bring about a “conversion of the imagination” in the predominantly Gentile church in Corinth. Hays argues, In 1 Corinthians we find Paul calling ... Gentiles to understand their identity anew in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ – a gospel message comprehensible only in relation to the larger narrative of God’s dealings with Israel. ... Paul was not promulgating a linear Heilsgeschichte in which Gentiles were simply absorbed into a Torah-observant Jewish Christianity. Rather, the “Israel” into which Paul’s Corinthian converts were embraced was an Israel whose story had been hermeneutically reconfigured by the cross and resurrection. The result was that Jew and Gentile alike found themselves summoned by the gospel story to a sweeping reevaluation of their identities, an imaginative paradigm shift so comprehensive that it can only be described as a “conversion of the imagination.” 50

In other words, Paul wants Gentile believers in Corinth to make Israel’s story their own. Israel’s controlling metanarrative should become theirs as well, since God has made them part of the people he elected and purposes to use to bring about his plan for humanity. Israel’s history is now their history. Everything that happened to Israel functions as “types” for them (cf. 1 Cor 10:6). Israel’s rites, including the Passover feast (1 Cor 5:6–8) and the offering of the first49 This rendering represents the interpretation of 1 Cor 2:13 I consider the most plausible. So also Eckhard Schnabel, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, Historisch Theologische Auslegung (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 2006), 175–76. 50 Richard Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 5.

Identifying Intertextual Exegesis in Paul

187

fruits (1 Cor 15:20), have profound typological significance. Israel’s laws have relevance for the structure of the church (cf. 1 Cor 9:8–11). And Israel’s limited judicial competence under the old covenant combined with the promised of unlimited jurisdiction over the entire cosmos in the age to come have direct relevance when it comes to settling disputes in the predominantly Gentile church in Corinth. Hays’s thesis explains Paul’s multifaceted and otherwise inexplicable recourse to the Old Testament in matters large and small and particularly his persistent use of texts that quite clearly must have been obscure to his Gentile readers. These texts, however, are just as much a part of Israel’s scriptures as the Decalogue or the Shema and can just as legitimately be called upon to help shape the identity of the body of Christ in Corinth. They, too, have a role to play in the “conversion of the imagination.”

Conclusion First Corinthians 6:1–6 provides a compelling example of complex intertextual exegesis in a Pauline text that yields itself only to the most tenacious analysis. While there are grounds for initial methodological skepticism, both the explanatory potential of the proposed allusion and its background plausibility seem to be adequately accounted for. There is an acceptable level of semiotic agreement between 1 Cor 6:5 and Deut 1:16. Intertextual links exist between Deut 1:16 and other Old Testament texts that are thematically similar, and one of these texts, Deuteronomy 17, provides the thematic template for Paul’s sequencing of his argument in 1 Corinthians 5–6. The posited allusion contributes to the coherence of the immediate argument and to the illumination of the larger context. Thus, it seems legitimate to assume that, at some time prior to writing this passage, Paul has creatively linked and reflected on several texts dealing with the judicial competencies of the people of God in the old and new covenants according to the exegetical principle of gezerah-shavah, and he articulates his interpretation of these texts in an a minori ad maius argument. To summarize: If the people of God were capable of settling smaller disputes among themselves under the old covenant, how much more should the church be capable of settling them since they already possess the Spirit of God and therefore the competency to judge the entire world. I have no illusions that this thesis will convince everyone. When we deal with allusions to the Old Testament we can seldom speak of “assured results.” This fact has led some New Testament scholars to adopt a stance of general skepticism with regard to any attempt to identify all but the most transparent allusions. Certainly there is a need for careful methodological reflection, and

188

Joel White

I hope my criteria will make a useful contribution at precisely this point. If nothing else, they promote a measure of circumspection in formulating one’s conclusions. Identifying allusions to the Old Testament in Paul is a bit like fishing. Good fishermen have a sense for where the fish are hiding, though they might have to cast out their lines many times before they actually catch one. Sometimes the fish they catch are too small to keep. But if they are patient, they might land a big one (though probably not as big as they boast; both fisherman and exegetes are prone to exaggerate the size of their catch!), and once the fish is frying in the pan all are happy that the fishermen did not give up prematurely. So it is with the search for allusions to the Old Testament in Paul. It may be hard work, but every so often that hard work is rewarded with important insights that help us better understand just how rich his theology really is.

Opening the Heart Compassion and Suffering in Paul’s Apostolic Ministry in the Corinthian Correspondence Jeff Wisdom

The Corinthian correspondence demonstrates Paul’s deep and abiding compassion for these believers. His love for them is evident throughout both letters, reflecting his commitment to the church of Jesus Christ. Paul’s willingness to suffer for the sake of Christ, and also for them, is likewise apparent at many points. This apostolic suffering is a fundamental part of Paul’s understanding of his call to be an apostle of Jesus Christ. 1 His compassion for the Corinthians and his suffering for them as an apostle are both rooted in his call to follow his crucified and risen Lord. Thus, the themes of Paul’s suffering as an apostle and Paul’s pastoral care for the church of Jesus Christ are woven into these letters’ literary fabric. 2 An especially clear expression of Paul’s willingness to suffer for the sake of the church occurs in 2 Cor 11:23b–28. At the end of a particularly gruesome catalogue of trouble (imprisonments, beatings, and near death in 11:23 alone), Paul adds his daily concern for all the churches. In the preceding passage, Paul refers to his desire that the Corinthians accept him so he may boast in them (11:16). Then he states his clear intention to seek their benefit and their welfare, which contrasts sharply with what Paul believes are the motivations of some of their other teachers (11:19–21). In the verse immediately following this list, Paul affirms his willingness to share in weakness with those who are weak, and he declares his concern by declaring his indignation when anyone is made to fall (11:29). The apostle’s conduct comes from his compassion and concern for the 1

Scott J. Hafemann, “Suffering,” DPL 919–20. In the fall of 1988, I traveled to Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary to make a decision about what seminary to attend. During that visit, I first met Dr. Scott Hafemann. It became very clear to me when I met privately with him that I could learn much from him, and this meeting was an important part of my decision to attend there. My instincts proved to be right; Scott has had a great influence on me as a scholar, as an instructor, as a pastor, and as a person. Once he made a comment during class that he thought one of the most pressing needs for the western church is what he called “a biblical theology of suffering.” At the time this seemed an unusual thing to say, but the suggestion stayed with me over the years and promoted some study and reflection on this topic. Little could I have known (or even desired!) that I would eventually publish a contribution to this topic that is aimed at the encouragement of the church on this vitally important topic (see my Through the Valley: Biblical-Theological Reflections on Suffering [Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011]). Scott’s influence on me and my thinking are clearly evident in this book. I am honored to dedicate this essay to him, and I am grateful to God for him. 2

190

Jeff Wisdom

members of the church of Jesus Christ. Thus, Paul’s suffering is a consequence of his commitment to his crucified and risen Lord. This essay will explore the themes of compassion and suffering in the Corinthian correspondence in two ways. First, through an examination 2 Cor 6:3–7:16 I will argue that these two motifs have an organic relationship with one another. Second, I will demonstrate that these two themes intersect several other times in the Corinthian correspondence. In fact, there are places where they overlap in the same circumstance and situation. Paul’s compassion for the Corinthians involves and includes his suffering for them; sometimes his suffering as an apostle is due to his love for them. He willingly endures suffering for their benefit and for their spiritual welfare. This is the case even when his love for them demands that he write some difficult things to them. His words of rebuke express his compassion for them.

Compassion and Suffering in 2 Corinthians 6:3–7:16 Paul offers a detailed description of his suffering as an apostle in 2 Cor 6:3–10 and then appeals to the Corinthians to open their hearts to him in vv. 11–13. 3 This catalog of apostolic suffering is intended for their benefit. As Paul Barnett writes, “Paul here begins to lay a foundation from which to make his appeal that they widen their hearts to him as their ‘father’ (6:11–13).” 4 Paul’s suffering and his expression of compassion are within the very same set of events and circumstances. Two observations support this conclusion. First, the noun Paul uses in 6:3 (προσκοπή), best translated as “obstacle,” only occurs here in the New Testament, but the verb form of this word (προσκόπειn) occurs several times with reference to significant occasions for spiritual stumbling. 5 Therefore, the assertion in this verse indicates causing a person to stumble, not merely giving offense. 6 Paul’s statement affirms his intentions toward the Corinthians. He endures suffering so that he may not cause anyone to stumble. Second, Paul asserts that his apostolic ministry is commendable and beyond fault. The verb mωmσθαι (“to be at fault”) only appears in the New Testament here and in one other place in this letter, where it is part of Paul’s statement that he intends to handle an offering in an honorable manner (8:20). 7 In 6:4, the 3 Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 321–22. 4 Ibid., 324. 5 See Matt 4:6; Luke 4:11; John 11:9; Rom 9:32, 14:21; 1 Pet 2:8. On the significance of this term, see David Garland, 2 Corinthians, NAC 29 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 306. 6 Murray Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 468. 7 On the meaning of mωmσθαι, see ibid., 469.

Opening the Heart

191

verb συnίστηmι (“to commend”) is an important part of Paul’s description of his apostolic ministry, which has God’s commendation (2 Cor 3:1; 4:2; 5:12; 10:12, 18). Paul endures suffering in his apostolic ministry so that he may not put any obstacle in anyone’s way. 8 As God’s servant, Paul next presents a list of the types of suffering he has endured for the Corinthians’ sake so that he would not be a barrier to their trust in Christ. They need to know that he has always aimed his ministry at their benefit and their welfare. Mentioning endurance first in this list is likely a general statement about his willingness to endure the specific kinds of things that come next. 9 Three words in 6:4 that refer to suffering in general (afflictions, hardships, and calamities) are followed in 6:5 by a list of specific kinds of suffering (beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, and hunger). These descriptions do not refer to minor inconvenience or issues of some discomfort. 10 In some instances they are matters of life and death. Significantly, the middle word in this list refers to Paul’s labors. At first it may appear to be somewhat trivial in light of the severity of the other terms that he mentions. Paul’s working to meet his expenses may not seem quite on the same level of significance as beatings, imprisonments, and hunger. However, the importance of these labors becomes clear when we remember he did this work despite his right as an apostle to receive financial support (1 Corinthians 9). 11 Paul likely expects that the Corinthians have not forgotten this act of self-sacrificing love. If they have, Paul gently reminds them. 12 Thus the symbiotic relationship between apostolic suffering and compassion for these believers is explicit. Paul’s labors to support himself expresses his love for them. Paul’s attention shifts in 6:6 to a series of more positive descriptions of his conduct as an apostle among the Corinthians. 13 The final quality in this list is ân ‚γάπù ‚nυποκρίτú (“genuine love”). 14 Paul places genuine love within a list that includes purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, the Holy Spirit, truthful speech, and the power of God. The inclusion of the phrases “the Holy Spirit,” “truthful speech,” and “the power of God” indicates that this list of virtues is 8 On Paul’s use of a double negative here to emphasize his point, see Victor Furnish, II Corinthians, AB 32A (New York: Doubleday, 1984), 342–43. 9 Scott Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 269; Garland, 2 Corinthians, 307. 10 Harris, Second Corinthians, 471–72. 11 C. K. Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (1973; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 186; Harris, Second Corinthians, 472; Barnett, Second Corinthians, 327; Garland, 2 Corinthians, 307–08; and Furnish, II Corinthians, 344. 12 Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, 270. 13 Garland, 2 Corinthians, 308. 14 Elsewhere in the New Testament, Rom 12:9 uses this adjective with the noun “love” in another exhortation for believers. The characteristic of being genuine is important as a quality of wisdom (Jas 3:17) and as it has a connection with faith (1 Tim 1:5; 2 Tim 1:5). Obedience to the truth is for the purpose of the expression of genuine brotherly love (1 Pet 1:22).

192

Jeff Wisdom

not Paul’s natural character. Rather, it affirms the fruit of God’s grace at work in him. Scott Hafemann writes that since these are “expressions of the power of God in his life, the positive elements listed are not natural attributes or selfgenerated virtues, nor are they the result of self-control or positive thinking. Rather, Paul’s life is the product of God’s ‘resurrection’ power and presence (cf. the references to the ‘Holy Spirit’ and the ‘power of God’ in 6:6–7).” 15 Paul’s genuine love for the Corinthians is the fruit of the Spirit in his life. It is evidence of God’s power at work in him that Paul endures so much while he continues to love the Corinthians and to speak the truth to them, even when they themselves are the reason and the occasion for his suffering. 16 This is only possible as the Holy Spirit and God’s power are manifested in his life. Paul next describes his endurance of suffering for the sake of his apostolic ministry in life’s vacillating circumstances (2 Cor 6:8–10). Through nine pairs of descriptors he stresses his willingness to continue to serve Christ’s church. The first four focus on his character and integrity. Paul is committed to persevere as an apostle of Jesus Christ through honor and dishonor, slander and praise. These pairs form a chiasm, with the emphasis falling on matters of public status within a Greco – Roman culture. 17 Honor and shame were contrasting social statuses in Paul’s world, but he endures either for the sake of faithfulness to the gospel. 18 The next two pairs deal with personal integrity. There are times when people consider Paul deceitful. At other times they consider him to be unknown, a person without important reputation or status. Both assessments are incorrect; Paul is true to his call and has a reputation (i. e. he is known) because Jesus Christ has appointed him the apostle to the gentiles. Paul’s faithfulness to his call stands firm, and his ministry is based on the truth. His reputation is thus grounded in Christ’s commission. The final five pairs emphasize Paul’s willingness to endure a variety of forms of physical suffering for the sake of his apostolic ministry. 19 The first points to Paul’s hope of sharing in Christ’s resurrection life. The metaphorical use of “dying” points to his suffering as an apostle in general; death is the most extreme and ultimate form of suffering. In his suffering, and even in death itself, Paul trusts in God’s promise of life. The next four stress some specific kind of suffering (punished, sorrowful, poor, and having nothing) that is counterbalanced by the hope of God’s sustaining grace (not killed, always rejoicing, making many

15

Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, 270. Barnett, Second Corinthians, 328–30. 17 Mark Seifrid, The Second Letter to the Corinthians, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014), 281–82; and Garland, 2 Corinthians, 311. On chiasm here and elsewhere in this letter, see Harris, Second Corinthians, 478. 18 Barnett, Second Corinthians, 330–31. 19 Harris, Second Corinthians, 482–86. 16

Opening the Heart

193

rich, and possessing everything). 20 In Paul’s suffering, he always rejoices. In his poverty, he is able to make others rich, which suggests his willingness to suffer for others’ benefit. As an apostle of Jesus Christ, Paul follows his Lord in suffering for the sake of the Corinthians, despite the way others view his suffering. 21 So Paul rejoices because his suffering results in blessing for others, including the Corinthians. The passion of Paul’s appeal to the Corinthians is evident in 2 Cor 6:11–13. He has spoken openly to them, and this forthrightness reflects his deep concern and affection for them. 22 As Paul Barnett observes, “Paul, the minister of God (6:4), has stated, with rhetorical and emotional power, his supernatural credentials, which are revealed in the face of sufferings sustained through apostolic ministry. Included among those sufferings is the Corinthians’ superficial appraisal of him (vv.8c–10).” 23 When Paul writes 2 Corinthians, some of the people persist in open rebellion against his apostolic authority, while others have already repented of this rebellion and been reconciled to him. But the problem in Corinth continues, at least in part. Some continue to reject Paul, but he refuses to give up on them until there is no other choice. Despite their stubbornness, Paul does not waver in his pastoral affection for them or in his loyalty to them. 24 He calls them “the church of God in Corinth” (cf. 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1). These struggling believers are God’s church. Though they have a host of problems, including the recent rejection of Paul’s apostolic authority, Paul reminds them they belong to God in order to encourage them to remain faithful to him as God’s appointed apostle of Jesus Christ. The verb in the clause “our heart is wide open” (πεπλάτυnται) in 6:11 occurs in the New Testament only here (twice) and once in Matthew’s Gospel, where it refers to the Pharisees’ practice of wearing wide phylacteries, so it has a connotation of something clearly visible for all to see. 25 Although the sample size for comparison is small, the usage of this verb suggests an extravagance on Paul’s part. Paul’s heart is not merely open to the Corinthians. Its door is flung open so they may see clearly his deep affection for them. This attitude toward those who still reject him and his authority provides a foundation for Paul’s appeal to the Corinthians who still need to repent. 26

20

Seifrid, Second Corinthians, 277. Michael Gorman, Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul & His Letters (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 308; and Barnett, Second Corinthians, 334. 22 Garland, 2 Corinthians, 328; Barrett, Second Corinthians, 191; and Furnish, II Corinthians, 360. 23 Barnett, Second Corinthians, 334. 24 Harris, Second Corinthians, 486. 25 Ibid, 488–89. 26 Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, 270–71. 21

194

Jeff Wisdom

The tenses of the verbs in 6:11 indicate that this affectionate concern for the Corinthians is Paul’s regular posture toward them, despite the recent trouble in their relationship. 27 In 6:11 he expresses abiding compassion for the Corinthians, even though their relationship has come at considerable personal cost for him (e. g. 2 Cor 6:3–10). Garland comments that Paul “may have disapproved of their conduct and sternly rebuked them so that they would change, but such frank criticism does not mean that he abandoned his affection for them. There is plenty of room for them in Paul’s heart.” 28 This has been true throughout their relationship, and it is especially so now that this relationship has been strained to the breaking point by those who have rejected Paul’s apostolic authority. Paul has spoken freely to them about their situation and their relationship with him. He has not refrained from opening his mouth to tell them the truth. 29 The use of the vocative case Κορίnθιοι in 6:11 is unique in the Corinthian correspondence. In fact, Paul rarely addresses his readers in this specific a manner, and he only does so when his emotions are deeply stirred. 30 Much more often, he addresses the Corinthians as ‚δελφοί (“brothers and sisters”). 31 This familiar and affectionate form of address occurs far more frequently in 1 Corinthians (nineteen times) than in 2 Corinthians (three times). Especially in the context of their recent reception of 1 Corinthians, this shift in address very likely would have sounded stark. They would not have missed this change in tone. Even when the Corinthians are enmeshed in divisiveness and quarreling among themselves, Paul repeatedly addresses them as ‚δελφοί. 32 When they are struggling over the proper use of spiritual gifts, Paul regularly calls them ‚δελφοί. 33 When they are divided among themselves, they are still Paul’s brothers and sisters in Christ. Now, on the other hand, Paul addresses them with a more distant designation because they have separated themselves from him and, consequently, from Christ. Paul has spoken freely to them, and thus he affirms for them that his heart is still opened wide to them. The word καρδία in 2 Cor 6:11 refers to more than emotion; it indicates a commitment of the whole person. It refers to the inner person as a whole and the Christian character that is the fruit of that inner disposition. 34 It certainly includes emotions, but is not focused on or limited to 27 The perfect tenses (‚nέúγεn and πεπλάτυnται) point to Paul’s abiding compassion for the Corinthians. Cf. Barnett, Second Corinthians, 335; and Garland, 2 Corinthians, 329. 28 Garland, 2 Corinthians, 329. 29 Harris, Second Corinthians, 488. 30 Ibid., 487; Barnett, Second Corinthians, 335; and Garland, 2 Corinthians, 328. 31 This more familiar form of address for the Corinthians occurs twenty-two times in the Corinthian correspondence (in 1 Cor 1:10, 11, 26; 2:1; 3:1; 4:6; 7:24, 29; 10:1; 11:33; 12:1; 14:6, 20, 26, 39; 15:1, 50, 58; 16:15; 2 Cor 1:8; 8:1; 13:11). 32 See 1 Cor 1:10, 11, 26; 2:1; 3:1; 4:6. 33 See 1 Cor 12:1; 14:6, 20, 26, 39. 34 Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, 272–73.

Opening the Heart

195

them. Paul does not merely express a sentiment, but rather his commitment to a restored relationship. Rejecting Paul’s authority is, in fact, rebellion against Christ himself, who has called and appointed Paul to his apostolic ministry. 35 The situation in Corinth continues, in part at least, to be disastrous for some of them, but from Paul’s perspective restoration is both possible and desirable. He has not put anything in the way that makes their restoration to him, and thus to the gospel, impossible. Therefore, this statement in 6:11 provides an implicit call for those still in rebellion to be restored to Paul. This implicit call becomes explicit in 6:13. The verb στεnοχωρεØσθε (“you are restricted”) that appears twice in 6:12 only occurs in one other place in the New Testament. 36 This word group regularly has connotations of distress and suffering. 37 Paul’s point is that some of the Corinthians are causing him personal pain through their continued rejection of his apostolic authority. This is not a callous attempt on Paul’s part to exclude some from his ministry – they are the cause of his suffering. Instead, Paul appeals to them from the heart. As Mark Seifrid observes, “Paul is now bold to say that the problem in his relationship with the Corinthians does not lie with him but with them. He tells the truth in the most direct way.” 38 Paul has not restricted himself in his relationship with the Corinthians. He has done everything for their sake, and he continues to do so. The obstinate Corinthians are withholding “affection” (σπλάγχnοn) from him. This noun occurs regularly in Paul’s letters. 39 In addition to its two occurrences in 2 Corinthians (6:12; 7:15), Paul uses it elsewhere to refer to his deep affection for believers (Phil 1:8) and for the mutual affection that he expects to mark the body of Christ (Phil 2:1; Col 3:12). Significantly, in the very short letter to Philemon he uses this word twice. When Paul writes to Philemon to ask him to reconcile with Onesimus in a very difficult situation, the apostle reminds him of his great affection and love toward all of the saints (Phlm 7). When Paul sends Onesimus back to Philemon with this challenging request for reconciliation, he uses the word metaphorically to refer to Onesimus himself; he is Paul’s very heart (Phlm 12). Paul’s use of this term in his appeal to the Corinthians, along with his uses of καρδία, indicates the depth of his affection for them and reflects his character as Jesus Christ’s apostle. 40 35

Ibid. Paul uses it to affirm that he may be afflicted in every way, but he is not crushed (2 Cor 4:8). In 2 Cor 4:8 this verb is conjoined with the participle form of the verb “to afflict” (θλίβειn). In the occurrences of the noun form of this verb (στεnοχωρία, which is typically translated “distress”), the noun “affliction” (θλιψØς) occurs regularly (Rom 2:9; 8:35; 2 Cor 6:4) or it occurs as part of a list of hardships (2 Cor 12:10). It seems clear that this verb has connotations of distress and suffering. 38 Seifrid, Second Corinthians, 286. See also Garland, 2 Corinthians, 329. 39 It occurs eight times in Paul’s letters; elsewhere in the New Testament it occurs three times (Luke 1:78; Acts 1:18; 1 John 3:17). 40 Harris, Second Corinthians, 490. 36 37

196

Jeff Wisdom

Paul’s appeal to the Corinthians in 6:11–12 pursues a specific purpose. He wants them to respond in a similar manner. 41 Paul desires a return on the investment of his heart in the church in Corinth. 42 In return for his affection, he asks the Corinthians to open their hearts to him. The noun ‚nτιmισθία (“return”) means a correspondingly appropriate response. This specific word only occurs twice in the New Testament, here and in Rom 1:27, where Paul refers to the appropriate divine response to human rebellion against God. The grammar of the phrase at the beginning of 2 Cor 6:13 indicates that Paul expects “the same response” (τ˜n αÎτ˜n ‚nτιmισθίαn) from them. He expects them to return his affection for them. Paul reinforces the point by repeating the same verb he uses in 6:11, although in 6:13 the grammar of the verb indicates that this response of appropriate affection for Paul is simply a possibility. Paul is the Corinthians’ father in the faith, and he wants what is best for them. In anticipation of the fulfillment of this apostolic desire, Paul appeals to those who persist in rejecting his apostolic authority. The Corinthians have rejected Paul, so they have rejected the gospel Christ commissioned him to preach. But those who have rejected Paul do not realize the spiritual danger they face. 43 Thus Paul’s appeal in 6:11–13 is an expression of tough love, 44 and it places him in a very vulnerable position. He has opened his heart to them, but they may choose to continue to close theirs to him. Rather than simply leaving them to their fate, Paul issues this passionate appeal for them to repent and to reconcile with him. Next, Paul calls on the Corinthians who have reconciled with him to separate from those who persist in rebellion (2 Cor 6:14–7:1). Hence, Paul’s instruction fits in the literary structure of 2 Cor 6:3–7:16, which focuses on apostolic suffering and compassion. The expressions “unequally yoked” (áτεροζθγοÜnτες), 45 “partnership” (mετοχ˜), and “fellowship” (κοιnωnία) in 6:14 each point to the importance of maintaining the health and the integrity of Christ’s body. The danger for the church in Corinth lies in continued association between believers (those who have reconciled with Paul) and unbelievers (those who persist in rebellion against him). 46 In 1 and 2 Corinthians Paul makes clear his concerns regarding their association with a so-called brother who refuses to repent (e. g. 1 Corinthians 5). Paul stresses the seriousness of this inappropriate association in 2 Cor 6:15–16 by using the expressions συmφώnησις (“accord” or “common

41 Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, 271; Gorman, Apostle of the Crucified Lord, 309; and Seifrid, Second Corinthians, 286–87. 42 Barnett, Second Corinthians, 337. 43 Garland, 2 Corinthians, 330. 44 Seifrid, Second Corinthians, 286. 45 On the significance of this hapax legomena, see Harris, Second Corinthians, 498–501. 46 Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, 277–89.

Opening the Heart

197

ground”), mερίς (“portion”), and συγκατάθεσις (“agreement”). Paul intends to drive a wedge between the repentant and the rebellious Corinthians. A catena of scriptural citations adds divine weight and authority to Paul’s call for separation from the rebellious ones (6:16b–18). Members of Christ’s body in Corinth who persist in rejecting Paul’s apostolic authority must be removed from the church. Repentance is vital for them before Paul pronounces judgment on them (see 1 Cor 13:1–10). Paul’s concern for the rebellious Corinthians is redemptive. He wants them to realize the importance of their response to his challenge, and he wants them to exhibit the sort of sorrow that led to the removal of the man living in an immoral relationship (1 Cor 5:1–5). More clearly, this call for the removal of these rebellious members of the church is meant to protect the holiness and purity of the repentant Corinthians (2 Cor 7:1). Therefore, even this apparently harsh challenge to remove some members is motivated by Paul’s concern and affection for the church’s health. Paul’s appeal to the Corinthians continues in chapter seven, but the focus of his attention shifts from an appeal for repentance on the part of some of the Corinthians (6:11–13) to encouragement for those who have already repented (7:2–4). This shift of focus is indicated in the change from a call to “open” (‚nοίγειn) their hearts to Paul (6:11) to a call for them to “make room” (χωρεØn) for him in their affections (7:2). The verb χωρεØn only occurs here in the Pauline corpus. Elsewhere in the New Testament it regularly has connotations of appropriately using or making space for someone or something. 47 The likely implication of this change is that in 2 Cor 7:2 Paul addresses those whose hearts have already been opened. 48 His blunt appeal is for them to continue to make room for him in their affections. Paul gives three impassioned reasons for the Corinthians to continue to embrace him: he has wronged no one, he has corrupted no one, and he has taken advantage of no one (7:2b). These three statements recall Paul’s defense of his generous attitude toward the Corinthians; Paul claims he has spoken freely to them and has not restricted them in any way (6:12). 49 The literary structure of the appeals in 2 Cor 6:11–13 and 7:2 may indicate a chiasm. Paul begins and ends the two appeals with a denial that he is responsible for any harm the Corinthians may have experienced (6:11–12; 7:2b). Within these two denials he calls on them to open their hearts and make room for him (6:13; 7:2a). If this suggestion is correct, then this literary structure demonstrates the close connec-

47 Elsewhere in the New Testament this verb has the meaning of “to go out” (Matt 15:17), “to accept” or “to receive” something (Matt 19:11), “to hold” (John 2:6; 21:25), or “to have room for” (Mark 2:2; John 8:37). Once this verb is used with the noun “repentance” (mετάnοια) to mean “to come to repentance” (2 Pet 3:9). 48 Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, 306–07. 49 Harris, Second Corinthians, 517; Seifrid, Second Corinthians, 303.

198

Jeff Wisdom

tion between these two appeals and has implications for the literary integrity of chapters six and seven. In his appeal to the Corinthians, Paul offers three denials. First, he claims that he has wronged no one (οÎδέnα šδικησαmεn). The verb ‚δικεØn (“to wrong”) occurs later in this context with reference to someone who has done harm to the gospel (2 Cor 7:12). Elsewhere in Paul’s letters this verb refers to significant harm done to the church of Jesus Christ, whether merely potential or actual (1 Cor 6:7; Gal 4:12; Col 3:25; Phlm 18). Here it is part of an emphatic statement that he has done nothing to anyone that may hinder their reconciliation to Paul and to the gospel. 50 Second, Paul denies that he has corrupted anyone in Corinth. The verb Paul uses is somewhat rare in the New Testament. In 2 Pet 2:12 it references the ultimate “destruction” for false teachers, and in Rev 19:2 it means the “corruption” of the earth that the great Prostitute of Babylon perpetrates, for which God pronounces judgment. Thus, this verb has strong connotations of significant corruption that carries eternal consequences. In Eph 4:22 Paul uses this verb in the context of an appeal to Christians to leave their former manner of life that is corrupt through deceitful desires. He also utilizes this concept of deceitfulness that corrupts when he warns the Corinthians about the false apostles among them (2 Cor 11:3). Significantly, Paul also uses this verb in a warning about corrupting God’s temple, the church (1 Cor 3:17). 51 This verb raises the intensity of Paul’s claim. His conduct among them has not corrupted any of them. Third, Paul chooses a verb that highlights the personal nature of this appeal, one that stresses that he has not used the Corinthians in any way for his own personal advantage. The verb πλεοnεκτεØn (“to take advantage of”) is quite rare in the New Testament, and it is an exclusively Pauline term. Earlier in this letter, Paul uses it to refer to his actions that are intended to keep Satan from taking advantage of him in his apostolic ministry and in his relationship with the Corinthians when he needs to exercise discipline in the church (2 Cor 2:11). Paul also uses this verb in 1 Thess 4:6 in an appeal to sexual purity in the church so that no one takes advantage of another because God will judge the offenders in such matters. A noun form of this particular word has the connotation of “greedy” (πλεοnέκτης), and it is also exclusively a Pauline word (1 Cor 5:10, 6:10; Eph 5:5). Thus, in his third denial in 2 Cor 7:2 Paul raises the bar on his claim. He is not merely saying that he has avoided doing any harm in Corinth; he is claiming that he has done nothing for personal gain in any form from anyone. In 7:3, Paul reminds the Corinthians of his great affection for them. His emphatic denials in v. 2 are meant to motivate them to respond to his appeal to 50

For several specific suggestions regarding the particular circumstance for this charge of wrongdoing on Paul’s part, see Harris, Second Corinthians, 517. 51 Seifrid, Second Corinthians, 303.

Opening the Heart

199

make room for him in their hearts and to open their hearts to him (6:11–13). This is clear in his statement that the Corinthians are “in our hearts” (ân ταØς καρδίαις ™mÀn). Paul has previously expressed his anguish over their rejection of his apostolic ministry (2:4). The Corinthians are Paul’s letter of recommendation written on his heart (3:2–3). He affirms that his conduct among the Corinthians is meant for their benefit so they may know what is in his heart (5:12). This conduct is for them (5:13), and it is one of the ways that the love of Christ is expressed toward them in his ministry of reconciliation among them (5:14–21). Paul’s heart is wide open toward them (6:11). One thing is perfectly clear: Paul’s great affection for them is undeniable, and this love is expressed in his affirmation that they are in his heart. Surely, Paul thinks, the Corinthians cannot deny this. In 7:3 Paul indicates his depth of commitment to the Corinthians by using language related to death and life. He inverts the usual (and thus expected) sequence of life and death, probably to point to the significance of the death and the resurrection of Jesus Christ for Paul and for the Corinthians. 52 The former verb (συnαποθαnεØn) is quite rare in the New Testament. In Mark’s Gospel, Peter uses this verb in his emphatic denial that he will abandon Jesus when he is arrested (Mark 14:31). Paul’s choice of this verb in 2 Corinthians is consistent with an early tradition about the significance of union with Christ’s death (2 Tim 2:11). The latter verb (συζ¨n) occurs only within the Pauline literature. In one place it occurs with συnαποθαnεØn (2 Tim 2:11), and in another it refers to union with Christ in his death and his resurrection (Rom 6:8). 53 Paul’s language of death and life in 2 Cor 7:3 points to the theme of discipleship. Through their identification with Jesus Christ in his death and resurrection, Paul and the Corinthians are a community of followers of Jesus committed to each other in all of life. Moreover, the grammar of the verbs points to the ongoing nature of union with the life of Christ. 54 Thus, the significance of Paul’s use of the language of death is to point to the costly nature of their life together as Christ’s disciples. 55 Therefore Paul’s commitment to the Corinthians and his affection for them are both expressions of obedience as a disciple of Jesus Christ. The Corinthians will express this commitment to Christ when they are reconciled to Paul. Moreover, union with Christ’s life through identification with his resurrection is progressively lived out in their relationships with one another. Both Paul’s suffering as

52

Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, 308. In Romans Paul does not use the verb συnαποθαnεØn; instead he employs the similar language of ‚πεθάnοmεn σÌn. 54 Barnett, Second Corinthians, 362; Seifrid, Second Corinthians, 304; and Garland, 2 Corinthians, 344. 55 Harris, Second Corinthians, 518–19. 53

200

Jeff Wisdom

an apostle and his great joy in them are expressions of their life together. God has called them to die together and to live together with their Lord Jesus Christ. Paul employs three statements in rapid succession in 7:4. 56 He acts with great boldness toward them, he has great pride in them, and he is filled with comfort. As Paul has used a triad of concise statements to deny any harmful intentions toward them in 7:2b, so here he offers a triad of affirmations of his intentions. First, he acts in πολλή παρρησία (“much boldness”) toward them. 57 The use of this noun (παρρησία) recalls Paul’s description of his apostolic ministry, which is bold because it is grounded in the glory of God revealed in the face of Christ through the power of the Spirit (2 Cor 3:12). Thus, Paul’s boldness is not merely a personal confidence in himself, but is the outward manifestation of his hope in Christ. His outward posture toward the Corinthians reflects his inner trust and hope in Christ. Second, Paul affirms his πολλή καύχησις (“great pride”) in them. The noun translated “pride” may also be translated “boast” (καύχησις). It occurs frequently in the Corinthian correspondence, especially in 2 Corinthians. 58 In this letter Paul uses this noun to refer to their mutual boasting in each other on Judgment Day (1:14) and to the appropriate boasting Paul encourages in response to the false apostles that have come to Corinth (5:12). It is significant that Paul encourages the Corinthians to boast about what is in Paul’s heart, namely, the Corinthians themselves. Paul expresses a desire to boast in their sacrificial generosity to meet the needs of others (9:3). Appropriate boasting is in the Lord and in what he has done among the Corinthians, 59 and Paul regularly looks for opportunities to boast about the Corinthians and his apostolic ministry. 60 Significantly, Paul’s joy in the Corinthians (7:4) and his suffering as an apostle are both occasions for his boasting (compare 11:18 with 11:21b–28). Paul boasts in the things that demonstrate his weakness (11:30; 12:1–10). His writing to effect reconciliation with the Corinthians who persist in rejecting his apostolic authority may look like weakness to those viewing life from a worldly perspective. But Paul considers it boldness for them, rooted in his role as the apostle whom his crucified Lord has called to this ministry. Third, Paul asserts that he is filled with παράκλησις (“comfort” or “encouragement”). This expression lacks the second person pronoun with reference

56 The section’s use of asyndeton and alliteration give it a poetic effect (Barnett, Second Corinthians, 363). 57 On the use here of παρρησία with the connotation of “boldness” or “candidness,” see Harris, Second Corinthians, 519–20. 58 This noun occurs ten times in the New Testament, with three of those uses in 1 Corinthians and three in 2 Corinthians. Moreover, the verb form of this word occurs thirty-one times in the New Testament, with nineteen of those uses in the Corinthian correspondence. 59 See 1 Cor 1:30–31; 3:21; 4:7; 2 Cor 5:12; 10:17. 60 See 2 Cor 7:14; 9:2; 10:8, 13, 16; 11:16, 18.

Opening the Heart

201

to the Corinthians, and this omission may point to the ultimate source of his encouragement and comfort – God himself (2 Cor 1:3–7). 61 Paul has great boldness toward them and great pride in them, but ultimately his comfort and encouragement come from God through Christ. Because Paul is united with Christ in his death and resurrection (see 7:3), his comfort comes from God. Paul affirms this theological ground for his comfort and encouragement when he writes, “For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too” (1:5). Paul’s encouragement is grounded in his trust and hope in Christ crucified and raised from the dead, not the Corinthians’ response. Thus, his appeal to them to be reconciled to him and through him to God is aimed at their welfare, not his. Paul willingly endured suffering for their sake because his encouragement and comfort are not based on their response. Paul brings together the themes of suffering and joy in 7:4. In his affliction, he overflows with joy. The word translated “affliction” (θλØψις) occurs quite frequently in 2 Corinthians. God comforts in affliction so that this comfort may be mediated to others (1:4, 6). Affliction is momentary (2:4), and these sufferings are part of Paul’s call as an apostle of his crucified Lord (6:4). Paul states that he wrote a painful letter to the Corinthians in much affliction and anguish of heart to demonstrate his abundant love for them (2:4). Significantly, this last reference brings together three of the themes under consideration: affliction, the heart, and love. He does not intend to hurt them, even though this may have happened. Paul has written to them to rebuke them and to call them to repentance to make plain his abundant love for them (2:4) He has also written to report his encouragement that a particular person has repented (2:5–11). 62 In a similar manner, Paul writes this letter to appeal to those who need to be reconciled to Paul to open their hearts to him and make room for him. Paul has already made room for them in his heart, and his heart is opened wide to them. Though some continue to reject him, in his apostolic ministry Paul does everything he can to demonstrate his affection and love. 63 He even willingly endures suffering and affliction for them. Paul has been willing to suffer for his call to be an apostle of Jesus Christ (6:3–10), and he has done nothing to hinder anyone in the faith (6:3, 12). Paul’s description of his suffering as an apostle is fairly general in ch. 6, but in 2 Cor 7:5–16 it becomes specific in relation to his conduct among and for the Corinthians. 64 The occasion for this period of suffering was Paul’s anxiety

61 Harris, Second Corinthians, 520; Seifrid, Second Corinthians, 304; and Barrett, Second Corinthians, 206. 62 Barnett, Second Corinthians, 364. 63 Harris, Second Corinthians, 521. 64 Ibid., 522–24.

202

Jeff Wisdom

after he left Corinth when they rejected his apostolic authority. 65 He reports that his time in Macedonia was marked by little rest and by affliction at every turn. Paul uses the same expression (êσχηκεn Šnεσιn) earlier in this letter about another time he was concerned for them (2:13). 66 The noun that Paul uses here only occurs in one other place in the New Testament, where Paul prays that the Thessalonians may experience relief from tribulation (2 Thess 1:7). Similarly, in 2 Corinthians his lack of rest is due, at least in part, to tribulation or suffering. Paul is entirely consumed with the effects of this suffering. He has no rest because of external fighting and internal fear (7:5). 67 This time of suffering passed when Titus brought news that some of them had repented. From Paul’s perspective, this good news of repentance bears the fruit of reconciliation between him and them. God is the source of this encouragement (1:3–7), for he is the one who comforts “the downcast” (ταπειnος), a word that elsewhere is regularly translated “the humble” or “the lowly.” 68 Paul’s humility among them as the apostle of Jesus Christ has the connotation of one who is downcast. But this is not merely Paul’s personal sentiment. His downcast state is due to the spiritual consequences of the rejection of his authority as an apostle of Jesus Christ. 69 When Titus returns to Paul with the good news of their repentance, Paul rejoices at the report of their longing for him, their mourning over their rebellion, and their renewed zeal for Paul and the gospel Christ has commissioned him to preach (7:7). Paul affirms that he wrote to the Corinthians with the intention of inflicting grief upon them, but also that he did this precisely because he loves them and always seeks their welfare. Inflicting grief did not bring Paul joy; rather, it filled him with grief (2 Cor 7:8–9). Yet Paul willingly endured this personal pain (cf. 2:1–4) out of love. Thus, Paul’s compassion for the Corinthians and his love for them are expressed in exactly the same decision and the same experience. Paul’s love for them compels him to write a letter of discipline to rebuke their rebellion against him and against the gospel of Jesus Christ. This letter brings Paul personal pain, anxiety, and suffering. But he willingly endures this suffering because he loves the Corinthians and is seeking to produce the godly

65

Barnett, Second Corinthians, 364–65; and Seifrid, Second Corinthians, 305. Harris, Second Corinthians, 525; and Barnett, Second Corinthians, 367. 67 The use of this language probably alludes to the idea that Paul states more directly in 2 Cor 11:28, his daily concern and anxiety for the church. See Barnett, Second Corinthians, 367–68; Harris, Second Corinthians, 527. 68 See Matt 11:29; Luke 1:52; Rom 12:16; 2 Cor 10:1; Jas 1:9, 4:6; 1 Pet 5:5. On Paul’s use of this word in this context against the backdrop of the use of “the downcast” (ταπειnος) in the Septuagint to refer to the comfort that God’s promise brings to unfortunate sufferers, see Garland, 2 Corinthians, 351–52. 69 On the relationship here between ταπειnος and παρακαλεØn, see Harris, Second Corinthians, 528–29. 66

Opening the Heart

203

grief that leads to repentance (7:10–13a). 70 Even Titus, who is Paul’s messenger in this correspondence, is motivated to endure the risk of returning to Corinth with the painful letter because he loves the Corinthians (7:13b–16). Paul’s affirmation of his apostolic compassion for the Corinthians in 2 Cor 6:11–13 and 7:2–4 unfolds within the context of his description of his apostolic suffering for them. Indeed, these two affirmations are preceded and followed by extended discussions of the theme of apostolic suffering (6:3–10; 7:5–13). Moreover, a call for the Corinthians to separate from those who persist in their rebellion against Paul’s authority as an apostle is nestled between these two affirmations of his compassion for them (6:14–7:1). Thus, the theme of church discipline expands the scope of Paul’s reference to his apostolic suffering that he endures for the sake of the church (cf. 2:2–4). Paul is committed to doing the hard thing necessary for the sake of these believers’ welfare. His love for the church of God in Corinth motivates him to endure suffering and to challenge them to expel those who have a negative influence on them. In 2 Cor 6:3–13 and 7:2–16, Paul issues a call for repentance from rebellion against him and an encouragement to restoration and reconciliation with him. To support this call and encouragement, Paul describes the role his suffering as an apostle has played in his ministry, especially as this suffering has been endured for their sake and for their benefit. Barnett writes that Paul’s “lifestyle of sacrifice and suffering consistently reproduces and embodies the sacrifice and suffering of the Christ whose apostle Paul is (6:3–10). He exercises his ministry ‘by the meekness and gentleness of Christ’ (10:1).” 71 In his humility as the apostle of Jesus Christ, Paul suffers for the Corinthians’ sake, and he calls them to repentance and reconciliation because this is best for them. Indeed, he does everything possible to support and promote this response. In 2 Corinthians 6–7, Paul’s argument appears to be structured as a chiasm. 72 He begins with a general description of his suffering as an apostle for the sake of the effectiveness of his ministry (6:2–10). He then offers an appeal to some in Corinth who persist in their rebellious rejection of his apostolic authority (6:11–13). After a clear call for the faithful in Corinth to separate from those who refuse to heed this final call for repentance (6:14–7:1), Paul returns to an affirmation of his love for the Corinthians (7:2–4) and to a more specific description of his suffering as an apostle for the sake of reconciliation (7:5–16). Thus the chiasm in 2 Cor 6:2–7:16 unfolds as follows:

70

Barnett, Second Corinthians, 374–75. Ibid., 375. On Paul’s regular use of chiasm in this letter, see Harris (Second Corinthians, 478), who mentions 2 Cor 2:15–16; 5:21; 6:8; 7:14; 9:6; 10:11; 12:9; 13:3. Craig Blomberg argues for chiastic structure in 2 Cor 1:12–7:16 (“The Structure of 2 Corinthians 1–7,” CTR 4.1 [1989]: 3–20). 71 72

204

Jeff Wisdom

A Paul’s apostolic suffering (6:2–10) B Paul’s appeal motivated by love (6:11–13) C Separate from those who persist in rebellion (6:14–7:1) 1

B Paul’s affirmation of his love for the Corinthians (7:2–4) A1 Paul’s description of his apostolic suffering for their sake (7:5–16) This chiasm underscores the literary integrity of 2 Cor 6:3–7:16. 73 It also emphasizes Paul’s suffering as an apostle in two ways. First, it does so by placing the explicit theme of suffering at the beginning and the end of this literary unit. Paul’s argument in chs. 6 and 7 highlights his willingness to suffer for the sake of the gospel and for the benefit of people, including the rebellious Corinthians. Even when they reject him, Paul refuses to give up on them until it is no longer possible to maintain fellowship. Second, the inclusion of a call to separate from those who persist in rebellion accentuates this theme of suffering. Paul’s love and compassion for the Corinthians has motivated him to do everything possible to restore his relationship with them, but eventually he must pronounce divine judgment upon the rebellious for the sake of the health of the church (cf. 2 Cor 13:1–10). In this letter Paul holds together three things that may appear irreconcilable. First, he highlights the role of his suffering as an apostle of Jesus Christ. Second, Paul’s great affection and love for them causes him to suffer for their sake. Therefore, Paul’s apostolic ministry embodies the commandment to love one’s neighbor. Third, Paul affirms the role of discipline within the body of Christ. This painful conduct is, in fact, one of the expressions of love that is a necessary part of the life of the church. On the one hand, this discipline is important because it aims at restoration to fellowship through repentance (2 Cor 13:9). This restoration to fellowship is obviously in their best interest, for it results in blessing for them. On the other hand, Paul’s call to separate from those who may never come to repentance is intended to protect and to preserve the purity and holiness of the body of Christ (6:14–7:1). In 2 Cor 6:2–7:16 Paul has woven together the themes of his apostolic suffering and his great compassion for the Corinthians. Paul’s goal in 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 is twofold: to protect the purity and the holiness of the church and to motivate those who remain in rebellion to repent before Paul’s final visit to Corinth. This is Paul’s commitment and his experience in a life of self-sacrificial love for the 73 On the integrity of this section on other literary grounds, see Barnett, Second Corinthians, 338–41. On the literary integrity of 2 Corinthians 5–7 on thematic grounds, see Greg Beale, “The Old Testament Background of Reconciliation in 2 Cor 5–7 and Its Bearing on the Literary Problem of 2 Corinthians 6.4–7.1,” NTS 35 (1989): 550–81. For a defense of the literary integrity of this whole letter, see Fredrick Long, Ancient Rhetoric and Paul’s Apology: The Compositional Unity of 2 Corinthians, SNTSMS 131 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

Opening the Heart

205

body of Christ. Elsewhere in the Corinthian correspondence, his experience of suffering provides the occasion for his love for believers. Rather than mutually exclusive themes, then, suffering and compassion are inextricably linked in 1 and 2 Corinthians. Indeed, even on occasions when Paul must exercise discipline there is a link between suffering and compassion.

Compassion and Suffering in the Corinthian Correspondence The remainder of this paper will trace briefly the symbiotic relationship in the Corinthian correspondence between Paul’s suffering and his compassion in order to indicate its importance for Paul. 74 In 1 Corinthians Paul begins with his response to the Corinthians’ division over competing loyalties to human leaders. As a part of this response, Paul’s suffering and weakness are featured parts of his argument. Paul intentionally comes to the Corinthians in weakness so their faith will rest on God’s power (1 Cor 2:1–5). When this argument comes to its conclusion, Paul indicates that his ministry both involves significant suffering (4:9, 13) and is for their benefit (4:6). As a father, Paul rebukes the Corinthians because he loves them, even when he must discipline them (4:14–21). In rebuking the Corinthians for their acceptance of the man living in an immoral relationship, Paul calls for this man’s removal from their assembly (5:2, 7, 13). This apostolic rebuke is both for the man’s benefit (the hope for his salvation in the end [5:5]) and for the Corinthians’ (that their purity may be maintained [5:8]). Thus, Paul’s compassion for the Corinthians motivates this confrontation, and his compassion extends to the immoral man subject to discipline. The problem of divisiveness in Corinth over the eating of food offered to idols includes an extended discussion of Paul’s example of giving up his right to financial support for the sake of the effectiveness of his gospel ministry (1 Corinthians 9). Within this discussion, Paul mentions several choices he has made that involve at least some measure of suffering on his part (9:1–5). Paul becomes all things to all people for the sake of the gospel (9:19–23), which requires self-discipline (9:24–27). Paul endures anything for the sake of the gospel (9:12). He would rather die than choose another course of action with respect to his ministry (9:15), and he pronounces a prophetic “woe” upon himself if he proves unfaithful (9:16). He has made himself a slave for the sake of the gospel (9:23), and he disciplines himself like a runner who seeks to win the prize (9:24–26). Paul has done all of this for the sake of the ministry of the

74 Within the limits of this essay, this survey can only point to these places as an indication of an area for further research.

