The Gospel As the Revelation of God's Righteousness: Paul's Use of Isaiah in Romans 1:1-3:26 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament) ... Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161548123, 9783161549410, 3161548124

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)

428

Robert C. Olson

The Gospel as the Revelation of God’s Righteousness Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 1:1–3:26

Mohr Siebeck

Robert C. Olson, born 1964; 1988 BA Maranatha Baptist University; 1993 MDiv Bob Jones University; 1999 ThM Trinity International University; 2016 PhD University of Nottingham.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-154941-0 ISBN 978-3-16-154812-3 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2016 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

In love and devotion to the Servant-King, my Savior, through whose sacrifice I am made fit to offer back my life in worship, and of which this book is a part

Preface This book, in some respects, is “born out of due time.” It is the result of a thesis written as a doctoral dissertation at the University of Nottingham under the supervision of Prof. Richard H. Bell. After my first year in residence at the University, circumstances forced me to return home to the United States where I suspended my studies for an extended period of time. I was eventually able to resume my research part-time, though even subsequent to that point there were several necessary periods of additional suspension. In light of these facts, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to the University, particularly the staff in both the Humanities Department and the Student Administration, for its continued patience with my changing circumstances and its support of the continuation of my research through its completion. I would also like to humbly thank Prof. Jӧrg Frey and Mohr Siebeck for accepting this work for publication in the WUNT II series, as well as the kind and helpful editorial staff for their patient assistance with the reformatting process. Throughout this endeavor I have been supported in a multitude of ways by many very fine and gracious people, all of whom cannot possibly be mentioned in this short space. There are some, however, whose help warrants explicit mention. Two very good friends, Dave and Lora Gilbert, have consistently and generously given their support to enable me to finish my course of study, and have helped care for my family during my trips to England, to whom I give my heartfelt thanks. My oldest brother, Ralph Olson, generously assisted me with the provision of airfare to and from England, without which I could not have continued my study and for which I am extremely grateful. In these subsequent trips to the University of Nottingham I was consistently shown the love of Christian hospitality by various members of Cornerstone Church in Nottingham. In several of my earliest trips I enjoyed the hospitality and fellowship of Jack and Elisabeth Simpson, as well as Len Miller, to whom I would like to offer many thanks. David and Jenny Artingstall have been a particular blessing; they welcomed me several times with very little notice, shared many lovely meals, and always made me feel like family. I truly miss their fellowship. Lastly in this regard, but by no means least in gracious patronage, are Peter and Valerie Lewis. During my initial year of residence at the University with

VIII

Preface

my wife (also named Valerie) and first child (Gabriel), Cornerstone Church – of which Peter Lewis was the pastor – was in many ways our “home away from home.” Peter was not only one of the best expositors of scripture I had ever heard, but he and Valerie lived out the grace of the gospel through their love and hospitality to my family. During my trips back to England they not only helped find places for me to stay, but also on several occasions graciously hosted me themselves, with Valerie going out of her way in preparing delicious meals and making me feel at home. In both my initial year of residency as well as throughout my part-time research at the University, I was greatly helped by the kind and patient assistance of my supervisor Richard Bell. Prof. Bell not only opened my eyes to various crucial dimensions of NT research, but also on several occasions extended hospitality to me, and allowed me to enjoy family time with him and his two fine sons, Jack and Cameron. Midway through my research I had the privilege of being introduced to Prof. Roland Deines, who administered several of my annual reviews at the University. Prof. Deines has had an immense influence upon me both academically and personally. Academically, his incisive and insightful candor as expressed in his rigorous and disciplined criticism has greatly molded and sharpened my understanding and employment of legitimate and effective critical/theological methodology. Personally, he sacrificially supplied, on several occasions, the various commentaries and monographs vital for the completion of my project. His encouragement in word and deed helped sustain my progress at a very crucial time, without which “the strength of the burden bearer” may well have faltered. I would also like to thank Prof. Steve Moyise who served as my external assessor during my thesis defense. Prof. Moyise provided very valuable feedback which helped bring this work into closer and more beneficial dialogue with some of the major views on Paul’s use of scripture. On a more personal level, immense and heartfelt gratitude demands that mention be made of my mother, whose love and support has been a constant source of encouragement in every way, from her steady stream of cards and letters that have always prodded me on to complete my thesis, to her financial support, to her love that I have always known. But finally, in my immediate family, my deepest debt of love extends to my eight children: Gabriel, Nathaniel, Samuel, Nadia, Felicity, Daniel, Azarel, and Ezekiel – individually and collectively a fountain of heavenly joy, the oasis on my earthly pilgrimage. Regarding the one I mention last, words fall short. My wife, Valerie, alone, has entered most fully into the hardships and joys of this journey. She has borne more than any other, and in many ways, the various difficulties and burdens of this task, and has provided more than any other the constant encouragement, selfless love, and unending support without which this work

Preface

IX

simply could not have been completed. It is her victory equally as well as my own. She is my love, the joy of my life, my piece of heaven on earth. Or for you academics – (humanly speaking) my purest piece of realized eschatology. October, 2016 Watertown, Wisconsin

Robert C. Olson

Table of Contents List of Abbreviations ................................................................................ XVI

Chapter One: Introduction ..................................................................... 1 I. Statement of Theme .................................................................................... 2 II. Preliminary Considerations ...................................................................... 6 1. Overview of Research on Paul’s Use of Scripture ................................. 6 2. Recent Research on Paul’s Use of Isaiah ............................................. 10 3. Justification and Scope of Study ......................................................... 14 4. Methodology of the Present Study....................................................... 16 5. Historical Plausibility – The Inner-Canonical Status of Isaiah and Its Use as a Literary and Theological Unity.................................. 22 6. Historical Plausibility – Paul’s Renewed Hermeneutic: The Convergence Upon Isaiah as the Source of Paul’s Gospel in Romans ................................................................ 27 7. Paul’s Recent Interpreters and the Challenge to an Isaianic Background ........................................................................... 41 (1) Christopher D. Stanley: Arguing with Scripture ............................ 41 (2) Richard B. Hays: The Conversion of the Imagination .................... 48 (3) Frances Watson: Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith .................... 49 (4) A Note on the New Perspective (Via Watson) ............................... 57 (5) N. T. Wright: Paul and the Faithfulness of God ............................ 59

Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel – Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 1:1–17 ....................................................................................... 67 I. Romans 1:1–15 – The Gospel of the Messianic Servant and the Conquest of Death .................................................................................... 67 II. Romans 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah ... 80

XII

Table of Contents

1. The Gospel as the Basis of Eschatological Vindication ....................... 85 2. The Gospel as the Power of God unto Salvation .................................. 88 3. The Gospel as Available to All within the Mediatorial Primacy of Israel ................................................................................. 90 4. The Gospel as the Revelation of God’s Righteousness ........................ 93 (1) The Righteousness of God: Competing Concepts and Contextual Considerations ............................................................. 94 (2) The Righteousness of God: Scriptural Background ....................... 98 (3) The Gospel as the Revelation of God’s Righteousness: A Uniquely Isaianic Background ................................................. 102 (4) The Isaianic Good News: The Revelation of God’s Righteousness in the Sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord ............ 106 5. The Gospel and Its Salvation-Historical Continuity........................... 115 6. The Gospel and Habakkuk – The Consummation of the Saving Promise and Its Appropriation by Faith ................................. 120 (1) Introduction: The Relation between Habakkuk and Isaiah in Romans ......................................................................... 120 (2) The Citation of Habakkuk 2:4 Textually and Contextually Considered ............................................................. 124 (3) The Role of Habakkuk within the Isaianic Framework ................ 129 III. Summary of Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 1:1–17 ........................... 136

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned – Paul’s use of Isaiah in Romans 1:18–3:20 .............................................................. 138 I. Warrant for Viewing a Broad Isaianic Influence on Romans 1:18–3:20 ................................................................................. 138 II. Isaiah 52:5/Romans 2:24 in the Context of Romans 1:18–3:8 ............... 139 III. Romans 1:18–32 – The Isaianic Typological Nexus of Adam, Israel, and Humanity: The Plight of Captivity ........................... 144 1. The Typological Nexus of Romans 1:23 ........................................... 2. Paul’s Understanding of Isaiah as Answering the Fall ....................... 3. The Typology of Isaiah as the Source of Paul’s Thought ................... 4. The Witness of Creation within the Trial Motif (Rom 1:19–20) ........ 5. Further Echoes of Isaiah’s Trial Motif (Rom 1:21–22, 25) ................ 6. The Universal Covenant Context of Wrath and Captivity (Rom 1:18, 24, 26, 28, 32) ................................................. 7. Summary of Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 1:18–32 .......................

147 154 159 169 173 178 181

Table of Contents

XIII

IV. Romans 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World: Captives Condemned before the Divine Tribunal ...................... 182 1. Salvation-history – Continuity to Climax .......................................... 2. Isaiah (45): Equality in Judgment under Divine Law and the Gospel’s Fulfillment of the Covenant Call to Repentance (Rom 2:1–16)................................................................. (1) Romans 2:1–4 – Humanity before the Pre-Eschatological Tribunal ........................................................ (2) Romans 2:1–4 – The Isaianic Backdrop ...................................... (a) The trial motif of Isaiah ........................................................... (b) The role of Isaiah 45 and its significance in Paul’s thought ..... (c) Confirmation of Paul’s use of Isaiah’s trial motif .................... (3) Romans 2:5–6 – The Day of Wrath and the Covenant Refuge ..... (4) Romans 2:6–11 – The Eschatological Verdict and the Mediatorial Role of the Isaianic Typology................................... (5) Romans 2:12–16 – The Isaianic Gospel as the Climax of the Eschatological Verdict .......................................... 3. Isaiah 52:5: The Covenant Curse and the Source of Its Promised Restoration (Rom 2:17–29) ............................................... (1) The Typology of Plight and Promise (Rom 2:17–24) .................. (a) The allusions to the Servant of the Lord in Romans 2:19 ........ (b) The allusion to the covenant law of Deuteronomy 5 in Romans 2:21–22 ..................................................................... (c) The quotation of Isaiah 52:5 in Romans 2:24 .......................... (2) The Covenant Promise of Restoration and Its Continuity with the Gospel (Rom 2:25–29) ................................. 4. The Posture of Renewal: An Unrighteous People before the Righteous God (Rom 3:1–8) ............................................................. 5. Summary of Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 2:1–3:8 ........................

182 185 187 197 199 205 208 209 211 215 222 223 225 230 232 239 243 251

V. Isaiah 59:7–8a/Romans 3:15–17 in the Context of Romans 3:9–20....... 253 VI. Romans 3:9–20 and the Overarching Isaianic Framework of Captivity and Condemnation ................................................................ 253 1. Romans 3:9 and the Isaianic Derivation of “Under Sin” .................... 2. Romans 3:15–17/Isaiah 59:7–8a within the Catena – The Typological Solidarity of Israel with the World .......... 3. Romans 3:19 – The Courtroom Motif of Isaiah: Broken Law and Humanity’s Guilt before the Divine Tribunal ..................... 4. Romans 3:20 – The Courtroom Motif of Isaiah: The Plight of All Flesh and the Futility of Works ............................. 5. Summary of Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 3:9–20 .........................

254 257 269 274 281

XIV

Table of Contents

Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus – Paul’s use of Isaiah in Romans 3:21–26 ................................................................. 283 I. Introduction to the Isaianic Background of Romans 3:21–26 ................. 283 II. Exegetical Overview of Romans 3:21–26 in Relation to Its OT Background ............................................................... 286 1. Romans 3:21 ..................................................................................... 2. Romans 3:22 ..................................................................................... 3. Romans 3:23 ..................................................................................... 4. Romans 3:24 ..................................................................................... 5. Romans 3:25–26 ............................................................................... 6. Excursus: “The Faith of Jesus Christ” ...............................................

286 288 289 292 295 304

III. Perceived OT Backgrounds to Romans 3:21–26 .................................. 307 IV. Isaiah 53 as the Background of Paul’s Theology of Atonement ............ 309 V. Isaiah (53) as the Background to Romans 3:21–26 ............................... 311 1. The Sacrifice of the Servant/Christ as the Fulfillment of the Day of Atonement ................................................ 2. The Sacrifice of the Servant/Christ as the Fulfillment of Redemption (and the Passover Sacrifice) ................... 3. The Sacrifice of the Servant/Christ as the Fulfillment of the Guilt Offering ....................................................... 4. The Servant/Christ as the Mediator of Eschatological Justification ...

317 321 324 326

VI. Summary of Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 3:21–26 .......................... 329

Chapter Five: Conclusion .................................................................. 332 Appendix ................................................................................................ 351 Bibliography.......................................................................................... 353 I. Primary Sources ..................................................................................... 353

Table of Contents

XV

II. Reference Works and Exegetical Aids ................................................... 353 III. Secondary Sources............................................................................... 354

Index of References ............................................................................. 371 Index of Authors .................................................................................. 393 Index of Subjects.................................................................................. 398

List of Abbreviations AB AnBib ANTJ AOTC AR ArBib ASBT BDB BDF BETL BEvT BHT BJRL BNTC BTB BZ CBET CBQ EBC ECIL EDNT ET ET EvQ EvT ExpT FAT FRLANT FS HDR

Anchor Bible Analecta biblica Arbeiten zum Neuen Testament und Judentum Appollos Old Testament Commentary Allgemeine Reihe The Aramaic Bible Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon (see above under “Reference Works and Exegetical Aids”) Blass, Debrunner, and Funk (see above under “Reference Works and Exegetical Aids”) Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Black’s New Testament Commentaries Biblical Theology Bulletin Biblische Zeitschrift Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Early Christianity and Its Literature (SBL) Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (see above under “Reference Works and Exegetical Aids”) Erlanger Taschenbücher Expository Times Evangelical Quarterly Evangelische Theologie Expository Times Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Festschrift Harvard Dissertations in Religion

List of Abbreviations

HNT HNTC HTR IB ICC JBL JETS JSJ JSNT JSNTSup JSOT JSOTSup JTS KD LNTS MeyerK MNTC NASB NCCS Neot NICNT NICOT NIDOTTE NIGTC NovT NovTSup NT NTL NTS OT OTL RevExp RHR SBLDS SBLSS SD SJT SNTSMS

XVII

Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Harper’s NT Commentaries Harvard Theological Review The Interpreter’s Bible International Critical Commentary Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Romans Periods 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 Journal of Theological Studies Kerygma und Dogma Library of New Testament Studies H. A. W. Meyer, Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament Moffatt New Testament Commentary New American Standard Bible New Covenant Commentary Series Neotestamentica New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Commentary on the Old Testament New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis The New International Greek Testament Commentary Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum, Supplements New Testament New Testament Library New Testament Studies Old Testament Old Testament Library Review and Expositor Revue de l’histoire des religions Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Studies and Documents Southwest Journal of Theology Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

XVIII SNTW SPCK ST TDNT TDOT TLZ TNTC TOTC TP TSAJ TWOT VT VTSup WBC WMANT WTJ WUNT ZNW ZTK

List of Abbreviations

Studies of the New Testament and Its World Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge Studia Theologica Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Theologische Literaturzeitung Tyndale NT Commentary Tyndale Old Testament Comentaries Theologie und Philosophie Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament Vetus Testamentum Supplements to VT Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Chapter One

Introduction In 56 A.D. Paul was nearing the end of his third missionary journey, 1 preparing to embark on the lengthy voyage back to Jerusalem with the longpromised financial contribution to the saints there. With a tirelessness and missionary zeal so characteristic of the apostle, he begins to plan his next foray into “uncharted” gospel territory even before he had completed the current mission. With his sights set on Spain and the prospect that “They who had no news of Him shall see, And they who have not heard shall understand,” 2 the apostle to the Gentiles seeks a base from which to launch his Spanish mission (Rom 15:22–25). And so Paul begins to dictate to his amanuensis Tertius his well-known epistle to the church at Rome, a church which he had neither started nor visited. But with the multi-faceted concerns of an apostle and shepherd to churches scattered across Asia Minor and Greece, Paul sees this as an opportunity for much more (cf. Rom 1:8–17). He desires not only to present the gospel to the church at Rome for their assent and support in his mission to Spain, but through both its written and then personal proclamation to encourage and establish them in their faith, and “to obtain fruit among them” (Rom 1:13). There was, however, a growing tension in the church at large between the Jewish and Gentile factions,3 reflected no doubt, in the Roman assembly. This tension stemmed from the paradoxical reality in the ongoing mission of the church that the nation of Israel, the people of God, “to whom belongs the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh” (Rom 9:4–5) had by and large rejected their Messiah. This grievous fact was exacerbated by the unbelieving Jews’ view of the law and justification, which provided a further stumbling 1

The possible dates for Paul’s epistle to the Romans range from 54–59 A.D., but the most likely dates are either late 55 to early 56 A.D ., or late 56 to early 57 A.D . See C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Vol. I: Introduction and Commentary on Romans I–VIII, ICC (London: T&T clark, 1979), 12–16. 2 Rom 15:21, quoting Isa 52:15. 3 Cf. Rom 14:1–15:12, 25–27. The collection Paul administered was in some measure designed to mitigate this tension. On this tension see 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), 63ff.

2

Chapter One: Introduction

block between them and the gospel. These circumstances, moreover, threatened to drive a wedge between the Jewish and Gentile factions of the messianic community by challenging both the continuity and coherence of the gospel in relation to scripture. So in answer to all these needs and challenges the great apostle takes up his discourse, and pens through the hand of Tertius the least situationally-conditioned, the most systematic and scripturally dense of all his epistles, an exposition and defense of his gospel. 4

I. Statement of Theme I. Statement of Theme

Paul’s letter to the Romans contains by far the highest concentration of explicit scriptural citations of any of his epistles.5 It is a scriptural mosaic depicting the gospel. In this epistle the apostle skillfully weaves together in his explicit citations alone the words and themes of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Kings, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, Habakkuk, and Malachi; yet these diverse scriptural threads blend to create a single picture, the portrait of Paul’s gospel. Yet does this portrait contain a dominant scriptural motif around which the others are built, and around which the diverse elements of his presentation cohere? As one reads Romans one cannot help noticing that certain portions of scripture were particularly important to Paul in setting forth the gospel – Genesis, Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Isaiah. 6 Of these, however, Isaiah appears to play a unique role in the scriptural exposition of the “good news” which Paul sets forth in this epistle (Rom 10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1). This possibility of a unique indebtedness to Isaiah on the part of the apostle is suggested by a combination of significant factors.

4

On the purposes of Paul in the writing of his epistle to the Romans, particularly as an exposition of his theology, see, for e.g., C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, BNTC (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 6–7. On Romans as a defense of Paul’s gospel, see Richard H. Bell, No One Seeks for God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 1:18–3:20, WUNT 106 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 1; Provoked, 63–79. 5 There are just over 100 explicit scriptural citations in the Pauline epistles. Romans contains 60, 1 and 2 Corinthians has 27, Galatians 10, Ephesians 5, and the Pastoral epistles 2. See Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the New, The Continuum Biblical Studies Series (London: Continuum, 2001), 75. On the NT citation formulas’ background in both the MT and the LXX, and the varying citation styles of the NT authors, see Hans Hübner, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Band 2 (Gӧttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 15ff. 6 On the similar distribution in the Qumran writings, see Roland Deines, Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias, WUNT 177 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 457–64.

I. Statement of Theme

3

First, a heavy dependence upon Isaiah in the composition of Romans is evident both in the sheer preponderance of quotations from, 7 as well as in the substantial number of allusions to the great Prophet. 8 Second, in all of Paul’s epistles it is in Romans alone that he invokes Isaiah’s name as a source of authority, and he does so five times, more than twice as many times as he invokes the authority of either Moses or David.9 Paul extends chiefly to Isaiah the role of an authoritative witness to verify the truth of the gospel he was sent to preach (cf. again Rom 10:16),10 not only in terms of the gospel’s con7 Moisés Silva collates the findings of E. Earl Ellis, Dietrich-Alex Koch, and Otto Michel who each have compiled their own respective lists of Paul’s scriptural citations. The lists differ slightly due to differing criteria for identifying scriptural citations. Of the four Old Testament books that Paul cites most frequently in Romans the citational frequency is as follows: Genesis is cited 6 times, Deuteronomy either 6 or 7, Psalms 16 times, and Isaiah 18 times. See Moisés Silva, “Old Testament in Paul,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 631. Silva draws from E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957; repr. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003); 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); Otto Michel, Paulus und seine Bibel (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972 [repr.; orig. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1929]). This preponderance of citational frequency seems to significantly separate Isaiah from all of Paul’s other scriptural sources except the Psalms, which it only slightly surpasses. The uniqueness of Paul’s dependence upon Isaiah in relation to the Psalms is hinted at in several of the forthcoming considerations. 8 For example, Florian Wilk, in his insightful study on the meaning of Isaiah for Paul detects the following allusions: Rom 4:25/Isa 53:12; Rom 8:32/Isa 53:6; Rom 8:33–34/Isa 50:8–9; Rom 9:6/Isa 40:7–8; Rom 9:20/Isa 29:16/45:9; Rom 9:30/Isa 59:9; Rom 9:30– 31/Isa 51:1; Rom 10:19/Isa 1:3; Rom 11:26a/Isa 45:17; Rom 11:34/Isa 40:13; Rom 13:11/Isa 56:1; Rom 14:21/Isa 22:13 (Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998], 382). 9 Moses is mentioned four times (5:14; 9:15; 10:5; 10:19), but in only two of these instances (10:5, 19 [possibly 9:15]) is Paul invoking Moses’ authority. David is mentioned three times (1:3; 4:6; 11:9), twice as a scriptural authority (4:6; 11:9). In several of these instances, moreover, it can be argued that these quotations by Moses or David are used to shore up scriptural support for a point drawn principally from Isaiah (the use of Abraham in Romans 4 would likely fit into this category as well). Cf. Acts 28:25–27, in which Luke presents Paul as citing Isaiah in his attempt to defend his gospel and persuade the Jews of Rome that Jesus is the Christ. 10 By the “truth of the gospel” is meant here not specifically its integrity in relation to Paul’s conflicts with the Judaizers (the free gift of justification through faith apart from works of the law) as in Galatians (2:5, 14), but rather its integrity or faithfulness with regard to the OT scriptures from whence it derives (cf. Rom 1:1–2), and, by implication, the faithfulness of God to His covenant promises conveyed and fulfilled through it (cf. Rom 15:8). On the background of the term avlh,qeia in both Greek and Hebrew thought and its relation to the gospel in Romans and Galatians see James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Gala-

4

Chapter One: Introduction

tent, but also, as will be seen, in terms of its audience and mission strategy. Third, Paul employs Isaiah chapters 52 and 59 in Romans 2 and 3 (respectively: Isa 52:5/Rom 2:24; Isa 59:7–8/Rom 3:15–17) to depict Israel and humanity’s plight, and then uses these same chapters of Isaiah in Romans 10 and 11 (respectively: Isa 52:7; [53:1/Rom 10:15–16;] Isa 59:20–21/Rom 11:26–27) to depict the solution to this plight in divine redemption. The fact that Paul quotes these same chapters of Isaiah to portray both plight and solution within the broader theological argument of Romans strongly suggests that he conceived them to be a crucial and coherent redemptive narrative, and employed them as such within his larger argument. Isaiah thus becomes a very plausible theological framework for the epistle as a whole.11 What is perhaps most significant at the outset of the investigation, however, is that Paul, through his quotations in both 10:15–17 (Isa 52:7; 53:1) and 15:20–21 (Isa 52:15), ostensibly makes an explicit identification of his gospel with Isaiah’s proclamation of the good news of redemption; and coupled with this, in Rom 4:25 identifies Jesus Christ as the Isaianic Servant of the Lord (Isa 53:4–6, 11–12; see Appendix). In Paul’s understanding of Isaiah, and as this study seeks to demonstrate, the “good news” is the proclamation of the reign of God evidenced and established by his redemptive act, typified in the Egyptian and Babylonian deliverances but coming to full scriptural expression in the atonement and justification achieved by the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord. This, according to Paul, is the climactic act of redemption ultimately heralded in Isa 52:7. Of the four major sources of scriptural citations and allusions in Romans (Genesis, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Isaiah), Paul draws from Isaiah not only the theme of “gospel,” but the content of that gospel as well, in atonement, justification, redemption, and salvation. The very use of the term “gospel” in Romans, then, is likely an allusion to Isaiah.12 tians, BNTC (London: A&C Black, 1993), 101. On the significance of the phrase “the truth of the gospel” in the context of the Galatian controversy, see F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 33–42, 115. 11 This issue of a theological framework becomes a crucial element of methodology in terms of establishing the relative priority in Paul’s various references to scripture. See in chapter one below, “Methodology of the Present Study.” For a description of the framework itself, see esp. under chapter two, “Introduction: The Relation between Habakkuk and Isaiah in Romans.” See also, e.g., in chapter three, “Warrant for Viewing a Broad Isaianic Influence on Romans 1:18–3:20.” 12 J. Ross Wagner, in his very thorough investigation of Paul’s use of Isaiah in Romans 9–11, describes the apostle’s “consistent representation of Isaiah as a fellow preacher of the good news.” Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans, NovTSup 101 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 1. On Paul’s use of the substantive euvagge,lion as equivalent to the LXX Isaiah’s use of the verb euvaggeli,zomai, see Wagner on Rom 10:15–16 (ibid., 174). See further below on Rom 1:1.

I. Statement of Theme

5

What makes this possibility more significant as one examines Paul’s use of scripture in Romans is the strong likelihood that “gospel” is the theme of the epistle. This is probable not only because of the clear statement of 1:16–17, but also because of the frequent and significant use of the term euvagge,lion and its cognates in both the introduction and conclusion of the letter – “its epistolary ‘frame.’”13 This is a significant consideration, for if “gospel” in Romans both alludes to Isaiah’s use of the cognate term (euvaggeli,zomai) and is at the same time the major theme Paul is developing in the epistle, it provides an additional and substantial warrant for suspecting a high level of dependence upon the Great Prophet. These four factors, then – the preponderance of explicit Isaianic quotations; the principal use of Isaiah as an authoritative witness for Paul’s gospel in Romans; Paul’s use of Isaiah as a coherent redemptive narrative and possible theological framework; and the ostensible, dual identification of both Paul’s gospel with Isaiah’s “proclamation of good news” (Isa 40:9 [2x]; 52:7 [2x]; 60:6; 61:1), and Jesus Christ with the Servant of Isaiah 53 – not only suggest that the apostle is quite heavily dependent upon Isaiah, but that Isaiah plays a central role in his exposition of the gospel, a role much more pervasive than that of individual citations. But what is the nature and extent of Paul’s dependence upon Isaiah as he pens his epistle? The thesis of this investigation is that Paul’s theological presentation in Rom 1:1–3:26 reflects Isaiah’s redemptive narrative as expressed in the prophecy’s “proclamation of good news” – a coherent set of themes drawn from Isaiah that the apostle 13 Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 29. For his argument for “gospel” as the theme of the epistle, see pp. 27–30, 65. Cf. Rom 1:1, 9, 15, 16; 15:16, 19, 20. See also Jeffrey A. D. Weima, “Preaching the Gospel in Rome: A Study of the Epistolary Framework of Romans,” in Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker, ed. L. A. Jervis and P. Richardson (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 366. Weima concludes by stating, “. . . the evidence provided by the epistolary framework of the letter indicates that Paul’s overriding concern is to preach the gospel to the Roman Christians . . . All other proposed purposes for the writing of Romans, therefore, must be integrated into Paul’s overriding concern ‘to preach the gospel also to you who are in Rome’ (1:15).” Other interpreters who view “gospel” as the theme of the epistle include, e.g., Cranfield (apparently, as he places “gospel” as the central element developed in 16b–17), 87–102; Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 253–5; Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 107; Peter Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, trans. Scott J. Hafemann (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), 10–12. Stuhlmacher, in fact, asserts, “In view of the statistically stylized epistolary introduction in 1:1–7 and the conclusion to the letter in 16:25–27, which once again refers back to this prescript and is no less carefully formulated, the theme of Romans cannot be contested. It concerns the gospel entrusted to Paul, which as the gospel of Christ is the revelation of the salvific righteousness of God for Jews and Gentiles (1:16–17).”

6

Chapter One: Introduction

perceives as coming to an eschatological/theological climax in the redemption wrought by the Suffering Servant of the Lord, fulfilled in Jesus Christ.14 It is this Isaianic redemptive narrative, moreover, that forms the fundamental theological framework for this section of the epistle, its leitmotif around which the other scriptural sources cohere. Though dealing principally with chapters 1–3, the thematic connections with the other major sections of the epistle will strongly suggest a similar overarching framework for the epistle as a whole, particularly in light of Paul’s extensive use of Isaiah in chapters 9–11.

II. Preliminary Considerations II. Preliminary Considerations

Before the investigation is formally taken up, it will be helpful to set the stage with a consideration of the research bearing particularly upon the theme. Following this research review, the specific areas in which the present investigation hopes to advance the current boundaries of knowledge will be sketched and the methodological framework set forth. 1. Overview of Research on Paul’s Use of Scripture In the twentieth century the flourishing of interest and activity in the scriptural citations of the NT writers which began at the reformation continued unabated.15 Rendel Harris (1916), for example, sought to explain the textual nature of the NT’s scriptural citations by postulating the existence of a “testimony book” from which they were drawn, a source compiled by the early 14 This concept of an Isaianic gospel complex has a strong interpretive precedent in the Jewish literature of the intertestamental period. See the introductory section in chapter one further below, “Historical Plausibility – The Inner-Canonical Status of Isaiah and Its Use as a Literary and Theological Unity.” 15 For a brief but helpful discussion on the use of the OT in the NT from the Reformation to the mid twentieth century, with particular reference to Paul, see Ellis, Use, 2–5. In addition to Ellis, helpful surveys on Paul’s use of scripture, as well as the use of the OT in the NT, include: Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 5–14; I. Howard Marshall, “An Assessment of Recent Developments,” in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 1–21; Michel, Paulus, 1–7; Shiu-Lun Shum, Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans: A Comparative Study of Paul’s Letter to the Romans and the Sibylline and Qumran Sectarian Texts, WUNT 2.156 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 1–5; D. Moody Smith, “The Pauline Literature,” in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 267; 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), 4–28; Wagner, Heralds, 5–13.

II. Preliminary Considerations

7

church for use in the anti-Jewish polemic.16 With respect to Paul, A. von Harnack (1928) concluded that the apostle’s use of scripture was peripheral to his theology, while the very influential work of Otto Michel, on the other hand, perceived Paul’s various adaptations of scripture as a means whereby the apostle, led by the Spirit (“charismatic exegesis”), unfolds the intended meaning of the text. 17 This general perspective of the central role of the OT in the development of NT theology was given further impetus by L. Goppelt (1939), who in his seminal work demonstrated both the nature and pervasive influence of typology used by the NT writers in their quotations of and allusions to scripture.18 As the twentieth century continued, J. Bonsirven (1939) renewed research into the comparative exegetical techniques of Paul and the Rabbis, dealing briefly with the subject of adaptations to the wording of the quotations.19 Midway through the century, the highly influential work of C. H. Dodd (1952) countered the “testimony-book” thesis of Harris and furthered the view of the organic unity between the testaments. Dodd regarded the NT writers’ use of scripture as evidencing dependence upon certain textual fields of the OT which were of central importance in the exposition of the kerygma and which formed the substructure of the theological development of the NT. A significant element of his overall thesis is that in quoting or alluding to passages from these textual fields, the NT authors were recalling the entire context in which the given passage was found. 20 Building on such predeces16

J. Rendel Harris, Testimonies, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19161; 19202). 17 Adolf von Harnack, “Das Alte Testament in den Paulinischen Briefen und in den Paulinischen Gemeinden,” in Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 124–41 (Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1928); Michel, Paulus. 18 L. Goppelt, Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New, trans. Donald H. Madvig (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982; 19391). 19 J. Bonsirven, Exégèse Rabbinique et Exégèse Paulinienne, Bibliothéque de la Théologie Historique (Paris: Beauchesne, 1939). 20 C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Substructure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952). Though not without dissenters, Dodd’s thesis has gained fairly wide support. For example, Dodd’s basic conclusions are supported by I. Howard Marshall who defended Dodd’s position over against some more recent antagonists. In his critique Marshall affirms that the kerygma was developed in light of the Old Testament, that this development primarily but not exclusively centered in certain textual fields which were of particular theological significance, and that in this use of Old Testament fields by the New Testament authors there was respect for the original context and meaning of the passages (“Assessment,” 1–21). Richard Bell, in his detailed study of Romans 9–11, likewise defends Dodd, affirming that in Paul certain sections of the Old Testament are of particular importance, and that Paul’s quotations do indeed often point to their broader context (Provoked, 207–9). In this regard, see also B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), 14; Ellis, Paul’s Use, 112–13.

8

Chapter One: Introduction

sors as Goppelt, Bonsirven, and Dodd, E. Earle Ellis (1957) compares Paul’s use of the OT with Jewish exegesis and concludes that while similarities of form may exist, such as the use of introductory formulas and combined quotations, there was between them an uncrossable hermeneutical divide. Paul’s hermeneutics were christocentric, typological, and eschatological. For Paul, interpretation centered in the person of Jesus Christ and the eschatological realities inaugurated through his death, burial and resurrection. From a textual standpoint, Ellis sees Paul as predominantly following the LXX, but believes many of the problems and uncertainties surrounding his quotations stem from these hermeneutical practices.21 More recently, several studies have significantly contributed to the discussion of Paul’s use of scripture, particularly in the textual realm. The detailed textual studies of both Dietrich-Alex Koch (1986) and Christopher D. Stanley (1992) have uniformly pointed to Paul’s primary use of a Greek Vorlage,22 and reveal that Paul often altered his citations to fit the context or argument in which they occur. The conclusions of Koch and Stanley are significant because they reconfirm and refine the textual conclusions of earlier scholars in light of the recent and extensive Qumran textual finds. These conclusions, however, have been challenged by Timothy H. Lim (1997). Lim, while valuing the contributions of Koch and Stanley, holds that their conclusions should be accorded somewhat provisional status. He contends that the fluid state of both the Hebrew and Greek texts of the first century combined with the fact of Paul’s linguistic competence necessitates an investigation into all available textual witnesses, particularly the Hebrew variants, as well as the various versions and patristic evidence.23 Lim gives several examples to support the need for a more thorough investigation, but provides nothing approaching a comprehensive treatment. For a discussion of the significance of C. H. Dodd as over against that of Rendel Harris in terms Paul’s use of the Old Testament, see Bell, Provoked, 201–9. 21 Ellis, Paul’s Use, 148–49. 22 Koch, Schrift; Stanley, Paul. Stanley’s investigation treats only citations clearly marked as such, and employs a stricter set of criteria for identifying them, whereas Koch’s criteria, being somewhat less restrictive, allows a somewhat broader treatment, yet still leaves untreated Paul’s many allusions to scripture. J. Ross Wagner notes regarding these works, “A particular strength of these two studies is that they take into account the growing body of research on the Septuagint, including the critical work on the text of the LXX undertaken by the Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen. As a result, Koch’s and Stanley’s studies completely supersede E. E. Ellis’s earlier investigation of Paul’s citations (1957), which relies on too narrow a base of evidence for the text of the LXX in Paul’s time.” Wagner, Heralds, 6, note 23. 23 Timothy H. Lim, Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 140–49. Contrary to the view of A. Du Toit (“A Tale of Two Cities: ‘Tarsus or Jerusalem’ Revisited,” NTS 46 [2000]: 375–402), Lim offers support for his view of Paul’s linguistic competence (see 161–68).

II. Preliminary Considerations

9

Even as Stanley, Koch and Lim concentrate their efforts principally in the textual field, treating both the subjects of Paul’s Vorlage as well as the hermeneutical axioms that can be ascertained from his citational techniques, Richard B. Hays (1989) focuses on the literary concept of “intertextual echo” in the letters of Paul.24 Hays garnered the technique from the field of modern literary criticism and the work of John Hollander in particular, and fruitfully adapted it to the study of intertextuality in Paul’s epistles.25 Describing “intertextual echo,” Hays states, “Allusive echo functions to suggest to the reader that text B should be understood in light of a broad interplay with text A, encompassing aspects of A beyond those explicitly echoed.” By means of this literary device, the reader is placed “within a field of whispered or unstated correspondences.”26 Though the attempt to understand New Testament citations and allusions to scripture with respect to their broader context certainly is not new, Hays’ approach appears to be more nuanced, emphasizing the dialectic resonances that occur particularly between the unstated elements of the respective texts. He states, “When a literary echo links the text in which it occurs to an earlier text, the figurative effect of the echo can lie in the unstated or suppressed (transumed) points of resonance between the two texts.”27 Hays distinguishes between various types of intertextual reference as follows: “Quotation, allusion, and echo may be seen as points along a spectrum of intertextual reference, moving from the explicit to the subliminal.” He adds, “. . . allusion is used of obvious intertextual references, echo of subtler ones.”28 He uses the term “echo” with some flexibility, employing it to refer both to the intertextual, transumptive phenomenon found in all types of intertextual reference, and to the subtle form of allusion in which the phenomenon is often found.29

24

Hays, Echoes. See Echoes, 18–21. John Hollander, The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981). 26 Hays, Echoes, 20. 27 Ibid., 20. 28 Ibid., 23, 29, respectively. 29 Hays’ highly influential work follows in the tradition of C. H. Dodd, who, in his seminal work (According to the Scriptures) perceives a high degree of contextual continuity between the given NT text and the OT text to which it cites or alludes. This thesis of Dodd’s, that the New Testament writings are built upon a thoroughly scriptural substructure, finds confirmation for Hays in the work of Michael Fishbane, who asserts that “within Israel as a reading community, ‘all significant speech is Scriptural or Scripturally-oriented speech.’” Hays citing Fishbane (Echoes, 21). Michael Fishbane, “Inner Biblical Exegesis: Types and Strategies of Interpretation in Ancient Israel,” in Midrash and Literature, ed. G. H. Hartman and S. Burdick (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), 34. For Hays on Dodd, see Echoes, 182. 25

10

Chapter One: Introduction

In addition to demonstrating the presence and significance of intertextual echo in Paul’s letters, one of the most helpful contributions of Hays’ work is his formulation of criteria for establishing the presence of this literary phenomenon. Hays sets forth seven criteria: 1) availability; 2) volume; 3) recurrence; 4) thematic coherence; 5) historical plausibility; 6) history of interpretation; and 7) satisfaction. 30 There are several more recent and substantial contributions to Paul’s use of scripture that are more directly relevant to the thesis here proposed. These works, and particularly the manner in which they both challenge and support the present thesis, will be discussed in a separate introductory section.31 2. Recent Research on Paul’s Use of Isaiah In addition to the literature on Paul’s use of scripture in general is the growing body of research on Paul’s use of Isaiah. Much attention has been paid in recent years to the relationship between Paul’s epistle to the Romans and the great prophetic book of Isaiah,32 and rightly so. These works are considered by most, if not all, scholars to be among the most theologically profound and significant biblical books in their respective testaments,33 and given the level

30

Hays, Echoes, 29–32. Hays has expanded his discussion and description of these criteria (with specific reference to Paul’s use of Isaiah, in fact) in a more recent work. See The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scriptures (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 34–45. For more on Hays, see below in the introductory section on methodology in which Hays’ criteria are discussed in detail. 31 See below in this chapter, “Paul’s Recent Interpreters and the Challenge to an Isaianic Background.” 32 See for example: D. R. Denny, The Significance of Isaiah in the Writings of Paul (PhD. diss, New Orleans Theological Seminary, 1985); Paul E. Dinter, “Paul and the Prophet Isaiah,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 13 (Ap 1983): 48–52; D. A. Oss, Paul’s Use of Isaiah and its Place in His Theology: With Special Reference to Romans 9–11 (Ph.D. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1992); Shum, Use; Wagner, Heralds; A. L. Yang, Paul’s Prophetic Reapplication of Isaiah in Romans 9–11 (Ph.D. diss., The University of Bristol, 2001); Wilk, Bedeutung. 33 John Oswalt states concerning Isaiah, “Unless the book of Isaiah is a great theological document, it is nothing. Whatever may be its strengths as a piece of literature, they pale by comparison to the breadth and the sweep of the book’s theological insights.” He goes on to state , “Perhaps in no other biblical book are the wonder and grandeur of the biblical God so ably displayed.” John Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 31–32. Concerning Romans, Carson/Moo/Morris (see preface, p. 10) state, “Romans is the longest and most theologically significant of the letters of Paul, ‘the very purest gospel’ (Luther)” (D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament [Leicester: Apollos, 1992], 239). This point need not be labored; examples of those who hold such a high view of the theological significance of these two works in their respective testaments could be multiplied ad infinitum.

II. Preliminary Considerations

11

of dependence upon the great prophet that the apostle exhibits, the study of Isaiah in Romans would seem to promise rich, theological dividends, indeed. While not focusing exclusively on Romans, the valuable work of Florian Wilk (1998) examines the citations of and allusions to Isaiah in the undisputed letters of Paul, with particular reference to Paul’s self-understanding as apostle to the Gentiles. Wilk seeks to trace the development of Paul’s reading of Isaiah throughout Paul’s letters and organizes Paul’s interpretation into four main categories: “Christusbotschaft,” “Selbstverständnis,” “Israelfrage,” and “Parusieerwartung.” Wilk argues that not only Paul’s theology, but his very self-understanding as an apostle to the Gentiles is significantly formed by major sections of Isaiah.34 As valuable as Wilk’s work is in discerning these broad lines of Isaianic influence across the Pauline corpus as a whole, it is this very breadth of treatment that prevents him from examining the situation in Romans as closely as one might desire. Dealing specifically with the use of Isaiah in Romans, the insightful investigation by Shiu-Lun Shum (2002) seeks to develop a comparative hermeneutical frame of reference for Paul’s use of Isaiah in Romans by first examining the interpretation of Isaiah in both the Sibylline Oracles and the Qumran literature.35 Avoiding some of the ahistorical pitfalls of intertextuality in modern literary criticism, Shum, following Hays, employs a modified intertextual approach. He examines both the citations of and allusions to Isaiah in Romans, utilizing several of Hays’ criteria for detecting allusions. He concludes that Paul uses Isaiah in Romans, by and large, in keeping with the original Isaianic context. Shum notes, moreover, that while Paul’s use of Isaiah reflects his theological convictions and messianic presuppositions, it at the same time exhibits at several points a “transplanting” of Isaiah’s theology into his epistle.36 Like Wilk’s work, the scope of Shum’s study also limits its usefulness to the present investigation. His comparative approach highlights Paul’s christocentric hermeneutic and sheds some valuable light on the use of Isaiah in Romans, but it does not achieve a thorough investigation of that On the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah, see, for example, Claire Mathews McGinnis and Patricia K. Tull, eds., As Those Who Are Taught: The Interpretation of Isaiah from the LXX to the SBL, SBL Symposium Series 27 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006). 34 Wilk, Bedeutung, 160–206; 340–80. Though Wilk examines all of Paul’s undisputed letters, he states regarding Romans, “So stellt dieses Schreiben als Höhepunkt der paulinischen Jesajarezeption zugleich ihre Summe dar,” 404. 35 Shum, Use. On the use of Isaiah by Josephus with a brief contrast of its use in the NT, see Christopher Begg, “Isaiah in Josephus,” in Josephus und das Neue Testament, ed. Christfried Bӧttrich and Jens Herzer, WUNT 209 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 233–43. In the same volume, and on the [comparative] use of Isaiah in the NT as a whole, see Florian Wilk, “Die Geschichte des Gottesvolkes im Licht jesajanischer Prophetie,” 245–64. 36 Shum, Use, 267.

12

Chapter One: Introduction

topic, nor does it seek to determine the relation of Isaiah to Paul’s other scriptural sources in terms of their relative and confluent influence upon the epistle. The most significant, recent work on the use of Isaiah in Romans is doubtless that of J. Ross Wagner (2003).37 Wagner builds upon the textual studies of Koch, Stanley and Lim, and seeks to take up Lim’s challenge to establish Paul’s Vorlage by attending to all available textual witnesses, including the Hebrew variants, the various versions, and the patristic evidence. Wagner uses his textual study and the likely changes Paul made to his scriptural texts as a starting point to determine both the hermeneutical logic and theological significance of Paul’s appropriations of Isaiah. He focuses on the dense scriptural hub of Romans 9–11, and with this more narrow focus is able to go beyond these previous studies in terms of a closer contextual comparison of source and receptor texts, attending not only to explicit citations, but to allusions as well. In his treatment of chapters 9–11, he also explores Paul’s use of major scriptural sources other than Isaiah, trying to give a sense of the overall scriptural “complexion” of that section of the epistle. Following the work of Hays, to which he is greatly indebted, Wagner employs several of Hays’ criteria for detecting allusions and “echoes,” paying particular attention to the transumptive elements, or unspoken “echoes” in the intertextual relationships. As thorough and insightful as Wagner’s work is on chapters 9–11 of Romans, this also marks its limitation for the current investigation. Though he does treat Romans 15 and has some brief discussions of Isaianic elements in the earlier chapters of Romans, he does not seek to determine the influence of Isaiah on the argument of the epistle as a whole, particularly in reference to the quotations of and allusions to Isaiah in the early chapters of the epistle. Another recent and illuminating work on Paul’s use of Isaiah is Paul and Isaiah’s Servants by Mark Gignilliat (2007).38 Gignilliat has focused more narrowly on 2 Cor 5:14–6:10, exploring the nature of the relationship between the concept of “the Servant of the Lord” in Isaiah 40–55, and Paul’s own self-understanding. In terms of his basic presuppositional approach, his work follows Brevard Childs’ conception of the canonical nature of scripture, particularly the canonical relation between Old and New Testaments.39 Gignilliat states, “For Paul, Jesus Christ is the interpretive centre of Scripture and as such, genuine interpretation depends on Scripture’s bearing witness to Jesus Christ.”40 37

Wagner, Heralds. Mark Gignilliat, Paul and Isaiah’s Servants: Paul’s Theological Reading of Isaiah 40–66 in 2 Corinthians 5:14–6:10, LNTS 330 (London: T&T clark, 2007). 39 See Brevard Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992). 40 Paul and Isaiah’s Servants, 30. 38

II. Preliminary Considerations

13

Gignilliat, holding that 2 Cor 5:14–6:10 evokes the broader context of Isaiah 40–55, explores the conceptual overlap between Paul’s text and its Isaianic backdrop with the purpose of addressing the contemporary scholarly confusion over Paul’s vocational self-understanding in relation to the enigmatic figure of the Servant of the Lord. Following Richard Bauckham, he holds that the Servant in Isaiah 40–55 is caught up into the unique identity of Yahweh.41 Therefore, according to Gignilliat, there is in Paul a recognizable distinction within his understanding of the servant concept. The servants (Isa 54:17) derive their identity by virtue of their relation to the Servant (Isa 50:10); they are his promised seed (Isa 53:10), constituted righteous through his sacrificial work (Isa 53:11), and are his followers who carry his message to the nation and the world (Isa 52:7–10).42 This, Gignilliat holds, is the relation between Christ and his followers (particularly Paul) expressed in the 2 Corinthians passage. Isaiah 56–66, then, focuses in large part on the servants of the Servant (e.g., 56:6) and develops their identity as over-against the rest of the unbelieving nation, portraying them as following in the Servant’s path of suffering in obedience to the Lord.43 The foregoing sketch of recent scholarship on Paul’s use of the OT and his use of Isaiah in Romans forms the backdrop for the current investigation. Its main lines of significance for the study may be briefly summarized as follows: a) Paul relied primarily upon the LXX for his scriptural quotations, with a few exceptions; b) Paul occasionally alters his scriptural citations for literary or hermeneutical/homiletical purposes; c) Paul often quoted scripture with respect to the broader context in which the passage was found; d) Paul’s quotations often recall these broader contexts; e) Paul frequently alludes to scripture, often in very subtle and nuanced ways; f) these allusions may be substantiated and granted a relative degree of legitimacy by the employment of a set of objective criteria; g) Paul’s uses of scripture reflect a christocentric hermeneutic that has strong typological and eschatological elements; h) Isaiah was extremely important for Paul in the development of his theology in Romans, providing a large part of the scriptural basis for the message of redemption in Christ and the outworking of that redemption in such areas as the question of Israel, the parousia, as well as his own apostolic identity and mission. With this overview of recent research, the subject now turns to the need for and unique contribution of the current investigation. 41

See Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1998). 42 See, e.g., ibid., 53–54. They are, in fact, the implied messengers who have taken this good news to a largely unbelieving Israel (Isa 53:1). 43 Ibid., 108ff. See esp. 113. In terms of Isaiah, this is essentially the view of both Joseph Blenkinsopp and John Oswalt (see below, p. 79 note 40).

14

Chapter One: Introduction

3. Justification and Scope of Study In spite of the great amount of research in this burgeoning field of Paul’s use of Isaiah, there are, nevertheless, some significant gaps that the current investigation seeks to fill. Most of the research has focused either more broadly on the use of Isaiah in the Pauline literature as a whole, or has focused more narrowly on Paul’s use of Isaiah in Romans 9–11. 44 The present study seeks to examine the influence of Isaiah principally upon the first three chapters of the epistle, but also to examine the essential relationship between these opening chapters and the overall theological presentation of Romans. It seeks to determine if Paul is gleaning from Isaiah the fundamental theological structure of his epistle, a theological structure centered in Isaiah’s “proclamation of good news” – what was termed above as an “Isaianic redemptive narrative.” Beyond an examination of the individual instances of citation and allusion, therefore, the study attempts to help determine and confirm Paul’s understanding of Isaiah as an organic unity, a literary and theological whole. 45 If this is the case, it could well shed valuable light on a number of difficult passages in the epistle. In determining the existence and nature of this possible Isaianic theological framework, the investigation will pay particular attention to the various “inter-citational” gaps to determine if Paul is developing in these sections Isaianic themes implicit in or related to his more explicit references to Isaiah. Of Paul’s 18 citations of Isaiah in Romans, 13 fall within chapters 9–11.46 This “citational weighting” of Isaianic material in chapters 9–11, however, does not necessarily imply that Paul’s dependence on Isaiah was predominantly restricted to these chapters. As Moisés Silva perceptibly notes, “. . . a particular quotation, though explicit and verbatim, may play only an illustrative role and thus will not tell us very much about Paul’s fundamental conceptions. Conversely, some of the apostle’s arguments that do not contain any apparent citations reflect a very deep insight into, and dependence upon, OT themes.” 47 With this caveat in mind, the inter-citational material will be explored for Isaianic dependence. Throughout this process, the explicit citations to Isaiah will serve as both a starting point for the study of Paul’s development of Isaiah’s theology and a necessary check on the plausibility of an alleged Isaianic reading. Furthermore, the analysis will necessarily take into account the other major scriptural sources to determine their relative weight, purpose, and interrela44

Shum’s work (Use), due to its comparative approach, is necessarily self-limiting in terms of its ability to treat thoroughly Paul’s use of Isaiah in Romans. 45 On this topic, see below in chapter one, “Historical Plausibility – The InnerCanonical Status of Isaiah and Its Use as a Literary and Theological Unity.” 46 See Silva, “Old Testament,” 631. 47 Ibid., 630.

II. Preliminary Considerations

15

tionship in Paul’s argument and theological presentation. A sense of the general scriptural complexion, therefore, will be sought – an attempt to convey the many rich, biblical shades with which this epistle is imbued. Romans is a scriptural mosaic, its intermingling themes skillfully woven together by the apostle to the Gentiles to create the single portrait of his gospel; its various seams and motifs can only be properly appreciated, therefore, and its dominant themes apprehended, not in isolation, but in relation to the whole.48 The goal of this investigation is a richer understanding and appreciation of Paul’s hermeneutic and theology through a more accurate understanding of the manner in which they are informed by scripture. In light of this goal and in anticipation of several of the following introductory issues, two suggestive and representative questions might be posed regarding the relevance of this thesis: Does the text make good sense as it stands without having an Isaiah background constantly in one’s mind? And also, with the distinct possibility of a more limited reader competence for the original audience, is it a credible approach, historically and otherwise, to seek to understand Romans in this manner? To these questions it may be answered that neither the coherence of the surface level of the text, nor the limited reader competence of any number of the original audience negates the reality or the value of a deeper significance to the text. In fact, to deny a deeper meaning to the text of Romans in relation to its scriptural backdrop seems to fly in the face of certain historical realities, such as: an understanding of the nature of scripture as the source of spiritual life; the nature of the church as a discipling community based upon scripture, and hence a re-reading community; the role of competent teachers within this community more thoroughly conversant with and attuned to the intertextual nature of apostolic writing; the canonical, and hence, mutually informing dynamic of OT scripture with its attendant and authoritative apostolic interpretation in light of the saving event; the continuing hermeneutical significance that this canonical, intertextual, mutually interpreting dynamic of the old and new testaments has had throughout the history of the church.49

48

On the Roman Christians’ “reader competence,” Ernst Kӓsemann comments, “The epistle is clearly addressed to a community whose firm status as Christians is not in doubt, and from whom a high degree of theological understanding is required in view of the dogmatic concentration of this letter.”Commentary on Romans, trans. and ed. Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 34. On this positive assessment of reader competence, and against Christopher D. Stanley in his book Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), see especially N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God Series, Vol. 4 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), 13–14, 613, 1449–56. 49 For more discussion on this issue, see the introductory section later in this chapter, “Christopher D. Stanley: Arguing with Scripture” (under “Paul’s Recent Interpreters and the Challenge to an Isaianic Background”).

16

Chapter One: Introduction

The text of Romans is indeed understandable at the rhetorical level. But it is the contention of this thesis that the meaning and significance conveyed by this rhetorical level deepens immensely through the light reflected forward by antecedent scripture, particularly inasmuch as that antecedent scripture mirrors the light of the Messiah himself, and so prophetically discloses the dawn of the messianic redemption. 4. Methodology of the Present Study This investigation will explore the Isaianic influence upon the epistle to the Romans along three principle lines: 1) citations; 2) allusions; and 3) thematic development (or, in other words, the development of uniquely characteristic themes). During the course of the investigation, these three separate lines of Isaianic influence will be consistently related to two separate criteria intended to establish a relative, Isaianic priority among Paul’s scriptural sources (the theological “weight” of a biblical reference within its quoted context, and a demonstrable scriptural/theological framework, discussed below). For each type of Isaianic influence in Rom 1:1–3:26, the study will seek to be as exhaustive and inclusive as possible. For that reason it will follow a collation of citations and allusions from the works of five authors: Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner and Wilk. 50 This collation, found in the Appendix, will be employed not only with reference to Romans 1–3 but with reference to the rest of the epistle as well, especially chapters 9–11. The theological relationship between these citationally dense chapters of Romans 9–11 and the opening chapters of the epistle, particularly with regard to Isaiah, create a mutually interpreting, intertextual dialogue. The Isaianic citations in 9–11, therefore, frequently shed valuable light upon the use of Isaiah in the earlier chapters. The investigation into each instance of perceived Isaianic influence will begin with an examination of the verbal and syntactical links and/or dependencies, and proceed to a consideration of the dual issues of contextual continuity and thematic and theological dependence and development. Though the 50 See Appendix. In terms of the explicit citations of Isaiah in Romans, the authors cited above agree in most cases. In terms of the allusions there is not the same degree of consensus (Stanley does not attempt to detect allusions). Scholars in general differ with respect to the criteria they employ for distinguishing between citations and allusions, and this is due, no doubt, to the great variety of ways in which Paul’s scripture-saturated vocabulary reflects the text of scripture. There is a full spectrum in Paul’s writings, from a virtually verbatim quotation with a formal introduction to the subtlest of allusions that reflects merely a theme or “catch word,” with every variation in between. For the purposes of the present investigation an exact distinction need not be pressed since it attempts to treat both quotations and allusions. But for the sake of clarity, the term citation or quotation will refer to those instances in which Paul clearly attempts to refer to the words of scripture as indicated by a citation formula of some kind, and/or close verbal correspondence; and the term allusion will refer to the subtler forms of reference.

II. Preliminary Considerations

17

focus of the study is Isaiah, and with respect to the final criterion of a theological framework mentioned above, other dominant scriptural sources will be examined to determine their role in relation to Isaiah and the overall scriptural mosaic of Romans. The examination of the two explicit citations of Isaiah in Romans 1–3 will build upon the very valuable textual studies of Koch, Stanley, and Wagner. Though the textual consensus of these authors will largely be followed, each Isaianic reference will nevertheless be compared to both the LXX and Hebrew manuscripts and their variants with the goal of determining, wherever possible, the changes Paul made to his Vorlage. 51 In the instances in which they occur, these probable alterations will serve as valuable clues to Paul’s interpretive and theological approach to Isaiah. The examination of all possible allusions, including several allusions detected by the present study, will be undertaken primarily by means of several of the criteria established by Hays.52 Echoes will be treated as allusions, and 51 The Greek text of the NT used in this study will be Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. E. Nestle, E. Nestle, K. Aland, B. Aland (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 199327); for the LXX, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum-xiv Isaiah, ed. J. Ziegler, Academiae Litterarum Gottingensis Editum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19833); and for the Hebrew text Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. K. Ellinger and W. Rudolph (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984). The English rendering of the LXX follows Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1851). The English version used is the New American Standard Bible (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1977). 52 For other discussions of criteria used to verify Paul’s scriptural references, see, e.g., 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), 60–64; Carol K. Stockhausen, “2 Corinthians 3 and the Principles of Pauline Exegesis,” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, JSNTSup 83/SSEJC 1 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 143–64. For a discussion of the phenomenon of intertextuality within Israel’s scriptures, see Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985). The criteria of Berkley, e.g., appear roughly equivalent to Hays’ criteria (he uses Hays as a source), though with some minor changes and unique emphases. From the standpoint of establishing an interpretive basis for Paul’s uses of scripture, see, e.g., Matthew W. Bates, The Hermeneutics of the Apostolic Proclamation: The Center of Paul’s Method of Scriptural Interpretation (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012), 53–56; Andrew David Naselli, From Typology to Doxology: Paul’s Use of Isaiah and Job in Romans 11:34–35 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2012), 118–39. Bates follows a diachronic intertextual method, which holds that “. . . any given text [i.e., “. . . any specific instance in which a NT author . . . directly cites the scriptures”] is informed by all of the sociohistorical discourse that precedes, surrounds, and follows it.” Hence, he seeks to attend to the entire intertextual context of a given text, such as “antecedent-texts,” “pretexts,” “co-texts,” and “post-texts.” (This overlaps, generally, with Hays’ criteria of historical plausibility and history of interpretation.) Nasselli examines the NT authors “hermeneutical warrants” for their use of the OT. In the case of Paul’s quotations of Isaiah and

18

Chapter One: Introduction

understood as simply a subtler form of the same. The term echo, as in Hays, will be used to refer both to this subtle form of allusion and to the transumptive phenomenon found in all types of intertextual reference. The criteria of Hays that will be employed to detect allusions are: Volume, Recurrence, and Thematic Coherence. The criterion of volume refers to “the degree of explicit repetition of words or syntactical patterns.”53 The greater the degree of verbal correspondence, the “higher the volume,” and the greater the likelihood of the proposed allusion. Hays’ criterion of volume, however, will be slightly expanded in this study to include the concept of vocabulary/thematic clusters, or in other words, a unique combination and integration of terms/themes as allusive references to larger narrative contexts.54 The criterion of recurrence is used by Hays to refer to the number of times Paul cites or alludes to the source of a proposed allusion in his epistles. Hays observes that this criteria of recurrence should not be understood simply with reference to isolated verses as source texts, but in terms of larger passages of scripture as well. He states, When we find repeated Pauline quotations of a particular OT passage, additional possible allusions to the same passage become more compelling. I use the term “passage” broadly to indicate not just a particular verse quoted explicitly on more than one occasion (such as Hab 2:4 or Gen 15:6) but also larger units of Scripture to which Paul repeatedly refers. One example of this would be Deut 32, which turns up repeatedly in Paul’s letters . . . The parade example of this phenomenon in the Pauline letters, however, is his use of Isa 40–55. Paul returns again and again to this text, especially in Romans. Here we find clear evidence of the clustering of citations from one special scriptural context.55

Job in Romans 11:34–35 he concludes that Paul’s hermeneutical warrants include the larger contexts, application, a canonical approach, and typology (see 130–31, [through] 141). This conclusion, in terms of the manner in which Paul employs Isaiah, helps to confirm the results of the present study. 53 Hays, Echoes, 30; Conversion, 34–37. 54 Allusions often tend to be used in tandem with major and highly characteristic themes. Therefore, at times the categories may overlap, and a clear distinction between allusion (particularly allusion by means of the thematic clusters) and thematic development may not be possible. On this criterion, see Timothy Berkley, Broken Covenant, 61–62. This criterion of vocabulary/thematic clusters to establish an allusion to a larger narrative context will be used primarily with reference to Rom 1:16–17 and 3:21–26. Cf. also, e.g., Rom 8:30, 33, and the terms “elect,” “called,” “justified,” “glorified,” as a likely reference to Jesus as the Servant of the Lord, and upon whom the calling (etc.) of believers is based. This likelihood is greatly strengthened by the larger context of the Romans passage, which is replete with allusions to Isaiah 50 and 53 (see Appendix). On Romans 8, see in chapter two below, “Romans 1:1–15 – The Gospel of the Messianic Servant and the Conquest of Death.” 55 Conversion, 37–38. His use of the term “clustering” in the above quotation is not to be confused with its use in my expanded version of Hays’ criterion of volume described

II. Preliminary Considerations

19

In the present study the criterion of recurrence will be employed primarily with reference to Romans due to the sheer number of Isaianic quotations outside of Romans 1–3; this use or repeated use of a given Isaianic text by Paul, especially in Romans, greatly strengthens the likelihood of a further allusion to that same text or its larger context elsewhere in the epistle. 56 The criterion of thematic coherence evaluates the contextual continuity between texts, establishing how closely the themes of the precursor text align with the themes being developed in the context of the proposed allusion. This criterion, therefore, adds credibility to the proposal that Paul is not merely prooftexting from a favorite section of scripture, but is employing his references to Isaiah in a coherent manner reflecting the prophecy’s redemptive narrative centering in the good news.57 In addition to exploring Isaianic citations and allusions, this study will investigate Paul’s development of the Isaianic themes implicit in these references. This development of Isaianic themes is to be distinguished somewhat from allusion (though at times they seem to overlap, particularly in the case of a clustering of uniquely Isaianic themes). Paul’s allusions generally reflect a specific text, while his thematic development takes a particular Isaianic theme or themes explicitly or implicitly contained in his more overt or particular references to Isaiah, and develops them along Isaianic lines.58 As in allu-

above, as referring to a group of key vocabulary terms characteristic of, and used to allude to, an OT passage of scripture. 56 Wagner perceptibly notes, “In the case of Paul, intertextual echo nearly always functions in tandem with more obvious references to scripture, including citations marked by introductory formulas and more explicit modes of allusion,” (Heralds, 10). 57 See Hays’ concluding comments on his discussion of the criterion of recurrence (Conversion, 38). Hays’ criteria of Historical Plausibility will be employed in two separate introductory sections related to issues such as Judaism’s use of Isaiah as a literary and theological unity, and the source of Paul’s gospel (and, negatively, to weed out readings that from a cultural or interpretive standpoint are historically unlikely). These sections, it is hoped, will strengthen the plausibility of the arguments both for the nature of Paul’s gospel as Isaianic, as well as his use of the prophecy as a coherent narrative of God’s redemptive righteousness. The criteria of Availability is inapplicable since Paul very obviously had access to the text of Isaiah; his explicit citations alone span from the first to the sixty-fifth chapters. Since the criteria of History of Interpretation does not discount readings that commend themselves on the basis of other criteria, it is of more limited value for the current investigation (though see Hays’ very interesting comments in this regard in Conversion, 43–44, which go some ways toward confirming the thesis here proposed). Hays’ final criteria of Satisfaction may be used by those evaluating the merit of the present work. 58 Again, as noted above, thematic development may be conceived at times as overlapping the category of allusion, particularly when used in tandem with clear allusions or quotations. This is especially evident in the thematic verses (Rom 1:16–17), as well as in

20

Chapter One: Introduction

sion, transumptive elements are often present. This thematic development is evident in a variety of interrelated forms, such as a unique and complex use of the typology of captive Israel, and, building upon this, the logical ordering of themes in a manner that mirrors or reflects the redemptive narrative of Isaiah and its theological framework (e.g., the deuteronomic curse of captivity, taken up into a typological portrayal of humanity, set within a preeschatological trial scenario, with humanity predominantly portrayed as captive and condemned, as a prelude to God’s redemptive righteousness). This discussion of the criteria used to establish Paul’s allusions to scripture leads to one final and crucial issue: the need for criteria to help determine the relative importance of Paul’s various citations and allusions to scripture. This need is well expressed by Steve Moyise with respect to the opening quotation(s) of the gospel of Mark. He states, . . . the existence of a variety of historical reconstructions inevitably raises a question mark against the importance being placed upon any one of them. It is not that quotations must evoke a single context and therefore somebody has to be wrong. Indeed, it is quite plausible that a richly textured quotation like that found in Mk 1.2–3 might well evoke ideas and themes from Exodus, Malachi and Isaiah. The problem is that the resulting complexity is then artificially reduced so as to make one particular proposal more convincing than the others.59

Or, as he elegantly phrases the issue more generally later in his book, “In our search for the ‘loudest’ voice, we should not become deaf to the quieter voices that give the work its particular texture.”60 In light of this need for more methodological precision to address the question of the relative significance of Paul’s various references to scripture, I propose two additional and interrelated criteria: the criterion of the theological “weight” of a biblical reference within its quoted context, and the criterion of a demonstrable theological framework.61 The first recognizes a relative significance based upon both the nature and number of the themes evoked in a biblical reference, together with the role or significance of this reference within the context of Paul’s discussion. For example, it will be argued that both Rom 1:16–17a and Rom 3:21–26 are allusions to Isaiah 40–55 (the seRom 3:21–26, where allusive vocabulary clusters are combined with themes clearly characteristic of Isaiah. 59 Steve Moyise, Evoking Scripture: Seeing the Old Testament in the New (New York: T&T Clark, 2008), 18. 60 Ibid., 140. 61 This last criterion is somewhat related to Hays’ criteria of both recurrence and thematic coherence, which highlights both the significance of this section of Isaiah, as well as the coherent use of its individual references, respectively. This last criterion, however, extends and blends the two to convey the concept of a coherent, overarching scriptural framework. In the case of Paul’s use of Isaiah, the framework, though centered in chapters 40–55, encompasses the whole of prophecy.

II. Preliminary Considerations

21

cond centering primarily upon Isaiah 53). Few would argue against either the theological significance of these passages, or their crucial placement and role within the argument of Romans 1–4. If these passages are allusions to the larger context of Isaiah’s redemptive narrative, the proposal of Isaiah’s relative priority is greatly strengthened. 62 This also would apply in varying degrees to such passages as Rom 1:1–6 and 4:23–25 (as both opening and closing the first major section of the epistle), as well as to the two quotations from Isaiah in Romans 1–4 (Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5; Rom 3:15–17/Isa 59:7–8; as both conveying plight and anticipating redemption [Rom 3:21–26], as well as intertextually connecting to the further depiction of this redemption later in the epistle by means of these same passages [Rom 10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1; Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9]). The theological “weight” of these various biblical references within their quoted contexts, then, helps provide the basis for the second criterion used to establish the relative priority of Paul’s references. With respect to this second criterion – a demonstrable theological framework – if it can be demonstrated that Paul’s various references to Isaiah create or constitute a coherent theological framework, a framework that not only incorporates Paul’s other scriptural references but incorporates other major scriptural narratives or frameworks as well, then it also establishes a degree of relative priority for Isaiah. This being the case, Isaiah, then, could well be described as Paul’s primary hermeneutical lens, the lens through which he views all of scripture. For example, the Abrahamic narrative of righteousness through faith in the covenant promise; Deuteronomy’s narrative of covenant curse, exile, and ultimate restoration; and the manner in which Habakkuk draws these together, intimating somewhat of the theological structure of the Pentateuch; each of these, as this thesis will seek to demonstrate, are taken up into, expanded, and brought to fulfillment by the eschatological good news of Isaiah’s new exodus. These final two criteria, therefore, will be used in tandem with the examination of quotations, allusions and themes to help establish the relative significance of Paul’s use of Isaiah as against his other references to scripture.63 In terms of this relative significance, it must be clarified that Isaiah is not necessarily the primary scriptural source of the dominant motif in each individual subsection (though at times this impression might be given in the treatment itself by virtue of emphasis and weighting of the discussion, e.g., 62

In fact, it could well be that Paul’s choice of allusion as opposed to quotation in these instances was due to his ability and intention to concisely evoke and interrelate a significant number of Isaianic themes in a manner that reflects his understanding of the prophecy’s wider redemptive context. 63 On the initial plausibility of Isaiah as Paul’s theological framework, see above, pp. 2– 6. For more on this Isaianic theological framework, see, e.g., in chapter two below, “Introduction: The Relation between Habakkuk and Isaiah in Romans.”

