The Psalms of Solomon and the Messianic Ethics of Paul 3161539915, 9783161539916

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)

416

František Ábel

The Psalms of Solomon and the Messianic Ethics of Paul

Mohr Siebeck

František Ábel, born 1964; 2006 PhD; 2006–12 assistant professor at the New Testament Department of the Evangelical Lutheran Theological Faculty of Comenius University in Bratislava; 2007–11 assistant dean of academic affairs; since 2013 associate professor.

Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-153992-3 ISBN 978-3-16-153991-6 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 by 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.

Preface Since the time of my post-graduate study, I have been increasingly aware that the way to better know and understand the traditions of early Christianity is primarily through the comprehensive exploration of the Jewish religious and cultural traditions of the Second Temple Era with all of their complexities. The same is true for comprehending the content and meaning of Paul’s preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with all of its specifics. The corpus of Paul’s writings as a whole is a unique example of the encounter of two different worlds, two distinct cultural and religious traditions – the Jewish and the mostly Western Gentile. Despite their distinctiveness, these traditions correlate in various aspects, which are observable most readily in the corpus of Paul’s letters. Therefore, by the closer analysis of Paul’s announcement we must also take into consideration the multicultural society of the Greco-Roman world, which inevitably influenced the modes of thinking and writing of this Hellenistic Jew, Paul of Tarsus, who was himself a typical part of that society. Besides these facts, it is very important to bear in mind the main goals of Paul’s mission as a whole. For Paul his mission among the Gentiles was the very fulfilling of Israel’s role, and because of this view, God’s purpose in the world became an integral part of theological dialogue within Paul’s own religious tradition, including his own immediate, local milieu. However, it seems that in the period following Paul’s death this dialogue never matured and was permanently interrupted by dominant forces within the nascent traditions of rabbinic Judaism and patristic Christianity. Due to this development, the door was left open to the increasing influence of foreign philosophical, religious, and cultural ideologies on the primitive Jewish-Christian tradition. And so we must ask how we can rightly and properly understand all that is connected with Paul’s theological thinking, his proclamation of his mission among the Gentiles, and of course how all that relates to post-biblical Judaism. I later became acquainted with recent trends in Pauline studies, such as “the new perspective on Paul” and “Paul and Empire.” I was increasingly persuaded that reading Paul’s writings through the lens of distinct contemporary forms of thinking and living typical for the western part of the contemporary ancient world – and then particular periods of Middle Ages until

VI

Preface

the Enlightenment and the modern era – is the best example of correlating a foreign pattern of thinking with Paul’s own. It is especially noticeable in the field of Pauline theology, such as scholarship on the doctrine of justification, the Last Judgment, the relationship between the Law and God’s justice and mercy, as well as the basic elements of Jewish religious traditions with their emphases on God’s covenant with Israel. It is therefore the task of recent scholarship on Paul and early Christianity to return to this core of Paul’s theological thinking and try to understand better and more comprehensively the main emphases of his mission – including the actual content and intent of his preached message – especially in light of the complexities of Second Temple Judaism. This book is the continuation of other research I have done in the field of Paul’s theology over the last three years, especially the project titled Corpus Paulinum as Interreligious Dialogue Paradigm in Multicultural Society from 2010–11. There were two motivating factors in the decision to take on this particular survey. The first was Chris VanLandingham’s monograph Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006), which uses the Psalms of Solomon to argue that Paul’s “teaching about justification by faith,” especially its central part (locus classicus) in Rom 3:21–26, is primarily based on the eschatological practice of preparing devout believers for the coming Day of Messiah. He considers this question in the context of Pss. Sol. 18:5: “I suggest this idea, which is expressed so often in Jewish texts, is the background for understanding Paul’s statements in Rom 3:21–26” (Judgment and Justification, 139, including n. 249). The second motivation for me was Douglas A. Campbell’s work The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). Campbell argues that for a true understanding of Paul’s message, irrelevant and outside ideas should not be introduced into the discussion. Theologically incorrect interpretations are the result of allowing modern religiousphilosophical interpretations of the period to influence our reading of Paul. These interpretations have more in common with modern political traditions than with the orthodox theology of Palestinian Judaism and the more open theology of first-century Hellenistic Judaism. This project defends the great importance of the exploration of all aspects of Paul’s proclamation in applying the context of the Jewish literature written during Greek and early Roman periods – meaning fourth century BCE to around the second century CE – to Paul’s own writings. Within this broad cultural corpus, as well as in Paul’s writings themselves, the frequent idea of eschatological concepts arises, particularly the concept of the coming of the Messiah and the Last Judgment. Similarly in the case of the Psalms of Solomon, the Last Judgment is the main topic of this pseud-

Preface

VII

epigraphon. By closer analysis and exploration of particular parts of this work, especially chapters 17–18, we can see that only this deuterocanonical writing could form a considerable extent of background for the formation and development of Paul’s messianic ethics, including his teaching about justification, the center of his proclamation. This type of influence is relevant despite the fact that scholars are still debating whether Paul was actually familiar with this particular writing – the Psalms of Solomon. All of this will be the subject of our survey in the coming chapters. I would like to thank Professor Jörg Frey for the encouragement he has given me during the preparation of this work, as well as to the publisher for the opportunity to prepare this work and for accepting it for the WUNT monograph series. I would like to thank especially the staff members who helped me with the technical and practical details of preparing and finalizing the manuscript. And above all, I am indebted to David Benjamin Collins and Romana Ábelová, who read the manuscript and made thorough and intelligent corrections of my English. Without their work the book would not have reached the public.

Contents

Preface ......................................................................................................... V List of Abbreviations ................................................................................. XII

Introduction ............................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: The Jewish Deuterocanonical Literature in the Context of Second Temple Judaism ............................................. 5 1. Judaism of the Second Temple Period: A Brief Characterization ......................................................................... 11 2. Comprehension of the Torah in the Context of Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Era ....................................................................... 15

Chapter 2: The Psalms of Solomon and Its Relation to Jewish Messianic Concepts ..................................... 28 1. Historical Background and Content ...................................................... 31 2. The Origin and Development of the Jewish Messianic Concept............ 44 3. The Davidic Messianic Conception in the Psalms of Solomon .............. 52 3.1 The Role of the Judgment of God in the Messianic Concept of the Psalms of Solomon ........................... 58

Chapter 3: The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics ......................................................... 69 1. The Basic Characteristic of Paul’s Messianic Ethics ............................ 76

X

Contents

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message ................................................................................... 92 2.1 The Preliminary Statements .............................................................. 92 2.2 God’s Justice and Mercy – Introduction........................................... 95 2.3 God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon ......................... 99 2.3.1 Psalms of Solomon 1 .............................................................. 103 2.3.2 Psalms of Solomon 2 .............................................................. 108 2.3.3 Psalms of Solomon 3 .............................................................. 117 2.3.4 Psalms of Solomon 4 .............................................................. 123 2.3.5 Psalms of Solomon 5 .............................................................. 126 2.3.6 Psalms of Solomon 7 .............................................................. 130 2.3.7 Psalms of Solomon 8 .............................................................. 133 2.3.8 Psalms of Solomon 9 .............................................................. 139 2.3.9 Psalms of Solomon 10 ............................................................ 148 2.3.10 Psalms of Solomon 11 .......................................................... 155 2.3.11 Psalms of Solomon 13 .......................................................... 158 2.3.12 Psalms of Solomon 14 .......................................................... 162 2.3.13 Psalms of Solomon 15 .......................................................... 167 2.3.14 Psalms of Solomon 16 .......................................................... 171 2.3.15 Psalms of Solomon 17 .......................................................... 174 2.3.16 Psalms of Solomon 18 .......................................................... 189 2.3.17 Summary .............................................................................. 192 2.4 God’s Justice (Righteousness) and Mercy in Paul’s Message ....... 196 2.4.1 Paul’s Concept of Justification in the Protestant Theological Context ........................................ 199 2.4.2 God’s Justice (Righteousness) and Mercy in Light of the Judgment Passages ............................................. 210 2.4.2.1 First and Second Corinthians ..................................... 211 2.4.2.2 Galatians ..................................................................... 226 2.4.2.3 Romans ....................................................................... 230 2.4.3 Summary ................................................................................ 254

Chapter 4: Paul’s Messianic Ethics Contextualized with the Psalms of Solomon ....................................................................... 256 1. Romans 3:21–26 in the Context of Psalms of Solomon 17–18 ............ 265 1.1 Rom 3:21–26 in the Context of Pss. Sol. 18:5 ............................... 279

Conclusion ............................................................................................. 285

Contents

XI

Bibliography ............................................................................................. 295 Index of Sources ....................................................................................... 313 Index of Authors ....................................................................................... 339 Index of Subjects ...................................................................................... 346

List of Abbreviations The book has followed the abbreviations set out in Patrick H. Alexander et al., ed., The SBL Handbook of Style (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999). The following abbreviations, mostly from the the Handbook, have been used: AB ABD ABG ABRL AGJU ALGHJ ANRW

APOT ATANT BA BAGD

BDAG

BHTh BJRL BJS

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman (6 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1992) Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte Anchor Bible Reference Library Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1972–) The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Edited by R. H. Charles (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913) Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Biblical Archaeologist A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Edited by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker (2nd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Edited by W. Bauer, F. W. Danker, W. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich (3rd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999) Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester Brown Judaic Studies

List of Abbreviations

BL BNTC BRS BSGRT BWANT BZAW CBQ CCWJCW CJ ConBNT ConBOT CPJ CRINT CTHP DBAT DBSupp DJD DSD EBC EKKNT Eos FJCD FRLANT GAP GCS GELS I

GELS II GTA GTP HNT

XIII

Bibel und Liturgie Black’s New Testament Commentaries The Biblical Resource Series Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Catholic Biblical Quarterly Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World, 200 BC to AD 200 Concordia Journal Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series Corpus papyrorum judaicorum. Edited by V. Tcherikover (3 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957–64) Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy Dielheimer Blätter zum Alten Testament Dictionnaire de la Bible. Supplément Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Dead Sea Discoveries The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: With the New International Version of the Holy Bible. Edited by F. E. Gaebelein (12 vols.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976–92) Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Commentarii Societatis Philologae Polonorum Forschungen zum jüdisch-christlichen Dialog Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten [drei] Jahrhunderte A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Part I (A–I). Edited by J. Lust, E. Eynikel, K. Hauspie, G. Chamberlain (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992) A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Part II (K–W). Edited by J. Lust, E. Eynikel, K. Hauspie (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1996) Göttinger theologische Arbeiten De gammeltestamentlige Pseudepigrafer. Edited by E. Hammershaimb et al. (2 vols.; Copenhagen: Gad, 1953–76) Handbuch zum Neuen Testament

XIV HNTC HTKNT HTR ICC IDB Int JAAR JAOS JBL JCT JJS JRE JSHRZ JSJ JSJSup JSNT JSNTSup JSOTSup JSP JSPSup JTS JTSA KJV LBS LCL LSJ LXX NA NCB NICNT NovT NovTSup NRSV

List of Abbreviations

Harper’s New Testament Commentaries Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review International Critical Commentary The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by G. A. Buttrick (4 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1962) Interpretation Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish and Christian Texts Series Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Religious Ethics Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Journal for the Study of Judaism: Supplement Series 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: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Journal of Theology for Southern Africa King James Version Library of Biblical Studies Loeb Classical Library A Greek-English Lexicon. Edited by H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, H. S. Jones (9th ed. with revised supplement; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996) Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) Novum Testamentum Graece. Edited by B. and K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger (27th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1996) New Century Bible New International Commentary on the New Testament Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum Supplements New Revised Standard Version

List of Abbreviations

NTAbh NTD NTL NTS OTM OTP OTS PG RE2

RevQ SB SBLEJL SBLSCS SBLSymS SBS SJC SJLA SNT SNTSMS SNTW StPB SR TDNT TSAJ UNT VD WBC WMANT WUNT ZNW ZWT

XV

Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen Das Neue Testament Deutsch New Testament Library New Testament Studies Oxford Theological Monographs Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth (2 vols.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2010) Oudtestamentische Studiën Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca. Edited by J.P. Migne. Paris: Migne, 1857–66 Realenzyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche (2nd ed.; edited by J. J. Herzog, G. L. Plitt, and A. Hauck; 18 vols.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1877–88) Revue de Qumran Sources bibliques Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies series Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies in Jewish Civilization Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Studien zum Neuen Testament Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studies in the New Testament and Its World Studia Post-Biblica Studies in Religion Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley (10 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76) Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Verbum domini Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie

Introduction In Paul’s letters, one of the dominant questions is about the relationship between God’s mercy and reward/merit towards the human and how these two basic concepts are related to the final destiny of an individual. This relationship is also dominant in the Jewish literature of the post-biblical era1 (mainly the Book of Daniel, Jubilees, 1 Enoch, Qumran Scrolls, 2 Maccabees, Psalms of Solomon, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, The Testament of Abraham) with its frequent eschatological references to the coming of the Messiah. Contemporary Jewish eschatological ideas highlighted the Final Judgment as an event that would create a state of holiness and righteousness. This concept is also present in and forms the content of one popular Jewish pseudepigraphon written in Greek in the second century BCE, the Psalms of Solomon, particularly chapters 17–18. Therefore, it is fully justified to ask about the relationship between Paul’s proclamation and this genre of literature. It is also justified to look at the basic idea of the preparation of Israel for this event – the Final Judgment – as forming a background for the proper understanding of Paul’s messianic theology and ethics, while at the same time clarifying his key theological thoughts, especially his teaching about justification. From this point of view, Paul’s teaching about justification should be understood as reflective of God’s mercy, while at the same time insisting that faith and deeds are necessary preconditions for salvation. All of these questions will be the object of my examination in the coming chapters of this book. Before starting the work I must lay out some preliminary questions about my approach, usage of terminology, as well as the intent and goals of my survey. First, what exactly do I mean by “semantic role”? Second, why am I choosing these particular writings? And finally, what could all of this contribute to recent specialized debates in Pauline studies? The multilayered term “semantic role” can have a variety of meanings, especially in the field of linguistics or philosophy. In this book I have in mind primarily its basic meaning based on the sense of the Greek word 1 This very question is the principal goal of Chris VanLandingham’s monograph Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006). See VanLandingham, Judgment & Justification, 1.

2

Introduction

“semainein” (to signify, interpret, explain, indicate, make known, point out).2 It means our purpose will be to explore and interpret the meaning and role of this pseudepigraphon by formulating and developing the main aspects of Paul’s messianic ethics.3 Certainly, it also includes a semantic analysis of the main terms, phrases, and clauses of the key parts of his writings. Since our approach is based necessarily on a theological interpretation of the topic, in order to grasp the content and meaning of Paul’s writings in the proper way we must account for historical changes in the field of philosophy,4 and find the best way to understand the meaning of historical events, experiences, and thought processes against their own ideological milieu. With all of this, it is necessary to include the hermeneutical accomplishments of biblical scholarship, the intra- and intertextual approaches to the interpretation of particular parts of the writings, as well as the proponents of narrative critics. All of these are essential aspects of the methodology employed in this work. On the topic of terminology, a word is in order about “messianic ethics.” By this term I have in mind the socio-political and ethical implications of early Christology, including the moral meaning of messianism as it

2

LSJ, 1592–93. Using the terminology of linguistics, in this process the Psalms of Solomon are the subject (and also agent) and the Apostle Paul the object (or patient). From this point of view, our exploration will be focused primarily on asking to what extent the Psalms of Solomon could have the semantic role of agent for the Apostle Paul (patient) by formulating and developing key aspects of his messianic ethics. For a closer look at the meanings of the term “semantic role” in the structural analysis of the texts, as well as in linguistics as a whole, see T. E. Payne, Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 47–49. 4 Udo Schnelle confirms the significance of this approach. Schnelle describes theology of the New Testament as meaning-formation (Sinnbildung), the process of better and right understanding of the past reality by means of – as the author says – “channeling past events into the worlds of human experience and ascribing significance to them in different ways.” Since a theology of the New Testament operates on different temporal planes, we can describe its task as a process of clarifying and explaining the thoughts of the New Testament writings and articulating these thoughts in the context of a contemporary understanding of reality. It means that a theology of the New Testament as a historical discipline must participate in theoretical discussions on the nature and extent of historical knowledge, as well as on its proper understanding in the present. See in more detail U. Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament (trans. M. E. Boring; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 25. On the term “meaning-formation” as an aspect of historical theory, see J. Rüsen, “Historische Methode und religiöser Sinn,” in Geschichte im Kulturprozeß (ed. J. Rüsen; Cologne: Böhlau, 2002), 11. On the multilayered term “meaning-formation,” see E. List, “Sinn,” Handbuch religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe (ed. G. Kercher et al.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1988), 62–71, part 5 (cited by Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament, 25–26, including n. 1). 3

Introduction

3

is formulated and considered by the Apostle Paul for the life of the first Christian communities he established during his missionary activities. If there are still questions about why the Psalms of Solomon are important for the elucidation of Paul’s message, I offer several further reasons. First of all, the Psalms of Solomon are rightfully regarded by scholars as an important early psalm book outside the canonical psalter.5 This composition was known to many contemporary Jews, mainly in Jerusalem in the century before the Jewish war against Rome. The dating of the work and its importance in the Jewish communities in which Paul operated are in little doubt. During Paul’s lifetime, it was still a critical composition that was relevant to important debates in Judaism, mainly the application of the messianic concept to David’s descendants. Therefore, the Psalms of Solomon were influential for many pious Jews contemporary to Paul, especially for the members of the main Jewish factions (Pharisees, Essenes, Sadducees), as well as for Paul himself. In this light, it becomes less important to prove that Paul personally knew this writing, whether as a whole or only in part. Other reasons are the fact that this work reflects on disorder and confusion during the events connected with the first Roman invasion into Jerusalem in the last pre-Christian century (Pss. Sol. 2:26–27), makes mention of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead (Pss. Sol. 3:12), and provides the first remarkable account of the detailed expectation of the Jewish Messiah from David’s descendants (Pss. Sol. 17:21, 32) before Christianity and the New Testament.6 Finally, I should make a few comments about the structure of my study. The work will fall into four main chapters. The first chapter deals with Jewish literature of Second Temple Judaism in a general sense, especially the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha. In the second chapter, attention is given to the Psalms of Solomon, its literary composition, meaning, and influence on the formation of early Jewish messianic concepts. Here, special attention is paid to a concise characterization and analysis of chapters 17 and 18 and to the question of their meaning and influence on Jewish religious factions of that time. Chapter 3 centers on the Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s message in the context of messianic ethics. The final chapter centers on the influence of the Psalms of Solomon on the formation and expressions of the messianic concept and ethics in Paul’s message. Special attention is given to Paul’s doctrine of justification in the context of the Psalms of Solomon, 5

See R. B. Wright, ed., The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text (JCT 1; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 1. 6 As James H. Charlesworth points out: “the composition contains perhaps the locus classicus for belief in a Davidic Messiah and it antedates by a few decades the Palestinian Jesus Movement.” See J. H. Charlesworth, foreword to The Psalms of Solomon (ed. R. B. Wright), vii.

4

Introduction

particularly chapters 17 and 18. The analysis and interpretation of the texts dealing with the messianic concept and ethics in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s authentic letters helps us understand more clearly the core of this doctrine, its basis and meaning. A synthesis of these discoveries follows these chapters, with a summary of the results and final contentions. All of what follows is focused on key parts of Paul’s theological thinking in the context of the Second Temple era and its complexities, trying to understand better and more comprehensively not only the mechanics of Paul’s message but also the contemporary Jewish landscape as it was influenced by the decisive events of its social-cultural and political surroundings.

Chapter 1

The Jewish Deuterocanonical Literature in the Context of Second Temple Judaism The Jewish Deuterocanonical Literature Seemingly tertiary questions of Jewish deuterocanonical literature1 and the writings of Early Judaism2 come to the fore when we want to achieve a more complex and comprehensive knowledge, as well as a deeper understanding, of Paul’s message. One of the most important reasons for this is the fact that the systematic and comprehensive study of this corpus of literature makes it possible, on the one hand, for us to better recognize patterns within Second Temple Judaism with all of its specifics and complexities, and on the other hand, helps us recognize the distorted image, more or less, of contemporary Judaism, including partially or grossly mistaken readings of Paul in recent centuries.3 Therefore, we have even more to take 1

Concerning this term, I mean the Jewish writings mainly from the period 200 BCE to 100 CE, which in the Roman Catholic milieu are called “apocrypha” and in the protestant milieu often “Old Testament pseudepigrapha,” despite the extent of some Christian additions. This corpus of Jewish literature provides essential evidence of Jewish thought during the Second Temple period (approximately 400 BCE to about second century CE). See M. E. Stone, “The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha” (n. p.; cited 14 April 2015; online:www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html). 2 In regard to Early Judaism, the main focus is on Jewish literature written during the Greek and early Roman periods. This means fourth century BCE to about second century CE. Concerning the religion of Judaism, our interest focuses on the Second Temple era, meaning the period between the construction of the second Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in 515 BCE and its destruction by the Romans in 70 CE. With regard to the corpus of Paul’s letters, the evidence will be limited to those whose authorship is confirmed by the majority of contemporary scholars. 3 This approach is a characteristic feature of the “new perspective” on Paul which is, as described by D. A. Carson in his Introduction to the first volume in a two-volume set of an essay collection about Paul’s view of the law and justification, titled Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (ed. D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien, and M. A. Seifrid; WUNT 2.140; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 1: “[A] bundle of interpretive approaches to Paul, some of which are mere differences in emphasis and others of which compete rather antagonistically. Taken together, however, they belong to the ‘new perspective’ in that they share certain things in common, not least a more-or-less common reading of the documents of Second Temple Judaism, and a conviction that earlier readings of Paul, not least from the Protestant camp, and especially from the German Lutheran camp, with lines going back to the Reformation, are at least partly mistaken, and perhaps profoundly mistaken.” To

6

The Jewish Deuterocanonical Literature

into consideration the many sources from this period, and these sources can more or less answer all of these questions.4 Naturally, if we speak about Judaism in the Second Temple era as a point of departure from Paul’s theological thinking, we inevitably realize the weighty facts of common knowledge derived from contemporary Hellenistic philosophy.5 The phenomenon of Hellenism was basically the result of the power of the sociocultural traditions of the many nations and ethnic groups within the region, from the territorial boundaries of India in the East to the ancient Hellas in the West, and altered in a substantial way the very understanding of the national, cultural, and religious identities of these communities. Therefore, the entire civilized area of the contemporary Mediterranean, including the Jewish nation, was dragged into the swirl of events around a new pluralistic milieu, which among other things, brought the growing influence of the diverse religious, philosophical, and cultural traditions of the Greek world into the daily life of Jewishness not only in Palestine but especially in the Jewish diaspora.6 The encounter of Jewishness (Judaism) with Hellenism is in many respects one of the most originative clashes in the history of Western culture and brought a lot of stimuli into the subsequent development of Western thought and culture.7 Hence, the covenantal nomism see in more detail E. P. Sanders, “Patterns of Religion in Paul and Rabbinic Judaism,” HTR 66 (1973): 455–78; idem, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977). On the topic of the New Perspective on Paul, see: J. D. G. Dunn, “The New Perspective on Paul,” BJRL 65 (1983): 95–122; idem, The New Perspective on Paul (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), especially chapter 1: “The New Perspective: Whence, What and Whither?,” 1–97. 4 The point is especially the corpus of pseudepigrapha. There is ample evidence mainly in 2 Maccabees, The Book of Jubilees, The Testament of Abraham, 1 Enoch (especially chapters 1–5, 92–105), 1QS (especially cols. 3–4, 10–11), 1QHa, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, the Psalms of Solomon, The Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo. To the detailed characteristics of the particular writings see VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 66–174; T. L. Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (To 135 CE) (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007), 77–215. 5 The term “Hellenism,” derived from the word Hellene, the mythical son of Deucalion and Pyrrha from Greek mythology, was used by the well-known German historian of the nineteenth century Johann Gustaf Droysen for the designation of this unique period of antiquity (his best known work is in three volumes Geschichte des Hellenismus 1836– 43). Cited by P. Pokorný, Řecké dědictví v Orientu (Helénismus v Egyptě a Sýrii) (Prague: Oikoumene, 1993), 30. On the topic of Hellenism see also P. Green, Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Age (London: Orion Books, 2007); M. M. Austin, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). 6 See T. L. Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 1–13. 7 In regard to the topic of Jewish identity and heritage in the context of Hellenism and its variedness, see especially: J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (2nd ed.; BRS; Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans,

The Jewish Deuterocanonical Literature

7

the Jewish literature of this period is an important source of accurate and comprehensive knowledge of all the many inclinations and thoughts of the primary religious groups and factions of the ancient Roman world, especially in connection with decisive theological concepts, for example, messianic ideology and its consequences for the life of particular Jewish communities. The corpus of Hellenistic Jewish writings is a reflection of the appraisal and understanding of the ways in which God acts in the world through history, as well as in the present time, via particular groups or factions. Furthermore, various writings in this corpus demonstrate the social, cultural, and religious qualifications that were shaping, in a decisive way, the life and thinking of those groups or factions. It is therefore legitimate to consider Paul as both a Jew and a Pharisee, including his message as a whole, to be a product of this great and important phenomenon – the process of forming the decisive and influential schools of thought in the Hellenized Jewish religious traditions of this period. With regard to Paul and his radical change in stance on the interpretation of fundamental theological thoughts, thoughts having great importance for the future of human life, we need to realize that his thinking and doing was primarily motivated by Judaism – his native religious tradition.8 In every given period, this tradition has presented a broad and varied complex of teachings and ideas, the basis of which was formed during a fivehundred-year period. The Jewish religious tradition can be comprehended primarily from the literary sources that came into existence during the intertestamental period (approximately 400 BCE to 200 CE). Naturally, Paul has never been fully isolated from the cultural and religious influences of the Hellenistic surroundings. However, he himself maintained many specific convictions from the very core of Judaism, including a very close attachment to the law (Torah), where tradition resulted from the interpretation of particular parts of the law and directly shaped the daily life of Jewish communities.

2000); E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 1998); S. J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley/Los Angeles/ London: University of California Press, 1999). All of these works constitute the source of core ideas in this chapter. 8 By “Judaism” I understand the ethnic-religious culture of the Jewish nation that was formed successively in the period following the Babylonian captivity (sixth century BCE), based on the faith and ethical regulations of the Hebrew Bible and traditions having become a common heritage of Jewish religious groups and factions, as well as the deeper strata of the Jewish nation in the Second Temple era. For standard definitions of “Judaism” and related terms (Ioudaios, Iudaeus, Judaean, Jew) see: Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness, 69–106; W. Gutbrod, “VIoudai/o j( k)t)l),” TDNT 3:375–83.

8

The Jewish Deuterocanonical Literature

From this point of view, the other primary question that arises is how to understand the Jewishness of the Second Temple period to which Paul the Apostle belonged. Despite the fact that Paul polemicizes against Jewish particularism, he still remains part of the unique covenantal relationship of God with his people.9 And so another question arises of how to understand the key theological concepts of Judaism in that period, as well as the terminology that Paul used in the formulation of the key theological themes of his message. Besides Paul’s home religious tradition, there was another important factor that influenced his thinking in substantial ways – the multicultural society of the Greco-Roman world. It is not easy to distinguish, with absolute certainty, what in Paul’s message comes strictly from his own Jewish religious tradition – and if so, where are the clear boundaries between the generally accepted and more orthodox notions and concepts of Palestinian Jewishness and varied, less orthodox notions and thoughts of the Hellenistic Jewishness – and then also what proceeds from the Hellenistic religious-philosophical school of thoughts, which are in many respects mutually influenced by a preponderant syncretism in the region. Paul says about himself that, in relation to the law, he was a Pharisee (Phil 3:5), but his writing style contains clear traces of a certain mysticism. It is also very difficult to analyze and interpret the relationship of Pharisaism to the mysticism of those times, but this question cannot be avoided because mysticism forms an integral part of Paul’s way of thinking and voicing.10 All of this is interrelated with how Paul uses Greek terminology in his letters. Moreover, in his letters, Paul tried to resolve the particular questions and problems that appeared in the communal life of various Christian communities he knew. Those questions and problems were not only Paul’s 9 The well-known definition of this traditional covenant form, as one particular form of Judaism, is that of E. P. Sanders, who expressed it by the term “covenantal nomism.” See in more detail Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 420. On the covenantal nomism see also Dunn, “The New Perspective: Whence, What and Whither?,” 5–17; S. Westerholm, “The ‘New Perspective’ at Twenty-Five,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul (ed. D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien, and M. A. Seifrid; WUNT 2.181; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 2– 3. 10 For the mystical understanding of Paul’s theological thinking as the very core of his theology against the traditional forensic approach – especially for the key texts of Paul’s corpus (Rom 1–8; Gal 2–3), argued well-known German theologians like G. A. Deissmann, Paulus: Eine kultur- und religionsgeschichtliche Skizze (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1911; 2nd ed. 1925 [ET of 1st German ed. 1912; ET of 2nd German ed. revised and enlarged St. Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1926]), and A. Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (trans. W. Montgomery; New York: Seabury, 1968 [1931]). On the topic of Paul’s mysticism see especially A. F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven/ London: Yale University Press, 1990).

The Jewish Deuterocanonical Literature

9

but have troubled many Christian communities that have imported traditions from Judaism and various forms of paganism. This particular emphasis of Paul’s message bears witness not only about the main goal of Paul’s mission as a whole – to bring the message of the Gospel to the pagans (to the Gentiles) – but also about the effort of contemporary Judaic thought, especially Hellenistic concepts, to have a positive effect on the broader pagan world of the Roman Empire. Much Jewish literature from that period, some parts of the Scripture, the Septuagint, apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, as well as the writings of Philo and Josephus11 contain clear traces of the apologetic intentions of Jewish communities living in the Jewish diaspora. Therefore, we can legitimately describe much of this literature as apologetic.12 With all that in mind, we must also ask whether this literature can be considered missionary literature – part of Jewish proselytizing propaganda. Some scholars agree with this categorization, but others do not.13 In any case, the effort to open up various aspects of the religious traditions of Judaism to the broader Greco-Roman world can be justifiably regarded as one of the most important and decisive events in the history of Judaism.

11

To the particular genres and the nomenclature of Jewish literature of that period, in the context of Jewish patterns of universalism, see especially Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles. 12 This important feature is observed by John J. Collins: “The corpus of Jewish literature which has survived from the Diaspora may be viewed in part as a response to the assessments and polemics of the Gentiles.” Collins, in this connection, refers also to the argumentation of Erich Gruen (Heritage and Hellenism, 292–93) against the view that this literature is reactive. Gruen, as Collins said: “emphasizes the creativity of the Jewish writers and their pride in their traditions. But these are by no means mutually exclusive positions, and it would be very unrealistic to think that the Jewish authors did not take account of Gentile opinion in some way.” In Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 14. 13 For example M. Friedländer, Geschichte der jüdischen Apologetik (Zurich: Schmidt, 1903); P. Dalbert, Die Theologie der hellenistisch-jüdischen Missionsliteratur unter Ausschluß von Philo und Josephus (Hamburg: Reich, 1954); D. Georgi, The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 83–151. On the other side, Victor Tcherikover in his article “Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered,” EOS 48 (1956): 169–93, argued against this opinion and stressed the fact that this literature is primarily directed to a Jewish and not a Gentile audience. Collins however, points out that “[t]he whole notion of a Jewish mission has been severely criticized in recent years.” See, for example, M. Goodman, Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing in the Religious History of the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994); idem, “Jewish Proselytizing in the First Century,” in The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire (ed. J. Lieu, J. North, and T. Rajak; London: Routledge, 1992), 53–78; S. McKnight, A Light among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity during the Second Temple Period (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991). See also J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 14, including n. 65, 262–72, and Gruen, introduction to Heritage and Hellenism, XX.

10

The Jewish Deuterocanonical Literature

The stressing of the universal character of Judaism contained in some Jewish writings of that period14 is an important common point with Paul’s message, even if Paul did it from a rather different starting point.15 Therefore, many Jewish writings from this period can be considered missionary in nature and characterized as helping to create Jewish patterns of universalism.16 Besides all of this, Paul lived in an intensive apocalyptic expectation of the imminent end of the world, with all the consequences associated with such an event. In other words, Paul’s theological thinking was motivated primarily by eschatology, which was, as a whole, very popular in the Judaism of the Second Temple period. This means that eschatology was also a rather typical feature in most Jewish deuterocanonical literature. The study of the corpus of Jewish pseudepigrapha thus becomes an incentive for uncovering a more complex and objective knowledge of Judaism in that period and of Paul’s way of thinking and his missionary goals.17 Following the categorization of the four distinct patterns of universalism made by Terence L. Donaldson primarily the categories of ethical monotheism and eschatological participation will be points of interest in the main part of this book in connection with the Psalms of Solomon. But it is first necessary to deal in more detail with various aspects of that period using some particular examples of its literature.

14 Primarily: 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, the fragments of Hellenistic Jewish writers Artapanus, Theodotus, Aristobulus, Letter of Aristeas, Sibylline Oracles, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Psalms of Solomon, Joseph and Aseneth, Pseudo-Phocylides, Testament of Abraham, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch. 15 Paul does it from the standpoint of belief in Jesus Christ, and constituting Christology, unlike of Jewish apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, where it was the standpoint of God’s doing and acting in the world through Israel, with universal redemptive purpose. 16 This is especially the emphasis of Terence L. Donaldson in his outstanding book Judaism and the Gentiles, which deals with the pertinent texts of particular Jewish literatures of the Second Temple Jewish tradition, and on the basis of the analysis synthesizes the findings by identifying four distinct patterns of universalism that arose out of the four broad textual categories – sympathization, conversion, ethical monotheism, eschatological participation. For further explanation of the term “universalism” as used by the author in regard to the world of late antiquity, especially in connection to Jewish “universalism,” see Donaldson, introduction to Judaism and the Gentiles, 1–13. 17 For the complexities of the Jewishness and Jewish religious traditions in the Second Temple era including the variedness of the beliefs and opinions on the solving of the particular key questions of the topics, see Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (ed. D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien, and M. A. Seifrid).

1. Judaism of the Second Temple Period

11

1. Judaism of the Second Temple Period: A Brief Characterization 1. Judaism of the Second Temple Period First of all, if we want to make a concise but also truly accurate characterization of Judaism in the Second Temple period, we must take into account two basic and decisive points that emerge from the correlation of the religious and national self-definition of Israel. The first is the self-definition of Israel as God’s chosen people, selected from among all nations of the world to be a special nation, a “a priestly kingdom and holy nation” (Exod 19:6).18 This bold statement confirms that the national status of Israel is deeply seated in religion, particularly in the belief in only one God.19 The second point follows naturally from the first. Since the Jewish belief system is monotheistic, it means that God is the creator of the universe, and God’s power and sovereignty is exercised over the world as a whole and affects all nations. This is the very basis of the universal understanding of God’s creating purpose, which inevitably means that “Jews could not tell their own national story without reference to the other nations, and if perhaps it was possible to narrate the story in such a way that the nations functioned simply as a foil for Israel, the story itself contained at least latent questions about the relationship between these other nations and the God who had created them.”20 However, this self-understanding was also becoming the basis of tensions between the Jewish and other nations. The Jewish tradition demanded that Israel behave as a holy nation under the exclusive ownership of Yahweh: “You shall be holy to me; for I the Lord am holy, and I have separated you from the other peoples to be mine.” (Lev 20:26) Gradually, especially in postexilic Judaism, this ideal of holiness came to be understood as a strict separation from the Gentiles, which for many Gentile groups –

18

Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible. Donaldson describes this self-defined exceptionalism: “Despite significant differences in interpretation and outlook, Jews everywhere identified themselves with reference to the biblical narrative, a narrative in which the cosmic and universal is oddly intertwined with the national and particular. On one hand, Jews understood their God to be the one, universal deity, a God who had created the whole world and who continued to exercise sovereignty over the created order and all the nations within it. On the other, Jews believed that this God had chosen them out of all the nations of the world to be a special people, that the will and the ways of this God had been revealed uniquely in Israel’s scripture, that the God who had created the cosmos was nevertheless uniquely present in the Jerusalem Temple, and that despite the Jews’ temporal misfortunes, eventually Israel would be vindicated and exalted to a position of preeminence over all other nations.” In Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 1–2. 20 Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 2. 19

12

The Jewish Deuterocanonical Literature

especially in Egypt and Rome – led to elevated tensions, hostile propaganda focused on the strangeness of the Jews, and suspicions concerning the Jewish way of life.21 Some ancient authors, such as the Greek historians and philosophers Hecataeus of Abdera, Theophrastus, Megasthenes, and Clearchus of Soli, wrote on the Jews with an obvious level of respect.22 This was contrary to prevailing attitudes toward Jewishness in the Hellenistic age, which were rather negative. Judaism was widely viewed as a strange superstition,23 a fact confirmed by the ancient authors Manetho (Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.75–90, 228, 232–250), Agatharchides of Cnidus in Asia Minor (Ag. Ap. 1.209–212; Ant. 12.1.1 §§ 5–6), Mnaseas (Ag. Ap. 2.112–114), Posidonius of Apamea, Apollonius Molon (Ag. Ap. 2.79, 147– 148), Chaeremon, Lysimachus, Apion (Ag. Ap. 1.288–320, 304–311; 2.1– 7, 92–96), Cicero, and Horace.24

21

See J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 12–13. On the tensions between Jews and Gentiles in the postexilic period, see especially J. N. Sevenster, The Roots of Pagan Anti-Semitism in the Ancient World (NovTSup 41; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 89–144; J. G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 55–66; Y. Yavetz, “Judeophobia in Classical Antiquity: A Different Approach,” JJS 44 (1993): 1–22; J. Bowker, The Religious Imagination and the Sense of God (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), 31–45. 22 J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 6. 23 See in more detail M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974–1984); M. Stern, “The Jews in Greek and Latin Literature,” in The Jewish People in the First Century (ed. S. Safrai and M. Stern; CRINT 1.2; Assen: Van Gorcum/Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 1101–59; Sevenster, The Roots of Pagan Anti-Semitism in the Ancient World; J. L. Daniel, “AntiSemitism in the Hellenistic Roman Period,” JBL 98 (1979): 45–65; Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism, 55–59; M. Whittaker, Jews and Christians: Greco-Roman Views (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); M. Goodman, “Apologetics: The Literary Opponents,” in E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135) (rev. ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973–87), 3.1:594–609; C. Aziza, “L’Utilisation polémique du récit de l’Exode chez les écrivains alexandrins (IVème siècle av. J.-C.–Ier siècle ap. J.-C.),” ANRW II.20.1 (1987): 41–65; E. Gabba, “The Growth of Anti-Judaism or the Greek Attitude towards Jews,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age (ed. W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 614–56; L. H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 123–76; P. Schäfer, Judeophobia (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997), 15–118. Stated J. J. by Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 6, n. 26. 24 See in more detail M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 1:181– 85, 382–421; M. Stern, “The Jews in Greek and Latin Literature,” 1144–45, 1150–59; Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism, 58–59; V. Tcherikover, “Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered,” Eos 48 (1956): 169–93; J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 6–14.

1. Judaism of the Second Temple Period

13

Meanwhile, some of the best-known Jewish apologists, Philo and Josephus, described Judaism as a religion with ancient traditions, with a famous and rich heritage that can benefit all nations of the world. Josephus defended Judaism by pointing out its ancient traditions and attempted to refute, or at least to contradict, the mostly negative Hellenistic views of Judaism (Against Apion). Philo highlighted those aspects of Judaism that were most acceptable to cultured Gentiles and Hellenized Jews and tried to interpret Judaism as a type of philosophy by identifying loci in Jewish traditions that overlapped with ancient Greek philosophical traditions and common ideas and opinions resulting from it.25 The situation of the Jews in the diaspora was characterized by an effort to reduce tensions between them and the people among whom they lived. Despite such efforts, Judaism remained in many respects a strange and suspicious element of the Hellenistic age, primarily on account of those qualities that distinguish Judaism from the common ideologies of the day: Jewish thought emphasizes Jewish distinctiveness, which is difficult to overcome in a pluralistic age.26 The idea of “Otherness” is inherent in most Jewish literature from this period. So despite varied opinions on the goal of Jewish literature mentioned above, many writings can be characterized as apologetic – defending Judaism in Hellenistic categories and/or in “missionary” terms – making them essentially propaganda by virtue of their emphasis on the exceptional qualities of Jewish traditions, which would be perceived as proselytizing.27 All aspects of this complicated process can be interpreted through two basic attitudes of the era that we see in the lifestyle of diaspora Jews. On the one hand, it was an endeavor of the diaspora Jews to participate in the cultural life and values of the Hellenistic world and by doing so to reform older orthodox traditions of Judaism represented especially by the leading religious factions in Judea (Sadducees and Pharisees). On the other hand, it was an attempt to remain Jewish in regard to the key characteristics of the

25

J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 14–15. S. J. D. Cohen expresses very aptly the specifics of Jews, Judaism, and Jewishness: “Jewishness, the conscious affirmation of the qualities that make Jews Jews, presumes a contrast between Us and Them. The Jews constitute an Us; all the rest of humanity, or, in Jewish language, the nations of the world, the gentiles, constitute a Them. Between Us and Them is a line, a boundary, drawn not in sand or stone but in the mind. The line is no less real for being imaginary, since both Us and Them agree that it exists. Although there is a boundary that separates the two, it is crossable and not always distinct.” In Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness, 341. 27 To the topic of Jewish apologetics see J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 14–16, including the stated literature. 26

14

The Jewish Deuterocanonical Literature

Jewish religious tradition via strict observance of the rules of the law (Torah). Abandoning Judaism altogether was an option, but was a realistic choice only for a minority of Jews.28 John J. Collins characterizes this phenomenon aptly: “The majority [Jews] sought ways to reduce the dissonance while remaining Jewish but without rejecting Hellenistic culture.”29 This was the case for most Jews in the Jewish diaspora, which was opened to Hellenistic spirit more than, for example, Jews in Palestine. The main differences can be seen in the reduced emphasis on ritual cultic rules, including the Temple cult, on the one hand, and a larger orientation and concentration of religious life in the synagogue on the other. This paradigm shift moved many Jews from theological emphases on rigorous lawmaking and strict understandings of Torah to more ethical interpretations of particular parts of the law and also to a greater degree of missionary openness. Hellenistic Jewishness continued to show an eminent concern for the past, because a knowledge of one’s own history was a central aspect of education at the time. In this way especially Jews highlighted their ancient cultural traditions as completely in line with traditions that characterized civilized, universally accepted nations. This phenomenon is reflected, more or less, in the corpus of Jewish literature that originated in the diaspora. The common denominator concerning the authors of these writings, regardless of literary style or form, is the relationship of the believer communities to the Torah (the Pentateuch), including the theological interpretation of various key passages, in the context of the philosophical-religious concepts of the time. In this regard it is important to elucidate, at least in general features, the meaning and comprehension of the Torah in the Judaism of this period.

28

For example Philo’s nephew, Tiberius Julius Alexander, or Dositheus, son of Drimylus (1 Macc 1:3; recorded also in the papyri, CPJ 1:230–236), and at the end of the first Jewish revolt against Rome, Antiochus, son of the archon of the Antiochene Jews, who incited a pogrom against the Jews of Antioch (J.W. 7.47). In J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 15, including n. 69. 29 J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 15. Collins characterizes the tension, aroused from the encounter between Jewish and Hellenistic lifestyles, as a “dissonance,” a term he takes from Leon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Evanston/ White Plains: Row, Peterson and Co., 1957). In this connection, Collins refers also to Gregory E. Sterling’s characterization of Hellenistic Jews and emphasizes Sterling’s characterization of Jewish self-identity in Alexandria: “there are two foci which constitute the horizons of Alexandrian Jewish self-identity: the necessity of maintaining allegiance to the ancestral tradition, and the right to participation in Hellenism de bon coeur.” In G. E. Sterling, “‘Thus are Israel’: Jewish Self-Definition in Alexandria,” The Studia Philonica Annual 7 (1995): 1–18.

2. Comprehension of the Torah

15

2. Comprehension of the Torah in the Context of Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Era 2. Comprehension of the Torah Over three quarters of the way through the twentieth century, E. P. Sanders published his seminal monograph Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977). At the time, views of Jewishness and Judaism of this period were heavily influenced by the traditional and mostly negative opinions and stereotypes of a generation of theologians from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, mainly German.30 The protagonists of this older generation of theologians characterized Judaism of the Second Temple era as a rigid legalistic religion marked by a commercial understanding of righteousness from acts, restricted ritual casuistry, and a sterile relationship with God.31 Sanders ignited new interest about the Apostle Paul and his theology, leading to more research on Judaism of the intertestamental period, adjustments to traditional and often narrow stereotypes, and entirely new findings which were published during the last three decades. This fresh, new approach recognizes and even emphasizes in a broad spectrum the many complexities of the Jewish religious tradition during the Second Temple period and takes into account their influence on the formation and development of early Christianity.32 Despite the notable differences between particular bodies of thought within Judaism of the Second Temple era, the relationship of Israel to the corpus of authoritative scriptures – the Torah (the Pentateuch) – remained central to all Jews and can be characterized in a rather lucid way by a wellknown passage from Leviticus (18:5): “You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live: I am the Lord.” This text was of special importance for Jewishness not only during the Second Temple period but also in later rabbinic Judaism, which formed from the second to fifth centuries CE.33 In these few words the most essential ideas for the life of God’s people are set forth, indicating God’s mercy as well as the obliga30

In this part, I follow some parts of my essay, “Paradoxy apoštola Pavla,” which is a part of my own research project, entitled “Corpus Paulinum as Interreligious Dialogue Paradigm in Multicultural Society” (mentioned in the Preface). See in more detail F. Ábel, “Paradoxy apoštola Pavla,” in Univerzalizmus a prekonávanie náboženských rozdielov v Pavlových textoch (ed. F. Ábel; Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, 2011), 93–121. 31 The well-known representatives of this approach were J. Wellhausen, F. Weber, W. Bousset, P. Billerbeck, E. Schürer, or R. Bultmann. See in more detail H. Lichtenberger, “The Understanding of the Torah in the Judaism of Paul’s Day,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law (ed. J. D. G. Dunn; Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2001 [1996]), 7– 11; VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 2–14. 32 On the issue see Westerholm, “The ‘New Perspective’ at Twenty-Five,” 1–38. 33 Lichtenberger, “The Understanding of the Torah in the Judaism of Paul’s Day,” 7.

16

The Jewish Deuterocanonical Literature

tion laid upon believers to follow God’s law. All research and ensuing discussions about the comprehension of Torah in the Judaism of Paul’s time centers on how this commandment – as well as others with the same or similar content – was understood and practiced by Jews of that period. In other words, what exactly does this text mean and what direct and indirect actions bring obedience to God and God’s commandments for the life of the individual Jew or Israel as community?34 Naturally, the answer is complicated, because within Judaism there never exists one central form of belief or tradition nor a single way of interpreting each form. In this way, Jewishness in every period maintained an important degree of freedom in relation to the interpretation of particular parts of the Torah. Despite this fact, the contact of Jews in the diaspora with the broader Hellenistic culture led to a tendency to interpret the theological axioms of Judaism in universalistic ways. For example, the God of Israel is the only God, hence, God is the creator of the world, of all animate and inanimate nature. God’s Logos governs the whole universe. God’s creation indicates – following on Stoic formulations – God’s omnipotence, thus by observing God’s nature we can infer the knowledge of God to whatever degree is needed that we can live in the glory of the one God (cf. Rom 1:20). This brief pericope from the Book of Leviticus and its historical interpretation lead us to a very important insight about Jewishness – an understanding that the text is in direct relationship with the daily life of the believer. It is not about thoughtless actions or a generic understanding of obeying the commandments and prohibitions of the Torah to achieve salvation through one’s actions for one’s own profit. The primary understanding of this passage is, rather, a deep awareness of the responsibility and consequences which come from God’s commandments and our ability to fulfill them. The first is the sense of God’s love, which manifests itself in the act of God’s election of Israel to become God’s chosen people; “a priestly kingdom and holy nation” (Exod 19:6). It means above all that Israel’s role was, is, and still should be to proclaim to all nations of the world the one God and God’s purpose to redeem humankind. This proclamation must be carried out by each member of Israel; it is God’s demand for the holiness of each believer. To be holy does not mean perfection from an ethical standpoint nor possessing an absolute knowledge of God, God’s character, 34 In the context of research on the early rabbinic traditions, it is necessary to mention the significant work of Friedrich Avemarie, Tora und Leben: Untersuchungen zur Heilsbedeutung der Tora in der frühen rabbinischen Literatur (TSAJ 55; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996). Avemarie in a larger framework of the positions presented by E. P. Sanders and his antecedents gives the numerous sources that largely support Sanders’s position in relation to the way of rabbinic comprehension of the Torah, in some points however revises this stand. See Avemarie, Tora und Leben, 43.

2. Comprehension of the Torah

17

and nature. To be holy means having an awareness of the status of Israel as “separated” for God and under God’s ownership. However, together with this status and privilege come mandates: showing a level of fear and humility before God and maintaining that God’s will and guidance are the best way of life for humankind. Fear of, and humility toward, God are not motivated by a sense of horror before God but rather by love for God and neighbor (cf. Lev 19:18), with the term “neighbor” not being limited only to a particular ethnic, national, cultural, or religious affiliation. This is so because for Jews, the God of Israel is the only God, which means that all people belong to the one and same God. Since Jews in the diaspora knew that most of the content of the Torah is related specifically to Israel – especially the cultic rules – they had to adapt their methods of interpreting certain parts of the Torah to fit with the life and culture of the outside world. Particular demands and prohibitions from Torah were expounded through accepted methods and applied in the Hellenistic pagan world in ways that diaspora Jews adopted and still use today. It was especially allegorical interpretations of the Torah that Jewish authors employed to stress the essential moral principles and admonitions common to both Judaism and a broader Hellenistic world and to harmonize the original religious tradition with Hellenistic philosophy. The Mosaic Law and its regulations were understood and expounded, first of all, as ethical statements. There was a related effort to harmonize God’s commandments with the moral principles Jews had acquired and assimilated from Greek philosophy. In this way, Jewish culture and religious traditions fell more and more under the influence of Hellenistic culture. The most significant factors of Hellenistic culture within diaspora Jewry – with the exception of eschatological notions, which remained static – were found primarily in the philosophical thinking and literary styles of the corpus of Jewish literature from this period. These adjustments and accommodations were not accepted and practiced widely, and the degree and methodology varied according to local Jewish practice and thinking. The growing corporate memory of negative and often violent experiences during the postexilic period until the period of Roman political ascendency (about fourth century BCE to first century CE) gradually changed the Jewish approach to universalistic patterns of thought and moved Judaism more and more to a particularistic ethnic/ national understanding. An increasing adherence to halachic rules and strict living according to them were supposed to affirm an awareness of election, the goal being a renewed sense of Jewish exclusiveness and a reemphasis on the necessity of separation from other nations. Naturally, this also brings about unhealthy exclusivist, elitist, or prideful attitudes. But since we cannot speak of a true uniformity in Jewish religious traditions,

18

The Jewish Deuterocanonical Literature

we must insist that this was not a common trend. The fundamental motivation and the very basis of Israel’s belief was and remains the fact that the first concern is always God’s love and mercy. God’s unmerited love for humanity brings to human communities a moral-ethical imperative, to live and enact the righteousness of God in relation to God, to neighbors, and to oneself. During the postexilic and Roman periods, this belief was expressed through a wide spectrum of schools of thought and traditions with rather divergent views from one another.35 Jewish interpretation of the Torah (in this context synonymous with “Pentateuch”) during the period of Second Temple Judaism can be readily grasped in the Greek-language Jewish writings of the period. A specific caveat to be mentioned here is the case of the Jewish apocalyptic sect known as the Essenes, who lived in Qumran and, despite being mostly Hellenized, had a rather traditional approach to Torah and other authoritative Jewish texts. The Greek translation of the corpus of authoritative Jewish scriptures, the Septuagint, played the most important role in all of this.36 The Septuagint is the oldest and the most important Greek translation of the Hebrew canonical literature most central to the life of Jewishness, where the Torah (i.e., Pentateuch) ranked first in authority.37 This work was completed sequentially during the third and second centuries BCE in Alexandria and was addressed primarily to Jews living in the diaspora.38 Generally speaking, the importance of the Septuagint is the fact that it opened the authoritative corpus of Hebrew Scriptures – primarily the Book 35

The varied notions and traditions of Second Temple Judaism are the main topics of interest not only among protagonists of the ‘new perspective’ on Paul – like E. P. Sanders, J. D. G. Dunn, and N. T. Wright – but also among scholars who, though not working with this perspective, continue to locate and interpret Paul within the Judaism of his day, like Neil Elliott, John Gager, Lloyd Gaston, Mark Nanos, Stanley Stowers, Pamela Eisenbaum, and others. 36 With this short list, I proceed primarily with Lichtenberger’s study “The Understanding of the Torah in the Judaism of Paul’s Day,” 7–23. 37 See S. J. D. Cohen, “Religion, Ethnicity and ‘Hellenism’ in the Emergence of Jewish Identity in Maccabean Palestine,” in Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom (ed. P. Bilde et al.; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1990), 206–207. J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 19, n. 84, referring to other modern authors and literature, stresses the fact that “while Hellenistic sensibilities in theology and style inevitably left some imprints, the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch is remarkably faithful to its prototypes, and is far removed from the free rendering of the tradition we find in some Hellenistic Jewish authors, or from the paraphrastic nature of the Targums.” See Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 19–20, including n. 89. 38 On the origin of the Septuagint, see S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968); idem, ed., Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations (New York: Ktav, 1974); P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 1:690.

2. Comprehension of the Torah

19

of the Torah and later on other parts of the Scriptures – to a broad spectrum of Greek-speaking nations of that period and later prepared the way for the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus to Jews in the diaspora. In this process, the ascension of allegorical interpretations of particular parts of the Torah played a major role, drawing out deeper spiritual meanings that literal interpretations could not offer and transforming spiritual insights into moral-ethical direction for daily life. These dramatic adaptations of tradition left many Jews wondering to what degree they could freely rewrite their traditions and bring into effect new formulations and interpretations. The very reality of translation into other languages brings about such a rewriting, since the process of translation is itself a major work of interpretation.39 A felicitous example of arguments over interpretation was the conflict over interpretive traditions in the Egyptian diaspora, particularly Philo’s struggle to defend his allegorical methodology against the literalists on one side but also against the extreme allegorists.40 Conflicts over Torah interpretation were further complicated by the fact, as John J. Collins aptly observes, that “the Torah itself was never a consistent systematic treatise, but a compilation of materials which embraced diverse attitudes and even contradictions, and so by its very nature invited diversity of interpretation.”41 Furthermore, religious life for Jewish people in the diaspora was influenced by other significant writings that never acquired the status of scripture. In this complex process, the Septuagint played an increasingly important role in apologetics as well as in the missionary efforts of Judaism. While the significance of the Septuagint in this period is contested,42 the simple fact that Gentiles are

39 See J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 19–26, including key literature he cites: Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 110–36; J. L. Kugel, The Bible as It Was (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997). 40 Here, I follow the thinking of John J. Collins, who refers to Philo’s work De Migratione Abrahami 89–93, as well as the discussion by H. A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1947), 1:66–71. In Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 20, including the notes. 41 J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 21. In regard to the process, Collins refers also to J. A. Sanders, “Adaptable for Life: The Nature and Function of Canon,” in Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archeology in Memory of G. E. Wright (ed. F. M. Cross, W. E. Lemke, and P. D. Miller; New York: Doubleday, 1976), 531–60. 42 For example, John J. Collins notes that, “when the actual Jewish scriptures became available in Greek translation, they were ignored.” Collins refers to the work of A. Momigliano, Alien Wisdom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 74–96 (“The Hellenistic Discovery of Judaism”). Similarly Victor Tcherikover (“Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered,” 169–93) argues that Jewish literature from this period was not

20

The Jewish Deuterocanonical Literature

positively described in some passages of the Septuagint43 shows its potential attraction for non-Jews who had decided to live under the primary auspices and requirements of Jewish tradition as “God-fearing” (cf. Acts 10:2; 13:43) devout pagans (oi` fobou,menoi [to.n ku,rion]).44 Following Donaldson’s categorization of the main patterns of Jewish universalism in Jewish literature of the Second Temple era (mentioned above), we can reference the original Hebrew-Aramaic as well as the Greek versions of the texts that formed an integral part of the Septuagint. These were formerly considered separate texts but were later joined to the Septuagint during the Christian era as were, for example, the Book of Daniel, including the additions to Daniel (Bel and the Dragon), parts of the Prophets (4 Kingdoms, Isaiah, Amos), the Book of Esther including the Additions to Esther, the Book of Tobit, Sirach, the Second Book of Maccabees, Third Book of Maccabees, Fourth Book of Maccabees, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon. All of these writings can be classified as those that deal, in one manner or another, with Gentiles. Some of them demonstrate to a certain extent a sympathy for Jews (Dan 2:47; 3:28–29; 4:34–37; 6:25–27; Bel 28; 4 Kgdms 17:34, 40; Add Esth 16:15–16; 2 Macc 3:1–3, 12, 33–39; 5:16; 9:11–18; 13:23; 3 Macc 1:9; 6:33; 4 Macc 4:11–12). Others deal with proselytes (Esth 8:16–17; Tob 1:8; Sir 10:19–22; 2 Macc 9:11–18; Jdt 14:10) or refer in other terms to Gentiles who fully adopt a Jewish way of life or stress an ethical monotheism in the context of Greek philosophy (Add Esth 16:15–16; Wis 1:1–2; 6:9–11). There are also the writings in which Gentiles are described as beneficiaries of the end-time redemption of Israel (Amos 9:11–12; Tob 13:11–14; 14:5–7; Isa 54:15). 45 In regard to the Septuagint, it is necessary to also mention the Letter of Aristeas (Let. Aris.). This text can be dated back to the middle or the end of the second century BCE. The purpose of this letter was to describe in more detail the reasons of the origin of the Septuagint as well as the circumstances that accompanied the process of translation of the Torah into Greek. Terence L. Donaldson stresses the importance of this text: “[w]hile properly apologetic since it was directed to a Jewish rather than a Gentile audience. In Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 6, including n. 25, 14, including n. 66. 43 See in more detail Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 17–75. 44 In this regard Terence Donaldson refers to the opinion of A. J. Overman, who suggested that some passages of the Septuagint (2 Chr 5:6; Ps 113:19 [115:11]; 117[118]:4; 134[135]:20; Mal 3:16) might have had Gentiles in view. In A. J. Overman, “The GodFearers: Some Neglected Features,” JSNT 32 (1988): 17–26. However, Donaldson argues against this view and notes that “except for 2 Chr 5:6, these ‘fearers of the Lord’ are clearly Jewish.” See in more detail Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 17–18, n. 1. 45 To the particular texts, their origin, date, provenance, as well as to secondary literature related to these texts, see in more detail Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 18– 75.