206

Jeff Wisdom

gospel, and the Corinthians are the beneficiaries of this apostolic suffering. Indeed, Paul chooses this pathway of suffering not for his own advantage but for the spiritual benefit of many (10:31–11:1). The theme in 2 Corinthians of Paul’s suffering for the sake of the gospel is well established. 75 The connection of the apostle’s compassion with his apostolic suffering is equally clear. This letter begins with a statement about God’s comfort and encouragement for Paul in his suffering that empowers him to be an encouragement for others (1:3–7). God uses Paul’s suffering to help others, which is illustrated by the fact that Paul nearly died for the gospel ministry (1:8–11). Paul’s specific choices in response to the Corinthians’ rebellion against his apostolic authority are motivated by his care for them. He delays his return to Corinth so he may not appear to be lording his authority over them and so they may benefit spiritually (1:23–24). 76 Paul wants to avoid another painful visit (2:1), and during this time apart he writes to them. This correspondence comes out of much affliction and anguish. Through many tears he writes to them to let them know of his abundant love for them (2:3–4). Paul chooses to endure personal pain, anguish, and suffering because he loves the Corinthians very much. Paul’s account of giving up an open door for ministry because of his affection for the Corinthians illustrates the depth of his love for them (2:12–17). Paul’s apostolic ministry is motivated by his compassion for believers and his willingness to suffer for the effectiveness of the gospel (4:7–5:13). Paul’s suffering demonstrates God’s power at work in him. It benefits believers, including the Corinthians (4:12, 15; 5:13). Paul’s love for them motivates his humble refusal of financial support from them (11:7–11). He willingly endures suffering for the sake of the gospel, whether mental (11:21a) or physical (11:21b–29). This apostolic compassion is especially clear in the climax of this list of Paul’s suffering: the daily pressure on him is produced by his anxiety for the churches’ welfare (11:28). When Paul concludes this letter of appeal, he issues one final encouragement for some who persist in rebellion: be reconciled to Paul before he returns because at that time he must pronounce divine judgment upon them (2 Cor 12:11–13:14). Within this final challenge, Paul’s suffering for them and his deep concern for them is evident at several places. They consider Paul a fool (12:11) and a deceiver (12:16). He has chosen not be a financial burden to them (12:13–14, 16). Paul does not want what belongs to them; he wants them (12:14). Paul’s great love for them comes at great cost to him (12:15). He has in 75 Scott Hafemann, Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit: Paul’s Defense of His Ministry in II Corinthians 2:14–3:3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990). 76 Paul’s claim that he is not intending to lord it over the Corinthians may echo Jesus’s teaching in Mark 10:42–45.

Opening the Heart

207

no way taken advantage of them (12:17–18). Paul’s goal in everything is to build them up because they are beloved (12:19). Paul’s weakness is a result of his calling to be the apostle of Jesus Christ, his crucified Lord (13:3–4). Paul continues to pray for the Corinthians (13:7), and he prays for their strengthening in the faith and for their restoration to him and to the gospel (13:9). The primary reason for this letter is Paul’s desire for their repentance and their blessing (13:10). In the Corinthian correspondence Paul plainly expresses his great compassion for these believers and his willingness to suffer for the sake of the ministry of the gospel. This essay has examined the primary place in the Corinthian correspondence where Paul’s compassion and suffering are in a close relationship with one another (2 Cor 6:3–7:16). A brief survey of these themes elsewhere in these two letters helps to establish Paul’s suffering and his affection for the Corinthians are also intimately connected. Paul’s suffering and compassion are fundamental aspects of his call to be the apostle to the gentiles, because Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, has appointed him to this ministry.

Imitate Me as I Imitate Christ Considering the Jewish Perspective in Paul’s Use of Imitation in 1 Corinthians H. H. Drake Williams III Several times in 1 Corinthians Paul tells the Corinthians to imitate his example. 1 These exhortations occur at critical junctures, such as in 4:16 where Paul writes, “I urge you, then, be imitators of me.” 2 This instance follows a lengthy discussion about division, wisdom, and the role of Christian leaders, and it functions as a conclusion for a discussion that began in 1 Cor 1:10, as the use of the word παρακαλÀ in both 1:10 and 4:16 indicates. In 1 Cor 11:1, Paul again tells the Corinthians to imitate him: “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.” This exhortation also occurs at the end of a lengthy discussion, in this case one about weak and strong brothers and concerns related to eating food sacrificed to idols. While the instances are clear, scholars differ over the reason Paul employs imitation language. A first group of scholars concludes that Paul did so due to his understanding of authority. These experts believe that the calls for imitation were merely a way to reassert his jurisdiction over the church he founded, 3 a means to encourage the Corinthians to obedience, 4 or a means to assert himself as the head of ecclesiastical authority. 5 A second group suggests Paul used this language to help the Corinthians recall the relationship that he had with them. 6 Some focus on the relationship that Paul had with the Corinthians as their father, 7 while others emphasize the relationship that Paul had with them 1 I am thankful to Dr. Scott J. Hafemann for his example as a Christian scholar, his devotion to studies of the Old Testament in the New, Paul, and the Corinthian letters. His passion for these has provided a wonderful example to imitate. 2 All Scripture texts are taken from the NIV unless otherwise noted. 3 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 183. 4 W. Michaelis, “mιmέοmαι,” TDNT 4:672–73. 5 Elizabeth A. Castelli, Imitating Paul: A Discussion of Power (Louisville: Westminster /John Knox, 1991), 108. 6 Willis Peter De Boer, The Imitation of Paul: An Exegetical Study (Kampen: Kok, 1962), 211–16. See also Anselm Schulz, Nachfolgen und Nachahmen: Studien über das Verhältnis der neutestamentlichen Jüngerschaft zur urchristlichen Vorbildethik (München: Kösel, 1962), 308–16. 7 Linda L. Belleville, “‘Imitate Me, Just as I Imitate Christ’: Discipleship in the Corinthian Correspondence,” in Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 121–22; and Bengt Holmberg, Paul and Power: Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1980), 76–81. See also Jürgen Roloff, Apostolat – Verkündigung – Kirche: Ursprung, Inhalt und Funktion des kirchlichen Apostelamtes nach Paulus, Lukas und den Pastoralbriefen (Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 1965), 116–20.

210

H. H. Drake Williams III

as a teacher to a pupil. 8 A third group believes Paul used the imitation concept to address the social situation at Corinth. One writer considers the concept a means to exhibit unity within the divided Corinthian church, 9 whereas another deems it a means to seek the common good of others, 10 and yet another as a means to contradict the secular examples of the Sophists. 11 A fourth and final group believes the imitation idea was motivated by a theological viewpoint. Among these scholars one views imitation as an outworking of the cross of Christ, 12 while others claim it derives from the suffering servant idea. 13 From the survey of these viewpoints, it is apparent that there is no consensus on why Paul used the imitation idea. What is striking about this survey is that many of these studies examine imitation from the Greco-Roman perspective of the word and its social surroundings. This is a natural approach, since Greco-Roman literature provides numerous analogies and examples. 14 Imitation language was used in relation to aesthetic pursuits such as music, poetry, and acting. 15 Plato, Aristotle, and Philo used it to describe the difference between a greater world and the lesser, intelligible world. 16 Greco-Roman religions spoke of imitating God. 17 Some GrecoRoman writers, for example Isocrates and Diotogenes, used imitation language in relation to kings and kingship. 18 Heroic examples were also appealed to fre-

8 Pedro Guttierez, La paternité spirituelle selon Saint Paul (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1968), 172–97; and Hans Conzelman, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, trans. James W. Leitch, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 92. 9 Boykin Sanders, “Imitating Paul: 1 Cor. 4:16,” HTR 74 (1981): 353–63. 10 Andrew D. Clarke, Serve the Community of the Church: Christians as Leaders and Ministers, First-Century Christians in the Graeco-Roman World (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 226. See also Andrew D. Clarke, “‘Be Imitators of Me’: Paul’s Model of Leadership,” TynBul 49 (1998): 329–60. 11 Ben Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on I and II Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 145. 12 Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther. Teilband 1: 1 Kor 1,1–6,11, EKKNT 7.1 (Zürich: Benziger, 1991), 357–58. 13 David M. Stanley, “Become Imitators of Me: The Pauline Conception of Apostolic Tradition,” Bib 40 (1958): 871; and Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 498–99. 14 See further Martin Paul Schittko, Analogien als Argumentationstyp. Vom Paradeigma zur Similitudo, Hypomnemata 144 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003); and Benjamin Fiore, The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles, AnBib 105 (Rome: Gregorian, 1986). 15 Plato, Leg. 812B–C, 814–818; Aristotle, Poet. 1448B; and Castelli, Imitating Paul, 63–65. 16 Aristotle, Metaph. 987B; Plato, Tim. 37C–38B, 41B – C, E, 48E; Philo, Opif. 16; and Castelli, Imitating Paul, 65–71. 17 Plato, Leg. 716C–D; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.14.13; Seneca, Ep. 1.5; Philo, Decal. 119–120; Virt. 168; Spec. 4.73. Plutarch, Quaest. conv. IX 15; Hans Dieter Betz, Nachfolge und Nachahmung Jesu Christi im Neuen Testament, BHT 37 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 48–49; and Castelli, Imitating Paul, 71–78. 18 Isocrates, Phil. 113–114; Diotogenes quoted in Stobaeus, Ecl. 4.7.61; Sthenidas of Locri quoted in Stobaeus, Ecl. 4.7.63; and Castelli, Imitating Paul, 78–81.

Imitate Me as I Imitate Christ

211

quently in the literature of the time. 19 Despite these various connections, the examination of these sources has not provided sufficient understanding regarding Paul’s motive for using imitation language. Given the lack of clarity gained from examining Greco-Roman sources, it is worth exploring other options to resolve this difficulty.

Jewish Possibilities for Imitation Fewer scholars have considered the concept from a Jewish perspective. Thus, doing so may provide a fresh viewpoint. Scholars have long noted that both Paul’s Greco-Roman background and his Jewish upbringing influenced his writings. The relationship between these influences, however, is an ongoing issue. Scott Hafemann states well the quest for a primary influence on Paul’s letters when he writes, “The fundamental issue still to be resolved in Pauline studies is the determination of the primary religious and theological context within which Paul’s thought is to be understood.” 20 Others have noted this difficulty. N. T. Wright describes the influences on Paul’s life as “multiple, overlapping and sometimes competing narratives.” 21 Ben Witherington noted the importance and uncertainty of Paul’s Jewish, Roman, and Christian background. He explored each of these in a chapter cleverly entitled “The Trinity of Paul’s Identity.” 22 Given these observations, further consideration of the Jewish background is appropriate. Besides Paul’s Jewish background, there are other reasons to consider imitation from a Jewish perspective when one investigates 1 Corinthians. Several Jewish ideas precede Paul’s exhortation to imitation in 4:16. First Corinthians 1–3 features several Old Testament citations, allusions, and echoes. 23 While there is no direct Scripture citation in 1 Corinthians 4, D. W. Kuck discerns

19 See further Plutarch, Mor. 539A–547F; Sir 44–50; 4 Macc 16:16–25. See also Peter-Ben Smit, Paradigms of Being in Christ: A Study of the Epistle to the Philippians, LNTS 476 (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 28–30. 20 Scott J. Hafemann, “Paul and His Interpreters,” DPL 678. Brian S. Rosner also affirms this perspective in Greed as Idolatry: The Origin and Meaning of a Pauline Metaphor (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 50. 21 N. T. Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 6. 22 Ben Witherington, The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 52. 23 See Isa 33:18 in 1 Cor 1:20; Isa 28:16 in 1 Cor 1:21–24; Jer 9:22 [9:23] in 1 Cor 1:26–28; Zech 4:6 in 1 Cor 2:3–5; Isa 65:17 in 1 Cor 2:9; Isa 40:13 in 1 Cor 2:16; Isa 5:1–7 in 1 Cor 3:6–9; Isa 3:3 in 1 Cor 3:10; Mal 3:2–3 in 1 Cor 3:12–15. See H. H. Drake Williams, The Wisdom of the Wise: The Presence and Function of Scripture within 1 Cor. 1:18–3:23, AGJU 49 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 47–299.

212

H. H. Drake Williams III

Jewish influence in Paul’s wording of judgment in 1 Cor 4:1–5. 24 Others detect Jewish influence in the phrase “what is written” in 1 Cor 4:6. 25 Jewish ideas precede Paul’s call to imitation in 1 Cor 11:1. Influence from Exodus 32 has been recognized in 1 Cor 10:1–10, from Deut 32:17 in 1 Cor 10:20, and from Ps 24:1 in 1 Cor 10:25–26. It has also been noted that ideas of reverence for God taken from Psalm 24 extend from the citation of Ps 24:1 in 1 Cor 10:26 into 1 Cor 10:30. If so, then this presses Jewish influence nearly to 1 Cor 11:1. 26 Given the proximity of these ideas to imitation language in 1 Corinthians, further consideration of Jewish parallels is clearly appropriate.

Jewish Influence and Imitation To explore possible Jewish sources for Paul’s imitation language, one should consider first Old Testament Scripture and then Jewish intertestamental literature. While there are no specific instances in the Old Testament of the sort of imitation language Paul uses, 27 intertestamental Jewish literature employs imitation language and concepts in several places. Imitation in Scripture Though explicit imitation language does not appear in the Septuagint, New Testament writers admire exemplary Old Testament heroes of the faith such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Samuel, and Jephthah (cf. Hebrews 11). These individuals provide a model of those who walked in faith and relied on the word of the Lord (Heb 11:1–6, 32–34). They were commended for their faith (Heb 11:39–40). Despite the prominent place they had in first century memory, in the Old Testament itself these forefathers are rarely looked upon for emulation. In most cases, it is the God who is behind the particular individual who is to be praised. Abraham’s name appears over 160 times in the Old Testament. In the majority of the passages outside Genesis his name is associated with his God. For 24 David W. Kuck, Judgment and Community Conflict: Paul’s Use of Apocalyptic Judgment Language in 1 Corinthians 3:5–4:5, NovTSup 66 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 196–210, 229–39. 25 Cf. Ciampa and Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, 175–77; Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, IBC (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1997), 69; J. Ross Wagner, “‘Not beyond the Things Which Are Written’: A Call to Boast Only in the Lord (1 Cor 4:6),” NTS 44 (1998): 279–87; and M. D. Hooker, “‘Beyond the Things Which Are Written’: A Call to Boast Only in the Lord [1 Cor 4:6]” NTS 10 (1963–64): 129–32. 26 See further H. H. Drake Williams, “Light Giving Sources: Examining the Extent of Scriptural Citation and Allusion Influence in 1 Corinthians,” in Paul: Jew, Greek, or Roman, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Pauline Studies 5 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 7–38. 27 Exodus 25:8 uses imitation language when describing the pattern of the tabernacle that God gave to Moses. See also De Boer, Imitation of Paul, 29.

Imitate Me as I Imitate Christ

213

example, in Psalm 105 where Israel’s history is retold, Abraham is mentioned, but in relation to the Lord, who is to be followed. Psalm 105:6–9 reads, “O descendants of Abraham his servant, O sons of Jacob, his chosen ones. He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth. He remembers his covenant forever, the word he commanded, for a thousand generations, the covenant he made with Abraham, the oath he swore to Isaac.” The same is true of Isaac and Jacob, whose relationship with their God figures more prominently than their personal example (cf. Exod 3:6; Pss 24:6; 46:7, 11; Isa 2:3; Mic 4:2). The same can be said for Moses. While he was a great leader of God’s people and known as the mediator of the Sinai covenant to his people, his name is associated with the Law that people are to emulate. For example, in 1 Kgs 2:1–4 when David hands over the kingdom to Solomon, he references Moses, but he does so in relation to the Law. When the time drew near for David to die, he gave a charge to Solomon his son. “I am about to go the way of all the earth,” he said. “So be strong, show yourself a man, and observe what the LORD your God requires: Walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses, so that you may prosper in all you do and wherever you go, and that the LORD may keep his promise to me: ‘If your descendants watch how they live, and if they walk faithfully before me with all their heart and soul, you will never fail to have a man on the throne of Israel.’”

Yet there are exceptions to this general rule. For example, Isa 51:1–2 encourages readers to emulate Abraham: “Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness and who seek the LORD: Look to the rock from which you were cut and to the quarry from which you were hewn; look to Abraham, your father, and to Sarah, who gave you birth. When I called him he was but one, and I blessed him and made him many.” The text urges Israel to follow Abraham’s pattern of finding nothing in himself and everything in his Lord. Psalm 99:6–7 lauds Moses, Aaron, and Samuel for their pursuit of God: “Moses and Aaron were among his priests, Samuel was among those who called on his name; they called on the LORD and he answered them. He spoke to them from the pillar of cloud; they kept his statutes and the decrees he gave them.” 28 While the praise of specific people is less pronounced, several texts advise readers to avoid certain patterns of living. For example, Lev 18:3 warns the people of Israel, “You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices.” Walking after the ways of other nations then became a frequent expression in the Old Testament (cf. Exod 23:24; Lev 20:23; Deut 12:30–31; 30:1; Jer 10:2–3; Ezek 20:7–8, 32). Jeremiah 10:2–3 serves as a good example of this type of usage: “This is what the LORD says: ‘Do not learn 28

Ibid., 30.

214

H. H. Drake Williams III

the ways of the nations or be terrified by signs in the sky, though the nations are terrified by them. For the customs of the peoples are worthless; they cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.’” While there is little emphasis on following particular people in the Old Testament, God’s people are to follow certain standards, often ones found in the Law. Leviticus 18:4 states plainly, “You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God.” God yearns for his people to follow him in Ps 81:13–14, “If my people would but listen to me, if Israel would follow my ways, how quickly would I subdue their enemies and turn my hand against their foes!” Similar exhortations occur throughout the Old Testament (cf. Lev 18:26; 19:37; 20:22; 37:24; Deut 4:1–2; 6:1; Pss 105:45; 119:4; Ezek 20:19; 36:27). The Old Testament is also filled with language about walking in a particular way. This may be particularly valuable in considering Pauline imitation, since Paul associates “the way” and “walking” with imitation (1 Cor 4:16–17; Phil 3:17; 2 Thess 3:6–13). “Walking” and “ways” are figurative expressions found throughout the Old Testament and thus can be broadly considered to contribute imitation ideas. These expressions highlight the fact that a person’s life is not static or abstract. Instead, there are paths that each one treads and follows. Such walking produces a way as one travels along a dusty road or path, leaving footprints. Certain pathways are to be followed and others avoided. Genesis 5:24 implies that Enoch’s path was worthy to follow: “Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.” 29 Deuteronomy 10:12–13 encourages walking in particular ways: “And now, O Israel, what does the LORD your God ask of you but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to observe the LORD’s commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good?” (cf. Josh 22:5; Ps 81:13; Ezek 11:20). In contrast to walking in good ways, some Old Testament texts warn against walking in bad paths. Psalm 1:1 states, “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers.” Old Testament characters are even evaluated according to their ways. The Lord’s ways are righteous and high above humanity’s (Ps 145:17; Isa 55:8–9). If people walk in the ways of the commandments in Deuteronomy, then they are able to receive God’s blessing (Deut 5:33; 13:5; 28:9; 30:16). King David walked in the way of the Lord and was blessed. He is repeatedly set apart as a model in 1–2 Kings. 30 Josiah walked in the ways of King David and also received blessing (2 Kgs 22:2). Conversely, failure to walk in good ways leads to a negative

29 30

Cf. Heb 11:5. 1 Kgs 3:14; 9:4; 11:6, 33, 38; 15:3, 5, 11; 2 Kgs 14:3.

Imitate Me as I Imitate Christ

215

legacy. Samuel’s sons did not walk in his ways, but instead took bribes and perverted justice (1 Sam 8:3). Amon unfortunately walked in the way of his wicked father Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:21). Jeroboam walked in evil ways and suffered the consequences. Note Ahijah’s prophecy against Jeroboam in 1 Kgs 14:8–10: but you have not been like my servant David, who kept my commands and followed me with all his heart, doing only what was right in my eyes. You have done more evil than all who lived before you. You have made for yourself other gods, idols made of metal; you have provoked me to anger and thrust me behind your back. Because of this, I am going to bring disaster on the house of Jeroboam. I will cut off from Jeroboam every last male in Israel – slave or free. I will burn up the house of Jeroboam as one burns dung, until it is all gone. 31

To summarize, the Old Testament provides some imitation ideas. These are largely found in walking in God’s commands and according to the Law. Certain individuals are commended for their intimacy with God and his ways (e. g. Moses and Samuel). But explicit exhortations to imitate an individual such as Paul gives in 1 Corinthians do not occur. Thus, imitating others is not one of the clear teachings of the Old Testament. 32 This, however, need not be surprising. Given the Old Testament’s high view of the transcendental nature of God, any human example would be considered weak and inconsequential by comparison (cf. Ps 90:4; Isa 40:15–17). Intertestamental Jewish Literature In intertestamental literature, however, there is a substantial change. Certain people are clearly set apart to be followed. The following discussion will consider how the imitation idea operates in several key texts. Wisdom The book of Wisdom presents imitation ideas in several places. Speaking of the virtue of the godly, Wis 4:2 states, “When it is present, people imitate it, and they long for it when it has gone; throughout all time it marches, crowned in triumph, victor in the contest for prizes that are undefiled.” 33 This godliness is contrasted with the evil deeds of the ungodly in 4:3–6. Other passages in Wisdom contain imitation ideas. Wisdom 9:8 reads, “You have given command to build a temple on your holy mountain, and an altar in the city of your habitation, a copy of the holy tent that you prepared from the 31

See further 1 Kgs 15:34; 16:2, 19, 26; 22:52; De Boer, The Imitation of Paul, 33. Another implication would be the image of God (Gen 1:26–27; 5:1) and following in his likeness. See De Boer, The Imitation of Paul, 38. 33 The translation is from the NRSV. 32

216

H. H. Drake Williams III

beginning.” 34 Here the author recalls Solomon’s prayer to the Lord before building the temple. Solomon refers to the temple as a copy (i. e., an imitation) of the holy tent God has created from the beginning. Finally, Wis 15:9 reads, “But the workers are not concerned that mortals are destined to die or that their life is brief, but they compete with workers in gold and silver, and imitate workers in copper; and they count it a glorious thing to mold counterfeit gods.” The text refers to individuals who make idols by copying the work of metalsmiths, and who thereby imitate unacceptable behavior. Sirach The book of Sirach contains ideas that relate to imitation. The author, Yeshua Ben Sira, was a scribe who lived and taught in Jerusalem (Sir 50:27). His occupation was training sons of affluent Jews in his school (51:23). He was influenced by the high priest Simon II, who lived between 219–196 BC. 35 His goal was to teach young men how to live wisely in the world, namely, how to gain honor and secure happiness. He believed these goals were only attainable by maintaining the covenant. Sirach 44–50 offers lengthy praise for exemplary people. 36 Sirach 44:1–15 begins the section by extolling famous and unknown people for their wisdom and conduct. 37 Let us now sing the praises of famous men, our ancestors in their generations. The Lord apportioned to them great glory, his majesty from the beginning. There were those who ruled in their kingdoms, and made a name for themselves by their valor; those who gave counsel because they were intelligent; those who spoke in prophetic oracles; those who led the people by their counsels and by their knowledge of the people’s lore; they were wise in their words of instruction; those who composed musical tunes, or put verses in writing; rich men endowed with resources, living peacefully in their homes – all these were honored in their generations, and were the pride of their times. Some of them have left behind a name, so that others declare their praise. But of others there is no memory; they have perished as though they had never existed; they have become as though they had never been born, they and their children after them. But these also were godly men, whose righteous deeds have not been forgotten; their wealth will remain with their descendants, and their

34

The translation is from the NRSV. His eulogy can be found within Sir 50:1–21. Note that manuscript B has the title, “Praise of the Ancestors of Old” and in manuscript G and the Latin and Syriac, the title is “Praise of the Ancestors.” See Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes, AB 39 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987), 499. 37 Eckhard J. Schnabel notes the praise for those who are wise in Sirach (Sir 24:1–16, 36:13–17). This is also connected to their wisdom. See Schnabel, Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul: A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the Relation of Law, WUNT 2.16 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 16–23, 44–45. 35 36

Imitate Me as I Imitate Christ

217

inheritance with their children’s children. Their descendants stand by the covenants; their children also, for their sake. Their offspring will continue forever, and their glory will never be blotted out. Their bodies are buried in peace, but their name lives on generation after generation. The assembly declares their wisdom, and the congregation proclaims their praise. 38

In this introduction, Ben Sira states that these men were godly, honored in their generations, had earned an honorable name, and were the pride of their times. This list extends from the beginning of the Old Testament to the end, including Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Aaron, Phinehas, Joshua, Caleb, the judges, Samuel, Nathan, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Hezekiah, Isaiah, Josiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Job, the twelve prophets, Zerubbabel, Nehemiah, Joseph, Shem, Seth, Enosh, and Simeon. There are also those who are nameless and forgotten, yet their conduct was exemplary (Sir 44:11–15). Particular virtues praised in this section include valor, wise counsel, prophetic ability, peaceful living, and godliness. 1 Maccabees Praise for certain individuals also occurs in 1 Macc 2:51–61. While not employing direct imitation language, the idea is present. Remember the deeds of the ancestors, which they did in their generations; and you will receive great honor and an everlasting name. Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness? Joseph in the time of his distress kept the commandment, and became lord of Egypt. Phinehas our ancestor, because he was deeply zealous, received the covenant of everlasting priesthood. Joshua, because he fulfilled the command, became a judge in Israel. Caleb, because he testified in the assembly, received an inheritance in the land. David, because he was merciful, inherited the throne of the kingdom forever. Elijah, because of great zeal for the law, was taken up into heaven. Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael believed and were saved from the flame. Daniel, because of his innocence, was delivered from the mouth of the lions. And so observe, from generation to generation, that none of those who put their trust in him will lack strength. 39

Virtues to be emulated include faithfulness during distress, zeal for the covenant, fulfilling the commandments, and being merciful.

38 39

The translation is from the NRSV. The translation is from the NRSV.

218

H. H. Drake Williams III

Letter of Aristeas Several instances of imitation appear in the Letter of Aristeas, which was written between the third century BC and first century AD by a Hellenistic Jew. The text therefore likely existed before Paul employed imitation language. A main purpose of the Letter of Aristeas is to establish the superiority of the Greek version of Scripture over that of the Hebrew. The writer, who is designated Aristeas, describes how the Hebrew Law was translated into Greek. In the guise of a letter to Philokrates, Aristeas writes to explain how this was done. The king of Egypt, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, is encouraged by his chief librarian, Demetirus Phalerus, to translate the Hebrew Law into the Greek language. He agrees, and takes six men from each of the twelve tribes of Israel to translate the text, thus totaling seventy-two. These translators then complete the entire work in seventy-two days. The translation is then read and deemed to be accurate. It is decreed that anyone who tampers with the translation will be cursed. The Jewish translators are then freed to return to Jerusalem laden with lavish gifts. Imitation ideas then appear in 187–189, where the author writes: When after an interval he found an opportunity, [the king] asked the occupant of the first couch [they were seated according to age], “How can one keep his kingdom without offense to the end?” After a short pause he replied, “You would administer it best by imitating the eternal goodness of God. By using longsuffering and treatment of those who merit [punishment] more leniently than they deserve, you will convert them from evil and bring them to repentance.” 40

A few lines later in Let. Aris. 210 the author adds: He commended this guest also, and said to his neighbor, “What is the essence of godliness?” He replied, “The realization that God is continually at work in everything and is omniscient, and that man cannot hide from him an unjust deed or an evil action. For, as God does good to the whole world, so you by imitating him would be without offense.”

Obviously the imitation language in both these sections refers to God himself. The Lord’s benevolent character should be emulated. Imitation ideas occur again in Let. Aris. 280–281. He said that this man also gave a good answer, and asked the next guest, “Whom ought one appoint as chief ministers?” He replied, “Men who hate wickedness, and in imitation of his way of life do justice, so as to earn themselves good repute continually – just as you, O mighty King,” he said, “achieve this aim, God having granted you a crown of righteousness.” He loudly approved him, looked toward the next guest, and said, “Whom must one appoint as commanders of his forces?” He replied, “Men of outstanding bravery and justice, who prefer saving men’s lives to victory at the reckless risk of lives. As God showers blessings upon all, you too in imitation of him are a benefactor to your subjects.” 40

OTP, 2:25.

Imitate Me as I Imitate Christ

219

This passage contains imitation ideas with reference to man as well as God. While the previous sections and this one promote imitating a good God, here the king is also to be imitated because he is righteous and possesses a good reputation. Philo Imitation language occurs several places in the writings of Philo Judeaus (15 BC–45 AD). He writes of the imitation of God: Let them not then fail to understand that in the two courts, the only courts which nature has, they stand convicted; in the divine court, of impiety because they do not show due respect to those who brought them forth from non-existence to existence and in this were imitators of God; in the human court, of inhumanity. For to whom else will they show kindness if they despise the closest of their kinsfolk who have bestowed upon them the greatest boons, some of them far exceeding any possibility of repayment? For how could the begotten beget in his turn those whose seed he is, since nature has bestowed on parents in relation to their children an estate of a special kind which cannot be subject to the law of “exchange”? And therefore the greatest indignation is justified if children, because they are unable to make a complete return, refuse to make even the slightest. 41

Moses is to be imitated, according to Philo: Again, was not the joy of his partnership with the Father and Maker of all magnified also by the honor of being deemed worthy to bear the same title? For he was named god and king of the whole nation, and entered, we are told, into the darkness where God was, that is into the unseen, invisible, incorporeal and archetypal essence of existing things. Thus he beheld what is hidden from the sight of mortal nature, and, in himself and his life displayed for all to see, he has set before us, like some well-wrought picture, a piece of work beautiful and godlike, a model for those who are willing to copy it. Happy are they who imprint, or strive to imprint, that image in their souls. For it were best that the mind should carry the form of virtue in perfection, but, failing this, let it at least have the unflinching desire to possess that form. And, indeed, we all know this that meaner men emulate men of distinction, and set their inclinations in the direction of what they seem to desire. 42

Moses was to be imitated because of his closeness with the Father, for this closeness led to embodying elements of the Father’s character.

41 42

Philo, Decal. 111–112 (Colson, LCL), 7:63–65. Philo, Mos. 1.158–160 (Colson, LCL), 6:357–59.

220

H. H. Drake Williams III

Josephus The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus lived 37–110 AD. He writes about imitation in several places. For instance, he praises Moses and presents him as someone worthy of emulation: Resuming, then, after this slight digression, I would begin with the remark that persons who have espoused the cause of order and law – one law for all – and been the first to introduce them, may fairly be admitted to be more civilized and virtuously disposed than those who lead lawless and disorderly lives. In fact, each nation endeavors to trace its own institutions back to the remotest date, in order to create the impression that, far from imitating others, it has been the one to set its neighbors an example of orderly life under law. That being so, the virtue of a legislator is to have insight to see what is best, and to win over to the laws which he introduces those who are to live under them; the virtue of the masses is loyally to abide by the laws adopted and, in prosperity or in adversity, to make no change in them. 43

Moses is superior to other law givers, and is thus a better example. He brought God’s people through various difficulties. He was the wisest and most conscientious of all their leaders. Israel was dependent upon him, yet he did not take advantage of their loyalty and never became a despot. He trusted God as his counselor and guide and knew he was accountable to his governance. Moses is not the only person that Josephus urges readers to imitate. He writes, “The three sons of Noah – Shem, Japhet, and Ham – born a hundred years before the deluge, were the first to descend from the mountains to the plains and to make their abode there; the rest, who by reason of the flood were sore afraid of the plains and loath to descend from the heights, they persuaded to take courage and follow their example.” 44 Josephus also encourages imitation of David: From these events one may learn how close a watch the Deity keeps over human affairs and how He loves good men but hates the wicked, whom He destroys root and branch. For many of the kings of Israel, because of their lawlessness and iniquity, one after the other in a short space of time were marked for destruction together with their families, while Asanos, the king of Jerusalem and the two tribes, because of his piety and righteousness was brought by God to a long and blessed old age and, after a reign of forty-one years, died in a happy state. Upon his death he was succeeded in the kingship by Josaphat, his son by a wife named Abida. That Asanos imitated his great-grandfather David in courage and piety, all men have recognized from his deeds. But there is no great necessity to speak of this king just now. 45

43 44 45

Josephus, C. Ap. 2:151–160 (Thackeray, LCL), 1:353. Josephus, A. J. 1.109 (Thackeray, LCL), 4:53. Josephus, A. J. 8.314–315 (Thackeray, LCL), 5:741.

Imitate Me as I Imitate Christ

221

Asanos knew David’s courage, piety, and righteousness were worthy of imitation. Josephus adds later, “So Jehoshaphat came to Jerusalem and dwelt in peace, but lived on only a little while after that campaign, dying at the age of sixty years, for twenty-five of which he had reigned. And he received a magnificent burial in Jerusalem, for he had, indeed, been emulous of the acts of David.” 46 The honor that came to Asanos was due to following David’s worthy example. Testament of Benjamin The concept of imitation is also evident in two places in the Testament of Benjamin. 47 First, 3:1–5 reads: Now, my children, love the Lord God of heaven and earth; keep his commandments; pattern your life after the good and pious man Joseph. Let your thoughts incline to the good, as you know to be so with me, because he who has the right set of mind sees everything rightly. Fear the Lord and love your neighbor. Even if the spirits of Beliar seek to derange you with all sorts of wicked oppression, they will not dominate you, any more than they dominated Joseph, my brother. How many men wanted to destroy him, and God looked out for him! For the person who fears God and loves his neighbor cannot be plagued by the spirit of Beliar since he is sheltered by the fear of God. Neither man’s schemes nor those of animals can prevail over him, for he is aided in living by this: by the love which he has towards his neighbor. 48

Here the writer recalls Benjamin’s encouragement to his sons at his death. He exhorts them to imitate a good example, that of his good and pious brother Joseph. In copying Joseph’s attributes, Benjamin promises protection for his sons. Second, in 4:1–5, the author states: See then, my children, what is the goal of the good man. Be imitators of him in his goodness because of his compassion, in order that you may wear crowns of glory. For a good man does not have a blind eye, but he is merciful to all, even though they may be sinners. And even if persons plot against him for evil ends, by doing good this man conquers evil, being watched over by God. He loves those who wrong him as he loves his own life. If anyone glorifies himself, he holds no envy. If anyone becomes rich, he is not jealous. If anyone is brave, he praises him. He loves the moderate person; he shows mercy to the impoverished; to the ill he shows compassion; he fears God. He loves the person who has the gift of a good spirit as he loves his own life. 49

46

Josephus, A. J. 9.44 (Thackeray, LCL), 6:25. The Testament of Benjamin is difficult to date. It has Jewish roots from the second century BC, but reaches its final form in the second century AD. 48 OTP, 1:825. 49 OTP, 1:826. 47

222

H. H. Drake Williams III

Once again, the patriarch Benjamin encourages his sons to follow a positive example. This time it is “the good man” that should be emulated. If one is like the good man, then God will watch over him. If one emulates the good man, then he will conquer evil, love his enemy, hold no jealousy, and not become envious. He will be a person who loves and will have the gift of a good spirit. 4 Maccabees Several passages in 4 Maccabees include imitation language. These may bear the closest thematic resemblances to 1 Cor 4:16 and 11:1. Direct imitation language appears in two passages. In 9:21–24, the first of the seven brothers to be martyred urges the others to imitate his example: Although the ligaments joining his bones were already severed, the courageous youth, worthy of Abraham, did not groan, but as though transformed by fire into immortality, he nobly endured the rackings. “Imitate me, brothers,” he said. “Do not leave your post in my struggle or renounce our courageous family ties. Fight the sacred and noble battle for religion. Thereby the just Providence of our ancestors may become merciful to our nation and take vengeance on the accursed tyrant.” 50

By his suffering and his call for imitation, he sets the standard for others to follow. In 13:9–18 imitation language graces the final martyred brother’s words: “Brothers, let us die like brothers for the sake of the law; let us imitate the three youths in Assyria who despised the same ordeal of the furnace. Let us not be cowardly in the demonstration of our piety. While one said, ‘Courage, brother,’ another said, ‘Bear up nobly,’ and another reminded them, ‘Remember whence you came, and the father by whose hand Isaac would have submitted to being slain for the sake of religion.’ Each of them and all of them together looking at one another, cheerful and undaunted, said, ‘Let us with all our hearts consecrate ourselves to God, who gave us our lives, and let us use our bodies as a bulwark for the law. Let us not fear him who thinks he is killing us, for great is the struggle of the soul and the danger of eternal torment lying before those who transgress the commandment of God. Therefore let us put on the full armor of self-control, which is divine reason. For if we so die, Abraham and Isaac and Jacob will welcome us, and all the fathers will praise us.’ Those who were left behind said to each of the brothers who were being dragged away, ‘Do not put us to shame, brother, or betray the brothers who have died before us.’” 51

Besides these two direct calls to imitation, several indirect examples exist, for suffering and martyrdom permeate 4 Maccabees. These themes begin in 4 Maccabees 6 with the martyrdom of the heroic figure Eleazar, who provides the standard others will imitate. In his final moments, Eleazar encourages those watching to follow his example. Fourth Maccabees 6:22 states, “Therefore, O

50 51

The translation is from the NRSV. The translation is from the NRSV.

Imitate Me as I Imitate Christ

223

children of Abraham, die nobly for your religion!” The book often exhorts readers to follow the example of these suffering martyrs (cf. 4 Macc 7; 16; 18). 52 Suffering is presented as an example of true faith commitment in 4 Maccabees. In 17:9–10 the author offers the following glorious epitaph: “Here lie buried an aged priest and an aged woman and seven sons, because of the violence of the tyrant who wished to destroy the way of life of the Hebrews. They vindicated their nation, looking to God and enduring torture even to death.” Their suffering and reverence for the Lord is truly rewarded (cf. 17:11–16). Unity and love are part of this suffering and imitation. For example, the brothers unanimously deny the temptation given by Antiochus to eat defiled food. In 4 Macc 8:29–9:1 they act as one social unit: “So that as soon as the tyrant had ceased counseling them to eat defiling food, all with one voice together, as from one mind, said: ‘Why do you delay, O tyrant? For we are ready to die rather than transgress our ancestral commandments.’” On other occasions in 4 Maccabees the brothers act together, thereby encouraging unity (see especially 13:19–14:1; also 9:23; 10:13, 15–16; 11:14–15, 22; 12:16). 53 They also encourage community oneness through their stand against the tyrant Antiochus, and they gain victory for the entire Jewish nation (4 Macc 17:9–16). 54 The military images the martyrs use also express their unity (4 Macc 9:23–24; 11:22–23; 13:16; 16:14). 55 In their speeches they regularly refer to the brotherly love that is between them (4 Macc 13:21, 23, 26; 14:1; 15:10). 56 The seven sons also follow in the ways of Eleazar, who is referred to as their father (7:1, 5, 9). Their mother also identifies with her sons’ martyrdom (17:1–10). Thus, in 4 Maccabees imitation is connected with family, suffering, unity, and love as the martyrs obey the Law.

Conclusion While many writers have considered the background of Paul’s use of imitation language, few have considered Jewish influence found in Scripture and intertestamental Jewish literature. The preceding analysis has shown that Paul’s Jewish background has something important to add.

52 David A. deSilva, 4 Maccabees, Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 49. 53 Jan Willem van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 57 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 284–85. 54 Ibid., 237. 55 Note the unity found in military images in Josephus, C. Ap. 2.170, 179; Philo, Mos. 1.29; van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People, 287. 56 Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People, 285.

224

H. H. Drake Williams III

Within some circles of Judaism, imitation language was used in relation to the imitation of God. Philo in particular speaks frequently of imitating God. The Letter of Aristeas also uses the term in relation to God. A number of quarters from Judaism connect imitation to types of people or particular people. Certain people are worthy of imitation. For instance, Philo encourages readers to emulate Moses. Josephus urges imitation of Noah, David, Jehoshaphat, and the forefathers. First Maccabees and Sirach recommend imitation of a number of noteworthy people who hold to the Law. Sirach indicates that those worthy of imitation are also wise. The writer of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs encourages the imitation of ideal figures such as Joseph, who feared the Lord and loved his neighbor. Rather than urging obedience, a Jewish perspective on imitation reveals that the word is employed frequently in relation to godly virtues. These include following the Law, showing courage, displaying wisdom, embracing piety, and demonstrating righteous living. Thus, consideration of the Jewish viewpoint supports Greco-Roman studies of imitation that conclude Paul used imitation language due to his caring relationship with his followers. Some sections of Judaism would also favor the encouragement of family unity, such as Paul emphasizes in 1 Corinthians. The Jewish perspective also provides a fruitful addition to imitation studies. One portion of intertestamental Jewish thought connects imitation to suffering and unity. Teaching about suffering occurs in the vicinity of imitation in 1 Cor 4:8–13 and also 9:1–27. The Jewish perspective also fits the sacrificial language of the cross, and therefore fits Paul’s ethical principles throughout 1 Corinthians. Focusing on a Jewish perspective of imitation can thereby help draw attention to the connection between Christ’s suffering, Christian suffering, and ethics that is vital in the Corinthian correspondence. 57

57 See further Scott J. Hafemann, Suffering and the Spirit: An Exegetical Study of II Cor. 2:14–3:3 within the Context of the Corinthian Correspondence, WUNT 2.19 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986).

“To Whom Has the Arm of the Lord Been Revealed?” Signs and Wonders in Paul’s Isaianic Mission to the Gentiles (Romans 15:18–21 and Galatians 3:1–5) William N. Wilder

In appreciation for Scott Hafemann’s life and work, this essay explores one aspect of the apostle Paul’s missionary theology. Those familiar with Hafemann’s scholarship will know his sustained concern with the topics taken up here: the hard hearts of God’s people in the old covenant, Paul’s new covenant ministry of the Spirit, and Paul’s interpretation of the Old Testament. Those who know his life will be aware that Hafemann’s ministry has always been one of both word and works. I hope to relate these themes to Paul’s understanding of what Christ had accomplished through him “by word and deed” (Rom 15:18). In particular, I will explore Paul’s theological interpretation of the miracles that accompanied his proclamation of the gospel to Jews and gentiles. This essay will deal principally with Rom 15:18–21 and Gal 3:1–5, passages containing two of Paul’s three clear allusions to works of power in his ministry. 1 In both instances an Isaianic background illumines the place of miracles in Paul’s new exodus mission to the gentiles. I will make use of Richard Hays’s notion of an “allusive echo,” in which the “broad interplay” between two texts creates an understanding of the echoed text “beyond those [aspects] explicitly echoed.” 2 Specifically, I will argue that Paul’s reference to “signs and wonders” in Rom 15:19 evokes God’s miraculous deliverance of his people during the exodus, suggesting “unstated or suppressed (transumed) points of reference” between Paul’s new exodus allusions to Isa 52:7–53:1 in Romans and Galatians, on the one hand, and Isaiah’s reference to “the arm of the Lord” in Isa 53:1b, on the other. 3 Paul nowhere mentions “the arm of the Lord” in his letters, but the very close connection between that phrase and “signs and wonders” in the exodus tradition suggests it is appropriate to include the new exodus miracles to which “the arm of the Lord” refers in its Isaianic (and Old Testament) context within Isaiah’s overall influence on Paul. This approach will be particularly fruitful in Gal 3:1–5, where Paul’s allusion to Isa 53:1a (“hearing with faith”) is best interpreted together with a transumed reference to the revelation of the

1 Craig A. Evans, “Paul the Exorcist and Healer,” in Paul and His Theology, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Pauline Studies 3 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 363–64. The other allusion is in 2 Cor 12:12. 2 Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), 20. 3 Ibid.

226

William N. Wilder

Lord’s arm in Isa 53:1b, the arm being understood in terms of the miracles that accompany Paul’s Isaianic proclamation of the gospel to the gentiles. Paul’s appropriation of Isa 53:1 is partially analogous to its use in John 12:37–38: the miraculous works that accompany the proclamation of the gospel reveal the present obduracy of Israel just as the revelation of the arm of the Lord during the exodus showed that God had not yet given his people eyes to see or a heart to understand (cf. Deut 29:3). Like Moses (and Jesus), Paul is a suffering mediator of God’s power for his people. He is the crucified apostle. 4 In Paul’s case, the exodus-like miracles in his mission to the gentiles, together with their response of faith to the gospel, also point to God’s promised new exodus deliverance of the nations, though the Galatians risk repeating Israel’s insensibility to the signs and wonders in their midst.

“By the Power of Signs and Wonders” (Romans 15:19): Israel’s Obduracy amidst Miracles in Exodus and Deuteronomy Paul clearly evokes the exodus with his reference to signs and wonders in Rom 15:19. Paul has just returned to the theme of his apostolic calling to the gentiles that had opened his letter. Having been “set apart for the gospel of God” (1:1) to “bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations” (1:5), Paul now mentions more specifically what “Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience – by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God” (15:18–19a), so that to a great extent he has “fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ” (15:19b). 5 For Paul, obeying the gospel is inextricably tied to believing what has been heard, the word of Christ preached by the apostles (10:16–17). Such a response of faith and obedience is now evident in Paul’s own mission to the gentiles (cf. 15:16), which is thus fulfilling Isa 52:15 (gentiles who have never heard are understanding), with the hope of further fulfillment (to continue preaching the gospel where Christ has not yet been named) (Rom 15:20–21). The surprise, of course – and cause for no little searching of soul and Scripture on Paul’s part – is that the gentiles and not Israel are responding to the gospel in faith. 4 Jacob Jervell is right to insist that while Paul is “a typical charismatic,” he is also an “ailing miracle worker” whose “weakness ... belongs to the true life and mark of an apostle” (The Unknown Paul: Essays in Luke – Acts and Early Christian History [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984], 94). See also Jacob Jervell, “Der Schwache Charismatiker,” in Rechtfertigung: Festschrift für E. Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. J. Friedrich, W. Pöhlmann, and P. Stuhlmacher (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1976), 185–98. 5 Scriptural citations are taken from the English Standard Version except where otherwise noted.

“To Whom Has the Arm of the Lord Been Revealed?”

227

All this is more or less clear. Much less clear is the sudden appearance of signs and wonders in the context. Where do they come from? Even assuming that the presence of miracles in Paul’s ministry was not a matter of dispute for the Romans, why mention them here and in such an allusive, even careless, manner? An important clue lies in the unmistakable reference to the exodus story in Paul’s phraseology. As J. D. G. Dunn rightly comments: The overtones and allusions would be clear to his readers: Paul’s ministry as continuous with and manifesting the same power /finger of God as every Jew knew to have characterized the Exodus (e. g. Exod 7:3; 8:19); Christ’s ministry through Paul in the power of the Spirit as the eschatological equivalent of the epochal ministry of Moses (cf. Matt 12:28//Luke 11:20). 6

Placing the “signs and wonders” in Paul’s ministry within an exodus framework, as Dunn does here, is surprisingly rare. However, if scholars have been right to see the influence of the exodus narrative in Paul’s theology, 7 it might seem natural to understand the miracles attending his proclamation of the gospel within that same context. Such an approach does in fact prove fruitful, for noting the actual function of “signs and wonders” in their original exodus setting serves to clarify Paul’s conception of their function in his own ministry. That is, signs and wonders most often reveal the obduracy of people to God’s work, whether in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart or in the overall insensibility of Israel despite intermittent faith. A brief review of “signs and wonders” in the Old Testament will establish this point. The first Old Testament usage of “signs and wonders” occurs in Exod 7:3, one of the passages Dunn mentions in the quotation above. 8 God responds to Moses’s concern, expressed already at 6:12 and left hanging until its repetition at 6:30: “Behold, I am of uncircumcised lips. How will Pharaoh listen to me?” Having addressed first Moses’s sense of his own insufficiency, 9 God 6

James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, WBC 38B (Dallas: Word, 1988), 868. See, e. g., Sylvia C. Keesmaat, Paul and His Story: (Re)Interpreting the Exodus Tradition, JSNTSup 181 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999); and N. T. Wright, “New Exodus, New Inheritance: The Narrative Substructure of Romans 3–8,” in Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, ed. Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 26–35. See n. 35 for more references on Paul’s use of the exodus narrative in Galatians. 8 This is the only Hebrew occurrence of “signs and wonders” in Exodus (“my signs and my Kַֹ‫)אֶת־אֹת‬, but some variant of the phrase in Greek appears two other times in wonders,” ‌‫ת‌י‬Fַ ְ‫ת‌‌י וְאֶת־מוֹפ‬ this book (7:9, σηmεØοn £ τέρας; 11:9–10, mου τ€ σηmεØα καÈ τ€ τέρατα). In both cases the note of hardheartedness in this phrase is further amplified. 9 Scott J. Hafemann shows that “according to the LXX, the point of Moses’ call is that, although Moses is not Éκαnός to be God’s apostle (cf. Exod. 4:10, 12 and 4:13, 28 LXX), God himself has made him sufficient by the promise of his presence (3:12a, 4:12), the giving of a sign (3:12b), and the provision of a miracle-working rod (4:2–9)” (Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter /Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3, WUNT 81 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 50). 7

228

William N. Wilder

then turns to the question of Pharaoh’s listening: “But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders (τ€ σηmεØά mου καÈ τ€ τέρατα) in the land of Egypt, Pharaoh will not listen to you” (7:3–4a). This lessthan-heartening answer echoes Exod 4:21 where the Lord commands Moses to show Pharaoh “all the miracles (τ€ τέρατα) that I have put in your power,” even though God “will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.” Even before this, the Lord had told Moses that “the king of Egypt will not let you go unless compelled by a mighty hand” with the result that God himself promises to “stretch out my hand and strike Egypt with all the wonders that I will do in it” (Exod 3:19–20, emphasis added). Already God’s wonders and mighty hand are met with an inability (or unwillingness) to see or to understand. The situation with Israel is a bit different. In response to Moses’s skepticism that Israel will believe him (Exod 4:1), the Lord gives Moses three signs “that they may believe” (4:5, cf. vv. 8–9). At first, the signs seem to work. After Aaron “delivered the words of the Lord” on behalf of Moses and “did the signs in the sight of the people,” “the people believed” (4:31). Later at the Red Sea, the people respond to God’s power (“the mighty hand”) with faith: “and they believed in the LORD and in his servant Moses” (14:31). Nevertheless, despite the miracles, the people of Israel constantly revert to doubts, complaints, and rebellion in the wilderness. Israel’s obduracy in Exodus persists right into Deuteronomy, where Moses constantly invokes the “signs and wonders” that were done “before your eyes” as a call to faithfulness and obedience. Note Deut 4:34, which contains the first occurrence of signs and wonders in the book: Or has any god ever attempted to go and take a nation for himself from the midst of another nation, by trials, by signs, by wonders (ân σηmείοις καÈ ân τέρασιn), and by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm (ân χειρÈ κραται” καÈ ân βραχίοnι ÍψηλÄ) ... all of which the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes (ânώπιόn σου βλέποnτος)?