22

Chapter One: Introduction

Rom 3:1–4). Isaiah is, however (or so it will be argued), the source of the overarching framework that surfaces to some extent in each section, so that the minor allusions that provide the consistent link to the larger framework are duly noted, and by virtue of this connection are given a bit more attention than their relative significance in the given subsection might seem to warrant. Therefore, for example, the ostensible priority given to Isaiah in sections such as Rom 3:1–4 is not intended to suggest a higher priority for Isaiah in that sub-section as over against, say, Psalm 51. It rather stems simply from the primary purpose of this thesis in exploring the role of Isaiah, as well as the necessity of noting the links with the larger Isaianic theological framework. It is hoped that the comments in such instances will clarify Isaiah’s relative importance in the given individual subsection. As a final note on the application of the criteria throughout the thesis, it should be noted that this discussion will at times take place in the body of the work, though more often it takes place in footnotes immediately following the examination of the given Isaianic reference. Because of the necessity of following Paul’s argument and its development, the study will, for the most part, follow the order of the text of Romans. However, the investigation will occasionally require an anticipation of its argument by jumping ahead to a citation or allusion yet to be treated (this is especially the case with Isa 52:5/Rom 2:24 because of its significance in its wider context). As stated above, this requisite is due to the value of the explicit citations in validating the plausibility of an alleged Isaianic reading. The page constraint will make it necessary to treat certain passages in a more or less summary fashion. 5. Historical Plausibility – The Inner-Canonical Status of Isaiah and Its Use as a Literary and Theological Unity Paul interpreted Isaiah within the context of first century Jewish exegesis, which, while defying generalizations, undoubtedly included the elements of contextual and exegetical interpretation.64 He approached Isaiah, moreover, 64

On the contextual nature of scribal exegesis in the pre-70 era, see David Instone Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE, TSAJ 30 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992). Brewer states (167), “Every single scribal exegesis examined could be quoted as an example to show that Scripture was interpreted according to its context.” On the nature of interpretation in early Judaism, including the first century, which often contains or is characterized by exegesis of the OT scriptural texts, see Matthias Henze, ed., A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012). See, e.g., the interesting article by Robert Kugler, “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Not-So-Ambiguous Witness to Early Jewish Interpretive Practices,” 337–60. He demonstrates that this work reflects Jewish exegetical practice. He concludes, “There should be little lingering doubt about the Testaments’ testimony to the interpretive practic-

II. Preliminary Considerations

23

within an interpretive stream in which the Great Prophet buoyed Israel’s hope of the promised, coming salvation to be mediated through Israel’s Messiah.65 But narrowing the topic a bit more, the inner-canonical status of Isaiah, as well as its use as a literary and theological unity, provide strong initial support for the central role that Isaiah plays in Paul’s interpretive and theological framework. The phrase “inner-canonical status” refers to the unique role that Isaiah was believed to play in disclosing the future messianic kingdom, as evidenced in the intertestamental literature. Generally speaking, Isaiah was viewed as the prophet for the messianic or eschatological age in Judaism.66 Central to this role within the prophecy itself was “the proclamation of good news” in chapters 40–66. The Hebrew term rfb occurs in five passages in the second half of Isaiah,67 and the interrelated use of this term was part of an early interpretive tradition found in the intertestamental Jewish writings, Qumran, the LXX and the Targum of Isaiah which centered upon this concept.68 Within this interpretive tradition the “proclamation of good news” was es of Jews of Greco-Roman antiquity. Their contents, genre, and themes bear witness to the Hebrew Scriptures as their root and stalk, and the history of research devoted to them since the late seventeenth century further demonstrates their rightful place among the Jewish Pseudepigrapha that rely on exegesis of the Hebrew Bible. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Christian or Jewish in their original form, are undeniable and first and foremost the product of exegesis and interpretation of the Hebrew Bible.” On Qumran in the same work, see, e.g., Shani Tzoref, “The Use of Scripture in the Community Rule,” 203–34. 65 E.g., on this Isaianic expectation of the coming salvation of God as evoked through Isa 40:3–5 and reflected in Second Temple Jewish literature, see David W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, WUNT 2.130 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 41–45. On the messianic character of this Isaianic expectation centering in texts such as Isa 11:1–9, see Michael A. Knibb, “Isaianic Traditions in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, ed. C. C. Broyles and C. A. Evans, 2 vols., VTSup 70 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 633–50. 66 See Martin Hengel, “The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period,” in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, ed. Bernd Janowski and Peter Stühlmacher, trans. Daniel P. Bailey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 82–85. See also Wagner, Heralds, 29–31, 175; Catrin H. 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, SBL Symposium Series 27 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 107. Williams cites, e.g., Ben Sira (Sir 48:24–25), who portrays Isaiah as a prophet who “. . . saw the future, and comforted the mourners in Zion, [who] revealed what was to occur to the end of time, and the hidden things before they happened”; as well as a text from Qumran (4Q174 frgs. 1–2 line 15) which depicts Isaiah as “the prophet for the last days.” 67 Isa 40:1–11 (v. 9, 2x); 41:21–29 (v. 27); 52:7–12 (v. 7, 2x); 60:1–7 (v. 6); 61:1–11 (v. 1). 68 See 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. C. C. Broyles and C. A. Evans, 2 vols., VTSup 70 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 651–91.

24

Chapter One: Introduction

theocentric, fundamentally referring to the presence and reign of God;69 it was eschatological and messianic in character, based in repentance, and emphasized the healing and restoring power of God’s redemption of his people.70 In its main contours this interpretive tradition bore a strong resemblance to Jesus’ proclamation of good news, and likely stood as the primary scriptural source behind it.71 This Isaianic good news, then, was central to the prophecy’s larger narrative of messianic redemption which culminated in the messianic reign. This is consistent with and further supports the compelling evidence for a holistic reading of Isaiah at a very early stage in the history of interpretation, evidence which is apparent even within what came to be the canon itself.72 Martin Hengel states, “Since the beginning of the early Hellenistic period at the latest, the book of Isaiah was interpreted as a whole (and eschatologically) and exerted its influence as such.”73 But far from an eisegetical hermeneutic of hope forged in the fires of national oppression, many scholars believe that this is precisely the way the prophecy itself was intended to be understood. Significant and representative in this regard, particularly with respect to the central role of the Servant of the Lord, is Joseph Blenkinsopp, who writes, The conclusion to which these exegetical considerations are leading is that an integrative approach to Isaiah 40–66, and for that matter to the book as a whole, permits us to see prophetic agency in general, and the profile and mission of the Servant of the Lord continued by his disciples in particular, as a central theme in the book, and one by no means confined to the four Ebedlieder passages identified by Bernhard Duhm.74

69

Ibid., 656. Ibid., 656–66. On the role of repentance, see 657, 666; for the theme of God’s redemptive healing and restoration, see 656. 71 Ibid., 667, 671, respectively. For the meaning and use of rfb in the OT, see, e.g., O. Schilling, “rfb bśr,” TDOT, 2:313–16. 72 On Daniel’s allusive dependence upon various passages from Isaiah (Daniel 12/Isaiah 26, 53, 66) to depict the culmination of eschatological salvation in terms of both resurrection and judgment (particularly as Daniel develops this theme out of the context of Deuteronomy’s covenant curse as [partially] fulfilled in Jeremiah’s 70 years of captivity), see, e.g., Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, [482–]493; Matthias Henze, “The Use of Scripture in the Book of Daniel,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, ed. Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 279–307 (esp. 297–98, 302). On Habakkuk’s use of Isaiah, see further below, “The Gospel and Habakkuk – The Consummation of the Saving Promise and Its Appropriation by Faith.” 73 “The Effective History of Isaiah 53,” 84. 74 Opening The Sealed Book: Interpretations of the Book of Isaiah in Late Antiquity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 252. Wagner (Heralds, 323, note 63) notes that not only Paul, but the Psalms of Solomon and the Isaiah Targum evidence a messianic and holistic interpretive approach to the prophecy. 70

II. Preliminary Considerations

25

Isaiah, therefore, was interpreted as a literary and theological unity whose chief significance was in disclosing the longed-for messianic salvation heralded forth in its message of “good news.” Isaiah’s inner-canonical status and role, then, was likely a crucial factor in directing the apostle to this great prophecy as his primary hermeneutical lens for understanding the eschatological salvation now realized in and mediated through the Messiah’s sacrifice for sin. As such, and understood as a literary and theological unity, moreover, its sweeping and comprehensive narrative of redemption centering in the messianic sacrifice allowed it to become for Paul the primary hermeneutical lens through which he viewed all of scripture. A central tenet of the following thesis is that this general interpretive approach to the prophecy was followed by the apostle, centering on the “proclamation of good news” as fulfilled in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The present investigation, therefore, proceeded with the assumption that Paul, in his use of Isaiah, approached the prophecy both with respect to the wider context of the given citation or allusion, as well as with respect to the relation of that particular context to the overall prophetic narrative of God’s redemptive righteousness. He came to the prophecies of Isaiah as a literary and theological unity. This assumption, which is intended to be thoroughly tested in the present study, was based both on an initial investigation of the material, as well as on a growing body of research regarding Paul’s use of scripture that points in that very direction, both with regard to the Pauline corpus as a whole as well as Romans in particular.75 75

The following recent studies support the thesis that Paul’s citations of and allusions to scripture cohere with both the immediate contexts of the passages cited, as well as with the larger narrative and structural patterns of their broader contexts: Scott J. Hafemann, “The Glory and Veil of Moses in 2 Cor. 3:7–14: An Example of Paul’s Contextual Exegesis of the Old Testament – A Proposal,” in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, ed. G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 295–309; 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); Hays, Echoes, e.g., 157–58; Conversion, e.g., 25–49; Sylvia C. Keesmaat, “Exodus and the Intertextual Transformation of Tradition in Romans 8:14–30,” JSNT 54 (1994): 29–56; Paul and His Story: (Re)interpreting the Exodus Tradition (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999); Gail R. O’Day, “Jeremiah 9:22–23 and 1 Corinthians 1:26–31: A Study in Intertextuality,” JBL 109.2 (1990): 259–67; James M. Scott, Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation in the Background of UIOQESIA in the Pauline Corpus, WUNT 2.48 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992); Shum, Use, 273; D. Moody Smith, “The Pauline Literature,” in It is Written, 265–91; 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: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1989); “Pauline Exegesis,” 143–64; D. O. Via, “A Structuralist Approach to Paul’s Old Testament Hermeneutic,” Int 28.2 (1974): 201–20; J. Ross Wagner, “Heralds of Isaiah and the Mission of Paul: An Investigation of Paul’s Use of Isaiah 51–55 in Romans,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, ed. William H. Bellinger, Jr. and William R. Farmer (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity

26

Chapter One: Introduction

The following statements by several of the scholars already mentioned typify the conclusions of much of the recent research on Paul’s use of scripture, and express incisively the warrant for the current approach. Shiu-Lun Shum concludes his detailed comparison of the use of Isaiah by the Sibylline Oracles, Qumran, and Romans by stating, . . . In utilizing the Isaianic material, the Sibyls, the sectarians, and (especially) Paul often showed signs of knowledge of, or even respect for, its original context . . . it seems fair to say that the Isaianic tradition, among many other OT traditions, more or less directed the thinking of these Jewish writers. It then follows that it is essential and generally fruitful to give serious attention to the original context of the scriptural material that is used by the Jewish writers in question, in order to assess the magnitude of the impact of Scripture upon, and/or to examine the characteristics of, their thinking. This is especially true of Paul, whose thinking (as shown in Romans) was evidently greatly molded by Isaiah’s sayings.76

J. Ross Wagner, in his very thorough study of Romans 9–11, notes that Paul’s Isaianic citations and allusions, “. . . are not plunder from random raids on Israel’s sacred texts. Rather, they are the product of sustained and careful attention to the rhythms and cadences of individual passages as well as to larger themes and motifs that run throughout the prophet’s oracles.”77 Of particular importance is again Richard B. Hays, who insightfully observes, God’s act in Jesus Christ illuminates, Paul contends, a previously uncomprehended narrative unity in Scripture . . . Within this narrative framework for interpretation, Paul’s fragmentary references to and echoes of Scripture derive coherence from their common relation to the scriptural story of God’s righteousness. Though the quotations appear eclectic and scattered, they usually must be understood as allusive recollections of the wider narrative setting from which they are taken.78

Both the inner-canonical status of Isaiah, as well as its use as a literary and theological unity, create a strong historical plausibility for the thesis that Isaiah played a central role for Paul in the formulation of his renewed, eschatological hermeneutic. Further, and particularly in light of the studies supporting Paul’s contextual use of scripture mentioned above, Isaiah’s messianic, eschatological status and holistically-conceived nature point to the probability that Paul used the prophecy, not in the manner of isolated proof-texts, but in dependence upon the prophecy’s larger redemptive narrative centering in the proclamation of good news (or, as Paul more often expresses it, the gospel). The question of the source of Paul’s gospel will now be examined to see if Press, 1998), 193–222; Heralds, e.g., 356; Francis B. Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), e.g., 276, 517; N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T&T clark, 1991); Paul and the Faithfulness of God, e.g., 1449–56. 76 Shum, Use, 273. 77 Wagner, Heralds, 356. 78 Hays, Echoes, 157–58.

II. Preliminary Considerations

27

there is additional warrant for suspecting the nature of this gospel to be predominantly Isaianic. 6. Historical Plausibility – Paul’s Renewed Hermeneutic: The Convergence Upon Isaiah as the Source of Paul’s Gospel in Romans Though the entire study treats the broader question of whether Paul’s gospel in Romans is principally derived from Isaiah, can anything further be said in a preliminary way regarding the probable Isaianic nature of this gospel? This question brings to the forefront the matter of source. Most scholars recognize several sources for Paul’s gospel, the most significant being: 1) his conversion experience, 2) apostolic tradition, and 3) scripture.79 As various revelatory phases of the One revealing God, these disparate voices, far from contradicting one another, could only speak to Paul in unison. At the climactic revelatory event of his conversion, the facts and significance of the life, death and resurrection of Christ which exploded upon Paul’s consciousness provided him with the hermeneutical key for understanding the scriptures of Israel.80 Within this messianic, hermeneutical framework, a framework begun by Jesus and continued by the apostles, certain books and passages of scripture were particularly relevant in terms of elucidating this new, eschatological redemption.81 And so these disparate voices – his conversion experience, apostolic tradition, and scripture – became to Paul a convergence of influence that appears to have uniformly led him to the prophet Isaiah as a major source 79

See Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, WUNT 2.4 (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1984). 80 From the perspective of Jesus in both the synoptics and John’s gospel, the scriptures can be properly understood only in relation to the Person of Christ to whom they bear witness (e.g., Mat 5:17–18; 11:13–14; Luke 24:25–27, 44–47; John 5:39; 8:42; cf. also, e.g., Acts 10:43). Paul, moreover, held the same view as his Lord (e.g., Rom 1:1–5; II Cor 3:7–4:4). Ellis (Use, 81–82) comments, “The Pauline use of the OT cannot really be understood in terms of his Jewish contemporaries. This is especially true where principles of interpretation are involved. The affinities which occur are in peripheral areas and never reach to the heart of his thought. After his conversion the OT became a new book for Paul; all that went before now stood only as a prelude – a prelude set quite apart from all that was to follow. Although echoes of the prelude remain, the real meaning which the OT has for him lies at a different source. And to find it one must go to Christ and to the apostles.” On the teaching of Paul as in part based in and consistent with the teaching of the historical Jesus, see David Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). 81 Regarding his theory of particular scriptural fields employed by the early church to explicate the facts of the gospel, C. H. Dodd states, “This whole body of material – the passages from the Old Testament with their application to the gospel facts – is common to all the main portions of the NT, and in particular it provided the starting point for the theological constructions of Paul, the author to the Hebrews, and the Fourth Evangelist” (According to the Scriptures, 127).

28

Chapter One: Introduction

for understanding the gospel he was commissioned to proclaim. A closer look at this process of convergence begins with an examination of that lifechanging event on the Damascus road and its theological significance for Paul. Paul’s conversion undoubtedly had a dramatic influence upon every aspect of his life, and his theology was no exception. His conversion experience left him with an unshakable conviction that the Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified was the risen Messiah of Israel. Paul, therefore, had gone from being a relentless persecutor of the faith to a relentless proponent of the faith who was himself frequently and intensely persecuted. The logic of his theological reorientation must have more or less followed this basic tack: Since Paul’s persecution of the church based on his understanding of scripture had been wrong, then of necessity his reading of scripture would have to be wrong as well. Scripture is truth, and would have to be re-read and understood in a new way so as to support the conviction created in the revelatory event of the Damascus road – that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, and in his life, death and resurrection is the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel in the torah and prophets. Based upon Luke’s testimony in Acts 26:15–18,82 the content of Paul’s convictions garnered at his conversion may be sketched as follows: Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified is the risen Lord and Christ; Paul was appointed by the risen Christ a witness and minister in his behalf; this commission was (in his case) principally directed to Gentiles; the purpose of this commission was to bring people to salvation, described under the three categories of transfer of dominion, forgiveness of sins, and reception of an inheritance; this salvation is received through faith in the risen Christ. The central role his conversion played in the formulation of his gospel is evident in his epistle to the Galatians. Paul writes, For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ . . . But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh 82

There are three descriptions of Paul’s conversion in Acts: 9:1–22; 22:3–21; 26:2–23. The first is Luke’s description of the actual event within the course of his narrative, the next two are recorded testimonies of Paul as he gives his defense before the Jews in Jerusalem and before King Agrippa, respectively. Of these three, the third account is the fullest in terms conveying the amount of information Paul received from the risen Christ during his conversion experience. For a comparison of these accounts and the significance of the third account in terms of both its content and its correspondence with Paul’s personal account in Galatians, see Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1997), 47–50; see esp. p. 49.

II. Preliminary Considerations

29

and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus. Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother (Gal 1:11–12, 15–19).83

In this opening chapter of Galatians Paul takes pains to affirm the truth and apostolic nature of his gospel by asserting its direct, revelatory character; he emphasizes that it originated not from man, nor even from the other apostles, but from the risen Christ himself.84 Yet though this gospel, along with its set of messianic convictions, was independent in terms of its source, it was not received by Paul in a revelatory vacuum. Quite to the contrary, the gospel was the fulfillment of the promises made to the fathers (Gal 3:8; cf. also Rom 15:8; Acts 13:32; 26:6; etc.), and so scripture immediately became for Paul the primary source of explicating the messianic truths he had so recently embraced in germinal form. The three year period from his conversion to his trip to Jerusalem, which included his Arabian retreat, was certainly devoted to that very enterprise, as Paul, like the apostles before him, faced the daunting task of filling out his meager understanding of these new messianic events with scripture (cf. Luke 24:44–49; Rom 1:2; 16:25–26).85 83

Gal 1:15–16a seems a certain allusion not only to Jer 1:5, but to Isa 49:1–6, particularly v. 1, “. . . attend, ye Gentiles . . . from my mother’s womb he has called my name.” See Moisés Silva, “Galatians,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 786. Wilk (Bedeutung) views Gal 1:15–16 as alluding to both Isa 49:1, 5–6, but also to Isa 42:6 and 52:10. On the complimentary rather than contradictory nature of Gal 1:11–12 with I Cor 15:3, see Ellis, Use, 85ff; Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1205. 84 See Hengel and Schwemer, Paul, 43–44. 85 Ibid., 109. Hengel (113–20) describes what he perceives as the likely possibility that during Paul’s Arabian mission he reflected upon and developed certain facets of his gospel. These could well surface in Gal 4:21–31, which bears a conceptual relation to his geographical setting in Arabia, and in which the Nabataean city Hegra figured prominently. The city was in the close vicinity of Sinai, was traditionally the region of a portion of Abraham’s sojournings, and its name was believed to be derived from Hagar herself, who is mentioned in the Galatians passage. Interestingly, with respect to this possibility and the nature of the scriptural development of Paul’s theology at this early stage, it should be noted that the central theological assertion of that passage comes in verse 27 with its quotation from Isa 54:1. Here the theme of the divine reversal of Israel’s plight, depicted under the common OT metaphor of the barren woman (epitomized in Sarah, cf. Isa 51:2; Gal 4:28), is effected by the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord (Isa 52:13–53:12) who establishes the seed of redeemed Israel (e.g., Isa 53:10; 54:3). Paul, then, appears to base not only the fulfillment of the redemptive promise through Abraham, but also the fulfillment of the law and its resulting “sonship” on the sacrifice of the Servant/Christ. On Paul’s possible theological rationale for his Arabian mission, see 109–13.

30

Chapter One: Introduction

The various conversion truths sketched above can in their particulars be supported by a broad selection of Old Testament scriptural texts. Yet taken comprehensively, they bear a remarkable affinity to the main story lines of the redemption wrought by Isaiah’s Suffering Servant of the Lord, and this affinity ostensibly led Paul in that very direction. As Paul approached the scriptures, and as evidenced by his citational frequency alone, he found certain OT books particularly helpful in expounding the truths of the gospel. Yet even among his core sources of Genesis, Deuteronomy, Psalms and Isaiah, it is from Isaiah that Paul draws all the main contours of his gospel. Anticipating the forthcoming discussion, Paul developed a new picture of Isaiah as a whole because at certain crucial points he sees Isaiah’s message clearly fulfilled in Jesus. This caused a thorough re-reading of Isaiah in the light of Christ and, no doubt, a deepening of the understanding of Christ through reading Isaiah. 86 In Galatians 1 the apostle designates this set of truths received on the Damascus road as his gospel. The very connection of this term with the messianic, redemptive event likely points in the direction of Isaiah,87 as this thesis as a whole will attempt to demonstrate. Paul’s seemingly explicit identification of the gospel in Romans with the climactic message of the fourth Servant Song, however, would on the surface appear to bear this out (Rom 10:15/Isa 52:7; Rom 10:16/Isa 53:1; Rom 15:20–21/Isa 52:15).88 But See also, e.g., L. C. A. Alexander, “Chronology of Paul,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 117. 86 For a discussion of this dynamic, see, e.g., Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 77–87. See also Goppelt, Typos, 237, who emphasizes the role of typology in this process. Additionally, see Anthony C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 150. For an expression of this interplay in Paul’s quotations of scripture, particularly with reference to the question of a diachronic or synchronic approach to interpreting quotations, see Steve Moyise, “Quotations,” in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, SBLSS 50 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 28. 87 Hengel and Schwemer (Paul, 91–92), e.g., note the connection and equivalent reference of the noun and verb forms of euvagge,lion / euvaggeli,zw as expressed in Gal 1:11 (to. euvagge,lion to. euvaggelisqe.n u`pV evmou/; cf. Rom 10:15–16), which reflect the Hebrew rfb / hr'fB.. The verbal form is common in Isaiah and the Psalms (cf. Joel 3:5 LXX). They note further the connection between Gal 1:11 and I Cor 15:1–3 (99), and the predominantly Isaianic nature of the gospel in the latter text. 88 It has indeed been recognized by scholars that the Isaianic heralding of the good news of God’s redemption of His people from captivity and establishment of His reign as king (e.g., Isa 40:9; 52:7; 60:6; 61:1–3) had a formative influence upon Paul’s gospel. See, for example, J. C. Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 116; A. B. Luter, Jr., “Gospel,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsi-

II. Preliminary Considerations

31

strong, preliminary support for the essentially Isaianic character of Paul’s gospel is provided by the nature and role of apostolic tradition, tradition that came to be inscripturated in the four canonical gospels. Following the apostle’s conversion, it was not the OT scriptures alone that shed light on the eschatological good news of the redemptive work of Jesus the Messiah. The risen Christ himself on the Damascus road certified to Paul the truth of the apostolic gospel through his solidarity with the apostolic church which was birthed from it (cf. Acts 9:5; 22:8; 26:15). Indeed, standing over against Paul’s strong assertions of the independent nature of his gospel in Galatians, he can just as readily speak of passing on an apostolic tradition which he himself had received (e.g., 1 Cor 11:23–26; 15:3–8; also reflected, e.g., in Rom 4:25).89 This contact with apostolic tradition doubtless took place at a very early stage in Paul’s Christian experience. Both during Paul’s pre- and post-Arabian Damascus fellowship (Acts 9:19–25), as well as in his subsequent visit with Peter, he was not only exposed to apostolic tradition, but it is probable that he actively pursued a fuller knowledge of his risen Lord’s life and teaching, as well as the apostolic scriptural reflections upon it.90 This apostolic tradition, moreover, seems also to have led Paul to focus on Isaiah as the major scriptural source for understanding the gospel he was commissioned to proclaim.91 Evaluating the precise nature of this influence

ty Press, 1993), 369; Wilk, Bedeutung, 340–80, 401–8. Wagner (Heralds, 15, note 55) comments, “. . . Paul’s self-understanding and theology are shaped by his reading of large sections of Isaiah from the standpoint of his calling as apostle to the Gentiles.” 89 This interplay between the independent nature of Paul’s gospel and the apostle’s use of apostolic tradition is described, e.g., in Hengel and Schwemer, Paul, 43–47. 90 Seyoon Kim states, “For Paul, Jesus was no legendary ancient hero, but a contemporary of his who had been only recently crucified as a false messiah. Given this fact, it is impossible to think that Paul did not try to learn of Jesus, his life and teaching, more accurately from the primary witnesses like Peter as well as others from Jerusalem such as Barnabas, Silvanus, and John Mark. Nor is it easy to think that the close correspondences between the teaching and conduct of Jesus and the teaching and conduct of Paul could have come about if there was anything less than an earnest desire on Paul’s part to learn of Jesus” (“Sayings of Jesus,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin [Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993], 484). See also the discussion between James Dunn and Otfried Hofius on the question of the independence of Paul from Jerusalem and the nature of Paul’s visit to Jerusalem to see Peter: James D. G. Dunn, “The Relationship Between Paul and Jerusalem according to Galatians 1 and 2,” NTS 28 (Oct 1982): 461–78; Otfried Hofius, “Gal 1,18: i`storh/sai Khfa/n,” ZNW 75 (1984): 73–85; Dunn, “Once More – Gal 1,18: i`storh/sai Khfa/n in Reply to Otfried Hofius,” ZNW 76 (1985): 138–39. 91 Hengel comments (Paul, 98), “. . . in my view the basic features of christology (and the soteriology which is indissolubly bound up with it) were fully developed in the earliest Christian community on the day when Paul saw the risen Christ before Damascus . . .” He

32

Chapter One: Introduction

on the development of Paul’s gospel is complicated, however, both by the dating of the gospels in relation to Romans, as well as by the close ties that Paul enjoyed with [Peter,] Mark and Luke. All the gospels (with the possible exception of Mark) were written after Paul penned his epistle to the Romans (56 A.D.), though Mark and Luke were likely composed within five years of Romans. 92 This means that though Paul was undoubtedly influenced by the apostolic tradition that was eventually inscripturated in the four canonical gospels before he wrote Romans, this influence could well have run in both directions.93 Therefore, regardless of the direction the currents of influence were flowing, evidence for the Isaianic nature of the gospel in the synoptics (and to a lesser extent John) increases the likelihood that the gospel in Romans shares this same feature. goes on to describe the scriptural nature of this early tradition, possibly already received by Paul in Damascus and reflected in 1 Cor 15:3, as largely derived from Isaiah 53 (99). Peter Stuhlmacher also describes the Isaianic interpretive milieu into which Paul was converted and to which he was early exposed, a milieu reflected in 1 Cor 15:3ff and Rom 4:25. See “Isaiah 53 in the Gospels and Acts,” in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, ed. Bernd Janowski and Peter Stühlmacher, trans. Daniel P. Bailey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 153–55. Matthew Bates adds indirect confirmation to the above views (Hermeneutics, 99–107). He contends that Paul’s hermeneutic was based upon what he terms a “master kerygmatic narrative,” which Bates derives primarily from Rom 1:2–4 and 1 Cor 15:3–5. He believes this kerygmatic narrative was comprised of twelve stages: 1) preexistence; 2) human life in the line of David; 3) death in behalf of our sins; 4) burial; 5) existence among the dead ones; 6) resurrection; 7) initial appearances; 8) installation as “Son-of-God-in-power”; 9) subsequent appearances to others; 10) appearance to Paul; 11) apostolic commissioning; 12) mission to the nations. Bates himself acknowledges the Isaianic nature of some of the kerygmatic material (152–53, 268). With the exception of items 7, 9, and 10 (which are situationally related to the resurrection), this kerygmatic narrative greatly resembles the Isaianic narrative framework reflected in Romans (as this thesis will seek to demonstrate). For more on the Isaianic nature of apostolic tradition, particularly as employed by Paul, see the discussion in chapter four, “Isaiah 53 as the Background of Paul’s Theology of Atonement.” 92 Carson/Moo/Morris, Introduction, place Mark in the late 50’s or middle 60’s, Luke in the early 60’s, Matthew before A.D . 70, and A.D. 80–85 for John (though tentatively, allowing from A.D. 55–95). 93 In support of the careful transmission of apostolic tradition, see E. E. Ellis, “New Directions in Form Criticism,” in Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 237–53; B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity; with Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity, trans. Eric J. Sharpe (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19982 [19611/19641]); I. H. Marshall, I Believe in the Historical Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977); Rainer Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer: eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der Evangelien-Überlieferung, WUNT 2.7 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1981); G. Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching, SNTSMS 27 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1974).

II. Preliminary Considerations

33

As reflected in the NT accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, this apostolic tradition evidences a thorough obedience to the command of the risen Lord to fill-in the content of the message of Christ through Israel’s scriptures (Luke 24:44–47; John 16:13–15). Following interpretive trajectories begun by both John the Baptist and the Lord himself,94 the evangelists found the prophet Isaiah particularly useful in expounding the significance of the messianic events so recently unfolded. It is, in fact, increasingly recognized by scholars that the gospel of the kingdom proclaimed in the synoptic gospels (e.g., Matt 4:23; Mark 1:14–15; Luke 4:43), first by John the Baptist and then by Christ and his followers, finds its scriptural source in the good news of Isaiah. 95 This Isaianic influence centering in the “good news,” moreover, extends to much of the theological framework of the individual gospels, 94 The Isaianic nature of the apostolic tradition in the gospels and the traditional units of the NT (e.g., 1 Cor 15:1–4ff; Rom 4:25) is derived from and accurately reflects the perspective and instruction of Jesus Himself, who understood His messianic mission in terms of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 52:13–53:12. This is asserted, e.g., by Otto Betz, Was wissen wir von Jesus? (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1991), 106–8; Blenkinsopp, Sealed Book, 289–92; James D. G. Dunn, New Testament Theology: An Introduction (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009), 24; Walther Zimmerli and Joachim Jeremias, “pai/j qeou/,” TDNT, 5:654–717 (see esp. 712–17); Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology, trans. John Bowden, NTL (London: SCM Press, 1971), 291, 298–99; Stuhlmacher, “Isaiah 53,” 147– 62. 95 Commenting on Isa 52:7, Blenkinsopp (Sealed Book, 135) writes, “Here we have Paul’s gospel and that of the evangelists proclaimed in advance together with its essential content, since ‘the kingdom of God’ (basileia tou theou) is simply an abstract formulation of the statement ‘Your God reigns.’” On the Isaianic nature of “gospel” in the four gospels, particularly the synoptics, see, e.g., Millar Burrows, More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls: New Scrolls and New Interpretations with Translations of Important Recent Discoveries (New York: Viking, 1958), 95; W. Grimm, Die Verkündigung Jesu und Deuterojesaja, ANTJ 1 (Bern and Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 19812 [orig. Weil ich dich liebe, 1976]); Otto Betz, “Jesus’ Gospel of the Kingdom,” in The Gospel and the Gospels, ed. Peter Stuhlmacher (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 53–74; J. F. A. Sawyer, The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); Evans, “Gospel to Gospel,” 667–74. See also C. C. Broyles, “Gospel,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1992), 282–86; Gerhard Friedrich, “eu,aggeli,zomai,” TDNT, 2:707–37 (see esp. 718–19; he states [708], “Most significant for an understanding of the NT concept euangelion is Dt. Is. and the literature influenced by it.”); J. A. Sanders, “From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4,” in Christianity, Judaism, and other Greco-Roman Cults, ed. J. Neusner (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 75– 106. Evans (“Gospel to Gospel,” 671) comments, “We have here every indication that Jesus understood his call and ministry in terms of the message of (Second) Isaiah. In short, Jesus’ gospel is essentially Isaiah’s gospel.” He goes on to assert (672–73), “The proclamation of God’s kingdom . . . the demand for repentance, and the summons to faith are all rooted in the language and vision of Second Isaiah.”

34

Chapter One: Introduction

as well as the book of Acts.96 Due to the limitations of the current investigation, the following overview represents only the barest sketch of the theological significance that prophecy of Isaiah held for the four gospels. In Isaiah alone is the term euvaggeli,zw used to describe the proclamation of the good news of the Lord’s redemption of his people from captivity [to sin] and the subsequent establishment of his kingly rule (Is 40:1–11; 52:1–12; 61:1–3). This term (whether in the noun or verb form) is picked up in the synoptic gospels in the proclamation of “the good news of the kingdom of God” that began with the preparatory ministry of John the Baptist. Each of the gospel writers present John as Isaiah’s voice crying in the wilderness, “. . . make ready the way of the Lord . . .” (Isa 40:3–5; cf. Matt 3:1–3; Mark 1:1–4; Luke 3:1–6; so also John 1:19–23), a call that in both the gospels and Isaiah is intimately connected with the proclamation of good news.97 This 96

On Matthew, see Richard Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ in Matthew’s Gospel, SNTSMS 123 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Blenkinsopp, Sealed Book, 129–68; Michael J. Wilkins, “Isaiah 53 and the Message of Salvation in the Four Gospels,” in The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2012), 109– 32. On Mark, see Joel Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992); but see esp. Rikki E. Watts, whose work can, in a measure, be said to be representative of the synoptics (Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark, WUNT 2.88 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997]). While acknowledging this central role of the Isaianic gospel in Mark’s theology, Evans (“Gospel to Gospel,” 674–82) supports the second gospel’s unique application of the Isaianic “good news” to Roman Gentiles as over against the emperor cult. On Luke, see C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders, Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1993), 14–25; Ulrike MittmannRichert, Der Sühnetod des Gottesknechts: Jesaja 53 im Lukasevangelium, WUNT 220 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008); David W. Pao and Eckhard J. Schnabel, “Luke,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 251–414; Sanders, “From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4,” 75–106; D. Secombe, “Luke and Isaiah,” NTS 27 (1981): 252–59. On John, see Craig A. Evans, “Obduracy and the Lord’s Servant: Some Observations on the Use of the Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel,” in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis, ed. Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 221–36; “On the Quotation Formulas in the Fourth Gospel,” BZ 26 (1982): 79–83; Williams, “Testimony,” 107–24. On Acts see esp. David W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. On the central role of Isaiah 53 in the theology of the gospels and Acts, see Stuhlmacher, “Isaiah 53,” 147–62. For an overview of the use of Isaiah’s prophecy in the NT, see Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken, eds., Isaiah in the New Testament (London: T&T clark, 2005). 97 Luke even describes the Baptist as “preaching the gospel to the people” (Luke 3:18). Luke’s account, moreover, extends the quotation from Isaiah 40:3 (which is the single verse quoted by Matthew and Mark) to Isaiah 40:5. This extension is interpretively significant because it substantively connects the call to repentance (see note below) with the

II. Preliminary Considerations

35

exhortation to repentance and faith98 in the context of Isa 40:1–11 is, in fact, part and parcel with the proclamation of the good news of God’s presence in redeeming power to lead his people home (Isa 40:9–11).99 The phrase “the way of the Lord” (hw"hy> %r ~Wry" ) used to describe the Servant of the Lord in Isa 52:13 is used three other times in the OT, only in Isaiah (6:1; 33:10; 57:15), and only of God. This phrase used in conjunction with the description of the Servant as “greatly exalted” (daom. Hb;g") recalls Isa 2:6– 22. The setting is the eschatological reckoning in which God will humble the arrogance and pride of man, so that “the Lord alone will be exalted in that day.” Verses 11–12 read, “The proud look of man will be abased, And the loftiness (~Wr) of man will be humbled, And the LORD alone will be exalted in that day. For the LORD of hosts will have a day of reckoning Against everyone who is proud and lofty (~Wr), And against everyone who is lifted up (afn), That he may be abased.” This exaltation of the Servant, moreover, is believed by scholars to stand behind Paul’s well-known kenosis passage, in which the deity of Christ as the backdrop to His selfhumiliation is a leading theme. See, e.g., M. Bockmuehl, The Epistle to the Philippians, BNTC (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998), 135–36.

76

Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

anticipated now in the recreated life granted by the Spirit (Rom 8:1–11).25 Second, Rom 9:5 presents the Messiah as deriving his human nature from his Israeli/Davidic descent (cf. Rom 15:12), though he is, in fact, “. . . over all, God blessed forever,”26 concepts similarly paired in Rom 1:3. So as a man in the line of the messianic seed of David, Christ mediates and fulfills the covenant promises of salvation to God’s people, but only as he takes the sinner’s place as sacrificial substitute; as God, however, he could take the place of all the fallen humanity issuing from Adam, with his atoning sacrifice effecting recreation. This concept of redemptive recreation through the mediation of the Servant of the Lord will be seen to be a prominent element of Isaiah 40– 55. In view of the fact that Paul draws both messianic and servant roles from Isaiah, it would seem likely that Paul’s high christology, which forms the basis of his soteriology, is likewise drawn significantly from the Great Prophet.27 Rom 1:3–4, therefore, presents an intriguing parallelism and historical progression as the preexistent Son first becomes the incarnate Son in the line of David, and then is declared or installed Son of God at his resurrection (cf. Ps 110:1).28 His nature as “. . . born of a descendent of David according to the

25 Ellis views Rom 8:3 as a possible allusion to Isa 53:10 by virtue of the identical phrase peri. a`marti,aj. See Appendix. 26 On qe,oj in Rom 9:5 as referring to Christ who is by nature “God,” see esp. Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 143–72. 27 These considerations evidence the criterion of thematic development. Paul, following Isaiah, links the messianic and servant concepts, both of which he clearly draws from Isaiah in other passages in Romans. This linking of messianic and servant concepts, based in christology, then becomes the basis of soteriology – Isaiah’s redemptive recreation. In terms of the criteria for the relative significance of Isaiah, this thematic development of Isaiah also evidences great theological weight within its quoted context, and [anticipating much of the study to come] ties into a demonstrable theological framework. 28 The parallelism and progressive nature of the description of Christ in Rom 1:3–4 is supported, e.g., by Cranfield, Romans, 59–60; L. W. Hurtado, “Jesus’ Divine Sonship in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” 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: Eerdmans, 1999), 227, 228; Murray, Romans, 5–12. See also Hengel and Schwemer, Paul, 101–2. Hurtado (221–23) notes the fact that seven of the seventeen references to Jesus as the divine Son in the thirteen epistles traditionally attributed to Paul occur in Romans (1:3, 4, 9; 5:10; 8:3, 29, 32), and four in Galatians (1:16; 2:20; 4:4, 6). “This clustering of references in these two epistles suggests that Paul used divine-sonship rhetoric deliberately and likely in connection with particular themes and emphases . . .” (222). He goes on to suggest further that Paul’s use of divine-sonship language in the opening paragraph of Romans 1, a paragraph replete with the standard messianic title cristo,j (1:1, 4, 6, 7), points to a “theological intentionality” used to convey Christ’s divine nature (223–224ff).

I. Rom 1:1–15 – The Gospel of the Messianic Servant

77

flesh . . .” (tou/ genome,nou evk spe,rmatoj Daui.d kata. sa,rka) marks the Messiah’s role as the One who mediates the covenant blessing of Abraham (cf. Rom 4:13; cf. also Rom 16:20), and so reclaims for humanity both sovereignty and inheritance. This messianic seed, though having primary reference to the covenant mediator (cf. Gal 3:16), has derivative reference to those who come to faith in the covenant promises (the “blessed seed”), ultimately expressed within the realized-eschatological era as faith in the sacrificial, redemptive death[, burial] and resurrection of Christ/the Isaianic Servant of the Lord (Rom 4:3–13, 23–25; 9:6–9, 27–33[ff]; cf. Rom 16:20).29 As this thesis will argue, Paul understands Isaiah’s good news as ultimately dealing with redemption from sin and death, symbolized and signified by the resurrection of the Servant/Christ, in which believers now participate (Romans 6 and 8). It is the resurrection of Christ that marks the fulfillment of this good news (Rom 4:25/Isa 53:11–12 [Ellis, Shum, Wagner, Wilk]; see the Appendix) as both eschatological reality and future hope (Rom 8:1–23). This present eschatological reality of recreation is expressed in the phrase “the obedience of faith” in verse 5.30 Paul’s exposition of the saving event itself in the atoning sacrifice of Christ, therefore, the center and foundation of the gospel, reflects the Isaianic union of messianic and Servant concepts, both of which are thoroughly based in christology. 31 Though space prohibits the treatment of a topic more suited to the use of Isaiah in Romans 8, the conjunction of the themes of the appointment of Jesus as messianic Son in power by the resurrection of the dead, together with the designation of the Roman Christians as “the called of Jesus Christ” (vv. 6, 7), warrants a few suggestions as to a possible Isaianic background. The themes of sonship, calling, and election are integrally bound in Romans. As L. W. Hurtado rightly observes, “Between the references to God’s sending of his own Son in 8:3 and 8:29, Paul develops the theme of the divine sonship of believers . . . [which] is clearly derivative of Jesus sonship.”32 This divine For the background and significance of the title “Son of God” in Paul, particularly over against a possible Hellenistic/pagan background, and with a focus on this very text, see Hengel, The Son of God, esp. 57–83. 29 Alec Motyer (Isaiah, 427–28) sees these ideas brought together in Isa 53:1–2. 30 See esp. Glenn N. Davies, Faith and Obedience in Romans: A Study in Romans 1–4, JSNTSup 39 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990). Davies (26ff) argues convincingly for a genitive of origin. 31 For more on christology as the basis of the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice, see below, chapter four, note 111. 32 “Divine Sonship,” 230. On the connection with chapter one, he states (231), “Given the accumulated scholarly demonstrations of Paul’s fondness for anticipating in letter openings the themes he later addresses . . . the explicit discussion in Romans 8 is evidence that the references to Jesus’ divine sonship in the opening chapter of his epistle were intended in part to prepare readers for the more developed discussion later in the letter-body here.”

78

Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

sonship of Jesus, moreover, is inseparably linked to and forms the basis of the elect status of the children of God, who are “. . . predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren” (v. 29; see vv. 28–34).33 This relationship between Jesus’ divine sonship and election becomes most intriguing in the allusions to Isa 50:8–9 in Rom 8:33–34 (Ellis, Shum, Wilk; Wagner 50:8). In his allusion to this third of the so-called “Servant Songs,” the apostle alters the first person confession of the Servant of the Lord and his sure prospect of vindication to an assertion of the vindicated status of the elect. What is most interesting about this substitution, especially in light of Paul’s use of the concepts of “calling” and “election” in 8:28–34, is that the Servant himself in the first two Servant Songs is the One who is preeminently the “called”34 and “elect”35 of God. This literary/textual substitution on the part of the apostle, therefore, expresses the result of the sacrificial substitution of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53, which Paul alludes to in Rom 8:32 and 34 (Rom 8:32/Isa 53:6 Shum, Wagner, Wilk; Isa 53:11–12 Wagner; Rom 8:34/Isa 53:12 Ellis), allusions which both immediately precede and follow the allusions to Isaiah 50. Paul thus creates an allusive interplay between the Isaianic texts which not only conveys the sacrificial basis of both the election and justification of believers, but grounds these divine actions in the election and vindication of the Servant of the Lord, whom he identifies with the Son of God (v. 32), Jesus Christ (v. 34). 36 Within the context of Isaiah, in fact, there is a narrowing of the concept of the elect from the nation of Israel as a whole to a remnant within the nation.37 This movement is tersely epitomized in Isa 14:1 (cf. Isa 11:1), which serves as the introduction to a taunt song against the king of Babylon, the cruel despot to which the nation would be enslaved (v. 3). Arising out of this context 33

Ibid., 229ff. Isa 42:6 MT qd ynIa]; LXX evgw. ku,rioj o` qeo.j evka,lesa, se evn dikaiosu,nh; Isa 49:1 MT ynIa'r"q. !j,B,mi hw"hy>; LXX evk koili,aj mhtro,j mou evka,lesen to. o;noma, mou. 35 Isa 42:1 MT yrIyxiB.; LXX o` evklekto,j mou; Isa 49:7 MT &'r [:ymiäv.m; bAjß `%yIh")l{a/ [;Aråz>-ta, ‘hw"hy> @f:Üx' Isa 52:10 ‘War"w> ~yI+AGh;-lK' ynEßy[el. Avêd>q' `Wnyhe(l{a/ t[;îWvy> taeÞ #r [;Arïz>W

Isa 53:1 LXX ku,rie ti,j evpi,steusen th/| avkoh/| h`mw/n kai. o` braci,wn kuri,ou ti,ni (avpekalu,fqh)

Isa 53:1 “O Lord, who has believed our report? and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” LXX

Underline = verbal connections centering on various forms of the terms [mv and avkoh,, which in 52:7 are set in parallel with rfb and euvaggeli,zw, respectively. Double Underline = the phrase “His holy arm”/“the arm of the Lord” Broken Underline = the prominent theme of divine revelation, inherent in the proclamation of good news; a conceptual connection strengthened in the LXX by the future tense of avpokalu,ptw, corresponding to the aorist in 53:1 (see parenthesis)

110

Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

As mentioned above, Isa 52:7 and 10 as forming the beginning and end of this given literary unit are to be understood together, so that the good news of the arrival of God’s salvation in 52:7 is the same as the good news of the revelation of the Lord’s holy arm that brings salvation in 52:10. In 52:10 the revelation of the saving arm of the Lord forms the more specific content of the good news by describing the Lord’s exertion of his mighty power for the salvation of his people. This arm of the Lord, the content of the good news and the semantic equivalent of God’s saving righteousness (Isa 51:5), is then definitively and climactically revealed in Isa 53:1 as it anticipates and encapsulates the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord. This message of God’s mighty arm, then, is set forth in 53:2–12 by means of the above contextual and linguistic links between 52:10, 52:15 and 53:1, which together serve to introduce the Servant’s sacrificial work. In both the MT and the LXX, Isa 52:7 and 10 linguistically link this good news of God’s salvation with Isa 53:1. In the MT of 52:7 the hiphil participle of [mv (NASB “to announce”) is twice used synonymously with the piel participle of rfb (NASB “to bring good news”) to convey the initial proclamation of salvation to Zion. The verb ([mv) is then employed in reference to the nations who come to embrace what they have “heard” with regard to the Servant (52:15), while the cognate noun (h['Wmv.) then appears in 53:1, signifying the “report” of God’s deliverance and reign through the Servant initially proclaimed to a disbelieving Israel. So what begins as a proclamation of deliverance and salvation to Israel (Isa 52:7; 53:1) becomes a proclamation to the nations (Isa 52:15; cf. Isa 42:1–7; 49:1–9). This contextual and linguistic connection between the proclamation of good news in Isa 52:7 and the report of 53:1 is made stronger in the LXX. There the proclamation of good news in 52:7 is a “report of peace” (w`j po,dej euvaggelizome,nou avkoh.n eivrh,nhj – “. . . as the feet of one preaching good news – tidings of peace . . .”), the very word used in 53:1, “Lord, who has believed our report” (ku,rie ti,j evpi,steusen th/| avkoh/| h`mw/n). The seemingly redundant nature of avkoh.n in 52:7 appears to be a deliberate interpretive connection with 53:1, 133 a connection likely strengthened further by means of the future avpokalu,yei in 52:10 corresponding to the aorist avpekalu,fqh in 53:1. The message of salvation and deliverance that God would reveal to the nations had first been revealed to Israel.

133

What is in the Hebrew a linguistic connection between the hiphil participles and the cognate noun, strengthening the contextual connection (cf. also 52:15), apparently becomes an interpretive identification in the LXX, which is followed by Paul. The term avkoh, is used in LXX Isaiah only 3 times: 6:9; 52:7; and 53:1. As mentioned above (note 131), the Targum of Isaiah makes the same interpretive identification, reading in Isa 53:1, “. . . who has believed this our good news . . .” Note also in 52:7 the cognate avkousth.n.

II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah

111

The strong linguistic and contextual connections between 52:7–10 and 53:1 are further reinforced thematically. The emphasis on hearing the good news in 52:7 gradually shifts throughout the pericope to an emphasis on seeing this salvation as it is divinely revealed in the saving message in 52:10. This dual emphasis picks up the themes of faith, obduracy and unbelief prominent since Isaiah 6, themes metaphorically represented by the ability or judicially incurred inability to perceive with the senses. These themes are continued in the introductory verses to the fourth Servant Song (Isa 52:15), and become prominent in 53:1, as hearing and seeing (Isa 52:15) are used to rep. i !ymia/h, ymi; Isa 53:1) in God’s saving act through the resent faith (Wnte['muvl humiliation and exaltation of his Servant. 134 The Servant, as the personification of the Lord’s saving arm, is set forth as “. . . the object of seeing, as the content of divine revelation.”135 Ironically, however, at least in its initial proclamation, the report of 53:1 – intended “to be heard” in the truest sense – is in fact, by many in Israel, snubbed and disbelieved; and the divine manifestation of God’s saving arm through the Person of the Servant, evocative to the soul in a manner that eclipses the dramatic visual imagery of the exodus, is, tragically, not even perceived. The report of Isa 53:1, then, is the proclamation of good news of 52:7 (cf. also 40:9; 60:6; 61:1) the content of which is the saving arm of the Lord. And the revelation of this saving arm in 53:1, anticipated both in the immediate (e.g., 51:5–9; 52:7–10) and wider context (Isa 40:10) of this section of the prophecy as the revelation of God’s righteousness (Isa 45:25; 50:7–9; 51:5–9; 53:1, 11; 54:14, 17[; 56:1; 59:15–21]), is none other than the [message of the] sacrificial death and subsequent exaltation of the Servant of the Lord as the basis of God’s redemptive act for both Israel and the world. Succinctly stated, in Isaiah’s proclamation of good news, God’s saving righteousness is eschatologically revealed in the sacrificial death of the Servant of the Lord. Yet the Isaianic proclamation of good news as the revelation of God’s righteousness occurs in the prophecy in two phases – the redemptive event in the sacrifice of the Servant, and, issuing from this event, the redemptive consummation in eschatological judgment and salvation. This understanding of the prophecy and its good news is evident in Paul’s use of Isaiah; and in regard to this dual revelatory role as understood by Paul, Isa 56:1 in the MT becomes a clear linguistic and conceptual link to the thematic statement of Rom 1:16–17 and its theological outworking throughout the epistle.

134 Childs (Isaiah, 413) notes the chiastic construction between 52:15b and 53:1. On the various thematic and interpretive connections between Isa 6:9; 52:7, 10, 15 and 53:1, as well as the manner in which the LXX strengthens these links, see esp. Ekblad, Isaiah’s Servant Poems, 194–98. 135 Williams, “Testimony,” 121.

112

Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

In Isaiah, the dual revelatory significance of the good news as including the consummation of redemption is evident both within the broad scope of Isaiah 40–55, as well as in the relation of Isaiah 40–55 to the final section of the prophecy, a relation expressed most forcefully in Isa 56:1, the opening verse of the final section. First, then, within Isaiah 40–55 this dual aspect of the good news is made apparent, e.g., through such interrelated themes as the initial characterization of the good news as redemption from sin, corruption and death in chapter 40; the world-wide nature of this redemption in chapters 42 and 49; justification in the eschatological judgment in Isaiah 45 as ultimately based in the sacrifice of the Servant in Isaiah [50 and] 53; and, in chapters 54–55, the invitation to Israel and “anyone who thirsts” to enter into the saving covenant based in the Servant’s redemptive work, which includes the promise of future and ultimate restoration within the context of the removal of the curse. These various themes throughout Isaiah 40–55 demonstrate that an essential aspect of the revelation of God’s righteousness in Isaiah’s good news is not simply the redemptive event of the sacrifice of the Servant, but also its intended and necessary correlate –the consummation of redemption. Secondly, therefore, this consummation of redemption based in the sacrifice of the Servant becomes a key theme of the last major section of the prophecy (Isaiah 56–66).136 The Lord’s impassioned cry (Isa 56:1), “. . . My salvation is about to come And my righteousness to be revealed” (tAlG"hil. ytiq'd>ciw> aAbl' yti['Wvy> hb'Arq.-yKi), immediately recalls the revelation of God’s righteousness in the sacrifice of the Servant just recounted in chapters 40–55 and projects its necessary end in the consummation of that revealed righteousness in eschatological judgment and salvation. Isa 56:1, therefore, becomes a significant thematic bridge between these major sections of the prophecy which unites these dual aspects of the revelation of God’s righteousness in the gospel. This becomes clearer in the continuing thematic movements of this last major section. The revelation of God’s righteousness in eschatological salvation reemerges powerfully in chapter 59, in which the Lord again bares his holy arm – in intertextual reference to the Servant of Isaiah 53 – and exacts a vengeance and redemption that restores Israel to the presence and glory of God (Isa 60:1–22).137 Isa 61:1–3, then, by means of various intertextual allusions to both Isaiah 40–55 and 59, reinforces this dual nature of the revelation of God’s righteousness in the gospel by retrospective136

On the consummation of salvation in this section, see Isaiah 56:1–8; 57:13–14 [18– 19]; 59:15–60:22; 61:1–11; 62:2–5, 8–12; 63:1–6; 65:8–25; 66:5–24. On the consummation of salvation in Isaiah 56–66 as based in the sacrifice of the Servant, see pp. 159–160, 261–66 below, which discusses the intertextual relation between Isaiah 59 and 40–55 focusing on the Servant of the Lord as the agent of redemption. 137 Again, and also with reference to the key transitional role of Isa 56:1, see pp. 262–67 below.

II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah

113

ly characterizing the proclamation of good news of Isaiah 40–55 as including both the redemptive event of the sacrifice of the Servant, as well as the consummation of redemption in eschatological judgment and salvation. 138 Isa 56:1, therefore, as a key transition between these two major sections of the prophecy, becomes a powerful expression of the nature of the good news as the revelation of God’s righteousness in terms of both redemptive event and redemptive consummation. 139 But also, as part of the allusive matrix of the revelation of God’s righteousness in the gospel referenced by Paul, it provides strong linguistic and conceptual links to Rom 1:16–17 (Isa 56:1: tAlG"hil. ytiq'd>ciw>; Rom 1:17: dikaiosu,nh ga.r qeou/ evn auvtw/| [i.e. the gospel] avpokalu,ptetai) and its thematic and theological development throughout the epistle which follows. 140 To conclude the larger discussion, then, it is highly probable that Rom 1:16–17 reflects this Isaianic conception of the gospel as the revelation of God’s righteousness.141 With reference to the earlier question of the nature of 138

On this intertextual nature of Isa 61:1–3 as understood by Paul, see in chapter four below, “The Sacrifice of the Servant/Christ as the Fulfillment of the Day of Atonement.” 139 This is precisely why the gospel is immediately and tersely described in terms of redemptive consummation as expressed in Christ’s resurrection (Rom 1:1–6), which theme frames the opening section of Romans through allusion to Isaiah (Rom 4:25; see the Appendix). See above in chapter two, “Romans 1:1–15: The Gospel of the Messianic Servant and the Conquest of Death.” 140 This understanding of Isaiah on the part of Paul is evident in Romans in several respects, which may be briefly summarized as follows (and all of which is canvassed more thoroughly throughout the work): 1) The gospel is presented as the revelation of God’s righteousness in terms of both salvation (Rom 1:16–17) and wrath (Rom 1:18), climaxing in the eschatological judgment “according to the gospel” (Rom 2:16); 2) Paul’s description of the saving event in the sacrifice of Christ and its appropriation by faith (Rom 3:21–4:25) is followed by Romans 5–8 and the discussion of necessary relation between present appropriation of the gospel and its final consummation; 3) Paul’s description of the consummation of redemption in Romans 8 is based in the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53 (see Appendix); 4) Paul’s interlacing of Isaiah 52/53 and 59 in both the early and later sections of the epistle, and particularly the manner in which the plight of Isaiah 59 is in each case resolved through the Servant of Isaiah 53. Note also Paul’s likely allusion to Isa 61:1 preceding his quotation of Isa 52:7 in Rom 10:15; see above in footnote 2 of this chapter. 141 This probability is strengthened greatly in Rom 3:21–26, in which the righteousness of God is revealed explicitly in redemption through the sacrifice of the Messiah, through which act He justifies the many. The combination of these themes occurs only in Isaiah. On Rom 3:21–26, see chapter four below. As additional support for the above interpretive connection it may be added that Paul throughout Romans clearly draws the theme of the justification of sinners from recognized allusions to and quotations of Isaiah. The most significant allusions are those which draw on the justification language of Isaiah 50 and 53 (Rom 4:25/Isa 53:4–5, 11–12; Rom 8:31– 34/Isa 50:8–8; 53:11–12; see Appendix).

114

Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

this righteousness, it must necessarily include each aspect of attribute, activity, and status. It is God’s righteous character as reflected in the law that separates Israel and humanity from God, brings the curse, calls forth his judgment, and so warrants the absolute necessity for a saving righteousness (e.g., Isa 1:[1–]27; 6:5; 24:1–6; 28:17; 42:21–25; 50:1; 59:1–2). So while God’s righteousness in Isaiah 40–55 has reference primarily to the activity of his saving, eschatological vindication in and through the Servant, this activity is bound inseparably to his righteous character (attribute), and issues necessarily in a righteous status (e.g., Isa 53:11). As will be seen, in the proclamation of good news these three elements are essentially bound and ultimately revealed. It is this dynamic sense of the righteousness of God – one which has primary reference to his saving activity, but necessarily includes and implies the elements of attribute and status – that likely stands behind Paul’s thought in Rom 1:17a. Therefore, there appears to be a very high probability that Rom 1:16–17a, the thematic verses of the epistle, constitute through their verbal and conceptual complex an allusion to Isaiah 40–55.142 This allusion within the thematic Rom 9:30–10:16 directly connects the attainment of righteousness to four passages from Isaiah, all of which are integrally related within the prophecy as a whole to God’s saving righteousness in the gospel of the Servant (Rom 9:33/Isa 8:14; 28:16; Rom 10:11/Isa 28:16; Rom 10:15/Isa 52:7; Rom 10:16/Isa 53:1). In fact, in this crucial section of Paul’s argument in which he is particularly concerned with the attainment of righteousness, he quotes from only two other OT passages (Deut 30:12–14; Joel 2:32). Though in none of these quotations is the word “righteousness” itself used, Isa 28:16 (which he quotes twice) uses language of vindication, which implies God’s saving righteousness, and Isa 52:7 and 53:1 in context relate directly to the revelation of God’s righteousness in the Servant of the Lord. This strongly suggests that Paul’s concept of God’s righteousness is derived in large measure from what he perceived to be Isaiah’s broader theological structures, particularly in relation to Isaiah’s “gospel” of the Suffering Servant (cf. Rom 1:16– 17; 10:15–16). 142 These verses, therefore, fulfill the criteria for an allusion first in terms of its volume – the sheer number of clustered vocabulary/themes that are not only found in Isaiah 40–55 (though more specifically chapters 52–53) but integrated with reference to the proclamation of good news. But this allusion is rendered more certain through the additional criteria of recurrence (as the various terms and concepts are subsequently drawn from explicit quotations to Isaiah) and thematic coherence. With reference to the relative priority of Isaiah, the theological “weight” of [this] biblical reference within its quoted context, that context being the thematic verses of the epistle, points to a central role for Isaiah within Paul’s scriptural exposition. Rom 1:16–17a also points to Paul’s use of Isaiah within demonstrable theological framework, a redemptive-narrative framework that centers in Isaiah’s messianic sacrifice for sin, which surfaces explicitly in Rom 3:21–26. The acknowledged relation between Rom 1:16–17a and 3:21–26 in terms of the manifestation of God’s righteousness in the gospel strengthens this proposal. As will be seen in the continuing discussion, Paul will set the stage for this Isaianic redemption through an Isaianically conceived plight in Rom 1:18–3:20, in which he presents

II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah

115

verses of the epistle also strongly suggests an overarching Isaianic theological framework for the epistle as a whole. In keeping with Paul’s emphasis in these verses, moreover, it further suggests a framework particularly centering in the Isaianic good news of God’s saving righteousness effected through the vicarious, redemptive work of the Suffering Servant. But before this thesis is further tested in the main sections of the epistle, it will prove valuable to see if this probable Isaianic backdrop can shed any light on the last two notoriously disputed segments of Rom 1:17. 5. The Gospel and Its Salvation-Historical Continuity evk pi,stewj eivj pi,stin – The meaning of the phrase “from faith to faith” has been the subject of interpretive speculation since the patristic period. Cranfield lists about a dozen possible meanings,143 and doubtless many more have been suggested.144 The phrase “evk . . . eivj . . .” however, is far from cryptic. It is an expression very common in the LXX, but present in the NT as well, that refers to movement from one destination or realm to another.145 The phrase can often refer to the repetitive and/or progressive cycle of days, years, or generations, 146 but the basic idea of movement from one destination humanity as captive and condemned in anticipation of God’s redemptive righteousness in the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord/Jesus Christ. 143 Romans, 99–100. 144 In their respective commentaries on Romans, for example, Barrett has the meaning “faith from start to finish” (31); Bruce understands the meaning, in line with the marginal reading of the NEB, as “based on faith and addressed to faith” (85); Barth interprets it as God’s faithfulness to man’s faith (Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, trans. Edwyn C. Hoskyns [London: Oxford University Press, 1933], 41); Calvin says it refers to the advance in faith (28); Cranfield understands it as an emphatic equivalent of evk pi,stewj (100); Godet, “. . . in this righteousness faith is everything, absolutely everything . . . It is a righteousness of faith offered to faith” (161); Käsemann understands the phrase to indicate movement in the life of the individual or in salvation history (31); Murray, “by faith to everyone who believes,” along the analogy of Romans 3:22; Sanday and Headlam view the phrase as referring both to deepening faith as well as its spread in the world (28). 145 E.g., Exod 12:37; Josh 10:29, 31, 34; Judg 11:40; 24:19; 1 Sam 13:15; 2 Sam 2:12; 1 Kgs 2:41; 2 Kgs 24:15; 1 Esd 2:14; Ezra 1:11; 1 Mac 10:67; Pss 84:7; 104:13; Job 10:19; 18:18; Sir 29:24; 36:26; Isa 36:2; Jer 9:3; 28:6 (LXX 35:6); 48:11 (LXX 31:11); Lam 2:1; Luke 10:7; Rom 5:16; 6:17. A virtually synonymous expression is “avpo. . . . eivj . . .” E.g., Esth 9:22; Matt 23:34; Luke 10:30; Acts 8:26; 26:18; 2 Cor 3:18. Dunn (Romans 1–8, 43), e.g., writes, “The idiom is clearly one denoting some sort of progression, where evk refers to the starting point and eivj the end . . .” See also, e.g., Jewett (Romans, 143) who states, “The parallels to this sequence of prepositions make clear that a progression, transformation, or movement is intended.” 146 Of days: 1Chr 16:23; 2 Chr 21:15, 19; Jer 52:34; of years: 1 Sam 1:3, 25; 2:19; of generations: Prov 27:24; of the life/death cycle with an allusion to the curse of Gen 3:19; Sir 41:10.

116

Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

or realm to another has in several Old and New Testament passages the added dimension of movement toward consummation. 147 Of particular significance is Paul’s own use of the phrase twice in 2 Cor 2:16 and his use of the synonymous phrase “avpo. . . . eivj . . .” less than twenty verses later in 3:18.148 In each instance (“from death to death,” “from life to life,” “from glory to glory”), particularly the last (3:18), it appears highly likely that Paul is using the phrase to refer to movement towards consummation, or perhaps, movement from inception to consummation. 149 It is in this sense that the phrase “from faith to faith” seems to receive the strongest corroboration both from the immediate and larger context of Romans, and from the Isaianic background as well. “From faith to faith,” then, would go beyond the assertion that God’s righteousness is revealed “by faith,”150 an assertion essentially made in verse 16. It would have reference to the continuity of faith from inception to consummation, in terms of both appropriation and content.151 It would also, 147

E.g., Ps 84:7 (LXX 83:8); Jer 9:3 (LXX 9:2); 2 Cor 2:16; 3:18. This movement toward consummation as well as the synonymous nature of the phrases “evk . . . eivj . . .” and “avpo. . . . eivj . . .” is evident in Sir 41:10. Additional uses of the synonymous phrase “avpo. . . . eivj . . .” include, e.g., Esth 9:22; Matt 23:34; Luke 10:30; Acts 8:26; 26:18. 149 Commentators uniformly acknowledge this in 2 Cor 3:18, particularly as “avpo. . . . eivj . . .” stands in relation to the preceding present tense verb metamorfou,meqa; e.g., Philip E. Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 117–21; Martin, 2 Corinthians, 72, 74; Margaret E. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Vol. I: Introduction and Commentary on II Corinthians I-VII, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 285–86. Though somewhat more removed grammatically, the repeated phrase “evk . . . eivj . . .” (oi-j me.n ovsmh. evk qana,tou eivj qa,naton( oi-j de. ovsmh. evk zwh/j eivj zwh,n) in 2 Cor 2:16 likewise stands in close relation to the progressive nature of the present participles in 2:15 (evn toi/j sw|zome,noij kai. evn toi/j avpollume,noij), a relation created by a widely acknowledged chiastic structure (see Thrall, Corinthians, 203): (o[ti Cristou/ euvw di,a evsme.n tw/| qew/|) A evn toi/j sw|zome,noij B evn toi/j avpollume,noij B’ oi-j me.n ovsmh. evk qana,tou eivj qa,naton A’ oi-j de. ovsmh. evk zwh/j eivj zwh,n The progressive nature of the phrase “evk . . . eivj . . .” in 2 Cor 2:16, parallel with the thought conveyed by the present participles in the previous verse, is held, e.g., by Murray J. Harris, “2 Corinthians,” in EBC, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 333 (though Harris holds this as one of two possible options); Hans Lietzmann, An die Korinther 1/2, HNT 9 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 19313), 108–9; Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1915), 71–72. 150 Or that “God’s righteousness by faith” is revealed. 151 This would receive a significant measure of indirect support from Francis Watson’s view of pi,stij VIhsou/ Cristou/ in Rom 3:22. He holds that the phrase is a combination of 148

II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah

117

therefore, have a salvation-historical import, signifying continuity both in the divine promise as well as in its sole means of appropriation, an appropriation that itself continues to consummation. “Faith” implies both the dependence upon, as well as the saving promise itself,152 so that the continuity from inception to consummation could well have reference to both concepts. 153 In terms of faith’s appropriating activity, this idea of continuity from inception to consummation is supported in the immediate context both before and after the phrase “from faith to faith.” In 1:16 both the present participle “believing” (pisteu,onti) together with the term “salvation” point to the con-

a genitive of origin and an objective genitive. God’s manifestation of righteousness in the gospel is the origin and intended object of the faith which it evokes. As the eschatological disclosure it is the basis of, creates, and invites faith. (Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, 75–76. See more on the discussion of Rom 3:22 below [“Exegetical Overview of Romans 3:21–26 in Relation to Its OT Background.”]) This understanding of “the faith of Jesus Christ,” therefore, has direct relevance to the significance of the phrase evk pi,stewj in Rom 1:17, which will be further corroborated in the discussion of the Habakkuk citation. James Dunn, e.g., acknowledges the significance of these interrelated phrases when he writes, “. . . like Watson I see the ek pisteōs phrase as the key which unlocks the pi,stij Cristou/ phrase . . .” (remarked in the “Foreword” of Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle, eds., The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical and Theological Studies [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009], xviii). This view, moreover, may be understood to receive additional support from a nuanced understanding of what has come to be called “the third view,” a phrase used to reference an alternative to the options of objective/subjective genitive in the phrase pi,stij VIhsou/ Cristou/ (e.g., Rom 3:22). (See the discussion of this view in Preston M. Sprinkle, “Pi,stij Cristou/ as an Eschatological Event,” in The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical and Theological Studies, ed. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009], 166–84). It postulates that the phrase has reference to either the “content of the gospel (the Christ-event),” “the message of the gospel (the message about the Christ-event),” or “the sphere of salvation created by the gospel” (175). Watson’s view, however, appears to make more sense, incorporating elements of “the third view” while deftly integrating the manifestation of righteousness in the gospel with its intended correlate, the reception of the gospel message by faith. 152 So, e.g., Dunn, Romans 1–8, 43. But see esp. Otto Kuss, Römerbrief, 131–54. 153 Of course “faith” understood as including [or implying] the concept of the divine promise would also then, by further implication, include the concept of God’s faithfulness to that promise as it is fulfilled in Christ. On the various uses of pi,stij in Paul, and particularly its use as a reference to dependence upon the divine promise culminating in Jesus Christ, see Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 31–34. This particular understanding seems to come closest to the thought of Käsemann, who understands the phrase as referring to either faith’s “movement” in the individual Christian or in salvation history (Romans, 31). This view should be distinguished from those interpreters who see simply a reference to a deepening faith, for while that aspect is certainly present, it is the movement toward consummation of the hope born of faith that seems to be in view here (cf., e.g., Rom 5:1–5; 8:24–30).