2. Comprehension of the Torah

21

scholars in an earlier era were interested in the composition primarily for the light it might shed on the origins of the Septuagint, in more recent times scholarly attention has tended to focus more on its attempt to forge a kind of cultural convergence between Jews and Greeks.”46 Besides the legendary features of the story, we can observe a historical truth. The letter is a significant example of using the allegorical method of interpreting particular parts of the Torah to address particular ethical issues of the day.47 It is particularly the allegorical explanation of the Decalogue as well as the ritual and kosher regulations that became in this way a set of instructions for a right, pious, and righteous life on earth, worshiping the one and only God and participating in God’s perfect system of creation.48 The novella Joseph and Aseneth (Jos. Asen.) shares these same conditions and surroundings and casts more light on the political relations and attitudes in the Ptolemaic era. In the background of this novella is the situation of Alexandria’s diaspora of that period (between 100 BCE and 115 CE).49 The specifics of daily life in the Egyptian diaspora community were formed by the Halacha, placing emphasis on dietary rules, faith in the one

46

Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 107. See N. Walter, “Jüdisch-hellenistische Literatur vor Philon von Alexandrien (unter Ausschluss der Historiker),” ANRW II.20.1 (1987): 84. 48 See Lichtenberger, “The Understanding of the Torah in the Judaism of Paul’s Day,” 17–18. On the Letter of Aristeas see: J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE) (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 138–50; J. R. Bartlett, Josephus, Aristeas, the Sibylline Oracles, Eupolemus (vol. 1.1 of Jews in the Hellenistic World; CCWJCW; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 11–34; G. Boccaccini, Middle Judaism: Jewish Thought, 300 B.C.E. to 200 C.E. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 161–85; J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 97– 103, 191–95; Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 141–51; J. A. Goldstein, “The Message of Aristeas to Philokrates,” in vol. 1 of Eretz Israel, Israel, and the Jewish Diaspora: Mutual Relations (ed. M. Mor; SJC 1; Lanham: University Press of America, 1991), 1–23; Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 206–22; M. Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas) (New York: Harper, 1951); S. Jellicoe, ed., Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations: Selected Essays, with a Prolegomenon (LBS; New York: Ktav, 1974); W. Kraus, Das Volk Gottes: Zur Grundlegung der Ekklesiologie bei Paulus (WUNT 85; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 79–81; Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 3.1:677–87; V. Tcherikover, “The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas,” in Jellicoe, ed., Studies in the Septuagint, 181–207; G. Zuntz, “Aristeas Studies II: Aristeas on the Translation of the Torah,” in Jellicoe, ed., Studies in the Septuagint, 208–25. 49 Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 142. On the provenance, date of its origin, as well as the textual transmission and specifics of this novella, see J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 103–10. 47

22

The Jewish Deuterocanonical Literature

God, and the rejection of idolatry.50 The narrative of the novella follows the patriarch Joseph and his marriage to his Egyptian wife Aseneth, who is the daughter of an Egyptian priest. The main emphasis of this story rests on the only God, who is creator and sovereign ruler of the universe but is still a merciful and gracious God. The story is “the longest and most elaborate conversion story to be found in the Jewish literature of the period.” 51 At the same time, this story is an example of the rising predominance of the national understanding of Jewish religious traditions, where the idea of a successful life based only on Jewish ideals prevailed. It means particularly, that only a consistently devout and pious life can bring a human to salvation. However, salvation is not realized through doctrine or teaching, nor through mystic experiences, nor by the vocation of kerygma based on particular events. Salvation can be realized only by a specific, different kind of life as characterized by Jewish norms. Despite all of that, the story deals with Gentiles who exhibit positive attitudes towards Jews and their traditions, which plays out in the very center of the narrative. Contemporary readers of the novella would have been troubled by the idea of the marriage of a Jewish patriarch and a pagan woman, especially the daughter of an Egyptian priest. However, the story is, as Terence L. Donaldson notes, “more than simply the smoothing out of a troubling biblical wrinkle. By spinning an elaborate story that turns on the social consequences both of avoiding idolatry (on Joseph’s part) and of turning to ‘the God of the Hebrews’ (on Aseneth’s part [11:10]), the author has made it clear that the story addresses social concerns in the world of its readers.”52 As a whole, the novella emphasizes conversion to Judaism, ethical monotheism, and sympathy for Jewishness.53 50 See in more detail Lichtenberger, “The Understanding of the Torah in the Judaism of Paul’s Day,” 17–18. 51 Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 141. 52 Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 142. 53 For the novella Joseph and Aseneth see in more detail: Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 204–16; G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis (SBLEJL 10; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996); C. Burchard, “Joseph and Aseneth,” OTP 2:177–247; idem, Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Aseneth (WUNT 8; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1965); idem, “Zum Text von ‘Joseph und Aseneth,’” JSJ 1 (1970): 3–34; idem, “Ein vorläufiger griechischer Text von Joseph und Aseneth,” DBAT 14 (1979): 2–53; idem, Joseph und Aseneth (JSHRZ 2.4; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1983); R. D. Chesnutt, From Death to Life: Conversion in Joseph and Aseneth (JSPSup 16; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995); J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 103–10; Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 141–51; R. Goldenberg, The Nations That Know Thee Not: Ancient Jewish Attitudes towards Other Religions (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1998), 75–78; Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 89–99; E. M. Humphrey, The Ladies and the Cities: Transformation and Apocalyptic Identity in Joseph and Aseneth, 4 Ezra, the Apocalypse and the Shepherd of Hermas (JSPSup 17; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic

2. Comprehension of the Torah

23

Mentions of other Jewish writings written in Greek have been preserved only as references in the literary works of other authors, which we see in some parts of the oldest Hellenistic compilations of biblical history in the form of prosaic and poetic genre, as well as in the works of Jewish Hellenistic authors such as Demetrius, Aristeas the Exegete, Artapanus, Eupolemus, Cleodemus, Philo the Epic, or Ezekiel the Tragedian.54 Some of the earliest writings of the Hellenistic diaspora were preserved thanks to the diligence of Alexander Polyhistor of Miletus, who lived and worked around the years 80–40 BCE. While his work did not survive in its original form, substantial fragments have been preserved by other authors, predominantly Eusebius, who cites Alexander’s work on the Jews (Peri Ioudaiōn) at length in his Praeparatio Evangelica, a main source of the fragments of the early Hellenistic Jewish authors.55 Fragments of Alexander’s work were also preserved by Clement of Alexandria and Josephus.56 Jason of Cyrene must also be mentioned as a Hellenistic Jew who lived around 100 BCE and wrote a history of the times of the Maccabees in a five-volume work, which formed the basis of the present 2 Maccabees,57 or

Press, 1995); idem, Joseph and Aseneth (GAP; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000); H. C. Kee, “The Socio-Cultural Setting of Joseph and Aseneth,” NTS 29 (1983): 394–413; R. S. Kraemer, When Aseneth Met Joseph: A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and His Egyptian Wife, Reconsidered (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998); Kraus, Das Volk Gottes, 82–84; R. I. Pervo, “Aseneth and Her Sisters: Women in Jewish Narrative and in the Greek Novels,” in “Women Like This”: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World (ed. A.-J. Levine; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 145–60; M. Philonenko, Joseph et Aseneth: Introduction, texte critique et notes (StPB 13; Leiden: Brill, 1968); Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 3.1:546–52; Segal, Paul the Convert, 91–92; A. Standhartinger, Das Frauenbild im Judentum der hellenistischen Zeit: Ein Beitrag anhand von ‘Joseph und Aseneth’ (AGJU 26; Leiden: Brill, 1995); L. M. Wills, The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995), 170–84. 54 On the particular authors, as well as the other bibliography, see J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 29–63, 224–30. 55 J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 32, including n. 20. See also K. Mras, ed., Eusebius’ Werke 8: Die Praeparatio Evangelica (2 vols.; GCS 43; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1954); C. R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors (4 vols.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1983–96); Charlesworth, OTP 2:775–919. 56 J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 31–32, including the notes. 57 See M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 1:95; H. W. Attridge, “Historiography,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (ed. M. E. Stone; CRINT 2.2; Assen: Van Gorcum/Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 177. Stated by J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 78.

24

The Jewish Deuterocanonical Literature

Justus of Tiberias, the contemporary of Josephus.58 In all of these examples, the Torah is a decisive, authoritative source of faith in the one, true God and the principal source for life, with the rules of the law that are interpreted allegorically acquiring a predominance and being transferred regularly to a moral-ethical layer. At the same time, Judaism is presented as the only right religion, in other words, the only right way of living that leads to salvation. It is the same in the literary works of Philo of Alexandria and Josephus Flavius. The importance of Philo is centered in the fact that his interpretation and expounding of the Torah helped to develop Jewish hermeneutics. Contrary to how we view the Apostle Paul, Philo can be called a real Hellenist. But his theological work on the interpretation of the Torah is not restricted only to allegorical explications. In his approach to the Torah, Philo mainly applies these principles: 1. Moses is the lawgiver, but the Torah is holy and divine. 2. There is a harmony between Torah and cosmic order. 3. Scripture has two meanings – literal and allegorical, and both of them must be applied. 4. The final goal of the explication of the Torah is paraenesis.59 In his literary output, Josephus Flavius’ works present the same approach to the Torah and its interpretation. As a Jewish apologist, Josephus places emphasis on the ancientness of the Torah and on Moses as the lawgiver, two fundamental facts in Judaism (Ant. 3.1.4 § 16). Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Greeks are all witnesses to the ancientness of the Jewish tradition, and they all are later contemporaries of Moses. Thus, Greek philosophers are followers of Moses, in both their deeds and in their teaching (Ag. Ap. 2.40). Torah is the authoritative source for the life of all humankind, and therefore a violation of the commandments means disobedience to Godself (Ant. 20.2.4 § 44). Torah is everlasting and indestructible. All else is fugacious and passes away. Jews maintain a reverential fear of the Torah wherever they are living, even when their life is in danger (Ag. Ap. 2.228). Therefore, Jewish youth learned the law so they could know how to live properly and devoutly. Study and knowledge of the law protect Jews from knowingly committing sins (Ant. 16.2.3 § 43). Josephus takes knowledge of the law from early youth as a source of optimism in the Torah’s 58

See J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 60–61, including the references to the other literature. 59 Lichtenberger, “The Understanding of the Torah in the Judaism of Paul’s Day,” 20– 21. See also Y. Amir, Die hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums bei Philon von Alexandrien (FJCD 5; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983); A. F. Segal, “Torah and nomos in Recent Scholarly Discussion,” SR 13 (1984): 19–27; A. Reinhartz, “The Meaning of nomos in Philo’s Exposition of the Law,” SR 15 (1986): 337–45. Stated by Lichtenberger, “The Understanding of the Torah in the Judaism of Paul’s Day,” 21, n. 42.

2. Comprehension of the Torah

25

abilities. This optimism takes into account not only the feasibility of the law but also the potential of abiding by it.60 The documents of the Qumran sect, despite the fact that this orthodox community of Essenes belongs to the very core of Palestinian Judaism, should also be mentioned in this discussion. As John J. Collins stresses, “the problems posed by Hellenization were not confined to the diaspora. As has often been pointed out in recent years, Judea was also profoundly influenced by Hellenism.”61 Even though the Qumran sect resisted Hellenistic influences as much as possible, the constant contact of Palestinian Jews with those of the diaspora, especially in the Egyptian diaspora, in some degree resulted in their knowledge of various interpretations, and this affected the Jewish Hellenistic literature at Qumran.62 The Qumran sect’s relationship with the Torah and its manifestation in the daily life of the community is best described in two main documents that dictated this daily life – the Rule of the Community (1QS) and the Cairo Genizah copy of the Damascus Document (CD). The community maintained an exclusive sense of self-knowledge. Only its members could know the “secret things,” and through them, also the right way to live in accordance with God’s will (1QS 5:11–12). Thus, the community kept a distinctly sectarian character. Qumran Essenes interpreted the history of Israel as a story of continuous violation of God’s commandments, except by the forefathers and those who survived the catastrophe in 587 BCE (CD 3:10). God made the eternal covenant for Israel with the rest of those who remained faithful. Through this act of God, they (the community at Qumran) are able to know the “secret things.” Apart from knowledge of the Torah itself, this also included the source of knowledge of God’s will and the proper way of living in obedience to God’s commandments, which itself brings life. In this scheme, the other members of Israel are misled and continue to break God’s commandments (CD 3:13–16).

60

Lichtenberger, “The Understanding of the Torah in the Judaism of Paul’s Day,” 22. Collins closes with the comment (referring to Feldman, Jew and Gentile, 3–44): “the question is not how thoroughly Jews in the land of Israel were Hellenized, but how strongly they resisted Hellenism,” J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 16, including n. 74. See too Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism; idem, Juden, Griechen und Barbaren: Aspekte der Hellenisierung des Judentums in vorchristlicher Zeit (SBS 76; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1976); V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (New York: Atheneum, 1970), 39–265. 62 It is confirmed, besides other things, in the fragments of the Greek Jewish literature, for example related to the Testament of Levi and the Testament of Naphtali, that have been found at Qumran, and, as John J. Collins remarks, there are many parallels in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. See Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 17. 61

26

The Jewish Deuterocanonical Literature

With this unique interpretation of God’s covenant applied to the situation of a single community, coupled with their strict observance of the rules of the Torah, especially the Sabbath observance, feast days, dietary rules, and marriage, Qumran Essenes differed substantially from the rest of Israel. In regard to the self-knowledge of the community, two things come to light. The first is that the community considered itself a continuation of the very existence of Israel and of God’s continual actions with Israel. The second is the awareness of the discontinuity of the covenant that resulted from disobedience by the rest of Israel, whose past demonstrates a renegade character of the nation from God. But then God roused the remnant of the nation who could observe God’s holy will and live in accordance with God’s commandments. The Qumran community’s relationship with the Torah is aptly characterized by the example of the text 4QMMT, which nowadays is frequently cited and commented on by biblical scholars.63 The text contains a letter of the leader of the Qumran community, perhaps the Teacher of Righteousness, to the leader of an opposing group, probably belonging to the Jerusalem Temple.64 The author of this letter refers to the only right way of living in compliance with the Torah, which means the rigorous observance of the commandments and rules.65 This approach can be described as a radicalization of the order of salvation,66 because compared to the halachic rules as observed by the Pharisees, the Qumran Essenes elevated the halachic tradition to an even more radical and rigorous state. The question arises whether this was a radical form of religious legalism or an expression of a special relationship with God corresponding to the community’s self-interpretation as a favored group within broader salvation history. Particular examples of this strict Halacha, as opposed to the universally accepted and enforced Halacha of the Pharisees, were summarized in the phrase “the works of the law” (Miqsat Ma‘ase ha-Torah). The letter is written in the form of a recommendation to follow this admonition, and at 63

It is the text entitled Miqsat Ma‘ase ha-Torah, which is known also as the “Halachic document,” that was found in the fourth Qumran cave, on six fragments (4Q394– 399) during the years 1953–59. See in more detail E. Qimron and J. Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4. Vol. 5: Miqsat Ma‘ase ha-Torah (DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994). 64 Lichtenberger remarks in this regard that “[t]he letter discusses questions which were at issue between the Qumran community and its (Pharisaic) opponents.” Lichtenberger, “The Understanding of the Torah in the Judaism of Paul’s Day,” 15. 65 Cf. H. Braun, Spätjüdisch-häretischer und frühchristlicher Radikalismus (2 vols.; 2nd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1969). See also the critical comment of M. Limbeck, Die Ordnung des Heils: Untersuchungen zum Gesetzesverständnis des Frühjudentums (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1971), 22–28. Stated by Lichtenberger, “The Understanding of the Torah in the Judaism of Paul’s Day,” 15, n. 17. 66 Lichtenberger, “The Understanding of the Torah in the Judaism of Paul’s Day,” 15.

2. Comprehension of the Torah

27

the same time, the continuity between fulfillment of these “works of the law” and salvation is heavily emphasized (4Q398 14–17, ii [C 26–32]). The Qumran writings, as well as other important documents from this period like the Book of Jubilees (Jub.), express well the theological interpretation of the order of a life cycle. This unique concept is connected to their view of the order of nature, and thus the life cycle is an image of God’s creational work. With this and all that is written in the Torah, which was revealed primarily for Israel, we have another way of knowing the only right path of human life and how it should be oriented towards God and neighbors. Naturally, in regard to neighbors, it did not mean a concern for the people as a whole, for all of humanity, in principle. Rather, only the members of the community could be counted as “neighbors.” This right way of life was strictly oriented towards God and “neighbors,” towards concern over Sabbath regulations, kosher and cultic rules, including the calendar, and also other rules like the proper specification of the time of prayers and worship. The members of the Qumran sect were also abiding by wisdom tradition, which, as the theologumenon, achieved substantial importance not only among Greek-speaking Jews but also within the Qumran sect and later within rabbinic Judaism.67 Despite the remarkable variation between traditions of the period, the Torah was for every group the very core of life for Jewishness, regardless of geographical location or factional embodiment. Torah always meant the source of life and the right way to final salvation, and by this, eternal life. This did not mean that this life was understood only as an ordeal before the age to come nor as the way leading from obedience to life by gaining merit for the Last Judgment. The final appraisal of human life by God, as well as the effort of the believer to be redeemed, was always in the center of Jewish religious tradition as a whole. But the motivation behind this effort was first and foremost life in accordance with God’s will rather than the attainment of a final reward. This motivation alone was a very important aspect of the whole corpus of Jewish deuterocanonical literature, where a proper and righteous human life is to be lived in obedience to God and the Torah itself. Because the Torah has its origin in God, the final appraisal of every human life in the Last Judgment has much to do with one’s obedience to the Torah. We see this emphasized in many places, including in the Psalms of Solomon in the pseudepigrapha, which will be the main focus of the coming chapters.

67 See in more detail Lichtenberger, “The Understanding of the Torah in the Judaism of Paul’s Day,” 11–16.

Chapter 2

The Psalms of Solomon and Its Relation to Jewish Messianic Concepts As mentioned in the Introduction, the Psalms of Solomon was an important work within the corpus of Jewish deuterocanonical literature of the Second Temple era. This is so for many reasons, but one of great importance is that, as Robert B. Wright remarks, “in contrast to many apocryphal compositions, we know its date and provenience – and it was a major composition known to many Jews living in Jerusalem in the century before the burning of the Temple by Titus in 70 CE.” 1 Furthermore, the work contains an eyewitness account of the invasion of the Roman general Pompey and his legions into Jerusalem in 63 BCE, the event which began Roman dominion in Palestine (Pss. Sol. 2:26–27). Another is the reference to the Jewish belief in resurrection, even in the time before the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth (Pss. Sol. 3:12). Finally, Psalms of Solomon contains the first known reference to the Davidic messianic concept (Pss. Sol. 17:21, 32).2 This work thus deserves our attention, a fact which James H. Charlesworth summed up aptly in the foreword to Robert B. Wright’s complete critical edition of this ancient hymnbook3: “It is because a mag-

1

The basic characterization, the Greek text, as well as the English translation of the Psalms of Solomon, including the verse numbers are based primarily on the full critical edition of R. B. Wright, ed., The Psalms of Solomon. My goal in this book is not to enter into a full discussion of all the Greek and Syriac variants of the text, nor to solve in detail all the textual matters. I notice and explain only major emendations that are related to the particular questions of my investigation. As necessary, and if the comparison will be needed, I use also the text of A. Rahlfs’ edition Septuaginta (two vols. in one; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979), 2:471–89, and the English translation based on Professor Robert B. Wright’s translation, “The Psalms of Solomon: A New Translation and Introduction,” OTP 2:639–70. For the Syriac text, I use the critical edition of W. Baars, “Psalms of Solomon,” in The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version (vol. 4, pt. 6; Leiden: Brill, 1972), 1–27. 2 See J. H. Charlesworth, “Preface” to The Psalms of Solomon (ed. R. B. Wright), vii– viii. 3 R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon. See introduction, p. 3, including n. 5.

The Psalms of Solomon and Its Relation to Jewish Messianic Concepts

29

nificent research tool for studying a hymnbook from just before the time of Jesus, and from Jerusalem, now enriches the world of scholarship.”4 The Psalms of Solomon is a hymnbook comprising a collection of eighteen non-canonical psalms. For R. B. Wright, they are “a conscious imitation of the Davidic psalter, perhaps heightened later by the addition of titles, ascription, and liturgical paraphernalia.”5 It is sufficient to introduce the Psalms of Solomon as a product of the Jewish community, presumably from more than one author living in Palestine and most probably directly in Jerusalem because of the particular interest of the author or authors in this city.6 Existing manuscripts are in Greek and Syriac (in translation from Greek),7 but most scholars today suspect that these psalms were likely composed in Hebrew or possibly Aramaic.8 This belief is affirmed by the content of the psalms, the writing technique, and various stylistic decisions in the work.9 Another important fact is that there is no evidence of later Christian redaction.10 As for the form and genre of these psalms, we find in the content several classic psalm forms, though scholars are divided as to whether these forms actually indicate important nuances in meaning.11 As Mikael Winninge states,12 a certain dissolution of the classic forms is obvious, but in general it can be said that there are complaint-psalms (Pss. Sol. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 17),13 thanksgiving-psalms (Pss. Sol. 2, 13, 15, 4

Charlesworth, “Preface,” viii. R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:646. 6 D. Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, 35. 7 On the critical editions of the Greek text, as well as the other scholarly issues of the Psalms of Solomon including the bibliography, see R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon. 8 Daniel Falk remarks that there is also the conviction that the Syriac derives primarily from the Hebrew, and refers to J. L. Trafton’s work, The Syriac Version of the Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Evaluation (SBLSCS 11; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985) which shows that the Syriac preserves important readings. In Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 35, n. 109. 9 See M. Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous: A Comparative Study of the Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Letters (ConBNT 26; Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1995), 9– 12. For the support of this opinion see also the detailed list of quotations from scholars contributing to Charlesworth’s The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (1985), towards the other Jewish pseudepigrapha, as is stated by Grant Ward in “The Psalms of Solomon: The Philological Analysis of the Greek and the Syriac Texts” (Ph.D. diss., Temple University, 1996), 2–7. 10 See Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 3.1:195. Stated by Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 35, including n. 111. 11 See in more detail Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 16–19. 12 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 16. 13 Here I am following the analysis of S. Holm-Nielsen, “Salomos Salmer,” GTP (ed. E. Hammershaimb et al.; 2 vols.; Copenhagen: Gad, 1970), 2:549. According to R. B. 5

30

The Psalms of Solomon and Its Relation to Jewish Messianic Concepts

16),14 and hymns (Pss. Sol. 3, 6, 10, 11, 14, and 18).15 But such distinctions are not clean and clear. As Winninge remarks: “Not least the fact that one single psalm can involve a variety of forms, necessitates a less stereotyped form-critical language.”16 In any case, it can be said that this hymnbook most closely approximates the late psalms of the Hebrew Bible, with their didactic character and purpose.17 Also in discussion of genre, we must remember that psalms can be apocalyptic or prophetic in their literary form. And prophecy and apocalypticism are, in fact, genres possessing rather similar content and closely related subjects of inquiry.18 The motive of apocalyptic messianism,19 or messianic eschatology or simply messianism, as Winninge suggests,20 comes to the fore in this hymnbook. The next chapters of this book will unpack this suggestion, as well as other questions related to the introductory notes of the hymnbook, in more detail, exploring further the social function and socio-linguistic situations of these psalms. Distinguishing between individual and collective psalms seems impossible, especially when oversimplifying the project to a single subject matter. This was the case, for example, with George W. E. Nickelsburg,21 who tried to distinguish between two major categories of psalms within this hymnbook, saying “psalms of the nation” reflect upon the events of the immediate past or express Israel’s eschatological hopes (Pss. Sol. 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 17, and 18), and “psalms of the righteous and pious” portray two contrary groups of sinners and the righteous (Pss. Sol. 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 13,

Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:646, they are Pss. Sol. 2:19–25; 7; 8:22–34; 16:6–15. 14 According to Holm-Nielsen, “Salomos Salmer,” 549; according to R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:646, they are Pss. Sol. 8:1–4; 15:1–6; 16:1–5. 15 According to Holm-Nielsen, “Salomos Salmer,” 549; according to R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:646, they are Pss. Sol. 2:30, 33–37; 3:1–2. Wright puts the psalms 3:3–12, and 6 among didactic poems. 16 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 16–17. 17 G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 204; R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:646; Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 17, including n. 53. 18 See R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:642, 646–47; Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 17, including n. 59. On the issue of apocalyptic and prophetic genre in the Psalms of Solomon, see B. J. Embry, “Psalms of Assurance: An Analysis of the Formation and Function of Psalms of Solomon in Second Temple Judaism” (Ph.D. diss., Durham University, 2005), 12–16. 19 R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:642. 20 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 18. 21 Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, 204, 209–10. See also Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 17, referring to other literature.

The Psalms of Solomon and Its Relation to Jewish Messianic Concepts

31

14, 15, and 16). This approach seems flawed also because, as we know, Jewish writers at the time did not think as readily in individual terms but rather thought about and assessed events and facts mostly in a collective sense. So the Psalms of Solomon is a valuable source of information from the time around the beginning of the Christian movement and also about Jewish religious and theological notions concerning God’s righteousness and its consequences for the life of the devout believers and also for the fate of the oppressor and the sinner.

1. Historical Background and Content The Psalms of Solomon are a collection of eighteen psalms representing a reaction of the community of pious Jews, – and more broadly a reaction of all Jews devoted to the Law and religious cult (oi` avgapw/ntej sunagwga.j o`si,wn [Pss. Sol. 17:16]) – to the Roman invasion and capture of Jerusalem under the command of Pompey in the year 63 BCE and other events surrounding the invasion, as well as other happenings within the Roman Empire, such as the assassination of Pompey in Egypt in 48 BCE.22 According to some scholars, the Psalms is also a response to the siege of Jerusalem by Herod the Great and the Roman general Sosius in the year 37 BCE.23 This pious Jewish community is traditionally considered to be the Pharisees, but this is not entirely clear.24 The piety of this group was centered somewhere 22

The main historical sources on the events behind the Psalms of Solomon are Josephus, Ant. 14; J.W. 1; Dio Cassius, Roman History 37 and 42 and Plutarch, Lives: Pompey 77–80. Stated by Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 30, n. 35. 23 For example, R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 1. Contrary to this opinion, Daniel Falk remarks that there is a lack of any likely allusions to Herod. In Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 35. In this connection see also K. Atkinson, “On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumran: New Light from Psalm of Solomon 17,” JBL 118.3 (1999): 435–60. 24 The question of provenance is still under discussion because on the side of traditional assumptions many facts cast doubt on it. For example, the Psalms of Solomon does not exhibit any interest in oral tradition as it is stressed in Pharisaic circles. Interest in purity and cultic matters (Pss. Sol. 1:8; 2:3; 8:11–13, 20–22; 17:45) is common matter with the Qumran, or Essene, movement. See R. R. Hann, “The Community of the Pious: The Social Setting of the Psalms of Solomon,” SR 17.2 (1988): 169–89. However, the unproblematic way of identifying the psalmist with Israel as a whole (Pss. Sol. 7:8; 8:26, 34; 9:11; 10:5–8) ignores the psalmist’s narrow sectarian viewpoint. Ed Parish Sanders stresses the fact that while this work should probably not be associated exclusively with the Pharisees, the form of piety displayed and the concern with obedience to the law and with the moral consequences that follow are all characteristic of a “broad religious move-

32

The Psalms of Solomon and Its Relation to Jewish Messianic Concepts

other than on obedience to the law and the Temple cult. They expressed a strong opposition to Jewish sinners – not only to the members of the Hasmonean dynasty (cf. 17:5–8, 22) but also to sinners as a broader category of the Jewish people (cf. 17:19–20) – those who had usurped the monarchy and desecrated the Temple and its cult (17:6; 1:8; 2:3–5; 8:8–13). Particularly, psalms 1, 2, 8, and 17 are apparently first-hand allusions to all of these historical events, and psalm 2:26–27 refers to the death of Pompey in Egypt in 48 BCE. For the remainder of the psalms, I am in full agreement with Robert B. Wright, who sees this book as very similar to the canonical psalms and the Hodayot of the Qumran Hymn Scroll (1QH). The canonical psalms and the Hodayot focus on a variety of topics common to the psalm genre, such as a confrontation of evil and good, sin and salvation, and threat and rescue.25 Particular significance belongs to psalm 17, as I mentioned earlier, which is a messianic hymn “describing the anticipated victory and reign of the expected redeeming king, the anointed Son of David.”26 He is the Lord Messiah, the leader of the pious in the struggle against the invaders, foreign influences, and corrupt officials of the state and the Temple, particularly the Hasmonean dynasty. Moreover, he is the Messiah who finally establishes a holy Jewish theocracy to which even foreign nations would be subordinate. Knowing the date of Psalms of Solomon and its provenance, including the probability of it being well-known to many Jews living in Jerusalem in those times, confirms that the work is a singularly important document, as Robert B. Wright emphasizes.27 In regard to the dating of the hymnbook, most scholars place it in the first half of the first century BCE (63–48). Daniel Falk notes here that it is unlikely that Psalms of Solomon as a whole was composed under similar circumstances as the allusion to Pompey’s invasion. According to them the collection as a whole must have been completed after 48 BCE.28 Robert B. Wright agrees, remarking that, according to the most recent scholars, there was more than one author, and probably a redactor, involved in the creation of the hymnbook.29 Wright argues: ment” (E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 388), which would include also the Pharisees. 25 R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 1. 26 R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 1. 27 Charlesworth, “Preface,” vii. 28 Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 36, including nn. 113, 114. 29 R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 6–7, including n. 22. Despite all of this, some scholars continue to support the idea of a single author behind these psalms, for example: J. Brierre-Narbonne, Exégèse apocryphe des prophéties messianiques (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1937), 5; J. Liver, The House of David (Jerusalem: Magnes/Hebrew Univer-

1. Historical Background and Content

33

A redactor would have edited the collection and shaped its final form. He selected a core of ‘historical’ psalms composed over three decades, from approximately 65 to 30 BCE, spanning the time from before Pompey through Herod. He appended the first and eighteenth Psalms of Solomon, providing an introduction and conclusion. The redactor would have added the remaining ‘generic’ psalms, from an existing pool of cultic poetry. He arranged the psalms, added liturgical headings in emulation of the biblical Psalter, and attributed the whole to King Solomon. That Jerusalem has been attacked and desecrated, but not destroyed, suggests that the psalms reached their final form before 70 CE. Thus, the last half of the first century BCE emerges as the most suitable time for the composition and editing of the Psalms of Solomon, followed by a translation into Greek perhaps about the turn of the era, possibly in Egypt. 30

In regard to historical references, the earliest evidence dates back to the fifth century CE in the catalogue of the Codex Alexandrinus, which included the Psalms of Solomon.31 They come after the Septuagint, the New Testament, and the Clementine Epistles in this codex. The leaves at the end of the codex, which would have contained the text of the Psalms of Solomon, are missing, so we have only the listing in the catalogue. This evidence does not confirm whether, in those times, the Psalms of Solomon were regarded as a part of a canonical enumeration or were only part of the contents of this particular manuscript.32 The next piece of evidence on the Psalms of Solomon comes from the early sixth century CE in the Synopsis Sanctae Scripturae of Pseudo-Athanasius.33 They are included there with the Odes of Solomon as antilegomena, between Maccabees and Susanna. They are also registered among the pseudepigrapha in the list of “The Sixty Books [of Scripture]” from the sixth century at the end of Anastasius Sinaita’s Quaestiones et Responsiones,34 where they follow the canonical

sity, 1959), 141, and M. Stein, “Mizmoray Shlomo” = “The Psalms of Solomon,” in HaSefarim ha-hitzonim (ed. A. Kahana; 2 vols.; Jerusalem: Makor, 1969/70), 1:433. 30 R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 6–7, including nn. 23, 24, 25. 31 In what follows, all references to authors and scholarship on the dating and historical evidence are from the full critical edition of R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 1– 7. 32 On the particular opinions on these questions, see R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 1–2, n. 9. 33 Pseudo-Athanasius, “Synopsis Sanctae Scripturae,” in PG 28, col. 432. See T. Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (vol. 2; Erlangen: A. Deichert, 1890), 317. 34 See in J. Cotelier, SS. patrum qui temporibus apostolicis floruerunt, Barnabae, Clementis, Hermae, Ignatii, Polycarpi Opera, vera, et suppositicia unà cum Clementis, Ignatii, Policarpi actis atque martyriis (2nd ed.; 2 vols.; Antwerp: Clericus, 1700/Amsterdam: Wetstenios, 1724), 1:196. See Zahn, Geschichte, 2:289–93; J. Viteau, Les Psaumes de Salomon: Introduction, texte grec et traduction, avec les principales variantes de la version Syriaque par François Martin (Documents pour 1’étude de la Bible; Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1911), 186. Cited by R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 2, n. 11.

34

The Psalms of Solomon and Its Relation to Jewish Messianic Concepts

and deuterocanonical books and are included between the Assumption of Moses (As. Mos.) and the Apocalypse of Elijah (Apoc. El.). The next appearance is in the ninth century in the stichometry attributed to Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, where they are found together with the Odes of Solomon (Odes Sol.), included between Sirach (Sir) and Esther (Esth).35 In the tenth century, the Psalms of Solomon are found among the apocrypha in the manuscript of the Coislin library, and the thirteenth century in the Arminian Canon, where they are listed with “the books that the Jews have in secret.”36 Here we must also note the interesting question of the resemblance or dependence of Pss. Sol. 11 on Bar 5, which would indicate, as Robert B. Wright concludes, that the Psalms of Solomon were available by the late first century CE.37 In the context of external evidence of the existence of the Psalms of Solomon in its nowadays known form, the limits would be delineated by the fifth century CE and, depending on the date of the Book of Baruch, the last third of the first century CE.38 Regarding internal evidence, a variety of opinions are presented, especially on the identity of the foreign conqueror. Apart from the opinion identifying that person as the Roman general Pompey, an opinion supported by most scholars, candidates are also Antiochus IV Epiphanes who plundered Jerusalem in 170 BCE, Herod the Great, or Titus.39 However, 35

Nicephorus, Chronographikon syntomon, in Patriarchae Constantinopolitani Breviarium Historicum (Paris: S. Chappelet, 1616), 286–414. See also C. de Boor, ed., Nicephori Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani Opuscula Historica (BSGRT; Leipzig: Teubner, 1880), 134, and B. F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: Macmillan, 1889), Appendix D, “Catalogs of the Books of the Bible,” 56, No. XDC, and Zahn, Geschichte, 2:299. See R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 2–3, n. 12. 36 See R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 3, including nn. 13, 14. 37 R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 3, including n. 16. 38 R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 4. 39 The opinion that the conqueror could be Antiochus IV Epiphanes is supported, for example, by G. H. A. von Ewald, The History of Israel (trans. R. Martineau, J. E. Carpenter, and J. F. Smith; 8 vols.; 2nd ed.; London: Longmans, Green, 1869–86), 5:301, and G. F. Oehler, “Messias,” in RE2 9:641–55. More commentators support the opinion that the composition of the Psalms of Solomon was made at the time of Pompey, with the later revision coming during the time of Herod the Great. See F. K. C. Movers, “Apokryphen-Literatur,” in Kirchen-Lexikon, oder Encyklopädie der katholischen Theologie und ihrer Hilfswissenschaften (ed. H. J. Wetzer and B. Welte; 12 vols.; 2nd ed.; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1882–1901), 1:340; K. Th. Keim, Geschichte Jesu von Nazara in ihrer Verkettung mit dem Gesamtleben seines Volkes (3 vols.; Zurich: Orell & Füßli, 1867–72), 1:243; F. J. Delitzsch, Commentar über den Psalter (2 vols.; Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1859–60), 2:381; E.-M. Laperrousaz, “Hérode le Grand est-il «l’ennemi (qui) a agi en étranger», des Psaumes de Salomon?,” in Politique et religion dans le judaïsme ancien et médiéval (ed. D. Tollet; Relais: Études 7; Paris: Desclée, 1989), 29–32. E. G.

1. Historical Background and Content

35

the allusions taken as a whole – especially those in psalms 2 and 8 – best match Josephus’s description of Pompey’s invasion of Judea and the capture of Jerusalem in 63 BCE (Antiquities; Jewish War). This opinion is further reinforced by the fact that Pompey is the only one among all the candidates who died in Egypt in 48 BCE (Pss. Sol. 2:26).40 Since, as I mentioned above, the composition of the hymnbook took place in several stages and by more than one author,41 it is likely that some parts of the Psalms also describe other persons. For example, Pss. Sol. 17 better describes the siege of Jerusalem by Herod the Great and the Roman general Sosius in 37 BCE. And we can read there also a description of the anticipation of the extermination of the Hasmonean ruling dynasty by someone from in its own midst, a fact which fits best with Herod the Great and the murders of the remaining members of the Hasmonean dynasty, which occurred between 37 and 30 BCE.42 Taking into account these various pieces of evidence, we can agree with Robert B. Wright that the core of historical psalms could have been composed over the course of three decades, probably from 65 to 30 BCE, covering the time from before Pompey to Herod the Great. Then the first and the last psalms that provide an introduction and conclusion would be appended. The redactor could then have added the remaining psalms characteristic of Jewish cultic poetry. The final stage of this process then became the standard final editorial touches, adding the liturgical headings in the manner of the biblical Psalter and attributing the hymnbook to King Solomon. Because Jerusalem and the Temple were desecrated and not destroyed, we can make a strong argument for dating the final form of the Psalms of Solomon before 70 CE. This means that the process of composing and editing the hymnbook took place in the latter half of the first

Bengel placed the Psalms of Solomon with the date of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE by Titus. In E. G. Bengel, Opuscula Academica (ed. J. G. Pressel; Hamburg: Apud Fridericum Perthes, 1834). See R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 4–5, including nn. 17, 18. 40 See K. Atkinson, I Cried to the Lord: A Study of the Psalms of Solomon’s Historical Background and Social Setting (JSJSup 84; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 22. 41 In this work I will use the singular designation “author” for simplicity’s sake and better lucidity. 42 R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 6. See also K. Atkinson, “Toward a Redating of the Psalms of Solomon: Implications for Understanding the Sitz im Leben of an Unknown Jewish Sect,” JSP 17 (1998): 95–112; idem, “Herod the Great, Sosius, and the Siege of Jerusalem (37 B.C.E.) in Psalm of Solomon 17,” NovT 38 (1996): 313–22.

36

The Psalms of Solomon and Its Relation to Jewish Messianic Concepts

century BCE, following translation into Greek, probably around the turn of the century in Egypt.43 In regard to the content of the Psalms of Solomon, the particular parts are, as I said at the beginning of the chapter, very similar to the genres of biblical psalms. There are mixed forms, the lamentations of community or individual, hymns, songs of thanksgiving, as well as didactic poems.44 Two interrelated themes dominate in this hymnbook. The first is the endangering of the nation from foreign invasion as a consequence of the sin of Jewish leaders; the second is a yearning for national restoration under a Messiah of Davidic lineage.45 As mentioned above, these themes are based on important and decisive historical events. Particularly, psalms 2 and 8 refer to Pompey and his campaign against Jerusalem. Psalm 17 refers to Herod the Great and the general Sosius concerning the siege of Jerusalem in 37 BCE. In a broad sense, psalm 17 also anticipates the execution of the remnant of the Hasmoneans (Pss. Sol. 17:7–8, 9b, 11). Besides these historical events there is the first clear reference to the Davidic messianic concept (Pss. Sol. 17:21, 32). Psalm 7 is a prayer for God’s protection and leading, and it is ostensibly a reaction to the imminent Roman intervention which threatens Jews in Palestine. Psalms 4, 12, 15 clearly were written earlier than the events related to Pompey, and they describe inner-Jewish disputes and, in a general sense, the contrast between piousness of the righteous and evilness of the wicked. Psalms 1, 3, 13, and 14 deal with the theme of the sharp contrast between the righteous and sinners. Psalms 5, 6, 9, and 10 celebrate God’s graciousness and righteousness and describe the hope of devout pious men for God’s faithfulness. Psalm 11 anticipates God’s blessing on the Holy City and describes its eschatological perspective. Psalm 13 comforts the righteous believers with the perspective of final salvation, a contrast to the perishing of sinners. Psalm 16 gives courage to devoted believers in times of trial; and psalm 18 takes up once more the messianic theme. But all of these themes interrelate and cross-reference one another in various ways. Apart from the theme of the Davidic messianic idea, the other dominant theme in this hymnbook is personal piety, a conflict and contrast between 43 Stated by R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 6–7. See too R. J. Blackburn, “Hebrew Poetic Devices in the Greek Text of the Psalms of Solomon” (Ph.D. diss., Temple University, 1998). 44 See O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. P. R. Ackroyd; Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), 611. Stated by Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 36, including n. 115. 45 As Daniel Falk remarks, these two concerns do not distinguish genres or types of psalms as Nickelsburg claims in Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, 204, 209–10. For references to related literature, see Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 35, n. 112.

1. Historical Background and Content

37

the “sinners” and the “righteous” of Israel. The hymnbook contains peculiar references to the Last Judgment. God’s judgment, which continues throughout history, will be completed at the time of the Last Judgment, and wherever it is realized, the results of the process will have eternal consequences (cf. Pss. Sol. 2:34; 3:11; 12:6; 13:11; 14:9; 15:10–13). From this context it seems clear that the Last Judgment during the “days of Messiah” will apply only to those who are alive when it occurs (similar to 2 Maccabees). This means that the eternal destiny of an individual must be decided immediately after their death.46 All of the themes concerning the writer or writers are of outstanding kerygmatic value, especially in connection with the investigation of Jewish religious traditions at the turn of the millennium and particularly concerning the historical Jesus movement in recent scholarship and recent developments in Pauline studies. Besides the question of historical background, another important question of ascription and provenance of the Psalms of Solomon arises. By title and tradition, the hymnbook is ascribed, or dedicated, to Solomon, despite the fact that the actual content makes no mention or reference to him. The intent of the author was probably to impart authority to the work by ascribing it to someone who enjoyed, like King David, a reputation as a poet (1 Kgs 4:32–34; Heb 5:12–14). This assumption also supports the similarity of Pss. Sol. 17 with the canonical Psalm 72.47 The focal point of the author is without a doubt Jerusalem, the venue for the hymnbook as a whole.48 Provenance and authorship are tied up deeply with this question of location. As I stated above, the hymnbook is traditionally attributed to the Pharisees,49 or at least with close ties to the Pharisees.50 The propo46 VanLandingham argues this point of view, pushing for a distinction between the Last Judgment in history and an individual post-mortem judgment. See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 138. 47 R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 7. 48 R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 7. See too H. E. Ryle and M. R. James, Psalmoi Solomontos = Psalms of the Pharisees, Commonly Called the Psalms of Solomon: The Text Newly Revised from All the Mss. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891), lviii–lix. 49 E.g., G. B. Gray, “The Psalms of Solomon,” APOT 2:627–30. 50 Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, 204, 212; K. E. Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism (SBLEJL 7; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995); J. Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos: Ein Zeugnis Jerusalemer Theologie und Frömmigkeit in der Mitte des vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts (ALGHJ 7; Leiden: Brill, 1977), chapter 1; Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 180. From the distant past there were, for example, Ryle and James, Psalmoi Solomontos, lix; J. Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer (Greifswald: L. Bamberg, 1874), 139; Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, 3.1:21; Gray, “The Psalms of Solomon,” 630; S. Mathews, “Psalms of the Phari-

38

The Psalms of Solomon and Its Relation to Jewish Messianic Concepts

nents of this hypothesis support this traditional belief with multiple arguments. First, they argue, it is very likely that by the first century BCE the initially homogeneous religious movement that originated in the third or second century BCE and was called the Chasidim (1 and 2 Maccabees) eventually developed into three separate sects or “philosophies,” as Josephus Flavius calls them: the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes (Ant. 13.5.9 § 171). The other substantial argument is that the Pharisees were hostile to the Hasmonean dynasty on account of its claim to the high priesthood (Ant. 13.10.5–6 §§ 288–298). The relations between the Pharisees and Hasmoneans became increasingly toxic during the rule of Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BCE) when the conflict grew into an uprising which the Hasmoneans bloodily suppressed (Ant. 13.13.5 §§ 372–376; 13.14.1–2 §§ 377–383). At this time the Pharisees were clearly marginalized, and their situation was ameliorated only partially during the rule of Salome Alexandra (76–67 BCE), the widow of Alexander Jannaeus, when they gained some measure of political influence (Ant. 13.16.6 §§ 430–432). Furthermore, the Psalms of Solomon give expression to the doctrines of resurrection and Final Judgment, which contradict the beliefs and doctrines of the Sadducees. References to “the devout” (2:36; 3:8; 4:1, 6, 8; 8:23, 34; 9:3; 10:5–6; 12:4, 6; 13:10, 12; 14:3, 10; 15:7; 17:16) or “the righteous” (2:34–35; 3:3– 7, 11; 4:8; 9:5, 7; 10:3; 13:6–9, 11; 14:2, 9; 15:6–7; 16:15) who are also called “the poor” (5:2; 15:1), “the humble” (5:12), “those who fear the Lord (or God)” (2:33; 3:12; 4:23; 5:18; 6:5; 13:12), and “those who love God” (6:6; 10:3; 14:1) support the Pharisaic origin. The “wicked” could be their opponents, either the members of the Hasmonean dynasty or their supporters, including the pro-Hasmonean Sadducees or even potentially the Essenes. In this line of reasoning, the views expressed in the Psalms of Solomon are to a considerable extent compatible with what is known of Pharisaism from other sources, a fact that is also affirmed by George Nickelsburg, who closes his survey of these documents by saying that in the content of the Psalms of Solomon there is much that fits in what we know about the Pharisees and nothing that does not.51 Recently, however, this sees,” in idem, A History of New Testament Times in Palestine (New York: MacMillan, 1899, 1918), 96–98. See R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 7, n. 27. 51 Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, 204, 212. Robert B. Wright refers also to A. ab Alpe, who in “Christologia in Psalmis Salomonis,” VD 11.2–4 (1931): 56–59, 84–88, 110–20, supported the Pharisees’ authorship of the Psalms of Solomon, and besides, he believed that “because of their use of messianic imagery drawn from the Hebrew Bible, they are to a degree higher than all other apocrypha to be understood as a bridge between the Old Testament and the New Testament.” Wright in this context remarks that despite the title of this study, it is a general discussion of the

1. Historical Background and Content

39

identification is disputed and additional arguments have been constructed against it. For example, Anni Jaubert objects that it is difficult to accept that the Pharisees would espouse Davidic messianism but at the same time support the Hasmonean Salome Alexandra and probably her son Hyrcanus II.52 As Terence Donaldson remarks, the characteristic positions of the Psalms of Solomon were by no means restricted to the Pharisees, nor does the content of this hymnbook exhibit any interest in oral tradition (Halacha), as known in later sources.53 Günter Stemberger reminds us that “[t]he designation Pharisee is not found before Paul, or the name Sadducee before Mark’s Gospel … This means that the earliest explicit statements about Pharisees and Sadducees were first written at a time when they had ceased to exist.”54 In any case, the arguments for Pharisaic authorship are substantial, and even if there is not sufficient evidence for proving this hypothesis, from the content it is clear that behind this hymnbook’s ethos was some type of eschatological group that remains unnamed.55 The hymnbook represents a form of religious devotion that is consistent with “a broad religious movement”56 that would have included the Pharisees.57 Some scholars have attempted to link the Psalms of Solomon with the group known as Chasidim, or Essenes.58 This really is not a likely scenario, primarily because there is nothing distinctly Essene in the religious views expressed in the texts of the Psalms of Solomon. Scholars have pointed out the similarities to various Dead Sea Scrolls, especially to the Psalms of Solomon and their importance for understanding the function of Christology in the New Testament. In Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 10, n. 34. 52 A. Jaubert, La notion d’alliance dans le judaïsme aux abords l’ère chrétienne (Patristica Sorboniensia 6; Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1963), 254, n. 12. 53 Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 137. Thorough analysis and refutation of the argument supporting the authorship of the Pharisees was put together by Jerry O’Dell, “The Religious Background of the Psalms of Solomon Reevaluated in the Light of the Qumran Texts,” RevQ 3 (1961): 241–57. 54 G. Stemberger, Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes (trans. A. W. Mahnke; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995). Stated by R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 8, n. 28. 55 R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon, the Pharisees and the Essenes,” in Proceedings International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies and the Society of Biblical Literature Pseudepigrapha Seminar (ed. R. A. Kraft; SBLSCS 2; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1972), 136–54; Hann, “The Community of the Pious,” 169–89. 56 E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 388. 57 Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 138. 58 For example, A. Dupont-Sommer suggests a link directly with Qumran. See A. Dupont-Sommer, Les écrits esséniens découverts près de la Mer Morte (Paris: Payot, 1959), 308, 347. R. R. Hann supports a link with the wider Essene movement. See Hann, “The Community of the Pious,” 169–89.

40

The Psalms of Solomon and Its Relation to Jewish Messianic Concepts

Hodayot of the Qumran Hymn Scroll (1QH), as mentioned above, but these similarities were more in form and not in content.59 The other argument against Essene authorship is that, as Terence Donaldson remarks, the opposition to the Hasmoneans has more to do with their usurpation of the monarchy (Pss. Sol. 17:6) than of the high priesthood. Furthermore, the broad and uncomplicated way in which the psalmist identifies with Israel as a whole does not indicate a strongly held sectarian attitude (Pss. Sol. 7:8; 8:26, 34; 9:11; 10:5–8).60 No copies or fragments of the Psalms of Solomon have been found at Qumran, the likely center of the community of Essenes. On the location of the Psalms of Solomon, Kenneth Atkinson states clearly: “Because at least a third of the Dead Sea Scrolls did not emanate from the members of the Qumran sect, but were apparently written by others as yet unidentified authors, it is not necessary to assign a composition such as the Psalms of Solomon to a known Jewish sectarian community.”61 A decisive attribution of the Psalms of Solomon to the Sadducees,62 or even to the Christians,63 cannot be definitively achieved, it seems, due to nominal evidence. Questions of authorship must also account for the socio-linguistic situations of these psalms. Daniel Falk remarks here that, despite the repeated belief that the Psalms of Solomon were composed for liturgical use in the 59

Jaubert, La notion d’alliance dans le judaïsme, 255; S. Holm-Nielsen, “Erwägungen zu dem Verhältnis zwischen den Hodajot und den Psalmen Salomos,” in Bibel und Qumran: Beiträge zur Erforschung der Beziehungen zwischen Bibel- und Qumranwissenschaft (ed. S. Wagner; Berlin: Evangelische Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft, 1968), 112–31; O’Dell, “The Religious Background of the Psalms of Solomon,” 241–57; D. Rosen and A. Salvesen, “A Note on the Qumran Temple Scroll 56:15–18 and Psalm of Solomon 17:33,” JJS 38 (1987): 99–101; D. Dimant, “A Cultic Term in the Psalms of Solomon in the Light of Septuagint” (in Hebrew), Textus 9 (1981): 28–51; D. Flusser, “Psalms, Hymns and Prayer,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (ed. M. E. Stone; CRINT 2.2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 551–77; A. S. van der Woude, Die messianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von Qumran (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1957); G. Morawe, “Vergleich des Aufbaus der Danklieder und hymnischen Bekenntnislieder (1QH) von Qumran mit dem Aufbau der Psalmen in Alten Testament und im Spätjudentum,” RevQ 4 (1963): 233–54; S. Fujita, “The Metaphor of Plant in Jewish Literature of the Intertestamental Period,” JSJ 7 (1976): 30. References to the authors are stated by R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 9, n. 32. 60 Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 138. 61 Atkinson, I Cried to the Lord, 7. Cited by R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 10. 62 F. Hitzig, Geschichte des Volkes Israel von Anbeginn bis zur Eroberung Masada’s im Jahre 72 nach Christus (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1869), 502; J. Le Moyne, Les Sadducéens (Paris: Lecoffre, 1972). 63 J. Efron, “The Psalms of Solomon,” in idem, Studies on the Hasmonean Period (SJLA 39; Leiden: Brill, 1987), 219–86.

1. Historical Background and Content

41

synagogue,64 there is actually very little evidence of this.65 Falk argues that “[t]he psalms lack the web of indicators of liturgical use that mark numerous prayers and psalms found at Qumran, and historical references are more specific than is typical of liturgy.”66 Robert Wright in his recent critical edition of the Psalms of Solomon, argues (contrary to his prior opinions in “The Psalms of Solomon,” 646, and contrary to Falk)67 that all of these allusions, especially those mentioning the “synagogues of the devout” in Pss. Sol. 17:16; 10:7, the explicit communal identity throughout the psalms, as well as the glosses for the musical using which echo the biblical Psalter (Pss. Sol. 8:1 [tit.]; 17:29; 18:9), suggest that the Psalms of Solomon were indeed used in a synagogue setting.68 In this regard, Falk notes that the references to the “synagogues” (Pss. Sol. 10:7; 17:16) cannot be taken as evidence of use in the synagogue because we lack clear evidence that the use of regular and substantial liturgy was even occurring at that time. Moreover, the strong anti-Hasmonean polemic suggests that this hymnbook cannot have been meant for any general public use, and therefore its function fell instead within the context of a specific and private group or groups, particularly that of encouraging and warning a community that felt threatened within Israel69 as a result of the developing political and social events in Palestine during the first century BCE. From all that was said above, it is possible to say about the Psalms of Solomon that they were in some way a response to a threatening situation of religious and national autonomy during the first century BCE within the 64 S. Holm-Nielsen, Die Psalmen Salomos (JSHRZ 4.2; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1977), 59–60; Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos, 155–56; M. A. Seifrid, Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme (NovTSup 68; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 113, 117; Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 18–19. Stated by Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 36. 65 Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 36. See also Flusser, “Psalms, Hymns and Prayers,” 573; R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:646. 66 Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 36. 67 As Daniel Falk refers to it in “Psalms and Prayers,” 36, nn. 118, 120. 68 R. B. Wright argues: “There are some indications of synagogue venue for the Psalms of Solomon. The community apparently worshiped apart from the Temple, without sacrifices. Piety had become a substitute for sacrifice, so that sins were now cleansed through confession and penance in the ‘synagogues of the devout’ (PsSol 17:16; 10:7), where they give thanks to God (PsSol 10:6). They were forced to flee during Herod’s siege of Jerusalem, and were dispersed (PsSol 17:16–18). These allusions and the explicit communal identity throughout the psalms suggest that a synagogue setting may be most appropriate for these psalms.” See Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 10–11, including notes. 69 Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 36, including notes. See too Seifrid, Justification by Faith, 61–62, 113–14.

42

The Psalms of Solomon and Its Relation to Jewish Messianic Concepts

circle of pious Jewish groups in Palestine, which was of primary interest in Jerusalem and held animosity toward the Hasmonean ruling dynasty. These various influences on the content of the hymnbook are substantial matters for our survey. Daniel Falk stresses that in the process of treating these psalms we have to distinguish between the language of the psalms (prayers, piety) themselves – which is directed toward God and represents a literal level of interpretation – and a more rhetorical function of the language of the psalms directed toward the community. The latter is the more important for concerns over the community’s daily life, primarily to reinforce group boundaries and prevent apostasy and defection in the context of external pressure. The extended denouncements of enemies (e.g., Pss. Sol. 4), threats of punishment (e.g., Pss. Sol. 3:9–12; 15:6–13), incessant reminding of correct conduct (e.g., Pss. Sol. 3:3–8; 5:5–7), which are meant to be overheard by the community and not by those denounced,70 all provide notice about these concerns.71 The main topic of interest in our survey is the soteriology of the psalms and its interpretation. Here, the opinions of recent scholars differ, depending upon the methodology of their approach to the interpretation of the Psalms of Solomon. Daniel Falk expounds this polarized situation well.72 On the one side are the opinions of scholars who find in the Psalms of Solomon a clear example of righteousness gained by works. By the last quarter of the nineteenth century, Julius Wellhausen argued in favor of this perspective and regarded the hymnbook as a typical example of the legalistic approach to God’s mercy, which is viewed as a reward for obedience to the law.73 However, Herbert Braun’s argument shows some shift in this meaning.74 Braun remarks that mercy, which is a foundational term in this hymnbook, is received not merely as an unmerited free gift from God but 70 Daniel Falk stresses this point, and states as an example Pss. Sol. 4:1, which addresses the “profaner” who is “sitting in the council of the devout.” This is only rhetorical, Falk says, and is indicated by the immediate switch to the third person. See Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 37, including n. 123. 71 Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 37. Falk stresses the similarity in the case of Hodayot and refers to C. A. Newsom’s study “Kenneth Burke Meets the Teacher of Righteousness: Rhetorical Strategies in the Hodayot and the Serek Ha-Yahad,” in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. H. W. Attridge, J. J. Collins, and T. H. Tobin; College Theology Society Resources in Religion 5; Lanham: University Press of America, 1990), 121–31. 72 Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 37–39. In the following I proceed from this characterization, including the references to particular authors and studies. 73 Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer, 118–19. 74 H. Braun, “Vom Erbarmen Gottes über den Gerechten: Zur Theologie der Psalmen Salomos,” ZNW 43 (1950–51): 1–54.

1. Historical Background and Content

43

is rather the result of a process by which the righteous are entitled to God’s mercy on the grounds of their own righteousness, which is attained through their conduct. For Braun, it is therefore plainly wrong to be of the opinion that God’s mercy upon Israel could be bestowed freely to the covenant nation on the basis of God’s election, because it is in sharp contrast with the mercy that the pious must earn, bestowed on those who can prove their righteousness via their works.75 The third notion in this type of approach, as stated by Falk, is that of Mark Seifrid,76 who is attentive to the apocalyptic, eschatological nature of the Psalms of Solomon. This character of the hymnbook results in the redefinition of the motifs of God’s righteousness and mercy in terms of the opposing categories as pious/sinners rather than Israelites/Gentiles. Consequently, this makes the individuals’ choices and behaviors determinative for their destiny. On the other side, there are scholars who argue in favor of God’s unmerited mercy solely as a basis of a sincere piety of the righteous, refuting any thought of righteousness gained by works. Falk gives four particular examples of this approach represented by Adolf Büchler, Joachim Schüpphaus, Ed Parish Sanders, and Mikael Winninge.77 Büchler was among the first who argued that the stance and behavior of the pious rested solely in God’s mercy and was not regarded as a reward for their righteous deeds.78 In turn, Schüpphaus stresses the wisdom overtones of the pious/sinner dichotomy, and he notes that the opposition to this in the Psalms of Solomon has to do rather with one’s basic relationship to God as a specific quality.79 For Sanders, the Psalms of Solomon represent a typical example of covenantal nomism, a term that he brought to the field and thoroughly expounded in his seminal book Paul and Palestinian Judaism.80 Nomism is God’s judgment on sinners on one side and mercy upon the pious and righteous on the other side, a result of God’s election and covenant with Israel. Sanders’s position is followed by Winninge, who in this context understands Israel in an inclusive rather than severely limited sense.81 In regard to the interpretation of the contents of the Psalms of Solomon, both the literal and the rhetorical levels – as emphasized by Daniel Falk – play an important role: the surface level of the language, meaning the literal form of the Psalms – prayer and piety, as well as the rhetorical func75

Braun, “Vom Erbarmen Gottes über den Gerechten,” 35. Seifrid, Justification by Faith, 109–33. 77 Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 37–38. 78 A. Büchler, Types of Jewish Palestinian Piety from 70 B.C.E. to 70 C.E. (New York: Ktav, 1922), 130. 79 Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos, 95. 80 E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 387–409. 81 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 181–212. 76

44

The Psalms of Solomon and Its Relation to Jewish Messianic Concepts

tion of the prayers directed toward the community, with the purpose of admonishing and stimulating it in hard times.82 On both levels, the four main themes come to the fore: God’s justice and mercy, sinners and righteous, sin and atonement, and covenant and law.83 We will pay attention to all of them in the context of the particular specifics of the messianic notions of contemporary Israel, as well as the messianic ethics of Paul the Apostle. First, however, we focus in a general sense on the characteristics of the messianic concept of Second Temple Judaism.

2. The Origin and Development of the Jewish Messianic Concept One of the most important features of the Psalms of Solomon is its messianic motive. The importance of this feature results especially from the fact that it contains probably the first historical mention of the messianic phrase “Lord Messiah”84 outside the New Testament – and the only instance of such usages in Jewish literature – and probably the first evident reference to the Davidic messianic concept, exemplified by the title “Son of David” (Pss. Sol. 17:21, 32). Regardless of various scholarly opinions with regard to this feature’s function and cohesiveness within the hymnbook as a whole, as well as the discussion about its connection with New Testament messianic categories,85 the decisive fact is that this concept had to play an important role within the life of the community where the hymnbook originated. Therefore, the possibility that this concept could also be known beyond the borders of the community, or that it could influence – to a certain extent – the messianic notions of the Jewish religious groups or factions in a broader sense cannot be ruled out. As a corroboration of this assumption we can also point to the rapid spread of the beliefs about Jesus’ 82 These two levels at which the Psalms of Solomon operate are explained further in Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 39. 83 Daniel Falk calls them the four constellations of language in the Psalms of Solomon, while the first two of the above-mentioned order predominate. See Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 39. 84 Or “Lord’s anointed” (Lord’s Messiah), as most commentators have amended the text, regarding it as a mistranslation (with the LXX of Lam 4:20) of an original and common Hebrew phrase “Messiah of Yahweh.” However, as Robert B. Wright points out, “there is evidence for retaining the reading of the text. The Gk. and Syr. MSS are uniform in reading ‘Lord Messiah’.” See R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:667, including the notes. 85 See, for example, B. Embry, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament: Intertextuality and the Need for a Re-Evaluation,” JSP 13.2 (2002): 99–136.

2. The Origin and Development of the Jewish Messianic Concept

45

messianism in Palestine,86 though we must exercise some caution to avoid misinterpreting the anachronistic coloring of the messianic motif in the Psalms of Solomon using New Testament categories. Before we deal with research on the messianic concept of the Psalms of Solomon in the context of Paul’s messianic ethics, we must first pay attention to the origin and development of the Jewish messianic concept and expound its main themes in greater detail. The historical basis for the origins and then the development of the messianic idea is the praxis of royal anointing in connection with the inauguration of a ruling dynasty, as well as appointing the office of king within biblical Israel as documented in the Old Testament (1 Sam 10:1; 16:1, 13; 2 Sam 2:4a; 5:3; 7; 1 Kgs 1:32–40; Ps 89; 132). Here, the very meaning of the ritual act of anointing someone, literally “rubbed with oil” (the meaning of the Hebrew word mashiaḥ [in Greek cristo,j]) is also important, implying the important idea of designating and appointing someone for a special task. In the history of biblical Israel, it was related to the office of priest (see for example Exod 28:41; 30:30; Lev 4:3; 7:35–36; 10:7; Num 3:3), king (1 Sam 10:1; 16:1), but also that of prophet (Isa 61:1; 1 Kgs 19:15–16).87 Later, the symbolical concept of anointing was developed into the idea of a political-royal Messiah who appeared alongside hopes for prophetic and priestly-royal features (cf. CD 2:12; 12:23; 14:19; 19:10–11; 20:1; 11QMelch; 1QS 9:9–11; 1QSa 2:11–12) and who would free the land of Israel from the Gentiles and restore justice (Pss. Sol. 17; 18; 2 Bar. 72:2).88 Near the turn of the millennia, we notice a combining and cross-fertilizing of the broad spectrum of Jewish eschatological notions, particularly the connections between the concept of the Son of Man and various messianic ideas (cf. 1 En. 48:10; 52:4; 4 Ezra 12:32; 13), as well as the appearance of messianic prophets.89 While the real development of Jewish messianic ideas came about in connection with the development of Jewish eschatological thoughts and 86

As Udo Schnelle remarks: “It is significant that Cristo,j is already an integral part of the oldest Christian confessions (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3b–5; 2 Cor. 5:15) and that they bind together affirmations of the death and resurrection of Jesus, which represents the whole drama of God’s saving act in Christ.” Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament, 153. 87 M. Bockmuehl, This Man Jesus: Martyr, Lord, Messiah (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 43. See also M. Wyse, Variations on the Messianic Theme: A Case Study of Interfaith Dialogue (Judaism and Jewish Life; Brighton: Academic Studies Press, 2009), 185– 95. 88 Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament, 153–54. 89 For more detail, see J. D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1991), 451–52. Stated by Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament, 154, including n. 282.