This question comes in a speech full of Moses’s pleas that the people not neglect what they have heard (Deut 4:2, 10, 33, 36, etc.) or forget what they have seen (Deut 4:3, 9, 34). Even as Moses all but predicts their future idolatry and exile, to be followed by their return to the Lord when “you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul” (4:29), he continues to underscore the miracles the Lord did before their eyes, so that they might realize that he alone is God, keep his commandments, and prolong their days in the land. The use of “signs and wonders” in Deuteronomy 4 illustrates its larger use in Deuteronomy in several ways. To begin with, there is the strong association of “signs and wonders” with the “strong hand and high arm” of the Lord. Each is a formulaic piece of text closely connected to the exodus traditions and

“To Whom Has the Arm of the Lord Been Revealed?”

229

frequently found in conjunction with the other. 10 This continues, in a manner characteristic of Deuteronomy, the conceptual correspondence between signs and wonders and the hand or arm of the Lord that one finds in Exodus and elsewhere. 11 Furthermore, the visibility of what the Lord has done is crucial, together with the people’s responsibility (and ultimately their failure) to remember and consider what he had done before their very eyes. In Deut 6:22 “the Lord showed signs and wonders, great and grievous (σηmεØα καÈ τέρατα mεγάλα καÈ ποnηρ€) ... before our eyes (ânώπιοn ™mÀn/ ‌‫‌ינוּ‬f‌‫)לְעֵיֵנ‬.” In 7:19 Moses mentions “the great trials that your eyes saw (οÏς εÒδοσαn οÉ æφθαλmοί σου), the signs, the wonders (τ€ σηmεØα καÈ τ€ τέρατα), the mighty hand and the outstretched arm.” In Deut 11:2–3 Moses asks the people to consider the Lord’s “mighty hand and his outstretched arm, his signs and his wonders (τ€ σηmεØα αÎτοÜ καÈ τ€ τέρατα αÎτοÜ) that he did in Egypt” precisely because he is speaking to those who witnessed the events, “not ... to your children who have not known or seen (οÎχÈ τ€ παιδία ÍmÀn, íσοι οÎκ οÒδασιn οÎδà εÒδοσαn) it.” Even at the end of the book (34:10–12) Moses is distinguished by “all the signs and the wonders (ân πσι τοØς σηmείοις καÈ τέρασιn) the LORD sent him to do in the land of Egypt” and, in the last words of the book, “those great wonders and the mighty hand which Moses performed in the sight of all Israel” (ênαnτι παnτäς Ισραηλ/ ‫‌י כָּל־‬F‌‫לְעֵיֵנ‬ ‌‫א‌ל‬fֵ ָ‫ ;יִשְׁר‬Deut 34:12 Saint Athanasius Academy Septuagint). 12 The great miracles with which God delivered his people from Egypt are thus meant to be visible signs that elicit faith in the Lord, the only one to whom the wilderness generation owes worship and obedience. This is not to say that such miracles could not be divorced from their intended purpose. In Deuteron-

10 John William Wevers, Text History of the Greek Deuteronomy, MSU 13 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 91, lists under “strong hand and high arm” nine texts subdivided into five variations: 3:24, 11:2; 4:34, 26:8; 5:15, 6:21, 7:8; 7:19; 9:26. Under “signs and wonders” Wevers, 98, lists ten texts with nine variations: 4:34; 6:22; 7:19, 29:3; 11:3; 13:1; 13:2; 26:8; 28:46; 34:11. The two formulas are found together in the following five passages: Deut 4:34; 6:21–22; 7:19; 11:2–3; 26:8. Interestingly, the two phrases are also found together in the expansionistic A tradition of Deut 29:3 LXX, according to Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy, Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 39 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 462, 612. 11 The two ideas are found together in Exod 3:19–20 (with θαυmάσιος for “wonders”), Ps 78:42–43 (77:42–43 LXX), Jer 32:21 (39:21 LXX), and Bar 2:11. The exodus associations of “signs and wonders” and “the hand (or arm) of the Lord” in Old Testament passages were noted already by, respectively, S. Vernon McCasland, “Signs and Wonders,” JBL 76 (1957): 150; and F. J. Helfmeyer, ‌ַ‫זְרֹע‬, TDOT 4:134. 12 In this case “the mighty hand” might be either God’s or Moses’s. See Exod 4:21 where God commands Moses to “do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power (lit. ‘your hands’)” and then constantly throughout the book. Cf. Acts 2:22, 43; 4:29; 5:12; 6:8; 7:36; 14:3; 15:12. Paul too mentions his own agency (“through me”) in “what Christ has accomplished” (Rom 15:18).

230

William N. Wilder

omy 13 Moses addresses a situation in which “a prophet or dreamer of dreams” gives the people “a sign or wonder” (σηmεØοn £ τέρας) to encourage them to “‘go after other gods’, which you have not known” (Deut 13:1–2). In that case the people are called to continued obedience, “for the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul” (13:3). In any event, the effect of signs and wonders is to reveal the people’s heart. The heart revealed, however, is dull and insensible. Although Deuteronomy constantly calls for the people to attend to what their eyes have seen and their ears have heard (that is, to understand that the Lord is their God so that they may prosper in the land), they do not. Ultimately, they do not obey and prosper in the land because they have not sought the Lord or loved him with all their heart (Deut 4:29, 13:3). The condition of Israel’s heart relative to the signs and wonders that have been performed before their very eyes comes to clearest expression in Deut 29:2–4 (29:1–3 MT): And Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: “You have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, the great trials that your eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders (τ€ σηmεØα καÈ τ€ τέρατα τ€ mεγάλα âκεØnα). But to this day the Lord has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear” (emphasis added).

The eyes of the people have seen the signs and wonders, yet have remained blind to their significance. A tragic future stretches out before them, but as in Deuteronomy 4 Moses envisions a future after exile in which God’s people search after him with their whole hearts. At the same time, it is clear that this change of heart is something that God himself will have to accomplish: “And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live” (30:6; contrast 10:16). This brings us to Paul, where the same pattern of thought emerges in his letter to the Romans. I begin with two occasions in chs. 9–11 where Paul appeals to miracle passages from Exodus or Deuteronomy to demonstrate the hardheartedness of Pharaoh or Israel. The first is Paul’s quotation of Exod 9:16 in Rom 9:17–18: “For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.” Here Paul invokes the example of Pharaoh as Exhibit A in his argument that God has always kept his word through his electing purposes, that is, by having mercy on some and hardening others. In its Old Testament context the hardening of Pharaoh is shown in his resistance to the displays of God’s power, the various signs and wonders God has performed through Moses (Exod 9:14, 15, 18, 22, etc.). Paul’s mention

“To Whom Has the Arm of the Lord Been Revealed?”

231

of God’s “power” here thus anticipates his later reference to signs and wonders. 13 The second appeal occurs in Rom 11:7–8, where Paul applies to Israel the hardening action of God through a mixed citation of Isa 29:10 and Deut 29:4 (29:3 MT) with a “secondary allusion” 14 to Isa 6:9: “What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, ‘God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.’” What was true of Pharaoh in Rom 9:17 is now clearly affirmed of Israel in 11:8, so that Paul’s movement from Pharaoh to Israel in Romans 9–11 follows the trajectory marked out in Exodus from the hardheartedness of Pharaoh to the obduracy of Israel. Moreover, Israel’s hardened condition had not changed between Moses’s day and Paul’s own, as Paul’s retention of the phrase “down to this very day” from Deut 29:4 (29:3 MT) indicates. This may imply, as Ross Wagner puts it, that “while Jews and gentiles in Christ have already become sharers in the eschatological deliverance narrated in Deut 30 (see Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6–13; Deut 32:43 in Rom 15:10), ‘the rest’ of Israel are stuck back in Deuteronomy 29, still blinded and disobedient (Rom 11:8).” 15 Or, perhaps better, Deuteronomy 29 continues to be true for “the rest” of Israel even as the new covenant has dawned for those in Christ. 16 Either way, it is important to remember that the evidence of Israel’s hardened condition in Deut 29:4 (29:3 MT) is Israel’s lack of faith despite “the great trials that your eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders (τ€ σηmεØα καÈ τ€ τέρατα τ€ mεγάλα âκεØnα)” (Deut 29:3 [2]). Against the backdrop of Rom 9–11 the function of Paul’s reference to “signs and wonders” in 15:19 thus becomes clear: it sets up a contrast between the theme of Israel’s (and Pharaoh’s) hardened condition (amidst signs and wonders), on the one hand, and the coming of gentiles to obedience “by word and 13 The “strength” (Êσχύn) in recensions of Exod 9:16 LXX appears as “power” (δύnαmίn) in Paul’s text, anticipating “the power (δυnάmει) of signs and wonders” in Rom 15:19. 14 Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, 375, notes “the secondary allusion to Is. 6.9 f. (cf. the use of πωρόω in 11:7)” and concludes that “Isaiah 6:9 f. is thus related to Is. 29:10 and Deut. 29:3 in Rom. 11:7–10 as its conceptual introduction, but is not itself in view in Rom. 11:8” (375 n. 128). 15 J. Ross Wagner, “Moses and Isaiah in Concert: Paul’s Reading of Isaiah and Deuteronomy in the Letter to the Romans,” in “As Those Who Are Taught”: The Interpretation of Isaiah from the LXX to the SBL, ed. Claire Mathews McGinnis and Patricia K. Tull, Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 27 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2005), 100. 16 Thus Scott J. Hafemann argues from 2 Cor 3:14–15 that “this interpretation of Israel’s history [as hardened from the beginning] is reflected in Paul’s use of the phrases ‹χρι τ¨ς σήmεροn ™mέρας [and] éως σήmεροn (2 Cor 3:14–15), which recall the parallel designation in Deut 29:3 (LXX; MT 29:4) in which Moses declares that, despite the Lord’s deliverance, ‘the Lord has not given (Israel) a heart to know, and eyes to see, and ears to hear until this day (éως τ¨ς ™mέρας ταύτης)’” (“Paul and the Exile of Israel in Galatians 3–4,” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions, ed. James M. Scott, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 56 [Leiden: Brill, 1997], 362). See also Hafemann’s Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, 284.

232

William N. Wilder

deed” (that is to say, through an understanding and obedient response both to the proclamation of the word and to the manifestation of miracles), on the other. Paul’s reference to “signs and wonders” in Rom 15:19, along with his earlier citation of Deut 29:4 (29:3 MT) in Rom 11:8, suggests that he attributes a new exodus significance to the miracles that accompany his preaching. In this new exodus it is mainly gentiles who are responding to the gospel while most of Israel continues in its blind and hardened condition. In particular, given his emphasis on the gentiles “seeing and understanding,” Paul believes the gentiles to have responded to this new exodus with the kind of understanding and circumcised hearts that characterize the new covenant.

“Those ... will see ... and understand” (Romans 15:21): Gentile Conversion in Light of Deuteronomy 29–30 and Isaiah 52:7–53:1 Setting Paul’s Rom 15:19 reference to signs and wonders within the context of Israel’s obduracy also illumines Paul’s quotation of Isa 52:15 in Rom 15:21, which Paul cites not just as a rationale for preaching in virgin territory but also as an explanation for what is happening in his mission to the gentiles. The seeing and understanding of the nations in Paul’s use of Isa 52:15 stands in stark contrast to the long history of Israel’s obduracy, signaled by Paul’s reference to signs and wonders only two verses earlier. Now in this citation, in a way typical of him, Paul brings Isaiah in concert with Deuteronomy. 17 While his reference to signs and wonders (Rom 15:19) signals the hardheartedness of Israel, his quotation of Isa 52:15 (Rom 15:21) points to the changed hearts of the gentiles. Indeed, Paul takes Isaiah 52:7–53:1 as God’s decisive answer both to the impasse experienced in the first exodus and to the questions raised by Israel’s continuing obduracy in this new exodus. On the one hand, God is keeping his promise to unstop ears and open eyes and to do so in a way that extends to the nations (Isa 52:15). 18 On the other hand, not all in Israel have believed what they heard (Isa 53:1a) or had their eyes opened to the new exodus miracles (“the arm of the Lord”) revealed among them (53:1b). To establish the plausibility of this reading for Paul, it is necessary to review the larger context of Isa 52:15 with a view to its overall influence on Paul as well as to his interpretation of the seeing and understanding of gentiles in that

17 See J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul “In Concert” in the Letter to the Romans, NovTSup 101 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 355 n. 42. 18 Rikki E. Watts “conclude[s] that in the Old Testament specific references to Yahweh’s healing of the blind, deaf and lame, understood variously in literal and metaphorical terms, are primarily characteristics of Isaiah’s [New Exodus], especially as described in Isaiah 35 (and Isaiah 61)” (Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark, WUNT 88 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997], 171–72).

“To Whom Has the Arm of the Lord Been Revealed?”

233

verse. To do so, I will consider Paul’s use of Isa 52:7–53:1 in Rom 10:14–17 together with his immediately preceding appeal in that passage to Deut 30:11–14. In Romans 10 and Romans 15, Paul reads Deuteronomy and Isaiah in a highly integrative manner that emphasizes the hearing of God’s word and the seeing of his (miraculous) works, along with the change of heart necessary to do so. There is broad scholarly consensus that Isa 52:7–53:1 was formative in Paul’s self-conception as apostle to the gentiles. J. Ross Wagner rightly notes that Paul’s citation of Isa 52:7 in Rom 10:15, together with his reference to Isa 52:15 in Rom 15:21, “strongly suggests that careful reflection on this whole passage has helped to shape his own apostolic calling.” 19 The storyline of Isa 52:7–53:1, from the sending of a messenger with the glad tidings of new exodus redemption to the hearing of the message and mixed response of faith and obedience, is picked up in Rom 10:14–17 and applied to Paul’s own preaching of the gospel with its divergent reception among Jews and gentiles. What is more, Paul links this Isaianic storyline with Deuteronomy. Even as he conceives his role in terms of the “herald of good news” in Isa 52:7–53:1, he links the Isaianic “good news” or “gospel” with the Deuteronomic “word,” which is “in your mouth and in your heart” (Deut 30:14). This linkage of the Isaianic “gospel” with the Deuteronomic “word ... in your heart” is crucial. Three times in Rom 10:5–13 Paul mentions the heart (vv. 6, 8, 10). In Rom 10:6 Paul introduces a character called “the Righteousness-thatis-from-Faith” that begins its quotation of Deut 30:12 in terms drawn from Deut 9:4: “Do not say in your heart ....” The use of this imperative in its original context is instructive: Moses forbids Israel to say in its heart “it is because of my righteousness that the Lord has brought me in to possess this land” (9:4) or, again, that it is “because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart” (9:5). In contrast to such self-righteous words “in the heart” (9:4–5) is the affirmation of 30:14, where “the word is very near you ... in your mouth and in your heart.” For Paul this “word ... in the heart” is the “word of faith” that he and others (“we”) proclaim (Rom 10:8), for it is “with the heart [that] one believes and is justified” (10:10). Here, as earlier in Romans (10:12; cf. 2:28–29;

19 J. Ross Wagner, “Isaiah in Romans and Galatians,” in Isaiah in the New Testament, ed. Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 124. As N. T. Wright notes with respect to Second Isaiah, Paul, “like Jesus, exegeted the text not as matter of theory but as a matter of symbolic vocation” (“The Servant and Jesus: The Relevance of the Colloquy for the Current Quest for Jesus,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, ed. William H. Bellinger Jr. and William R. Farmer [Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998], 296). C. J. A. Hickling proposed that Paul’s attention was drawn to various sections in Isaiah (49–51, 52–55, 9–11) by their perceived relation to his own mission to the gentiles (49:6, 52:7, 9:2, respectively), leading to a broader appropriation on his part of the adjoining columns in the Hebrew scroll (“Paul’s Reading of Isaiah,” in Papers on Paul and Other New Testament Authors, ed. E. A. Livingstone, StudBib 3 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978], 215–23).

234

William N. Wilder

3:27–31), it is faith and a changed heart that mark the eschatological people of God, justifying the inclusion of the gentiles. What occurs then in Rom 10:5–13, which clearly depends on Paul’s reading of Deuteronomy, is “the theology of God’s eschatological work in the heart, since Deut 30. 6 speaks of the ‘circumcision of the heart,’ which Jer. 31.31 identifies with the New Covenant.” 20 In the place of a heart that asserts its own righteousness (Deut 9:4; Rom 10:6) is a circumcised heart (Deut 30:6; cf. 10:16) that responds with faith to the word that actually resides there (Deut 30:14; Rom 10:8; cf. Jer 31:31). The new covenant has thus been inaugurated, at least for the nations. In the meantime, and even as the gentiles respond to the gospel, Israel remains without “a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear” (Deut 29:4 [3]). Or, in response to Isaiah’s question (Isa 53:1a), which Paul quotes in Rom 10:16 (“Who has believed our report?”), one may say, “the gentiles,” since they have heard the gospel and responded in faith, indicating that God has given them a heart to understand. Conversely, most of Israel remains hardened “down to this very day” (Rom 11:8; Deut 29:4 [29:3 MT]; cf. 2 Cor 3:15), though in the end “all Israel shall be saved” (Rom 11:26). This brings us back to Paul’s citation of Isa 52:15 in Rom 15:21. Here Paul draws from the same section in Isaiah (52:7–53:1) to justify his “ambition to preach the gospel, [but] not where Christ has already been named” (Rom 15:20). Paul’s commission as a herald of the good news is clear enough, along with the continuing primacy of the proclaimed word. At the same time the emphasis on the nations here, both in Isaiah and in Paul, is best understood against the failure to hear and to see that so characterized the first exodus of Israel, now overcome in the new covenant and the new exodus of the nations. For as Wagner has noted: the language of Isaiah 52:15 concerning “seeing” and “hearing” reminds the reader of the paradox of Israel’s obduracy, over which Paul has agonized most poignantly in Romans 9–11. While the Gentiles, through Paul’s preaching, are now seeing, hearing, and understanding, Israel has “heard,” but has not believed the message (Rom. 10:16–18). God has given them “eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear, to this very day” (Rom. 11:8 [Isa. 29:10 and Deut. 29:3]; see 11:10). The resonance of Isaiah 52:15 with this larger theme of Romans suggests that Paul has found his own ministry inextricably linked with the paradoxical outworking of God’s redemptive purpose. 21

20 Roy E. Ciampa, “Deuteronomy in Galatians and Romans,” in Deuteronomy in the New Testament, ed. S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 99–117, citing E. E. Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1957), 123 n. 1. 21 J. Ross Wagner, “The Heralds of Isaiah and the Mission of Paul,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, ed. William H. Bellinger Jr. and William R. Farmer (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998), 201–02. See also Richard B. Hays, “‘Who Has Believed our Message?’ Paul’s Reading of Isaiah,” in The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 39–40; and Eugene R. Ekblad Jr., Isaiah’s Servant Poems According to the Septuagint: An Exegetical and Theological Study, CBET 23 (Leuven: Peeters, 1999),

“To Whom Has the Arm of the Lord Been Revealed?”

235

Wagner’s point finds further substantiation in Paul’s immediately preceding reference to “signs and wonders,” which has already brought the obduracy – amidst – miracles theme from the exodus tradition into play. Here in Romans 15, as in Romans 10, Paul understands his mission to the gentiles in the light of his reading of Deuteronomy and Isaiah. These passages also demonstrate the way in which he finds the continued obduracy of Israel and the receptivity of the gentiles in those texts. At the same time a new dimension of Paul’s reading of these texts emerges in Romans 15. In Romans 10 and 15 as indeed generally, Paul privileges the proclamation of the gospel together with the hearing, believing, and the condition of the heart that may or may not accompany it. In terms of Isa 53:1a, quoted in Rom 10:16, the question has been “Who has believed what he heard from us?” Romans 15, however, offers a glimpse of what Paul believes may be seen in the mission to the gentiles. He does so in dependence on the emphasis on seeing (or not seeing) that he finds in Deuteronomy and Isaiah and with a deep sense of the connection between seeing and exodus – like miracles. Thus, in accordance with Isaiah’s prophecy that “those who have never been told will see” (Rom 15:21), Paul’s proclamation of the gospel has been accompanied “by the power of signs and wonders” (15:19). In this way the gentiles have been brought to obedience “by word and deed” (15:18) in a way that addresses, at least for the gentiles, the failure to see and to understand in Deut 29:4 (29:3 MT) in terms of the new exodus answer to obduracy promised in Isa 52:15. This account of Paul’s intertextual reading of Deuteronomy and Isaiah, particularly against the backdrop of the obduracy – amidst – miracles theme traced above in Exodus and Deuteronomy, raises an interesting question: Did Paul find in the programmatic Isa 52:7–53:1 passage a reference to the miracles that would be seen and understood (by the gentiles) in the Isaianic new exodus, or is this notion of the miraculous simply imported from elsewhere, via his understanding of “signs and wonders” in the exodus tradition? Put otherwise, was Paul’s self-understanding as apostle to the gentiles shaped by Isa 52:7–53:1, not only with respect to his role as a “herald of good news” and his experience of the gentiles’ hearing and understanding but also with respect to the performance of new exodus miracles? The answer, I contend, is that Paul did find miracles in the Isaianic new exodus and that he did so by way of a robust reading of the “arm of the Lord” in its immediate and larger contexts. I have already noted the strong association of signs and wonders with the arm of the Lord in Exodus and Deuteronomy. Note that the arm of the Lord evokes the exodus and brings to mind the miraculous in its own right. In a detailed study of the hand /arm of God in the exodus 189. Cf. Rikki E. Watts, “The Meaning of ‘¯al¯aw yiqpǝs.ȗ mǝl¯akîm pîhem in Isaiah lii 15,” VT 40 (1990): 335.

236

William N. Wilder

traditions, David Rolph Seely concluded that “the expressions of hand of God imagery known from the Exodus maintain throughout the Bible a distinctive theology of the power of God to miraculously intervene in the affairs of men.” 22 The same may also be said of Isaiah 51–63, with respect to which H. L. Ginsberg long ago noted “the unusual concentration of locutions in which the arm of YHWH figures.” 23 Here too Seely concludes that the occurrences “of these hand /arm expressions in Isaiah ... in the context of the future Restoration evoke the same power manifested before only in the Exodus and emphasize the truly miraculous nature of such events.” 24 Indeed, these exiles in Isa 52:7–53:1 include the same link between seeing and miracles that I have already noted in Exodus and Deuteronomy. 25 The emphasis on speaking and hearing in Isa 52:7–53:1 is accompanied by an equally strong emphasis on seeing, from the watchmen who see with their own eyes “the return of the LORD to Zion” (52:8) to the baring of the Lord’s “holy arm before the eyes of all nations” so that “all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” (52:10). Here the seeing is extended to the nations and has as its object the arm of the Lord. Given the strong new exodus character of Second Isaiah along with the reference to the arm of the Lord in both 52:10 and 53:1, it should not be surprising that the Targum takes the object of seeing in Isaiah 52 to be the new exodus miracles that accompany the proclamation of the good news: “for with their eyes they will see the wonders (‌‫ )גְבוּרָן‬that the Lord will do when he returns his shekinah to Zion” (Tg. Isa. 52:8 Targum E). 26 Accordingly, it is not uncommon in later Jewish commentaries to interpret the Isaianic new exodus of Israel in this passage in such miraculous terms. 27 One may even con22 David Rolph Seely, “The Image of the Hand of God in the Exodus Traditions” (PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1990), 212 (emphasis added). See also ibid., 147–48. 23 H. L. Ginsberg, “Critical Notes: The Arm of YHWH in Isaiah 53–63 and the Text of Isa 53:10–11,” JBL 77 (1958): 152. See also Bernhard W. Anderson, “Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg, ed. Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter Harrelson (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962), 183. 24 Seely, “The Image of the Hand of God,” 212 (emphasis added). 25 According to ibid., 196, the people’s responsibility to remember and consider the exodus signs and wonders is also generally true of the hand /arm imagery in the Old Testament. 26 A form of the Aramaic word for “wonders” in Isa 52:8 (‌‫ )גְבוּרָן‬is also attached to the “arm of the LORD” (‌‫ )דְרָע גְבוּרְתָא דַיוי‬in Isa 53:1b. See also Tg. Isa. 53:8 where exodus-like “miracles” are envisaged: “Out of sufferings and retribution he will bring our exiles near. Miracles that will be done for us in his days, who will be able to tell?” 27 Thus, e. g., the thirteenth-century R. Y’Sha‘yah Ben Mali glosses Isa 53:1b “upon whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed” with “to do wonders and signs for them as he has done for Israel?” (emphasis added), in Samuel Rolles Driver and Adolf Neubauer, The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish Interpreters (Oxford: James Parker, 1877), 75. Also in ibid., 206–7, R. Sa ‘adyah Ibn Danån applies Isaiah 53 to Hezekiah and, having referred to “the signs and wonders which [God] wrought” on Hezekiah’s behalf in his interpretation of 52:15, continues along the same lines in his exposition of 53:1: “But even if what had happened in the former days (i. e., the fall of the Assyrians) were told them, who would believe a report such as that would be or upon whom of the nations was the arm of the Lord ever revealed to work for them a miracle so great as this?”.

“To Whom Has the Arm of the Lord Been Revealed?”

237

clude that it is most natural to interpret the arm of the Lord as an exhibition of miraculous power, in keeping with the exodus tradition in general and the Isaianic new exodus in particular. Understood in this way, Isa 53:1 recapitulates the themes of new exodus hearing and seeing in Isa 52:7–53:1 even as it queries the extent of both: “Who has believed what he heard from us [that is, with respect to the hearing of the gospel]? To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed [that is, with respect to the seeing of miracles]?” Admittedly, this interpretation of the arm of the Lord in Isaiah runs against a strong current of traditional Christian exposition. A long history of interpretation from the earliest church fathers to the present day has identified “the arm of the Lord” in Isa 53:1b with the suffering servant in the rest of the chapter. Isa 53:1b even becomes the hermeneutical key that unlocks the messianic meaning of the arm of the LORD elsewhere in Scripture. In typical fashion Augustine interprets Ps 71:18 (70:18 LXX) by quoting the psalm itself, followed by a citation of Isa 53:1 and the climactic christological conclusion: “‘Forsake not me, until I tell forth Thine arm to every generation that is yet to come.’ And the Arm of the Lord hath been revealed to whom? The Arm of the Lord is Christ.” 28 Modern interpreters continue to make the same equation in Isaiah, where, for example, Alec Motyer argues at Isa 51:9 that “the ‘Arm of the Lord’ is not someone /something apart from the Lord but is the Lord himself,” concluding then at 53:1 that “now at last the arm has come.” 29 Nevertheless, there is good reason to insist on Paul’s obduracy – amidst – miracles interpretation of Isa 53:1. In addition to the fact that the arm of the

28 Augustine, Expositions on the Book of Psalms 71.21, NPNF1 8:32. Cf. Ps 86:11 (85:11 LXX) where Augustine (ibid., 415) pastorally exposits the God’s “leading” to be a leading by the hand, which is then referred to Christ through Isa 53:1. For other examples of this procedure see Augustine’s interpretations of 89:12 LXX (ibid., 444) and Ps 98:1 (97:1 LXX) (Expositions, 480); Jerome’s interpretation of Ps 89:12 LXX; Exod 15:6, per Mark Elliott, ed., Isaiah 40–66, ACCS Old Testament 11 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 157; and Luther’s interpretation of Ps 17:7 in Martin Luther, “The Pious and Learned Commentary of Martin Luther on the First Twenty-Two Psalms,” in vol. 4 of Select Works of Martin Luther: An Offering to the Church of God in the Last Days, trans. Henry Cole (London: T. Bensley, 1826), 168. The identification of the arm of the Lord with Christ was well enough established by the late second century for Tertullian to use it as an argument for the separate personhood of the Son within the Godhead (Prax., 607–08). 29 J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 427. Ekblad, Isaiah’s Servant Poems, 192, argues that Isa 52:10 “prepares the reader to interpret the servant as his holy arm and salvation that comes from God.” See also John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 382; Catrin Williams, “The Testimony of Isaiah and Johannine Christology,” in “As Those Who Are Taught”: The Interpretation of Isaiah from the LXX to the SBL, ed. Claire Mathews McGinnis and Patricia K. Tull, Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 27 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2005), 122; Wagner, “Heralds of Isaiah,” 213; Rodrigo Jose Morales, The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel: New Exodus and New Creation Motifs in Galatians, WUNT 2.282 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 83; and Matthew S. Harmon, She Must and Shall Go Free: Paul’s Isaianic Gospel in Galatians, BZNW 168 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 68, 70.

238

William N. Wilder

Lord points most obviously to miracles in the exodus tradition, this interpretation also has a clear and early witness in the Gospel of John, lending further support to the reading of Isaiah attested in the Targums and other later Jewish interpretation. This brings us to John 12:37–38, which summarizes the unbelief of the people despite Jesus’s many signs: “Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: ‘Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?’” Here near the end of the Book of Signs (1:19–12:50), John summarizes the effect of Jesus’s ministry, with special attention to his miracles, by quoting both halves of Isa 53:1. 30 The first half (v. 1a) laments the people’s failure to believe the gospel while the second half (v. 1b) uses “the arm of the Lord” to refer to the signs that have accompanied Jesus’s proclamation of that gospel. 31 This is then an early and straightforward division of Isa 53:1 into the hearing of the gospel and the seeing of miracles, lending credence to the notion that Paul understood Isa 53:1 in the same way, that is to say, “by word and deed” (Rom 15:18). John 12 also features the same placement of signs (and the arm of the Lord) within the obduracy tradition in the Old Testament exodus traditions and Paul. Several interpreters have detected within John’s juxtaposition of signs and unbelief in John 12:37 an intriguing similarity to Moses’s words in Deut 29:2–4 (1–3). 32 Some also connect this passage with John’s citation of the obduracy judgment in Isa 6:9–10. 33 Indeed, it appears we have here, as in Paul, a reading of Isa 53:1, Deut 29:2–4, and Isa 6:9–10 in concert. All three are read within the obduracy context, while the first two are read with reference to the place of miracles in the midst of that obduracy. Finally, the larger influence of Isaiah 52–53 on John 12 has been repeatedly explored. Of particular interest is the suggestion that the request of the Greeks seeking Jesus (“Sir, we wish to see Jesus,” John 12:21) has been shaped with specific reference to the seeing and understand-

30 The special attention to the signs (and the failure to see them) is indicated both by John’s introductory focus on Jesus’s “having done so many signs among them” (John 12:37) and his subsequent omission of any reference to hearing or ears from his quotation of Isa 6:9–10 (John 12:40). 31 Raymond E. Brown notes “that the passage very nicely covers the whole of Jesus’ ministry, both his words (‘what we have heard’) and his works or signs (what has been effected by the Lord’s might or ‘arm’ – this expression is used in Deut v 15 in describing God’s agency in the signs of the Exodus)” (The Gospel According to John I–XII, AB 29 [New York: Doubleday, 1966], 485). See also R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of John’s Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1942), 886. 32 Brown, John I–XII, 485; D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 447 n. 37; Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 184; and J. Ramsay Michaels, The Gospel of John, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 705 n. 5. 33 Brown, John I–XII, 486. See also George R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC 36, 2nd ed. (Waco, TX: Nelson, 1999), 216.

“To Whom Has the Arm of the Lord Been Revealed?”

239

ing of the nations in Isa 52:15. 34 In John as in Isaiah, the obduracy judgment in Isa 6:9–10 is reversed in the seeing granted here, though (ironically) it is so for the gentiles and not Israel. To sum up, Paul’s reference to signs and wonders in Rom 15:19, along with his earlier allusion to Deut 29:4 (29:3 MT) in Rom 11:8, indicates that he attributes a new exodus significance to the miracles that accompany his preaching. In particular, his emphasis on the gentiles’ seeing and understanding suggests that he believes the gentiles to have responded to this new exodus with the kind of understanding heart that characterizes the new covenant. Paul thus understands Isa 52:15 not only as a mandate to enlarge the scope of his Gentile mission but also as a reference to the response of the gentiles vis-à-vis Israel. Furthermore, I want to suggest that Paul found a reference to the exoduslike signs and wonders in his mission to the gentiles in the programmatic Isa 52:7–53:1, where the arm of the Lord is revealed. In agreement with the usage of the arm of the Lord in the exodus tradition, Paul interprets its occurrence in Isa 53:1b in parallel with the signs and wonders in that same exodus tradition. This illumines Paul’s understanding of Isa 52:7–53:1, where in a very short span Paul finds a prefiguration of his own apostolic mission, a reference to the seeing and understanding of the gentiles, an indication of their response of faith to what they hear (in his mission to them), and the new exodus place of miracles with that proclamation (in the revealing of the arm of the Lord). But with all this, what if a largely gentile congregation shows itself to be foolish and unseeing despite the miracles in its midst? For the answer I turn now to Gal 3:1–5.

Miracle-Working and the “Hearing of Faith” (Galatians 3:1–5): Obduracy or Faith amidst Miracles? The mix of elements in Gal 3:1–5 confirms a new exodus understanding of miracles in Paul’s mission to the gentiles. Many, including Hafemann, have made much of Paul’s new exodus theology in Galatians, not to mention the influence of Isaiah in that letter. 35 Now, in light of the discussion above, note the promi-

34 See Daniel J. Brendsel who claims that “the ability to see and understand [in 52:15] ... bespeaks the reversal of the obduracy judgment of Isa 6:9–10” (“‘Isaiah Saw His Glory’: The Use of Isaiah 52–53 in John 12,” BZNW 208 [2014]: 55); and, per Brendsel, Torsten Uhlig, The Theme of Hardening in the Book of Isaiah: An Analysis of Communicative Action, FAT 239 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 246. Cf. Johannes Beutler, “Greeks Come to See Jesus (John 12:20 f),” Bib 71 (1990): 345; and Williams, “The Testimony of Isaiah,” 120. 35 For the importance of the exodus in Paul’s argument to the Galatians, see James M. Scott, Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of ΥIΟΘΕΣΙΑ in the Pauline Corpus, WUNT 2.48 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 121–86; Hafemann, “Paul and the

240

William N. Wilder

nence of miracles in this passage (3:5), the repeated use of obduracy language with respect to the Galatians (3:1, 3), and the twofold echo of Isa 53:1a (the “hearing with faith” in 3:2, 5). The effect is stupefying: according to Paul, the Galatians risk their own version of Israel’s obduracy amidst miracles despite the initial evidence that they had believed the gospel. “I am perplexed about you,” Paul later exclaims (4:20), and no wonder. Paul’s twice-repeated echo of Isa 53:1a is crucial. In Gal 3:2, 5 Paul asks whether the Galatians had experienced miraculous exhibitions of the Spirit “by works of the law” (âξ êργωn nόmου) or “by hearing with faith” (âξ ‚κο¨ς πίστεως). There is no need to enter into the debate about the proper translation of âξ ‚κο¨ς πίστεως. More significant for our purposes is the probability of an allusion to Isa 53:1. As Matthew Harmon points out, “The combination of ‚κοή and πίστις appears nowhere in the LXX, but in Isa 53:1 the verb πιστεύω does appear with the noun ‚κοή, the only place in the LXX where the two occur together.” 36 Of course, Paul himself combines the noun ‚κοή and the noun πίστις in just one other place: his interpretation of Isa 53:1 in Rom 10:16–17. Matthew Harmon and Karen Jobes both adduce other echoes of Isaiah in the immediate and larger context of Galatians, thus increasing the likelihood of an echo of Isa 53:1 in this case. 37 If my thesis is correct, then Paul’s echo of Isa 53:1a in Gal 3:2, 5 “places the reader within a field of whispered or unstated correspondence,” helpfully amplified for readers of Paul’s subsequent (explicit and non-explicit) citations in Romans. 38 In particular, Paul’s use of “hearing with faith” (‚κο¨ς πίστεως) suggests that his later answer in Romans to the question posed by Isa 53:1 (“Lord, who has believed our report?” Not hardened Israel! [Rom 10:16]) is already in play in his letter to the Galatians and, in view of the obduracy language here (“O foolish Galatians!”), being applied in a highly polemical fashion to the Judaizing gentiles in his Galatian congregation. In addition, the strong emphasis on miracles in Gal 3:1–5 at the beginning of an argument that moves from

Exile of Israel,” 329–71; Sylvia C. Keesmaat, “Paul and His Story: Exodus and Tradition in Galatians,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, JSNTSup 148 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 300–33; William N. Wilder, Echoes of the Exodus Narrative in the Context and Background of Galatians 5:18, StBibLit 23 (New York: Lang, 2001), 82–105; Todd A. Wilson, “Wilderness Apostasy and Paul’s Portrayal of the Crisis in Galatia,” NTS 50 (2004): 550–71; and Morales, The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel, 82–83. 36 Harmon, She Must and Shall Go Free, 130. 37 Ibid.; and Karen H. Jobes, “Jerusalem, Our Mother: Metalepsis and Intertextuality in Gal 4:21–31,” WTJ 55.2 (1993): 312–13. 38 Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 20. See also Stanley E. Porter, “Further Comments on the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament,” in The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice, ed. Thomas L. Brodie, Dennis R. MacDonald, and Stanley E. Porter (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006), 107.

“To Whom Has the Arm of the Lord Been Revealed?”

241

Abrahamic promise to new exodus fulfillment 39 adds credence to the notion that Paul draws on Isa 53:1b to interpret the miracles attending his portrayal of the gospel. I am arguing, then, in light of Paul’s explicit reference to exoduslike “signs and wonders” in Rom 15:19 and his repeated mention of miracles in Gal 3:2, 5, together with the evidence that Isa 52:7–53:1 is the backdrop against which he is communicating, that Paul is viewing the experience of his Galatian congregation through the lens of Isa 53:1a and b. New exodus signs and wonders have occurred (v. 1b). These were associated with an initial “hearing with faith” (v. 1a), which Paul had taken as an indication of their new exodus deliverance (Gal 3:2, 5). Are the Galatians actually identifying themselves with Israel’s ephemeral faith and historical hardheartedness instead? The miraculous character of these manifestations is thus central to Paul’s appeal. 40 Despite occasional attempts to downplay or reinterpret the miraculous element here, 41 it is clear that Paul is appealing to the mighty works experienced by the Galatians. As Hans Dieter Betz observes, “δύnαmις in connection with ânεργεØn points to the occurrence of miracles.” 42 Furthermore, Paul’s comparable reference to “deeds of power” (ânεργήmατα δυnάmεωn) in 1 Cor 12:10 should probably be understood as exorcisms, related to healings, 43 suggesting that the “working of miracles” (ânεργÀn δυnάmεις) in Gal 3:5 should be understood along the same lines. The relation of such healings to eschatological restoration in 39 Thus, e. g. Hafemann, “Paul and the Exile of Israel,” 366: “For against the backdrop of Paul’s understanding of the hardened nature of ‘the present Jerusalem’ and the promise of the restoration of Jerusalem from exile in Isaiah 54:1, the Jerusalem from ‘above’ that is ‘free’ is a reference to the ‘second Exodus’ inauguration in Christ of the new covenant of the new creation. Isaiah 54:1, and Paul’s use of it here, thus picks up the use of the ‘second Exodus’ motif to portray Israel’s restoration from exile as developed throughout Isaiah.” 40 Galatians 3:1–5 parallels Paul’s argument in the Corinthian correspondence, as Scott J. Hafemann shows in remarks on 2 Cor 3:3: “For the fact that the Spirit was present in the hearts of the Corinthians, far from being hidden and indiscernible, was publicly recognizable, open and evident to any who joined their worship, as I Cor. 12 and 14 make abundantly clear” (Suffering and the Spirit: An Exegetical Study of II Cor. 2:14–3:3 within the Context of the Corinthian Correspondence, WUNT 2.19 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986], 202). Hafemann goes on to note the parallel to Gal 3:1–5, which he takes to be “the very heart of Paul’s argument in Galatians” (202 n. 95). 41 Jobes claims, for example, that “Paul grounds his argument not in the subjective experience of the Galatian churches, but in the canonical prophecy given by Isaiah” (“Jerusalem, Our Mother,” 312). 42 Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermenia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 135 n. 78. 43 Guy Williams argues that the “gifts of healing” in 1 Cor 12:9 “constitute spirit-adjurations” while “deeds of power” in 12:10 (and thus in Gal 3:5) are exorcisms, which are “the most common and visible manifestation of power known to us from early Christian texts and [make] a good pairing with healings (cf. 12:28)” (The Spirit World in the Letters of Paul the Apostle: A Critical Examination of the Role of Spiritual Beings in the Authentic Pauline Epistles, FRLANT 231 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009], 257). See also Graham Twelftree, Paul and the Miraculous: A Historical Reconstruction (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013), 23; and James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 210.

242

William N. Wilder

Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Paul, and the Gospels has also been noted. Brian Rosner points to the “association of healing with the restoration of God’s people” in Deuteronomy and 1 Corinthians. 44 Craig Evans emphasizes the way in which “Isaiah’s good tidings entail healing and restoration” in the Gospels: 45 Healing in general is part of the demonstration of the powerful presence of God and his rule, not only because it was part of the eschatological promise of Isaiah (cf. Isa 26:19; 35:5–6; 61:1–2 in Matt 11:5 = Luke 7:22; 4:16–30; and in 4Q521), but because there is evidence that some of the healings were linked in various ways to exorcism, or at least to the demonic world. 46

Thus, the specific manifestation of signs and wonders in the Pauline and other early Christian congregations was likely viewed in light of the restoration healings seen in Deuteronomy and Isaiah. While the signs and wonders in the first exodus were cosmological in nature, for Paul, as well as for Isaiah, the revelation of the arm of the Lord was set within a new exodus context marked by release from (demonic) captivity, along with the healing of the lame, the blind, and the deaf. 47 What is more, this healing by way of release from spiritual oppression extends to the heart in early Christian conception. Craig Keener points to the way in which in his Gospel “John uses literal blindness to teach principles about spiritual blindness (9:39–41).” 48 John Painter claims that for John such spiritual blindness is “because the prince of this world, the power of darkness, had blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts.” 49 Paul too knows that the god of this world blinds people (2 Cor 4:4) and it is likely that he saw in the exorcisms and healings occurring among his congregations an indication of an

44 Brian Rosner, “Deuteronomy in 1 and 2 Corinthians,” in Deuteronomy in the New Testament, ed. S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 120. 45 Craig A. Evans, “From Gospel to Gospel: The Function of Isaiah in the New Testament,” in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, ed. Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans, VTSup 70 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 2:656. Cf. Eric Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 380, who also notes the metaphorical and literal dimensions of healing in the larger Jewish context of Jesus’s miracles. 46 Craig A. Evans, “Inaugurating the Kingdom of God and Defeating the Kingdom of Satan,” BBR 15 (2005): 73. 47 Cf. Watts, who makes a similar point with respect to the Gospel of Mark: “Just as in the [Isaianic New Exodus] the deliverance and healing of Israel was the precursor to her return along the way to restored Zion-Jerusalem so too Mark, prior to his ‘Way’ section, presents Jesus in terms of the Yahweh-Warrior who delivers the captives from demonic bondage, as Israel’s healer, and as the one who forgives her sins” (Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark, 139–40). 48 Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 2:883. 49 John Painter, “The Quotation of Scripture and Unbelief in John 12:36b–43,” in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner, JSNTSup 104 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994), 458. See also, e. g., T. Dan 5:11, quoted in Evans, “Inaugurating the Kingdom,” 62, where God’s release of those who are captive to Beliar is parallel to the promise that he “shall turn the hearts of the disobedient ones to the Lord.”

“To Whom Has the Arm of the Lord Been Revealed?”

243

even deeper restoration. In line with Isaiah the physical healings pointed beyond themselves to the deeper healing and release that God was accomplishing among his people. Ultimately, they pointed to the way in which God was giving the gentiles (though not yet to Israel as a whole) eyes to see and ears to hear and a heart to understand. This seems to be the point in John 12 as well. If something like this is the case, then Paul’s bewilderment in Gal 3:1–5 comes into focus. Given the Galatians’ return to circumcision, Paul wonders if the gospel has been proclaimed and signs and wonders revealed among them to no effect. Despite exorcisms that should indicate the defeat of the enemies of God’s people, the Galatians seem bewitched by magic or demons (Gal 3:1). 50 Despite healings that should point to spiritual as well as physical restoration, the Galatians seem blind to the significance of the miracles attending Paul’s preaching, not to mention the portrayal of Christ in the preaching itself. Paul’s reference to the Galatians’ failure to see despite the portrayal of Christ crucified “before your eyes” invokes not only the obduracy of Israel during the exodus but also suggests that the crucifixion itself is the great exodus deliverance to which the Galatians have been so astoundingly blind. Their eyes have seen this portrayal of the gospel and other exhibitions of God’s power among them, though it may be without “a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear” (Deut 29:4 [3]). This then explains Paul’s twice-repeated suggestion that the Galatians are “foolish” (‚nόητοι), a description that must be placed firmly within the obduracy tradition traced here and to which Paul himself later refers in Romans. 51 It is also possible that Paul uses his epithet for the Galatians advisedly. The one LXX use of ‚nόητοι (“foolish”) is found in Deut 32:31 where Moses describes the foolish gentiles: “For not like our God are their gods, but our enemies are without understanding (‚nόητοι).” In Deuteronomy 32 Israel has become as foolish and bereft of understanding as the nations who are void of understanding (vv. 6, 21, 28, 29, 31), so God will make them “jealous of those who are not a nation” and “make them angry with a foolish nation” (v. 21 in Rom 10:19). Paul thus seems to fear that the Galatians have become not just like foolish Israel but like the foolish gentiles who worship other gods. 52 To call the Galatians 50 See Bruce W. Longenecker, “‘Until Christ is Formed in You’: Suprahuman Forces and Moral Character in Galatians,” CBQ 61 (1999): 92–108. 51 Thus Wilson need not except Gal 3:1–5 from his generalization that “when directly addressing the Galatians, Paul regularly uses language or imagery drawn from the wilderness traditions” (“Wilderness Apostasy and Paul’s Portrayal of the Crisis in Galatia,” 553 n. 12). It seems rather to confirm that pattern, and also extend Paul’s opening amazement at the Galatians (Gal 1:6), which was “intended to evoke the apostasy of the wilderness generation” (ibid., 558). 52 J. G. McConville notes the “subtle interplay between the accusation of the enemy and that of Israel in [Deuteronomy 32] vv. 28–35. ... If the enemy is foolish because of its inadequate gods, it must not be forgotten that Israel, too, is foolish because it has spurned Yahweh” (Deuteronomy, ApOTC 5 [Leicester: Apollos, 2002], 457–58). Philo, Fug. 123, actually uses the Greek word for “foolishness” (‚nόητος) here with reference to Deut 29:3 LXX, though in a highly rationalistic man-

244

William N. Wilder

‚nόητοι, then, is to invoke the obduracy tradition in the Old Testament, perhaps Deuteronomy in particular. It may suggest that the Galatians have returned to their foolish Gentile condition (Deuteronomy 32), turning back to those that are not gods (Gal 4:8) and making God’s people their enemies, not least Paul himself (Gal 4:16). In the end, however, Paul remains hopeful for the Galatians. He grants them an Isaianic “hearing with faith” in Gal 3:2, 5, though with some question as to its durability. More fundamentally, he speaks of God sending the Spirit of his Son “into our hearts” (4:6), apparently including the Galatians in this reception of the Spirit as well as the associated sonship. The answer to the problem of blind eyes and hard hearts is found in God’s promises in Deuteronomy 30, Jeremiah 31, and Ezekiel 11, 37. With respect to Gal 4:6 J. Louis Martyn is right to note that Paul here “embraces [this] motif established by the Hebrew prophets. Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel contrast obdurate and immutable stone with the malleable and permeable human heart (the will, passion, the intellect), using this contrast to envision a renewal of Israel by God’s effective invasion of the human being.” 53 For Paul as for the prophets this work of eschatological renewal was a work of the Spirit, both with respect to human hearts and its outworking in the changed lives of his converts. Ultimately, he calls the Galatians to live out the freedom of being led by the Spirit in the path of love, exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit (5:22) in the revivified wilderness of the new exodus. 54 None of this, it must be said, excludes a place for those other exhibitions of the Spirit that indicated the arrival of the Isaianic new exodus. For Paul, to appeal to the miracles that follow the preaching of the gospel, whether here or in Romans 15, is just one more way of indicating the outworking of God’s eschatological purposes in Christ. Drawing on a wide array of Old Testament passages, none more important than Isa 52:7–53:1, Paul sees in Rom 15:18–19 and Gal 3:1–5 the new exodus deliverance accomplished by the crucified Christ, his own role as an apostolic herald of that good news to the gentiles, and, amazingly, the assemblage of nations redeemed from bondage, led by the Spirit, and on the way to their filial inheritance. Signs and wonders attend their way. As the positive answer to Isaiah’s questions (53:1), they have believed the report and the miraculous arm of the Lord has been revealed to them.

ner: “For, as Moses says, ‘such men have not hearts to understand, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear,’ but make the whole of their life blind, and deaf, and senseless (‚nόητοn) and mutilated in every respect.” 53 J. Louis Martyn, Galatians, AB 33A (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 391. 54 Wilder, Echoes of the Exodus, 215. See also Wilson, “Wilderness Apostasy and Paul’s Portrayal of the Crisis in Galatia,” 570 n. 90.