118

Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

tinuing nature of faith which eventuates in eschatological salvation. 154 In the Habakkuk quotation, regardless of the modifying referent of evk pi,stewj, the overall context of the prophetic oracle emphasizes continuing in faith (or faithfulness) unto eschatological life. This emphasis on the continuity of faith from inception to consummation, moreover, is a prominent theme of the epistle. It is a vital characteristic of Abraham’s faith in chapter 4 and linked with the believer’s resurrection hope; the entire section of chapters 5–8 emphasizes the continuance in faith to consummation, or hope unto glory, particularly in chapters 5 and 8;155 and it is a prominent theme in chapters 12–15. In Isaiah, this continuity surfaces in the relation between the justification and subsequent glorification granted the believing remnant through the Servant,156 a relation likely reflected in the transition between the first two major sections of the epistle (Rom 4:25–5:2).157 The salvation-historical continuity in terms of faith’s content is also supported in the immediate context, not only in that the gospel was “promised beforehand by His prophets in the holy scriptures” (Rom 1:2), but also in the fact that Paul substantiates that gospel with a quote from Hab 2:4, which is itself likely alluding to Gen 15:6.158 This salvation-historical continuity of the gospel is evident throughout Romans as Paul consistently anchors this gospel, or various facets of it, in the OT scriptures, and presents it as “fulfillment” in terms of covenant, typology, and eschatology. This continuity in terms of both typology and eschatology are particularly prominent in Rom 3:21–4:25 (and includes the element of appropriation). Paul’s most detailed description of the saving event in Christ (Rom 3:21–26) is grounded typologically in the richly allusive theological matrix of the Isaianic new exodus, which subsumes such significant motifs as the Passover and Day of Atonement.159 In terms of the concept of covenant, the salvation-historical continuity in the content of the gospel is evident in that the gospel is presented as the ful154 Though Paul can describe “salvation” as both having occurred (Rom 8:24; Eph 2:5, 8) and as a present possession (Rom 10:9–10; 2 Cor 6:2), salvation for Paul is ultimately and truly eschatological (Rom 5:9–10; 13:11; 1 Cor 3:15; 5:5; Phil 1:28; 2:12; 1 Thess 5:8–9; 2 Thess 2:13). 155 On Romans 5–8 as a unit, with the theme of “hope unto glory” as bracketing the section (5:1–11//8:18–39) and providing the overarching motif, see esp. Moo, Romans, 292– 95. 156 E.g., Isa 4:2 (LXX); 24:23 (fitness to be in God’s glory; cf. 6:1–5); 43:4 (LXX); 44:23; 49:3 (of the Servant), 5 (LXX); 45:25; 50:4–10; 52:13 (of the Servant); 53:11; 54:17; 55:5; 60:1ff (following 59:20–21, which Paul employs to recount Christ’s redemptive [and atoning, Isa 27:9] work). 157 Cf. Rom 8:30. In relation to Rom 8:30, cf. also Rom 8:1–3, 17–21, 31–34; and Appendix. 158 See further on Hab 2:4, below, pp. 120–36. 159 See chapter four below, “The Antitypical Nexus – Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 3:21–26.”

II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah

119

fillment of God’s saving word of promise which culminates in the Isaianic [new] covenant of atonement for sin (Rom 1:1–4; 4:13–25; 9:6–9, 27–33; 10:1–16; esp. 11:26–27). References to the various covenants in Romans, as in Isaiah, point to and find their true significance in this covenant of atonement effected by Christ (Rom 3:21–26; 11:26–27). So, for instance, in Rom 1:1–4 and 15:8–12, Paul describes the gospel as the fulfillment of God’s saving promises particularly with reference to the Davidic covenant, Rom 10:1–10 with reference to the Mosaic, and Rom 4:13–25 and 9:6ff with reference to the Abrahamic. In conjunction with this, and particularly significant, is that in Rom 9:6–10:16 Paul traces a salvation-historical continuity in God’s saving word of promise that culminates in the gospel of Jesus Christ (cf. Rom 10:9–10), but which culminates in terms of its scriptural antecedent in Isaiah’s good news of the redemptive work of the Servant of the Lord (Rom 10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1).160 In both Isaiah and Romans this Isaianic good news has as its content God’s redemptive act of atonement through his Messiah with its ensuing covenant (Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9; cf. Rom 3:21–26), a covenant which thus brings to fulfillment all previous covenant formulations and so forms the basis of the apostolic mission of proclamation (Rom 15:21/Isa 52:15). The phrase “from faith to faith” as understood in terms of both faith’s appropriation and content come together in Paul’s discussion of Abraham in Romans 4. Here the saving event is presented as the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant and is again linked with the Isaianic [new] covenant inaugurated by the Servant of the Lord. This link is accomplished both through the quotation of Ps 32:1–2, which characterizes the promised blessing of the Abrahamic covenant as centering in the forgiveness of sin (Rom 4:6–9), together with the assertion of the basis of this forgiveness by means of allusion to Isa 53:4–5, 11–12 in Rom 4:25 (Ellis, Shum, Wagner, Wilk; cf. Isa 55:3). In Romans 4, the gospel of God’s saving righteousness that has now come to fulfillment in Christ is itself verified by the prior experience of Abraham (Rom 4:1–25; cf. Isa 51:1–3), who enters by faith (as opposed to works) into God’s saving word of promise. Abraham’s initial faith, moreover, develops (vv. 18–20) in respect to the essence of the promised blessing now fulfilled in the gospel: that God would overcome sin, grant righteousness (vv. 3–8) and thus bring life out of death (vv. 17–22), so that he becomes a pattern to “those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, He who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our 160 Within this progression of thought, Paul quotes Isaiah at a point in the prophecy in which Isaiah is itself alluding to the abrahamic promise in Genesis (Rom 9:27/Isa 10:22/Gen 22:17), pointing to the fact that his construct of continuity is at least partially derived from the great prophet. On Paul’s use of this intertextual feature in Isaiah, see under chapter three below, “Paul’s Understanding of Isaiah as Answering the Fall.”

120

Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

justification” (Rom 4:24–25). Abraham’s faith, then, ultimately comes to its divinely intended realization and consummation in the gospel, which itself culminates in the resurrection of Christ (vv. 23–25; cf. Rom 8:11–23, 29–30). Paul’s use of Abraham, therefore, points not simply to continuity in the content of God’s saving word of promise as fulfilled in the gospel, but to the continuity of the initial act of faith with the life of faith which issues from it, in which faith deepens, perseveres, and eventuates in hope made sight – eschatological salvation, based in [the good news of] the redemptive sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord/Jesus Christ (cf. Rom 5:1–5; 8:23–25). This interpretation of the phrase evk pi,stewj eivj pi,stin, therefore, both points to and is strengthened by a particular understanding of Paul’s quotation of Habakkuk, which itself bears a vital and illuminating connection with the allusion to Isaiah 53 in Rom 4:25. 6. The Gospel and Habakkuk – The Consummation of the Saving Promise and Its Appropriation by Faith kaqw.j ge,graptai\ o` de. di,kaioj evk pi,stewj zh,setai – The question may justly be posited as to why, if the thematic verses reflect an allusion to the redemptive narrative of Isaiah with its theological complex centering in the proclamation of good news, the apostle quotes Habakkuk rather than Isaiah.161 One must exercise care here, in that, while seeking to establish the scriptural priority of Isaiah one does not thereby diminish the very significant role played by Habakkuk. (1) Introduction: The Relation between Habakkuk and Isaiah in Romans Determining the relation between Habakkuk and Isaiah in Romans is not as simple as saying that Paul never quotes Habakkuk again, whereas he quotes Isaiah eighteen times, more than any other OT book, though this is certainly true.162 Paul employs this citation contextually, and its vital principle of ap161

This same basic issue is astutely raised by Steve Moyise with reference to the question of whether or not Paul is evoking an Isaianic framework in his citation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24, particularly in light of this initial citation of Habakkuk. See Evoking Scripture, 33, 44 (and the full discussion in pp. 33–48). 162 See p. 3, note 7 for statistics on Paul’s frequency of citation in Romans. Richard Hays (Conversion, 181) notes the fact that Habakkuk is used only once, and indicates that Hab 2:4 cannot be the crucial text for Paul in Romans based on citational frequency. Steve Moyise (Evoking Scripture, 49) rightly notes that Hab 2:4, “Coming shortly after Paul’s opening statement that ‘the gospel of God’ was ‘promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures’ (Rom. 1.2) . . . occupies a pivotal position in Romans . . .” But he especially notes the significance of the phrase evk pi,stewj, which is “. . . a favorite of Paul’s in Romans and Galatians, precisely those letters where Hab.2.4 is quoted. Hab.2.4 is also the only verse in the LXX where the phrase is found. Either Paul was attracted to Hab.2.4 because it contained one of his key phrases or Hab.2.4 has been influ-

II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah

121

propriating the saving promise by faith expressed within the thematic verses of the epistle continues to exert its influence upon the epistle as a whole.163 ential in Paul’s formulation of the gospel message” (50). He later states, “. . . it is unlikely that Paul formulated his gospel . . . and only later discovered that Hab. 2.4 is the only Scripture to use the phrase ek pisteōs” (62). Moyise proceeds to helpfully survey the views of Dunn, Hays, and Watson, all of whom consider the Hab quote highly significant, but for very different reasons (see 49–62 and summary on 53). Dunn sees Paul’s quotation as evoking the tradition history of the Habakkuk verse, so that his textual move in dropping the personal pronoun (from the MT and LXX) is intended to draw out as much meaning as possible, in keeping with common Jewish exegetical practice (Romans 1–8, 44–46). Richard Hays thinks that Paul’s quotation of Hab 2:4 is primarily intended to evoke the theodicy motif, and holds that “the righteous one” is messianic. He views Rom 1:16–17a as evoking a number of OT passages and themes, including Isaiah. For Hays, God’s faithfulness is the issue, and the themes evoked in 1:16–17a, together with the Habakkuk citation, assert that God’s faithfulness to his saving promises has now been fulfilled in Christ. Similar to Dunn, he believes that Paul’s omission of the pronoun allows the dual reference to God’s faithfulness and man’s faith, as in the phrase evk pi,stewj eivj pi,stin. See Echoes, 36–41. On Watson’s antithetical hermeneutic centering in Hab 2:4 see Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, 33–163; see also the introductory section on his work above, as well as the following discussion. 163 Francis Watson (Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith) notes that Paul’s use of the phrase evk pi,stewj as derived from Hab 2:4 (46–48) is reflected in Rom 1:17 preceding the citation, as well as throughout Romans (Rom 3:26, 30; 4:16; 5:1; 9:30, 32; 10:6; 14:23). He argues that Habakkuk is foundational to Paul’s argument in that it generates an antithetical hermeneutic reflected in such passages as Rom 3:10 and 20 (55–56). As against the negative statement of 3:20, it is positively reflected in Rom 3:21 (71) so that it becomes the basis of Paul’s entire argument (71, 76–78). He states (71), “. . . the Habakkuk citation may be seen as the foundation for Paul’s entire argument thus far. Its significance is confirmed by the long-delayed resumption of the language and conceptuality of Romans 1.17 in 3.21–31.” Rom 3:21 states that the righteousness of God apart from the law (i.e., the works of the law) is witnessed by the law, which (against Watson’s strict antithesis) points to its dual nature of both disclosing sin and promise. (Watson admits of the dual nature of the law, but views the law as having two distinct and contradictory voices.) The resumptive nature of Rom 3:21–26 in relation to 1:16–17 is much more reflective of Isaiah than Habakkuk, as the central role of redemption through the sacrifice of the Messiah demonstrates. There is a broader scriptural conceptuality evident in Isaiah that encompasses the principle of Habakkuk but goes beyond it. The principle remains central and vital as an interpretive key to the OT, yet the fullest scriptural disclosure of the principle is in the Isaianic gospel. This is evident from the fact that Paul, throughout the epistle, draws all the elements of the thematic verses – including Habakkuk’s principle of faith in the saving promise – from his quotations of Isaiah. Therefore, though Watson may bemoan the practice of commentators discussing Rom 1:16–17a in a sequential approach, perhaps referencing other scriptural antecedents before coming to the Habakkuk citation and thereby missing (in his view) the exclusively-

122

Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

Nevertheless, the citation plays its vital role precisely as it is situated within a larger and demonstrable scriptural framework to which it points. Paul employs Hab 2:4 to direct attention to this overarching framework, not only through the aforementioned principle of appropriation, but by succinctly creating through allusion a salvation-historical trajectory in the saving promise itself, a trajectory which reaches its full scriptural expression in Isaiah. The scriptural framework within which the Habakkuk citation is situated, and to which it bears witness, is a framework centering in Isaiah’s proclamation of good news.164 This framework spans the entire first section of the epistle (chapters 1–4), from its opening verses to the final allusion to Isaiah in Rom 4:25. It is created by a network of textual links informed by a typology of plight that together point to its antitypical resolution in the Isaianic depiction of the Messiah’s sacrifice for sin as the basis of redemptive recreation. The outer elements in this scriptural framework are connected through the themes of the good news of the Messiah’s conquest of death in behalf of his people by virtue of his resurrection (Rom 1:1–4). This good news, “promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures” (Rom 1:2), comes to scriptural expression through the allusion to the resurrection of Jesus as the messianic Servant of Isaiah 53 in the final verse of the section, Rom 4:25.165 The Isaianic nature of the gospel in the introductory verses, therefore, is confirmed by and creates an overarching Isaianic framework through its intertextual connection with its scriptural expression in 4:25. The connection between the outer elements of this framework is then reinforced through a series of intervening and interlocking texts. The gospel introduced in the opening verses is further developed in Rom 1:16–17a, which is itself an allusion to the redemptive narrative of Isaiah 40–55 (particularly chapters 52–54, as discussed above). The gospel, there described as the “revelation of God’s righteousness,” is then subsequently reintroduced under this heading (Rom 3:21: “But now . . . the righteousness of God has been manifested . . .”) and brought to full expression in Rom 3:21–26, as the Messiah, in fulfillment of Israel’s scriptures, dies as the antitypical sacrifice for

generative nature of the citation in relation to the preceding (53), most scholars view the matter differently. As against this particular aspect of Watson’s view, N. T. Wright, e.g., asserts, “I do not think that this or any other reading of the verse must be allowed to determine how we read Romans 1.17a” (Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1471). 164 The thematic connections and Isaianic allusive background cited in this discussion are further established in the relevant sections of the thesis (as the foregoing discussion has already demonstrated in part). Therefore, the following is simply a brief summary intended to convey the perceived overarching Isaianic framework supported by the thesis as a whole, particularly in relation to Paul’s quotation of Habakkuk. 165 On the possibility of a messianic allusion in the Habakkuk citation, see further below.

II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah

123

sin,166 and thereby provides the basis of justification for all who believe. This unique combination of themes in Rom 3:21–26 constitutes an allusion to the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53, an allusive reference then picked up in Rom 4:25, as the section climaxes with its own allusion to Isaiah 53 in the description of Jesus as one who “. . . was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.” Within this allusive network of texts that recall and develop the Isaianic gospel, Paul strategically employs two explicit quotations from Isaiah to depict, through the typology of Israel, the essential plight of humanity as captive in sin and condemned before God (Isa 52:5/Rom 2:24; Isa 59:7– 8/Rom 3:15–17), a plight which characterizes Rom 1:18–3:20 as a whole (Rom 3:9, 19–20). But this Isaianic typology of plight is also used to allude to and so anticipate its Isaianic resolution in its counter-poised redemption and justification achieved through the messianic sacrifice (Rom 3:21–26). And further still, these Isaianic citations (and allusions) are employed to join Isaiah’s redemptive narrative in the first section of the epistle to the subsequent sections, creating an overarching Isaianic narrative framework for the epistle as a whole. 167 166

This also thematically links back with Rom 1:1–4 through the concept of the Messiah’s death (implicit in the resurrection) in fulfillment of the scriptures. 167 In Romans 5–8, the initial verses of the new section carry over the concepts of justification and its resulting eschatological life from the Isaianic allusion in 4:25, as Isaiah’s new exodus narrative of redemption, with its return to (/hope of) glory, becomes the dominant and framing theme (see, e.g., Moo, Romans, 292–95). This “framing” characteristic is evident in the relation between the hope of glory which opens the section (Rom 5:1–5), and the identical theme in Rom 8:16–25, situated as it is within the allusions to Isaiah’s sacrifice of the Servant (Rom 8:3, [28–30,] 31–34; see Appendix). Reflecting Isaiah, this sacrifice is portrayed as the fulfillment of the typologically conceived exodus narrative, to which the passage also alludes (e.g., Rom 8:1–4, 14–17). But the clearest example of the manner in which the Isaianic framework of the opening section of the epistle is tied into the subsequent sections is seen in the intertextual relation Paul creates between Romans 1–4 and 9–11 by means of his two quotations of Isaiah. As mentioned earlier, Paul employs his quotations of Isaiah chapters 52 and 59 in Romans 2 and 3 (respectively: Isa 52:5/Rom 2:24; Isa 59:7–8/Rom 3:15–17) first to depict Israel and humanity’s plight, and then uses these same chapters of Isaiah in Romans 10 and 11 (respectively: Isa 52:7; [53:1/Rom 10:15–16;] Isa 59:20–21/Rom 11:26–27) to depict the solution to this plight in divine redemption. The fact that Paul quotes these same chapters of Isaiah to portray both plight and solution within the broader theological argument of Romans strongly suggests that he conceived of them as reflecting a crucial and coherent redemptive narrative, a narrative, therefore, which remains prominent throughout his larger argument. Additionally, the redemption disclosed and offered in the Isaianic good news in Romans 10 becomes the basis of Israel’s actualized redemption in Romans 11, with the Isaianic redeemer who takes away Israel’s sin (Rom 11:26–27) anchored intertextually in the Messiah’s propitiatory sacrifice as expressed in Rom 3:21–26 (as Isaiah 59 is itself anchored intertextually in Isaiah 53). Thus, the Isaianic framework in Romans 1–4 is

124

Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

Paul’s citation of Habakkuk in Rom 1:17b, therefore, is situated within a larger scriptural framework centering in the Isaianic gospel. Within the thematic verses themselves, the Isaianic nature of Rom 1:16–17a, together with both the salvation-historical significance of the phrase “from faith to faith,” and (as will be seen) Paul’s use of Hab 2:4 in intertextual relation with his use of Gen 15:6 and Isaiah 53 in Romans 4, suggests that the citation of Habakkuk is used to highlight a trajectory in the saving promise that comes to scriptural fulfillment in Isaiah. The phrase “as it is written” (Rom 1:17b), therefore, would point to the Habakkuk quotation as affirming the salvationhistorical development of the saving promise, as well as the principle of appropriation, both of which come to full scriptural expression in the Isaianic gospel. Paul’s quotation of Habakkuk remains a vital principle of appropriation, particularly in antithetical relation to the concept of works. Yet its allusive environment evokes a dual covenantal framework (both the covenant promise to Abraham, and Deuteronomy’s covenant context of blessing and curse) that points to a nuanced understanding of law in relation to promise that extends beyond the purely antithetical, and points to a continuity conveyed and fulfilled in Isaiah. (2) The Citation of Habakkuk 2:4 Textually and Contextually Considered Paul’s understanding of Hab 2:4b seems to be partly conveyed by the form in which he quotes the text. His quotation as compared to the MT and LXX versions is as follows: 168 MT:

hy), all of which resonate strongly with the Servant passages of Isaiah. The further emphasis in chapter 3 both on the disparagement of confidence in the flesh (v. 3) and the reception of a righteousness that comes from God through Christ on the basis of faith adds further weight to the likely Isaianic backdrop. See, e.g., Bockmuehl, Philippians, 135–36; Ralph P. Martin, Philippians, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19872), 100–114. Additionally, Martin, along with many scholars, asserts that the passage alludes to both the account of the fall in Genesis 3 as well as the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53, as Jesus, in contrast and in answer to the sin of Adam, “. . . did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped . . .” Paul’s use of Isaiah 45 in both Romans 14 and Philippians 2, moreover, suggests that Rom 2:16 is, in fact, a reflection of that same chapter. See on Rom 2:12–16 further below in this chapter, “The Isaianic Gospel as the Climax of the Eschatological Verdict.”

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

199

which similarly drives the argument from helpless guilt to the world-wide call to repentance in chapter 45. Further, Rom 2:1–16, as part of the larger context of 2:1–4, not only contains additional supporting allusions to Isaiah, but as a whole evidences a combination of themes which strengthen this background. This broadened Isaianic background includes justification in the eschatological judgment based on repentance and anticipated in God’s law written upon the heart. But most importantly, in both Isaiah and Romans this justification, with the salvation-historical climax of the revelation of God’s righteousness, ultimately comes to be based in faith in the redemptive promise centering in the messianic sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord. Both Rom 2:1–16 and Isaiah 45 conceptually align the universal call to repentance and the covenant repentance of Deuteronomy with trust in God’s redemptive plan through his Servant/Jesus Christ as ultimately expressed in the “good news.” (a) The trial motif of Isaiah. The trial motif of Isaiah 40–55 builds upon the earlier chapters of the prophecy, in which (broadly speaking) the covenant guilt of Israel in chapters 1–12 is set in parallel with the guilt of the nations in chapters 13–23, and then brought to universal expression in such chapters as 24–27 and 34–35.163 Isaiah 24, as mentioned above, not only creates the negative parallel between the primeval sin, humanity’s breaking of God’s moral law, and Israel’s breaking of the Mosaic law (vv. 5–6),164 but through intertextual allusion links the world remnant (Isa 24:13) with the repentant remnant of Israel (17:6 [see vv. 4–7]; cf. Isa 1:9/Rom 9:29; Isa 10:22– 23/Rom 9:27–28).165 In light of the above considerations, it would seem that this intertextual allusion unites the concepts of response to God as Creator through repentance in light of guilt before divine law (Isa 24:5–6; cf. 17:[6]7), with response to God as Redeemer through faith in the covenant promises mediated through Israel (cf. esp. Isa 17:6–7).166 This parallel rises to promi163 On this parallel between these major sections of the prophecy, see esp. Grogan, “Isaiah,” 95. The relation expressed above between chapters 13–23 and 24–27 is recognized, e.g., by Childs, Delitzsch, Oswalt, Edward J. Young (The Book of Isaiah, 3 vols. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965]), Wildeberger. 164 See above, pp. 161–64. 165 So, e.g., Childs, Isaiah, 179; Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39, 444. Regarding this remnant terminology, Oswalt comments, “. . . the application of the Judahistic terminology is an indication that the prophet sees God’s treatment of, and expectations for, Judah and Israel as being the model for his treatment of the whole world (cf. Rom. 1–3).” 166 Within this eschatological section of Isaiah 24–27 the mediation of Israel is a fairly prominent theme and is set forth as a paradox. In Isa 26:17–18 Israel is not able to “accomplish deliverance for the earth,” yet in 27:6 the nation takes root, blossoms, sprouts, and “will fill the whole world with fruit.” This paradox is picked up again in chapters 40– 55, finding its resolution in the Person of the Servant of the Lord, called Israel (Isa 49:3), who provides the basis of the atonement spoken of in 27:9 (cf. the paradigmatic Isa 6:7).

200

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

nence in chapters 40–55, in keeping with the previously discussed parallel within that section of the prophecy between the Lord’s witness of himself as both Creator and Redeemer.167 The revelatory and covenantal continuity implicit in Isaiah’s canonical, intertextual allusions, together with its universal significance, are taken up in this major section of the prophecy and form part of the backdrop to the trial motif, a motif which is introduced by Israel captive in its sin for transgression of God’s law. In the context of Isaiah 40–55 (and Isa 52:5, which Paul quotes in Rom 2:24) it was through the breaking of God’s law that Israel, as a type of idolatrous humanity, was sold into slavery. This relation between transgression of the law and captivity is evident from the commencement of chapter 40, as the words of comfort (anticipating the universal call to repentance in Isa 45:22) come to Israel in her internment, who had “received of the Lord’s hand double for all her sins” (Isa 40:2). This relation is unequivocally stated in Isa 42:20–25, 20 You have seen many things, but you do not observe them; your ears are open, but none hears. 21The LORD was pleased for His righteousness' sake to make the law great and glorious. 22But this is a people plundered and despoiled; all of them are trapped in caves, or are hidden away in prisons; they have become a prey with none to deliver them, and a spoil, with none to say, "Give them back!" 23Who among you will give ear to this? Who will give heed and listen hereafter? 24Who gave Jacob up for spoil, and Israel to plunderers? Was it not the LORD, against whom we have sinned, and in whose ways they were not willing to walk, and whose law they did not obey? 25So He poured out on him the heat of His anger and the fierceness of battle; and it set him aflame all around, yet he did not recognize it; and it burned him, but he paid no attention.

In the more immediate context of 52:5, Isa 50:1 states: “Thus says the LORD, "Where is the certificate of divorce by which I have sent your mother away? Or to whom of My creditors did I sell you? Behold, you were sold for your iniquities, and for your transgressions your mother was sent away” (cf. Isa 59:1–2). Similarly in Romans, it is transgression of God’s law that brings the world into captivity (1:23–28; 3:9) as typified in Israel (2:17–24; 3:9), a theme which Paul draws predominantly from his quotations and allusions to Isaiah (Rom 1:23/Isaiah 40; Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5; Rom 3:9/Isa 50:1; Rom 3:15–17/Isa 59:7–8) and which comes to a minor climax in his quotation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24. It is this theme of transgression of God’s law substantiated by the universal reality of captivity that within the redemptive narrative of Isaiah evokes the courtroom motif, a unique combination of themes reflected in this section of Romans. This motif, moreover, brings the dual issues of human guilt and God’s [saving] righteousness to the fore. This is much like the movement of

167

See in chapter three above, “The Witness of Creation within the Trial Motif.”

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

201

Paul’s thought in Rom 1:18–2:6, 168 as the idolatrous world captives, typified in Israel (cf. 1:23–24, 26, 28; 2:17–24), are brought before God’s tribunal. In both Isaiah and Romans these seemingly irreconcilable issues (human guilt/God’s saving righteousness) are deliberately broached and antagonistically situated by means of the trial motif, and await their further resolution in the intercession and justification effected by the Servant of the Lord/Jesus Christ. Throughout the opening phase of the trial motif (Isaiah 40–48), then, the initial covenant comfort given to Israel in the prologue (Isa 40:1ff) transitions into the idolatrous solidarity between Israel and the nations in guilt before the heavenly bar of justice. It is precisely here that the Isaianic backdrop to Rom 2:1–4/16 seems to be situated. Like Romans 2, this dire, forensic plight of the idolatrous captives leads to the universal call to repentance as the basis of its as-yet-unexplained prospect of justification (Isa 45:25; Rom 2:13). Yet within both Isaiah and Romans it is a justification anticipated in the “covenant comfort” of the given prologue as encapsulated in the message of good news (Isa 40:9; Rom 1:16–17) and resolved in the justification mediated through the messianic sacrifice (Isaiah 53 [v. 11]; Rom 3:21–26), the fulfillment of all previous covenant expressions in the “everlasting covenant” inaugurated by the Servant of the Lord (Isa 55:3; cf. Rom 11:26–27 [as intertextually related to Rom 3:21–26; 10:15–16]). The conceptual provenance of Isaiah 40–55, then, is Israel languishing in [Babylonian] captivity, helpless, and inextricably mired in the exile into which their sin had plunged them. 169 Near despair, they believed their judg. i) had been passed over by God (Isa 40:27), which perspective ment (tP'vm serves as a prelude to the trial motif in this section of the prophecy. 170 Was God willing and able to redeem his people from the power of Babylon and to demonstrate himself master over the heathen gods? Would the Lord show himself true and righteous in fulfilling his promises to Israel? Following the initial words of comfort, Isaiah 40 reveals the Lord, in contrast to the idols (vv. 18–20), as the sovereign Creator of the universe, infinite in power, infinite in wisdom and understanding, who nullifies the rulers and power structures of this world as effortlessly as the wind carries away the scorched grass (vv. 12–17, 21–27). It is this infinitely wise and powerful Creator who has purposed to redeem his people (vv. 28–31; cf. 41:2–4), introducing in this section of the prophecy the prominent conceptual parallel of creation and redemption (cf. Rom 8:19–23).171 As this section of the prophecy begins to unfold, however, divine redemption comes to find its basis in judgment and 168 On God’s righteousness in judgment within this context in Romans, see 2:5, 13. For the movement of thought from captivity to judgment, see also 2:17–3:5; 3:9–20 [21–26]. 169 See, e.g., Hanson, Isaiah, 1–4; Westermann, Isaiah, 3–6; Whybray, Isaiah, 20–21. 170 Childs, Isaiah, 308, and 317. 171 See, e.g., Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 324.

202

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

vindication, as in Rom 3:21–26 (cf. Isa 1:27). The Lord reveals that in this redemption he would not only righteously uphold the covenant nation of . ;T.-@a;; Isa 41:10), but that he would “faithfully bring Israel (yqId>ci !ymiyBi ^yTikm . i ayciAy tm,a/l,; Isa 42:3–4). forth justice” to the nations (jP'vm This establishing of justice in the earth, then, must of necessity deal with the sin that rendered both Israel and the world captive (e.g. Isa 42:6–7; etc.), so that the clarion voice of comfort to the captives of Israel with which the section opens (Isa 40:1–2), which calls on the perishing grass and fading flower of humanity to enter into the eternal promises of redemption (a parallel conveying typological solidarity), soon becomes the onerous tone that calls all peoples to trial (hb'r"q.nI jP'v.Mil; wD"x.y:; Isa 41:1).172 As these world captives are brought to trial Israel again bears a uniquely representative role, as the previously discussed typological link between “all flesh” as captive to corruption and death and Israel captive in Babylon is now extended into the trial motif. This parallel in Isaiah 40 between captive Israel and captive humanity introduces the defendants that are “called together for judgment” in Isa 41:1, so that the conception of humanity as captive at this trial frames the first trial sequence (41:1–29; cf. Isa 42:6–7; cf. also Rom 2:1–4; 3:9–20).173 This funneling of the typology of captivity into the trial motif, very similar to Paul’s approach in Romans, points to the fact that the solidarity and typological role in which Israel stands in relation to the world extends to and is clarified by an equality in guilt before the divine judgment that is epitomized in the sin of idolatry (cf. Rom 1:23, 25; and note the implication of 2:21–22). This typological role within the trial motif is evident within the ongoing sequence of the trial as the idolatry of the peoples/humanity elides into the idolatry of Israel, so that the covenant people in Isaiah 40–48, as in Rom 1:18–2:24, become supremely representative of the world in its guilt. 174

172

E.g., Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 79. Grogan (“Isaiah,” 280) notes that this oscillation between comfort and rebuke “. . . is characteristic of this section of the prophecy.” 173 Motyer (Isaiah, 309), e.g., notes the link between Isa 40:31 and 41:1 by means of the phrase “renew their strength,” which is used to unite the situation of Israel and the Gentiles in terms of both guilt and grace. Throughout these chapters there comes to be a distinction within Israel that takes up the concept of the remnant of the earlier chapters, a concept conveyed in part by the term “seed” ([r;z,; e.g., Isa 6:13; 41:8; 43:5; 44:3; 45:19, 25; [*48:19;] 53:10; 54:3) which occurs in both sections of the prophecy. Though Israel indeed stands in guilt and solidarity with the nations throughout the trial motif, there is an oft-repeated covenant-assurance to an Israel conceived as those who have come to place their trust in God’s saving promise, a promise which ultimately comes to center on the redemptive work of the Servant. 174 See esp. Motyer’s description of the climactic nature of the indictment against Israel in Isaiah 48 (Isaiah, 375). In this chapter the trial motif comes to focus exclusively upon the covenant people. On Isaiah 48 (esp. vv. 4–5) as representative of the human condition

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

203

Though the “defendants” and the trial motif are introduced in chapter 40 (v. 27), the “trial” itself is brought clearly to the fore in Isa 41:1 and continues throughout much of chapters 41–48, both through the explicit statement of the metaphor and through terminology which evokes it.175 This virtually gives the impression of an ongoing court case which proceeds in successive sessions, similar to the ongoing court motif in Rom 1:18–3:20ff. The defendants at this trial are the captives in need of redemption – the peoples of the world in general (Isa 41:1; 43:9; 45:20) and Israel in particular (Isa 43:8; 44:21; 46:3; 48:1, 12).176 The captive state of the defendants itself – portrayed most clearly and forcefully in the historical and typological plight of Israel – serves as evidence in the trial, pointing undeniably to the transgression of divine law (see esp. Isa 43:8ff; see also, e.g., Isa 42:20–25; 50:1). The manner in which the defendants at the successive sessions of this trial are alternately addressed as either [all] peoples/nations or Israel suggests, again, both the solidarity between Israel and the nations as well as the typological role of Israel which under girds this section of the prophecy. The evidence marshaled to confirm the guilt of the defendants within Isaiah’s trial motif begins with an assertion of the idolatry of the nations (Isa 41:1, 21–24, 27–29), recalling the many indictments against Israel’s idolatry in the earlier chapters of the prophecy (Isa 2:8, 18, 20; 10:10–11; 17:8; 31:7) as manifested in a stubborn resistance to trust God, with its resulting idolatry, see Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 259, 262–63. Similarly, the focus on the redemption of Israel in chapters 49–54 becomes a pattern of world redemption. It leads to the universal invitation in chapter 55, in which the covenant mediated through the Servant is extended to the world, fulfilling the universal nature of the Servant’s mission (Isa 55:1–5; cf. 42:6; 49:8). 175 The trial imagery comes explicitly to the surface in Isa 41:1–29 (note vv. 1, 21); 43:8–28 (note vv. 9, 26); 44:6–28 (note vv. 6–8); 45:20–25; [46:1–13;] 48:1–22 (note that 48:14 employs the identical niphal imperative of cbq as 45:20 to gather the defendants to trial; for this term see also 43:9 and 44:11); 50:[1–3]4–11. Outside of these explicit trial references the motif is found in such passages as Isa 42:10–17, in which, in the context of redemptive recreation, those who trust in idols will be put to shame (vAb used in the forensic sense, cf. esp. Isa 45:24; 50:7; cf. also 41:11; 44:9, 11; 54:4); Isa 45:16–17, in which the shame of idolaters is contrasted with the lack of shame, or vindication, of Israel (the term ~lk being used with vAb in these verses to convey the concept; cf. 41:11; 50:7; 54:4). Though Isa 46:1–13 does not contain explicit legal terms, the content of the divine speech is extremely similar to that found in the “trial passages”: Isa 46:1–2 – the invective against idols (cf. Isa 41:6–7, 22–24; 44:10–20); Isaiah 46:3–4 – the Lord’s assertion/pledge of faithfulness to Israel (cf. Isa 41:8–16; [43:1–7;] 44:21–23); Isaiah 46:5–13 – [the contrast between the impotence of idols and] the sovereign God who declares and brings about His redemptive plan (cf. Isa 41:1–4, 21–29; 43:8– 14; 44:6–9, 24–28; 45:20–25; 48:1–7, 14–15). 176 The argument against the idols themselves in Isa 41:21–24 is ultimately directed against the idolaters and the utter foolishness they exhibit in trusting in these non-realities (cf. Isa 41:24, 27–29).

204

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

and preparing for the typologically oriented focus on the guilt of Israel as representative of the world. In the next trial sequence, therefore, though Israel is indicted for sin in general (Isa 43:22–24), she becomes complicit with the idolatry of the nations (Isa 43:8–9). In these verses (vv. 8–13) captive Israel is brought forth as a principle witness to God’s sovereign power and prerogative in both judgment and redemption (cf. esp. v. 13).177 Ironically, however, the witness is described as both “blind” and “deaf,” which both looks backward in the narrative to Israel’s transgression of God’s law and resultant captivity (Isa 42:20ff), as well as forward to the idolaters of the nations (Isa 44:9, 18),178 connections which reiterate Israel’s unique typological role in mediating the knowledge of God. In chapter 44 again, though Israel’s transgressions are in view (v. 22), the lengthy diatribe against idolaters (vv. 9–20) is applied to Israel (v. 21), and the great call to turn to God for salvation in chapter 45, given to Israel (v. 25) and the nations (v. 22), is a call out of idolatry (v. 20). In chapter 46 Israel’s transgression (v. 8) is again in the context of a contrast between God and the idols (vv. 1–7), and in chapter 48 Israel’s disregard of God’s commandments (vv. 1, 18) includes the specific indictment of idolatry (v. 5). So as Israel’s breaking of God’s law issued in a captivity which betokened her guilt before God’s seat of justice, so the breaking of God’s law, epitomized in idolatry (cf. Rom 1:23, 25), likewise renders all peoples captive and guilty before God, subject to the primeval curse of death reflected in the metaphor of the perishing grass and fading flower.179 During the course of this trial, the reality of the exile and captivity of the covenant people hovers in the background as a dark specter, bearing silent yet irrefutable testimony to the nations of the coming eschatological assize (Isa 43:8–13; 45:20–25; cf. Rom 1:24, 26, 28; 2:2–3, 24). These are among the primary truths that the apostle seeks to convey in Rom 1:18–2:24: an equality in guilt, epitomized by the sin of idolatry, confirmed by captivity, stemming from the fall, universally experienced in an eschatological pre-trial, and reflected preeminently in the typology of Israel.

177 Delitzsch (Isaiah, 192) notes that the term “bring out” (acy; Isa 43:8) “. . . does not refer here to bringing out of captivity . . . but rather to bringing to the place appointed for judicial proceedings.” Childs, moreover (Isaiah, 335), observes that the word “. . . is a technical term within the context of a juridical process . . .” Regarding the scope of God’s witness through Israel, Childs also remarks, “The events of the past are also far broader than only a reference to Cyrus, but include the entire sequence of events connected with Israel’s entire history . . .” 178 On these forward and backward links, see, e.g., Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 144. 179 Cf. the previously discussed allusions to Adam and the curse of death in Rom 1:23, 32; cf. 6:23. See in chapter three above, “The Typological Nexus of Rom 1:23,” and “The Universal Covenant Context of Wrath and Captivity.”

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

205

(b) The role of Isaiah 45 and its significance in Paul’s thought. Many of the main features of Isaiah’s trial motif come together powerfully in chapter 45. 180 This chapter continues a prominent theological parallel of this major section of the prophecy, in which the theme of God as Creator is repeatedly placed alongside his role as redeemer, conveying two complimentary revelatory phases.181 In the trial sequence of chapter 45 (see v. 20), however, the revelatory crescendo implicit in the parallel comes more forcefully to the surface, in anticipation of the work of the Servant. The God who reveals himself as Creator (v. 18) is uniquely and fully disclosed through his redemptive covenant with Israel (v. 19; cf. Isa 52:6), which in both respects displays the folly and transgression of idolatry (v. 20).182 God’s revelation of himself as Creator, therefore, is reinforced through his redemptive acts toward Israel, so that in keeping with the typological parallel between Israel and “all flesh” in Isaiah 40, this redemption takes upon itself the ultimate eschatological significance of recreation. This significance is made clear in the allusion to Genesis 1 (Isa 45:18; cf. v. 12) by means of which God’s sovereign power in bringing order out of chaos is used to form part of the conceptual backdrop to the Babylonian redemption. 183 This ultimate significance of redemption is further evidenced as the chapter surges to its climax in the eschatological judgment. In this movement towards the climax of the final judgment, the idolaters, when asked to present their case, have no answer to substantiate their misplaced trust. Only the God who reveals himself as Creator can also declare 180

Though there is disagreement (see, e.g., Oswalt’s discussion of the many approaches to Isa 45:13–47:1; Isaiah 40–66, 212–14), many scholars take the unit as extending from 44:24–45:25 (Childs, Delitzsch, Grogan). This unit as a whole focuses on the Lord’s sovereign use of Cyrus in His redemptive plan for Israel, yet with a wider significance that ultimately relates to His redemptive purposes through the Servant (see Childs, Isaiah, 348). Childs understands this chapter as the climax of chapters 40–48 (348). 181 Commenting on Isa 45:7–8 in which he sees allusions to the creation account in Genesis, Grogan (“Isaiah,” 271), e.g., states, “The God of creation and the God of redemption are one God, and so the one may be used to illustrate the other.” On this emphasis on the complimentary roles of God as both Creator and Redeemer extending throughout this unit, see also Childs, Isaiah, 350–51, 353; Hanson (apparently), Isaiah, 109–10; Westermann, Isaiah, 155–56, 168. On Isa 45:18–19, Whybray (Isaiah, 111) writes, “Yahweh has always spoken out clearly and openly, with a definite and reliable purpose no less effective than the purpose which he showed in creation.” 182 On the theme of Gentile salvation in Isa 45:14–17, and its relation to the perspicuity of revelation in vv. 18–19, see Motyer, Isaiah, 364–65. The close relation between creational and special revelation, as well as the perspicuous nature of the former, is apparent in the similar assertions of God’s absolute uniqueness which follows, and so is conveyed by each type of revelation (e.g., vv. 18, [19,] 21). It is this absolute uniqueness of the eternal, self-existent God which serves as the ground within the trial motif for the condemnation of idolatry. 183 Childs, Isaiah, 355. See also 353.

206

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

and bring to pass his redemptive purposes, which he did in the past in his deliverance of Israel from Egypt, and which he is poised to do now in the redemption of Israel from Babylon through Cyrus (vv. 1–7, 11–13, 20–21a). This leads to the conclusion of God’s line of reasoning, in which he again aligns his complimentary and mutually reinforcing self-revelation as Creator and Redeemer: “. . . there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me” (v. 21b; cf. Isa 40:12–31).184 Then, that the defendants might escape the inevitable verdict of guilt (cf. v. 24b) comes the impassioned plea disclosing the universal nature of the forensic confrontation, “Turn to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other” (v. 22). Therefore, within this forensic narrative a vital truth clearly emerges, implied in verse 21: it is solely through the ringing silence of guilt at this trial that Jew or Gentile can subsequently enter by faith into the confession, “only in the Lord are righteousness and strength” (Isa 45:24), and in this helpless state of accountability his people will come to acknowledge that “in the Lord [alone] all the offspring of Israel will be justified and will glory” (Isa 45:25).185 This universal call to repentance against the coming judgment (vv. 23–24) given the idolatrous world captives within Isaiah’s trial motif, in which a clear parallel is created through the typology of Israel between the revelation of God as Creator and the revelation of God as covenant Redeemer, presents a remarkable conceptual resemblance to Romans. In this chapter of Isaiah, then, repentance toward the Creator for the sin of idolatry is closely aligned with both Deuteronomy’s covenant call to repentance (note again the allusion to Deuteronomy’s covenant context of the curse in Isaiah 1, 186 and its conceptual outworking in the Babylonian captivity in chapters 40–55) and submission to God’s redemptive plan through Cyrus. Yet this redemptive plan through Cyrus must picture a redemption that is much more far-reaching, for it is a redemption that, in keeping with God as Creator (cf. Rom 3:27–31), encompasses “all the ends of the earth” (v. 22) and is 184

For the significance of predictive prophecy within the trial motif, see, e.g., Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 144–49 (esp. 146); Westermann, Isaiah, 156–57. This is, in fact, a significant factor in Roman’s trial motif (and Paul’s defense of His message), which is itself informed by the wider theological framework of the promised messianic deliverance expressed and fulfilled in the gospel (Rom 1:1–2, 16–17; 3:21). The Lord’s ability to declare and bring about His saving purposes is conveyed more subtly throughout 1:18–3:20 through allusion to God’s covenant promises which are confirmed by His typologicallyinfused historical acts toward Israel and brought to fulfillment in Christ’s redemption. This theme, however, does surface explicitly in Rom 3:1–4, expressed in part through an allusion to Isaiah’s trial motif. See on Rom 3:1–8 in chapter three below. 185 Motyer (Isaiah, 367) notes the implication of imputed righteousness and the contextual connection with Isa 53:11. On this theme of “silence before God’s judgment,” see further the section on Rom 3:19 below. 186 See above pp. 153, note 38; 161–64.

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

207

thoroughly eschatological in nature (vv. 23–25).187 This, again, conveys the typological significance of the Egyptian and Babylonian deliverances introduced in the prologue. Isaiah depicts the nations, represented by Israel, as captive in sin and helpless in guilt before God’s justice in order to drive both Israel and the nations to the sole, divine source of righteousness as the basis of redemptive recreation (Isa 40:6–10; 51:1–16). This righteousness, moreover, is granted at the eschatological assize to the seed of Israel (Isa 45:25), pointing both to the origin of the covenant promise (cf. Isa 10:22/Gen 22:17; 32:12; Isa 51:1–2) as well as to its fulfillment in relation to the Servant (cf. 51:1–3ff; 53:11).188 In the continuing context, therefore, this repentant remnant comprised of both Israel and the nations (cf., e.g., Isa 17:4–8; 24:13) comes to be identified ultimately through faith in God’s redemptive work through the Servant. The righteousness ultimately granted them by God (Isa 45:25), then, anticipates its basis in the justification the Servant mediates through his self-sacrifice (Isa 53:11), with its ensuing “eternal covenant” (Isa 55:3).189 This relationship between the universal call to repentance echoing Deuteronomy (Isa 45:22; Rom 2:4), the anticipation of justification to the repentant (Isa 45:25; Rom 2:13), and the basis of that justification disclosed in the gospel (Isa 40:9; 52:7; Rom 2:16) mediated through the messianic sacrifice (Isa 53:11; Rom 3:21–26), points to the background of Paul’s thought in Isaiah 45 as it anticipates the revelation of God’s righteousness in the proclamation of good news in chapters 52–53. This, then, is the conclusion toward which Paul drives his argument in 1:18–3:20: that both Israel, and the world of which she is a type, are both captive in transgression and silenced in guilt. But as the next section of Romans opens (3:21–4:25), it is this absolute silence of the captives in their guilt (Rom 3:19) that leads them to receive a righteousness that finds its source in God alone, and the redemption through atonement he provides in 187 Motyer (ibid., 365), e.g., discerns just such a significance, stating, “In the central chapters of the section (45:9–46:13) Cyrus has dropped into the background and Isaiah’s concern is that Israel should be enabled to see the Cyrus-event in the context of the Lord’s world-wide and eternal purposes.” 188 Many scholars, therefore, see in these verses a widening of the concept of the “seed of Israel” to include the Gentiles who turn to the Lord and so enter into His promised salvation. See, e.g., Childs, Isaiah, 355–56; Motyer, Isaiah, 366–67; and esp. Westermann, Isaiah, 176, who notes the contextual accuracy of the text’s use by Paul in Rom 14:11 and Phil 2:10ff, stating, “The crucial change in the concept of the people of God is already present here in Deutero-Isaiah.” 189 Motyer (Isaiah, 366 [note 1], 367), e.g., observes the intertextual connection between Isa 45:22 and 52:10 by means of the phrase “the ends of the earth,” which appears only in these two verses in chapters 40–55. Both texts convey a universal invitation to enter into salvation, with this sense being substantiated in the latter case by Isa 55:1. The strongest connection, however, is made by means of the justification granted the seed of Israel, which in Isa 53:10–11 comes through the sacrifice of the Servant.

208

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

Jesus Christ (Rom 3:21–26). Therefore, this unique complex of themes reflected in Isaiah 45 – the trial motif of the world captives typified in Israel; the parallel of God’s self-revelation in creation and redemption, with the former pointing to the nature of the latter; the typological role of Israel’s redemption; God’s call to faith in his redemptive plan through Cyrus, typical of his redemptive plan through the Servant of the Lord; and directly related to this, the universal call to repentance, with its prospect of redemption dependent on the verdict of either shame or vindication at the final assize; and particularly as this entire complex anticipates the eschatological redemption and justification effected by the sacrifice of the Servant – creates a revelatory and redemptive correspondence and thus a remarkably close conceptual fit with Rom 2:1–4 and its larger context. The Isaianic typology, therefore, if it is indeed contributing significantly to the background of Paul’s thought, points not simply to an equality in plight and guilt before the Creator, but to an overarching and universal continuity throughout salvation-history – a continuity in revelation and covenant [mercy], a continuity in response to the Creator expressed variously as repentance and faith. (c) Confirmation of Paul’s use of Isaiah’s trial motif in the larger context of the epistle. This broad contextual continuity is strengthened by the fact that Paul in subsequent sections of his epistle draws from Isaiah through quotation and allusion the positive counterparts to guilt and captivity in the intercession/justification and redemption achieved by Isaiah’s Servant of the Lord (thus strengthening the criterion recurrence). These elements of contextual correspondence point to Paul’s use of the broader “story-line” of Isaiah’s redemptive narrative, with the typology of Israel both confirming guilt and affirming the forgiveness and restoring grace available in the covenant mediated through the chosen people.190 This understanding of Paul in Rom 2:1–4, moreover, is consistent with his use of Isaiah in chapters 9–11. In chapters 9–11 Paul uses his quotations from Isaiah as a coherent whole, each bearing upon a particular facet of the gospel. The manner in which he employs Isaiah chapters 52 and 59 in both the earlier and later sections of his epistle to convey both plight and solution through the prophecy’s redemptive narrative points to the fact that this coherence extends to this earlier section of the epistle. The clear Isaianic interpretive trajectories from chapters 9–11 are, therefore, legitimately extended into this earlier material with which they seamlessly cohere. Though space limitations prevent a more detailed discussion, one of these interpretive trajectories involves the identification of Isaiah’s repentant rem190

This typology, then, not only highlights Israel’s mediatorial role in conveying both human guilt and divine grace, but communicates an equality with regard to them, and therefore quite possibly stands behind Paul’s frequent use of the phrase “to/of the Jew first and also to/of the Greek” (Rom 1:16; 2:9, 10; cf. 10:12).

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

209

nant with the “seed” formed through faith in the Lord’s redemptive promise through his Servant. In chapters 9–11, Paul, utilizing his quotations from Isaiah, identifies Israel’s repentant remnant (within Isaiah, representative of the repentant world-remnant) ultimately in terms of faith in the good news of redemption through the Servant of the Lord.191 This continuity as derived from Isaiah strengthens the likelihood of a similarly derived continuity in the present passage, in which the apostle likewise coalesces the response of repentance in 2:4 with the response of faith in the redemptive death of Christ as the Isaianic Servant in 1:16–17; 2:16 and 3:21–26.192 In addition to the strong thematic coherence cited above with reference to Rom 2:1–4/16, there are several significant allusions to Isaiah in Rom 2:5–16. These allusions, to be verified by the criteria of volume, tie into the larger framework of Paul’s use of Isaiah in this section of Romans and further anchor much of the scriptural backdrop in the Great Prophet. These allusions extend the significance of the typology inherent in Paul’s other references and create deeper connections between epistle and prophecy. (3) Romans 2:5–6 – The Day of Wrath and the Covenant Refuge The theme of a “stubborn and unrepentant heart” (Rom 2:5) is common in the OT and is evocative of a number of texts,193 as is its ultimate consequence in the “day of wrath (cf. Rom 1:18).”194 Paul, of course, draws on these scriptural themes as a stern warning, recalling both the many instances of judgment upon the unrepentant, as well as the predictions of the coming eschatological wrath to which they point. This warning leads into what is itself a promise of 191

Rom 9:27–28/Isa 10:22–23; Rom 9:29/Isa 1:9; Rom 9:33/Isa 8:14; 28:16; Rom 10:11/Isa 28:16; Rom 10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1. 192 For more on the relation between these chapters in Isaiah, see on Rom 2:12–16 below. A measure of confirmation is added to this understanding of the text by the resulting “perseverance” (u`pomonh,) which issues both from the repentance of Rom 2 (see vv. 4–7) as well as from faith in the gospel (Rom 5:3–4; 8:25; 15:4–5). That the perseverance of Rom 2:7 issues from the repentance of Rom 2:4 is evident in that only the “unrepentant” (v. 5) receive “wrath” in the day of judgment. See esp. Davies, Faith, 53–57. 193 The phrase is “th.n sklhro,thta, sou kai. avmetano,hton kardi,an.” Cf., e.g., Deut 9:27 LXX “th.n sklhro,thta tou/ laou/ tou,tou;” Isa 46:12 MT “hq'd"C.mi ~yqiAxr>h' ble yrEyBia;”; 63:17 LXX “evsklh,runaj h`mw/n ta.j kardi,aj;” MT: “WnBeli x:yviq.T;.” Cf. also Rom 11:7– 8/Deut 29:4; Isa 29:10; Isa 6:10; 29:13. Note also the recurring themes, first in Exodus of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (e.g., Exod 9:12 LXX: “evsklh,runen de. ku,rioj th.n kardi,an Faraw;” MT: “h[or>P; ble-ta, hw"hy> qZEx;y>w:”); and then in Jeremiah of the stubbornness of Israel’s heart (e.g., Jer 3:17: [r"h' ~B'li tWrrIv.; cf. also 9:13; 16:12; 18:12). See also Moo, Romans, 134; Kӓsemann, Romans, 56. 194 The margin of the NA27 has Zeph 1:15 (“day of wrath”); Ps 110:5 (“day of his wrath”). See also Prov 11:4 (MT); Isa (24:1ff;) 34:1–2ff (see v. 8); Jer 10:10 (MT); Ezek 7:12, 19; 38:19; Nah 1:6–7; Zeph 1:18; Rev 6:17.

210

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

that judgment in the quotation from Ps 62:12[/Pro 24:12],195 which asserts that the Lord, “will render to every man according to his deeds.”196 A refusal to acknowledge the divine claim in repentance inevitably brings the eschatological wrath of the day of judgment which the captivity portends (Rom 1:24, 26, 28), so that the “wrath revealed” in 1:18 eventuates in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God in 2:5.197 This entire psalm, however, including the phrase from the quotation, points to far more than simply a warning of impending judgment. In fact, simply placing the quotation in the context of its own verse demonstrates this: “And lovingkindness (ds,x,) is Yours, O Lord, For You recompense a man according to his work.” The Psalm emphasizes trust in the Lord in a covenantal context, and contrasts this trust, or faith, with trust in man, and the futile attempt to somehow and illegitimately secure life for oneself.198 The positive side of the “recompense” of v. 12, therefore, arises out of faith in the covenant-keeping, saving God, so that this verse points to the refuge of salvation in the covenant, as well as to the exposure to wrath of those without. Within 195 This is Ps 61:13 in the LXX. These texts are close to identical in the LXX, and are set forth as follows: Rom 2:6: o]j avpodw,sei e`ka,stw| kata. ta. e;rga auvtou/ Ps 61:13: su. avpodw,seij e`ka,stw| kata. ta. e;rga auvtou/ Pro 24:12: o]j avpodi,dwsin e`ka,stw| kata. ta. e;rga auvtou/ Whereas Romans and Proverbs are closer in having the relative pronoun, both Romans and Psalm 62 have the future tense of avpodi,dwmi (though in Romans the verb is in the third person and Psalm 62 in the second person), with Proverbs having the present tense of the verb. This is significant, for Paul is speaking of the future eschatological judgment. (The present tense in Proverbs, however, describes God’s present activity, though likely as this anticipates the future judgment.) Because of this, as well as the significance of the Psalm in reference to that future judgment, the Psalm will be the focus of discussion. 196 The Lord’s judgment of each person according to his deeds is a common theme throughout both testaments. See, e.g., Jer 17:10; Matt 16:27; 2 Cor 5:10; 11:15; Gal 6:7; Eph 6:8; Col 3:24–25; 2 Tim 4:14; 1 Pet 1:17; Rev 2:23; 20:12; 22:12. For somewhat of a “taxonomy” of the various positions on the relation of this teaching in Paul with his emphasis on justification by faith, as well as brief, though interesting, insight on their compatibility, see Dane Ortlund, “Justified by Faith, Judged According to Works: Another Look at a Pauline Paradox,” JETS 52:2 (2009): 323–39. For a brief history of interpretation on Romans 2 with a discussion of various approaches to the chapter, as well as the argument that more than simply condemnation is in view, see also Snodgrass, “Justification,” 73–76. 197 So, for instance, Dodd (Romans, 33–34), who notes the continuity between the revelation of wrath (1:18ff) and the day of wrath (2:5–6), that they are of a piece, “. . . two ways of looking at one fact.” He states, “The only difference between Jew and Greek is that, since the Jew received a more direct and specific revelation of God in the Law, he is in a sense more immediately exposed to the operation of the moral order, for good or ill . . .” 198 See Kidner, Psalms 1–72, 223–23; Mays, Psalms, 215–16; VanGemeren, “Psalms,” 421–23.

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

211

this context of Romans, then, the repentance of man in light of both divine law as well as the promise implicit in the divine kindness, forbearance and patience, is thus set in parallel with those who enter by faith into the saving promise of the covenant (cf. Isaiah 1–5; 45). The eschatological life (Rom 2:7) which issues from the repentance of Rom 2:4, therefore, is a life derived from the covenant, a covenant which, while in the larger context of the epistle evokes both the Abrahamic (e.g., Rom 4:9) and Deuteronomic covenants (e.g., Rom 2:4, 25–29), ultimately finds its consummate expression and fulfillment in the redemptive “good news” of the Isaianic Servant and the covenant established by his sacrificial death.199 In the present context, this covenantal backdrop with regard to Isaiah is introduced by the aforementioned parallel between 2:1–4 and 2:17–24, with its accompanying typological and covenantal connections. This covenantal link is reinforced by the strong covenantal context of Paul’s quotation of Ps 62:12 (Rom 2:6) as it anticipates Isa 52:5 (Rom 2:24). The covenantal wrath upon the sinful, hypocritical moralist of 2:1–4 comes to expression in Paul’s argument in an ultimate sense in the eschatological wrath of Rom 2:5– 12. But it also comes to realized expression in the typologically conceived covenant curse of Israel’s captivity in Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5, as this points to the ultimate expression of “realized wrath” in the “handing over” of the Isaianic Servant in Rom 4:25 (cf. Rom 1:24, 26, 28; see Appendix). This reference to the covenant curse of captivity within the Isaianic context in Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5, then, is a captivity on the verge of redemption, and which therefore points to the fulfillment of the covenant refuge of Ps 62 in the covenant inaugurated by the Isaianic Servant’s death for sin and subsequent resurrection (Rom 3:21–26; 4:25), ultimately embraced by Israel (Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9 [see esp. Rom 11:27/Isa 59:21]). (4) Romans 2:6–11 – The Eschatological Verdict and the Mediatorial Role of the Isaianic Typology In this next section, Paul uses the mediatorial role of Israel as expressed through the Isaianic typology both to reinforce the sobering reality of the eschatological judgment as well as to allusively depict the necessity of responding in repentance/faith in light of God’s saving, covenant provision. The verses contrast human response to God in terms of either repentance or unrepentance, a response which determines the divine rendering as issuing in either eternal life or eschatological wrath. The contrast is described in chiastic arrangement, an arrangement whose central elements contain allusions to 199

Note the wider context of Isa 52:5 quoted in Rom 2:24. Cf. also Rom 10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1; and esp. Rom 11:25–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9, with its explicit use of the term “covenant” within the quotation of Isa 59:21 to convey the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises to the chosen nation.

212

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

both to Isaiah and Deuteronomy and highlight eschatological wrath as it is prefigured in captivity. 6

o]j avpodw,sei e`ka,stw| kata. ta. e;rga auvtou/\ 7 toi/j me.n kaqV u`pomonh.n e;rgou avgaqou/ do,xan kai. timh.n kai. avfqarsi,an zhtou/sin zwh.n aivw,nion( 8 toi/j de. evx evriqei,aj kai. avpeiqou/si th/| avlhqei,a| peiqome,noij de. th/| avdiki,a| ovrgh. kai. qumo,jÅ 9 qli/yij kai. stenocwri,a evpi. pa/san yuch.n avnqrw,pou tou/ katergazome,nou to. kako,n( VIoudai,ou te prw/ton kai. {Ellhnoj\ 10 do,xa de. kai. timh. kai. eivrh,nh panti. tw/| evrgazome,nw| to. avgaqo,n( VIoudai,w| te prw/ton kai. {Ellhni\ 11 ouv ga,r evstin proswpolhmyi,a para. tw/| qew/|Å

The first of the central elements of the chiasm that allude to the OT is the phrase ovrgh. kai. qumo,j (“wrath and indignation;” bold, v. 8).200 This phrase (or the terms used in conjunction) is employed in several passages in the OT, mostly to depict God’s wrath upon Israel for their transgression of his law.201 In Isaiah, however, though this sense is present (Isa 5:25) it is expanded (cf. Isa 24:1–6), so that the phrase/terms ultimately come(s) to have primary reference to God’s eschatological judgment upon those outside his saving covenant (Isa 34:2), as in Rom 2:8.202 The second of the central elements in the chiasm is the phrase qli/yij kai. stenocwri,a (bold, v. 9). This phrase, “tribulation and distress,”203 echoes both Deuteronomy (28:53, 55, 57) and Isaiah (8:22; 30:6), though it is both textually and contextually closer to Isaiah.204 In Isa 8:22 (contextually related to 200 Sanday and Headlam, e.g., note that “ovrgh. is the settled feeling, qumo,j the outward manifestation, ‘outbursts’ or ‘ebullitions of wrath’” (Romans, 57). See also Richard Chenevix Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament (London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 189412), 125. 201 Jer 7:20; 43:7; 51:6; (Bar 1:13); Ezek 5:13; Dan 9:16. 202 E.g., Oswalt, Isaiah, 606–9; Seitz, Isaiah, 236ff. 203 The terms in their literal sense refer to “pressure” and “narrowness (in the sense of being in a tight or narrow place),” respectively, and have the mostly synonymous, figurative sense of “distress” or “trouble” as it is applied to a variety of circumstances (Thayer, in loc.). 204 The margin of the NA27 lists simply Deut 28:53 and Isa 8:22 (LXX [the margin actually reads Is 28,22 though this is certainly an error]), but the phrase also occurs in the LXX of Esther 1:7. Cf. also the use of the related terms in Rom 8:35 and 2 Cor 6:4. Both Rom 2:9 and Isa 8:22 have the identical phrase: qli/yij kai. stenocwri,a. Isa 30:6 has: evn th/| qli,yei kai. th/| stenocwri,a|. Deut 28:53, 55, and 57 have: evn th/| stenocwri,a| sou kai. evn th/| qli,yei sou. In Deuteronomy, moreover, the “tribulation and distress,” though arising from the curses of the covenant and containing the theme of captivity in the wider context, has more

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

213

Isa 8:14 quoted in Rom 9:33), the phrase occurs in a form identical to Rom 2:9 and refers to the “tribulation and distress” of captivity as a consequence upon Israel for its breach of the covenant (epitomized in its stubborn refusal to trust God’s saving promise, cf. Isa 8:6, 11–14).205 This theme recurs throughout Isaiah, but, as discussed above, comes to center stage in chapters 40–55 in which Israel’s captivity is set in parallel with the evanescence of humanity. By means of this parallel, captivity comes to portend eschatological death and thus is remedied by the redemption accomplished by the Servant of the Lord, of whom Cyrus was but a type. Though a somewhat subtle allusion here, this motif soon comes to surface more explicitly in Paul’s quotation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24.206 So then, as bearing upon the Romans context, the outworking of the covenant curse in eschatological wrath is pictured in terms of the captivity motif of Isaiah. This motif reasserts the typological role of Israel in its captivity as portending the eschatological judgment of death, as the “tribulation and distress” designed to turn humanity back to God is for the unrepentant extended into eternity. This stands as the severest of warnings, for the sphere of eschatological judgment conveyed by the phrase “anger and wrath” is, for the unrepentant, reaching into the present, prefigured both by the typology of Israel as well as by the personal reality of captivity to sin.

specific reference to the hardship of enduring a siege by the enemy. It’s relation to covenant breach, however, is quite clear. Bell (No One Seeks for God, 143) notes the use of these terms in Deuteronomy and Isaiah and states, “. . . they refer there to punishment experienced in this life. Paul applies the words in v. 9 to the eschaton.” This points again to Paul’s typological use of Isaiah’s captivity motif. 205 Interestingly, in Isaiah 30 the phrase “tribulation and distress” is joined with the concept of divine judgment upon Assyria in “wrath” and “indignation.” Isa 30:6 depicts the journey of Israel’s ambassadors to Egypt through a land of “tribulation and distress,” which in the context describes Israel’s foolish and rebellious reliance upon Egypt (Isa 30:1–9) and their refusal to repent and trust God’s saving promises of deliverance in the face of the Assyrian threat (Isa 30:10–18; see esp. v. 15). The phrase as used here could be a deliberate recollection of its earlier use, intimating the captivity to which their refusal to repent will eventually lead. Yet in spite of Israel’s stubbornness, the Lord will indeed save Israel from Assyria in token of His covenant faithfulness to His chosen people (Isa 30:19– 33), though ultimately, deliverance from the final outpouring of wrath and indignation (Isa 30:27; cf. Isa 34:1ff) is vouchsafed only to those whose faith is in the Lord (Isa 30:15, 18, 22). On the relation and inter-textual and thematic connections between Isaiah chapters 8 and 30, as well as the strong emphasis on faith in the Lord and His saving promise as over against trust in the nations, see esp. Seitz, Isaiah, 215–22. 206 In terms of the criterion of volume, these allusions are clear, though relatively minor. They are strengthened by the criterion of recurrence, especially through Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5. They gain significance, however, by virtue of their connection with the larger Isaianic framework of covenant captivity, which they reinforce.

214

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

Within this chiastic warning, on the positive side (vv. 7, 10),207 the repentant are described in terms possibly reminiscent of Isaiah’s theme of restoration to glory, in which recreation plays a major role.208 The outer elements of the chiasm (vv. 6, 11) highlight not simply the reality of judgment, but, through the association of the broader context of the quotation and allusion (respectively), the covenant context of that divine judgment, with verse 11 reinforcing God’s impartiality. The phrase, “there is no partiality with God” (Rom 2:11) echoes Deut 10:17 and 2 Chr 19:7, both of which are set in a covenant framework.209 In 2 Chr 19:7, Jehoshaphat’s exhortations to the judges whom he had appointed communicates an essential truth that Deuteronomy had applied to the relationship between Israel and the world, a background more in keeping with Romans 2. In Deut 10:12–22 the divine impartiality (10:17) is balanced on the one side by God’s sovereign choice of Israel, yet on the other by his love for the alien, a balance further expressed by his command, on that basis, for Israel to extend to the alien this same [covenant] love. 210 In conjunction with Isaiah’s typology in the inner elements of 207

Barrett (Romans, 44–45) asserts that there are two key terms contrasted in these verses (vv. 7–8) that depict the nature of the persons so described – “endurance,” and “selfish ambition.” He notes that endurance is a characteristic of hope or faith, and that the works are a mark of hope in God. 208 On the theme of the Isaianic return to glory in Romans, see in chapter four on Rom 3:23. As noted above, Rom 1:23 constitutes a play on words, alluding to man’s fall as an exchange of God’s glory for a corruptible image, with a background partially derived from Isaiah. In this exchange man, who was God’s image and glory (cf. Psalm 8), became corrupt, the image defaced and glory lost. In Rom 1:18–3:20 the loss of this glory results in condemnation and captivity, major themes of Isaiah 40–55. In repentance, however, this glory is both sought and regained (Rom 2:4, 7, 10; cf., e.g., Isa 45:22–25 LXX). In the context of several additional passages of Romans, moreover, and furthering the line of thought in Romans 2 (vv. 4, 7, 10), the theme of recreation, and hence of man being restored to the glory (and image) of God is prominent, and the recreation finds its source in justification through the redemptive sacrifice of Christ, the Isaianic Servant (3:23; 5:2; 6:4; 8:18, 21, 29–30; see Appendix). If, as it will be argued, Rom 3:21–26 is a reflection of the redemption through righteousness in Isaiah 40–55 (with 3:23 a possible reflection of Isa 6:1–5), then, as in the Isaianic narrative, it similarly issues in “peace” (Rom 5:1; cf. Isa 52:7; 53:5; 54:10, 13) and “glory” (Rom 5:2/8:18–25; cf. Isa 40:3–11; 43:7; 45:24; 60:1– 2). For “honor” (timh,; Rom 2:7, 10) as related the eschatological gift of the presence of God in Isaiah, and so related to “glory,” cf. 11:10; 35:2. On the concept of “immortality” (avfqarsi,a) as derived from Isaiah in Paul’s thought, see above in chapter three, “Paul’s Understanding of Isaiah as Answering the Fall” (and footnote 48), as well as pp. 161–64. 209 The Greek term proswpolhmyi,a reflects the Hebrew concept of “lifting up the face” ~ynI ( p' afn), which was sometimes used to convey the idea of partiality (see also, e.g., 2 Kgs 3:14; Ps 82:2 (LXX 81:2). See Bell, No One Seeks for God, 143, note 52. 210 Included in this context are the added themes of loving and obeying the Lord’s commandments from the heart, as well as circumcision of the heart from whence this obedience derives; the apostle employs these concepts at the end of Rom 2 (vv. 25–29).

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

215

the chiasm, the quotation and allusion in the outer elements again highlight the role of Israel in mediating the divine covenant to the peoples of the world. The eschatological judgment of Romans 2, therefore, is firmly placed within a world-wide covenantal context, including its saving implications, with Israel serving in the role of rearticulating and mediating this covenant to the world in both its negative and positive aspects. (5) Romans 2:12–16 – The Isaianic Gospel as the Climax of the Eschatological Verdict In Isaiah 45, the eschatological judgment by the Lord with its attendant justification is subsequently taken up into the good news and so mediated through the Servant in Isa 53:11 – a unique integration of themes that appears to stand behind this passage in Romans. In the wider context of both Isaiah 45 and Rom 2:1–16 (as understood in intertextual relation to 1:16–17 and 3:21–26), the God who justifies in the eschatological judgment is the God who justifies in and through his Messiah, and particularly through the proclamation of good news that announces and reveals his eschatological redemptive righteousness in the Messiah’s sacrifice for sin. In this depiction of the eschatological judgment within both prophecy and epistle there is a unique identity between the Lord and the Messiah, so that, again, christology becomes the basis of Paul’s soteriology. 211 This thesis asserts that Paul’s use of Isaiah’s typology to mediate the nature of the eschatological verdict comes to a climax in Isaiah’s “good news.” This “good news” is expounded in Rom 3:21–26, in which the final judgment and vindication become a present reality. In this section of Romans, however, there are several possible allusions to both Isaiah and Jeremiah that the apostle could be employing to convey the same basic concept, yet from a more salvation-historically nuanced perspective, a perspective that encompasses the earlier eras but points to a final consummation with reference to the gos-

211 This creates in both texts a “christology of divine identity,” with the Messiah coming in the promised redemptive role of Israel’s God. On this general topic see Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel. More specifically in relation to the role of the Servant in Isaiah, see his God Crucified, 51. On Isaiah as the preeminent expression of this phenomenon of “the christology of divine identity,” and with specific reference to Isaiah 45, see Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 681–82. On this phenomenon in relation to the distinction in Paul between the Servant and the servants formed in relation to him, see Gignilliat, Paul and Isaiah’s Servants, 51–54, 88–89. In Rom 2:16 and 3:21–26, the Messiah acts in the role of Israel’s God as the mediator of justification, so that christology becomes the basis of soteriology (as was seen in the relation between Rom 1:1–4 and 8:1–3 [9:5], with the divine Son bearing the sin of his people). On the divine identity in Isa 52:13–53:12, see also Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 384–39.