46

The Psalms of Solomon and Its Relation to Jewish Messianic Concepts

notions within the Second Temple era, they begin with the tribe of Judah and Davidic regnal ideology (2 Sam 7). The very origin of such messianic ideas are trace back to the era when the northern part of the former kingdom of Israel ceased to exist, in the eighth century BCE. There they gradually developed from previous notions of historical awaiting an idea of the re-establishment of the kingdom. This was later transformed, as a result of the political events of those times, into the eschatological notions of the kingdom of God.90 Thus, the beginning of messianic awaiting dates back to the era before the Davidic kingdom, and it is an expression of the existence of the political claims of the northern tribes of Israel which should be preserved far into the future (Num 24:17). After David’s takeover of political power over the tribes of Israel and the constituency of the monarchy, the same claim became ingrained also in the southern part of the kingdom, and the specific messianic terms were transformed into the Davidic form (see Gen 49:10).91 The physical act that symbolized this process was the moving of the Arc of Covenant on Mount Zion and the establishment of a central religious place for all Israel, a process finished during the reign of Solomon by building the Temple in Jerusalem. Thus the Davidic dynasty made certain that its cultic legitimacy substituted the prophetic one. From that time on, a king was responsible for right worship and the religious cult, and reciprocally, the deity had guaranteed the standing and continuation of the dynasty. Through this, the notion about the ruling Davidic king, who by the act of anointing becomes the adopted son of God (Yahweh), is formed (see Ps 2:7; 2 Sam 7:11–16; cf. 1 Chr 17:11).92 The destruction of the kingdom of Judah in the sixth century BCE helps transform this notion rapidly into an eschatological awaiting, though one 90

On the topic of messianism and political eschatology, see K. Schubert, Židovské náboženství v proměnách věků (Prague: Vyšehrad, 1999), 64–91; H. Gressmann, Der Messias (FRLANT 26; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1929); J. Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel: From Its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah (New York: Macmillan, 1955); G. Fohrer, Messiasfrage und Bibelverständnis (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957); K. Schubert, “Die Entwicklung der eschatologischen Naherwartung im Frühjudentum,” in Vom Messias zum Christus (ed. K. Schubert; Vienna/Freiburg/Basle: Herder, 1964), 1–54; J. Maier, “Die messianische Erwartung im Judentum seit der talmudischen Zeit,” Judaica 20 (1964): 23–58, 90–120, 156–83, 213–36; S. Herrmann, Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alten Testament: Ursprung und Gestaltwandel (BWANT 85; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1965); F. Dexinger, “Die Entwicklung des jüdischchristlichen Messianismus,” BL 47 (1974): 5–31, 239–66; P. Schäfer, “Die messianischen Hoffnungen des rabbinischen Judentums zwischen Naherwartung und religiösem Pragmatismus,” in idem, Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums (AGJU 15; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 214–43. 91 Schubert, Židovské náboženství v proměnách věků, 64–65. 92 Schubert, Židovské náboženství v proměnách věků, 65.

2. The Origin and Development of the Jewish Messianic Concept

47

which still maintains Davidic royal ideology. In the period following Judah’s destruction, eschatological Davidic messianism becomes the primary Jewish messianic articulation. In this process, previous messianic ideas and notions become a true part of Jewish eschatology.93 We must add that, within this period of Judaism, notions about the kingdom of God without the Messiah also existed (e.g. Isa 43:16–21), but they were undeveloped and did not achieve any level of prominence.94 Furthermore, none of the generally accepted messianic notions were related to redemption from sin. Equally important in understanding the origins and development of the messianic figure, as Sigmund Mowinckel stressed in his classic work on the topic, is the distinction between the ceremonial title “the Anointed one” given to the reigning king, which can be found in the Hebrew Scriptures, and the abbreviation “Yahweh’s Anointed,” which is used in reference to an eschatological messiah, found in textual passages from ca. 300 BCE to ca. 200 CE.95 Mowinckel further noted that in Jewish eschatological writings, with which he worked at length, there are only sporadic mentions of a messianic figure, and when this appears, it has political and national overtones that conform to an image of a Davidic king and refer only to a future age. The messianic figure with otherworldly or divine powers appears only occasionally. The eschatological hope of Israel is expressed more commonly with references to God’s direct rule of Israel and the entire world.96 Even though Mowinckel himself distinguished between the political and religious domain, he noted that both are combined in the messianic figure. Mowinckel’s characterization of Jewish messianic concepts is basically accurate, despite the fact that his research took place before the full scope of the contents of the Qumran Scrolls were made accessible.97 And his exegetical conclusions are significantly influenced by pre-war 93

Broadly speaking, by “messianism” recent scholars mean primarily the expectation of God’s designated messianic figure acting in the eschatological age. See, for example, J. J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1995), 11–12; idem, “Messianism and Exegetical Tradition: The Evidence of the LXX Pentateuch,” in Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Culture (ed. J. J. Collins; JSJSup 100; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 58–81. 94 See, for example, Fohrer, Messiasfrage und Bibelverständnis, 356. 95 S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh: The Messianic Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism (trans. G. W. Anderson; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1959 [1951]), 7. Cited in Wyse, Variations on the Messianic Theme, 186–87. 96 Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 7. 97 As Marion Wyse remarks in this connection, “they have borne out and in fact exceed his estimate on the low percentage of extra-sacral textual references to a messianic figure.” In Wyse, Variations on the Messianic Theme, 187.

48

The Psalms of Solomon and Its Relation to Jewish Messianic Concepts

theology, which results in some interpretative missteps.98 However, Mowinckel rightly remarked that any attempt to systematically order and organize every passage from various texts which allude to a messiah would “provide us with a conception of the Messiah which never existed in that form in the thought of later Judaism, being simply a chimera produced by modern theological learning.”99 In the period following Mowinckel, exegetes and historians continued to research and analyze all accessible literary sources, as well as archeological discoveries that could help us better map the development of this phenomenon. They focused especially on linguistic developments in both Hebrew and other ancient languages of Mesopotamia, paying close attention to all historical and mythical events recorded in the existing texts where key ideas and terms would help them understand the origin and development of messianic notions. Attention was also paid to notions about the pre-messianic figure, the actual predecessor of the Messiah, a figure traditionally understood as a messianic prophet. Yet in biblical sources, particularly in the Book of Deuteronomy (18:15, 18) the prophet is written about as a kind of Moses figure: The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you shall heed such a prophet (Deut 18:15). However, most often it was the person of Elijah redivivus who was mentioned in this context: Lo, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes (Mal 4:5/3:23 in Heb.). We encounter this notion also in the Qumran Scrolls where the eschatological prophet is described only generally as a prophet (1QS 9:11; 4QTest [4Q175] 5–8). And as for the messianic notion there are two messianic figures, the first being Aaron and the other one of Israel (1QS 9:11), or one as a royal Messiah and the other as a priestly Messiah (4QTest). The Damascus Document includes reports of awaiting the return of the “Teacher of Righteousness” at the very end of time (CD 20:14). The First Book of Maccabees mentions awaiting an eschatological prophet (1 Macc 4:46). And of course, this concept is also a major feature in the 98 As Marion Wyse remarks, Mowinckel’s exegetical conclusions in the second half of his book (He That Cometh) “are so informed by his pre-war theology that all Christian changes to the messianic concept depend upon Jesus’ supposed use. He [Mowinckel] accepted the gospels as rendered biographies in a way contemporary exegetical scholars cannot. And to our sensibilities he mis-stepped badly when claiming that Jesus’ repudiation of the messianic kingly image in favour of a messianic suffering-saviour-Son-ofMan ‘unites in itself the loftiest elements in both the Jewish and the “Aryan” spirit.’” Wyse, Variations on the Messianic Theme, 188, including the notes (quotation is from Mowinckel’s work He That Cometh, 449). 99 Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 281. Stated by Wyse, Variations on the Messianic Theme, 187.

2. The Origin and Development of the Jewish Messianic Concept

49

setting of events related to John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth (Mark 8:27–28; Matt 16:13–14; Luke 19:18).100 Other messianic notions are also known in this period, especially in the corpus of Jewish apocalyptic literature, where we find the notion of the “Son of Man” figure, most likely developed from the former Chaldean idea of “primordial man.” We meet this motif for the first time in the biblical Book of Daniel (Dan 7:9–14). This particular example as well as the others mentioned above prove that the messianic concept has to do primarily with eschatological ambience and expectations of intertestamental Judaism. Marion Wyse summarizes these conclusions and initiated a process of thoroughly analyzing all accessible materials about messianic ideas and notions. His research and findings were a focus of the First Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian origins in 1987.101 From this summary we can determine four important points about this phenomenon: “1. The term ‘the Messiah’ is not in the Hebrew Scriptures.102 2. The Hebrew Scriptures contain some very important passages that are properly understood as implicitly messianic. 3. These passages were understood and used with exactly this messianic connotation for the two centuries before 70 CE. 4. The term ‘the Messiah’ rarely appears in Jewish literature between 250–200 BCE. But in pre-rabbinic writing, it appears with urgency and frequency from the first century BCE through 135 CE.”103 Wyse also reports other important findings from this symposium. It was the agreement of the scholars participating in this research that in no verifiable way do Jewish writings containing the term “messiah” or having messianic allusions represent all 100

The awaiting of a messianic prophet, as a part of the messianic awaiting remained a constitutive feature of Jewishness also in the post-biblical period. See Schubert, Židovské náboženství v proměnách věků, 75. 101 Wyse, Variations on the Messianic Theme, 189. The following four points to which Wyse refers are from J. H. Charlesworth, “Preface” to The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 11–12. 102 Wyse points out that the focus of the symposium’s statement was on the definite article (“the”). He refers to Talmon’s differentiation between the epithet xyvm used for the most part in the Hebrew Bible and referring to the ruling king or his successor and how the concept of “messianism” derived from this noun. See S. Talmon, “The Concepts of Māšîaḥ and Messianism in Early Judaism,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (ed. J. H. Charlesworth), 80. Wyse also remarks that the term xyvm is translated only once in the KJV as “messiah,” in Dan 9:25–26, but in the passage there is no definite article before this term. In all other passages, KJV and NRSV translate this term as “the [Lord’s] anointed.” Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, a definite article is used only when referring to a person named as “the [Lord’s] anointed.” See Wyse, Variations on the Messianic Theme, 189, n. 291. 103 Cited by Wyse, Variations on the Messianic Theme, 189, including n. 292.

50

The Psalms of Solomon and Its Relation to Jewish Messianic Concepts

Jewish groups or factions of any period.104 Since in Judaism of the Second Temple era there were many eschatological traditions and notions, including messianic notions, and since they overlap at times, it is difficult to find a reliable way of determining what portion of these traditions would count as one and not the other. There is a substantial limitation to the clear conclusions we can make about the development of Jewish messianic concepts. Therefore, recent scholarship demonstrates a major change concerning this terminology, for example, as we begin using the term “Judaisms” instead of “Judaism” or “messianic theme” instead of “the Messiah.”105 This paradigm shift is also borne out in the work of another well-known and respected scholar of Judaism, Jacob Neusner, who is often lauded as one of the most published authors in history. Wyse remarks that in this context Neusner, through his research on the origins of concepts and symbols within Judaism, discovered in a similar way to Mowinckel that to speak about a Jewish messianic doctrine as a systematic construct is simply incorrect. Instead, in ancient literature we find a theme common to many systems which define messianic terminology in distinctive ways.106 One finding of Neusner’s research was that the messianic concept evolved during the exilic and post-exilic periods and is based on the same motive – “the deep concern for the holiness of the world.”107 Important in this context is the fact that during those times there is not a generally accepted messianic concept within Judaism as a specific and unique teaching or doctrine. Messianic terminology was not even used by all known and active eschatological groups within Judaism. Careful exegetical analysis of all accessible sources from that time proves, as Marion Wyse states (referring to the work of James Charlesworth): “not all Jews at any period were expecting a messiah – not even all eschatological groups. For example, less than 3 % of the Dead Sea Scrolls – approximately 900 documents from c. 150 BCE to 70 CE, and entirely eschatological – contain messianic references.”108 Even within the eschatological groups that displayed a messianic orientation, the diversity and variability of how they developed and expressed the messianic theme is observable. However, the primary characteristic of this development is its interconnection and dependence on the political-sociological 104

Wyse, Variations on the Messianic Theme, 189. Wyse, Variations on the Messianic Theme, 189. 106 J. Neusner, Formative Judaism: Religious, Historical, and Literary Studies. Third Series: Torah, Pharisees, and Rabbis (BJS 46; Chico: Scholars Press, 1983), 173. Cited by Wyse, Variations on the Messianic Theme, 190. 107 Cited by Wyse, Variations on the Messianic Theme, 190. 108 Charlesworth, The Messiah, 24. Cited by Wyse, Variations on the Messianic Theme, 191. On the Dead Sea Scrolls, Wyse refers also to the work of M. Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (London/New York: Element Books, 1992). 105

2. The Origin and Development of the Jewish Messianic Concept

51

setting of the contemporary Jewry, marked and strongly influenced by the oppression and struggle for freedom and a righteous future.109 Since in the post-exilic period, particularly in the early Hellenistic period before the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are only scattered passages that mention the messianic figure or the messianic expectation, some scholars have argued that throughout the Second Temple period the messianic expectation was only a marginal phenomenon.110 However, William Horbury challenged this view of the evidence in his book Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ.111 Horbury argues that the Greek rendering of three pentateuchal prophecies in the Septuagint (Gen 49, Num 24, and Deut 33) “form fundamental but often neglected documents of Jewish kingship and messianism.”112 Despite the fact that we do not find there a normative messianic concept acceptable to all Jewish groups and factions of the Second Temple era, the thoroughgoing analysis of all extent documents from those times allows scholars to find and outline in more detail specific elements of the messianic theme common to the various notions of the messianic figure. Another important fact in this context is that all of the documents mentioned in regard to the messianic theme were written mostly by unknown authors in times of crisis.113 Furthermore, in all cases the messianic hopes are connected with male messianic figures.114 Marion Wyse summarizes all available findings of the messianic figure of the first century CE in five points: 1) “He would fulfill the group’s hope of deliverance from oppression, whether expressed in political (kingly) or spiritual (priestly) terms, as culled from the history of Israel and its record of God as faithful. He would be the active herald of, and active bringer of, the end of history, and almost certainly the actual victor over the oppressor. 109

See Charlesworth, The Messiah, 24. See for example J. Neusner, W. S. Green, and E. S. Frerichs, eds., Judaisms and Their Messiahs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); J. H. Charlesworth, “From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects,” in idem, ed., The Messiah, 5. 111 W. Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London: SCM, 1998). See also his essay “Messianism in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in idem, Messianism among Jews and Christians: Twelve Biblical and Historical Studies (London/New York: T&T Clark – Continuum, 2003), 35–64. Stated by J. J. Collins, “Messianism and Exegetical Tradition,” 63, including the notes. 112 Horbury, Jewish Messianism, 48. To the evaluation of these claims see in more detail J. J. Collins, “Messianism and Exegetical Tradition,” 63–81. 113 Charlesworth, The Messiah, 24. Stated by Wyse, Variations on the Messianic Theme, 192. 114 See in more detail Wyse, Variations on the Messianic Theme, 192. 110

52

The Psalms of Solomon and Its Relation to Jewish Messianic Concepts

2) His activity within the halachic lifestyle would be obvious to all, as one who followed Torah and lived within the strictures worked out in the Jewish community of the writer. 3) He would attain king-like status: the community would recognize that he had been anointed, or chosen, by the God of Israel (but not necessarily be king). 4) He would attain priest-like status: the community would recognize that he mediated the will of God through his actions (but not necessarily be a priest or of the priestly line). 5) His actions would lead him to prophet-like status as one who was the mouthpiece of God and whose words and action led into the future where God reigns supreme (but not a prophet in the manner of preexilic times).”115 From this summary, it is evident that the role of the messianic figure, as depicted in the Jewish literature of that era, was seen as appointed by God and was connected with the decisive events concerning deliverance from oppression – political as well as spiritual – and the correction of all sin and error within the life of God’s people. Therefore, the Messiah himself is an example of the righteous and devout life lived in accordance with God’s will, and his activity is the first signal in the coming end of this age and the beginning of the age to come under God’s reign.116 With these understandings as our foundation, we can now deal with the messianic concept in the Psalms of Solomon and can eventually unpack its influence on the messianic ethics of the Apostle Paul.

3. The Davidic Messianic Conception in the Psalms of Solomon The messianic concept within the Psalms of Solomon is concentrated in the narrative of chapters 17 and 18. However, its analysis and interpretation must be made from the point of view of the whole of the hymnbook, meaning we have to consider it in the context of the first 16 chapters, which culminate in the messianic concept described in the last two chapters.117 In the

115

Cited by Wyse, Variations on the Messianic Theme, 193. See Wyse, Variations on the Messianic Theme, 193. 117 This is strongly emphasized by Brad Embry in his essay “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament.” 116

3. The Davidic Messianic Conception in the Psalms of Solomon

53

process of approaching biblical and post-biblical texts, a responsible methodology is necessary in order to gain accurate information from them in building a better understanding of particular New Testament texts. Post-biblical Jewish writings are to a considerable extent a reflection and assessment of particular Jewish biblical writings, constructed by various communities of believers as a response to their own situation. Therefore, these documents can be useful guides to better understanding the New Testament writings, even if they can be understood and appropriated only as reactions to particular biblical themes.118 It follows that this discussion belongs to the topic of intertextuality with narrative as an important point of interest for a better and coherent understanding of the contents – the leading ideas, concepts and motives, and their meaning – of the particular post-biblical documents.119 Therefore, the nature and meaning of the messianic figure and concept in the Psalms of Solomon can be comprehended appropriately only in the context of the narrative as a whole without importing extraneous arguments not inherent to the texts of postbiblical Jewish literature, a mistake often made by those who approach this literature from the common perspectives of the New Testament.120 In other words, the particular post-biblical Jewish writings which pre-date all Christian material should be analyzed in their own context: the historical, political, and social events and circumstances of the author or authors who make up the background for the transmission history of particular biblical concepts and themes into the contemporary situation of the community living during particular post-biblical periods. From this standpoint we must also consider the messianic concept of the Psalms of Solomon (chapters 17–18) themselves. It is not a separate ad hoc concept appearing at the end of this document as a self-contained element. If this were true, we could interpret it from a variety of perspectives. But in fact, the reverse is true: The messianism of this particular book has to do with the concrete religious needs of the community that foreground it and

118 Embry, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 102–103, including the notes. Embry argues in his dissertation that the Psalms of Solomon are modeled “on the ‘prophetic paradigm’ of the Hebrew Bible,” modeled particularly on Deut 32. See Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 49–105; ibid., 101–102, n. 4. 119 Embry deals with the issue of “narrative” in his dissertation (Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 106–51) as it pertains to the Psalms of Solomon, whereas he follows Robert Alter’s use of the term within his discussion of Hebrew poetry. See R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1984), 62–84. 120 Embry assesses a predominant use of the Psalms of Solomon in recent New Testament scholarship and offers a few selections as examples. See Embry, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 107–19.

54

The Psalms of Solomon and Its Relation to Jewish Messianic Concepts

that occupy its first sixteen chapters.121 Without a doubt, the messianic concept of the Psalms of Solomon is inherently eschatological. The historical events related to Pompey’s invasion of Palestine and conquest of Jerusalem became the bases of this eschatological perspective and the appraisal of Israel’s situation as a process of punishment of the sinners and redemption of the devout faithful. It means the elements of this particular messianic notion give notice of God’s redemptive and salvific work in Israel realized within and behind political events.122 Following these preliminary realities and presuming that they are necessary for the understanding of the messianic notion in the Psalms of Solomon, we can focus in greater detail on the messianic figure described in chapters 17–18. I am convinced about the correctness and cogency of the approach to this topic – the methodology as well as the results of the analysis of the messianic motive of the Psalms of Solomon – that were attained by Brad Embry and presented in his article “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament: Intertextuality and the Need for a Re-Evaluation.”123 The article follows the messianic figure in chapter 17 as undeniably political, but, as Embry notes, the more central issue for the author is purity.124 It is an important point for understanding not only the very messianic concept of this hymnbook but also for arguing the possibility that this work influenced the theological thinking of the Apostle Paul, which is the main 121

J. Schaper noted the important fact that messianism is never an internally, systematically ordered set of beliefs but depends principally on religious needs. See J. Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter (WUNT 2.76; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 141. Cited by Embry, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 109, n. 31. 122 Embry (“The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 109) states that the document in connection with the messianic notion “reflects the understanding of God’s redemptive plan as suggested, for instance, by Ezek. 36.22–25 and that the Messiah represents for the author the ‘purifying’ element in this redemptive plan.” Embry considers the purity of Israel the larger and more visceral issue within the motif of Israel’s punishment and redemption, a result of a solid understanding of the necessary elements and events which constitute the messianic notion behind the Psalms of Solomon. 123 Embry, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 109. 124 Embry, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 110. The view that the Messiah in the Psalms of Solomon is a solely political figure is defended by H. J. de Jonge, “The Historical Jesus’ View of Himself and His Mission,” in From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour of Martinus de Jonge (ed. M. C. de Boer; JSNTSup 84; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 65–82. H. J. de Jonge in this article offers a critical examination of the opinions of Martinus de Jonge in his publication Jesus, the Servant-Messiah (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991), who argued, on the basis of the messianic concept of Pss. Sol. 17, that Jesus may have understood himself as Messiah in a sense other than a political one, particularly as a “prophetic Son of David.” The view of the Messiah as a purely political figure is maintained also by D. Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs (OTM; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 319–21.

3. The Davidic Messianic Conception in the Psalms of Solomon

55

concern of this book. Furthermore, Embry draws important conclusions in connection with the messianic figure and its meaning within this work. As he said, “[r]egarding the office of the Messiah in Pss. Sol. 17, it is paramount to understand the placement of the narrative in the framework of the entire document.”125 This means that the particular parts of the work are deeply interconnected. The author employs a spiral or circular way of writing and arguing, which shows itself in the patterned way the author begins and ends all of the chapters. This is a way of leading the readers through the narrative by always having the end in mind, as well as returning to key thoughts mentioned earlier, while all of the content leads to the focal point of the hymnbook, which is the messianic concept of the last two chapters. The beginning of chapter 17 (vv. 1–4) with the motive of praising God as king and his earthly representative David links this chapter with the previous one (chapter 16) where the leading idea is the hope for God’s mercy and aid to the devout.126 This hope culminates in the first four verses of chapter 17 with a simple expression of trust in the Mosaic covenant (17:1) and the Davidic covenant (17:4; cf. 1 Sam 24:21; 2 Sam 7:12). It is obvious that the purpose of the author is to read this chapter in the context of the previous one.127 What follows (17:5–20) is a recalling of the historical situation of Israel as discussed in chapters 1, 2 and 8, where the theme of the punishment of Israel for sins is in the foreground. In this way, God’s redemptive plan for appointing a Davidic Messiah can be introduced (17:21–46). This is a way of strengthening the trust of readership in God’s redemption that will be initiated by the Davidic Messiah. I agree with Embry that the primary function of the Messiah is first of all to be a purifier, which means that the political function is only secondary.128 It particularly means that the Messiah as a political figure and an instrument of God reassigns the task to cleanse Jerusalem of the Gentile sinners who defiled the Temple (Pss. Sol. 2:2), as well as from the unrighteousness of the rulers

125

Embry, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 110. This observation is confirmed in the analysis of Brad Embry. He notes the mutual connection of particular parts of Pss. Sol. 16 titled “For Help for the Devout,” and then the connection of the part Pss. Sol. 16:12–15 (an appeal for strength to endure discipline) with the first four verses of chapter 17, which praise God, as well as his earthly representative, as king. For Embry it means that the discipline that the author is concerned with in Pss. Sol. 16:12–15 could suggest the abilities of a king, thus the help of the devout from chapter 16 is the watchful eye of the king. See Embry, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 111, n. 34. 127 Here, I follow the findings of Embry, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 111. 128 Embry, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 113. 126

56

The Psalms of Solomon and Its Relation to Jewish Messianic Concepts

(17:22). Then he purifies the people (17:26) and Jerusalem as a whole (17:30). We observe here clearly that a primary concern of the author is purity, both ritual (Pss. Sol. 3:5–12) and moral (Pss. Sol. 1:7–8; 4:5; 8:9; 14:8). This feature should be interpreted through specific texts of the Hebrew Bible, mainly through Lev 18 and 26 as well as Deut 28 and 32, where the discussion of such sins is found, as Brad Embry argues.129 It is also very important that the messianic activity does not omit any nation that demonstrates humility before God (Pss. Sol. 17:34b). All of the above should be understood and accepted as demonstration and proof of God’s kingship, which in this world is realized only in part and will be accomplished in its fullness in eternity (cf. 17:1, 46). Even though the activity of the Messiah is concentrated specifically on the establishing of the kingdom of God on earth with God as the only one who rules it (Pss. Sol. 17:1, 46),130 we can regard it also as a participation of the Messiah in this reign because the character of this kingdom and reign is ultimately eschatological.131 Since the messianic awaiting in the Psalms of Solomon is the visible climax of the whole collection culminating in the two last chapters, and since it also involves a universal soteriological feature expressed as a hope for foreign nations (17:34b), its character is mainly eschatological.132 The Messiah is introduced as a victor over the enemies and has the nature of a worldly ruler, but even more the heavenly one, embodying thus the varied Jewish messianic prophecies and notions.133 The character of the messianic figure in the Psalms of Solomon thus arises obviously from its roots in the biblical tradition of the king (royal messianism), with the widespread messianic expectation within ancient Judaism.134 However, the priestly and also the prophetic character of this Messiah should be considered as well, depending on the interpretation of the particular features of this messianic figure’s actions and abilities. In this context, an interesting fact is that during the times of developing the notions of the future rule of a Davidic king, we can see a modification in 129 130

113.

Embry, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 119. This fact is stressed by Embry, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,”

131 This idea comes to the fore in the statements of Paul in Rom 3:21–26 and provides a background for understanding Romans, which we will engage in the coming chapters. See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 139. 132 That is proved especially by a description of the Last Judgment in detail (17:21– 46; also references to it occurring in 14:8–10; 15:10–13). See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 138. 133 See J. J. Collins, “Messianism and Exegetical Tradition,” 58–81. 134 See J. J. Collins, “Messianism and Exegetical Tradition,” 59; Horbury, Messianism among Jews and Christians, 63.

3. The Davidic Messianic Conception in the Psalms of Solomon

57

regard to the interpretation of the promise to David. While 2 Samuel 7 says that “your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever,” 1 Chr 17:14 reads: “but I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever.” The former focus from dynastic dominion changed to the Temple, which probably means that the writer believed that “the promise was being fulfilled even when he wrote, and he shows no expectation of greater fulfillment to come.”135 In any case, the Davidic royal tradition as a base of the messianic figure is the first concern in the Psalms of Solomon.136 The primary role of this messianic figure is the restoration of the kingdom of Israel in an eschatological sense. It is manifested in his purifying activity and can be regarded as a preparation of the devout saints for the coming of the Day of Yahweh – all of which means the Last Judgment. Along with this, it is necessary to take into consideration also the “prophetic paradigm” from the Hebrew Bible, as Brad Embry calls it in his dissertation on the Psalms of Solomon.137 Embry notes particularly the texts where the prophet views and theologically interprets the whole history of Israel – past, present and future, as Isa 1– 11, Ps 105 or Deut 32, by which the author was informed and which followed as a theological program.138 The Psalms of Solomon thus preserves one of the most detailed messianic expectations in the pre-Christian period, and there is more substance to the messianic notions, as well as to the ideas concerning the Messiah than in any other extant Jewish writing from this period.139 This hymnbook

135

J. J. Collins, “Messianism and Exegetical Tradition,” 61; W. M. Schniedewind, Society and the Promise to David: The Reception History of 2 Samuel 7:1–11 (New York/ Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 130–31. 136 On the issue of the royal messianic figures and expectations, especially Davidic dynasty tradition, see Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism, 231– 64; Schniedewind, Society and the Promise to David; Atkinson, “On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumran.” 137 “Psalms of Assurance: An Analysis of the Formation and Function of Psalms of Solomon in Second Temple Judaism.” 138 The fact that is thoroughly argued and stressed by Brad Embry in his works on this topic: “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 99–136; “Psalms of Assurance,” 49–105. In this context, particularly in regard to a possible connection of Deut 32 to the Psalms of Solomon, Embry refers also to Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, 257. Cited by Embry, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 102, n. 6. 139 R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:643. See also J. H. Charlesworth, “The Concept of the Messiah in the Pseudepigrapha,” ANRW II.19.1 (1979): 188–218.

58

The Psalms of Solomon and Its Relation to Jewish Messianic Concepts

is a virtually consistent and coherent unit with an elaborate structure and train of thought. Regardless of which particular texts from the Hebrew Bible could form a base for the author’s theological thoughts, the text in its final form shows clearly the influence of Deuteronomistic theology. This would explain the successes and failures of Israel as the result of faithfulness or disobedience of the people140 as well as show a special concern for the Law of Moses and the Temple cult in Jerusalem, which confirms the author’s interest in purity and frequent use of the categories of “sinners” and “righteous” throughout the entire document.141 Furthermore, all the crises and failures on the side of Israel – the wrongdoing of the sinners, whether from the Hasmonean dynasty or others, as well as the harsh reality of the Roman invasion and its dark consequences – all form a basis of the eschatological interpretation of these events where the central role belongs to the Messiah. This means that the author sees an ultimate solution for all of these difficulties in the messianic kingdom of the last days (Pss. Sol. 7:10; 11; 15:12; 17; 18:6– 10)142 that are yet near and will bring the Day of Judgment that for Jews is also the day of salvation for Israel (Zeph 1:18; Mal 4:1–3). However, while salvation is guaranteed only for the righteous and devout of Israel (Pss. Sol. 18:5), these statements do not exclude the nations (Pss. Sol. 17:32, 34). All of these important thoughts are also found in the corpus of Paul’s message, and we will build on them in more detail in the next chapter. But before that, we will take notice of the concept of God’s judgment in the messianic concept of the Psalms of Solomon and its importance for Jewish eschatological notions of that period, including the eschatological thinking of the Apostle Paul. 3.1 The Role of the Judgment of God in the Messianic Concept of the Psalms of Solomon The judgment of God is clearly one of the main themes of the Psalms of Solomon. God’s judgment is realized, as discussed by the psalmist, on two levels which are partly antithetical and partly overlap with one another. The first is a contrast between Israel and Gentiles (non-Jews), and the

140 S. L. McKenzie, Covenant (Understanding Biblical Themes Series; St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2000), 26. 141 Stressed by Embry, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 100–102, including the notes. 142 R. B. Wright (here with V. Schwartz), “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:644.

3. The Davidic Messianic Conception in the Psalms of Solomon

59

second between the righteous and the sinners.143 God’s judgment takes place on these two levels and continues throughout history, while the finalization of this process comes to pass in the Day of Last Judgment; references to this occur in Pss. Sol. 14:8–10; 15:10–13 and are described in detail in 17:21–46.144 As was noted earlier in the first subsection of this chapter, where we dealt with the historical background of the Psalms of Solomon, this writing originated in Palestinian (Judaic) circles of pious Jews who were devoted to the law and religious cult and who are called by the author “those who loved the assemblies of the devout” (oi` avgapw/ntej sunagwga.j o`si,wn …, Pss. Sol. 17:16). The Temple cult was also in strong opposition to Jewish sinners, probably the members of the Hasmonean dynasty (cf. Pss. Sol. 17:5–10), but not only the Hasmoneans, because among sinners the broader category of the entire Jewish nation would obviously apply (cf. 17:19–20145), those who have usurped the monarchy and desecrated the Temple and cult (17:6; 1:8; 2:3–5; 8:8–13). On the Day of Last Judgment, the Messiah will fulfill all the prophetic expectations, deliver righteous Jews from the gentile oppressors, purge the new kingdom of Israel from its wicked members, and bestow on Israel a state of holiness and righteousness (17:26–27, 30, 32; 18:5). Within the messianic concept of this hymnbook, which is influenced by these historical events, the dominant themes are personal piousness, conflict, and the contrast between the “sinners” and the “righteous” of Israel, bringing a connection with the Last Judgment that, in this writing, appears peculiarly specific. God’s judgment, which continues through history, will be completed on the Day of Last Judgment, and the results of this judgment are eternal everywhere where it is realized (cf. Pss. Sol. 2:34; 3:11; 12:6; 13:11; 14:9; 15:10–13). From this context it seems clear that the Last Judgment during the “days of Messiah” will apply only to those still living at that time. It means that the eternal destiny of an individual has to be decided immediately after one’s death.146 From this 143

An interesting interpretation of the issue of the sinners and the lawless in the context of the Pss. Sol. 17 is the study of J. Tromp, “The Sinners and the Lawless in Psalm of Solomon 17,” NovT 35.4 (1993): 344–61. 144 Here, I follow primarily VanLandingham’s treatment of the concept of judgment within the Psalms of Solomon (VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 138–46), Falk’s treatise on four constellations of language in the Psalms of Solomon (Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 39–51), and Donaldson’s treatment of the Psalms of Solomon in regard to the pattern of universalism (Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 136–41). 145 See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 139. 146 As VanLandingham notes, “[t]he idea is probably no different from 2 Maccabees.” Here the author refers to G. Maier, Mensch und freier Wille: Nach den jüdischen Religionsparteien zwischen Ben Sira und Paulus (WUNT 12; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,

60

The Psalms of Solomon and Its Relation to Jewish Messianic Concepts

point of view, VanLandingham argues there should be a more clear disdistinction between the Last Judgment in history and an individual postmortem judgment.147 Closely connected with the motif of God’s judgment is also the sharp contrast between the righteous and sinners (cf. chapters 3, 13, 14), one of the most distinctive attitudes of the author of the Psalms of Solomon. Among sinners are Gentiles, which means non-Jews, who commit sin (Pss. Sol. 2:1–2, 16; 17:22–25) and are marked mostly as “lawless” (cf. 17:24) and Jews (Pss. Sol. 2:16, 34, 35; 3:9, 11, 12; 4:8, 23–24; cf. 17:5–6) who, by their godless actions, even overtook Gentiles (Pss. Sol. 1:1–8; 8:12– 13).148 God’s judgment or judgments are just and deserved, even in the case of Israel (Pss. Sol. 2:15; 3:5; 4:8, 24; 8:7–8, 23–26; 9:2, 4; 10:5; 17:23, 29). This judgment is a manifestation of God’s own righteousness – dikaiosu,nh (Pss. Sol. 2:10, 18, 32; 4:24; 5:1; 9:5; 10:5; 17:29; 18:7; cf. 8:32, 34).149 God judges every individual, Jew and non-Jew, according to their deeds (Pss. Sol. 2:16, 34–35; 9:5; 17:8). Despite the fact that the distinction between Israel and gentile nations in the Psalms of Solomon is sharp and the author is not strictly speaking a universalist,150 nevertheless we can see here some feature of the Jewish pattern of universalism. If God’s judgment according to deeds is decisive in the process of the final evaluation of human life regarding eternal destiny regardless of the time of realization – immediately post-mortem or within the Last Judgment – and if Gentiles are not excluded from deliverance (cf. Pss. Sol. 17:30–32, 34), then it removes any kind of ethnic or national character from Jewish soteriology (the covenantal nomism).151 God’s judgment as a principal part of the apocalyptic-eschatological concept of the Psalms of Solomon is also reflected in the expression of the motifs of God’s righteousness and grace or mercy, including a relationship between Israel and covenant.152 These motifs are now redefined, and we have no longer the contrasting categories of “Israel/Gentiles” but rather the categories of “pious/sinners.” The wicked, both from Jews and Gentiles, are removed from purified Israel during the judgment. The pious are those 1971), 318–19. See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 135–37, 138, including n. 248. 147 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 138. 148 See Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 138. 149 Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 39, including n. 138. 150 This is stressed by R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:645. 151 See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 139. 152 Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 39. See also Braun, “Erbarmen,” 25–26; E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 407; Seifrid, Justification by Faith, 119. Cited by Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 39, including n. 137.

3. The Davidic Messianic Conception in the Psalms of Solomon

61

whose scrupulous life of purity and moral rigor makes them pleasing to God, which means specifically that all sins, even unintentional, must be atoned for with repentance and fasting (Pss. Sol. 3:7–8; 13:7), confession (Pss. Sol. 9:6–7), and humility before God (Pss. Sol. 10:1; 13:10).153 The category of wicked persons includes those who commit sins that pollute the Temple (Pss. Sol. 1:8; 2:3–5; 8:11–13), sexual immorality (2:11–14; 4:4–5; 8:9–10; 16:7–8), hypocrisy (4:1–8), slandering and coveting (Pss. Sol. 12; 4:9–13), and probably also the Hasmoneans generally, whom the author criticizes for polluting the Temple by illegitimate usurpation of the government and religion (Pss. Sol. 17:5–10) resulting in Pompey’s siege and desecration of the Temple (Pss. Sol. 2:1–2; 8:16– 19).154 God is impartial in his judging (Pss. Sol. 2:18; 9:5), his righteousness over sinners proved by judging them according to their behavior (Pss. Sol. 2:16; 17:8–10). The result is that the sinful are removed from the righteous and their ultimate destiny becomes destruction. God acts differently toward the righteous. God offers them his mercy and treats their sins with corrective discipline, which is an act of God’s mercy (Pss. Sol. 9:6–8; 10:2–4, 6– 7; 16:13–15; 7:1–10; 8:25–29; 13:7–10, 12; 14:1; 16:3, 6) so that the righteous who are disciplined can achieve restoration, contrary to the destruction of sinners in the Final Judgment (Pss. Sol. 13:7–11; 14:9; 15:13; 17:3).155 Here Daniel Falk observes: “Statements about the discipline of Israel (Pss. Sol. 9:2) and God’s mercy toward Israel (Pss. Sol. 11:1, 7–9; 17:45; 18:1–5) are found where Israel represents the covenant nation generally or the purified nation of the Messianic age.”156 It also means that these prayers, as Falk remarks, reflect characteristic features of how penitential supplications157 increased in the Second Temple period, which “are at their root petitions for divine mercy and help, but under the strong influence of covenantal warnings – especially Lev 26:40–45 and

153

R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:645. See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 139. 155 Falk observes this tension in the statements about God’s justice and notes that the way of dealing with this apparent conflict largely determines the interpretation of the soteriology in this hymnbook by particular scholars. See Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 40– 44. 156 Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 40. 157 Falk illustrates this with an example from psalm 9, which by his own account reflects the formal pattern of the penitential supplications with confession of sin (vv. 1–2a), the justice of God’s judgment (vv. 2b–7), recollection of God’s mercies (vv. 9–10), and petition for mercy (vv. 8, 11). See Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 42. 154

62

The Psalms of Solomon and Its Relation to Jewish Messianic Concepts

Deut 30:1–5 – they dedicate a large portion of the content to confession of sin and the acceptance of God’s judgment as ‘right’.”158 God’s judgment continues during the history of Israel. In the past God punished Israel for its wickedness by destroying the nation at the hands of gentile invaders (Pss. Sol. 1–2; 8; 9:1–3; 17:5–10), and as VanLandingham remarks, “[t]his invasion will be the case in the battle of the Last Judgment,” where the final division of the righteous and wicked will take place (Pss. Sol. 14:9; 15:7–9; 12).159 Here we can observe clearly the formula of blessings and curses which is a characteristic feature of Deuteronomistic theology. The community of the pious and devout of God represented by the Psalms of Solomon interprets the situation of the nation in the light of covenantal warnings (for example Lev 26:40–45; Deut 30:1–5; 32), with the belief that those who respond to the covenantal demands for restoration by their own repentance could, after being punished for breaking the covenant and humbling themselves under God’s discipline, turn back to God and move into a path of restoration of the covenant.160 With regard to the messianic expectations of the eschatological period, these are focused, as I stressed earlier, in the seventeenth chapter. In the first half of the chapter, the author describes Jewish history: the election of David and his descendants (Pss. Sol. 17:4), the sin of Israel (17:5a) and its implications, the appointing of the Hasmonean monarchy (17:5b–6), God’s just punishment carried out by “our nation to foreign persons” (17:7) who became a leader of the sinners of Israel (17:7–10), desecrated Jerusalem, and persecuted the righteous (17:11–20). Beginning with verse 21, the author turns to God and pleads with God to send the Messiah, the king, the son of David, so he could reign over Israel: VIde,( ku,rie\ kai. avna,s thson auvtoi/j to.n basile,a auvtw/n\ ui`o .n Daui,d\ eivj to.n kairo,n\ o]n i;dej su,\ o` qeo,j\ tou/ basileu/sai evpi. VIsrah.l pai/da, sou\ (Pss. Sol. 17:21)161

158

Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 40. VanLandingham adds in this context that the military conflict described in Pss. Sol. 15 recalls portions of Third Isaiah, Malachi, and the Qumran Scrolls where wicked Jews are separated for destruction (see Sib. Or. 3.335; see also 13.1–13). Stated by VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 140, including n. 255. 160 See Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 50–51. 161 The reading of the verse in Rahlfs’ edition Septuaginta has an emendation of ei[lou in place of i;dej. On the textual critical apparatus of the particular parts of the Greek text of the Psalms of Solomon, as well as of the variations of English translation, see in more detail R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 54–207; idem, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:651–70. 159

3. The Davidic Messianic Conception in the Psalms of Solomon

63

Look, O Lord, and raise up for them their king, a son of David, to rule over your servant Israel in the time that you know, O God. (Pss. Sol. 17:21) 162

In addition, the messianic salutations are given particular form and, thus, the question of the final destiny of the Gentiles (non-Jews) appears here. The destiny of the Gentiles within the messianic period, however, is described only in an ambiguous way.163 Verses 22–25 depict the destiny of the Gentiles negatively, but verses 26–28 seem to claim that their existence will continue, which is also confirmed by verse 30, where Gentiles (nations) will serve under the yoke of the messianic King. Kai. e[xei laou.j evqnw/n douleu,ein auvtw/| u`po. to.n zugo.n auvtou/\ kai. to.n ku,rion doxa,sei evn evpish,mw| pa,shj th/j gh/j\ kai. kaqariei/ ~Ierousalh.m evn a`giasmw/| w`j kai. to. avpV avrch/j\ (Pss. Sol. 17:30) He will have Gentile peoples serving him under his yoke, and he will glorify the Lord publically in the whole world. He will pronounce Jerusalem clean, consecrating it as it was even in the beginning. (Pss. Sol. 17:30)164

The content of the following verses could be interpreted more positively and express concretely what the destiny of the “nations” should be. In this part (Pss. Sol. 17:31–34), it is possible to observe clearly the psalmist’s reminiscences of the tradition of the eschatological pilgrimage of the nations to see God’s glory and the universal dimension of God’s redeeming purpose for the nations “from the end of the earth” (Isa 42:10– 12; 45:22; 48:20; 49:6; 52:10; 66:18).165 Important to this part of chapter 17 are verses 32 and 34, both of which express the idea of hope for foreign nations and their deliverance by the Messiah and also the embodiment of Gentiles within Israel as an entity with the possibility to participate in the promises of salvation. kai. auvto.j basileu.j di,kaioj didakto.j u`po. qeou/ evpV auvtou,j\ kai. ouvk e;stin avdiki,a evn tai/j h`me,raij auvtou/ evn me,s w| auvtw/n\ o[ti pa,ntej a[gioi kai. basileu.j auvtw/n cristo.j kuri,oj) (Pss. Sol. 17:32)166 162

OTP reads: “See, Lord, and raise up for them their king, the son of David, to rule over your servant Israel in the time known to you, O God” (OTP 2:667). See also Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 138. 163 On this ambiguity, see Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 98. 164 OTP reads: “And he will have gentile nations serving him under his yoke, and he will glorify the Lord in (a place) prominent (above) the whole earth. And he will purge Jerusalem (and make it) holy as it was even from the beginning” (OTP 2:667). 165 Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 139, including n. 118. 166 It is not clear how the original form of this verse read, because there are two textual variants: cristo.j ku,rioj, and cristo.j kuri,ou (Rahlfs’ edition Septuaginta has this read-

64

The Psalms of Solomon and Its Relation to Jewish Messianic Concepts

He will be a righteous king over them, taught by God, there will be no unrighteousness among them during his reign, because everyone will be holy, and their king will be the Lord Messiah. (Pss. Sol. 17:32)167 Ku,rioj auvto.j basileu.j auvtou/\ evlpi.j tou/ dunatou/ evlpi,di qeou/\ kai. evleh,sei pa,nta ta. e;q nh evnw,pion auvtou/ evn fo,b w|) (Pss. Sol. 17:34) The Lord himself is his king, the hope of the one who hopes in God. He will be merciful to all the Gentiles that fearfully stand before him. (Pss. Sol. 17:34)168

Even though the interpretation of verse 32 concerning Gentiles is ambiguous,169 I would suggest that this possibility not be excluded. This possible universalism is a significant fact because the motif plays an important role in Paul’s theological thinking, where faith in the beginning of the messianic period in the event of Christ’s resurrection will include the spiritual incorporation of Gentiles (non-Jews) into Israel. Therefore we can see in this verse the basis for Paul’s coming argument in favor of the universal dimension of salvation. Donaldson notes that the pilgrimage of the nations (Gentiles) from the ends of the earth as they see the glory of the King is the goal and the ing). Many interpreters have taken the latter one as the original and the former reading as a mistranslation of an original Hebrew construct form and thus emended it to cristo.j kuri,ou. However some scholars, among them Donaldson, VanLandingham, and Hann, assume that there is no good reason that the first variant of the text should not be accepted. R. B. Wright considers the reading cristo.j ku,rioj as original and argues in favour of retaining this reading of the text as primary, since there is evidence in the Greek and Syriac manuscripts which agree with this reading. See Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 48–49; Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 138, including n. 113; VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 138; R. R. Hann, “Christos Kyrios in Ps Sol 17.32: ‘The Lord’s Anointed’ Reconsidered,” NTS 31 (1985): 620–27. 167 OTP reads: “And he will be a righteous king over them, taught by God. There will be no unrighteousness among them in his days, for all shall be holy, and their king shall be the Lord Messiah” (OTP 2:667). 168 OTP reads: “The Lord himself is his king, the hope of the one who has a strong hope in God. He shall be compassionate to all the nations (who) reverently (stand) before him” (OTP 2:668). 169 Ambiguous because the pronouns auvtou,j and auvtw/n are in this case related almost certainly with Israel, not with the Gentiles mentioned in the preceding verse. Donaldson notes that elsewhere the phrase basileu.j auvtw/n is used with reference to Israel (17:21, 46), and he continues by explaining: “It seems more likely that the statement ‘their king shall be the Lord Messiah’ refers to Israel as well, especially since the antecedent of the pronouns could just as legitimately be ‘the children’ of v. 31” (Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 140, including n. 119). Contrary to this, Viteau considers the pronouns auvtou,j and auvtw/n in v. 32 as referring to the Gentiles (Viteau, Les Psaumes de Salomon, 361), cited by Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 139.

3. The Davidic Messianic Conception in the Psalms of Solomon

65

purpose of the restoration of Jerusalem. Included in this ultimate goal is the idea that the nations will bring as a gift all of the captured sons of Jerusalem, which can be interpreted as an allusion to Isaiah’s universal interpretations of messianic notions and related eschatological events (Isa 66:20; cf. 60:9).170 Similarly, verse 34 can be interpreted as an expression of hope for Gentiles (non-Jews). Donaldson argues in favor of this possibility: “Taken at face value, the verse seems to provide evidence that these end-time pilgrims will be the recipients of messianic mercy,”171 and this is so despite some interpretative problems that arose in connection with the continuation of the text into verse 35.172 According to Donaldson, the wording of verse 35 in the context of the previous verse recalls the text of Isa 11:4, where a statement related to the judgment (v. 4b) is parenthetical in the same way among promises of blessing (vv. 4a, 5) and where in a wider context of interpretation it is presented as an expressed hope for the nations (vv. 9–10).173 This means that despite some difficulty with the connection between the two verses (vv. 34 and 35), they might legitimately be interpreted in the context of verse 34 as a promise of God’s grace for Gentiles (non-Jews), especially considering the clear allusions to the events of eschatological fulfillment of salvation history with universal dimensions offered in verse 31.174 Chapter 17 of the Psalms of Solomon can thus legitimately be placed among Jewish literature of the Second Temple era, which anticipates hope and blessing of the end of this age also for Gentiles (non-Jews). Donaldson 170

Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 139, including nn. 116, 117, and 118. Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 140. 172 Verse 35 continues: “He will strike the earth with the word of his mouth forever.” Some commentators consider it impossible that the striking of the earth could be some kind of demonstration of the King/Messiah’s compassion. Therefore they tried to interpret the term evleh,sei in verse 34 as a kind of corruption of the text (Gray, “The Psalms of Solomon,” 650; Holm-Nielsen, Die Psalmen Salomos, 104). Moreover, the phrase “word of his mouth” in verse 24 has negative connotations for the Gentiles. Also the style of the Greek is awkward in this case, as indicated by R. B. Wright’s translation of this verse, literally, “and he shall have compassion on all the nations before him in fear” (evleh,sei pa,nta ta. e;q nh evnw,pion auvtou/ evn fo,b w|). Winninge here suggests a change in subject, particularly v. 34b referring to God and v. 35 to the king: “Thus the nations, brought to reverence for God by the judgment of the Messiah, will receive mercy from the Lord himself” (Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 95). However, manuscript evidence leads unanimously to a reading of the term evleh,sei and also elsewhere in the work where the fear of the Lord means “characteristic of the devout” (Pss. Sol. 2:33; 4:12, 21, 23; 5:18; 6:5; 8:5; 12:4; 13:12; 15:13; 17:40; 18:7–9). Cited by Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 140, including nn. 120, 121 and 122. 173 Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 140. 174 Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 140. 171

66

The Psalms of Solomon and Its Relation to Jewish Messianic Concepts

expresses the meaning of the chapter with the words, “Prompted by the glorification of Jerusalem, the Gentiles gather ‘from the ends of the earth’ to escort the returning exiles, to witness God’s glory, and to experience divine mercy. They are present in Jerusalem just as visitors; the land is reserved for Israel (v. 28). There is no suggestion that they become incorporated into Israel. To the extent that they benefit from the end-time rule of the messianic king, they do so as Gentiles.”175 This is an important aspect of the eschatological notions of the Psalms of Solomon which will also be instrumental in Paul’s eschatological thinking where the concept of the incorporation of Gentiles into Israel plays an important role (cf. Rom 11:13–24). In this regard, particularly in Pss. Sol. 18:5 where the state of holiness and righteousness of Israel result from the Last Judgment, we also find an interpretative basis for Paul’s messianic ethics.176 There are some strong arguments supporting this assumption, all of which are related to the covenant and the law (Torah) and their place in the eschatological thinking of Paul. First of all, even though “covenant” itself appears in the Psalms of Solomon, seldom is it mentioned explicitly (Pss. Sol. 9:8–11; 10:4; 17:15). It is evident that God’s covenant with Israel, including covenant theology, plays basic and decisive roles in the self-perception of the community which is behind this hymnbook.177 The psalmist repeatedly reminds the reader of the covenantal relationship as an expression of God’s love toward Israel and refers to the enduring character of the covenant (Pss. Sol. 7:8–9; 9:8–11; 11:7; 14:5; 17:4).178 It means, as Falk rightly notes, that “God responds to human behavior on the basis of the covenant.” 179 However, the primary concern of the author is the psalmist’s community. For him, not all Israel belongs to the community of the devout because 175

Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 140–41. In regard to the idea of a cleansing of Israel for the Day of Last Judgment (cf. Pss. Sol. 18:5), expressed so often in Jewish texts from the Second Temple period, VanLandingham suggests that this is the background for understanding Paul’s statements in Rom 3:21–26. See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 139, including n. 249. I engage this issue in more detail in my essay “The Concept regarding the Coming of the Messiah as a Basis for Understanding Romans 3:21–26,” in Justification according to Paul: Exegetical and Theological Perspectives (ed. O. Prostredník; Bratislava: Comenius University in Bratislava, 2012), 23–54. 177 Here I follow primarily Falk’s treatment of the issue of the sinners and righteous and covenant and law in the Psalms of Solomon (Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 44–49, 50– 51), as well as Wright and Schwartz’s treatment of the theological importance of the Psalms of Solomon (R. B. Wright [here with V. Schwartz], “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:643–46). 178 R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:644. 179 Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 50. 176

3. The Davidic Messianic Conception in the Psalms of Solomon

67

of the sinners in Israel who will be judged by the criteria of the covenant and finally excluded from the eschatological blessings. At the time of the appointing of the messianic age, “Israel” would include also the sinners who have to be purged (Pss. Sol. 17:15–18), which is apparent when the author distinguishes between the “assemblies of the devout” and the “children of the covenant” who sin when persecuting the devout (Pss. Sol. 17:16–17). Only in the messianic future, when the day of the Messiah is appointed (Pss. Sol. 18:5), will Israel be coterminous with the pious and devout of God (Pss. Sol. 17–18). Characteristic of the psalmist’s messianic notion is his conviction that “the community is (among) the righteous and continues the covenant promises; all their opponents (Jews and Gentiles alike) are sinners.”180 In surveying the covenant relationship, the author refers moreover to the covenant from Sinai (Pss. Sol. 10:4) and twice to Abraham (Pss. Sol. 9:9–10; 18:3), but the main emphasis is laid upon the Davidic covenant, the guarantee of which is fulfilled in the messianic hope.181 Besides, the other significant feature is the role of the law in the Psalms of Solomon. Keeping the law is important, but never in the hymnbook does it represent the means of gaining the status of righteousness. However, law is still assumed as a criterion of the life and actions of the individual before God. There are two distinctive groups, those who are law-keeping – the group pious and devoted to God – and those who are law-breaking. To the first group belong all “those who live in the righteousness of his commandments, in the Law, which he has commanded for our life” (Pss. Sol. 14:2, OTP 2:663). They shall live by it forever (Pss. Sol. 14:3). I agree with Daniel Falk’s interpretation of this statement: “the phrase seems to be functionally equivalent to living according to God’s righteous commandments. That is, ‘righteousness’ pertains to the commandments, rather than being a qualification attained by the individual on the basis of Torah observance.”182 Therefore, Falk’s paraphrase “that the devout are those ‘who walk in the righteousness – that is the law – that he has commanded as the way of life for us’,” can be considered an accurate explanation of the intent of this statement.183 It does not mean, however, that the devout do not commit sin. They do so when their behavior and helplessness in sin lead them to the fate of sinners. However, due to their humbleness and repentance, God shows mercy to them (Pss. Sol. 16). Therefore, in the Psalms of Solomon the law is important, but religious conduct as a basis of demon180

Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 51. R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:645–46. 182 Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 47. 183 Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 47. 181

68

The Psalms of Solomon and Its Relation to Jewish Messianic Concepts

strating one’s own righteousness is dubious and often leads a person to pretense and hypocrisy (cf. Pss. Sol. 2:17–18; 4:6–8), which is a behavior under God’s right judgment.184 All of these important features following from the eschatological notion of the Psalms of Solomon are, to a considerable extent, found also in the message of the Apostle Paul. Among other things, this suggests that Paul follows the generally known eschatological notions of contemporary Judaism concerning the coming of the Messiah and the preparation of the faithful for the Last Judgment.185

184

Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 48–49. On the history of scholarship on the Psalms of Solomon, see R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 34–43. For an overview of the older and the current literature on the Psalms of Solomon, see the bibliography in Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 208–23; J. H. Charlesworth, “Psalms of Solomon,” in idem, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research: With a Supplement (SBLSCS 7; Chico: Scholars Press, 1981), 195–97, 303– 304 and J. L. Trafton, “The Psalms of Solomon in Recent Research,” JSP 12 (1994): 3– 19. 185

Chapter 3

The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics In the previous chapters, I offered a short retrospective on the content and basic introductory questions of the Jewish pseudepigraphon, the Psalms of Solomon, and the importance of the Jewish non-canonical literature of the Second Temple era in recent theological research on intertestamental Judaism, including early Christian literature, where the corpus of Paul the Apostle plays the most important role. The focal point of this chapter is to focus on the Psalms of Solomon from the point of view of messianic ethics. This will become a basis for the next and final chapter of the book where I will assess the function, influence, and meaning of the psalms in Paul’s theological thinking and will consider the prospective role of these psalms by forming and developing his messianic ethics. In other words, I will pay attention to the question of how the Psalms of Solomon played a role in forming and developing Paul’s messianic ethics and provide an argument for the relevance of this hypothesis. There are many reasons why I support this hypothesis. First of all, I am persuaded by the decisive role of the eschatological concepts of God’s judgment and mercy, salvation, and condemnation, the sharp contrast of the righteous and sinners, the polemics between Jews and Gentiles, the role of Torah in the world and its meaning for the lives of humankind, as well as the apocalyptic and messianic notions of the Last Judgment with the role of God’s anointed agent, the Messiah, and all of which were popular in the Judaism of the Second Temple era. We find substantial elements of all these thoughts and questions in both the Psalms of Solomon and in the corpus of the Pauline letters. Also, the concept of the Last Judgment in the message of Paul, as well as in the Psalms of Solomon, is especially important in our treatment. It is necessary here to add the role of intertextuality inside a narrative as an important point of interest for a better and more coherent understanding of the content, meaning the leading ideas, concepts, and motifs with their connotations of particular post-biblical documents and then to compare them with particular writings of the Hebrew Bible as I mentioned in the previous chapter. However, these by themselves will not suffice to prove the relevance of the hypothesis I proposed. Many of these elements are

70 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics also found in other Jewish literature of that time, a fact I pointed out in more detail in the first chapter. I agree with the objection that it is hard to prove the supposition that Paul could have known and used this hymnbook. Already the issue of the preparation of an edition of the Psalms of Solomon, as Robert B. Wright explains, is problematic, because there is a millennium between the composition of this hymnbook, which is supposed to have been finished at the end of the last century BCE in Hebrew and then translated into Greek (and into Syriac at some later date), and the available eleven extant Greek manuscripts of the text from the tenth to the sixteenth centuries CE.1 So of course, we do not have irrefutable proof that Paul used this writing. Moreover, in the corpus of Paul’s authentic letters only a few close references are found to the content of the Psalms of Solomon, and all are in Paul’s letter to the Romans (Rom 2:3, 5, 17; 3:3; 7:10; 8:28).2 However, there are other arguments that could support the hypothesis. One argument is the fact of the relatively quick translation into Greek, which presupposes its early dissemination and also the popularity of the document among circles of devout and pious Jews, including Pharisees. Regarding this argument, the hypothetical function of this document within the synagogal service should be noted, a theory supported by Holm-Nielsen, Schüpphaus, Seifrid, or Winninge.3 Thus, for Paul the document could at least be known, even if he had no access to a copy. Then there is the content analysis of the Psalms of Solomon and then of Paul’s entire corpus, as well as the necessity to approach these writings from the point of view of intertextuality, with the core theological concepts of stressing the idea of God’s reward for those who are doing good and are obedient to God’s will and then punishment for wrongdoings and defiance to God’s will, as found in Deut 28 and 32, as well as the idea of the universal dimension of salvation of the righteous from Israel which then also extends to include Gentiles (see Isa 2:2–5; 56:1–8; 66:20; cf. 60:9).4 I agree with Kenneth Atkinson that for later writers, such as Paul, the Hebrew Scriptures were “the earlier body of discourse that shaped and framed their narratives.”5 It means that the author of the Psalms of Solomon, like Paul 1

R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 44. Stated by NA (Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed.). 3 Holm-Nielsen, “Salomos Salmer,” 554–55; Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos, 155–56; Seifrid, Justification by Faith, 113, 117; Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 18–19. The opposite position is taken by Flusser, “Psalms, Hymns and Prayer,” 573; R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:646, and skeptical about this possibility is also Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 36. 4 See Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 139, including nn. 116, 117, and 118. 5 Atkinson refers to R. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989). Stated by K. Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms 2

The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics 71

and other New Testament writers, was also influenced by the Hebrew Scriptures, which of course does not exclude the possibility that Paul could also be influenced from outside the Scriptures by these particular psalms and other deuterocanonical literature. Moreover, this type of literature played an important role in the process of forming the religious tradition of Judaism, especially in the Second Temple era. The authors of the psalms and prayers, through sheer force of circumstance, stayed behind and witnessed historical events which Israel faced in specific phases of that period, like the struggle for religious and political freedom for Israel during the Maccabean movement or the beginning of Roman political ascendancy over Palestine. They then reflected this by stressing the glorious history of the nation characterized firstly by the election of Israel to be God’s people and concluding with the contractual relationship with God. All of this was done with underlying reflections on guilt and sinfulness, humble receiving of God’s discipline, and living in the strong confidence that God will in the end fulfill God’s promises and God’s righteousness will arise through the salvation of the devout and pious from Israel. In this regard, terms like God’s righteousness and salvation, in the context of the covenant grace, come to the fore. And, particularly in the psalmic literature and Second Isaiah, the logic of covenant grace brings to a conclusion that righteousness and salvation are virtually synonymous (Ps 31:1; 35:24; 51:14; 65:6; 71:2, 15; 98:2; 143:11; Isa 45:8, 21; 46:13; 51:5, 6, 8; 62:1–2; 63:1, 7; in the Dead Sea Scrolls see particularly 1QS 11:2–5, 12–15; 1QH 4:37; 11:17–18, 30–31; see also Bar 5:2, 4, 9; 1 En. 71:14; Apoc. Mos. 20:1; 4 Ezra 8:36).6 This concept of God’s righteousness is crucial for expressing the substantial theological thoughts of the Apostle Paul, especially in his letter to the Christians in Rome. The theological framework of the Psalms of Solomon from the Hebrew Scriptures, which Brad Embry aptly called a “prophetic paradigm,” formulated the very basis of the author’s apologetic construct, where the concept of punishment for sinfulness and redemption for the righteous who repented constitutes the theological trajectory of the writing.7 These thoughts as of Solomon: Pseudepigrapha (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 49; Lewinston/ Queenston/Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2001), 2. 6 J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8 (WBC 38A; Dallas: Word, 1991), 40–41. The particular parts from the Dead Sea Scrolls are stated by: E. Lohse, ed. and trans., Die Texte aus Qumran (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964, 1971); J. Maier, The Temple Scroll (JSOTSup 34; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985); G. Vermes (trans.), The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975); A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran (trans. G. Vermès; Oxford: Blackwell, 1961). 7 Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 1; idem, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 101, including n. 4.