Scripting and the Rhetoric of Wilderness in Galatians Todd A. Wilson

Social movements, like the Pauline mission communities in first-century Asia Minor, are often fueled by a stockpile of stories that provide participants a sense of common identity and shared purpose. One example is the scriptural account of Israel’s exodus from Egypt and subsequent journey through the wilderness on route to the land of promise. 1 This particular set of narratives has been remarkably versatile and potent, thus serving as “a narrative template for innumerable movements of liberation and revolution over the centuries in the West.” 2 Martin Luther King Jr., the iconic leader of the American civil rights movement, consistently used these narratives to invigorate his powerful rhetoric of freedom. 3 Part of his genius as a communicator was his ability to script his hearers into the role of those who had experienced an exodus deliverance and were now making their way through the wilderness to the land of promise. King used these narratives to encourage and exhort his followers in their arduous yet righteous quest. Invoking Israel’s wilderness journey, King admonished his audience, “Keep moving. Let nothing slow you up.” 4 In his study of King’s civil rights speeches, Gary S. Selby observes, “King’s language symbolically placed his hearers within the drama, inviting them to imagine that they were, literally, the children of God enacting the Exodus in their present experience.” As King said on one occasion, resonating with things he said on many occasions, “The Red Sea has opened for us, we have crossed the banks, we are moving now. ... We are going on because we’ve got to get to Canaan.” 5 What was the impact of King’s use of these narratives on his hearers? According to first-hand accounts, people were not only swept up in the emotion of the moment, but also into the narrative world invoked by alluding to this set of stories. King’s hearers “underwent a vivid, immediate, and transformative experience of being ‘in’ the story itself.” 6 1 It is a privilege to dedicate this essay to Dr. Scott Hafemann, teacher, mentor, and friend, who first taught me how to read the Greek New Testament and fueled both my scholarly interests and pastoral calling. Unless otherwise noted, all Scriptural quotations are from the English Standard Version. 2 Christian Smith, Moral, Believing Animals: Human Personhood and Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 75. 3 Cf. Gary S. Selby, Martin Luther King and the Rhetoric of Freedom: The Exodus Narrative in America’s Struggle for Civil Rights (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008). 4 Cited in ibid., 9. 5 Ibid., 86. 6 Ibid., 170.

246

Todd A. Wilson

It is worth pointing out that King could achieve this potent rhetorical effect with only a very subtle allusion to the exodus and wilderness narratives, often using a single word or phrase. This subtlety, however, was no hindrance to his rhetorical power. In fact it kept his hearers from slipping into the role of detached critics by ushering them into the rhetorical moment as participants in the story. 7 They would not think to themselves, “This is like the exodus described in the Bible.” Instead, having been effectively scripted into the story, they would think, “We are marching toward freedom!” In an earlier article, I argued that the apostle Paul does something similar in his letter to the Galatians. Part of his rhetorical strategy to redress the developing crisis within the Galatian churches is to portray the Galatians, like Israel of old, as on the verge of apostatizing in the wilderness. 8 After having been miraculously delivered from servitude through an exodus-like redemption in Christ (Gal 1:1–4, 4:3–7, 4:21–5:1a, 5:13a), the Galatians are now contemplating a return to Egypt-like bondage (1:6–7, 4:8–9, 5:1b). As a result, Paul exerts whatever moral leverage he can over the situation, coloring his rebukes and warnings with language that evokes the Israelites’ own tragic wilderness defection and ultimate disinheritance. Paul thus scripts the Galatians into the role of wilderness wanderers because this will clarify for them the seriousness of their present situation and elicit from them the desired response: a return to the Pauline gospel (1:6–7, 5:7). 9 Drawing on language of social movement theory, other scholars have noted that Paul provides his churches (as King does centuries later for his followers) an interpretive framework they can in turn use to “fashion meaningful accounts of themselves and the issues at hand in order to motivate and legitimate their efforts.” 10 In this essay, I will attempt to extend this thesis about scripting and the rhetoric of wilderness in Galatians by considering the influence of the wilderness narratives on Paul’s pastoral admonitions in the so-called ethical section of the letter (5:13–6:10). I will argue in particular that Paul’s call to follow the leading of the Spirit (5:16–18), his warning of disinheritance for those who practice

7 Note the comment of Christian Smith, Moral, Believing Animals, 72: “Most people relate to their narratives not as literary critics or analytical philosophers but as believing actors swept up in the movement of grand historical drama. Their lives are embedded within and expressive of big stories, whether or not they can recognize every detail of any version of the story in their present life.” 8 Todd A. Wilson, “Wilderness Apostasy and Paul’s Portrayal of the Crisis in Galatians,” NTS 50 (2004): 550–71. 9 The notion of scripting comes from a comment made by Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, 2nd ed. (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984), 216. 10 Doug McAdam, “The Framing Function of Movement Tactics: Strategic Dramaturgy in the American Civil Rights Movement,” in Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, ed. Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 339, cited in Selby, Rhetoric of Freedom, 14.

Scripting and the Rhetoric of Wilderness in Galatians

247

the “works of the flesh” (5:19–21), and his assurance regarding the “fruit of the Spirit” (5:22–23) are, in different ways, informed by the wilderness traditions. In doing so, I hope to show that Paul’s use of these narratives is not mere rhetorical garnish. They are instead a strategic tool he uses to persuade his hearers to see themselves in particular ways and in turn adopt certain attitudes and actions. In short, Paul deploys these narratives for pastoral and moral purposes. By scripting the Galatians into the role of wilderness wanderers, he wants to elucidate the consequences that follow from their behavior because he knows that, ultimately, they will only enter the land of promise (cf. “the kingdom of God,” 5:21) if they persevere through the wilderness.

The Leading of the Spirit Through the Wilderness (5:16–18) Although there are no explicit references to the wilderness narratives in 5:16–23, one has reason to suspect they may still be in view. William N. Wilder argues that the exodus story provides the narrative substructure for Galatians 5–6. Wilder seeks to advance this thesis through a careful and thorough study of Paul’s epigrammatic statement in 5:18: “If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.” He argues that the two halves of this statement are in fact shaped by the two formative events of Israel’s national history: redemption from Egyptian bondage (“under the law”) and being led by the theophanic presence of the cloud through the wilderness (“led by the Spirit”). “Thus,” Wilder writes, “Gal 5:18 is a summation of exodus-like freedom in specifically second exodus terms: freedom from being ‘under the law’ so as to be ‘led by the Spirit.’” 11 Furthermore, he suggests that the rationale for the choice of terms in 5:18 comes from the exodus narrative: just as the theophanic cloud guided the Israelites out from Egyptian bondage, so too the leading of the Spirit ensures that the Galatians remain free from the bondage of the law (cf. 5:1, 13). 12 Wilder builds his case by arguing that the expression “under the law” in Galatians evokes the Israelites’ bondage in Egypt. Here he relies heavily upon James M. Scott’s thesis that 4:1–7 is a carefully crafted second-exodus typology. 13

11 William N. Wilder, Echoes of the Exodus Narrative in the Context and Background of Galatians 5:18, StBibLit 23 (New York: Peter Lang, 2001): 201. 12 See ibid., 75–119, 121–74. 13 Ibid., 75–119. While Wilder grants that the several uses of the phrase outside of Galatians do not contain exodus overtones (1 Cor 9:20, Rom 6:14–15), he nevertheless insists that even in those contexts the expression has reference to a condition peculiar to the Jews and thus indirectly supports his overall case. For my own understanding of the expression “under law” in Galatians, see Todd A. Wilson, “‘Under Law’ in Galatians: A Pauline Theological Abbreviation,” JTS 56.2 (2006): 362–92.

248

Todd A. Wilson

Then, on the basis of a close comparison of 1 Cor 10:2 and 12:13, Wilder argues that Paul typologically equates the Spirit and the cloud, an observation which is then further bolstered by an examination of Rom 8:14, where Paul refers to the “leading of the Spirit” and conjoins it with the notion of sonship in ways reminiscent of the exodus experience. This line of interpretation is then supported by a detailed analysis of four key passages from the Old Testament: Hag 2:5, Isa 63:11, Neh 9:20, and Ps 143:10, each of which, Wilder argues, mentions the Spirit in a way that evokes the guidance of the cloud in the wilderness. 14 Regardless of whether one finds the various details of Wilder’s argument equally compelling, he has made a reasonable case for thinking that the wilderness narratives may well have informed Paul’s intriguing comment in Gal 5:18. His case could be significantly strengthened were he able to point to other discernible echoes of the wilderness narratives in the immediate context, the task to which I now turn.

Works of the Flesh and Disinheritance (5:19–21) In 5:13b Paul warns the Galatians, “Only do not use your freedom as an occasion for the flesh,” 15 a rather cryptic statement made more concrete by the vivid warning of 5:15: “But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another.” 16 Paul here likely follows the diatribe style of characterizing undesirable behavior as animalistic. 17 A key question is whether the warning in 5:15 implies actual or only potential developments within the Galatian churches. 18 A close inspection of the “works of the flesh” enumerated in 5:19–21 suggests that communal infighting was an issue for the Galatians. Paul’s list focuses both structurally and numerically upon those vices naturally associated with situations of social discord. Eight of the fifteen vices mentioned (enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissension, divisions, envy) are social in orien-

14 Wilder, Echoes of the Exodus Narrative in the Context and Background of Galatians 5:18, 121–74. 15 On the grammatical and lexical issues in 5:13, see Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC 41 (Waco, TX: Word, 1990), 239. 16 Intriguingly, the same terminology used in 5:15 is used of the “biting” (δάκnω) of the serpents (Num 21:6, 8–9; cf. Lev 26:22, 38; Deut 8:15; Jer 8:17) and the “devouring” (κατεσθίω) of the fire of judgment (Num 11:1, 16:35, 26:10) that came in response to the Israelites’ rebellion in the wilderness. 17 Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermenia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 276–77. For other possible examples, see Phil 3:2; Matt 7:15; Luke 13:32; 2 Pet 2:22. 18 This and the following two paragraphs are adapted from Wilson, “Wilderness Apostasy and Paul’s Portrayal of the Crisis in Galatians,” 568–70.

Scripting and the Rhetoric of Wilderness in Galatians

249

tation, and their centralized location gives them emphasis. 19 That communal infighting was a problem is also suggested by the parallel warning Paul issues in 5:26: “Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.” The Galatians, then, perhaps as a result of the influence of those heralding “another gospel” (1:6–7; cf. 5:7), were beset by attitudes and actions that were destroying their social cohesion and loving service (cf. 5:13c–14, 6:1–10). The relevance of the wilderness narratives for the pastoral situation in Galatia is not hard to find. Even a cursory reading of Exodus and Numbers reveals the fact that these same sorts of social vices characterized the wilderness generation: Miriam and Aaron’s challenging of the authority of Moses (Numbers 12); Korah, Dathan, Abiram and the 250 chiefs instigating an uprising (Numbers 16–17); the rebellion of the congregation at the report of the spies (Numbers 13–14); the repeated episodes of grumbling and disaffection (Exodus 16–17, Numbers 11). Perhaps Paul’s warnings to the Galatians not to allow their freedom to become “an occasion for the flesh” (5:13), to avoid “biting and devouring one another” (5:15), to put away the “works of the flesh” (5:19–21), and to stop “provoking and envying one another” (5:26) are intended to evoke the story of Israel’s own communal infighting during her wilderness sojourn. 20 This initial suggestion finds some support from a close inspection of the particular behaviors Paul specifies in 5:19–21. Unfortunately, there are no obvious verbal links between Paul’s vice list and the language used to describe the failings of the wilderness generation in the LXX. Nonetheless, the conceptual parallels are rather striking. I have already noted the concentration on vices dealing with communal infighting and how this same sort of description might apply equally as well to the wilderness generation. What stands out, in particular, are the specific issues of rivalry and dissension within the camp and evidently within the Galatian churches (cf. 5:15, 26). Numbers 11:4–35, for example, describes how the so-called “rabble” instigated a rebellion against Moses and challenged his leadership. 21 Numbers 12 continues along similar lines with the story of Miriam and Aaron, who question whether Moses is justified in his exclusive claim to serve as the mouthpiece for the Lord (vv. 1–16). The 19 John M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul’s Ethics in Galatians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 152–53. 20 One wonders whether Paul understood his relationship with the Galatians in terms of Moses’s with the wilderness generation. On Paul’s portrayal of himself as a “second” Moses, primarily in relation to 2 Cor 3:4–18, see E. Bammel, “Paulus, der Moses des neuen Bundes,” in Judaica et Paulina: Kleine Schriften II, WUNT 91 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 205–14; note also the careful assessment of Scott J. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter /Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3, WUNT 81 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 449–51. 21 Timothy R. Ashley, The Book of Numbers, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 224, observes how Miriam and Aaron’s complaint about Moses’s foreign wife (Num 11:1) only concealed “the deeper problem of jealousy over their brother’s unique status before God in the community (see v. 2).”

250

Todd A. Wilson

story reaches something of a crescendo with Korah’s rebellion (Num 16:1–35). Not insignificantly, the text says they “became arrogant” (16:1b) 22 and “rose up against Moses” (16:2) in order to challenge his exclusive claim to authority in light of their own purported equal sharing in the divine presence (16:3). Early Jewish and Christian reception of these narratives may shed some light on the claim that Paul uses them to confront the situation in Galatia. For example, Ps 106:16 (105:16 LXX) identifies “envy” (παροργίςω) as the root of Korah’s rebellion against Moses and Aaron. Josephus also considered this the reason for the debacle: Korah, one of the most eminent of the Hebrews by reason both of his birth and of his riches, a capable speaker and very effective in addressing a crowd, seeing Moses established in the highest honours, was sorely envious (εËχεn Íπä φθόnου); for he was of the same tribe and indeed his kinsman one of the most eminent of the Hebrews. 23

Sirach 45.18 similarly explains the uprising against Aaron: “Outsiders conspired against him, and envied (áζήλωσαn) him in the wilderness, Dathan and Abiram and their followers and the company of Korah, in wrath (θυmοÜ) and anger (æργή).” 24 In 1 Clem. 1.1, the author invokes the rebellion of Miriam and Aaron (Numbers 11) and Dathan and Abiram (Numbers 16) in order to rebuke his audience for their “unholy sedition,” which was not unlike that of the wilderness generations: fraught with “jealousy (ζ¨λος) and envy (φθόnος), strife (êρις) and sedition (στάσις), persecution and disorder, war and captivity” (1 Clem. 3.2). Evidently, then, these episodes from Israel’s wilderness experience were paradigmatic within both early Jewish and Christian traditions, particularly inasmuch as they can be used to offer a polemical critique of infighting and rebellion. 25 Paul appears to be doing something similar with the wilderness traditions as he confronts the situation in Galatia. Although there may be some suggestive conceptual overlap between Israel’s wilderness rebellion and a number of the “works of the flesh” that depict social discord and enmity, the remaining seven vices mentioned appear to deal with practices traditionally associated (at least by Jews) with pagan excess: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, drunkenness, and carousing 22 For the difficulties with this expression in Hebrew, see Ashley, Numbers, 298 n. 2; the LXX does not translate this phrase, perhaps because it was implied in the following expression: “And they rose up against Moses” (16:2). 23 Josephus, A. J. 4.14 (Feldman, LCL). 24 James M. Scott, 2 Corinthians, NIBCNT 8 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 247. Cf. m. Aboth 5:17. 25 For Korah in Rabbinic literature, see Jonathan A. Draper, “Torah and Troublesome Apostles in the Didache Community,” in The Didache in Modern Research, ed. Jonathan A. Draper, Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums XXXVII (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 150–74. For Korah in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see “Korah and Qumran” in The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation, ed. Peter W. Flint, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 182–202.

Scripting and the Rhetoric of Wilderness in Galatians

251

(Gal 5:19, 21). Witherington makes the interesting observation that these behaviors have to do with “sins associated with the sort of κοιnωnία that went on in pagan temples.” 26 It is intriguing to note that several of these vices are conceptually quite closely related to what went on during Israel’s two great acts of wilderness apostasy: namely, the sin with the Golden Calf (Exod 32:1–35) and fornicating with the daughters of Moab (Num 25:1–5). In fact, these two incidents are themselves closely related. The parallels include: (1) worship of foreign gods (Exod 32:8; Num 25:2), (2) God’s wrath being appeased by slaughter (Exod 32:26–28; Num 25:7–8), and (3) the tribe of Levi being singled out for special recognition (Exod 32:29; Num 25:11–13). 27 These two episodes may, in fact, form an inclusio around the whole of the wilderness narrative: the sin with the Golden Calf constituting the first and archetypal act of apostasy-idolatry, while Israel’s whoring with the daughters of Moab represents their final, climactic act of covenant apostasy and defection. Indeed, the warning of Exod 34:15–16 against “playing the harlot” with the foreign gods of the land is probably intended to link this narrative with the apostasy in Moab. Moreover, both episodes of wilderness apostasy involved cultic feasting, where sacrifices were offered and then consumed by the worshipers. Several explicit verbal links between these two episodes draw this out, especially the shared motif of eating (âσθίω). Exodus 32:6 reads: “So the next day they rose early and offered burnt offerings and brought peace offerings (προσήnεγκεn θυσίαn); and the people sat down to eat and to drink (âκάθισεn å λαäς φαγεØn καÈ πιεØn), and rose up to play.” No doubt intentionally alluding to the golden calf episode, Num 25:2 echoes this language and association of ideas: “For they invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate their sacrifices (êφαγεn å λαäς τÀn θυσιÀn αÎτÀn) and bowed down to their idols (προσεκύnησαn τοØς εÊδώλοις αÎτÀn).” Furthermore, while the depiction of the idolatry with the daughters of Moab in Numbers 25 obviously involves πορnειά (cf. âκπορnύω, Num. 25:1), Exodus 32 LXX probably also envisages a drunken orgy surrounding the incident with the golden calf. While it is difficult to determine exactly what is entailed by the phrase “and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play” (32:6), at least some later Jewish interpreters understood this to refer to a drunken orgy, either on the basis of the verb “to play” (παίζω), 28 or in conjunction with the mention of “sounds of singing” coming from the camp in 32:18, which the LXX, at least, interprets as sounds of revelry and debauchery by linking it with

26 Ben Witherington, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 397. 27 Ashley, Numbers, 515. 28 See the evidence presented by W. A. Meeks, “‘And Rose up to Play’: Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10:1–22,” JSNT 16 (1982): 64–78.

252

Todd A. Wilson

drunkenness: “the sound of those who begin with wine” (φωn˜n âξαρχόnτωn οÒnου). Philo, for example, speaks of the “twofold intoxication of wine and folly” that came over the Israelites at the foot of Sinai. 29 Also, it may not be entirely fortuitous that Paul begins and ends his list in Gal 5:19–21 with vices associated with pagan idolatry and excess. It is interesting to note that just as the wilderness narrative begins and ends with paradigmatic episodes of idolatry-apostasy (Exodus 32; Numbers 25), so also Paul’s list of the “works of the flesh” begins and ends with vices associated with idolatry-apostasy, while the central section enumerates behaviors characteristic of an atmosphere of communal infighting and insubordination. The following comparison illustrates this structure: The Wilderness Narratives: A Apostasy-Idolatry (golden calf, Exod 32:1–35) B Infighting (Num 11:1–35; 12:1–16; 13:1–14:45; 16:1–35; 21:4–9) A Apostasy-Idolatry (plains of Moab, Num 25:1–5) 30 The “Works of the Flesh” (5:19–21): A Apostasy-Idolatry (πορnεία ‚καθαρσία, ‚σέλγεια, εÊδωλολατρία) B Infighting (êχθραι, êρις, ζ¨λος, âριθεØαι, διχοστασίαι, αÉρέσεις) A Apostasy-Idolatry (mέθαι, κÀmοι καÈ τ€ ímοια τούτοις) While the Galatians may not have actually indulged in the kinds of practices Paul mentions here, he perhaps understood their communal infighting as akin to Israel’s own wilderness apostasy. This suggestion may help to explain the curious warning Paul appends to the “works of the flesh” enumerated in 5:19–21: “I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God (οÎ κληροnοmήσουσιn)” (5:21b). Interpreters often note that the language of 5:21b is unusual for Paul, particularly since elsewhere in Galatians inheritance terminology is used as “reception of” rather than “entrance into” (cf. 3:18, 29; 4:1, 7, 30). 31 But this peculiarity may be best explained by granting the influence of the wilderness narratives at this point, for they attest to the failure of the Israelites to enter the Land precisely because they “practised” the very vices Paul now sees at work in the Galatian churches (cf. 1 Cor 10:1–13). Paul fears, then, that the Galatians are threatening to repeat the folly of the Israelites who turned their exodus freedom into an “occasion for the flesh” (5:13) by giving way to the dreaded “works of the flesh” (5:19–21; cf. 5:15, 26), which in 29

Philo, Mos. 2:162. Philip J. Budd, Numbers, WBC 5 (Waco, TX: Word, 1984), 162, provides a similar, though more extensive, analysis. 31 Betz, Galatians, 285. 30

Scripting and the Rhetoric of Wilderness in Galatians

253

the end brought not the inheritance of what was promised, but divine judgment (cf. 5:21b, 6:7–8). He also fears that if the Galatians fail to follow the leading of the Spirit, they will, like the Israelites, come under the curse of the Law and be disinherited.

Fruit of the Spirit and Transformation of the Wilderness (5:22–23) Given the preceding discussion, there is good reason to think that Paul’s description of the “works of the flesh” and its consequences in terms of exclusion from the “kingdom of God” (5:19–21) are intentionally framed in terms of the wilderness narratives. But can the influence of the wilderness narratives be detected in Paul’s language of the “fruit of the Spirit” in 5:22–23? J. M. G. Barclay is surely correct to draw attention to the Old Testament background of Paul’s use of fruit and Spirit language and imagery in 5:22–23. 32 In the Old Testament Israel is often depicted as a fruit-bearing tree or vine (e. g. Isa 5:1–7), or this is at least the ideal. The people are often upbraided for failing to produce the requisite fruit (i. e., moral qualities). But this failure is actually taken up, transformed, and made part of the prophets’ eschatological aspirations. For one day the Lord will revivify Israel so she becomes what she was always intended to be: an Eden-like plant whose fruitfulness stands in sharp contrast to the nation’s present plight of barrenness and fruitlessness (cf. Isa 27:2–6; 37:30–32; Jer 31:27–28; 32:41; Ezek 17:22–24; Hos 14:5–8; Joel 2:18–32; Amos 9:13–15). 33 Moreover, several of these texts ascribe this moral revivification to the agency of the Spirit (e. g., Isa 32:15–16; Joel 2:18–32). 34 Barclay is thus right to observe, “Paul’s reference to the ‘fruit of the Spirit’ may therefore be intended to evoke the prophetic statements on Israel and the promise for her future: such fruit is what God has always demanded of his people and what was promised for the ‘age to come.’” 35 However, what should not be overlooked is the narrative location of these prophetic depictions of eschatological restoration. Consistently in the prophets, especially Isaiah 40–66, Israel’s eschatological salvation is envisaged as a reversal of their wilderness plight, the imagery of the wilderness serving as a metaphor for Israel’s own sociopolitical and /or moral and spiritual barrenness, which is itself often associated with the consequences of the nation coming un-

32 Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 120–21. See now especially G. K. Beale, “The Old Testament Background of Paul’s Reference to ‘the Fruit of the Spirit’ in Galatians 5:22,” BBR 15.1 (2005): 1–38. 33 Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 121. 34 Ibid., 121. 35 Ibid.

254

Todd A. Wilson

der the curses of the covenant or the Law. 36 Hence, as Isa 64:9 LXX suggests, Jerusalem, here as a synecdoche for Israel, lies in a ruinous waste, a veritable uninhabitable wilderness, an accursed state: “Your holy city has become a desert; Zion has become a wilderness, Jerusalem a curse (ΙησοÜ) in v. 10 – which seems to be a prospective reference to the divine name (or its reverential substitute, κύριος) which does not appear until v. 11 – the action of bending knees and confessing tongues is transferred from Israel’s God to Jesus. Bauckham concludes: The Philippians passage is, therefore, no unconsidered echo of an Old Testament text, but a claim that it is in the exaltation of Jesus, his identification as YHWH in YHWH’s universal sovereignty, that the unique deity of the God of Israel comes to be acknowledged as such by all creation. Precisely Deutero-Isaianic monotheism is fulfilled in the revelation of Jesus’ participation in the divine identity. Eschatological monotheism proves to be christological monotheism. 14

But note, Bauckham continues, the narrative moment at which Jesus is given the divine name: it is only as a result of his suffering and humiliation. Because he humbled himself and became obedient to ignominious death on a cross, therefore (διό, v. 9) God bestowed on him the divine name. This means, as Bauckham puts it in the excerpt quoted above, that Christ’s “humiliation belongs to the identity of God as truly as his exaltation does.” 15 The cross of Christ is not an impediment that must be overcome for the vision of Isaiah 45 to be realized; rather, the cross is precisely the way in which that vision comes to fruition: the suffering and death of Christ, one might even say, constitutes God as eschatological sovereign, reveals God as God. 16 And it is just here that the patristic tradition, with its reluctance to attribute suffering to God in Godself, departs from Paul’s witness. The Fathers could affirm that Jesus was co-equal in terms of what he was to God the Father, but they could not or did not take the further step of inscribing the narrative of the cross into the narrative of God’s own life, so that that cruciform suffering becomes definitive for God’s narrative identity. 17

13

Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 25. Ibid., 38. 15 Ibid., 45. 16 Elsewhere, commenting on the cry of dereliction in Mark 15:34, Bauckham writes, “God, in self-giving love for humanity, has chosen to be most truly Godself in self-identification with the godforsaken” (ibid., 268). 17 Michael J. Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 25, 27, 28, is even more forceful: “Christ’s divinity, and thus divinity itself, is being narratively defined as kenotic and cruciform in character. ... Paul is doing in Philippians 2 something very similar to what he does in 1 Corinthians 1: reconstructing the meaning of God’s essential attributes and thus the meaning of divinity itself. Like the wisdom of God and the power of God, so also the very form of God is displayed for Paul on 14

The God of Israel – Crucified?

267

A Response from Christopher Seitz Such an account of the theological significance of Phil 2:5–11 raises many questions, not simply of an exegetical nature but also of a broader dogmatic and historical variety. Some of the more substantive engagements with Bauckham’s exegesis have come from Christopher Seitz, who attempts to crystallize some of the key questions and pinpoint the potential problems with Bauckham’s implied answers. 18 In his review of God Crucified, Seitz highlights three basic lines of inquiry opened by Bauckham’s proposal. First, Bauckham’s exegesis raises the question of “the role of the Old Testament as scripture in formulating a Christian doctrine of God.” Second, that exegesis also raises the question of the order of the Trinitarian relations themselves – God the Father’s generation of the Son and the Son’s being begotten. Third and finally, Bauckham’s exegesis raises the matter of “how interpenetration [or perichoresis] in the Godhead is biblically defensible, and what the limits of such interpenetration might reasonably be, if the literal sense of the two-fold Christian canon is to be respected.” 19 I will look briefly at the final two issues Seitz raises and focus more extensively on the first. With regard to the third point, Seitz highlights the way in which Bauckham’s language of “God crucified” (which he borrowed from the Fathers but appears to interpret more in light of Jürgen Moltmann’s famous similarly-titled work 20) may obscure the distinction between the persons of the Trinity. If God the Father is the one who, in the limited context of Phil 2:5–11 itself, receives the obedience of Jesus (γεnόmεnος Íπήκοος, v. 8) 21 and therefore exalts Jesus but is not himself said to be humiliated, then speech about God crucified “pushes too hard against the literal sense presentation of the New Testament.” 22 Hence, with regard to Seitz’s second line of inquiry, Bauckham’s language runs the risk of obscuring the ordering of the persons and their relationally constituted identities. If God is the one whom Jesus obeys and who subsequently exalts Jesus, then, Seitz suggests, what is needed is more finely calibrated talk of God the Father. As Seitz puts it, “Even (pre-critical) efforts to discover the Son in the Old Testament ... reckon with a Son who is one with but not substitutable for

the cross by the one who was and is equal to God. ... God, we must now say, is essentially kenotic, and indeed essentially cruciform.” 18 The primary places to look for this engagement are Christopher R. Seitz, review of God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament, by Richard Bauckham, International Journal of Systematic Theology 2.1 (2000): 112–16; Christopher R. Seitz, Figured Out: Typology and Providence in Christian Scripture (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 131–44, 177–90. 19 Seitz, review, 114. 20 Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God, trans. R. A. Wilson and John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). 21 For a good discussion of Jesus’s obedience directed toward God, see Stephen E. Fowl, Philippians, Two Horizons New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 97–98. 22 Seitz, review, 115.

268

Wesley Hill

or indistinguishable from God the Father.” 23 To say “God is crucified” without specifying that it is God the Son who is crucified and then subsequently exalted by his Father is to run against the grain of Paul’s discourse. This brings us to the first point Seitz raises, namely, “the role of the Old Testament as scripture in formulating a Christian doctrine of God.” Here Seitz wonders whether Bauckham envisions the God of Israel being, in some sense, changed by Jesus’s death. As he puts it: Does the God of the Old Testament, so effectively held up [in Bauckham’s exegesis] as scripture’s true subject matter, become something different in Christian thought as a consequence of the crucifixion of Jesus? Do we read all language about God in the Old Testament through the lens of what is said by Bauckham about the ‘crucified God’ (that is, Jesus, the Son of God)? ... When we get to [Bauckham’s exegesis of Philippians 2:5–11], we might be tempted to return to the Old Testament and get a new God, or one filled out by his experience as crucified. 24

Here Seitz’s concern seems to be that we not reduce the God of the Old Testament to the Son only. Rather, the God of Israel is the triune God (or, in some contexts, God the Father only?), and therefore texts like Isaiah 45 must not be read as if they were only referring to the second person of the Trinity. Elsewhere Seitz deepens this criticism by questioning whether a proposal such as Bauckham’s represents the loss of the Old Testament’s portrayal of the divine attributes. 25 If Bauckham’s talk of a “crucified God” means that the literal sense of the Old Testament’s rendering of divine transcendence – not least in DeuteroIsaiah itself – is repudiated, then Seitz considers that talk misguided. “The traditional ways of speaking of God as God Almighty, Father, Lord God of Hosts, should ... [not be] corrected or abridged in the name of some false modalism, whereby God’s ‘mode’ in Jesus is truer or more worthy of Christian talk.” 26 Thus, Seitz poses a fundamental question to Bauckham’s exegesis of Phil 2:5–11. If God’s bestowal of the divine name on Jesus as a consequence of his humiliation and death indicates that the meaning of that divine name has now been definitively disclosed in and by Jesus’s suffering, then is the original Deutero-Isaianic meaning of that name discarded, modified, or in some other way qualified? Is the eschatological kingship of God now to be understood not in terms of God’s transcending the vicissitudes of the human condition and thereby redeeming that human condition but, instead, as the divine descent into the vortex of those vicissitudes, without remainder?

23

Ibid., 116. Ibid. Christopher R. Seitz, “Handing Over the Name: Christian Reflection on the Divine Name YHWH,” in Trinity, Time, and Church: A Response to the Theology of Robert W. Jenson, ed. Colin E. Gunton (Grand Rapids, MI: 2000), 144. 26 Ibid. 24 25

The God of Israel – Crucified?

269

Cyril of Alexandria’s Reading of Philippians 2:5–11 In what follows, I wish to engage these questions by returning to Cyril of Alexandria. More than any of the earlier eastern Fathers, Cyril treats the Christ hymn of Phil 2:5–11 extensively. 27 Indeed, John McGuckin suggests, “For Cyril the notion of the Eternal One’s self-emptying (Kenosis) as outlined in Phil. 2.6 f. rises to the status of a master theme throughout his thought – to such an extent that the earthly economy of the Word made flesh is often simply referred to as the Kenosis.” 28 Although the passage became central for Cyril already prior to the Nestorian controversy, 29 I will limit my attention to Cyril’s later polemical treatments. His first discussion of Phil 2:5–11 in the context of dispute with Nestorius may be found in the “Letter to the Monks of Egypt,” which dates from the spring of 429 AD and constitutes the opening salvo of the Nestorian controversy. 30 He also engages the passage in the fifth book of the Five Tomes Against Nestorius, which dates from 430 AD. 31 Finally, I will mention the discussion found in the late treatise, circa 438 AD, On the Unity of Christ, composed more in opposition to Diodore of Tarsus than to Nestorius, whose influence had waned by that time. 32 Taken together, these three texts reveal the continuities between, as well as progression of, Cyril’s later readings of Phil 2:5–11. In the “Letter to the Monks,” Cyril mentions Phil 2:6–8 in the context of controversy over what he describes as a division of “the One Lord Jesus Christ into two, that is into a man alongside the Word of God the Father.” 33 Cyril characterizes this Nestorian error as having to do with the acting subject of the verbs

27 Lars Koen, The Saving Passion: Incarnational and Soteriological Thought in Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1991), 95–104. Compare also P. Henry, “Kénose,” DBSup 5:7–161. 28 John A. McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 189. 29 Note the discussion in Sebastian Schurig, Die Theologie des Kreuzes beim frühen Cyrill von Alexandria dargestellt an seiner Schrift ‘De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate,’ Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 29 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 114–78, of Phil 2:5–11’s centrality to the Christology in Cyril’s Pentateuch commentary De adoratione. Cyril’s Dialogues on the Trinity and his Commentary on the Gospel of John, both dating from before the Nestorian controversy (though it is still disputed whether the De Trinitate dates from 412 AD or from the mid-420s), rely heavily on Phil 2:5–11 for their Christology (see Matthew R. Crawford, “Philippians 2 in the Nestorian Controversy” [paper presented at the International Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, London, England, July 5, 2011]). 30 Ep. 1, PG 77.9–40. An English translation is available in McGuckin, Saint Cyril, 245–61. 31 P. E. Pusey, ed., Sancti Patris Nostri Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini (Brussels: Culture et Civilisation, 1965), 6:54–239. 32 Quod Unus Sit Christus, PG 75.1253–1361; Deux dialogues christologiques, Sources Chrétiennes 97 (Paris: Cerf, 1964), 302–514. An English translation is available in St. Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ, trans. John A. McGuckin (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995). 33 Unless otherwise noted, the translation is that of McGuckin, Saint Cyril, 252.

270

Wesley Hill

in Philippians 2. 34 The one who “emptied himself ” (áαυτän âκέnωσεn, v. 7) is, according to Cyril’s reading of Nestorius’s view, “the one who came from the holy virgin.” 35 In this way, the self-emptying is not predicated of the Word directly but only of the man “alongside the Word.” The acting subject is the man Jesus, but not the Word. Cyril responds to this reading by observing that there is no grammatical shift from Christ Jesus who was in the form of God and equal with God in v. 6 to another, different subject who emptied himself in v. 7. Furthermore, Cyril points out that if the emptying is to have any force, it must be referred to the one who shared in God’s form: “How then could he be said to have been ‘emptied out’ if he was a man by nature, and was then born of a woman like us?” (cf. ân åmοιώmατι ‚nθρώπωn γεnόmεnος, v. 7). When Philippians 2 uses the language of taking (λαβώn, v. 7), being born (γεnόmεnος, v. 7), and being found (εÍρεθείς), it implies that the acting subject of the verbs assumed a state he had not hitherto experienced. Thus, the Nestorian reading – that a man and not the Word emptied himself – runs against the grain of the text’s plain sense: “How could he be understood as ‘assuming the form of a slave’ (implying that he did not have this in the beginning) if by nature he was already among the ranks of the servants and lay under the yoke of slavery?” 36 If, in its immediate context, this interpretation leaves open the question of what Christ’s self-emptying means for the Word’s own life, Cyril removes ambiguity on that front in his fifth Tome against Nestorius. Here he repeats the basic line of exegesis from the Letter to the Monks: Tell me then, what is the manner of the emptying, and in what way has he humbled himself, taking the form of a slave, and becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross? Or is it not obvious to everyone that it is the exalted one who is humbled, not the one who by his nature exists in lowliness and humiliation to begin with? Now I think it is the one who exists in fullness and who is in need of nothing that is emptied. He also receives the form of the slave who formerly was free by nature, and he is found also as a human who previously was not found existing in this state before it came to be. Who therefore is the one who is, by nature, high and yet brought himself down to humiliation? And who is full, such that he may be thought of as having been emptied? Who is the one who transcended the limitations of slavery, such that it may be said he took the form of a slave? Who is the one who, while formerly not a human as we are, is now said to be found in this condition?

34 Nestorius also made Phil 2:5–11 central to his Christology, confessing in his “First Sermon Against the Theotokos” that in this text Paul “recounts all at once everything which happened” in the incarnation; for the critical text see Friedrich Loofs, Nestorius and His Place in the History of Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), 249–64. 35 McGuckin, Saint Cyril, 252. 36 McGuckin, Saint Cyril, 252–53.

The God of Israel – Crucified?

271

... But the Word of God, out of great mercy and love for humanity, offered on our behalf his own body, and taking the form of a slave, he became obedient to God the Father to the point of death. 37

Here Cyril both reprises his earlier point – to say Christ emptied himself requires him to have been formerly “full” (i. e., equal to and in the form of God) – and highlights the paradoxical nature of that point. A Nestorian reader might imagine that Cyril is advocating an unqualified theopaschitism – that Christ emptied himself and thereby suffered humiliation and death in his deity. Yet Cyril does not leave his claim unqualified but goes on to specify the manner of Christ’s self-emptying, thereby simultaneously addressing that Nestorian worry and underscoring the apparently contradictory character of his claims: “We say then that the very Word out of God the Father chose even to suffer for us in the flesh.” And later in the same passage, Cyril asserts that “he did not regard the choice to suffer in the flesh as something to be rejected, even though he was impassible by nature as God.” 38 The paradox here is that Christ truly suffers, not as man but as God, but he suffers in the flesh and as the one who enjoys fullness, he empties himself. This paradoxical self-emptying receives further clarification in the treatise On the Unity of Christ. Cyril asks, “If we are to preserve the immutability and unalterability as innate and essential to God, in what sense, then, should we say that the Word has become flesh?” 39 In other words, if the paradox is to stand – that one who is in the form of God, without abandoning such divine equality, nonetheless truly emptied himself – how can it be said that that one actually suffered the humiliation of the cross? Cyril’s answer, again, depends on a reading of Philippians 2: [Christ] is said to have undergone a birth like ours, while all the while remaining what he was. He was born of a woman according to the flesh in a wondrous manner, for he is God by nature, as such invisible and incorporeal, and only in this way, in a form like our own, could he be made manifest to earthly creatures. ... The same one was at once God and man, and he was “in the likeness of men” (Phil 2:7) since even though he was God he was “in the fashion of a man” (Phil 2:8). He was God in an appearance like ours, and the Lord in the form of a slave. 40

Cyril’s answer is that the immutability and inalterability of God are preserved, even as he undergoes birth and submits to the death of the cross. The one who 37 Cyril of Alexandria, Adversus Nestorium 5.2 (P. E. Pusey, ed., Sancti Epistolae tres oecumenicae, Libri quinque contra Nestorium, XII capitum explanatio, XII capitum defensio utraque, Scholia de Incarnatione Unigeniti [Oxford: James Parker, 1875], pp. 218–19; author’s translation, for help with which I thank Matthew R. Crawford). 38 Ibid. 39 Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ, p. 55. 40 Ibid.

272

Wesley Hill

is immutable remains immutable even as he becomes subject to the humiliation of his own self-emptying. This reading of Cyril on Phil 2:5–11 coheres with much recent scholarship on the fifth century that emphasizes competing understandings of divine impassibility as near the heart of the Nestorian controversy. John J. O’Keefe, John McGuckin, Paul Gavrilyuk, and others have argued that the animating center of Nestorian Christology is the attempt to safeguard divine transcendence. 41 Nestorius contends for a separation of the Word and the man Christ Jesus in order to maintain that the Word’s nature is not altered and made passible by the incarnation; the man Christ suffers, but such suffering may not be said to belong to the Word. Cyril agrees that the Word’s nature must not be construed as passible, and so he argues that the Word’s suffering is enabled only in and through the incarnation. The Word in his “naked divinity” is impassible; on that point Nestorius and Cyril are agreed. But the Word assumes the form of a slave in order to endure the self-humiliation of the cross; here Cyril parts ways with Nestorius by arguing that it is the Word who undergoes this incarnate suffering. In this way, as Gavrilyuk notes, Cyril presents a “paradoxical Christology” in which the Word may be said to suffer but suffer impassibly. How might such a paradoxical Christology shed light on contemporary debates surrounding Phil 2:5–11?

Rereading Philippians 2:5–11 with Cyril of Alexandria In this final section, I would like to suggest that Cyril’s reading of Phil 2:5–11 offers at least three resources for contemporary interpreters of Phil 2:5–11. First, Cyril’s exegesis enables the recognition that the nature of God may be disclosed truly, but not exhaustively, prior to the incarnation. In stressing that the divine nature is impassible, Cyril aligns himself with the patristic heritage and emphasizes what Kathryn Tanner has termed “radical divine transcendence.” 42 Moreover, it is only by first stressing this divine impassibility that Cyril can later claim that the suffering of Christ at the cross is truly divine suffering and not simply bare human suffering, which would be powerless to effect salvation. 41 John J. O’Keefe, “Impassible Suffering?: Divine Passion and Fifth-Century Christology,” TS 58 (1997): 39–60; McGuckin, Saint Cyril; Gavrilyuk, The Suffering of the Impassible God; J. Warren Smith, “Suffering Impassibly: Christ’s Passion in Cyril of Alexandria’s Soteriology,” ProEccl 11 (2002): 463–83; Thomas G. Weinandy, Does God Suffer? (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2000), 172–213; and Thomas G. Weinandy, “Cyril and the Mystery of the Incarnation,” in The Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria: A Critical Appreciation, ed. Thomas G. Weinandy and Daniel A. Keating (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 23–54. 42 For the exegetical roots of this patristic consensus, and for the reference to Tanner, see R. Michael Allen, “Exodus 3 after the Hellenization Thesis,” Journal of Theological Interpretation 3.2 (2009): 179–96.

The God of Israel – Crucified?

273

Bauckham’s description of the cross as the definitive disclosure of God’s identity does not follow Cyril on this point and thereby runs the risk, as Seitz notes, of eclipsing the discrete witness of the Old Testament. If Jesus is given the divine name κύριος (Phil 2:11), that name must first be known from Deutero-Isaiah itself before Jesus’s reception of it can be fully grasped. 43 As Seitz puts it: The identification of YHWH with Jesus means not that the attributes of God as rendered by the literal sense of the Old Testament have become lost in some transfer. Holiness, righteousness, justice, mercy, compassion, and jealousy, as these describe YHWH in the Old Testament, remain true of God in his essence, and perichoresis means they are true of the Son and the Holy Spirit in their eternal life as well. 44

In this way Seitz’s criticism of Bauckham dovetails with Cyril’s concern to stress that the Word must be understood as impassible before the meaning of the Word’s cruciform suffering can be adequately grasped. YHWH in his uniqueness and transcendence must be known before the full significance of his handing over his name to Jesus can be heard for what it is, namely, in Bauckham’s terms, an “inclusion” of Jesus within the divine identity. 45 Discussing Cyril, Gavrilyuk writes, “If [the] divine identity was somehow defined by the event of crucifixion in such a way as to suggest that it was God’s very nature to suffer in human fashion, then the assumption of the flesh would become quite unnecessary.” 46 In light of Seitz’s criticism, one might add that if the divine identity were somehow defined by the event of crucifixion, then too the Deutero-Isaianic reference to the divine name (κύριος) in Phil 2:11 would

43 To put this in the idiom of current Pauline scholarship, one might say that the intertextual reference to Isaiah 45 in Philippians 2 requires one first to locate the divine name in its DeuteroIsaianic context, in which it functions to mark out the God of Israel’s “otherness” (Isa 40:12–31; 41:21–29; 43:10–13; 44:6–8, 21–28; 45:5–7, 11–12, 15, 18, 21, 24; 46:1–11; 48:1–5, 12–13; 55:8–9). Locating New Testament allusions to the Old Testament in their original Old Testament context as a prerequisite for faithful exegesis is one of the great themes of Scott Hafemann’s teaching and scholarship. 44 Seitz, “Handing Over the Name,” 144. 45 For similar reflections, with Aquinas taking the place of Cyril and Barth taking the place of Bauckham, see D. Stephen Long, Speaking of God: Theology, Language, and Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 107, 179–80, 185. Long stresses that the meaning of Jesus’s incarnate suffering is only understandable in light of the Old Testament. E.g., “We must know God’s name before we can know Christ bears it. ... To understand who Jesus is we must have the ‘preconception’ of God that the revelation to Moses gives. If we do not have it, then we will not know that Jesus has the name. His ‘I am’ statements would be lost on us. Then we will fail to see the beauty of the logic of the incarnation where we recognize how the One Who Is, the impassible, immutable, and simple One can be passible, mutable, and composite without ceasing to be the One Who Is. ... The Old Testament is necessary to understand the New. The divine name given to us in Exodus 3:14 is the Name that Jesus also bears and thus we can worship him without fear of violating the commandments revealed to Moses. If we lose the name, of which the Impassible One is a logical extension, then we will lose the ability to recognize in Jesus a way of signifying that leads us to something which is more than finite, temporal, and composite.” 46 Gavrilyuk, The Suffering of the Impassible God, 175.

274

Wesley Hill

become equally unnecessary: Jesus would not need to be seen as the Lord of Isaiah 45 but as simply himself, the (new) crucified God. Second, Cyril’s exegesis entails the recognition that the incarnation allows God to enter into the depths of human suffering. God in himself, or God “naked” (γυmnός), 47 cannot suffer, Cyril claims. But by assuming a human nature and taking the form of a slave, the impassible Word may suffer. This allows Cyril to say what Nestorius could not: that the cross is truly the Word’s own suffering, not an event removed from the Word and experienced only by the humanity of Christ. Already Cyril has been shown to take a different route from Bauckham, and at this point his Christology may also exist in some tension with Seitz’s criticism of Bauckham. In making his point about the taxis or order in the Godhead, Seitz writes: “God the Son crucified” is appropriate Christian talk, and Bauckham has done much to remind us of how this Son was a true disclosure of the Father even at the moment of his obedient death. But it cannot be said that at that moment “God was crucified” without calling into serious question what we mean by a triune God, “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” The Father is fully present in Jesus on Calvary in his absence, and in this absence he is “God uncrucified.” 48

Yet if one presses this line of thinking too hard, one may end up with a position close to the one Cyril repudiates. It was Nestorius, not Cyril, who wanted to safeguard “God uncrucified” and thereby preserve the deity of God as impassible. Seitz’s concern is different from Nestorius’s – Seitz wants to differentiate the person of the Father from the person of the Son – and yet Cyril may achieve what in Seitz remains unclear, namely, a way to maintain both that it is truly God who is crucified (since the Word shares the Father’s deity in undiminished fashion, contra Arianism) and that it is God the Son who thus suffers and dies. The sufferings of the man Christ are the Word’s own sufferings, and therefore it is legitimate and indeed necessary to say that the one who underwent the suffering of the crucifixion was truly God. Third, Cyril’s exegesis enables the recognition that God’s compassionate descent in the incarnation need not require an alteration of the divine nature to be a true sharing in the human plight. In stressing the paradoxical character of the incarnation, Cyril insists that the Word remains impassible even as he makes the sufferings of the cross his own and not another’s. Does this cohere with Bauckham’s reading discussed above? Recall Bauckham’s theological gloss on the final strophe of the Christ hymn: “The identity of God – who God is – is revealed as much in self-abasement and service as it is in exaltation and rule. The God

47 48

Cyril of Alexandria, Quod unus, 754E; On the Unity of Christ, 103. Seitz, review, 115.

The God of Israel – Crucified?

275

who is high can also be low, because God is God not in seeking his own advantage but in self-giving.” 49 That “as much in” is a crucial qualifier to Bauckham’s claims. It underscores that the exalted God who is high can “also” be low, not that the exalted God gives up his highly exalted throne but that he maintains his glorious character precisely in handing over his name to Christ in consequence of the latter’s suffering and death. And Christ, likewise, maintains his equality with the Father (τä εÚnαι Òσα θεÄ, v. 6) even as he undergoes his ignominious self-emptying. His reception of the Father’s own unique name, κύριος, signals, then, that he is both identical with the transcendent Lord of Isaiah 45 and the one who has abased himself in assuming the form of a slave. The God of Israel does not thereby undergo an alteration in his essence (or, since Paul does not use the vocabulary of fourth- and fifth-century patristic theology, his character or identity), but remains who he is even as he reveals his identity, climactically, in the suffering and death of the cross. 50 In each of these ways, Cyril may offer a nuancing corrective, as well as a deepening confirmation, of the insights of some of our foremost contemporary biblical scholars, even as dialoguing with Cyril has, I hope, demonstrated the way in which biblical scholars themselves might better learn to engage the patristic tradition.

49

Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 45. Matthew R. Crawford suggested to me in personal conversation that Bauckham’s “as much in” qualification may not do justice to the temporal unfolding of the Christ-event in the New Testament. If Jesus truly reveals God’s nature in abasement (Phil 2:6), it is also true that he is no longer abased (2:9–11). He remains the crucified one but, in an important sense, his resurrection and exaltation has overcome his humiliation. 50

Paul and the Semantics of “Justification” Or What Do We Talk about When We Talk about Righteousness? 1 Sean McDonough

“Words are not (except in their own little corner) facts or things: we need therefore to prise them off the world, to hold them apart from and against it, so that we can realize their inadequacies and arbitrariness, and can re-look at the world without blinkers.” – J. L. Austin 2

The word I wish to prise off the world here – or at least prise off discussions of Paul – is “justification.” My focus is very narrowly linguistic: I am asking how our understanding of Paul is affected by the categorical use of “justification” in questions like, “Is justification forensic or transformative?” or “How does Paul’s concept of justification align with his concept of sanctification?” While the word “justification” can function as a label for discussing Paul’s understanding of being-in-the-right-with-God, it can also subtly imply that there is a certain recoverable structure to Paul’s thought, or that he operates in a certain familiar theological mode. It implies that he thought categorically and consistently about a topic called “justification” as a matter of intrinsic interest. It is this assumption that I wish to call into question. I am not, then, concerned with the lexical value of “righteousness” words in Paul’s letters (δικαιοσύnη, δίκαιος, δικαιόω, etc.) so much as the effect the deployment of this word “justification” as an all-embracing term can have on exegetical and theological discussions of Paul. Nor am I concerned with the propriety of using the term “justification” when speaking about Paul. The term is embedded in theological discourse, and there is no point in trying to wedge it out. But it is important to be aware of how the word “justification” can shape theological discussion in sometimes unhelpful ways. I will therefore maintain the quotation marks around the word “justification.” This is not meant as irony. It serves rather to mark the fact that it is the word “justification” I am interested in, not “what Paul thought about being in the right with God.” The quotation marks are in this respect a kind of barrier around the subject of my investigation. What dangers attend the more or less inevitable use of “justification”?