216

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

pel, as expressed in Rom 2:16.212 The allusive backdrop to the trial motif of Isaiah 45 is bolstered here by the reference to a justification in the judgment, based in repentance (cf. Rom 2:4), that anticipates the fuller disclosure of its basis in relation to the gospel. The emphasis on equality in judgment emphasized in the outer elements of the chiasm discussed above (vv. 6, 11) is continued in verses 12 and 13. In these verses Paul describes a total impartiality in the final judgment with respect to the possession of the Mosaic law (v. 12),213 which, as noted above, is also reminiscent of the judgment motif in Isaiah 40–55. Irrespective of the possession of the Mosaic law, “the doers of the law will be justified” (v. 13). In light of both the foregoing discussion of the trial motif beginning at 2:1, as well as the assertions of Rom 2:25–29 in which that theme is continued (2:27), it seems clear that implicit in this “doing of the law” is the repentance of Rom 2:4. This repentance, arising out of the helpless condition of absolute guilt and captivity to sin revealed by the law (cf. Gal 3:10; 5:3), results in entrance into God’s covenant (Rom 2:6) with its accompanying circumcision of the heart. This circumcision of the heart points to a recreative work which alone enables one to do the law of God (Rom 2:25–29), a divine enabling reflected in Rom 2:7, 9, 14, and 15.214 In Rom 2:15, then, this recreative act of the Spirit of God is alternately described as “the work of the law written on the hearts” of the Gentiles, the basis of their “doing by nature the things of 212 Barrett, e.g., writes on Rom 2:13 (Romans, 48), “The present passage refers only to the sentence, whether of condemnation or acquittal, pronounced at the last judgment; that is, it does not deal with the specifically Christian conception of justification which rests upon the anticipation of the eschatological righteousness of God in the saving event of Jesus Christ.” 213 With regard to the term “law” in v. 12, Cranfield (Romans I-VIII, 154 and note 2) states that in Paul it refers to the OT law unless the context clearly shows otherwise. On Paul’s use of no,moj, see e.g., Moo, Romans, 145–46, note 7; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 53; but esp. Cranfield, Romans IX-XVI, 845ff. Regarding Rom 2:12 Käsemann observes, “The gifts granted to the Jew in salvation history do not protect him against universal judgment. This [statement] is directed first against any reliance on the reception and possession of the Torah as the true mark of the difference between Jew and Gentile” (Romans, 61–62). Barrett (Romans, 47) similarly comments, “The law is not a talisman calculated to preserve those who possess it. It is an instrument of judgment, and sin is not less sin, but more, when it is wrought within the sphere of the law (cf. vii. 13).” 214 On the relation of Rom 2:12–16 to 2:25–29, the non-hypothetical nature of the “doer of the law” in 2:13 and its wider context (2:1–29), and its compatibility with Rom 3:20, see Seifrid, “Unrighteous,” 124–25, 129–30. Sanday and Headlam state (Romans, 60), “Since the time of Augustine . . . the orthodox interpretation had applied this verse, either to the Gentile converts, or to the favoured few among the heathen who had extraordinary divine assistance.” For a detailed discussion on both the interpretive issues and background of Rom 2:14– 16, see Bell, No One Seeks for God, 145–83. On Rom 2:25–29 see in chapter three below.

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

217

the law” in Rom 2:14. 215 Therefore, “doing the law” is not conceived in this passage as the basis of justification, but rather “doers of the law” in Rom 2:13 is descriptive of a category that is coextensive with those who “will be justified.”216 This understanding of Romans 2 is supported in this section by the presence and significance of several allusions. The term “will be justified” in Rom 2:13 (dikaiwqh,sontai) is very possibly an allusion to Isa 45:25, which states that “. . . all the seed of Israel will be justified and will glory.” Rom 2:13 and Isa 45:25 are, in fact, the only two places in the LXX and NT in which that precise form of the word occurs. In the context of both passages, moreover, “the divine tribunal of the soul” comes to eschatological realization on the day of judgment, yielding either condemnation or justification, 215 Cranfield (Romans, 155ff) argues for understanding the Gentiles in 2:14–16 as Christians. If, however, simply (heathen) Gentiles are [also] in view, he would be arguing for a positive response to general revelation, an interpretation which he himself seems to strongly consider (155–56). In fact, he asserts earlier with regard to the passage as a whole that Paul was probably also referring to OT believers as well as OT Gentiles (152). Cranfield’s argument for a reference to Christians appears to depend somewhat upon the referent of fu,sei in v. 14. He understands it with the preceding (ta. mh. no,mon e;conta fu,sei) rather than the following phrase (fu,sei ta. tou/ no,mou poiw/sin). The overall context, however, beginning with 1:18 (esp. 2:12) emphasizes that Gentiles, though not having the Mosaic law, nevertheless have received revelation to which they are accountable. This contextual connection is noted by Dodd (Romans, 35) who states, “Verses 14–15 are conceived in the same spirit as 1:19–20.” Further, the repetition of the phrase “these not having the law” (ou-toi no,mon mh. e;contej) in the very same verse, yet unaccompanied by the modifier fu,sei, indicates that the reference is to those who actually do not possess the Mosaic law, which would not be true of the Gentile churches started, e.g., by Paul. On fu,sei being taken with the following finite verb rather than the preceding participle, see Seifrid, “Unrighteous,” 129, note 68. Barrett states (Romans, 50), “Paul writes not ‘The Gentiles’ but ‘Gentiles’, that is, some, not all. Gentiles therefore cannot be equivalent to Gentile Christians.” See also Käsemann, Romans, 65. Käsemann asserts (62), “The reference is not to all Gentiles . . . but not to exceptions either . . .” Watson (Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, 352–53, note 57) holds that these obedient Gentiles, retrospectively considered in light of Romans 3, turn out to be “unreal.” Yet he notes the difficulty of this position as these Gentiles are described in Rom 2:25–29, stating (353, note 57), “Is Paul describing his anonymous righteous Gentiles as though they were Christians? Within Romans 2 itself, he certainly wishes them to sound like real people.” 216 See especially Ortlund, “Justified by Faith,” 323–39. As Ortland well observes, this understanding of the passage avoids the apparent conflict with Rom 3:20. Seifrid (“Unrighteous,” 125) notes that Paul’s use of these ideas in Romans 2 “. . . indicates that he regards the Law to demand our ‘heart,’ i.e. all that we are and have . . . ‘Works of the Law,’ as particular, identifiable and observable deeds simply do not encompass our whole person. Paul rejects the opinion . . . that such deeds in themselves bear any saving significance.”

218

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

with justification granted to those who respond to the Lord’s universal call to repentance (Isa 45:22; cf. Rom 2:4). But how does the assertion in Rom 2:13 that “the doers of the law will be justified” relate to a possible Isaianic background? In the verses which follow 2:13, “the doers of the law” are described as those who “do by nature the things of the law” (v. 14) and “show the work of the law written on their hearts” (v. 15). These ideas are present in the combined contexts of Isaiah 45 and 50–51 (chapter 51 being alluded to in Rom 2:15). In Isaiah 50–51 the subject of the eschatological justification of the remnant is resumed from chapter 45, focusing on the Servant as the sole mediator of this justification and the one around whom the remnant is ultimately formed. Paul, in fact, alludes to both of these chapters (Isaiah 50 and 51) in relation to these very concepts in Romans 8 and 9 (satisfying the criterion of recurrence; see Appendix). In the context of Isaiah 45 God’s righteousness in his redemptive acts causes righteousness to spring up on the earth, so that the righteousness of his redeemed people is a creation of the Lord (v. 8).217 This is consonant with the parallel of creation and redemption (vv. 12–13, 18–19), a parallel which portrays the redemption of Israel as recreation after the pattern of Adam (vv. 11– 12; cf., e.g., Isa 43:1, 7, 21).218 It is this recreated humanity that is coextensive with the assembly of the justified, the “seed of Israel” (v. 25), so that works, far from being the basis of justification, are rather the fruit of a divinely wrought salvation (v. 8) granted through repentance (v. 22). It is just such a recreated humanity that in Rom 2:14–15 does “by nature the things of the law” and “show[s] the work of the law written upon their hearts.” The second phrase alludes to both Jer 31:33 and Isa 51:7,219 both having eschatological, covenantal contexts, and both likely alluding to the covenant context of Deuteronomy which advocates repentance (Deut 30:2, 10) and a “faith-embrace” of God’s law in the heart to escape the covenant curse of captivity (Deut 30:11–14ff; cf. Rom 10:6–8).220 Interestingly, Deu217

See esp. Knight, Deutero-Isaiah, 136–37; Motyer, Isaiah, 359–60. See above, p. 165, note 75. 219 So, e.g., NA27. 220 On this allusion to Deuteronomy in Jer 31:33, see, e.g., C. F. Keil, Jeremiah, Lamentations, trans. David Patrick and James Kennedy, vol. 8, Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991 [reprint]), 38–39 (vol. 2). On Isa 51:7, Grogan (Isaiah, 295) notes the connection with both Deut 30:14 and Jer 31:31–34. Westermann (Isaiah, 236) and Whybray (Isaiah, 157) note the likely connection with Jeremiah. For Deuteronomy’s emphasis on love and obedience to God’s law from the heart, which is closely aligned with and based upon God’s circumcision of the heart, see McConville, Deuteronomy, 427, 429. For the relation of this emphasis to faith in Christ, see 432–33. On Paul’s advocacy and understanding of a faith-embrace of the law in Deuteronomy 30 as reflected in Rom 10:6–8, see, e.g., Matthew Bates, Hermeneutics, 230. 218

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

219

teronomy 30 contains a blended address to both future Israel in exile and the current Moab generation. The significant result of this blended reference is that the “present” Moab generation is called to repentance (cf. v. 2) and a faith embrace of the law (vv. 11–14) on the basis of human inability to keep the law (cf. v. 6), an inability reflected in this very prophecy of Israel’s future covenant breach and captivity (vv. 1–10).221 It is this repentance that results in a circumcised heart, the capacity to love and obey God (cf. vv. 2, 10), and ultimately the promised life of the covenant (Deut 30:6, 15, 19; cf. Rom 2:4– 7).222 In Jeremiah 31 the “new covenant” context is explicit, and echoes the eschatological renewal promised Israel in this chapter of Deuteronomy (30), as well as in the Song of Moses (chapter 32), a renewal corresponding to Deuteronomy’s consistent emphasis on the necessity of receiving the law in one’s heart. This is particularly relevant in that Paul specifically draws the theme of God’s law in the heart from Deut 30:12–14 (Rom 10:6–8). He uses the passage to create a parallel that points to a continuity in the faith-response to the redemptive revelation given first in the law and then fulfilled in Christ (Rom 10:4, 9–10; cf. 9:31–33).223 This faith-response to Christ as the end of the law is then supported by several quotations from Isaiah which culminate in the redemptive promise of Isa 52:7 and 53:1 (Rom 10:11/Isa 28:16; 10:15/Isa 52:7; 10:16/Isa 53:1). Further, Paul quotes a key verse of the Song of Moses (32:43) in Rom 15:10 (“Rejoice, O Gentiles, with His people”), in which he emphasizes Gentile inclusion in the blessings of Israel’s restoration, and similarly ends with a quotation from Isa 11:10 as the Gentiles place their faith in Israel’s Messiah (Rom 15:12). The allusion to Isa 51:7 in Rom 2:15 builds on the allusive backdrop of Isaiah 45 and extends the covenantal framework of Jeremiah through its focus on the mediator of the covenant. The justification to be granted the repentant remnant (“seed”) in Isaiah 45 is eschatological in nature (Isa 45:23–25; cf. Rom 2:13), and therefore, while connected with God’s redemptive plan 221

McConville, Deuteronomy, 427–29. On this “life” as the goal of the covenant, see, McConville, ibid., 430. 223 See esp. Cranfield, Romans, 515ff, 848–61. Roland Deines astutely observes that the crucial issue which ultimately divided Judaism and Christianity was the place or relevance assigned to the Torah. In contrast to Judaism, which centered both individual and national existence around the Torah (even placing the Messiah in subordination to the Torah), Christians, on the other hand, centered their individual and communal lives around Christ. He states, “Even where Torah was observed with sincerity in the Jewish-Christian congregations, it had still lost its absolute, eschatological dimension. It had, even in these congregations, reached its te,loj in Christ.” See his essay, “The Pharisees Between ‘Judaisms’ and ‘Common Judaism,’” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol. I – The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, WUNT 140 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 500. 222

220

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

through Cyrus (e.g., Isa 45:1–7, 9–10, 13, 19, 21), is based in his world-wide redemptive plan through the Servant (Isa 45:22 “all the ends of the earth”; cf. 49:6). It is the Servant who mediates the promised eschatological justification of Isaiah 45, a theme picked up in Isa 50:4–9 (cf. Rom 8:31–34; see Appendix); therefore it is faith in God’s redemptive plan through the Servant that ultimately identifies the remnant (Isa 50:10–11; cf. 52:15–53:1; 53:10–11).224 It is this remnant, then, who come to be described as those “who pursue righteousness” (Isa 51:1; cf. Isa 56:1; cf. also Rom 2:7; 9:30–33 and Appendix) and “a people in whose heart is [God’s] law” (Isa 51:7; Rom 2:15), who are to look for God’s imminent redemptive act through the Servant. The remnant in Isaiah, therefore, though legitimately identified and formed through repentance in light of God’s law (Isa 45:22; cf. Isa 1:9, 27), must, in the unfolding of God’s redemptive plan, ultimately come to be identified on the basis of faith in the Servant, who alone mediates divine righteousness and redemption, and who alone inaugurates the everlasting covenant based in his very Person (Isa 55:3; cf. 42:6; 49:8). This scenario is extremely similar to the present context of Romans, particularly as that context speaks to the issue of the identity of Israel (cf. Rom 2:25–29). Paul, then, in his allusions to Isaiah 45 and 51, brings together the concept of repentance with its subsequent moral renewal in anticipation of eschatological justification (Isaiah 45), with the concept of the renewed remnant formed in relation to and through faith in the Servant/Christ who mediates this final justification (Isaiah 50–51; cf. Rom 8:31–34; see Appendix). These are the thoughts that appear to stand behind Rom 2:13–15 as they build upon the earlier verses of the chapter. Rom 2:16 bolsters this likely Isaianic background through its reference to the Isaianic gospel, which provides the basis of both forensic acquittal and redemption from the power of sin. Again, Paul’s use of Isaiah 45 in both Rom 14:11 and Phil 2:5–11 (vv. 10–11) to convey various aspects of the eschatological judgment renders its background here more certain.225 Rom 2:16 de224

See above, e.g., p. 87, note 61; and also in chapter two, “The Gospel as the Revelation of God’s Righteousness: A Uniquely Isaianic Background,” and footnotes 120, 121 and 123. In Isaiah 45, moreover, transgression of God’s law epitomized in idolatry is closely associated with resistance to God’s redemptive plan through Cyrus (vv. 1–7, 16, 20–21). Likewise, those who repent of their idolatry are by implication those who trust in God’s redemptive plan, and so come to comprise the remnant (vv. 21–22, 25). 225 In this section, then (as understood in relation to 2:1–16 as a whole), the relatively low volume of the minor allusions (“will be justified,” “work of the law . . . in the heart,”) would combine with Paul’s very significant development of uniquely Isaianic themes (justification in the eschatological judgment messianically mediated and based on the gospel [in the larger context of Isaiah and Romans, mediated through the gospel as the revelation of God’s righteousness in the Messiah’s redemptive sacrifice]) to convey a powerful allusive reference to Isaiah 45 and its wider context, particularly as it augments the allusive reference to Isaiah 45 in Rom 2:1–4 (discussed above). This would be substantiated through recurrence in terms of Paul’s use of Isaiah 45 and 51, the concept of “gos-

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

221

scribes the necessary eschatological conclusion to the forensic situation created by and anticipated in the work of the conscience and the divine law written upon the heart.226 The inner tribunal (e.g., 2:1–4, 14–15), as in Isaiah 40– 45, inevitably leads to that which it portends, the final judgment. It is in this final assize that God will judge the secrets (krupto,j) of men, pointing again to this necessary connection between the inner tribunal and the eschatological judgment.227 This judgment, moreover, is “according to my gospel” (kata. to. euvagge,lio,n mou), which, granted the Isaianic background, would point to the fact that the justification granted will be based solely upon the Servant’s/Christ’s redemptive sacrifice. But “judgment according to the gospel” would also point to the legitimacy of one’s inner response to God (in terms of repentance and faith) being measured in the judgment by the recreated righteousness of the Servant which necessarily issues from the gospel – the standard of recreation (and hence the standard of truly “doing the law”). The nature of this gospel in the judgment (as God’s sole and definitive redemptive act in the outpouring of eschatological wrath in the sacrifice of Christ as the only basis of justification), moreover, would disclose in a superlative manner, a manner which eclipses all previous revelation, the bankruptcy of the human condition in its state before God. 228 It supremely exposes humanity as inescapably captive in its sin and confirmed in its guilt, just recipients of the wrath of God, and so by corollary sets the standard for the proper human

pel” and the continued use of Isaiah to convey the theme of justification (e.g., Rom 3:21– 26; 4:25; 8:31–34; see Appendix). To this is added the fact that this allusive reference as a whole ties into Paul’s use of Isaiah’s redemptive-narrative framework both in 2:24 as well as 1:16–17 and 3:21–26. Therefore, in terms of relative significance, Paul’s allusion to Jeremiah 31 (as well as Deuteronomy which stands behind it) points to eschatological realities experienced in the present, but scripturally disclosed more fully in the Isaianic good news. 226 See, e.g., Käsemann, Romans, 66–68. He observes (66), “The shadow of the Judge does not just surround us on the outside as in 1:22ff. It falls on our inner being . . . and makes it the tribunal.” 227 Cranfield (Romans, 163) notes that “the secrets of men” (ta. krupta. tw/n avnqrw,pwn) should be compared to the double contrast in vv. 28–29 in which the same term occurs (krupto,j). The contrast in vv. 28–29 is between the outward Jew and the inward Jew, and between outward circumcision and circumcision of the heart. Verse 29 says “. . . he is a Jew who is one inwardly (o` evn tw/| kruptw/| VIoudai/oj); and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit . . .” This link points to the possibility of a positive outcome to the judgment of 2:16. 228 Cf. esp. Gal 6:14–15. Similarly in Matthew, e.g., the primary purpose of Jesus, as indicated by his divinely-given name, is “to save his people from their sins” (1:21). As Roland Deines points out through rhetorical question (“Not the Law but the Messiah,” 71), “Is this not right from the beginning of the Gospel at least an indirect hint as to how Matthew understood the Torah and the Messiah’s main task?”

222

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

response in a repentance that reflects the immensity of this debt and in a faith that desperately lays claim to its only hope in the saving promise. 229 The apostle, then, appears to be alluding to a redemptive continuity and recreative reality present throughout history but that has now come to fuller [though not yet complete] eschatological realization with the advent of the messianic redemption. Paul, here, appears to be integrating the universal call to repentance based in general revelation, Deuteronomy’s call to repentance with its promised circumcision of the heart (cf., e.g., Rom 2:4, 14–15, 25– 29), and Isaiah’s call to faith in the good news of the redemption achieved by the messianic Servant of the Lord. This integration is central to Paul’s understanding of Isaiah itself (as discussed above), which again points to Paul’s dependence. This salvation-historical, intertextual relation between Deuteronomy and Isaiah, moreover, points to the truth that one’s response to God’s law is most accurately reflected in one’s response to the gospel. And so as Paul’s continuing discussion will demonstrate, a proper repentant/faith response to the law as properly understood within its context of promise – with the realization of the saving event – must necessarily come to expression in “. . . those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, He who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification” (Rom 4:24b-25/Isa 53:4–6, 11–12; see Appendix). The gospel, in its disclosure of Christ and his redemptive work, thus becomes the criteria for establishing the true nature and role of the law, as well as its proper appropriation. 3. Isaiah 52:5: The Covenant Curse and the Source of Its Promised Restoration (Rom 2:17–29) In this passage, the relation between Deuteronomy and Isaiah is continued. The conception of equality in judgment from the previous section surfaces here through the typological role of Israel. As noted above, the universal call to repentance (Rom 2:1–4), though a reflection of Deuteronomy’s covenant call to repentance issuing in the circumcision of the heart (Rom 2:14–15, 29), finds its clearest expression in the universal call of Isaiah 45 and its unique alignment of repentance [based on the covenant] with faith in God’s redemptive plan ultimately expressed in the “good news” (Rom 2:16). Here, these basic relations are reaffirmed as Paul depicts the covenant curse through his quotation of Isaiah, which is itself used by the apostle to direct attention to the scriptural portrayal of its resolution. Romans 2:17–29 presents the scenario of covenant curse, exile and restoration, with the quotation of Isa 52:5 (Rom 2:24) pointing, not simply to plight, but (particularly in light of the Isaianic nature of 1:16–17a; 2:16; 3:21–26; 229

For a similar emphasis, see on Rom 3:1–4 below.

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

223

4:25) to the basis of Deuteronomy’s promised restoration and circumcision of the heart (Rom 2:29) as accomplished through the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord. Paul’s deliberate choice of Isaiah to explicitly depict the covenant curse of captivity (as opposed to Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, or Ezekiel, e.g.) is based upon both its typological nature in portraying humanity’s captivity to sin as well as the prophecy’s continuing role within the epistle in disclosing the messianic salvation, so that Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5 integrally connects to Paul’s use of Isaiah’s larger, redemptive-narrative framework. Isaiah’s portrayal of humanity’s guilt and captivity to sin and death is answered by Isaiah’s portrayal of humanity’s justification and redemption through the sacrifice of the Servant. (1) The Typology of Plight and Promise (Rom 2:17–24) Much has already been said regarding the textual, typological, and contextual significance of Paul’s quotation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24.230 As mentioned above, within the trial motif of Isaiah 40–55 the idolatrous sin and captivity of humanity is epitomized in the sin and captivity of Israel, a typological scenario that is reflected in this section of Romans. This comes to clear expression in Rom 2:17–24, particularly as it stands in intertextual relation to Romans 1. In Romans 1, the rebellion of humanity that began at creation, together with its subsequent captivity to sin and death (Rom 1:23–24, 26, 28, 32), come to be expressly reflected in the present passage in its recounting of the fulfillment of Deuteronomy’s covenant curse of exile through the quotation of Isaiah. Paul, therefore, is typologically portraying this rebellion and plight of humanity through the sin and captivity of Israel in its experience of the Babylonian exile. Israel in its history was thus the divinely-chosen instrument to mediate the knowledge of God through projecting a large-scale and graphic portrait of the state of the world in its guilt and alienation from God, a revelation reinforcing both the forensic confrontation within general revelation as well as God’s overt action in “handing over” humanity (corporately and individually) to the tyrannical dominion of sin and death (described above). This relation is reinforced as the condemnation of the hypocritical moralist in Rom 2:1–5, equal in guilt with the blatantly idolatrous humanity of 1:18–32, comes to full expression in Paul’s description of the hypothetical Jew in vv. 17–23,231 with each being condemned by the typological portrait of captive Israel in Rom 2:24. 230

See above in chapter three, “Warrant for Viewing a Broad Isaianic Influence on Romans 1:18–3:20,” and “Isaiah 52:5/Romans 2:24 in the Context of Romans 1:18–3:8.” 231 Cranfield (Romans, 163) notes that the opening de. of Rom 2:17 sets vv. 17ff in an adversative relation to vv. 12–16. On the relation between Rom 2:1ff and 2:17–24, Käsemann comments (Romans, 68), “The phrase in v. 3, o` kri,nwn . . . kai. poiw/n auvta,, is now established.” Sanday and Headlam, observing the significance of the conjunction in

224

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

The three major allusive movements of this section appear to be: 1) the allusion to the Servant of the Lord as a guide to the blind and a light to those in darkness in Rom 2:19 (Isa 42:6–7, 16, 19; Isa 49:6, 9; cf. also 29:10); 2) the allusion to the covenant law of Deuteronomy 5 in Rom 2:21–22; 3) the quotation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24, which recalls Deuteronomy’s promised curse of exile both by virtue of its connection with the preceding, as well as through a subtle echo of Ezekiel 36 and the theme of the profanation of God’s name.232 Item one employs irony to signify both Israel’s guilt as well as the answer to that guilt in the ministry of the Servant of the Lord. Item two highlights the covenant context out of which arises both Israel’s captivity as well as the redemptive promise inherent in the covenant (cf., e.g., Rom 2:25–29; 10:4– 8). Item three takes up this covenant context in describing Israel’s captivity as a result of its sin, yet by implication, both in reference to items one and two, points to the answer to that plight in the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord (the goal toward which Paul drives his argument in 3:21–26). These items, Rom 2:21, state, “ou=n : resumptive, introducing the apodosis to the long protasis in vv. 17– 20 . . . Here is the ‘Thou art the man’ which we have been expecting since ver. 1” (Romans, 66). On this relationship between the self-righteous person in Rom 2:1–5 and the self-righteous Jew in Rom 2:17–24, see also Richard Bell, No One Seeks for God, 184– 85(ff). He writes, “. . . whereas 2.1–5 concerns any self-righteous person, 2.17–24 concerns the self-righteous Jew. But why the self-righteous Jew? Is not such language a step backwards in the light of the ‘progress’ made in Pauline studies? I think not, for there are indications in the Pauline writings that Paul can write about the self-righteous Jew . . . if Rom. 2.1–5 refers to the self-righteous person generally, why cannot 2.17–24 refer to the self-righteous Jew? Not only are both passages in the second person singular, but also the content is similar. Both passages deal with people who think they are righteous and judge others, but in fact are really no better than those they judge.” Regarding the nature of the Jew’s false confidence, Bell observes, (187), “. . . the alternatives either boasting in possession of the law or boasting in performance of the law are false alternatives in Rom. 2:17–24. I suggest that both ideas are to be found in 2.17 and 2.23.” On this boasting as including performance, see also Rudolf Bultmann, “kauca,omai, etc.,” TDNT, 3:645–54 (see esp. 648–50). On the nature of “boasting” in Romans, see also Hübner, Law in Paul’s Thought, 113– 24. Of particular note is Simon J. Gathercole, Where Is Boasting? (see esp. 200–15). He concludes his discussion on Rom 2:17–24 by stating (215), “We saw first that Paul’s dialogue partner is a Jew throughout Romans 2, and that he, being unrepentant, is heading for condemnation. Further, this is a very serious charge because this Ioudaios represents the nation as a whole . . . the relationship between obedience and reliance on the Law in the texts above might be better described as reliance upon the Law presupposing or including obedience to it.” 232 The subtle allusion to the profanation of God’s name in Ezek 36:20–23 is discerned by virtue of the fact that it carries into Rom 2:25–29 with the themes of heart renewal and obedience to God’s commands through the work of the Spirit (Ezek 36:24–27). Ezekiel is thus used to reinforce the covenant context of Deuteronomy with its promised restoration, a restoration which Paul scripturally conveys through allusive and overt reference to Isaiah.

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

225

therefore, both build upon and reinforce one another. Similar to Paul’s use of the Psalms in Rom 2:6 and 3:4, each of these scriptural references have both negative and positive significance; though powerfully used to bring the full weight of guilt to bear upon the soul, they nevertheless overwhelmingly point to the sure refuge from guilt and wrath found in the covenant. (a) The allusions to the Servant of the Lord in Romans 2:19. One of the principal metaphors strongly associated with Isaiah’s typology of captivity is that of spiritual blindness,233 a theme introduced in chapter 6 (vv. 9–13) in what many consider to be a paradigmatic chapter, an adumbration of the prophecy. 234 The theme recurs throughout Isaiah and is explicitly employed by Paul in his quotation of Isa 29:10 in Rom 11:8. 235 Paul’s use of this text demonstrates the fact that he draws the theme of spiritual blindness from Isaiah, and could also point to Paul’s allusive use of Isaiah 29 in the present passage in conjunction with Isaiah 42 (vv. 6–7, 16, 19) and 49 (vv. 6, 9).236 In Seifrid (“Unrighteous,” 133) describes the relation of Rom 2:24 to 1:24–32, 3:9 and 7:14 in terms of its typological portrayal of captivity to sin. He states, “This last passage [7:14] directly recalls the description of Israel’s exile in Isaiah 50:1 . . . and suggests that the same image lies behind Romans 3:9 and 2:24.” 233 Wagner (Heralds, 246) discusses the prevalence of this theme throughout the prophecy. Commenting on Isa 29:10 (quoted by Paul in Rom 11:8, and likely standing behind his use of the motif in this passage), he states that it is “. . . one link in a chain of texts, anchored in Isaiah 6:9–10 and extending as far as chapter 61, that depicts Israel’s alienation from God as blindness and deafness and that correspondingly picture Israel’s redemption as the opening of the eyes and ears.” See, e.g., Isa 6:9–12; 29:9–10, 18; 32:3–4; 35:5; (40:26;) 42:7, 16, 18–25; 43:8; 44:18; 52:8, 15; 56:10; 59:10; 61:1. The necessity of this spiritual perception relates ultimately to the gift of actual sight in eschatological recreation with its vision of the King (e.g., Isa 6:5; 25:9; 29:18–19; 32:1–3; 33:17, 20–24; 35:1–10 [v. 5]; ?42:16; ?52:8; 60:1–5). 234 See, e.g., Childs, Isaiah, 53–54. 235 This is a conflated quotation with Deut 29:4, and so is similar to Paul’s use of Isaiah together with Deuteronomy in the present passage. On the use of these texts together in Romans 11, which includes an allusion to Isa 6:9–10, see Wagner, Heralds, 244–57. Cf. also the Appendix. 236 Most scholars recognize this section of Isaiah to run from chapter 28 through either chapter 32 or 33 (with 33 connected either with its preceding or following section). So, e.g., Childs, Isaiah, 200; Grogan, Isaiah, 174–75; Kaiser, Isaiah, 234ff; Oswalt, Isaiah, 504–5; and esp. Seitz, Isaiah, 203–8. The remaining segments of the larger section (chps. 28–39) would be chapters 34–35 and 36–39. That this section of Isaiah is significant to Paul is obvious. From this section Paul also draws the themes of the messianic stone of testing (Isa 28:16/Rom 9:33; 10:11), the admonition to repent in light of coming judgment (Isa 28:22/Rom 9:28), and Israel’s resistance to trust the Lord’s redemptive promise (Isa 29:16; 45:9/Rom 9:20). In addition to the theme of blindness (Isa 29:9–12, 18), other possible allusions to this section of Isaiah in Rom 2:17–24 could include: the proper object of faith and source of rest being the redemptive promise (e.g., Isa 28:12; 30:15; cf. Rom 2:17); the prophetic vision of judgment and promise understood in conjunction with the law and its covenant

226

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

the context of Isa 29:10, Israel’s spiritual blindness corresponds both with her deliberate refusal to trust in the saving promises of the Lord and her foolish and vain attempts to secure deliverance for herself (Isa 29:13–16; 30:1–3);237 it is a culpable blindness, a rejection of truth, which results in captivity (29:1– 4; 30:15–17), themes which resonate powerfully in this section of Romans. This linking of the themes of blindness and captivity carry over into Isaiah 40–55, and similarly form the backdrop of Isa 42:6–7, 16, to which Paul likely alludes in 2:19. 238 In fact, three of the key terms of Rom 2:19, tuflo,j, fw/j, and sko,toj, appear within one verse of each other in the LXX only in Isa 42:6–7, 16; and 59:9–10,239 though in Isaiah 49 fw/j and sko,toj, echoing Isaiah 42, stand in close contextual relation (vv. 6 and 9), and are accompanied by the theme of the granting of spiritual sight (v. 7; cf. 52:15). In all three passages “blindness” and/or “darkness” refer/s to the spiritual state of captive Israel, though in Isaiah 42 and 49 the reference widens to include the framework (e.g., 29:11–12; 30:8–9; Rom 2:18, 20, 21); and the theme of the prophetic word as teacher (28:9; 30:20–21; cf. Rom 2:20–21). The emphasis of the overall context, moreover, is the divine call to repentance and faith (e.g., Isa 28:12, 16; 30:15, 18), yet this emphasis is combined with Israel’s misplaced trust and resistance to believe God’s saving promise (e.g., Isa 28:9–22; 29:13–16; 30:9–17). On the theme of Isaiah 28–33 as misplaced trust, see esp. Oswalt, Isaiah, 504ff. 237 Paul alludes to Isa 29:16 and 45:9 in Rom 9:20–21 (Ellis, Shum, Wagner, Wilk), with both passages describing resistance to God’s saving plan. This use of these two sections of Isaiah together in Romans 9 supports a similar approach here with reference to both the blindness motif as well as Paul’s earlier use of Isaiah 45. 238 So, e.g., Barrett, Romans, 53 Cranfield, Romans, 166; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 112; Fitzmyer, Romans, 317; Käsemann, Romans, 70; Kuss, Römerbrief, vol. 1, 85; Moo, Romans, 162. Most of these scholars include Isa 49:6, 9 as well. Though Berkley (Broken Covenant, 74–77) cites this as an allusion and gives clear evidence of the verbal and thematic connections between the passages, he surprisingly concludes that it does not function as an exegetical reference for Paul. He bases this conclusion on his perception that “. . . there is no recurrence of Isaiah 42 obvious in Paul” (76). But while there might not be the recurrence of this specific text, there is (as just discussed) the recurrence of this very theme, together with Paul’s consistent use of this section of Isaiah (see notes 236 and 237 above). Berkley also states, “. . . Isaiah 42 gives no evidence of being used exegetically to interpret another text, nor does it give evidence of being interpreted itself” (77). Contrary to Berkley’s assessment, however, this theme is significantly related to the concept of redemption from the covenant curse of captivity, and points, along with Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24, to the source of that redemption in the person of the Servant of the Lord. See the continuing discussion. 239 The themes of blindness and captivity are also linked in the larger context of Isa 59:9–10, verses which immediately follow those which Paul quotes in Rom 3:15–17 (cf. Isa 59:7–8) to depict Israel captive in her sin. The other key term in Rom 2:19, o`dhgo,j (“guide”), is conceptually reflected in Isa 42:16 as the Lord through His Servant (cf. Isa 42:6–7; cf. also Isa 49:3, 5–6) “leads” (MT $lh; LXX a;gw) the blind. Paul’s use of o`dhgo,j likely reflects its popularity in metaphorical discourse.

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

227

world. This tragic state of spiritual captivity, portrayed with the metaphors of blindness and darkness and typified (in Isaiah 42 and 49) in the actual foreign subjugation and expulsion of Israel from Palestine is vividly illustrated in Isa 8:21–22, alluded to by Paul in Rom 2:9 (see Isa 8:22 and Appendix; Ellis).240 In these verses Israel is depicted as captive, filing out of her land in bitterness and despair on the way to exile, and is described as being “driven away into darkness.” In answer to this dismal state of Israel and the world, it is the Servant in Isaiah 42 and 49 who shatters the oppressive and enslaving darkness with his redemptive light (Isa 42:6; cf. Isa 9:1–2). He “. . . open[s] blind eyes and bring[s] out prisoners from the dungeon, and those who dwell in darkness from the prison” (Isa 42:7). The Servant as a redemptive light to the nations in the darkness of captivity, are concepts metaphorically used to depict the fundamental spiritual component of redemption, a redemption Paul understands as brought to fulfillment in the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord (e.g., Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5; Rom 3:21–26; 4:25; 10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1). Similarly, in Isaiah 59, the spiritual nature of Israel’s captivity comes to the forefront as the nation is portrayed as helplessly mired, not in political exile, but in its sin, and thus separated from its God (Isa 59:1–2ff).241 Israel, groping in its own blindness and darkness, hopes for light (v. 9), a light that, according to Paul, dawns only with the rise of messianic redeemer who provides atonement for his people (Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9; cf. Rom 3:21–26; cf. also Rom 1:1–6; 15:12/Isa 11:10). As Paul reads Isaiah, therefore, it is into this darkness of captivity (Isa 52:5/Rom 2:24; cf. Isa 50:1–2/Rom 3:9; 7:14) that the messianic light of deliverance shines as the only hope for both Israel and the world (Isa 42:6–7, 16; 49:6, 9/Rom 2:19; cf. Isa 59:15–21).242 Paul, then, very likely reflecting the irony of Isaiah’s replacement theme (Isa 41:8ff; 42:18, 20–25; 49:3, 5–6), contends that what the hypothetical Jew considered himself in Rom 2:19, the o`dhgo,j (“leader/guide”), the one who would deliver captive people from the blindness and darkness of spiritual bondage, is, in fact, what he himself (and the majority of the nation) desperately needs. Paul’s description of Israel as a “light to those who are in darkness,” then, is deliberately intended to evoke

240

See above, pp. 212–13. Westermann comments on chapter 59 (Isaiah, 350), “Everything said in vv. 16–20 points to an intervention of this kind against foes from without, which means the international sphere. But as against this ch. 59 has never even mentioned foes from without. According to vv. 3–8 and 13–15a the threat comes from the transgression or the actions of the transgressors within Israel.” See also, e.g., Childs, Isaiah, 486–88; Hanson, Isaiah, 210; Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 513, note 28. 242 In reference to Isa 8:21–22 cited above, cf. also Isa 9:1–2. 241

228

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

this contrast in Isaiah 40–55 between Israel and the Servant, a contrast that itself points to the need for the Servant’s redemptive sacrifice.243 This point raises the question of the appropriateness of Paul’s treatment of “the Jew” throughout this section.244 The hypothetical Jew in this scenario represents neither a caricature of Jews nor Judaism, but represents (as in Rom 2:1–4, 14–15 above) the universal, this-worldly forensic confrontation that anticipates the final judgment, intended to disclose one’s place as either within or without God’s saving covenant. In this forensic confrontation the law plays the crucial and discriminating role – either “standing without” as judge, or residing within as a testimony to the recreated life through the Spirit (cf. Rom 2:25–29).245 It is this role of the law – based on the view of Rom 2:16 discussed above – that is incorporated into and reinforces the primary discriminatory role of the gospel. Paul’s “target,” therefore, is not Judaism in the sense of the faith and obedience rightly advocated by the scriptures of Israel, but, contextually, a hypothetical Jew representative of the nation in its unbelief (cf. 2:17–20; 3:3–6; chaps. 9–11).246 The sin of this hypothetical Jew reveals that he has not, in fact, repented and experienced the subsequent circumcision of the heart, a reality ultimately disclosed through the rejection of the gospel.247 This hypothetical Jew, then, in the darkness of his own captiv243 See, e.g., Gignilliat, Paul and Isaiah’s Servants, 72–75, 80. He states regarding Isa 54:17, “What is taking place is a backward looking at the suffering of the Servant who has become ~[ tyrb, that is, the one who in connection with the first servant song is a light to the nations and the restorer of Israel. The Servant is God’s demonstration of covenant loyalty to both Israel and mankind.” On this ~[ tyrb (“covenant of the people”), see Isa 42:6; 49:8; as it comes to fulfillment in 55:3–4. 244 See Christopher Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, 146–47. Steve Moyise has a helpful discussion on this issue (Evoking Scripture, 34–36), and sets out various scholarly approaches to this difficult subject. He notes, e.g., the view of Rom 2:17–24 as a blanket indictment of the Jews in general (e.g., Dodd, Romans, 64); those who take a “Sermon on the Mount” approach, that emphasizes the inward nature of the law against which all fail (e.g., Barrett, Romans, 169); and the view of the passage as reflecting the Jews national pride in possession of the law over against the failure of some, which nullifies the advantage of its possession (e.g., Dunn, Romans 1–8, 116). 245 This metaphor is intended to reflect Rom 2:25–29. It is, of course, true that God’s law is “inward” to all inasmuch as it is inscribed upon the human conscience. Though inward in that sense, the law nevertheless plays a role in which it stands independently over-against the individual as the standard of judgment through which the conscience renders its verdict of guilt. Cf., e.g., Rom 1:32; 2:2–3, 14–15, and p. 191, note 148 above. 246 Simon Gathercole (Where Is Boasting, 199) states, “. . . this Jew is not merely an individual but a representative of the nation. This is clear from the designations in Romans 2:19–20.” Gathercole concludes (200), “So, three elements can be affirmed as to the identity of the interlocutor in Romans 2: he is a Jew; he is a Jew who has not believed the gospel; and he is a representative of the nation as a whole.” 247 Paul’s discussion, therefore, has intended implications in his continuing discussion for the nation as a whole. Paul’s ultimate point, hinted at in this section in Rom 2:16 but

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

229

ity to sin, desperately needs the redemptive light of the Servant of the Lord, a reality powerfully conveyed through Israel’s own history in Isaiah’s typology of captivity. But the blindness of national Israel within the Isaianic typology also plays a vital role in disclosing the universal nature of the redemptive plan of God. Israel as a blind and deaf witness (Isa 43:8–10) highlights God’s sovereignty with reference to his use of the chosen people to mediate the knowledge of God to the world, even in their unbelief.248 Israel’s role as a witness comes prominently to the fore in Isa 43:8ff. Here the covenant nation, though blind and deaf, is called forth within the trial motif to bear silent testimony to God’s unique power in his role as Creator (vv. 1, 7, 15), Judge (vv. 9, 13, 26– 28), and Redeemer (vv. 11–12, 14–21). This use of Israel as a witness in spite of its blindness is intended to emphasize that God’s acts with regard to that nation in its exile and deliverance are designed to bear testimony to all peoples, not only of universal guilt and coming judgment, but also of the redemption available to all in the saving covenant he mediates through his chosen people. 249 God’s acts toward Israel reiterate the fall, reiterate God’s act of handing over humanity into the power of sin, reiterate the witness of the inner tribunal, and so reiterate God’s sole and absolute claim upon the human heart; this combined testimony expressed preeminently through the typology of brought to the forefront in Romans 9–11, is that one’s position with respect to Israel’s promised final deliverance is disclosed through one’s response to the gospel. As Paul’s argument continues, the “hypothetical Jew” is related to the unbelief of “some” in Israel in Rom 3:3, which subject is then taken up on a large scale in chapters 9–11, culminating in the nation’s reentrance into the saving covenant through faith in the Isaianic redeemer in Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9 (a passage the significance of which is more closely defined through its intertextual connection with Rom 3:21–26 and Rom 10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1). Most non-Christian Jews of Paul’s day would readily acknowledge that the promised restoration of Israel described in such passages as Deuteronomy 30 and 32, Isaiah 59–60, Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36 had not yet occurred. This fact, together with the historical reality of national Israel’s covenant breach and exile recounted by Paul in this passage, would at least cause some to wonder where they stood in relation to the promised restoration characterized by the circumcision of the heart, and how this standing related to this new claim of redemption through the sacrificial death and resurrection of the Messiah. 248 This theme of God triumphing through Israel’s unbelief becomes central to Rom 3:1–8, and is then taken up in greater detail in Romans 9–11. 249 This is expressly stated in Isa 45:6 in which God’s purpose to redeem Israel through Cyrus is “. . . that men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun that there is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other . . .” This uniqueness of God demonstrated through Israel is repeated throughout the chapter in vv. 14, 18, 21 and culminates in v. 22: “Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other.” With this unity of saving purpose established and brought to somewhat of a climax in chapter 45, the focus of the prophecy shifts to center more directly on Israel as representative of and central to God’s saving purposes.

230

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

Israel points to the necessity of the messianic redemption. This necessity, therefore, surfaces powerfully within Paul’s scriptural argument in Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5, as Israel bears witness through a typological reenactment that not only recalls the fall but foreshadows the ultimate redemption through the Servant. (b) The allusion to the covenant law of Deuteronomy 5 in Romans 2:21– 22. The implied blindness and captivity of Rom 2:19 is reinforced in verses 21–22 and situated within a covenant context. Though these verses echo the Ten Commandments thundered first from Sinai in Exodus 20 and then reiterated by Moses in Deuteronomy 5, Paul’s continuing discussion (Rom 2:24/25–29) strongly suggests that he has the covenant context of Deuteronomy in view.250 Rom 2:24–29 share with Deuteronomy both the themes of Israel’s captivity for its covenant breach (Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5; e.g., Deut 29:22–28) as well as the promise of restoration through repentance with its subsequent “circumcision of the heart” (Rom 2:4, 29; e.g., Deut 10:16; 30:1– 10). In Rom 2:21–22 the hypothetical Jew represents one whose lawless actions designate him as standing outside the saving covenant, a reality reinforced 250

Berkley (Broken Covenant, 82–87) supports a reference to Jer 7:1–15 in Rom 2:17– 29 based upon their common use of the sins of stealing and adultery, as well as the misuse of “the name of God.” For example, Jer 7:9–10 reads, “Will you steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and offer sacrifices to Baal, and walk after other gods that you have not known, then come and stand before Me in this house, which is called by My name, and say, ‘We are delivered!’ – that you may do all these abominations?” He also attempts to derive temple robbery in Rom 2:22 from Jer 7:11, which reads, “‘Has this house, which is called by My name, become a den of robbers in your sight? Behold, I, even I, have seen it,’ declares the LORD.” The word i`erosule,w in Rom 2:22 refers either to the specific sin of “temple robbery,” or to the more general concept of “committing sacrilege.” In the context of Jeremiah, the acts of stealing on the part of the people, combined with their superstitious, religious trust in the temple for protection, led to Jeremiah’s use of the metaphor of the house of the Lord described as “a robbers’ den.” So while the specific indictment of “temple robbery” does not find a basis in Jeremiah, there could be a possible conceptual connection with sacrilege more generally (if that is how Paul is understanding it). Setting this issue aside, however, the respective vice lists in Jeremiah and Romans only match in the two instances of stealing and adultery. Vice lists, moreover, are common in the OT (as he himself acknowledges), so that this list in itself anchors Paul’s text in Jeremiah far less than in Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy 5, which of course contain the commandment prohibiting idolatry. Further, in Jeremiah the name of God is consistently tied to the temple (“this house, which is called by my name”) and the abuses specifically related to it. Finally, there is, to be sure, a basic conceptual overlap with Romans in terms of sin and exile in the wider context of Jeremiah, but these themes in Jeremiah undoubtedly stem from its basis in the covenant of Deuteronomy. If there is a slight allusion to Jeremiah 7, therefore, it points back to and reinforces the covenant context of Deuteronomy, while highlighting the illegitimacy of false confidence.

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

231

through the alignment of this one with the typology of Israel’s exile which lies below the surface, about to emerge in 2:24. Within both the typology and its application to the spiritual state of the imagined Jew, Paul’s reference to the Jew’s failure to obey the commandments must be understood as a failure to fulfill the law as understood in its fullest possible sense, i.e., in its true sense.251 This is warranted first and foremost by the emphasis on the inward nature of the law in the immediate context (Rom 2:14–16, 25–29),252 but also by his prohibition against “coveting” in his more extended treatment of human inability to keep the law in Romans 7 (see, e.g., vv. 5–8). The combination of the commands of Romans 2 within both its immediate and larger context, epitomized in the inward requirement not to covet, is reminiscent of the “antithesis” of Matthew 5 and reveals the absolute nature of the demand of the law as well as the impossibility of fulfilling it independent of divine renewal.253 This understanding of human inability to “do” the law is further confirmed in Rom 13:8–10, in which the prohibitions against adultery, steal251 E.g., Cranfield, Romans, 169. This assertion here is meant to highlight a consistency with the deeds done out of a repentant heart earlier in the chapter (e.g., vv. 7, 10, 13–15; cf. vv. 25–29). On the question of the nature and significance of the term i`erosule,w (temple robbery; sacrilege), see the discussion in Berkley, Broken Covenant, 129–33. He rightly notes, “Any hypothesis to account for the charges Paul makes must deal adequately with the legitimacy and universal application of the charges, and the connection of idolatry with temple robbery which Paul implies” (133). It could well be, however, that sacrilege in the broader sense is in view. Perhaps what Paul mentions here is meant to be understood in intertextual connection with the idolatry expressed in Rom 1:23 and 25 and reflected also in Rom 3:3–4. The idolatrous exchange of the truth of God for a lie within the continuing argument comes to be expressed in a negative response to both the law and the gospel. In this understanding, therefore, a refusal to embrace the truth of God’s promise as expressed in the law and fulfilled in the gospel (cf. Rom 2:16), with its resulting circumcision of the heart, is in effect profaning the holy – it is refashioning the image of God, and thus a form of idolatrous exchange as in Romans 1. This charge, then, relates to the previous two; to possess the law, yet lack the reality of God’s law in the heart reveals a profanation of the law (and gospel). This view of the passage, in which rejection of the law and gospel is considered profanation, would be similar to the sentiment expressed in Heb 10:28–31, “Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” 252 Note again this emphasis in the linguistic connection between “the secrets of men” (ta. krupta. tw/n avnqrw,pwn) in Rom 2:16, and Rom 2:29 in which the same term (krupto,j) occurs: “. . . he is a Jew who is one inwardly . . .” (o` evn tw/| kruptw/| VIoudai/oj). See Cranfield, Romans, 163. 253 On Matthew, see esp. Roland Deines, “Not the Law but the Messiah,” 77–81.

232

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

ing, and coveting are reiterated (with the additional prohibition against murder) and subsumed under the command to love. This the believer alone, deriving life from the Spirit through the sacrifice of Christ (Rom 8:1–4; cf. 1:1–4; Gal 5:22–23), has the capacity to obey. 254 This understanding of the law at this juncture in the epistle underscores human helplessness in sin and guilt and hence marks the necessity of recreation within the covenant promise, and therefore also anticipates the discussion of the circumcision of the heart in 2:25–29. The source of this recreation, however, is alluded to in Rom 2:24, and points to the basis of Deuteronomy’s promise of ultimate and final restoration in the Isaianic good news, the fulfillment of God’s pledge to atone for his land and his people (Deut 32:43). (c) The quotation of Isaiah 52:5 in Romans 2:24. Related to this covenant context, and as mentioned above, 255 Paul following the LXX adds two phrases to the MT reading of Isa 52:5 (“among the Gentiles,” “because of you”), phrases which evoke the wider context of the citation and focus attention on Israel’s sin and its resulting captivity. 256 But before this contextual 254

N. T. Wright (Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 512) observes the verbal and conceptual relation between the fulfillment of the righteous requirements of the law by the uncircumcised in Rom 2:26 (ta. dikaiw,mata tou/ no,mou fula,ssh|) and by believers in Rom 8:4 (to. dikai,w ma tou/ no,mou plhrwqh/|). This link, moreover, helps to confirm the new exodus background in Romans 2 as it is expressed in a typology that anticipates the messianic redemption, and then recapped in Romans 8 with the exodus allusions framed by Isaianic allusions to the sacrifice of the Servant (see Appendix). 255 See above, “Isaiah 52:5/Romans 2:24 in the Context of Romans 1:18–3:8.” 256 Paul is also likely alluding subtly to Ezekiel 36 here, which emphasizes the profanation of God’s name during Israel’s captivity. This allusion becomes evident, however, only as one moves into verses 25–29 with its emphasis on the divine work in the heart enabling one to do God’s law. Even in those verses, however, the primary allusive reference is to Deut 30:6, which shares with Rom 2:29 the concept of God’s circumcision of the heart. See, e.g., Wagner, Heralds, 177, note 172; Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 812– 14; Timothy Berkley, Broken Covenant, e.g., 90–94 (though Berkley greatly overestimates Ezekiel’s role here, particularly as against Isa 52:5; discussed further below). Interestingly, Ezek 36:20ff contains the themes of God’s divine work in the heart enabling His people to keep the law through the Spirit, resulting in restoration to the land which is made like Eden. This is very similar to the Isaianic material, which extends the continuity with the context of Romans not only through its typology, but by basing this divine work of restoration in the “good news” of the messianic redemption. On this relationship between OT backgrounds, Moo notes that while Isaiah 52:5 is linguistically closer to Paul’s citation, Ezek 36:20 is conceptually closer to Paul’s application (Romans, 166). In response it may be said that if simply blasphemy on the part of Gentiles due to Israel’s sin is in view, this could very well be true (see, e.g., Dodd, Romans, 39; Käsemann, Romans, 69). Paul’s purposes, however, are to draw on the broader categories of captivity to sin and liability in divine judgment that are the necessary prelude to accessing the grace of God, a grace that is messianically mediated. Though the context of Ezek 36:20 includes several aspects of continuity with the Romans context, Isa 52:5 forms part of the cohesive, Isaianic theological narrative that links Paul’s theological points in this

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

233

significance can be discussed in detail, the question of whether or not Paul’s quotation is itself contextual must be addressed. 257 Some have contended that Paul’s citation is simply a proof-text,258 or worse, manifestly uncontextual.259 section with his continued development of these themes throughout the rest of the epistle. (See more in the discussion further below.) 257 For a full discussion of the question of the contextual nature of Paul’s citation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24, see Steve Moyise, Evoking, 36–48. He discusses primarily the views of Stanley, Berkley, Hays, and Wagner. The first two support a “non-contextual” view of the passage, while the latter two argue for a “contextual view.” (For a condensed introduction, reference also Moyise, “Quotations,” 22–23.) See further below. 258 So, for instance Timothy Berkley, Broken Covenant, 136–40. Berkley, remarkably, states, “There is no evidence that Isaiah 52 functions exegetically as a reference for Paul. It serves the separate rhetorical function of a proof-text offering supporting authority for Paul’s conclusion, which has its basis in Ezekiel 36” (139). The basis of Berkley’s argument is his methodology for uncovering Paul’s “reference texts,” which he understands to be the site of Paul’s exegetical activity. To “uncover” these reference texts, he employs a set of criteria that have much overlap with Hays’ criteria (see 60–64). These reference texts, however, do not operate like allusions which are often understood as deliberately employed to convey information to the readers, but are rather intended to remain hidden from view; yet through the employment of criteria they may in fact be uncovered. For example, he states, “Pauline exegesis in Romans 2 lies below the surface of the text, and is not set out for the readers’ inspection” (24). He seems to rely heavily on the criteria of “links with other texts” (62), which, while often demonstrable within the OT, creates a breadth of interrelated themes that necessarily appear here and there in Paul, but which do not always strongly suggest a specific OT context in a given Pauline passage. Berkley’s greatest methodological weakness, however, is his disparagement of Paul’s overt OT citations, particularly in light of the fact that Paul’s more allusive references are often employed in tandem with these more overt references. With respect to Berkley’s relegation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24 into the category of a proof-text, Steve Moyise writes (Evoking Scripture, 47), “. . . it is difficult to understand why Berkley downplays the role of Isa. 52.5 when Isa. 52.7 is quoted later in the letter. Indeed, it is difficult to see why he downplays the role of quotations generally, when Romans contains over sixty of them. They cannot all be summarizing proof texts!” Moyise exposes Berkley’s self-contradictory position in claiming certain texts as sources for Paul’s hidden exegetical activity while at the same time asserting that if Paul’s readers were aware of this background it would contribute to greater understanding. He quotes a particular footnote of Berkley’s, which states, “This is not to assume that the original readers were aware of Paul’s references to those texts. But for those who were they give a greater understanding of how this passage fits into the larger whole of the epistle” (119, note 30). Moyise observes that the footnote “. . . reveals Berkley’s ambivalence at this point” (47). He goes on to assert, “To my mind, this almost invisible footnote undermines his whole position. He has been arguing throughout that the key exegetical reference texts have been deliberately kept from view. To add a caveat at this point, that readers would gain so much more if they recognized the origin of these texts, suggests that Berkley has not done justice to Paul’s explicit quotations, where such direction is given.” Noting that many of the Roman Christians could well have been prompted by Paul’s cita-

234

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

One primary reason some adopt the latter view is the contention that the blasphemy described in Isa 52:5 is based, not upon the sin of Israel, but upon the pitiful state of the captives who, according to the context, were “taken away without cause.”260 To this it may be responded that Paul clearly evidences a nuanced understanding of the passage as related to both the curse of captivity as well as the blessing of God’s promised redemption. 261 This, in fact, reflects the dual tion to seek the context of Isaiah 52:5, Moyise states “. . . Berkley’s suggestion that Paul has deliberately hidden his key exegetical texts seems perverse. Why keep in the background something that would have greatly enhanced the understanding of his readers?” These incisive observations seem quite to the point, and indicate several significant methodological weaknesses of Berkley’s approach. Nevertheless, Berkley does draw out the significance of Ezekiel 36 in the present passage, though in an overstated form. An appraisal much more balanced, and cognizant of Isaiah’s relative priority in the passage is given, e.g., by N. T. Wright, who specifically notes the role of Isa 52:5 in terms of anticipating the redemptive righteousness of God expressed in Isaianic terms in Rom 3:21–26. See Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 812–14. 259 See, e.g., Christopher Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, 145–50. 260 Isa 52:5. See, again, Stanley, ibid., 147–48. Stanley states (147), “The ‘informed audience’ would have turned immediately to the original context of the quotation for help in making sense of the text. In this case they would have found themselves more confused than helped.” Stanley affirms the importance of scripture for Paul’s audience, yet in this case their study of scripture would be nullified if Paul misused the sacred text. Certainly in Rome Paul expected at least some of his audience to be among the informed class. Concerning Stanley’s appraisal of Paul’s use of scripture here, Steve Moyise (Evoking Scripture, 46) writes, “. . . Stanley’s reconstruction of even his ‘informed’ reader appears to be deliberately distant from Paul, almost closer to a modern historical critic than a firstcentury Christian. Such a reader apparently knows nothing about Jewish or Christian exegesis and one wonders how they arrived at their ‘informed’ status.” He goes on to state that the Romans readers “. . . would presumably have been taught the Christian interpretation of texts from the beginning. Though we know very little about early catechetical instruction, we must assume that the contents of the New Testament bear some relationship to what was being taught in the churches.” 261 For the contextual appropriateness of Paul’s citation, particularly in light of Paul’s use of Isaiah throughout the epistle, see e.g., Hays, Echoes, 45–46; Conversion, 37–41, 45– 46; Wagner, Heralds, 176–78; Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 812–14. On Paul’s understanding of this passage as relating to the curse of captivity, note, e.g., his allusive use of Rom 3:9 and 7:14 referencing Isa 50:1, as well as his use of Rom 3:15– 17/Isa 59:7–8 as intertextually related to both Isa 52:5 and Isa 50:1 (see on those passages further below, “Isaiah 59:7–8a/Romans 3:15–17 in the Context of Romans 3:9–20” and “Romans 3:9–20 and the Overarching Isaianic Framework of Captivity and Condemnation”). Paul’s specific assertion that “. . . we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin” (Rom 3:9) points not only to his understanding of Isa 50:1 as referring to Israel’s captivity (typologically depicting humanity’s enslavement to sin), but points to the fact that this has already been asserted in the foregoing argument. Even if one denies the Isaianic allusion in Rom 3:9, the fact remains that Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5 is the only place in this section in which Israel’s captivity comes specifically into view (cf. Rom 1:24,

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

235

context in which the passage is situated. The words of the passage, particularly as quoted in the LXX,262 relate to what is undeniably part of the entire context of Isaiah 40–55 – that Israel is in exile because of its sin. This is fundamental not only to Isaiah 40–55, but to the prophecy as a whole, from its very commencement. The opening words of the prophecy (“Listen, O heavens, and hear, O earth . . .” [Isa 1:2]) recall the covenant context of Deuteronomy, with the prophecy going on to depict Israel’s transgression of God’s law leading inevitably to exile (e.g., Isa 5:13–14). This state of exile, then, cannot be separated from the sinfulness of the people, a fact evident from the institution of the covenant curses (e.g., Deut 29:24–28), and so clearly reflected in Isa 52:5. But the context of Isa 52:5 within chapters 40–55 is a bit more complex, for it is set within the larger context of redemption which Israel is called to appropriate (e.g., Isa 40:1ff; 45:22–25; 54:1ff; 55:1–3ff), so that it stands, as it were, within a dual context.263 This positive, redemptive theme opens this major section of the prophecy with the cry, “‘Comfort, O Comfort my people’ says your God” (Isa 40:1). Yet this initial word of comfort quickly transitions into the trial motif in which Israel’s guilt for transgression of God’s law – a guilt evidenced by their captive state – is brought quickly to the fore, with the express purpose of urging the captive people to appropriate the redemptive promise. This trial motif remains a major emphasis through chapter 50, which itself describes Israel separated from God because of its sin (to which Rom 3:9 alludes). Chapter 51 is a major transition which begins to build to a climax in the disclosure of the redemptive event in the Servant’s sacrifice in Isa 52:13–53:12. Therefore, the positive light in which Isa 52:5 is set begins more immediately in Isaiah 51 with the expectation of imminent redemption; and in light of this imminent redemption the guilt that precipitated the exile is viewed as already forgiven. But even within this scenario, the necessity to realize and appropriate this redemption situates Israel conceptually as yet 26, 28); with the acknowledgement of an Isaianic allusion the connection is significantly strengthened. But Paul also understands this passage from Isaiah in terms of the anticipation of God’s promised eschatological redemption. This is evident specifically with regard to his use of Isa 52:7 and 53:1 in Rom 10:15–16 to depict the announcement of this redemption, a redemption fulfilled in Rom 11:26–27, quoting Isa 59:20–21; 27:9. Isaiah 52:5, moreover, ties in more immediately with Paul’s Isaianic allusive network within this section of scripture, including such significant passages as Rom 1:1–6, 16–17a; 2:16; 3:21–26; 4:25. (For a description of the Isaianic framework within Romans 1–4 and its relation to the other major sections of Romans, see, e.g., in chapter two, under “Introduction: The Relation between Habakkuk and Isaiah in Romans;” see as well as under the given sections covering the passages above.) 262 See the above (chapter three) textual and contextual discussion, “Isaiah 52:5/Romans 2:24 in the Context of Romans 1:18–3:8.” 263 See the discussion in chapter three above, “Romans 2:1–4 – The Isaianic Backdrop.”

236

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

captive due to its transgression of God’s law (Isa 42:21–25; 50:1–2).264 Paul’s quotation, therefore, reflects this dual context; it recalls the dire situation of captivity stemming from Israel’s sin, yet within the wider framework of redemption, which is precisely what Paul is doing in this context in Romans (cf. Rom 1:16–17; 3:21–26) – driving his argument from the reality of captivity to the manifestation of God’s righteousness in the sacrifice of the Messiah (as an allusion to Isaiah 53) which his readers are to appropriate by faith (Rom 3:21–26). It is precisely this dual context, therefore, that Paul intends to evoke, because that is precisely where many of his fellow countrymen stand (cf. Rom 3:3; 9:1–11:36; cf. esp. 11:11–27); redemption has been accomplished, the invitation extended, yet they have not believed the good news and entered into the promise (Rom 10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1). To view Paul as taking Isa 52:5 out of context, therefore, particularly in light of his nuanced use of the wider context of the passage in his epistle as a whole, is shortsighted and unwarranted. Paul’s quotation of the LXX of Isa 52:5, then, evokes the wider context of the citation and focuses attention (in part) on Israel’s sin and its resulting captivity. This reference to Isaiah in the present context, therefore, forges a thematic intertextual connection with Rom 1:18–32 in which the idolatrous transgression of humanity that began at creation resulted in their being “given over” into the power of sin. As also mentioned above,265 this phrase (“God gave them over”; Rom 1:24, 26, 28) is used by Paul to create a parallel between Israel and humanity by evoking the many times in the OT in which the Lord “gave over” Israel into the hands of its enemies because of its sin, an act of judgment stemming from the covenant which came to its definitive expression in the Babylonian exile. In Rom 2:17–24 (following the assertion of the equality of Jew and Gentile in divine judgment in 2:1–16), then, this pattern reemerges, scripturally sourced in Isaiah (pointing to the wider influence of the citation), and reinforcing Israel’s typological role. The verses build toward and focus on God’s historical act in banishing Israel for its sin, and so use this divine action to typologically indict all humanity insofar as they stand captive in sin, unrepentant, and outside the saving grace available in the covenant. 264

Within the larger movements of the prophecy, the great redemptive promises of Isaiah 40–55 continue unrealized until chapter 59, when the nation at last repents and turns to its Redeemer (Isa 59:20–21; see above, pp. 159–60; below, pp. 262–67). As has been mentioned, Paul quotes Isaiah 59 twice, both with reference to Israel’s (and the world’s) captivity to sin, and with reference to its ultimate repentance and redemption (cf. Rom 3:15–17/Isa 59:7–8; Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9), passages which relate intertextually within both Isaiah and Romans to Isa 52:5 (Rom 2:24), Isa 52:7 (Rom 10:15), and 53:1 (10:16). 265 See in chapter three above, “The Universal Covenant Context of Wrath and Captivity (Rom 1:18, 24, 26, 28, 32).”

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

237

Further, because the human exchange of Creator for creature (Rom 1:23) began at creation (Rom 1:20), an exchange resulting in God’s handing over humanity into the power of sin (Rom 1:24, 26, 28; 3:9), Israel as a type powerfully reenacts the fall and thus portrays the inevitable human pattern issuing from Adam.266 Thus, the manifest action of God in his “giving over” Israel into captivity preeminently discloses the inner, spiritual bondage, not only of the unrepentant Jew whose life bears no evidence of the circumcision of the heart, but of the world itself in its alienation from God (cf. Rom 3:9). Finally, therefore, the contextual relation of this passage, both with the final judgment according to the Isaianic gospel in 2:16, as well as with the gospel’s realized eschatological manifestation of righteousness in the messianic sacrifice in 3:21–26, points again to a crucial revelatory continuity – rejection of the covenant as expressed in the law is part and parcel with rejection of the saving promise expressed in the gospel. Therefore also, on the positive side, Paul’s quotation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24 evokes the redemptive promise through its allusive anticipation of the manifestation of the Lord’s redemptive righteousness in the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord (Isa 52:13–53:12).267 But first, Paul’s subtle allusion to Ezek 36:19–28 should be briefly discussed. This allusion is evident as one proceeds from Rom 2:24 through the text to Rom 2:29, and so becomes visible primarily through a backward glance. Ezekiel’s emotive description, given in the words of the Lord himself, portrays a captive Israel whose sin and exile has caused God’s great and holy name to be “profaned among the nations” (vv. 20, 21, 22, 23). In vindication of his holy name the Lord acts to gather and restore his people, cleansing them, giving them a new heart, and placing his Spirit within them, so as to cause them to walk in his statutes and keep his ordinances. It is this movement from profanation in captivity (Rom 2:24) to a divine work in the heart enabling Israel to keep God’s law (Rom 2:25–29, esp. v. 29), that suggests an allusion to Ezekiel. This text, as itself an allusion to Deuteronomy 30 and 32, reinforces Paul’s more overt allusive reference to the promised restoration of Deut 30:6 as expressed in God’s “circumcision of the heart.”268 Paul uses these texts to suggest the possibility or reality of their present fulfillment in the lives of some whose hearts have been circumcised by the Spirit. It is this portrayal of the possibility of present eschatological fulfillment, conveyed 266 On Israel’s recapitulation of the fall, see Seifrid, “Romans,” 613. Jewett comments, “The plural ‘you’ in the Isaiah formulation diV u`ma/j (‘because of you [pl.]’) serves to generalize Paul’s point by confirming the universal sinfulness of all (3:9).” 267 This is evident from Paul’s quotation of Isa 52:7 in Rom 10:15 (ibid). 268 Timothy Berkley, in spite of overstating the relative importance of Ezekiel 36 for Romans throughout his argument, nevertheless admits (Broken Covenant, 101), “Of these few instances of the concept of heart circumcision in the OT, the context of Deut 30:6 gives the best evidence of being a Pauline referent.”

238

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

explicitly in the call to repentance in Deuteronomy 30 (cf. Rom 2:1–4), that Paul uses to point to the fuller scriptural disclosure of eschatological realization within the redemptive narrative of Isaiah. It is Isaiah that carries the story, and discloses the basis of God’s realized, eschatological righteousness. The positive allusive significance of Paul’s quotation of Isa 52:5, then, is conveyed by Paul’s continuing and consistent use of Isaiah’s redemptive narrative to express both the realized (e.g., Rom 3:21–26; 4:25–5:1; 8:3, 31– 34; see Appendix) and consummated form of eschatological redemption (Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9),269 both of which find their basis in the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord. 270 Isa 52:5, moreover, allusively anticipates this redemption through its connection to the Isaianic redemptive framework in both the immediate (2:16; 3:21–26) and wider context (e.g., 1:1–6, 16–17; 4:25; 10:15–16). Within the context of Isa 52:5 itself, this positive redemptive reality is evident in the opening of chapter 52; 271 being justly judged and exiled, Israel’s release in light of her guilt and helplessness was a matter of pure grace. The passage graphically portrays Israel captive in her sin, and calls upon her to “rise up and loose herself from the chains around her neck” and embrace the redemptive promise by faith (Isa 52:1– 2).272 This promise is encapsulated in the proclamation of good news (Isa 52:7; cf. Rom 10:15), the revelation of God’s righteousness in the redemption achieved by the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord.273 The fulfillment of this Isaianic redemptive promise surfaces explicitly in Rom 3:21–26; in the present text, however, Paul evocatively walks the border line between despair and hope, marshalling texts intended to open blind eyes to guilt and captivity 269

So also, e.g., Rom 5:1–5 as based on the Isaianic allusion of Rom 4:25; and Rom 8:10–25, as based on the above references, Rom 8:3, 31–34. 270 N. T. Wright, e.g., acknowledges that Paul’s quotation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24 both recalls the narrative of covenant curse and exile and points to the sacrifice of the Servant/Christ in Rom 3:21–26 (and 4:25). See Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 812–14. 271 On Isa 52:1–6 as a unit, see Childs, Isaiah, 405, who notes that the pattern of Isa 52:1–6 follows the pattern of Isa 51:17–23 in which the exhortation to arise is followed by an oracle of divine promise. 272 The emphasis in this passage on claiming the redemptive promise by faith is well expressed by Oswalt, Isaiah, 359–60. He states, “The opening words duplicate almost precisely those of 51:9, which is the opening of this section. There they were a call by the people for God to awake and utilize his strength for their deliverance. But God has shown them (51:9–23) that there is no question concerning either his activity or his attentiveness. The problem is not with him; he is ready to deliver them at the earliest moment when they are willing to exercise faith in him. It is they who must awake and put on strength, not he. This has been a recurring theme from ch. 40 onward, and . . . it comes to something of a climax here . . .” 273 See under chapter 2 above, “The Gospel as the Revelation of God’s Righteousness: A Uniquely Isaianic Background,” and “The Isaianic Good News: The Revelation of God’s Righteousness in the Sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord.”