72 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics a basic part of Deuteronomistic theology have established the very foundations of eschatological notions and thoughts of contemporary Judaism and were thus characteristic of and peculiar for the Apostle Paul. The content of the hymnbook concentrates on and climaxes with the Davidic messianic notion in chapters 17 and 18 with the Last Judgment as the final point, a concept which can be interpreted as the preparation of devout believers for the Day of Messiah. This concept is part of the eschatological ideas of Judaism in the Second Temple era, and in Paul’s thinking could form a basis for the formulation of the key theological theses known as the locus classicus of the doctrine of justification in the Letter to the Romans (Rom 3:21–26).8 The historical situation of the community in the background of the Psalms of Solomon is in some aspects very similar to the situation of Paul. It is mainly the eschatological awaiting that has formed the thoughts of the author of this hymnbook, as well as those of Paul. The hard and difficult situation inflicted by Roman occupation and the ensuing violence in Jerusalem, as well as extreme discontent with the rule of the Hasmonean dynasty – which caused profanation and desecration of the Holy City Jerusalem including the Jerusalem Temple – influenced this community by forming and developing their eschatological thoughts and aiming them squarely at the coming of the Days of Messiah. These days will bring a time of final purgation of Israel when the righteous, not only Jews, will be assembled and rewarded with the best reward – salvation – while the sinners and the lawless who did not offer penance will be punished with condemnation. This is a time reflecting God’s mercy while at the same time expressing faith and works as necessary preconditions for salvation. The way of life towards God, as well as living for the good of the community, is of great importance for all people: the members of the covenant relationship with God and also for the Gentiles. This is also the leading idea presented within Paul’s theological thinking and leads him to his decisive soteriological thoughts. It means that in the Psalms of Solomon and the corpus of Paul’s writings relatively common emphases and thoughts can be found. More and more scholars refuse the assumption that the Apostle Paul generally accepted that the socio-political and religious provenance of the Psalms of Solomon was Pharisaic, but I personally remain convinced about the accuracy and the relevance of this assumption. In this regard, I see the supporting argument of Mikael Winninge in favor of Pharisaic origin to be 8

As I mentioned in previous chapters, in outlining this proposition I was inspired by Chris VanLandingham, who in the context of his analyses of the Psalms of Solomon points out this concept and assesses it as a basis for understanding Paul’s statements in Rom 3:21–26. See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 139, including n. 249.

The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics 73

strong enough. However, this is not a crucial factor in my exploration.9 Just as we cannot prove Pharisaic origin with any certainty, though there are many hypotheses about, in the same regard we cannot fully disprove this hypothesis. What is most important in this context is that there are more similarities in religious and moral devoutness between this community and Paul’s. Moreover, the popularity and rather broad familiarity with Jewish non-biblical literature from the Second Temple period, for example Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) or Wisdom of Solomon, is undisputed and therefore should not be denied a priori. Also, familiarity with the Psalms of Solomon in a rather broad circle of skilled and well-educated Jews, especially those who belonged to the Pharisees, means that this collection of psalms could be regarded as representative of contemporary Jewish theology, as well as of Paul’s own Jewish heritage. Therefore, it can be said that the psalms are also a relevant source for better understanding Paul’s theologizing, including his eschatology, as well as his conception of messianic ethics.10 Therefore, I think the hypothesis that the Psalms of Solomon could be one of the most important sources, at least from a semantic point of view, for Paul and his eschatological thoughts, mainly for forming and developing his messianic ethics, must be regarded as possible and relevant. This presupposition is also supported by the vast interest in this hymnbook in New Testament research. There are more and more influential and important works from authors who have engaged in research on the Psalms of Solomon from various viewpoints. Most often they research the messianic concept of the Psalms of Solomon in chapters 17 and 18 in order to find a plausible model for pre-Christian messianism, and in most cases they try to contribute to the debate on New Testament Christology. 11 It is worth mentioning, among other factors, some unique documents in contemporary scholarship concerning the research of this hymnbook. Mikael Winninge’s recent monograph Sinners and the Righteous: A Comparative Study of the Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Letters, with his useful and stimulating comments on the status aspect of sinners and righteous, is rightfully described by Brad Embry as “by far the most ambitious and ex-

9

Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 141–80. I agree with Winninge’s conviction about it in regard to Paul’s conception of sinners and the righteous. See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 5–6. 11 Most of the existing approaches and surveys of the particular authors who prefer the research of the partial questions and aspects of the Psalms of Solomon in regard to the main topics of Christology are predominantly focused on trying to find in the Psalms of Solomon the model of a pre-Christian messianic concept, and have not discussed this document as a whole, especially from the point of view of intertextuality, as presented by Brad Embry, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 99–136. 10

74 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics tensive use of Pss. Sol. by modern New Testament scholarship.”12 The other is Robert B. Wright’s new critical edition of the Greek text of the Psalms of Solomon13 with a useful and valuable introduction and descriptions of all available Greek manuscripts. Most recently, we have the only detailed and comprehensive commentary on the writing from Kenneth Atkinson, entitled An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon: Pseudepigrapha.14 Besides these, I think it is necessary to also mention two distinguished dissertations about the Psalms of Solomon; the first by Brad Embry, entitled “Psalms of Assurance: An Analysis of the Formation and Function of Psalms of Solomon in Second Temple Judaism,”15 and the second from Grant Ward entitled, “The Psalms of Solomon: The Philological Analysis of the Greek and the Syriac Texts.”16 I think the very existence of these works, as well as of others, solves some of the particular questions or problems of this hymnbook and that the increased interest about this writing among recent scholars is proof enough of the relevance of my approach to this topic, which I will try to flesh out engagingly in the coming sections. All of these writings will also be instrumental and helpful in my own investigation. First, I will take up the messianic ethics of the Apostle Paul in regard to methodology.17 Then, I will engage the content of particular pericopes 12

Embry, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 116. R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text (JCT 1; London: T&T Clark, 2007). 14 K. Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon: Pseudepigrapha (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 49; Lewinston/Queenston/Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2001). 15 B. Embry, “Psalms of Assurance: An Analysis of the Formation and Function of Psalms of Solomon in Second Temple Judaism” (Ph.D. diss., Durham University, 2005). 16 G. Ward, “The Psalms of Solomon: The Philological Analysis of the Greek and the Syriac Texts” (Ph.D. diss., Temple University, 1996). 17 Here it is necessary to pay attention also to apocalyptic and prophetic genres in both the Psalms of Solomon and in the corpus of Paul’s letters. Although the relationship between these two genres is very close, there are differences. For these two genres (prophecy and apocalyptic), their similarities, as well as the distinctions between them, see in more detail J. J. Collins, “Apocalyptic Eschatology as the Transcendence of Death,” CBQ 36 (1974): 21–43; idem, “Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre,” in Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre (ed. idem; Semeia 14; Chico: Scholars Press, 1979), 1–19; idem, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), especially pp. 1–42; D. Hellholm, ed., Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983); R. R. Wilson, “The Problems of Describing and Defining Apocalyptic Discourse,” in Anthropological Perspectives on Old Testament Prophecy (ed. R. C. Culley and T. W. Overholt; Semeia 21; Chico: Scholars Press, 1982), 133–36. The brief evaluation of this comparison can be found in Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 12–16. Embry confirms that 13

The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics 75

from the Psalms of Solomon, paying attention mainly to the theme of God’s justice (righteousness) and mercy, which are constitutive elements for ethics in the context of the hymnbook, and to the messianic ethics of the devout and pious community. I will not make a thorough analysis of all eighteen psalms because it would not be relevant to the main goal of this book, as it is not necessary and for the reader not desirable. My primary focus will be the analysis and interpretation of the meaning of the motif of God’s justice (righteousness) and mercy. Naturally, in this regard it will be necessary to also take up related themes, such as the themes of sinners and righteous, sin and atonement, and covenant and law.18 Besides the analysis of the collection, I will make preliminary notes on the comparison of the theologies of the Psalms of Solomon and of Paul. The last subsection of this chapter will address the theme of God’s justice (righteousness) and mercy in Paul’s corpus. The topic of intertextuality19 is a key aspect of my research, and I try to explore how the readers of both sorts of Jewish writings, canonical and deuterocanonical, entered in the latter periods into conversation, and also how they used them in the process of composing their own writings. This process includes semantic domains because various words, clauses, sentences or sequences can express the same meaning related to the main theological themes common to both, the psalms and Paul’s message. However, my goal is not to offer an extensive discourse on a variety of semantic notions and theories nor to provide an examination of particular linguistic variants or hypothetical sources. The purpose is to show how, and if at all, Paul could use the Psalms of Solomon, apart from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), as a whole unit or particular parts in his theologizing, particularly, as I mentioned above, by forming and developing the main features and content of his messianic ethics. Before exploring the particular texts, I will offer, as mentioned above, a basic excursus on Paul’s messianic ethics prophecy and apocalypticism are closely related genres, and the author’s preoccupation with the motifs of God’s justice, punishment, redemption, and restoration may reflect both prophecy and apocalypticism, but in general, the content and style of this hymnbook suggests, as Embry concludes his treatment about this issue, that the Psalms of Solomon is prophetic rather than apocalyptic in character. See Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 15– 16. For the issue of literary genre and poetics of the Psalms of Solomon, see in more detail idem, “Psalms of Assurance,” 106–51. 18 Daniel Falk has called these four themes the four constellations of language in the Psalms of Solomon, while remarking in this connection, the first two of them predominate. See Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 39. 19 For a basic excursus on the intertextuality, as well as for studies using intertextuality, see Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 2–3, including the notes.

76 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics examining its basic claims and points of departure within the main interest of his mission, to bring Gentiles to the gospel in order that they could be justified by God through Jesus Christ.

1. The Basic Characteristic of Paul’s Messianic Ethics Paul’s ethics, as we can observe and explore it in the context of the corpus of his letters, is inseparably connected to his conviction that in Christ’s resurrection began the eschaton, which from that time constitutes a segment of this age. Among Pauline interpreters, Paul’s ethics traditionally used to be interpreted as following a pattern of “indicative and imperative,” where the indicative represents God’s acting in Jesus Christ in favor of the believers and is the foundation for the imperative, which is the obligation on the side of the believers to live as a “new being” in Christ and results from this mercy of God in Jesus Christ.20 Some recent scholars remark that this traditional schema “cannot really bear the weight of the Pauline ethics, for it is static in nature and fails to grasp the dynamic structures of the Pauline ethics as a whole,” since “it makes an artificial division in what Paul presents as a more sweeping continuity embracing being and life.”21 I must disagree, as long as we are viewing Paul’s ethics from the standpoint of Jewish covenantal theology where obedience to God’s will, as it is expressed in Torah, is the consequence of God’s grace showed by the event of making contractual status between God and God’s people an unconditioned manifestation of God’s sovereign will and grace to Israel.22 Of course, it should be understood only as a model, because the beneficiaries of this covenantal relationship are Jews and not Gentiles. However, this model could be used as a basic point of departure in Paul’s eschatological interpretation of God’s acting in Christ towards Gentiles, as it was in the case of the Torah, which is 20

See Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 626–31. So argues Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament, 320. The author in the context of the problems of the indicative and the imperative also refers to other authors like H. Windisch, “Das Problem des paulinischen Imperativs,” ZNW 23 (1924): 265–81; K. Backhaus, “Evangelium als Lebensraum: Christologie und Ethik bei Paulus,” in Paulinische Christologie: Exegetische Beiträge; Hans Hübner zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. U. Schnelle et al.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 9–14; F. Blischke, Die Begründung und die Durchsetzung der Ethik bei Paulus (ABG 25; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007). 22 As I mentioned above in chapter 1, the well-known definition of this traditional covenant form, as a particular form of Judaism, is that of E. P. Sanders, who expressed it by the term “covenantal nomism.” See Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 420. 21

1. The Basic Characteristic of Paul’s Messianic Ethics

77

considered by Jews the result of unconditional mercy from God towards Israel. It does not mean that Torah fully excluded Gentiles from its efficacy. It represents the standards to which everyone is accountable, and Paul was also aware that Gentiles should have known enough to live in accord with God’s will, meaning God’s law.23 Paul’s view on humankind is shaped by the fundamental idea that human nature is not entirely depraved and that every human being, “Jew and Gentile, alike, has the same capacity to do good or to do evil (see Rom 2:20).”24 Everyone, Jews and Gentiles, are morally accountable to God’s will as expressed in Torah (see Rom 2:11) and all, Jews and Gentiles, are capable of observing Torah (Rom 2–3). However, Jews gained through their covenant relationship with God the long-standing advantage of being God’s chosen people and “treasured possession” (Exod 19:5; Deut 7:6; 14:2). Israel’s election was for a special purpose, as she would be a light to the nations (see Isa 49:6), which means that she “would play a critical role in God’s plan for redemption.”25 To that effect, it is a privilege bestowed on other nations that enabled them also to maintain the appropriate moral status. It has to do with the knowledge of appropriate moral standards as a way for right behaving and living in accordance with God’s will, as well as the system of rules and regulations for atoning and reconciliation for their sins and violations of God’s law. Everything inside this system helped Israel keep the right way of life, despite its many failures, because God made an eternal commitment to put Israel right and to protect her and lead her into the future in accordance with all God’s promises given in the past to Abraham, David, and others.26 However, in regard to Gentiles, the situation was different. They were not a part of this covenantal relationship. They were not immediate beneficiaries of the blessings of Torah. Of course, they could be, and it is necessary to remind them again of that because God’s law applies to everyone, Jews and Gentiles alike. Gentiles are capable of observing the obligations of Torah and to be righteous in this way. However, in Paul’s perspective, it is not yet time for this because the end of this age is near, and Paul was well aware of it. Without atonement and reconciliation, Gentiles would still be under God’s wrath. Pamela Eisenbaum remarks:

23 Here I follow P. Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 244–49. 24 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 244. 25 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 253. 26 See Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 245.

78 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics Now it’s time to pay. In other words, as the end of history approaches and all the nations are gathering together in peace and harmony to worship the one God, the issue of accountability is much greater for Gentiles, collectively speaking, than it is for Jews. What God has done in Jesus resolves the predicament of Gentiles.27

Thus, the pattern of the so-called indicative (what God has done) and the imperative (what believers have to do) can be a proper and fitting form of exploration for Paul’s ethics, especially, as Brian Rosner rightly remarks, for understanding the close relationship of the indicative and imperative as the best way to see the interdependence of doctrine and ethics in Paul’s thought (see 1 Cor 5:7; Gal 5:1, 25).28 It is relatively obvious, therefore, that ethics plays an important role in Paul’s theology. The point of departure for Paul’s ethical teaching is the participation of the believers in the new being, which means an existence delivered from the power of sin.29 Of course, this new status of Gentiles who are now believers comes from Paul’s eschatological-apocalyptic expectancy. In regard to ethics, it is therefore different ground than the contemporary philosophical concepts where it means knowing and autonomous acting of the subject as a reasonable and moral being, for example as outlined in Stoic philosophy, on the basis of human participation in divine reasoning which pervades all things and means that to live as a moral being is the result of living in accordance with divine reason.30 In Paul’s thinking it does not mean an appeal to a particular ethos, which might refer to a practical or typical way of living, without having to ground this way of life in a concrete philosophical or theological system or concept, as it would be in true ethics, which serves as a basis of understanding the moral values, norms, and actions of the community in either a narrow or broad sense.31 Paul still makes an appeal to the community members that they remain firmly wedded to the bases of what God is doing in Jesus Christ, which particularly means their incorporation into the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This incorporation, which is symbolically carried out in baptism, means the obligation to allow the Spirit of God to determine the present and future 27

Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 245. B. Rosner, “Paul’s Ethics,” in The Cambridge Companion to St Paul (ed. J. D. G. Dunn; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 217. 29 See Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament, 319–20. In this part I follow primarily Udo Schnelle’s treatment of Paul’s ethics in Theology of the New Testament, 319–28, as well as the study of Brian Rosner, “Paul’s Ethics,” 212–23, and parts about ethical principles in Christians’ lives in Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 625–712. 30 On Stoic ethics, see M. Forschner, Die stoische Ethik: Über den Zusammenhang von Natur-, Sprach- und Moralphilosophie im altstoischen System (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1981). Stated by Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament, 319, including n. 366. 31 Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament, 320. 28

1. The Basic Characteristic of Paul’s Messianic Ethics

79

life of all members of the Christian communities (Gal 3:2, 3; 5:18; Rom 6:4), because they all now live in the sphere of Christ and thus are the new creation (2 Cor 5:7). As Udo Schnelle says in this connection, “[w]hat has happened to baptized believers has placed its stamp on their whole life.”32 It particularly means, that the whole lives of believers have to be determined and governed by Christ’s own life and his death out of love for humanity (cf. Rom 15:8; Phil 2:6ff; 1 Cor 8:1; 13; Gal 5:6, 22; Rom 12:9– 10; 13:9–10; 14:15). It is a unique way of life, called by Udo Schnelle a “participation and correspondence,” which means that “Jesus Christ provides both the foundation and the character for the Christian life, and Christians are those who live in the sphere of Christ by the power of the Spirit and whose actions correspond to this new being.”33 Paul’s ethics, the particular instructions given for the lives of believers and the reasons for following them, combines various shapes and forms, as can be observed in the content of his letters. Paul adapts the particular content of his ethical teaching and admonishing according to the particular conditions and personal structure of the congregations of believers. Therefore, various elements of the ethics are found there, whether ethics of Hellenistic Judaism (1 Thess 4:3–8; 1 Cor 5:13b; cf. Deut 17:7b LXX; 2 Cor 8:15; cf. Lev 19:18b) or the ethical principles valued by the broader pagan world, whether known only in some specific groups or in philosophical schools, for example the Stoic or Cynic school (1 Cor 6:1–11; 7).34 However, also in the cases where it seems that Paul is using the generally known and developed ethical concepts that originated in Hellenistic philosophy, I think the basis of Paul’s approach to ethical instruction is always through Torah, understood as God’s will for God’s people and the Jewish scriptural tradition of this period.35 This is so even in places where Paul 32

Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament, 321. Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament, 322. 34 For example, in regard to marriage in 1 Cor 7, Udo Schnelle points out that Paul’s tendentious ethical instructions concerning marriage are paralleled with Cynic instruction: “marriage and children hinder the Cynic from his real mission of being the gods’ scout and herald among human beings (Epictetus, Diatribai 3.22.67–82).” See Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament, 323. I generally follow the Loeb Classical Library when making mentions or translations of literature from the Hellenistic world. Schnelle in this regard refers also to Will Deming’s monograph Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7 (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 159–65. I think, however, that in the case of marriage, as well as in questions and problems concerning the concrete shapes and forms of the lives of Christian believers, Paul’s stance is influenced and motivated primarily by his eschatological-apocalyptic expectations which are the mainspring of his theologizing. 35 Here I disagree with Udo Schnelle, who argues that the main and decisive parts of Paul’s ethical teaching and admonishing are not based on the Torah and that Paul does 33

80 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics does not apply Scripture directly. Considering Paul’s message as a whole – as well as analyzing particular aspects of it, of Torah, or of Jewish scriptural tradition of the time – is and remains a crucial and formative source for his ethics.36 The fact that some moral standards exist there that are common to Jews as well as Gentiles (cf. Rom 2:14–15) – the virtues of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (Gal 5:22–23), and all the ethical standards used, enforced, and sanctioned in the Hellenistic world of that time as a convention, which Paul develops in his catalogues of virtues and vices (1 Cor 5:10–11; 6:9– 10; 2 Cor 12:20–21; Gal 5:19–23; Rom 1:29–31) – has its core in Paul’s Jewish background where faith in the one God is the very basis of the moral and ethical life of human beings. It is at the same time a way of testing or controlling the moral actions of people on both sides, Jews and Gentiles (non-Jews). The fact that these standards and virtues are found in Hellenistic philosophy does not necessarily mean that these ethical conventions found acceptance in Jewish Hellenistic literature only later as a consequence of their popularity in a general sense.37 It is quite the opposite. On the Jewish side there was a fundamental presupposition that Jewish radical monotheism, as formed and developed during the Second Temple era with the belief in only one God, constitutes a unique and singular basis for having the ability to live as a moral human being of integrity.38 And this is also the basis of Jewish universalism and the stance of the majority of Hellenistic Jews toward non-Jewish nations, where the belief that Gentiles also have the capacity to recognize God and have the same potential to lead virtuous lives devoted to God, played an important role, a fact confirmed by Jewish writers like Josephus (Ag. Ap. 2.121–123, 210, 221–231, 280–284) and Philo (Moses 2.17–27; Spec. Laws 1.51).39 Josephus writes in this context that all who want and desire can come and become a part of the Jewish community and stresses that “it is not family ties alone which constitute relationship, but agreement in the principles of conduct.” (Ag. Ap. 2.121–

not derive his instructions directly from Scripture. See in more detail Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament, 324. 36 See Rosner, “Paul’s Ethics,” 214–16. Rosner here adds that “Scripture was according to Paul a fundamental source of teaching (didaskalia) and moral exhortation (paraklēsis) for Christians (Rom. 15:4), ‘written for us’ (1 Cor. 9:9) and ‘for our instruction’ (1 Cor. 10:11).” In Rosner, “Paul’s Ethics,” 215. 37 See Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament, 324. 38 On the character and meaning of Jewish radical monotheism, especially in the context of Paul’s message, see Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 172–95. 39 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 155.

1. The Basic Characteristic of Paul’s Messianic Ethics

81

123)40 From the sources of contemporary Jewish writers we can characterize the Judaism of that period not so much as a way of life marked by peculiarity but rather “by the ability to embody the highest values of the ideal human community,” as was envisioned in the common civilized habitation (oikoumene) of the Greco-Roman world.41 Since the Jewry of the Second Temple period was strongly restricted by Torah and an awareness of election (Exod 19:5–6), this status goes hand in hand with the conviction that, although other nations try to prepare and realize such propositions, which should bring them to the ideal human community, only Jews have actually realized this goal, as Josephus stresses, through their special and unique way of life (Ag. Ap. 2.210). Pamela Eisenbaum describes the special character of Jewish “ethnos”: By the time of Josephus, Philo, and Paul, a tradition had already been established of conceptualizing the Jewish people as bound by – and bounded by – a single ideal politeia. Politeia is a common Greek term often translated “constitution,” by which is meant “way of life.” It can also be translated “citizenship.” … In other words, for most Jews of the late Second Temple period, to be a Jew meant that one regarded oneself as a citizen of the Jewish politeia, and that politeia was enshrined in the Torah.42

It also confirms that wherever we read in Paul’s letters we find “Paul’s Jewish perspective,” from which he is approaching his mission among Gentiles.43 Even in his letters where he never once cites Jewish Scripture (for example, in 1 Thessalonians), even in these places Paul acts as a typical Jewish teacher of the first century, stressing the importance of belief in the one God for the daily life of all human beings and lauding the turning of the congregation from idols to God (1 Thess 1:9), which is an essential decision having great importance for ethics of the members in the congregation (1 Thess 4:3–5).44 As Pamela Eisenbaum aptly remarks in this context, “[t]his description of turning to serve a living and true God is standard language – almost cliché – to describe Gentiles who have come to appreciate the wisdom of Jewish monotheism,” and she adds, “idolatry is the quintessential flaw of the Gentile, and the abandonment of idolatry is the sine qua non of being a righteous Gentile in the eyes of a Jew.”45 Of course, Paul is aware that Gentiles also know and accept some unquestioned general ethical principles that constitute the very basis of a life in the contemporary Greco-Roman society. Paul also naturally includes this 40

Stated by Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 108. Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 108. 42 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 108–109. 43 See Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 150. 44 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 151–53. 45 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 151. 41

82 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics category of ethical teaching in his letters.46 However, the main determinant of Paul’s ethical teaching derives from his religious perspective with an unambiguous commitment to a monotheistic theology. It means they are teachings “capable of revealing the way in which Paul maintained a Jewish value system throughout his life.”47 We can therefore legitimately state that in Paul’s message doctrine and ethics correlate and are interrelated.48 Laboring under this presupposition as a point of departure for our treatment of Paul’s ethics, we can also characterize Paul’s ethical teaching as his response to various moral and practical problems, like the relationship between Jews and Gentiles, the questions of marriage, sexuality, and gender, and richness and poverty within the life of congregation with which Paul was confronted during his mission in particular Christian congergations.49 Paul is responding to all these questions and problems from his own theological perspective on history, where his own conviction that the world is drawing to an end – to God’s judgment – plays the main role.50 Concerning the form of Paul’s ethical teaching, Brian Rosner distinguishes synoptically three types of paraenesis or moral exhortation in Paul’s letters: “traditional paraenesis, involving general moral themes such as holiness and love (e.g. Rom. 12:1–13:14); situational paraenesis, consisting of advice and exhortation on specific matters of pressing concern (e.g. 1 Cor. 5:1–11:1); and ecclesiastical paraenesis, directed to the institutional needs of the church and the ministry (e.g. 1 Cor. 11:2–14:40).”51 All of Paul’s letters were motivated by ethical concerns,52 the fact of which confirms that characteristic attitude of all contemporary Jews where believing in the one God is inevitably connected with conduct, the real life of the individual, as well as the community. In other words, the life as a whole has to express one’s right and authentic faith, meaning “that individuals lead ethical lives, lives that are consistent with worship of the one, true, living God – one’s life should in fact be the way one worships God.”53 It also means that when Paul is speaking about ethical guidance, he is turning primarily to Torah as the main guide in life, not only for Jews but for all humankind. Therefore it is proper and essential for Paul to do good works

46

See Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 153–54. Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 154. 48 Rosner, “Paul’s Ethics,” 212. 49 Rosner, “Paul’s Ethics,” 212. 50 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 233. 51 Rosner, “Paul’s Ethics,” 212. 52 Rosner, “Paul’s Ethics,” 213. 53 Here I follow the suggestion of Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 238. 47

1. The Basic Characteristic of Paul’s Messianic Ethics

83

(cf. 1 Cor 7:19; 15:58; 16:10; Gal 6:4; Phil 2:12; Rom 13:8–10).54 It does not mean that Paul was of the opinion that humankind is perfect, or that observing the law means the perfectness of people. Stressing this opinion among scholars, especially in the distant past, is a stereotype without an objective basis and relates to the traditional Protestant stressing of the essential contradiction of faith and good works. Faith and works and their relationship relate to the understanding of the covenantal theology of contemporary Jews. Pamela Eisenbaum rightly says about this: The fact is that covenantal theology does not set faith and works in opposition, and neither does Paul. Trusting in God, being faithful to God – what Christians today would typically call having faith in God – that is obedience. And being obedient to God’s commandments is the embodiment of faithfulness.55

As for other contemporary Jews, as in the case of Paul, there was an elementary persuasion that people are not perfect and that a failure to act in accordance with the will of God is an inherent feature of every human being, Jews as well as Gentiles. Repentance and forgiveness as an essential part of worshipping God and serving God give sufficient evidence of the validity of this presupposition. For all people, it is equally important to live in accordance with God’s will and to be oriented with love toward others and toward the fulfilling of Torah (cf. Rom 13:10).56 In Paul’s message, we can observe that in regard to Gentiles he is not stressing the observance of Torah in detail, yet in places it might seem that Paul is in strict opposition to the law or wants to put Torah and Christ in antithetical relation to emphasize his teaching of justification by faith (Gal 2:16; 3:11–13, 23–25; 4:4–5, 21; Rom 3:20, 28; 4:15; 5:8–11, 13, 20; 6:14–15; 7:1–6; 10:4; 1 Cor 9:20; 2 Cor 3:6). Naturally, Paul understands many of the commandments of Torah as applicable only to Jews (circumcision: cf. 1 Cor 7:17–20; Gal 5:2–6; food laws: Rom 14:1–4, 14, 20, and the Sabbath: Rom 14:5; Gal 4:9–11). However, Gentiles are obligated to live in accordance with God’s will – in other words with Torah. Since Gentiles have not fulfilled the Torah, it means they did not belong to Israel and that they were not a part of the covenantal relationship with God, and on account of this basic failure they have been idolaters with all the negatives this status brings to the daily life of humanity, mainly in the moral 54 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 238–39, referring also to S. K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 188. 55 Paul expressed this fact in Rom 1:5; 15:18. Cited by Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 238, including n. 44, where the author refers to P. S. Minear, The Obedience of Faith: The Purposes of Paul in the Epistle to the Romans (Naperville: Allenson, 1971). 56 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 239.

84 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics sphere. They must then be reconciled with God. Since there is not much time and the end of this age is near – in Paul’s mind Christ’s resurrection means that the eschaton is now present – Gentiles do not have time for inclusion into the covenant of Israel with God, do not have time for conversion.57 For Paul, the resurrection of Christ has inaugurated the ingathering of the nations, which means that the time came closer to the “Day of the Lord” when “all different peoples of the earth finally recognize the God of Israel.”58 This means that it is necessary for Gentiles to remain Gentiles at this time because it is part of God’s will to be fulfilled in the last days when the God of Israel will be recognized and acknowledged as the one true God of the world (cf. Isa 2:1–5; 49; 52:10, 13–15; 56:1–8).59 For Paul this eschatological-apocalyptic conviction also played a crucial role in regard to ethics, for the ingathering of Gentiles to salvation is necessary to be faithful to God and God’s will – which also encompasses the moral standards of Torah – because everyone will be judged by his/her own actions (Rom 2:6). It is part of the process of purifying and preparing the devout righteous of Israel for the Day of Messiah (Pss. Sol. 18:5). The nations of the world are included in this process, just as the Jews, because they have a fear of God (Pss. Sol. 17:34). So if we speak about Paul’s ethics, we must stress that it is formed and developed on the basis of his own eschatological expectation, which shows his conviction that the extraordinary event of avpokalu,ptein (“to reveal”) of the resurrected Jesus Christ (Gal 1:15–16) signifies the beginning of eschatological times. This kind of eschatological expectation constitutes an integral part of Jewish apocalypticism, which along with some strands of Oriental thought is thematically focused on the basic fact that the end will involve a new creation – a new beginning (Isa 65:17; 66:22; 1 En. 91:16– 17).60 It means that the recent, old age will be destroyed and replaced by the other new age to come. The primary and main goal of Jewish apocalyp57 “It is too late for the law to be their salvation. Thus the law does constitute an indictment for Paul, but that indictment applies only to idolatrous Gentiles. It is not an indictment of humanity in general.” Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 233. 58 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 219. See also L. Gaston, Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987), 16. Eisenbaum also refers to another accessible book that includes analysis and critique of the traditional view, Neil Elliott, Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). 59 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 171. Author refers also to P. Fredriksen, “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2,” JTS 42 (1991): 532–64. 60 D. O. Via, Jr., The Ethics of Mark’s Gospel – In the Middle of Time (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 27.

1. The Basic Characteristic of Paul’s Messianic Ethics

85

ticism was therefore to reveal the disturbing news that God was bringing about judgment, which has a cosmological impact and will relate to everyone and everything. As is well known in the post-exilic era of Judaism, the expectation of this near end of the world as a worldwide catastrophe came to the fore more and more, and there were more reasons for this line of development in religious and theological thoughts and claims. One of the most decisive reasons was the immediate and arbitrary contact of Jewish culture with the strong and varied stream of Hellenism,61 which goes hand in hand with the massive campaign of Alexander the Great to the Orient during the fourth century BCE. For Jewish society this entailed the replacing of one governing empire (Persian) with another, the Macedonian,62 and along with this fact disappointment began setting in among the majority of the Jewish population, especially among the pious Jewish religious groups and factions. This clash of cultures with all aspects that accompanied the process led some strands of Judaism to attempt to relate the Jewish law to the surrounding culture by highlighting shared values and playing down the most distinctive elements, or by trying to find a common ground in Greek philosophy.63 The former expectations focused primarily on the historical fulfilling of God’s promises towards the restoration of the kingdom of Israel were gradually replaced with the more spiritual tendencies in appealing to a higher revelation of a transcendent world. Therefore, it is not a surprise that in those times, particularly in the late Second Temple period, apocalypticism became popular within Jewish thinking. In Paul’s case, this apocalypticism took on a special form and content. The resurrection of Christ was for him the indicator of the imminent end of the timeline of history – the critical moment for all human beings – and caused Paul to now feel a deep sense of urgency. Paul was well aware that the gentile nations were also part of God’s purpose for the world. Israel played an important role in this by being a light to the nations, and through this, helped them take part in the eschatological ingathering for salvation.64

61 This was not only about Jews in the diaspora, Judea was also profoundly influenced by Hellenism. See Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism. See too J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 15ff. 62 During this period Judaism for the first time is in direct contact with European nations, culture, and civilization, which will dominate world history for more than two millennia. It was this encounter that influenced most considerably the whole Jewish history. 63 For the processes in the context of Jewish literal sources of those times, see especially J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 155–85, 186–209, and 210–60. 64 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 198.

86 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics Jesus is the most important and also the most decisive aspect in Paul’s apocalypticism. Pamela Eisenbaum expresses it: Of course, a critical component of Paul’s apocalyptic, and that which distinguishes him from other apocalyptically oriented Jews (such as those responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls), is Jesus. Paul is apocalyptically oriented in two distinct but closely related senses: he believes the end is near, and he himself has experienced an apocalypsis, literally a “revelation” of the risen Christ. Precisely because Paul interprets this apocalypsis as signaling the first fruits of the general resurrection, it caused Paul to recalibrate his sense of time – he now experienced time as hurtling toward a final cataclysm.65

All of what constitutes Paul’s apocalypticism has its basis in Jewish Scriptures, and all of its content concentrates on the unique messianic notion with the crucified and risen Christ as the culmination. Therefore, the issue of Paul’s ethics can legitimately be called messianic ethics. This basic concept can be included in all that constitutes Paul’s ethical teaching. In regard to how Paul uses the Jewish Scriptures within his ethics, it varies depending on the purposes and goals Paul follows in particular situations where he is regulating conduct in the congregations.66 Brian Rosner identifies four different ways in the corpus of Paul’s letters.67 First, Paul reads Scripture as a word of God spoken directly to the church, mostly by the traditional paraenesis where the points are general themes of moral conduct among members of a congregation (for example Prov 25:21–22 in Rom 12:20–21; see also Rom 12:1–13:14; Deut 25:4 in 1 Cor 9:9–10) or by Paul’s interpretation of the particular narratives of the Torah (for example Gen 21:10, 12 in Gal 4:30). Second, the implicit use of the Scriptures for particular situations can be placed into the group of Paul’s situational paraenesis where his point is advice, admonishing and dealing with specific and legal matters (for example Rom 1; 13:8–10; Gal 5:19–21; 1 Cor 5:1–11). Third, in the usage of scriptural narratives stated as moral examples we see that the experiences of Israel are in Paul’s mind paradigmatic for the congregation (for example 1 Cor 10; 2 Cor 8:7–15). Fourth, the Scriptures are constituted in Paul’s ethical teaching by dealing with moral problems in a narrative framework of an identity of the community of believers. Paul, by stressing the ability and need of moral discernment of the members of the congregation, “reminds them on the basis 65

Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 199–200. Author adds in this context that “Paul speaks of the ‘first fruits’ of the new age in 1 Corinthians 15:20 and Romans 8:28.” In Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 198, n. 7 (289). 66 For the issue of the role of Scripture in Paul’s ethics, see R. B. Hays, “The Role of Scripture in Paul’s Ethics,” in Theology and Ethics in Paul and His Interpreters: Essays in Honor of Victor Paul Furnish (ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr. and J. L. Sumney; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 30–47. Cited by Rosner, “Paul’s Ethics,” 215, including n. 5. 67 I follow here the results of the analysis of Rosner, “Paul’s Ethics,” 215–16.

1. The Basic Characteristic of Paul’s Messianic Ethics

87

of scripture of who they are and where they stand in relation to God’s purposes.”68 Paul, by way of frequent reference to the promises to Abraham (Gal 3:6–9, 14, 16, 18, 29; 4:22; Rom 4:1–3, 9, 12–13, 16; 9:7; 11:1; 2 Cor 11:22) and the prophecies of Isaiah (Gal 4:27; Rom 2:24; 3:15–17; 9:27–29, 32–33; 10:11, 15–16, 20–21; 11:8, 26–27, 33–34; 14:11; 15:12, 21; 1 Cor 1:19–20; 2:9, 16; 15:32; 2 Cor 6:2, 17), uses Scripture as anticipation of God’s purpose to redeem the world, behind which stands also the key idea of Paul’s message that Gentiles also believe in the one God and in God’s acting in Jesus Christ – the particular addressees of his letters, Gentiles are part of God’s promises given to Israel.69 Since Paul’s apocalyptic orientation and his deep conviction is based on his experience of the revelation of the risen Christ, it is therefore not surprising that he also uses the parts of Jesus’ tradition adopted from other Christians believers – particularly three explicit traditions (1 Cor 7:10–11; 9:14; 11:23–25) – and some other echoes of that tradition, all of which are in Paul’s paraenesis (Rom 12:14, 17; 13:7; 14:13–14; 1 Cor 13:2; 1 Thess 5:2, 4, 13, 15).70 We find in this context three prominent ethical examples from synoptic traditions, the first concerning non-retaliation (Luke 6:27– 28; cf. Matt 5:44, in Rom 12:14), the second non-defilement of unclean food (Mark 7:15 in Rom 14:14), and the third concerning the life of peace (Mark 9:50 in 1 Thess 5:13). In all of these cases, Paul, as well as Jesus, to whose tradition Paul refers, stands firmly in biblical and Jewish tradition.71 The first and the third case are related to a broader interpretation of Lev 19:18, while the second relates to the food laws in Leviticus. Paul’s ethics therefore has to be explained and understood in the context of Jewish scriptural tradition, including its interpretation within Judaism of the Second Temple era, especially and primarily in the context of the eschatological notions where the messianic concepts were dominant. It also means that Paul’s ethics takes its proper meaning and sense only in the context of his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. Or, as Brian Rosner says, “his ethics make no sense without his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology.”72 These main elements of Paul’s theologizing form the char68

Rosner, “Paul’s Ethics,” 215. Hays, “The Role of Scripture in Paul’s Ethics,” 34–35. Cited by Rosner, “Paul’s Ethics,” 215–16, including n. 6. 70 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 650–51. 71 This is stressed by Rosner, “Paul’s Ethics,” 216. 72 Rosner, “Paul’s Ethics,” 216. On the theological framework for Paul’s ethics, see also R. B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation; A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996/Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 19–36. Cited by Rosner, “Paul’s Ethics,” 217, including n. 9. 69

88 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics acteristic structure of the ethical framework. God’s acting in Jesus Christ opens for Gentiles a way to gain the covenantal blessings of Israel, not by the actual practice of keeping the precepts of Torah, in other words by “works of law,” as in the case of Jews, but through Jesus’ faithfulness and obedience to God’s will as demonstrated in going to his death on the cross (see Phil 2:5–11). Jesus’ act, understood by Paul as that of a sacrificial victim prepared by God alone (Rom 3:25) and as effecting atonement, allows God’s grace to extend also to the Gentiles.73 But this brings them an obligation, namely a response to God’s grace. This response is based on Jesus’ own faithfulness and obedience to God, which becomes a model for others, particularly for all Christian believers who are now required to follow and emulate the same kind of faithfulness demonstrated by Jesus. It is similar to the case of the faithfulness of Abraham and other patriarchs, which enabled Israel to enjoy God’s grace through the merits of the fathers. When we speak about the obligation of Jesus’ followers to respond, it does not mean only trusting in God’s promises. For Paul, “it meant acting in such a way as to realize those promises. Paul’s mission was all about working to bring about those promises of God, and that was what he wanted others to do.”74 Since the kingdom of God is coming and the end of this age – the Parousia – is near, “the faithful response is to act in accord with God’s will in bringing about the kingdom. Just as the gift of Torah required a faithful response from Israel, the gift of Jesus required a faithful response from Gentiles.”75 This is very important for Paul’s mission among Gentiles as a whole, and at the same time it helps us to understand why Paul stresses ethics as something integral to his soteriology. The promises of God are now being fulfilled; the kingdom of God is coming. It means that Paul by interpretation was convinced that the time had begun when Gentiles would be blessed in Abraham, which Paul interpreted in light of the eschatological traditions concerning the ingathering of the nations at the end of this age. Paul became convinced that the churches have already entered the eschatological age because the eschaton is still, as a result of God’s acting in Christ, a part of this age. In this context, Christian believers are to await the Day of the Lord, which means that the ethical life is seen as a part of God’s work of preparing the community for that day (Rom 13:11–12).76 For Paul, Jesus’ cross – this ultimate act of self-sacrifice and obedience to God – is not just the way of salvation and 73 Here I follow the interpretation of the process of justification through Jesus Christ, as Pamela Eisenbaum argues. See Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 240–49. 74 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 241. 75 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 241. 76 Here I follow the argumentation of Rosner, “Paul’s Ethics,” 216–17.

1. The Basic Characteristic of Paul’s Messianic Ethics

89

ultimate demonstration of God’s righteousness and grace in the world but becomes and remains “the paradigmatic pattern for the life of Christians” (see Rom 15:1–3; Phil 2:1–13).77 This has its effect in Paul’s ecclesiology. For Paul, ethical teaching and its objects are not a private matter. It is quite the opposite: Paul’s concern in all his letters concentrates on the unity of the Christian congregations. His letters are addressed to the communities of believers which are for Paul the body of Christ. Even when he is writing to individuals, Philemon for example (cf. Phlm 1–2), the first concern is always the benefit of the church as a whole (see 1 Cor 12–14; Rom 12:1–8). For Paul, to form the Christian identity of believers means first to shape their behavior in an imitation of Christ, to build the body of Christ within the koinonia. Thus, Paul’s ecclesiology also has to do with his messianic ethics. This follows from Jewish messianism, which was the basis of the apocalyptic setting for New Testament ethics and is “a normative paradigm for understanding the social and political form of the church as the creation of a new community made up of both Jews and Gentiles (and all kinds of ‘others’).”78 In Paul’s mind, the event of the crucified and resurrected Jesus Christ,79 who by these actions is proclaimed as Lord (see Phil 2:6–11; cf. Rom 1:3– 4), means not only the beginning of the eschaton but at the same time the constitution of a new humanity where all are justified: Jews who are justified by virtue of the covenant and Gentiles who are justified in God’s actions in the event of Jesus Christ, meaning through Jesus’ faithfulness and obedience.80 This new humanity is the body of Christ, a unique and vital organism. The faithfulness and obedience of Jesus Christ motivated by love has caused God’s grace and mercy to extend also to Gentiles. Thus Gentiles are expected to stay and remain within this body, the new community, whereby all hostility that is now present must be overcome by the same kind of love that embraces not only the closest members of the community but also the enemy. For Jews, it is most important to remain within the covenantal relationship with God, which is feasible only by faithfulness to God and is realized in right behavior in accordance with God’s will expressed in the Torah. For Gentiles, it is most important to be firmly 77

Rosner, “Paul’s Ethics,” 217. P. T. Kroeker, “Is a Messianic Political Ethic Possible? Recent Work by and about John Howard Yoder,” JRE 33 (2005): 142. 79 As Dunn remarks in connection with Paul’s use of the title “Christ”: “And it is just possible that the distinctively Pauline use of the double name ‘Christ Jesus’ (as against ‘Jesus Christ’) is a direct translation equivalent of ‘Messiah Jesus,’ with Christos still bearing titular force.” See Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 199, including n. 89. 80 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 247. 78

90 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics anchored in the body of Jesus Christ, which is needed to affirm one’s own behavior.81 Paul was convinced, on account of his own experience of the resurrected Christ, that all is now changed in a substantial way. Since for Paul the eschaton became a part of this age from the event of Jesus Christ, it also means for him that all powers and all rulers of this age are called into question – they all have to submit to the Lord (see Rom 8:38–39; 1 Cor 2:6; Phil 2:6–11). This does not mean a call for radical change in political or social systems nor is it a call to revolution. The change must happen from inside an individual, through a change in their way of life, a process demonstrating behavior that is obvious to all those involved, that is in full accordance with God’s will. The individual becomes persuaded that all is in God’s hands and providence. The time of the final demonstration of God’s power and full establishment of God’s righteousness is near. It also means that the time is coming when all who remain pious and devoted to God, and all who are righteous before God from Israel and from other nations, are preparing for the Days of Messiah and for the Last Judgment – an accounting of sin. Solely for the sake of the Gentiles’ judgment is Jesus necessary.82 All of these features are part of the messianic awaiting of the new community, as we can assess from Paul’s message as well as from other accessible eschatological notions in contemporary Judaism. Despite the variations in these concepts, in all cases personal conversion is an important element in the conduct of those who are obedient to God’s will. Of course, for Paul the resurrection of Christ began a new age, a new humanity, and Christ’s Parousia will bring this age to a climax and complete the work of salvation (see 1 Cor 15:23; Phil 1:6).83 However, Paul was still aware that within this process, the right way of life for those who belong to the community of the new humanity and who understood Jesus’ sacrifice as a means of expiation and redemption for their sins and wickedness (Rom 3:21–30) must be regarded as a consequence of God’s grace toward the community of believers. Among Jews of the Second Temple era, God’s righteousness was not an abstract concept but rather quite the opposite. God’s righteousness is a relational concept, and as such, it has to be transferred into the relationships of all members of the community. Pamela Eisenbaum 81

On the body of Christ, see Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 405–406, 411, 548–52, 563–64, 618–19, 709, 729, 735–36. 82 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 253. See also her description of the Final Judgment and its implications for Paul (also the pages 240–55). 83 On the coming Parousia of Christ, see Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 294–315.

1. The Basic Characteristic of Paul’s Messianic Ethics

91

expresses this thought thus: “People should not be passive recipients of salvation; they need to be participants in the process.”84 It means that ethics and right behavior in accordance with God’s will are very important not only for Paul but for all human beings, Jews and Gentiles. Right behavior on the part of the individual, as well as in the community as a whole, is at the same time a means of certainty, affirming that those who are justified by God’s acting in Christ now willingly accept the consequences of justification – to become a new being in Christ – and are included in the remnant of God’s righteous community to be gathered in the last days. Therefore, if we want to speak about Paul’s ethical teaching, his eschatological expectations are the sine qua non. Paul’s ethics is entirely messianic. It does not matter that there are varied opinions among scholars about the event of the Parousia itself, or discussions about the origin and development of the notion of a second coming of the Messiah, particularly, whether this notion was part of the teachings of Second Temple Judaism. As James Dunn remarks here: “the idea of the coming again of a great hero was quite compatible with Jewish reflection in this area.”85 There were great persons of Jewish scriptural and non-scriptural traditions, such as Elijah (see Mal 3:1–3; 4:5; Sir 48:10–11; Mark 6:15 par.; 8:28 pars.; 9:11– 12 par.; John 1:21) or Enoch (1 En. 90:31; 4 Ezra 6:26; Apoc. Elij. 4:7), and in that time already well-established descriptions of their reappearance on earth or visions about the “son of man,” as in Daniel 7.86 The relatively quick dissemination and development of this notion soon after Jesus’ death and resurrection in Palestine suggests an awareness of this very notion among Palestinian Jews. Considering the popularity of this notion, it is not out of the question that even the Pharisees, with their significant interest in Davidic messianic notions, would have been aware of this idea of a messianic Parousia. In my opinion, the most important thing in the context of the messianic notions of Second Temple Judaism is that the event of the coming of the Messiah meant that the time of the end of this age was close. In Paul’s message, the “eager expectation” (avpekde,comai) of the final denouncement is still fresh – this is the same in his early letters as in the later letters (see Gal 5:5; 1 Cor 1:7; 16:22; Rom 8:19, 23, 25; Phil 3:20).87 All of this is part of the preparation of devout believers for the Days of Messiah, the process within which the purification of the righteous for the Last Judgment will be finalized. For Paul, it was beyond doubt that Jesus is Israel’s long-awaited Davidic Messiah. This topic was hotly debated at the 84

Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 252. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 296, including n. 12. 86 See Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 295–96, including nn. 4, 5, 10. 87 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 311. 85

92 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics time, as we see in both the Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s message. I will now engage particular parts of the Psalms of Solomon. With an analysis of the methods and intent with which the author of the Psalms of Solomon used the main theological theme – God’s justice and mercy, including other closely related themes such as sinners and righteous, sin and atonement, and covenant and law – and how all this compares with Paul’s message, I will try to answer the basic question of the stated hypothesis, as well as to what extent and in what meaning these psalms and their message could help Paul affirm his theological thinking and could influence his messianic ethical teaching – the crucial theme of Paul’s soteriology.88

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 2.1 Preliminary Statements First of all, recall that my approach to the Psalms of Solomon is to consider the composition as a single unit. Here I follow the research and perspective of Brad Embry, that this document represents a cohesive thesis within which the messianic motive functions in a particular role and is comprehensible only within the purview of this central thesis.89 For Embry, the document is “a masterfully wrought defense of the Jewish faith in a time of crisis, one intended, as much as anything else, to produce hope in the readership.”90 It follows that a reading of the whole document is essential for accurately interpreting its particular themes and thoughts. However, once an appraisal of the entire document has been conducted and a specific theological framework constructed, it is not inappropriate to read each of the eighteen psalms separately.91 Embry in his works on the topic of the Psalms of Solomon argues in favor of, so to speak, the prophetic paradigm of the Hebrew Bible, which then becomes the specific theological framework he applies to this docu88

Daniel Falk, on the interpretation of soteriology, assumed that the Psalms of Solomon was an ethical treatise: “Because of the apocalyptic eschatology of the Psalms of Solomon, the motifs of God’s righteousness and mercy, Israel and covenant are redefined in terms of the opposing categories pious/sinners rather than Israel/Gentiles. Consequently, individual choice and behavior are determinative for one’s destiny.” See Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 37. 89 Embry, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 99. 90 Embry, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 101. 91 Atkinson is of the opinion that each of the eighteen psalms can be read as an independent composition. Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 3.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message

93

ment.92 Yet as I mentioned above, in the content of these psalms there are apocalyptic as well as prophetic features and even genres, despite the fact that the psalmic structure and character of the whole document takes us in other directions. The historical situation of the Roman invasion in Judea, the siege of Jerusalem and entering into the Temple that are in the background of the Psalms of Solomon, especially the content of the first two chapters, share many common premises with the prophecies of the Hebrew Bible concerning the destruction of Jerusalem Temple. Similarly to the biblical prophecies about the devastation of the land of Israel as well as Jerusalem (for example Deut 28:49–52; 29:23; Ezek 15; 22:1–16; 33:21– 22; Jer 7:1–15, 25–26; Lam 1–2; Dan 9:24–26; Hos 2; 9:1–9; 10; Mic 3:11–12), so too in the Psalms of Solomon the author describes and assesses these catastrophic events as a consequence of the sin of Jews as well as Gentiles, stressing the fact that God will not tolerate sin (Pss. Sol. 2:15, 28). Here, we see a typical feature of the prophetic view of history which constitutes the content of Deuteronomic theology. In other words, we see the prophetic view of the history of Israel – her past, present, and future – as the backstory to her downfall and reconciliation, guilt and punishment, redemption and promise of salvation. This line of thinking is found, among other places, in Deut 32 (the song of Moses, in Hebrew transliteration traditionally called Ha’azinu) and also in the entire Book of Deuteronomy. It is an accusation against the Israelites’ sins, a prophecy of their punishment, and a promise of God’s ultimate redemption of them, which for Embry is the very basis of the “prophetic paradigm” he sees in the background of the author of the document. Embry argues in favor of the paradigm and states that the selection of Deut 32 was dictated by several realities.93 In particular, this text was certainly considered prophetic and its author the premier prophet.94 Then, the text contains the whole history of Israel, and as such, it represents the prophet’s view of history from the past through the present and into the future, which, in Embry’s suggestion, is one aspect of the prophetic model. And last, the text clearly held great importance in

92

Embry, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 101; idem, “Psalms of Assurance,” 50–105. 93 Here I am following the suggestion of Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 50. In the manuscript of Embry’s dissertation, there is incorrect pagination at the end of the Introduction and the beginning of Part 1. See also Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, 257. 94 Embry explains this in more detail in his Introduction. See Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 11–16.

94 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics Second Temple Judaism for its witness to God’s covenant, which is attested also by the Qumran scrolls (4Q44 = 4QDeutq), Philo, and Josephus.95 I think Embry’s argument that the framework and structure of the Psalms of Solomon could be mimicking this particular prophetic paradigm, meaning the Song of Moses in Deut 32,96 is convincing, particularly the fact that, with regard to form and genre, both of these documents – the Song of Moses and the Psalms of Solomon – are poetic and their sociolinguistic functions are very similar: they both could be used in the synagogal service.97 We find this motif also in other texts of the Hebrew Bible, for example Isa 1–11, or Ps 105. My goal, however, is not to make a detailed comparison and analysis of the Psalms of Solomon and Deut 32.98 Rather, this will be only a point of departure for my own research of the content of the psalms in connection with the main goals of this book, which, as I mentioned above, is to look at this document as a coherent, internally ordered unit following the prophetic paradigm closely and structured by the language, or the genre, of contemporary apocalyptic eschatology. Suffice to say, the author of these psalms has prophetic views on the history of Israel, as well as its present state and its future, basically just like the author, or authors, of the Book of Deuteronomy (for example, Deut 32). This view is intensified by apocalyptic-eschatological soteriology. In other words, in the mind of the author of the Psalms of Solomon, the situation of the community is regarded and understood in the context of “the history of salvation,” which provides a background to all the events which the community and the author himself had to face. Paul had a similar view of the situation of Israel, as well as of the world. Therefore, in both the Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s message, eschatology and apocalypticism play a decisive role by locating God’s activity in the history, present reality, and near future. All of this can be found in the Psalms of Solomon and is important also for Paul and his ethics. As we know from the field of discourse semantics, which accounts for all types of meaning in text and speech,99 the semantic structure of a text 95 Philo, Leg. All. 3.105; Post. 167; Plant. 59; Mut. 182; Somn. 2.191; Virt. 72. E. Ulrich, F. M. Cross, et. al., eds., Qumran Cave IV. Vol. 9: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (DJD 14; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 137 (4QDeutq); Josephus, Ant. 4.303; J. Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 513; H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus: The Man and the Historian (New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1967), 90. Quoted by Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 50, n. 2. 96 See Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 50, n. 4. 97 See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 16–19. 98 On this issue, see Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 51–105. 99 On discourse semantics, see T. A. van Dijk, “Discourse Semantics and Ideology,” Discourse and Society 6.2 (1995): 256–57.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message

95

may have variable complexity. However, there are no a priori boundaries between the meanings of words, phrases, clauses, sentences, sequences of sentences, paragraphs, or whole texts. Therefore, it is not accidental, as Teun A. van Dijk remarks here, that “the same meanings can be expressed in different syntactic categories of variable scope, depending on contextual constraints, for example those defining style or pragmatic conditions.”100 Following this characteristic, I think we can legitimately suggest that just like Paul, the author or authors of other documents written in a different syntactic category could express thoughts with similar or the exact same meanings or intentions. That is not incompatible with other suggestions that one or another of them could consecutively use the documents of other authors or at least be influenced by them in the process of forming and developing their opinions, convictions, and thoughts as such. Therefore, Paul could also be influenced by, among others, the Psalms of Solomon in the process of developing his theological thoughts, especially in regard to the eschatological concept of messianic prophecy. This document could even be, to a certain extent, a model for forming his key theological thoughts and choice of words for expressing them in persuasive and comprehensible forms. I think all of these suggestions are relevant and are also supported by Paul’s religious background. Paul’s rigorous way of life in accordance with Torah and his membership in the faction of Pharisees (see Phil 3:4–6) was basically compatible with the approaches and value system of the community within which the psalms originated. Paul placed regular emphasis on the issue of God’s justice and mercy and described real consequences from it, meaning that he had to engage all that is related with this crucial theme, primarily the questions of sinners and righteous, sin and atonement, and covenant and law. His own endeavor to be educated in the matters of the law and all that constituted Jewish religious tradition of that time has to be considered in the comparison of this principal theological theme in both the Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s message. 2.2 God’s Justice and Mercy – Introduction The theme of God’s justice and mercy has to do primarily with the issue of God’s righteousness and its manifestation in the history of the world and humankind as reflected in the biblical as well as non-biblical writings of Jewish authors. The special difficulty in regard to the discussion about the meaning of the terms dikaio,w, dikaiosu,nh causes a terminological problem. The reason is that English uses two different words for the translation of these Greek words, “justify” or “to make righteous” and justice or “right100

van Dijk, “Discourse Semantics and Ideology,” 257.

96 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics eousness.” This holds especially true in Paul’s theology.101 However, the manifestation of God’s righteousness and God’s judgments are interrelated concepts, and as such, they both are important for the author of the Psalms of Solomon, as well as for Paul. Most important here is the different meaning of the term “righteousness” in the Hebrew mindset compared with the Greek worldview, where this concept expresses an idea or ideal against which individuals and individual actions can be measured.102 In Hebrew thought, “righteousness” is a more relational concept. It means the meeting of the obligation laid upon the individual by a relationship in which he or she takes part (cf. 1 Sam 24:17).103 This means that when we are speaking about the concept of God’s justice, we have to start with God’s righteousness as the very core of God’s nature and character as God enters relational contact with humans as the measure and norm of right behavior and life in general. Therefore, God’s righteousness simultaneously constitutes the obligation on the side of human beings towards Godself as well as towards other humans and becomes a basis for God’s judging all actions of human beings as a measure of fulfilling this obligation. However, we must add that God’s righteousness as a norm for the proper and right life of humans means God’s activity towards life itself, both its quality and dignity. Both of these terms are used frequently in both the Psalms of Solomon and in the corpus of Paul’s letters.104 Regarding linguistic considerations, 101

See Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 341; J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 258. 102 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 341, explains in the context of English language that contemporary English usage reflects this ancient mind-set when it continues to use such expressions as “justice must be satisfied” (in Dunn) or the more common colloquial statement “justice must be served.” 103 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 341. See also G. Schrenk, TDNT 2:195; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962), 1:370–76; R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (trans. K. Grobel; 2 vols.; London: SCM/New York: Scribner, 1952), 1:272; H. Conzelmann, An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM/New York: Harper and Row, 1969), 216; E. R. Achtemeier, “Righteousness in the OT,” IDB 4:80– 85; K. Kertelge, “Rechtfertigung” bei Paulus (Münster: Aschendorff, 1967, 2nd ed. 1971), 38–43; J. A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Inquiry (SNTSMS 20; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 34– 43; L. Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament. Vol. 2: The Variety and Unity of the Apostolic Witness to Christ (trans. J. E. Alsup; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981– 82), 2:138; A. E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 8. Stated by Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 341, n. 27. 104 For a thoroughgoing analysis and interpretation of the meaning of the dikai-group of terms in non-Pauline use as well as in the corpus of Paul’s letters, see VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 246–335.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message

97

both belong to the group of Greek terms with dik-root, which is a translation of the Hebrew qdc-root (righteous, righteousness).105 In regard to the basic meaning of the term dikaiosu,nh (translated as “righteousness” or “justice”), it expresses a quality of rightness – as opposed to wrongness, lawlessness, impiety, or sin – and its particular meaning depends on the context in which it is used.106 Although in some cases, especially when the term describes God’s or a king’s ruling or judging the people, dikaiosu,nh can be properly rendered “justice” (see 1 Kgdms 2:10 [LXX]; 2 Kgdms [LXX] 8:15; Ps 9:8; 95:13; Acts 17:30–31), and it is necessary to recognize that the basic sense of the term means to express the quality of rightness in the doing or acting of someone particular that remains unchanged.107 This term refers to something one does and is therefore often associated with the term kri,ma (“judgment”). Essentially, dikaiosu,nh describes one’s behavior or state as a result of proper behavior.108 As for the term di,kaioj (translated as “righteous”), it expresses the character of someone who does justice and righteousness, whose life accords with the principles of God’s righteousness. One’s way of life must be characterized by obeying God and doing righteousness (cf. Exod 9:27; 23:7–8; Deut 25:1; 1 Kgdms 24:18 [LXX]; 3 Kgdms 8:32 [LXX]; Job 31; Ezek 18; Matt 27:19; Luke 23:47; 1 John 3:7; Rev 22:11).109 In regard to the verbal form dikaio,w, the situation is complicated, because the verb can be rendered in a variety of ways, some of which are forensic. This does not mean that the term “forensic” connotes only the status of someone, but it should 105 For the meanings of the terms with dik-root, see G. Schrenk, “di,k h( k)t)l),” TDNT 2:178–225. See also the other literature in VanLandingham’s Judgment and Justification, referring to the issue of “righteousness”: J. W. Olley, “Righteousness” in the Septuagint of Isaiah: A Contextual Study (SBLSCS 8; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979), 13; J. A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Enquiry (SNTSMS 20; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972); D. Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967); J. Reumann, Righteousness in the New Testament: “Justification” in the United States Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982); C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1935). See in more detail VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 246. 106 See for example Ps 44:8; 50:23; Prov 11:5, 21; 13:6; 14:34; 15:6, 9, 29; 16:12; Isa 61:8; Jer 22:3; Ezek 3:20; 18:20, 24, 26. I here follow VanLandingham’s brief word study of the terms dikaiosu,nh, di,kaioj, and dikaio,w, in his Judgment and Justification, 246–72. 107 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 248. 108 See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 252. 109 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 254–55 remarks in this connection that the term “forensic” should denote a sense pertaining to legal proceedings or argumentation. See in more detail VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 252–54.