1

Nearly three decades ago, Scott Hafemann first taught me how to exegete the New Testament. It is with immeasurable gratitude that I dedicate this essay to him. 2 J. L. Austin, “A Plea for Excuses,” in Philosophical Papers (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 129–30.

278

Sean McDonough

The present essay is not a call to arms for some new view of “justification” as such. My hope is that by looking carefully at how this word is used, I will be able to distinguish more clearly what Paul does in his letters from what readers do with them. Robert Frost’s dictum still holds true: “Good fences make good neighbors.” 3 Confounding secondary theological activity with the primary act of listening to Paul does a disservice to exegesis and theology. This does not necessitate taking a radically skeptical approach to understanding Paul. One can affirm all sorts of things about Paul and “justification” as a topic: he did not think one could get in the right with God simply by virtue of being born Jewish; he believed proper ethical conduct was important to being in the right with God; he thought believers had peace with God now through Christ, and that they needed to persevere in faith until the last day. What I am suggesting is that one should distinguish these knowable assertions from a reconstruction of Paul’s inner mindset, a putative justification-bank from whence he drew specific assertions that turn up in his letters. Because the purpose of this essay is irenic, I have generally omitted specific scholarly examples of what might be deemed good or bad practice. I am not advocating a particular view of what Paul thought was entailed in being in the right with God, nor am I interested in criticizing the various proposals. I am interested in how we talk about Paul and “justification,” not what each one may conclude about these things in the end.

Plight Paul does not really use a strict Greek equivalent to the abstract noun “justification” as a category of theological inquiry. The noun δικαιοσύnη is typically translated as “righteousness” in English. This is of course something of an abstract term, as is perhaps inevitable for words that address a state of affairs rather than a material thing in the world. In any case, it is still distinguishable from the categorical or topical way scholars often deploy “justification.” The rarer δικαίωmα is sometimes rendered “justification” (see e. g. Rom 5:16, 18 Vulg., NIV), but BDAG restricts its explanations to “regulation, requirement,” “righteous deed,” or “to clear someone of a violation.” 4 Verbal, adjectival, and adverbial forms, while clearly of central concern for Paul’s teaching on being in the right with God, are equally clearly not a perfect match for a noun like “justification” at the bare morphological level. The closest match for “justification” in Paul is δικαίωσις in Rom 4:25 and 5:18, for which BDAG offers “justification, vindication, acquittal.” It is still not 3 4

Robert Frost, “Mending Wall,” in North of Boston (London: David Nutt, 1914), 11. BDAG, “δικαίωmα,” 198.

Paul and the Semantics of “Justification”

279

a comprehensive, categorical word: it is justification in the sense of acquittal, not justification as a sweeping term for all God’s right-making activity with respect to humanity. Indeed, its precise sense in these verses is somewhat elusive: “who was put to death for our sins and raised for our justification” (Rom 4:25) in particular is a difficult clause to parse. 5 (I would argue that δικαίωσις here most naturally refers to vindication: Jesus dies for our sins, but the “guilty” verdict on him is overturned in the resurrection and ascension; we die with him, and likewise share in his vindication as our guilty verdict is overturned.) Romans 5:18 is similarly controverted, but the RSV seems to sort things out well with the rendering, “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal (δικαίωσιn) and life for all men.” 6 Furthermore, Paul does not set about to write a discourse specifically about a topic we might call “justification.” The distinction is a fine one. The epistle to the Romans obviously has much to say about being in the right with God, and one could argue that this is in fact the central theme of the letter. What I am saying is that Paul did not formally address the topos of justification as an independent matter of interest. 7 He could have; moralists in the Greco-Roman world wrote these sorts of treatises all the time. Seneca wrote On Mercy (De Clementia), for example, and states at the beginning that this is what he is going to do: “I have set out to write about mercy, Nero Caesar.” 8 Plutarch does likewise in beginning his charming De Auditu: “The discourse which I gave on the subject of listening to lectures I have written out and sent to you, my dear Nicander.” 9 Paul does not do this with respect to “justification.” An example of the imprecision that results from an indiscriminate use of “justification” is the aforementioned question as to whether justification is forensic or transformative for Paul. There are surely substantial lexical and theological issues in play here, but this way of posing the question does very little to help address them. It is meaningful to inquire as to whether in any given instance Paul deploys the dik- root in a judicial or ethical fashion, or something else again. But it is perfectly possible that he could have used the words in different ways at different times, particularly if he did not necessarily have a fixed view of the category “justification.” The assumption that he had such a fixed 5

Cf. Vulg. propter iustificationem nostrum. Cf. Vulg. igitur sicut per unius delictum in omnes homines in condemnationem sic et per unius iustitiam in omnes homines in iustificationem vitae. 7 By way of comparison, according to Luke Timothy Johnson the epistle of James makes use of traditional material on the topos of envy – but this is a very different thing from writing an essay on envy as a general proposition. (See Johnson, The Letter of James, AB 37A [New York: Doubleday, 1995], 276.) James’s intent is quite distinct, for he writes general wisdom paraenesis for God’s people. 8 Seneca, Clem. 1 (Basore, LCL). 9 Plutarch, Mor. 1:1 (Babbitt, LCL). 6

280

Sean McDonough

view, and that it was constructed in the same way as later theological formulations, can hamper listening to what he is saying. Reading Paul’s words, not his mind, is the goal.

What Is the Mode of Paul’s Theology? I will now briefly consider whether Paul’s general modus operandi would encourage thinking he has laid down a universally applicable theology of “justification.” It is evident that Paul wrote theologically-laden letters to individuals and congregations, as opposed to theological treatises to no one in particular. The significance of this has been increasingly recognized by Pauline scholars over the last several decades. For instance, attempts to find a center to Paul’s theology (under the assumption he must have had one) have somewhat fallen out of favor, and those who engage in the attempt have done so with appropriate circumspection. To take examples from two contemporary studies: Thomas Schreiner proposes the comprehensive “God’s glory in Christ” as the center of Paul’s theology, while Frank Thielman with due caution suggests that the theme of God’s grace may be “more basic than others in Paul’s letters.” 10 If a proposed center is simply taken as a way of stressing the essential coherence of Paul’s thought (as I believe it is with Schreiner and Thielman), it can have a valuable heuristic function. But to the extent it seeks to bend Paul’s theology into a certain shape, or smooth out what appear to be rough edges, its utility diminishes. Constantine Campbell has helpfully suggested that rather than thinking of Paul’s thought as a center with radiating spokes, it is better to think of it as a web of associated ideas. 11 Scholars have also (at least partly in response to the inconclusive results of the search for a Pauline center) explored the potential of narrative theology for providing a more accurate account of Paul’s thought. 12 This is sometimes grounded in deep philosophical reflections on the narratival shape of human existence, but it has gained traction because of the evident narrative elements scattered throughout Paul’s corpus: Paul is concerned about creation (Romans 1, 8), the call of Abraham (Romans 4, Galatians 4), the experience of Israel in the wilderness (1 Corinthians 10), and a host of other stories from the Hebrew Bible. The narrative approach does advance the discussion beyond the search 10 Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001); and Frank S. Thielman, Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 479. 11 Constantine R. Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 437–39. 12 For an overview, with diverse opinions on the utility of narrative theology, see Bruce Longenecker, ed., Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002).

Paul and the Semantics of “Justification”

281

for a Pauline center. At the most elementary level, Paul’s thinking was shaped by these stories, and we do not know whether he organized his thinking in a rigorously systematic fashion around some foundational principle. Due caution must be exercised in the details: a large measure of the scholarly objections to N. T. Wright’s grand narrative, for instance, stems from the stress he puts on the specific matter of Israel’s ongoing exile. 13 It is difficult to imagine someone arguing that Paul had no concern whatsoever for Israel’s history as reported in the Bible. Careful textual work will be required to discern just how Paul deploys this history in his letters, but such study can at least in principle provide insight into the soil in which his theological reflections grew. Closely allied with the notion that Paul is a narrative theologian is that he is an exegetical theologian. He addresses issues in his congregations through reflections on biblical texts – narratives to be sure, but all sorts of other types as well – viewed through the prism of the advent of the Messiah. Richard Hays and Francis Watson are perhaps the most visible exponents of this perspective, which has become a dominant theme in Pauline studies in recent years. 14 Paul’s letters are occasional, his theology is shaped by pastoral and missionary concerns, and he is driven at least in part by the conviction that Jesus has taken up Israel’s story into himself. Thus, it is impossible to demonstrate that Paul organized his thinking along the categorical lines developed in later theology. As J. Christiaan Beker helpfully frames it, the study of Paul’s theology always involves shuttling between coherency and contingency. The assumption of coherency is a valid one to make for any thoughtful author; how much more for those who hold that the letters are in some way “breathed of God” (see 2 Tim 3:16). But the indisputable contingency means that certitude is never possible in a reconstruction of Paul’s theology. As Thielman puts it, speaking generally of the New Testament: Apparent theological divergence in the canon is often the result of the profoundly contingent nature of the New Testament writings. ... Their purpose was not theological reflection but calling people to repentance and providing pastoral oversight for various local churches. Because of this, certainty about how their sometimes tensive theological statements cohere must sometimes elude us. 15

The idea that Paul is not a Scholastic is not a particularly earth-shattering revelation. But it is a necessary point to recall in order to frame the problem of Paul

13 See e. g. John M. G. Barclay, review of Paul and the Faithfulness of God, by N. T. Wright, SJT 68.2 (2015): 235–43, or James D. G. Dunn’s characterization of the exile motif as “something of an idée fixe” for Wright (in Jesus Remembered [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans 2003], 91). 14 See e. g. Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986); and Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T&T Clark, 2004). 15 Thielman, Theology of the New Testament, 38. See also the essay by Joel White in this volume.

282

Sean McDonough

and the word “justification” properly. I now wish to push the argument a bit further. Given that Paul did not write systematic theology, can we affirm that Paul even has a concept of justification?

Authors Have Words, Readers Have Concepts The maxim above may be hyperbolic, but it draws a necessary distinction between the communicative work of an author and the conceptual work of a reader. Readers only know what is in an author’s head to the extent authors communicate it through their words. This goes as much (if not more) for the way they think as for the raw content of their thought. As was suggested above with respect to the examples from Seneca and Plutarch, it is inappropriate to ascribe a specific “concept” to an author unless he explicitly invites readers to do so – and even then the reader will make a considerable reconstructive contribution to the “concept” in question. “Authors have words, readers have concepts” can serve as an adequate line of demarcation between what Paul does in his letters and what current interpreters do with them by way of theological development. As with most borders, there are bound to be disputes here. One might argue that Paul certainly has a “concept of God,” whether he employs θεός or κύριος or a personal pronoun, and whether or not he makes his intent to speak of God formally known. His letters may not provide an exhaustive account of whom he believes God to be, but he affirms all sorts of things about God throughout his corpus, and more attributes could be assumed based on his acceptance of the Hebrew Bible as the key source of information about God. Just so. But it is crucial to note that, for Paul, God is a personal being with whom one might be in relationship, a being who has said certain things and done certain things in the course of history. In this sense, God is a focal point in reality who can be pointed toward linguistically in the same way one might point to Julius Caesar or Jerusalem or a certain basket in Damascus. 16 Things become murkier when we propose a notion like “Paul’s concept of grace.” Since grace is not a discrete object in the world, getting a firm grasp of what is in view becomes far more difficult. Should we subsume Paul’s usages of words like “love” or “mercy” or “forgiveness” under his “concept of grace”? If so, does this make the “concept of grace” superior in some way to his “concept of love” (assuming he has one)? Even if we decide to restrict ourselves just to uses of the word χάρις complications arise. John Barclay has taken a long look at Paul’s use of χάρις from the standpoint of ancient gift-giving practices 16

I acknowledge that for Paul God is also the ineffable and utterly unique one who transcends earthly categorization (see e. g. Rom 11:33–36), but this does not take away from God’s self-willed availability as a focal reality.

Paul and the Semantics of “Justification”

283

in his seminal work Paul and the Gift and he has shown the complexity residing within this little word. In some ways, Barclay can be seen as providing a kind of sociological perspective on Paul’s message in the context of ancient notions of “gift.” But Barclay’s theological sensitivity and deep historical learning keep it from being a narrowly social-scientific investigation. Instead, he convincingly argues that ancient gift-giving practices help elucidate Paul’s communications about grace to his congregations. Two virtues in particular make Barclay’s work relevant for assessing the mode of Paul’s theologizing. First, Barclay allows an admirable breadth for the nuances of “gift” in the ancient world. It could be played out or “perfected” in various ways: gifts can be characterized by superabundance, singularity, priority, incongruity, efficacy, and non-circularity. 17 He thus gives the interpreter of Paul latitude in determining what aspects of “grace” might be activated in any given epistolary setting, rather than forcing Paul’s usage into a single predetermined meaning (whether sociological or theological). He understands the context of Paul’s mission with sufficient nuance to allow a variety of possible resonances of Paul’s words; and he understands Paul’s letters with sufficient flexibility to permit a variety of meanings to the term “grace.” It represents a sterling example of an attempt to grapple with what is visible in Paul’s letters within its cultural setting. He does not posit a grand, timeless theological synthesis. Assuming by contrast that Paul must have a tightly unified “concept of grace,” and making this the goal of the biblical-theological quest, could cloud the complexities Barclay draws out. The uncertainty as to whose concept is in play, Paul’s or ours, becomes heightened when we get to the expression “Paul’s concept of justification.” Since Paul does not speak of “justification” in categorical terms, we are already one step removed from his linguistic usage. Of course he uses the root dik- throughout his letters, so there is plenty of data for trying to determine what Paul thought about being in the right with God. But we have already made some significant moves of our own by choosing to subsume even these uses of dikunder the abstract term “justification”; how much more is this true when we decide to include other words like “forgiveness” or “favor” under this rubric. The impression is created that not only did Paul have quite a bit to say about being in the right with God (which is indisputable), but that in the back of his mind he must have clustered those thoughts in a certain configuration, all of which were filed under “justification.”

17

John M. G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015), 563.

284

Sean McDonough

The potential pitfalls of speaking about a strong “Pauline concept of justification” become clear when one takes a further step and attempts to speak of “Paul’s concept of justification” and its relationship to his “concept of sanctification.” This move creates two bodies of thought within Paul’s mind (e. g. things having to do with a person’s standing before God, and things having to do with behavior or disposition), and thus multiplies the potential for mischief should important pieces of data be misread or misfiled. It may also unwittingly impose a theological method on Paul, one that suggests Paul organized his thinking around a group of interrelated concepts that can be clearly distinguished from one another and then put into a neat organizational scheme. How can we know this is the case? I am not suggesting that no one can have a concept of justification. Anyone who makes it his or her stated goal to describe “justification” can be said to have a concept of the topic in view. Put forward in this way, the stated concept is then susceptible to public discussion. But since Paul does not do this, it is not possible to ensure that “Paul’s concept of justification” points to something beyond an individual reader’s own construction. There will be plenty of Paul’s material in the resulting structure, but there will be a necessary admixture of our own speculation – and most critically, the final shape of the edifice will be primarily of our own design. The same can be said even more strongly with respect to “connecting Paul’s concept of justification with his concept of sanctification” (or his concept of anything else, for that matter). Readers are perfectly free to use abstract concepts to make sense of what Paul says about the fact that believers are presently accepted by God, while still making progress in obedience. But we should resist the notion that Paul must have necessarily conceived his theology along similar lines.

One Word, One Meaning? If a specific “Pauline concept of justification” proves difficult of access, it may still be helpful to organize what he says about rightness-with-God into some coherent fashion, putting the traditional label of “justification” on the subsequent product, provided we recognize that this product is informed by Paul, but in its final form is our responsibility. But another problem can arise at this juncture, one that involves a certain assumption about the theological task: in theological discourse, it is assumed, one ought to pursue clarity, and this can be achieved when a given word points to one thing or points in one direction, rather than signifying various things at once. Inherent in the deployment of an umbrella term like “justification” is that one thing is in view. But at this point biblically-sensitive Protestant theologians may fall between two stools. On the one hand, they might wish to use righteousness-words uni-

Paul and the Semantics of “Justification”

285

vocally 18 to refer to a person’s present state of acceptance with God and nothing else. On the other hand, the task above all is doing theology biblically. And in the Bible, righteousness words in Paul and elsewhere appear to point to other realities besides a person’s present state of acceptance before God: for example, indications of behavior as well as status (1 Tim 1:9, Heb 11:4); things that pertain to a person’s future state and present state (Gal 5:5); “righteousness” or acceptance with God as something apparently achieved with some regards to works (Jas 2:20–26; arguably Rom 2:13) and completely apart from works (Rom 3:27). 19 One way to preserve a singular meaning in the face of this lexical variety is to establish a kind of theological or linguistic hierarchy. Thus one can say that James is not “really” talking about “justification by works” in 2:20–26, he is only talking about a vindication of one whose fundamental “justification” stems from trusting in God. Thus while the lexeme is the same, at the functional level James employs a different word than Paul, or at the very least teasing out a different nuance of the word. There is some merit in this approach, in that it recognizes the potential diversity of usage lying beneath a single set of letters. One can readily demonstrate that for James whatever good that people enjoy comes from the constitutionally generous “giving God” (1:5) who has chosen to give them birth through his word (1:18), so it is not as if he has a fundamentally different point of departure from Paul as he sets out on his theological journey. The problem with this approach is that it can impose upon the New Testament an order that hardly issues from the texts themselves. Paul’s usage of righteousness words (or at least Paul’s usage as determined by a given theological tradition) becomes determinative, and a text like James 2 must pay linguistic obeisance to Paul. 20 Even if one sees this as an acceptable state of affairs, it must be admitted that it is not an exegetical decision. It is a theological one, and it should be acknowledged as such. Furthermore, it tends to have a deleterious effect on the exegetical enterprise: there is an almost inevitable tendency in Protestant circles to view the coding of righteousness as “that-which-isgiven-to-us-by-God-apart-from-works-in-the-present” as determinative, such that texts like James become at best problems to be solved, and at worst troublemakers to be expelled from the party. In light of all this, it is necessary to consider whether the desire for a univocal declaration on “justification” may unintentionally call into question the 18 I am using the term in a semi-technical sense to refer to a given word having one fundamental meaning, and not in the highly technical sense found in, e. g., the theology of Duns Scotus. Of course there are important connections between the two, but I cannot explore those at length here. 19 See e. g. the summary of these different aspects in Scott J. Hafemann, The God of Promise and the Life of Faith (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001), 246. 20 See Richard Bauckham’s discussion on James and Paul in James (London: Routledge, 2002), 113–39.

286

Sean McDonough

pastoral wisdom of the Bible as we have it. Paul, as I have argued, appears to use righteousness language to refer both to present realities (e. g. Rom 5:1) and future realities (Gal 5:5). It may be the case that his word-tools let him down at this point, and when talking about the future he had to press into service a word that “properly” refers to a present reality. But it is equally possible that he wants the ambiguity. He may feel that the optimal way to communicate the complexity of one’s standing before God is precisely through wordplay: in some sense we are in the right now, and in some sense our final rightness before God awaits his declaration on the last day. We might expect that an interpersonal relationship would be a complex matter, not easily reduced to a simple “concept”; how much more is this true when one of the parties involved in the eternal Lord, Maker of heaven and earth! A tolerance for a certain paradox in language seems appropriate for the subject matter.

(Toward a) Solution It is impossible to demonstrate that Paul had a “concept of justification” in the strictest sense, namely, that he possessed in his mind a file folder labeled “justification” into which he put certain thoughts and that he carefully separated its contents from other file folders labeled “sanctification” and “glorification.” For that reason, even summaries of his thoughts on the topic should be alert to the various ways in which he might employ words related to “rightness” without assuming they can be reduced to one essential principle. Since the word “justification” will still loom large in theological discourse, I propose here a few suggestions as to how these discussions might be managed more productively.

Awareness As I have noted, no amount of language policing will stem the use of “justification” in theological discourse, nor would such censorship be desirable. The traditional use is strong, and it is perhaps convenient to have an umbrella term rather than having to constantly write out “the things Paul says with respect to being-in-the-right or being-declared-to-be-in-the-right or actually being-rightin-one’s-behavior.” But we can do so in the awareness that once we write sentences beginning “Justification is ...,” as often as not we are in effect saying, “I want the word ‘justification’ to be defined as follows.” Proposing a certain working definition or use of a term is distinct from asserting that a given object just is what I suggest. It is comparable to the difference between agreeing to call a certain group of animals “marsupials” on the one hand and dissecting a possum on the other. One is a matter of convention, the other is an analysis of fixed con-

Paul and the Semantics of “Justification”

287

tent. Conversations about “justification” often take on the character of the latter when they are in truth much more like the former. I return to the question, “Is justification forensic or transformative?” If we are clear that a definition is in view, I might say, “I would like to speak of justification in Paul as broadly forensic, because I believe the majority of his uses of δικαιοσύnη presuppose a legal framework.” Someone could then respond, “I think it is best to define the word to include transformation, because in my opinion his use of δικαιοσύnη in ethical contexts should be tightly connected to his more general statements on being in the right with God.” We may feel that our grouping of the thoughts Paul expresses is more reflective of his intent than an alternate grouping, but we will recognize from the outset that we, and not Paul, bear final responsibility for the conceptual scheme adopted.

Ordinary Language Part of the appeal of the word “justification” is the impression it creates of sophistication and precision. While employing more everyday terms will not resolve all debate, it can go a long way toward alleviating the problems that arise from speaking exclusively in terms that promise more technical certitude than they can actually deliver. It is critical, then, that ordinary language be accorded respect in theological discourse. The phrase “ordinary language” is (ironically) a loaded one in contemporary philosophical discussion, since in addition to its plain meaning, it can refer as a technical term to a philosophical movement prevalent in the early twentieth century. (Even the term “movement” might be a little strong. There was no formal organization of “ordinary language philosophers,” and thinkers with radically different views have been lumped together under this label.) If there is any unity to be found among them, it is the general conviction that philosophical problems cannot be neatly divorced from linguistic ones. Thinkers like J. L. Austin were convinced that ordinary language, honed over the centuries, was generally adequate to handle most of the things philosophers (and by implication theologians) wanted to say, while “technical” language as often as not served to obscure matters rather than clarify them. The quotation from Austin that began this essay continues: ... our common stock of words embodies all the distinctions men have found worth drawing, and the connexions they have found worth marking, in the lifetimes of many generations: these surely are likely to be more numerous, more sound, since they have stood up to the long test of the survival of the fittest, and more subtle, at least in all ordinary and reasonably practical matters, than any that you or I are likely to think up in our arm-chairs of an afternoon – the most favoured alternative method. 21 21

Austin, “A Plea for Excuses,” 129–30.

288

Sean McDonough

One of Austin’s techniques for engendering such linguistic self-awareness was a close examination of some very basic sentences. Thus in “The Meaning of a Word” he begins by distinguishing meaningful questions (“specimens of sense”) from meaningless ones (“specimens of nonsense”). The specimens of sense include: 1. What-is-the-meaning-of (the word) “rat”? 2. What-is-the-meaning-of (the word) “word”? 3. What is a “rat”? 4. What is a “word”? Then follow specimens of nonsense: 1. What-is-the-meaning-of a word? 2. What-is-the-meaning-of any word? 3. What-is-the-meaning-of a word in general? 4. What is the-meaning-of-a-word? 5. What is the-meaning-of-(the-word)-“rat”? 22 The analysis is well worth reading in full, but I introduce it here simply to propose an analogous exercise with words related to “justification.” I am concerned here not only with translation equivalents for δικαιοσύnη or δίκαιος, but with the effect certain words have in English, and with the critical difference context makes to the questions. Consider these examples: 1. Am I right with God? 2. Are you right with God? 3. Am I justified in taking the last cookie? 4. Are you justified before God? 5. What does it mean to be in the right with God? 6. What is rightness? 7. What is justification? In the first instance, an individual muses about his or her relationship with God in fairly colloquial terms. The person may be in a state of spiritual unease or may simply be engaging in periodic self-reflection. It is in principle answerable at some level: the person can make a personal inventory, check it against a standard, and come away thinking “yes,” “no,” or “uncertain.” The second example introduces an interlocutor, which complicates matters a bit, but remains in the same general region of discourse. In example three, a slightly statelier word, “justified,” is in play, but the idiom in question keeps matters tightly focused on a matter of existential angst: is the cookie-taking right or wrong? The same 22

Ibid., 23. I have changed the numbering of the items to attempt to simplify matters.

Paul and the Semantics of “Justification”

289

word lies at the center of question four, but now it is functioning in the same fashion as “right” in examples one and two. Things take a rather different turn starting with examples five and six. This is a very abstract realm, where the existential question has essentially been sidestepped. When we ask, “What does it mean to be in the right with God?” or “What is rightness?” it is immediately evident that we are seeking some kind of definitional help: when someone uses the word “rightness,” what is that word doing in a sentence? What are the conventions attending the use of “rightness”? The question then ought to be written more precisely “What is ‘rightness’?” It is difficult to see how question seven differs in kind from question six. Yet as was noted, the query “What is justification?” is often posed as if “justification” were an object abroad in the world, which might be pinned down and analyzed until its contents are adequately understood. In and of itself, “What is justification?” is a question that can only be answered in a very narrow sense. It translates to, “What do we want the word ‘justification’ to do for us? What is it useful for?” “Justification” in this case is nothing more than what we choose to put into it. The real questions lie unhelpfully under the surface: Does a person have to keep the Mosaic Law, or some other moral code, to be accepted by God? If I am accepted by God right now, how could it be that I still have to do something in order to be accepted by him on the day of judgment? Does what I do have anything to do with what God does with me on the final day? These questions are difficult, to be sure, but they are in principle answerable. The question, “What is justification?” is equivalent to asking, “What is in a file folder?” The answer is that it depends. This is not to say that an ordinary language approach solves all of our problems with Paul. To begin with, there is a certain semi-technical dimension to Paul’s language concerning rightness with God. No one would deny that Paul’s use of δικαιοσύnη and cognate terms is heavily indebted to the Septuagint. Even if his precise understanding of texts like Genesis 15 or Habakkuk 2 is controverted, the mere fact he employs them means that his use of such terms cannot be reduced to what the average Greek citizen would have thought when he or she heard the word. While I am leery of positing a complex and abstract “concept of justification,” it is of course essential to ask what Paul meant e. g. by “the righteousness of God” in Romans, and how he may have been affected by uses of the phrase in the LXX. Nonetheless, a disposition to treat ordinary language as theologically meaningful may help clarify what is at stake in any given discussion on “justification.” Creating a specialized, precise theological language is a tricky business, particularly when one wants at the same time to speak biblically. Imagine, for instance, that a theologian is challenged on a particular formulation of “justification” that lays great weight on the present reality of “justification” with God. She is then confronted by someone who says that her approach necessar-

290

Sean McDonough

ily entails antinomianism. She replies, “Of course not! I would never suggest that what we do doesn’t matter. I just want to make sure people realize they can be at peace with God right now even if they have done some bad things in the course of their life.” This should not be dismissed as sub-theological discourse, as though she only really believes what she says at the level of categorical terms like justification and sanctification. One of the advantages of counting ordinary language as genuine theology is that one can thereby sort out where substantive issues of disagreement are in play, and where it is a question of people expressing a basically sound idea clumsily or in an unconventional fashion. In addition, plain language is arguably more useful in matching the note of existential confrontation that dominates Paul’s own discourse. He cares about whether known and sometimes named people in Corinth or Rome are at peace with God and one another. While he occasionally uses more principial language (as in Gal 2:21, “If righteousness comes through the Law, Christ died in vain”) even these are in rhetorical service addressing pressing needs in his congregations.

This Is This, and This Is Also That If discussions about “justification” might be enhanced by an appreciation of plain language, they might also benefit from an appreciation of serious wordplay. Traditional theology has sought clarity through separating various statements into different concepts. As I have argued, it may be equally effective to allow the same word to have more than one meaning. We do this in everyday church speech all the time. Some of Paul’s description of our state before God might be summed up plainly as follows: “If you want to say you are in the right with God because of his grace to you, that is indeed true. But you are deluding yourself if you imagine that what you do does not matter – as if you could be in the right with God while also being committed to being wrong with Him!” This need not displace a more analytical approach, but it may help people see why Paul’s use of righteousness language to point in more than one direction (assuming such distinct ways are a deliverance of the texts) is not a problem, but is a perfectly normal way of speaking about complex realities. Demanding that the single word-concept “justification” do justice to all the uses of righteousness language in Paul (or scripture in general) requires increasingly complex reconceptualizations. For instance, someone may feel compelled to say that the “future invades the present,” such that God’s ultimate declaration of our justification is read into the present day. It is possible that Paul had in mind something along those lines as he mused on the ways of God. But that is a different thing from demonstrating that Paul actually put such convolutions of the space-time continuum into his letters.

Paul and the Semantics of “Justification”

291

Examples It may be helpful to illustrate the challenges posed by the word “justification” with a few examples from the Bible and church history.

Bible I begin with a brief example of righteousness language in the book of Romans. Again, my intent is not to offer the “correct” reading of this text, but rather to suggest the exegetical and theological possibilities that arise when the text is freed from the preconception that Paul has a strict conception of “justification” that needs to be unearthed and then read back into the text. Consider the highly controverted passage in Rom 2:12–16: All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (RSV)

I will focus on v. 13, “It is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.” There seem to be two basic ways in which this might be understood. On the one hand, we could take this as an unfulfilled, implicitly conditional clause: “If there were anyone who ever fulfilled the law [presumably the Law of Moses], that person would be justified. Of course we will see shortly that no one has ever done this, so getting ‘justified’ this way is in fact an impossibility.” This has the advantage of maintaining a smooth flow to the argument of Romans. In the bulk of the first three chapters, Paul establishes the condemnation of Jew and Gentile alike, concluding that one can only be saved by trusting in Christ. 23 The remaining chapters defend the centrality of faith and explore the various benefits that accrue to the one who is united to Christ through faith. One could equally well take the passage in a more straightforward fashion: there are those who will be justified in some sense on the final day with a view toward what they have done. 24 How this would square with e. g. Rom 3:28 (“For 23 I assume the traditional view. I do not think the rendering “faithfulness of Christ” would materially affect my argument. 24 In his commentary on Romans 2, Calvin is dismissive of those who use this passage to support justification by works, by which he may be describing Catholic opponents. But he spends no time addressing the proposal mentioned above. Meanwhile he takes Gal 5:5 to refer to the fact that righ-

292

Sean McDonough

we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law”) is of course an issue. The answer could lie in 2:14–15: gentiles who do what the law requires (even though they do not have the law by nature 25) are justified, but they do this only because they are members of the New Covenant. The law is “written on their heart” in accordance with the promise of Jer 31:31. This would anticipate Rom 8:3b–4, where Paul writes that God, by “sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirement of the law (τä δικαίωmα τοÜ nόmου) might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (RSV). While I lean in favor of the latter explanation, both options are exegetically defensible. The key is to avoid having our exegesis dictated by what we know “must” be the case in Rom 2:13 based on Paul’s “concept of justification.” We are free to observe Paul’s language and arguments as he employs them on the ground. His words are not merely outcrops, of interest only for what they can tell us about a supposed bedrock theology, 26 but rather crops, to be appreciated in and of themselves for the nourishment they bring to the church.

Historical Example: Bucer and “Double Justification” One example from church history further illustrates the language issues inherent in the use of the word “justification.” This case study involves the Strasbourg Reformer Martin Bucer. I am interested in Bucer not only for the intrinsic worth of his theology, but even more for the fact that he is remembered chiefly as a

teousness only comes through faith, avoiding the more natural sense that we await final vindication. But compare his comments on James 2: “That we may not then fall into that false reasoning which has deceived the Sophists, we must take notice of the two fold meaning, of the word justified. Paul means by it the gratuitous imputation of righteousness before the tribunal of God; and James, the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct, and that before men, as we may gather from the preceding words, ‘Shew to me thy faith,’ etc. In this sense we fully allow that man is justified by works, as when any one says that a man is enriched by the purchase of a large and valuable chest, because his riches, before hid, shut up in a chest, were thus made known” (John Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, trans. John Owen [Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1855], 314–15). For the nuances of Calvin’s views in this regard, see Cornelius P. Venema, Accepted and Renewed in Christ: The Twofold Grace of God and the Interpretation of Calvin’s Theology, Reformed Historical Theology 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 167–70. 25 Note that φύσει sits squarely in the middle of the clause and could thus refer either to gentiles “naturally” doing the law (which would not seem to fit particularly well with the portrayal of the nations in Romans 1) or to the gentiles not “naturally” having the Law, a law which for the Jewish people was (as we say) “second nature.” See Eckhard Schnabel, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, Kapitel 1–5 (Witten: SCM R. Brockhaus, 2015), 294–97. 26 In geology, outcrop refers to those places where the foundational bedrock of a region surfaces, affording the scientist an opportunity to study the literal lay of the land without the cost and trouble of drilling or excavating.

Paul and the Semantics of “Justification”

293

proponent of so-called “double justification.” 27 It is an ungainly term, and the impression created is that he has come up with some kind of mutant strain of proper justification, like a scientist who produces a two-headed dog in a laboratory. For critics of Bucer, his concept of “double justification” is taken as a symptom of his willingness to fatally compromise the faith in an effort to build bridges with Rome. Yet when one examines his writings without a predetermined notion that “justification” is a strictly-bounded object of inquiry, he emerges as a sensitive reader of the biblical text who wishes to do justice to the full range of expressions relating to our relationship with God. He is clearly working in a theological mode and not just an exegetical mode. His stated goal is often to harmonize apparently contradictory texts. But he wants his theology to be as sensitive as possible to the biblical passages. Comparing Paul’s statements to the effect that “God will repay each according to his works” and “no one is justified by God by his deeds,” Bucer writes: These two sets of sentiments seem to be incompatible. The former statements, namely, that we are judged according to our deeds, that we are repaid in accordance with what we have done: the reward of good works is salvation, seems to imply that God judges us by considering our works. The latter statement, that we are justified by grace or by faith says, equivalently, that God judges us with no consideration of our works, but only by the contemplation of his own goodness, free mercy, and merit of Christ. Now that God in judging us takes account of our works and yet does not take account of our works seems completely contradictory, and they would contradict each other even if “habere rationem” (to take account) were understood in the same sense in each set of propositions. 28

He goes on to say that it is precisely the difference in sense of the habere rationem that helps loosen the tension: And yet this phrase “habere rationem” is understood in one way when one says that God justifies us taking no account of our works, but he justifies us on account of himself alone, that is, he awards eternal life to us; and in another way when one says that God takes account of our works with the result that it is in accordance with our works that he imparts his benefits to us, and judges that we deserve to inherit his kingdom. For in the former statement one denies that that in our works themselves there is any inherent cause why God should favor us, and number us among his own, and do good to us. In the latter statement, however, one affirms nothing beyond the fact that God takes account of our works to the extent that he rewards them, and that in accordance with the quality of our deeds. 29 27 For a representative distillation of Bucer, see Alistair McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 3rd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 251–53. For a more thorough treatment (including a critique of McGrath for a certain degree of imprecision, 46), see Brian Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). Lugioyo, among other things, wishes to protect Bucer from the charge that his “double justification” is an unappealing halfway house between Reformed and Catholic theology. 28 Translation in Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 218. 29 Ibid.

294

Sean McDonough

In a sense, what Bucer writes here might seem a species of exegetical common sense. The problems he addresses are so evident that he is hardly the only one to have noticed them, nor does his specific remedy seem especially outlandish. Indeed, Calvin himself is sometimes said to have embraced “double justification” of a sort, from the same motives as Bucer: he wants to make sense of the variety of ways in which the dik- root is employed in Scripture. 30 This is what makes the sometimes dismissive or even derisive labeling of Bucer’s view as “double justification” so noteworthy. An observation rooted in questions of linguistic usage is treated as if it were a theological innovation.

Conclusion I conclude with another quotation from Austin’s “Plea for Excuses”: “Words are our tools, and, as a minimum, we should use clean tools: we should know what we mean and what we do not, and we must forearm ourselves against the traps that language sets us.” 31 “Justification” has long been a tool in the theological kit. But I have argued that its usefulness has been dulled by indiscriminate use: a term that functions perfectly well to bound a topic of discussion becomes blunted when it is employed as a thing in itself, a recoverable “concept,” whether in the mind of Paul or the mind of God, which can then be correctly or incorrectly identified. We need to take this linguistic aspect of the conversation seriously and recognize when an apparently theological problem is in fact a problem of language. There are theological problems to be addressed, and language problems are no small things. But questions of theological substance and questions of linguistic usage are distinct, and the first step in gaining clarity is to know when we are investigating the one, and when we are investigating the other. As I indicated in the introduction, this essay is meant only to guide how discussions about “justification” might move forward most productively. There is plenty of work left to do and plenty of contention to be had, on both the exegetical and theological sides of things. Individual phrases like the “righteousness of God” merit continued investigation, particularly in view of the renewed appreciation for Paul as an exegete of Scripture. A deeper understanding of lexical use will in turn warrant a fresh look at the rhythms of Paul’s arguments in books

30 See ibid., 43. Cf. Matthias Schneckenburger’s syllogism on the trend in some Reformation theology toward “double justification”: “der wahre Glaube ist efficax; der meinige erweisst sich als ein solcher, denn ich übe Werke des Gehorsams aus Glauben; folglich habe ich den wahren Glauben und ich bin gerechtfertigt” (Vergleichende Darstellung des lutherischen und reformirten Lehrbegriffs [Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1855], 1:41. 31 Austin, “A Plea for Excuses,” 129.

Paul and the Semantics of “Justification”

295

like Romans and Galatians. All of this stops well short of an attempt to re-create Paul’s exact mindset, but is more than enough to occupy our scholarly attention. Theologians, similarly freed from the notion that they must read Paul’s mind, may set about the important business of how best to integrate his contributions in a way that is coherent and compelling in our current intellectual and ecclesial setting. Finally, we should recognize that Paul was driven by the reality of God making things right through the Messiah. He pointed to what he knew with the words that lay to hand. He did so as brilliantly as anyone has ever done, but it is the reality that concerned him, and not his way of pointing at it: When I came to you, brethren, I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in much fear and trembling; and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. (1 Cor 2:1–5 RSV)

The σÀmα and the Transformation of Persons in the Letter to the Romans 1 Elizabeth E. Shively

Rene Descartes wrote, “The mind or soul of man is entirely different from the body.” 2 This sort of idea has tended to circumscribe scholarly discussions about Paul’s view of the body, its relationship to the mind or soul, and to the person / self/“I.” Moreover, the construal of the mind /soul-body and person relationship has implications for Pauline anthropology, particularly with regard to how one views transformation into the image of God. Using Romans as a test case, I will explore the function of the body and its relation to the person in light of recent research in cognitive studies that suggests that the mind and body are deeply connected and influence each another. I focus particularly on chs. 1, 6, 8, and 12, and seek to demonstrate that the body should not be isolated from the mind or from the self/“I.” I will argue that throughout Romans the apostle Paul tells the story of the fall and progressive transformation of whole persons both now and in the future.

Scholarship on σÀmα in Paul’s Writings In Philosophy, the attempt to resolve the relations among mind, body, and person centers around the question “What am I?” 3 Descartes answered with the famous line, “I think, therefore, I am.” For him, the “I” is the mind. Some New Testament scholars have given a similar answer. For instance, Rudolf Bultmann argues that “man does not have a soma; he is soma.” 4 Thus, for him, the “I” is the σÀmα. Beginning with Bultmann I will survey how representative scholars have interpreted σÀmα in Paul’s thought. I will put to each of them the question, “What am I?” to sharpen the issues involved. 1 I write this essay out of gratitude to Scott Hafemann, who first taught me Greek language and New Testament interpretation. He opened up the world of biblical studies to me by communicating an infectious commitment to biblical languages and careful exegesis and demonstrating that the sheer hard work of interpretation is a spiritual practice and labor of love. Also, I thank Jason Maston and Max Botner for their careful reading of an article draft and their valuable feedback. 2 Stanley Tweyman, ed., Rene Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy in Focus (London: Routledge, 1993), 96. 3 Lynne Rudder Baker, Persons and Bodies: A Constitution View (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 4–5. 4 Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grobel (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1951), 1:194 (emphasis original).

298

Elizabeth E. Shively

Bultmann argues that σÀmα characterizes human existence and defines the term as the whole person encountered by God and the world. 5 Yet Bultmann eschews corporeality altogether by advancing an understanding of the σÀmα as one’s relationship to oneself and the ability to determine oneself in relation to outside powers. 6 Though Bultmann rejects the duality of the person, he identifies a Heideggerian duality of inauthentic and authentic human existence in the mythology of the New Testament. Bultmann’s contribution is to insist that σÀmα is not merely an outer garment that clothes the self, but is the self. But what he means by σÀmα is fundamentally existential and dematerialized. J. A. T. Robinson develops Bultmann’s concept of the body as the whole person by stressing corporeal and relational features. 7 He seeks to demonstrate that Paul’s use of σÀmα reflects Hebrew, rather than Greek, assumptions and refers to the whole person as a psychosomatic unity. 8 Yet to the extent that Bultmann dematerializes the σÀmα, Robinson fully materializes it: believers die to sin by participating in, with, and through Christ’s actual, historical death, and their physical bodies are united with the physical body of the resurrected and glorified Christ. According to Robinson, “body of Christ” is not a metaphor for the church. The church is not like the body of Christ, but is the actual body of the resurrected and glorified Christ. 9 Thus, the death and resurrection of believers are fully realized at the present time, so the future resurrection will only be a manifestation of what already actually is. 10 For Robinson, the σÀmα is the (believing) person, identified with the physical body of the risen and ascended Christ. To the question, “What am I?” Robinson would reply, “I am a σÀmα.” But whereas for Bultmann the σÀmα is fundamentally existential and dematerialized, for Robinson the σÀmα is fully physical and social. Ernst Käsemann challenges both Bultmann and Robinson on this very point of equating the term or concept of the σÀmα with the person or personality. 11 He believes that Paul can use more than one term to represent the person, yet suggests that the heart is the “centre of human life and is the dominating term for personal existence.” 12 Thus, he might answer the question “What am I?” with, “I am καρδία.” Still, Käsemann believes that the σÀmα is crucial for Paul and criticizes Bultmann for jettisoning its physicality. 13 For Käsemann, a person is not a σÀmα by virtue of being in relation to oneself (Bultmann), but a person

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Ibid. Ibid., 1:195–96, 202–203. J. A. T. Robinson, The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology (London: SCM, 1952), 14; cf. 28. Ibid., 14, 17–18, 28. Ibid., 50–51, 230. Ibid., 73–83. Ernst Käsemann, Perspectives on Paul, trans. Margaret Kohl (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 18. Ibid. Ibid., 18–20.

The σÀmα and the Transformation of Persons in the Letter to the Romans

299

has a σÀmα and as a result is relationally rooted in the world and, indeed, in the cosmos. 14 Because beings are relationally rooted in the world, they do not determine their existence autonomously, but in relation to – and confronted by – God and cosmic powers. 15 While Bultmann believes that Paul’s theology is at the same time anthropology, and Robinson ecclesiology, Käsemann believes that “anthropology must be eo ipso cosmology.” 16 Unlike his predecessors, Robert Jewett contends that σÀmα was not fundamental to Paul’s own thought, but, along with other anthropological terms, 17 was merely a function of the historical situations in which Paul found himself. Jewett argues that Paul wrote in settings of conflict and developed his anthropology to address particular needs. The most consistent and varied terms belong to Paul’s core anthropological thought, while irregular terms are those that Paul has taken from his gnostic and libertine opponents. 18 He concludes that none of Paul’s anthropological terms, including σÀmα, has a stable meaning. 19 The exception is the term καρδία, which Jewett believes belongs to the earliest traceable stratum of Paul’s thought. 20 Jewett rightly recognizes the importance of the occasional nature of Paul’s letters, but his interpretation requires a degree of speculation that stretches the imagination. Yet, like Käsemann, Jewett demonstrates the importance of καρδία to Paul’s thinking about the human being. Robert Gundry offers the most detailed argument against the idea that Paul uses σÀmα to refer to the whole person. 21 According to Gundry, σÀmα refers only to the physical body, and so it is a part of the whole and not the whole itself. 22 Gundry would answer the question, “What am I?” with, “I am Šnθρωπος (a human being).” 23 He rejects both a Hellenistic dualism and a monadic view, 24 and instead proposes a framework of ontological duality (“dual-unity”) in which two discernable parts form a whole, for which Paul uses a number

14

Ibid., 21. Ernst Käsemann, New Testament Questions of Today, trans. W. J. Montague (London: SCM, 1969), 135–36; Käsemann, Perspectives on Paul, 20. 16 Käsemann, Perspectives on Paul, 23, 27. 17 Καρδία, ψυχή, nοÜς, πnεÜmα τοÜ ‚nθρώπου, σάρξ, συnείδησις, êσω/êξω Šnθρωπος. 18 Robert Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of their Use in Conflict Settings (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 250, 290, 447. 19 Ibid., 303. 20 Ibid., 47. 21 Robert H. Gundry, S¯oma in Biblical Theology with Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology, SNTSMS 29 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 83; cf. 21, 23. 22 Ibid., 80. Gundry’s position is not unlike that of Aquinas, for whom the state of the disembodied soul after death is unnatural and temporary, contrary to the position of Cartesian (and Platonic) dualism. Eleanore Stump, “Non-Cartesian Substance Dualism and Materialism without Reduction,” Faith and Philosophy 12 (1995): 518–19. 23 Gundry, S¯oma in Biblical Theology with Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology, 84. 24 Ibid., 83. 15

300

Elizabeth E. Shively

of terms and metaphors: the corporeal part (outer man, flesh, body, members, mouth, face); and the incorporeal part (inner man, spirit, soul, mind, heart). 25 Gundry states that the corporeal and incorporeal are interrelated and that the body is the instrument through which the incorporeal parts are manifest. Yet rather than demonstrating interrelatedness and instrumentality of the corporeal and incorporeal, Gundry identifies contrasts and separability between corporeal and incorporeal parts in Pauline texts. 26 He states that the whole (inner and outer) person is transformed at the present time, yet does not develop this idea. 27 Particularly, he argues that Paul presents the corporeal and incorporeal parts of the person (unnaturally) separated at death and reunited at the resurrection. 28 The body will be transformed and the inner person will be rejoined. Transformation in the future focuses on the outer form according to Gundry’s view. Unlike his predecessors, George van Kooten argues that Paul adopts Platonic ideas to conceive of personhood in trichotomistic terms. He argues that Philo was Paul’s chief conversation partner and influence, and that both developed their anthropology from Plato’s trichotomous view of the human being rather than from Jewish ideas. 29 On the basis of 1 Thess 5:23–28, van Kooten advances the idea that Paul’s trichotomy consists of nοÜς/πnευmα, ψυχή, and σÀmα. 30 The spirit /mind /inner man together form the highest level of the trichotomy because these control the impulses of the body for good or for evil, while the σÀmα is the lowest level. 31 When a person’s mind fails to function properly, the rest of the trichotomy also fails; but when the mind is restored, then the rest of the person’s being is also. The core of his argument is that transformation of the person into the image of God is an adaptation of Plato’s doctrine of assimilation to God. 32 Van Kooten locates the climax of Paul’s trichotomous anthropology in 25 Ibid., 84, 154, 156. The key reason for Gundry’s approach is to account for his view that Paul writes of a disembodied state at death (see 154). For an argument against this view and in favor of fully embodied life after death, see Joel Green, Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 141–80. 26 Gundry, S¯oma in Biblical Theology with Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology, 135–55. 27 Ibid., 34–35. 28 Ibid., 154. 29 See also Ulrich Duchrow, who argues that Paul gleans his idea of the êσω Šnθρωπος from Plato via Philo in Christenheit und Weltverantwortung. Traditionsgeschichte und systematische Struktur der Zweireichelehre (Stuttgart: Klett, 1970), 59–136. 30 George H. van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 291–93; 375–88. 31 E.g., ibid., 381–82. By contrast, Theo K. Heckel argues that Paul’s language of the inner man, like Philo’s, comes from Plato’s Resp. 588A–569B. But he goes on to argue that Paul does not receive his ideas from Philo, but from his own opponents in the Corinthian church, whom he seeks to correct. Heckel, Der innere Mensch: die paulinische Verarbeitung eines platonischen Motivs, WUNT 2/53 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993). 32 Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context, 340–41.