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

239

that they might also perceive and embrace the promise of redemption. Paul’s use of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24, therefore, plays a leading role (if not the leading role) among Paul’s scriptural sources in Rom 1:18–3:20. His strategic positioning of the quotation forms a significant climax to Paul’s inner argument. Its dual contextual nature within this climax in both typologically portraying the human plight, and through that typology anticipating the messianic redemption, links to Paul’s use of Isaiah’s larger redemptive narrative (1:1–6, 16–17; 2:16; 3:21–26; 4:25), so that the quotation performs the key function of helping to evoke an Isaianic framework for Romans 1–4 as a whole.274 As Israel, then, within this context of Isaiah, is commanded to rise up and cloth herself in her beautiful garments, she is given the promise “the uncircumcised and the unclean will no more come into you” (Isa 52:1). In this redemptive context the assertion can only signify the true inner transformation and cleansing of those so redeemed. 275 Rom 2:25–29 goes on to discuss the need for this “inner circumcision,” recalling the covenant context of Deuteronomy. (2) The Covenant Promise of Restoration and Its Continuity with the Gospel (Rom 2:25–29) The theme of God’s circumcision of the heart evokes a number of OT texts, including Lev 26:41; Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:25–26 (cf. Ezek 44:7–9). The theme itself points to the reality of human inability to do what the law requires.276 In Leviticus, Deuteronomy (30:1–10) and Jeremiah an uncircum274 In Rom 2:17–24 the allusion to the Isaianic Servant in the description of Israel as “a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness” contains a unique combination of three terms (tuflo,j, fw/j, and sko,toj) that together have a high volume. They clearly evoke the context of Isaiah 42 and 59 (as well as chapter 49), being the only LXX passages that contain these terms. Their use to ironically convey the theme of captivity through the metaphor of spiritual blindness represents significant thematic coherence between the wider contexts of Romans and Isaiah, further confirming this allusion. This allusion receives still further confirmation by the criterion of recurrence, partly by Paul’s derivation of the theme of spiritual blindness from Isaiah (Rom 11:8/Isa 29:10), but more importantly by Paul’s explicit quotation of Isaiah 52:5 in Rom 2:24. These references together not only point to the theme of universal captivity, but anticipate the redemption accomplished by the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord in the larger context of both Isaiah and Romans. They are therefore integrally related to the larger redemptive-narrative framework. The citation of Isa 52:5, as mentioned above, is strategically situated, and so the reference carries great theological weight within its quoted context. Paul’s quotation of Isaiah 52:5 in particular, then, plays a major role in relation to Paul’s other scriptural references in Rom 1:18–3:20. 275 So, e.g., Motyer, Isaiah, 416; Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 360–61. See further below, pp. 241–42 (and note 283). 276 Regarding physical circumcision in this passage, Seifrid writes (“Unrighteous,” 135), “. . . Paul understands it in a Deuteronomic manner as a witness to transgression and

240

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

cised heart leads inevitably to the divine judgment of exile and so reflects the covenantal framework of the blessing and the curse expressed in Deuteronomy 28. On the basis of this covenant reality, Israel is urged both in Deuteronomy and Jeremiah to circumcise their hearts (Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4 – likely a call to repentance which initiates the divine work in light of Deut 30:2–6), and thereby enter into the blessing rather than the curse of the covenant. While these ideas certainly stand behind Paul’s thought in Rom 2:25–29, Deut 30:6 bears a uniquely striking resemblance to Paul’s immediate and larger theological scheme.277 In Deut 30:1–10, Israel in its captivity at last repents (v. 2; cf. Rom 2:4), 278 a repentance marked by true obedience (vv. 2, 8, 10; cf. Rom 2:7, 10[, 14–15]) and which results in restoration from exile (vv. 3–5; cf. Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5 [by implication]).279 This restoration to God marked by an inner “heart” obedience to the law, however, is made possible only by the divine circumcision of the heart (v. 6; cf. Rom 2:29),280 so that in Deut 30:6 and Rom 2:29 alone in the Old and New Testaments, it is God who is described as circumcising the heart. Deut 30:1–10, therefore, evidences a as a promissory sign of the saving work of God which transcends the Law and its demands . . .” One of Seifrid’s main points in his treatment of Rom 2:17–29, in fact, is that the Judaism which Paul opposes is one which has been influenced by Hellenism at a crucial point, in its positing of the law as a moral instructor intended to inculcate obedience securing divine favor, rather than an indicator of human fallenness which points to the desperate need for conversion through the divine promise (see 128–32, and esp. 135). 277 For the relevance of Deuteronomy 30 in Rom 2:25–29 see Seifrid, ibid., 134–35; but especially Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 921–25, 939–40. 278 Craigie (Deuteronomy, 362), e.g., notes that the backdrop for Deuteronomy 30 is the curse of captivity in Deuteronomy 28. He further observes that Israel’s ultimate turning to the Lord and subsequent restoration described in Deuteronomy “. . . was to influence in many ways the preaching of the prophets in subsequent generations” (363). On Israel’s final repentance and restoration from captivity in Romans as understood through Isaiah, cf. Rom 3:15–17/Isa 59:7–8; Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9. 279 On the “exploitation” of the term bwv in Deut 30:2 to refer both to repentance and restoration from captivity, see McConville, Deuteronomy, 423, 426. The possibility of covenant redemption stemming from repentance (cf. Rom 2:4, 7, 10) implied in Rom 2:24–29 comes to the surface, e.g., in Rom 3:21–26; 6:6–7, 12ff; 8:1ff; 10:15/Isa 52:7; Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9. In most cases the reference to redemption is made though quotation or allusion to Isaiah. 280 See, e.g., Craigie, Deuteronomy, 364, who sees this theme of the divine renewal of the human heart in Deuteronomy 30 reflected in such passages as Jer 31:31–34 and Ezek 36:24–32. McConville states that Deut 30:6 envisages a future in which Israel’s inability to keep the covenant was an accomplished fact, and hence the necessity of God’s circumcision of Israel’s heart to enable them to obey the law of God and so “live” (427). Yet Deut 30:11– 14, which builds on 30:6, asserts that this divine enabling to do the law is available to the present Moab generation, and therefore to all generations (Deuteronomy, 427–29; cf. Rom 10:6–10). In Deut 30:15–20, then, the coextensive themes of blessing, life, and circumcision of the heart are presented as issuing from the covenant promise to the patriarchs (430).

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

241

close thematic correspondence to Rom 2:1–29, particularly as Rom 2:1–4 expresses a call to repentance likely intended to initiate this divine circumcision of the heart. This significance of Deuteronomy in the present passage is supported not only by Paul’s use of this section of Deuteronomy later in the epistle,281 but by Paul’s quotation of Isa 52:5 in the immediate context in Rom 2:24, which evokes both the covenant context of captivity as well as the ultimate hope of redemption. Paul’s allusive reference to “the circumcision of the heart” unites and dovetails the promise of redemption and restoration in the covenant context of Deuteronomy with the redemptive narrative of Isaiah. In Isaiah the covenant context of Deuteronomy is taken up and expanded not only in terms of the typological role of Israel but also and preeminently in terms of the messianic mediation of redemption through the Servant of the Lord and the covenant he inaugurates through his sacrificial death as the basis of the promise of recreation expressed in the circumcision of the heart.282 It is this ex-

281 E.g., Deut 30:11–14 in Rom 10:6–10; Deut 29:4/Isa 29:10 in Rom 11:8. On Deut 29:2–30:20 as a section drawing out the significance of the covenant curses and blessings of Deuteronomy 28, see McConville, Deuteronomy, 413–14, 423. 282 On the manner in which the narrative of Deuteronomy is taken up and expanded in the prophetic books, especially Isaiah, and reflected in Paul, see N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 734–36, 1246–47, 1453–55, 1464–65. On Paul’s use of Deuteronomy (particularly chapters 29–32) together with Isaiah in Romans, see esp. Hays, Echoes, 163– 64; Wagner, Heralds, 354–56. For the combination of specific quotations, see Deut 32:21 and Isa 65:1–2 in Rom 10:19–20; Deut 29:4 and Isa 29:10 (cf. Isa 6:9–10) in Rom 11:8; Deut 32:43 and Isa 11:10 in Rom 15:10–12. To this may be added the continuity Paul presents between a faith approach to the law in Deut 30:12–14 (an allusion in Rom 10:6– 10) and a faith response to the gospel in Rom 10:11–16 (v. 11 quoting Isa 28:16; vv. 15–16 quoting Isa 52:7; 53:1), as well as the allusion to God’s provoking Israel to jealousy in Deuteronomy (32:21/Rom 11:11–14) eventuating in the ultimate salvation of Israel depicted by means of a quotation to Isaiah (Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9). Regarding Paul’s use of these two scriptural sources together in Romans 9–11, Wagner writes (Heralds, 355), “This interpretive strategy suggests that Paul understands Isaiah and Deuteronomy to be telling the same epic story of the triumph of God’s faithfulness over Israel’s unfaithfulness.” On the typological use of both OT books in tandem, Hays states (164), “Deuteronomy parallels Isaiah’s crucial hermeneutical turn: both texts have already read the history of Yahweh’s dealing with Israel typologically, as a prefiguration of a larger eschatological design . . . His typological reading strategy extends a typological trajectory begun already in the texts themselves.” The subject of circumcision in Romans appears next in Romans 4:10ff, in which it is an outward “sign” (shmei/on) of Abraham’s righteousness which he appropriated through faith in the saving promise while he was uncircumcised, a faith the content of which comes to salvation-historical fulfillment in the Isaianic allusion to Jesus being “. . . delivered up because of our transgressions, and . . . raised because of our justification” (Rom 4:25; Ellis, Shum, Wagner, Wilk).

242

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

pression of God’s righteousness in the eschatological redemption of Israel and the world that becomes prominent in Rom 3:21–26. Furthering this relation, then, is the fact that in the immediate context of Isa 52:5 the subject of circumcision is similarly taken up (Isa 52:1). In this atmosphere of piqued anticipation and invitation the assertion to Zion that “the uncircumcised and the unclean will no more come into you” must have reference to those who have entered into the promised messianic salvation and so experienced this inner transformation and renewal.283 This is evident both in the previous “uncleanness” of Israel itself epitomized in the prophet (Isa 6:5), as well as in the future participation of the nations in the eschatological salvation of Jerusalem (e.g., Isa 2:1–4; 60:1–22). Deuteronomy uses heart-circumcision as a metaphorical depiction of the removal of the sinful nature and renewal of the heart that enables one to keep the commands of God. Isaiah grounds this spiritual circumcision (which characterizes Israel’s release from captivity) in the redemptive work of the Suffering Servant, so that it is manifestly a work of divine grace (cf. Rom 3:24). Paul’s use of Deut 30:6 in conjunction with Isaiah, therefore, aligns the proper, repentant response to the law advocated by Deuteronomy 30 (and reflected in Rom 2:1– 4ff) with the response of faith in the Isaianic gospel, a relation clarified in the larger argument by the portrayal of a captive and condemned humanity typified in Israel as a prelude to the Isaianic redemptive righteousness in Rom 3:21–26. The intertextual relation of this passage with Romans 4 via the concept of circumcision, moreover, finds the true significance of circumcision to be a sign of having embraced the redemptive promise by faith. This creates (again) a salvation-historical trajectory in the promise first given to Abraham (which includes a repentant/faith embrace of the law [e.g., Rom 2:1–4, 25– 29; 10:6–8, 16]) that culminates in the message of the redemptive death of the Servant of the Lord (Rom 4:22–25). This combined scriptural witness, moreover, serves as a mirror on one’s spiritual condition by pointing to “doing the 283

So Childs, Isaiah, 405–6; Motyer, Isaiah, 416; Oswalt, Isaiah, 360–61, who notes the likely hendiadys expressed with the terms “uncircumcised” (lrE[') and “unclean” (amej'), so that the “uncircumcised” are not only the enemy nations who have invaded Jerusalem but certain among the Israelites, who are also specifically described as “unclean” in the programmatic opening chapter of the prophecy (Isa 6:5). Confirming this is the fact that Isa 52:1–2 expresses the conception of the inviolable holiness of the eschatological Zion, in contrast to its desecration by the heathen which precipitated the captivity; so Delitzsch, Isaiah, 295; Whybray, Isaiah, 164–65, who both note the similar conception in Ezek 44:9. Childs comments (Isaiah, 405–6), “Holy city and divine name are indissolubly joined, and this unimpaired unity is constitutive of the new eschatological order about to be realized.” On this theme with reference to “uncleanness” in Isa 52:11–12, see in chapter two above, pp. 69–71. On the connection of 52:1–2 to 52:11–12, see Childs, Isaiah, 407; Westermann, Isaiah, 246.

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

243

law,” rather than circumcision, as the true mark of being within the saving covenant; it infers that those who do not practice the law are in fact uncircumcised in the truest sense, that they are still in captivity to sin and outside of the redemptive promise ultimately mediated through the messianic sacrifice. This, again, becomes supremely introductory to Rom 3:21–26. Further, Deuteronomy’s covenant pattern of [divine blessing, followed by] transgression, resulting in the curse of exile, but ultimately remedied in the promised blessing of restoration, recalls the wider covenant context of the Abrahamic blessing as answering the curse (Deut 30:19–20). This covenant pattern, then, not only reveals the intrinsic relation between and unity of the respective covenants, but provides the basis for a typology of Israel. It is this typology within the more broadly-conceived covenant context that is taken up in Isaiah, embracing the fulfillment of the Noahic (e.g., Isa 54:9–10), Abrahamic (e.g., Isa 51:1–3), Mosaic (e.g., Isa 42:21–25; 45:25; 53:11; 60:21), and Davidic covenants (e.g., Isa 55:3–4) in the recreation achieved through the everlasting covenant established by the Servant of the Lord. It is the Servant himself, on behalf of his people, who brings to fulfillment and realization this prophetic pattern of sin-exile-restoration as “. . . He was delivered up (paradi,dwmi, cf. Rom 1:24, 26, 28) because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification” (Rom 4:25/Isa 53:4–5, 11–12; Ellis, Shum, Wagner, Wilk; see Appendix). The covenant curse of captivity in both Deuteronomy and Isaiah is therefore sovereignly encompassed by a broader covenant reality that comprehends the unbelief of Israel in God’s larger redemptive purpose. This broader covenant reality becomes a principle topic in Rom 3:1ff. 4. The Posture of Renewal: An Unrighteous People before the Righteous God (Rom 3:1–8) Within the dismal plight of captivity to sin and death, the promise of restoration through the divine circumcision of the heart may be realized only in a repentance that – in accordance with the accomplishment of the messianic salvation – comes into full alignment with the response of faith in the gospel (Rom 2:16). This is based in the salvation-historical reality that the promised redemption of Deuteronomy 30 is, in Paul’s understanding, fulfilled only in Isaiah’s good news of the redemptive sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord. In anticipation of the revelation of God’s righteousness in the gospel, which (as in the case of Abraham in Romans 4) calls for a faith embrace of the redemptive promise, this passage clarifies and emphasizes the posture of appropriation. The unbelief of Israel in Rom 3:3 evokes its history (and, typologically, the history of the race) as understood particularly through the intertextual connection with Romans 1 (by means of the truth/lie contrast [Rom 1:25; 3:4]). Paul is thus re-evoking the universal plight (Rom 3:4, “every man a

244

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

liar”), but doing so in this passage specifically and preeminently through the predicament of David in relation to the covenant. Paul is indicating in v. 4 that the full admission of one’s embrace of the lie, and of one’s guilt before covenant law, is precisely where “every man” must find himself before saving truth can be appropriated. As this passage intertextually relates to Romans 9–11, this must be the posture of Israel in relation to the law and the gospel. Though this section of Romans contains only one allusion to Isaiah, an allusion similarly evoked in Rom 1:25, 284 it is worth noting how this echo ties into several themes drawn from other scriptural sources in Rom 3:1–8, themes which are ultimately integrated into Paul’s use of the redemptive narrative of Isaiah. An additional introductory summary to the discussion would be helpful at this point. It is important to note that Rom 3:1–4 concisely introduces a topic which is developed in much more detail in Romans 9–11. 285 In Rom 3:2–3 the unbelief of Israel raises the question of God’s faithfulness to his saving promises to the covenant nation (cf., e.g., Rom 4:3–9, 13, 17; 9:1–8, 27–33). In answer to this question, verse 4 affirms God to be “true,” i.e., faithful to his saving promises despite this unbelief, a line of argument picked up in Romans 9–10 in which the “blessed seed” of the Abrahamic promise comes to be identified with Isaiah’s remnant. In the present passage, however, this remnant is anticipated and formed by the truth of God as it answers the human lie (v. 4a), reflecting Isaiah’s courtroom motif with its invitation to salvation and deliverance from final judgment. In conjunction with this motif, therefore, God’s faithfulness is evidenced when, like David, one confesses his guilt and his complicity in the human lie and in faith embraces the truth of the covenant promise (v. 4b), a promise which comes to full scriptural expression in the Isaianic “good news” (Rom 10:15–16; cf. Rom 1:16; 3:21–26). Romans 11 brings this theme of God’s righteousness with regard to Israel to a fitting climax. In this chapter the present believing remnant of Israel, exemplified by Paul himself, becomes an earnest of God’s faithfulness to the covenant nation, pointing to the day when “all Israel will be saved” through the messianic Redeemer who provides atonement for his people (Rom 11:26– 27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9). These Isaianic texts are thematically linked to 3:21– 26, also Isaianic (as will be argued), and together demonstrate God’s faithfulness to his saving promises in both providing and accomplishing salvation for his people. The manner in which Paul’s allusion to Isaiah is employed in conjunction with other scriptural sources must now be considered in more detail. The question naturally arising from Paul’s imaginary dialogue partner in Rom 3:1 (“Then what advantage has the Jew?”) reflects the equality just recounted 284 285

See above, pp. 174–75. E.g., Bell, No One Seeks for God, 203; Seifrid, “Unrighteous,” 137.

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

245

between Jew and Gentile, an equality in terms of both their accountability to divine law in the judgment as well as their access to salvation in the covenant.286 The ubiquitous nature of law, sin, captivity, and guilt in 1:18–2:29 highlights the need for the saving promise of God, a promise implicit in the divine forbearance (Rom 2:4) yet surfacing in its scriptural expression through allusion several times throughout chapter two (e.g., Ps 62:12/Rom 2:6; Isa 52:5/Rom 2:24; Deut 30:6/Rom 2:29). In chapter three this “promise” nature of scripture surfaces again with the concepts of the oracles of God and the unbelief of Israel.287 The advantage of the Jew in Rom 3:2 is, in fact, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God (ta. lo,gia tou/ qeou/). The question, “What if some did not believe” (v. 3) would seem to indicate that, while the phrase “the oracles of God” likely refers to scripture as a whole, there is a particular reference to scripture as having the nature of promise, a promise which comes to fulfillment in the gospel. 288 The entire question, moreover (“. . . if some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?”), sets this theme of Israel’s unbelief against the larger backdrop of God’s righteousness, and the question of his faithfulness to his saving promises to the covenant nation that they, in his blessing, would be as numerous as the sand by the sea (Rom 9:27–28/Isa 10:22–23; cf. Gen 22:17; 32:12). The unbelief of a sizeable segment of the covenant people indeed raises the question of the faithfulness of God to the ancient, covenant promises (Rom 3:3). And while this question is treated succinctly in these few verses, it is widely recognized, as mentioned, that in broaching the topic of Israel’s unbelief as against God’s faithfulness, Paul raises a topic which he then resumes and expands in Romans 9–11. Here, the suggestion that human unbelief might nullify the faithfulness of God (v. 3) is immediately met (v. 4) by a 286 With regard to Paul’s question in 3:1, Dodd, in fact, states (Romans, 43), “. . . the logical answer on the basis of Paul’s argument is, ‘None whatever!’” And yet in spite of the equality presented in these chapters, and as Bell notes, “Paul’s answer is . . . polu. kata. pa,nta tro,pon, ‘much in every way’” (No One Seeks for God, 202). 287 On the question of hvpi,sthsa,n . . . avpisti,a in Rom 3:3 as referring to either “unbelief” or “unfaithfulness,” Sanday and Headlam comment (Romans, 71), “Probably, on the whole, the former: because (i) the main point in the context is the disbelief in the promises of the O.T. and the refusal to accept them as fulfilled in Christ; (ii) chaps. ix-xi show that the problem of Israel’s unbelief weighed heavily on the Apostle’s mind; (iii) ‘unbelief’ is the constant sense of the word . . . ; (iv) there is a direct parallel in ch. xi. 20 th/| avpisti,a| evxekla,sqhsan( su. de. th/| pi,stei e[sthkaj. At the same time the one sense rather suggests than excludes the other; so that the avpisti,a of man is naturally contrasted with the pi,stij of God . . .” 288 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 138–39; Godet, Romans, 133; Käsemann, Romans, 78–79; Moo, Romans, 182; Murray, Romans, 92–94; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 70–71. Dunn insightfully comments that Paul’s statement about the oracles of God sets forth “. . . one of the chief points underlying this whole opening section of the letter: the continuity between the revelation given to Israel and the gospel of God’s Son.”

246

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

categorical denial (mh. ge,noito), and the assertion that God will be found “true” (gine,sqw de. o` qeo.j avlhqh,j), with avlhqh,j signifying God’s faithfulness to his promises despite Israel’s unbelief. But this question expressed pointedly in Rom 3:3 (“. . . if some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?”), along with the strong assertion of God’s faithfulness (“. . . let God be found true . . .”) bears a strong resemblance to Rom 9:6–8ff, which reads: “It is not as though the word of God has failed,289 for they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel . . . that is it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of promise are regarded as descendants (seed).” These dual themes of promise and unbelief are then traced throughout chapters 9 and 10 so that the promised seed of Abraham (Rom 9:7–8) comes to be identified with the remnant of Isaiah (Rom 9:27–29/Isa 10:22–23; 1:9), and the promise itself, with its corresponding unbelief on the part of Israel (Rom 10:16/Isa 53:1), with Isaiah’s “good news” (Rom 10:15/Isa 52:7).290 In Rom 3:1–4, however, this remnant of Romans 9–11 is anticipated and formed by the proper response to the truth of God as it answers the human lie (v. 4). The blatantly culpable nature of the unbelief in Rom 3:3 is brought to the forefront of the discussion by the contrast between God as true and every man as a liar (gine,sqw de. o` qeo.j avlhqh,j( pa/j de. a;nqrwpoj yeu,sthj), which characterizes unbelief as an expression of the universal human adoption of the lie (cf. Rom 1:25). What is most interesting in this statement is the manner in which the unbelief of Israel (v. 3) is projected upon the world (v. 4a), so that Israel, again, is clearly presented as a type of humanity.291 Within this trial motif of Rom 3:1–4, the culpable nature of the lie embraced by humanity and affirmed by the typological testimony of Israel is further confirmed by the intertextual connection to Rom 1:25 (“. . . they exchanged the truth of God for a lie . . .”) which, along with the present text, echoes the trial narrative of Isaiah 40–48. 292 289

A phrase believed to allude to Isa 40:7–8 (Wagner, Wilk; see Appendix). This description of the “unfailing” nature of the word of God as it creates a contrast between humanity as “flesh” and humanity as “children of promise” bears a close conceptual relation to Isaiah 40, particularly as these themes in both prophecy and epistle anticipate their further development and resolution in relation to the gospel. 290 Speaking of this unbelief of Israel in Rom 3:3, Käsemann (Romans, 80) observes that it reflects “. . . the whole history of Israel, which reaches its logical culmination in the rejection of the gospel.” 291 Käsemann states (ibid., 81–82), “In a most remarkable way the problem [of Israel’s unbelief] is extended to every human being and to God’s trial with the whole world. This makes sense only if the faithfulness of God to Israel is a special instance of his faithfulness to all creation. The idea of the covenant then, as already often established, is oriented not merely to Moses and Sinai but to the creation of the world.” 292 See above, pp. 174–75. On this contrast in Isaiah, see esp. Isa 43:9–11; 44:20; see also Isa 41:26.

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

247

Within this courtroom motif of Isaiah, the Lord confronts this idolatrous lie embraced by the nations and Israel (Isa 44:20) with the reality that he alone can declare and accomplish redemption, as demonstrated through his covenant acts toward Israel. Specifically at issue in the context is God’s declaration of his purpose to redeem Israel from the power of Babylon, divine testimony intended to evoke the confession “It is true” (Isa 43:9),293 a confession the significance of which surfaces in the next two verses: “. . . In order that you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me. I, even I, am the LORD; And there is no savior besides Me” (Isa 43:10b-11). Clearly the Lord’s intention in evoking this confession (in which the admission of guilt for espousing the ubiquitous lie of idolatry stands implicit) is that Israel and the nations would resort to the Lord as Savior. Therefore, this confronting of the human lie in Isaiah with the fact that God and his saving promises alone are “true,” serves as an invitation to salvation with its vindication in the final judgment (cf. Isa 43:9; 45:12–25). This evidences a high degree of thematic coherence with the context of Rom 3:1–4, particularly in terms of Israel’s role as a “typological witness.” This role serves not only to confirm guilt, but also to open blind eyes to their captive state and so lead them to salvation in God’s covenant promise (cf. Luke 15:17–19). This significance of Isaiah, however, though certainly present here, lies more in the background, bolstering Paul’s more prominent use of Psalms 116 and 51 to convey the necessary posture of appropriation. In Rom 3:4 the phrase “every man a liar” (pa/j de. a;nqrwpoj yeu,sthj) is believed by many to allude to Ps 116:11, 294 a Psalm which reflects a strong thematic coherence with Isaiah 40–55. The psalm is one of thanksgiving for deliverance from death, with death described as binding the psalmist captive with its cords, very similar to the imagery in Isaiah (cf. Ps 116:3; Isa 52:2). In this psalm the “distress” that threatens death for the psalmist becomes typical of death itself, For this allusion to the trial motif of Isaiah in Rom 3:4 as well as the intertextual connection with Rom 1:25, see Seifrid, “Romans,” 614–15; “Unrighteous,” 137–38. Regarding this relationship between Roman 1 and 3 he comments, “Idolatry, which rejects the God who is seen in his works, is now subsumed into unbelief, which rejects the God who is heard in his words.” On the trial motif in Rom 3:1–8, Käsemann (Romans, 81) comments, “At this point one sees plainly that Paul regards history as God’s trial with the world which will come to an end only in the last judgment . . .” 293 The MT reads tm,a/ Wrm.ayO while the LXX has eivpa,twsan avlhqh/. A similar confession surfaces in the recurring trial motif in Isa 45:24: “They will say of Me, ‘Only in the LORD are righteousness and strength.’” 294 E.g., Bell, No One Seeks for God, 205; Cranfield, Romans, 182; Fitzmyer, Romans, 328; Godet, Romans, 134–35; Käsemann, Romans, 80; Michel, Römerbrief, 138; Seifrid, “Unrighteous,” 137; etc. The pertinent phrase in the LXX is virtually identical: “. . . pa/j a;nqrwpoj yeu,sthj.”

248

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

and so parallels the relation between captivity and death in Isaiah 40–55.295 Part of this context of distress for the psalmist is the reality that “all men are liars.” This points, not simply to the antagonism and machinations of the ungodly specific to the psalmist, but, rather, includes within its more comprehensive scope the universal nature of the human lie in its denial of God as the sole source of life, and as the sole deliverer from the inevitable snares of death (thus reinforcing the reality and significance of general revelation as expressed throughout Rom 1:18–2:4).296 In answering the psalmist who cries to him for help (v. 4), the Lord is described as righteous (qyDIc;; v. 5), pointing to the covenant context from which issues his gracious and compassionate deliverance (v. 5).297 In Rom 3:4a, then, and as drawn from both Isaiah and Psalm 116, the universal nature of the human lie which finds its source in the fall (cf. Rom 1:20, 25) resonates in the culpable unbelief that continues to deny the life of God promised in the covenant.298 It is, however, only out of this universal state of guilt in the human lie, and in the conscious confession of this guilt, that the cry for deliverance legitimately arises. This cry is expressed both in Isaiah’s trial narrative (Rom 3:4a/Isa 43:9 [“it is true”]; cf. esp. Isa 43:10–13; 45:22) as well as in Ps 116 (Rom 3:4a/Ps 116:11 [“all men are liars”]), but comes to consummate expression in this passage in the words of David (Rom 3:4b/Ps 51:4). In this psalm, the helpless plight of David in his sin and guilt is counterpoised with the covenant mercy and love of God, to which the psalmist lays claim. 299 In what many consider to be the most complete articulation of repentance in scripture,

295

On this metaphoric significance of the psalmist’s distress, see esp. Mays, Psalms, 369–70. For the use of this Psalm at the Passover by virtue of the cup thanksgiving and sacrifice, as well as its use by Christians in celebration of the Eucharist as the fulfillment of Passover in the conquest of death, see pp. 371–72. On the relation of this psalm to Isaiah, it is interesting to note that the terms for distress in the MT and LXX of Ps 116:3 (hr'c' / qli/yij) are used in Isa 8:22 to describe Israel being led away into exile for its sin. See above, pp. 212–13. 296 Kidner, e.g., notes that v. 8, while referring to the earthly sphere, reflects salvation at its deepest level (Psalms 73–150, 409). 297 In addition to “righteous” (qyDIc;), Ps 116:5 describes God as gracious (!WNx;) and compassionate (~xr), likely alluding to Exod 34:6 (though Exod 34:6 has the cognate adjective ~Wxr: rather than the piel participle of ~xr [~xer:m.]). See e.g., F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, V: Psalms, trans. Francis Bolton (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991 [reprint]), 216. 298 Confirmation of this understanding of the allusion is found in Paul’s similar use of Ps 116:10 in 2 Cor 4:13 (“I believed, therefore I spoke”), which in the context refers to faith in God’s ultimate deliverance from the snares of death in the resurrection of Christ. 299 Kidner comments (Psalms 1–72, 189), “The opening plea, have mercy, is the language of one who has no claim to the favour he begs. But steadfast love is a covenant word.”

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

249

Psalm 51,300 David states, “. . . that you may be justified in your words and prevail when you enter into judgment” (v. 4b). The context of the Psalm is David’s sin with Bathsheba. Admittedly guilty of two capital crimes, he stands helplessly condemned, and in the verse Paul cites David asserts that God is just in his words of judgment pronounced against him. Yet, ironically, even as he says this, David rests in the Lord’s saving vindication at the final judgment (v. 14). This irony and apparent contradiction can only be resolved within the context of God’s covenant promises that come to fulfillment in the atoning work of Christ (Rom 3:21–26). The quotation of Ps 51:4 graphically portrays a righteous judgment that justly condemns human guilt in embracing the lie, yet ironically ends in a vindication arising out of the covenant; it is this confession from the lips of David (v. 4; Ps 51:4) that crystallizes the seemingly irreconcilable dual-scenario of human guilt and covenant vindication which finds its scriptural resolution only in Isaiah 53, soon to be recounted by Paul in “the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3:24).301 It is only in the Isaianic good news that the gaping chasm between Deuteronomy’s covenant curse and covenant promise is scripturally bridged. Scripture as God’s saving promise, then, while unfolded in its various aspects in the previous covenants, comes to complete expression in the gospel of Christ; and consistent with the tracing of themes mentioned above, this promise is expounded against an Isaianic background (it will be argued) in 3:21–26. But Rom 3:21–26 presents only part of the solution to the dilemma of God’s faithfulness. Though this text indeed recounts the righteousness of God in his accomplishment of eschatological redemption for his covenant 300 See Mays, Psalms, 197. He comments further on the many uses of the Psalm throughout history and its “. . . incalculable influence on the theology and practice of the Christian faith” (198). He states that “its language and thought are connected with that of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Isaiah 40–66.” 301 Paul seems to follow this train of thought in his use of Psalm 32, a psalm considered a parallel to Psalm 51 (Rom 4:6–8ff/Ps 32:1–2), ending his argument with the well-known allusion to Isaiah 53 in Rom 4:25. Mays (Psalms, 201–203), in fact, sees several very significant thematic connections between Psalm 51 and Isaiah, such as the theme of the sinful human nature as derived from the Genesis account and reflected both in the life of the individual and the nation of Israel (Ps 51:5; Isa 43:27; 48:8; 50:1). He states that Ps 51:5 “. . . could well be a confession tutored by that prophetic insight” (201). It is this fallen nature that desperately needs to become the object of the divine action conveyed by the verb “create” (arb, Ps 51:10; e.g., Isa 41:20; 43:1, 7, 15; 45:8, 12, 18; 57:18–19; 65:17, 18), a term used only of God in the OT and referring to His act of “. . . bringing into existence what was not there before . . .”, or, in reference to persons in need of redemption “. . . God’s saving action of transforming what is already there so that what comes to be is different . . .” (202). In both Psalm 51 and Isaiah 40–66, moreover, arb is used in conjunction with ritual verbs that deal with the removal of sin and subsequent spiritual renewal.

250

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

people, it is a redemption which must be appropriated through faith. Romans 11 takes up the theme of the Isaianic remnant of chapters 9–10, a remnant, according to Paul, which ultimately comes to form the seed of the future bloom of the nation. 302 As has often been mentioned, Paul recounts this conversion of the covenant people by means of a conflated citation from Isaiah in which the themes of redemption through atonement connect intertextually to Rom 3:21–26 (Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9). Paul, therefore, employs Isaiah to convey the fulfillment of God’s promised righteousness both in terms of its eschatological realization in the events of the gospel as well its ultimate consummation in the salvation of Israel.303 Though developed more fully in chapters 9–11, a further crucial point Paul makes here, and the additional emphasis of the quotation of Ps 51:4 in Rom 3:4, is not simply that God’s faithfulness to his saving promises will be vindicated in spite of man’s idolatrous unbelief and denial of God (liars). But it is rather that God’s prevailing in judgment is precisely a prevailing through and over man’s sinful unbelief in a supreme demonstration of his righteousness. God can render righteous judgment upon the human embrace of the lie and at the same time be faithful to his saving promises, and so vindicate the sinner who comes to him in repentance and faith. More specifically, God’s righteousness in the face of human unbelief is evident in that God: predicts human unbelief; accomplishes his redemptive act through the vehicle of unbelief; uses the judgment of exile which issues from unbelief as a poignant revelatory act which leads Israel to repentance and faith; uses the unbelief of Israel to typologically portray a world that has embraced the lie (so manifesting his righteousness on several levels); uses the mediation of Israel in terms of the gospel and its related typology to bring salvation to the Gentiles; and uses the salvation of the Gentiles to ultimately provoke Israel to jealousy and so bring them to salvation. 304 All these elements are drawn in considerable measure from Isaiah.305 302

See above, pp. 154–56, and notes 42 and 46. Had the question of God’s faithfulness to His saving promises ended with Rom 3:21–26, it could have potentially led to the conclusion that Paul was positing a substitution model in which the church replaced Israel (and in which case his faithfulness could still be questioned). Against this substitution model in Rom 2:25–3:4, see esp. Richard H. Bell, The Irrevocable Call of God, WUNT 184 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 190–98. On this issue in Paul’s epistles, see 157–217; and for the difference of Paul’s approach in Galatians and Romans, see 216–17. 304 Considering Paul’s use of Rom 3:1–4 (and its wider context) in conjunction with Romans 9–11, therefore, one may conceive that the apostle quite possibly employs the combined contexts of Deuteronomy and Isaiah to depict a revelatory reverberation between Israel and the world propelled by the mediatorial role of Israel, particularly in its typology of captivity as it anticipates the redemptive promise in the Isaianic good news. Israel both mediates the divine promise and, in its captivity, typologically reveals the state of the world, both of which are used to bring salvation to the Gentiles. The salvation of Gentiles, 303

IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World

251

Though space prohibits further discussion on Rom 3:5–8, the following may be noted with respect to an Isaianic backdrop. God’s demonstration of himself as God through both creation and redemption in Isaiah’s trial motif inevitably results in God’s vindication, and therefore, of necessity, in the world’s condemnation. These ideas expressed in v. 4 come to the forefront again in vv. 5–8 (esp. vv. 5, 7), and relate thematically to Rom 1:16–17, 3:20,306 and especially 3:21–26, all of which evidence a strong Isaianic influence. 5. Summary of Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 2:1–3:8 In keeping with Paul’s emphasis on salvation-historical continuity in the opening section of his epistle, Romans 2 presents a “layered reading” of the human plight based in large part upon Isaiah’s typology of captivity. This typology conveys a solidarity of plight and a continuity in promise which in both respects point to the climax of redemption in Isaiah’s “good news.” In Romans 2 this “layered reading” aligns the repentant response called for in general revelation, the repentance called for in Deuteronomy’s covenant context, and the response of faith in the [Isaianic] gospel. Rom 2:1–4 as it stands in relation to Rom 2:16 (and augmented by Isaianic allusions in the intervening verses), likely reflects an allusion to Isaiah 45 and its larger context. In Isaiah 45, the repentance called for within the conceptual state of curse and exile (as Israel’s captivity typologically portrays the plight of the world), with its prospect of justification (Isa 45:25), melds with an acceptance of God’s redemptive plan through the Servant of the Lord who provides the basis of eschatological vindication. This redemptive plan in the larger context comes to be encapsulated in the proclamation of good news. then, in their present experience of certain aspects of eschatological blessing in Christ, sets in bold relief and so makes manifest the “captive” spiritual state of unbelieving Israel, so that the covenant people are provoked to jealousy (Rom 10:19; 11:11–14). This, in turn, leads to the salvation of national Israel, which further creates an unparalleled world-wide witness which brings salvation to the world (Rom 11:12, 14–15; cf. 11:30–32). Small wonder the apostle bursts into his closing doxology: “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God . . .” (vv. 33–36; note the quotation/allusion [see Appendix] to Isa 40:13 in v. 34). 305 With reference to the last-mentioned item, cf. Rom 10:20–21 in relation to 10:19. Paul, moreover, appears to conceive this provocation, in line with the implied relation between his quotations of Deuteronomy and Isaiah mentioned above, as facilitated through Isaiah’s apostolic mission of carrying the gospel to the nations, as described in Rom 1:5 (see Rom 1:1–6 and the discussion in chapter two above); 10:14–15/Isa 52:7; 15:18–24 (esp. v. 21)/Isa 52:15. 306 See Seifrid, “Unrighteous,” 138. He states, “The language of Romans 3:4–7 . . . recalls the pattern of divine ‘contention’ or ‘lawsuit’ in Isaiah 40–48, where God’s confirmation of his word manifests that he alone is God . . .” Note also the recurrence of Isaiah’s truth/lie contrast in v. 7.

252

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

Similarly in Romans 2, the eschatological judgment mediated through Christ is “according to [the] gospel,” so that the repentance called for (Rom 2:1–4) and the justification granted (Rom 2:13) is ultimately based in the sacrifice of the Servant/Jesus Christ (Isa 53:11; Rom 3:21–26). This “layered reading,” therefore, is facilitated in large measure by Isaiah’s typology which comes to its climactic expression in Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5. Negatively, the typology’s covenant context of transgression with its consequent curse and captivity reiterates the fall and portrays the plight of humanity in its guilt before God and its captivity to sin and death. Therefore, positively, the typology sets the backdrop not simply for the repentance advocated in Rom 2:4, but to the faith-embrace of the eschatological redemption disclosed in the sacrificial death, burial, and resurrection of the Messiah – the Isaianic good news (Rom 1:1–6, 16–17a; 3:21–26; 4:25). In Romans chapter 2, therefore, Deuteronomy’s covenant scenario of sin-exile-restoration marked by the circumcision of the heart is taken up and incorporated into the larger Isaianic narrative framework of redemptive recreation through the messianic sacrifice. The repentance and circumcision of the heart called for in Deuteronomy, then, with the dawning of the new era of salvation-history, comes to be expressed as faith in the gospel. Paul’s use of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24, therefore, plays a leading role among Paul’s scriptural sources in Rom 1:18–3:20. Paul’s strategic positioning of the quotation forms a significant climax (if not the climax) of Paul’s “inner argument.” It’s vital, intertextual relation to its larger context is evident in a variety of ways, from its relation to the “giving over” of humanity into the power of sin in Romans 1 (vv. 24, 26, 28), to its essential connection with the “captives brought to trial” in Rom 2:1–4, to Paul’s characterization of Rom 1:18–3:8 (Rom 3:9) as a description of Jew and Gentile being “under sin.” The dual contextual nature of Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5 within this contextual climax in both typologically portraying the human plight, and through that typology anticipating the messianic redemption, links to Paul’s use of Isaiah’s larger redemptive narrative (1:1–6, 16–17; 2:16; 3:21–26; 4:25), so that the quotation plays a key role in evoking an Isaianic framework for Romans 1–4 as a whole. In light of the continuity in the saving promise conveyed largely through Isaiah’s typology, the promise of restoration through the divine circumcision of the heart in Rom 2:25–29 may be appropriated only by a repentance that aligns itself with the response of faith in the gospel (Rom 2:16, 24). In anticipation of the revelation of God’s righteousness in the gospel, Rom 3:1–4 clarifies and emphasizes the posture of appropriation. Paul re-evokes the universal plight (Rom 3:4, “every man a liar”), but does so preeminently through the predicament of David. David’s absolute and helpless guilt, and therefore also his sole dependence upon covenant grace, becomes the pattern of appropriation. Yet David’s plight points to God’s faithfulness to bring his

VI. Rom 3:9–20 and Isaiah’s Framework of Captivity and Condemnation

253

saving purposes to pass in spite of (and even through) the sin of his people. God sovereignly superintends, through the sin and unbelief of his people, to manifest his righteousness both in the saving event disclosed in the gospel, as well as in its ultimate appropriation by Israel, both communicated largely through Isaiah.

V. Isaiah 59:7–8a/Romans 3:15–17 in the Context of Romans 3:9–20 VI. Rom 3:9–20 and Isaiah’s Framework of Captivity and Condemnation

Romans 3:9–20 is a powerful reiteration, primarily scriptural, of the leading themes of 1:18–3:8. In these verses Paul strings together his longest quotation from scripture to drive home the point that humanity is captive in sin and so helpless in guilt before the bar of divine justice. The verses that comprise the catena all originate in contexts that evoke the eschatological judgment, and together include such concepts as universal sin and guilt, the fall from which they derive, the horrifying consequences of the fallen nature in society, and humanity’s stubborn resistance to acknowledge or respond to the reality of the coming judgment. The quotation from Isaiah is used, as was the previous quotation, to highlight the typological role of Israel and her solidarity with the world. But though the depictions in the various passages of the catena are condemnatory, in each case, as in the Psalm quotations discussed above, the broader context serves as an invitation to a vindication and freedom from judgment that comes only from entering God’s covenant. This is superlatively the case in the reference to Isaiah, for in this great prophecy the storyline is continued by the apostle as the Lord at last reveals and fulfills his longpromised redemptive righteousness (Rom 3:21–26), and Israel ultimately responds to the invitation and enters into God’s covenant of atonement, vindication and redemption (Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9).

VI. Romans 3:9–20 and the Overarching Isaianic Framework of Captivity and Condemnation VI. Rom 3:9–20 and Isaiah’s Framework of Captivity and Condemnation

Rom 3:9–20 form the conclusion to 1:18–3:20 as a whole. Rom 3:9, 19–20 provide, respectively, the introduction and conclusion to both this concluding segment in the section as well as to the catena of verses (Rom 3:10–18) that the apostle uses to clinch his scriptural argument. Rom 3:9, 19–20 emphasize, respectively, the themes of captivity and condemnation, which, as noted above, are prominent dual motifs in the redemptive narrative of Isaiah 40–55. These verses, in introducing and concluding the catena, restate both incisively and concisely the charge leveled against both Jew and Gentile in the section

254

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

as a whole (1:18–3:20), that all alike are captive to sin and condemned before God’s judgment. They provide a summation of the significant truths Paul draws from his quotations and allusions to scripture in preparation for his exposition of the righteousness of God in the gospel of Christ in 3:21ff.307 The nature of Rom 3:9, 19–20 as summary verses, therefore, is extremely important in terms of identifying a possible overarching interpretive framework for the entire section (1:18–3:20). The nature of Rom 3:9, 19–20 as Isaianic, it will be argued, can be supported first, from the probable derivation of the phrase u`fV a`marti,an (Rom 3:9) with its concept of captivity to sin from Isa 50:1; second, (and of crucial importance) from the inseparable, typological relation in which Israel stands with reference to the world within the context of the catena, and therefore also in the summary verses; third, from the fact that the conceptual complex in Rom 3:19–20 not only contains several likely allusions to Isaiah, but augments the typologically oriented concepts of captivity and guilt in Rom 3:9– 18 by again driving the argument to the inevitable forensic situation of helpless accountability to God as a warning against the final judgment; and fourth (in relation to item three), from the similar function served by this set of themes in both the context of Romans and Isaiah, 308 as forming the necessary prelude to the revelation of God’s saving righteousness in the redemptive sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord/Jesus Christ. It is contended that the nature of these summary verses as derived from Isaiah is confirmed by the typological role of Israel within the catena. The nature of the summary verses as Isaianic, then, lends additional support to what has been argued above, that Paul is employing an Isaianic redemptive framework for this section of Romans. 1. Romans 3:9 and the Isaianic Derivation of “Under Sin” proh|tiasa,meqa ga.r VIoudai,ouj te kai. {Ellhnaj pa,ntaj u`fV a`marti,an ei=nai – Paul uses the concluding prepositional phrase of Rom 3:9 (u`fV a`marti,an) to depict humanity’s captivity to sin, a captivity that he has already demonstrated in his preceding discussion (proh|tiasa,meqa ga.r; cf. Rom 1:18–3:8) and which he reinforces through the catena that follows (kaqw.j ge,graptai; Rom 307

See Moo, Romans, 198. This complex of ideas includes: captivity to sin; the courtroom motif of humanity’s guilt before the divine tribunal; the ineffectual, even idolatrous, nature of human works to provide salvation; the characterization of such works as by nature opposed to the divine plan and provision of salvation to be entered into by faith; the subjects of such works as transient and perishing flesh, humanity outside the redemptive power of God’s saving word of promise; salvation effected through the exercise of divine righteousness in redemption; redemption accomplished through the messianic sacrifice which effects justification; salvation appropriated through repentance/faith in God’s word of promise, the gospel. 308

VI. Rom 3:9–20 and Isaiah’s Framework of Captivity and Condemnation

255

3:10[–18]). In both instances Isaiah plays a key role in his argument. Paul states in Rom 3:9 “. . . for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin.” The phrase “under sin” (u`f V a`marti,an), uniformly acknowledged by commentators as a metaphorical reference to the universal state of human bondage under the power of [the] sin[ful nature],309 has a somewhat expanded parallel in Rom 7:14. There the apostle states, “For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.” The phrase “sold into bondage to sin” renders the Greek, peprame,noj u`po. th.n a`marti,an. In both Rom 3:9 and 7:14 the metaphorical depiction of sin as a tyrannical overlord is conveyed by the use of the preposition u`po,, but in 7:14 it is expanded to include the concept of the sale into slavery. 310 Though the phrase peprame,noj u`po. th.n a`marti,an does not occur in the LXX,311 the two words pipra,skw and a`marti,a occur together in the sense of slave sale with reference to sin only once, in Isa 50:1.312 The LXX reads ivdou. tai/j a`marti,aij u`mw/n evpra,qhte. Paul’s changing of the expression from Israel’s being sold because of its sin to its being sold into sin’s power is likely an interpretive rendering intended to draw in the typology of the larger context.313 This intent is further confirmed in that Rom 7:14 places in parallel the ideas of humanity as both “corruptible flesh” and as in bondage to sin, a parallel that recalls the context of Isaiah 40, the chapter that sets the stage for the entire redemptive narrative. 314 The linguistic and conceptual relation between

309

See, e.g., Cranfield, Romans, 191; Fitzmyer, Romans, 331; Käsemann, Romans, 86; Michel, Römerbrief, 142; Moo, Romans, 201; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 75. 310 Moo (Romans, 454), commenting on Rom 7:14, notes the parallel with Rom 3:9, as does Käsemann more generally (“The statements are parallel to those about the preChristian world in 1:18–3:20.” Romans, 199). 311 In fact, the phrase u`po. [th.n] a`marti,an does not occur in the LXX in any form. 312 The only other instance in which the words occur in the same verse is in Wis 10:13. There, however, the terms are not used with reference to one another, and the conceptual provenance is quite different. On Rom 7:14 as an allusion to Isa 50:1, Fitzmyer (Romans, 474) references the verbal and conceptual similarity with the LXX of Isa 50:1, and M. Philonenko, in his article (“Sur l’expression ‘vendue au péché’ dans l’Épître aux Romains,” RHR 203 [1986]: 41–52), argues for an allusion to that passage (referenced by Dunn, Romans 1–8, 388). Seifrid (“Romans,” 615), regarding the expression “under sin” in Romans 3:9, states, “The expression anticipates the expanded statement in 7:14, ‘I am of flesh, sold under sin,’ which reflects the language of Isa. 50:1.” 313 On the contextual relation between Isa 50:1 and 52:5 see, e.g., Seifrid (“Romans,” 612–13), who, as noted above, asserts that the additions of the LXX in 52:5 are likely intended to draw in the broader context of Israel’s sin and resulting captivity, specifically Isa 50:1–2. See in chapter two above, “Isaiah 52:5/Romans 2:24 in the Context of Romans 1:18–3:8.” 314 See above, e.g., pp. 166–69.

256

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

Rom 3:9 and 7:14, therefore, reveals that Paul in Rom 3:9 is very likely deriving the concept of bondage to sin from Isa 50:1 and its larger context. 315 The likelihood of this Isaianic derivation of the concept of captivity to sin is further confirmed by the fact that, not only the concept itself, but the entire complex of ideas represented by Rom 3:9, 19–20 forms much of the thematic backdrop for the two quotations of Isaiah in this section of Romans (Isa 52:5/Rom 2:24; Isa 59:7–8/Rom 3:15–17). These facts, partially verified by the treatment of Rom 2:24 above, and further verified below, satisfy Hays’ criteria of both recurrence and thematic coherence. In Rom 3:9, therefore, the apostle appears to be drawing this unique Isaianic concept of captivity to sin from Isa 50:1 and/or its wider typological context.316

315 The theme of captivity to sin and its associated ideas are further developed by Paul throughout Romans, but of particular note with reference to the present discussion are Rom 5:12–21 and 7:1–25 (though note also 6:1–23). In these passages, as in 1:18–3:20, captivity to sin and transgression of the law are seen to be universal and inevitable, both the result and reflection of the sin of Adam, as humanity is portrayed as having received the corrupt and indelible stamp of its progenitor, and as such rectified solely through recreation in Christ (cf. Rom 6:1–23; 8:1–25). See, for instance, Dunn, Romans 1–8, 387ff; Käsemann, Romans, 199ff; Stuhlmacher, Romans, 106ff. 316 In terms of its relative significance, this Isaianic allusion is part of a demonstrable theological framework, and its role as a summary verse pointing to the overarching character of the preceding argument gives this allusive reference great theological weight within its quoted context. Because Paul is not necessarily alluding to a specific text, Hays’ criteria of volume does not directly apply. In several instances in which Paul develops Isaianic themes, the criteria of recurrence blends somewhat with thematic coherence as Paul generally derives the given theme from an explicit citation or allusion and develops it in line with that context. In the present case, the context of both of Paul’s quotations of Isaiah deal predominantly with the concept of captivity as it forms the backdrop for Israel’s desperate need of the messianic redemption. Within Paul’s development of this theme of captivity there is a possible allusion to Isaiah’s “all flesh” (cf. Isa 40:6; Rom 3:20) to which Hays’ criteria of volume will applied.

VI. Rom 3:9–20 and Isaiah’s Framework of Captivity and Condemnation

257

2. Romans 3:15–17/Isaiah 59:7–8a within the Catena – The Typological Solidarity of Israel with the World Rom 3:15–17 15 ovxei/j oi` po,dej auvtw/n

LXX Isa 59:7–8a

evkce,ai ai-ma(

16 su,ntrimma kai. talaipwri,a evn tai/j o`doi/j auvtw/n( 17 kai. o`do.n eivrh,nhj ouvk e;gnwsanÅ

Isaiah 59:7–8a MT:

7 oi` de. po,dej auvtw/n evpi. ponhri,an tre,cousin tacinoi. evkce,ai ai-ma . . . (kai. oi` dialogismoi. auvtw/n dialogismoi. avfro,nwn) su,ntrimma kai. talaipwri,a evn tai/j o`doi/j auvtw/n 8 kai. o`do.n eivrh,nhj ouvk oi;dasin

~h,yteAbv.x.m; yqIn" ~D" %Pov.li Wrh]m;ywI WcrUy" [r:l' ~h,yleg>r:7 `~t'ALsim.Bi rb,v,w" dvo !w vp,N . . .”

310

Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

This allusion to Isaianic atonement in Paul’s traditional expression of the gospel is strengthened by the clear reference in Isaiah 53 to the Servant’s burial subsequent to his sacrificial death (v. 9), as well as by the implication of his resurrection which both opens and closes the unit (Isa 52:13; 53:12).98 The relevance of the resurrection in Paul’s traditional statement (vv. 3–4) is brought out in verse 17, which states, “. . . if Christ has not been raised . . . you are still in your sins,” which conceptually relates Christ’s resurrection with the justification of believers (cf. Rom 4:25). The central role of Isaiah in this gospel tradition specifically with regard to the resurrection is confirmed in v. 54, in which Paul quotes the Hebrew of Isa 25:8 as his primary scriptural basis of his teaching on the resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:55/Hos 13:14). This traditional formulation in which the atonement is based upon the death and resurrection of Christ and is sourced in Isaiah finds a parallel in Rom 4:25, another passage considered by many scholars to be both a traditional unit and closely related to 1 Cor 15:3–4. 99 Rom 4:25, it is to be remembered, is a recognized allusion to Isa 53:12 (Ellis, Shum, Wagner, Wilk).100 As a preliminary consideration, the fact that Paul’s theology of atonement in these closely related [traditional] units is derived from Isaiah (cf. also Rom 11:27/Isa 27:9), and particularly in light of the contextual and thematic proximity of Rom 4:25 to Rom 3:21–26, strongly suggests a similar source for the concept of atonement in 3:21–26.101

98 Of particular note is the reference to the glorification of the Servant in Isa 52:13. This “glory” is in Paul frequently connected with the resurrection body. Cf., e.g., Rom 8:13–23, 29–30; 1 Cor 15:42–43. 99 E.g., Ridderbos, “Atonement,” 78. He states, “. . . the words ‘for our trespasses’1 [1dia. ta. paraptw,mata h`mw/n] in Rom. 4:25 are in any case merely a variant to ‘for our sins’ in 1 Cor. 15:3, and thus an alternative rendering of Isa. 53:5, where also for that matter in the parallelismus membrorum two different expressions are used. The preposition: ‘because of’ (dia, + acc.) in Rom. 4:25 and ‘for the sake of’ (u`pe,r + gen.) in 1 Cor. 15:3 will have to be understood as two different renderings of the Hebrew min or the Aramaic be.” 100 Ellis sees Rom 4:25 as alluding also to Isa 53:4–5, while Shum and Wagner see an additional allusion to Isa 53:11; see Appendix. So also, e.g., Hengel and Schwemer, Paul, 381, note 520; Otfried Hofius, “The Fourth Servant Song in the New Testament Letters,” in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, ed. Bernd Janowski and Peter Stühlmacher, trans. Daniel P. Bailey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 180–82. Cranfield states (Romans I-VIII, 251), “That it [i.e., Rom 4:25] was formulated under the influence of Isa 52:13–53:12 is hardly to be doubted.” 101 This kerygmatic witness to Paul’s theology of atonement as derived from Isaiah 53 is greatly expanded by Ridderbos (“Atonement,” 79–81) through recognizing the various formulations of the kerygma in relation to the concepts of atoning sacrifice and forensic justification as each of these are combined with the additional concept of substitution.

V. Isaiah (53) as the Background to Romans 3:21–26

311

V. Isaiah (53) as the Background to Romans 3:21–26 V. Isaiah (53) as the Background to Romans 3:21–26

In Rom 3:21–26, as in Rom 4:25, the theme of sacrificial atonement is united with the theme of forensic justification, both being bound by the role of Christ as our substitute, who becomes our sacrifice for sin and thereby mediates our justification before the bar of heaven. This same arrangement of themes is central to the fourth Servant Song and its wider narrative of redemption. In fact, it is just this combination of themes, atoning sacrifice and justification, that have caused several scholars to conclude that the OT background of Rom 3:21–26 is firmly rooted in Isaiah 53.102 i`lasth,rion, as signifying more generally a propitiatory offering, is broad enough to include the

102 E.g., Blenkinsopp, Sealed Book, 286–89; Ridderbos, “Atonement,” 77–81, esp. 79– 80; Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 845–46, 998–99; “Romans,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 10, 393–770, ed. L. E. Keck (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 472–77. Blenkinsopp (Sealed Book, 285–86) writes, “The principal reason for taking seriously the Isaianic Servant model with respect to Jesus . . . was the death by crucifixion which ensured that the suffering and dying Servant of Isaiah 53 would be a constitutive and irreplaceable element in the structure of early Christian faith, since only by reference to this text could the death of Jesus be made theologically intelligible.” He goes on to state (288–89), “The remarkable and original achievement of the unknown author of Isaiah 53 was to take over a metaphor from the sacrificial cult to express the meaning of a life and death which, for him, had transcendent significance, and it is this insight which is at the heart of Paul’s understanding of the death of Jesus.” In response to the well-known position of Morna D. Hooker (Jesus and the Servant: The Influence of the Servant Concept of Deutero-Isaiah in the New Testament [London: SPCK, 1959]), who argues against the unique significance of Isaiah 53 in the NT on the grounds that the suffering of the righteous is a common theme in the OT, Blenkinsopp comments (286, note 79), “The statement is true but beside the point since it ignores the unique understanding of the impact on others of the sufferings and death of the Servant of the Lord in Isa 52:13–53:12. Professor Hooker also underestimates the significance of the Isaianic text by limiting herself to the eight explicit citations which she finds in the New Testament.” (This critique also weighs heavily against finding the background in the Maccabean martyr theology. See, also, e.g., Holland, Contours, 160.) Similarly responding to Hooker with respect to the significance of Isaiah 53 in the NT, Oswalt states (Isaiah 40–66, 381, note 85), “. . . one can show that this segment’s understanding of the nature of messiahship is implicit throughout the NT.” As an example he cites Paul’s use of Isaiah 52:15 in Rom 15:21 and comments further, “So here, what is it that the Gentiles have not yet heard but will hear, which Paul is eager to declare to them, but the message which follows on after Isa 52:15 that the Messiah has suffered and died for the sins of the whole world?” Wright states (Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 999), “. . . when Paul describes the death of Jesus in sacrificial language, emphasizing in every line that this is how the divine righteousness has been revealed, he is deliberately setting up a complex chain of allusion and echo in which Isaiah 40–55 in general, the figure of the servant in particular and the fourth servant song climactically, are central and loadbearing.”

312

Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

several sacrifices alluded to in the larger context of that great chapter,103 and is likely the reason Paul chose the term rather than one with a more narrow referent (even though the term itself does not appear in Isaiah 53).104 With the concept of justification, therefore, Paul, following Isaiah, points to that atoning sacrifice (i`lasth,rion) as the antitypical sacrifice, though in the context of both Isaiah and Romans with principal reference to the sacrifices of the Passover, Day of Atonement, and sin/guilt offering. Within Isaiah 53 itself, however, the significance of the allusions to the sacrifices of the Passover and Day of Atonement are brought together through the depiction of the Servant as a “guilt offering,” which not only expresses the dual concepts of atonement and restoration, but through its relation to the forensic sphere is perfectly suited to convey the definitive justification achieved by the antitypical sacrifice of the Servant. Isaiah 53 is the only place in the OT in which a messianic figure, the Servant of the Lord, is presented through sacrificial and cultic terminology as offering his life as a substitute to accomplish atonement, justification and (in 103 Though the almost universally accepted literary unit of the fourth Servant Song runs from 52:13–53:12, the sacrificial and cultic terminology as applied to the Servant’s substitutionary, atoning work is [predominantly] in chapter 53, and so for that reason chapter 53 becomes the main scholarly focus in this regard. For an example of those who hold to a division between 52:13–15 and 53:1–12, see Whybray, Isaiah, 169. Isa 52:15 does contain what some consider to be a sacrificial allusion in the term hzn (“sprinkle”), which is used in 20 of its 24 OT occurrences in Leviticus and Numbers to describe mostly either the sprinkling of sacrificial blood on the altar (including the Day of Atonement ritual) or the sprinkling of blood/water upon a person for ritual cleansing from the uncleanness resulting from either leprosy or contact with a corpse. There are, however, textual, grammatical, and literary reasons for questioning the terms presence in this text. Most commentators, therefore, while seeking to avoid textual emendation, prefer to understand hzn here as a different verb based on Arabic meaning “to startle” (see Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 374, note 56). For a defense of hzn as “sprinkle,” see E. J. Young, “The Interpretation of yzh in Isaiah 52:15,” WTJ 3.2 (May 1941): 125–32. 104 Paul does, however, in Rom 8:3, use a specific sacrificial reference that appears in Isa 53, peri. a`marti,aj (translating ~v'a' in Isa 53:10). This use in Rom 8:3 clearly relates intertextually to the present passage and presents this sacrifice as the basis of salvation through an allusion to the exodus redemption (Rom 8:9, 11, 14–15, 16–18 [with the themes of God’s dwelling with his people, sonship, release from slavery, God’s leading, and God’s glory restored]). This exodus allusion, however, is framed by clear allusive references to the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 50 and 53 in Rom 8:3 and 31–34 (see Appendix; see also vv. 29–30), signifying that this allusion to the exodus is more properly understood as an allusion to the new exodus theme of Isaiah’s redemptive narrative. Rom 3:21–26 and Rom 8:3ff, therefore, are mutually informing. In Rom 3:21–26 i`lasth,rion seems to be used in a more general sense with the specific intention of drawing together the various sacrificial motifs in Isaiah 53’s wider context (Passover, Day of Atonement, sin/guilt offering), motifs which are all reflected in the wider context of Rom 3:21–26 as well (see further below).