98 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics be expressed also as the character or content of life.110 In classical Greek, the verb dikaio,w is always forensic, but, as Chris VanLandingham stresses, using it with a personal object changes the meaning to “treat justly” or “give justice to” or “do justice to.”111 It means to do to a person what is necessary to correct an act or state of injustice, usually with the negative sense, “punish, condemn.”112 In Jewish religious texts written in Greek, the meaning of this verb is mostly different and it is used in a positive sense. However, there are the various possible nuances or definitions, such as “to be righteous, to be proven righteous, or to be made righteous (pure, free)” (cf. Gen 38:26; 44:16; Exod 23:7; Deut 25:1; 1 Kgdms 12:7[LXX]; 2 Kgdms 15:4 [LXX]; 3 Kgdms 8:32 [LXX]; Job 33:32; Ps 18:10 [LXX]; 72:13 [LXX]; 81:3 [LXX]; etc.).113 Since, as I mentioned above, the theme of God’s justice and mercy is, in terms of both content and meaning, directly connected with God’s righteousness and its manifestation in the world, it has to be stressed that God’s righteousness also has to do with the eschatological concept of the Last Judgment, including the issue of justification. To put it more precisely, it has to do with the questions of the relationship between the Last Judgment according to good works and then the concept of justification by faith. This kind of relationship is also dominant in Jewish literature of the postbiblical era. However, as is well-known among Pauline scholars, it is a long-standing and dominant theme of research discussion and will be taken up later in this chapter (section 2.4.1).114 Now, it is important to mention that the other key concept connected with God’s justice and righteousness is God’s mercy and grace. Hebrew terms that are rendered and translated in the English language as “grace” or “mercy” are dsx, !x, ~xr, and so on.115 Since, however, the term “grace” or “mercy” used in English literature may not precisely reflect the underlying 110

See in more detail VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 254–71. VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 271. 112 Olley, “Righteousness” in the Septuagint of Isaiah, 12, 42, 126. 113 VanLandingham’s survey of Jewish and Christian usage of this verb yields thirteen different meanings, and in Pauline literature we can observe a few of them: to be righteous, to be proven righteous, to be acquitted, to be made righteous/pure/free, or less likely, to have been made to appear righteous. The author however rightly adds that “one should not determine a definition in one context from the percentage of what the term may mean in other contexts.” It means that it is context, not frequency of occurrence elsewhere, which has to be the determining factor in deciding a definition. See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 256, n. 56, and 271. 114 This issue is also the principal goal of VanLandingham’s monograph, Judgment and Justification. 115 For the meanings of the Greek terms based on these Hebrew equivalents, see R. Bultmann, “e;leoj( k)t)l),” TDNT 2:477–87. 111

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message

99

biblical concepts or word meanings as expressed by these Hebrew terms, we have to posit them primarily as a theological definition of this term in English language, rather than as an explication of all Hebrew equivalents translated in English as “grace” or “mercy.” Moreover, it is necessary to take into consideration also the semantic domain. The concept of grace or mercy includes more than only the one meaning, and some of them differ radically from the meaning which is supposed to be found in these Hebrew words. It is also closely connected with the meaning and understanding of the terms used by Paul in his letters. Chris VanLandingham aptly remarks here: Although most scholars, including Sanders, do not define what they mean by “grace,” they often employ adjectives such as “pure,” “free,” and “unmerited,” to modify the noun in order to emphasize their understanding of the term. These adjectives stress the typical meaning of the term, derived primarily from the letters of Paul, as God’s favor freely given without respect to human merit, favor credited solely to God’s initiative. God can never confer “grace” as a recompense; for, indeed, the opposite of grace is the reward for good behavior.116

In our treatment, it is necessary to think about both of these words – grace and mercy – in their basic meaning as essentially synonymous. This means that when I use these two words in the context of our investigation, it has to do with the mercy or merciful doing or acting of God toward human beings and in a broader context toward all of creation. Therefore, the theological definition of the term “grace” which I use also for the word “mercy” corresponds to the Oxford English Dictionary where the grace of God is defined as “the free and unmerited favour of God as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowing of blessings.”117 After this basic introduction to the issue of God’s justice and mercy, and with definitions of the concepts of God’s righteousness and grace (mercy) in mind, we can continue with the analysis of this concept directly in the Psalms of Solomon. 2.3 God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon In regard to the heuristic analysis of the text of the psalms, including the headings of particular psalms, we find there in total sixty-seven instances of words containing the dik-root, out of which are seventeen instances of 116

As VanLandingham adds in this connection, as far as he can determine, no one whom he cites in his study uses the term “grace” with a different definition. Cited by VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 20. 117 The Oxford English Dictionary (12 vols.; repr., Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 4:326. Cited by VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 20, n. 8. See also the other literature to which author refers.

100 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics these words related to God and God’s righteousness or God’s righteous acting (Pss. Sol. 2:10, 15, 18, 32; 4:24; 5:1; 8:8, 23, 24, 25, 26; 9:2 [3x], 4, 5; 10:5).118 In two occurrences they are neutral in meaning (Pss. Sol. 5:17 [2x]), six instances apply to the Messiah (Pss. Sol. 17:23, 26, 29, 32, 37, 40), and in the remaining forty-two instances they have to do with the righteousness of men (Pss. Sol. 1:2, 3; 2:15, 34, 35 [2x]; 3:1, 3 [2x], 4, 5 [2x], 6 [2x], 7, 11; 4:8 [2x]; 8:6, 7, 26; 9:3, 4, 5, 7; 10:3; 13:1, 6, 7, 8 [2x], 9, 11; 14:2, 9; 15:3, 6, 7; 16:15; 17:19; 18:7, 8). In regard to God’s mercy (grace), as expressing God’s merciful acting, there are thirty-seven occurrences of the words as evlee,w (evlea,w), including its derivations, in the content of the psalms. In thirty-four instances it deals with God and God’s activity (Pss. Sol. 2:8, 33, 35, 36; 4:25; 5:2, 12, 15; 7:5, 6, 10; 8:27, 28; 9:8, 11; 10:3, 4, 6, 7; 11:1, 9; 13:12 [2x]; 14:9; 15:13 [2x]; 16:3, 6, 15; 17:3, 45; 18:1, 3, 5, 9). In two instances, mercy is related to the activity of men (Pss. Sol. 6:6; 17:15), and in one instance it is the activity of the Messiah (Pss. Sol. 17:34). In the English translation of the Psalms of Solomon 119 the word “mercy” is used there in twenty-nine instances, with four instances as the adjective “merciful”120 (Pss. Sol. 5:2; 10:6, 7; 17:34), in two instances the adjective “compassionate” (Pss. Sol. 9:8; 18:3), one instance as “compassion”121 (Pss. Sol. 10:4), and one as the adjective “kind” (Pss. Sol. 7:5). As I mentioned in the previous chapter, within the subsection on the role of God’s judgment in the messianic concept of the Psalms of Solomon, God’s righteousness (dikaiosu,nh) in the collection of psalms displays God’s judgment, since God’s judgments are “just” and “right” (di,kaioj).122 It is also useful to repeat again the other important ideas that apply to the concept of God’s justice and mercy that we mentioned in the subsection. Following the observations of Daniel Falk, we have to stress that a verb with the dik-root is used there only in the community declaring God’s judgments just, for example Pss. Sol. 2:15.123 On the one hand, God’s justice is declared to be impartial, meaning that God is judging all people on the basis of behavior (see Pss. Sol. 2:16, 18; 9:5; 17:8–10), and on the 118

With God’s righteousness concerning God’s judgments see also Pss. Sol. 8:32, 34. R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text (JCT 1; London: T&T Clark, 2007). 120 In R. B. Wright’s translation of Pss. Sol. 17:34 in OTP, he uses the word “compassionate” (OTP 2:668). 121 In R. B. Wright’s translation of Pss. Sol. 10:4 in OTP, he uses the word “mercy” (OTP 2:661). 122 Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 39. 123 Falk refers also to the next examples: 3:3, 5; 4:8; 8:7, 23, 26; 9:2. See Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 39–40, including n. 139. 119

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 101

other, God is judging two distinct groups of people, the sinners and righteous, and this leads to different results. The sinners from Israel, as well as from the Gentiles, will be expulsed from the righteous and be received into the final destruction (Pss. Sol. 2:15, 16; 4:8, 24; 8:7–8, 23; 17:29), while the righteous receive God’s mercy, which is manifested in God’s response to the sins of the righteous with corrective discipline, which ultimately leads them to restoration (Pss. Sol. 3:5; 10:5; 18:7).124 God is merciful to those who are ready to be disciplined (Pss. Sol. 9:6–8; 10:2–4, 6, 7; 16:15; cf. 7:5, 8; 8:27–28; 13:12; 14:1, 9; 16:3, 6, 15), and by this they contrast with the sinners destined for the final condemnation (Pss. Sol. 13:7–11; 14:9; 15:13; 17:13). It is therefore the primary act of God’s mercy toward the righteous when they can be disciplined, since by this they can be saved from the fate of the sinners (Pss. Sol. 16:3, 6). The author here places Israel, the covenant nation, on the side of those who are willingly disciplined and receive God’s mercy (see Pss. Sol. 11:1, 7–9; 16:3, 6; 17:45; 18:1–5). This does not mean that all of Israel will be saved, however, since God made an eternal commitment to set Israel right, protect her, and lead her into a future that accords with all of God’s promises given in the past to Abraham, David, and others. For the author, this is assurance that Israel remains in God’s mercy forever. She will be purified for the Day of the Messiah and, finally, saved (see Pss. Sol. 11:1, 7–9; 17:45; 18:1–5).125 As can be seen from the content of the psalms, the author’s primary intent is soteriology. The psalms, in their formal aspect, are clearly influenced by penitential prayers or supplications, a typical means of expression and a characteristic and literal form of petitioning for God’s grace, mercy, and help due to the covenantal warnings (for example Lev 26:40– 45; Deut 30:1–10; 1 Kgs 8:22–53; Jer 3:12–13; 14:20–21; Ezek 30:10–20) having a prominent role during the Second Temple period. Therefore, this aspect of reflecting and solving the situation of the community is present also in the background of this hymnbook. The penitential prayers are constituted, as Daniel Falk argues, by four basic components.126 First is a confession of sins, which often takes the form of recalling the glorious history of the nation; second, the confession of the justness of God’s judgment; third, the reciting of God’s mercy in the past; and last, the petition for grace (see Neh 9:6–37; Ezra 9:6–15; Dan 9:4–19; Pr Azar 1:3–22; Bar

124

Here, I am following Falk’s finding. See Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 40. See Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 40. 126 Here, I am following the characterization of Daniel Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 8– 9, including the notes. 125

102 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics 1:15–3:8; 4Q504 1–2 v–vii; 4Q393).127 These prayers reflect an awareness of the sinfulness and impossibility of defense before God and God’s righteousness. On the contrary, in God’s actions and judging God is full of righteousness and justice but also compassionate and merciful, and on the side of the petitioner there is strong confidence and faith in God’s mercy. Present suffering, which these prayers also reflect, is a consequence of sinful acts on the part of Israel, whether the descendants or the ancestors. However, God allows the devout and pious to repent, while the desire for repentance itself is God’s gift. Therefore, one’s own performance and own merit are not credited to his or her account (see for example Bar 3:7; 4Q504 1–2).128 The petitioner expresses the grief that is a consequence of the sins committed by his or her body and by his or her ancestors, then meekly accepts God’s judgment but at the same time claims God’s grace and mercy, recalling the well-known history of Israel and appealing to God’s election and covenant with Israel (see Dan 9:18; Pr Azar 1:11–13, 19–20; Bar 2:19, 27; 3:2).129 Much from these components is found in these psalms. However, it does not mean that they can, as a whole, be called penitential prayers. The main difference between them and these psalms is “the heightened note of confidence in the Psalms of Solomon, which may reflect the sapiential application of the prayer motifs.”130 Despite the fact that the community faces a crisis caused by historical events, and also personal afflictions, the author expresses his confidence that all things will turn out well for the pious who maintain their relationship with God.131 Thus, beneath the surface level of language, there is another level of meaning, a rhetorical function of the psalms directed towards the community, aimed at its strengthening and affirmation to be pious and devout to God and God’s promises which are being fulfilled and in the near future will be consummated. Now, we consider more closely the particular parts of the collection where the motives of God’s justice, righteousness, and mercy come to the fore, and we focus on their role for the messianic ethics of the hymnbook.

127 The scriptural examples are cited by Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 8, n. 5. Falk refers further to the references cited in D. K. Falk, “4Q393: A Communal Confession,” JJS 45 (1994): 199–207. 128 Stated by Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 9. 129 Stated by Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 10, including n. 7. 130 Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 41, including n. 144. 131 Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 41.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 103

2.3.1 Psalms of Solomon 1 The first psalm of the hymnbook acts as an introduction to the whole corpus of the Psalms of Solomon and explains the theme of crisis that dominates the entire collection.132 In regard to the content, this psalm is an allusion to the canonical Psalm 18, whose text can also be found in minor variation in 2 Sam 22 (cf. 1 Chr 21:26; see also Ps 4:2; 17:6; 18:6–7; 105:44–45; 107:6; 119:1; Lam 2:18; Hos 5:15; 7:14; Joel 1:19).133 It is an appropriate introduction to the collection as a whole because here the author introduces the theological themes to be dealt with in the following psalms of the hymnbook.134 Kenneth Atkinson remarks that this is the only psalm in the collection without a heading, which leads him to believe that its content was closely modeled after Pss. Sol. 8:1–13 and that it was probably written, along with Pss. Sol. 18, “as an introduction to the collection, possibly to facilitate its reading within a synagogue setting.”135 Despite the fact that the motive of God’s justice and mercy is not a primary theme here, it is necessary to make a short remark about its content, namely, that this chapter depends on the following one. Moreover, key theological ideas are expressed in the content there. First is “the classic defenses of holding to one’s integrity (vs. 2) like Job, and claiming the visible assurance of divine favor (vs. 3) like the Deuteronomist.”136 In this chapter as well as in chapters 7 and 15, Jerusalem, personified by the author and introduced as a speaker (evgw, in vv. 1–3, and 7 means Jerusalem), is a main subject, who cried to the Lord in her agony (v. 1) for deliverance from impending war (vv. 3, 7; cf. Lam 1).137 132

For the technical details of this psalm, see Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 13–16. On the structure of this psalm in light of its poetic elements, see Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 114–20. 133 Cited by Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 16, n. 11. 134 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 16. 135 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 13–14, including n. 8. See idem, “Toward a Redating of the Psalms of Solomon,” 95–112; P. N. Franklyn, “The Cultic and Pious Climax of Eschatology in the Psalms of Solomon,” JSJ 18 (1987): 1–17; Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 19–20. Cited by Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 13, n. 8. 136 R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:651. 137 O. von Gebhardt, Die Psalmen Salomos: Zum 1. Male mit Benutzung der Athoshandschriften und des Codex Casanatensis (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1895), 91; Holm-Nielsen, “Salomos Salmer,” 560; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, 204; Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 10; R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:651; idem, The Psalms of Solomon, 55; Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 110, including nn. 1, 2. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 390, differs in this context and holds the opinion that the speaking subject in Pss. Sol. 1 is the author of this psalm: “The author of Ps. I, however, takes

104 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics On the one hand, Jerusalem is presented as God’s holy city with a glorious history and excessive assuredness about her steadfastness and supposed righteousness (Pss. Sol. 1:3–5). This certainty of her own righteousness followed from an awareness of the fact that “her children and wealth represented God’s reward for obedience (Deut 7:13; see also, Ps 112:2–3; 127:3; cf. Ex 23:25–26).” 138 The author’s appeal to the former status of Jerusalem reflects two characteristic covenantal marks of God’s blessing and of the people’s righteousness: their prosperity and their offspring (v. 3b):139 3

4

5

3

4

5

evlogisa,mhn evn kardi,a | mou o[ti evplh,sqhn dikaiosu,nhj\ evn tw/| euvqhnh/sai, me kai. pollh.n gene,sqai evn te,knoij\140 o` plou/toj auvtw/n diedo,qh eivj pa/s an th.n gh/n\ kai. h` do,xa auvtw/n\ e[wj evsca,tou th/j gh/j\ u`yw,qhsan e[wj tw/n a;s trwn\ ei=pan ouv mh. pe,swsin\141 I reminded myself 142 that I was indeed righteous; hadn’t I prospered and given birth to many children? Their influence spread over the whole earth,143 and their reputation extended to the far reaches of the earth. They soared as high as the stars; they never expected they would ever fall.144

On the other hand, however, her inhabitants became arrogant, and their secret sins and profanation of the sanctuary of the Lord caused her assurance to be misplaced (Pss. Sol. 1:6–8).145 The psalmist reflects this serious rather ironic note of the traditional view [viz. that the righteous prosper in this life]. He had counted himself righteous because of his prosperity, so that when war threatened he thought that God would protect him (I.2f.).” See op. cit., 390. 138 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 17. 139 R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 55, n. 9. Greek text as well as the English translation, unless otherwise stated, are from Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 54–207. 140 Cf. Ps 112:2–3. As R. B. Wright remarks here, according to the Torah (Deut 7:12– 13), the blessing of a large family was God’s reward for obedience (cf. Isa 54:1) See “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:651, n. 1/c. 141 Cf. Isa 14:13, with a similar motif. Cf. also Jer 51:9; Dan 8:10. 142 OTP reads: “I consider in my heart,” a literal translation, coming out from the ancient Semitic notion that both thought and emotions were located in the heart. The second half of the verse reads “that I was full of righteousness” (OTP 2:651). 143 Winninge suggests that in Pss. Sol. 1:4a, there could be mention of Jews in the diaspora. See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 110. 144 For a detailed commentary on this section (Pss. Sol. 1:1–8), see Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 7–20. 145 The profanation of the Lord’s sanctuary (ta. a[gia kuri,ou) can refer to the buildings (cf. Ezek 5:11; 23:38; 25:3; Mal 2:11; cf. 1 Macc 1:12; Exod 36:1), or the services and

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 105

word about Jerusalem and her inhabitants, and the certainty about their status to be righteous before God because of the glorious past proved to be elusive. Jerusalem was unaware of her true situation. Verse 8 stresses that the sins of her inhabitants exceeded the sins of Gentiles, which is a consequential statement: 6

7

8

6

7

8

kai. evxu,brisan evn toi/j avgaqoi/j auvtw/n( kai. ouvk h;negkan\ ai` a`marti,ai auvtw/n evn avpokru,f oij( kai. evgw. ouvk h;|dein\ ai` avnomi,ai auvtw/n u`pe.r ta. pro. auvtw/n e;q nh\ evbebh,lwsan ta. a[gia kuri,o u evn bebhlw,sei. Their wealth made them too proud, and they did not acknowledge God.146 Their sins were in secret; I knew nothing about them. Their crimes were worse than the Gentiles before them; They repeatedly profaned the Lord’s Sanctuary.

As we can see here, the motif of God’s righteousness (justice) is implicitly present also in the first psalm. Pleading with God for God’s help and deliverance and appealing to the covenant promises are strongly based on the awareness of God’s everlasting and invariable righteousness and justice. Of course, from the point of view of the psalms and their author, the covenant promises are considered to be primarily given to Israel. This contractual relationship between God and Israel meant that God would protect

sacrifices of the sanctuary (Lev 19:8), or both the buildings and the rites. See R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 57, n. 16 with reference to other literature. 146 Atkinson translates it: “and they did not bring [gifts].” See, for example, Jer 5:28; Ps 75:12 [LXX], cf. 67:30 [LXX]; 28:1–2 [LXX]; 95:7–8 [LXX]. See Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 9. Embry suggest a similar idea, namely that in the context of the poetic structure of the document and of elided parallelism, we should understand this stich to mean: “they did not carry/bring their good things/prosperity – toi/j avgaqoi/j auvtw/n.” Embry supports this suggestion by using the Greek verb fe,rein that is routinely used in the Septuagint to render the Hebrew hiphil in the form of awb in reference to sacrificial offerings (Lev 5:6; 15:29; Num 6:10). Embry explains this elision in the second half of the stich using the contemporary Jewish practice of offering a portion of the wealth of the Israelites to the Lord at the Temple (see Exod 22:28–29; Deut 26:11; Lev 27:30), including tithing (Lev 27:30–33), which “was still intact to some degree through the Second Temple Period.” Ignorance of this offering is considered an offense against God’s commandments and God’s will, tantamount to moral impurity. See Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 116–17. See also the remarks on this verse in R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 57, n. 15.

106 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics Israel at all times.147 God is faithful to this contractual relationship, the evidence of which is God’s covenant with Israel. God never rejects God’s own nation. But it also means that Israel would be punished for its disobedience.148 The author repeatedly cried to the Lord for deliverance, and using a biblical image that alluded to God’s contract with Israel (see, for example, Deut 4–33; 2 Sam 7:11–16; 23:5; Jer 31:31–34),149 he attempted to explain why God allowed Gentiles to capture Jerusalem (see Pss. Sol. 7:8–10; 9:8–11; 11:7–9; 14:5; 17:4). Although God pretends not to answer the cry for help and deliverance, this does not last long and is only part of God’s discipline (see Pss. Sol. 10, 13). The psalmist is aware that God is faithful, does not reject God’s own nation, and will remember God’s servants in mercy for the testimony of the eternal covenant in the Torah (Pss. Sol. 10:4). All of this is accepted and understood as an expression of God’s justice and mercy towards the pious and devout from Israel.150 Although the covenant promises are for the author of this psalm the guarantee of the advantageous position of Israel over the Gentiles, who are not a part of God’s covenant and therefore are called “sinners” (Pss. Sol. 1:1) and denounced throughout the collection (Pss. Sol. 2, 7, 8, 17), there is also another significant motif in this psalm. It is the motifs of the sinners from both Israel as well as the Gentiles, which expresses the author’s awareness of God’s impartiality in judging the people. The psalmist reflects upon the sexual and cultic transgressions of the inhabitants of Jerusalem (Pss. Sol. 1:7–8; 2:3, 7, 12, 16–17; 8:8, 12–13, 22; 17:17–20), which is a clear example of the unfaithfulness of the nation toward God (see Hos 1:2; Jer 5:7). The sins committed by “Jerusalem’s children” surpassed even those of the Gentiles (Pss. Sol. 1:8; also 2:9; 8:13; 17:15). The psalmist 147

On the issue of contracts in Hebrew Scriptures, especially in the Book of Deuteronomy as well as of their similarities with other ancient secular contracts of the Ancient Near East, see R. Frankena, “The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy,” OTS 14 (1965): 122–54; D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963); G. E. Mendenhall, “Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law,” BA 17 (1954): 26–46; idem, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” BA 17 (1954): 50–76; G. E. Mendenhall and G. A. Herion, “Covenant,” ABD 1:1179–1202; M. Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and Its Influence on the West,” JAOS 93 (1973): 190–99. Cited by Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 14, n. 10. 148 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 15. 149 Especially the entire Book of Deuteronomy, which “is essentially an elaborate description of the contract between the Israelites and God their king. The Book of Deuteronomy recounts this contract’s history, background, and stipulations.” Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 15. 150 See Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 15–16.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 107

knows that Israel has to be disciplined for this digression. However, he is at the same time sure of God’s mercy towards the nation (cf. Pss. Sol. 18:1–4) and of the final fulfillment of God’s promises about God’s Messiah and the salvation of the righteous from Israel and from the nations (cf. Pss. Sol. 18:5–12; 17:34). God is just and judges all people according to their behavior, which is in accordance with God’s will in the Torah. This motif is very important, since it constitutes the very core of Paul’s message (see Rom 3:9–20; cf. Ps 14:1–3 [LXX 13:2–3]; 53:2–3 [LXX 52:3–4]; 5:9 [LXX 5:10]; 140:3 [LXX 139:4]; 10:7 [LXX 9:28]; 36:1 [LXX 35:2]; Isa 59:7–8; Eccl 7:20; see also CD 5:13–17; 4 Ezra 7:22–24). It also means that this very important theologoumenon is not primarily a result of Paul’s conversion but is an elementary part of his Jewish inheritance; Paul himself confirms it on the basis of the authority of Jewish Scriptures. We can conclude that the first psalm shows God’s justice and mercy, primarily in God’s faithfulness to the covenant promises toward Israel, first and foremost in God’s election of Israel to be God’s chosen people and “treasured possession” (cf. Exod 19:5; Deut 7:6; 14:2). Israel’s election was for a special purpose, because she would be a light to the nations (see Isa 49:6), and Jerusalem herself would be a unique representative of God’s righteousness. At the same time, God’s righteousness includes also God’s discipline of the righteous from the covenant nation and of those who are willingly disciplined and who receive God’s mercy (Pss. Sol. 11:1, 7–9; 16:3, 6; 17:45; 18:1–5). God’s justice is proved in God’s impartiality by judging the behavior of people on the side of Israel as well as Gentiles. God’s judging is manifested in the setting of stressful historical events – gentile threats and military assaults upon Jerusalem – which is a recurring motif during the entire collection (Pss. Sol. 1, 2, 7, 8, 15, 17). From the point of view of intertextuality, as Kenneth Atkinson remarks,151 this psalm is an example of adoption of certain phrases from the canonical Psalms for what the psalmist offers as the means to accentuate Jerusalem’s distress and complete dependence upon the Lord (Pss. Sol. 1:1–4). The author describes the sins of Jerusalem using material from the Pentateuch and Prophets (Pss. Sol. 1:5–8; cf. Deut 30:12; Lev 18:27; Isa 14:11–15; Jer 51:9). His plea for help and deliverance provides an appropriate introduction to the whole corpus of the psalms. Since many of these psalms recount the stressful events Israel has to face – gentile threats, military assaults, and political persecutions (see Pss. Sol. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 15, 17) – we can call

151 Here I follow Atkinson’s conclusion to Pss. Sol. 1. See Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 19–20.

108 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics this collection literature of a theological crisis,152 which is a characteristic aspect of Jewish literature of the Second Temple era, with its eschatological and apocalyptic motifs. However, the author is sure that God will remain on the side of God’s devout and righteous followers, and this assurance will be proved in the end of the collection (Pss. Sol. 18) where the psalmist’s plea for deliverance is finally answered. Thus, as Kenneth Atkinson concludes, the commentary on this psalm is not necessarily to propose that the first psalm (Pss. Sol. 1) is incomplete,153 or that it was once attached to Pss. Sol. 2, “since the intertextual parallels demonstrate a logical progression in its use of scripture.”154 The last verse about the desecration of the sanctuary of the Lord (Pss. Sol. 1:8) prepares the reader for the next psalm (Pss. Sol. 2), with the issue of God’s punishment toward Jerusalem, which does not nullify God’s glory or the manifestation of God’s righteousness and mercy in the world. 2.3.2 Psalms of Solomon 2 The second psalm follows up Pss. Sol. 1, with a description of the punishment of Israel as its main narrative. From a historical point of view, the basis of the psalm constitutes a recounting of Jerusalem’s invasion by a foreign conqueror, the siege of the city, defilement of the Temple by the foreign nations, and the enslaving of the inhabitants (Pss. Sol. 2:1–6). The psalmist understood all of this as permitted by God alone, which means that it is the process of God’s punishing Jerusalem for the previous profanation and defilement of the holy places by her inhabitants (Pss. Sol. 1:8).155 Behind these stressful historical events, the reader can observe God’s righteousness and justice. This motif resembles the thought of Deut 32:4–5, where this side of God is described.156 In Pss. Sol. 2, the narrative proceeds from judgment to judgment. Verses 1–9 are the author’s direct reflection on the invasion of Jerusalem in 63 BCE, which is counted as a result of the sins of her inhabitants. The author comes back to this calamity in verses 11–14. However, in verse 10 and 152

See Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 17. As suggested, for example, by G. H. A. von Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (3rd ed.; 7 vols. Göttingen: Dieterich, 1864–68), 4:392, n. 1. See also Atkinson, “Toward a Redating of the Psalms of Solomon,” 108; Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 19– 20. Cited by Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 20. 154 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 20. 155 “Because of their unparalleled wickedness, God abandoned the city to the Gentiles and demanded that Jerusalem’s children be removed far away (PsSol 2.4–6).” Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 24. 156 See Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 62–69. 153

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 109

later in verse 15, the psalmist confirms that all of this is the manifestation of God’s righteous judgment.157 Verses 16–17 belong to the psalmist’s prayer where “the sinners” are not Pompey’s legionaries (as in Pss. Sol. 1:1) but the sinners among the Jews, with the author referring particularly to the punishment of the inhabitants of Jerusalem for their sins (see Pss. Sol. 2:3–13).158 Then, in verses 18–21, the author reflects again on the historical events associated with Pompey’s attack on Jerusalem, including the reprisal against the inhabitants.159 This follows the prayer for deliverance (vv. 22–25). After the prayer, in verses 26–31, the psalmist again focuses on the historical background160 of 48 BCE and the events connected with the assassination of Pompey.161 Here we can observe the influence of the Hebrew Bible motif, particularly the comparison of Pompey the Great to the dragon, the motif associated primarily with Egypt (verse 25; cf. Ps 74:14; Ezek 29:3ff; 32:2ff; but see Jer 51:34 where the dragon is identified with Nebuchadnezzar).162 The psalm concludes with the exhortation (vv. 32–36) and final doxology (v. 37).163 The psalmist considered God’s punishment of Jerusalem as just, however, because the gentile conquerors, who were God’s instrument for the performance of God’s justice, exceeded the stated limits of their divine commission (see vv. 11–24), and now they too have to be punished (vv. 25–30). The psalmist has thus warned all sovereigns of the earth “to 157

Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 64. Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 32; Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos, 28. 159 For exegetical reflections and commentary on Pss. Sol. 2, see Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 29–34; Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 21– 54; Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos, 24–29. 160 In the context of the line of thought in the psalm, Winninge notes: “This view of history with interpretations of powerful nation’s involvement in the political course of events is typical of the OT (e.g. Isa 10).” Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 31, n. 42. See also Holm-Nielsen, “Salomos Salmer,” 561–62. 161 As Winninge remarks, not all scholars are convinced that it is Pompey to whom the psalmist is here alluding. For example, Frankenberg argues that it better fits the Seleucids in the time of the Syrian wars. See W. Frankenberg, Die Datierung der Psalmen Salomos: Ein Beitrag zur jüdischen Geschichte (BZAW 1; Giessen: J. Ricke, 1896), 9– 12. See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 29, n. 33. However, Winninge rightly states that both the information, Plutarch’s Lives (Pompey 79) and Dio’s Roman History (42.4–5), can be made to work with the text of Pss. Sol. 2. See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 32–33. 162 As Winninge remarks, referring to Holm-Nielsen, “Salomos Salmer,” 564: “Apparently Egypt is the common denominator, which provided the interpretative link here. In Ezek 32:5 it is written that the Lord will strew the flesh of the dragon upon the mountains, which, as a matter of fact, is exactly what is said with regard to Pompey’s death in Egypt in the next verse [i.e. v. 26].” Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 32–33. 163 See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 27. 158

110 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics acknowledge the Lord’s judgment, and to discern that God is a great and righteous king who punishes sinners”164 (see vv. 32–35). As Mikael Winninge notes in regard to the content of the second psalm, the theme here is “a didactic preaching about the righteousness of the Lord” (vv. 10, 15, 18, 32), and the psalm is concluding in a kind of theodicy (vv. 32–36).165 Judging from the content here, we can certainly say that we are dealing with, as Brad Embry says, “historical apologetics,” a basic presupposition of which is the establishment of God’s righteousness (cf. Deut 32:4; Amos 2:4–16).166 And we can add to this that God’s righteousness, God’s justice and mercy, which come also through punishment and discipline, constitute the very bases of the messianic ethic. In other words, they have to lead the devout and pious to life in accordance with God’s will as recorded in the Torah while remaining aware that this age is drawing to an end. This fact brings about the necessity of being prepared for a time when one is to be purified for the Day of the coming of Messiah, which has to have priority for the daily life of the community. Now, look at the verses where the idea of God’s justice and righteousness, as well as his mercy, come to the fore most clearly, and, to be more precise, where in the text the words occur with direct relationship to the meaning of justice, or righteousness, and mercy (Pss. Sol. 2:8, 10, 15, 18, 32–36):167 8

9

10 8

avpe,s treyen ga.r to. pro,swpon auvtou/ avpo. evle,ouj auvtw/n\ ne,o n kai. presbu,thn kai. te,k na auvtw/n eivj a[pax\ o[ti ponhra. evpoi,hsan eivj a[pax tou/ mh. avkou,ein\ kai. o` ouvrano.j evbaruqu,mhsen( kai. h` gh/ evbdelu,xato auvtou,j\ o[ti ouvk evpoi,hse pa/j a;nqrwpoj evpV auvth/j o[sa evpoi,hsan\ kai. gnw,setai h` gh/ ta. kri,mata, sou pa,nta ta. di,kaia( o` qeo,j\ For he turned away and showed them no mercy168 –

164

Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 25. Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 26. See also Holm-Nielsen, “Salomos Salmer,” 561. 166 Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 64. Embry remarks here: “As for PssSol, the authors sought to mimic the introduction of Deut. 32 wherein God’s righteousness is established as a prerequisite to the punishment of Israel. Implicit in this relationship is the guilt of Israel vis-à-vis God’s righteousness.” Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 65. 167 For a detailed commentary on Pss. Sol. 2, see Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 24–51. 168 OTP reads: “For he turned away his face from their mercy” (OTP 2:652). 165

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 111

9

10 15

young and old and their children – all alike,169 because they all sinned alike, for they would not listen. The heavens were appalled, and the earth loathed them. Because no one had ever acted as they. The world will know all your judgments; they are just, O God.170 vEgw. dikaiw,s w se( o` qeo,j( evn euvqu,thti kardi,a j\ o[ti evn toi/j kri,masi,n sou h` dikaiosu,nh sou o` qeo,j\

15

I will defend your justice, O God, with integrity, because your judgments are just, O God.171

18

o` qeo.j krith.j di,kaioj( kai. ouv qauma,sei pro,swpon\

18

God is an impartial judge, and is not impressed by appearances.172

God’s justice and righteousness in the world must be observable to all humankind. Moreover, heaven and earth play a role to be the witnesses against the sins of people and are therefore the primary witnesses to God’s justice and righteousness (vv. 9–10).173 The author expressed it in the background of the sinful behavior of the inhabitants of Jerusalem as well as of the Gentiles. Behind this is a calling out of the substantial difference between righteousness and justice on the one side and unrighteousness and injustice on the other. When the psalmist speaks about God as righteous, it also means that God is merciful. God’s mercy can be observed in the whole of creation from the beginning. The very idea that God is creator includes the idea that God’s creation of life, as well as its continuing in a state of vitality, bears witness to God’s mercy. In addition to this idea, the 169

eivj a[pax (at once; finally; in a moment) in verse 8 means the idiom that appears also in Pss. Sol. 11:2, and also in Isa 66:8; Ps 89:36 (LXX 88:36), and 1 Thess 2:18. See R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” 652. Confirm the content of this verse with Ezek 9:6. 170 OTP reads: “And the earth shall know all your righteous judgments, O God” (OTP 2:652). 171 OTP reads: “I shall prove you right, O God, in uprightness of heart; for your judgments are right, O God” (OTP 2:652). 172 Here I have to stress the literal translation, as it is in OTP: “God is a righteous judge and he will not be impressed by appearances” (OTP 2:653). 173 Embry stresses that Pss. Sol. 2:9–10 and Deut 32:1 contain the same language, which could prove his thesis about the prophetic paradigm, standing in the background of the lens of the author of the hymnbook. He also refers to M. L. Klein, Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch according to Their Extant Sources (vol. 2; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), 181–82, and J. Neusner, Sifre to Deuteronomy: An Analytical Translation. (vol. 2; BJS 101; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 305–306, and pointed out that the Fragment Targums explain this to mean that the heavens and earth “do not taste death” and, as such, could act as witnesses to the divine and everlasting covenant. See Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 52, including other cited literature.

112 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics idea of human free will – their ability to choose right against the wrong, and by this right decision to sanctify his or her life – means humanity receives God’s mercy exceedingly. Thus, when the psalmist writes literally that “God turned away his face from their mercy” (v. 8), we have to understand this statement as turning away God’s own mercy from the “sons and daughters” of Jerusalem for the multitude of their sins, including sexual transgression (vv. 3, 7–8, 11–13, 16–17). The psalmist is aware and convinced that God was justified in permitting all these cataclysms that affected Jerusalem and her inhabitants. In other words, God was justified in the sinful acts and rebellions of God’s people, and therefore God’s people had to be punished (cf. Lam 1:18).174 In this context the characteristic view and consideration of God’s justice is observable, as well as righteousness and mercy in Jewish religious and cultural tradition. The attributes of justice, or righteousness, and mercy are consistent aspects of the way in which Jews saw God and God’s activities in the past, present, and also the future of this world. There are only two possible ways to live life. One is according to God’s desires – within the community, as well as individually – which includes the necessity of acknowledging about this right way of life that, first and foremost, it is lived according to Torah. The other way of life is without God, living in selfishness and arrogance toward God’s will in the world. In other words, God’s righteousness has to be expressed in the life of human beings. It is therefore a relational reality and not an abstraction, and the earth as a whole will know that all God’s judgments are just (cf. Ps 119:75; 98:9). In regard to Israel, verse 10 expresses the important thought that God’s righteousness is a guarantee of purifying Israel’s guilt after her deserved punishment is paid. In Pss. Sol. 2:15 we encounter the idea of “justifying” God or “proving him right” on the part of the devout (cf. also Pss. Sol. 3:3; 4:8; 8:7, and 8:26).175 The psalmist here promises that he will vindicate God.176 Chris VanLandingham remarks here that this sense is only used to describe God or God’s actions, all the way to acknowledging God’s righteousness (cf. 4 Ezra 10:16; 2 Bar 78:5; Ezek 44:24; Luke 7:29).177 In this context, the psalmist declares God’s righteousness. This sentence structure can also be 174

See Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 29. R. B. Wright remarks that this idea often appears in the collection (Pss. Sol. 3:5; 4:8; 8:7, 26; 9:2; cf. Ps 51:4; 119:7; Lam 1:18; Luke 7:29). Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” 652. 176 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 27. 177 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 265. The verb shares the same root sense as the noun and therefore has to be interpreted in light of it. 175

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 113

interpreted as an assurance from the author that he is fully aware that he is actually defending and affirming God’s justice.178 Most interesting here, and highly unusual, is that the verb dikaiou/n is used with the devout as its subject, which as Mikael Winninge remarks “is something new in comparison with the Hebrew Bible.”179 Winninge stresses that in the Hebrew Scriptures – including the Apocrypha and the Greek Old Testament Pseudepigrapha – God is never declared righteous by human beings nor in a broad sense by those who were created.180 In this hymnbook we encounter this way of proving God’s righteousness, or justifying God, in three locations where the devout declares God righteous (Pss. Sol. 2:15; 3:5; 8:7; cf. 8:26). Here, the psalmist’s proving God right is related to God’s activity as a judge, which confirms that in the psalm God’s righteousness always has to do with judgment (Pss. Sol. 2:10, 15, 17, 18, 32, 33).181 As we can observe in the content of this psalm, God’s judgment befalls the sinners on the one hand (for example v. 17) and the devout on the other (v. 33). This verse is a part of the conclusion of the psalm (vv. 32–36) described by Mikael Winninge as “a kind of theodicy.”182 This particular part can be regarded as a main theme of this psalm (didactic preaching about the righteousness of the Lord) occurring in two verses (vv. 15, 32) on the highest hierarchical level, and therefore a primary concern of the author.183 Despite the absence of explicit references to a covenant or to specific covenantal rules,184 the clear footprints of covenantal language can be discerned in the content of these verses (cf. Pss. Sol. 8:25–33; 9:8– 10).185 God is described here as the great king and judge, and it is evident that here the major theme is God’s judgment, which will be manifested and proved by a distinction between the righteous and the sinners from the perspective of God’s impartial judging of their actions in the past (cf. v. 17), 178

R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 65. Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 35, including the notes. 180 Winninge specifies: “The closest we come to this in the Hebrew Bible is in Ps 51:6 (50:6 in LXX), but still nothing is said about human beings declaring God righteous. The best example from the Apocrypha is probably Sir 18:2, where it is written: ‘ku,rioj mo,noj dikaiwqh,setai’. Not even there, however, is it clearly stated that men should declare God righteous.” Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 35, n. 76. 181 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 35. 182 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 26. 183 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 26–27. 184 The only explicit mention of the covenant can be found in Pss. Sol. 9:8–10. 185 Winninge also notes: “The covenant is not explicitly mentioned and neither are its specific rules, but implicitly a theology of the ‘two ways’ can be discerned (e.g. v 34a).” Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 27. 179

114 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics and in the future (vv. 32–36). To the former, God will be merciful (vv. 33, 35), and they will be raised up in glory (v. 31),186 while the latter will suffer eternal destruction (vv. 31, 34–35).187 32

33

34

35

36

32

33

34

35

36

Kai. nu/n i;dete( oi` megista/nej th/j gh/j to. kri,ma tou/ kuri,ou\ o[ti me,gaj basileu.j kai. di,kaioj kri,nwn th.n u`pV ouvrano,n\ euvlogei/te to.n qeo,n oi` fobou,menoi to.n ku,rion evn evpisth,mh|\ o[ti to. e;leoj kuri,o u evpi. tou.j foboume,nouj auvto.n meta. kri,matoj tou/ diastei/lai avna. me,son dikai,o u kai. a`martwlou/\ avpodou/nai a`martwloi/j eivj to.n aivw/na kata. ta. e;rga auvtw/n\ kai. evleh/sai di,kaion avpo. tapeinw,sewj a`martwlou/\ kai. avpodou/nai a`martwlw/| avnqV w-n evpoi,hsen dikai,w|\ {Oti crhsto.j o` ku,rioj toi/j evpikaloume,noij auvto.n evn u`pomonh/|\ poih/sai kata. to. e;leoj auvtou/ toi/j o`si,oij auvtou/\ paresta,nai dia. panto.j evnw,pion auvtou/ evn ivscu,i \188 And now, you rulers of the earth, see the judgment of the Lord, because he is a great and righteous king, judging what is under heaven. Praise God, those of you who know enough to fear the Lord, because his mercy will be with those who have good reason to fear him,189 for he will separate the righteous from the sinner, because he will always retaliate against sinners according to their deeds. He will have mercy on the righteous, keeping them from the humiliation of sinners, and he will retaliate against the sinner for what he has done to the righteous. The Lord is kind to those who persistently appeal to him; he treats his devout in accordance with his mercy, to keep them constantly before him in strength. 190

186 Winninge remarks that the words o` avnistw/n evme. eivj do,xan in verse 31 can refer to a belief in the resurrection, especially from the context of its definition by the antithesis in the same verse (koimi,zwn u`perhfa,nouj eivj avpw,leian aivw/noj). This suggestion is also supported by Ryle and James, Psalmoi Solomontos, 27. But Holm-Nielsen, “Salomos Salmer,” 564, thinks it is ordinary Old Testament vocabulary. If it has to do with the belief in the resurrection, it could be supported by the hypothesis about the Pharisaic sociopolitical and religious provenance of the psalms. See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 33–34, including nn. 65–68. 187 See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 29. 188 For the text-critical and philological notes, as well as the variant readings of the particular verses in this psalm, see R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 72–75. 189 R. B. Wright remarks here that the literal meaning is “with (good) judgment.” Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 73, n. 49. OTP reads: “Praise God, you who fear the Lord with understanding, for the Lord’s mercy is upon those who fear him with judgment” (OTP 2:654). 190 R. B. Wright notes in regard to the Greek text that “this phrase chrēstos ho kurios (‘the Lord is good’) could be changed to christos kurios, ‘the Lord Messiah’ (in the NT ‘Jesus Christ’) by altering one eta to iota, an example of several opportunities to Christianize the text which was not appropriated by copyists in any extant manuscript.” Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:654.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 115

The psalmist begins, in similar fashion as the biblical psalmist (for example, Ps 2:10; 82:8), with an exclamation against the “rulers of the earth” who have failed to recognize that God alone is the supreme king and judge and that their role to be divine legal agents was temporary.191 Kenneth Atkinson comments about verse 32: “This threat was intended for Gentiles’ ears and was also a confession of faith as comfort to the Jews because God is a great king, and righteous, judging what is under heaven (PsSol 2.32).”192 In the Hebrew Scriptures it is characteristic for the author to alert the “officials of the earth”193 that God’s domination over all human affairs is permanent and that God is in control of all that happens on earth; therefore, they are exhorted to see God’s judgment. The story line and progression of steps in regard to the group of sinners is clearly recognizable. Since they did not know the Lord (v. 31), they have to be judged (v. 32) and will ultimately suffer humiliation (v. 35).194 The following verse 33 presents a certain semantic problem, as Winninge remarks, related to the method of translation and interpretation of this verse.195 Namely, it is a question about whether the content means that the righteous receive both judgment and mercy or that the mercy for the righteous is defined by the judgment of the sinners. Yet another alternative that is connected with eschatological interpretation is that judgment also concerns the righteous, but only temporarily,196 and they will experience mercy on the Day of Judgment. This latter possibility is possible because the eschatological-apocalyptic aiming of the Psalms of Solomon with culmi191

See Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 42. Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 49 (italics are the author’s own emphasis). 193 Ryle and James suggested that the psalmist’s warning referred to the victorious party of Julius Caesar. See Ryle and James, Psalmoi Solomontos, 27. Atkinson here remarks that “it is possible that an earlier version of the work ended at verse 18 since the remainder of the text reflects upon Jerusalem’s later historical situation following Pompey’s murder.” Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 50–51. See also Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos, 24–25. 194 See Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 42; Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 29. 195 The solution depends on how we translate this verse, especially in regard to the debate about whether, as Winninge, Holm-Nielsen, and Schüpphaus assert, meta. kri,matoj could be read together with to. e;leoj. If so, it probably means that the righteous receive both judgment and mercy. As an argument in favor of this interpretation, Winninge cites Pss. Sol. 18:3. See, Sinners and the Righteous, 35–36, including nn. 80–84; HolmNielsen, “Salomos Salmer,” 564; Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos, 30. 196 Winninge (Sinners and the Righteous, 36, including n. 83) stresses that it depends on the way the Hebrew preposition b is translated, which can be “in/at” or “during” and means “temporarily,” as is possible with the translation of the Greek preposition meta, with the genitive. This is rare but is found at least twice in Thucydides (see LSJ, 1109). 192

116 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics nation in the Day of Judgment is an important and crucial theme of the collection as a whole. The judgment is therefore also a reality for the righteous (see Pss. Sol. 15:12–13).197 The eschatological perspective of these verses is also clearly recognizable in the motif of blessings and curses. In verse 35a there is a statement about God’s mercy towards the righteous, and in verses 34b and 35b are statements about retaliation against the sinners. In verses 30–35, the sinners are not defined in a more specific manner, so this group should include both Jews and Gentiles.198 They are defined only according to what they had done sinfully, primarily towards the righteous, and they are associated with sin as the wrongdoers (cf. vv. 34–35). On the other hand, there is the devout group called the righteous and associated with righteousness (vv. 15, 34–36). Their duty is, as was mentioned above, to declare that God is righteous. Proving God righteous is done here with reference to God’s judging activity, which is based on God’s righteousness (v. 15; see also Pss. Sol. 3:3, 5). The righteousness of those who were considered righteous is derived from God’s own righteousness, which was proved to them through God’s mercy. Therefore, “to be righteous means to acknowledge God’s righteousness.”199 From a semantic perspective, as we can observe in this psalm, God’s justice and righteousness (dikaiosu,nh Qeou/) are also expressed and manifested in the terms “judgments” or “judging” (ta. kri,mata; kri,nein), of course intended here to describe God and therefore characterizing the process of God’s impartial review and resulting punishment for the sinfulness and rebellion of people against Godself (see Pss. Sol. 2:18). God’s justice and righteousness is also characterized in God’s mercy (see Pss. Sol. 18:3). This aspect is one of the most important in regard to God’s actions with human beings and is exhibited primarily in God’s willingness to discipline those who are devout and pious and to be benevolent to all who fear God and faithfully call upon God (see Pss. Sol. 2:33, 35a, 36a). Thus, we can see that God’s righteousness and justice correlate with God’s mercy; the process culminates in the Last Judgment. Therefore, the entirety of what the author wrote here, as well as in the remainder of the collection, has to do directly or indirectly, with ethics. Particularly, all of those who take into serious consideration their own situation and the negative impacts of their sins in the lives of others as well as God’s lordship over the world, and focus on the eschatological climax of 197

Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 36, n. 84. Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 29, 35, including n. 73. 199 D. Lührmann, “Paul and the Pharisaic Tradition,” JSNT 36 (1989): 82. Cited by Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 43, n. 135. 198

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 117

the coming Days of Messiah, they are fully aware of the importance of ethics, which must be regarded as the appropriate answer to God’s mercy and practiced in the past, present, and up to the end of the world. 2.3.3 Psalms of Solomon 3 With regard to the content of this psalm, all mentions of “the righteous” or “righteousness” are related to human behavior and are placed in contrast to the wrongdoing of sinners. Despite this fact, it is necessary to pay attention to it as well. The main reason for this is that the psalm illustrates very clearly the full dependence of one’s own righteousness on God’s justice and mercy, an aspect that comes to the fore especially in psalm 9 (especially Pss. Sol. 9:8–11). It means that no one can appeal to one’s own righteousness, only to God’s justice, mercy and righteousness that they themselves were shown in God’s choice of Israel and in God’s covenant with Abraham as a free and sovereign act of God’s love towards humankind. It follows that “[t]he righteous are not those who by their effort have avoided sin, but those who confess their sins and seek God’s mercy.” 200 The first two verses are a general introduction to the psalm in the form of invocation to the soul to throw away its passivity and to sing a new song to God who is worthy of praise (cf. Ps 33:21; 40:3; 44:23; 101:1; 104:33; 107:2 [LXX]; Zech 4:1; Isa 26:19; 51:9; Exod 15:1, 20–21).201 Verses 3–4 are a special introduction about the attitude of the righteous, where the psalmist acknowledges that the righteous continually and persistently remember God, accept God’s discipline, and prove God’s judgments right.202 Here in verse 3, the author is influenced by Ps 119 (cf. Ps 98:9; 51:4), the great meditation upon God’s law, including the validation of God’s judgments despite their consequences for the devout.203 The fourth verse is an example of the psalmist’s attempt to explain the paradox of the persistence of the righteous to praise the Lord despite their present suffering (cf. Prov 200

Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 42. In the brief outline of the content of the psalm, I follow Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 38. See also Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 55. 202 Winninge notes here that a decision has to be made whether verses 3–4 should be considered a separate unit or should be counted with the following verses 5–8. In favor of grouping verses 3–8 together is the fact that these verses as a whole deal with the righteous. But as Winninge stresses, a stronger argument supports the former possibility, since verses 5–8 have a directly antithetical counterpart in verses 9–11. Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 38, n. 90. 203 Atkinson adds here that the psalmist’s perspective “is reminiscent of Azariah’s prayer when Nebuchadnezzar cast him into the furnace, for Azariah chose to accept suffering as part of God’s plan (Pr Azar 4).” Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 58. 201

118 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics 3:11–12; Job 5:17). As Kenneth Atkinson notes, “stumble” and “fall” are frequently used in the Hebrew Scriptures “to signify utter helplessness and affliction as when soldiers stumble and fall in battle (Isa 8:15).”204 Verses 5–8 describe a closer attitude of the righteous in suffering, which includes their trying to remove all transgression from their midst, even atonement for their sins of ignorance.205 The psalmist invokes here the biblical language of blessing for proclaiming the fact that the righteous, in spite of their fallenness, can still look up to God, the source of their salvation (see v. 5; cf. Ps 37:24; Prov 24:16; Jer 46:16).206 In this segment (vv. 9–11), the psalmist places sinners in a contrasting group, particularly the attitude of this group in its suffering. Finally, as a summary, the psalmist concludes with a message of hope of resurrection into eternal life (v. 12). From our point of view, we take notice of verses 4, 6, 8, and 11–12. 4

6

8

11

12

4

6

8

ouvk ovligwrh,sei di,kaioj paideuo,menoj u`po. kuri,ou\ h` euvdoki,a auvtou/ dia. panto.j e;nanti kuri,ou\ avlh,qeia tw/n dikai,wn para. qeou/ swth/roj auvtw/n\ ouvk auvli,zetai evn oi;k w| dikai,o u a`marti,a evfV a`marti,an\ evxila,sato peri. avgnoi,aj evn nhstei,a| kai. tapeinw,sei yuch/j auvtou/\ kai. o` ku,rioj kaqari,zei pa/n a;ndra o[sion kai. to.n oi=kon auvtou/) h` avpw,leia tou/ a`martwlou/ eivj to.n aivw/na\ kai. ouv mnhsqh,setai o[tan evpiske,pthtai dikai,o uj) au[th h` meri.j tw/n a`martwlw/n eivj to.n aivw/na\ oi` de. fobou,menoi to.n ku,rion avnasth,s ontai eivj zwh.n aivw,nion\ kai. h` zwh. auvtw/n evn fwti. kuri,o u kai. ouvk evklei,yei e;ti)207 The righteous will not be ashamed to be taught by the Lord,208 their desire is to be always in the Lord’s presence. The confidence of the righteous comes from God their savior. Repeated sin is not found in the home of the righteous. They atone for sins of ignorance by fasting and humility and the Lord will cleanse every devout person and their household.209 204

Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 59. See Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 55. 206 For Pss. Sol. 3:6 compare Ps 121:1; Prov 15:6; Job 11:14 [LXX]; Isa 30:1; Sir 5:5. To Pss. Sol. 3:7 compare Job 22:23; Prov 30:8; Lev 4:27 (the intertextual references are stated by Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon). 207 To the text-critical and philological notes, as well as the variant readings of the particular verses of this part, see in more detail R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 76–81. 208 OTP reads: “The righteous does not lightly esteem discipline from the Lord” (OTP 2:654). 209 OTP reads: “He atones for (sins of) ignorance by fasting and humbling his soul, and the Lord will cleanse every devout person and his house” (OTP 2:655). 205

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 119 11

12

The destruction of sinners is forever, and they will not be remembered when God looks after the righteous.210 This is the fate of sinners forever; but those who fear the Lord shall rise up to eternal life, and their life shall be in the Lord’s light and it shall never end.

This psalm as a whole probably served to encourage a religious community fatigued by difficulties, a community that might have considered these problems and troubles as God’s discipline, their atonement for sins as a proper response to the misfortune and suffering and then praising anew God’s righteousness (Pss. Sol. 3:3–5, 7–8).211 This community of the pious and devout is fully aware of their sinfulness and is therefore condemnable before God who is right – just and righteous to the fullest degree – and they are fully open to God (v. 5) and trust that they will rise up to eternal life (v. 12). The progression of the narrative is visible in the way the psalmist describes God’s righteousness by the righteous. God disciplines them (v. 4), cleanses the devout and their house (v. 8), and looks after the righteous (v. 11) so they finally can rise up to eternal life (v. 12). In the psalm, God is characterized as the savior of the righteous (v. 6). The psalmist here expresses his great assurance that the Lord is the only source of salvation. The house of the righteous is a place where transgressors feel unwelcome and are regarded as an intrusive element. Therefore, the psalmist emphasizes that a life of righteousness is characterized by constant vigilance (v. 7).212 Since the righteous prove God’s right, even when they stumble and fall, they expect God to help them and look to God as the source of their salvation (v. 5). They then try to remove sin from their daily life, and even though they know they are not without sin (unintentional sins and sins of ignorance), they are humble and fast as a means of atonement (v. 8).213 For the psalmist, the movement from this world to the eternal life is an important characteristic here, and as Winninge remarks: “It is noteworthy

210

OTP reads: “The destruction of the sinner is forever, and he will not be remembered when (God) looks after the righteous” (OTP 2:655). 211 Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos, 31; E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 399; Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 42–43; Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 42; Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 55. 212 In the Syriac text, it is God (literally “he” = God) who searches the house of the righteous. See Ward, “The Psalms of Solomon: The Philological Analysis of the Greek and the Syriac Texts,” 63–64; R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 79. 213 Cf. Lev 5:18; Ps 68:11 [LXX]; 34:13 [LXX]; Jdt 4:9; Lev 16:29 [LXX]; 16:31 [LXX]; 23:29, 32 [LXX].

120 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics that the actions of God are concentrated on the righteous, whereas his treatment of the sinners only is mentioned with a passivum divinum in v. 11.”214 Here the themes of guilt, sin, and necessity to redeem oneself before God, as well as fasting and resurrection, come to the fore, and furthermore this fact is also crucial for Paul’s theology. The ancient Jewish concept of expiation for sins, whether intentional or unintentional, demands one to make atonement, which means to perform special acts of contrition and repayment to restore balance before God. In this context, the unintentional transgressions, or the sins of ignorance, were also considered the same as sins committed intentionally (see Lev 5:17).215 It is especially evident in Lev 4–5, which refers to the special sacrifices for sins and transgressions committed unwittingly (see for example Lev 4:1–2; 5:17–19), and as a climax of the process of cleansing the members of the covenant relationship with the Lord, the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) with the rituals and regulations prescribed that atoned for all the sins of Israel (see Lev 16:29–30, 34).216 Interestingly, in this context the psalmist in Pss. Sol. 3 does not speak of a concrete guilt offering as was prescribed, for example, in Lev 16, where the guilt offering would call for two goats. Instead, his statement in verse 8 refers to the fasting and humbling of the soul (cf. Ps 34:13 [LXX]; 68:11 [LXX]), “which may be interpreted as expressions of the piety of everyday life,”217 and can be justifiably regarded as the means of atonement (cf. Sir 34:26).218 Several scholars take notice that regular fasting on Monday and 214

Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 39. See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 40–42; Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 62–64; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 226–92. 216 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 40, here refers to Lührmann, who with regard to Pss. Sol. 3:8 remarked that the “fasting” in Lev 16:29–30 is not described with the usual term ~wc, but with the expression vpn hn[ (“to humble or afflict one’s soul”). He also stresses that the term hn[ became later in rabbinic times the technical term for fasting. See Lührmann, “Paul and the Pharisaic Tradition,” 83. See also D. P. Wright, “Day of Atonement,” ABD 2:72–76. 217 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 40. 218 Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 39–40, asserts that Pss. Sol. 3 is likely referring to the Day of Atonement, and although the Temple is not explicitly mentioned in every chapter of the Psalms of Solomon, it doesn’t mitigate the fact that the motif was a dominant consideration throughout the document. Contrary to this, Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 63–64, 69, is convinced that the psalmist was not concerned with the Temple cult but only with the spiritual life of the righteous, despite the fact that he has noted the issue of “humbling his soul” in the Yom Kippur description in Lev 16. He asserts that this psalm matched the perspective of psalms 2, 8, and 17, all of which criticized the Temple cult and its priests. 215

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 121

Thursday was practiced by pre-70 Pharisees, and since the Qumran texts nowhere mention fasting as a means of atonement, it could be a reasonable argument supporting the hypothesis about the Pharisaic origin of the Psalms of Solomon.219 The fasting and humbling does not necessarily mean that the community behind the hymnbook was not interested in the Temple cult, or that piety had become a substitute for sacrifice and sins were cleansed through confession and penance, as Kenneth Atkinson suggests.220 However, it also does not necessarily mean that for the psalm’s author the motif of the Temple was dominant everywhere, as Brad Embry would suggest.221 In the context of the behavior of the righteous, particularly their fasting and cleansing described in this psalm, it is a proper response to God’s discipline, which is a demonstration of God’s mercy towards the pious and devout community. Therefore, the psalmist does not mention that pious behavior indicates that the righteous earned God’s favor as a merit. The righteous have complete confidence in the Lord not for their own piety – which could be regarded for example as the “works of the law” – but in the fact that they know and are sure that God is their Savior (v. 6). Daniel Falk rightly remarks that “to cite language from the Psalms of Solomon about pious behavior as expressions of meriting God’s mercy is to misunderstand the context and contradict the psalmist’s use of his language.”222 Therefore, any interpretation of this psalm that equates it with a doctrine of righteousness by works can be regarded as a serious misinterpretation not only of the language but of the author’s intent.223 The last matter at hand in this chapter (Pss. Sol. 3) is the final two verses 11–12, especially verse 12, which refers to some form of an eternal life for the righteous. In these two verses, the psalmist contrasts the final destiny of the righteous and the sinner. The first verse has to do with the final destiny of the sinner whose sins and transgressions are momentous and 219 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 41; Lührmann, “Paul and the Pharisaic Tradition,” 84. See also P. Garnet, Salvation and Atonement in the Qumran Scrolls (WUNT 2.3; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1977); H. Lichtenberger, “Atonement and Sacrifice in the Qumran Community,” in Approaches to Ancient Judaism (ed. W. S. Green; vol. 2; BJS 9; Chico: Scholars Press, 1980), 159–71. Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 64, has suggested that since the Hebrew Scriptures never held that fasting or humbling could atone for sins (Ps 35:13 [LXX]), perhaps the psalmist is a member of a distinctive sectarian community that, for unspecified reasons, apparently worshiped apart from the Temple. 220 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 69. 221 Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 39–40. 222 Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 43. 223 See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 42, including nn. 127, 128.