The σÀmα and the Transformation of Persons in the Letter to the Romans

301

Rom 12:1–2, because it expresses the transformation into God’s image. 33 Fundamentally, he views sin as a problem of the mind, so that the transformation into the image of God is cognitive. 34 Since for van Kooten, the σÀmα is the physical part of the trichotomistic human being, he would answer the question, “What am I?” with, “I am nοÜς” and, ideally, “I am πnεÜmα” (the one transformed into God’s image). Troels Engberg-Pedersen argues that materialistic and monistic Stoicism influences Paul’s view of the body and the Spirit, thereby challenging ideas that immaterialistic and dualistic (or trichotomistic) Platonism forms the background of Paul’s thought. 35 Accordingly, Engberg-Pedersen understands “body” to encompass both the physical body and the mind, though he does not adequately address the relationship between bodily language and cognitive language like nοÜς and καρδία. 36 In addition, he interprets πnεÜmα materialistically. Based on 1 Corinthians 15, Engberg-Pedersen argues that Jesus becomes a pneumatic body, that is, a heavenly body like the sun, moon, and stars, and that believers will be transformed into the same “stuff” at the future resurrection. 37 Yet this process of transformation into the form, or image, of Christ, begins now when believers are justified. Since Christ is material πnεÜmα, then Christ lives in the believer by taking over the believer’s whole body. 38 The process of transformation happens as believers’ flesh-and-blood bodies undergo decay until future resurrection. 39 In other words, believers are in the process of wasting away and being brought to life as pneumatic bodies, as the life of Jesus is gradually made more visible in them until they have the same form as Christ. 40 Engberg-Pedersen uses Bourdieu’s concept of the “habitus” to define the “self” as a body that is connected to both social and cognitive experiences. 41 Accordingly, the process of present and future transformation of the body is not an individualistic matter, but a corporate endeavor to which Paul may call believers, using his own experience as an example. 42 Thus Engberg-Pedersen would reply to the question, “What am I?” both with a basic answer, “I am a body (= physical body and mind)”; and also with a more complex answer, “The Christian habitus (= self) is a πnεÜmα-filled, body that anticipates the final resurrected state.” 33

Ibid., 390–91. Ibid., 379–91. 35 Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 17–19. 36 He does exegete Romans 7, and states that nοÜς and the inner human being are part of the body according to a monistic view. 37 Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul, 28, 39, 52. 38 Ibid., 161. 39 Ibid., 45. 40 Ibid., 48; cf. 55. 41 Ibid., 141. 42 Ibid., 156. 34

302

Elizabeth E. Shively

Sarah Harding rejects a trichotomistic view of the person and instead conceives of Paul’s presentation of human beings in terms of “parts” or “aspects” – nοÜς, καρδία, and σÀmα – that together form a complex, tripartite structure or “anthropological profile” that represents a unity of personhood. 43 Whereas Jewett explains the variation in Paul’s anthropological language as a function of progressing historical conflict, Harding explains it as a function of a progressing apocalyptic-eschatological drama. 44 She intentionally jettisons forensic elements from this construal for the scope of her project, though she recognizes that these are present in Paul’s writings. 45 Influenced by Käsemann, Harding’s argument is that the person’s anthropological profile (nοÜς, καρδία, and σÀmα) – and so the person – is never neutral, and so always under a dominating power, either Sin or the Holy Spirit. The value assigned to any given anthropological term is a function of the power to which it is tied. 46 Harding articulates the integral and overlapping relationship of these parts as follows: “Without the nοÜς and καρδία, the σÀmα has nothing to objectify; without the σÀmα, the nοÜς and καρδία are unable to objectify the alterations occurring within them.” 47 In fact, she concludes that it may be better to consider the body as a “medium of expression” rather than a distinct part. Thus, to the question, “What am I?” Harding would answer, “I am an embodied human being” and perhaps even “I am a σÀmα.” By “human being” she differs from Gundry, because she does not fully account for moral responsibility. In her definition of σÀmα she differs from Bultmann and Robinson, because she means the concrete medium of the nοÜς and καρδία, by which the person is embodied in the world and in the cosmos.

Summary and Evaluation In the chart below, I list the way each respective scholar defines σÀmα and how I have inferred each would respond to the question, “What am I?”

43

She explicitly rejects views such as van Kooten’s and Gundry’s that fragment personhood. Sarah Harding, Paul’s Eschatological Anthropology: The Dynamics of Human Transformation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016), 4, 70–71. 45 Harding bases her framework on Martinus C. De Boer’s thesis that Paul’s writings manifest two distinct forms or “tracks” of eschatology that appear in Jewish thought: a cosmological apocalyptic eschatology (predominantly in Rom 6:1–8:28) and forensic apocalyptic eschatology (predominantly in Rom 1:1–5:11). See Martinus C. De Boer, The Defeat of Death: Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5, JSNTSup 22 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), 84–88; and Harding, Paul’s Eschatological Anthropology, 72–73, 190. See critiques of De Boer’s schematization in N. T. Wright, Paul and His Recent Interpreters: Some Contemporary Debates (London: SPCK, 2015), 155–67. 46 Harding, Paul’s Eschatological Anthropology, 162; cf. 305–06. 47 Ibid., 306. 44

The σÀmα and the Transformation of Persons in the Letter to the Romans

303

Table 1: Scholars’ Views of σÀmα What is σÀmα?

“What am I?”

Bultmann

“I” (the person)

Robinson

the (believing) person, identified with the physical body of the risen and ascended Christ corporeal nature of the person physical substance (Paul’s need determines usage) physical substance that together with incorporeal substance constitutes the whole person physical substance of the trichotomistic human being material body and material mind of the monistic human being

I am σÀmα (dematerialized and individualized) I am a σÀmα (physical and social)

Käsemann Jewett Gundry

van Kooten EngbergPedersen Harding

concrete medium of the nοÜς and καρδία

I am καρδία I am καρδία I am Šnθρωπος

I am nοÜς/πnεÜmα I am a σÀmα (fully materialized)/ πnεÜmα-filled, body that anticipates the final resurrected state I am an embodied human being/σÀmα

Except Bultmann, every scholar determines that σÀmα denotes physicality. Also, every scholar, except Harding and Engberg-Pedersen, determines that σÀmα refers to a part of the person, though each varies in his or her view of how that part relates to the whole. That is, even though each, excepting van Kooten, explicitly rejects dualism, a dualistic framework informs the interpretation to some extent. Also each, excepting Gundry, variously identifies an essential center (see the column, “What am I?”). 48 By contrast, Gundry argues for an integrated dualism that distinguishes interdependent substances that may separate. To varying degrees, these scholars appear to treat mental phenomena and physical events separately. Harding and Engberg-Pedersen, on the other hand, argue for monadic unity of the person. But both Harding’s focus on cosmological powers and Engberg-Pedersen’s focus on physical transformation jettison a forensic or moral view of the person, preventing the development of the mental, affective, and physical relationship that Harding proposes and Engberg-Pedersen assumes. Thus, each of these studies has a fragmented view of the person that accompanies a fragmented view of sin and of transformation. Bultmann considers sin

48 See Käsemann, Perspectives on Paul, 18. See also James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, WBC 38A (Dallas: Word, 1988), 64.

304

Elizabeth E. Shively

an existential problem with an existential solution (transformation of the personality). Robinson views it as a social problem with a social solution (transformation of the community). Gundry sees sin as a moral, whole person problem with a whole person solution in the present (atonement and ethical transformation of the Šnθρωπος followed by a physical transformation in the future). Van Kooten concludes it is a cognitive problem with a cognitive solution (transformation of the mind). Engberg-Pedersen sees sin as a material problem with a material solution (transformation of the body). Harding, like Käsemann, treats sin as a cosmological problem with a cosmological solution (transformation of the cosmos, which includes persons). The variety of proposals regarding the background for Paul’s anthropological terms and the variety of responses to the question, “What am I?” is striking. This lack of consensus suggests that the essence of the person, according to Paul, cannot be reduced to a single part or aspect. What is required is an approach that accounts for an understanding of the whole person in time and space in relation to God. Whereas various forms of dualism explain the mind-body relationship in terms of distinction, and materialism explains the body, consciousness, and mental phenomena in strict physical terms, non-reductive materialism views the mind (and heart) as ontologically inseparable from the body while stating that mental and affective states or properties cannot be reduced to physical states or properties. 49 In what follows, I combine this approach with research in the cognitive sciences to ask whether a monadic view that sees the person as a complex unity may be a more satisfying way of understanding Paul’s presentation of the σÀmα and its relation to the self. I am not suggesting that Paul was aware of the findings of modern science and philosophy. The use of modern theories to investigate ancient texts need not be regarded as anachronistic or distorting, but can be viewed as helpful interpretative instruments. Their use can lay bare conventions and worldviews of ancient authors and audiences, thereby providing greater precision to our understanding of the nature and function of their ideas and texts.

49 Lynn Rudder Baker explains non-reductive materialism thus: “The mental is ontologically part of the material world; yet mental properties are causally efficacious without being reducible to physical properties” (“Non-Reductive Materialism,” Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mind, ed. Brian McLaughlin, Ansgar Beckermann, and Sven Walter [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009], 108). See also Nancey C. Murphy, Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006); Green, Body, Soul, and Human Life; and Marc Cortez, Theological Anthropology: A Guide for the Perplexed (London: T&T Clark, 2010).

The σÀmα and the Transformation of Persons in the Letter to the Romans

305

Approaching σÀmα and the Self through the Lens of Cognitive Theories Recent research in the cognitive sciences shows that cognition is not merely an activity of the brain, but is enacted as a person engages in bodily activities. 50 John Haugeland’s foundational statement provides a helpful point of departure: If we are to understand mind as the locus of intelligence, we cannot follow Descartes in regarding it as separable in principle from the body and the world. ... Broader approaches, freed of that prejudicial commitment, can look again at perception and action, at skillful involvement with public equipment and social organization, and see not principled separation but all sorts of close coupling and functional unity. ... Mind, therefore, is not incidentally but intimately embodied and intimately embedded in its world. 51

Haugeland opposes views that equate the mind with the brain, as if the brain were the computer-like locus of cognition for which the body and the world simply provide “inputs.” I understand embodied and embedded cognition to mean that we cannot understand the mind independently of the body and the world. Rather, the features of the mind are interdependent with the body, such that the body plays a causal role in cognitive processing and constitutes cognitive activity. The embodied mind exists in the context of a world that plays a causal role in cognitive processing. Andy Clark gives the act of writing while problem solving as an example of embodied and embedded cognition (a “brainbody-world” view). On the one hand, a “mind-equals-brain” view of the person would consider the act of writing as a way of transferring a previously formed idea to a piece of paper for storage, remembrance, or dissemination. By contrast, the “brain-body-world” view would see the act of writing itself as part of the process of cognition. 52 Studies on handwriting support this view. For example, experiments with groups of pre-literate five-year-old children have

50 The literature on the subject is extensive, but significant volumes include George Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987); Francisco J. Varela, Eleanor Rosch, and Evan Thompson, The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991); Raymond W. Gibbs Jr., Embodiment and Cognitive Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006); and Andy Clark, Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008). 51 John Haugeland, “Mind Embodied and Embedded,” in Having Thought: Essays in Metaphysics of Mind (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), 236–37, emphasis original. 52 Andy Clark, “Embodied, Embedded, and Extended Cognition,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Science, ed. Keith Frankish and William M. Ramsey (2012; repr., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 277. For another example, David McNeill performed experiments over the course of ten years in which he found that language and gestures have an interconnected relationship in the mental process that generates communication. David McNeill, Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).

306

Elizabeth E. Shively

demonstrated that writing by hand facilitates reading acquisition. 53 The implications are that activities of the mind are not processes isolated to the brain, but enacted in symbiotic relationship with the body in the world. That is, we act because we will, desire, wish, or intend, and our willing, desiring, wishing, or intending is expressed in and through our bodies as we engage in the world around us. Though more research is required, this view may be the most satisfying explanation of the biblical material and of Paul. In Gen 2:7, humanity is created as ‌‫נפשׁ חיה‬, “living creature,” a phrase that depicts a unified person in intermingled incorporeality and corporeality, rather than a person with a soul or inner part that is distinguished, opposed to, or separable from the body. 54 Since animals are likewise described as ‌‫“ נפשׁ חיה‬living creatures” that move and swarm and fly (Gen 1:20–21, 24, 30; 2:19; cf. 9:10, 12, 15, 16), this term cannot solely refer to the inner part, nor can it refer to what makes human beings unique. 55 Indeed, the story in Genesis 2 is a flashback that explains how human beings are created in God’s image (cf. 1:27), thereby highlighting what it is that actually distinguishes them from the animals. Human beings are unique not because they are ‌‫ נפשׁ‌ חיה‬but because they are a particular kind of ‌‫נפשׁ חיה‬, constituted by bodies that are filled with God’s life-giving breath (‌‫ נשמת‬/ πnοή, Gen 2:7). This language recalls how God’s spirit or breath (‌‫ רוח‬/ πnεÜmα) hovered over the water at the creation of the world (Gen 1:1). This same vivifying ‌‫ רוח‬will create a new heart in God’s people at the creation of a new covenant so that they may obey his commands (Ezek 36:26–27; 37:1–14; cf. Jer 31:31–34). 56 Paul exegetes Gen 2:7 in the context of his discussion of the nature of the resurrection body (1 Cor 15:35). 57 He makes a series of contrasts: perishable

53 Karin H. James and Laura Engelhardt, “The effects of handwriting experience on functional brain development in pre-literate children,” Trends in Neuroscience and Education 1 (2012): 32–42; Julia X. Li and Karin H. James, “Handwriting Generates Variable Visual Output to Facilitate Symbol Learning,” Journal of Experimental Psychology 145 (2016): 298–313. 54 Hans Walter Wolff comments that ‌‫“ נפשׁ‬is never given the meaning of an indestructible core of being, in contradistinction to the physical life, and even capable of living when cut off from that life” (Anthropology of the Old Testament, trans. Margaret Kohl [London: SCM Press, 1974], 74). Also, Robert A. Di Vito notes that in its later Old Testament use, the term ‌‫ נפשׁ‬takes on a variety of emotions that are elsewhere associated with other faculties, and never takes on the metaphysical or Platonic meaning as the control center of desire and emotion (“Old Testament Anthropology and the Construction of Personal Identity,” CBQ 61 [1999]: 226). All translations of ancient sources are my own unless otherwise noted. 55 See also Green, Body, Soul, and Human Life, 64. 56 See the discussion of this language in Scott J. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter /Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3 (Milton Keynes, PA: Paternoster, 2005), 181–82. 57 Contrary to Engberg-Pedersen, I take Jewish ideas as the primary framework for Paul’s thought in 1 Corinthians 15. Engberg-Pedersen does not deny the Jewish background in his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15; rather, he denies what he calls the Platonizing of the tradition. But

The σÀmα and the Transformation of Persons in the Letter to the Romans

307

versus imperishable; dishonor versus glory; weakness versus power; psychic body (σÀmα ψυχικόn) versus spiritual body (πnευmατικόn [σÀmα]). Paul then gives a basis for this final contrast: “Thus it is written, the first man, Adam became a living creature (εÊς ψυχ˜n ζÀσαn) [in contrast to] the last Adam [who] became a life-giving spirit” (1 Cor 15:45). The phrase εÊς ψυχ˜n ζÀσαn, a quotation of Gen 2:7, helps to explain what is dishonorable, weak, and physical. For a human being to become εÊς ψυχ˜n ζÀσαn is to be constituted as a physical body, but the contrast is not between two parts of a person. Rather, it is between the whole person constituted by a non-heavenly body and the whole person constituted by a new-life-infused body that is the “image of the man of heaven” (1 Cor 15:49). Christ, the second Adam, now takes the role of the Spirit of God in the Genesis story. Just as God breathed the breath of life (πnο˜n ζω¨ς) upon the first humans so that they became a certain kind of living creature, now Christ has become a life-giving spirit who will vivify believer’s bodies so that they might become a new kind of living creature, a new creation that bears his image (vv. 46–49). 58 Indeed, Paul’s response to the question, “What am I?” is “I am the image of God.” In what sounds reminiscent of Bultmann’s statement, “Man does not have a body; he is a body,” Scott Hafemann puts it well: “Mankind does not possess the image of God. Mankind is the image of God. Hence, the term image of God describes the essence of who we have been created to be.” 59 However we might understand what it means to be and function as the “image of God,” Paul understands it to be “the glory of Christ, the firstborn of all creation” (2 Cor 4:4–6; cf. Col 1:15; 3:9–10; Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18). That is, Christ is the image of God. Thus, believers bear the image of God by bearing the image of the resurrected Christ. Human beings fall short of the image – the glory – of God because of sin (Rom 1:18–32; 3:23), and will be transformed into that image through the redemption of their bodies (Phil 3:21; cf. Rom 8:23, 28–30; 2 Cor 3:18). Yet the process of transformation into the image of Christ begins in the psychic body at the present time on the basis of the revelation of God’s righteousness in Christ and through the ministry of the Spirit (Rom 12:1–2).

instead of returning to reexamine Paul’s use of Gen 2:7 with the Greek and Hebrew texts, he instead argues that Paul supplements an apocalyptic framework with Stoic ideas (Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul, 15–16). Dale Martin makes a similar argument to Engberg-Pedersen’s and concludes that Paul’s heavenly body is to be understood as an astral body (The Corinthian Body [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995], 127–29). For a critique of this view, see Anthony C. Thiselton’s discussion of the resurrection body in The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 1276–81. 58 Hafemann states that Christ is a “life giving Spirit” in that he is “the one through whom the resurrection life of the Spirit, the ‘heavenly body,’ will be granted to those who belong to him” (Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, 417–18). 59 Scott J. Hafemann, God of Promise and the Life of Faith (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001), 25.

308

Elizabeth E. Shively

I will argue that transformation into the image of Christ is present and future, moral and physical, individual and communal. My view contrasts with those of the scholars I have considered above, not by completely opposing them, but by exposing their limitations. My view also contrasts with Sarah Whittle’s view that the Spirit’s transformation of believers into the image of God “begins with a moral transformation and culminates in a physical transformation.” 60 What she means is that present transformation is an inner /ethical or moral renewal of the mind while future transformation will be an outer /physical renewal of the body. 61 I seek to demonstrate that this conception falsely separates mind and body, because the mind /heart or disposition necessarily manifests itself in the body. The transformed mind enables the person to present the body to God anew, in righteousness unto life. It might be better to state that the Spirit’s transformation of believers’ whole persons into the image of God begins progressively now and culminates in the future. In what follows, I assume that Jewish tradition is what chiefly, though not exclusively, shapes Paul’s thought. For the purpose of this paper, I focus on a close reading of the text.

The σÀmα in Romans Embodied and Embedded Persons as the Locus of God’s Wrath (1:18–32) In Romans 1:18–23, Paul states his premise about the revelation of God’s wrath against humanity 62 and explains the grounds for it. The target of divine wrath is “ungodliness and unrighteousness (‚δικίαn) of those who suppress the truth by means of unrighteousness” (‚λήθειαn ân ‚δικίø, v. 18). The repetition of ‚δικία provides an organizing concept by which to understand the subsequent dispositions and actions. Paul gives two bases for the premise, each introduced by διότι (vv. 19–20, 21–23). In vv. 19–20, he says that God himself has made plain what is knowable about him (τä γnωστän τοÜ θεοÜ), that is, his eternal power and divine nature, through creation. In other words, cognition is processed through embeddedness in creation. Because human beings both understand and see, they are without excuse. The second premise has two concessive clauses. In the first, although they knew God (γnόnτες τän θεόn) they did not glorify him as God (οÎκ ±ς θεän

60 Sarah Whittle, Covenant Renewal and the Consecration of the Gentiles in Romans, SNTMS 161 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 108. Gundry also opposes her view (S¯oma in Biblical Theology with Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology, 34–35). 61 Whittle, Covenant Renewal and the Consecration of the Gentiles in Romans, 97–108. 62 Paul focuses on the gentile world, yet all humanity is in mind in light of the announcement of the gospel in Rom 1:16b–17.

The σÀmα and the Transformation of Persons in the Letter to the Romans

309

âδόξασαn), that is, they failed to glorify God as divine and eternally powerful (cf. vv. 19–20). They acted contrary to their knowledge of the truth about God, so they were made futile in their thoughts and their hearts were darkened (v. 21). Paul uses καρδία, like nοÜς, to express not only emotions and desires, but also the capacity to think and determine (e. g., Rom 1:28; 10:9–10; 1 Cor 7:37; 2 Cor 9:7). 63 In addition, the passive verbs (âmαταιώθησαn, âσκοτίσθη) suggest that God abandons human beings to their worthless, ineffective minds and hearts. In vv. 22–23, the second concessive clause develops the ideas from v. 21. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools [= futile thoughts, darkened hearts], so that they exchanged the glory of the immortal God (τ˜n δόξαn τοÜ ‚φθάρτου θεοÜ) for the likeness of an image of a mortal human being (φθαρτοÜ ‚nθρώπου) and other mortal creatures [= failure to glorify God as God]. Paul builds a profile that characterizes the human disposition in opposition to God. The argument comes to a climactic point in v. 24, where this disposition is expressed concretely in the body. Paul concludes (διό) that God gives people over in the lusts of their hearts toward 64 impurity, [that is,] to the defilement of their bodies among themselves (ân αÎτοØς, v. 24). The explanatory clause defines the sort of impurity generated by the heart’s desires. 65 A causal relationship exists between the heart and the body in that the heart generates the body’s actions. Moreover, that God “delivered them over” (παρέδωκεn αύτοÌς å θεäς, v. 24) recalls the passive verbs in v. 21 (âmαταιώθησαn, âσκοτίσθη), suggesting that the faculties of perception are inseparable from the body as the locus of divine wrath. Finally, the impure actions are carried out in a relational setting (ân αÎτοØς, v. 24). Verse 25 restates the basis for God’s revelation of wrath: human beings exchanged the truth of God for the lie (ân τÄ ψεύδει) by worshipping and serving the creature rather than the Creator. Paul continues with additional grounds for v. 25 in vv. 26–32. Thus, vv. 24–25 function as the fulcrum of 1:18–32 by providing both the conclusion for vv. 18–23 and introduction for vv. 26–32. The degrading of bodies is the key point of the passage. But Paul has not merely described bodies; he has described persons embodied and (mis)embedded in creation. Verses 26–32 develop the degradation of embodied and embedded persons. The repetition of παρέδωκεn αύτοÌς å θεäς (vv. 26, 28; cf. v. 24) indicates that God’s wrath is expressed by abandoning people to that which they have abandoned themselves. First, women and men exchanged natural behavior for unnatural, so God gave them up to degrading passions so that they received the 63 His use reflects that of Old Testament writers, for whom the human heart can be synonymous with mind, will, or disposition, and is tied with the thinking, understanding, and decision-making that reflects moral character (Deut 29:3; Isa 6:10; cf. Gen 17:17; 2 Chr 9:23; 1 Sam 27:1; 1 Kings 10:24; Ps 33:11; Prov 6:32, 10:8). 64 I take εÊς ‚καθαρσίαn as a result clause. 65 I take this clause to be epexegetical, defining “sexual impurity.”

310

Elizabeth E. Shively

necessary penalty for their error among themselves (ân áαθτοØς, vv. 26–27). 66 Second, because they did not see fit (âδοκίmασαn) to acknowledge God, he gave them up to an unfit (‚δόκιmοn) mind, resulting in unfit actions that are expressed in the list of vices that represent broken relations with other people (vv. 29–32). That is, those caught in a downward spiral of unfit worship are given over to debased minds, resulting in a pattern of antisocial behaviors. By way of contrast, Paul will later exhort his audience to exhibit true love when he commands the body of Christ to hate what is evil and to live in harmony with others (chs. 12–15). The debased mind, however, bars such a course of action by preventing people from being able to approve or test (συnευδοκοÜσιn, v. 32; cf. 12:2) what is good and right, even when they “know God’s decree,” that those who do such things deserve death. Throughout 1:26–32, Paul has painted a portrait of human beings as out of sync with God, creation, one another, and themselves. In other words, the mind-body-world relationship is faulty and the result is death. The language of unfit minds, darkened hearts, and unnatural acts of degenerating bodies suggests there must be such things as fit minds, enlightened hearts, and natural acts of improving, living bodies, or else this language would make no sense. 67 Paul hints that what opposes such minds, hearts, and acts is best understood against the fit and natural image of God (vv. 23–25). The worship of mortal creatures in Rom 1:23 echoes Gen 1:26. 68 There, God creates humankind in his own image and likeness and gives them dominion over the creatures of the sea, the heavens, and the earth: καÈ εÚπεn å θεός ποιήσωmεn Šnθρωποn κατ+εÊκόnα ™mερέραn καÈ καθ+ åmοίωσιn (Gen 1:26 LXX). Idolatry does violence to God’s glory by obscuring God’s true nature and by defacing the image and likeness of God in humanity. By trading away the truth about God, humanity also trades away the truth about itself. As a result, persons cannot function naturally. The degradation of humanity reinforces the notion that the failure to worship God truly results in a failure to function as truly human. Throughout the rest of the letter, Paul addresses how human beings are restored to right worship through transformation into the image of Christ. Paul uses the same cognitive and affective language from Rom 1:18–32 throughout 2:1–3:8 to communicate God’s impartiality and to convey that no

66

As opposed to “within them.” I take this prepositional phrase in the same way as in v. 24. See also Jewett, Romans, 169. 68 Those who hear an echo of the creation of Adam story (Genesis 2–3) include Dunn, Romans, 1:53–54; Morna D. Hooker, “Adam in Romans 1,” NTS 6 (1959–60): 297–306; and Alexander J. M. Wedderburn, “Adam in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” in Studia Biblica 3, ed. E. A. Livingstone, JSNTSup 3 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980): 413–30. Romans 1:18–32 also recalls the golden calf incident (Exodus 32), which tells the story of how Israel failed to worship God as the one who revealed himself by his powerful acts to redeem them from Egypt. In particular, Paul’s language echoes that of Psalm 106 LXX, which retells the story. 67

The σÀmα and the Transformation of Persons in the Letter to the Romans

311

one worships God rightly. 69 At the conclusion of this section, Paul indicts the whole world: “everyone is a liar” (3:4; cf. 1:18) and “all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin” (πάnτας Íφ+ mαρτίαn, 3:9). Sin is both an offense for which embodied persons are guilty and a power under which they are captive. Paul sums up the human problem with a catena of Old Testament passages in 3:9–20 that joins mind /heart-body-world to show the ruinous effects of sin. The list begins by stating that no one is righteous (δίκαιος), understands, or seeks God (v. 11), which recalls the repetition of unrighteousness, failed worship, and degenerating minds and hearts in 1:18–32. The list turns to offenses of various body parts – throat, tongue, lips, mouth, and feet – that are manifestations of dispositions opposed to God. Each of these bodily members represents the whole person acting antisocially through worthlessness, lack of kindness, deception, cursing and bitterness, bloodshed, ruin and misery (cf. 1:28–32). The result of sin is lack of social and cosmic harmony (3:20). The force of Paul’s argument thus far is to show how deeply interconnected are the mind /heart and body, such that knowledge and instruction alone are ineffective for causing human beings to worship and serve God rightly with their bodies. Because the law cannot create the kind of disposition required to obey it, the Holy Spirit must transform the human heart (2:28–29). Everyone must look to the redemptive work of Christ because “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (ÍστεροÜnται τ¨ς δόξης τοÜ θεοÜ; 3:21–26). The term ÍστεροÜnται connotes a deficiency or falling short of a goal. 70 Paul has shown how human beings have fallen short in giving glory to God (1:23; cf. 3:7), with the effect that they fall short in imaging God. In 3:21–5:21, Paul explains the work of Christ by which believers are liberated from sin. He draws a conclusion about the benefits of justification in 5:1–11, in which he states that believers experience reconciliation with God that brings them two benefits: salvation from wrath (5:1, 6–11) and the hope of sharing in God’s glory (5:2–5). He thereby begins to express the reversal of the devastation that he had described in 1:18–32. In chs. 6–8, he develops this salvation and hope, giving special attention to embodied persons as the locus of transformation.

69 ‚nαπολόγητος, 2:1; cf. 1:20; ‚λήθειαn, 2:2; cf. 1:18, 25; ‚γnοÀn, 2:4; cf. 1:19, 21, 28; τ˜n σκληρότητά σου καÈ ‚mεταnόητοn καρδίαn, 2:5; cf. 1:21; æργήn, 2:5; cf. 1:18; τ˜n mόρφωσιn τ¨ς γnώσεως καÈ τ¨ς ‚ληθείας ân τÄ nόmú, 2:20; cf. τä γnωστόn in 1:19; cf. γnόnτες, 2:1; and τήn ‚ληθείαn in 1:18, 25; δοκιmάζεις τ€ διαφέροnτα, 2:18; cf. 1:28, 32. 70 BDAG, Íστερέnω, 849.

312

Elizabeth E. Shively

Embodied Persons as the Locus of Transformation (Chapters 6–8) Chapter 6 Paul introduces a set of rhetorical questions that exposes the incongruity of sin in the life of the believer (6:1–3). Verse 4 is the key point of the passage. There Paul draws a correspondence between Jesus’s exalted existence and the believer’s actions (¹σπερ ... οÕτως). Paul infers (οÞn, v. 4) that believers have been buried with Christ through baptism into his death, with the result that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father believers likewise may “walk” (Ñnα ... περιπατήσωmεn) in newness of life. The verb περιπατέω is figurative for behavior or the governing of one’s life. 71 Paul subsequently develops the key point by discussing how believers must control their body. Verses 5–11 provide the basis for v. 4 through a series of γάρ clauses. Verse 5 suggests that the divine process of recreating human beings into the image of God begins, ironically, through union with the likeness of Christ’s death. The word σύmφυτος is a hapax legomenon that, with the perfect form of the verb γεγόnαmεn, connotes a deeply implanted union. 72 The word åmοιώmατι (v. 5) recalls the use of this term in 1:23, 73 where human beings had traded the glory of God for the likeness of an image (ân åmοιώmατι εÊκόnος) of mortal creatures (1:23), and so experienced God’s wrath in the degeneration of their own embodied and embedded persons, leading to death (1:32). The likeness that believers now share has both present and future elements: believers have been united in the likeness of Christ’s death so that they bear this likeness now (perfect tense of γεγόnαmεn, 6:5a; cf. ‚πεθάnοmεn, v. 8a), and this gives them assurance that they will be united in in the likeness of his resurrection in the future (âσόmεθα, v. 5b; cf. συζήσοmεn, v. 8b). Verses 6–7 provide a basis for v. 5 through the believer’s experience in conversion. The believer’s union with the likeness of Christ’s resurrection is certain because sin’s power was irreversibly destroyed through union with the likeness of Christ’s death. The “old man,” or “humanity in solidarity with Adam,” (cf. 5:12–21), 74 was crucified. Therefore, the “body of sin,” or “body under the power of sin,” was nullified (vv. 6–7). Since Paul has not thus far shown the material body to act independently of cognition and affections, I take σÀmα 71

E.g., Rom 8:4, 13:13, 14:15; 1 Thess 2:12; Phil 3:17; Col 1:10; Eph 4:17, 5:8, 15. LSJ, σύmφυτος, 1689. See the use of this word in 3 Macc 3:22; Josephus, C. Ap. 1, 8, 5. Robert Tannehill comments, “Christ’s death and resurrection are continuing aspects of the ‘form’ of Christ ... so that believers take on the same ‘form’” (Dying and Rising with Christ: A Study in Pauline Theology [Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006], 38–39); cf. Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 369–70. 73 Cf. 5:14. 74 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 1:332. 72

The σÀmα and the Transformation of Persons in the Letter to the Romans

313

here to denote the physical body that concretely manifests a person’s disposition (cf. 1:18–32). In v. 8, Paul essentially repeats what he stated in v. 5, this time providing a ground in vv. 9–10 through Christ’s own experience. Here there is a glimpse into resurrection existence. After he died, Christ was never subject to death or its power again, but remains “living to God” (ç ζ¬, ζ¬ τÄ θεÄ). Christ brings glory to God through the revelation of the gospel (e. g., Rom 16:26–27). If believers are conformed to the likeness of Christ’s death, then they, too, have the same experience in resurrection, that is, they will “live to God” by glorifying him forever (cf. Eph 1:3–14). This assumes human consciousness in the resurrection body and requires a transformed disposition. On this basis, Paul makes a concluding exhortation about believers’ present experience in the body: “Therefore (οÞn), do not let sin reign in your mortal body (θnητÄ ÍmÀn) to obey its passions” (Rom 6:4). The contrast is not between the corporeal and incorporeal parts of the body, but between the whole mortal body and the new resurrection body for which believers hope (cf. 1 Cor 15:35–49). The transformation of the whole person (mind-heart-body) into the image of Christ, that is, into the likeness of the one who brings glory to God, begins in the present. As I have argued above, Paul’s appeal here in Romans 6 recalls his language in 1:18–32, in which he stated that God’s wrath is revealed against the unrighteousness (‚δικίαn) of those who suppress the truth by means of their unrighteousness (ân ‚δικίø, 1:18), and in which he described those whom God had “delivered over in the passions of their hearts to impurity (‚καθαρσίαn) so that their bodies would be degraded among them” (1:24). Paul has in mind the whole person in 1:24, and again here in 6:17–19. He thanks God that in Christ his hearers have become “obedient from the heart” (6:17), so that now, having been set free from sin, those who once presented their bodily members as slaves to impurity (‚καθαρσίαn) and to greater and greater iniquity (cf. 1:18–32) may present their bodily members as slaves to righteousness to greater and greater holiness (6:19). The body always manifests the disposition. Chapter 8 In ch. 6, Paul warns believers that sin uses the body as a weapon for the kind of behavior that leads to death. Then in ch. 7 he chooses a command that has to do with human desire (covetousness) to expose how sin uses the law as a weapon against the body: it stirs up passions that are manifested in the actions of the body (cf. 7:5). Cognition is embodied, and again results in condemnation and death. Now in ch. 8 Paul announces that “there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, for God (did) what the law was unable to do because it was weakened by the flesh; by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (ân åmοιώmατι σαρκäς mαρτίας) and [as an offering] for sin, he

314

Elizabeth E. Shively

condemned sin in the flesh” (8:2–3). The phrase ân åmοιώmατι σαρκäς mαρτίας refers to “the full participation of the Son in the human condition.” 75 Jesus assumes the likeness of sinful flesh but, unlike human beings, is not overcome by sin’s power. Though he dies he is raised from the dead, thereby defeating sin’s goal and power (cf. 6:9–10). The condemnation of “sinful flesh” that results in the body being dead because of sin (v. 10) recalls the destruction of the “body of sin” based on believers’ union with the likeness of Christ’s death (åmοιώmατι in 6:5). 76 Because Christ assumes the likeness of sinful flesh (ân åmοιώmατι σαρκäς mαρτίας) and overcomes sin’s power, human beings are also able to overcome sin’s power by becoming united with the very likeness (σύmφυτοι γεγόnαmεn τÄ åmοιώmατι) of Christ’s death and resurrection (6:5–6). In 8:5–11 Paul develops his presentation of the believer’s life in Christ through a series of contrasts in which he repeats the words φροnέω and φρόnεmος. 77 Those who exist (οÉ ænτες) in conformity with the flesh (οÉ κατ€ σάρκα ïnτες) think things that are of the flesh, while those who (exist) in conformity with the Spirit (κατ€ πnεÜmα) think things that are of the Spirit (v. 5). 78 Paul develops earlier statements (ch. 6) by contrasting the “flesh” and the “Spirit,” or the old age ruled by sin and resulting in unrighteousness and death, and the new eschatological age ruled by the Spirit and resulting in righteousness and life. 79 Reading 6:12–14 and 8:5–11 together, unbelievers belong to the realm of the flesh where sin reigns and enslaves people to unrighteousness, resulting in death, and believers belong to the realm of the Spirit where God enslaves people to righteousness, resulting in life. The realm to which people belong determines their thinking or disposition and generates their bodily behavior. But the Spirit does not merely characterize a realm or an age. Paul explains the referent of πnεÜmα thus: (1) while he had earlier argued that believers’ embodied living is based on being “in Christ Jesus” (6:11), he now states that it is based on “Christ in you” which he defines as “the Spirit of God in you” (8:9–12); 80 (2) now, it is not sin that dwells in the person (™ οÊκοÜσα, 7:17, 20, 23), but the Holy Spirit that dwells in the believer (οÊκεØ, 8:9, 11), creating new life. In the eschatological age, God does what the law was unable to do through Christ’s atoning death (8:3), and on that basis, through the transforming work of the Spirit (vv. 4–11). Because of this, Paul tells believers that if they put to death the practices of the body by the Spirit they will live (vv. 12–13; cf. 6:11). The 75

Moo, Romans, 481. See also Jewett, Romans, 491. 77 Paul uses φροnέω once explicitly and once as the implied subject in v. 5, and φρόnεmος three times explicitly in vv. 6–7 and twice as the implied subject in v. 7. 78 See also Jewett, Romans, 486. 79 Ibid.; Moo, Romans, 486; and J. C. Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 256–57. 80 Contra Engberg-Pedersen, who argues that the higher element of the human is in view. 76

The σÀmα and the Transformation of Persons in the Letter to the Romans

315

Spirit’s work is to replicate the life of Christ in believers both at the present time through obedience in righteousness (1:18; 6:13, 16, 18, 20) – “the Spirit is life because of righteousness” – and in the future through resurrection – “he who raised Christ ... will give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit” (8:11). Paul states that believers are obligated to live according to the Spirit (8:12) because this Spirit has a future claim on them. As God appointed (åρίζω) Jesus to be Son of God with power by the Spirit through the resurrection from the dead (cf. 1:3–4), God has preappointed (προορίζω) that believers will be conformed to the image of his Son by this same Spirit (8:29). 81 In the meantime, this Spirit bears witness that believers are children of God and co-heirs with Christ of God’s glory (vv. 14–18). The Spirit affirms the glory to be revealed “in us” (v. 18). So Paul says that “we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, [that is,] the redemption of our bodies (υÉοθεσίαn ... τ˜n ‚πολύτρωσιn τοÜ σώmατος ™mÀn). 82 For in this hope we were saved” (vv. 23–24a; cf. 5:2). Like the human body, all of creation is in bondage to decay and hopes for the freedom of the glory of the children of God (8:21). The story began with abuse in the context of creation and ends with recreation, not only of human beings, but also of the whole cosmos. That is, human beings look to be re-embedded into a proper relationship with the Creator God and creation itself, sharing in the glory that they have rejected and of which they have fallen short. Human beings look to participate in the glory of God through the redemption of their bodies, which is how Paul explains the adoption process (8:23). This is God’s purpose for human beings, to which the argument has been moving all along. God’s purpose for believers is to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn within a large family (vv. 28–30; cf. Phil 3:21). As long as believers inhabit the mortal body – which, again, is not the opposite of a soul or mind, but of the resurrected body (cf. 1 Corinthians 15) – they are united with the likeness of Christ’s death and resurrection (Rom 6:6). Redeemed bodies are adopted bodies that are conformed to the very image of God’s Son (τ¨ς εÊκόnος τοÜ υÉοÜ). Their end is to be re-embedded in creation and in a proper relationship with the Creator God who creates them anew, sharing in the glory that they rejected, of which they fell short, and for which now they hope (v. 30; cf. 3:23; 5:1).

81 82

I am grateful to Max Botner for pointing out this lexical connection. I take τ˜n ‚πολύτρωσιn τοÜ σώmατος ™mÀn to be epexegetical of υÉοθεσίαn in v. 23.

316

Elizabeth E. Shively

Embodied and Embedded Persons as the Locus of Transformation (Chapters 12–15) Romans 12–15 enlarges believers’ obligation to present their bodies to God as weapons of righteousness based on the Holy Spirit’s renewal of the heart and mind (6:13–14; 8:5–14). Paul now portrays the person not only as embodied, but also as embedded in the community of believers. The Spirit performs the process of transformation into God’s image individually and corporately as the members of Christ’s body live out the gospel (12:4–5). 83 Divine transformation enables discernment of righteous thinking manifested in righteous conduct that pleases God. Such conduct is marked by love and enables a community of Jews and gentiles to glorify God together now and anticipate their future hope of glory. Chapters 12–15 thus begin to show the restoration of humanity corrupted by sin that Paul portrayed in 1:18–3:20. 84 The logic of 12:1–2 revolves around two sets of imperatives: “I urge you to present (παρακαλÀ ... παραστ¨σαι) your bodies as a sacrifice” (v. 1) and “Do not be conformed (m˜ συσχηmατίζεσθε) ... but be transformed (mεταmορφοÜσθε)” (v. 2). Together, these exhortations function as an inference or conclusion of the preceding argument, as indicated by οÞn in v. 1, and as an introduction to the next section of the letter. 85 The prepositional phrase δι€ τÀn οÊκτιρmÀn τοÜ θεοÜ, “because of God’s mercies,” recalls Paul’s delineation of God’s mercies in Christ so far and suggests that the inference in 12:1–2 refers to the letter’s entire argument. Also, the mention of God’s mercies most immediately refers to the end of ch. 11, where Paul describes the reception of mercy by Israel and the gentiles in God’s economy (chs. 9–11). In the first exhortation Paul’s cultic language is clear: “present your bodies (τ€ σώmατα) as a living sacrifice (θυσίαn)” for this, he explains, is “your rational worship (λογικ˜n λατρείαn).” The term λογικός does not appear in the Greek scriptures, 86 but its use in Hellenistic and Jewish texts suggests something like “reasonable” or “rational” rather than “spiritual.” 87 The emphasis on the renewal

83 See also Michael Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.1–15.13, JSNTSup (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991), 84; and Seyoon Kim, “Paul’s Common Paraenesis (1 Thess. 4–5; Phil. 2–4; and Rom. 12–13): The Correspondence between Romans 1:18–32 and 12:1–2, and the Unity of Romans 12–13,” TynBul 62 (2011): 122. 84 Michael Thompson and Seyoon Kim have noted the correspondence in vocabulary between 1:18–32 and 12:1–2. Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 81–86; and Kim, “Paul’s Common Paraenesis,” 119–25. 85 Jewett, Romans, 724; C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans: A Shorter Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1985), 292; and Dunn, Romans, 2:707. 86 Besides Rom 12:1, it appears in the New Testament only in 1 Pet 2:2. 87 For example, J. Gerald Janzen argues for the translation “rational” or “reasonable” based on a comparison with 4 Maccabees (“A New Approach to ‘logiken latreian’ in Romans 12:1–2,” Enc 69 [2008], 45–47). By contrast, Käsemann makes a case that “spiritual” is in mind (New Testament

The σÀmα and the Transformation of Persons in the Letter to the Romans

317

of the mind in this context (12:2) and in the argument of the letter as a whole (1:21–23, 25, 28; 8:5–8) supports this understanding. 88 The term λατρεία appears in 9:4 to refer to Israel’s temple worship. The presentation of bodies recalls the sacrificial system, in which offerers present the bodies of animals, and might suggest that Paul is recontextualizing Israel’s worship for gentiles. 89 This may be the case, yet other language in the passage suggests something more particular. Paul uses an adjectival participle and two adjectives to describe the sacrifice he has in mind: it is living (ζÀσαn), holy (γίαn), and fully pleasing (εÎάρεστοn) to God. Along with παρίστηmι in 12:1 this language echoes both chs. 6 and 8. Paul had called believers to “present (παριστάnετε) yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life (ζÀnτας) and your [bodily] members to God as weapons of righteousness” (v. 13) and to do so “for sanctification (εÊς γιασmόn)” (v. 19). In ch. 8 Paul stated that those in the flesh are not able to please God (‚ρέσαι οÎ δύnαται, v. 8), in contrast to those in the Spirit who are able to do so. 90 Through the Spirit, believers present their bodies as slaves to righteousness, for progressing holiness, and to gain life. The work of the Spirit, then, explains and enables the oxymoron of “living sacrifices” in that “though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life (ζωή) because of righteousness” (8:10). The shared language in these passages suggests that believers present vivified bodies on the basis of union with Christ’s death through transformation of the Spirit (6:1–23; 8:1–13). The second exhortation (12:2) explains the first, that is, what a living sacrifice constituted by many bodies looks like in practice: they are not to be conformed to this age, but to be transformed by means of renewing the mind (v. 2a). The construction of v. 2 is crucial, and I make the pronouns and verbs explicit as subjects in order to make my point clear: “You present your bodies as a living sacrifice to God [and the way you do this is that] you must not make it your habit of being conformed (m˜ συσχηmατίζεσθε) ... but you must be progressively transformed (‚λλ€ mεταmορφοÜσθε) by means of the renewal of your mind (τ¬ ‚nακαιnώσει τοÜ nοäς).” Verse 2 explains v. 1: the continuous act of nonconformity and transformation by means of renewed minds enables and exhibits the sacrifice constituted by bodies. 91 Moreover, the mind is not the object of mεταmορφόω; rather, the “self” (individual and corporate) is. Paul refers to Questions of Today, 191–92). According to Käsemann, Paul calls for a new-age spiritual worship that opposes “this-worldly” existence. 88 See also Seyoon Kim, “Paul’s Common Paraenesis,” 123; and Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 81–82. 89 The term παραστάnαι is a Hellenistic cultic term, however, and does not appear in the LXX. See its use in Josephus, B. J. 2.89; A. J. 4.113. 90 See also Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 82. 91 Contra Whittle, who overlooks the logical relationship between vv. 1 and 2 and argues that the aorist in v. 1 signals that the offering is not a “repeatable event” (Covenant Renewal and the Consecration of the Gentiles in Romans, 84–85).

318

Elizabeth E. Shively

the whole person transformed into the image of God (cf. 2 Cor 3:18) by means of a renewed mind that enables righteous obedience in the body among the community. That is, thinking and acting are integrally related; the mind is not transformed apart from the body, nor apart from the world. The word “mind” is singular (mεταmορφοÜσθε τ¬ ‚nακαιnώσει τοÜ nοäς), reinforcing that this is a corporate sacrifice motivated by one mind. 92 The ‚δόκιmοn nοÜn in Rom 1:28 to which God delivers people over is singular, so that just as people spiral into corporate degeneration, they now progress into corporate transformation (cf. 6:19). 93 The result (εÊς τä δοκιmάζειn) of this transformation is the capacity to approve what the will of God is, that is, what is good and acceptable and perfect (12:2b). This, in fact, is the point of the passage. Paul repeats the word εÎάρεστοn (“acceptable”) at the end of v. 2, confirming that v. 2 further interprets v. 1. The living sacrifice constituted by bodies is holy and acceptable to God because the Holy Spirit is transforming embodied persons individually and corporately to approve what is good and acceptable and perfect (= God’s will). The result is transformed worship that continues to reverse the marred worship of ch. 1. This is, in fact, what Paul subsequently demonstrates. There are two clues that Paul does not start a new topic in 12:3. First, the word “for” (γάρ) introduces a reason or ground for what he has just written. Second, he repeats language and concepts from vv. 1–2, suggesting that he continues their themes. He has exhorted his audience to be transformed by the renewal of their mind; now he tells them to think rightly about themselves and each other: “I say to everyone among you not to think (φροnεØn) of yourself more highly than you ought to think but to think with sober judgment” (v. 3; cf. 8:5–11). Paul calls for a Spirit-directed thinking that is enacted in such a way that takes account of others. He now reminds them that they are one body in Christ (ãn σÀmά âσmεn ân ΧριστÄ) and individually members of one another (τä καθ+ εÙς ‚λλήλωn mέλη, 12:5). Here, σÀmα is metaphorical, but it effectively communicates the idea of one sacrifice constituted by many bodies thinking with one mind (cf. Phil 2:2). The actions of unity, humility, and love described in Rom 12:3–8 are examples of what it looks like in practice to “offer your bodies as a living sacrifice” as a result of a transformed mind. The apex of Paul’s argument envisions Jews and gentiles transformed into the image of Christ, together worshiping and giving glory to God rightly: “May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in harmony with one another, in accordance with Christ Jesus, so that together with one mouth (στόmατι) you may glorify (δοξάζητε) the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (15:6; see also vv. 7–8). The mouth, along with other body parts, had 92

Similarly, Paul calls his audience to be of one mind in Phil 2:2. Paul’s use of the present tense of mεταmορφόω in 2 Cor 3:18 also indicates progressive transformation. See the discussion in Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, 421–22. 93

The σÀmα and the Transformation of Persons in the Letter to the Romans

319

been full of cursing and bitterness (3:14), unable to produce righteousness or give glory to God. Now Paul’s hope is that together, as they are progressively transformed into the image of Christ, God’s people have the capacity to give him the glory he deserves in anticipation of their future hope, when they will “live to God” with Christ (6:10).

Conclusion Paul’s presentation of the body and of the self/“I” in Romans is best explained by a monadic view of persons that views cognition as embodied and embedded in the world. From selected texts in Romans, I have demonstrated that whole persons, both individually and corporately, are now being and will be transformed into the image of Christ on the basis of Christ’s atoning work and through the Spirit’s power for the purpose of sharing in and proclaiming God’s glory. I can now expand how I think Paul would answer the question, “What am I?” with, “I am a (whole) person,” which means, “I am the image of God.” Because of sin, for the believer this means, “I am (progressively now, and fully in the future) the image of Christ (= image of God).” This initial investigation requires, however, additional analysis of Romans as a whole and of the rest of the Pauline corpus in its various contexts in order to test and substantiate my claims. In the meantime, I affirm that the trajectory of the human story in Romans is toward a community of Jews and gentiles that has its capacity restored to worship God. Bultmann states, “Every assertion about God is simultaneously an assertion about man and vice versa. For this reason and in this sense Paul’s theology is, at the same time, anthropology.” 94 I would reverse this to say that Paul’s anthropology is, at the same time, theology, and that “the purpose of theology is doxology.” 95

94

Bultmann, Theology, 1:191. Scott J. Hafemann, “The Covenant Relationship,” in Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping Unity in Diversity, ed. Scott J. Hafemann and Paul R. House (Nottingham: Apollos, 2007), 21. 95

Self-Denial Michael Allen

For ancient Christians, asceticism was part of the fabric of their entire existence under the sign of the cross. 1 While martyrdom, a vocation mercifully meant only for the few, might represent the fringe of this willful self-sacrifice, the broader patterns of earthly renunciation marked the road of discipleship for all. To walk toward the sun was to flee the darkness. To sojourn to heaven involved leaving behind the things of the earth.

Behind Modern Suspicion to Calvin’s Reform of Ascetical Theology Asceticism itself has endured a bumpy road, however, throughout the Christian world. In particular, Christian asceticism has been viewed with suspicion by those within the Reformed tradition in the modern era. None other than the great Dutch Reformed dogmatician Herman Bavinck characterizes it in these pejorative terms: “Basically, all asceticism is nothing other than self-willed religion. It consists in the accomplishment of a series of counsels that have not been enjoined by God but were instituted by human and ecclesiastical consent.” 2 With these words, he characterizes ascetical theology and practice as both materially and formally deficient. It is materially deficient in as much as it is “nothing other than self-willed religion” and formally deficient in that it is composed of a “series of counsels that ... were instituted by human and ecclesiastical consent.” In other words, asceticism contradicts the material principle of Reformed theology, sola gratia, as well as the formal principle of that tradition, sola scriptura. Doubly indicted, it has no positive place in Bavinck’s theological project. Fundamentally, Bavinck’s concerns regarding those two principles are united as one: solus Christus. To put the matter in the form of a question, does Christian asceticism really warrant the title “Christian” in theological and not just sociological terms? While it is patently obvious that thousands have pursued 1 Recent historiographic literature of asceticism in the Christian tradition has been marked fundamentally by two authors: Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, Volume Two: The Uses of Pleasure, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage, 1990) and Volume Three: The Care of the Self, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage, 1988); and Peter Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988). 2 Herman Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, vol. 4 of Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bol, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 243.