V. Isaiah (53) as the Background to Romans 3:21–26

313

the larger context) redemption for his people.105 The conjunction of the themes of messianic atoning sacrifice and justification, which in the minds of several scholars anchors Rom 3:21–26 in Isaiah 53, comes out most clearly in the Hebrew of Isa 53:11b: 106 lBos.yI aWh ~t'nOwO[]w: ~yBir:l' yDIb.[; qyDIc; qyDIc.y: (“the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities”). This cultic-juridical terminology, however, is spread throughout the chapter. The cultic terminology includes terms for the Servant’s “bearing” of sins, 107 used together with terms depicting the sins borne,108 so that the Servant is clearly portrayed as a sacrificial substitute.109 It uses terms for the most 105

Though this statement can be questioned on some of its particulars from the standpoint of other interpretive approaches to Isaiah, it seems certainly to be the way Paul understands the chapter in light of his use of cultic and forensic concepts as drawn from Isaiah in both Romans and his other epistles. The following very cursory sketch, therefore, extends its interpretive lines from Rom 3:21–26 as set within the wider context of the epistle back into Isaiah and other OT sources. The correctness of Isaiah as the principle OT background will be confirmed, it is hoped, by the thematic coherence demonstrated, a coherence that is checked by the spectrum of possible interpretations allowed within a legitimate grammatical, historical approach to the prophecy. This Isaianic backdrop, it is believed, demonstrates a mutually interpreting, scriptural dynamic between the testaments in which the texts cast their light in both directions. On Paul’s understanding of the substitutionary nature of Christ’s sacrificial death as derived from Isaiah 53, see, e.g., Gathercole, Defending Substitution, 55–79. 106 Paul apparently follows the Hebrew here because of the differences in the LXX. The LXX reads: “. . . dikaiw/sai di,kaion eu= douleu,onta polloi/j kai. ta.j a`marti,aj auvtw/n auvto.j avnoi,sei” (see Blenkinsopp, Sealed Book, 287). Of Rom 3:21–26 Blenkinsopp states, “The argument is based transparently on Isaiah 53 and especially on one verse, 53:11b . . .” 107 afn (Isa 53:4, 12) is used in the OT of the “bearing” of sin by the sacrificial animal so as to accomplish atonement and forgiveness of sins for the people, particularly on the Day of Atonement (cf. Lev 16:22; cf. also Lev 10:17; Num 18:1, 22–23). The cultic terminology throughout the chapter suggests that it is used in the same sense here as a metaphor to convey the nature and significance of the Servant’s work. lbs (Isa 53:4, 11) is used in Isaiah 53 synonymously with and as a poetic variation of afn. The verbal idea is “to bear a burden,” and generally refers to slave labor (e.g., Gen 49:15; 1 Kgs 5:29; 11:28; 2 Chr 2:1, 17; 34:13). It is used in 7 of its 19 occurrences in Isaiah, and in three of these uses it refers through metaphor to the burden and servitude of captivity (9:3; 10:27; 14:25). Though it is not used in cultic contexts or in a cultic sense outside of Isaiah 53, its two uses in this chapter seem likely to be drawing on this metaphor as related to the wider theme of captivity [to sin and death], portraying the Servant as taking upon Himself in His sacrifice the full plight and consequences of the sin of His people. 108 [v;p, (“transgression, rebellion”: 53:5, 8, 12 (2x); cf. Lev 16:16, 21), together with !A[' (“iniquity, guilt”: 53:5, 6, 11; cf. Lev 16:21, 22), and a cognate of aj.xe (“sin”: 53:12; cf. taJ'x; in Lev 16:16, 21) occur together with reference to atonement in Lev 16:21 (cf. also Job 13:23; Ps 32:23; Isa 59:12; Jer 33:8 (aj.xe); Ezek 21:29; Dan 9:24). 109 See David L. Allen, “Substitutionary Atonement and Cultic Terminology in Isaiah 53,” in The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2012), 175; Childs, Isaiah, 415–16, 417–18; Otfried Hofius, “The Fourth Servant Song,”

314

Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

common types of sacrificial animals to describe both the sinful people as well as the Servant upon whom the sins of the people fall (vv. 6–7),110 further depicting the identification and intimate connection between people and sacrifice in the sacrificial ritual.111 The chapter, moreover, specifically describes

163–88 (though he greatly downplays the cultic element, and highlights what he considers the contrast between the “exclusive place-taking” of Isaiah 53 and its reception in the NT as “inclusive place-taking”); Oswalt, Isaiah, 384–89; Westermann, Isaiah, 263, 268. Childs (Isaiah, 418), while strongly supporting the substitutionary role of the Servant in bearing the sin of his people, sees the significance of the ~v'a' as against the more general background of the concept of compensation for misdeeds (cf. Gen 26:10; 1 Sam 6:3–4, 8, 17), rather than against the background of the levitical guilt offering. But surely the divine act of the Lord through the Servant in presenting this “guilt offering” would find a closer correspondence in the divinely prescribed sacrifice than in the offerings of pagan kings. See Westermann’s comment in note 113 below. For the nature of this sacrifice in Isaiah 53 as including the concepts of both substitution and representation, see Daniel P. Bailey, “Concepts of Stellvertretung in the Interpretation of Isaiah 53,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, ed. William H. Bellinger, Jr. and William R. Farmer (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1998), 88–103. See also Gathercole, Defending Substitution. On the question of the intelligibility of this concept within the OT scripture, Mark Gignilliat writes, “. . . the nature of this atonement as textually mediated within Isaiah 53’s own canonical shape or plain sense will lead the reader to an understanding of an innocent sufferer bearing the sins of others in their place. Arguments based on the novum aspect of such a move within the ‘Hebrew Scripture’ as support for its unintelligibility seem to miss the ‘new’ and radical nature of God’s redemptive, eschatological programme within Isaiah” (Paul and Isaiah’s Servants, 83). Cf. Isa 42:9–10; 43:19; 48:6–7. 110 !aco (53:6; cf. 60:7) is a singular, collective noun used to denote small cattle such as sheep and goats, but is primarily used for sheep (e.g., John E. Hartley, “!ac (ṣ’n),” TWOT, 2:749). In Isa 53:6 it is used metaphorically to describe the sinful waywardness of the people. In the Pentateuch it is a term used of the Passover lamb and the animals acceptable for sacrifice in the levitical system (cf., e.g., Exod 12:21; Lev 1:2; 5:6, 15–16, 18, 25–26). hf, (53:7), is used to refer to a sheep (fb,K,) or a goat (z[e; cf. Exod 12:5), usually a young lamb or kid, that was used both in the Passover sacrifice (cf. Exod 12:3, 4, 5) as well as sin and guilt offerings (e.g., Lev 5:(6-)7; 12:(6-)8), though a goat was used for the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:5ff). hf, is used in Isa 53:7 to describe the Servant “as a lamb that is led to slaughter.” lxer' (Isa 53:7), “ewe,” is used very rarely in the OT (cf. Gen 31:38; 32:15; Cant 6:6) and seems to be a poetic variation used to describe the resignation of the Servant to His appointed task. As Oswalt wryly remarks, “It is difficult to escape the conclusion that it is not accidental that the only extended metaphor in this poem involves sheep, the primary animals of sacrifice. The Servant is to be struck down on account of the rebellions of his people (v. 8), and he will go as a lamb to the slaughter. If the author did not intend his readers to think in terms of sacrifice, he certainly made a major blunder in his choice of metaphors.” 111 On the nature of Christ’s death as an atoning sacrifice in Paul, see, e.g., Otfried Hofius, “Sühne und Versöhnung,” in his Paulusstudien, 33–49; Stuhlmacher, “Recent Exegesis,” 96–105. See also H. Gese, “The Atonement,” in his Essays on Biblical Theolo-

V. Isaiah (53) as the Background to Romans 3:21–26

315

the Servant as a “guilt offering” (~v'a', v. 10), one of the most fundamental atoning sacrifices of the levitical system, 112 and as one who “poured out Himgy, 93–116. On that sacrifice as including the crucial dimension of substitution, see Gathercole, Defending Substitution. In addition to these studies, and with an insightful discussion on the crucial connection between Paul’s view of atonement and Christology, particularly the incarnation, see Bell, “Sacrifice,” 1–27. In Bell’s article, the necessary connection between the incarnation and the efficacy of the atonement is related by several passages of scripture (Rom 8:3; 2 Cor 5:14–21; Rom 3:23–26). In Rom 3:25 it is understood by reference to Christ as the “mercy seat,” which, as the intersection of the divine and human, becomes the basis of atonement. This connection between the incarnation and the atonement, however, is likewise present if the OT background is found in Isaiah 53. Isaiah 53 is an example of the “christology of divine identity,” in which the Servant comes in the promised redemptive role of Israel’s God (Isa 40:9–11) and is thus identified as the very “arm of the Lord” (Isa 53:1; cf. Isa 40:10; see again Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel; Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 654, 681–82). Further, Isaiah 53 not only alludes to the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement, but by virtue of the use of the term avn at the opening of the song likely points to the divine nature of the Servant who Himself provides the atonement in His self-sacrifice. In Isa 52:13 avn occurs in a phrase ([daom. Hb;g"w>] aF'nIw> ~Wry") that is used only three other times in the OT, only in Isaiah (Isa 6:1; 33:10; 57:15), and only of God (Allen, “Isaiah 53,” 185). The use of avn in Isa 53:4 and 12 for the bearing of sin likely reveals the irony and necessity of the divine Servant/Messiah (cf., e.g., Isa 9:6; 55:3; 61:1) accomplishing the atonement; it likely also highlights the contrast between the sacrificial degradation and subsequent glory of the Servant, a glory reflected in large part by the sacrifice itself, so that in this sacrifice the divine glory is most clearly displayed. This high Christology in relation to the humiliation and death of the Servant of the Lord in Paul is seen by many scholars in Phil 2:6–11 (e.g., Bockmuehl, Philippians, 135–36; Martin, Philippians, 108–10). This irony and contrast conveyed by the use of the term avn is quite possibly mirrored in John 12 with the use of the term u`yo,w. See, e.g., Evans, “Obduracy,” 231–36. This sacrifice of the Servant, moreover, clearly ties into the messianic-davidic theology of the prophecy as it forms the basis of the invitation to enter into the “everlasting covenant . . . according to the faithful mercies shown to David” (Isa 55:3). That Paul joins together Servant and Messiah in his understanding of Jesus as derived from Isaiah is evident from his quotations (e.g., davidic sonship – Rom 15:12/Isa 11:10; cf. Isa 9:6; redeemer who accomplishes atonement – Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9). This joining of messianic and servant concepts is apparent from the opening of the epistle, as the [Isaianic] gospel is described as that which is “. . . concerning His Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead . . .” (Rom 1:3–4; cf. 4:25 and the Isaianic allusion to the Servant’s being delivered over because of our transgressions and raised because of our justification). See in chapter two above, “Romans 1:1–15 – The Gospel of the Messianic Servant and the Conquest of Death.” Paul’s Isaianic Servant theology, therefore, is a Messianic Servant theology, and one that reflects a high christology (Rom 9:5). On the strong interlacing of Isaiah’s messianic and servant themes, see the discussion of the gospel accounts described above, pp. 34–39 (and cf., e.g., Acts 13:32–39). 112 On the significance of mv'a' (53:10; cf. esp. Lev 5:6, 15–16, 18, 25–26), see further below, “The Sacrifice of the Servant/Christ as the Fulfillment of the Guilt Offering.” This

316

Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

self to death” (v. 12), another phrase believed by many, particularly in light of the use of ~v'a' in v. 10, to allude to the pouring out of the blood of the sacrificial animal.113 This substitutionary sacrifice of the Servant for the sins of the people was an act of forensic justice,114 which accomplished justification for the many, 115 so that the Servant becomes both sacrificial and forensic mediator (cf. the use of [gp in Isa 53:6 and 12).116

term, as it will be seen, appears to have been chosen specifically to draw together the atoning, forensic, and redemptive significance of the Servant’s sacrificial death, specifically as it is placed within the allusive context of the Passover redemption and the Day of Atonement in the Jubilee year. 113 E.g., Allen, “Isaiah 53,” 180; Westermann, Isaiah, 268. Westermann writes, “The first part could also be translated, ‘because he poured out his blood (nepeš) to death’. This suggests a sacrifice of expiation, corresponding to the sacrificial term ’āšām (guilt offering) in v. 10. These two clear pointers to an expiatory sacrifice as the explanation of the meaning of the Servant’s suffering and death deserve to have particular attention given them.” 114 For the forensic nature of jP'v.mi (53:8), specifically in relation to God’s justice, see Robert D. Culver, “jp;v' (shāpaṭ),” TWOT, 2:947–49; Peter Enns, “jP'v.mi,” NIDOTTE, 2:1142–44. For its significance in the context in terms of God’s justice upon sin in behalf of sinners, see, e.g., Hanson, Isaiah, 56–58; Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 392–94; Westermann, Isaiah, 265–66. Its use in both a sacrificial and forensic context recalls, e.g., Exod 28:15, 29–30, in which Aaron as high priest was to wear the breast piece of “judgment,” and so “. . . carry the judgment of the sons of Israel over his heart before the Lord continually” (v. 30). “What Aaron was concerned with before God was Israel’s justification, i.e. judicial sentence . . . of guiltiness” (Culver, TWOT, 949). 115 The hiphil imperfect of qdc (qyDIc.y:) in Isa 53:11 is used to convey the idea of legal acquittal or vindication. See, e.g., Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., “Forgiveness and Salvation in Isaiah 53,” in The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2012), 191–210. He states (201), “The hiphil of qdc occurs eleven other times in the Old Testament. Six times it has a causative-declarative meaning, ‘make righteous,’ but in a judicial sense, ‘acquit, declare innocent’ (Exod. 23:7; Deut. 25:1; 1 Kings 8:32 = 2 Chron. 6:23; Prov. 17:15; Isa. 5:23). Three times it has the nuance, ‘vindicate, render justice on behalf of those who are in the right’ (as a royal function; 2 Sam. 15:4; Ps. 82:3; Isa 50:4). In Job 27:5, it means ‘declare to be in the right’ (in a forensic sense in the context of Job’s debate with his friends). Finally, in Daniel 12:3 it is used of the wise who ‘lead many to righteousness/make many righteous . . . Based on the statistical evidence surveyed above, one is tempted to interpret the form in a judicial sense, ‘acquit, declare innocent.’ In this case the Servant, having incurred the guilt/endured punishment for the many (note the next clause in v. 11), is able to acquit them before the bar of divine justice.” The prominence of the trial motif and of Israel and the world’s guilt before God’s judgment in Isaiah 40–55 would seem to render the causative-declarative sense certain in Isa 53:11. Chisholm goes on to note (201–2), “The context of Isaiah 53 seems to rule out the nuances ‘vindicate’ and ‘declare to be in the right,’ for ‘the many’ are viewed as guilty sinners in need of mercy, not as victims who deserve vindication or represent a right cause.” See also Young, Isaiah, vol. 3, 357–58.

V. Isaiah (53) as the Background to Romans 3:21–26

317

1. The Sacrifice of the Servant/Christ as the Fulfillment of the Day of Atonement To this significant resemblance between Rom 3:21–26 and Isaiah 53 may be added the fact that both epistle and prophecy present this climactic sacrifice as a fulfillment of the offering of the Day of Atonement.117 The phrases “. . . our griefs He Himself bore (afn), And our sorrows He carried (lbs) . . .” in Isa 53:4 is explained in the next verse by the Servant being “. . . pierced through for our transgressions ([v;p,) . . . crushed for our iniquities (!A[') . . .”, as well as in verse 6 by the Lord causing “. . . the iniquity (!A[') of us all to fall on Him.”118 In verse 4 lbs is used synonymously with and as a poetic variation of afn, but intriguingly draws on the wider theme of captivity – particularly its ultimate significance in terms of captivity to sin and death – portraying the Servant as “bearing” the transgression and iniquity of his people in all its devastating consequences.119 These two synonymous phrases of Isa 53:4, moreover, are set in parallel with the similar phrases in 53:11–12, “. . . He will bear (lbs) their iniquities (!A[ ') . . . He Himself bore (afn) the sin (aj.xe) of many . . .”,120 with the last mentioned phrase preceded and followed by the Servant being numbered with and interceding for transgressors (~y[iv.Po; cogOn this judicial act in Isaiah 53 as it relates to NT fulfillment, Harold G. Stigers (“qdec' (ṣādēq),” TWOT, 2:752–55 [754]) comments, “Corollary to the forensic aspect of God’s righteousness is the concept of salvation as vindication (cf. Isa 1:27; Isa 46:13), in which t®shû±â “salvation” occurs in parallelism with ƒ®d¹qâ . . . Israel in exile was far from righteousness (Isa 46:12) but God would bring her back according to his own righteousness (Isa 46:13). Rather than finding here a meaning of deliverance, salvation or triumph for ƒ®d¹qâ as some do, it is better to find God’s solution of the problem of justification for the sinner in the teaching of Isaiah 53 where the suffering servant justifies sinners by bearing their sin. This same forensic meaning of justification of the ungodly is a real precursor of Rom 3:26.” 116 On the use of [gp in 53:12 (here, “to make intercession”) and the nature of the Servant’s intercession, Westermann (Isaiah, 269) states, “This does not mean, as some editors imagine, that he made prayers of intercession for them, but that with his life, his suffering and his death, he took their place and underwent their punishment in their stead.” 117 See esp. Stuhlmacher, “Recent Exegesis,” 96–103. 118 See Westermann, Isaiah, 263. He comments, “. . . two things are involved in what the Servant bears, what he has loaded upon him – the sins of the others and the punishment which result upon them. Thus, the healing gained for the others (v. 5) by his stripes includes as well the forgiveness of their sins and the removal of their punishment, that is to say, the suffering.” 119 See above, p. 313, note 107. 120 Chisholm, “Isaiah 53,” 199–200; Motyer, Isaiah, 437. Both Allen (“Isaiah 53,” 180) and Motyer, moreover, note that the connection between these two sections of the song (53:4–6; 53:10–12) in respect to the Servant’s bearing of sin is reinforced by the use of the term [gp in vv. 6 and 12 in which it is used to describe both the Servant’s being ladened (NAS “to fall on”) with our iniquity (!A[') and as interceding for transgressors (~y[iv.Po; cognate verb of [v;p,), respectively.

318

Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

nate verb of [v;p,). This parallel use of the terms afn and lbs in both Isa 53:4–5 and Isa 53:11–12 confirms their synonymous use, and therefore also the significance of each term as depicting the bearing of sin, variously described as [v;p,, !A[' and aj.xe (cf. taJ'x; in Lev 16:21). The only other place in the OT in which the terms avn, [v;p, and !A[',, as well as a cognate of aj.xe, combine to describe the sacrificial bearing of sin is in Lev 16:21–22, in which the sacrificial animal bore the transgression, iniquity and sin (taJ'x; in Lev 16:21; cf. aj.xe in Isa 53:12) of the people on the Day of Atonement. This allusion to the Day of Atonement within Isaiah 53 is acknowledged by scholars,121 but the Day of Atonement theme as drawn from Isaiah is also a significant feature of Paul’s atonement theology in Romans, a feature that undoubtedly bears upon his sacrificial allusions in Rom 3:21–26. As has been mentioned, Paul in Rom 11:27 conflates a citation from Isa 59:21 and Isa 27:9. He begins quoting Isa 59:20 in v. 26, and then, as he moves into his quotation of Isa 59:21 in v. 27, the quotation elides into a citation of Isa 27:9. The text beginning at Rom 11:26b reads, “. . . The Deliverer (LXX translating laeAG [“redeemer”], a participle form of lag) will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them, / when I take away their sins.”122 Paul, relying upon Isaiah, understands this new, redemptive covenant to be based in atonement (“when I take away their sins,” Rom 11:27/Isa 27:9; cf. 1 Cor 11:25), an atonement provided by the Redeemer who himself “removes ungodliness from Jacob” (Rom 11:26/Isa 59:20).123 This conflated quotation with its theme(s) of [messianic] redemption through atonement – an atoning sacrifice, via Isa 27:9 – clearly echoes and recalls Rom 3:24–25. Indeed, Rom 3:21–26 is presented as the redemptive sacrifice that releases Israel from its captivity to sin as described in Isaiah 59 (and 52; Rom 3:15–17/Isa 59:7–8; Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5), so that Paul clearly identifies the Messiah/Jesus Christ (Rom 3:22, 24) – the Isaianic Servant of the Lord (Rom 3:21–26; 4:25) – with the Redeemer of Isaiah 59. But also, and very 121

See, e.g., Allen, “Isaiah 53,” 175–76, 180; Chisholm, “Isaiah 53,” 199–200 (though he sees the connection as possible); Motyer, Isaiah, 438, note 1; Oswalt, Isaiah, 386, who references the sacrificial imagery of the cult more generally, but especially from Leviticus, and includes Lev 16:22 within his references. Within the context of the Servant’s sacrifice in Isaiah [and Romans], as it draws together within its antitypical significance the previous sacrificial types, the two goats of the Day of Atonement would depict the single significance of the sacrifice. See esp. Dunn, Romans, 172; see also, e.g., Allen, “Isaiah 53,” 182. 122 The diagonal slash symbol (“/”) marks the shift from Isaiah 59 to Isaiah 27. 123 Regarding the scriptural backdrop to Isaiah 53, Allen (“Isaiah 53,” 179) notes, “. . . the twin concepts of atonement for sin and forgiveness of sin are constantly juxtaposed.” E.g., Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:6, 10, 13, 16, 18; 6:7. Allen sees this principle of atonement as summarized in Lev 17:11, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.”

V. Isaiah (53) as the Background to Romans 3:21–26

319

significantly, Paul’s use of Isa 27:9 in the conflated citation characterizes this atoning sacrifice of the Messiah as that which is presented on the Day of Atonement in the Jubilee year, with the result that, in the context of Isaiah, “. . . a great trumpet will be blown, and those who were perishing in the land of Assyria and who were scattered in the land of Egypt will come and worship the LORD in the holy mountain at Jerusalem” (Isa 27:13). This connection made by Paul is likely due to the fact that the Jubilee “release” or proclamation of “liberty” on the Day of Atonement is closely related within Isaiah to the “proclamation of good news” in chapters 40–55. In Isa 27:9 this atoning sacrifice effects the release and restoration of “those perishing” (v. 13; ~ydIb.aoh'; from dba) in exile and captivity, a captivity that Paul, following this very section of Isaiah, would understand as including death itself (cf. 1 Cor 15:54/Isa 25:8).124 This ultimate significance of the Jubilee release in this section of Isaiah is supremely and sublimely conveyed when Isa 25:8, quoted by Paul in 1 Cor 15:54, is situated within its larger context. The passage is breathtaking and euphoric (Isa 25:6–9): 6

And the LORD of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; A banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, And refined, aged wine. 7And on this mountain He will swallow up the covering which is over all peoples, Even the veil which is stretched over all nations. 8He will swallow up death for all time, And the Lord God will wipe tears away from all faces, And He will remove the reproach of His people from all the earth; For the LORD has spoken. 9And it will be said in that day, “Behold, this is our God for whom we have waited that He might save us. This is the LORD for whom we have waited; Let us rejoice and be glad in His salvation.”

These “perishing ones,” moreover, would be restored from exile and captivity to “worship the Lord” in a renewed Zion (cf. Isa 26:1–2), recalling the eschatological transformation of God’s holy mountain in Isa 2:1–4 (etc.). This use of Day of Atonement/Jubilee imagery to depict the eschatological restoration of God’s people clearly anticipates Isaiah 40–55. In this second major section of the prophecy the typology of Israel’s captivity and redemption is employed to convey the theme of world-wide redemption from the tyranny of sin and death through the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord. But further, and more specifically, this imagery in Isaiah 27 interlaces with the redemptive narrative of Isaiah 40–55 both by means of the aforementioned allusions to the Day of Atonement in Isaiah 53, as well as by the retrospective characterization of the “proclamation of good news” as a proclamation of “liberty” in Isa 61:1 – intertextual relations which powerfully reinforce the Servant’s sacrifice as the fulfillment of the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement. Isa 61:1 alludes to the Lord’s commands to Moses regarding the Jubilee in Lev 25:9–10. Every fifty years on the Day of Atonement a ram’s horn would 124

Cf. also Isa 26:19–21 which clearly anticipates the eschatological renewal of Isa 27:1ff.

320

Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

echo throughout the land, signaling the proclamation of “liberty” (NASB) to all the inhabitants. The term “liberty” renders the Hebrew rArD. (LXX, a;fesij), which is a “. . . technical expression referring to the release of Hebrew slaves and of property . . . in the year of Jubilee.”125 This term, therefore, being a key element of the “good news” of Isa 61:1, reflects back upon and so characterizes the earlier “good news” of redemption through the sacrifice of the Servant in Isaiah 40–55 (Isa 40:9; 52:7) as a “release” which brings to fulfillment the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement in the Jubilee year (cf. Isa 49:8–9; 61:1–2).126 But further, the dual characterization of the good news as including both “the proclamation of liberty . . . and the day of vengeance of our God” (Isa 61:1–2), reestablishes and confirms the intertextual and thematic link between Isaiah 53 and 59, so that the good news of redemption through the sacrifice of the Servant is reasserted as the definitive basis of the consummation of redemption. Paul, then, in drawing on these interrelated themes, understands the death of Christ in Rom 3:21–26 against this rich background. Christ’s propitiatory, atoning sacrifice, in fulfilling the role of the Servant, also fulfills this central prophetic type of the Day of Atonement; in so doing, that antitypical sacrifice provides the sole basis of justification, a justification never achieved by any sacrifice of the levitical system. With that justification, then, comes the antitypical “release” from captivity to sin and death, and a return to the eschato-

125

See Herbert Wolf, “rrd (drr),” TWOT, 1:197–98 (198). The only other occurrences of the word in this sense are Jer 34:8, 15, 17 (2x); Ezek 46:17. In both Isa 61:1 and Lev 25:10 rArD. is rendered in the LXX by a;fesij. In Lev 25:10 both the NAS and Brenton’s translation of the LXX render the respective terms as “release,” whereas in Isaiah 61:1 both translations render the terms as “liberty.” In the LXX the term a;fesij (“release”) is used predominantly for release from captivity, particularly from slavery in the Jubilee. In the NT this sense is present, but it is used most often for “forgiveness” (e.g., Mat 26:28). On the combination of the redemptive concept used together with the term a;fesij signifying forgiveness of sins, which could point to a possible secondary, allusive reference to the day of atonement, see Acts 13:38; 26:18; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14. The term, interestingly, is used of the “release” of the scapegoat on the day of atonement (Lev 16:26). 126 For the function of Isaiah 61 as “interpreting” Isaiah 40–55, see W. A. M. Beuken, “Servant and Herald of Good Tidings: Isaiah 61 as an Interpretation of Isaiah 40–55,” in The book of Isaiah – Le livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures; Unité et complexité de l’ouvrage, ed. J. Vermeylen, BETL 81 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), 411– 12; Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” 288. On a similar use of Isaiah 61:1–2 in the programmatic verses of Luke’s gospel (4:16– 21; quotation vv. 18–19), see esp. Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” 275–78, 287–90. They assert that the quotation is used to convey the nature of the Isaianic “good news” as a fulfillment of the “release” of the Jubilee year, but understood within the interpretive framework of the Isaianic new exodus theme (cf. Luke 3:4–6/Isa 40:3–5). See also Walter L. Liefeld, “Luke,” in EBC, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 867.

V. Isaiah (53) as the Background to Romans 3:21–26

321

logical life and inheritance of God lost in the fall.127 Christ’s antitypical sacrifice, therefore, prophetically prefigured in the sacrifice of the Servant, becomes the basis of justification, sanctification, and glorification. But the Day of Atonement, crucial though it is, is but one of many redemptive types fulfilled in the sacrifice of the Servant. 2. The Sacrifice of the Servant/Christ as the Fulfillment of Redemption (and the Passover Sacrifice) Further strengthening the link between Rom 3:21–26 and Isaiah 53 is the fact that Rom 3:24, with its use of the term avpolu,trwsij, linguistically and contextually recalls both the Babylonian (Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5; cf. 10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1) and Egyptian deliverances (e.g., Rom 6:1–10; 8:1–3, 12–30). This fact is significant, because these two deliverances play a central role in Isaiah 40–55. Though much has already been said regarding the typical nature of the Egyptian and Babylonian deliverances in Isaiah 40–55 as fulfilled in the Servant, there remains to be discussed their mutual relation in pointing to the antitypical sacrifice, as well as Paul’s understanding of the sacrificial basis of the Egyptian deliverance. In this second major section of the prophecy the redemption of Israel from captivity in Babylon is consistently portrayed through allusion to the exodus event,128 so that both acts of deliverance together are employed to depict the definitive redemption accomplished by the Servant.129 These chapters, recalling several theological and typological themes within the Pentateuch,130 portray the bondage of Israel in both Egypt and Babylon as a type of captivity to sin and death. The apostle, following Isaiah, reads these two redemptive events together as mutually conveying the significance of the one climactic 127 On the necessary connection between justification and the eschatological life granted by God on that basis, note esp. Rom 5:18 (dikai,wsin zwh/j ) and 5:21 (dikaiosu,nhj eivj zwh.n aivw,nion); see Ridderbos, “Atonement,” 84–85. On Christ’s sacrifice and resulting justification as the basis of the believer’s restoration to his inheritance, and that inheritance conceived as being within the sphere of the presence and glory of God, see, e.g., Rom 4:13, 25; 5:1–2; 8:16–23. 128 Goppelt, in fact, states that Deutero-Isaiah presents the redemption from Babylon as the antitype of the liberation from Egypt (Typos, 39, note 99). 129 Childs (Isaiah, 299) asserts that “. . . the two events are fused into a single allencompassing paradigm of divine deliverance.” 130 Isaiah is apparently building upon the theology and typology of the Pentateuch in respect to such themes as the abrahamic promise (as blessing countering the curse [Isa 51:1– 3]), the redemption from Egypt (as a typological fulfillment of the promised blessing [Gen 15:13–16; Exod 2:24]), and Deuteronomy’s prophecy of Israel’s future captivity arising out of the covenant curse (and so reiterating both the fall as well as the Egyptian redemption). In doing so the prophecy closely aligns the Egyptian and Babylonian redemptions and presents both as types which come to fulfillment in the redemption accomplished by the Servant of the Lord.

322

Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

deliverance. It is important to note, however, that contextually the dominant redemptive backdrop is Isa 52:5 as quoted in Rom 2:24 (cf. Rom 3:9/Isa 50:1). This is extremely significant not only because the Babylonian redemption within the context of Isaiah typologically incorporates the Egyptian, but because the Babylonian redemption within that same context points to the redemption accomplished by the Servant of the Lord as the antitypical fulfillment of both redemptive types. Based upon this Isaianic backdrop, Paul’s synthetic reading of these two redemptive events comes to expression in Rom 3:21–26 as it builds on this wider Isaianic context. Negatively, the background of the fall (cf. Rom 1:23; 3:23) which stands behind the Exodus redemption in the theological context of the Pentateuch, is clarified and reinforced through the typology of Israel’s sin and exile in Isaiah, which, likely following Deuteronomy, portrays a reenactment of the fall. On the positive side of this synthetic reading, redemption is accomplished both through sacrifice (as in the Egyptian redemption131 [e.g., Isa 43:3–4]) as well as through messianic mediation (as in the Babylonian redemption, with Cyrus as God’s anointed [e.g., Isa 45:1; cf. Isa 42:1; 61:1–2]), and so fulfilled in the messianic self-sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord/Jesus Christ, as christology (again) becomes the basis of soteriology. This particular typological synthesis as fulfilled in the messianic self-sacrifice is unique to Isaiah and very likely demonstrates Paul’s dependence.132 The apostle’s understanding of the Passover redemption as based in atoning sacrifice, typologically portraying Christ’s atonement, receives a significant measure of confirmation in 1 Cor 5:6–8 in which Paul describes Christ 131

In Num 9:1–14 the Passover lamb is called an “offering” (!B;r>q') which is offered (brq) to the Lord (v. 7 – hw"hy> !B;r>q'-ta, brIq.h;; v. 13 – byrIq.hi al{ hw"hy> !B;r>q' yKi). The root of these terms, which are from the same cognate family, “. . . denotes being or coming into the most near and intimate proximity of the object (or subject)” (Leonard J. Copes, “br;q' (qārab),” TWOT, 2:811–13 [811]). The terms, therefore, are predominantly cultic in significance, particularly the noun, which occurs only in Leviticus, Numbers and Ezekiel. Both terms are used in reference to a variety of offerings, including sin offerings. In Num 28:1– 31 the Lord commands Israel through Moses to be careful to present their offerings at the appointed times, using the same terminology as in Numbers 9 (v. 2), and in which the Passover was included (v. 16). According to this chapter (Numbers 28), an important element of the feast of unleavened bread, which was part of the Passover week, was the sacrifice at the tabernacle of both burnt offerings and sin offerings for atonement. As Dunn comments, “Although the theology of sacrifice within Judaism is obscure . . . it is possible to say something more positive about Paul’s own theology of sacrifice from . . . his own use of sacrificial language in speaking of Christ’s death . . .” (Romans, 172). 132 On the themes of Messiah and Servant as derived from Isaiah within the wider context of the epistle, and as related to this crucial connection between christology and soteriology, see in chapter two above, “Romans 1:1–15: The Gospel of the Messianic Servant and the Conquest of Death.”

V. Isaiah (53) as the Background to Romans 3:21–26

323

as having been sacrificed as our paschal lamb (to. pa,sca h`mw/n evtu,qh Cristo,j). This sacrifice, according to his analogy of leaven, was explicitly intended to cleanse from sin. 133 Within Romans, the atoning significance of the exodus redemption is evident in Paul’s allusions to that event in Rom 6:1–10 and 8:1–3, 12–30, which in both cases grounds freedom from the dominion of sin in Christ’s sacrificial death.134 In Rom 8:3 in particular, the phrase peri. a`marti,aj, used throughout the LXX (primarily Leviticus and Numbers) for the sin-offering, including the offerings of the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:3, 5, 9), is used of God’s sacrificial offering of his Son, the Messiah. The phrase is used specifically of Christ’s sacrifice only here in the NT,135 and within the context it forms the sacrificial basis of the definitive redemption, a redemption portrayed through allusion to the exodus (vv. 14–30). This exodus allusion, however, following Isaiah 40–55, is placed within a larger redemptive framework. The allusive exodus background in Romans 8 gradually shifts, until in vv. 31–34 the source of vindication becomes the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord (Isaiah 50 and 53; see Appendix). These last allusive references, therefore, connect thematically with and further identify Paul’s understanding of the sacrifice of Rom 8:3. In fact, the only place in the LXX in which the phrase peri. a`marti,aj (Rom 8:3) is used of a messianic figure (or of a human) is in Isa 53:10. There it translates ~v'a', “guilt offering,” and refers to the Servant who, according to the purpose of God, gives his life to “bear the iniquity” of his people through a sacrifice that effects their redemption (e.g., Isa 51:10; 52:3, 9; 54:5, 8).136 Based upon these contextual considerations, then, Rom 8:3 constitutes a clear allusion to the sacrifice of the Servant in Isaiah 53. The exodus allusions in Romans 8, 133 qu,w is a very common word for sacrifice in both the LXX and the NT, and though it is applied generally to all sacrifices that an individual Israelite might offer (Deut 17:1), it was typically used for peace and thank offerings. On leaven as picturing sin, cf. Matt 16:6. Evans considers that Paul in 1 Cor 5:7 not only viewed the paschal sacrifice as sinatoning, but that he derived the analogy with Christ’s sacrifice from Isa 53:7, in which the Servant is described as a lamb led to the slaughter (“Isaiah 53,” 161–62). See also, e.g., Hays, Conversion, 23–24. Several scholars hold that this understanding of Christ as a paschal, sin-atoning sacrifice related to the Servant of Isaiah 53 is evident in John 1:29, in which John the Baptist describes Jesus as “the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” See, e.g., Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, AB 29, vol. 1 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1966–70), 60–63; Evans, “Isaiah 53,” 163, note 41; Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 452–54. 134 On the allusions to the Exodus in these passages, see France, “New Exodus,” 28ff; and above in this chapter, “Perceived OT Backgrounds to Romans 3:21–26.” 135 In Hebrews it is used of the sin-offering (Heb 10:6, 8, 18; 13:11; Heb 10:6 and 8 quoting Ps 40:6), but implicitly by contrast of the final significance of Christ’s sacrifice. 136 On ~v'a' see further below.

324

Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

therefore, are taken up into a larger Isaianic redemptive framework – the climactic, eschatological redemption in which “. . . the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (v. 21). These passages in Romans 3 and 8, then, are both mutually reinforcing and mutually informing, and together strongly suggest a primary scriptural background in the redemptive narrative of Isaiah. It is this Isaianic redemption, therefore, by means of these various intertextual connections (including and especially Paul’s quotation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24), that forms the backdrop to Rom 3:21–26, creating a synthetic typological reading of the Egyptian and Babylonian redemptions which serves as a powerful metaphor for the climactic deliverance the Lord accomplished through the Servant of the Lord/Jesus Christ. Paul’s theology of redemption as based in the atoning sacrifice of Christ and prefigured in both the Egyptian and Babylonian deliverances reflects and resonates powerfully with the redemptive narrative of Isaiah 40–55. 3. The Sacrifice of the Servant/Christ as the Fulfillment of the Guilt Offering The above considerations, particularly the allusion to Isa 53:10 in Rom 8:3, strongly suggest that Paul also had the guilt offering in mind in his richly allusive reference to redemption through atonement in Rom 3:24–25. In the context of Isaiah 53, one key element that draws together the sacrificial types of the Passover and Day of Atonement, and particularly the definitive restoration typologically portrayed through the redemption from Babylon, is the act of the Servant in rendering himself a “guilt offering.” 137 As the only sacrifice specifically mentioned in this great chapter, ~v'a' in Isa 53:10 has within its cognate family a wide range of nuances, from the sin(s) itself, to the guilt so incurred, to the punishment for or judgment upon that sin, to the aftermath or consequences of the sin. 138 In relation to punishment and consequences comes the noun form ~v'a', which refers to a “guilt offering” provided to make atonement for the sin of one who had “become guilty” (e.g., Lev 5:6, 16, 18; 7:7; 14:21; 19:22; Num 5:8; cf. esp. Isa 24:6). It was, in fact, closely related to and considered a type of sin offering. 139 Lev 7:7 states, “The guilt offering 137 On the cultic significance of the term ~v'a' here, see Gignilliat, Paul and Isaiah’s Servant’s, 83–86. 138 G. Herbert Livingston (“~v;a' (’āsham),” TWOT, 1:78–80) notes in relation to the verbal form, “Perhaps, one may hold that the ’āsham connotes the totality of alienation from God, including its consequences” (79). On the guilt offering / ~v'a', see also Leon Morris, “’Asham [‘Guilt’ and ‘Guilt-offering’ in the Old Testament],” EvQ 30.4 (1958): 196–210; Norman H. Snaith, “The Sin Offering and the Guilt Offering,” VT 15 (1965): 73– 80; Diether Kellermann, “~v'a' ’āshām,” TDOT, 1:429–37. 139 Regarding both the sin and the guilt offerings, Richard Averbeck comments that they “. . . are widely regarded as the primary expiatory offerings in the Levitical system of offerings.” See “Sacrifices and Offerings,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Penta-

V. Isaiah (53) as the Background to Romans 3:21–26

325

is like the sin offering, there is one law for them . . .” Of particular importance, however, is the fact that this offering dealt not only with sin but with its consequences, in other words, with the guilt in its entirety. Because of this it included the payment of restitution for damages, plus an additional twenty percent.140 It was, therefore, a comprehensive type of sacrifice. In Isaiah 53 the Servant as ~v'a' bears not only the sin of the people, but their “sickness” (ylix\; vv. 3–4; cf. Isa 1:5; 38:9) and “pain/sorrow” (bAak.m;; vv. 3–4; cf. Exod 3:7; Jer 30:15; Lam 1:12, 18; cf. also Isa 1:4–7), likely alluding to the wider context of Israel’s sin with its devastating consequences in the divine judgment of exile.141 Yet the suffering of the Servant is set within the eschatological context of the revelation of God’s righteousness. Therefore, while he clearly enters into their sickness, pain and sorrow, he nevertheless exclusively bears the full weight of their sin in eschatological judgment unto death, in their place and as their substitute. In becoming himself a “guilt offering,” then, he brings full healing and restoration from the curse itself, depicted in the larger context as recreation.142 In the place of the people’s sickness and sorrow, therefore, he bestows (v. 5) healing (apr) and peace (peace/wholeness/well-being; ~Alv'), which in the eschatological context of justification (see below) connotes salvation.143 The teuch, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2003), 720. 140 For a discussion of the guilt offering within Leviticus, see, e.g., Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 104ff. He notes that the chief distinctive of this sacrifice was to render reparation or compensation, and that the “guilt” was understood to be both against God and man. On the term as used in Isaiah against this background, see, e.g., Delitzsch, Isaiah, 333; Motyer, Isaiah, 439. For the similarities and distinctions between the sin and guilt offerings, and a discussion of the unique emphases of the various offerings fulfilled in the Servant of Isaiah 53, see Delitzsch, 332–34. Delitzsch notes that the guilt offering was to be presented by the individual. This points to the emphasis in the wider context of Isaiah 40–55 on the individual appropriation of the redemptive promise centering in the Servant, an appropriation which constituted one part of the “seed of Israel” (e.g., Isa 6:13; 45:25; 50:10; 53:10). On this point see also Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 402. 141 Chisholm, “Isaiah 53,” 207, 209. 142 It seems to be the case, then, that in the Servant’s becoming himself an ~v'a' (Avp.n: ~v'a' ~yfiT'-~ai), the concepts of substitution and representation come together. 143 Chisholm, “Isaiah 53,” 203. Chisholm notes that in the Psalms apr is frequently used with terms for deliverance (cf. Pss. 6:2[3]; 30:2[3]; 41:4[5]; 107:20), with Ps 103:3– 4a being a particularly relevant parallel, speaking of the Lord as One “. . . Who pardons all your iniquities; Who heals (apr) all your diseases (~yailux]T;); Who redeems (lag) your life from the pit . . .” With regard to ~Alv' in Isa 53:5 Chisholm states, “The healing effected by the Servant’s sufferings brings full health (~Alv' ) to its beneficiaries. At the surface level of the healing metaphor, the noun ~Alv' refers to the health that is restored to those who were sick (cf. its use in Ps. 38:3 and Isa. 38:17). At a deeper level there may be intertextual links to other

326

Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

use of ~v'a' in Isaiah 53, then, points to the Servant’s sacrifice as not only cleansing and forgiving, but undoing, healing, and fully restoring his people from the comprehensive and calamitous consequences that their sin has brought upon them, so that “. . . the ransomed of the LORD will return, And come with joyful shouting to Zion; And everlasting joy will be on their heads. They will obtain gladness and joy, And sorrow and sighing will flee away” (Isa 51:11; cf. Isa 35:10). The Servant as ~v'a',, then, aligns itself contextually and conceptually with both the sacrifices of the Passover and Day of Atonement in the Jubilee year, as well as with restoration from the more immediate type of the Babylonian exile. The Servant, therefore, becomes the definitive fulfillment of these various redemptive types. But specifically in terms of sacrifice, the Servant of the Lord becomes the climax of Israel’s two central sacrificial rituals and their shared concept of an atoning sacrifice as the basis of redemption from captivity and curse, into edenic bliss and glory. 144 The Servant as ~v'a' becomes the source of redemptive recreation. But further, because of the process of assessing damages and calculating compensation involved in the “guilt offering,” it naturally bore a relation to the forensic sphere. This relation created a unique appropriateness in application to the antitypical sacrifice of the Servant, which had as its chief effect the rendering of eschatological justification. The Servant as the mediator of eschatological justification is a central theme in the wider context of the trial motif in Isaiah 40–55. 4. The Servant/Christ as the Mediator of Eschatological Justification Throughout Isaiah 40–55 the trial motif builds towards its climax in the justification granted through the Servant of the Lord, and so points to the antitypical significance of both the Servant’s sacrifice and the redemption which it Isaianic texts where ~Alv' is associated with deliverance from exile (see Isa. 45:7 [cf. v. 8]; 48:18 [cf. vv. 19–22]; 52:7 [cf. vv. 8–12]). However, the tightest intertextual link is with Isaiah 57:18–19, where ~Alv' and apr are closely associated . . . The promised ‘peace’ appears to be the result of spiritual healing that brings with it moral transformation (cf. Isa. 57:17–18, 20–21). The same may be true in Isaiah 53 . . .” This understanding is further confirmed, moreover, in light of the intertextual link between Isa 57:21 and Isa 48:22. 144 Paul’s use of both the Passover and Day of Atonement likely highlights Paul’s understanding of the nature of these sacrifices as complimentary in terms of foreshadowing the antitypical sacrifice of Christ. As being mutually informing, one may surmise that the Passover redemption is predominantly intended to convey the concept of deliverance from the bondage and devastating consequences of sin stemming from the fall, though a deliverance based in atoning sacrifice. The allusion(s) to the Day of Atonement, however, would seem to focus more upon the sacrifice itself, and its nature as propitiatory and atoning, and therefore a sacrifice the effect of which was to reconcile God and man, and so restore man to his lost inheritance.

V. Isaiah (53) as the Background to Romans 3:21–26

327

accomplishes. In this movement toward the climax there is a noticeable and crucial shift in the trial motif from chapter 48 to 49, paralleling the shift in the captivity motif at this same point in the narrative.145 Indeed, the two motifs at this transition are united in the person of the Servant who himself becomes both forensic intercessor as well as redeemer, an intertwining of concepts that culminates in the revelation of God’s righteousness in terms of both his absolute justice in judgment and vindication as well as his faithfulness to his saving covenant promises – Isaiah’s “redemption through righteousness,” which, as in Romans, perfectly meets the need of a captive and condemned humanity typified in Israel. This transition from chapter 48 to 49, then, changes the issue from the court case itself to focus rather on the Servant as the divinely appointed agent in mediating righteousness and salvation (Isa 49:1–9), who becomes the intercessor within the motif of the trial (Isa 50:1– 10; 53:12) through becoming the sacrificial basis of its verdict of acquittal (Isa 52:13–53:12 [esp. v. 11]; 54:17). As this subsidiary theme of intercession develops within the trial motif there is a strong relationship between Isa 50:1–10 and 52:13–53:12. The Lord’s search for an intercessor for sinful Israel (Isa 50:2) is answered by the Servant of the Lord (Isa 50:4ff; 53:12), who in his vindication before God’s court (Isa 50:7–9) justifies the many (Isa 50:10; 53:11; cf. 54:14, 17) – an intertextual interplay reflected in Rom 8:31–34 (see Appendix).146 Isa 53:12 employs the Hiphil of the Hebrew verb [gp, with the meaning “to intercede” (“. . . Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors”). This concept of intercession as derived from Isa 53:12 is very likely alluded to by Paul in Rom 8:34 (Ellis), the Hebrew term being rendered in the allusion by the Greek evntugca,nw, with the allusion itself strengthened and expanded by the reference to Christ’s death for sin as the basis of the intercession (“who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us”).147 Rom 8:33–34, moreover, replete with courtroom terminology, is a recognized allusion to the vindication of the Servant in Isa 50:8–9 (Ellis, Shum, Wilk; Wagner [50:8]), and is situated within an allusive context that repeatedly alternates between Isaiah 50 and 53 (again, see Appendix), so that the apostle in bringing these passages together is undoubtedly conveying that

145

See in chapter two above, pp. 102ff. See in chapter two above, pp. 77–79. 147 The LXX does not contain a term for “intercession” in its translation of this verse. The Hiphil of [gp also appears in Isa 59:16 which lies between two passages Paul quotes in Romans (cf. Rom 3:15–17/Isa 59:7–8; Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21). In the context of both of these passages in Romans, as in Isaiah 59, the apostle is dealing with the messianic mediation of God’s righteousness. 146

328

Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

our vindication is “in Christ,”148 through his intercessory, sacrificial death in our behalf. It is this Isaianic scriptural background, therefore, that intertextually relates to, informs, and confirms the Isaianic background of eschatological justification granted through the sacrifice of Christ in Rom 3:21–26. With this added dimension of intercession to the trial motif within the prophetic narrative of Isaiah comes the additional emphasis on the invitation to enter into the vindication provided by the Servant’s redemptive sacrifice (e.g., Isa [45:22–25;] 50:8–10; 53:11; 54:17; 55:1–7), a theme which, as mentioned above, the apostle likewise draws from Isaiah (Rom 9:33; 10:11, 15– 16).149 Within the conceptual framework of the trial in Isaiah 40–55, therefore, and as reflected in Romans, the verdict is left pending, but rendered certain based upon one’s response to the Lord’s promise of redemption through the Servant (Isa 50:10–11)150 – an emphasis on personal appropriation corresponding appropriately to the Servant as ~v'a'. The verdict of condemnation is generally rendered by vAB (“to be [a]shamed”) and its cognate tv,Bo used in the forensic sense. Those whose faith is placed outside of God’s redemptive promise will find certain shame (Isa 41:11; [42:17;] 44:9, 11; 45:16, 24),151 whereas those whose faith rests in these redemptive promises 148 The concept of “in Christ” in Romans could well be based in the Isaianic concept of messianic intercession through sacrifice. The phrase evn Cristw/| is found in Rom in 3:24; 6:11, 23; 8:1, 2, 39; 9:1; 12:5; 15:17; 16:3, 7, 9, 10. 149 Note that Rom 9:33 and 10:11, both of which quote Isa 28:16, highlight faith as the means of appropriating God’s righteousness, a truth emphasized in their immediate contexts (cf. 9:30–33; 10:10–11). The connotation of vindication is present in the text of Paul’s quotations of LXX Isa 28:16 particularly through the use of the term kataiscu,nw in the forensic sense. The apostle, moreover, goes on to link the eschatological vindication of Isa 28:16 with that which is accomplished in the good news of the redemptive sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord, both through explicit citation in the immediate context (Rom 10:11–16; see vv. 15–16), as well as through allusion in the broader context of the epistle (Rom 3:29–30; 4:25; 5:1, 19b; 8:31–34; see Appendix). Paul’s use of this positive aspect of Isaiah’s trial motif – justification – lends support to his dependence upon the negative aspect in 1:18–3:20. 150 On the significance of Isa 50:10–11 in identifying the redeemed community on the basis of faith in the Servant, see, e.g., above, p. 104, note 123. In Isaiah 40–55 the redemption accomplished by the Servant is at first promised (Isa 40:3–5, 9–11), then provisional, as Israel is invited to “rise up . . . loose yourself from the chains around your neck” (Isa 52:2); “Incline your ear and come to Me. Listen, that you may live; And I will make an everlasting covenant with you, According to the faithful mercies shown to David” (Isa 55:3). This provisional redemption is actualized in the national life of Israel in Isa 59:20–21 (cf. Rom 3:15–17; 11:26–27). 151 Shame as the result of misplaced trust is a common theme throughout Isaiah (Isa 1:29; 20:5; [23:4;] 26:11; 30:1–5 [vv. 3, 5]; 65:11–13 [v. 13]; 66:1–5 [v. 5]). On this concept of “shame” in the forensic context of Isaiah 40–55, see in chapter two above, “The Gospel as the Basis of Eschatological Vindication.”

VI. Summary of Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 3:21–26

329

will not be put to shame (Isa 45:17; 49:23; 50:7; 54:4), but rather will experience God’s eschatological righteousness in the justification granted through the Servant’s sacrifice (Isa 45:25; 50:8, 10; 53:11; 54:14, 17). The Servant as the mediator of eschatological justification, therefore, points to the antitypical nature of both his sacrifice as well as the ultimate redemption it secures, so that the Isaianic “good new” of the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord – fulfilled in Jesus Christ and portrayed in Rom 3:21–26 – becomes the revelation of the righteousness of God.

VI. Summary of Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 3:21–26 VI. Summary of Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 3:21–26

Set against the dark backdrop of Isaiah’s typological portrait of humanity’s captivity to sin and condemnation before God’s tribunal, Rom 3:21–26 recounts the long-awaited revelation of the eschatological righteousness of God as disclosed in Isaiah’s good news. In this passage Paul’s use of Isaiah’s redemptive narrative continues, answering the Isaianic typological portrait of humanity’s condemnation before God’s tribunal and captivity to sin and death with the promised eschatological justification and redemption based in the Servant’s sacrifice. This relationship is evidence of Paul’s use of a demonstrable theological framework based in the broad scope of prophecy’s redemptive narrative. Paul’s dependence on Isaiah’s narrative of redemption seems particularly warranted in light of Paul’s quotations of Isa 52:5 (Rom 2:24) and 59:7–8 (Rom 3:15–17), which help typologically set the stage for the redemption about to be recounted in Rom 3:21–26. This narrative backdrop is further confirmed by his use of these same passages later in the epistle to set forth both the basis (Rom 10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1) and event (Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9) of Israel’s redemption, a fact which strongly suggests that Paul’s principle use of Isaiah’s narrative of redemption extends to the epistle as a whole. Therefore, Paul’s use of Rom 3:21–26 within a demonstrable scriptural framework is itself verified by the criterion of recurrence. Building upon the description of the Isaianic gospel in Rom 1:16–17 as the revelation of God’s righteousness in his saving power, available to all, and appropriated through faith, Rom 3:21–26 further describes this manifestation of righteousness as that which accomplishes eschatological justification “through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (v. 24), whom God set forth as a propitiatory sacrifice (v. 25). This description, particularly as it is situated within its wider context in Romans, presents a unique combination of themes which is scripturally mirrored only in Isaiah 53, as situated within its wider context. The concept of “the messianic sacrifice” alone recalls Isaiah 53. The Messiah’s sacrifice for the sin of his people effecting both eschatological justification as well as redemption from captivity to sin and death (as

330

Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

set against an Isaianic backdrop) renders this background in Isaiah 53 virtually certain. Further, as in Isaiah 53, this messianic sacrifice in Rom 3:21–26, in effecting eschatological justification, is thus definitively identified as the antitypical sacrifice. Isaiah 53 is the only place in the OT where all of these themes come together, where the Messiah, veiled under the figure of the Servant of the Lord, is presented through sacrificial and cultic terminology as offering his life as a substitute to accomplish atonement, justification and thus the climactic redemption from the power of the curse and its tyranny of sin and death. This messianic sacrifice, then, as in Romans, is definitive and eschatological, and thus effects recreation. This unique combination and integration of terms and themes (or thematic clustering) in Romans, therefore, constitutes a clear allusion to Isaiah 53 and its wider context. Paul’s dependence upon apostolic tradition which is itself based upon Isaiah 53 strengthens this background further in terms of the criterion of Historical Plausibility. The criterion of recurrence has been mentioned above; but Paul’s explicit use of Isaiah as a source for the specific concepts of redemption and atonement (Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9) is another significant aspect of the confirmation of this allusion by means of this criterion. With respect to this more specific application of the criterion of recurrence, Paul’s use of Isaiah 59 in Romans 11 is extremely telling, for it is not only intertextually based in the Isaianic gospel (Rom 10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1) but its concepts of redemption and sacrificial atonement through the Redeemer himself necessarily relate intertextually to and so inform the messianic atonement and redemption in Rom 3:21–26. Reinforcing this close intertextual relationship even further is the fact that Isaiah 59 is quoted just a few verses before Rom 3:21 (Rom 3:15–17/Isa 59:7–8) to depict Israel’s plight in anticipation of the redemption disclosed in 3:21–26. This relation between Isaiah 53 and 59 in Romans, moreover, reflects the intertextual relation between these chapters within Isaiah itself, as setting forth the basis (Isaiah 53) and consummation (Isaiah 59) of eschatological redemption disclosed in Isaiah’s proclamation of good news. Bolstering the Isaianic background yet more (and blending somewhat the criterion for allusion based on volume in terms of thematic clustering with the criterion based on thematic coherence of the passage’s broader epistolary context) is Paul’s presentation of Christ’s sacrifice in Rom 3:21–26 as a fulfillment, not only of redemption from the typologically-conceived Babylonian captivity (Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5), but – in direct relation to that redemption – as a fulfillment of the sacrifices of the Passover, the Day of Atonement and the guilt offering. He draws these themes, moreover, from Isaianic quotations and allusions which are themselves both essentially related to Isaiah’s narrative of redemption and also intertextually related to (and so informing) Rom 3:21–26.

VI. Summary of Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 3:21–26

331

To put the matter a bit more concisely: in Rom 3:21–26 the proclamation of good news is the divine message which has as its content and is in itself the revelation of God’s long-promised eschatological righteousness in the atoning sacrifice of the Messiah, which achieves eschatological justification and redemption, and therefore becomes manifest as the antitypical sacrifice, the fulfillment of the sacrifices of the Passover, Day of Atonement and guilt offering, with this realized redemption appropriated solely through faith in that saving event disclosed in the proclamation – this is a unique combination and integration of themes which finds its source only in Isaiah. In terms of the relative significance of Paul’s use of Isaiah, the fact that this allusion in Rom 3:21–26 clearly ties in to Paul’s use of a demonstrable scriptural/theological framework – that of Isaiah’s redemptive narrative – combined with the immense theological weight of this biblical reference within its quoted context (as the scriptural complexion of this weighty text relates to the nature of the framework as a whole), leads to the firm conclusion that Paul’s primary scriptural framework in Rom 3:21–26 (as well as Romans 1–4 as a whole) is Isaiah’s redemptive narrative centering in the proclamation of good news. Rom 3:21–26, therefore, creates an antitypical nexus. In relation to its wider context, the passage reveals Paul’s understanding of the Isaianic gospel as the distillation of the prophetic promise in its many and various forms. As the climactic scriptural expression of the saving promise, the apostle views the numerous lines of this redemptive promise as powerfully merging and concentrating in Isaiah’s proclamation of good news, so that it becomes not only the fulfillment of all previous covenant expressions, but, again, the quintessential prophetic promise. The Isaianic gospel, therefore, is set forth in this epistle as the revelation of God’s righteousness, the fullest disclosure of his holy character.

Chapter Five

Conclusion It would prove helpful at this point to review the results of this thesis in terms of the recent proposals regarding Paul’s use of scripture and his primary scriptural background, as initially discussed in the introduction. 1 It will be remembered that Christopher Stanley, in Arguing with Scripture, has asserted that Paul’s quotations of scripture are primarily intended for rhetorical effect. With reference to rhetorical theory, he states, “. . . the meaning and/or effect of a quotation arises out of its secondary literary and rhetorical context, regardless of how this relates to the ‘original sense’ of the quoted passage.”2 But while Paul certainly evidences a powerful rhetorical use of scripture, as Stanley often demonstrates, it was argued above that Stanley’s rhetorical approach was insufficient to account for the reality of Paul’s own understanding of his apostolic authority and mission, and with that, the necessary canonical relation his epistles (expounding the gospel) bore to the scriptures of Israel. Therefore, while Stanley’s rhetorical approach can indeed shed light on certain aspects of Paul’s use of scripture, it is inadequate as an overarching methodological approach. It was further argued that while Paul’s discourse was certainly understandable on the rhetorical level, this by no means discounted a deeper understanding based upon the intertextual nature of Paul’s argument. In relation to this, Stanley’s case for a low level of reader-competence was countered by the portrayal of a Roman congregation whose close ties with the synagogue pointed to the likely existence of a competent core within a re-reading and teaching community focused on the study of scripture. Therefore, in light of both Paul’s own stated presuppositions, as well as a very plausible conception of the Romans’ reader-competence, the essential proposal of this thesis – that Paul is evoking a scriptural framework in Romans centering in Isaiah’s good news of redemption – legitimately presupposes an understanding of Paul as recalling through his scriptural references the wider narrative context of the prophecy. This presupposition (consistent with the view of many scholars that Paul’s quotations are situated within his broader conception of a narrative scriptural framework, and so draw upon 1 See the introductory section above, “Paul’s Recent Interpreters and the Challenge to an Isaianic Background.” 2 Arguing with Scripture, 21.

Chapter Five: Conclusion

333

their immediate and wider context) has been extensively tested in this thesis. It has been demonstrated that Paul, indeed, formulates his gospel in this opening section of Romans as based upon Isaiah’s narrative of the revelation of God’s redemptive righteousness in the proclamation of good news, the content of which is the atoning, sacrificial death of the Messiah as the antitypical fulfillment of Israel’s various redemptive types. Paul’s various citations of and allusions to Isaiah, moreover, were seen to be coherently plotted along this narrative, and consistently evidenced a significant thematic coherence with their given context. Stanley’s work brings an important question to the fore that is appropriately considered here at the conclusion, namely, what is the relationship between the role of quotations and allusions in Paul’s scriptural references. For example, Romans 9–11 contains approximately a dozen explicit quotations of Isaiah, whereas Romans 1–4 contains only two. How is this to be explained in light of this thesis’ argument for a predominantly and overarching Isaianic backdrop to these chapters? Paul’s primary use of allusion rather than quotation in this opening section of his epistle, as opposed to chapters 9–11, may perhaps be due to his specific evocative intent. Paul, in Rom 1:16–17 and 3:21–26, for example, employs a unique combination and integration of themes to evoke not only a larger scriptural context (as quotations certainly do), but certain interrelated aspects of that larger context, possibly in a way that could not be as effectively facilitated through quotation. In such cases, Paul’s clear quotations and allusions, and particularly his recognized allusion in Rom 4:25 which identifies Jesus Christ with the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 (it is Jesus who was “. . . delivered over because of our offenses . . .”), serve as crucial guides. To explain this a bit further, Rom 1:16–17 introduces the climactic revelation of God’s saving righteousness in the gospel in a manner analogous to Isaiah 40 (in its intertextual relations). In both Isaiah and Romans this proclamation of good news comes to a humanity captive in sin and condemned before God’s tribunal (Rom 1:18–3:20), a plight portrayed through Isaiah’s typology of captivity. Rom 3:21–26, then, similar to Isaiah 52–53, presents this unique, unexpected and initially disbelieved (Rom 3:3; 10:16/Isa 53:1) revelation of God’s righteousness in the sacrifice of the Messiah as the definitive redemptive event, the basis of eschatological justification as achieved through the antitypical sacrifice. This is a combination of themes that, particularly with reference to 1:16–17 and 3:21–26, would perhaps be difficult to evoke through quotation. (Even in the case of Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5, the quote only resonates the typology of Isaiah as Paul situates it within the larger allusive context of that section of Romans, as well as the larger context of the epistle.) It could well be, then, that Paul’s evocative intent determined which mode of scriptural reference was best suited to effectively and efficiently recall the specific

334

Chapter Five: Conclusion

blend and balance of scriptural truth he was bringing to bear upon his audience. The allusive density of Rom 3:21–26, after all, has often been noted. This thesis, therefore, confirms and reinforces much of the work of Richard Hays. As discussed in the introduction, his book Conversion of the Imagination demonstrates throughout its various chapters the nature of Paul’s quotations and allusions as evoking their wider, literary-theological contexts. But in one chapter specifically he reprises the subject of validating allusions with specific reference to Paul’s use of Isaiah. 3 This chapter helps to provide strong initial evidence for the apostle’s use of an Isaianic scriptural framework particularly by noting that the criterion of recurrence has relevance not only with reference to a single verse, but with reference to larger passages of scripture as well. He further asserts that in Romans the passage of primary importance is Isaiah 40–55, which, based upon the thematic coherence of Paul’s various references, evidences a “. . . coherent prophetic vision . . . [a] sustained and reflective patterned reading of a particular text . . .”4 This both supports and is confirmed by the present study. There are, however, considerable differences between Hays’ conception of the significance of Isaiah for Paul and the view that has been presented in this work. The differences, however, are primarily between Hays’ more general presentation, and the more specific, developed, and integrated position advocated here. Hays correctly perceives an overarching narrative – Israel’s disobedience has separated them from God; God has preserved a remnant; God’s present eschatological action calls for trust; Paul is called as an apostle to the nations; some refuse to believe; God will ultimately redeem Israel.5 He concludes, “The story [Paul] reads in the Isaiah scroll is closely constrained by Isaiah’s original plotline of Israel’s exile and restoration.”6 Yet, as this study has demonstrated, there is a crucial and central element missing from this plotline: the sacrifice of messianic Servant of the Lord. It is this central element that the apostle understands as the essential content of the “good news;” it therefore both develops and integrates each of the above themes (and several others), as well as provides the basis of various interrelated typologies. 7 3

See Hays, Conversion, 25–49. Ibid., 40. 5 Ibid., 45–47. 6 Ibid., 47. 7 As an extremely brief and suggestive example that contrasts Hays’ points with Paul’s understanding of the centrality of the Isaianic gospel as the message of God’s eschatological manifestation of his righteousness in the redemptive sacrifice of the messianic Servant of the Lord, the following may be noted. “Israel’s disobedience has separated them from God” is greatly underscored by Isaiah’s typology of captivity, which projects the ultimate plight upon the race, sources the plight in the fall, and creates the backdrop against which the definitive redemption through the Servant is to be understood. “God has preserved a remnant” is a prominent theme that is traced in Isaiah from the promise of Abraham to its 4

Chapter Five: Conclusion

335

Therefore, Hays’ understanding of Paul’s use of Isaiah is primarily ecclesiocentric.8 He states, “Paul’s primary interest in his actual use of Isaiah does not seem to be christological. Here, as elsewhere, his hermeneutic is ecclesiocentric.”9 This thesis, on the other hand, has presented a view of Paul’s use of Isaiah that is first and foremost christological and soteriological, with God acting through Christ to provide atonement, justification, and redemption for his people, scripturally foreshadowed in the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53. This is for Paul the sole basis of his ecclesiology, which he likewise derives from the Great Prophet. Hays’ position, therefore, in no way negates the one here presented. Rather, the view here proposed provides a crucial and immensely significant integrating center for the one espoused by Hays. The view of the present work, moreover, receives significant corroboration from scholars who recognize that “the servants of the Lord” in Isaiah derive their status and identity by virtue of their faith in the Servant of the Lord.10 A recent interpreter whose work, on the surface, appears to present a challenge to the proposal of a predominantly Isaianic background to Romans is Francis Watson. Watson’s work (Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith), however, as well as its major emphasis on the primary and generative role of Hab 2:4 for Romans 1–3, has been extensively discussed both in the “Introduction” and in the discussion of Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17 in chapter two of this work. A few comments, nevertheless, might be appropriate to wrap up the discussion. Watson’s proposal of an antithetical hermeneutic epitomized in Paul’s quotation of Hab 2:4 has much to commend it, and the text’s continuing influence upon the epistle is indeed evidenced in various antithetical constructions and echoes of the phrase “evk pi,stewj.” Yet this citation has also been shown to be situated within a larger scriptural framework centering in Isaiah’s proclamation of good news. In fact, Paul’s citation of Habakkuk ultimate identity in reference to the Servant of the Lord. “God’s present eschatological action calls for trust” is a theme that again comes to have reference to trust in God’s redemptive plan through the Servant. “Paul is called as an apostle to the nations” has direct reference to the commission to carry the “good news” of redemption, the content of which is the substitutionary sin-bearing sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord. “Some refuse to believe” is the obduracy motif that climaxes in Israel’s disbelief in God’s redemptive act through his Servant. “God will ultimately redeem Israel” is again based, both in Isaiah 52 and 59 (through intertextual connection), in the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53. 8 This also appears, on the surface, to be Hays understanding of Paul’s use of scripture as a whole (see Conversion, 6, 26, 43, 48; Echoes, 101–2), though he asserts the christological foundation for his ecclesiocentric view (Echoes, 120–21; Conversion, 186–87). See also The Faith of Jesus Christ, xxxviii, 193–209, 225–35. 9 Conversion, 48. 10 See the above discussion of Mark Gignilliat and Paul and Isaiah’s Servants, pp. 12– 13 and notes. See also pp. 78–79 and note 40.

336

Chapter Five: Conclusion

was seen to create a trajectory in the saving promise, a trajectory which pointed to the culmination of the saving promise in the Isaianic gospel. This was evident both in Hab 2:4’s own intertextual allusion to Gen 15:6, as well as in Paul’s intertextual “echoing” of Hab 2:4 in his various references to Gen 15:6 in Romans 4. In Romans 4, then, both the Abrahamic promise and its later expression in Habakkuk are brought by Paul to their full scriptural expression in the sacrifice of the Servant of Isaiah 53, as recounted through allusion in Rom 4:25. This salvation-historical development of the scriptural promise in Romans 1–4 is further confirmed through Paul’s explicit tracing of the redemptive promise from Abraham to Isaiah’s good news in Romans 9– 10. Paul uses Hab 2:4, then, to highlight a salvation-historical continuity in the saving promise (and its appropriation by faith), a trajectory that is brought to fulfillment in the redemptive narrative of Isaiah centering in the good news. Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17, therefore, is both situated within and points to a larger Isaianic redemptive-narrative framework. This Isaianic framework is evident in a series of strategically positioned passages that allusively recall the Isaianic gospel and the redemption achieved through the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord: 1:1–6, 16–17a; 3:21–26; 4:25. Within this outer framework, Rom 1:18–3:20 variously employs Isaiah’s typology to portray humanity as captive in sin and condemned before God’s tribunal, a portrayal preeminently expressed in Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5, as well as in Rom 3:15–17/Isa 59:7–8 within the catena, which also allude to and anticipate the Isaianic redemption through the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord/Jesus Christ in Rom 3:21–26. These relations (explained much more fully in the discussion of Hab 2:4 in chapter 2) demonstrate Paul’s use of a coherent scriptural narrative, a redemptive narrative based upon Isaiah’s proclamation of good news. The final work to be mentioned in this conclusion is N. T. Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Wright’s work is a substantial contribution to the understanding of Paul’s use of scripture, and has been thoroughly canvassed in the introduction with respect to the present thesis. There remains here only to echo some of my earlier comments in light of the completion of the argument of the thesis itself. Wright views Paul as dependant primarily upon the great scriptural narrative of Israel as derived from Deuteronomy 27–32 with its pattern of transgression, covenant-curse of exile, and ultimate restoration by God with its attendant circumcision of the heart. This narrative is very obviously central to Paul, as Wright so ably demonstrates. It is, however, in his view, a sub-plot within a larger, overarching story of God’s purposes for humanity within his creation. It is through the Israel-story that God would set both humanity (the first subplot) and therefore creation itself (the overarching plot) to rights. Yet this crucial sub-plot, the Israel-story, is a story that is in search of a resolution, for Israel’s role was itself derailed through sin and its subsequent cove-

Chapter Five: Conclusion

337

nant curse. It is therefore in the third sub-plot, the story of the Messiah, the faithful Israelite, that God’s redemptive purposes through Israel get put back on track. Jesus Christ lived the faithful covenant life that Israel was called to live, and then bore its curse, so that God’s promised covenant blessing could flow through the nation to the world, and thereby also reestablish God’s purposes for creation. Within this conceptual framework of promise and fulfillment based in Deuteronomy, however, a conspicuously large gap exists between the scriptural witness and the Christ event. Wright, indeed, attempts fill this gap through demonstrating how this Deuteronomic narrative was developed and expanded in the psalms and the prophets, particularly in relation to the messianic mediation of the covenant promises. And this he does somewhat. Nevertheless a significant gap still remains, exacerbated by the apparent disconnect between the death of the Messiah for the curse of Israel, and the world at large, itself languishing under the curse of sin. This gap is significantly filled in by Paul’s reading of Isaiah, with its comprehensive narrative of redemption centering in the proclamation of good news. This thesis has argued that Deuteronomy’s covenant framework, as understood in the larger context of the Pentateuch (particularly the Abrahamic promise [as itself essentially related to the Lord’s promise to Adam(ic humanity)]), is from Paul’s perspective taken up into and expanded by Isaiah’s grand and epic narrative of redemption. Paul views the prophet Isaiah as incorporating not only the deuteronomic story of covenant, curse, exile, and restoration, but the wider story it was intended to recall and reflect – creation, fall, and (messianic) promise, a promise coming to fulfillment in the good news of the redemptive sacrifice of the Servant and culminating in the recreation of the people of God in a new heavens and new earth (Isa 65:17; 66:22). All this is tersely expressed by the Lord to his Servant on the verge of the manifestation of his righteousness through the Servant’s sacrifice: “I have put My words in your mouth, and have covered you with the shadow of My hand, to establish the heavens, to found the earth, and to say to Zion, ‘You are My people’” (Isa 51:16). Isaiah’s narrative of redemption, moreover, particularly through its typology, clarifies that this definitive redemptive act directly addressed the plight of the world, a reality clearly reflected in Paul’s use of Isaiah’s typology to describe humanity as “under sin” (Rom 3:9) and redeemed through the Messiah’s sacrifice (Rom 3:21–26). Paul, therefore, employs Isaiah’s good news of the revelation of God’s righteousness in the sacrificial death of the Messiah as his primary scriptural hermeneutical key, a key that provides an integrating center for his other scriptural sources. Within this framework, for example, it’s good news is used to fulfill Deuteronomy’s covenant in relation to the law as both the answer to its curse and the fulfillment of its promise, as the Servant through his sinbearing sacrifice “justifies the many” (Isa 53:11), and in this redemptive

338

Chapter Five: Conclusion

recreation “establishes [them] in righteousness” (Isa 54:14). Again, for example, the prophetic types of the Passover/exodus and the Day of Atonement are brought to fulfillment in a unique and comprehensive theological framework centering in the “good news” of salvation through the redemption achieved by the sacrifice of the messianic servant of the Lord. These themes and a host of others (one is directed to the fuller discussion in the introduction) are effectively integrated through Paul’s hermeneutical key of the Isaianic gospel. But again, this more comprehensive scriptural backdrop in no way negates the framework presented by Wright, but, rather, completes it, and so brings the prophetic witness of scripture into closer proximity to the saving event which fulfills it, and thereby also creates a more thorough dynamic of mutual, canonical interpretation. There remains, then, to summarize the results of this study. I consider it necessary at this point to indulge in a bit of repetition, both in terms of aspects of the material presented in the various summary sections, as well as in terms of recapping the various Isaianic themes that appear in the successive sections of Romans. This is due to the need both to summarize the argument as a whole as well as to convey the interrelationships of the various recurring Isaianic themes both with respect to one another as well as with respect to Paul’s developing argument. Rom 1:1–6 presents a very condensed summary of the gospel that recalls various facets of the redemptive narrative of Isaiah. In these opening verses the gospel discloses the Messiah’s conquest of sin and death on behalf of his people, a distinctive conjunction of themes that points to its source in Isaiah. This linking of messianic and servant concepts, based in Isaiah’s high christology (as is evident through the passage’s intertextual connections to Paul’s other Isaianic allusions), becomes the basis of soteriology – Isaiah’s redemptive recreation. This good news of the messianic conquest of sin and death, moreover, forms the content and basis of the subsequent apostolic mission of proclamation, which role and mission Paul likewise conveys through allusion to Isaiah. Taken together, these Isaianic references reveal an integrated set of themes that uniquely reflect Isaiah and its larger redemptive narrative. As the opening verses of the epistle, this passage’s portrayal of the nature of the gospel is vitally related to its continued exposition throughout the letter. This vital relation is seen most notably in the passage’s intertextual relation to the Isaianic allusion in Rom 4:25. These two texts share the theme of resurrection as emblematic of the messianic conquest over sin and death, an intertextual link that forms an Isaianic bracket around the first major section of the epistle, and further links with the theme of the glorification of believers in Romans 8 as similarly situated within an Isaianic context. Rom 1:1–6, therefore, introduces and augments the Isaianic nature of the gospel as more thoroughly described in Rom 1:16–17, emphasizing the essential union between the realized and consummated forms of the messianic salvation.