122 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics consequential to such a degree (cf. the verses 6 and 10)224 that his or her destruction is eternal (cf. Ps 37:34). The final part of the verse (kai. ouv mnhsqh,setai o[tan evpiske,pthtai dikai,ouj) has a peculiar meaning. Semantically, this passage tells about the Last Judgment (cf. Pss. Sol. 15:12). The verb evpiske,ptomai is a formulaic term expressing God’s punishing as well as God’s gracious appearance in bringing salvation (cf. Gen 21:1; 50:24– 25, Exod 3:16; 4:31; Sir 46:14; Jdt 8:33). In the context of verse 11, it has to do with the final judging of the world.225 This statement fluidly continues in verse 12 with the description of the final destiny of the righteous. Apparently, the psalmist, similar to later Jewish writers who penned 1 Enoch (1 En. 90:10) and Jubilees (Jub. 23:22), is influenced by the Old Testament notion about eternal life, particularly by Daniel’s description of the resurrection of individuals from the dead (Dan 12:2).226 In regard to the interpretation of this description in the psalm, the opinions of scholars differ on whether the verse refers to belief in the resurrection or not.227 I am convinced that the context of the antithetical parallelism of verses 11– 12 – where the repeated phrase eivj to.n aivw/na occurs twice in regard to the destiny of the sinners, and the expression eivj zwh.n aivw,nion appears in conjunction with avnasth,sontai, and we see the usage of the term “light” in connection with the Lord (cf. Dan 12:3) – supports the eschatological perspective of the verse,228 particularly the belief in some form of eternal life229 or more precisely the resurrection of the dead230 and within the con-

224 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 42, takes notice of the grammatical aspect of both of these verses and concludes it is no coincidence that in verse 6, there is the sinfulness of the righteous described in the singular form (a`marti,a evf V a`marti,an), while in verse 10, concerning the sinners, it is mentioned in the plural form (a`marti,a j evfV a`marti,a j). 225 For the semantic shift, as well as the layers of the meaning of the verb evpiske,ptomai, see LSJ, 656–57; GELS I, 174; BAGD, 298 (BDAG, 378). 226 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 67–68. 227 For the dispute as well as references to other literature, see Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 41–42; Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 67–69. 228 Holm-Nielsen, “Salomos Salmer,” 556. 229 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 69. 230 Those who believe that this verse refers to the resurrection of the dead include: Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 41–42; Ryle and James, Psalmoi Solomontos, 38; R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:655; M. Delcor, “Psaumes de Salomon,” DBSupp 9:242–44; P. Prigent, “Psaumes de Salomon,” in La Bible: Écrits intertestamentaires (ed. A. Dupont-Sommer and M. Philonenko; Paris: Gallimard, 1987), 960; H. C. C. Cavallin, Life after Death: Paul’s Argument for the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Cor 15. Pt. 1: An Enquiry into the Jewish Background (ConBNT 7; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1974), 57–58.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 123

text of this psalm refers only to the righteous.231 In connection with this kind of interpretation, Winninge remarks that if the psalmist refers to the concept of resurrection in verse 12, it suggests that the psalms may have emanated from Pharisaic circles or from an Essene community. The latter is however less likely because of the words concerning fasting as a means of atonement (v. 8). So it can seem justifiable in Pss. Sol. 3 to speak about Pharisaic theology. 232 I suggest that in this psalm we observe very clearly the eschatological perspective of the author with an outlook for the near future and prospects of the righteous and sinners in the Last Judgment. This motif centers on the thought of being constantly prepared and cleansed through confession and penance. Therefore, the permanence and steadiness in the position of preparedness for the Days of Messiah is a dominant impetus in the hymnbook as well as in Paul’s message. Moreover, the hymnbook contains, as Hans Cavallin says with regard to Pss. Sol. 3:12, “one clear reference to the resurrection (of the righteous only),”233 and, as is well known, it all is significant in Paul’s theologizing. The Day of Atonement is also crucial for Paul in regard to God’s acting in Jesus Christ as an all-time benefit to the Gentiles. Paul has understood it in the context where the sacrifice of Jesus prepared by Godself is the unique, and one and only act of atonement carried out by God alone for Gentiles (see Rom 3:25). The semantic role of both, the personal piety and the importance of the Temple cult, especially in regard to the Day of Atonement and the eschatological perspective with the climax being some form of eternal life, or directly the resurrection of the dead, a concept developed in Pharisaic circles, are here evident. 2.3.4 Psalms of Solomon 4 In the content of the fourth psalm, God’s justice (righteousness) and mercy are emphasized in verses 24–25. In regard to the brief outline, this psalm is an indictment of Jerusalem’s political leadership.234 Since in the content of 231 On the issue of resurrection in Hebrew writings (canonical and deuterocanonical) see G. W. Buchanan, The Book of Daniel (Lewinston/Queenston/Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1999), 376–84; J. J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 394–98; R. Martin-Achard, “Resurrection (Old Testament),” ABD 5:680–84; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Resurrection (Early Judaism and Christianity),” ABD 5:684–91; idem, Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972). 232 I am here in full agreement with Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 42. 233 Cavallin, Life after Death, 57. 234 For thorough analysis and commentary on this psalm, see Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 71–95. For the interpretation of the psalm with

124 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics this psalm there are not any obvious references to historical events, it is difficult to ascertain precise circumstances, events, and the date of composition.235 The psalmist began with a rhetorical question that is accusatory against the governing official who presides over the council of the devout (v. 1). Scholars have argued that the Jewish official of the period during the Hasmonean kingdom was Alexander Jannaeus (cf. Josephus, Ant. 13.13.5 §§ 372–373, 375–376; 13.14.2 §§ 379–383; 13.15.5 §§ 401–402; J.W. 1.88–92, 96–98), Aristobulus II (cf. Ant. 13.16.2 § 411; 13.16.3 § 416; 13.16.5 §§ 422–429; 14.1.2 §§ 4–7), Antipater (Ant. 14.11.4 § 283) or Herod the Great (Ant. 14.9.4 §§ 168–176; J.W. 1.210–211).236 Others are skeptical and have objected to any specific interpretation,237 such as attempting to determine a precise date of composition. In this case it is difficult to decide unambiguously who could be the person the psalmist wrote about.238 In the next four verses (vv. 2–5), the psalmist describes the profaned official in the context of his crimes, which included harsh judicial sentences. This signifies a selfishness and hypocrisy on the part of the judge, who turns promiscuously to every woman and makes advances, lies when making contracts under oath, and sins secretly at night. Based on these statements, the author pleaded for the destruction of sinners (vv. 6–8) whose faults afterwards are described in more detail (vv. 9–13). Verses 14–18 are the prayers of the psalmist (in second-person sing.) to God that God would punish the sinners. This is followed by a wish for the destrucregard to the categories of the righteous and the sinners, see Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 44–57. See also Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos, 30–33. 235 Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer, 147, claimed that this psalm depicts the Sadducees from a Pharisaic point of view. He wrote: “Für die innere jüdische Geschichte ist dieser Psalm der interessanteste von Allen. Nirgends erscheint das Bild der Sadducäer, von pharisäischem Standpunkte aus gesehen, in grösserer Klarheit.” Ryle and James also argued that they had to be the Sadducees, Psalmoi Solomontos, 38–39. Holm-Nielsen, “Salomos Salmer,” 567–68, emphasized that due to the impossibility of recognizing the concrete historical events in the psalm, an identification of a particular historical person is impossible. For particular examples, as well as for further literature on the subject, see Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 94–95; Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 49–56. 236 For particular scholars and their opinions, see Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 49–56. 237 Holm-Nielsen, “Salomos Salmer,” 567–68; Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos, 34–35. 238 Winninge remarks that all accessible information from the sources make Aristobulus II the only possible candidate to be identified with the individual sinner criticized in this psalm. However, he is convinced that the psalmist here didn’t criticize any particular individual. Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 56, including n. 205.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 125

tion of men pleasers (in third-person sing.) in verses 19–22. Then verse 23 is a narrative progression concerning God’s acting, a beatitude expressing the hopes of the devout for the salvation.239 The last two verses, where we must pay close attention, contain a wish for the destruction of sinners (v. 24) and the prayer of the psalmist asking for God’s mercy (v. 25).240 24

25 24

25

VExa,rai o` qeo.j tou.j poiou/ntaj evn u`perhfani,a| pa/san avdiki,a n\ o[ti krith.j me,gaj kai. krataio.j ku,rioj o` qeo.j h`mw/n evn dikaiosu,nh|\ Ge,noito\ ku,rie\ to. e;leo,j sou evpi. pa,ntaj tou.j avgapw/nta,j se: 241 May God banish those arrogantly doing every injustice, because our God is a powerful Lord and a great and just judge.242 Lord, may your mercy be upon all those who love you.

The thoughts of these two verses are the psalmist’s expression of a wish for the final destruction of the sinners (cf. Prov 30:8; Sir 23:4–5) and the hope for the fulfillment of God’s righteousness in the final appraisal of humankind within the Last Judgment (cf. Pss. Sol. 2:10, 18; 5:1; 6:6; 9:2, 5; 10:3, 5; 14:1). The psalmist confirms God’s righteousness and justice in God’s judging, which contains also God’s indignation at the actions of the wicked (cf. Ps 7:11). His faith and certainty that God’s mercy exceeds his rigorousness and that God would answer this prayer is evident in the last statement, in which the author asserts that his community loves the Lord. This he also does in the form of a wish for God’s blessing for everyone who loves God (cf. Deut 5:10 [LXX]). In this psalm, God’s righteousness is mentioned with a reference to God’s judging activity in verse 24 (krith.j me,gaj kai. krataio.j ku,rioj o` qeo.j h`mw/n evn dikaiosu,nh|). In this context, the two categories of men – the sinners and the righteous – are clearly perceivable. For the psalmist, the sinners are the main topic in this psalm. All accessible information we have about the historical events of that period point to the suggestion that the sinners in this psalm, so severely criticized, were the Hasmonean leaders and influential Sadducees.243 Since they do not remember the Lord (Pss. Sol. 4:1, 21), their sins are numerous (Pss. Sol. 4:3) and various by

239

Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 49. Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 73–74; Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 47; Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos, 33–37. 241 For text-critical and philological notes as well as variant readings of the particular verses of this section, see R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 92. 242 OTP reads: “for the Lord our God is a great and powerful judge in righteousness” (OTP 2:656). 243 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 55. 240

126 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics definition (Pss. Sol. 4:4–5, 10, 12, 20).244 They are characterized by their willful and continuous sinning (Pss. Sol. 4:12–13, 24).245 The psalmist accuses them of hypocrisy and deceit (Pss. Sol. 4:6, 8, 10–11, 20, 22–23). Their behavior is full of hypocrisy and pretense, which is the object of harsh criticism here from the psalmist246 and could be for Paul a basis of his harsh criticism of the virtual Jew in Rom 2:1–5, 17–23. Besides this category of sinners, there is also another category – sinners who are victims of the leader in the council of the devout (probably the Sanhedrin), who judge them severely (Pss. Sol. 4:2–3).247 Mikael Winninge remarks aptly that in the Psalms of Solomon these two categories of sinners show that the word “sinner” does not necessarily have an entirely negative connotation.248 The righteous in this psalm are those who are innocent (yuca.j avka,kwn in v. 22, evn avkaki,a| in v. 23) and devout (o[sioi in vv. 1, 6, 8). They are obliged to declare that the judgments of the Lord are right (v. 8). From the content of the psalm it is clear that God’s justice and mercy is tightly connected with the necessity of right behavior on the side of human beings in accordance with God’s will. In spite of the persistence of wrongdoing from the side of the unnamed “profane man,” the psalm expresses a strong belief that the Lord will punish the evildoers and save the devout. 2.3.5 Psalms of Solomon 5 In the first two verses of this psalm, the psalmist continues in the same spirit. In its entirety, this psalm is “a praise to God for granting justice and mercy during times of adversity.”249 The psalmist glorifies God’s righteous judgments and praises the Lord’s goodness and mercy for listening to the

244 The favorite words for describing the actions of sinners are paranomi,a and a`marti,a , with derivatives (Pss. Sol. 4:1, 3, 5, 8–9, 11–12, 19, 23). See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 56. 245 Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, 210. 246 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 55 refers to Ryle and James, Psalmoi Solomontos, 44, and Prigent, “Psaumes de Salomon,” 961, who are of the opinion that the expression avnqrwpa,reskon lalou/nta no,mon meta. do,lou in v. 8 probably means criticism of the way in which the Sadducees interpreted the Torah. 247 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 54–56. 248 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 56. 249 Atkinson notes that the psalm is essentially a Midrash, or commentary, upon canonical Psalm 148, a hymn calling upon all creation to praise the Lord and recounting God’s blessings upon the nation. See Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 99, 101.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 127

cries of the poor (Pss. Sol. 5:1–2).250 Then, he writes about God’s power and generosity and God’s dominance and governance above everything and everyone. Therefore, individuals cannot change their fate nor do anything without God’s ordainment, but the psalmist is sure that God will answer the prayers of the pious when they call for help (vv. 3–4).251 The psalmist continues with recognition that the righteous also sometimes experience suffering (v. 5)252 and, therefore, he asks God not to make heavy God’s hand upon them, as they do not sin from distress (v. 6; cf. Ps 32:4). Since the author is aware that God would not necessarily comply with all the requests of the righteous, he declares that they would nevertheless continue in their beseeching (v. 7).253 In the next section (vv. 8–14),254 the author describes God’s care for creation, God’s goodness and mercy towards the humble and modest, and expresses the faith that wherever hope in the Lord remains that God’s goodness will never cease. The psalmist continues by praising the Lord for the mercy and goodness shown upon the whole earth (v. 15; cf. Ps 32:5 [LXX]). He stresses that the pious should accept their material condition and live in humbleness and righteousness, which both mean praising the Lord and being satisfied with righteousness (vv. 16–17).255 Then the psalmist reflects the faith that those who fear the Lord can be truly happy and rich for their recognition of God’s goodness upon Israel, which will be fulfilled in the kingdom of God (v. 18; cf. Ps 34:9; 148:14). The psalmist concludes with words of the proclamation of God’s glory and the statement that God is our king (v. 19; cf. Ezek 3:12). God’s righteousness, goodness, and mercy are expressed at the beginning of the psalm (vv. 1–2) and later in verses 12 and 15.256

250

Cf. Joel 2:26; Ps 42:5–6, 11; 69:30; 135:1; 148:5, 13; 145:2; 119:75. The intertextual comparison of psalm 5 follows Atkinson’s commentary. See Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 97–118. 251 Cf. Isa 49:24 [LXX]; Ps 62:9; Prov 16:11; Job 31:6; Sir 18:6; Bar 2:34; Wis 2:9; 11:20; 2 Esd 3:34. 252 Cf. Lam 3:8; Ps 31:22; 32:4; 65:20 [LXX]; 102:17; Job 30:20. 253 Cf. Ps 37:24; 80:7; Job 23:2; 33:7; Lam 5:21. 254 For Pss. Sol. 5:8, cf. Ps 107:9. For verse 9, cf. Ps 103:14 [LXX]; 147:8–9; Job 38:25–27 [LXX]; Gen 2:5 [LXX]. For verse 10, cf. Ps 136:25. For verse 11 cf. Deut 15:11; Ps 9:18; 40:17; 72:12–13; 74:21; 86:1; 148:11; Ezek 16:49. For verse 12, cf. Deut 15:11; Ps 85:5 [LXX]; 104:27–28; 145:15–16. For verse 13, cf. Ps 118:23. For verse 14, cf. Neh 9:35; Ps 31:19. 255 For Pss. Sol. 5:16–17, cf. Job 5:17; Prov 10:22; Sir 11:25. 256 For the text-critical and philological notes, as well as the variant readings of the particular verses of this part, see R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 94, 98, 100.

128 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics 1

2

1

2

Ku,rie o` qeo,j\ aivne,sw tw/| ovno,mati, sou evn avgallia,sei\ evn me,sw| evpistame,nwn ta. kri,mata, sou ta. di,kaia\ o[ti su. crhsto.j kai. evleh,mwn\ h` katafugh. tou/ ptwcou/\ evn tw/| kekrage,nai me pro.j se. mh. parasiwph,sh|j avpV evmou/\ O Lord God, I will joyfully praise your name among those who know your equitable judgments.257 Because you are kind and merciful, the refuge of the destitute. 258 When I cry out in anguish to you, do not ignore me.

12

kai. su. evpakou,s h|\ o[ti ti,j crhsto.j kai. evpieikh.j avllV h' su.\ euvfra/nai yuch.n tapeinou/ evn tw/| avnoi/xai cei/ra, sou evn evle,ei\

12

And you will listen, because who is kind and generous but you, cheering the humble, by reaching out in mercy? 259

15

VEpi. pa/san th.n gh/n to. e;leo,j sou\ ku,rie\ evn crhsto,thti\

15

O Lord, your kind mercy extends over all the earth.

God’s righteousness is implicit in the words “equitable (righteous) judgments” (v. 1). It means that here God is connected with righteousness through these very judgments. God’s goodness and mercy in these verses relate directly to God’s function of providing a refuge for the poor. This is most likely a description of a real situation in the community of the psalmist.260 One of the most typical characteristics of the God of Israel, according to standard views of the divine in Judaism of that period, is to be a defender and protector of those who are poor and unable to provide themselves with the basic essentials of life, as well as those who are helpless and exploited by the rich and powerful (Lev 14:21; 19:9–10; 23:22; 25:35–38; Deut 23:24–25; 24:19–22). In this regard, Kenneth Atkinson has asserted that the psalmist’s community used this word for its own naming (cf. Gal 2:10).261 This characteristic is one of the most important and decisive in the Jewish social system, as well as in the understanding of the concept of God’s righteousness that must be realized in the world, particularly in the relationships of the community’s members (cf. Exod 22:26–27; 23:10–11; Lev 25:4–6; Deut 15:11).262 257

OTP reads: “among those who know your righteous judgments” (OTP 2:656). OTP reads: “For you are good and merciful, the shelter of the poor” (OTP 2:656). 259 OTP reads: “And you will listen. For who is good and kind but you, making the humble person happy by opening your hand in mercy?” (OTP 2:657). 260 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 104. 261 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 104, including n. 1. 262 See Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 105–107. 258

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 129

As we have come to realize, the Jewish understanding of God’s righteousness within antiquity, especially in comparison to Roman society, was rather unique. The general view of poverty in the ancient world was not that it was an economic problem but rather a moral and political difficulty. In Roman classical literature it was characteristic that the actual majority of the population, the poor and needy, were simply denied a designation and were not considered true members of society.263 In Judaism God’s approach to the poor is noticeably different and God therefore requires that within Israel the poor and needy are treated well. Thus, the psalmist is sure that God – who is strong, mighty, and rich – will protect all who need God’s protection and seek refuge in the Lord. Therefore, the author called God to be “kind and merciful” (crhsto.j kai. evleh,mwn) and emphasized God’s physical care and protection of the poor and needy (Pss. Sol. 5:3, 5, 11, 12). Although not all who receive good blessing from the Lord will listen to the poor and needy, especially kings and rulers, the psalmist is aware that really only God will listen, because God is good and gentle (v. 12; cf. Ps 85:5 [LXX]; 104:27–28; Deut 15:11). The author knows that humanity’s goodness and help is inconsistent and fleeting – it comes meagerly and is often delayed (v. 13). Contrary to this, God’s help is prompt and generous, and all the devout need to do is look up to the Lord and God will provide.264 So the psalmist, similar to the biblical psalmist in Ps 32:5 [LXX], praises the Lord for God’s kind mercy that extends over all the earth (v. 15). In this psalm the community of the psalmist represents the group of the righteous and expresses its real knowledge of God and God’s righteous judgments (v. 1). In other words, it “alone has real knowledge and a true theology” (evpista,menoi ta. kri,mata sou).265 Among the righteous the poor and the needy, designated as ptwco,j (vv. 2, 11; cf. Pss. Sol. 10:6; 15:1; 18:2), pe,nhj (v. 11) and tapeino,j (v. 12), are also counted. This group is fully aware of its dependence on God’s mercy. They admit they could commit a sin; however, this is only hypothetical – something they would do under pressure if the Lord had not prevented it (v. 6). I agree with Winninge that the righteousness in verse 17 (occurs twice) stresses the ethical 263 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 106. See also P. Veyne, “The Roman Empire,” in vol. 1 of A History of Private Life: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium (ed. P. Veyne; Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1987), 119–20; R. P. Saller, “Poverty, Honor and Obligation in Imperial Rome,” Criterion 37.2 (1998): 12–20; R. MacMullen, “Lexicon of Snobbery,” in idem, Roman Social Relations, 50 B.C. to A.D. 284 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), 138–41, 115– 19. Stated by Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 106, nn. 7, 8, 9. 264 OTP 2:657. 265 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 111.

130 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics aspect of the psalm, as in Ps 37:16; Prov 15:16; 16:18; Tob 12:8–10. Therefore, it is a behavioral reality (cf. Pss. Sol. 9:3; 14:2) and means that the pious Jews belonging to the category of Israel must try to live righteously (see v. 17).266 The psalmist also knows that those who are excessively rich are in danger of sin, meaning they can sin on account of their wealth (v. 16), which corresponds to the idea of the poor and the needy, who are accounted for among the righteous. The term “poor” does not have to be a religious term for the designation of a particular group within Israel, for example the Essenes.267 Mikael Winninge remarks on the subject that the religious usage of this designation (~ynwyba) was applicable for more than one particular religious group and also that it refers to the usage of this designation in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Gal 2:10) with its application to the first Christian community in Jerusalem.268 This presupposition is also supported by the text of Pss. Sol. 5 itself, where references to the poor and needy mean real poverty and, at a minimum, temporary distress (vv. 11–12; cf. Pss. Sol. 16:13–14).269 This psalm expresses the strong affiliation of the community of devout and pious Jews gathered around the psalmist with the Lord as well as their faith and fidelity to God in all circumstances. This fact confirms that the psalmist is increasing the emphasis on the steadfastness, faithfulness, and devoutness of the community in the process of preparation to the climax point of history – the Days of Messiah. Therefore, as in the other psalms of this collection, this psalm also stresses the message of the author in regards to messianic ethics as an ever-present element of his message, as well as constituting a focal point of the collection. 2.3.6 Psalms of Solomon 7 This psalm can be characterized as a cry for deliverance in the face of the oncoming gentile assault. In the entire psalm God’s mercy is mentioned only three times (Pss. Sol. 7:5, 6, 10) and God’s discipline only twice (Pss.

266 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 112. See also Holm-Nielsen, “Salomos Salmer,” 571; Ryle and James, Psalmoi Solomontos, 62–63; Viteau, Les Psaumes de Salomon, 285. 267 This opinion is held by Pierre Prigent, who is convinced that the term “poor” in the Psalms of Solomon is a religious word like in Qumran and in this connection refers to 1QM 11:9, 13; 13:14; 1QH 5:16, 18, 22, etc. See Prigent, “Psaumes de Salomon,” 958– 59, 964. 268 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 113. 269 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 113, including n. 32.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 131

Sol. 7:3, 9) by the psalmist, which can be considered a main theme of the psalm. The first verse is the author’s pleading that God not depart from Israel in the challenging situation of an oncoming assault from the Gentiles (Pss. Sol. 7:1). The next two verses are the plea of the psalmist God’s help, while the author asks God about God’s discipline (Pss. Sol. 7:2–3). The author distinguishes between evil that comes from the Gentiles and the punishment of God, whose aim is to rectify the nation. God’s discipline is a contradiction to the destructive wrath of the Gentiles. Besides this, the psalmist states that his trust in God could protect the community of the devout and that he is convinced that all is in God’s hands and under God’s guidance (even the affliction of death could be understood as a way to preserve the community), which is for the author the assurance of God’s mercy (Pss. Sol. 7:4–6). The author believes that God will respond to the prayer and will have compassion on the nation of Israel and will not reject them (Pss. Sol. 7:7–8). Then, he again stresses that the righteous are under God’s discipline (Pss. Sol. 7:9–10). The psalmist’s emphasis on God’s mercy is expressed in verses 5–6, and 10:270 5

6

5

6

o[ti su. evleh,mwn\ kai. ouvk ovrgisqh,sh| tou/ suntele,sai h`ma/j\ VEn tw/| kataskhnou/n to. o;noma, sou evn me,s w| h`mw/n evlehqhso,meqa\ kai. ouvk ivscu,sei pro.j h`ma/j e;qnoj\ Because you are kind, and you would not be angry enough to destroy us. While your name lives among us, we will receive mercy; and the Gentiles will not defeat us.

10

kateuqunei/j h`ma/j evn kairw/| avntilh,yew,j sou\ tou/ evleh/sai to.n oi=kon VIakw.b eivj h`me,ran evn h-| evphggei,lw auvtoi/j\

10

For your help will direct us at the right time, 271 to show mercy to the house of Jacob for the day when you promised it to them.

The motif of verses 5–6 is the same as we find in Lev 26:44, as well as in Jer 3:12 (cf. Bar 4:6). The author is certain that the Lord’s discipline will not result in the whole destruction of those who are under God’s protection.272 Here the author probably reflected upon a previous catastrophe 270

For text-critical and philological notes, as well as variant readings of particular verses of this section, see R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 108–11. For an intertextual commentary on these verses, see Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 140–43, 144–46. 271 OTP reads: “You will direct us in the time of your support” (OTP 2:658). 272 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 141.

132 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics during the Babylonian assault on Jerusalem in the sixth century BCE (cf. Jer 15:20), and he is confident that God ultimately will preserve Jerusalem from the foreign nations (cf. 2 Chr 14:11 [LXX]; Ps 13:4 [LXX]; Jer 1:19; 15:20; 20:11; Dan 7:21 [LXX]). Jerusalem will never be utterly rejected by God.273 In this regard the afflictions, or pestilence (v. 4), could also serve as a good for God’s pious and righteous.274 God’s past promises about the protection of the nation, which are the result of God’s covenant with Israel (cf. Deut 12:11; 16:6), are for the psalmist a sufficient basis for his confidence that God will never destroy Israel, which is also the particular stamp of God’s mercy. In the nation’s time of restoration to its former glory, the devout and pious have to accept God’s punishment as discipline in order to atone for their sins. The tenth and concluding verse recalls Ezekiel’s message about Israel’s fall and subsequent restoration (Ezek 20:5 [LXX]). The mention of the house of Jacob alludes to the story about Jacob’s dream at Bethel where God is promising Jacob that the Lord will be with him and never leave him until God’s promises to him are accomplished (Gen 28:15).275 Kenneth Atkinson notes that the reason the psalmist used the word “house” was not only for its biblical connotations but also as a demonstration that Israel is still under the protection of God’s contract, which is a result of the enduring character of God’s covenant to which God will remain faithful and will protect Israel.276 The righteous in this psalm are called “we” (h`mei/j in vv. 1, 3–7, 9–10) and identified with the Israel-group, or the house of Jacob (vv. 8, 10). As Mikael Winninge remarks, Israel in this psalm is a

273

Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 143. R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:658, remarks in this regard that the allusion to death with special instruction for the devout in verse 4 could be related to the Book of Exodus, particularly to the tenth plague (Exod 11:1–10; 12:29–36). He argues: “The idiom ‘threat of death’ conveys the two-stage process of (1) death being sent and (2) death claiming its victims. Here the first occurs, but the devout are spared the second.” Opposed to Wright, Ryle and James, Psalmoi Solomontos, 63, 71, proposed that the author alluded to the saying of the plague during David’s reign (2 Sam 24:10–16; 1 Chr 21:15) and that the Greek word qa,natoj represents the Hebrew rbd (de-ver), which here means “pestilence.” Similarly, Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 115, n. 45, argued in favor of this interpretation of this section as an allusion to David’s choice between famine, foes, and pestilence as a punishment for his sins (2 Sam 24:10– 16). Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 141, notes that this thesis is supported also by the Septuagint’s translation of the Hebrew word rbd as qa,natoj (cf. Lev 26:25; Jer 21:6; Ezek 6:12; 12:16; 14:19; Amos 4:10; 2 Chr 7:13). 275 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 146. 276 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 146. 274

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 133

more inclusive category and is described as an object of God’s actions. Only in verse 7 do they take action through their calling upon the Lord.277 On the other side, the Gentiles, particularly the Romans, clearly represent the negative group, meaning the sinners (vv. 3, 6).278 From the psalmist’s perspective, it would seem that they will be rejected by God in principle since they are not the elect, as Winninge and Schüpphaus suggest.279 However, when we take into consideration the entire content of the hymnbook, it is clear that the Gentiles who also respect and fear God will be saved. From this particular content it is clear that in this psalm the main character is God, called by the psalmist “the God” (o` qeo,j in vv. 1–2), “you” (su, in vv. 2–10), and “protector” of the righteous (u`peraspisth,j in v. 7). The author is sure that God will hear the prayer of the righteous and show forth God’s mercy (vv. 7–8, 10). God’s faithfulness to the covenant is also a very important element of Paul’s message where all decisive parts are centered in the fulfilling of God’s promises given to Israel through the covenant (see Rom 3:21–31; 9– 11). This is the very core of what Paul means in his references to God’s righteousness manifested throughout the history of humankind, culminating in the event of Jesus Christ, for all who fear God and worship God in faith and humility as the ones who could be saved in the time of the Last Judgment. 2.3.7 Psalms of Solomon 8 Since in Pss. Sol. 7 – which can be characterized as a cry for deliverance in the face of an oncoming gentile assault – there is nothing said directly about the concept of God’s righteousness,280 we will now focus on the next (eighth) psalm.281 This psalm shows the aim of the author to prove God right in the situation of an approaching war. There is a broad consensus among scholars that the historical allusions in this psalm, just as in Pss. Sol. 2, fit the time of Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem (see Ant. 14.3.1 §§ 34–79; J.W. 1.131– 277 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 114. See also Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 135. 278 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 115; Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 135; Viteau, Les Psaumes de Salomon, 288; Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos, 43; Holm-Nielsen, “Salomos Salmer,” 572. 279 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 115; Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos, 43; against Viteau, Les Psaumes de Salomon, 288–89. 280 God’s mercy is mentioned only three times by the psalmist (Pss. Sol. 7:5, 6, 10) and the concept of God’s discipline twice (Pss. Sol. 7:3, 9). 281 For Pss. Sol. 7, see Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 134–48; Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 114–17.

134 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics 158; cf. also Dio’s Roman History 37.16; Plutarch’s Lives: Pompey 39, 45).282 From verse 15 onwards, allusions to particular historical events become more obvious and concrete.283 The first thirteen verses constitute one long unit, within which the author first expresses his own grief and distress brought about by the approaching war, slaughter, and destruction (vv. 1–6) and then reflects upon the sinfulness of the inhabitants of Jerusalem with a variety of cultic and sexual transgressions (vv. 7–13). Verses 14–22 are a description of the consequences of this situation – full of historical allusions. The following verses (23–24) can be considered a historical summary of the horrible events with the aim of justifying God’s actions against the sinfulness of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, a fact which is proved by the doxology in verse 24 praising God’s righteousness despite this catastrophe. The next verses (25–33) are the psalmist’s prayer for mercy and deliverance from gentile oppressors using clear covenantal language (cf. Pss. Sol. 2:32–36; 9:8–10). The covenantal motif comes to the fore here, especially in verses 31–33, where the psalmist reminds God of his covenantal duties, and at the same time, as a consequence of the covenant, the psalmist confesses the promises of the devout for the future. The psalm concludes with a final doxology (v. 34) with a similar motif as the previous one.284 Pss. Sol. 8 and Pss. Sol. 2 contain passages that correspond to one another.285 Mikael Winninge remarks that in both psalms there is a didactic aim in the recurrent theme of proving the Lord right (Pss. Sol. 8:7, 8b, 23– 26).286 The author performs here on behalf of a distinctive religious community that considers itself the righteous and identifies as the pious of God (vv. 23–24) and of Israel (vv. 26, 28, 34).287 The author’s community thus distinguishes itself from the sinners in Jerusalem. The sinners in this psalm 282 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 63. For the differing opinion that this psalm refers to the Syrian wars during the Maccabean period, see Frankenberg, Die Datierung der Psalmen Salomos, 27–32. 283 Pompey was received by the officials of the nation with open arms (vv. 15–18), which caused destruction, death, and deportation (vv. 19–21). See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 63; Ryle and James, Psalmoi Solomontos, 73. 284 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 153–54; Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 60; Holm-Nielsen, “Salomos Salmer,” 573; Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos, 44–50; Ryle and James, Psalmoi Solomontos, 84–85. 285 Compare particularly Pss. Sol. 2:3 with 8:8, 12; Pss. Sol. 2:6 with 8:21; Pss. Sol. 2:9 with 8:13; Pss. Sol. 2:17 with 8:8. For similarities between particular verses and a discussion of common vocabulary within these two psalms (Pss. Sol. 2 and 8), see Ryle and James, Psalmoi Solomontos, 73; Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 68–69; Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 187. 286 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 60. 287 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 154.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 135

are represented by Jerusalem’s sinful population, including the city’s political leadership (vv. 6, 8–10, 12–14, 16, 19–22). Their sins are of cultic nature (vv. 11–12, 22), as well as sexual (vv. 9–10), and the same follows also from an improper display of leadership in the country (v. 17). From the content of verses 16–17, we know that the community behind the author of the Psalms of Solomon were not supporters of Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II, nor of Antipater, and that verse 17 could be insisting that the community be identified with the Pharisees because of severe criticism of Hyrcanus and his group, which corresponds to what we know about the Pharisees from Josephus (Ant. 13.16.6 § 431).288 The psalmist even characterizes the sin of the inhabitants of Jerusalem as worse than the sin of the Gentiles (v. 13). Therefore, God’s justice and righteousness had to be shown by punishing them rightfully (vv. 8, 14–15, 19). The psalmist confirms that God’s judgments are righteous from the beginning, and he himself justifies God in God’s judgments (Pss. Sol. 8:7; cf. Deut 4:32; Job 32:2; Ps 119:52). In this psalm the concept of God’s justice or righteousness and mercy appears in Pss. Sol. 8:8, 23–28.289 8

avneka,luyen o` qeo.j ta.j a`marti,a j auvtw/n evnanti,o n tou/ h`li,ou\ e;gnw pa/sa h` gh/ ta. kri,mata tou/ qeou/ ta. di,kaia\

8

God exposed their sins to the light of the sun; all the earth recognized the righteous judgments of God.

23

VEdikaiw,qh o` qeo.j evn toi/j kri,masin auvtou/ evn toi/j e;qnesin th/j gh/j\ kai. oi` o[sioi tou/ qeou/ w`j avrni,a evn avk aki,a | evn me,sw| auvtw/n\ aivneto.j ku,rioj o` kri,nwn pa/san th.n gh/n evn dikaiosu,nh| auvtou/\ VIdou. dh,\ o` qeo,j\ e;deixaj h`mi/n to. kri,ma sou evn th/| dikaiosu,nh| sou\ ei;dosan oi` ovfqalmoi. h`mw/n ta. kri,mata, sou\ o` qeo,j\ evdikaiw,samen to. o;noma, sou to. e;ntimon eivj aivw/naj\ o[ti su. o` qeo.j th/j dikaiosu,nhj\ kri,nwn to.n VIsrah.l evn paidei,a|\ evpi,streyon\ o` qeo,j\ to. e;leo,j sou evf V h`ma/j kai. oivk tei,rhson h`ma/j\ suna,gage th.n diaspora.n VIsrah.l meta. evle,ouj kai. crhsto,thtoj\ o[ti h` pi,s tij sou meqV h`mw/n

24 25

26

27

28

288

See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 65, 158–70. For text-critical and philological notes as well as the variant readings of particular verses in this section, see R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 114, 120–23. 289

136 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics 23

24 25

26

27

28

God has been shown to be justified in his decisions among the world’s Gentiles, and God’s devout are like innocent lambs among them.290 The Lord is worthy to be praised, who judges the whole earth in his righteousness. See now, O God, you have shown us your righteousness in your judgments. Our own eyes have seen your judgments, O God.291 We have vindicated your name,292 forever honored, because you are a God of justice, judging Israel with discipline.293 O God, turn your mercy toward us, and be compassionate to us: gather the scattered294 of Israel with mercy, and kindness because your faithfulness is with us.

From these verses it is also clear that the theme of judgment is directly connected with God’s righteousness and is one of the most important in the Psalms of Solomon, while the words related to this motif are most common in Pss. Sol. 8 (12 times) and in Pss. Sol. 2 (9 times).295 The author maintains that God’s judgments are justified and righteous and prove that God is righteous. Therefore, the psalmist vindicates God with reference to God’s judging and proves God’s name right (8:7, 26). God’s judgments involve the sinners (8:14–21), who are the inhabitants of Jerusalem in this psalm. However, the sinners also include the Gentiles (17:3) as well as the devout (8:26, 32; also 2:33), but in the case of the devout God’s judgment is regarded as good and is understood as a way to discipline them. God’s discipline must be endured (8:26, 29) mainly because God’s judgment is always rooted in God’s mercy (2:33; 8:26–28, 32). 290 OTP reads: “God was proven right in his condemnation of the nations of the earth, and the devout of God are like innocent lambs among them” (OTP 2:660). 291 Other manuscripts read: “their eyes have seen.” See R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 121, n. 152. 292 In Greek, literally: “we have proven your name to be true.” See R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 123, n. 153. 293 OTP reads: “We have proven your name right, which is honored forever, for you are the God of righteousness, judging Israel in discipline” (OTP 2:660). 294 In Greek, literally: “the dispersion,” which means the diaspora. In this context, however, as R. B. Wright remarks, it doesn’t mean “exile, punishment, and genocide” but “fruitfulness, new growth, and spring,” reflecting Second Isaiah’s saying that “Israel would be a light unto the Gentile nations.” Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 123, n. 154. 295 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 67–68, including nn. 271–275, proves this fact also by means of word statistics which show that the noun kri,ma occurs about 35 times in the Greek Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, out of which some 25 occurrences are in the Psalms of Solomon. In regard to the verb kri,nein, it appears 9 times in this hymnbook out of approximately 60 in the Greek Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. The noun kri,sij occurs 3 times, and krith,j occurs 4 times.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 137

Even in the case of suffering, the devout have to declare God’s judgments righteous (8:26).296 In other words, the devout consider God’s judgments as a means of their discipline, the results of which will be their salvation. They know that God is their savior (v. 33). Verse 8 states that behind the sinfulness of the inhabitants of Jerusalem God’s righteous judgment can be recognized, which is known throughout the whole world (cf. Eccl 1:14; 2:17; 3:16; 4:1, 7; 6:1). Nothing can be hidden before God’s sight. The lawlessness of the people of Jerusalem had provoked God to righteous anger (cf. Jer 44:3). Therefore, God judges all the sins of human beings, which is true also in regard to God’s people Israel. The psalmist continues in the same way in verses 23–24. He declares that God’s righteousness is shown in God’s judgments among the nations of the earth and adds that the devout are like lambs, innocent in their midst (cf. Ezek 22:8; Jer 11:19–20 [LXX]. In verse 23, God is for the first time in the collection the subject of the verb dikaio,w. God is the righteous judge, and God acts in a righteous manner.297 The author emphasizes that God’s character is righteous by nature, not by what God is proven to be.298 As Chris VanLandingham aptly remarks on this matter: “God, who judges in righteousness and who shows judgments in righteousness, is praiseworthy (8:24–25). The psalmist thus states, ‘You are the God of righteousness’ (8:26).”299 In Pss. Sol. 8:25–28, the issue of righteousness and mercy comes most intensely to the fore. Two categories are connected with God (vv. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28) and the devout (vv. 23, 26). Here, the psalmist speaks in the plural form (we), which can be explained likely as his intent to act as the representative of the devout (oi` o[sioi in v. 23). In verse 25, the psalmist declares that the eyes of the devout see God’s righteousness in God’s judgments (cf. Ps 58:11). Here, we can observe the intention of learning from the history of the nation, which is right if it leads to learning a lesson from this example and returning to God. It is the prophetic paradigm where the concept of the punishment of Israel for sinfulness – and redemption for the righteous who repented in Israel – constitutes the theological trajectory of the author’s thoughts.300 The next verse, verse 26, is a declaration of God’s righteousness from the side of the devout who confess that God’s judgments towards them are a means of disciplining Israel, which itself confirms that God is a God of 296

Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 68. See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 266. 298 See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 266. 299 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 266 (emphases are author’s). 300 See Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 92–93. 297

138 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics righteousness (Ps 51:4; Jdt 7:30). Mikael Winninge repeatedly remarks that this distinction, characteristic for this hymnbook, “is something entirely new in comparison with the Hebrew Bible and the Apocrypha.”301 God’s judging activity towards Israel is understood by the psalmist as a discipline (see the use of the terms paideu,w/paidei,a also in Pss. Sol. 3:4; 7:3, 9; 10:2–3; 13:1, 7–10; 16:7–11, 13; 18:7). Also, the discipline of God is the primary motif in Deut 32:10, where the concept of God’s discipline (paidei,an) is associated with the Exodus and the giving of the law.302 Brad Embry concludes here that for the author (or authors) to be disciplined by the Lord means to be led by the Lord, and it seems plausible to suggest that the psalmist understood the Exodus account as an example of God’s simultaneous guidance and discipline.303 From what was said, it is clear for the psalmist that God’s discipline is corrective in its character and expresses God’s aim to bring and keep Israel in the right way of life, which is in accordance with God’s will as expressed in Torah. Verses 27–28, as a result of verses 23–25a where the author is considering God’s condemnation of the nations and God’s judgment of Israel, highlight the psalmist’s prayer for God’s mercy and compassion towards Israel and a hope for the gathering together of the dispersed Israel, with the language implying the shape of a covenantal theology.304 The psalmist expects an eventual restoration of all of Israel to Jerusalem (cf. Isa 41:8–9; 43:3–9; 49:1–6; 51:1–8; Ezek 20:34).305 Here, again, the topic of ethics is a central concern, and since the psalmist’s thoughts turn to ethics step by step in the climax of the hymnbook, which is the expression of the desire of the devout for the coming of the Messiah, we can justifiably speak about messianic ethics. The author in this chapter, as well as in the hymnbook as a whole, reflects on the historical catastrophe of the Roman invasion of Jerusalem by way of a theological reflection upon these events in the context of covenantal obligations contained in the law – as Brad Embry states, by way of “a timeless theological truth.” Embry explains it: The lessons learned through historical events are passed down through the generations as social and cultural identity. In the example from PssSol, however, the authors have taken what are considered to be timeless truths and have projected them on an historical event 301

Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 67. On this issue, see Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 75–78. 303 Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 78. He also adds that the theological significance of the Greek term paideu,w is evident by its use in Deut 32 and elsewhere in the Pentateuch. The opinion that the author of the Psalms of Solomon used the Septuagint as a sourcebook of Old Testament references is also held by R. B. Wright. See Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:640. 304 See also Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 133–37. 305 See Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 174. 302

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 139 in order to explain its occurrence. It is very likely that the authors saw the need to do this because of the severity of the event and the potently unnerving effect it might have on the Jewish religious community. 306

The final part of this psalm (Pss. Sol. 8:29–34) confirms this approach. God is considered as good in all that God is doing in the world. The psalmist confesses that God is the righteous judge of Israel and kind in God’s judgments, with the final verses summarizing all of these elements: God’s righteousness in judging Israel, faithfulness towards God’s pious and devout, and mercifulness in God’s judgments. The psalmist’s covenantal theology is the most obvious in the last two verses (vv. 33–34; cf. Ps 10:6; 119:137; 2 Sam 22:4 [LXX]; Ezek 3:12; Ps 3:9 [LXX]). The psalmist concludes with confessing his steadfast faith that God would ultimately redeem the city. This is despite the fact that the Gentiles still control the city, but after all, Israel is blessed by the Lord forever, since God is the savior of the devout.307 This is an expression of piety and absolute trust in the Lord of Israel, who proves by God’s actions to be the Lord of the whole world. God’s lordship is demonstrated in judging the sinfulness not only of Gentiles but also of Israel, as well as – and mainly – in God’s mercy and compassion towards all those from Israel who are aware of their guilt. The guilty are willingly prepared to repent of their sins and can therefore confess God’s judgments as a rightful discipline. Later, the ability to be counted among the devout and pious of God will be broadened to include also the Gentiles who fear God, which is an opportunity given to them by the Lord for the sake of God’s Messiah (Pss. Sol. 17:34). This last reason is typical in the message of the Apostle Paul (Rom 3:21–31; see also 4:11–12; 9:24; 10:12; Gal 3:8). 2.3.8 Psalms of Solomon 9 The psalmist continues in the same spirit in the ninth psalm. This psalm as a whole can be regarded as an appellation of the community behind the psalmist, identified here as Israel. God’s mercy in the face of the threat from the Gentiles, which is done on the pattern of the prophetic paradigm (for example Deut 28 and 32), reminisces about the Babylonian exile as a reminder of the first exodus (v. 1; cf. Deut 9:26; Jer 7:15; Lam 1:18; Ezek 39:23), the causes of which were the people’s neglecting of the Lord the redeemer of Israel and God’s just judgments towards Israel.

306

Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 137. For historical reflections on this psalm, see Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 178–86. 307

140 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics The result of this neglect was the dispersion of Israel as a consequence of their sin (vv. 1–2). The next five verses (vv. 3–7) are the author’s reflection about the justice of God’s judgments and stress the necessity of choosing between a good or a bad way of life, which forms the final destiny of people (vv. 4–5; cf. Deut 30:11–20). Along this path is also the receiving of God’s forgiveness of sins, which requires one to make a confession and to acknowledge those sins (vv. 6–7). Verses 8–10 are the prayer of the psalmist for mercy based on the covenant, and the psalm then concludes with the wish for God’s everlasting mercy on the house of Israel (v. 11).308 Ed Sanders expounded this psalm as exemplifying the “covenantal nomism” pattern of religion.309 Daniel Falk remarks in this context that the psalm “is frequently looked to as the clearest example of God’s mercy earned by conduct.” However, he adds that it is often misunderstood and therefore needs new clarity.310 Mark Seifrid finds in this psalm, particularly in verses 3–7, clear evidence that “the destiny of the individual can be said to be contingent upon behavior.”311 Ryle and James understood this part, especially with the background of the content of verses 4–5, as a statement that the final destiny of every human being depends on his or her way of life, where life will be given for those who do righteousness and death for those who commit sins.312 In this psalm we can observe all the features of the pattern of penitential prayers, which was a typical means of expression and a characteristic literary form of petitioning for God’s grace, mercy, and aid according to the standpoint of the covenantal warnings (for example Lev 26:40–45; Deut 30:1–10; 1 Kgs 8:22–53; Jer 3:12–13; 14:20–21; Ezek 30:10–19) during the Second Temple period.313 The prayer for God’s mercy with reference to the covenant is clearly the central concern of the psalm’s author, which, as Mikael Winninge notes, reaches its climax in verse 8.314 The psalmist ex308 See Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 191–93; Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 70–71. 309 E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 389. 310 Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 41. 311 Seifrid, Justification by Faith, 120. 312 Ryle and James, Psalmoi Solomontos, 89. 313 Falk remarks that the psalm reflects the formal pattern of the penitential supplications: confession of sin (vv. 1–2a); the justice of God’s judgment (vv. 2b–7); recollection of God’s mercies (vv. 9–10); petition for mercy (vv. 8, 11). See Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 42. 314 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 71. Atkinson remarks that although only here in verse 8 the psalmist referred to the gentile threat, “it dominates the entire psalm since the Gentile’s approach prompted the author to compose this work.” Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 193.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 141

presses the belief and the hope of the devout community that the covenant of the Lord’s goodness will be upon those who despite their sinning have shown remorse for their actions (vv. 7, 10). Svend Holm-Nielsen and Mikael Winninge state that the overall theme of this psalm is theodicy, where the motives of confessing Israel’s sin and recognizing God’s righteousness and the emphatic stressing of the hope of the people of Israel in the covenantal faithfulness of the Lord are a primary focus (cf. Dan 9:1–19).315 God’s justice and righteousness comes to light in Pss. Sol. 9:2, 4, 5, while God’s mercy plays a central role in vv. 8 and 11, on the basis of the covenant (vv. 9–10).316 2

evn panti. e;qnei h` diaspora. tou/ VIsrah.l kata. to. r`h/ma tou/ qeou/\ i[na dikaiwqh/|j\ o` qeo,j\ evn th/| dikaiosu,nh| sou evn tai/j avnomi,aij h`mw/n\ o[ti su. krith.j di,kaioj evpi. pa,ntaj tou.j laou.j th/j gh/j\317

2

Israel was scattered318 in every gentile nation, as God had spoken: that you may be proven right in this matter, O God: in your justice and in our lawlessness; 319 because you are a righteous judge over all the peoples of the earth.

4

Ta. e;rga h`mw/n evn evklogh/| kai. evxousi,a| th/j yuch/j h`mw/n\ tou/ poih/sai dikaiosu,nhn kai. avdiki,an evn e;rgoij ceirw/n h`mw/n\ kai. evn th/| dikaiosu,nh| sou evpiske,pth| ui`o u.j avnqrw,pwn\ o` poiw/n dikaiosu,nhn qhsauri,zei zwh.n au`tw/| para. kuri,w|\ kai. o` poiw/n avdiki,an\ auvto.j ai;tioj th/j yuch/j evn avpwlei,a |\ ta. ga.r kri,mata kuri,ou evn dikaiosu,nh| katV a;ndra kai. oi=kon)320

5

315

Holm-Nielsen, “Salomos Salmer,” 576; Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 71. For text-critical and philological notes as well as the variant readings of the particular verses of this section, see R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 126–33. 317 Cf. Isa 11:12 [LXX]; Ps 9:8; 51:4; 58:11. On the intertextual commentary of this verse see Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 195–97. 318 For the meaning of the Greek term “diaspora,” see above the explanation of Pss. Sol. 8:28 (n. 294). 319 OTP reads: “The dispersion of Israel (was) among every nation, according to the saying of God: That your righteousness might be proven right, O God, in our lawless actions” (OTP 2:660). 320 Cf. Deut 30:11–20; 32:34; Prov 2:7 [LXX]; Ps 98:9; Tob 4:9. For the intertextual commentary on this section, see Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 197–203. 316

142 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics 4

5

8

9

10

11 8

9

10

11

We are free to choose and do what we will to do right or wrong in how we live our lives; in your justice you watch mortals closely.321 Those who do what is right save up life for themselves with the Lord, and those doing what is wrong cause their own lives to be destroyed; for the Lord’s righteous judgments come down on man and household.322 Kai. nu/n su. o` qeo,j kai. h`mei/j lao,j o]n hvga,phsaj\ ivde. kai. oivk tei,rhson\ o` qeo.j VIsrah.l\ o[ti soi, evs men\ kai. mh. avposth,sh|j e;leo,j sou avfV h`mw/n\ i[na mh. evpiqw/ntai h`mi/n\323 o[ti su. h`|reti,sw to. spe,rma VAbraa.m para. pa,nta ta. e;q nh\ kai. e;qou to. o;noma, sou evf V h`ma/j ku,rie\ kai. ouvk katapau,seij eivj to.n aivw/na\324 evn diaqh,k h| die,qou toi/j patra,sin h`mw/n peri. h`mw/n\ kai. h`mei/j evlpiou/men evpi. se. evn evpistrofh/| yuch/j h`mw/n\325 tou/ kuri,ou h` evlehmosu,nh evpi. oi=k on VIsrah.l eivj to.n aivw/na kai. e;ti:326 Now, then, you are God and we are the people whom you have loved: Look, and be compassionate, O God of Israel, because we are yours, and don’t take away your mercy from us, lest they set upon us. Because you have chosen the descendants of Abraham over all other nations; you put your name upon us, O Lord, and that will not cease for ever. You made a covenant with our ancestors about us, and we will place our hope in you, when we turn ourselves towards you.327 May the Lord’s mercy be upon the house of Israel forever and ever.

The perspective in this psalm is clearly Deuteronomistic, judging from the author’s emphasis on covenantal language (vv. 8–10), as we also could observe in the second (Pss. Sol. 2:32–36) and in the eighth psalm (Pss. Sol. 8:25–33).328 On the basis of the demonstration of God’s justice and right321

OTP reads: “Our works (are) in the choosing and power of our souls, to do right and wrong in the works of our hands, and in your righteousness you oversee human beings” (OTP 2:660). 322 OTP reads: “for the Lord’s righteous judgments are according to the individual and the household” (OTP 2:660). 323 Cf. Ps 39:12 [LXX]; 90:13. 324 Cf. Neh 9:7; Ps 43:24 [LXX]; 76:8 [LXX]; Lam 3:31. For an intertextual commentary on verses 8–9, see Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 205–206. 325 Cf. Gen 15:18; Ps 105:8–9; Jer 31:32; Ezek 39:25. 326 Cf. Ps 51:1; 123:3; Ezek 39:25. For an intertextual commentary on verses 10–11, see Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 206–207. 327 The Greek text reads: “when we turn our soul to you,” “in the conversion of our soul.” R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 133, n. 176. Cf. R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:661. 328 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 71.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 143

eousness (v. 2), as well as of God’s mercy (vv. 8, 11), it is clear that the people – the wicked as well as the righteous – are without excuse before God (vv. 3–6) because all have sinned, a motif which plays an important role in the message of the Apostle Paul and constitutes the point of departure for his doctrine of justification (Rom 3:23). Moreover, the author stresses the significant fact that the nation of Israel not only transgressed God’s commandments but had willfully sinned because they believed that their actions were hidden from the Lord.329 The reminiscing about the Babylonian captivity – along with the reminder of the first exodus in verse 1 and the reference to an increased Jewish diaspora in verse 2 – are presented by the author as a result of the sin of Israel, which is a common feature of the prophetic paradigm. Among other interesting topics in this psalm is a detailed description of the Israel-group.330 This includes the psalmist’s community as well as others from the nation. The psalmist’s community is designated explicitly as oi` o[sioi, sou = the righteous or pious of God (Pss. Sol. 9:3), h`mei/j lao,j o]n hvga,phsaj = the people whom you [God] have loved (v. 8), oi` evpikalou,menoi to.n ku,rion = those who appeal to the Lord (v. 6), di,kaioi = the righteous, and a`marta,nontaj evn metamelei,a| = those that sin with repentance (v. 7). In some places nondescript, general terms are used to include both the psalmist’s community as well as the entire nation: o` poiw/n = the one or the somebody who do …, avnhr kai. oi=koj = man and [his] household (v. 5), h`mei/j = we (vv. 4, 6, 10), to. spe,rma VAbraa,m = the descendants of Abraham (v. 9), and pate,rej h`mw/n = our ancestors (v. 10). The question that then presents itself is whether the author did this intentionally. Mikael Winninge believes that this vagueness can be explained as the author’s intention to avoid too harsh an identification due to the sinfulness of all Israel before the Lord, which may be alluded to in verse 7 where the psalmist speaks about “the sinfully righteous.”331 This is a clear mark of the covenantal language and theology of the author. However, the psalmist also emphasized an individual’s responsibility for his or her life before God (vv. 4–5). These two verses are very important in this context. Every person determines their own destiny by means of the moral quality of their life, particularly when they do what is clearly right or wrong. This fact is expressed by the author as a transactional comparison of human deeds to a bank account or the treasury of

329

Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 191. See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 71, n. 288. 331 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 72.

330

144 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics merits.332 The pious accumulate righteousness and the wicked deposit transgressions.333 It all has to be understood as the consequences of the covenantal relationship with the Lord and not as receiving merits before God that decide the final destiny of human beings. Nor is it righteousness attained by works, understood traditionally as a meritorious human performance before God.334 Mikael Winninge stresses on this subject that “the idea of laying up a good treasure for oneself with the Lord occurs in both Jewish and Christian texts.”335 Besides other things, even in this argument, he continues that “[i]t is wrong to subordinate statements of God’s grace and mercy to statements of human self-righteousness and salvation attained by works.”336 The author simply wants to express the decisive fact that everything in the world is under God’s sight and that God is keeping an eye on humanity in righteousness (v. 4). The stress of the psalmist on free will and human responsibility, which are elementary features of messianic ethics, expresses an apocalyptic view of history with a belief that events will soon culminate with the coming of God’s Messiah. Therefore, emphasizing the doctrine of predestination337 as a leading motif of the psalmist in the composition of this particular psalm is not necessary, even though the belief is expressed by the author through predestination.338 The conditions are universal and relate to all humankind. All are responsible for the quality of their life, while those in relationship with the Lord by the covenant – meaning Israel – have to keep in mind that their status brings them benefits but also a larger responsibility before God. Therefore, the psalmist’s explicit nomenclature for the covenantal obligations of both – the nation as well as the Lord – results in an awareness on the part of the devout that they too, not only Gentiles or the wicked in Israel, are sinners and are thus equally under God’s judgment. 332

On the treasury of merits, see G. W. Buchanan, The Consequences of the Covenant (NovTSup 20; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 156–59. Cited by Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 191, n. 1. 333 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 191. 334 This view was promoted especially by H. Braun, “Vom Erbarmen Gottes über den Gerechten: Zur Theologie der Psalmen Salomos.” ZNW 43 (1950–51): 1–54. Similarly Seifrid, Justification by Faith, 109–33. Opposing this view is E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 395–96; Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos, 51. See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 74–75. 335 Wis 5:15; Sir 17:22; Tob 4:7–11; Matt 6:1–4, 19–21; cf. Rom 2:5–11. Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 74. 336 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 74–75. 337 So proposed by Prigent, “Psaumes de Salomon,” 972–74, who was influenced by the conviction that Psalms of Solomon was composed by the Essenes. 338 See Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 199.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 145

The devout are also described (in v. 7) as those who have sinned (h`ma,rtosan, h`marthko,tej), but they sin with remorse (a`marta,nontaj evn metamelei,a|). There is here an important proposal on the generality of sin, as well as the idea that sinning is also a continuous problem for the devout.339 However, the psalmist is aware and convinced that all who sin with remorse and confess their sins could receive God’s forgiveness, which is a manifestation of God’s grace and mercy. Along with Israel, there is another group that includes the righteous as well as sinners – the Gentiles (pa/n e;qnoj, oi` laoi, in v. 2; ta. e;qnh in v. 9). In verse 8 the psalmist pleads with the Lord not to remove God’s mercy from the seed of Abraham, lest they, the Gentiles, assail them. The fact that these sinners are mentioned as Gentiles is clear from the following two verses (9–10) where the psalmist appeals to the covenant and its obligations and calls them the nations who are not under the protection of God’s covenant.340 The author stresses the fact that the covenant, as well as Israel’s covenantal obligations, has an eternal nature.341 It is remarkable that the Gentiles, outside of the suggestion of hostility in verse 8, are not mentioned negatively. The psalmist finally concludes in verse 11 with a wish that the mercy of the Lord remain forever upon Israel. This wish confirms the psalmist’s assurance that God will remain faithful to the promises of the covenant. A decisive factor in the psalmist’s thought process in this psalm is the eschatological view of any developments that might have universal implications. The contemporary situation of the psalmist and his community, as well as the events of the imminent assault of the Romans, are here reflected upon in light of events in their past, particularly the Babylonian exile, which was a consequence of the sinfulness of the nation. And similar to that situation, the nation once again sinned.342 In the description of the themes that reference the Israel-group, we can see this logical progression. Mikael Winninge expressed it as follows: “In the past sin resulted in exile, but in the present sin may lead to remorse and confession, and for the 339 This is confirmed by the participle a`marta,nontaj in the present tense. See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 76. See also Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 204. 340 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 192, n. 2, remarks that the word is rendered “covenant” and has the Hebrew root (tyrb), which in modern translations is translated either “treaty” or “contract.” He himself prefers the term “contract.” 341 See Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 74. 342 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 193, argues that although the gentile threat was only mentioned in Pss. Sol. 9:8, it dominates the entire psalm since the Gentiles’ approach prompted the author to compose this work.

146 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics future there is hope in the Lord.”343 It is clear that in this progression, as well as in the following train of thought in the following passages of the hymnbook, the psalmist’s specific hope is for a turn of events, which will be brought by the Days of Messiah. The messianic ethics is the central point of departure for the psalmist’s theological thinking. God’s justice and righteousness, as well as God’s mercy, are manifested in God’s redemption (Pss. Sol. 9:1), judgments (vv. 2, 5), supervision (v. 4), forgiveness (vv. 6–7), and election (vv. 8– 10). Behind these main themes we can see the main character and meaning of God’s designation krith.j di,kaioj (v. 2; cf. Pss. Sol. 2:18) and also the character of the relationship between God’s righteousness and mercy and the free will and responsibility of human beings. God’s righteousness is manifested in God’s judging activity in the world as a whole. God’s punishment demonstrates God’s righteousness (cf. 3 Kgdms [LXX] 8:32; Rom 3:26).344 God accounts for each and every one by the same standards derived from God’s own righteousness. This is related to God’s creation at the very core of the Torah, which is God’s commandments (Decalogue). Righteousness is not an abstract concept but something that is real and that must be manifested within the relationships between God and human beings, which is visible in the act of God’s election of Israel to be God’s own nation and “treasured possession” (Exod 19:5; Deut 7:6; 14:2), with the special purpose of becoming a light to the nations (see Isa 49:6), meaning that she “would play a critical role in God’s plan for redemption.”345 The act of electing Israel for this special purpose is at the same time a manifestation of God’s mercy, along with God’s other actions: redemption, supervision – including judgment and punishment – and forgiveness. God’s justice, righteousness, grace, and mercy are paramount. It must be stressed here that the very core of God’s justice or righteousness is the expression and manifestation of the Lord’s grace and mercy, which create the conditions and even the very possibility for repentance and for acting in accordance with God’s will (cf. Wis 11:23). Thus, the responsibility of human beings for their way of life and the consequences resulting from it are related to God’s righteousness and mercy. Behind the theme of the covenant, which is dealt with at the beginning of verses 8–10, is a connection to another important theme: the forgiveness of sins (vv. 6–7). Mikael Winninge and Kenneth Atkinson pointed out the similarity between the combination of these concepts in the significant

343

Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 72. See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 266. 345 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 253. 344

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 147

words of Jer 31:31–34 about a “new covenant” in the future (cf. Isa 59:20– 21).346 The idea of a merciful God and God’s people (Jer 31:33) is similar to the statement of Pss. Sol. 9:8. In Jer 31:34 the prophet writes that God forgives them their iniquity and remembers their sins no more, which is a similar idea to the statements of Pss. Sol. 9:6–7.347 In the context of these particular verses, as well as in the psalm as a whole, we can observe the connections between the concepts of God’s justice, righteousness, and mercy with the covenantal obligations and human sinfulness. The author emphasized here that the doctrines of human free will include the responsibilities that result from it – election and atonement. Along with these doctrines, the thought about predestination also appears. In this context, it should be noted that God’s foreknowledge and the free will of human beings were not necessarily in contradiction with one another. Rather, it is a philosophical question. The words of Rabbi Akiba who said: “Everything is seen and freedom of choice is given” (m. ʾAbot 3:16) confirm this presupposition.348 The theological perspective of the psalmist’s statements about predestination in this chapter (Pss. Sol. 9) can be described as follows: despite the fact that God is omniscient and has foreknowledge about everything in nature, human free will and human responsibility for their own actions still remain valid and have a binding function for everyone. In this context, Kenneth Atkinson remarks that the ninth chapter of the Psalms of Solomon “should be viewed as an additional example of an early belief in the doctrine of predestination which was also shared by other Jewish communities and which later influenced the early Christian movement.”349 The text of Jer 31:31–34 and all of these concepts and thoughts – particularly the emphases on election and covenant, including its obligations (2 Cor 3:1–18; Rom 9:6–13; 11:1–12, 25–27), free will, and the responsibility of everyone’s actions before God (Rom 1:18–32; 2:1–11, 12–29) as well as the thought of predestination (Rom 8:28–30) – are significant for the theological thinking of the Apostle Paul, especially in the eschatological context and in his doctrine of justification.

346

Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 75. Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 204. 347 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 75. 348 This quotation is cited by Kenneth Atkinson, including commentary on them by E. E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), 257–58, which echoes in many respects the theological perspective of Pss. Sol. 9. In Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 207–208. 349 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 208.