322

Michael Allen

pathways of ascetic discipline under the banner of Christianity, the question raised here addresses theological coherence. Does asceticism necessarily undercut the formal teaching authority of Jesus Christ as exercised through the instrument of holy scripture? And does asceticism essentially undermine the biblical insistence on our fundamental need for grace over against the allurements of self-willed religion? In short, Bavinck’s critique ultimately addresses not two discrete and disconnected matters but one complex matter, which is how self-denial or ascetic practice relates to the person and work of the incarnate Son of God. I will seek to respond to Bavinck’s concern by considering the contours of what I will term evangelical asceticism. I will show ways asceticism marked the faith and practice of the early Reformed movement by focusing on the work of John Calvin. Considering how he cast asceticism in the form of self-denial, sought to govern it scripturally, and locate it evangelically allows assessment of one detailed and influential example of Reformed asceticism. I will demonstrate that Calvin exhibits concern for both the formal and material principles raised much later by Bavinck, yet he articulates a pathway by which asceticism might be chastened, rather than rejected, by reformational theology. I do not argue that Calvin innovates in as yet unforeseen ways or that he is the apogee of evangelical asceticism. Long before, theologians ranging from Gregory to Basil to Augustine sought to relate the ascetic calling to the gift of Christ. In so doing, they believed they were being true to their vocation as bishops in the church and to the exhortations of holy Scripture. The fact that they fashioned their theology of ascetic life long before questions of authority and truth or of grace and salvation took the developed form they did in the Protestant Reformation does not mean that these earlier figures did not have much to say in this regard. Of course, the Reformation must be appreciated as a long movement. In many ways Calvin’s project of evangelizing the ascetic impulse was developed more fully by the Puritan divines in the next century. In that movement, and in its Dutch equivalent, the nadere reformatie, one can observe Calvin’s brief dogmatic sketch expanded with greater specificity and vibrancy. With these qualifications duly noted, I will consider the dogmatic sketch of evangelical asceticism presented in Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. I do so in the belief that the Reformed movement was meant to be a renewal rather than a repudiation of the Christian tradition of faith and practice. While many facets of ecclesial life were deemed mere custom, not genuine tradition, and thus excised, Calvin and the early Reformed tradition showed a keen eye in observing the fundamentally scriptural roots of Christian asceticism in the teaching and the life of Jesus Christ and his apostles. Not only that, they also sought to connect that ascetic concern to the doctrines of Christ and his gospel and of Christ and his rule, so that asceticism would ever be chastened by the doctrines of grace and of holy Scripture. In that regard, I sketch not only a com-

Self-Denial

323

mitment to retain or recover Christian asceticism, but also a more fundamental concern to understand its shape and contours in a manner that allows it to be termed evangelical asceticism.

The Contexts and Definition of Ascetical Theology Before considering ways self-denial might be construed as an evangelical asceticism, it is good to consider the definition of asceticism itself and then to turn to its moral and ontological context. Scholars of late antiquity in its pagan, Jewish, or Christian forms continue to debate how to define asceticism. Perhaps the following definition covers the terrain broadly enough so as to be relatively uncontroversial. According to Steven Fraade, asceticism has “two main components: (1) the exercise of disciplined effort toward the goal of spiritual perfection (however understood), which requires (2) abstention (whether total or partial, permanent or temporary, individualistic or communalistic) from the satisfaction of otherwise permitted earthly, creaturely desires.” 3 Asceticism involves both pull and push, then, based on a desired benefit and a necessary cost and, thus, cannot be reduced to any painstaking discipline as such. While the benefit or blessing might be construed in many different ways, their transcendent character marks off asceticism from mere physical discipline (e. g. dieting or athletic training). 4 Asceticism was not and is not the exclusive property of the Christian tradition. Explicitly religious traditions of late antiquity as well as the philosophical way of paideia involved ascetic facets or aspects. 5 Considering how reformational theology as developed in the sixteenth century might recontextualize Christian asceticism requires engaging in a second step of reform, since patristic thinkers had long before sought to express ways Christians might practice asceticism in relation to their pagan counterparts. Recent scholarship on late antique renunciation has emphasized the bodily and social facets of asceticism. In so doing they have complicated an older portrayal of its roots, which had long been identified with Platonic or Middle Platonic dualism. In that story, a strong material-immaterial dualism paired with a metaphysical hierarchy that privileged the form over matter led to an ethic of renunciation, whereby the human sought to flee this wretched flesh for 3 Steven D. Fraade, “Ascetical Aspects of Ancient Judaism,” in Jewish Spirituality, ed. Arthur Green (New York: Routledge, 1986), 257. 4 Gavin Flood, The Ascetic Self: Subjectivity, Memory, and Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 216–17. 5 Paul Rabbow, Seelenführung: Methodik der Exerzitien in der Antike (Munich: Kisel-Verlag, 1954); Pierre Hadot, Exercices spirituels et philosophie antique, 2nd ed. (Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1981); and Pierre Hadot, La philosophie comme manière de vivre (Paris: Albin Michel, 2001).

324

Michael Allen

the realm of the disembodied spirit (at least as much as possible in this earthly life). But Peter Brown has shown that early Christian renunciation grew out of a high valuation of the body, not a low estimate of its dignity and significance. 6 Asceticism in the Christian world flowed from a serious consideration of the gravity of the body paired with an obedience to the warning of Christ that one cannot serve two masters and, thus, one must offer single-minded or singlehearted devotion to God. Christian asceticism involves bodily renunciation of certain earthly goods or pleasures, yet it need not flow from any hatred or dismissal of the body as itself a good. Christian asceticism has also been recategorized as a social phenomenon. For too long asceticism was considered as the domain of the monk and nun, and hence it was viewed as a reclusive calling. Recent historiography has complicated this matter in two ways. First, while the monastic practice probably arose earlier than had previously been thought, it also took forms far more socially interconnected than the reclusive approach would suggest. 7 Peter Brown has again played a pivotal role in observing the way Christian asceticism was bound up with a new polity, wherein the city and its natural order was no longer the ultimate arbiter of values and practices to be manifested by bodies. Rather, a new city of spiritual substance was viewed as the transcendent source of bodily valuation and discipline. 8 Second, and more fundamentally, ascetic practice was never viewed as the exclusive calling of the religious orders but as a universal expectation (in various forms and degrees) for all Christian men and women. This viewpoint affects the ways we might receive Calvin’s correctives regarding asceticism. Whereas Matthew Myer Boulton has argued at length that Calvin sought to democratize or, perhaps better put, universalize monasticism in Geneva by rendering its essential commitments and practices capable of participation by all Christian men and women, it may be appropriate to substitute the term asceticism for monasticism. 9 Calvin treats self-denial as an evangelical understanding of and universal demand for Christian asceticism. Still, he does not in any way suggest that monasticism bears such an evangelical interpretation, much less make an extensive demand for participation. Awareness of developments in the history of asceticism in late antiquity keep open the possibility that Calvin addresses a nonmonastic asceticism.

6

Brown, The Body and Society, 425. On the development of monasticism, see Samuel Rubenson, “Christian Asceticism and the Emergence of the Monastic Tradition,” in Asceticism, ed. Vincent L. Wimbush and Richard Valantasis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 49–57. For claims that monasticism arose in the apostolic era, see J. C. O’Neill, “The Origins of Monasticism,” in The Making of Orthodoxy, ed. Rowan Williams (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 270–87. 8 Brown, The Body and Society, 436–37. 9 Matthew Myer Boulton, Life in God: John Calvin, Practical Formation, and the Future of Protestant Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011). 7

Self-Denial

325

Several terms arise in the realm of ascetics: renunciation, self-denial, mortification, and contempt for the world (contemptus mundi). While these terms and their related images may appear in a host of discourses, markedly different moral ontologies lie beneath them. As noted above, patristic theologians sought to distance their reflections from various pagan asceticism. For example, Augustine developed his writings on perfection, continence, virginity, and marriage in the wake of the Manichean challenge. The early Reformed movement’s emphasis on Christ, grace, and faith with regard to salvation and the Christian life further recalibrated the Christian moral ontology underlying its ascetics of discipleship. Since asceticism always pairs with a line of thinking or desiring, it is important to focus on a transcendent goal and to inquire into its practical shape and doctrinal moorings. 10 What are the coordinated beliefs regarding the self, sin, redemption, and, most significant of all, the transcendent, that impinge on and shape the space for this ascetic practice?

The Shape of Evangelical Asceticism: Self-Denial Gavin Flood has asked whether ascetic discipline might be a gift of God. 11 This question is not new, and may serve as a helpful prompt for considering the way John Calvin received and revived the ascetic tradition. His greatest concern as a theologian and pastor was to conceive of practices of self-denial and of renunciation of worldly things in a manner that located these endeavors within the good news of Jesus Christ. Calvin did not merely want to describe such endeavors as a response to the gospel of Christ. Rather, he sought to locate them within the repentance and renewal the gospel brings. To grasp this reorienting of ascetic practice around the person and work of Christ, it is important to attend to the structural moves Calvin makes when addressing ascetics. The topics of self-denial and renunciation appear in book three of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, which addresses “the way in which we receive the grace of Christ: what benefits come to us from it, and what effects follow.” 12 The whole book flows from the observation that “as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us” (III.i.1). Having just concluded his discussion of the person and narrative of Christ – the 10 For assessments of this dogmatic architecture or moral ontology in patristic theology, see T. H. J. van Eijk, “Marriage and Virginity, Death and Immortality,” in Epektasis, ed. Jacques Fontaine and Charles Kannengiesser (Paris: Beauchesne, 1972), 209–35; and especially John Behr, Asceticism and Anthropology in Irenaeus and Clement, OECS (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). 11 Flood, The Ascetic Self, xi. 12 John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (1536; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1960), 1:537.

326

Michael Allen

gospel story – Calvin makes a pointed qualification: this remains but a fascinating and exceptional story of late antiquity, of a life long ago in a land far away, unless we are somehow united to Christ. Calvin then launches into his famed doctrine of union with Christ by the Holy Spirit, who is the “bond by which Christ effectually unites us to himself ” (III.i.1). Calvin spoke of the use and value of Christ for believers in his introduction to book three. Soon thereafter he traces out this blessing in a twofold manner: “With good reason, the sum of the gospel is held to consist in repentance and forgiveness of sins [Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31]. ... Now, both repentance and forgiveness of sins – that is, newness of life and free reconciliation – are conferred on us by Christ, and both are attained by us through faith” (III.iii.1). Here he suggests language of a double grace (duplex gratia) for the first time, to be noted again (III.xi.1). Traditionally, interpreters have rendered his distinction as being between justification and sanctification. While fully appropriate, it is worth noting that Calvin uses neither word as his leading descriptor of the twofold gift here. Rather, he prefers to lead with the biblical language of repentance and of the forgiveness of sins and then to add overlapping or even synonymous terms, such as regeneration and reconciliation or justification. His broad point, however, and the very reason for making the distinction is to remind his reader that both are gifts or graces and, as such, are a part of the gospel promise of Jesus. Calvin takes this judgment to be plain from his repeated scriptural citations (Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31). He makes two major moves which locate ascetic activity within the promise of the gospel. First, Calvin does not define repentance as a preparation for the gospel or a distinct response to the gospel, but as a divine provision of the gospel that takes the form of sanctified human action. His reading of Jesus’s scriptural message relayed in Luke 24:47 locates repentance as a believer’s action flowing from and gifted by God’s kindness. While repentance is a person’s action, its existence flows from God’s good promise. Indeed, it is a part of that promise, not as a condition, but as a creation flowing from the unconditioned gift of Christ. Second, he then locates self-denial and renunciation within the category of repentance or sanctification, employing the terminology of mortification and vivification to do so. Calvin makes it plain that he is aware of entering a massive field of study when addressing the Christian life: “In composing exhortations on but a single virtue, the ancient doctors, as we see, became very prolix. Yet in this they waste no words” (III.vi.1). He notes that assessment of any one virtue leads to addressing many interrelated matters. Such is not his goal or purpose. “I do not intend to develop here, the instruction in living that I am now about to offer to to the point of describing individual virtues at length, and of digressing into exhortations. Such may be sought from others’ writings, especially from the homilies of the fathers” (III.vi.1). Calvin plainly observes the nature of the patristic approach to ascetical and virtue ethics and commends their exhortations,

Self-Denial

327

seeing no need to replace them. What will he add? “To show the godly man how he may be directed to a rightly ordered life, and briefly to set down some universal rule with which to determine his duties – this will be quite enough for me” (III.vi.1). I will return to the issue of rules, regulation, and the determination of one’s duties in the next section, addressing ways Calvin recalibrated ascetical theology along the lines of the Reformed scripture principle. Here I will expand on the ways he addresses an appropriate direction for this life and what it means for it to be “rightly ordered.” Strictly speaking, Calvin’s treatise on ascetical theology, or what he calls the “sum of the Christian life,” runs from chs. 6–10 of book three. Yet Calvin has already begun to address the life of repentance in chs. 2–5. There he defines faith (ch. 2) and repentance (ch. 3). He also deconstructs later accretions to repentance that marred the sacramental-penitential system of the medieval church by construing repentance as something that satisfies God (ch. 4) or by supplementing repentance with indulgences and other rites rooted in nothing more than human tradition (ch. 5). Having made these basic dogmatic moves in chs. 2–3 and cleared so much ground in chs. 4–5, Calvin now addresses the life of the Christian and its scriptural motivations (ch. 6). The lure of self-denial flows from a greater good, a future good that outweighs and outstrips the fleeting and faint enticements of this present age. Calvin refers to this greater good as the “true fountain” of Jesus Christ himself (III.vi.3). He explains how the various benefits enjoyed in union with Christ objectively mark believers out before God and call forth a corresponding subjective action or moral movement: Ever since God revealed himself Father to us, we must prove our ungratefulness to him if we did not in turn show ourselves his sons (Mal. 1:6; Eph. 5:1; 1 John 3:1). Ever since Christ cleansed us with the washing of his blood, and imparted this cleansing through baptism, it would be unfitting to befoul ourselves with new pollutions (Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:10; 1 Cor. 6:11; 1 Peter 1:15, 19). Ever since he engrafted us into his body, we must take especial care not to disfigure ourselves, who are his members, with any spot or blemish (Eph. 5:23–33; 1 Cor. 6:15; John 15:3–6). Ever since Christ himself, who is our head, ascended into heaven, it behooves us, having laid aside love of earthly things, wholeheartedly to aspire heavenward (Col. 3:1 ff.). Ever since the Holy Spirit dedicated us as temples to God, we must take care that God’s glory shine through us, and must not commit anything to defile ourselves with the filthiness of sin (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16). Ever since both our souls and bodies were destined for heavenly incorruption and an unfading crown (1 Peter 5:4), we ought to strive manfully to keep them pure and uncorrupted until the Day of the Lord (1 Thess. 5:23; cf. Phil. 1:10). (III.vi.3)

Calvin explicitly notes that philosophers who commend virtue can only call for action based on the “natural dignity of man,” whereas he suggests that a supernatural dignity conferred on humanity in Christ offers a greater moral theology. What is the shape of this Christian life of faith and repentance, of this jour-

328

Michael Allen

ney marked by the gift of God and the resulting agency of his adopted sons and daughters? If justification really comes to the ungodly, what can and does Calvin say of the sanctification given to them as well? In ch. 7 he focuses on self-denial as the sum of the Christian life. He employs language of sacrifice, transformation, and conformity to God (not the world) to describe this rhythm of self-denial. A lengthy quotation offers his most pertinent comments on the matter: If we, then, are not our own [cf. 1 Cor. 6:19] but the Lord’s, it is clear what error we must flee, and whither we must direct all the acts of our life. We are not our own: let not our reason nor our will, therefore, sway our plans and deeds. We are not our own: let us therefore not set it as our goal to seek what is expedient for us according to the flesh. We are not our own: in so far as we can, let us therefore forget ourselves and all that is ours. Conversely, we are God’s: let us therefore live for him and die for him. We are God’s: let his wisdom and will therefore rule all our actions. We are God’s: let all the parts of our life accordingly strive toward him as our only lawful goal [Rom. 14:8; cf. 1 Cor. 6:19]. O, how much has that man profited who, having been taught that he is not his own, has taken away dominion and rule from his own reason that he may yield it to God! For, as consulting our self-interest is the pestilence that most effectively leads to our destruction, so the sole haven of salvation is to be wise in nothing and to will nothing through ourselves but to follow the leading of the Lord alone. Let this therefore be the first step, that a man depart from himself in order that he may apply the whole force of his ability in the service of the Lord. (III.xii.1)

Calvin locates self-denial within the matrix of creation by the triune God, covenant with the Father of Israel, union with Christ, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In other words, the renunciation of self-possession expressed here makes sense only amid a transcendent claim of possession by the triune God of grace. These remarks about “departing from himself ” for the sake of the “service of the Lord” require attending to his exegetical sources, in particular Rom 12:1–2, where offering one’s spiritual worship to the Lord (which Paul identifies as one’s whole self) requires a transformation of the mind, a renewal that requires nonconformity to the ways of the world and regeneration of the ways within the natural self. Romans 12 prefaces this call to sacrifice, worship, and transformation of the self with reference to the “mercies of God,” presumably the glorious truths relayed in chs. 1–11 that precede this portion of holy Scripture. Calvin makes much of this order, noting that the repentance described at such length not only in these verses but more broadly in Romans 12–15 flows from faith. 13 In

13

For helpful analysis of the fundamental significance of Rom 12:1–2 in Calvin’s description of

Self-Denial

329

other words, evangelical asceticism will be prompted forward by eschatological hope rather than prodded by a bygone simplicity or primordial innocence. 14 Repeatedly, Calvin returns to the language of “devotion to God” as the motivating source of self-denial (III.vii.2, 8). Devotion does not describe one’s faithfulness to God in a way that benefits God. Devotion to God, for Calvin, is the kind of devotion expressed by a dependent. Hence Calvin concludes his description of self-denial with a lengthy analysis of how trusting God’s blessing frees one from the fear and anxiety of being one’s own master and Lord. In other words, devotion to this God takes the form of trust in his provision through Jesus Christ, and that trust invariably moves us out of ourselves and refocuses us on God as our compass, our sun, and our savior. It is worth noting that this observation regarding the root of self-denial in faith is not unique to the Protestant tradition. Maximus the Confessor linked the spiritual war against the flesh with faith: Now perhaps someone will say: I have faith and faith in Him is enough for me for salvation. But James contradicts him, saying: The devils also believe and tremble; and again: Faith without works is dead in itself, as also the works without faith. In what manner then do we believe in Him? Is it that we believe Him about future things, but about transient and present things do not believe Him, and are therefore immersed in material things and live in the flesh, and battle against the Spirit? But those who truly believed Christ and, through the commandments, made Him to dwell wholly within themselves spoke in this fashion: And I live, now not I; but Christ liveth in me. And that I live in the flesh: I live in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself for me. 15

There are precursors to evangelical asceticism, then, though Calvin emphasizes the order of faith and repentance and of justification and sanctification with such force because of late medieval practices that had undercut classical Christian discipleship. Calvin then addresses cross-bearing as a fundamental description of the Christian life in ch. 8. Because the Christian life involves union with Christ, that is, with his person, story, and benefits, the experience of cross-bearing in the present comes as part of the package, as it were. Suffering in the present marks the life of every Christian. Calvin describes the experience of suffering in various ways: as training and instruction for the spiritually immature and unperfected (III.viii.4), as testing for the weak (III.viii.4), as medicine for the spiritually ill (III.viii.5), and as fatherly discipline for God’s children (III.viii.6). self-denial, see Randall C. Zachman, “‘Deny Yourself and Take Up Your Cross’: John Calvin on the Christian Life,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 11.4 (2009): 471. 14 See, e. g., Irenaeus’s Haer. 3.22–23 and Epid. 11–16, as well as the commentary of John Behr, Asceticism and Anthropology in Irenaeus and Clement, OECS (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 49 n. 51. 15 St. Maximus the Confessor, The Ascetic Life, The Four Centuries on Charity, ACW 21 (Mahwah, NJ: Newman, 1955), 123, section 34.

330

Michael Allen

How is it these things? Because suffering in the present is accompanied by the gift of hope in the faithfulness and provision of God (III.viii.3, 8). Calvin expressly condemns Stoicism and notes that the patient endurance to which Christ calls his people is not without sorrow. Thus it cannot be undertaken without anguish, passion, and pain (III.viii.9–10). Amid that insistence on suffering in the present life, Calvin highlights the broader shape of history by pointing again to future life, and more specifically to the need to meditate on eternal life in Christ (ch. 9). “If heaven is our homeland, what else is the earth but our place of exile?” (III.ix.4). Calvin regularly employs the language of the pilgrimage or the exodus to describe the life of the Christian. The goal – and this is not an easy matter – is to “let believers accustom themselves to a contempt of the present life that engenders no hatred of it or ingratitude against God” (III.ix.3). In other words, contempt for the present flows from the excessive good of the future, not from any inherent ill in the current moment. The present is not enough, but that does not mean that it is not good, that it is not from God, or that it is not to be received with gratitude. Nevertheless, just as faith and repentance are paired realities (like the “returning and rest” in Isa 30:15), so a contempt for the present and a desire for the future are twinned human experiences. Then Calvin returns from eschatology and meditation on eternity to reconsider the present and what he deems our “use of the present life and its helps” in ch. 10. “Let this be our principle: that the use of God’s gifts is not wrongly directed when it is referred to that end to which the Author himself created and destined them for us, since he created them for our good, not for our ruin” (III.x.2). So the manner of employing earthly goods flows from both their creation and their “end” to which God has “destined them for us” (III.x.2). His ethic is neither merely creational nor solely eschatological but relates the two and, thus, locates present use amid past creation and future destiny. As to extent, Calvin repeatedly uses the language of moderation, frugality, and sobriety (see, e. g., III.x.5). He also notes that there are various “callings” (vocations). Over against “the judgment of human and philosophical reason” (III.x.6), which would reduce all ethics to a universal or homogenous form, Calvin insists that God diversifies his gifts and his callings, and we dare not constrict his direction. Again, Rom 12:2 speaks of the need for a renewed mind to exercise discernment about the true, good, and beautiful, precisely because self-denial always involves personal dispossession of oneself and personal dependence on God’s prompting. To sum up Calvin’s description of the space for self-denial, the first thing to note must be its christological location. In union with Christ, as part of the promise of the gospel, believers are led away from themselves and led further into life in Christ. Second, this process of self-denial plays out in the course of an ongoing history, prompted by both faith in God’s blessing and meditation

Self-Denial

331

on eternal bliss, rooted in divine faithfulness in the past (both in the singular works of Christ in the first century and the previous personal deliverances of God’s Spirit to them in their own lifetimes), performed amid the tumult of present pilgrimage to a heavenly end.

The Standards of Evangelical Asceticism: Scriptural Exhortations to Self-Denial Herman Bavinck writes that “the New Testament does not first of all recommend the virtues that enable believers to conquer the world but, while it bids them avoid all false asceticism (Rom. 14:14; 1 Tim. 4:4–5; Titus 1:15), lists as fruits of the Spirit the virtues of ‘love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control’ (Gal. 5:22–23; Eph. 4:32; 1 Thess. 5:14 ff.; 1 Pet. 3:8 ff.; 2 Pet. 1:5–7; 1 John 2:15; etc.).” 16 As was noted above, John Calvin did not juxtapose asceticism or virtue ethics from scriptural teaching on the fruit of the Spirit as Bavinck does. As observed above, Calvin endorsed the teaching of the fathers regarding particular virtues and exhortations for renunciation. He only desired to provide an appropriate theological order to direct the way Christians pursue such moral endeavors. Remember that Calvin insisted that self-denial must be governed by looking to God in all things. 17 This marks some of his criticism of monastic practices (which also focus on self-denial). For centuries, Christian theologians had made a distinction between commands and counsels. 18 While commands are given by God and applicable to all Christians, counsels are wise maxims that are binding only on a select few (e. g. celibacy is advised by Paul and followed by the monks). Two major differences can be seen between this approach and that of Calvin: (1) Calvin believes self-denial is universally binding on all Christians; and (2) Calvin believes that self-denial is to be governed by “looking to God in all things” through holy Scripture. He does not believe that “counsels” of scripture should be made binding on any subsection of the church unless Scripture expressly does so itself. His comments on 1 Cor 7:8 are indicative of this dynamic: while gifts of celibacy are given to some, they are not to be enforced on any. Calvin argues that earlier monastic lifestyles (as advocated by Augustine 16

Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 674. See further his comments on 2 Cor 1:9: “We must begin by despairing of ourselves but only in order that we may hope in God; we must be brought low in ourselves but only in order that we may be raised up by his power” (John Calvin, The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians and the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, trans. T. A. Smail, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries 10 [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964], 13). 18 See Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 1a2ae.108.4. 17

332

Michael Allen

or, we might add, Athanasius) were far more in line with scriptural teaching than those of contemporary monastics, for ancient monastic communities were more integrated into the wider life of the congregation (see, e. g., IV.xiii.9, 14). Calvin notes that later monastic practices made it impossible for a monk to also serve well as a priest, because the one called for withdrawal from society while the other demanded immersion in the community (IV.v.8). To make his case he draws on observations made by Pope Gregory the Great, who had said that “no one can properly be both a monk and a cleric.” 19 These concerns reflect a formal disagreement regarding the proper authority that governs moral and ascetical practice. Whereas a twofold authority structure had developed, with universal commands given by God and specific counsels given by various figures within the ecclesiastical hierarchy, Calvin contends that all ecclesial authority is ministerial in nature and, thus, tethered to the enscripturated Word of God. All Christians are bound so far as holy Scripture speaks regarding self-denial and renunciation of earthly things for heavenly good; yet where the writings of the prophets and apostles remain silent, the church must do so as well. An individual Christian may discern something wise or prudent to undertake beyond the explicit prompting or directive of the Bible, of course, and it is to be expected that such judgments will occur. But ministers of the church are not to purport to make such judgments in loco parentis or with any binding authority. Calvin does not merely bring up scriptural authority to deconstruct medieval Roman customs that he deems illegitimate or extrabiblical. He also wants to reorient his reader to areas of biblical emphasis regarding self-denial, chief among them the Sabbath practices of the people of God. As he says elsewhere, “The Lord the more frequently testifies that he had given, in the Sabbath, a symbol of sanctification to his ancient people.” 20 In keeping the Sabbath, believers refocus their time and all its investments of energy and capital on God. They also refocus the time of any within their household or influence similarly. Sabbath-keeping marks the classical Reformed tradition in a way unprecedented in Christian history. A simplicity and coherence of principle marks its development in both its (in some ways quite different) continental and Puritan forms as they developed in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Calvin’s and the classical Reformed tradition’s focus on the Sabbath and paired critique of Roman and later Anglican celebration of a lush liturgical calendar flow from a common fount. The Reformed tradition does not derive its temporal order or its polemical commentary on other traditions’ use of calen19 On Calvin and monasticism, see David Steinmetz, “Calvin and the Monastic Ideal,” in Calvin in Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 187–98. 20 John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses called Genesis, trans. John King (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948), 1:106 (on Gen. 2:3).

Self-Denial

333

dars from any antireligious animus. Rather, Sabbath-keeping demonstrates an assumed principle regarding the way temporal habits and rhythmic practices of spiritual consequence form the people of God. But such habits and practices do so to the extent they draw believers out of themselves. Therefore, they must be mandated from above, rather than imagined from human vanity.

Evangelical Asceticism: Recovering and Reforming Self-Denial Interestingly, the single most excerpted portion of Calvin’s Institutes through the centuries has been the portion of book three where he addresses the topics of self-denial and the proper use of earthly goods, circulating under the title The Golden Booklet of the Christian Life. Today, however, the heavy influence of neoCalvinism or Kuyperianism and of the Weberian and Niebuhrian approaches to reflecting on the sociological, economic, and cultural significance of Calvinism have led to an image of the reformers’ theology that rarely, if ever, finds itself identified with heavenly-mindedness, self-denial, contentment, Sabbath, and renunciation of the world. Indeed, one of the reasons for Calvinism’s cultural cache in the modern Western world has been its supposed valuation of this world as dignified, glorious, and worthy of human endeavors. This worldly spirituality has been potently demonstrated in the fiction of Reformed author Marilynne Robinson, especially in her Pulitzer Prize-winning Gilead, where she writes that “all the world is lit up like transfiguration.” 21 Corresponding to this vision of the world has been an approach to work, in which Reformed theology in the twentieth century has expanded on the doctrine of vocation in a way that has brought coherence and vibrancy to Christian approaches to a whole host of topics, ranging from finance and sexuality to politics and education. Because of its eschatological opposition to dispensationalism since the late nineteenth century, Reformed theology has sought to emphasize that while a dismissiveness or denigration of the world may flow from a rapture theology, in contrast a holistic eschatology (as sketched so forcibly, for example, by Bavinck) presents a much richer basis for investing one’s capital (in every sense) in worldly betterment. Thus, it is standard fare for churches influenced by this stream of Kuyperian thought to identify their mission to benefit the city spiritually, socially, and culturally. My emphasis here ought to not be mistaken for a rejection of this Kuyperian or neo-Calvinist vision of Christ as Lord of all things, the sovereign over every sphere of life. Nor do I wish to deny, in any sense, that we are to glorify God 21

Marilynne Robinson, Gilead (New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 2003), 245. Her protagonist in this volume, Rev. John Ames, channels the theology of Calvin and Barth directly, in particular regarding the holiness of the ordinary.

334

Michael Allen

in all we do, seeking to act out of faith, according to his Word, and to his glory. That said, there are serious dangers to this emphasis, chief among them a loss of proportion. Culture in its various forms can be a good, but even at its very best it can only be a secondary, participating good that pales in comparison to the primary good: the triune God who participates in no one, but who may be participated in by those united to him through Jesus Christ. In seeking not to deny the wide reach of God’s blessing, modern Reformed theology has too frequently failed to honor or has even blatantly denigrated the bliss of God. I must go one step further, however, and note that it is not merely that there has been a failure of eschatology and a truncation of Christian hope. While necessary as an assessment, that judgment is not sufficient to steer the ship aright. An ethical anemia has also set in owing to that eschatological thinness. When we consider Calvin, however, we observe a thick description of the Christian life that is rooted in more than mere gratitude, command, or response. Calvin locates the life of renewal, regeneration, and repentance in the wider orbit of the gospel, and he addresses the two key ordering questions that attend consideration of that calling. “Now this Scriptural instruction of which we speak has two main aspects. The first is that the love of righteousness, to which we are otherwise not at all inclined by nature, may be instilled and established in our hearts; the second, that a rule be set forth for us that does not let us wander about in our zeal for righteousness” (III.vi.2). I have sought to appreciate the way in which his reformational theology of grace and of the scripture principle has reoriented his commitment to the moral theology of the Christian past, especially in its ascetic demands. He endorses the same virtues and exhortations (even in their patristic form), but wants to provide a new order to direct the way in which we approach their practice. I conclude by directing a contemporary question and asking if Calvin’s account can provide a reasonable response. Eugene Rogers objects to the use of the term “self-denial” in describing Christian ascesis, pointing out that it makes no sense to call something the “denial” of the self when it actually entails the development of true personhood in relationship to God. 22 Why, then, does Calvin speak of self-denial when addressing the Christian life or process of sanctification? Of course, the immediate answer is that language of self-denial comes from holy Scripture (so Luke 9:23). Christians, thus, may query whether such terminology ought to hold significant sway or significance in broader moral theology and in what terms it might be properly understood, but they cannot very well question its employment as such. I will refine the question, then, and ask why self-denial is a significant term for an evangelical asceticism or

22 Cited in Nathan Jennings, Theology as Ascetic Act: Disciplining Christian Discourse, American University Studies in Theology and Religion 307 (New York: Peter Lang, 2010), 15 n. 67.

Self-Denial

335

a Reformed moral theology. If it is significant, how might it be governed by wider thinking about the God of the gospel and the creaturely order that he has brought into being in Christ? When speaking of asceticism, one speaks of the self. But to make this observation is only to begin to query the character of asceticism and the contours of its practice, rather than to foreclose or conclude such an investigation. Speech about the self is conflicted, in holy Scripture and in the Christian tradition. Christians are to love the self and pattern love of others by love of self (so Jesus’s rendition of the second great commandment), and yet love of the self is viewed as a detrimental and evil practice. The later Christian tradition has spoken of self-love in this complex, multiform fashion, and in doing so reflects the complexity of holy Scripture. 23 First, Christian asceticism is not merely or even primarily about contempt for the world as such. Any notion of contemptus mundi which is to prove serviceable to the gospel must be coordinated with a contempt for the self. The world as such, and its moral nature, flows from the way it is engaged by human creatures before God. Thus, riches or poverty may be received rightly or wrongly, depending on the posture with which one possesses them. Second, Christian asceticism is not merely or even primarily about contempt at all. First and foremost, contempt of the world and of the self must be preceded by delight in the good things of life: God and all things in as much as they participate in God’s bliss and blessing. In commenting on 2 Cor 2:14, Calvin insists that “the only way to make right progress in the Gospel is to be attracted by the sweet fragrance of Christ so that we desire Him enough to bid the enticements of the world farewell.” 24 Hence, present restraint (as described in Institures III.x) must be fueled by meditation on future blessing (as described in the immediately preceding section, III.ix). And present restraint may not take the form of hatred of the world as a good. Indeed, Christians must be able to delight in the goods of the world. 25 Third, Christian asceticism must be located among the creaturely coordinates of the gospel, namely, the resonances that echo back and press forward into the reception of grace by those enfolded within his identity. So any call to denial or renunciation is a temporal reality and makes sense only in a particular historic frame of reference. Pilgrims avoid enjoying the route, however scenic it 23 The pivotal study of this multiform reality continues to be Oliver O’Donovan, The Problem of Self-Love in St. Augustine (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1980). 24 John Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, trans. John W. Fraser, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries (1960; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 34. 25 Calvin offers a comparative reading of 2 Cor 1:12 and 10:17 to address ways in which Paul can singularly glory in God while also glorying in goods provided by God (The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians and the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, 16–17).

336

Michael Allen

may be, to any extent that would lead them away from yearning for their final destination. Similarly, Christians content themselves with God’s provisions for the day and avoid fostering a yearning for greater earthly good, lest they forget the heavenly satisfactions that await them in glory. Christians live in a state of grace, so there are temporal goods to be enjoyed. But Christians are not yet in the state of glory, so they must expect to experience delayed gratification. As Calvin writes, “Since the eternal inheritance of man is in heaven, it is truly right that we should tend thither; yet must we fix our foot on earth long enough to enable us to consider the abode which God requires man to use for a time. For we are now conversant with that history which teaches us that Adam was, by divine appointment, an inhabitant of the earth, in order that he might, in passing through his earthly life, meditate on heavenly glory.” 26 Fourth, Christian asceticism will be guided by the church’s authoritative teaching of holy Scripture (only) in so far as the scriptures do speak and then by the discernment of individual consciences shaped by that scriptural revelation. Thus, emphasis will be placed on practices such as keeping the Sabbath day holy, the giving of tithes and offerings, and occasional fasting, which find explicit warrant in God’s word. Still further, prayer remains the most profound ascetic practice and is not only commanded but exemplified and illustrated throughout the Scriptures. In prayer, Christians turn from their restless activity to rest their anxieties and needs, their aspirations and joys, their very selves, on God. While individuals and families may opt to include other rites or rhythms in their spiritual practice from time to time and with regard to varying challenges or callings, church communities will focus on these scripturally warranted practices in their discipleship. 27 More could surely be said about Christian asceticism, especially with regard to particular virtues or habits that might be explored in detail. Like Calvin, I have avoided any lengthy analysis of particular examples, believing that the fundamental need of the day is again a matter of order and direction. I have shown how asceticism functions as a part of evangelical faith and practice in the Reformed tradition and have reimagined a more spiritual view of the Christian life this side of the Kuyperian turn, hopefully without losing the earthiness and extent of that vision of sanctification. The good news of Jesus does come to men and women on this earth. The good news involves the promise that God will draw them away from themselves and will draw them to his heavenly presence, which will eventually fill the whole earth. This good news is God’s doing and

26

Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses called Genesis, 1:114–15. For example, Calvin has much to say regarding wisdom for ministers with regard to renunciation of earthly goods and of one’s own self in the exercise of their pastoral office (see, e. g., his commentary on 2 Cor 13:7 in The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians and the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, 16–17). 27

Self-Denial

337

so is a promise; this good news brings our transformation and so brings ethical activity. While the evangelical word does not depend or condition itself on our willful self-denial, the word brings hope because it assures us that God will lead us outside ourselves into the posture of receiving life more richly from him.

List of Contributors Michael Allen PhD Systematic Theology, Wheaton College Graduate School Associate Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Florida Christopher A. Beetham PhD New Testament, Wheaton College Graduate School Senior Editor of Biblical Languages, Textbooks, and Reference Tools Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan John Dennis PhD New Testament and Theology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Lecturer in New Testament and Greek, Director of the MA in Integrative Theology London School of Theology, London, England Wesley Hill PhD New Testament, University of Durham Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies Trinity School for Ministry, Ambridge, Pennsylvania Paul R. House PhD Old Testament, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Professor of Divinity, Old Testament Beeson Divinity School, Birmingham, Alabama Panagiotis Kantartzis PhD Old Testament, School of Theology, Aristoteleio University of Thessaloniki Pastor First Greek Evangelical Church, Athens, Greece Visiting Professor Greek Bible College, Pikermi, Greece Alexander N. Kirk DPhil Theology, University of Oxford Professor of New Testament Evangelical Theological Seminary of Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

340

List of Contributors

Sean McDonough PhD New Testament, University of St Andrews Professor of New Testament Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, Massachusetts Douglas C. Mohrmann PhD New Testament, University of Durham Associate Professor of Religion Cornerstone University, Grand Rapids, Michigan Elizabeth Shively PhD New Testament, Emory University Lecturer in New Testament Studies School of Divinity, St Mary’s College, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland Peter Stuhlmacher DTheol New Testament, University of Tübingen Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany Joel White PhD New Testament, University of Dortmund Lecturer in New Testament Giessen School of Theology, Giessen, Germany Adjunct Professor of New Testament Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary William N. Wilder PhD Biblical Studies, Union Theological Seminary in Virginia Executive Director Center for Christian Study, Charlottesville, Virginia H. H. Drake Williams III PhD New Testament, University of Aberdeen Professor of New Testament Language and Literature Tyndale Theological Seminary, Amsterdam, Netherlands Associate Professor of New Testament Language and Literature Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, Leuven, Belgium Joel Willitts PhD New Testament, University of Cambridge Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies North Park University, Chicago, Illinois Todd A. Wilson PhD New Testament, University of Cambridge

List of Contributors

Senior Pastor Calvary Memorial Church, Oak Park, Illinois Jeff Wisdom PhD New Testament, University of Durham Instructor of Biblical Studies and Greek Oak Hills Christian College, Bemidji, Minnesota

341

Scripture Index Genesis 1:1 306 1:20–21 306 1:24 306 1:26 310 1:27 306 1:30 306 2–3 93 2:7 93, 306, 307 2:17 93 2:19 306 3:3 93 3:3–4 93 3:14–19 93 3:23 93 5:24 214 6–9 84 9:10 306 9:12 306 9:15 306 9:16 306 15 289 15:6 137 18:14 134 21:10 137 21:12 134 22:18 137 25:23 134 Exodus 3:6 213 3:19–20 228 4:1 228 4:5 228 4:8–9 228 4:21 228 4:31 228 6:12 227 6:30 227 7:3 227 7:3–4 228 8:19 227 9:14 230 9:15 230 9:16 136 9:18 230 9:22 230 14:31 228

16–17 249 19:5–6 75 23:24 213 32 251, 252 32:1–35 251, 252 32:6 251 32:8 251 32:18 251 32:26–28 251 32:29 251 33:19 136 34:6–7 80, 81, 84 34:7 81 34:15–16 251 Leviticus 4 90, 101, 104 4–15 101 4:1–5:14 102 4:2 89 4:22 89 4:27 89 4:33–35 101 5:1–4 101 5:1–5 89 5:15 89 7:37 87 11:13–15:31 101 12 101 14–15 101 15:31 102 16 101–2, 105 16:5 88, 89, 101, 102–4, 105 16:9 87, 88, 102 16:10 103, 104 16:15 102 16:15–16 102 16:15–29 103 16:16 102 16:20 103 16:21 103 16:21–22 103 16:22 103 16:26 103 16:30 104 16:34 104 17–18 11 17:10–14 8

344 18:3 213 18:4 214 18:5 136, 148 18:6–26 8 18:26 214 19:18 136 19:37 214 20:22 214 20:23 213 37:24 214 Numbers 6 101 6:10 87 6:11 87, 88 6:14 11 6:16 87 10:32 61 11 249, 250 11:1–35 252 11:4–35 249 11:14 183 11:16–30 183, 185 11:29 183, 184 12 249 12:1–16 249, 252 13–14 249 13:1–14:45 252 15:27–28 101 16 250 16–17 249 16:1 250 16:1–35 250, 252 16:2 250 16:3 250 21:4–9 252 25 251, 252 25:1 251 25:1–5 251, 252 25:2 251 25:7–8 251 25:11–13 251 Deuteronomy 1:9 183 1:9–17 183 1:15 180 1:15–16 180 1:16 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187 1:16–17 183. 184, 185 1:17 180 4 228, 230 4:1–2 214 4:2 228 4:3 228 4:9 228

Scripture Index 4:10 228 4:29 228, 230 4:33 228 4:34 228 4:36 228 5:33 214 6:1 214 6:22 229 7:19 229 9 138 9:4 136, 233, 234 9:4–5 233 9:5 233 10:12–13 214 10:16 230, 234 11:2–3 229 11:10 234 12:30–31 213 13 229–30 13:1–2 230 13:3 230 13:5 214 17:1–3 181 17:1–7 181, 183 17:2–7 181 17:7 180, 181, 183, 185 17:8 181, 182, 183, 184 17:8–11 180, 181, 182, 183, 185 25:4 137 28:9 214 29 231 29:2–4 230, 238, 239, 243 29:3 226, 231, 234 29:4 231, 232, 234, 235 30 138, 144, 231, 244 30:1 213 30:6 230, 234 30:11–14 233 30:12 233 30:12–13 136 30:12–14 231 30:14 233 30:15 136 30:16 214 32 243, 244, 259 32:6 243 32:17 212 32:21 136, 243 32:28 243 32:29 243 32:31 243 32:43 136, 231 34:10–12 229 34:12 229

Scripture Index Joshua 22:5

214

1 Samuel 8:3 215 1 Kings 2:1–4 213 14:8–10 215 19:10 136 19:18 136 2 Kings 19:30–31 257 21:21 215 22:2 214 Nehemiah 9 147, 259 9:20 248 1 Maccabees 2:51–61 217 2 Maccabees 12:43 88 Psalms 1:1 214 8 164 16:8–11 136 22:22 136 24:1 212 24:6 213 31:1–2 136 40:6–8 136 43 117 43:16–17 117 43:18–22 117 43:23 117, 125 43:24–27 117 44:9 159 45:6–7 136 46:7, 11 213 55:23 57 60:12 159 64:5 164 68:23–24 136 71:18 237 78 147, 149, 259 81:13 214 81:13–14 214 90:4 80, 84, 215 95:7–11 136 97:1–5 78 97:3 78

345

97:4–5 78 99:6–7 213 104:4 136 105 147 105:6–9 213 105:45 214 106 147, 259 106:16 250 108:12 159 110:1 136 118:22 75 119:4 214 135 147 136 147 143:10 248 145:17 214 Proverbs 1:7 64 3:6 61 3:21 62 3:21–26 54, 61 3:21–35 54, 60–61, 62, 63, 64 3:25 60, 61–62, 63, 64, 68 3:26 63 3:27–28 61 3:27–31 54, 61 3:32–35 54, 61 3:34 54–55, 55–56, 56–57, 58, 60, 62, 68 3:35 55, 63 10:1–22:16 66 10:12 64, 65, 66–67, 67–68 10:12–18 66 10:18 66 11:31 50–51, 51–53, 68, 75 24:21 49, 58, 59 Sirach 5:4–7 81 44–50 216 44:1–15 216 44:11–15 217 45:18 250 50:27 216 51:23 216 Isaiah 1:9 136, 156 1:10 156 1:21–26 162 1:22 156 1:24 156 1:24–26 156 1:25 156 2:1–4 161, 162 2:1–4:6 161

346 2:2–4 161–62 2:3 153, 161–62, 213 2:3–4 161 4:1–6 161, 162 4:2–3 162 4:2–6 161 4:4 79 5:1–7 160, 253 5:7 160 5:8 160 5:18–24 84 5:18–29 76 5:20–23 76 5:24 76 6:9 231 6:9–10 238, 239 8:14 75 9:13–15 253 10:22–23 136 11:1–2 52, 254 11:2 52 11:3–9 52 11:16 136 24–27 159 26:14 159 26:17 159 26:19 242 26:20–21 161 26:20–27 159 26:21 159 27 153 27:1 159, 160 27:2–5 160 27:2–6 253 27:4 160 27:6 254, 257 27:9 153, 159–61 28 144, 163 28:16 75, 136 28:21 163 29 163–64 29:1 163 29:1–4 163, 164 29:2 164 29:3 163–64 29:5 163, 164 29:5–7 163 29:5–8 164 29:6 163 29:7 164 29:8 163 29:10 231, 234 29:14 164 30:15 330 32:15–16 253 32:15–17 254

Scripture Index 32:16–18 82, 84 35 254 35:1–2 254 35:5–6 242 35:6 254 35:10 254 37:30 162 37:30–32 253 37:31 162 37:31–32 257 37:32 162, 163 40–55 265 40–66 115, 253 40:6 75 40:8 75 40:10 157 40:15–17 215 44:1–4 255 44:3 257 45 238, 266, 268, 275 45:20–25 115 45:22 265 45:22–23 265 47:11 164 48:3 164 49:10 257 50:5 115 50:6 115 50:7–9 114, 115, 117, 125 50:9 115 51–63 236 51:1–2 213 51:1–3 255 51:2 255 51:3 255–56 51:9 237 52 236 52–53 238, 265 52:7 233 52:7–53:1 225, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 239, 241, 244 52:8 236 52:10 236 52:13 265 52:15 226, 232, 233, 234, 235, 239 53:1 136, 225, 226, 232, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 244 53:3 265 53:3–12 115 53:4–5 265 53:6 91 53:7–9 265 53:10 265 53:12 91 54:1 255 54:4–17 115

347

Scripture Index 54:17 115 55:8–9 214 57:18–20 159 58–62 83 59 153, 155, 156, 157, 159, 161 59:1–2 154 59:1–8 154 59:4 154 59:9 154 59:9–11 154 59:9–15 154 59:14 154 59:15–20 154, 157 59:16 157 59:17 157 59:17–20 157 59:18 154, 155, 156 59:19 154, 155 59:20 154, 155 59:20–21 141, 153, 154–55, 156 59:21 155 60–62 155, 157 61 159 61:1 155 61:1–2 242 61:1–3 159, 254 61:2 157 61:4–7 159 61:8 155 61:9 155 61:11 159, 254 62:11 157 63 157–58 63–65 83 63:1–6 155, 157 63:1–65:16 84 63:2–3 158 63:4 157 63:11 248 64:9 254 65–66 84 65:1 136 65:2 136 65:17–25 52, 78, 82 65:17–66:24 78 66:1–2 136 66:15–16 78 66:15–24 82, 84 66:24 78 Jeremiah 4:20 164 6:26 164 10:2–3 213 12:16 11 15:8 164

17:15 76 18:22 164 23:5–7 82 25:29 75 31 244 31:27–28 253 31:27–40 183 31:31 234, 292 31:31–34 306 32:41 253 33:16 82 51:8 164 Lamentations 1:12 158 1:15 158 2:5 158 Baruch 1:10 88 Ezekiel 11 244 11:20 214 17:22–24 253 20:7–8 213 20:19 214 20:32 213 36:26–27 306 36:27 214 37 244 37:1–14 306 43:19 87 43:21 87 Daniel 7 183, 184 7:21–27 185 7:22 183 7:26–27 183 9 147 Hosea 2:2–3 254 2:14–16 256 2:16–18 256 2:19–20 256 2:20–22 256 14:4–7 256 14:5–8 253 Joel 2:12–14 2:18–32 2:21–22 2:28–29

80, 81, 84 253 256 256

348 3 144 3:1–2 256 3:1–5 136 3:5 148 Amos 1:11 158 9:11–12 11 Obadiah 6 158 9 158 10 158 12 158 15 158 18 158 Jonah 3:8–10 81, 84 3:8-4:2 80 4:10–11 81 Micah 4:2 213 Nahum 1:3 80, 81, 84 Habakkuk 2 289 2:3 80, 81 Zephaniah 1:1–18 78, 79, 84 1:2 78 1:2–3 78 1:3 78 1:12 76 1:12–13 78 1:12–16 77 1:17–18 77 1:18 78 Haggai 2:5 248 Zechariah 12:10 137 Malachi 1:2–3 134 1:6 327 3:1 164 3:2 79 4:1 79

Scripture Index Matthew 3:11–12 79 5:6 82 11:5 242 12:28 227 13:30 79 16:16–19 15 16:18 19 17:5 72 22:44 136 24:43 81 27:63–64 14 Mark 1:10 39 1:19 16 1:21–28 262 2:1–12 262 3:17 16 3:21 10 4:32–33 10 7:19 31 9:2 16 9:7 72 9:48 79, 84 10:39 16 14:31 199 Luke 3:17 79, 84 4:16–30 242 5:30 39 7:22 242 7:39 39 9:23 334 9:35 72 11:20 227 11:37 39 12:39–40 81 15:2 40 22:32 15 23:31 51 24:44 137 24:47 326 John 1:1–18 18 1:3 263 1:19-12:50 238 1:35 17 1:40 17 1:51 39 3:16 17 6:60 18 6:66 18 7:5 10