Chapter Five: Conclusion

339

In the thematic verses of the epistle (more specifically 1:16–17a), the gospel is the central feature of a cluster of themes that together constitute an allusion to Isaiah 40–55. This complex allusion focuses on Isaiah’s good news as the basis of eschatological vindication. The Isaianic gospel as reflected in the thematic verses is God’s redemptive/saving power, available to all, and is the eschatological manifestation of his saving righteousness. Within the context of Isaiah, this proclamation of good news is the message of the revelation of God’s eschatological righteousness specifically in the redemption accomplished by the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord (a redemption first appropriated through faith and then consummated in resurrection and return to the glory of God). This realized redemptive act disclosed in the Isaianic gospel is, in Paul’s understanding, the fullness of the scriptures saving promise. This unique and central role of Isaiah’s good news is verified by the Habakkuk citation, which bears witness to the scriptural promise in the Isaianic gospel through allusively highlighting the continuity in both the saving promise and its appropriation throughout salvation-history, as well as through intertextually pointing to its fulfillment in relation to Isaiah’s Servant of the Lord (Rom 4:25; see Appendix). Rom 1:16–17a fulfills the criteria for an allusion first and foremost in terms of volume, with the sheer number of its clustered themes that are not only exclusively found in Isaiah 40–55, but within Isaiah 40–55 are vitally integrated with the proclamation of good news. This allusion is rendered even more certain through the criteria of both recurrence – as the various terms and concepts are subsequently drawn from explicit quotations to Isaiah – and thematic coherence. With reference to the relative priority of Isaiah, the fact that this allusion predominantly constitutes the thematic verses of the epistle points to a central role for Isaiah within Paul’s scriptural exposition. Rom 1:16–17a, then, is a vital element in a redemptive-narrative framework that centers in Isaiah’s messianic sacrifice for sin, which surfaces explicitly in Rom 3:21–26 – the two passages being intertextually linked through the theme of the manifestation of God’s righteousness. Paul sets the stage for this Isaianic redemption through an Isaianically conceived plight in Rom 1:18–3:20, in which he presents humanity as captive and condemned in anticipation of God’s redemptive righteousness in the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord/Jesus Christ. Central to Paul’s conception of this plight is his quotation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24. This quotation forms an important climax in Paul’s argument up to this point in his epistle, and its typological nature within that climax as depicting covenant transgression with its resulting captivity to sin (as a portent of eschatological death) demonstrates its crucial role within and influence upon Rom 1:18–3:20 as a whole. For example, the typology inherent in the quotation within its wider Isaianic context echoes intertextually in the thematic movements of Rom 1:18–32 (which contains its own allusions to this typology), in which the sin

340

Chapter Five: Conclusion

and captivity of Israel reiterate the fall and serve as a type of fallen humanity. Anticipating the continuing movement of the argument toward Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5, Rom 1:23 alludes to Isaiah 40 to convey the idolatrous exchange that is characteristic of fallen humanity in its captivity to sin and corruption – the exchange of the glory of the incorruptible God for the worship of corruptible man. This idolatrous exchange begun at creation aligns Adam’s transgression, Israel’s covenant breach, and the idolatry ubiquitously characteristic of humanity, and so presents Israel as a type that projects upon the world the reality of its plight in Adam, captive to sin and death. Following Isaiah, and in keeping with this typology, Paul thus places the world in a universal covenant context that comes to full typological expression in Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5. Both Romans and Isaiah use this typologically-portrayed plight as a prelude to the proclamation of good news, hinted at powerfully in this section of Romans through God’s handing over of Israel/humanity (1:24, 26, 28), which ultimately becomes his handing over of the Messiah to redeem his people through the Messiah’s sacrifice for sin (Rom 4:25; 8:32/Isa 53:6; see Appendix). This intertextual relation within Romans confirms the Isaianic background of covenant captivity in Romans 1, particularly as it stands in relation to Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5, and points to the nature of both as deliberately employed to anticipate the messianic redemption. In keeping with Paul’s emphasis on salvation-historical continuity in the opening section of his epistle, Romans 2 presents a “layered reading” of the human plight based in large part upon this Isaianic typology of captivity, a typology thoroughly incorporated into this second chapter. This typology in chapter two, however, conveys not only a solidarity of plight but also a continuity in promise, which in both respects point to the climax of redemption in Isaiah’s “good news.” This “layered reading” is achieved in part through the role of Rom 2:1 in uniting the typology of Romans 1 with its preeminent expression in Rom 2:24, thus recalling God’s act of giving over humanity to the power of sin and death as both a reflection of the fall and as typologically portrayed in the covenant breach and captivity of Israel. Further, Rom 2:1ff brings to the forefront Isaiah’s trial motif and links it to this typology of captivity, as the world-captives are ushered into the divine court. The chapter, therefore, aligns the revelatory forensic confrontation of moral law, Mosaic law and gospel (reinforced by the divine act of “giving over”), and so also aligns the repentant/faith response called for in general revelation, Deuteronomy’s covenant context, and the Isaianic good news. This bringing together of the two revelatory aspects of judgment and promise reach their eschatological climax in the Isaianic Servant, as one who was “. . . delivered up (paradi,wmi; cf. Rom 1:24, 26, 28 [“to give over”]; 4:25; 8:32) because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification” (Rom 4:25; see Appendix).

Chapter Five: Conclusion

341

Rom 2:1–4, moreover, as it stands in relation to Rom 2:16 (and augmented by Isaianic allusions in the intervening verses), very likely reflects an allusion to Isaiah 45 and its larger context. In Isaiah 45 the world-captives are again brought to trial. Here the universal call to repentance within the conceptual state of curse and exile (as Israel’s captivity typologically portrays the plight of the world), with its prospect of justification for the repentant (Isa 45:25), melds with an acceptance of God’s redemptive plan through the Servant of the Lord as encapsulated in the proclamation of good news, a proclamation which discloses the basis of eschatological vindication. Similarly in Romans 2, the repentance called for (Rom 2:1–4) and the justification granted in the eschatological judgment to a captive and condemned humanity within the trial motif (Rom 2:13) is mediated through Christ Jesus “according to [the] gospel” (Rom 2:16), so that it is ultimately based in the sacrifice of the Isaianic Servant of the Lord/Jesus Christ (Isa 53:11; Rom 2:16; 3:21–26). This “layered reading,” therefore, is facilitated in large measure by Isaiah’s typology, which comes to climactic expression in Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5. Negatively, the typology’s covenant context of transgression with its consequent curse and captivity reiterates the fall and portrays the plight of humanity in its guilt before God and its captivity to sin and death. Therefore, positively, the typology sets the backdrop not simply for the repentance advocated in Rom 2:4, but to the faith-embrace of the eschatological redemption disclosed in the sacrificial death, burial, and resurrection of the Messiah – the Isaianic good news (Rom 1:1–6, 16–17a; 2:16; 3:21–26; 4:25). In Romans chapter 2, therefore, Deuteronomy’s covenant scenario of sin-exile-restoration marked by the circumcision of the heart is taken up and incorporated into the account of the Servant of the Lord and the larger Isaianic narrative framework of redemptive recreation through the messianic sacrifice. The repentance and circumcision of the heart called for in Deuteronomy, then, with the dawning of the new era of salvation-history, comes to be expressed as faith in the gospel. Paul’s use of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24, therefore, plays a leading role among Paul’s scriptural sources in Rom 1:18–3:20. Paul’s strategic positioning of the quotation forms a significant climax (if not the climax) of Paul’s “inner argument.” It’s vital, intertextual relation to its larger context is evident in a variety of ways, from its relation to the “giving over” of humanity into the power of sin in Romans 1 (vv. 24, 26, 28) as fulfilled in the “giving over” of the Servant (Rom 3:21–26; 4:25), to its essential connection with the “captives brought to trial” in Rom 2:1–4, to Paul’s characterization of Rom 1:18– 3:8 (Rom 3:9) as a description of Jew and Gentile being “under sin.” The dual contextual nature of Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5 within this contextual climax in both typologically portraying the human plight, and through that typology anticipating the messianic redemption, links to Paul’s use of Isaiah’s larger redemptive narrative (1:1–6, 16–17; 2:16; 3:21–26; 4:25), so that the quotation

342

Chapter Five: Conclusion

plays a key role in evoking an Isaianic framework for Romans 1–4 as a whole. In light of the continuity in the saving promise conveyed largely through Isaiah’s typology, the promise of restoration through the divine circumcision of the heart in Rom 2:25–29 may be appropriated only by a repentance that aligns itself with the response of faith in the gospel (Rom 2:16, 24). In anticipation of the revelation of God’s righteousness in the gospel, Rom 3:1–4 clarifies and emphasizes the posture of appropriation. Paul re-evokes the universal plight (Rom 3:4, “every man a liar”), but does so preeminently through the predicament of David. David’s absolute and helpless guilt, and therefore also his sole dependence upon covenant grace, becomes the pattern of appropriation. Yet David’s plight points to God’s faithfulness to bring his saving purposes to pass in spite of (and even through) the sin of his people. God sovereignly superintends, through the sin and unbelief of his people, to manifest his righteousness both in the saving event disclosed in the gospel, as well as in its ultimate appropriation by Israel, with both aspects communicated largely through Isaiah. Romans 3:9–20, then, is a powerful declaration and reiteration, primarily scriptural, of man’s plight before God as captive in sin and condemned before God’s judgment – prominent dual motifs in the redemptive narrative of Isaiah 40–55. These dual motifs of “captive” and “condemned” are explicitly and respectively articulated in the verses that introduce and conclude the catena – Rom 3:9 and Rom 3:19–20 – passages which derive these themes in whole or in part from their allusions to Isaiah. Rom 3:9 reasserts what Rom 1:18–3:8 was intended to demonstrate, that all people are “under sin.” This phrase alludes to the concept of captivity to sin in Isaiah 40–55, and points to the overarching significance of both the theme itself (as derived from Isaiah) as well as Paul’s quotation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24. But Rom 3:9 also introduces a catena of verses that further demonstrate this reality, and in which the quotation of Isaiah 59 plays a crucial role. Paul’s use of Isaiah 59 within this string of verses ties in with his use of Isaiah’s typology throughout the section and presents Israel’s captivity to sin as representative of humanity. But Paul’s quotation of Isaiah 59 also alludes to the Isaianic way of peace, the redemptive path of the new exodus. This is significant, for it anticipates the redemption soon to be disclosed in Rom 3:21–26. This unique relevance of Paul’s quotation of Isaiah within the catena in terms of pointing to plight as well as solution is evident in Paul’s continuing use of this very text to portray Israel’s ultimate redemption through atonement in Romans 11, an atonement which, intertextually, finds its basis in the Isaianic redemptive sacrifice of the Messiah in Rom 3:21–26. The concluding verses, Rom 3:19–20, focus on the theme of helpless guilt before God’s tribunal. In Rom 3:19 the allusions to Psalms 63 and 107 reinforce the primarily Isaianic depiction of the “world trial,” with humanity’s

Chapter Five: Conclusion

343

silent guilt before God’s law and inexcusable accountability in judgment. This concept of the “shutting of the mouth,” moreover, quite possibly evokes the transition in Isaiah’s narrative from humanity’s silent guilt to the Servant’s role in taking this guilt, with the result that “He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth” (Isa 53:7). Rom 3:20, then, contains a combined allusion to Isa 40:6 and Ps 143:2, as the Isaianic “flesh” motif is injected into the Psalm to emphasize the impossibility of fallen humanity doing that which essentially reflects the nature and character of God. Rom 1:18–3:20 as a whole, therefore, demonstrates a high degree of thematic development reflecting Isaiah’s larger redemptive-narrative context. The deuteronomic curse of captivity is taken up into a larger typological portrayal of humanity and set within a pre-eschatological trial scenario, so that humanity is portrayed as captive to sin and death, and condemned before God’s tribunal. It is this Isaianic backdrop of despair that serves as a prelude to the Isaianic depiction of God’s redemptive righteousness in the gospel. Set against this dark backdrop of Isaiah’s typological portrait of humanity’s captivity to sin and condemnation before God’s tribunal, Rom 3:21–26, then, recounts the long-awaited revelation of the eschatological righteousness of God as disclosed in Isaiah’s good news. In this passage Paul’s use of Isaiah’s redemptive narrative continues, answering the Isaianic typological portrait of humanity’s condemnation before God’s tribunal and captivity to sin and death with the promised eschatological justification and redemption based in the Servant’s sacrifice. This relationship is evidence of Paul’s use of a demonstrable theological framework based in the broad scope of prophecy’s redemptive narrative. It bears repeating that Paul’s dependence on Isaiah’s narrative of redemption seems particularly warranted in light of Paul’s quotations of Isa 52:5 (Rom 2:24) and 59:7–8 (Rom 3:15–17), which help typologically set the stage for the redemption about to be recounted in Rom 3:21–26, particularly in light of his use of these same passages later in the epistle to set forth both the basis (Rom 10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1) and event (Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20– 21; 27:9) of Israel’s redemption. These facts strongly suggest that Paul’s principle use of Isaiah’s narrative of redemption extends to the epistle as a whole. Therefore, Paul’s use of Rom 3:21–26 within a demonstrable scriptural framework is itself verified by the criterion of recurrence. Building upon the description of the Isaianic gospel in Rom 1:16–17 as the revelation of God’s righteousness in his saving power, available to all, and appropriated through faith, Rom 3:21–26 further describes this manifestation of righteousness as that which accomplishes eschatological justification “through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (v. 24), whom God set forth as a propitiatory sacrifice (v. 25). This description, particularly as it is

344

Chapter Five: Conclusion

situated within its wider context in Romans, presents a unique combination of themes which is scripturally mirrored only in Isaiah 53, as situated within its wider context. The concept of “the messianic sacrifice” alone recalls Isaiah 53. The Messiah’s sacrifice for the sin of his people effecting both eschatological justification as well as redemption from captivity to sin and death (as set against an Isaianic backdrop) renders this background in Isaiah 53 virtually certain. Further, as in Isaiah 53, this messianic sacrifice in Rom 3:21–26, in effecting eschatological justification, is thus definitively identified as the antitypical sacrifice. Isaiah 53 is the only place in the OT where all of these themes come together, where the Messiah, veiled under the figure of the Servant of the Lord, is presented through sacrificial and cultic terminology as offering his life as a substitute to accomplish atonement, justification and thus the climactic redemption from the power of the curse and the tyranny of sin and death. This messianic sacrifice, as in Romans, then, is definitive and eschatological, and thus effects recreation. This unique combination and integration of terms and themes (or thematic clustering) in Romans, therefore, constitutes a clear allusion to Isaiah 53 and its wider context. Further, Paul presents Christ’s sacrifice in Rom 3:21–26 as a fulfillment, not only of redemption from the typologically-conceived Babylonian captivity in Isaiah (Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5), but – in direct relation to that Isaianic redemption – as a fulfillment of the sacrifices of the Passover, the Day of Atonement and the guilt offering. He draws these themes, moreover, from other Isaianic quotations and allusions which are themselves both essentially related to Isaiah’s narrative of redemption and also intertextually related to (and so informing) Rom 3:21–26. As stated above, in Rom 3:21–26 the proclamation of good news is the divine message which has as its content and is in itself the revelation of God’s long-promised eschatological righteousness in the atoning sacrifice of the Messiah, which achieves eschatological justification and redemption, and therefore becomes manifest as the antitypical sacrifice, the fulfillment of the sacrifices of the Passover, Day of Atonement and guilt offering, with this realized redemption appropriated solely through faith in that saving event disclosed in the proclamation – this is a unique combination and integration of themes which finds its source only in Isaiah. Therefore, Paul employs in Romans a scriptural narrative framework centering in Isaiah’s proclamation of good news. This narrative framework spans the entire first section of the epistle (chapters 1–4), from its opening verses to the final allusion to Isaiah in Rom 4:25, and thus warrants a brief summary at this point. Paul creates this Isaianic scriptural framework by means of a network of textual links, informed by a typology of plight and promise, that together point to the antitypical resolution of humanity’s plight in Isaiah’s depiction of the Messiah’s sacrifice for sin as the basis of redemptive recreation. The outer elements in this scriptural framework are connected through

Chapter Five: Conclusion

345

the themes of the good news of the Messiah’s conquest of sin and death in behalf of his people by virtue of his resurrection (Rom 1:1–4). This good news, “promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures” (Rom 1:2), comes to its scriptural expression through the allusion to the resurrection of Jesus as the messianic Servant of Isaiah 53 in the final verse of the section, Rom 4:25. The Isaianic nature of the gospel in the introductory verses, therefore, is confirmed by and creates an overarching Isaianic framework through its intertextual connection with its scriptural expression in 4:25. The connection between the outer elements of this framework is then reinforced through a series of intervening and interlocking texts. The gospel introduced in the opening verses is further developed in Rom 1:16–17a, which is itself a complex allusion to Isaiah’s good news as the central element in the redemptive narrative of Isaiah 40–55. The gospel, described in Rom 1:17 as the “revelation of God’s righteousness,” is then subsequently reintroduced under this heading in Rom 3:21 (“But now . . . the righteousness of God has been manifested . . .”) and brought to full expression in the following verses (Rom 3:21–26). In this passage the Messiah, in fulfillment of Israel’s scriptures, dies as the antitypical sacrifice for sin (linking intertextually with Rom 1:1–6), and thereby provides the basis of justification for all who believe. This unique combination of themes in Rom 3:21–26 as constituting an allusion to the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53 is then recalled in Rom 4:25, as the section climaxes with a final allusion to Isaiah 53 in the description of Jesus as one who “. . . was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification,” thus binding together the Isaianic motifs of eschatological judgment and salvation within the section as a whole. Within this allusive network of texts that recall and develop the Isaianic gospel, Paul strategically employs two explicit quotations from Isaiah to depict, through the typology of Israel, the essential plight of humanity as captive in sin and condemned before God (Isa 52:5/Rom 2:24; Isa 59:7– 8/Rom 3:15–17), a plight which characterizes Rom 1:18–3:20 as a whole (Rom 3:9, 19–20). But this Isaianic typology of plight is also used to allude to and so anticipate its Isaianic resolution in its counter-poised redemption and justification achieved through the messianic sacrifice (Rom 3:21–26). And further still, these Isaianic citations (and allusions) are employed to join Isaiah’s redemptive narrative in the first section of the epistle to the subsequent sections, creating an overarching Isaianic narrative framework for the epistle as a whole. Concerning this Isaianic framework throughout the epistle as a whole, only the barest sketch is possible here. In Romans 5–8, the initial verses of the new section carry over the concepts of justification and its resulting eschatological life from the Isaianic allusion in 4:25, as Isaiah’s new exodus narrative of redemption, with its return to (/hope of) glory, becomes the dominant and

346

Chapter Five: Conclusion

framing theme, and therefore the basis of present sanctification. This “framing” characteristic is evident in the relation between the hope of glory which opens the section (Rom 5:1–5), and the identical theme in Rom 8:16–25, specifically as that latter text is situated within the allusions to Isaiah’s sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord (Rom 8:3, [28–30,] 31–34; see Appendix). Reflecting Isaiah, this sacrifice is portrayed as the fulfillment of the typologically conceived exodus narrative, to which the passage also alludes (e.g., Rom 8:1–4, 14–17; cf. Rom 6:1ff), as covenant sons, having been set free from their slavery to sin, follow the leading of the indwelling Spirit and so tread the redemptive path to the full glory of their promised inheritance. But the clearest example of the manner in which the Isaianic framework of the opening section of the epistle is tied into the subsequent sections is seen in the intertextual relation Paul creates between Romans 1–4 and 9–11 by means of his two quotations of Isaiah. As mentioned earlier, Paul employs his quotations of Isaiah chapters 52 and 59 in Romans 2 and 3 (respectively: Isa 52:5/Rom 2:24; Isa 59:7–8/Rom 3:15–17) first to depict Israel and humanity’s plight, and then uses these same chapters of Isaiah in Romans 10 and 11 (respectively: Isa 52:7; [53:1/Rom 10:15–16;] Isa 59:20–21/Rom 11:26–27) to depict the solution to this plight in divine redemption. The fact that Paul quotes these same chapters of Isaiah to portray both plight and solution within the broader theological argument of Romans strongly suggests that he conceived of them as reflecting a crucial and coherent redemptive narrative, a narrative, therefore, which remains prominent throughout his larger argument. In these chapters Paul traces the redemptive promise to its full scriptural expression in the Isaianic gospel as the basis of Israel’s ultimate redemption. Additionally, then, the redemption disclosed and offered in the Isaianic good news in Romans 10 becomes the basis of Israel’s actualized redemption in Romans 11, with the Isaianic redeemer who takes away Israel’s sin (Rom 11:26–27) anchored intertextually in the Messiah’s propitiatory sacrifice as expressed in Rom 3:21–26 (as Isaiah 59 is itself anchored intertextually in Isaiah 53). The final section of the epistle (chapters 12–16), like chapters 5–8, focus on the realized nature of this Isaianic redemption, which, e.g., becomes the basis of the formation of God’s holy eschatological people after the pattern of the Servant’s sacrifice (Rom 12:1–2). This sacrifice, moreover, forms the content of the apostolic proclamation of the Isaianic good news of redemption (Rom 15:20–24 [Rom 15:21/Isa 52:15]). Thus, the Isaianic framework in Romans 1–4 is integrally related to a much larger and overarching theological framework for the epistle as a whole. To summarize this work more generally, then, Rom 1:1–6, 16–17, the introductory and thematic verses of the epistle, respectively, present a rich, theological matrix reflecting and centering in Isaiah’s proclamation of good news. Together with Rom 3:21–26 they create an Isaianic frame for 1:18–

Chapter Five: Conclusion

347

3:20, a frame which emphasizes the revelation of God’s righteousness in the sacrifice of the Servant as the content of this gospel. This Isaianic frame informs the salvation-historical perspective of 1:18–3:20, which, by means of the typology of Isaiah, conveys a fundamental consonance in sin and plight, revelation and redemption. Romans 1:18–3:20, therefore, depicts both a continuity and equality in the affairs of man with regard to God across the salvation-historical continuum, both in judgment and salvation, a continuity that serves as a prelude to its fulfillment in the gospel. Through allusion it retraces indelibly the fall of Adam upon the humanity that issues from him, so that both Gentile and Jew alike in their corporate and individual existence stand condemned and captive in their sin, helpless before the divine bar of justice, and under the sentence of death. Creation, divine disclosure, and conscience point God’s law to which all are accountable, and echo unanimous witness to the inescapable guilt of humanity’s fundamental sin – a refusal to render due honor and thanks to the One true God, and in that refusal an exchanging of creature for Creator.11 Humanity’s rejection of God results in a divine “handing over,” a captivity to sin that confirms guilt and in warning echoes back the impending verdict from the final judgment. The salvation-historical continuity in 1:18–3:20 is highlighted by this emphasis on divine law, which, while either issued through general revelation and universally applicable (Rom 1:18–25, 28, 32; 2:1–3), or issued through special revelation with particular reference to the Jew (Rom 2:17–24), results in sin, condemnation, and judgment. As mentioned, the divine judgment or wrath manifests itself initially in a further revelatory act, a divine “giving over” into the power of sin (Rom 1:24, 26, 28; 2:24; 3:9, 15–17) – a captivity designed to more fully disclose humanity’s plight as against the coming judgement. This divine wrath in “giving over” humanity, then, eventuates in “the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God” (Rom 2:5), so that this ultimate scenario is similarly forewarned and typologically echoed in the tragic consequences of both Adam and Israel’s sin, with its expulsion and death. It is through this parallelism between Adam, Israel, and humanity that Paul places the covenant people in a thoroughly biblical, rather than Jewish light, that is, not as exclusively privileged humanity, but as typical humanity chosen to mediate the knowledge of God to the world. This condemnation and captivity before God and his law, therefore, cannot be divorced from the law’s divinely intended revelatory and scriptural context 11

This refusal to live in humble and grateful dependence upon the Creator is essentially a refusal to exercise faith and to render that obedience which necessarily issues from it – the “obedience of faith” (Rom 1:5; 16:26). Davies (Faith, 26ff) argues for genitive of origin for the phrase “obedience of faith” in Rom 1:5 and 16:26, and states, “For the fulfillment of God’s promises with respect to his gospel is to bring about the obedience of faith among all peoples” (24).

348

Chapter Five: Conclusion

of promise, for its purpose is to reveal both the absolute need for as well as the provision of mercy and grace in divine judgment, a mercy and grace that is acquired only through repentance and the laying hold by faith of God’s saving [covenant] promise. This promise nature under law is implicit in the divine kindness, forbearance, and patience which, in light of the guilt and captivity that portends eschatological judgment, is designed to lead one to repentance. But this promise stands implicit in the law itself as revealing God’s intention to refashion his fallen creatures after his moral likeness, and so fulfill the “obedience of faith” (Rom 1:5; 16:26), a principle goal of redemption, marking the recreation of man to accomplish in Christ what he failed in Adam. Paul presents a salvation-historical continuity in the relation of these concepts that culminates in the gospel, a continuity that is emphasized in this section of his epistle not simply by his words, but much more by allusion and typology. This sense of continuity is derived from many scriptural sources but is uniquely integrated by Paul’s understanding of the prophecy of Isaiah. Paul’s allusions to Genesis and the narrative of the fall (e.g., Rom 1:23; 3:23), his allusions to the commandments and the curse of captivity from Exodus and Deuteronomy (Rom 1:23–24, 26, 28; 2:21–22, 25–29), and his emphasis on man’s accountability and guilt before the eschatological judgment drawn primarily from the Psalms (e.g., Rom 2:6/Ps 62:12; Rom 3:4/Ps 51:4; etc.) – together with their wider contexts of covenant promise – are all taken up in the redemptive narrative of Isaiah. In chapters 40–55 of the prophecy the typological nature of Israel as representative of Adamic humanity in its sin, captivity and death, is a prominent feature which is reflected throughout this section of Romans, particularly in Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5. This typology of captivity, moreover, is augmented by the equally prominent Isaianic courtroom motif in which Israel and the nations, the world-captives, stand silent in their guilt before the divine tribunal. The typology in Isaiah extends, then, to the relation between Adam’s sin, Israel’s breaking of the Mosaic covenant, and humanity’s breaking of the eternal covenant and divine laws. This relation is reflected in Paul’s depiction of the continuity between Adam, Israel and humanity; between Adamic law, Mosaic law and natural law, the breaking of which brings captivity, judgment, and death. But Paul, following Isaiah, uses this typology not simply to disclose the human plight, but – as anticipated throughout salvation-history in repentance before divine law/faith in the covenant promise – to provide the essential backdrop for the invitation to enter by faith into the justification and redemption similarly portrayed by the typology and fulfilled in the intercession and vindication of the Suffering Servant. In this Isaianic narrative, therefore, Israel is also typical of redeemed humanity so that the covenant promises to Israel stem from the Lord’s purposes that in Israel “all the families of the

Chapter Five: Conclusion

349

earth shall be blessed.” 12 Paul, in line with Isaiah, views the redemption of Israel as typical of the world-wide redemptive act accomplished through the Servant, and similarly frames this redemption in terms of the new creation, deliberately recalling the creation of Adam, and signifying redemption’s universal nature. In Isaiah, uniquely, the storyline continues via the typology, culminating in the good news of redemption. Therefore this Adamic solidarity in sin and judgment that spans salvation-history has its counterpart in the solidarity of the second Adam (Rom 5:12–21), which likewise spans salvation history (e.g., Rom 1:17; 4:1–25; 11:35) but is uniquely revealed in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Though the apostle uses many scriptural sources both directly and indirectly to establish this continuity in judgment and redemption, the various Isaianic themes quoted or alluded to in this section of Romans provide a cohesive and coherent redemptive narrative within which these many scriptural elements are integrated. So while Paul’s scriptural mosaic in [this section of] Romans is not purely Isaianic, the Isaianic redemptive narrative appears to be the central motif around which the others cohere as Paul continues to develop his presentation of the gospel in this epistle. In Isaiah, then, the themes of captivity and condemnation become the prelude to the revelation of God’s saving righteousness in the redemption and justification secured by the self-sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord. This vicarious death of the righteous Servant is shown to be the definitive, antitypical sacrifice by forming the sole basis of eschatological justification, thus bringing to fulfillment Israel’s many sacrificial and redemptive types and covenant expressions. This antitypical sacrifice of the Isaianic Servant of the Lord, as the manifestation of God’s redemptive righteousness, comes to clear scriptural expression in Rom 3:21–26, which thus forms an antitypical nexus. As set within its wider context, the passage reveals Paul’s understanding of Isaiah’s good news as the distillation of scripture’s promise of salvation. As the climactic scriptural expression of God’s saving promise, the apostle views the numerous lines of this redemptive promise as powerfully merging and concentrating in the Isaianic gospel. In Paul’s reading of Isaiah, then, the “good news” is the proclamation of the reign of God evidenced and established by his ultimate redemptive act of delivering his people from the power of sin and death, typified in the Egyptian and Babylonian deliverances, as well as in the highly significant and representative sacrifices of the sin and guilt offerings and the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement in the Jubilee year. This definitive redemptive act comes to full scriptural expression in the atonement, justification and glorification achieved by the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord as the fulfillment of God’s saving, covenant promise in its many and various forms. This redemp12

Cf., e.g., Gen 12:3; Isa 51:1–3; Rom 1:16; 2:4–11; 3:21–24; 4:9–18; etc.

350

Chapter Five: Conclusion

tion, according to Paul, is the climactic act ultimately heralded in Isa 52:7 (so also Isa 40:9; 60:6; 61:1). Paul, therefore, understands this redemptive narrative centering in the proclamation of good news as a comprehensive and integrating theological framework, and so employs that great prophetic text as his primary scriptural source for understanding and explicating the gospel he so passionately proclaims in Romans. The extensive continuity in both judgment and salvation variously rehearsed in Isaiah, then, particularly in its typology, prepares and points to the fullness of the saving promise and the supreme revelation of God’s saving righteousness in the prophecy’s “proclamation of good news,” fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Appendix The following chart collates the conclusions of 5 scholars regarding Paul’s quotations and allusions to Isaiah in Romans: Ellis (Paul’s Use of the Old Testament), Shum (Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans), Stanley (Paul and the Language of Scripture), Wagner (Heralds of the Good News), Wilk (Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus). (See bibliography for full source details.) Stanley treats only quotations, not allusions. ? = The given author views the quotation or allusion as a possibility, or less certain (though for the sake of clarity the question marks do not appear within the text of the thesis). Romans Isaianic Quotation Isaianic Allusion 2:9 8:22 (Ellis?) 2:24 52:5 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner, Wilk) 3:15–17 59:7–8 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner, Wilk) 3:29–30 45:21–22 (Shum) 4:25 53:12 (Wilk) 53:4–5, 12 (Ellis) 53:6, 11–12 (Shum, Wagner) 5:1 32:17 (Shum) 5:6, 8b 53:8 (Shum) 5:19b 53:11 (Shum) 8:3 53:10 (Ellis?) 8:31b 50:8–9 (Shum) 8:32 53:6 (Shum, Wagner?, Wilk) 53:11–12 (Wagner?) 8:33–34 50:8 (Wagner) 50:8–9 (Ellis, Shum, Wilk) 8:34 53:12 (Ellis) 9:6 40:7–8 (Wagner?, Wilk1) 1

Wilk’s reference states “40:7ff.”

352

Appendix 29:16 / 45:9 (Ellis, Wilk) 29:16 / 45:9 (Shum, Wagner2)

9:20 9:20–21 9:27–28 9:28 9:29 9:30 9:30–31

10:22–23 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner, Wilk) 28:22 (Shum, Wagner3) 1:9 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner, Wilk)

9:33 10:11 10:12 10:15 10:16 10:19 10:20–21 11:5

8:14/28:16 (Ellis, Shum,4 Stanley, Wagner, Wilk) 28:16 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner, Wilk)

11:8 11:26a 11:26–27

29:10 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner, Wilk)

11:34

59:9 (Wilk) 51:1 (Wagner?, Wilk)

45:21–22 (Shum) 52:7 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner, Wilk) 53:1 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner, Wilk) 1:3 (Wilk) 65:1–2 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner, Wilk)

59:20–21; 27:9 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner, Wilk) 40:13 (Ellis, Wilk)

13:11 14:11 14:21 15:12 15:21

Isaianic remnant motif (Shum) 6:9–10 (Wagner) 45:17 (Wilk)

40:13 (Shum, Wagner) 56:1 (Wagner?, Wilk)

45:23 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner, Wilk) 49:18 (Ellis) 22:13 (Wilk) 11:10 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner, Wilk) 52:15 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner, Wilk)

2 Though Wagner’s chart of citations and allusions (342, Heralds) cites only Romans 9:20 as alluding to Isaiah 29:16 and 45:9, his discussion on 58–59 indicates that he includes Paul’s reference to the potter and the clay in verse 21 to be part of the allusion. 3 For a clarification of Wagner’s chart, see Heralds, Figure 2.7, 95. 4 Shum includes 9:32c.

Bibliography I. Primary Sources Chilton, Bruce D., trans. The Isaiah Targum. ArBib 11. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1987. Ellinger, K. and W. Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984. The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha. New York/Glasgow/London/ Toronto/Sydney/Auckland: Collins, 1973. Martínez, F. García, and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997–98. Nestle, E., E. Nestle, K. Aland, B. Aland, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 199327. The New American Standard Bible. La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1977. Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes, 2 vols. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Vol. I, Genesis. Ed. J. W. Wevers, 1974. Vol. II, 1 Exodus. Eds. J. W. Wevers and U. Quast, 1991. Vol. II, 2 Leviticus. Eds. J. W. Wevers and U. Quast, 1986. Vol. III, 1 Numeri. Eds. J. W. Wevers and U. Quast, 1982. Vol. III, 2 Deuteronomium. Eds. J. W. Wevers and U. Quast, 1977. Vol. XIV, Isaiah. Ed. J. Ziegler, 19833. Vol. XIII, Duodecim Prophetae. Ed. J. Ziegler, 19672. Stenning, J. F., ed. and trans. The Targum of Isaiah. Oxford: Clarendon, 1949. Vermes, Geza, ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. London: Penguin, 19954.

II. Reference Works and Exegetical Aids Balz, H., and G. Schneider, eds. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. ET. 3 Vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990–1993. Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Revised and augmented by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979. Blass, F. and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. Trans. and ed. Robert W. Funk. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961.

354

Bibliography

Botterweck, G. J., and H. Ringgren, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 14 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006. Brown, Francis. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1979 (19071). Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980. Kittel, Gerhard, and G. Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Thayer, Joseph Henry. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Being C. G. Grimm (1861–1868; 1879) and C. L. W. Wilke (1851) Clavis Novi Testamenti, translated, revised, and enlarged, by Joseph Henry Thayer. New York: American Book Co., 1889. Electronic edition: International Bible Translators, 1998–2000 (1889). VanGemeren, Willem A., ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.

III. Secondary Sources Ådna, Jostein. “The Servant of Isaiah 53 as Triumphant and Interceding Messiah: The Reception of Isaiah 52:13–53:12 in the Targum of Isaiah with Special Attention to the Concept of the Messiah.” In The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, edited by Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher, translated by Daniel P. Bailey, 189–224. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Alexander, L. C. A. “Chronology of Paul.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin, 115–23. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993. Allen, David L. “Substitutionary Atonement and Cultic Terminology in Isaiah 53.” In The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology, edited by Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser, 171–89. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2012. Andersen, Francis I. Habakkuk. AB 25. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Averbeck, Richard. “Sacrifices and Offerings.” In Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, 706–33. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2003. Bailey, Daniel P. “Concepts of Stellvertretung in the Interpretation of Isaiah 53.” In Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, edited by William H. Bellinger, Jr. and William R. Farmer, 88–103. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1998. –. Jesus as the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul’s Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25. Ph.D. Thesis, Cambridge University, 1999. Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. London: Oxford, 1961. Barrett, C. K. The Epistle to the Romans. BNTC. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991. Barth, Karl. The Epistle to the Romans. Translated by Edwyn C. Hoskyns. London: Oxford University Press, 1933. Bates, Matthew W. The Hermeneutics of the Apostolic Proclamation: The Center of Paul’s Method of Scriptural Interpretation. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012.

III. Secondary Sources

355

Bauckham, Richard J. God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1998. –. Jesus and the God of Israel: ‘God Crucified’ and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Beaton, Richard. Isaiah’s Christ in Matthew’s Gospel. SNTSMS 123. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Begg, Christopher. “Isaiah in Josephus.” In Josephus und das Neue Testament, edited by Christfried Bӧttrich and Jens Herzer, 233–43. WUNT 209. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Behm, J., and E. Würthwein. “metanoe,w, meta,noia.” TDNT. 1967. Vol. 4:975–1008. Bell, Richard H. Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9–11. WUNT 2.63. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. –. No One Seeks for God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 1:18–3:20. WUNT 106. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. –. “Sacrifice and Christology in Paul.” JTS 53 (2002): 1–27. –. The Irrevocable Call of God. WUNT 184. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. –. “Faith in Christ: Some Exegetical and Theological Reflections on Philippians 3:9 and Ephesians 3:12.” In The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical and Theological Studies, edited by Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle, 111–25. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009. Bergman, Jan, Helmer Ringgren, and Horst Seebass. “rx;B' bāchar.” TDOT. 1977, revised (1975). Vol. 2:73–87. Berkley, Timothy W. 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. Betz, Otto. “Jesus’ Gospel of the Kingdom.” In The Gospel and the Gospels, edited by Peter Stuhlmacher, 53–74. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. –. Was wissen wir von Jesus? Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1991. Beuken, W. A. M. “Servant and Herald of Good Tidings: Isaiah 61 as an Interpretation of Isaiah 40–55.” In The book of Isaiah – Le livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures; Unité et complexité de l’ouvrage, edited by J. Vermeylen, 411–42. BETL 81. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989. Bird, Michael F., ed. Four Views on the Apostle Paul. Counterpoints Series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. Bird, Michael F., and Preston M. Sprinkle, eds. The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical and Theological Studies. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “The Servant and the Servants in Isaiah and the Formation of the Book.” In Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, edited by C. C. Broyles and C. A. Evans, 155–75. 2 Vols. VTSup 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997. –. Opening The Sealed Book: Interpretations of the Book of Isaiah in Late Antiquity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Bock, D. Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology. JSNT 12. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987. Bockmuehl, M. The Epistle to the Philippians. BNTC. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998. Bonsirven, J. Exégèse Rabbinique et Exégèse Paulinienne. Bibliotheque de la Theólogie Historique. Paris: Beauchesne, 1939.

356

Bibliography

Brewer, David Instone. Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE. TSAJ 30. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John. AB 29. 2 Vols. Garden City: Doubleday, 1966–70. Brownlee, W. H. “The Placarded Revelation of Habakkuk.” JBL 82.3 (1963): 319–25. Broyles, C. C. “Gospel.” In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, edited by Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall, 282–86. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1992. Broyles, C. C., and C. A. Evans, eds. Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition. 2 Vols. VTSup 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Bruce, F. F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. –. Romans: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1985. –. The Epistle to the Galatians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: The Paternoster Press and Eerdmans, 1992. Brueggemann, Walter. “Unity and Dynamic in the Isaiah Tradition,” JSOT 29 (1984): 89– 107. Bultmann, Rudolf. “avfi,hmi, etc.” TDNT. 1964. Vol. 1:509–12. –. “Dikaiosu,nh Qeou/.” JBL 83 (1964): 12–16. –. “kauca,omai, etc.,” TDNT. 1965. Vol. 3:645–54. Bultmann, Rudolf, and Dieter Lührmann. “fai,nw, etc.” TDNT. 1974. Vol. 9:1–10. Burrows, Millar. More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls: New Scrolls and New Interpretations with Translations of Important Recent Discoveries. New York: Viking, 1958. Calvin, John. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians. Translated by Ross Mackenzie. Calvin’s Commentaries. London: Oliver and Boyd, 1961. Campbell, Douglas A. The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3:21–26. JSNTSup 65. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. –. The Quest for Paul’s Gospel: A Suggested Strategy. New York: T&T Clark, 2005. –. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Carson, D. A., and H. G. M. Williamson, eds. It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Carson, D. A., Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Leicester: Apollos, 1992. Carson, D. A., Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, eds. Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol. I – The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. WUNT 140. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Carson, D. A., Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, eds. Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol. II – The Paradoxes of Paul. WUNT 181. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Cavallin, H. C. C. “The Righteous Shall Live by Faith: A Decisive Argument for the Traditional Interpretation.” ST 32 (1978): 33–43. Cazelles, H. “hd'p' pāḏâ.” TDOT. 2001. Vol. 11:483–90. Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. London: SCM Press, 1979. –. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. –. Isaiah. OTL. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001.

III. Secondary Sources

357

Chisholm, Jr., Robert B. “Forgiveness and Salvation in Isaiah 53.” In The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology, edited by Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser, 191–210. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2012. Clements, R. E. Isaiah 1–39. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. –. “The Unity of the Book of Isaiah.” Int 36 (1982): 117–29. Conzelmann, Hans. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. MeyerK 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969. –. An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament. NTL ET. London: SCM, 1969. Coppes, Leonard J. “lben' (nābēl).” TWOT. 1980. Vol. 2:548. –. “ll;q' (qālal).” TWOT. 1980. Vol. 2:800–801. –. “br;q' (qārab).” TWOT. 1980. Vol. 2:811–13. Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976. Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Vol. I: Introduction and Commentary on Romans I-VIII. ICC. London: T&T clark, 1975. –. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Vol. II: Commentary on Romans IX-XVI and Essays. ICC. London: T&T clark, 1979. Creed, John Martin. “Pa,resij in Dionysuis of Halicarnassus and St. Paul.” JTS 41 (1940): 28–30. Culver, Robert D. “jp;v' (shāpaṭ).” TWOT. 1980. Vol. 2:947–49. Das, Andrew A. Paul, the Law, and the Covenant. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001. Davies, Glenn N. Faith and Obedience in Romans: A Study in Romans 1–4. JSNTSup 39. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. Davis, John D. “The Child Whose Name is Wonderful.” In Biblical and Theological Studies. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912. Deines, Roland. “The Pharisees Between ‘Judaisms’ and ‘Common Judaism.’” In Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol. I – The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, 443–504. WUNT 140. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. –. Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias. WUNT 177. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. –. “Not the Law but the Messiah: Law and Righteousness in the Gospel of Matthew – An Ongoing Debate.” In Built Upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew, edited by Daniel M. Gurtner and John Nolland, 53–84. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Delitzsch, F. Commentary on the Old Testament, IV: Job. Translated by Francis Bolton. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991 (reprint). –. Commentary on the Old Testament, V: Psalms. Translated by Francis Bolton. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991 (reprint). –. Commentary on the Old Testament, VII: Isaiah. Translated by James Martin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991 (reprint). Denney, J. The Death of Christ. Edited by R. V. G. Tasker. London: Tyndale, 1951. Denny, D. R. The Significance of Isaiah in the Writings of Paul. PhD. diss., New Orleans Theological Seminary, 1985.

358

Bibliography

Dietrich, Walter. “Habakkuk – ein Jesajaschüler.” In Nachdenken über Israel, Bibel, und Theologie: Festschrift für Klaus-Dietrich Schunck zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, edited by Herman Michael Niemann, Matthias Augustin, and Werner H. Schmidt, 197–215. Beitrage zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums, Bd. 37. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1994. DiMattei, Steven. “Biblical Narratives.” In As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, 59–93. SBLSS 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Dinter, Paul E. “Paul and the Prophet Isaiah.” BTB 13 (1983): 48–52. Dodd, C. H. “Ila,skesqai, Its Cognates, Derivatives and Synonyms in the Septuagint.” JTS 32 (1931): 352–60. –. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. MNTC. New York: Harper and Bros., 1932. –. According to the Scriptures: The Substructure of New Testament Theology. London: Nisbet, 1952. –. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953. Dunn, James D. G. “Paul’s Understanding of the Death of Jesus.” In Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L. L. Morris on his 60th Birthday, edited by Robert Banks, 125–41. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. –. “The Relationship Between Paul and Jerusalem according to Galatians 1 and 2.” NTS 28 (1982): 461–78. –. “Once More – Gal 1,18: i`storh/sai Khfa/n in Reply to Otfried Hofius.” ZNW 76 (1985): 138–39. –. Romans 1–8. WBC. Dallas: Word Books, 1988. –. Romans 9–16. WBC. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1988. –. “Once More, PISTIS CRISTOU.” In Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, 730–44. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1991. –. The Epistle to the Galatians. BNTC. London: A&C Black, 1993. –, ed. Paul and the Mosaic Law. WUNT 89. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. –. New Testament Theology: An Introduction. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009. Du Toit, A. “A Tale of Two Cities: ‘Tarsus or Jerusalem’ Revisited.” NTS 46 (2000): 375– 402. Eichholz, G. Die Theologie des Paulus im Umriss. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972. Ekblad, Jr., Eugene Robert. Isaiah’s Servant Poems According to the Septuagint: An Exegetical and Theological Study. CBET 23. Leuven: Peeters, 1999. Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Elliott, Mark Adam. The Survivors of Israel: A Reconsideration of the Theology of PreChristian Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Ellis, E. Earle. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003 (repr.; orig. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957). –. “New Directions in Form Criticism.” In Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Emerton, J. A. “The Textual and Linguistic Problems of Habakkuk ii.4–5.” JTS 28 (1977): 1–18. Engnell, I. “The ‘Ebed-Yahweh’ Songs and the Suffering Messiah in ‘Deutero-Isaiah.’” BJRL 31.1 (1948): 54–95. Enns, Peter. “jP'v.mi.” NIDOTTE. 1997. Vol. 2:1142–44. Evans, Craig A. “On the Quotation Formulas in the Fourth Gospel.” BZ 26 (1982): 79–83.

III. Secondary Sources

359

–. “Obduracy and the Lord’s Servant: Some Observations on the Use of the Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel.” In Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis, edited by Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring, 221–236. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. –. “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, edited by C. C. Broyles and C. A. Evans, 651–91. 2 Vols. VTSup 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997. –. “Isaiah 53 in the Letters of Peter, Paul, Hebrews, and John.” In The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology, edited by Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser, 145–70. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2012. Evans, C. A., and J. A. Sanders. Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1993. Evans, Craig A., and James A. Sanders, eds. Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. JSNTSup 83/SSEJC 1. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Fishbane, Michael. “Revelation and Tradition: Aspects of Inner-biblical Exegesis.” JBL 99.3 (1980): 343–61. –. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. –. “Inner Biblical Exegesis: Types and Strategies of Interpretation in Ancient Israel.” In Midrash and Literature, edited by G. H. Hartman and S. Burdick, 19–37. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986. Fisk, Bruce N. “Synagogue Influence and Scriptural Knowledge Among the Christians of Rome.” In As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, 157–85. SBLSS 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Fitzmyer, J. A. “Habakkuk 2:3–4 and the New Testament.” In To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies, 236–46. New York: Crossroad, 1981. –. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993. France, R. T. “New Exodus, New Inheritance: The Narrative Structure 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, edited by Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright, 26–35. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Friedrich, Gerhard. “eu,aggeli,zomai.” TDNT. 1964. Vol. 2:707–37. Gathercole, Simon J. Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. –. “Justified by Faith, Justified by his Blood: The Evidence of Romans 3:21–4:25.” In Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol. II – The Paradoxes of Paul, edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, 147–84. WUNT 181. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. –. Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Lee Martin McDonald. ASBT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015. Gerhardsson, B. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity; with Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity. Translated by Eric J. Sharpe. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19982 (19611/19641). Gese, Hartmut. “The Atonement.” In Essays on Biblical Theology, 93–116. Translated by Keith Crim. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981.

360

Bibliography

Gignilliat, Mark. Paul and Isaiah’s Servants: Paul’s Theological Reading of Isaiah 40–66 in 2 Corinthians 5:14–6:10. LNTS 330. London: T&T clark, 2007. Godet, F. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Translated by Rev. A. Cusin. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956. Goldingay, John E. The Theology of the Book of Isaiah. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2014. Goppelt, L. Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New. Translated by Donald H. Madvig. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Grimm, Werner. Die Verkündigung Jesu und Deuterojesaja. ANTJ 1. Bern and Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 19812 (orig. Weil ich dich liebe, 1976). Grogan, Geoffrey W. “Isaiah.” In EBC, vol. 6. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986. Hafemann, Scott J. “The Glory and Veil of Moses in 2 Cor. 3:7–14: An Example of Paul’s Contextual Exegesis of the Old Testament – A Proposal.” In The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, edited by G. K. Beale, 295–309. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994. (Reprinted from Horizons in Biblical Theology 14 [1992]: 31–49.) –. 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. Hahn, F. “Der Apostolat im Urchristentum: Seine Eigenart und seine Voraussetzungen.” KD 20 (1974): 54–77. Hamilton, Victor P. “bWv (shûb).” TWOT. 1980. Vol. 2:909–10. Hanson, A. T. Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology. London: SPCK, 1974. Hanson, Paul D. Isaiah 40–66. Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995. von Harnack, Adolf. “Das Alte Testament in den Paulinischen Briefen und in den Paulinischen Gemeinden.” In Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 124–41. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1928. Harris, J. Rendel. Testimonies, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19161; 19202. Harris, Murray J. “2 Corinthians.” In EBC, vol. 10. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976. –. Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992. Hartley, John E. “!ac (ṣ’n).” TWOT. 1980. Vol. 2:749. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. –. “Three Dramatic Roles: The Law in Romans 3–4.” In Paul and the Mosaic Law, edited by James D. G. Dunn, 151–64. WUNT 89. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1996. –. The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 20022 (19831). –. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scriptures. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Hengel, Martin. The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of JewishHellenistic Religion. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976. –. “The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period.” In The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, edited by Bernd Janowski and Peter Stühlmacher, translated by Daniel P. Bailey, 75–146. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Hengel, Martin, and Anna Maria Schwemer. Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press Ltd, 1997.

III. Secondary Sources

361

Henze, Matthias, ed. A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. –. “The Use of Scripture in the Book of Daniel.” In A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, edited by Matthias Henze, 279–307. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Hill, D. Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms. SNTSMS 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Hofius, Otfried. “Gal 1,18: i`storh/sai Khfa/n,” ZNW 75 (1984): 73–85. –. “Sühne und Versöhnung: Zum paulinischen Verständnis des Kreuzestodes Jesu.” In Paulusstudien, 33–49. WUNT 51. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. –. “The Fourth Servant Song in the New Testament Letters.” In The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, edited by Bernd Janowski and Peter Stühlmacher, translated by Daniel P. Bailey, 163–88. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Holland, Tom. Contours of Pauline Theology: A Radical New Survey of the Influences on Paul’s Biblical Writings. Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor (Christian Focus Publications), 2004. Hollander, John. The Figure of Echoe: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981. Hooker, M. D. “Adam in Romans 1.” NTS 6 (1959–60): 297–306. –. Jesus and the Servant: The Influence of the Servant Concept of Deutero-Isaiah in the New Testament. London: SPCK, 1959. –. “A Further Note on Romans 1.” NTS 13 (1967): 181–83. Hübner, Hans. Law in Paul’s Thought. Translated by James C. G. Greig. Edited by John Riches. SNTW. Edinburgh: T&T clark, 1984 (orig. Germ., 1978). –. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Band 2. Gӧttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Hughes, Philip E. Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962. Hultgren, A. Paul’s Gospel and Mission: The Outlook from His Letter to the Romans. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985. Hurtado, Larry W. “Jesus’ Divine Sonship in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.” In Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, edited by Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright, 217–33. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. –. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Janowski, Bernd. Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Studien zur Sühnetheologie der Priesterschrift und zur Wurzel KPR im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. WMANT 55. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982. –. “He Bore Our Sins: Isaiah 53 and the Drama of Taking Another’s Place.” In The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, edited by Bernd Janowski and Peter Stühlmacher, translated by Daniel P. Bailey, 48–74. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Janzen, J. Gerald. “Habakkuk 2:2–4 in the Light of Recent Philological Advances.” HTR 73 (1980): 53–78. Jensen, J. “Helel ben Shahar [Isa 14:12–15] in Bible and Tradition.” In Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, edited by C. C. Broyles and C. A. Evans, 339–56. 2 Vols. VTSup 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

362

Bibliography

Jeremias, Joachim. New Testament Theology. Translated by John Bowden. NTL. London: SCM Press, 1971. Jewett, Robert. Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. Johnson, Dan G. From Chaos to Restoration: An Integrative Reading of Isaiah 24–27. JSOTSup 61. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. Johnson, Luke Timothy. “Response to Douglas A. Campbell.” In Four Views on the Apostle Paul, edited by Michael F. Bird, 149–52. Counter Points Series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. Kaiser, Otto. Der königliche Knecht. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962. –. Isaiah 13–39. Translated by R. A. Wilson. OTL. Philadelphia: The Westmintster Press, 1974. –. Isaiah 1–12. Translated by John Bowden. OTL. Philadelphia: The Westmintster Press, 1981. Käsemann, Ernst. Perspectives on Paul. Translated by Margaret Kohl. NTL. London: SCM Press, 1971. –. Commentary on Romans. Translated and edited by Geoffrey Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19803. Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 Vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003. –. Romans: A New Covenant Commentary. NCCS 6. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2009. Keesmaat, Sylvia C. “Exodus and the Intertextual Transformation of Tradition in Romans 8:14–30.” JSNT 54 (1994): 29–56. –. Paul and His Story: (Re)interpreting the Exodus Tradition. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Keil, C. F. Commentary on the Old Testament, X: Minor Prophets. Translated by James Martin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989 (reprint). –. Commentary on the Old Testament, VIII: Jeremiah, Lamentations. Translated by David Patrick and James Kennedy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991 (reprint). Kellermann, Diether. “~v'a' ’āshām.” TDOT. 1977, revised (1974). Vol. 1:429–37. Kidner, Derek. Psalms 1–72. TOTC. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1973. –. Psalms 73–150. TOTC. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1973. Kim, Seyoon. The Origin of Paul’s Gospel. WUNT 2.4. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1984. –. “Sayings of Jesus.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin, 474–92. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993. Kirk, J. R. Daniel. Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God. Gand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Knibb, Michael A. “Isaianic Traditions in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.” In Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, edited by C. C. Broyles and C. A. Evans, 633–50. 2 Vols. VTSup 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Knight, George A. F. Deutero-Isaiah: A Theological Commentary on Isaiah 40–55. New York: Abingdon Press, 1965. Koch, Dietrich-Alex. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. BHT 69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. Kugler, Robert. “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Not-So-Ambiguous Witness to Early Jewish Interpretive Practices.” In A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, edited by Matthias Henze, 337–60. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Kümmel, W. G. “Pa,resij und e;ndeixij.” ZTK 49 (1952): 154–67.

III. Secondary Sources

363

Kuss, Otto. Der Römerbrief. 3 vols. Regensburg: Puset, 1963–78. Ladd, George E. “Righteousness in Romans.” SJT 19 (1976): 6–17. –. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993 (revised). Liefeld, Walter L. “Luke.” In EBC, vol. 8. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984. Lietzmann, Hans. An die Korinther 1/2. HNT 9. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 19313. Lim, Timothy H. Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Lincoln, Andrew T. Ephesians. WBC. Dallas: Word Books, 1990. Lindars, B. New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961. Livingston, G. Herbert. “~v;a' (’āsham).” TWOT. 1980. Vol. 1:78–80. Lührmann, Dieter. Das Offenbarungsverständnis bei Paulus und in paulinischen Gemeinden. WMANT 16. Neukirchen/Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1965. Luter, Jr., A. B. “Gospel.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin, 369–72. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993. Luther, Martin. Lectures on Romans: Glosses and Scholia. Luther’s Works 25. St. Louis: Concordia, 1972. Manson, T. W. “ILASTHRION.” JTS 46 (1945): 1–10. Marcus, Joel. The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992. Marshall, I. Howard. I Believe in the Historical Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. –. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. –. “An Assessment of Recent Developments.” In It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, edited by D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson, 1–21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. –. 1 Peter. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1991. Martin, Ralph P. 2 Corinthians. WBC. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1986. –. Philippians. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19872. Matlock, R. B. “Zeal for Paul but Not According to Knowledge: Douglas Campbell’s War on ‘Justification Theory.’” JSNT 34 (2011): 115–49. Maurer, Christian. “u`po,dikoj.” TDNT. 1972. Vol. 8:557–8. Mays, James Luther. Psalms. Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994. McConville, J. Gordon. Deuteronomy. AOTC 5. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2002. McGinnis, Claire Mathews and Patricia K. Tull, eds. As Those Who Are Taught: The Interpretation of Isaiah from the LXX to the SBL. SBL Symposium Series 27. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. McGrath, A. E. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1987. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. A Farewell to the Servant Songs: A Critical Examination of an Exegetical Axiom. Translated by Frederick H. Cryer. Scripta minora 1982–1983.3. Lund: Gleerup, 1983. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 19942 (19711). Michaels, J. Ramsey. 1 Peter. WBC. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1988.

364

Bibliography

Michel, Otto. Paulus und seine Bibel. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972 (reprint; orig. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1929). –. Der Brief an die Römer. MeyerK 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Mittmann-Richert, Ulrike. Der Sühnetod des Gottesknechts: Jesaja 53 im Lukasevangelium. WUNT 220. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Moody, R. M. “The Habakkuk Quotation in Romans 1:17.” ExpT 92 (1981): 205–8. Morris, Leon. “The Use of i`la,skesqai etc. in Biblical Greek.” ET 62 (1951): 227–33. –. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955. –. “The Meaning of i`lasth,rion in Romans 3.25.” NTS 2.1 (1955): 33–43. –. “’Asham [‘Guilt’ and ‘Guilt-offering’ in the Old Testament].” EvQ 30.4 (1958): 196– 210. –. “Hebrews.” In EBC, vol. 12. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981. Motyer, J. A. The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993. Moyise, Steve. “The Catena of Rom. 3.10–18.” ExpT 106 (1995): 367–70. –. The Old Testament in the New. The Continuum Biblical Studies Series. London: Continuum, 2001. –. “Isaiah in 1 Peter.” In Isaiah in the New Testament, edited by Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken. London: T&T clark, 2005. –. Evoking Scripture: Seeing the Old Testament in the New. New York: T&T Clark, 2008. –. “Quotations.” In As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, 15–28. SBLSS 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Moyise, Steve, and Maarten J. J. Menken, eds. Isaiah in the New Testament. London: T&T clark, 2005. Muilenburg, J. “The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66.” In IB, vol. 5. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1956. Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968. Naselli, Andrew David. From Typology to Doxology: Paul’s Use of Isaiah and Job in Romans 11:34–35. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2012. North, Christopher R. The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah: An Historical and Critical Study. London: Oxford University Press, 19562 (1948). Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1949. O’Brien, P. T. “Justification in Paul and Some Crucial Issues of the Last Two Decades.” In Right with God: Justification in the Bible and the World, edited by D. A. Carson, 69– 78. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992. O’Day, Gail R. “Jeremiah 9:22–23 and 1 Corinthians 1:26–31: A Study in Intertextuality.” JBL 109.2 (1990): 259–67. O’Neill, J. C. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Pelican New Testament Commentaries. Baltimore: Penguin, 1975. Oepke, Albrecht. “DIKAIOSUNH QEOU bei Paulus in neuer Beleuchtung.” TLZ 78 (1953): 257–64. –. “kalu,ptw, etc.” TDNT. 1965. Vol. 3:556–92. Olson, Robert C. “The Contribution of John 12:38 to the Structure and Theology of the Fourth Gospel.” Th.M. thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1999. Ortlund, Dane. “Justified by Faith, Judged According to Works: Another Look at a Pauline Paradox.” JETS 52:2 (2009): 323–39.

III. Secondary Sources

365

Oss, D. A. Paul’s Use of Isaiah and its Place in His Theology: With Special Reference to Romans 9–11. Ph.D. diss., Westminister Theological Seminary, 1992. Oswalt, John. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. –. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Pao, David W. Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. WUNT 2.130. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Pao, David W., and Eckhard J. Schnabel. “Luke.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, 251–414. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Philonenko, M. “Sur l’expression ‘vendue au péché’ dans l’Épître aux Romains.” RHR 203 (1986): 41–52. Piper, J. “The Demonstration of the Righteousness of God in Romans 3:25, 26.” JSNT 7 (1980): 2–32. –. The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 19932. Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1915. Porter, Stanley E., and Christopher D. Stanley, eds. As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. SBLSS 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Procksch, O., and F. Büchsel. “lu,w, etc.” TDNT. 1967. Vol. 4:328–56. Ridderbos, Herman N. The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia. Translated by Henry Zylstra. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953. –. “The Earliest Confession of the Atonement in Paul.” In Reconciliation and Hope, edited by Robert Banks, 76–89. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. –. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Translated by John Richard de Witt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Riesner, Rainer. Jesus als Lehrer: eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der EvangelienÜberlieferung. WUNT 2.7. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1981. Ringgren, Helmer. “la;G' gā’al.” TDOT. 1977, revised (1975). Vol. 2:350–55. Roberts, J. H. “Righteousness in Romans with Special Reference to Romans 3:19–31.” Neot 15.1 (1981): 12–33. Roberts, J. J. M. “Isaiah in Old Testament Theology.” Int 36.2 (1982): 130–43. Robertson, A. T., and A. Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 19142. Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980. –. “‘The Justified (by faith) shall live by his steadfast Trust’: Habakkuk 2:4.” Presbyterion 9 (1983): 52–71. Ropes, J. H. “‘Righteousness’ and ‘The Righteousness of God’ in the Old Testament and in St. Paul.” JBL 22 (1903): 211–27. Rowley, H. H. The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 19652 (1952). Sailhamer, John H. “The Mosaic Law and the Theology of the Pentateuch.” WTJ 53 (1991): 241–261. Sanday, William and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T clark, 1902. Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977. –. Paul, the Law and the Jewish People. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1983.

366

Bibliography

Sanders, J. A. “From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4.” In Christianity, Judaism, and other GrecoRoman Cults, edited by J. Neusner, 75–106. Leiden: Brill, 1975. –. “Torah and Christ.” Int 29.4 (1975): 372–90. Sawyer, J. F. A. The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Scharbert, Josef. “hl'a' ’ālāh.” TDOT. 1977, revised (1974). Vol. 1:261–66. Schilling, O. “rfb bśr.” TDOT. 1977, revised (1975). Vol. 2:313–16. Schreiner, Thomas R. “‘Works of Law’ in Paul.” NovT 33 (1991): 217–44. –. The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993. Schrenk, Gottlob, and Gotffried Quell. “evkle,gomai.” TDNT. 1967. Vol. 4:144–68. Scott, C. A. A. Christianity According to St. Paul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939. Scott, Jack B. “hl'a' (’ālâ).” TWOT. 1980. Vol. 1:45–46. Scott, James M. Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation in the Background of UIOQESIA in the Pauline Corpus. WUNT 2.48. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Secombe, D. “Luke and Isaiah,” NTS 27 (1981): 252–59. Seifrid, Mark A. Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme. NovTSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 1992. –. “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism.” In Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol. I – The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, 415–42. WUNT 140. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. –. “Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language Against Its Hellenistic Background.” In Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol. II – The Paradoxes of Paul, edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, 39–74. WUNT 181. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. –. “Unrighteous by Faith: Apostolic Proclamation in Romans 1:18–3:20.” In Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol. II – The Paradoxes of Paul, edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, 105–45. WUNT 181. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. –. “Romans.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, 607–94. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Seitz, C. R. Isaiah 1–39. Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993. Shum, Shiu-Lun. Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans: A Comparative Study of Paul’s Letter to the Romans and the Sibylline and Qumran Sectarian Texts. WUNT 2.156. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Silva, Moisés. “Old Testament in Paul.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin, 630–42. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993. –. “Galatians.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, 785–812. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Smith, D. Moody. “Ho de dikaios ek pisteōs zēsetai.” In Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in Honor of Kenneth Willis Clark, edited by B. L. Daniels and M. J. Suggs, 13–25. SD 29. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1967. –. “The Pauline Literature.” In It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson, 265–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Snaith, Norman H. “The Sin Offering and the Guilt Offering.” VT 15 (1965): 73–80. Snodgrass, Klyne R. “Streams of Tradition Emerging from Isaiah 40:1–5 and Their Adaptation in the NT.” JSNT 8 (1980): 24–45.

III. Secondary Sources

367

–. “Justification by Grace – To the Doers: An Analysis of the place of Romans 2 in the Theology of Paul.” NTS 32 (1986): 72–93. Sprinkle, Preston M. “Pi,stij Cristou/ as an Eschatological Event.” In The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical and Theological Studies, edited by Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle, 166–84. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009. Stanley, Christopher D. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. SNTSMS 74. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992. –. Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul. New York: T&T Clark, 2004. Stanley, Christopher D., ed. Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation. ECIL 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Stanton, G. Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching. SNTSMS 27. London: Cambridge University Press, 1974. Stigers, Harold G. “qdec' (ṣādēq).” TWOT. 1980. Vol. 2:752–55. Stockhausen, Carol K. Moses’ Veil and the Glory of the New Covenant: The Exegetical Substructure of II Cor 3,1–4,6. AnBib 116. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1989. –. “2 Corinthians 3 and the Principles of Pauline Exegesis.” In Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, 143–64. JSNTSup 83/SSEJC 1. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Stuhlmacher, Peter. “Recent Exegesis on Romans 3:24–26.” In Reconciliation, Law and Righteousness: Essays in Biblical Theology, translated by Everett R. Kalin, 94–109. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. –. “The Pauline Gospel.” In The Gospel and the Gospels, edited by P. Stuhlmacher, 149– 72. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. –. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Translated by Scott J. Hafemann. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994. –. “Isaiah 53 in the Gospels and Acts.” In The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, edited by Bernd Janowski and Peter Stühlmacher, translated by Daniel P. Bailey, 147–62. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Thielman, Frank S. “Ephesians.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, 813–33. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Thiselton, Anthony. New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. –. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Thrall, Margaret E. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Vol. I: Introduction and Commentary on II Corinthians I-VII. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994. Trench, Richard Chenevix. Synonyms of the New Testament. London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 189412. Tzoref, Shani. “The Use of Scripture in the Community Rule.” In A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, edited by Matthias Henze, 203–34. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. VanGemeren, Willem A. “Psalms.” In EBC, vol. 5. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991. Via, D. O. “A Structuralist Approach to Paul’s Old Testament Hermeneutic.” Int 28.2 (1974): 201–20.

368

Bibliography

Wagner, J. Ross. “Heralds of Isaiah and the Mission of Paul: An Investigation of Paul’s Use of Isaiah 51–55 in Romans.” In Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, edited by William H. Bellinger, Jr. and William R. Farmer, 193–222. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1998. –. Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans. NovTSup 101. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Watson, Francis B. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. New York: T&T Clark, 2004. Watts, John D. Isaiah 34–66. WBC. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2005 (revised). Watts, Rikki E. Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark. WUNT 2.88. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. –. “Jesus’ Death, Isaiah 53, and Mark 10:45: A Crux Revisited.” In Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, edited by William H. Bellinger, Jr. and William R. Farmer, 125–51. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1998. –. “‘For I Am Not Ashamed of the Gospel’: Romans 1:16–17 and Habakkuk 2:4.” 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, 3–25. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Weima, Jeffrey A. D. “Preaching the Gospel in Rome: A Study of the Epistolary Framework of Romans.” In Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker, edited by L. A. Jervis and P. Richardson, 337–66. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Wenham, David. Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. –. Genesis 1–15. WBC. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987. –. Genesis 16–50. WBC. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1994. Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary. Translated by David M. G. Stalker. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1969. Whybray, R. N. Isaiah 40–66. New Century Bible. London: Oliphants, 1975. Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Römer. Leipzig: A. Deichertsche, 1910. Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 13–27: A Continental Commentary. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997. Wilk, Florian. Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. –. “Die Geschichte des Gottesvolkes im Licht jesajanischer Prophetie.” In Josephus und das Neue Testament, edited by Torsten Reiprich, 245–64. WUNT 209. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Wilkins, Michael J. “Isaiah 53 and the Message of Salvation in the Four Gospels.” In The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology, edited by Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser, 109–32. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2012. Williams, Catrin H. “The Testimony of Isaiah and Johannine Christology.” In As Those Who Are Taught: The Interpretation of Isaiah from the LXX to the SBL, edited by Claire Mathews McGinnis and Patricia K. Tull, 107–24. SBL Symposium Series 27. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Williams, Sam K. Jesus’ Death as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of a Concept. HDR 2. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. –. “The ‘Righteousness of God’ in Romans.” JBL 99 (1980): 241–90.

III. Secondary Sources

369

Williamson, H. G. M. Variations on a theme: King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1998. Witherington III, Ben. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Assisted by Darlene Hyatt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Wolf, Herbert. “rrd (drr).” TWOT. 1980. Vol. 1:197–98. Wright, N. T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Edinburgh: T&T clark, 1991. –. “The Law in Romans 2.” In Paul and the Mosaic Law, edited by James D. G. Dunn, 131–50. WUNT 89. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. –. “Romans.” In The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 10. Nashville: Abingdon, 2002. –. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God Series, Volume 4 (Books I and II). Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013. Yamauchi, Edwin. “!n;x' (ḥānan).” TWOT. 1980. Vol. 1:302–4. Yang, A. L. Paul’s Prophetic Reapplication of Isaiah in Romans 9–11. Ph.D. diss., The University of Bristol, 2001. Yarbrough, Robert W. “Paul and Salvation History.” In Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol. II – The Paradoxes of Paul, edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, 297–342. WUNT 181. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Young, Edward J. “The Interpretation of yzh in Isaiah 52:15.” WTJ 3.2 (1941): 125–32. –. The Book of Isaiah. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965–72. Young, Norman H. “C. H. Dodd, ‘Hilaskesthai’ and His Critics.” EvQ 48 (1976): 67–78. Zeller, D. “Sühne und Langmut: Zur Traditionsgeschichte von Röm 3:24–26.” TP 43 (1968): 51–75. Ziesler, J. A. The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Investigation. SNTSMS 20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Zimmerli, Walther, and Joachim Jeremias. “pai/j qeou/.” TDNT. 1967. Vol. 5:654–717.