148 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics 2.3.9 Psalms of Solomon 10 After stressing the everlasting effect of the covenant and wishing that the mercy of the Lord would remain forever upon Israel, the psalmist expresses his strong faith and assurance about God’s grace and mercy with a joyful hymn to the Lord. The hymn describes the relationship between discipline and the righteous, the climax of which is again the emphasis on ethics – in staying on the right path of life. The two primary motifs are visible in the structure of this psalm. The first is God’s righteousness and mercifulness, which for the author are manifested in the process of discipline for the devout. The second is the promise of the devout to praise the Lord.350 Discipline is described as a purification or as a cleansing from sin (kaqarisqh/nai avpo. a`marti,aj in v. 1). The first two verses are a statement from the author about God’s blessing, which the devout receive in chastisement. And the willingness to endure God’s discipline can be regarded as a stamp of the righteous person (Pss. Sol. 10:1–2; Ps 119:68; 145:9). In the next two verses (Pss. Sol. 10:3–4), the psalmist states that the discipline of the Lord helps the pious to return to the proper way of life in accordance with God’s will, which means that God assists the pious in the process of rectification (v. 3). Moreover, the author is sure that this discipline represents the continuance of God’s enduring covenant because God’s watching over the righteous as well as punishing them is in accordance with the conditions of God’s covenant with Israel (v. 4).351 Here, we can observe an emphasis upon God’s will as described in the Torah, which is a testimony to God’s faithfulness as well as to the covenant itself, while the testimony of the Lord declares that God will supervise the ways of human beings. Since God’s judgments are just and holy, it follows that the devout would continue to praise the Lord (v. 10:5). It would be realized not only in individual praise but also in the collective praise of the devout gathering to worship (v. 6). In this verse, the psalmist also mentions God’s mercy to the poor, which could mean the physical poverty of the author’s community or the poor in a broader sense.352 Also these poor who are righteous will continue to praise and glorify the name of the Lord in the assemblies of Israel (v. 7). The psalmist concludes with an appeal that the salvation of the Lord be upon the house of Israel for everlasting joy (v. 8). 350 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 78, n. 322; Holm-Nielsen, “Salomos Salmer,” 578. 351 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 211. 352 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 211, suggests that the author is referring to the poor in his own community.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 149

The references to God’s justice or righteousness and mercy occur in verses 3–7 of the psalm. On account of the psalm’s brevity as well as the close interrelation of the verses within the psalm, we can reproduce the psalm as a whole.353 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

2

3

4

5

Maka,rioj avnh,r ou- o` ku,rioj evmnh,sqh evn evlegmw/|\ kai. evkuklw,qh avpo. o`dou/ ponhra/j evn ma,s tigi\ kaqarisqh/nai avpo. a`marti,aj tou/ mh. plhqu/nai\ o` e`toima,z wn nw/ton eivj ma,s tigaj kaqarisqh,setai\ crhsto.j ga.r o` ku,rioj toi/j u`pome,nousin paidei,a n) ovrqw,sei ga.r o`dou.j dikai,wn kai. ouv diastre,yei evn paidei,a |\ kai. to. e;leoj kuri,ou evpi. tou.j avgapw/ntaj auvto.n evn avlhqei,a|\ kai. mnhsqh,setai ku,rioj tw/n dou,lwn auvtou/ evn evle,ei\ h` ga.r marturi,a evn no,mw| diaqh,k hj aivwni,o u\ h` marturi,a kuri,ou evpi. o`dou.j avnqrw,pwn evn evpiskoph/|\ Di,kaioj kai. o[sioj o` ku,rioj h`mw/n evn kri,masin auvtou/ eivj to.n aivw/na\ kai. VIsrah.l aivne,sei tw/| ovno,mati kuri,ou evn euvf rosu,nh|\ kai. o[sioi evxomologh,sontai evn evk klhsi,a | laou/\ kai. ptwcou.j evleh,sei o` qeo.j evn euvfrosu,nh| VIsrah.l\ o[ti crhsto.j kai. evleh,mwn o` qeo.j eivj to.n aivw/na\ kai. sunagwgai. VIsrah.l doxa,sousin to. o;noma kuri,ou) tou/ kuri,ou h` swthri,a evpi. oi=k on VIsrah.l eivj euvfrosu,nhn aivw,nion) Happy is the person whom the Lord remembers with punishment, and who has been restrained from going the wrong way with a whip, to be cleansed from sin that it will not increase. Those who prepare their back for the whips will be cleansed, for the Lord is kind to those who endure discipline. For he will set straight the ways of the righteous, and will not lead them astray by discipline,354 and the mercy of the Lord is upon those who truly love him. The Lord will remember his servants with compassion,355 for the testimony is in the Torah of the eternal covenant, this testimony of the Lord is found in the lives of persons under his watchful care.356 Our Lord is just and holy in his judgments forever, and Israel will joyfully praise the Lord’s name. 353

For text-critical and philological notes as well as the variant readings of Pss. Sol. 10, see R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 134–37. For an analysis and intertextual commentary on this psalm, see Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 209–21; Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos, 53–55. 354 OTP reads: “and will not bend (them) by discipline” (OTP 2:661). 355 OTP reads: “And the Lord will remember his servants in mercy” (OTP 2:661). 356 OTP reads: “and the testimony of the Lord (is) in the ways of men in (his) supervision” (OTP 2:661).

150 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics 6

7

8

And the devout will celebrate in the assembly of the people, 357 and God will be merciful to the poor to the joy of Israel, because God always is kind and merciful, and the synagogues of Israel will glorify the Lord’s name. May the Lord’s salvation cover the house of Israel to bring unending joy. 358

The psalmist wanted to stress the importance of his own community, who were the devout and righteous due to God’s goodness and mercy. But he also wanted to stress the importance of Israel, which is visible in the second half of the psalm (vv. 5–8). Especially significant is his characteristic of the devout: the willingness to endure the Lord’s discipline (o` e`toima,zwn nw/ton eivj ma,stigaj; oi` u`pome,nontej paidei,an in v. 2; cf. Pss. Sol. 14:1; 16:5). The psalmist declares all they need to endure, and what they regard as the discipline of the merciful Lord brings them joy because through the discipline of the Lord they are blessed (v. 1).359 The consequence of this is that they will praise the Lord (vv. 5–7). To be blessed means that the devout are aware of their protection from evil behavior through this discipline, which will cleanse them (v. 2).360 The author is further convinced that God’s punishment (v. 1) is a hallmark of God’s mercy.361 This means that God’s discipline (v. 3) of the devout allows others to observe that punishment and mercy belong together. Again we observe a significant feature of this hymnbook: that God is just, righteous, and holy in God’s judgments (v. 5). The character of this psalm, similarly to the previous one, proves that the designations of the righteous include not only the psalmist’s community but also the entire nation, since both are under the everlasting covenant of God with Israel.362 Verse 3 (Pss. Sol. 3)363 confirms that God’s discipline is in accordance with God’s grace and mercy and is an inevitable part of God’s aim in this world to lead the devout to the awareness that they need to choose between two ways of life: to do good – which means to walk on the path of life with the Lord and to let themselves be disciplined by the Lord – or to do evil, which means to be wicked and under God’s judgment with final condem357

OTP reads: “And the devout shall give thanks” (OTP 2:661). OTP reads: “The Lord’s salvation (be) upon the house of Israel (that they may be) happy forever” (OTP 2:661). 359 Cf. Job 5:17; Ps 31:10 [LXX]; 94:12; Prov 5:12; 29:15 [LXX]; Sir 23:2. 360 Cf. Ps 94:12; Prov 3:11; 12:1; 19:29 [LXX]; Isa 50:6 [LXX]; Jer 7:28; 10:24–25 [LXX]; 31:18; 1 Kgs 12:14; Sir 18:14. 361 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 79. 362 See Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 211; Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 79. 363 Cf. Isa 40:3–4 [LXX]; 45:13; Ps 1:1; Hos 14:9 (14:10 in Heb.); Prov 3:6; 11:5. 358

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 151

nation as a result of this choice.364 Walking through life with God means also to be disciplined and willingly endure the severity of God’s punishments. However, this is – despite the discipline – the reason for their happiness, because at the same time God’s discipline also protects them from evil behavior. The final result of this process is positive: God’s mercy comes upon those who truly love him. The next verse (Pss. Sol. 10:4)365 portrays the Lord as a parent who has interest in and watches over their children. The Lord’s care and merciful watching over the righteous results from the enduring covenant (cf. Ezek 16:60). The righteous are assured that they will be treated favorably by the Lord, which is a result of this enduring covenant that testifies to the righteousness of God’s judgments and also to God’s grace and mercy.366 The interpretation of this verse causes some difficulties.367 First, it is the two instances of the word “testimony.” The question is whether the two instances mean the same thing. The first occurrence is found in v. 4b with reference to the Torah (h` ga.r marturi,a evn no,mw| diaqh,khj aivwni,ou) and testifies that the Lord remembers the Lord’s servants in mercy.368 The second is in v. 4c (h` marturi,a kuri,ou evpi. o`dou.j avnqrw,pwn evn evpiskoph/|) and, in a general sense, is interpreted as an explanation of the first in v. 4b.369 If this is so, the second “testimony” should refer to the Lord’s testimony at the Last Judgment, as Pierre Prigent interprets it.370 Mikael Winninge suggests that this kind of interpretation is hardly possible, because the latter clause seems to relate not to the Lord’s mercy, as in the previous case, but

364

Kenneth Atkinson remarks that the concept of the two ways became common in later Jewish and Christian literature, such as the Qumran Scrolls (1QS 8:14; 4Q), 4 Maccabees, the Testament of Asher, the Didache, Barnabas, 4 Ezra (cf. Mark 1:3). See Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 217. See also Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism, 93–176; J. M. Suggs, “The Christian Two Ways Tradition: Its Antiquity, Form, and Function,” in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen P. Wikgren (ed. D. E. Aune; NovTSup 33; Leiden: Brill, 1972), 60–74; F. M. Cross, Jr., The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (rev. ed.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1961), 217–30. Cited by Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 217, including nn. 7, 8. 365 Cf. Ezek 16:60; Bar 2:35. 366 See Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 217–18. 367 See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 78–80. 368 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 79, including nn. 327, 328. 369 For example, Ryle and James, Psalmoi Solomontos, 98. 370 Prigent, “Psaumes de Salomon,” 975. Prigent translates the word as a “visite” and argues that the word is used this way in the prophetic literature and in Qumran. See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 80, nn. 330, 332.

152 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics rather to a critical examination (v. 4c).371 Therefore, the interpretation of the second occurrence of the word “testimony” should labor under the assumption that both occurrences refer to the Torah but should also point to the two functions of the Torah. The first is that the Torah is the testimony of the enduring Lord’s covenant. The second should be the Lord’s continuous supervision as, for example, George Gray or Robert Wright suppose it to be.372 This relates directly to a second scholarly disagreement over this verse, which is the meaning of the collocation (evn evpiskoph/| – visitation, overseeing). In regard to the first way of interpretation we mentioned – the “testimony” in verse 4c explains the “testimony” in verse 4b – it refers to God’s visitation at the Last Judgment, as Pierre Prigent supposed.373 Clearly, it is not easy to settle this question with certainty. Winninge also tends to interpret this examination as a kind of continuous supervision. He argues that this way of interpretation follows from the whole context of Pss. Sol. 10:1–4, which deals with the function of God’s discipline within daily life. To support his argument, Winninge works his way through Pss. Sol. 7:9, where the psalmist ascribes the Torah a disciplinary role. Moreover, Winninge is convinced that the idea, expressed in Pss. Sol. 10:4 with the qualifier evn evpiskoph/|, has influenced Paul’s reflection about the law as a paidagwgo,j in Gal 3:21–25.374 This suggestion is very interesting and, I think, persuasive. Following all this is the second testimony that refers to what God says in the Torah, which mentions the twofold function of the Torah, “to examine men’s lives critically and to testify to the mercy of the Lord.”375 The central concept in Pss. Sol. 10:1–4 is obviously that of discipline, with the aim to keep the devout within the covenantal relationship.376 I think that both of these interpretations are mutually compatible. God’s mercy is manifested in the discipline of God’s people, for their transgressions as well as in watching over the lives of his people, including the world as a whole, and all this is part of the everlasting covenant. The covenant is at the same time the testimony of the reliability and importance 371

Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 78–79. Gray, “The Psalms of Solomon,” 643; R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:661. 373 Prigent, “Psaumes de Salomon,” 975. See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 80. 374 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 80, including n. 333. 375 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 80. 376 The author could find similar motifs in the Hebrew Bible as well as in Jewish deuterocanonical literature, particularly in Job 5:17, Prov 3:11–13, Ps 37:18, Isa 50:6, Sir 23:2–3. See also Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 81; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, 211. 372

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 153

of the law (Torah) for the right way of life for humankind. The emphasis on the way of life is a leading motif passing through the entire law. Proceeding from it is the final point of this process, which has to be done in God’s visitation of humankind in the event of the Last Judgment when the Lord will pass righteous judgment on every human being in accordance with God’s will (cf. Rom 2:1–11). It naturally does not exclude the mercy of the Lord from this process, because all acts of God towards the world and humanity begin with God’s love, grace, and mercy in the service of human’s lives. Therefore, the ambiguity of the interpretation of this part is only on the surface and, moreover, this section testifies to the eschatological-apocalyptic orientation of the psalmist. This fact is also confirmed by the following fifth verse, where it is once again evident that God’s righteousness is closely connected with God’s judgments. The psalmist designates God as di,kaioj kai. o[sioj o` ku,rioj (the just and holy Lord; cf. Pss. Sol. 10:5).377 The author confesses that in God’s judgments (evn kri,masin auvtou/) God’s righteousness and holiness are manifested, and this is so forever and ever (eivj to.n aivw/na). This is the only location in the entire collection where God is designated as o[sioj. Elsewhere this word is used as a group designation (oi` o[sioi), and the author uses the word in connection with the devout in the next verse, verse 6. The meaning is clear; God is the source and also the goal of the devout.378 The designations of the community behind the psalmist as “the righteous” (di,kaioi in v. 3) and “the devout [pious]” (o[sioi in v. 6) are derived from the justice or righteousness and holiness of the Lord. Therefore, Israel will joyfully praise the Lord’s name (v. 5). The author also continues in this way in the next verse, stating that the devout and pious will confess God, giving praise and thanks to God in the assembly of the people, literally evn evkklhsi,a| laou/ (v. 6). Here, it is interesting that the poor are mentioned, which could mean the poverty of the group behind the psalmist or poverty in a broader sense as I mentioned above. Kenneth Atkinson suggests that the matter is the poverty of the community of the pious, from which he concludes that the synagogues mentioned in verse 7 were likely simple structures or rooms within private houses where the author’s community assembled for worship.379 The importance of the social motif comes again to the fore, which also highlights the core of God’s righteousness and mercy expressed in Torah, where 377 In all probability, the word di,kaioj is equivalent to the Hebrew qydc (ṣ-d-q), and o[sioj reproduces the Hebrew dysx (ch-s-i-d). This suggestion is confirmed in Ps 145:17 (cf. Ps 144:17 [LXX]). 378 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 81. 379 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 220.

154 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics social justice is in the very center of God’s will towards and expectations of human beings (Exod 23:3, 9; Lev 19:10; 23:22; Deut 15:7–11; 16:20, and others). The psalmist expresses his strong assurance that God will have mercy on the poor to the joy of Israel. The seventh verse constitutes a confirmation of God’s goodness and mercifulness, which are forever. This verse is parallel to the previous one, which confirms the claim of the second half of the verse where the psalmist confesses that the synagogues of Israel will glorify the Lord’s name.380 The author calls God crhsto.j kai. evleh,mwn (good and merciful), which is more similar to the Psalms of the Hebrew Bible (cf. Ps 11:7; 86:15; 103:8; 111:4; 116:5; 145:8) but is also found in the Torah (Deut 4:31) and the Prophets (Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2). This designation also proves that the awareness of the devout and pious in Israel should see that life as a whole is in its entirety dependent on God’s justice, goodness, and mercy. Therefore, the consequence of this fact is glorifying the name of the Lord among God’s people. The conclusion of this psalm is a wish of the author that the salvation of the Lord would be upon Israel so that they may be forever joyful (v. 8). Such a conclusion confirms my suggestion that this psalm as a whole is eschatological-apocalyptically oriented. The everlasting joy can be an allegorical formulation for the resurrection.381 The concluding words of the psalmist prove his belief that the goal of God’s discipline is to purge the righteous of their sins in order to keep them within the covenant, of which the final aim is a fulfilling of God’s purpose in the world; the salvation of the righteous and devout of Israel. This psalm showed not only eschatological-apocalyptic orientation of the community behind the psalmist but also the emphases of the author on ethics that can be characterized as messianic. From this content follows an important inference: God is just, righteous, and merciful. These characteristics are manifested in God’s discipline of the devout and pious, who considered this discipline to be the making straight of their paths and, to state it simply, to remain on the right way of life with God. Another important thought is that the devout also sin, a fact which brings with it consequences for their lives where they receive (with thanks) the Lord’s 380

On the synagogues and for a closer examination of the origin and development of this term in regard to the tradition to assemble for worship and instruction, see Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 219–20. 381 Prigent allows the same opinion, “Psaumes de Salomon,” 975, and Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 220. However, he holds the view that it is more likely that the author simply referred to God’s enduring contract – the covenant that protected the nation, especially because the psalmist considered the enduring covenant to be God’s testimony.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 155

discipline, because only this allows them to be able to limit their sinfulness and purge themselves of their sins. God’s judgment of the devout is not to destroy them with punishment but to purge them through discipline.382 This aim is an inseparable part of God’s covenant with Israel. However, this covenant also includes Gentiles who are willingly prepared through their own lives to glorify the only God. Of great importance in this psalm are the motifs of God’s justice, righteousness, and mercy, which are expressed in God’s discipline to all who, despite their belief that they are under the protection of God’s enduring covenant, are at the same time aware of their unrighteous lifestyle (Pss. Sol. 2 and 4). It follows that the devout and pious can live their lives only under God’s supervision where suffering, affliction, and misfortunes are not attributed to some evil agent but are considered as a way for God to prevent them from committing additional sins. The vision of the community is eschatological with the final cleansing of the pious from the impurity of sin as a preparation and a near climax of the righteous for the Last Judgment. I personally am convinced that Paul’s doctrine of justification is first and foremost an expression of the same thought, meaning the preparation of the devout, in the context of Paul’s mission primarily among the pious from among the Gentiles. The coming of the Messiah and the Last Judgment is a central point that results in a state of holiness and righteousness. From this point of view, Paul’s teaching about justification (Rom 3:21–26) should be understood as reflecting God’s justice and mercy while at the same time expressing faithfulness on the side of the pious and their deeds respectively, with proper behavior as a necessary precondition for salvation. 2.3.10 Psalms of Solomon 11 This psalm expresses the great hope of the author that God will finally gather all Jews living throughout the world in diaspora (v. 1) and would again return them to Jerusalem.383 The psalmist then continues with the joyful news that the children of Jerusalem are coming from the east and west, from north and south, to be gathered together by the Lord (vv. 2–3).384 The return of Jews from the diaspora is the reason for the enduring exaltation and glorification of the Lord. Although the author writes about this as a one-time event, it is factually an everlasting celebration of the Lord. The 382

Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 81. For an intertextual commentary on this psalm, especially on the use of the designation of Jerusalem as Zion as well as on the numerous intertextual parallels with the composition of Baruch, see Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 224–35. 384 Cf. Isa 52:7; Ezek 39:28; Nah 1:15. 383

156 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics next verse (v. 4) describes the preparations for this return, a full realization directly by Godself (cf. Isa 40:3–4; see also 42:16; 45:2). Then, the psalmist continues with a description of the return in the following two verses (vv. 5–6).385 In the next verse, the author calls Jerusalem to adorn her garments of glory and rejoice at the return of her children, since God pronounced blessings on Israel forever and ever (v. 7; cf. Isa 52:1; 61:10). The last two verses (vv. 8–9) are the prayer of the psalmist for the fulfillment of God’s promises.386 The main character of this psalm is Israel, named by the psalmist directly as VIsrah,l in verses 1, 6–9, “they” (auvtoi,) in verses 1, 3–6, and “the children” (ta. te,kna) in verse 2. Contrary to Pss. Sol. 1:3, where the children of Jerusalem include both good and bad, here this designation has an entirely positive connotation.387 God is portrayed as the protector of Jerusalem and her children. It means that God is merciful in his supervision (vv. 1, 6) as well as in enabling the scattered from Israel to gather again in Jerusalem (vv. 2–5). God’s mercy is expressed directly in the first and last verse of this psalm (vv. 1, 9).388 1

Salpi,sate evn Siw.n evn sa,lpiggi shmasi,aj a`gi,wn\389 khru,xate evn ~Ierousalh.m fwnh.n euva ggelizome,nou\ o[ti hvle,hsen o` qeo.j VIsrah.l evn th/| evpiskoph/| auvtw/n)

1

Sound in Zion trumpet that summons the holy ones. 390 Announce in Jerusalem the voice of one proclaiming good news: “God has been merciful to Israel by his watchful care over them.”

9

tou/ kuri,ou to. e;leoj evpi. to.n VIsrah.l eivj to.n aivw/na kai. e;ti)

9

May the mercy of the Lord be upon Israel forevermore.

The author begins with a call from a divine messenger who has been instructed to carry the good news throughout the land that God has shown mercy on Israel (v. 1).391 Through this typical way of announcing import385

Cf. Isa 9:18; 10:34; Ps 136:14. Cf. Isa 63:14; Ezek 39:25; 1 Chr 29:13; Ps 51:1; 72:19; 123:3. 387 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 117. 388 For text-critical and philological notes as well as variant readings of Pss. Sol. 11, see R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 138–41. 389 R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 139, remarks that “[t]his psalm is related to 1 Bar 4.36–5.9, and both passages are linked to Isa 40–66.” See also Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 228–29. 390 OTP reads: “Sound in Zion the signal trumpet of the sanctuary” (OTP 2:661). 391 Cf. Lev 25:9–10; Num 31:6; 2 Chr 13:12; Isa 27:13; 40:9; Jer 4:5, 21; 51:27; Joel 2:1 [LXX]. 386

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 157

ant events and messages in antiquity, the psalmist proclaims the time of convocation of the saints. This announcement is based on the prophecy of Isaiah (Isa 40–66), since the description of the messenger of this good news is obviously reminiscent of Isa 52:7, but in this context the messengers function is not active.392 However, in regard to the reference of the sound of the trumpet, we can find more associations in the Jewish written religious tradition. Trumpets were in ancient times used to announce battle (cf. Pss. Sol. 8:1) but also to summon worshipers for services in the Jerusalem Temple (Josephus, J.W. 4.582–584).393 To summon Jewish worshipers by trumpet (shofar) was especially characteristic to indicate the beginning of the Jubilee on the Day of Atonement (Lev 25:9–10; see also Lev 25:1– 7; 27:14–25; Exod 23:10–11; Num 36:4; Deut 15:12–13, 18). The jubilee release, and its theological interpretation, also constitutes for the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures an association with exile (Deut 15:12–18; Isa 27:12–13; Jer 16:18) or with the return of the exiles from Babylon as a new exodus similar to the former exodus from Egypt (Isa 27:12–13; Bar 4:37).394 For the author of the Psalms of Solomon, the trumpet has signaled the jubilee announcement of the returning of Jerusalem’s children from diaspora. However, he used this motif clearly in an eschatological sense (cf. Joel 2:1–2). His description of the announcement of the good news could also be used in the context of the new exodus and release, but principally it foreshadows the climax of this hymnbook – the coming of the Messiah from David’s offspring in chapters 17 and 18. The final, ninth verse is a last sentence of the author’s prayer for the fulfillment of God’s promises given to Israel (vv. 7–9), while he again confirms the enduring character of God’s mercy towards Israel. This part, particularly verse 7, could be understood as an emphasis on the priestly character of Israel. Perhaps it could shed light on the priestly origin of some members of the community behind the psalmist (Exod 28:4; 29:1; 32:26–29; Deut 10:8–9). I believe that it is a metaphorical expression of the psalmist that Israel is the priestly kingship and holy nation of the one and only God (Exod 19:6; cf. Isa 61:6). This expression is now transferred onto Jerusalem, who as a priest had adorned her sacred robe in preparation for worship.395 In the context of intertextuality, Kenneth Atkinson points to 392

Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 118. See Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 230, who refers also to M. P. Speidel, “Eagle-Bearer and Trumpeter,” Bonner Jahrbücher 176 (1976): 147– 62, and M. Ben-Dov, In the Shadow of the Temple: The Discovery of Ancient Jerusalem (Philadelphia: Harper and Row, 1985), 94–96. 394 See Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 230–31, including the other referenced literature. 395 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 234. 393

158 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics Nathan’s oracle where the Lord had promised that David’s son would establish the Temple in Jerusalem (2 Sam 7:13), as well as the statement of king Solomon after building the Jerusalem Temple of God’s dwelling there forever (1 Kgs 8:13). In this, he suggests that the psalmist alluded here to these past promises and prays to God for fulfilling these promises in the situation in which he and the community now find themselves.396 The last verse is a corroboration of his firm faith and trust that this time is very near. Later on, the semantics of the motif regarding the celebratory proclamation of the good news about God’s release of the nation of Israel will constitute the basis of the eschatological proclamation of the event of Jesus Christ as the good news of the Lord for the whole world (Luke 4:18–19; Matt 11:5). In a broader sense, the eschatological meaning by the author of the Psalms of Solomon is close to Paul’s use of the same motif in the description of Christ’s Parousia (1 Thess 4:16; cf. Matt 24:31). For both of them, the eschatological view of the events around it is a key factor of their approach to the announcement of the coming end of this age. 2.3.11 Psalms of Solomon 13 The thirteenth psalm follows up on themes from the previous one – the content describing the process of dividing the wicked and devout on the grounds of the allegiance of the righteous to God and God’s law. The psalm as a whole is based on the historical milieu, a fact that is especially clear from the content of the first four verses (Pss. Sol. 13:1–4).397 From this point of view, the psalm can be characterized as a thankful prayer to God for surviving this tragedy and sparing his community of righteous. The psalmist describes the calamity from which his community has escaped thanks to God’s merciful rescue (v. 1). The destiny of the wicked is different, as they have experienced afflictions and been taken away by the enemy (vv. 3–5). The described military assault is more than likely the Roman invasion of Jerusalem in 63 BCE, and the author writes during the 396

Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 234–35. It is also probable that Pss. Sol. 13:5 is a direct historical allusion to Aristobulus II. There is however a “crux interpretum” as to whether in the original manuscript this was the equivalent of the Greek o` avsebh,j that occurs in all manuscripts or if we should accept Wellhausen’s conjecture that it is o` euvsebh,j (see Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer, 157), adopted also by O. von Gebhardt, Die Psalmen Salomos: Zum 1. Male mit Benutzung der Athoshandschriften und des Codex Casanatensis, 81 and followed by Rahlfs’ edition of Septuaginta, 2:483. Despite the vast discussion about this problem, there is no obvious reason to prefer this conjecture. For further discussion, including the arguments on both sides, see Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 82, n. 346. See also ibid., 85–86; Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 252–53. 397

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 159

time immediately following Pompey’s capture of Jerusalem.398 The ungodly man in v. 5 (o` avsebh,j – literally non-worshiper) is most likely Aristobulus II, an assumption which also corresponds with the “death of the sinners” (qana,tou a`martwlw/n) in v. 2, which could be an allusion to the massacre of Aristobulus’s forces (Josephus, Ant. 14.4.3–4 §§ 66–71; J.W. 1.150–151).399 This ungodly man fears for the future. He is terrified on account of his sins lest he should follow the destiny of the sinners (Pss. Sol. 13:5–6). The theme of verses 7–11 is God’s discipline. The psalmist hopes that the pious would be protected from the terrors of the war that will destroy the sinners (v. 7). Since the righteous also sin but their sins are done in ignorance – which is not the same as the downfall of the sinners – they have to be disciplined, which means they must be punished in secret (evn peristolh/|)400 so that the sinners may not rejoice over the righteous (v. 8). The discipline of the righteous is different from the punishment of the sinners, because the Lord considered the righteous to be like a beloved son, and God’s discipline is like that towards a firstborn (v. 9; cf. Deut 8:5).401 Behind this, God’s acting towards the righteous and the sinners is visible in that the life of the former shall be forever, while the latter shall be taken away to destruction (Pss. Sol. 13:10–11).402

398 Despite the variety of opinions concerning the historical background of this military assault, most scholars hold the view that the psalmist made the allusion to the Roman invasion of Jerusalem in 63 BCE. See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 85, including n. 355; Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 268–70. 399 See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 85. R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:663, remarks that “[t]he psalmist describes the difference in attitudes between devout and secular persons. The secular person is terrified when he sins, for he knows the fate of the sinner. The devout person is not frightened, for he is not accused when he sins (9:7), for in God’s care nothing can happen to him (13:6b). There is a difference in the fate of the devout and of the sinner (13:7).” 400 The literal meaning of the word is “wrapping up” (see LSJ, 1389), but here the meaning can be metaphorical, which is confirmed by the context and logic of the verse. See Ryle and James, Psalmoi Solomontos, 109; Viteau, Les Psaumes de Salomon, 321; Holm-Nielsen, “Salomos Salmer,” 582; Gray, “The Psalms of Solomon,” 645; Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 83. However, Grant Ward remarks that the Greek peristolh, reflects a misreading of the Hebrew original having bvx or dyzm – either of which could be translated into Syriac as “with knowledge, knowingly.” See Ward, “The Psalms of Solomon: The Philological Analysis of the Greek and the Syriac Texts,” 152. 401 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 265, rightly notes that viewing the pious as God’s child, the author would have been alluding to the covenant that God made with Moses (Deut 8:5). 402 Cf. Isa 31:5; 43:25; Ps 9:6.

160 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics The last verse is the psalmist’s proclamation that the Lord’s mercy would always be upon the pious and upon those who fear God (v. 12).403 12

evpi. de. tou.j o`si,ouj to. e;leoj kuri,ou\ kai. evpi. tou.j foboume,nouj auvto.n to. e;leoj auvtou/)

12

May the Lord’s mercy be upon the devout, and may his mercy404 be to those who fear him.

This proclamation confirms the author’s belief that the final destiny of the righteous – who are called in this verse oi` fobou,menoi auvto,n405 – and of the sinners406 differ. This is the case despite the complexity of sin that is connected with all humanity, the devout as well as the sinners. Also, the righteous do commit sin, but in their case it is unintentional (cf. v. 7), and the author takes great pains to avoid using the word “sin” in connection with them (he uses the word “transgressions” in vv. 5, 10). The righteous are “the sinfully righteous” (cf. Pss. Sol. 3, 9, 16, 17).407 The consequence of sin for both of these categories is different. For the righteous it is God’s discipline (h` paidei,a tw/n dikai,wn), while in the case of the sinners it is their destruction (h` katastrofh. tw/n a`martwlw/n – Pss. Sol. 13:7). Clearly, the concept of “discipline” is very important throughout the whole collection for the psalmist,408 but in this psalm (vv. 7–10) it is of particular 403

Cf. Deut 5:10 [LXX]; Ps 103:17. For text-critical and philological notes as well as the variant readings of Pss. Sol. 13, see R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 148–53. For exegetical reflections and commentary on this psalm, see Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 85–86; Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 252–70; Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos, 58–59. 404 The Greek and Syriac differ with respect to “mercy.” R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 153 (see also R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:663), remarks that the Syriac variant should be read as “he will treasure,” but Grant Ward objected to this supposition and referred to J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903), 538, and corrects it as “he will have compassion on all who fear him.” See Ward, “The Psalms of Solomon: The Philological Analysis of the Greek and the Syriac Texts,” 152–53. 405 The devout group in this psalm is also called evgw, (v. 1), h`mei/j (vv. 1, 2, 4), o` di,kaioj (vv. 6, 8, 9), oi` di,kaioi (vv. 7, 11), oi` o[sioi (vv. 10, 12). 406 The sinners in this psalm are Romans (Gentiles), designated qhri,a ponhra, (v. 3) and auvtoi, (v. 3), and also the other indefinite category designated oi` a`martwloi, (vv. 2, 5, 7, 11), and o` a`martwlo,j (vv. 6, 8). 407 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 87. 408 This is also supported by word statistics. The noun paidei,a appears 11 times in the Psalms of Solomon, which represents more than 50 % of its occurrences in the Greek Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, while the verb paideu,ein appears 5 times, which is approximately 40 % of its occurrences in this kind of literature (see Pss. Sol. 3:4; 7:3, 9; 8:26, 29; 10:2, 3; 13:7, 8, 9, 10; 14:1; 16:11, 13; 17:42; 18:4, 7). The noun paideuth,j (Pss. Sol. 8:29) occurs once. This concept is found also in Sirach (some 40 occurrences

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 161

interest. We can observe here the author’s emphasis on God’s justice and righteousness as well as God’s mercy, which are manifested in God’s special approach to the devout based on the covenantal obligations. I agree with Mikael Winninge that neither sins committed in ignorance nor transgressions nullify the covenantal status of the righteous.409 From this, we can see that the discipline is actually the means of atonement for the sins of ignorance (v. 7), similar to the situation in verse 8 where the discipline is fasting. For the psalmist, this discipline is a clear alternative to the death and destruction that await the unrighteous, which is based on God’s covenant with Israel. As Winninge observes, it is “a kind of bridge to righteousness” (cf. Ps 118:19–20).410 The concept of discipline also plays an important role in other Jewish literature, namely in its many usages, especially in wisdom literature (for example Sir 7:23; 23:2–3; 50:27; Prov 12:1; Wis 11:9; 12:22), as well as in Paul’s theological thinking. Within Paul’s message, the complexity of the sin comes to light (Rom 1:18–3:31), while on the other hand there is God’s faithfulness to God’s covenant and God’s will to save all who repent of their sins and work towards atonement, which is the sphere in which discipline plays an important role (1 Cor 11:32; cf. 2 Cor 6:9; Rom 5:1–5).411 Since the devout have to undergo discipline – whereas the wicked and ungodly fall into destruction and death – it does not signify an a priori attitude towards Gentiles, as they do not have a hope for deliverance. The psalmist’s assurance that God differentiates between “the sinfully righteous” and the ungodly results from the very basis of Jewish religious conviction and faith: the awareness that God is one and is the very basis of justice and righteousness that are motivated by God’s grace and mercy. In other words, God is the only source of the right way of life and proper behavior of all human beings, and therefore, having hope for salvation includes the obligation to be and to remain within God’s covenant. of the noun paidei,a and about 15 of the verb paideu,ein) and Proverbs (about 30 times of the occurrences of the noun paidei,a). See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 87–88, n. 374, and 379. 409 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 88. Cf. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, 211. The opposite view, that Pss. Sol. 13 reflects a religion of righteousness by works, is held by Braun, “Vom Erbarmen Gottes über den Gerechten,” 50–52. 410 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 88. For examples of the meaning of discipline in the Psalms of Solomon and in other Jewish literature, see Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 88–89. See also Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 263–64. 411 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 89, n. 382, remarks here: “Paul seems to have been accustomed to ideas with the alternatives death and discipline (cf. 2 Cor 6:9).”

162 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics For Paul, the resurrection of Christ was a manifestation of the beginning of the eschaton, and also through this action Gentiles were able to become a part of the covenant. When Paul addresses the Gentiles, this is the reason why he has called the law a paidagwgo,j (Gal 3:24). However, it does not nullify the obligation to be disciplined by the Lord’s Spirit (Gal 5–6). The freedom of Christian believers from the Gentiles does not mean the nullity of the law but rather quite the opposite – it proves the validity and effect of the law (Rom 3:31; 6:12–23; Gal 5:13–25). For both the psalmist and Paul, the theological justification of discipline becomes an inseparable part of their theology (Pss. Sol. 13:8–10; 2 Cor 1:3–11; 4:7–11, 16–17; 6:4–6). From Paul’s perspective, the resurrection of Jesus Christ – the Messiah from David’s offspring – was the centerpiece of his kerygmatic expansion on the theology of the Psalms of Solomon and his proclamation to the Gentiles of the dawn of the end times, meaning the time of preparation – of cleansing and purifying – for the devout and pious for the Last Judgment. Of course it does not exclude Jews from this process, but it does point out the necessity to be cleansed for this time. God’s discipline can thus attain the goal on both sides of the spectrum for Jews and Gentiles. 2.3.12 Psalms of Solomon 14 From the historical context of the thirteenth psalm, this psalm is a loosely designed poem with the theme of describing different fates for the righteous and the sinners. Kenneth Atkinson took notice of the resemblance of this psalm to the canonical Psalm 1, and by the detailed intertextual analysis and comparison of both, comes to the conclusion that Pss. Sol. 14 is largely a midrash on the biblical Psalm 1.412 The central point of the psalm is God’s righteousness, expressed and manifested in God’s commandments in the law (Torah) as the only right and proper way of life for human beings. It also includes the willingness to endure God’s discipline (Pss. Sol. 14:1–2).413 With the importance of God’s discipline, the designation of the righteous oi` u`pome,nontej paidei,an auvtou/ (those who endure his discipline414) in the first verse (cf. Pss. Sol. 10:2) is also related.415 In this desig412

Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 275–76. Cf. Ps 1:1; Prov 3:11; Jer 7:28; Lev 18:5; Deut 5:33; 6:6–7, 17, 24; 10:12–13; 26:17; Josh 22:5; 1 Kgs 3:14; Prov 2:20; Ps 89:30–31; Jer 7:23. 414 OTP 2:663. 415 The group of righteous in this psalm is designated oi` avgapw/ntej auvto.n evn avlhqei,a| (v. 1), oi` u`pome,nontej paidei,an auvtou/ (v. 1), oi` poreuo,menoi evn dikaiosu,nh| (v. 2), h`mei/j (v. 2), oi` o[sioi (vv. 3, 10), o` para,deisoj tou/ kuri,ou (v. 3), ta. xu,la th/j zwh/j (v. 3), auvtoi, (v. 4), h` meri.j kai. klhronomi,a tou/ qeou/ (v. 5), VIsrah,l (v. 5) and di,kaioi (v. 9). The reference to “men” (oi` a;nqrwpoi) in verse 8 describes both the righteous and the sinners. 413

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 163

nation we can observe the author’s emphasis on the concept of God’s discipline, which confirms the important fact that the righteous are also sinning in some way. The next verse confirms another important concept in the collection, and that is the obligations in God’s covenant to uphold the importance of the Torah (Pss. Sol. 14:2). In the next two verses the author compares the pious, similarly as in Ps 1:3, with a tree that would not be uprooted (Pss. Sol. 14:3–4).416 We can also observe here the psalmist’s emphasis on the everlasting endurance of God’s covenant with Israel, which is proved by the author’s certainty that the Lord will provide for the righteous (Pss. Sol. 14:5).417 The author knows that Israel benefits greatly from her status of being under God’s ownership (cf. Ps 78:21; 94:14; Obad 17). However, this status also incorporates an obligation to live in accordance with God’s will. The righteous lifestyle of the pious of the Lord means living by God’s commandments forever (v. 3).418 These words confirm the awareness of the community behind the author that obedience to the Torah, particularly to God’s commandments that are the very core of the law, are equated with long life.419 Contrary to the destiny of the pious and righteous of God, the sinners420 do not believe that their lives depend fully on God, and therefore they are living out God’s law in sin with the pleasures of their lives being uncertain and fleeting (Pss. Sol. 14:6–7).421 Since God422 is the omniscient one, God 416

Cf. Ps 1:2–3; Gen 2:9; 3:22; Prov 3:18; 11:30; 12:3; 13:12; 15:4; Jer 24:6; 42:10; Ezek 31:8; Amos 9:15. 417 Cf. Ps 1:4; 1 Chr 16:17–18. 418 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 280, remarks that in regard to the interpretation of this verse, there is some ambiguity whether the Greek phrase evn auvtw/| (meaning “in it/him”) refers to the Lord, which would allude to the eternal life granted by the Lord to the righteous, or to the law, since both of these words are masculine. For support of the former interpretation, see P. E. E. Geiger, Der Psalter Salomo’s, herausgegeben und erklärt (Augsburg: J. Wolff, 1871), 144; Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer, 158. For support of the latter interpretation, see K. G. Kuhn, Die älteste Textgestalt der Psalmen Salomos insbesondere auf Grund der syrischen Übersetzung neu untersucht, mit einer Bearbeitung und Übersetzung der Psalmen Salomos 13–17 (BWANT 73; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1937), 35; Ryle and James, Psalmoi Solomontos, 111. 419 For intertextual parallels and commentary, see Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 280–82. 420 This group in this psalm is designated oi` a`martwloi, (v. 6), para,nomoi (v. 6), and auvtoi, (vv. 6, 7, 9). 421 Cf. Ps 1:4; 105:11; 106:21; see also Deut 32:9; Judg 8:34. 422 God in this psalm is called o` ku,rioj (vv. 1–3, 10), auvto,j (vv. 1–3, 8), and o` qeo,j (vv. 5, 7).

164 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics is the creator and sovereign ruler of the whole world, which means that God knows everything at all times concerning the lives of human beings, both righteous and wicked (Pss. Sol. 14:8; cf. Ps 44:22). Therefore, the psalmist asserts that the destiny of sinners will be the world of the dead, darkness, and destruction; they will not be remembered on the day of God’s mercy for the righteous (Pss. Sol. 14:9; cf. Prov 4:19). The last verse of the psalm is the psalmist’s statement that the Lord’s devout will receive the fullness of life with pleasure and happiness (Pss. Sol. 14:10).423 9

10 9

10

dia. tou/to h` klhronomi,a auvtw/n a[|dhj kai. sko,toj kai. avpw,leia\ kai. ouvc eu`reqh,sontai evn h`me,ra| evle,ouj dikai,wn\ oi` de. o[sioi kuri,ou klhronomh,sousin zwh.n evn euvfrosu,nh|) Therefore there is reserved for them the world of the dead, darkness and destruction, and they will not be remembered on the day of mercy for the righteous,424 but a happy life is reserved for the Lord’s devout.425

These two verses are clear examples of the covenantal theology describing the “two ways” concept for the life of a human being, particularly its final result following their independent personal choices as previously mentioned. Since the righteous are firmly rooted in the Torah, they trust that the Lord will be faithful to the covenant and that those who are the devout of the Lord will inherit everlasting life (v. 10). It is clear that the author’s reference to “the day of mercy” refers to the Final Judgment when God will judge the world, a process which includes the punishment or reward (judgment or salvation) for all human beings.426 The result of this final appraisal will depend on one’s perspective; for the righteous it will be a day of mercy, and for the wicked it will be a day of judgment.427 However, the final appraisal 423 For text-critical and philological notes as well as variant readings of Pss. Sol. 14, see R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 154–59. For exegetical reflections and commentary on this psalm, see Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 119–20; Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 271–89; Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos, 59–60. 424 OTP reads: “Therefore their inheritance is Hades, and darkness and destruction; and they will not be found on the day of mercy for the righteous” (OTP 2:664). 425 OTP reads: “But the devout of the Lord will inherit life in happiness” (OTP 2:664). 426 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 274. 427 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 143, rightly remarks that the “day of mercy” (14:9; 18:5) is equivalent to the prophetic “day of the Lord,” interpreted as a day of judgment in some texts and as a day of salvation in others, depending on one’s perspective.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 165

does not exclude God’s grace and mercy from this process. All have the same points of departure, meaning that mercy and salvation are interchangeable (cf. Pss. Sol. 9:11 to 10:8; 16:5 to 16:6 and 11:9 to 12:6).428 People have to choose between these two ways of life: to live with God according to God’s will or without God and God’s many benefits. What is extremely important here is the right choice, and then after making said choice the willful following of God and God’s commandments in their daily life, which also include God’s discipline as a way of purging or cleansing one’s own life from every moral impurity. It is the process of the preparation of the pious and devout of the Lord for the Last Judgment with its consequences for all human beings. The psalmist visibly intensifies his effort to express the strong and steadfast faith and trust in God and God’s promises that are included in God’s covenant making with Israel. The theme of God’s absolute knowledge constitutes the author’s direct introduction to the climax of the collection of psalms, which is the coming of the Lord’s Messiah and the Last Judgment (cf. Pss. Sol. 1:6).429 In regard to the description of the everlasting relationship of the devout with God in Pss. Sol. 14:3, the author had in mind all the main terms (garden, paradise, tree of life) that played an important role in the Jewish religious tradition with regard to the description of the Garden of Eden. Therefore, this relationship also includes God’s commandments, because they are for the devout the primary source of wisdom and right behavior (cf. Jub. 36:6; Prov 3:18; Odes Sol. 11:18). The place of everlasting dwelling for the righteous with God is compared to the trees in the garden planted and cared for by the Lord, and since the pious live in God’s garden, they naturally are subject to the Lord’s commandments as well as to God’s dis-

428 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 143, remarks that this is so almost everywhere else in the collection. 429 In this regard, Kenneth Atkinson also pays attention to the intertextual parallels that could have constituted and influenced the thought of the psalmist by describing the dwelling place of the pious after death in Pss. Sol. 14:3 through the terms “the garden of the Lord,” “the trees of the life” (o` para,deisoj tou/ kuri,ou ta. xu,la th/j zwh/j). Undoubtedly, this place was important in later Jewish cosmology, adopted also by Christians, identified with the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:22), and called in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (LXX) para,deisoj, which came from the old Persian word meaning “garden” or “park” and was used in the story of Adam and Eve in Gen 2–3. See Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 280–82. In connection with Jewish and Christian cosmology and eschatology see also A. Y. Collins, Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism (JSJSup 50; Leiden: Brill, 1996); J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1984); idem, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Routledge, 1997).

166 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics cipline (Pss. Sol. 14:3–4; cf. Lev 18:5).430 However, living according to the Torah forever (o[sioi kuri,ou zh,sontai evn auvtw/| eivj to.n aivw/na in v. 3) does not imply righteousness by works. I fully agree with Ed Sanders and Mikael Winninge that God’s mercy, which is basic for the life and salvation of the devout, excludes such a conflation of Torah with righteousness.431 Just as the author begins this psalm with an allusion to God’s reward for the righteous (Pss. Sol. 14:1–3), he concludes in the last two verses by specifying not only God’s reward for the righteous (v. 10) but also the punishment for the wicked, particularly their dwelling in the place called Hades, which means darkness and destruction (v. 9).432 The author’s mention of “a happy life” in verse 10 could be a reference to the final destiny of the pious and righteous in the event of the resurrection after death that will occur when the Messiah arrives.433 All of this, particularly God’s punishment of the wicked and justification of the righteous, as well as the description of the location of the righteous in paradise (Garden of Eden) and wicked in Hades, is similar to the biblical psalmists and to other Jewish literature of that time. It also demonstrates the significant influence of the traditions about paradise and Hades upon later Jewish and Christian literature.434 Therefore, we should not be surprised that the concept of God’s Final or Last Judgment – with punishment of the wicked and justifying of the righteous, as well as the description of the dwelling places of the righteous and the wicked – should 430

Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 281. See E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 393; Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 119, n. 75. 432 The term a[|dhj (Hades) was used for the designation and translation of a variety of words such as “the pit,” “stillness,” “death,” or “deep darkness,” all with negative connotations. In this psalm it is the equivalent of the Hebrew lwav, the place of the dead and of an eternal punishment where the wicked experience physical as well as spiritual darkness and destruction. In this context, the term is found in a variety of Jewish and Christian literature (for example 2 Baruch, 3 Baruch, Testament of Abraham, Matt 11:23; cp. 1 En. 20:7). See A. Y. Collins, Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism, 21–135; M. Himmelfarb, Tours of Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and Christian Literature (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983). 433 So Ryle and James, Psalmoi Solomontos, 113. Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 287–88, remarks that it is uncertain whether the author believed in a physical resurrection or in some form of astral immortality in which the pious would dwell with God in heaven. 434 See the examples given in n. 432. See, for example, M. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993); A. F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990); G. G. Scholem, “The Four Who Entered Paradise and Paul’s Ascension to Paradise,” in idem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition (2nd ed.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1965), 14–19. 431

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 167

be a substantial feature of Paul’s eschatological expectation (Rom 2:1–11; 1 Cor 3:10–15; 4:4–5; 2 Cor 5:10; 12:3–4). Moreover, I fully concur with Mikael Winninge that the understanding of the Torah in the Psalms of Solomon seems to provide a plausible theological background for Paul’s reflection on the law (cf. Gal 3:11–12, 21; Rom 7:10–11).435 For the psalmist as well as for Paul, the law is not only something temporary; it is not a lifeless letter. The law of God is life itself, a concept that has its basis in the Book of Leviticus (see Lev 18:5; cf. Pss. Sol. 14:2; Gal 3:12). It is the source of life for the whole world, which includes both the knowledge of one’s own sinfulness (see Rom 3:19–20) and the choice of a right and proper lifestyle with God in accordance with God’s will, which inevitably includes God’s discipline. Therefore, as the psalmist proves in verse 1, these words about the Torah are closely related to God’s discipline – they both belong together (cf. Pss. Sol. 7:9; 10:1–4). Therefore, the proper way of living in accord with God’s commandments is also unavoidable for Gentile Christian believers, and in Paul’s message it is defined as the upholding the law (Rom 3:31; cf. Gal 3:12). Thus, a right and proper life in accordance with God’s will – life in accordance with God’s commandments with God’s discipline as an unavoidable centerpiece – is an essential feature of both the psalmist and Paul’s theology. In Paul’s message, the Last Judgment constitutes the absolute climax of this age, which means that God will judge all the Jews and Gentiles according to the good and evil they have done (Rom 2:1–16). The gentile believers must be aware that they cannot escape God’s judgment (Rom 2:16; cf. 1 Cor 4:4–5), therefore the warning of God’s “vengeance” (Rom 12:19; 1 Thess 4:6) and of due return for deeds done, is applied to them also by Paul (1 Cor 3:13; 9:24–27; 2 Cor 5:10; Gal 6:7–8; Phil 3:12–14).436 From all that was said, there is clear emphasis on the proper behavior of the believers as a substantial feature of the theology of both the Psalms of Solomon and of Paul’s message. Since both are by nature and by definition eschatological, the ethics that both of the authors have in mind and emphasize repeatedly can legitimately be designated as “messianic ethics.” 2.3.13 Psalms of Solomon 15 This psalm describes the destiny of the devout and the sinners in a parallel way. The psalmist, as a representative of the devout community, begins with a statement about his persecution, during which he has prayed to God 435

Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 119–20. See also Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 288–89. 436 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 490.

168 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics and been saved (Pss. Sol. 15:1; cf. Ps 9:19; 120:1; 2 Sam 22:7; Jon 2:3). Then, the author continues with a confession of the faith that only those who acknowledge God are truly strong and that the devout will remain safe as long they continue to praise God (Pss. Sol. 15:2–4).437 The psalmist is sure that the fate of the righteous must be the exact opposite of the fate of the sinners (vv. 5–7).438 The reason for this is that the pious are protected by God’s mark from the calamities (famine, sword, and death), meaning that God’s protection is for their salvation (v. 6). The sinners, on the other hand, will be pursued by these calamities and will not be able to escape (v. 8; cf. Ps 18:37) because they are marked with the mark of destruction (Pss. Sol. 15:9; cf. Gen 4:15; Ps 7:6; Ezek 9:4). Then, the author again makes mention of God’s Last Judgment, a time when God visits the earth with judgment (Pss. Sol. 15:10–12).439 The sinners – called by the author “unrighteous” (a;dikoi in v. 4) and “sinners” (a`martoloi, in vv. 5, 8, 10– 13)440 – because of their sins will ultimately receive their destruction and their placement in the darkness of Hades, meaning death for all time.441 The final verse is the psalmist’s proclamation that the righteous will find mercy on the Day of the Lord’s Judgment (v. 13; cf. Pss. Sol. 3; also Ps 103:13; Job 4:20). From the content of this psalm, it is clear that the author again has in mind the resurrection.442 This could help clarify the character of the psalm as a whole. The author does not refer to any historical events,443 and his emphasis on God’s judgment with the final destiny of both the righteous community and the sinners is abundant proof of its general character, especially in regard to the categories of the devout and the sinners. From 437 Cf. Pss. Sol. 15:2 with Ps 24:8; 89:8, 13; Prov 18:10; Job 9:4; Isa 28:2; Pss. Sol. 15:3 with 2 Sam 6:5 [LXX]; Hos 14:3; Pss. Sol. 15:4 with Ps 9:27 [LXX]; Prov 18:20 [LXX]; Isa 30:30. 438 Cf. Pss. Sol. 15:5 with Ps 2:9; Pss. Sol. 15:6 with Gen 4:15; Ezek 9:4, 6; Pss. Sol. 15:7 with Lev 26:36 [LXX]; 2 Chr 20:9 [LXX]; Prov 13:21; Job 5:20–22; Isa 51:19; Jer 14:12–13 [LXX]; 24:10 [LXX]; 27:8, 13; 29:18; 32:36; 34:17; 38:2; Ezek 6:11 [LXX]; 7:15 [LXX]; 12:16; 14:17; 14:21 [LXX]. 439 Cf. Pss. Sol. 15:10 with Ps 85:13 [LXX]; Isa 14:9 [LXX]; Pss. Sol. 15:12 with Amos 5:18; Zeph 1:14. 440 Also oi` poiou/ntej avnomi,a n in v. 8 and auvtoi, in vv. 9–11. 441 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 120–21; Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 294. 442 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 121, n. 84; Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism, 132–33; Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 309. 443 There are only allusions to some conflicts between the community of righteous and unspecified sinners. Atkinson suggests that in the background there would be an intraJewish conflict. See Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 310.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 169

this point of view, this psalm is another example, just like the previous one, of the eschatological-apocalyptic orientation of the author and the community behind him. The author could be inspired by the later as well as contemporary Jewish notions about the Last Judgment, especially those where it is described by means of metaphorical expressions of earthly cataclysms or the terminology concerning the war conflict (see for example Amos 5:18; Zeph 1:14; 1QM).444 It is again the last verse of the psalm where the author mentions God’s mercy in regard to the final destiny of the righteous community within God’s judgment.445 13

oi` de. fobou,menoi to.n ku,rion evlehqh,sontai evn auvth/|\ kai. zh,sontai evn th/| evlehmosu,nh| tou/ qeou/ auvtw/n\ kai. a`martwloi. avpolou/ntai eivj to.n aivw/na cro,non)

13

but then, those fearing the Lord will find mercy, and they will live on in their God’s mercy, but sinners will perish for all time.446

The author expresses hope that on the Day of the Lord’s Judgment the community of the righteous would be spared this destruction because they would live by the compassion of their God.447 As I mentioned above, although the author did not mention resurrection directly, it is highly probable that he had this concept in mind. George Nickelsburg said it precisely in these words:

444 In this regard Atkinson remarks that one version of 1QM (4Q285) described a militant Davidic Messiah who would participate in this battle and judge the sinners. See Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 308. See also K. Atkinson, “On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumran: New Light from Psalm of Solomon 17,” JBL 118 (1999): 435–60; G. W. Buchanan, New Testament Eschatology: Historical and Cultural Background (Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1993), 90–120; J. J. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Routledge, 1997), 91–109; idem, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1995), 58–63. 445 For text-critical and philological notes as well as variant readings of Pss. Sol. 15, see R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 160–67. For exegetical reflections and commentary on this psalm, see Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 120–21; Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 291–311; Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos, 60–62. 446 OTP reads: “But those who fear the Lord shall find mercy in it and shall live by their God’s mercy; but sinners shall perish for all time” (OTP 2:664). 447 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 308.

170 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics Since the psalmist describes the sinners’ destruction as terminal, he may be referring to an eschatological day of judgment, when the sinners’ destruction is sealed and the righteous dead are raised to life. 448

For the author the Final Judgment of the Lord was an inherent feature of hidden thinking. Later Jewish literature looked forward to this climax of the history of this age as an inevitable event when the Messiah would judge both Jews and Gentiles. It is also present in Paul’s message where this role will be assigned to the Messiah Jesus, but the concept of Final Judgment remains the same in essence (see Rom 1 Cor 4:4–5; 2:16; 5:9– 10). I am convinced that Paul was semantically influenced by this hymnbook as a whole where this concept plays a key role from the beginning to the end and where the preparation of the pious and devout for the Day of Judgment is the central thought, just as in Paul’s message a key thought is being made complete or perfect on the Day of Christ (Gal 3:3; Phil 1:6, 10; 2:16; 3:12; 5:2; 1 Thess 5:2, 23). Although the way in which Paul expresses this concept constitutes an ambiguity in his treatment of this theme (especially because it is very difficult to know the right meaning and intention of all thoughts, words, and metaphors used by Paul in this regard), the thoughts based on his eschatological and apocalyptic orientation align. Along this line of thought, the central point of Paul’s theologizing – that God’s event in Jesus Christ is the beginning of the eschaton – is for the Apostle the decisive time, and at the same time the opportunity for Gentiles to be prepared for the last point of this event – Christ’s Parousia with the Last Judgment (1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 1 Cor 1:7–8; 4:4–5; 15:23; Rom 8:19–21, 29–30). For this preparation, faith alone is not the only decisive factor. It is consequential also to live in Christ as a new being (2 Cor 5:17), which in Paul’s mind means the ethical consequences for the last days of the lives of every human being. James Dunn in the context of this obvious ambiguity in Paul’s treatment of these themes remarks: In such cases it is better to recognize language struggling to express what language alone is incapable of expressing adequately and to cherish the fragmentary insights and principles which Paul’s imagery nevertheless clearly expresses – God’s faithfulness in completing what he has begun, the moral order inbuilt within humanity and society, and God’s purposes embracing creation as well as human creature, divine grace, and human responsibility. 449

In regard to Pss. Sol. 15, it is an early example of this Jewish hope for a Final Judgment that was, as Kenneth Atkinson remarks here, later incor448

Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism, 133. 449 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 493.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 171

porated into Christianity and went on to become a prominent Christian doctrine.450 In regard to Paul and his message, the similarity of the eschatological concept – especially the concept of messianic ethics as well as his stress on the Davidic Messiah – can support the Pharisaic background of the Psalms of Solomon as one case in point and, for another, Paul’s semantic influence from this hymnbook incorporated into decisive parts of his own theology. 2.3.14 Psalms of Solomon 16 This psalm is the thanksgiving of the author for God’s mercy when the aforementioned was delivered from some danger caused by sin (Pss. Sol. 16:1–2).451 The author is aware that without God’s mercy he would perish, and from this he would understand the consequences of his sins (vv. 3– 4).452 Therefore, the psalmist gives thanks to God that he is not reckoned along with the sinners for destruction (v. 5; cf. Ps 9:1; 38:22). Then the author asks God for God’s constant presence and protection through God’s mercy and further specifies his request by asking that God keep him from committing sexual transgressions (Pss. Sol. 16:6–8).453 In the next verse, the psalmist begs God to help him lead a life on the right path and protect him by keeping him in mind (v. 9; cf. Ps 37:23; Prov 16:9; 20:24 [LXX]). He also asks about protection from anger and unreasonable wrath (Pss. Sol. 16:10; cf. Ps 34:14; 37:8). The next three verses consist of the author’s expression of the trust that God would provide the righteous with the necessary strength to resist temptation and also of his asking God for strength whenever God will discipline him for his sins (Pss. Sol. 16:11– 13).454 The psalmist expresses that God tests the flesh of men and that poverty provides the righteous with an opportunity to get closer to God (v. 14; cf. Ps 9:9; Prov 12:1). The main theme of this psalm – the strength to endure God’s discipline – is the focus of the last verse, where the author proclaims that if the righteous will endure all temptations, they will receive 450

Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 310. In this connection Atkinson refers also to J. C. VanderKam and W. Adler, eds., The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996). 451 Cf. Pss. Sol. 16:1 with Ps 73:2; 118:28 [LXX]; 132:4; Prov 6:4; 24:33, Pss. Sol. 16:2 with Ps 9:14; 85:13 [LXX]; 106:18 [LXX]; Job 38:17; Isa 38:10 [LXX]; 53:12. 452 Cf. Pss. Sol. 16:3 with Ps 136:26; Pss. Sol. 16:4 with Prov 26:3 [LXX]; Eccl 12:11. 453 The picture of women as dangerous for men is found especially in the Books of Proverbs and Sirach (Prov 6:24–25; 7:5 [LXX]; Sir 9:2–3, 8; 25:16, 21; see also Ps 40:11). 454 Cf. Pss. Sol. 16:11 with Jer 31:18; Ezek 43:8–9; Pss. Sol. 16:13 with Ps 94:12; Prov 3:11; 12:1; Jer 7:28; 10:24–25 [LXX].

172 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics mercy from the Lord (Pss. Sol. 16:15; cf. Ps 9:9; 51:3; 123:3; Isa 14:32; 25:4).455 In this psalm God’s mercy is mentioned three times (vv. 3, 6, 15). 3

6

15

3

6

15

evn tw/| dienecqh/nai yuch,n mou avpo. kuri,ou qeou/ VIsrah,l\ eiv mh. o` ku,rioj avntela,beto, mou tw/| evle,ei auvtou/ eivj to.n aivw/na) mh. avposth,s h|j to. e;leo,j sou avpV evmou/ o` qeo,j\ mhde. th.n mnh,mhn sou avpo. kardi,a j mou e[wj qana,tou) evn tw/| u`pomei/nai di,k aion evn tou,toij\ evlehqh,setai u`po. kuri,o u) So I would have been carried away from the Lord God of Israel, if the Lord had not taken hold of me with his eternal care.456 Don’t take your mercy from me, O God, nor your memory from my mind457 until death. The righteous survive all these things, by the Lord’s mercy.458

This psalm seems to be the confession of an individual person, namely the psalmist, concerning his own struggle with sin. This fact is visible in the way the righteous group is designated, which the author expresses almost exclusively with the personal proverb “I” (evgw, in vv. 1–12).459 The size and danger of this sin for the life of the righteous can be observed here. The righteous person is connected with the concept of sin (v. 11) and is therefore fully aware of his dependence on God and God’s mercy. God’s mercy is also manifested in God’s discipline, which helps to bring the righteous back to the Lord (v. 11). The psalmist in verses 3 and 6 – representing all those designated by the category of the righteous – expresses his awareness that without God’s protection and care he would be taken away from Israel. He would also be taken away from God’s mercy, and he points out that God’s nature itself – 455 For text-critical and philological notes as well as variant readings of Pss. Sol. 15, see R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 168–75. For exegetical reflections and commentary on this psalm, see Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 121–22; Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 313–28; Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos, 62–64. 456 OTP reads: “Thus my soul was drawn away from the Lord God of Israel, unless the Lord had come to my aid with his everlasting mercy” (OTP 2:665). 457 In Greek, “heart.” 458 OTP reads: “If the righteous endures all these things, he will receive mercy from the Lord” (OTP 2:665). 459 The exception is Pss. Sol. 16:15, where it is somebody else (3rd sing.) who speaks about the righteous. Winninge remarks that this verse is obviously the essence of Pss. Sol. 16, “because it sums up the whole psalm” by the statement “that endurance of discipline is the issue at stake.” Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 121.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 173

God’s active actions – is motivated by grace and mercy towards those who fear God and willingly keep God’s commandments. This particular motif is inherent in all the psalms of this hymnbook. But so is the opposite motif – the relentless descriptions of the tragic consequences of transgressing God’s commandments (Pss. Sol. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16).460 Therefore, the author’s prayer for remaining in God’s mind and memory means on the one hand to confess God’s omniscience (Pss. Sol. 14:7–8) and on the other to express the willingness of the author to remain on the right path of life by living in accordance with God’s will. The author focuses on piety and believes that the sufferings are part of God’s discipline. Therefore the sufferings atone for his sins, and all the while he endures the sufferings willingly, which means he accepts them as a part of the discipline of the Lord in order to finally receive mercy from the Lord (v. 15). This is also confirmation of the important feature the author associates with the discipline and the conditions of the law, meaning the enduring character of God’s covenant with Israel. This emphasis is also confirmed by the way the author names God – o` ku,rioj qeo.j VIsrah,l (v. 3), o` qeo,j (v. 6) and o` ku,rioj (v. 15). For the psalmist, God is first and foremost the God of Israel. He knows that God is his savior (v. 4), and this point is valid on a personal level as well as collectively. God is repeatedly described as the one who disciplines the righteous (vv. 11, 13–14) but also as the one who streng-thens them (vv. 12–13) and will show mercy (v. 15).461 It all belongs to the character of God’s righteousness manifested in the world from the beginning. From the content of this psalm, awareness of the sinfulness of the human being in a general sense, as well as God’s mercy manifested in his discipline and testing of the righteous, are of utmost importance. Furthermore, the righteous consider the trials and discipline as a part of God’s enduring covenant with Israel and are helping “the sinfully righteous” back to righteousness and protecting them from the destiny of the wicked who ignore God and God’s will.462 All of these aspects are also very prominent in the message of the Apostle Paul, a fact we pointed out repeatedly above. God’s actions in Jesus the Messiah – which for the sake of the Gentiles means inclusion in the blessings of God’s covenant with Israel – is for Paul so decisive that he confesses that all Christian believers’ experiences in their lives serve for their wellbeing and benefit (Rom 8:28), and nothing in all creation, suffering included, will be able to separate them from the love of God in Jesus Christ their Lord (Rom 8:38–39). It is the new kind of life in accordance with God’s commandments that includes continuous cleans460

Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 327. Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 122. 462 See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 122.