Scripture Index 7:12 14 8 17 9:39–41 242 11:25 18 12 238, 243 12:21 238 12:37 238 12:37–38 226, 238 13:21 17 13:23–26 17 13:34–35 18 14:2 19 14:6 18 15:3–6 327 15:18 18 16:1–2 18 16:13 18 17 5 17:20–23 5 17:21–23 18 18:15 17 18:15–18 17 18:25–27 17 19:25–27 17 19:26 17 19:37 137 20 17 20:2 17 20:3 17 20:3–10 17 21 18 21:2 16 21:7 17 21:15–17 15 21:15–19 15 21:20–24 17 21:20–25 17 Acts 1:13 16 2:17 136 2:17–21 256 2:25 136 2:34 136 4:13 15 4:23–31 5 5:31 326 5:34 39 7 147 7:48–50 136 9:26–30 10 10:9–14 39 10:13 41 10:15 41 10:28 39, 41 11:1–18 15

11:3 40, 41, 42 11:20 7 11:25–26 7 11:30 10 12:1 16 12:1–17 10 12:12 15 13 16 13:5 16 13:13 8 15:1 7 15:5 27, 40 15:6–12 15 15:13–21 11 15:20 12, 15 15:26 12 15:27 16 15:28–29 8 15:37 15 15:37–40 16 21:16–17 11 21:18–26 11, 12 21:25 12 23:12–26 10 23:16 12 23:32 10 24:23 12 28:11–31 10 28:32 10 Romans 1 280 1–8 121 1:1 139, 226 1:3–4 315 1:5 139, 150, 226 1:7 113, 127 1:14 44 1:15 144 1:18 308, 311, 313, 315 1:18–23 309 1:18–32 307, 308–11, 313 1:18-3:20 316 1:19–20 308, 309 1:21 309 1:21–23 308, 317 1:22–23 309 1:23 310, 311, 312 1:23–25 310 1:24 309, 313 1:24–25 309 1:25 309, 317 1:26 309 1:26–27 310 1:26–32 309, 310 1:27 196

349

350

Scripture Index

1:28 309, 317, 318 1:28–32 311 1:29–32 310 1:32 310, 312 2:1–3 310 2:5 44 2:6 125 2:8 310 2:11 126 2:12 120 2:12–16 291 2:12–29 118–21 2:13 110, 111, 118, 123, 124, 285, 291, 292 2:14 120 2:14–15 119, 292 2:15 119 2:15–16 120 2:16 120, 123 2:17–29 125 2:27 120, 125 2:28–29 233, 311 2:29 97 3:1 44 3:1–2 33, 141 3:1–8 131 3:4 311 3:7 311 3:9 311 3:9–20 311 3:11 125, 311 3:12 125 3:14 319 3:20 311 3:20–7:13 90 3:21–26 86, 311 3:21–5:21 311 3:23 125, 307, 315 3:25 85, 86, 124 3:27 285 3:27–31 234 3:28 13, 291 3:31 44 4 149, 280 4:1–22 90 4:3 124, 137 4:6–8 136 4:7 86 4:23–24 90 4:23–25 133 4:24 91 4:25 16, 90, 91, 278, 279 5 97, 104 5–7 86, 87, 90–92, 97–101, 104 5–8 94, 105, 114, 126 5–11 312 5:1 110, 111, 286, 311, 315

5:1–5 112 5:1–11 92, 311 5:2 315 5:2–5 311 5:3–5 114 5:5 114, 312 5:6–11 311 5:6-6:10 90, 94 5:8–10 91 5:8–11 90 5:9 91, 124, 127 5:10 91, 92, 94, 95, 151 5:12 92, 93, 95, 112 5:12–17 93 5:12–19 93, 95 5:12–21 92–94, 312 5:12–6:11 96 5:12–6:22 97 5:12–7:24 97 5:12–7:25 97 5:13–14 93 5:14 92, 95 5:14–21 98 5:15 92 5:15–17 93 5:15–19 97 5:15–20 87 5:16 92, 95, 97, 278 5:17 92, 95 5:18 93, 94, 97, 278, 279 5:18–19 93, 94, 95 5:18-6:11 91 5:19 93, 94 5:20 95 5:21 95 6 38, 104, 312–13. 314, 317 6–7 312 6–8 311, 312–15 6:1 94–95 6:1–3 312 6:1–10 94–96 6:1–11 94 6:1–23 317 6:1–7:4 97 6:2 44, 95, 96, 104 6:2–10 96 6:3–5 104 6:4 94, 95, 109, 312, 313 6:5 95, 96, 312, 313, 314 6:5–6 314 6:6 96, 98, 104, 315 6:8 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 199, 312, 313 6:9–10 313, 314 6:10 94, 95, 96, 104, 314, 319 6:11 95, 314 6:12–14 314

Scripture Index 6:13 315 6:13–14 316 6:16 315 6:17 313 6:17–19 313 6:18 315 6:19 313, 317, 318 6:20 315 6:30 315 7 104, 313 7–8 98 7:1–6 38 7:4 96, 104 7:4–6 96–97 7:5 98, 99, 313 7:6 96, 97 7:8 104 7:9 97 7:12 97 7:13–25 86 7:14 97, 99 7:14–25 89 7:15 90 7:15–16 90 7:17 314 7:18 98, 99 7:20 314 7:23 314 7:24 96, 109 7:24–25 99 7:25 98, 99 8 280, 313–15, 317 8:1 97, 98, 100, 121, 122, 123, 126 8:1–2 121 8:1–3 97, 100, 104, 124 8:1–4 96, 97, 99, 121–24 8:1–13 317 8:1–17 111 8:2 8, 96, 97, 121, 122, 123, 124 8:2–3 314 8:2–4 146 8:3 85–90, 96, 97–101, 104, 105, 122, 314 8:3–4 292 8:3–8 15 8:4 97, 124 8:4–11 314 8:5–8 317 8:5–11 314, 318 8:5–14 316 8:6 123 8:7 99, 151 8:8 98, 123 8:9 98, 314 8:9–11 99 8:9–12 314 8:10 109

351

8:11 94, 314, 315 8:12 111, 127, 315 8:12–13 314 8:12–26 111 8:13 99, 109, 123 8:14 248 8:14–18 315 8:17 109, 111, 118 8:18 109, 315 8:18–27 112 8:18–39 112, 114, 115, 116 8:19 109 8:21 109, 315 8:23 107, 109, 112, 307, 315 8:23–24 315 8:24–25 109, 114 8:28 112, 113, 118, 127 8:28–30 110, 307, 315 8:28–39 111–18, 121, 127 8:29 107, 108, 110, 307, 315 8:29–30 111, 113, 114 8:30 107–10, 110–11, 115, 116, 117, 118, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128 8:31 127 8:31–39 141 8:32 16 8:33 111, 113, 125, 127 8:33–34 114, 115, 123, 125 8:34 127 8:35 117 8:35–36 127 8:35–39 117 8:36 115, 117, 125, 127 8:37 117, 118 8:38 125 8:38–39 116, 118 8:39 113 9–11 129–30, 132, 134, 136–37, 138, 141, 143, 145, 146–49, 150, 152, 153, 154, 230, 231, 234, 316 9:1 131, 132, 135, 141 9:1–5 33, 131, 132, 142 9:3–5 132 9:4 44, 140, 317 9:4–5 141 9:5 140 9:5–6 129 9:6 129, 131, 132, 133, 140 9:6–7 140, 141 9:6–8 142 9:6–18 143 9:6–29 143 9:7 133, 134, 140 9:9 134 9:10 140 9:11 138, 140, 145, 316

352 9:11–12 127 9:12 134, 140 9:13 133, 134, 140, 152 9:14 133, 134, 135, 140 9:15 129, 134, 135, 136, 137 9:15–16 140 9:15–18 133 9:15–23 142 9:15–29 137 9:17 136, 137, 231 9:17–18 230 9:17–23 152 9:18 140 9:19 135 9:19–20 134 9:20 132, 135 9:20–29 143 9:21–23 135 9:23 140 9:24 143, 148 9:24–26 140 9:24–29 142, 143 9:24–32 133 9:25 136, 137, 140 9:26 136 9:27 133, 137, 140 9:27–28 136 9:29 133, 136, 137, 156 9:30 140, 143 9:30–33 142, 143 9:30-10:21 137 9:31 140, 152 9:31–33 143 9:32–33 140 9:33 129 10 233, 235 10:1 138, 140 10:1–3 132 10:1–4 142 10:1–11:12 144 10:1–11:14 138 10:2 144 10:2–3 138, 148 10:3 140 10:4 129, 138, 140 10:4–17 144 10:5 136, 137, 148 10:5–13 233, 234 10:5–17 142 10:6 136, 140, 233, 234 10:6–7 136 10:6–8 138 10:6–13 144, 231 10:7 136 10:8 136, 138, 144, 233, 234 10:8–10 140

Scripture Index 10:8–12 140, 144 10:9–10 140, 309 10:10 233 10:11 136, 137 10:12 233 10:12–14 140 10:13 140, 148 10:14 140 10:14–15 114 10:14–17 233 10:15 140, 144, 233 10:16 132, 136, 137, 234, 235, 240 10:16–17 140, 226, 240 10:16–18 234 10:18–19 138, 144 10:18–21 142 10:19 132, 136, 137, 140, 144, 243 10:20 136, 137 10:20–21 144 10:21 136, 137, 140 11–13 140 11:1 132, 135, 139, 144 11:1–2 132, 137, 138 11:1–5 133 11:1–6 142 11:1–14 139 11:2 140 11:2–3 136 11:2–6 139 11:3 144 11:4 136, 137 11:5 140 11:7 140, 148 11:7–8 231 11:7–10 152 11:7–12 142 11:8 231, 232, 234, 239 11:9 137 11:9–10 136, 139 11:11 132, 139, 140, 152 11:11–12 139 11:12 144, 152 11:13 139 11:13–14 139 11:13–24 137, 143 11:13–32 144 11:13–36 145 11:14 132, 145 11:15 152 11:15–24 139 11:16 133, 140, 145 11:16–24 139 11:17 139, 145 11:17–19 133 11:17–23 152 11:18 133, 139, 145

Scripture Index 11:19 135, 139, 145 11:20 139, 140, 145, 152 11:21 139, 145 11:21–24 145 11:22 134, 139, 145 11:23 140, 152 11:24 139 11:24–26 151, 165 11:25 140, 148, 152 11:25–26 153 11:25–36 140 11:26 129, 140, 145, 161, 234 11:26–27 141, 145, 148, 162 11:26–28 153 11:26–36 140 11:27 140 11:28 140, 151, 152, 156, 164, 165 11:28–32 133 11:29 132, 140, 145 11:30 140 11:30–31 140, 152 11:30–32 140 11:31–32 140 11:33 140 11:33–36 129, 140, 145 12 99 12–15 316–19, 328 12:1 146, 316, 317, 318 12:1–2 301, 307, 316, 318, 328 12:2 310, 316, 317, 318, 330 12:3 318 12:3–8 318 12:4–5 316 12:5 318 12:19 136 13 44, 317 13–15 118 13:1–4 182 13:1–7 16 13:8–10 15, 146, 150 14:1–12 15 14:8 328 14:14 331 15 233, 235, 244 15:6 318 15:7–8 318 15:10 231 15:12 136 15:14–21 8 15:15 150 15:16 226 15:18 225, 235, 238 15:18–19 226, 244 15:18–21 225 15:19 225, 226, 231, 232, 235, 239, 241 15:20 144, 234

353

15:20–21 226 15:21 232, 233, 234, 235 15:26 8 15:30–31 10 16:17–18 16 16:26–27 313 1 Corinthians 1:2 113, 193 1:9 191 1:10 209, 280 1:12 15 1:15 301 2:1–5 295 2:9–16 184 2:10–16 186 3:11 16 3:15 234 3:16 327 3:17 198 3:22 15 4:1–5 212 4:4 242 4:6 212, 244 4:8–13 224 4:16 209, 211, 222 4:16-14 214 5 181, 196 5–6 180, 181, 185, 187 5–7 179 5:1–3 15, 183 5:1–5 197 5:1–13 13, 181, 185 5:5 13 5:6–8 186 5:10 198 5:13 181, 182 6–8 6 6:13 195 6:1 182 6:1–6 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187 6:1–8 180 6:1–16 185 6:2 183 6:2–3 182 6:7 182, 198 6:10 198 6:12–20 13, 181 6:19 327, 328 7:8 331 7:37 309 8-6 263 9 191, 205 9:1–5 205 9:1–27 224

354 9:5 15 9:5–6 9 9:8–11 187 9:12 205 9:15 205 9:16 205 9:19–23 205 9:20 12 9:23 205 9:24–26 205 9:24–27 205 10:1–10 212 10:1–13 252, 259 10:2 248 10:6 186 10:20 212 10:25–26 212 10:26 212 10:30 212 10:31-11:1 206 11 6, 28 11:1 209, 212, 222 12:10 241 12:13 248 13:1–10 197 15 315 15:1–11 9 15:3–5 6, 8, 12, 15, 16, 18 15:5 14, 16 15:7 10 15:9–10 9 15:11 6, 7 15:20 187 15:25 151 15:35 306 15:35–49 313 15:45 307 15:46–49 307 15:49 307 2 Corinthians 1:1 193 1:3–7 201, 202, 206 1:4 201 1:5 201 1:7–9 127 1:8–11 206 1:14 200 1:23–24 206 2:1 206 2:1–4 202 2:1–5 205 2:2–4 203 2:3–4 206 2:4 199, 201 2:5–11 201

Scripture Index 2:11 198 2:12–17 206 2:13 202 2:14 335 2:14-3:3 261 3:1 16, 191 3:2–3 199 3:6–7 97 3:7–18 184 3:12 200 3:18 307, 318 4:2 191 4:4–6 307 4:6 205 4:7-5:13 206 4:9 205 4:12 206 4:13 205 4:14–21 205 4:15 206 5:2 205 5:5 205 5:7 205 5:8 205 5:12 191, 199, 200, 241 5:13 199, 205, 206 5:14–21 199 5:21 100 6 201, 204 6–7 203 6:2–10 203, 204 6:2–7:16 203, 204 6:3 183, 190, 201 6:3–10 190, 194, 201, 203 6:3–13 203 6:3–7:16 190, 196, 204, 207 6:4 190, 191, 193, 201 6:5 179–83, 180, 182, 183, 184–87, 191 6:6 182, 191 6:6–7 192 6:8–10 192, 193 6:11 110, 193–95, 196, 197, 199, 327 6:11–12 196, 197 6:11–13 190, 193, 196, 197, 199, 203, 204 6:12 195, 197, 201 6:13 195, 196, 197 6:14 196 6:14–7:1 196, 203, 204 6:15–16 196 6:16 327 6:16–18 197 7 204 7:1 197 7:2 197, 198, 200 7:2–4 197, 203, 204 7:2–16 203

Scripture Index 7:3 198, 199, 201 7:4 200, 201 7:5 202 7:5–13 203 7:5–16 201, 204 7:7 202 7:8–9 202 7:10–13 203 7:12 198 7:13–16 203 7:15 195 8:20 190 9:3 200 9:7 309 10:1 203 10:12 191 10:18 191 11:3 172, 198 11:5 9 11:7–11 206 11:13 16 11:13–15 9 11:16 189 11:18 200 11:19–21 189 11:21 206 11:21–28 200 11:21–29 206 11:22 16 11:23 189 11:23–28 189 11:28 206 11:29 189 11:30 200 12:1–10 200 12:11 9, 206 12:11–13:14 206 12:13–14 206 12:14 206 12:15 206 12:16 206 12:17–18 207 12:19 207 13:1–10 204 13:3–4 207 13:7 207 13:9 204, 207 13:10 207 Galatians 1:1–4 246 1:6–7 246, 249 1:10 22, 23, 28, 43 1:11–12 22, 23, 26, 38, 43 1:11–2:21 22 1:13 23, 36

355

1:13–14 35 1:13–16 27, 36 1:13–17 28 1:13–24 22 1:13-2:21 22 1:14–15 26 1:16 38 1:18 14 1:18–19 10 1:21 7 2:1 7, 22 2:1–10 7, 22, 24 2:3 23, 24 2:5 23, 24 2:6–9 32 2:7 14 2:7–8 14 2:7–9 23, 30 2:7–10 30 2:9 8, 17, 23 2:10 8 2:11 15, 22, 23, 28, 33, 42 2:11–13 35 2:11–14 15 2:11–21 21, 22, 39 2:12 22, 23, 24, 28, 29 2:12–13 8, 28–30, 31, 32 2:13 29 2:13–14 8 2:14 21, 22, 23, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 38 2:14–16 31 2:14–21 28, 30–45 2:15 26, 27, 33, 34, 37 2:15–16 21, 25, 33, 34 2:16 25, 26, 43 2:17 26, 27, 30, 37 2:17–18 31, 34 2:17–21 26, 31, 34 2:18 27, 28, 35, 37 2:18–21 26 2:19 21, 36, 37, 41, 42 2:19–20 42 2:19–21 31, 36 2:20 26, 28, 38, 43 2:21 44, 290 3 149 3:1 240, 243 3:1–5 225, 239, 240, 243, 244 3:1–6:10 22 3:2 240, 241, 244 3:3 38, 240 3:5 240, 241, 244 3:6–21 133 3:6–29 225 3:8 137 3:13 100

356 3:18 252 3:19 44 3:23–25 13 3:29 252 4 280 4:1 252 4:1–7 247 4:3–7 246 4:6 244 4:7 252 4:8 244 4:8–9 246 4:12 198 4:13 38 4:14 38 4:16 244 4:17 33 4:20 240 4:21–31 255 4:21–5:1 246 4:29 255 4:30 137, 252 5–6 247 5:1 246, 247 5:5 285, 286 5:6 256 5:7 246, 249 5:13 38, 246, 247, 248, 249, 252, 259 5:13–14 249, 258 5:13–6:10 246 5:14 259 5:15 248, 249, 252, 259 5:16 38, 258 5:16–18 246, 247-47 5:16–23 247, 260 5:16–24 258 5:17 38 5:18 247, 248, 258, 259 5:18–21 259 5:19 38 5:19–21 247, 248–53, 258, 259 5:21 247, 252, 253, 258 5:22 244, 256 5:22–23 247, 253–58, 331 5:23 258, 259 5:24 38, 259 5:26 249, 252, 259 6:1–10 649 6:2 8, 258 6:7–8 253 6:8 38 6:12 38 6:13 38 6:15 256

Scripture Index Ephesians 1:3–14 313 1:18 127 4:3–4 5 4:4 127 4:5–6 18 4:22 198 4:32 331 5:1 327 5:5 198 5:23–33 327 5:26 327 Philippians 1:13–18 13 1:15 16 1:15–18 9 1:20 327 2 270, 271 2:1 195 2:2 318 2:5–11 261, 263, 264, 265, 267, 268, 269, 272 2:6 269, 270 2:6–8 269 2:6–11 264 2:7 270, 271 2:8 94, 267, 271 2:9 266 2:9–11 265 2:10 266 2:10–11 266 2:11 266, 273 3:2 9 3:2–3 16 3:17 214 3:18 151 3:18–19 9 3:21 307, 315 Colossians 1:15 307 2:12 109 3:1 327 3:9–10 307 3:12 195 3:25 198 4:10 9, 15, 16 1 Thessalonians 1:1 16 2:14–15 10 4:6 198 5:2 81 5:14 331 5:23 327

Scripture Index 5:23–24 5:23–28

127 300

2 Thessalonians 1:7 202 1:9 79, 84 2:14 127 3:6–13 214 1 Timothy 1:9 285 4:4–5 331 5:18 137 2 Timothy 1:9 127 2:11 199 3:14-4:2 74 3:16 281 4:11 16 Titus 1:15

331

Philemon 7 195 12 195 18 198 24 9 Hebrews 1–2 263 1:6–8 136 2:12 136 3:7–11 136 10:5–8 136 10:10 327 11:1–6 212 11:4 285 11:32–34 212 11:39–40 212 12:1–2 19 James 1:1 13 1:5 285 1:18 285 2 285 2:14–26 12, 13 2:20 13 2:20–26 285 4:5 137 4:6 55 4:6–10 55 5:20 66

1 Peter 1:1–12 74 1:5 57 1:6–7 51 1:10–12 47, 48, 64, 74 1:12 52 1:13-2:25 74 1:15 327 1:16–21 72, 80 1:17 64 1:19 327 1:19–21 76 1:24–25 75 2:6 75 2:7 75 2:9 75 2:13–17 16 2:17 49, 58, 59 2:21–25 16, 75 3:1–2 62 3:1–6 62 3:1–7 74 3:2 64 3:3–4 62 3:4 62 3:5–6 62 3:6 60, 61, 62–63, 68 3:7 63, 64 3:8 331 3:8–22 74 3:10–12 75 3:18–19 16 4:1–6 74 4:3–5 52 4:5–6 67 4:7 67, 75 4:7–11 58, 67, 75 4:7–16 74 4:7–19 76 4:8 64, 65, 66–67, 67–68 4:9 67 4:10 67 4:11 67 4:12 51, 75 4:12–16 75 4:12–19 51, 53, 58 4:13 51, 53 4:14 51, 52, 53 4:16 51, 52 4:17 52, 53, 74, 75 4:17–18 52 4:17–19 75, 76 4:18 50, 51–53, 68, 75 4:18–19 52 4:18–29 74 4:19 53, 75

357

358 5:1 58 5:1–4 56, 57 5:1–7 56, 58 5:1–14 74 5:2 57 5:2–3 57 5:4 52, 57, 58, 327 5:5 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 62, 68 5:5–7 56 5:5–9 55 5:6 57, 58 5:6–7 57 5:7 57 5:8 56 5:10 52 5:13 16 2 Peter 1–2 76 1:1 73 1:1–2 72 1:3–8 83 1:3–11 72 1:3–15 73 1:4 72, 82 1:5–7 331 1:8 72 1:10 72 1:11 72 1:12–15 72 1:16–18 72, 73 1:16–21 84 1:19 73 1:19–20 73 1:19–21 73 1:20 71, 73 1:21 73, 74 2:1 73 2:1–3 73 2:4–9 73 2:8 75 2:10–14 73 2:12 198 2:15–17 73 2:18–22 73

Scripture Index 3:1 74 3:1–2 76 3:1–7 78 3:1–10 75, 76 3:1–13 79, 82 3:2 75, 76 3:3–4 76 3:5 77, 80 3:5–7 77 3:6 77 3:7 77–79 3:8 80 3:8–10 80 3:9 80, 81 3:10 77, 81, 82 3:10–13 84 3:11–12 81 3:11–13 81 3:11–18 75 3:12 82, 83 3:14 82 3:14–18 81–82, 84 3:15 16, 74, 82 3:15–16 82, 149 3:16 83 3:17 83 3:18 83 1 John 2:15 331 3:1 327 4:1 18 2 John 1 17 3 John 1 17 Revelation 2–3 81 3:3 81 4:1 39 16:15 81 19:2 198

Index Aaron – expiation for sins 102, 103 – Moses and 228, 249 – as a role model 213 – sin-offering of a goat 87–88 – uprising against 250 Abraham 90–91, 133, 212–13, 217, 255, 280 Adam – Adam-Christ antithesis 92–94, 307 – Adamic death of Christ 94–96, 100, 104 – domination of sin in age of Adam 98–99 – humanity in solidarity with 312 – meditation on heavenly glory 336 – sin of 97, 105 Ådna, Jostein 11 Agrippa I, King 10, 15, 16 Ahijah the Shilonite 215 Allison, Dale 169–70 Amon, King 215 antinomianism 13, 290 Antiochus Epiphanes 223 asceticism – defining 323 – evangelical asceticism 322, 325–31, 331–33, 333–37 – as a self-willed religion 321, 322 – as a universal expectation 324 assurance, doctrine of 126–27 Augustine of Hippo 237, 325, 331–32 Austin, J. L. 287–88, 294 Barclay, John 37n46, 42n68 – Antioch dispute 24n4, 25nn11-12 – believers as sinners 35n36 – fruit imagery of Paul 253 – gift-giving practices 282–83 – remnant, Paul standing with 138n42 Barnabas – fellowship with gentiles, withdrawing from 14 – John Mark, alliance with 8–9 – as led astray 29 – mission to the gentiles 7–8, 10, 15, 17, 24 Barnett, Paul 190, 193, 203 Bauckham, Richard 83, 275 – Christology of divine identity, reconstructing 263–64

– Christopher Seitz, critique of 267–68, 273, 274 – cruciform suffering and identity of God 265–66, 273, 274 – false teachers and the abandonment of hope 82 – fiery end for the wicked 78–79 – forbearance of God 80–81 – new history of religions school, influence on 262 – Peter and the Transfiguration 72–73 Bavinck, Herman 321–22, 331, 333 Bayes’s theorem 171, 178 Beale, G. K. 116, 165n85 Beker, J. Christiaan 281 Benedict XVI, Pope 5 Benjamin, Testament of 221–22 Berges, Ulrich 155, 158 Berkley, Timothy 172–74, 175, 177–78 Betz, Hans Dieter 241 Bigg, Charles 74, 76n19, 79, 82 Bird, Michael 30n25, 116 Blenkinsopp, Joseph 154n25, 158 Book of Wisdom 215–16 Boring, Eugene 59 Boulton, Matthew Myer 324 Bourdieu, Pierre 301 Breytenbach, Cilliers 86 Brooke, George 145n68, 146, 147n77, 150n91 Brown, Peter 324 Brueggemann, Walter 165 Bucer, Martin 292–94 Bultmann, Rudolf 5, 297–99, 302, 303–4, 307, 319 Byrne, Brendan 107–8, 133n23 Calvin, John – ascetic practice, reorienting 322, 324, 325 – commands vs. councils 331–32 – desire for Christ 335 – double justification, embrace of 294 – justification by works 291–92n24 – repentance 326, 327 – self-denial 328, 329, 331, 334 – suffering in the present 329–30 – valuation of this world 333, 336

360

Index

Campbell, Constantine 280 Caneday, Ardel 118, 119–20 Childs, Brevard 163 circumcision – baptism of uncircumcised Cornelius 10, 15 – circumcision group of Antioch 23, 29–30 – counter-missionaries and 9 – Galatians’ return to, as puzzling Paul 243 – gentile converts, unnecessary for 24 – heart /spirit circumcision 120, 125, 230, 232, 234 – Paul and Barnabas, mission to the uncircumcised 7–8, 15 – Peter and John, mission to the circumcised (Jews) 17 Clarke, Andrew 305 Clement of Alexandria 55–56 Clements, R. E. 163 Cohen, Shaye 29 Cornelius of Caesarea 10, 15, 39 Cross, Frank Moore 256 Cyril of Alexandria 264, 269–72, 272–75 Damascus Document, Cairo Genizah copy (CD) 147–48 David – as an oracle of the past 139 – commands of God, following 215 – fallen booth of David 11 – as merciful 217 – Moses, referencing in relation to the Law 213 – as a textual witness 137, 149, 150 – as worthy of imitation 214, 220–21, 224 – Yahweh, fighting for David against the Philistines 163 Day of Atonement 89, 101–2, 104 de Boer, Martinus 36n40, 36n42, 38, 43, 302n45 Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) 142, 145n68 – horticultural imagery employed by Dead Sea community 256–57 – Proverbs verses not cited in 51, 55, 61, 66 – Qumran 48, 80, 146, 147, 257–58 Descartes, Rene 297, 305 Divine Warrior motif 153, 163 – catharsis and purification of war 152, 155, 156, 159, 160, 161 – Edom as battle place of Yahweh 158 – intervention of God 154, 156, 157 – paradox of Divine Warrior theology 164 – remnant and 165 Dodd, C. H. 129, 132n14

Duhm, Bernhard 159 Dunn, James D. G. 27n17, 86, 98n69 – exodus story in phraseology of Paul 227 – inadvertent sins, mistaken assumptions concerning 89n28 – justification and the whole process of salvation 110–11 – new history of religion school, as part of 262 – on the reorientation of Paul 43 Ebionites 14 Edom 157–58 Eleazar 222, 223 election 121, 231 – in classical rhetoric examples 137, 140, 142 – of gentiles, predicted 143 – God and the elect 113, 230–31 – intercession of Jesus at final judgment 13 – Isaac, election depicted in story of 133 – of Israel 158n48 – Paul as an example of the elect 138 – prosecution against the elect 114, 116, 125 – through time, Paul tracing 145 Elijah 116n42, 138–39, 144, 217 embedded cognition 305 Engberg-Pedersen, Troels 301, 303–4, 306n57, 314n80 enmity – active vs. passive 151 – Edom as an enemy of Yahweh 157–58 – Israel as both enemy and beloved of God 152–53, 155 – wicked Israelites as enemies of Yahweh 154, 155, 156, 160 – Yahweh, going out to battle enemies 159 Enoch 214, 217 Esau 133, 143, 158 Eubulides of Miletus 113 Eusebius of Caesarea 17 Evans, Craig 161n64, 242 exorcisms 241–43 Exum, J. Cheryl 164 Ezekiel 217, 244 false teaching – destruction of false teachers 198 – false teachers as scoffers 76–77 – Johannine circle, warding off 18 – lives of holiness, in contrast to 83 – Peter, denunciation of false teachers 73–74, 75, 79, 84 – repentance for followers of 81

72,

Index – triumph of righteousness, non-belief in 82 Fesko, J. V. 113–14 fiery ordeal of Christian believers 51, 52–53, 62, 67 Finlan, Stephen 100–101 Fitzmyer, Joseph 94, 140n46 Flood, Gavin 339 focalization 135, 149 food laws (kashrut), 31–32 Fraade, Steven 323 Fredriksen, Paula 24 Frost, Robert 278 Garland, David 192, 194 Garrett, Duane 66 Gathercole, Simon 118, 119–20, 124, 262n5 Gaventa, Beverly 117 Gavrilyuk, Paul 264, 272, 273 Genette, Gérard 146, 147, 148–49 Ginsberg, H. L. 236 glorification – aorist tense of the verb “glorified,” 107–8 110, 127, 317n91 – assurance of 126, 127 – conversion linked to final glorification 111 – in the future 107–10 – as a gift of grace 58 – in the golden chain of salvation 107, 112 – humility leading to 57 – suffering as preceding 118 – testing from God in preparation of 51–52 goats as sin-offerings 87–88, 89, 102–4, 104–5 God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Bauckham) 262, 267 golden chain of salvation 107, 110, 112, 113, 114, 128 grace – asceticism and 322 – Calvin, addressing 325, 326 – Christians, living in a state of 336 – the humble, grace given to 54, 55, 57, 58 – justification by grace 293 – letters of Paul, featuring 280, 282–83 – sin increase leading to abundance of grace 95 – suffering, grace counterbalancing 192–93 Gregory the Great, Pope 332 Gundry, Robert 299–300, 302, 303, 304, 308n60

361

habitus concept 301 Hafemann, Scott 111, 231n14, 241n40 – exodus theology of Paul 239 – gentile Christians as the Law 119–21 – Israel, on the hardened nature of 231n16, 241n39 – letters of Paul, quest for primary influence on 211 – mankind as the image of God 307 – Moses as made sufficient by God 227n9 – scholarship of 225, 261, 273n43 – virtues of Paul due to presence of Holy Spirit 192 halakha (pattern of life) – conversion from Pharisaic to Messianic halakha 27, 36, 38, 41, 43, 44, 45 – defining 25 – halakhic situation of Jewish Messiah believers 31 – halakhic views in Jewish Diaspora 29 – Messianic halakha 26, 34, 42 – Peter, equivocating on 22, 28 – Pharisaic halakha 27, 35, 36 – violation of, as relative 37 Harding, Sarah 302, 303–4 Harmon, Matthew 240 Harnack, Adolf von 179 Harrill, James Albert 28 Hasel, Gerhard 162, 165 Haugeland, John 305 Hays, Richard – allusive echo, defining 225 – Berkley criteria, comparing to 173–74 – conversion of the imagination thesis 186–87 – criteria for identifying intentional allusions 170–72, 178 – critiques of criteria choices 175–76, 177 – Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 168 – intertextual echo, coining phrase 153 – Paul as a narrative and exegetical theologian 281 – Sarah and redeemed Jerusalem, on the link between 255 – Scott Hafemann, work compared to 261n2 Heilig, Christoph 171–72, 178 Helyer, Larry 37 Hengel, Martin 5, 23n3 – Epistle of James as anti-Pauline polemic 12–13 – John the Presbyter as possible author of John 17 – Paul’s travel to Jerusalem 10

362

Index

– Peter, warning against underestimating 14 – Pharisees, influence on the Jewish masses 40 Hibbard, J. Todd 161 Hofius, Otfried 91 Hollander, John 168 Holy Spirit – Calvin, on union with Christ by Spirit 326 – Christian obedience, inspiring 122, 124, 125 – as a dominating power 302 – fiery ordeal, Christians enduring due to gift of the Spirit 52 – future claim on believers 315 – grace of God bringing Spirit into life of Paul 191–92 – heart and mind of embodied persons, renewing 316, 318 – humans, Spirit dedicating as temples to God 327 – lead of the Spirit, Paul calling for 246, 247, 253, 259, 260 – new eschatological age, ruling 314 – self-denial and 328 – sinners, transforming 121, 123 – Spirit-induced scripture, Peter’s emphasis on 73, 74 – suffering of believers, Spirit groaning with 112 Hurtado, Larry 262 hypertextuality 146–49 Ignatius of Antioch 55 imitation language – in intertestamental literature 215–23 – Jewish influences 211–12, 218, 223 – Paul, reasons for employing 209–10, 224 Institutes of the Christian Religion (Calvin) 322, 325–30, 333 intertextual analysis – allusions – concept as variegated 172 – criteria for identifying 170–71, 172–74 – as intended by author 168, 169 – synthesis of criteria 175 – weighted criteria 178–79 – echoes – allusive echo 225 – Book of Proverbs, echoes in 1 Peter 58–68 – defining 169 – description as ambiguous 170 – examples 49, 52, 57, 104, 228, 240, 251, 310

– metalepsis concept, applying to Pauline texts 168 – recurrence, not useful in identifying a singular echo 171 – Richard Hays, phrase coined by 153 – gezerah-shavah hermeneutical technique 173, 174, 175, 177, 178, 182–83, 187 – real and implied readers of Pauline texts 176–77 – test case in 1 Corinthians 179–83, 184–87 Isaac 133, 213, 222 Jacob 133, 155, 158, 213, 255 James 279n7, 292n24 – apostolic decree 8, 11, 12 – as the brother of Jesus 6, 10, 12, 13, 16–17 – circumcision group, associated with 23, 29, 30, 31 – on faith and belief 18, 329 – on justification 285 – as leader of Jewish Christianity 10, 14 – as a pillar apostle 7, 24 James, son of Zebedee 10, 16 Jehoshaphat 221, 224 Jeremiah 76, 183, 244 Jeroboam 215 Jewett, Robert 108n7, 303 – anthropological language of Paul 299, 302 – flesh and body, overlap between 99 – righteousness and believers 93n49 – suffering of believers 117–18 – unity of the many in the one 92 – wrath and the last judgment 91n37 Jobes, Karen 240, 241n41 John, son of Zebedee 7, 10, 16–17, 24 John Mark 9, 15, 16 John the Baptist 79, 80 Joseph, brother of Benjamin 221, 224 Josephus, Flavius 60 – death of James by stoning 13 – imitation of godly men, encouraging 220–21, 224 – Korah, on the jealousy of 250 – Pharisees, reporting on 23n3, 40, 42n66 – Proverbs verses not cited in 51, 55, 61, 66 Josiah 214 judgment – final judgment – attacks on believers during 115–16, 121 – heavenly court, final session held on Judgment Day 125

Index – intercession of Christ preventing ruin at 13 – justification on Day of Judgment 128 – Law-obedient gentiles and 120 – mutual boasting of Paul and Corinthians on Judgment Day 200 – no condemnation at 123 – Peter, on the Day of the Lord 74, 75–84 – restorative love and readiness for judgment 67, 68 – self-accusing thoughts on Judgment Day 119 – temporal judgment, vs., 53 – vindication of God during 117 – impartiality of God’s judgment 64 – of Israel 154, 156, 161, 162, 165 – as on-going 52–53 – rebels of Corinth, Paul pronouncing judgment on 204, 206 – of sinners under the law 120, 291 – suddenness of God’s judgment 84, 164 – on works vs. faith 293 – of Yahweh 155, 157, 158 justification – assurance and 126–27 – being-in-the-right with God 277-28, 279, 283, 284–85, 286–87, 290 – challenges posed by the concept 291–92 – Christ as risen for justification of believers 90–91 – double justification 292–94 – by faith 2, 7, 14, 33, 124, 292, 293 – final justification 121, 122, 124, 125, 127, 291 – fixed view of justification, Paul not necessarily having 279–80, 286 – in the future 110–11, 116, 118, 124, 290 – in golden chain of salvation 107, 114 – on Judgment Day 128 – no condemnation for the justified 123 – ordinary language, employing as substitution for term 287–90 – Paul and Peter, sharing theology of 25, 34, 35 – in the present time 108, 289–90 – sanctification and 121, 326, 328, 329 – transformation of the justified into pneumatic bodies 301 Justin Martyr 14 Käsemann, Ernst 131n11, 143n56, 303 – on Christian disunity 6 – glorification not anticipatory 107–8 – justification and salvation history as main topic of Romans 9–11 149n88

363

– Rudolf Bultmann, disagreeing with 298–99 – Sarah Harding, as an influence on 302, 304 – spiritual worship, Paul calling for 316–17n87 Kazen, Thomas 41 Keener, Craig 41n60, 242 Kelly, J. N. D. 59, 76, 77n21 kenosis 269–71, 275 Kim, Johann 130, 131nn11-12, 132, 133n21, 140 King, Martin Luther, Jr. 245–46, 259–60 Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi 102, 130n92 Korah 249–50 Kruse, Colin 151n5, 152 Kuck, D. W. 211–12 Kuyperianism 333, 336 Lambrecht, Jan 25n11, 26n13, 34n35, 35, 44n76 Letter of Aristeas 218–19, 224 Longenecker, Richard 130, 131, 145n66, 148n81 Lowe, Chuck 121–22, 123–24 Luke 11, 39–40, 41–42 Luther, Martin 81, 264 Maccabees 88, 217, 222–23, 224 Manasseh, King 215 Martin, Ralph 73, 74–75 Martyn, Louis 30n24, 244, 255n40, 258 Masoretic text vs. Septuagint text 50–51 Maximus the Confessor 329 McDonough, Sean 180–81 McFadden, Kevin 122 McGuckin, John 269, 272 McLean, B. H. 87, 100 Milgrom, Jacob 101n88, 102, 103 Moo, Douglas 90, 149n90 – destruction of earth by fire 77 – glorification of believers 107 – God, assurance of secure relationship with 126 – holy living, exhorted in Pauline letters 83 – pagan ideas as valid inspiration 79 – Paul and defense of the Gospel 131n12 – Paul’s metaphor of death 38 – sin offering 85 Moses 141, 144, 146, 238 – as an oracle of the past 139 – challenge to authority of 249–50 – competency differences in Moses vs. Israelites 185 – Divine Law, associated with 213

364

Index

– election in the story of Moses and Pharaoh 133 – foolish gentiles, describing 243 – as godly and honored 217 – heart to know and eyes to see, on Israel being given 231n16 – humility, as a model of 56 – intimacy with God, commended for 215 – Jesus, as dissimilar from 73 – legal disputes brought before 180, 182 – Mosaic Law 8, 23n3, 38, 213, 289, 291 – pious wishing of 183, 184 – in probatio example 142 – righteousness talk, forbidding 233 – sense of insufficiency, expressing 227 – signs and wonders, associated with 228, 229–30 – as a suffering mediator 226 – as a textual witness 137, 138, 149, 150 – as worthy of imitation 219, 220, 224 Motyer, Alec 237 Nero, Emperor 10 Nestorius and Nestorian Christology 269–72, 274 Newsom, Carol 141–42 Nineveh 81, 83 Noah 161, 217, 224 ordinary language approach in theology 287–90 Ortlund, Dane 108–9, 110n17, 113, 124, 125 Painter, John 242 Papias of Hierapolis 17 parallelomania 60, 169 Paul – Antioch incident, telling as a unified story 21, 28 – on the body 298–302, 312–13 – resurrection /redeemed bodies 306–7, 315 – celibacy, encouraging 331 – on the circumcision group 29 – classical rhetoric, employing 131–41 – Concern for Corinthians and Galatians – communal infighting among the Galatians, addressing 248–53, 258 – love for Corinthians 189–90, 191–96, 198–204, 205–7 – repentance of the Corinthians, calling for 197, 201, 204, 207 – rhetorical strategy for Galatian churches 246–47 – credibility, establishing 149 – Divine Law and 37, 120

– divine transformation of individuals and community 316–19 – doctrine of assurance 126, 127 – Ebionites’ dislike of Paul 14 – on the elect 113 – exodus narrative, evoking 225–26, 226–27, 230–32, 235, 239, 241–42, 244 – faith and belief – on the common faith 6 – no condemnation for believers 122, 123 – fellowship in faith, preserving 18 – vindication of believers 117, 121 – halakhic conversion 27, 36, 38, 41, 43, 45 – imprisonment 10, 12, 13 – intertextual analysis in Pauline texts 167, 170, 173, 175–78, 179–87 – James, last meeting with 11 – on judgment, suddenness tied to world’s fiery end 84 – justification – concept of, not discussing categorically 283 – by deeds 293 – independent topic, not formally addressing as 279, 286–87 – justification theology 25, 34, 35, 280–82 – knowable assertions 278 – multi-dimensional treatment of 110, 124 – sanctification concept and 284 – semi-technical dimension to employment of justification language 289 – language use – anthropological language 297, 299, 300, 302, 304, 319 – imitation language 209–11, 211–12, 215, 218, 223–24 – obduracy language 238, 240, 243, 244 – lead of the Spirit, calling for 246, 247, 253, 259, 260 – Messianic way, favoring over Pharisaic way 23–24 – mission – Barnabas and mission to the uncircumcised 7–8, 15 – counter-missionaries, reacting against 9 – Peter and – hypocrisy, accusing Peter of 22, 25, 26, 30 – parallelism of Christology with Peter 16

Index – Pauline letters, author of 2 Peter referencing 74, 82–83 – rebuke of Peter 30–31, 45 – sarcasm, addressing Peter through 32–33, 34 – as the present oracle of God 139 – sin – on condemnation of God for sin in the flesh 292 – of the Jewish people 144 – as a power 86–87, 311 – sin without the law and sin under the law 291 – sin-offering, referencing 89–90, 104, 313–14 – suffering theme in Romans 111–12, 114, 118 – topics in theology – atonement 90–97, 97–101 – glorification 107, 108–9 – grace 282–83 – righteousness 233, 277, 285, 286 – tree imagery, employing 142, 143, 145 150 – on the wrath of God against the unrighteous 13, 308–10 Peels, H. G. L. 156 perichoresis, 267 273 Peter – Antioch incident, admonishment for 21, 23, 28. 31–33, 45 – circumcision as unnecessary for converts 24 – death by crucifixion 10 – false teachers, denunciation of 72, 73–74, 75, 79, 84 – fear of circumcision group 28, 29, 31 – fellowship in faith, preserving 18 – gentile wives, addressing 62–63, 63–64 – halakhic transformation 42 – hypocrisy accusations 22, 25, 26, 30 – Jesus, appearing to 6 – John Mark as assistant 15, 16 – on judgment and the Day of the Lord 75–84 – justification theology, sharing with Paul 25, 34, 35 – love as covering a multitude of sins 64, 65, 66, 67–68 – mission to the circumcised Jews 8, 14, 17 – parallelism of Christology with Paul 16 – Paul, making peace with 9 – Pharisaic influence 27–28, 36, 41 – as a pillar apostle 7 – vision of 39 – Whole Bible emphasis 71, 74, 75, 84

365

Pharisees – counter-mission of baptized Pharisees 9 – in Damascus Document 147, 148 – Josephus, reporting on 23n3, 40, 42n66 – opposition of converted Pharisees 8, 11 – Paul as a zealous Pharisee 36n42, 38 – Pharisaic halakha 27, 36, 42, 43, 44 – Pharisaic Judaism, influence on Peter 28 – Pharisaic way vs. Messianic way 23–24 – table fellowship with gentiles 29, 33, 39, 41 Philo Judeaus 60, 243n52 – imitation language, use of 210, 219, 224 – on the intoxication of the Israelites 252 – Paul, as chief influence on 300 – Proverbs verses not cited in 51, 55, 61, 66 – on sin-offerings 88 Piper, John 126, 127 Plutarch of Chaeronea 279, 282 Porter, Stanley 170–71 predestination 93n49, 107, 110, 112, 149n88 Quintilian, Marcus Fabius 132n19, 133, 135n35 Qumran 48, 80, 146, 147, 257–58. See also Dead Sea Scrolls Ramsay, William 34 Reformed tradition 123 – ascetical theology and 321, 322, 325, 327 – bliss of God, failing to honor 334 – no condemnation for those in Christ 122 – double justification and 293n27, 294n30 – final justification, objection to Wright’s statement on 124 – holistic eschatology of 333 – on the ordo salutis as union with Christ 113n24 – Sabbath focus 332 Reicke, Bo 78–79, 80 remnant motif – bipolarity of remnant notion 165 – Elijah and Paul, waning remnant experiences of 139 – Paul as part of the remnant of Israel 138 – in probatio example 133, 142 – purification of Zion through remnant creation 156–57, 161 – remnant rhetoric 130 – two types of remnant 162 repentance 197, 201, 204, 207, 326–28 rhetoric 131–41, 245–46, 246–47, 260 righteousness 233, 277, 285, 286, 290, 294 Robinson, J. A. T. 298–99, 302, 303, 304

366 Robinson, Marilynne 333 Rogers, Eugene 334 Rosner, Brian 242 Sabbath-keeping 14, 332–33, 336 Sadducees 10, 23n3, 40 Samuel 212, 213, 215, 217 sanctification 317, 336 – Calvin and 329 – justification and 121 – Pauline concept of justification, attempting to square with 284 – self-denial and 326, 328, 334 – symbol of sanctification in the Sabbath 332 Sanders, E. P. 40n56 – Diaspora Jews and Pharisaic purity laws 27n17 – halakha of the Pharisees 39 – hyperbolic language of Paul 33n31 – Martin Hengel and 40n58 – Pharisees, going beyond the Law 36 – Pharisees and avoidance of impurity 41n59 Sandmel, Samuel 169 Sarah 60, 62, 213, 255 Schrage, Wolfgang 6 Schreiner, Thomas – aorist tense in golden chain of salvation 107 – assurance as theme of Romans 8 126 – final justification, chastising Wright’s statement on 125 – God as the one who justifies 114 – God’s glory in Christ as center of Paul’s theology 280 – on the salvation of Jews 152n12 – self-accusatory thoughts at final judgment 119 – transformed life of the guiltless 122 Schutter, William 47–48, 69, 74 Scott, James 247 Seely, David Rolph 236 Seifrid, Mark 195 Seitz, Christopher 264, 267–69, 273–74 Selby, Gary 245 self-denial 325–31, 331–32, 333, 334 Selwyn, Edward 59 Seneca, Lucius Annaeus 279, 282 Septuagint vs. Masoretic text 50–51 Silvanus (Silas) 16 Simon II 216 sin 313, 319 – in Adam-Christ antithesis 92–94 – Christ’s death to sin 94–96

Index – as a dominating power 302 – domination of sin in age of Adam 98–99 – of gentiles without the Law 291–92 – glory, falling short of due to sin 307 – Golden Calf incident 251, 252, 310n68 – of Israel 154, 160, 162 – justification and 279 – love covering a multitude of sins 64, 65, 66, 67–68 – power of sin destroyed through death of Christ 312, 314 – as a problem of the mind 301 – restoration of humanity corrupted by sin 316 – ruinous effects of 311 – sin offering 85, 86–90, 96, 97, 100, 101–4, 104–5, 313 – in Sodom and in Gomorrah 156 – theological views of 303–4 – See also sin under Paul Sira, Yeshua Ben 216, 217 Sirach 137n39, 216–17, 224, 250 Solomon 213, 216 sorites, 113–14 Stanley, Christopher 170–71, 177, 185 Steck, O. H. 156 Suetonius, Gaius (Tranquillus) 63 suffering – apostolic suffering of Paul 189–90, 190–93, 195, 196, 199–205, 205–6 – Calvin on suffering 329–30 – of the church 75 – divine suffering 263, 266, 271–72, 273–74 – fiery ordeal of Christian believers 51–52 – holy living, suffering as part of 74 – indwelling of Spirit in the midst of 126 – misinterpretation as sign of God’s disfavor 112, 121 – Romans, theme of suffering in 111–12, 113 – solidarity with Christ and 118 – suffering servant 115, 210, 237 Swarup, Paul 257 Tacitus, Publius Cornelius 63 Tanner, Kathryn 272 the Targum 236, 238 Thielman, Frank 280, 281 Titus, Apostle 7, 202–3 Tomson, Peter 25 transmodalization 148–49 trichotomistic view of the human being 300–302, 303 Tuckett, Christopher 259

367

Index van Kooten, George 300–301, 302n43, 303, 304 vorlage 147 148, 176 Wagner, J. Ross 153, 161, 165, 231, 233, 234 Walker, William 108, 111 Wallace, Daniel 107 Watson, Francis 281 Westermann, Claus 155, 158 Whittle, Sarah 308, 317n91 Whole Bible Theology 71, 74, 75, 80, 84, 261n2 Whybray, R. N. 155 Wilckens, Ulrich 13n25, 100 Wilder, William 247–48 Williamson, H. G. M. 161, 162n70 Witherington, Ben 130–31, 132, 211, 251 Wright, N. T. 119, 141n51, 233n19

– assurance, connecting to justification 126, 127 – atonement for inadvertent sins 89–90, 101 – condemnation and the transference of sin 100 – final justification as basis of Christian life 124–25 – future condemnation for believers, no threat of 123 – gentile Christians, self-accusing thoughts of 120 – Paul, multiple influences on 211 – Romans, thematic ties in 118 – scholarly objections to narrative of Israel’s exile 281 Zetterholm, Karin Herdner 44n74

26–27, 37,