Index of References Old Testament Old Testament Genesis 1 1:20 1:20–27 1:26 1:26–27 1:27 2:7 2:7–8 2:16–17 3 3:15 3:17 3:17–19 3:19 3:22–24 3:23–24 5:29 6 6:1–4 6:8 6:11–12 6:12 7:11 9:16 12:1–3 12:2 12:3 15 15:1–6ff 15:5 15:6

147, 148, 205 148 147n, 152n 149n, 150n, 152, 177n 289 177n 165n 177, 177n 163 147, 158 65n, 149n 163, 150n, 163n, 165n 163 115n, 164, 165n 289n 290n 165n 149 180n 293n 152n 274n, 276n 162n 161n 99, 149n 150n 150n, 179n, 349n 57, 308 149–50n 93n 18, 50n, 51, 55, 56, 57, 118, 124, 128, 128n, 130, 130n, 131, 133, 134n, 336

15:6–7 15:13–16 17:5 18:18 22 22:17 22:18 26:1–5 26:10 27:27–29, 33 28:13–15 31:38 32:12 48:15–20 48:16 49:15

99 321n 93n 150n 155 119n, 132n, 207, 245 149n 150n 314n 150n 150n 314n 245 294n 295n 313n

Exodus 2:24 3:7 3:21 4:22 6:6 9:12 9:16 11:3 12:3, 4, 5 12:21 12:36 12:37 14 15:6 15:13 19:10–12 20

321n 325 293n 308 83n, 294n 209n 83, 88n 293n 314n 314n 293n 115n 35 83n 294n 290n 230

372 23:7 24:8 24:12 24:16–17 25:17 25:22 27:8 28:15, 29–30 29:10–14 29:24–26 32:11 33:7 33:12, 13, 16, 17 33:18–20 33:18–34:8 33:20 34:5–8 34:6 34:9 Leviticus 1:2 4:5 4:20, 26, 31, 35 5:6–7 5:6, 10, 13, 16, 18 5:6, 15–16, 18, 25–26 5:6, 16, 18 6:7 7:7 7:89 9 9:1–14 9:12 10:17 12:6–8 14:21 16 16:2 16:3, 5, 9 16:5ff 16:16, 21, 22 16:21–22 16:22 16:26 17:11 18:1, 22–23

Index of References 100, 101 38n 126n 290n 297n, 298 297n, 300n 126n 316n 69 69 83n 193n 293n 290n 291 293n 101 248n 293n

314n 299n 318n 314n 318n 314n, 315n 24 318n 324 297n, 300n 322n 322n 40n 13n 314n 324 97, 297n, 299n 297n 323 314n 313n 318 313n, 318n 299n, 320n 299n, 318n 313n

18:5 19:22 25 25:9–10 25:10 26 26:25 26:28 26:40–45 26:41 28 28:1–31

51, 51n, 53n, 185n, 279n 324 294n 319 320n 51, 54n 180n 179n 54n 239 322n 322n

Numbers 5:8 7:89 8:11 8:12 9 9:1–14 9:12 18:1, 22–23 28 28:1–31

324 297n, 300n 69 69 322n 322n 40n 313n 322n 322n

Deuteronomy 3:24 4 4:16 4:16–18 4:16–19 4:19 4:32 4:34 5 5:15 6:21 6:25 7:8 7:8, 19 9:4 9:19 9:25, 29 9:26 9:27 10:12–22

83, 83n 147, 149, 149n, 153n, 161 148n, 149, 150n, 175n 147n 148, 178 149 149 83n 224, 230, 230n 83n 83n 100, 107n 294n 83n 209n 178n 83n 294n 209n 214

373

Old Testament 10:16 10:16, 36 10:17 11:2 17:1 24:13 25:1 26:8 27–28 27–32 27:2–3, 8 27:13 27:15ff 27:26 28 28–32 28:15 28:16–19 28:44 28:53 28:53, 55, 57 29–31 29:2–30:20 29:4 29:12 29:19 29:19, 20, 21 29:22–28 29:24–28 29:28 30 30, 32 30:1 30:1–10 30:2 30:2, 10 30:4–5 30:6

30:6, 15, 19 30:11–14 30:12–14 30:15–20 30:19

230, 239, 240 101n 214 83n 321n 101 100 83n 150n 59, 61, 336 126n 149n 149n 51, 62 240, 240n, 241n 133, 161 149n 149n 61 212 212n 81n 240n 81n, 225n, 240n, 241n 162n 163n 162n 178n, 179, 230 235 179n 66, 186, 218, 240n, 242, 243 52, 53, 61, 62, 99, 229n, 237 81n 230, 239, 240 240n 218 81n 52, 81n, 143, 186, 232n, 237n, 239, 240n, 242, 245 219 52, 81n, 218, 240n 51n, 114n, 219, 241n 240n 149n, 161

30:19–20 32 32:4 32:21 32:24 32:30 32:43 33:2 33:21 34:14

243 18, 50, 51, 128n, 153n 128n 53, 81n, 241n 100 180n 93n, 232, 241n 126n 102n 218n

Joshua 10:29, 31, 34 24:19–20

115n 101

Judges 11:40 24:19

115n 115n

Ruth 2:2

293n

1 Samuel 1:3, 25 1:18 2:19 6:3–4, 8, 17 12:7 13:15

115n 293n 115n 314n 102n 115n

2 Samuel 2:12 4:10 7 7:23 11:1–7 22:50

115n 83n 61, 64, 65, 67, 70n, 72 294n 258n 93n

1 Kings 2:41 5:29 8:32 12:33

115n 313n 316n 69n

2 Kings 3:14 17:36

214n 83n

374

Index of References

24:15

115n

1 Chronicles 16:10–11 17:21 28:8–9

193n 294n 193n

2 Chronicles 2:1, 17 7:14 11:16 15:12, 15 16, 12 19:7 20:4 21:15, 19 22:9 26:5 33:12 34:3 34:13

313n 193n 193n 193n 193n 214 193n 115n 193n 193n 193n 193n 313n

Ezra 1:7–8 1:11 8:22–23

71n 115n 193n

Nehemiah 1:10 9:1–38

294n 61

Esther 1:7 4:17 9:22

212n 270 115n, 116n

Job 5:16 10:19 12 12:7–9 13:23 14:4 27:5 29:12–15

270 115n 170 170 313n 281n 316n 100

Psalms 1:5 2

101 61, 64, 65, 67, 72

2:7 4:1 5 5:9 5:10 8 8:3–4 8:5 9 10 10:7 11:7 13:7 14 14:1 14:1–3 14:5 16:10 18:1 18:49 19 19:1ff 19:12–14 24:5 24:6 25:2 25:22 27:8 31:1–5ff 32:1–2 32:1–11 32:23 34:22 35:27–28 36:1 36:5–6 37:6 37:21 40:6 40:9 40:16 44:3 44:9 44:26 49:7–10, 15 51 51:1–19

36, 72n 101 262 258, 261 261n 170 170 289 262 262 258, 262 101 261n 259–261 260 258, 258n, 260, 260n 261 72n 75n 93n 170, 171 170 294n 102n 193n 129n 294n 193n 101 101, 119, 249n, 259 101 313n 294n 101 258, 260n, 267 99 101 101 323n 80n 193n 83n 129n 294n 107n, 294n 101, 247, 249 101

375

Old Testament 51:4 51:5 51:7 51:10 51:14 51:16 53:1–3 55:18 61:3 62 62:12 63 63:11 65:5 68:11 69:6 69:18 70:4 71:18 71:23 74:2 76:15–16 77:14–15 77:15 78:35, 42 78:61 79:11 82:2 84:7 88:11 89:10 89:11, 14 94:11 96:2 97:2 98:1 98:2 98:2–3 103:3–4 103:4, 10–16 104:13 105:3–4 106 106:10 106:20 106:41 107

101, 248–250, 258n, 261n, 348 249n 101 249n 102n 101 258, 258n 294n 210n 211 210, 211, 245, 348 271, 272, 281, 342 270 102n 80n 193n 294n 193n 83n 294n 294n 83n 83n 83n, 294n 294n 180n 83n 214n 115n, 116n 83n 83n 83n 176n 80n 101 83n 102n 129n 325n 294n 115n 193n 147 294n 147, 147n, 175n, 179 180n 271, 272, 281, 342

107:2ff 107:10 107:10–32 107:18–20 107:42 107:43 110:1 110:5 112:4 116 116:3 116:5 116:10 116:11 117:1 118:22 119:37 119:134, 154 119:142 130:3–8 130:7–8 136:12 140:3 140:12–13 142 143 143:1–3ff 143:2 147:15

294n 271 271n 271 270, 271 271 76 209n 101 247, 248 247, 248n 101, 248n 248n 247, 248 93n 80n 101 294n 99 107n 294n 83n 258, 262 262 262 277 101 101, 277, 282, 343 88n

Proverbs 2:3, 4 8:17 11:24 16:8 (LXX) 27:24 28:5

193n 193n 209n 193n 115n 193n

Isaiah 1 1–5 1:1–27 1:2 1:4–7 1:5 1:9 1:9, 27 1:27 1:27–29

206 211 114 102, 162, 235 325 325 154, 199 220 202 86

376 2:1–4 2:8, 18, 20 4:2–6 5:13–14 5:16 5:24 5:25 6 6:1–7 6:5 7:9 8:6 8:14 8:21–22 8:22 9 9:1–2 9:1–7 9:6–7 10:10–11 10:22 10:22–23 11 11:1 11:1–10 11:1, 10 11:10 11:14 12:18 14 14:1 14:9–20 17:4–7 17:4–8 17:6–7 17:8 20:4–5 24 24–27 24:1–6 24:2 24:3 24:4 24:5 24:5–6 24:6 24:13 24:21–22

Index of References 242, 319 203 292 235 100 89 212 71, 101, 110, 292 102 102, 114, 242 87 213 37, 86, 213 227 212 72, 74 227 162 74 203 154, 155, 162, 207 199, 245, 246 74 78 162 74 73, 93, 227 312 171 157, 163 78 164 164 207 199 203 86 147, 162, 163, 179, 199 159–161, 163, 164 114, 212, 269 70 166 165, 166 160, 161 163, 199 324 164, 199, 207 164

25:6–8 25:6–9 25:7–8 25:8 26:1–2 26:1–4 26:9–12 26:19 27 27:1ff 27:2–13 27:7–11 27:9

27:13 28 28:1–4 28:1, 4 28:5–6 28:7 28:16 28:17 29 29:1–4 29:10 29:13–16 29:22–23 30:1–3 30:3–5 30:6 30:15–17 30:30 31:7 34:2 34:4 35:2 35:5–6 35:10 37:35 38:9 40

163 164, 319 165 157, 310, 319 319 164 86 163, 164, 165 319 165 164 164 21, 53, 119, 136, 156, 159, 160, 211, 227, 238, 244, 250, 253, 265, 298, 308, 310, 318, 319, 329, 330, 343 319 166 88 166 88, 89 70 85, 87, 91, 92, 155, 219, 289 114 225 226 142, 224–226 226 162 226 86 212 226 106 203 212 166 266 37 164, 326 162 325 78, 103, 112, 142, 147, 150, 151, 166, 167, 168, 175, 181, 182, 201, 202, 205,

Old Testament

40–45 40–48 40–55

40–66 40:1 40:1–2 40:1–2, 6–9 40:1–11 40:2 40:3–5 40:5 40:5–6 40:6 40:6–8 40:6–10 40:6–11 40:7–8 40:9 40:9–11 40:10 40:10–11 40:12–13 40:12–17 40:12–18 40:12–26 40:18–20 40:21–22, 26 40:21–27 40:26, 28 40:27 40:28–31 41:1 41:1–29 41:2–4

255, 274, 276, 278, 333, 340 221 201, 202, 246 12, 13, 18, 20, 35, 48, 49, 72, 79, 86, 102, 107, 111, 112, 113, 114, 122, 136, 153, 155, 157, 158, 160, 162–166, 169, 170, 172, 190, 199, 200, 213, 223, 228, 235, 262–266, 271, 272, 275, 290, 295, 319, 320, 321, 326, 339, 342, 345, 348 24 201, 235 166, 202 142 35, 93, 103 200 34 150, 266, 292 274 93, 166, 168, 276, 282, 343 151 207 88, 272 166 5, 65, 111, 173, 201, 207, 273, 320 35 106, 111 89 206 201 150 150 201 173 201 170, 171 173, 201 201 173, 190, 202, 203 202 201

41:2–4, 17–20 41:2–4, 25–26 41:4 41:5–7 41:8 41:8–9 41:8–12 41:8–16 41:10 41:17–20 41:18 41:21–24 41:21–29 41:24 41:25–26 41:27–29 41:29 42 42:1 42:1–7 42:1–9 42:1–17 42:3–4 42:5 42:5–7 42:6 42:6–7 42:6–7, 16 42:6–7, 16, 19 42:7 42:14–17 42:17 42:18, 20–25 42:20ff 42:20–25 42:21 42:21–22 42:21–25 43–45 43:1–7, 14–21 43:1, 7, 21 43:3–4 43:6–7 43:7 43:8ff 43:8–9 43:8–10

377 172 166 328 176 162 79 86, 87 172 202 173 227 203 273 273 273 203 273 225–227 36, 79, 322 91, 104, 110, 166 167 87 202 171 172, 173 220, 227 166, 168, 190, 202, 264 226 224 227 173 86, 328 167 204 200, 203 99 167 102, 114, 162, 235, 243 177 173 218 322 266 292 203 204 229

378 43:8–21 43:9 43:9–11 43:9, 26 43:10–11 43:10–13 43:10, 20 43:12, 15–17 43:14, 18–20 43:22–24 44 44:1, 2 44:1–5 44:6–8 44:9 44:9–11 44:9–20 44:20 44:21 44:21–23 44:24–28 44:25 44:27 45

45:1 45:1–7, 9–10, 13, 19, 21 45:1–7, 9–13, 18–25 45:4 45:7 45:9–10 45:12–25 45:16–17 45:16, 24 45:17 45:17, 25 45:18 45:20 45:20–25 45:21 45:21–22 45:22 45:22–25 45:23

Index of References 272 203, 247, 248 273 273 247 248 79 172 172 204 147, 173, 177, 204 79 172 273 176 86, 328 176 176, 189, 247 203 172 172, 173 173 172 111, 185–187, 189, 191, 197–199, 205– 208, 215–222, 251, 341 322 220 173 79 171 176 247 86 328 329 87 205 203 204, 295 172, 273 173 91, 197, 200, 218, 220, 248 219, 235, 328 189, 197

45:24–25 45:25

46 46:3 46:3–4, 8–10 46:5 46:10–13 47:1 47:3 48:1, 12 48:3–5 48:6 48:6–15, 20–22 48:12–16 48:14 48:18–19 49 49–55 49:1–7 49:1–9 49:1–13 49:3, 5–6 49:5–9 49:6 49:6–7, 9 49:6, 8 49:6, 9 49:7 49:8 49:8–9 49:8–13 49:14–26 49:23 49:24–26 50

50:1

50:1–2 50:1–3 50:1–10 50:2 50:4ff

86 79, 107, 111, 201, 207, 217, 243, 251, 271, 292, 329, 341 204 79, 203 172 273 172 164 86 203 172 273 172 173 106, 273 155 225–227 82 91 110, 327 87, 104 227 172 93 264 90 224 79, 87 220 320 173 104 86, 87, 329 104 78, 111, 142, 156, 160, 168, 218, 220, 323, 327 70, 114, 143, 160, 162, 168, 181, 200, 203, 256, 272, 275, 322 102, 142, 160, 235, 264 104, 141 172, 327 104, 327 327

Old Testament 50:4–9 50:4–11 50:7 50:7–9 50:8–9 50:8–10 50:8, 10 50:10 50:10–11 51 51:1 51:1–2 51:1–3 51:1–3, 6–9, 11 51:1–8, 11 51:1–11 51:1–16 51:1–52:12 51:4–5 51:4–11 51:5 51:5–6, 9–11 51:5–9 51:5, 9 51:5–11 51:6–8 51:7 51:10 51:11 51:12 51:12–16 51:16 52 52–53 52:1 52:1–2 52:1–6 52:2 52:3, 9 52:5

87, 91, 104, 264, 295 271 329 87, 107, 111, 272, 327 78 328 329 13, 89, 91, 273, 327 87, 104, 220, 328 218, 220, 235 220 155, 207 119, 158, 162, 207 173 165 106, 158, 266 207 89, 105 87 106 110 307 106, 111 89 295 164 218, 219, 220 323 164, 326 89 173 337 4, 52, 142, 208, 267 136, 159, 333 239, 242 238 140 164, 167, 247 323 4, 21, 22, 59, 64, 65, 86, 123, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 147, 159, 160, 161, 168, 180, 181, 182, 197, 198, 200, 211, 213, 222, 223, 227, 230, 232,

52:6 52:7

52:7–10 52:7–10, 15 52:7–12 52:7–53:1 52:7, 10 52:9 52:10 52:11 52:11–12 52:13 52:13–53:12

52:15 52:15–53:1 53

53:1

379 234, 235, 237–242, 245, 252, 256, 258, 270, 281, 295, 308, 318, 321, 324, 329, 333, 336, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 348 89 2, 4, 5, 21, 30, 52, 65, 68, 70, 86, 89, 91, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 119, 132, 136, 155, 173, 207, 219, 227, 235, 238, 246, 267, 272, 273, 289, 308, 320, 321, 329, 330, 343, 346 13, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 111, 307 93 65 159, 177, 220 90 181 87, 89, 106, 109, 110 70 105 75, 87, 132, 272, 310 89, 103, 105, 106, 142, 172, 235, 237, 264, 271, 327 4, 30, 70, 108, 109, 110, 111, 119, 346 92 5, 20, 38, 52, 56, 57, 74, 78, 108, 111, 112, 122, 124, 131, 133, 156, 198, 201, 236, 249, 284, 297, 300, 304, 308– 313, 317–320, 321, 323–327, 329, 330, 333, 335, 336, 344, 345, 346 2, 21, 30, 53, 86, 89, 91, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111,

380

53:2 53:2–12 53:4 53:4–5 53:4–5, 11–12 53:4–6, 11–12 53:5 53:6 53:6, 10 53:7 53:10 53:10–11 53:10–12 53:11

53:11–12 53:11, 12 53:12 54:1–3 54:1–5 54:1–55:13 54:4 54:5, 8 54:9 54:9–10 54:10 54:14 54:14, 17 54:16 54:17 55:1 55:1–3 55:1–5 55:1–7 55:3 55:10–13 55:12

Index of References 119, 132, 155, 156, 219, 227, 235, 246, 264, 272, 273, 289, 307, 308, 321, 329, 330, 333, 343, 346 74 110 317 243, 318 114 4, 132, 222 267, 309 78, 181, 182, 316, 340 93 136, 270, 272, 282, 343 70, 323, 324 220 107, 272 13, 87, 111, 114, 134, 162, 201, 207, 215, 243, 252, 292, 295, 313, 327, 328, 329, 337, 341 77, 78, 318 272 87, 104, 132, 310, 327 162, 172 87, 155, 158 107 87, 329 323 220 162, 243 267 338 107, 111, 327, 329 166 13, 292, 327, 328 93, 105 235, 272 172 89, 328 79, 119, 160, 162, 201, 220 89 267

55:12–13 56–66 56:1 56:6 57:14–21 57:19 59

59:1–2 59:1–2, 16ff 59:1–15 59:7–8

59:15–21 59:16–21 59:20 59:20–21

59:20, 21 59:20–60:1ff 59:20, 27 59:21 60:1–2 60:1–22 60:6 60:21 61:1 61:1–2 61:1–3 61:6 61:8 64:6 65:17 65:22 66:20–21

158, 162, 165 13, 112 107, 111–113, 220, 263 13 266 267 112, 142, 159, 160, 168, 208, 227, 258, 264, 265, 266, 268, 281, 318, 320, 330, 342, 346 114, 160, 200, 227, 257, 264 142 102 4, 21, 123, 138, 160, 200, 256, 257, 262, 265, 266, 308, 318, 329, 330, 336, 343, 345, 346 111, 227 107, 142 85, 318 4, 21, 53, 119, 136, 156, 159, 211, 238, 244, 250, 253, 265, 268, 292, 308, 329, 330, 343, 346 160 292 159 264, 318 266 112, 242 5, 111 243 5, 37, 111, 173, 319, 320 320, 322 112 70 160 166 337 337 71

381

Old Testament Jeremiah 1:5 2:5 2:11 3:17 4:4 6:12 7:1–15 7:20 9:3 9:13 9:24 9:25–26 10 10:7–8 10:10 10:25 17:10 18:12 20:12–18 20:15 21:10 23:10 23:29 25:11–12 25:15ff 28:6 29:10 29:13 29:18 30:15 31 31:11 31:31–34 31:33 32:17, 21 32:28 32:37 33:8 34:8, 15, 17 35:6 (LXX) 42:18 43:7 44:12 50:4 50:34 51:6 52:34

29n 176, 176n 147, 147n, 179 209n 101n, 239 209n 230n 179n, 212n 115n 209n 174n 239 173 174n 209n 179 210n 209n 83n 83n 180n 163n 88n 61 179n 115n 61 193n 163n 325 219 294n 218n, 240 218, 218n 83n 180n 179n 313n 320n 115n 163n 212n 163n 193n 294n 212n 115n

Lamentations 1:12, 18 2:1 3:25 Ezekiel 5:13 7:12, 19 7:21 8:10 10:4, 18 11:23 20:34 21:29 23:9, 28 36

325 115n 193n

36:20ff 36:20–23 36:24–27 36:24–32 36:25–27 43:1–5 43:4–5 43:14, 17–20 44:4 44:7–9 44:9 46:17

212n 209n 180n 175n 290n 290n 83n 313n 180n 141n, 224, 229n, 232n, 233n, 234n, 237n 232n 141n, 224n 224n 242n 101n 61 291n 299 291n 239 242n 320n

Daniel 1:2 4:34 6:23 8:19 9:1–27 9:4–19 9:11 9:15 9:16 9:24 12 12:3

180n 294n 270 178n 61 61 163n 83n 212n 313n 24n 316n

Hosea 6:7 10:12 13:14

178n 101n 310

382

Index of References

Joel 2:32 3:5 (LXX)

114n 30n

Amos 1:1–2:16 9:1

179n 299n

Jonah 1–4 2:8–9 4:10–11

179n 179n 179n

Micah 4:10 5:14–15 6:5

294n 179n 102n

Nahum 1:6–7

209n

Habakkuk 1:1–4 1:5–11 1:6, 11, 16 1:12 1:12–2:1 2:2 2:2–3

126 126 127 128n 126 126, 126n 127

2:2–4

128n, 132

2:2–20 2:3 2:4

2:5–20 3:3 3:3–15 3:12–13

126 125, 126 18, 49, 49n, 50n, 51, 54, 55, 55n, 56, 57, 118, 118n, 120– 135, 279n, 305, 335, 336 126 126n 126 126

Zephaniah 1:6 1:15 1:18 2:3

193n 209n 178n, 209n 193n

Haggai 2:1–9

61

Zechariah 12:10

293n

Malachi 3:1

61, 193n

New Testament Matthew 1:21–23 3:1–3 3:16 3:17 4:23 5 5:20 8:15–17 11:2–6 12:17–21 16:6 16:21 16:27

37n 34 36n 36 33 195n, 231 195n 37n 37 37n 323n 37n, 38n 210n

New Testament 17:5 17:22–23 20:17–19 20:28 22:35–40 23:23 23:34 24:22 26:2, 17–19, 26–28 26:24 27:37 27:51 28:20

36 37n, 38n 37n, 38n 38n, 294n 190n 303n 115n, 116n 275n 38n 38n 38 38n 37n

383

New Testament Mark 1:1–4 1:2–3 1:3 1:11 1:14–15 1:15 8:31 9:30–31 9:31 10:32–34 10:38–39 10:45 11:15–17 11:22 12:10 13:20 14:12–16, 22–34 14:22–24 15:26 15:38

38n 38n 38 38n

Luke 1:15 1:78 1:79 2:40 3:1–6 3:4–6 3:6 3:9, 16 3:18 3:22 4 4:16–21 4:43 7:18–23 9:22 9:26 9:35 9:43–44 10:7 10:25–37 10:30 11:42 12:50 15:17–19 16:16

84 36n 271n 36n 34 320n 275n 36n 34n 36 39n 39n, 320n 33 37 37n 85 36 37n 115n 195n 115n 303n 36n 247 288n

34 20 36n 36 33, 67 43n 37n 37n 38n 37n 36n 38n, 39n, 294n 38 305n 80n 275n

17:30 18:31–33 20:17–18 22:7–20 23:35 23:38 24:25–27, 44–47 24:44–49 John 1:19–23 1:29 3:16 5:39 8:42 10:11, 15, 17–18 12 12:38 12:40 12:41 13:1 16:13–15 19:14, 30–36 19:14–16, 32–36 19:19–22 19:36 Acts 2:14–36 3:16 7:2–7ff 8:26 9:5 9:19–25 10:34–43 10:36–43 10:43 13 13:15 13:17 13:32 13:32–34 13:32–39 13:33 13:34 13:35

94n 37n 80n 38n 38n 38 27n 29, 33

34 38, 39, 323n 39n 27n, 43n 27n 39n 40n, 315n 40n, 84 40n 40n 38n 33 40n 38n 38 39n

72, 72n 305n 308n 115n, 116n 31 31 108n 108 27n 72n 288n 84 29 43n 315n 72, 72n 160n, 167n 72n

384 13:38 14:14–17 20:28 22:8 24:14 26:6 26:15 26:15–18 26:18 28:23 28:25–27 Romans 1

1–3 1–4

1:1–4 1:1–5 1:1–6

1:1–6, 16–17 1:2 1:2–3 1:2, 16–17 1:3 1:3–4 1:5 1:6–7 1:8–15 1:8–17 1:13 1:16 1:16–17

Index of References 320n 196n 294n 31 288n 29 31 28 115n, 116n, 320n 288n 3n

56, 151, 172, 173, 174, 182, 190, 223, 243, 252, 340 16, 19, 53, 55, 335 21, 50, 55, 135, 239, 252, 331, 333, 336, 342, 344, 346 119, 122, 232, 259, 345 42, 68 21, 56, 67–79 (67), 136, 186, 227, 252, 336, 338, 341, 345, 346 238, 239 29, 71, 118, 122, 345 56 291 76 71, 75, 76 348 50, 79 70 1 1, 296 91, 92, 117, 244, 289 20, 50, 55, 57, 68, 80–135 (80, 82–85, 93, 96, 98, 111, 113, 114, 122, 124) 136, 137, 159, 173, 182, 186, 201, 209, 215, 222, 236, 251, 252, 272, 284, 285,

1:16–3:26 1:16–3:31 1:17

1:17, 18 1:18 1:18–19 1:18–20 1:18–20, 32 1:18–21 1:18–23, 25, 28, 32 1:18–25 1:18–25, 28, 32 1:18–32

1:18–2:4 1:18–2:6 1:18–2:8 1:18–2:24 1:18–3:8 1:18–3:20

1:18–4:25 1:19–20 1:20

1:20–21, 32 1:20–23 1:20–25 1:20, 25 1:21 1:21–22, 25 1:21–23

287, 293, 302, 329, 333, 336, 338, 339, 341, 345, 346 174 55 50, 55, 57, 102, 107, 115, 124, 131, 133, 134, 184, 305, 306, 335, 336, 349 183 179, 209, 268, 284 183 152 191 191 269 198, 269 347 56, 143, 144–182 (144, 147, 168, 170, 172, 176, 178, 180, 181), 185, 187, 189, 223, 236, 339 248, 272 201 172 176, 202, 204 138, 143, 252, 253, 254, 281, 341, 342 137, 138, 156, 166, 172, 181, 182, 184, 187, 191, 207, 239, 252, 253, 254, 271, 282, 289, 301, 304, 333, 339, 341, 343, 345, 346, 347 271, 283 169, 173, 203 143, 152, 169, 170, 173, 183, 187, 189, 237, 272 192 151 259 248 175 173 176

New Testament 1:21–25 1:23

1:23–24 1:23–24, 26, 28 1:23–24, 26, 28, 32 1:23–25 1:23, 25 1:24, 26, 28

1:25 1:26, 28 1:29 1:32 2

2:1 2:1–3 2:1–3, 5–6, 8–9, 12, 16 2:1–3, 14–16 2:1–4

2:1–4, 14–15 2:1–4, 25–29 2:1–5, 14–16, 25–29 2:1–5, 21–27 2:1–6 2:1–16 2:1–29

168 53, 143, 146–148, 150, 151, 152, 157, 166–170, 173, 175, 178, 181, 200, 280, 289, 290, 291, 322, 340, 348 201

2:1–3:8 2:1–3:23 2:2 2:2–3 2:2–4 2:2–6 2:2, 14–16 2:3–5 2:4

348 168, 223 143 202, 204, 261 142, 152, 167, 172, 181, 204, 210, 211, 236, 237, 243, 252, 340, 341, 347 174, 176, 244, 246 201 261 143, 167, 191, 269, 271, 303 4, 53, 143, 159, 181, 182, 185, 186, 201, 214, 215, 217, 231, 251, 252, 340, 341 173, 187, 188, 189, 190, 261, 340 143, 192, 347 188 191 186, 187, 191, 197, 198, 201, 202, 208, 209, 211, 221, 222, 238, 241, 242, 251, 252, 258, 262, 268, 279, 280, 341 228 242 269 268 180, 303 143, 187, 197, 199, 201, 209, 215, 236 241

2:4–5 2:4–7 2:4–7, 10 2:4, 7, 10, 13 2:5 2:5–6 2:5–12 2:5–13, 16 2:6 2:6, 11, 12, 13 2:7 2:7, 9, 14, 15 2:7, 10 2:8 2:8–9 2:8–9, 12 2:9 2:9–10 2:9–24 2:11 2:11–13 2:13 2:13–15 2:14 2:14–15 2:14–15, 29 2:14–16 2:14–16, 25–29 2:15 2:16

2:16, 24 2:17–20

385 251 169 191 204 303 304 269 168 185, 186, 191, 192, 207, 211, 216, 218, 222, 230, 240, 245, 252, 333, 341 176 219 291 188 178, 347 169 211 191 225, 245, 348 216 192, 211, 220 216 240 212 304 180 213, 227 289 172 214 304 201, 207, 217, 218, 219, 341 220 217, 218 221, 222, 240 222 189 231 218, 220 186, 188, 196, 207, 216, 220, 222, 237, 238, 239, 243, 251, 252, 341 252, 342 228

386 2:17–23 2:17–24

2:17–29 2:19 2:21–22 2:21–22, 25–29 2:21–24 2:22 2:24

2:25–29

2:27 2:28–29 2:29 3 3:1 3:1–2 3:1–3 3:1–4

3:1–4, 22 3:1–8 3:2 3:2–3 3:3 3:3–4 3:3–5 3:3–6

Index of References 142 143, 168, 188, 189, 190, 201, 211, 223, 236, 280, 347 222 224, 225, 226, 227 202, 224, 230 348 186 176 4, 21, 22, 59, 64, 65, 86, 123, 138, 139–144, 147, 159– 161, 168, 180–182, 197, 198, 200, 204, 211, 213, 223, 224, 227, 230, 231, 232, 237, 239, 241, 245, 252, 256, 258, 270, 281, 295, 300, 308, 318, 321, 322, 324, 329, 330, 336, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348 52, 142, 211, 216, 220, 222, 224, 228, 230, 232, 237, 239, 240, 252, 280, 342 216 143 186, 237, 240, 245 4, 324 244 93 89 22, 129, 135, 172, 176, 244, 246, 247, 342 291 172, 243, 244 245 71 236, 243, 245, 246, 333 142 303 228

3:4

3:4–6 3:5–8 3:6–7 3:8 3:9

3:9, 15–17 3:9, 19–20 3:9–18 3:9–20 3:10–12 3:10–18 3:13 3:13–14 3:14 3:15–17

3:17 3:18 3:19 3:19–20 3:20

3:20, 21 3:20–22, 27–28 3:21

3:21–22 3:21–26

101, 225, 243, 247, 248, 250, 252, 259, 261, 342, 348 304 251 307 268 123, 138, 160, 167, 168, 181, 190, 200, 227, 235, 237, 252, 254–256, 258, 275, 276, 278, 281, 295, 322, 337 143 143, 253, 254, 256, 269, 345 172 202, 253, 281, 342 258, 268 253, 255 258 268 258, 262 4, 21, 123, 138, 142, 160, 200, 256, 257, 262, 265, 266, 268, 308, 318, 329, 330, 336, 343, 345, 346, 347 267 258, 267, 268 207, 269, 270, 273, 278, 281, 287 123, 258, 281, 342 142, 166, 168, 251, 270, 274, 276, 277, 282, 284, 343 55 305 122, 172, 183, 188, 254, 279, 284, 285, 286, 288, 330, 345 184, 307 20, 50, 53, 56, 57, 65, 68, 71, 90, 97, 98, 118, 119, 122, 123, 137, 142, 143, 156, 159, 182, 184,

387

New Testament

3:21–31 3:21–4:25 3:22 3:22, 24 3:22, 25, 26 3:22, 26 3:23

3:23–24 3:23–25 3:24 3:24–25 3:24, 26 3:25 3:25–26 3:27–28 3:27–31 3:29–30 4

4:1ff 4:1–8 4:1–25 4:2–3 4:3

186, 201, 202, 207, 208, 209, 211, 215, 222, 224, 227, 236, 237, 238, 239, 242, 243, 244, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 258, 265, 266, 268, 271, 272, 273, 275, 281, 283–331 (283, 284, 286, 291, 304, 307, 308, 310, 311, 313, 317, 318, 320, 321, 322, 324, 328, 329, 330, 331) 333, 334, 336, 337, 339, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 349 305 118, 156, 187, 207, 305, 306 93, 285, 286, 288, 304 318 292 306 53, 259, 281, 287, 289, 291, 302, 322, 348 194 86, 292 242, 249, 286, 292, 295, 307, 308 169, 318, 324, 329 86 293, 298, 299, 300, 301 286, 291, 295, 296, 302 278 206 289 56, 111, 118, 129, 130, 155, 156, 242, 243, 307, 336 156 278 119, 172, 349 305 131

4:3–9, 13, 17 4:3–13 4:3, 5, 9, 11, 13 4:3, 6–12 4:3, 9, 22 4:4–9 4:6–8 4:6–9 4:7–8 4:9 4:9–16 4:9–25 4:13 4:13–14 4:13–25 4:15 4:16 4:22–25 4:23–24 4:23–25 4:23–5:2 4:24–25 4:25

4:25–5:1 4:25–5:2 5–8 5:1 5:1–2 5:1–2, 17, 21 5:1–5 5:6–8 5:6–10 5:8 5:12 5:12–21 5:15, 17, 21–22

244 77 97 259 57, 128 119 101 131 259 211 307 186 77 308 119 55 130, 305 57, 131, 242, 259 21 50, 77 291 120, 222 4, 31, 50, 57, 65, 74, 77, 120, 122, 123, 132, 133, 136, 142, 143, 156, 181, 182, 186, 211, 223, 227, 238, 239, 243, 252, 259, 272, 300, 302, 310, 311, 318, 333, 336, 338, 339, 340, 341, 344, 345 238 118, 292 118, 135, 142, 156, 345, 346 86, 156 169, 291, 303 271 120, 132, 346 304 302 302 259 143, 156, 167–169, 180, 289, 349 303

388 5:17 5:17–19 5:17, 21 5:19 5:20 6 6–7 6:1 6:1–10 6:4 6:10 6:16–23 6:23 7 7:5, 10, 13, 24 7:5, 18, 25 7:7–11 7:7–14 7:7–25 7:9–10 7:14 7:24 8 8:1ff 8:1–3 8:1–3, 12–30 8:1–3, 21, 23 8:1–4 8:1–10 8:1–11 8:1–13 8:1–23 8:3 8:3, 21, 30–34 8:3, 31–34 8:10–13 8:11–23 8:12–17 8:14–17 8:14–24 8:16–25 8:17–25 8:19–23 8:21 8:23, 28–30 8:23–25

Index of References 97 272 259 156 55, 143 77, 142 53 308 169, 321, 323 132, 291 302 180 167, 168, 192, 259, 271, 272 231 180 276 55 143 276 167 142, 168, 255, 256, 275, 276 167 77, 218, 323, 324 156 75 321, 323 291 53, 232, 346 132 76 180 77 156, 173, 302, 323, 324 292 238, 302, 346 167 120 308 346 132 291, 346 169 201 142, 167, 271, 324 75 120

8:28 8:28–30 8:28–34 8:29 8:29–30 8:31–34 8:32 8:33–34 8:34 9 9–10 9–11

9:1–8, 27–33 9:4 9:4–5 9:4, 15–17 9:5 9:6 9:6–8 9:6–9 9:6–10:16 9:11 9:17 9:18 9:20–21 9:20–26 9:27 9:27–28 9:27–29 9:27–33 9:29 9:30 9:30–33 9:30–10:13 9:30–10:16 9:32 9:33 10 10:1–5 10:1–10 10:1–16 10:3 10:4–8

296 304, 346 54, 78 53, 77 120 107, 156, 173, 220, 327 74, 181, 340 272 327 50, 218 336 6, 12, 14, 16, 26, 135, 159, 172, 187, 208, 209, 228, 236, 244, 245, 246, 250, 333, 346 142, 244 172 1, 93 272 76 119, 166, 173 142, 246 77, 119, 156 119, 289 296 83 176 176 93 154, 155 199, 245 64, 246 50, 77, 119 154, 199 86, 97 176, 220 285 85 53 86, 155, 213, 289, 328 4, 52, 53, 138 142 119 119 53 224

389

New Testament 10:4, 9–10 10:6–8 10:6–8, 16 10:6–16 10:9–10 10:9–11 10:11 10:11–12 10:11–16 10:11, 15–16 10:12 10:15 10:15–16

10:16 10:19 11 11:1–2 11:1, 11–12 11:8 11:11–12, 15 11:11–27 11:11, 14 11:15, 25–29 11:25–27 11:26 11:26–27

11:27 11:28–29 11:32–36 11:35 12–16 12:1 12:1–2 13:8–10 14:11 15

219 52, 53, 218, 219 242 173 52, 119 155 219, 289 91 50, 86, 93, 272 328 93, 289 30, 52, 68, 272 3, 21, 91, 108, 119, 132, 136, 142, 155, 156, 159, 177, 227, 238, 244, 246, 302, 308, 321, 329, 330, 343, 346 3, 30, 53, 219, 236, 333 53 4, 138, 244, 250, 258, 281, 330 93 92 142, 225 93 236 53 93 93 85, 169, 318 4, 21, 53, 119, 136, 142, 156, 159, 201, 211, 227, 238, 244, 250, 253, 265, 268, 292, 308, 329, 330, 343, 346 159, 160, 298, 310, 318 93 136 349 346 69 70, 71, 346 231 197, 220 12

15:6 15:8 15:8–9 15:8–12 15:8, 21–22 15:10 15:12 15:15–21 15:20–21 15:20–24 15:21 16:20 16:25–26 16:26 1 Corinthians 1:7 1:18–29 1:29 3:13 3:15 5:6–8 5:7 6:20 10 10:1–13 11:23–26 11:25 14:21 15 15:1–4

70 29, 93 93 84, 119 93 219 73, 74, 76, 93, 219, 227, 343 90 4, 30 346 70, 119, 346 77, 156 29 348

15:3 15:3–4 15:3–5 15:3–8 15:20–28 15:25 15:39 15:42–43 15:54 15:55

94n 85 275n 94n 118n 322 157, 322n 294n 43 304, 308 31 318 269n 156 33n, 40, 67, 302, 309 31n, 37n, 309, 310n 310 32n 31 171n 72n 275n 310n 157n, 163, 310, 319 310

2 Corinthians 1:19–20 1:20 2:15 2:16

136 135n 116n 116, 116n

390 3:18

Index of References

4:13 5:10 5:14–21 5:14–6:10 5:17 5:19–6:2 5:21 6:1 6:2 6:4 6:17 6:18 7:9 11:15 12:21

115n, 116, 116n, 290n, 291 248n 210n 315n 12 291n 69n 69n, 70, 70n, 94 69n 68n, 118n 212n 70 70n 192n 210n 192n

Galatians 1 1:11 1:11–12 1:15–16 1:15–19 1:16 2:5, 14 2:16 2:16, 20 2:20 3 3:1 3:1–14 3:2, 5 3:2, 5–14 3:5–6 3:6–7 3:8 3:10 3:10–14 3:11 3:13 3:15–18 3:16 3:22 3:23 4:4, 6 4:21–31 4:28 5:3

30 30n 28–29, 29n 29n, 68n 28–29 76n, 94n 3n 90n, 275n, 305 305n 76n 51 296n 130n 305 90n 305 307 29, 307 216 51n 125n, 131n, 133n 294n 308, 308n 77 276n, 305n 94n 76n 29n, 157n 29n 216

5:22–23 6:7 6:14–15

232 210n 221n

Ephesians 1:7 1:9 1:11 1:19 1:20 2:5, 8 2:8–9 2:17 3:3, 5 3:11 3:12 6:8

294n, 320n 296n 296n 84n 72n 118n 90n, 279n, 293n 267 94n 296n 305n 210n

Philippians 1:28 2 2:5–11 2:6–11 2:7 2:8 2:9 2:10ff 2:10–11 2:12 3:3–9 3:9 3:21

118n 198n 157n, 198n, 220 315n 198n 198n 198n 207n 197, 198n 118n 293n 305, 305n 290n

Colossians 1:14 2:12 3:1 3:24–25

320n 305n 72n 210n

1 Thessalonians 5:8–9

118n

2 Thessalonians 1:7 1:8 2:3, 6, 8 2:13

94n 193n 94n 118n

391

Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Midrashim 1Timothy 2:6

294n

2 Timothy 1:8 1:9 4:14

85 90n, 296n 210n

Titus 2:14

294n

Hebrews 1:3–5 2:5–9 8:1 9–10 9:5 9:7–8 9:12, 15 10–13 10:5–7 10:6, 7, 18 10:12 10:28–31 10:38 12:2 12:12 13:11

72 171n 72n 284n, 299n 297 293n 294n 129n 81n 323n 72n 231n 125n, 127n 72n 303n 323n

James 4:11–12

189

1 Peter 1:5, 7, 13

94n

1:12 1:17 1:18ff 1:20 1:23–25 1:24 2:4 2:6 2:6–8 2:9 3:18 4:13 4:18 5:1

94n 210n 294n 296n 89, 167 275n 79n 79n, 80n 79n, 80n 79n 133n, 134n 94n 133n 94n

2 Peter 2:1 2:11 3:3–7 3:3–9

294n 84n 162n 262

1 John 2:1–2

131, 134n

Revelation 1:1 2:23 5:9 5:12 6:17 7:12 14:3, 4 20:12 22:12

94n 210n 294n 84n 209n 84 294n 210n 210n

Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Midrashim 1 Esdras 2:14 Wisdom 10:13 11:23 12–15 12:20–22 13:1 13:3

Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Midrashim 13:6 115n 13:10–19 15 15:1–5 255n 15:10 197n 15:11 145n, 146n 18:14–16 146n 146n, 176n Sirach 146n 23:2

146n 146n 197n 146n 146n 146n 88n

303n

392 29:24 36:26 41:10 48:24–25 Baruch 1:13 2:11

Index of References 115n 115n 115n 23n

3 Baruch 4:16

289n

212n 83n

4 Maccabees 6:27–29 17:21–22 17:22

296n 296n 299n

1 Maccabees 10:67

115n

Apocalypse of Moses 21:6 289n

2 Maccabees 7:30–38

296n

Genesis Rabbah 12:6

289n

Index of Authors Adna, J. 75 Alexander, L. C. A. 30 Allen, D. L. 313, 315, 316, 317, 318 Andersen, F. I. 127, 130–31 Averbeck, R. 324 Bailey, D. P. 23, 32, 75, 92, 297, 310, 314 Barr, J. 127 Barrett, C. K. 115, 135, 175, 189, 190, 196, 214, 216, 217, 275, 285, 287, 288, 290, 291, 293, 296, 301, 302 Barth, K. 115 Bates, M. 17, 32, 144, 218 Bauckham, R. J. 13, 73, 215, 315 Beaton, R. 34 Begg, C. 11 Behm, J. 192 Bell, R. H. 1, 2, 7, 8, 81, 95, 98, 182, 188, 213, 214, 216, 224, 244, 245, 247, 250, 258, 260, 265, 269, 276, 279, 280, 281, 297, 305, 315 Bergman, J. 79 Berkley, T. W. 7, 18, 82, 226, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 237 Betz, O. 33 Beuken, W. A. M. 320 Bird, M. F. 117, 305, 307 Blenkinsopp, J. 13, 24, 33, 34, 37, 74, 78, 79, 104, 155, 296, 298, 311, 313 Bock, D. 34, 36, 40, 313, 316 Bockmuehl, M. 75, 198, 315 Bonsirven, J. 7, 8 Brewer, D. I. 22 Brown, R. E. 323 Brownlee, W. H. 124 Broyles, C. C. 23, 33, 74, 158 Bruce, F. F. 4, 95, 115, 267, 297 Brueggemann, W. 104, 294 Büchsel, F. 293 Bultmann, R. 95, 224, 283, 285, 303 Burrows, M. 33 Calvin, J. 95, 115, 276, 283, 289, 292, 293, 297, 302

Campbell, D. A. 144, 145, 185, 284, 304 Carson, D. A. 6, 10, 29, 32, 34, 61, 94, 98, 99, 179, 182, 195, 219, 267 Cavallin, H. C. C. 125, 135 Cazelles, H. 294 Childs, B. S. 12, 30, 70, 71, 73, 87, 88, 103, 104, 105, 111, 153, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 164, 165, 166, 171, 176, 199, 201, 204, 205, 207, 225, 227, 238, 242, 263, 264, 266, 267, 273, 292, 313, 314, 321 Chisholm, Jr., R. B. 316, 317, 318, 325 Clements, R. E. 104, 161 Conzelmann, H. 95, 309 Coppes, L. J. 150, 166 Craige, P. C. 153, 240 Cranfield, C. E. B. 1, 5, 69, 70, 76, 84, 85, 88, 90, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 115, 128, 135, 145, 147, 174, 175, 180, 189, 190, 192, 194, 216, 217, 219, 221, 223, 224, 231, 247, 255, 269, 270, 274, 276, 283, 284, 285, 287, 288, 289, 291, 292, 294, 295, 296, 298, 301, 302, 303, 305, 310 Creed, J. M. 303 Culver, R. D. 316 Das, A. A. 187, 195, 278 Davies, G. N. 77, 95, 192, 209, 280, 347 Davis, J. D. 73 Deines, R. 2, 72, 93, 195, 221, 231, 280 Delitzsch, F. 74, 92, 153, 158, 164, 170, 199, 204, 205, 242, 248, 260, 262, 264, 267, 325 Denney, J. 304 Denny, D. R. 10 Dietrich, W. 129 DiMattei, S. 46 Dinter, P. E. 10 Dodd, C. H. 7, 8, 9, 27, 40, 92, 95, 98, 125, 178, 180, 190, 196, 210, 217, 228, 232, 245, 290, 298, 301

394

Index of Authors

Dunn, J. D. G. 3, 31, 33, 69, 94, 95, 98, 115, 117, 120–21, 135, 147, 188, 191, 194, 195, 226, 228, 245, 255, 256, 275, 276, 281, 283, 284, 287, 288, 289, 292, 293, 296, 297, 298, 301, 303, 304, 305, 318, 322 DuToit, A. 8 Eichholz, G. 298 Ekblad, Jr., E. R. 107, 111 Ellingworth, P. 129 Elliott, M. A. 78 Ellis, E. E. 3, 6, 7, 8, 16, 27, 29, 32, 40, 74, 76, 77, 78, 119, 142, 156, 176, 196, 197, 226, 227, 241, 243, 267, 310, 327, 342–343 Emerton, J. A. 124 Engnell, I. 349 Enns, P. 349 Evans, C. A. 17, 23, 33, 34, 35, 40, 68, 74, 75, 89, 108, 158, 298, 309, 315, 323 Fee, G. D. 76, 125, 307, 309 Fishbane, M. 9, 17, 24, 82, 148, 165, 173, 201 Fisk, B. N. 45 Fitzmyer, J. A. 5, 85, 88, 95, 124, 226, 247, 255, 276, 283, 285, 289, 292, 293, 297 France, R. T. 307, 308, 323 Friedrich, G. 33 Gathercole, S. J. 179, 195, 224, 228, 275, 276, 280, 287, 298, 309, 313, 314, 315 Gerhardsson, B. 32 Gese, H. 298, 314 Gignilliat, M. 12–13, 69, 79, 107, 215, 228, 314, 324, 335 Godet, W. 88, 90, 95, 100, 115, 245, 247, 269, 276, 283, 285, 287, 289, 293, 298, 300, 303 Goldingay, J. E. 104 Goppelt, L. 7, 8, 30, 81, 295, 321 Grimm, W. 33 Grogan, G. W. 103, 107, 158, 161, 164, 177, 199, 202, 205, 218, 225, 263

Hafemann, S. J. 5, 25 Hahn, F. 68 Hamilton, V. P. 184 Hanson, A. T. 125 Hanson, P. D. 103, 159, 165, 201, 205, 227, 263, 273, 274, 316 von Harnack, A. 7 Harris, J. R. 6, 7, 8 Harris, M. J. 76, 116 Hartley, J. E. 314 Hays, R. B. 6, 9–10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 44, 45, 46, 48–49, 68, 70, 73, 81, 85, 87, 98, 120, 121, 125, 129, 130, 133, 135, 140, 141, 167, 194, 233, 234, 241, 256, 277, 304, 305, 323, 334–335 Headlam, A. C. 88, 95, 97, 115, 117, 145, 170, 178, 179, 180, 188, 212, 216, 223, 245, 255, 275, 289, 291, 292, 293, 296, 300 Hengel, M. 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 73, 75, 76, 77, 194, 309, 310 Henze, M. 22, 24 Hill, D. 95, 293, 301 Hofius, O. 31, 298, 310, 313, 314 Holland, T. 146, 307, 311 Hollander, J. 9 Hooker, M. D. 145, 147, 148, 152, 180, 311 Hübner, H. 2, 195, 224 Hughes, P. E. 116 Hultgren, A. 284, 296, 297 Hurtado, L. W. 76, 77, 215 Janowski, B. 23, 32, 75, 92, 297, 310 Janzen, J. G. 127, 129, 130–31 Jensen, J. 158 Jeremias, J. 33 Jewett, R. 5, 85, 94, 115, 187, 237 Johnson, D. G. 161 Kaiser, O. 75, 153, 155, 161, 163, 225 Käsemann, E. 94, 95, 115, 117, 135, 145, 146, 147, 152, 174, 175, 178, 179, 180, 184, 191, 192, 196, 216, 217, 221, 223, 226, 232, 245, 246, 247, 255, 256, 269, 270, 274, 275, 276, 283, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 298, 303, 305

Index of Authors Keener, C. S. 69, 85, 88, 323 Keesmaat, S. C. 25, 308 Keil, C. F. 126, 127, 128, 218, 299 Kellermann, D. 324 Kidner, D. 165, 170, 171, 210, 248, 260, 261, 262, 268, 271, 272, 277 Kim S. 27, 31 Kirk, J. R. 73 Knibb, M. A. 23 Knight, G. A. F. 158, 218 Koch, D. 3, 8, 9, 12, 17, 141, 257 Kugler, R. 22 Kümmel, W. G. 303 Kuss, O. 95, 117, 226, 283, 284, 287 Ladd, G. E. 95, 298 Liefeld, W. L. 320 Lietzmann, H. 116 Lim, T. H. 8, 9, 12 Lincoln, A. T. 267, 279 Lindars, B. 7, 125 Livingston, G. H. 324 Lührmann, D. 94, 285 Luter, Jr., A. B. 30 Luther, M. 10, 95, 296, 297 Manson, T. W. 297 Marcus, J. 34 Marshall, I. H. 6, 7, 32, 33, 38, 89 Martin, R. P. 3, 30, 31, 70, 116, 198, 315 Matlock, R. B. 145 Maurer, C. 270 Mays, J. L. 148, 165, 170, 171, 196, 210, 248, 249, 260, 261, 262, 271, 272, 277, 294 McConville, J. G. 148, 149, 150, 153, 218, 219, 240, 241 McGinnis, C. M. 11, 23 McGrath, A. E. 94 Menken, M. J. J. 34, 80 Mettinger, T. 105 Metzger, B. M. 92 Michaels, J. R. 80, 89, 275 Michel, O. 3, 6, 7, 84, 95, 128, 135, 146, 190, 197, 247, 255, 269, 272, 284, 285, 289, 293, 295, 303, 305 Mittmann-Richert, U. 34, 36, 39

395

Moo, D. J. 5, 10, 32, 85, 88, 90, 94, 95, 97, 98, 100, 118, 123, 124, 128, 146, 147, 178, 180, 190, 192, 197, 209, 216, 226, 232, 245, 254, 255, 269, 274, 275, 276, 279, 280, 283, 284, 285, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 296, 297, 299, 301, 303, 306 Moody, R. M. 135 Morris, L. 10, 32, 95, 100, 124, 293, 296, 298, 301, 324 Motyer, J. A. 74, 77, 89, 103, 106, 155, 158, 159, 160, 161, 165, 177, 202, 205, 206, 207, 218, 239, 242, 264, 265, 267, 274, 317, 318, 325 Moyise, S. 2, 20, 30, 34, 51, 80, 89, 120, 125, 228, 233, 234, 259 Muilenburg, J. 103, 106, 177 Murray, J. 71, 76, 93, 94, 95, 98, 115, 135, 245, 269, 276, 287, 288, 291, 293, 305 Naselli, A. D. 17 North, C. R. 79 Nygren, A. 95, 276, 297 O’Brien, P. T. 61, 94, 98, 99, 179, 182, 195, 219 O’Day, G. R. 25 O’Neill, J. C. 95 Oepke, A. 94, 95, 191 Olson, R. C. 40 Ortlund, D. 210, 217 Oss, D. A. 10 Oswalt, J. 10, 13, 71, 73, 75, 79, 85, 103, 104, 105, 106, 154, 155, 158, 160, 161, 165, 167, 199, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 212, 225, 226, 227, 238, 239, 242, 263, 264, 265, 266, 290, 295, 311, 312, 314, 316, 318, 325 Pao, D. W. 23, 34, 35, 36, 37, 320 Philonenko, M. 255 Piper, J. 100, 284 Plummer, A. 116, 309 Porter, S. E. 30, 42, 45, 46 Procksch, O. 293

396

Index of Authors

Ridderbos, H. 94, 95, 127, 284, 309, 310, 311, 321 Riesner, R. 32 Ringgren, H. 79, 294, 295 Roberts, J. H. 95 Roberts, J. J. M. 104 Robertson, A. T. 309 Robertson, O. P. 126, 135, 162 Ropes, J. H. 95 Rowley, H. H. 79 Sailhamer, J. H. 194 Sanday, W. 88, 95, 97, 115, 117, 145, 170, 178, 179, 180, 188, 212, 216, 223, 245, 255, 275, 289, 291, 292, 293, 296, 300 Sanders, E. P. 51, 58–59, 188, 194, 195 Sanders, J. A. 17, 33, 34 Sawyer, J. F. A. 33 Scharbert, J. 163 Schilling, O. 24 Schnabel, E. J. 34, 35, 36, 37, 320 Schreiner, T. R. 194, 281 Schrenk, G. 79 Schwemer, A. M. 28, 29, 30, 31, 76, 194, 309, 310 Scott, C. A. A. 95 Scott, J. B. 163 Scott, J. M. 25 Secombe, D. 34 Seebass, H. 79 Seifrid, M. A. 61, 95, 97, 98, 99, 141, 179, 182, 184, 188, 189, 191, 195, 216, 217, 219, 225, 237, 239, 240, 244, 247, 251, 255, 276, 279, 280, 283, 290, 295 Seitz, C. R. 158, 179, 212, 213, 225, 295 Shum, S. 6, 10, 11, 14, 16, 25, 26, 74, 77, 78, 119, 142, 156, 176, 226, 241, 243, 267, 310, 327, 342–43 Silva, M. 3, 14, 29 Smith, D. M. 6, 25, 125, 135 Snaith, N. H. 324 Snodgrass, K. R. 35, 194, 210 Sprinkle, P. M. 117, 305, 306, 307 Stanley, C. D. 6, 8, 12, 15, 16, 17, 30, 41–47, 48, 68, 84, 140, 141, 228, 233, 234, 257, 258, 332–33, 342–43

Stanton, G. 32 Stigers, H. G. 98, 100, 317 Stockhausen, C. K. 17, 25 Stuhlmacher, P. 5, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 68, 93, 95, 98, 108, 135, 256, 269, 276, 283, 285, 289, 296, 297, 299, 314, 317 Thielman, F. S. 267 Thiselton, A. 29, 30, 309 Thrall, M. 116 Trench, R. C. 212, 303, 304 Tull, P. K. 11, 23 Tzoref, S. 23 VanGemeren, W. A. 170, 171, 210, 260, 261, 262, 271, 277 Via, D. O. 25 Wagner, J. R. 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 17, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 31, 68, 74, 77, 78, 86, 107, 108, 119, 141, 142, 155, 156, 166, 167, 176, 190, 225, 226, 232, 233, 234, 241, 243, 246, 265, 267, 310, 327, 342–43 Watson, F. 26, 49–59, 100, 116, 117, 120, 121, 125, 130–31, 134, 145, 146, 185, 197, 217, 259, 279, 304, 306, 335 Watts, J. D. 106, 107 Watts, R. E. 34, 36, 37, 38, 125, 126, 127, 128, 135 Weima, J. A. D. 5 Wenham, D. 27 Wenham, G. J. 155, 161, 294, 325 Westermann, C. 35, 71, 89, 103, 105, 165, 166, 201, 205, 206, 207, 218, 227, 242, 263, 264, 265, 273, 314, 316, 317 Whybray, R. N. 89, 105, 159, 160, 164, 165, 176, 201, 205, 218, 242, 263, 264, 274, 312 Wilckens, U. 135 Wildberger, H. 153, 161 Wilk, F. 3, 10, 11, 16, 29, 31, 74, 77, 78, 119, 142, 156, 166, 167, 176, 226, 241, 243, 246, 267, 310, 327, 342–343 Wilckens, U. 135

Index of Authors Wilkins, M. J. 34, 36, 38 Williams, C. H. 23, 34, 106, 111 Williams, S. K. 94, 301, 303 Williamson, H. G. M. 6, 75 Witherington III, B. 69, 146 Wolf, H. 320 Wright, N. T. 15, 26, 43, 46, 52, 59–66, 68, 69, 72, 73, 74, 76, 81, 100, 121, 125, 130, 145, 146, 188, 215, 232, 234, 238, 240, 241, 265, 307, 311, 315, 304, 336–38

Würthwein, E. 193 Yamauchi, E. 293 Yang, A. L. 10 Yarbrough, R. W. 182 Young, E. J. 199, 312, 316 Young, N. H. 301 Zeller, D. 298 Ziesler, J. A. 95, 100 Zimmerli, W. 33

397

Index of Subjects Abraham 21, 51, 53, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 72, 77, 99, 101, 118, 119, 124, 127–31, 135, 155, 156, 158, 162, 185, 186, 194, 211, 242, 243, 244, 246, 305, 307, 308, 336, 337 Adam 56, 59, 60, 76, 142, 143, 144, 147, 149, 152, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158, 164, 165, 167, 168, 169, 177, 181, 218, 237, 278, 289, 290, 291, 337, 338, 339, 340 allusions – methodology of ascertaining 16–22 – Paul’s use of 3n, 342–343 ark of the covenant 296, 298, 307 arm of the Lord 84, 89, 102, 105–12, 264, 307 atonement 4, 60, 71, 118, 119, 156, 159, 207, 227, 244, 250, 253, 265, 281, 295, 297, 304, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 317–21, 322, 324, 330, 335 calling, divine 42, 77–79 captivity – to sin 64, 103, 138, 139, 178–81, 254–57, 262–67 – typology of 64, 139–44, 159–69, 223–39, 262–67 Christ – deity of 62, 71–77, 215, 215n, 315n – pre-existence of 75–77 – sacrificial death of 63, 74, 86, 102, 106, 107, 108, 111, 156, 184, 186, 211, 241, 252, 287, 293–304, 310, 311–29, 333 – as wisdom of God 151, 173, 201, 303–4 Christology 57, 62, 71–77, 136, 215, 215n, 315n, 322 circumcision 52, 59, 61, 142, 143, 186, 187, 194, 216, 222, 223, 228, 230, 232, 237, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 252, 280 condemnation 185–222, 274–81 conscience 185, 191–92, 221, 338

covenant – adamic 149n – noahic 162, 243 – abrahamic 119, 155, 162, 243 – mosaic 119, 149, 154, 161, 162, 243, 339 – davidic 72, 118, 162, 243 – new 39, 65, 219 – everlasting 161, 162, 179, 201, 220, 243 – as fulfilled in the gospel 162, 243 David 3, 71, 72, 73, 76, 101, 185, 244, 248, 249, 252, 258, 259, 277 Day of Atonement 38, 60, 118, 284, 294, 295, 297, 299, 300, 307, 308, 312, 317–21, 323, 324, 326, 330, 331, 338 day of judgment 191, 210, 217 election – of believers 77–79 – of Christ 77–79 – of Israel 77–79, 93 faith – Jesus Christ as the object of 288–89, 304–7 – nature of 90–93, 104, 130, 288–89 – as related to repentance 53–54, 128, 209, 215–22 – as response to revelation 306 fall – of Adam 54, 59, 76, 129, 143, 149, 152, 154–69, 175, 177, 179, 180, 195, 204, 230, 248, 253, 259, 261, 266, 268, 289, 290, 322, 338, 339 – reiteration of 54, 129, 143, 153, 154–69, 180, 181, 185, 186, 204, 229, 230, 237, 252, 290, 322 flesh – as fallen human nature 75, 88, 89, 93, 103, 142, 166, 168, 202, 205, 255, 274–81, 282, 286

Index of Subjects – as condemned in the judgment 274– 81 general revelation 185, 191, 194, 196, 222, 223, 248, 251, 338 God – acknowledgement of 173, 189, 206, 210, 253, 306 – attributes of 98, 100–101, 114, 286, 302 – knowledge of 169, 192, 204, 223, 229, 339 – love of 101, 214, 232, 248, 261, 262, 268, 271, 272, 286, 302, 304 – mercy of 91, 101, 208, 248, 279, 339 – power of 24, 56, 88–90, 96, 105–12, 286 see also righteousness of God; wrath of God golden calf 197n, 293n gospel – as fulfillment of the saving covenant promise 57, 65, 115–35, 244, 245 – Isaianic nature of 27–40, 67–79, 80– 115, 283ff – as power of God 88–90, 105–12 – as universally available 90–93 – as the revelation of God’s righteousness 93–115, 286ff, 311ff grace 28, 58, 91, 127, 167, 180, 185, 188, 191, 197, 208, 236, 238, 242, 252, 268, 279, 293, 303, 339 guilt offering 302 312, 315, 323, 324– 26, 330, 331 Holy Spirit 52, 70, 71, 76, 156, 216, 228, 232, 237, 264, 308 human guilt – as condemned in the eschatological judgment 187–222, 269–81 – disclosed in conscience 185, 191–92, 221, 338 – disclosed by law 187–222, 228–29, 269–74 – universal nature of 269–81 idolatry 148–52, 168, 169, 173–77, 181, 189, 198, 202–6, 247, 279, 280

399

image of God 52–54, 60, 78, 99, 150– 52, 164, 192, 289 impartiality, divine 179, 214, 216, 285 Isaiah, the prophecy of – as eschatological and messianic in nature 22–26, 102–15, 215–22, 283ff – gospel of 80ff – inner-canonical status of 22–26 – as a literary/theological unity 22–26 – in relation to the fall 154–59 – trial motif of 85–87, 169–78, 179– 209, 269–81, 326–29 Israel – salvation of 111–13, 249–50, 262–67 – mediatorial role of 93, 211, 291 – typology of 138–44, 159–69, 262–67 judgment – according to gospel 215–22 – according to works 209–15 – final 183, 209–15, 295–304 – covenant as refuge from 129, 170, 183, 209–11, 225, 259, 261, 262 justification – by faith 85–87, 215–22, 292–307, 326–29 – in the final judgment 215–22, 269– 81 – as fulfilled in the resurrection 71–77, 122–23, 131–36, 156–57 – of the Servant/Christ 77–78, 87, 326–29 – relation of works to 192–94n, 216– 22 – through Christ’s sacrifice 215–22, 292–304, 326–29 law – absolute nature of 229–32 – as ethnic boundary marker 280n, 287n – as condemnation 187–222, 228–29, 269–74 – as promise 50, 187–97, 285, 339 – mosaic 193, 195, 198, 215, 339 – moral 171n, 195, 198 – natural 161, 180n, 339 – perfect obedience to 278 legalism 51n

400

Index of Subjects

mercy seat 296–99 Moses 3, 101, 149, 219, 230, 298, 319 natural law 161, 180n, 339 Noah 158n, 161, 162n parousia 13, 265n Paul – apostolic consciousness 68–69 – Damascus Road experience of 27– 30, 39–40 – dependence on apostolic tradition by 30–39, 309–10 – mission strategy of 3, 70–71 – use of scripture by 2–3, 2n–3n propitiation 293, 298, 300, 301 redemption 106, 292–95, 321–24 repentance – nature of 53–54, 187–209, 215–22 – as related to the covenant 53–54, 101, 128, 130, 185ff – as related to faith 53–54, 128, 209, 215–22 resurrection – as conquest of sin and death 36, 38, 71–77, 118, 122, 131, 132, 134, 136, 156, 157, 186, 211, 252, 292, 310 – as fulfillment of promise 27–28, 36, 38, 57, 62, 71–77, 108, 118, 120, 131, 132, 136, 156, 184, 302 – in relation to justification 71–77, 122–23, 131–36, 156–57 revelation – general 185, 191, 194, 196, 222, 223, 248, 251, 338 – of God’s righteousness in the gospel 93–115, 286ff, 311ff – in the law 98–102, 194–95 – as saving promise 187–209 righteousness of God – as eschatological justification 215– 22, 286–304, 326–29 – as eschatological wrath 178–81, 209–200, 300–304 – as an attribute of God 94–102, 113– 14, 286–87, 295–304 – as present wrath 178–81 – as reflected in his law 98–99

sacrifice of Christ 63, 74, 86, 102, 106, 107, 108, 111, 156, 184, 186, 211, 241, 252, 287, 293–304, 310, 311– 29, 333 salvation – as based in justification 87, 187, 218, 247, 325 – as the revelation of God’s righteousness 102–13 – by faith 51, 90–91, 96, 117–18, 243, 286, 289 – in the covenant 210, 245, 268 – independent of works 3n, 52n, 53, 55, 58, 59, 90, 92, 119, 121n, 124, 192n, 217n, 218, 259n, 273, 274–81, 284, 287, 293, 305 – mediated by the Messiah 23, 25, 28, 43, 46, 50, 60, 62, 76, 86, 87, 120, 159, 172, 173, 223, 242, 243, 267, 338 – through the gospel 56, 60, 86, 88–90, 102–13, 120, 159, 243, 286, 327, 338 salvation history 35, 50, 55, 57, 115–20, 122, 124, 129, 130, 134, 135, 137, 138, 172–73, 182–85, 187, 188, 191, 194, 196, 199, 208, 215, 222, 242, 243, 251, 252, 286, 287, 336, 338, 339, 340 sanctification 46–47n, 69–71, 321 scripture – as having the nature of promise 71, 245 self-righteous Jew 224n self-righteous judge 188–190 Servant of the Lord – as divine 71–77, 215, 215n, 315n – as mediator of justification 85–87, 102–15, 215–22, 326–29 – as mediator of redemption 106, 292– 95, 321–24 – as messianic 71–77 sin – as captivating power 138–44, 159– 69, 178–81 – as disclosed in law 53–55, 169–73, 187–209, 223–32, 269–81

Index of Subjects – nature of 147–54, 223–39, 253ff, 274–81, 289–92 – universality of 289–92 son of David – as divine 71–77 – as Servant of the Lord 71–77 sonship 77–79 tabernacle 101, 290n, 293n, 297, 297n, 298, 300n, 322n temple 1, 38n, 58, 59, 61, 69n, 70, 92, 230n, 231n, 297 trial motif 169–78, 185ff, 269–81, 326– 29 truth – of the gospel 3–4, 3–4n – suppression of 183 typology – of Adam 147–69 – of captive Israel 138–44, 159–69, 262–67

401

– of the sacrifice of Christ 283ff word of God 47n, 88–90, 127, 151n, 167n, 173, 246, 246n, 276n works of law 3n, 52n, 53, 55, 58, 59, 90, 92, 119, 121n, 124, 192n, 217n, 218, 259n, 273, 274–81, 284, 287, 293, 305 works-righteousness 51n, 184n, 195n, 279n wrath of God – covenant refuge from 129, 170, 183, 209–11, 225, 259, 261, 262 – as eschatological judgment 178–81, 209–11 – as fulfilled in Christ’s death 132, 133, 181, 300–304, 324–26 – as present captivity 159–69, 178–81 – as typified in Israel 64, 139–44, 159–69, 223–39, 262–67