461

174 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics ing and purging from the negative consequences of sins. Paul labels it as “living in accordance with the Spirit” (Rom 8:1–11) or “living as a new creation in Christ” (2 Cor 5:17). Therefore, the messianic ethics is the climax of the lives of Christian believers so that they can be prepared to be irreproachable for the Day of the Lord (1 Cor 1:8). Semantically, it is the same as what the psalmist tried to express in the collection of the psalms (see Pss. Sol. 18:5). The only difference between them is that for Paul the long-awaited Messiah from David’s offspring was known, yet for the psalmist the Days of Messiah are still a long-desired event. However, as the last two psalms of the hymnbook (Pss. Sol. 17–18) confirm, he was sure that the time was yet near. 2.3.15 Psalms of Solomon 17 The last two psalms of the whole collection are where the author expresses God’s justice, righteousness, and mercy as interrelated and as a leading motif for the proper and right way of life of the community of the devout and the pious righteous of God. These two psalms constitute the literary and theological climax of the entire collection.463 All of the sufferings following the historical events that have beset the community of the devout are now expressed in the psalmist’s prayer concerning the coming of the Davidic Messiah in accordance with God’s promises given to Israel. In regard to the content of Pss. Sol. 17, the first three verses may be described as a confession of the community about God’s Majesty, might, and mercy, which are forever. All of the aforementioned characteristics are expressed against the background of condemnation of illegitimate Jewish sinners who unlawfully had seized the Davidic throne (Pss. Sol. 17:1–3; cf. Ps 29:10; 44:4; 74:12; 89:3–4, 49; 97:1; 99:1; 132:11; 145:13).464 The very beginning of the psalm includes features of sharp criticism of the Hasmonean dynasty.465 The following verses (Pss. Sol. 17:4–8) are the author’s recapitulating prayer to God concerning the promises given to David as well as the rise and the fall of the Hasmonean monarchy. As a result of the illegal usurpation of the high priesthood and setting up a monarchy in

463 For text-critical and exegetical reflections as well as commentary on these two psalms, including references to other literature, see Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 89–109, 123; Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 329–78, 379–93; Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos, 64–73. 464 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 333. 465 Viteau, Les Psaumes de Salomon, 340; Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos, 66; Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 99.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 175

104 BCE by the Hasmoneans,466 the righteous community – most probably the Pharisees – was exiled (Pss. Sol. 17:5, 16–18).467 This part follows the lengthy section of verses 9–20 and consists of didactic reflections on past historical events (Pss. Sol. 17:9–20). This unit can be divided into two sections. The first section (vv. 17:9–14) consists of reflections alongside those consistent with the era around 63 BCE,468 and the second (vv. 15–20) reflects the background of the rule of the Hasmonean dynasty.469 Verses 17:21–25 then constitute the main prayer of the psalmist where the author is asking for the coming of the Messiah. The following part (vv. 26–44) can then be described as the description of said anticipated Messiah and has a didactic aim.470 The final part in verses 44– 46 constitutes an epilogue.471 The psalmist praises those who in “those days” (the Days of Messiah) would see the assembling of the tribes and the good things of Israel (v. 44; cf. Isa 60:22; Ezek 17:24). Then, the psalmist asks God about the near coming of the Messiah, and he requests that God deliver this community of the pious and devout from the uncleanliness of the defiled enemies (Pss. Sol. 17:45; cf. Ps 30:16 [LXX]). The last verse (Pss. Sol. 17:46; cf. Exod 15:18; Ps 29:10; 97:1; 99:1) is a solemn confession, reiterating the first verse (Pss. Sol. 17:1) where the Lord is the king of Israel forever. It is clear that the last verse is a repetition of the psalmist’s opening words and once again asserts the psalmist’s belief that God alone rules the world.472 From a historical perspective, it is very likely that 466

A. Hilgenfeld, “Die Psalmen Salomo’s und die Himmelfahrt des Moses, griechisch hergestellt und erklärt,” ZWT 11 (1868): 165; Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer, 162–63; Ryle and James, Psalmoi Solomontos, 129–30; Gray, “The Psalms of Solomon,” 648; Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos, 65–67; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, 207; R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:665; Prigent, “Psaumes de Salomon,” 984; Tromp, “The Sinners and the Lawless in Psalm of Solomon 17,” 359–61, argues in favor of the hypothesis that the sinners who set up a monarchy are the Romans. Cited by Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 99, n. 424. 467 Cf. Josephus, Ant. 13.11.1 § 301; J.W. 1.70. For historical interpretation of the mentioned exile in Pss. Sol. 17:5, 16–18, see Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 102– 107. 468 Cf. Josephus, Ant. 14.4.5 § 79; J.W. 1.157–158. 469 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 95. 470 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 95. 471 Ryle and James, Psalmoi Solomontos, 126; Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos, 64–73. However, Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 96, raised an objection to this suggestion. He remarks that this argument ignores the change of subject between verses 44 and 45. Therefore, Winninge stresses that verse 44 should be connected with what precedes it. 472 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 358.

176 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics verses 4–8 and 15–20 refer to the same period of time, more than likely referencing the time of the Hasmonean monarchy in 104–63 BCE.473 The psalmist’s community of the righteous,474 most likely the Pharisees,475 had experienced great suffering under Jerusalem’s corrupt leadership and later by its alien conquerors.476 The Hasmoneans, due to their sins, rose up against the devout (Pss. Sol. 17:5), which resulted in their escape into the wilderness (vv. 16–17). However, in the near future they will be saved and become holy through the Messiah (v. 32).477 The sinners constitute the most discernible group within this psalm, which the psalmist is careful to describe in sharp contrast to the psalmist’s own community.478 These are Jewish transgressors whom the psalmist describes as “the children of the covenant” (oi` ui`oi. th/j diaqh,khj in the v. 15).479 The inhabitants of Jerusalem, particularly the city’s leadership (oi` a;rcontej th/j gh/j in vv. 12, 20, 36), king (o` basileu,j in v. 20), judge (o` krith,j in v. 20), and people are also considered by the author as sinful. The Jewish population in Jerusalem 480 had adopted the practices of the Gentiles, thus the psalmist charges that there is no one among them who did mercy and truth in Jerusalem (v. 15).481 However, as Mikael Winninge remarks, in this psalm the inhabitants are not explicitly connected with Jerusalem, and its perspective is clearly wider than, for example, in Pss. Sol. 2, because the future of Israel as a whole is in the psalmist’s vision.482 Thus, it is the eschatological perspective of the author that moves this designation to a wider meaning. Those from the people of Jerusalem who are hinted at by the psalmist, meaning the inhabitants who committed sin, can no longer

473

Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 107. The psalmist identifies the righteous community with the category of we/Israel, for which he uses the designation h`mei/j (vv. 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 45–46), VIsrah,l (vv. 4, 21, 42, 44, 45), oi` avgapw/ntej sunagwga.j o`si,wn (v. 16), auvtoi, (v. 17), fulai. laou/ h`giasme,nou (vv. 26, 43), lao.j a[gioj (v. 26), ui`oi. Qeou/ (v. 27), lao.j kuri,ou (v. 35), lao.j me,gaj (v. 36), to. poi,mnion kuri,ou (v. 40), fulai, (v. 40). 475 See the argument in Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 99–107. 476 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 334. 477 See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 96–97. 478 The designations for the sinners are a`martwloi, (vv. 5, 23, 25, 36), auvtoi, (vv. 6–9, 12, 15, 19, 24), pa/j a;nqrwpoj eivdw.j kaki,a n (v. 27), evcqroi. be,b hloi (v. 45). 479 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 97, n. 407, remarks that the designation is an uncommon one (cf. Ezek 30:5; Acts 3:25). 480 The psalmist designates the inhabitants of Jerusalem as evnoikou/ntej th.n gh/n (v. 11), ne,o j, presbu,thj kai. te,k na (v. 11), auvtoi, , auvta,, (vv. 11–12, 15–16, 19–20), oi` ui`oi. th/j diaqh,khj (v. 15), a;nomoi (v. 18), evla,cistoj, o` lao,j (v. 20). 481 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 334. 482 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 96. 474

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 177

appeal to God to invoke the covenantal promises.483 To live in sin and without proper consequences means a sincere atonement for the committed sin resulting in a status of being outside the blessings of the covenant. This special place among the sinners is dedicated to a “man that is foreign to the race” of the psalmist (a;nqrwpoj avllo,trioj ge,nouj h`mw/n in Pss. Sol. 17:7).484 From the context of the whole collection of the psalms (cf. Pss. Sol. 2 and 8), we can suggest – and most scholars hold this view – that this person is Pompey.485 But the possibility that it was Herod the Great and the events related to his siege of Jerusalem in 37 BCE cannot be ignored.486 The main concern of the author in this psalm is God and God’s righteousness that is promised to be manifested in the near future through the events of the coming of God’s Messiah from David’s offspring. God is called “our” Savior (Pss. Sol. 17:3) and “our” king, meaning Israel’s king (vv. 1, 46). The psalmist also adds another name to this designation. God is “his” king, which means the Messiah’s king (v. 34).487 Despite the fact that the author also designated other persons as “king” (David in v. 4, Hasmoneans in v. 20, the Messiah in vv. 21, 32, 42), from the context it is clear that only God is sovereign and the almighty king of the whole world (vv. 1, 34, 46). God is the main actor during the whole history of the world manifested not only in the event of creation itself but especially in God’s special revelation in Israel’s history. God is almighty and has foreseen all the events that have happened in the history of Israel – the rise and fall of the Davidic monarchy as well as the rise and fall of the Hasmonean dynasty, including the present-day events besetting the community of the devout and pious behind the psalmist. This flow of events as a whole will reach its climax in the near future when God’s plan to send the Messiah, in accordance with God’s own promises given to David (2 Sam 7), will be fulfilled. This time is near and brings the majesty of God’s anointed (Pss. Sol. 17:21, 32, 34, 37–38, 42), 483

Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 96–97, 108–109. The psalmist calls him also as o` a;nomoj (v. 11), auvto,j (vv. 12–14), evcqro,j (v. 13). 485 Viteau, Les Psaumes de Salomon, 344; Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos, 68. Hilgenfeld, “Die Psalmen Salomo’s,” 166, thought of Antipater in v. 7, but as for the “lawless one,” he held the same opinion, meaning that he believed it was Pompey. On the topic of the historical identification of this person, see Ryle and James, Psalmoi Solomontos, 127. 486 See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 98–107; Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 360–77. 487 The designations used by the psalmist for God are as follows: o` ku,rioj (vv. 1, 4, 10, 21, 26, 30–32, 34–35, 38–40, 46), su, (vv. 1, 4–5, 7, 21), auvto,j (vv. 1, 10, 34, 45–46), basileu.j h`mw/n (vv. 1, 46), o` qeo,j (vv. 1, 3, 7–9, 13, 21, 26–27, 31–32, 34, 37, 40, 42, 44–45), swth/r h`mw/n (v. 3), basileu.j auvtou/ (v. 34). 484

178 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics as well as holiness and a good destiny for Israel (vv. 26, 44), including compassion for all nations who fear God and have reverence for God’s will that is realized in the world through Israel (v. 34).488 The psalmist’s community takes in account all of what has happened in Jerusalem, meaning God’s righteous judgment justified and anticipated in its future restoration (vv. 10, 30–31, 34, 39, 46). 489 However, before the final restoration of all of Jerusalem’s sinners, Jews as well as Gentiles have to be vanquished and banished from the city. This will be done through the Davidic Messiah who fulfills and realizes God’s own righteousness (v. 32). We are now coming to the very core of God’s activity in this hymnbook, which is the event of the coming of the Messiah from David’s offspring as the climax of the history of salvation for all whose life expressed the will to become a part of God’s covenantal promises. The psalmist refers to the Messiah through a variety of names and calls him the Son of David (v. 21), the Lord’s anointed (v. 32), the king of Israel (v. 42), or the king (vv. 21, 32). Kenneth Atkinson remarks here that “[t]hese epitaphs were chosen to accentuate the messiah’s unique relationship as God’s agent who had been chosen to liberate Jerusalem.”490 In this psalm it is the Messiah who is fully representative of God’s righteousness on earth, with all of God’s earthly activity characterized by this righteousness. The psalmist describes the manifestation of God’s righteousness and mercy particularly in verses 3, 23, 26, 29, 32, 34, 37, 40, and 45. 491 3 h`mei/j de. evlpiou/men evpi. to.n qeo.n swth/ra h`mw/n\ o[ti to. kra,toj tou/ qeou/ h`mw/n eivj to.n aivw/na metV evle,ouj\ kai. h` basilei,a tou/ qeou/ h`mw/n eivj to.n aivw/na evpi. ta. e;q nh evn kri,sei) 3 But we hope in God our savior: because the strength and mercy of our God will last forever,492 and the kingdom of our God will last forever in judgment over the Gentiles. 493 488

Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 99. Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 335. 490 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 336. Atkinson in connection with the function of agency in Scripture refers also to G. W. Buchanan, Biblical and Theological Insights from Ancient and Modern Civil Law (Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1992), 113–43. 491 For text-critical and philological notes as well as variant readings of these verses, see R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 176–201. 492 The Greek text reads “the strength of our God is forever with mercy.” R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 177, n. 263; OTP 2:665. 493 Some manuscripts omit the words “in judgment.” R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 177, n. 264. 489

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 179

This verse is the final sentence of the introduction of the psalm and also the introductory statement of the following section (vv. 4–8) that is the author’s recapitulating prayer to God concerning the historical events related to the illegitimate usurpation of the royal and high priest’s rule by the Hasmonean dynasty.494 For the psalmist, however, the main problem in this connection was the establishment of the monarchy, because it was contrary to God’s will that God alone should be the king of Israel forever (see 1 Sam 8:7). Therefore, the author began by recalling this traditional biblical belief (cf. Ps 29:10).495 Although God subsequently allowed the people to establish the monarchy, the first anointed king (Saul) acted contrary to God’s will and was thus rejected in place of David (1 Sam 15:26). Although God permitted the kingship to continue, the monarchy was restricted to David’s offspring as a result of God’s sovereign will (2 Sam 7:16). Therefore, for many Jews, especially for the pious and devout in Israel, the only legitimate and acceptable ruler should be one of the sons of David (2 Chr 13:5, 8).496 Thus, this verse is a spectacular expression of the author’s firm trust in God. For the psalmist, and also for all who can be included among the pious and devout, God is the King and Savior. The author is sure that God is the only firm basis of his hope and that God’s might is forever, including God’s mercy, and that God’s kingdom is forever over the nations in judgment. The author expresses the important thought that God’s judgment is a part of God’s kingdom, probably meaning that the full realization of God’s kingdom will come during the last days of this age. I think it should not be interpreted as the final condemnation of the nations, meaning the Gentiles. Rather, it is the clear stamp of the author’s emphasis on God’s righteousness and impartiality, because God will judge all nations, including Israel, justly and in mercy, judging if and to what extent the quality of

494 From the content of Pss. Sol. 17:4–8, it is clear that for the psalmist the destruction of the Hasmonean monarchy was important. Winninge here remarks, referring to D. R. Schwartz, Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (WUNT 60; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 44–56, that for the Pharisees – if the community of the author was Pharisaic – it was the combination of high priesthood and monarchy that was illegitimate, not the priesthood itself. See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 101, 141–80. 495 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 336. 496 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 336. See further Buchanan, New Testament Eschatology, 90–120; T. N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings (ConBOT 8; Lund: Gleerup, 1976), 254–93.

180 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics their lives corresponds to God’s commandments. Since the previous content makes it clear that the righteous also sin, this fact excludes any kind of privilege or primacy on the side of Israel. However, the same is valid on the other side, meaning its concern with the Gentiles. God will be merciful to all nations who fear God and will willingly accept God’s sovereign rule over the world (Pss. Sol. 17:34). Therefore, the universal aspects of this statement and the hymnbook in its entirety cannot be overlooked. This statement can be regarded as the introduction of the basic theme of Pss. Sol. 17, where God is in control of events and will right the wrongs in Israel through the divine intervention of the Davidic Messiah (vv. 21– 45).497 The following verses related to the righteousness of the Messiah and God’s mercy towards Israel (vv. 23, 26, 29, 32, 34, 37, 40, 45) relate directly to this theme. For the sake of a more lucid arrangement, as well as for contextual reasons, I state the first of these verses (v. 23) in the broader context of verses 21–25.498 21

:Ide( ku,rie\ kai. avna,s thson auvtoi/j to.n basile,a auvtw/n\ ui`o.n Daui,d\ eivj to.n kairo,n\ o]n i;dej su,\ o` qeo,j\ tou/ basileu/sai evpi. VIsrah.l pai/da, sou\ 22 kai. u`po,zwson auvto.n ivscu.n tou/ qrau/sai a;rcontaj avdi,kouj\ kaqa,rison ~Ierousalh.m avpo. evq nw/n katapatou,ntwn evn avpwlei,a| 23 evn sofi,a |\ evn dikaiosu,nh| evxw/sai a`martwlou.j avpo. klhronomi,aj\ evktri/yai u`perhfani,an a`martwlou/\ w`j skeu,h kerame,wj\ 24 evn r`a,b dw| sidhra/| suntri/yai pa/san u`po,stasin auvtw/n\ ovleqreu/sai e;qnh para,noma evn lo,gw| sto,matoj auvtou/\ 25 evn avpeilh/| auvtou/ fugei/n e;qnh avpo. prosw,pou auvtou/\ kai. evle,gxai a`martwlou.j evn lo,gw| kardi,aj auvtw/n) 21

22

Look, 499 O Lord, and raise up for them their king, a son of David, to rule over your servant Israel in the time that you know, O God. Undergird him with the strength to destroy the unrighteous rulers, to purge Jerusalem from the Gentiles who trample her down to destruction;

497

See Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 337. For text-critical and philological notes as well as variant readings of these verses, see R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 186–89. See also the variant translation in OTP 2:667. 499 Other manuscripts read: “Know this …” R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 187, n. 282. 498

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 181 23

24

25

In wisdom and in righteousness 500 to drive out the sinners from the inheritance, to smash the arrogance of sinners like a potter’s jar; to demolish all their resources 501 with an iron rod; to destroy the lawbreaking Gentiles with the word of his mouth;502 to scatter the Gentiles from his presence at his threat; 503 to condemn sinners by their own consciences.504

The previous part of this psalm began by recounting the sins and punishments of Israel (vv. 5–20). Now follows the famous part of the hymnbook which describes the advent of the Davidic Messiah (vv. 21–25). This section, which is a part of the whole unit (vv. 21–44), is a unique example of the description of the messianic expectations of the Jewish community behind the psalms. It belongs among the most important documents for understanding the concept of the Davidic Messiah in both Judaism and Christianity.505 As Brad Embry remarks, in this psalm we can observe the balance between certainty and uncertainty, which is a typical feature of messianic eschatology where use of the term o` kairo,j (the right or appropriate time) plays an important role.506 The author calls to the Lord for sending his (God’s) Messiah in “the right time.” This appropriate time is the very climax of the eschatological period – eschaton – and means the beginning of the Final, Last Judgment over the whole earth. The psalmist’s description of the messianic figure is molded after the prospects of a Messiah, a son of David, as well as other messianic promises established in the Hebrew Scriptures (cf. 2 Sam 7:12–16; Jer 23:5; 30:8–9; Ezek 34:23–24; 37:25;

500 The Syriac omits the words “in wisdom and in righteousness.” R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 189, n. 283. 501 In Greek this means literally: “substance,” “foundation,” “confidence.” R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 189, n. 284. 502 OTP reads: “to destroy the unlawful nations with the word of his mouth” (OTP 2:667). 503 OTP reads: “At his warning the nations will flee from his presence” (OTP 2:667). 504 In Greek this means literally: “by the thoughts of their own hearts.” R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 189, n. 285. 505 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 377. 506 Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 94–95. Embry notes that the messianic advent in the Psalms of Solomon is a specification of one aspect of the prophet paradigm and only generalized in Deut 32 (Ha’azinu – the Song of Moses, in Hebrew transliteration traditionally called Ha’azinu). He also remarks that this balance between certainty and uncertainty is also found in Deut 32:35 and adds that in Ha’azinu the fulfillment of “the right time” is tantamount to the judgment of the nations.

182 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics Amos 9:11; Isa 11:1–12).507 The Messiah is called son of David (v. 21); he is a real human being but with certain semi-divine characteristics that are attributed to him by God. In this regard he is the embodiment of wisdom, strength, and righteousness and is pure from sin. Therefore, he is the source of blessing. He will act in power and will destroy the unrighteous rulers and expel the foreigners from the country (v. 22). He will gather the dispersed and will judge the tribes of Israel (v. 26). He will again restore the tribal boundaries in Israel (v. 28). He will be judge, king, and shepherd of Israel (vv. 29, 32, and 40). His kingdom will be known not only in Israel but, because he is God’s representative, the Gentiles will also come to Jerusalem to bring him tribute (v. 31). The content of this section shows that in the Messiah’s actions there is obvious tension between particularity and universalism.508 In regard to a messianic reign in the future, there are the nations in general who are a concern. While the psalmist states that no foreigners will live in Israel (v. 28), he also predicts that the nations will come to see the glory of the Lord and bring back the dispersed of Israel (v. 31). This tension is caused by the after-effects of these historical events on the eschatological-apocalyptic orientation of the community behind the psalms. Since the psalmist believed that the situation in Jerusalem is very serious and critical and that all of Jerusalem’s inhabitants were sinful – even rulers and judges were disobedient to God’s will (v. 20) – all of this was for him an indication that now or very soon the Lord would crack down on this unlawfulness. He therefore cried to the Lord to “raise up” their legitimate king, in accordance with God’s own promises, the Davidic descendant and God’s messianic agent (v. 21).509 Even though the Messiah will be the king, he would not seek the throne for himself, because the author stated that the Lord himself is his, meaning the Messiah’s king (v. 34). Comparing the psalmist’s description of the Messiah with the Hebrew Scriptures, it is clear that the author based his hope upon the past promise for the restoration of the Davidic dynasty (Amos 9:11), and for the depiction of this messianic figure he creatively merged concepts from a number of texts in the Hebrew Bible where the Messiah is portrayed as king and warrior (Ps 2:9; Isa 11:4; 30:14; Jer 19:11).510 507

Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 107. Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 98, 107. 509 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 347. 510 The creativity of the author in regard to the use of these intertextual parallels was recognized and appreciated by more scholars as the mark of his exegetical skill and creative interpretation of Scripture. See, for example, Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 348, who refers to G. L. Davenport, “The ‘Anointed of the Lord’ in Psalms of Solomon 17,” in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms 508

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 183

Pss. Sol. 17:23 describes the Messiah as God’s warrior whose task will be to act in wisdom and righteousness – which is ultimately God’s wisdom and righteousness – with the specifics of these actions being to drive out sinners from their inheritance and to smash their arrogance like a potter’s vessel. The Messiah had been commissioned for all of these roles as God’s agent, and he has been authorized to act and speak on behalf of the Lord.511 This kind of speech is a typical feature of apocalyptic language, which is also the mark of the great expectations of the messianic arrival within Judaism of the Second Temple era.512 Therefore, the Davidic Messiah has to destroy the enemies of the Lord by taking on the sinners from Gentiles (v. 22) and Jewish sinners who had broken God’s covenant (v. 23). In the actions of the Messiah the contact of the heavenly realm with the earthly is finally coming about. This fact is expressed in terms of the description of the earthly kingdom of the Messiah that will be centered in Jerusalem, while the kingdom of God – the final goal of God’s creational purpose – is of a spiritual nature. This characteristic feature of the contemporary Jewish eschatological-apocalyptic notions is clearly not considered to be problematic or contradictory. It only confirms the eschatological focus of the community behind the author and their conviction that in the near future all of these events will begin and will cause this old earthly age to be replaced by the new age of the spiritual kingdom of the Lord. The Messiah will become the new king in Jerusalem where he immediately will gather a holy people and lead them in righteousness (Pss. Sol. 17:26). 26

Kai. suna,xei lao.n a[gion ou- avfhgh,setai evn dikaiosu,nh|\ kai. krinei/ fula.j laou/ h`giasme,nou u`po. kuri,o u qeou/ auvtou/\

26

He will gather a holy people513 whom he will lead in righteousness;514 and he will judge the tribes of the people who have been made holy by the Lord his God.

(ed. J. J. Collins and G. W. Nickelsburg; SBLSCS 12; Chicago: Scholars Press, 1980), 88–89. 511 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 349. 512 For closer analysis and interpretation of this section, see Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 347–53. 513 One Syriac manuscript reads: “a righteous people.” R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 191, n. 286. 514 The Syriac reads: “who will glorify themselves.” R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 191, n. 287.

184 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics The eschatological character of the description of the Davidic Messiah’s actions is also visible in this verse. The Messiah is described as the one who will gather a holy people and inaugurate God’s righteous kingdom. This statement of the psalmist reflects the traditional Jewish belief that only God is the true judge ruling through righteousness (cf. Ps 7:8; 50:6; 72:2; 96:13). Therefore, this process will also include the purging of the city from any kind of impurity (v. 27). The righteousness that will be used by the Messiah is in sharp contrast with the unlawfulness of the former leadership. He removes all unrighteousness from the land, dispenses justice, “and he will judge the tribes of the people who have been made holy by the Lord his (Messiah’s) God.” Gathering a holy people together first includes all the lost ones of Israel – God’s dispersed people in all corners of the world (cf. Isa 11:12). However, it should not also exclude from the Gentiles the people who have willingly identified themselves with God’s will and have walked by the commandments of the Lord in their lives. The theme of God’s discipline is here focused on the messiah himself, who is the one to discipline Israel.515 This means that the Messiah himself embodies God’s discipline concerning the people not only of Israel, but also the other nations because God is the Lord and sovereign King of the whole world. God’s hegemony over the whole earth is one of the most important themes of this hymnbook, which is related primarily with the motif of God’s justice, righteousness, and mercy as well. The most characteristic assertion about God’s hegemony over the world is that of Pss. Sol. 2:32, where God is described as “a great and righteous king, judging what is under heaven.” Linking the function of kingship together with judging is characteristic with the Jewish understanding of the position and role of the king in ancient Israel (see 1 Kgs 3:16–28; cf. Ps 93:1; 96:10; 97:1; Isa 24:23; 52:7; Zeph 3:15).516 For the author of the Psalms of Solomon, it is therefore natural that in these psalms God is both the king and the judge not just over Israel but over the whole earth.517 At the same time it means that for all who would be saved from destruction and condemnation, right behavior – including repentance for sins – is an inevitable conditio sine qua non. It must be added, however, that this fact does not exclude God’s mercy as a basic precondition for the process as a whole. Messianic ethics is coming to a major climax in this psalm. 515

Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 109. See Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 79–80, who remarks here that in Ha’azinu, God is righteous and just (Deut 32:3), God selected the nation of Israel as God’s portion (Deut 32:7–9), claims hegemony over the people (Deut 32:12), and through the Song itself passes judgment on Israel. 517 Cf. Pss. Sol. 2:10, 18; 3:3; 4:8, 24; 5:1; 8:18, 24; 9:2, 5; 10:5; 17:10. 516

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 185

The calamities and difficulties situated behind the tenacity of the author of this collection have served to initiate this process, a process that will finally culminate in the redemption and purification not only of Israel but of the entire world with the Messiah himself as their righteous king (Pss. Sol. 17:29–32, 34). 29

30

31

32

krinei/ laou.j kai. e;q nh evn sofi,a | dikaiosu,nhj auvtou/\ dia,yalma Kai. e[xei laou.j evqnw/n douleu,ein auvtw/| u`po. to.n zugo.n auvtou/\ kai. to.n ku,rion doxa,sei evn evpish,mw| pa,shj th/j gh/j\ kai. kaqariei/ ~Ierousalh.m evn a`giasmw/| w`j kai. to. avpV avrch/j\ e;rcesqai e;qnh avpV a;krou th/j gh/j ivdei/n th.n do,xan auvtou/\ fe,rontej dw/ra tou.j evxhsqenhko,taj ui`o u.j auvth/j\ kai. ivdei/n th.n do,xan kuri,ou h]n evdo,xasen auvth.n o` qeo,j) kai. auvto.j basileu.j di,kaioj didakto.j u`po. qeou/ evpV auvtou,j\ kai. ouvk e;stin avdiki,a evn tai/j h`me,raij auvtou/ evn me,sw| auvtw/n\ o[ti pa,ntej a[gioi kai. basileu.j auvtw/n cristo.j kuri,oj)

34

Ku,rioj auvto.j basileu.j auvtou/\ evlpi.j tou/ dunatou/ evlpi,di qeou/\ Kai. evleh,sei pa,nta ta. e;qnh evnw,pion auvtou/ evn fo,b w|)

29

He will judge peoples and nations in the wisdom of his justice. Pause He will have gentile peoples 518 serving him under his yoke, and he will glorify the Lord publically in the whole world. He will pronounce Jerusalem clean, consecrating it as it was in the beginning. 519 He will have nations come 520 from the ends of the earth to see his glory, giving back521 her scattered children522 and to see the glory of the Lord with which God has glorified her.

30

31

518 In Greek: “peoples of the nations.” R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 193, n. 292. 519 OTP reads: “And he will have gentile nations serving him under his yoke, and he will glorify the Lord in (a place) prominent (above) the whole earth. And he will purge Jerusalem (and make it) holy as it was even from the beginning” (OTP 2:667). 520 Other manuscripts read: “come nations.” R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 193, n. 293. 521 In Greek: “bearing as gifts.” R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 193, n. 294. 522 This is the Syriac. In Greek: “her frail children.” R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 193, n. 295. OTP reads: “(for) nations to come from the ends of the earth to see his glory, to bring as gifts her children who had been driven out” (OTP 2:667).

186 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics 32

He will be a righteous king over them, taught by God, there will be no unrighteousness among them during his reign,523 because everyone will be holy, and their king will be the Lord Messiah.

34

The Lord himself is his king, the hope of the one who hopes 524 in God. He will be merciful to all the Gentiles that fearfully stand before him. 525

God’s judging is here (v. 29) joined with the activity of the Messiah, whose judgments are based on his wisdom. This aspect of judging activity of the Messiah is significant because the Davidic Messiah embodies God’s wisdom and God’s righteousness. Since the Messiah is God’s agent, he has the authority and the power to participate in God’s Final Judgment. Since the manifestation of God’s wisdom is accessible to all nations, particularly within nature but also in the mind of a human being, no one can be excused for their ignorance of it and its consequences (cf. Rom 1:19–20). God’s righteousness is therefore the basis of God’s passing judgment on all human beings’ actions, whereby God is judging the whole world in the wisdom of God’s own righteousness. Therefore, the judging activity of the Messiah himself is in accordance with the justness and righteousness of God and applies to all nations on the earth. The actions of the Messiah will mean the glorification of the Lord himself in the whole world (v. 30). This process as such also includes the purification and cleansing of Jerusalem, including the gathering of the nations of the earth and bringing back of the scattered Jews, so they all could see the glory of the Lord and participate in this glory (vv. 30–31). The eschatological character of this part is intensified through the mention of the holiness of all who will be present at that time before the Messiah. The author probably has in mind those who have been purified and cleansed from all that brought about their defilement, firstly in the ethical sphere. After all, the Davidic Messiah will recognize that God is even the Davidic Messiah’s king and that the Davidic Messiah can rule only on God’s behalf, and moreover that also Gentiles who fear God could be recognized as the righteous of the Lord and have a share in the salvation (v. 34).526

523

In Greek: “in his days.” R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 195, n. 296. In Greek: “hope.” R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 195, n. 300. 525 OTP reads: “He shall be compassionate to all the nations (who) reverently (stand) before him” (OTP 2:668). 526 See Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 357. 524

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 187

All of this is also confirmed in the content of the following part where the righteousness and mercy of the Davidic Messiah is mentioned explicitly (vv. 37, 40, 45–46). 37

kai. ouvk avsqenh,sei evn tai/j h`me,raij auvtou/ evpi. qew/| auvtou/ o[ti o` qeo.j kateirga,sato auvto.n dunato.n evn pneu,mati a`gi,w| kai. sofo.n evn boulh/| sune,sewj meta. ivscu,o j kai. dikaiosu,nhj)

37

And he will not weaken during his reign, 527 relying upon his God, because God will make him powerful by a holy spirit; and wise in intelligent counsel, with strength and righteousness. 528

40

vIscuro.j evn e;rgoij auvtou/ kai. krataio.j evn fo,b w| qeou/ poimai,nwn to. poi,mnion kuri,o u evn pi,s tei kai. dikaiosu,nh|\ kai. ouvk avfh,sei avsqenh/sai evn auvtoi/j evn th/| nomh/| auvtw/n)

40

He will be mighty in his actions and strong in the fear of God, faithfully and righteously shepherding the Lord’s sheep,529 he will not let any of them stumble in their pasture.

45

tacu,nai o` qeo.j evpi. VIsrah.l to. e;leoj auvtou/\ r`u,setai h`ma/j avpo. avkaqarsi,a j evc qrw/n bebh,lwn) ku,rioj auvto.j basileu.j h`mw/n eivj to.n aivw/na kai. e;ti)

46 45

46

May God hasten his mercy to Israel; May he shield us from the contamination of defiled enemies; 530 The Lord himself is our king forevermore.

Although the author described the Messiah as a warrior, his reign will be based on God’s righteousness. The success of his reign is guaranteed by Godself, who will strengthen him by the Holy Spirit. There is also the fact that the Messiah is still relying upon the Lord (v. 37) and that his actions are realized through the fear of God (v. 40). In the second half of the verse, the author used the comparison of the Messiah king to the just and righteous shepherd who safely leads his flock, which is the characteristic motif in Psalm 23 (see Ps 23:1; cf. Isa 40:11 [LXX]; Jer 23:4; Ezek 34:15, 23; 527

In Greek: “in his days.” R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 197, n. 302. OTP reads: “And he will not weaken in his days, (relying) upon his God, for God made him powerful in the holy spirit and wise in the counsel of understanding, with strength and righteousness” (OTP 2:668). 529 In Greek: “flock” (“sheep” to preserve the alliteration in Greek). R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 199, n. 304. 530 OTP reads: “May God dispatch his mercy to Israel; may he deliver us from the pollution of profane enemies” (OTP 2:669). 528

188 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics Mic 5:4 [LXX]). Verses 45–46 are the conclusion of this psalm. The first is the author’s wish as God hastens God’s mercy upon Israel and delivers the pious and devout from the uncleanliness of profaned enemies (cf. Ps 30:16 [LXX]). The final statement speaks about the Lord’s dominion over Israel forever, but from the context of the psalm as a whole it is clear that the Lord alone rules the world (cf. Exod 15:18; Ps 29:10; 97:1; 99:1). This final statement is the author’s repetition of the opening sentence. From the content it is obvious that the basis of the Messiah’s doings and actions is God’s righteousness. This righteousness is at the same time an expression and confirmation of God’s mercy, and they both constitute the very foundations of the world.531 As I mentioned several times above, the understanding of the theology of the Psalms of Solomon, especially the function of the messianic section in Pss. Sol. 17, is possible only in light of the intertextual parallels in the Hebrew Scriptures,532 or, as Brad Embry argued in his distinguished work about the Psalms of Solomon, directly in the light of “the Hebrew Bible prophetic paradigm,” which he found predominantly in Deut 32.533 Embry remarks here that the continuity of the psalms governs the interpretation of individual concepts contained within particular parts of the collection, and that the individual themes of Israel, the Jerusalem Temple, and messianism are therefore subordinate to the overall intent of the document, which is the installation of God’s divine plan.534 This constitutes some version of the eschatological-apocalyptic paradigm with the climax that constitutes the event of the advent of the Davidic Messiah, including the description of the messianic figure in terms of being God’s agent who has the attributes of a semi-divine person and who is called the Son of David (v. 21), the Lord’s anointed (v. 32), the king of Israel (v. 42), the king (v. 21), or the righteous king (v. 32). Since I personally want to suggest that the provenience of this hymnbook is Pharisaic, I am convinced that this paradigm, particularly its semantics, could stand behind Paul’s own theologizing in regard to the Gentiles. Among others, this assumption supports more facts, primarily that Pss. Sol. 17 is the first known written appearance of this specific messianic tradition, including the popularity and broad circulation

531 For the historical problems of Pss. Sol. 17, see Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 358–65. 532 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon. 533 Embry, “Psalms of Assurance.” 534 Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 101.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 189

of this hymnbook among the pious groups of contemporary Jews – including Pharisees as well as those with the current messianic expectations – with various contemporary notions broadened among Jewish religious communities in Palestine.535 From this point of view, most if not all of what relates to Paul’s doctrine of justification (Rom 3:21–31) and the messianic concept established in the corpus of Paul’s letters can follow primarily from the concept of the preparation of the pious and devout for the Last Judgment as described by the author of the Psalms of Solomon in chapters 17–18. Naturally, in Paul’s case this is in regard to the Gentiles who have to be cleansed and prepared for the Parousia of the Davidic Messiah – Jesus of Nazareth. Since the purification and cleansing has to do primarily with ethics, it is therefore obvious that messianic ethics plays a decisive role in Paul’s theologizing. 2.3.16 Psalms of Solomon 18 The eighteenth psalm closes the collection with a message of hope that the Messiah is coming and that God is in control of the heavens.536 For the author it means the climax of the eschatological-apocalyptic events preceding the end of this age and its replacement by the age to come.537 In regard to the content, this psalm describes God’s care for creation.538 There are more sections of this psalm that have parallels than what we found in the preceding psalms, which gives the impression of a redacted work.539 As the concluding psalm with the message of messianic hope, it counterbalances Pss. Sol. 1, which constitutes the opening psalm of the collection with the

535 For historical analysis of the messianic notion in Pss. Sol. 17, especially in regard to intertextuality and the concept of the violent messiah in contemporary Jewish religious tradition, see Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 368–77, including the other referenced literature. 536 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 393. 537 For text-critical and philological notes as well as variant readings of these verses, see R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 202–207. See also the variant translation in OTP 2:669. 538 Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 380. 539 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 20, including n. 81, asserts that Pss. Sol. 18 is mostly the result of editorial or redactional work, particularly: Pss. Sol. 18:1–2 reflect Pss. Sol. 5:2, 11–12, 14–15, 18; Pss. Sol. 18:3 reflects 2:10; 8:8; 9:9; Pss. Sol. 18:4–5 reflect 3:8; 13:7, 9; Pss. Sol. 18:5–9 reflect 17:26–44; Pss. Sol. 18:6 is an allusion to 17:44, etc. Similarly Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 393, argues that this psalm was likely copied directly from other texts in the collection. For extensive listings of these parallels, see Ryle and James, Psalmoi Solomontos, 147.

190 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics theme of crisis that has in its midst the particular messianic expecation as the climax of the history of this (old) age.540 In Pss. Sol. 18:1–3, the psalmist expresses his belief that God loves and protects Israel. 1

Ku,rie\ to. e;leo,j sou evpi. ta. e;rga tw/n ceirw/n sou eivj to.n aivw/na\ h` crhsto,thj sou meta. do,matoj plousi,ou evpi. VIsrah,l\

1

O Lord, your mercy is upon the works of your hands forever, your kindness to Israel with a lavish gift.

3

ta. kri,mata, sou evpi. pa/san th.n gh/n meta. evle,ouj\ kai. h` avga,ph sou evpi. spe,rma VAbraa,m\ ui`ou/ VIsrah,l)

3

Your compassionate judgments are over the whole world, and your love is for the descendants of Abraham, an Israelite.541

God has mercy upon Israel, but it has to be added that the psalmist also accounts for all who are humble and rely on the Lord. So this mercy is marked as a “lavish gift” (Pss. Sol. 18:1). God’s mercy encompasses all of the creation (cf. Ps 145:9), and this idea implies the belief of the author that none of Israel will be in want (Pss. Sol. 18:2; cf. Ps 9:19; 23:1). Here the author also refers to his own community as the “poor” (cf. Pss. Sol. 5). This designation could have two meanings, with the literal to be poor in material possessions, or figurative, which can express the humbleness of the community before God. We find here direct mentions of God’s mercy and kindness to Israel, which are manifested in God’s judgments that are recognized as an expression and demonstration of God’s love that is upon the descendants of Abraham (Pss. Sol. 18:3; cf. Ps 105:7 [104:7 LXX]; Isa 26:9; Jer 33:26).542 We can again observe here that God’s judgments are an expression of God’s mercy, a frequent motif in the collection. The author’s stress on the covenant made by God with Abraham (cf. Gen 17:1–2) also brings us to the importance of God’s covenant with Israel. The psalmist calls Abraham the son of Israel (ui`o,j VIsrah,l). However, Abraham is at the same time the person who connects Israel with other nations of the world. They are also part of God’s covenant with Israel and could find a place in God’s blessings and salvation.

540

See Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 393. In Greek: “of Abraham, of a son of Israel.” To the commentary of this awkward phrase, see R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 203, n. 312. 542 The psalmist’s community in Pss. Sol. 18 is called VIsrah,l (vv. 1, 5), ptwco,j (v. 2), spe,rma VAbraa,m (v. 3), ui`oi. VIsrah,l (v. 3), h`mei/j (vv. 4, 10), and yuch. euvh,kooj (v. 4). See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 123; Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 381. 541

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 191

In the following verse (Pss. Sol. 18:4), Israel is portrayed as the firstborn, the only son of God (cf. Ps 89:27; Prov 13:1). Israel’s relationship with God is described as a relationship between a father and son. Since God is here in the position of a parent, discipline is an inevitable part of God’s leading the nation in order to keep it from ignorance in disbelief (v. 4). Pss. Sol. 18:5 is a characteristic verse giving an account of the decisive role of right behavior before God and God’s Messiah. 5

Kaqari,sai o` qeo.j VIsrah.l eivj h`me,ran evle,ouj evn euvlogi,a |\ eivj h`me,ran evk logh/j evn avna,xei cristou/ auvtou/\

5

May God cleanse Israel for the blessed day of mercy, the appointed day for the appearance of his Messiah.

It is the wish of God’s cleansing of Israel for the day of mercy and blessing, which is the appointed day for the appearance of the Messiah where the author anticipates the advent of the Davidic Messiah, God’s agent. The purification of Israel is the accomplishing of God’s discipline, and the fact that the discipline is considered to be an inevitable part of God’s justice and mercy towards God’s nation again stresses that the righteous also commit sin. However, their sins are unintentional and committed in ignorance and without comprehension (Pss. Sol. 18:4). As throughout the entire content of the collection, here again at the end the paidei,a-concept comes to the fore. The discipline serves as a means of atonement, and the purpose of God’s discipline is to keep the righteous on the way of righteousness. The cleansing and purification of Israel is an expression of God’s love and mercy (Pss. Sol. 18:5; cf. Ezek 39:25).543 The author is aware that atonement is necessary in order to cleanse Israel for the coming day of the Davidic Messiah. The psalmist continues with the expression of his faith that God will continue to do good things in the future (Pss. Sol. 18:6; cf. Ps 78:4). In Pss. Sol. 18:7–8, it is precisely the Messiah himself who holds “the rod of discipline” and “in the fear of his God, in the wisdom of the spirit, and in righteousness and strength,” he will take care of the coming generation and direct them in the fear of God. Verse 8 can be regarded as the expression of the results of the awaited coming of the Lord’s anointed for all the devout and pious. Particularly, for the devout and pious it means the obligation to already live in a way that will help them withstand the test of the Last Judgment, with the important feature of living in fear of the Lord (cf. Prov 16:9; 20:24 [LXX]). 543

Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 123.

192 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics The author follows with a closing doxology, which is evident from the different style of composition. The psalmist changes from a description of the Lord’s Messiah to praising God for his creator’s acting in the cosmos as well as for determining the year’s seasons (Pss. Sol. 18:9–12). 9

genea. avgaqh. evn fo,b w| qeou/ evn h`me,raij evle,ouj) dia,yalma)

9

This will be a good generation living in the fear of God, in the days of mercy. Pause

The result of righteous actions of the Lord’s anointing will be visible in the rectification of the former imperfections and failings of the people who will stand before the Lord as a “good generation living in the fear of God.” The psalmist describes this time as “the days of mercy,” where God’s righteousness and mercy are interconnected through the actions of the Messiah. The last two verses of this psalm are the psalmist’s concluding words showing God’s power that is revealed in the order of the celestial bodies (cf. Gen 1:14–19; Ps 8:4; 104:19; 147:4; Isa 40:26). In this sentence the author confirms his faith that God is the absolute ruler over the entire universe. Thus, the psalmist’s words that close the collection return us to the opening theme of God’s mercy, which is over all of God’s works (Pss. Sol. 18:1). These words express the strong faith that God is the sovereign ruler of the universe but moreover is still the just and merciful God who is full of love and kindness to all that has been created. Therefore, God would send the Messiah to bring all human beings who are righteous, devout, and pious to salvation, which is ultimately the final goal of God’s creational purpose. 2.3.17 Summary As we could observe in specific sections, but then also in the whole content of the collection, all cases regarding the concept of God’s justice (righteousness) and mercy show sufficiently the interconnection of the motifs – God’s righteousness and mercy – with another important and decisive concept – an individual’s obedience, including the state produced by obedience in the believer’s life. One’s obedience must lead into the practical manifestation of this state, which is characterized by deeds and leads to proper behavior in accordance with God’s will. God’s justice, righteousness, and mercy are manifested in God’s judging the world where God is regarded as krith.j di,kaioj, “the just judge” (Pss. Sol. 2:18; 9:2; cf. 4:24; Ps 7:12). In the Psalms of Solomon, God’s righteousness is almost always

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 193

connected with God’s judging activity (Pss. Sol. 2:10, 15, 18, 32; 4:24; 5:1; 8:8, 23–26; 9:2, 5; 10:5).544 In particular, this means that the righteousness of God is realized towards righteous in God’s discipline, while towards the wicked it is punishment and destruction. The righteous are, first of all, those from Israel, the nation of God’s covenant, but Gentiles are not excluded in principle. From the contents of the collection it is obvious that the main purpose is the salvation of the devout and pious, despite the fact that the just and righteous are punishing God’s – and Israel’s – enemies.545 Since God’s justice, righteousness, and mercy are the very basis of a proper trajectory for human life, this leading motif has to also relate to other important motifs. First, it is God’s treatment of humans from the point of view of a fundamental distinction between the sinners and the righteous.546 The opposition between sin and right, the sinners and the righteous, is a dominant motif in the content of the psalms as a whole.547 God differs between the sinners and the righteous with the former receiving retribution for their transgressions, and the latter receiving mercy (Pss. Sol. 2:34–35). For the sinners – from Israel (Pss. Sol. 1:1–8; 2:3–21; 4:1–25; 17:5–9, 15) as well as Gentiles (Pss. Sol. 1:1; 2:1; 17:7, 13, 23–24, 45) – God’s judgment results in their destruction (Pss. Sol. 2:15; 4:8, 24; 8:7–8, 23; 17:29). However, for the righteous (Pss. Sol. 2:34, 35; 3:3–7, 11; 4:8; 9:7; 10:3; 13:6–9, 11; 14:9; 15:3, 6–7; 16:15; 17:32) who are also designated as “pious”548 (Pss. Sol. 2:36; 3:8; 4:1, 8; 8:34; 9:3; 10:6; 12:4, 6; 13:10, 12; 14:3, 10; 15:3, 7; 17:16), it is corrective discipline intended for their rectification (Pss. Sol. 3:5; 10:5; 18:7).549 There is a strong and fundamental difference between these two categories. Even though all people sin, sinners commit sin habitually (Pss. Sol. 14:6) and do not recognize God’s discipline and curse, and thus they sin all the more (Pss. Sol. 3:9–10). Unlike this example, the sins of the righteous are unintentional and done out of ignorance. Therefore, righteous sinners willingly submit to God’s discipline, atone for their sins,

544

See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 135. Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 135–36. 546 This is the topic of primary interest in Mikael Winninge’s monograph Sinners and the Righteous. For the results of the analysis of the Psalms of Solomon in regard to the categories of sinners and righteous persons, see Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 126–40; see also Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 44–49. 547 Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 44. 548 They are those who “fear God” (Pss. Sol. 2:33; 3:12; 4:23; 5:18; 6:5; 12:4; 13:12; 15:13), and those who “love God” (Pss. Sol. 4:25; 6:6; 10:3; 14:1). See Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 46. 549 See Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 40, 44–49. 545

194 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics and try to eliminate sins from their daily lives (Pss. Sol. 3:4, 6–8; 6:5; 7:3, 9; 9:6; 10:1–2; 13:7, 10; 14:1; 16:15; 18:4).550 They know behavior as such is not the basis of their self-assurance; it is rather their appeal to God’s mercy on the basis of God’s covenant with Israel (Pss. Sol. 9:8–11; 10:4).551 However, in any case the behavior means doing what is right and is a very important element of a human’s participation in God’s own justice and righteousness in the world (cf. Pss. Sol. 9:5; 14:2–3). In other words, it is the obligations on the side of the believer to live in accordance with God’s righteous commandments (in the law), which are the expression of God’s will as the way of life for the believers. It means that one’s righteousness is not a category attained by his or her own endeavor and considered as his or her own merit. The righteousness pertains to God’s commandments and the believers can, and at the same time should, participate in it.552 It means that the status of holiness and righteousness before God depends in full measure on God’s righteousness and mercy and ultimately result from the Last Judgment. The psalmist proves it when he describes his expectation of the Day of Yahweh when the Messiah delivers pious and devout Jews from their Gentile oppressors and will purge the wicked Jews from the new kingdom of Israel (cf. Pss. Sol. 17:26–27, 30, 32). Therefore, he prays that God will cleanse Israel for the day of mercy in blessing, the appointed day for the appearance of his Messiah (Pss. Sol. 18:5).553 From this point of view, it is obvious that all humans are sinners in some manner. Not only the wicked, whether Gentiles or Jews, but also those who are integrated into the category of righteous committing sin. They are, as Mikael Winninge categorizes them, “the sinfully righteous.”554 This is important because the devout that belong to the sphere of righteousness also belong, to a certain extent, to the sphere of sin. It means that they have to realize their position before God, as well as find a solution through atonement for their sins. God gives them this solution in God’s discipline. This is the way of transferring the sinfully righteous from the sphere of sin to the sphere of righteousness.555 Therefore, I fully agree with Winninge’s statement that God’s discipline, the paidei,a-concept, is a central concept in

550

R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2:655. Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 47. 552 See Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 47. 553 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 138–39. 554 See in more detail Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 131–34. 555 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 137. 551

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 195

the Psalms of Solomon.556 God’s discipline is combined with the essential concept of atonement, but its main function is “to cleanse the devout” (Pss. Sol. 10:1–4; 13:7–10; 18:4–5).557 Since the main emphasis of the author is focused on a decisive event in history – the coming of the Davidic Messiah followed by the Last Judgment – we can legitimately consider messianic ethics as a leading motif of the author of the collection where the “preparation” of the devout and pious believers for this event is the central idea or the main intention of the author. The preparation means purification from all kinds of ethical impurities. Thus, God will recompense the person on the basis of an individual’s obedience and overall quality of life. One’s walking in this obedience results in life – and to be interpreted eschatologically, in eternal life – while walking in disobedience results in death and damnation. Therefore, the author’s emphasis on right behavior of the community of the righteous is inevitable and understandable. It follows and is grounded in the Deuteronomic formula of the Two-Ways ideology, which characterizes a number of Jewish texts of the Second Temple era including Paul and his letters.558 With the author’s focus on this central motif of the collection, another important theme also comes out, namely the theme of God’s covenant. Although the validity and relevance of God’s covenant with Israel is everlasting and for the psalmist undisputed, it does not provide the guarantee of eternal life for every single descendant of Abraham unconditionally or automatically. Rather, the psalmist’s belief resounds with a widespread faith in contemporary Jewishness that the entity of Israel would live in and rule the land of Palestine at the end of history. To be righteous before God means to be obedient to God who alone is the very basis of justice and righteousness, so in the mind of the psalmist, God is a just judge. God is judging righteously and justly, and God’s judgments are righteous even upon Israel (Pss. Sol. 2:15; 3:5; 4:8, 24; 8:7–8, 23–26; 9:2, 4; 10:5; 17:23, 29). It does not exclude the fact that God is merciful, forgiving, and loving, 556

Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 139. See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 137–40. 558 Cf. Lev 18:5; Deut 4:1; 5:33; 6:24–25; 8:1; 30:15–18; Neh 9:29; Ezek 18:19. VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 210, n. 122, remarks here that the reason for this Two-Ways, Two-Spirits ideology appears also in early Christian teaching (Did. 1–6; Barn. 18–20; Doctrina Apostolorum 1–5; Hermas, Mandates, and if Christian, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs). However, as VanLandingham added, because of this reason, “Protestant scholarship has regarded this ideology as primary evidence that Christianity degenerated in the Second Century and became thoroughly moralistic, lacking the Gospel of grace (that was finally recovered in the Reformation).” See also the other referenced literature: Suggs, “The Christian Two Ways Tradition,” 61–62, and T. F. Torrance, The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959). 557

196 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics but at the same time it does not exclude that God will overlook one’s character and not pass judgment on one’s behavior at the Last Judgment; God judges each individual according to one’s deeds (Pss. Sol. 2:16, 34– 35; 9:5; 17:8). Instead, God’s covenant with Israel shows the unchangeable character of God’s justice and mercy, to God’s actions on behalf and to the benefit of Israel throughout its history, and leads its citizens as the members of the covenantal relationship to an unavoidable choice between the Two Ways of life, the characteristic mark of the Deuteronomic formula. The psalmist’s message has its climax in the last two chapters with the Last Judgment as the central point (especially Pss. Sol. 17:21–46; cf. 14:8– 10; 15:10–13), and it is here where the process of God’s discipline as an expression of God’s mercy reaches this highpoint (Pss. Sol. 18:4–5; cf. 9:6–7; 10:2–4; 13:8–12; 16:15). All who fear God and love God have to be cleansed and purified before the Day of the Last Judgment. The process of cleansing involves forgiveness (Pss. Sol. 9:6–7), which is a feature of God’s mercy (Pss. Sol. 9:6; 10:2–4; 13:8–12; 16:15; 18:4–5).559 God’s disciplining them has served this purpose so that they could be delivered from God’s wrath and the final condemnation and damnation, which is the destiny of the wicked sinners. Since God is the righteous judge but is also merciful towards all who love him (cf. Pss. Sol. 4:23–25), the ultimate purpose of God’s discipline is the salvation of all the devout and pious. In summary, the content of the collection motivated by particular and difficult historical events through the experiences of the author and his community can be interpreted eschatologically through four main themes – God’s justice (righteousness) and mercy, sinners and the righteous, sin and atonement, and covenant and law (while the first two are predominant).560 All four focus on the final climax of the event of Last Judgment with all their described specifics connecting to the figure of the Davidic Messiah and his acting as God’s agent. Therefore, the author’s emphasis on messianic ethics is logical and at the same time is a natural culmination of the message of the community of the devout and the pious righteous who are preparing at this time. The messianic ethics comprises, similarly as in the message of the Apostle Paul, the central point of the whole collection. 2.4 God’s Justice (Righteousness) and Mercy in Paul’s Message The last paragraph of the subsection of this chapter deals with the theme of Paul’s message in the context of God’s justice (righteousness) and mercy. As I mentioned in the introduction of the section about God’s justice and 559 560

Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 140. See Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 39.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 197

mercy (section 2.2 above), God’s justice and righteousness are interrelated terms, and God’s righteousness is the very basis of God’s justice. Since righteousness is a relational concept, it denotes God’s fulfillment of the obligations God took upon Godself in creating humankind, which is evinced historically through the calling of Abraham and the choosing of Israel to be God’s people.561 God’s own initiative in creation and election precedes all the initiatives of human beings.562 This is confirmed in the Book of Deuteronomy, where the fact was, it was nothing that Israel was or had done which caused God to choose them as God’s people. It was also repeatedly stressed that God entered into covenant with them.563 Therefore, God’s righteousness is at the same time an expression of God’s love, grace, and mercy and God’s own loyalty to the oath God had promised to the forefathers (cf. Deut 4:32–40; 6:10–12, 20–23; 7:6–8, etc.).564 In connection with Israel, God’s righteousness can also be understood as God’s faithfulness to God’s people, the fulfillment of God’s covenantal obligetion as Israel’s God of delivering, saving, and vindicating Israel despite her own failure (cf. Ps 51:14; 65:5; 71:15; Isa 46:13; 51:5–8; 62:1–2). 565 James Dunn rightly remarks in this context that the phrase “righteousness of God” is for Paul’s theology, as expressed particularly in Romans, the obvious place to start.566 Therefore, it is not accidental that this phrase provides the focus for the thematic statement defining Paul’s gospel in Rom 1:16–17, as well as for understanding the key argument in Rom 3:21– 26.567 The importance of this fact, as well as the centrality of the dikaigroup of terms in the Pauline corpus, is also confirmed through sheer usage. The most frequent terms in the Pauline corpus are dikaiosu,nh,568 dikaio,w,569 dikai,wma (“requirement, righteous deed”),570 dikai,wsij (“justi-

561

Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 342. On the issue of God’s righteousness in the context of God’s creational activity, see P. Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), 228–36; Reumann, Righteousness in the New Testament, 13–14, 20. 563 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 342. 564 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 342. 565 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 342. 566 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 340. 567 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 341. 568 From all 91 occurrences in the New Testament as a whole, there are 57 occurrences in the Pauline corpus, of which 33 are in Romans (Rom 1:17; 3:5, 21, 22, 25, 26; 4:3, 5, 6, 9, 11 [2x], 13, 22; 5:17, 21; 6:13, 16, 18, 19, 20; 8:10; 9:30 [3x], 31; 10:3 [2x], 4, 5, 6, 10; 14:17), and 4 in Galatians (Gal 2:21; 3:6, 21; 5:5). 569 From 39 occurrences in the New Testament as a whole, there are 26 in the Pauline corpus, of which 15 are in Romans (Rom 2:13; 3:4, 20, 24, 26, 28, 30; 4:2, 5; 5:1, 9; 6:7; 8:30 [2x], 33), and 7 in Galatians (Gal 2:16 [3x], 17; 3:11, 24; 5:4). 562

198 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics fication”),571 and dikaiokrisi,a (“righteous judgment”).572 Elsewhere, Paul makes less use of the phrase. However, the usage of it in key points in the statements of his gospel affirms its importance (cf. Rom 10:3; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9).573All occurrences of this term’s usage, especially the wider use of dikaiosu,nh (“righteousness”) and dikaio,w (“to make righteous” or “justify”) indicate that the theme of God’s righteousness especially dominates the Letter to the Romans and confirms the centrality of the concept for Paul.574 In Paul’s message, the righteousness of God can be understood as God’s action on behalf of human beings – Gentiles as well as Jews – which is most clear in Romans. In Paul’s message this concept expresses God’s power for salvation, therefore, Paul could have set it in contrast with “the wrath of God” (Rom 1:18) because God’s righteousness also includes God’s wrath with wrath as an appropriate response to human failure to acknowledge God.575 In this manner we are getting to the core of Paul’s theologizing in regard to Gentiles, within which God’s righteousness is understood as sacrifice for sin, showing God not only as just but also as the one who justifies those who believe in Jesus (Rom 3:21–26; cf. 2 Cor 5:21).576 If we deal with Paul’s theological thinking, the concept of God’s righteousness is closely connected with the issue of justification and its relationship to the Last Judgment. It is useful to begin with a short excursus to the development issue of the main interpretative concepts in the relation between God’s justice and mercy and the Last Judgment as is known in the field of protestant theology. To further clarify, this inquiry deals with the questions of relationship between the Last Judgment according to good works and the concept of justification by faith. This kind of relationship is also dominant in the Jewish literature of the post-biblical era. However, as is well known among Pauline scholars, it is a long-standing and dominant

570 From 10 occurrences in the New Testament as a whole, 5 are in Paul, and all are in Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Rom 1:32; 2:26; 5:16, 18; 8:4). 571 This term occurs twice in the New Testament, both in Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Rom 4:25; 5:18). 572 This term occurs only once in the New Testament as a whole, in Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Rom 2:5). 573 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 341. 574 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 341. 575 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 343. 576 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 343, n. 35 remarks: “The implication of 3.25–26 is that Jesus’ sacrificial death demonstrates both God’s justice, in that he deals with sin (in the destruction of the sin-embodying life of the sacrifice), and also his (saving) righteousness, in that he justifies the sinner.”

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 199

theme of research discussion.577 For the most part, it can be stated that all known hypotheses have a common denominator when trying to solve the problems of the Last Judgment and the process that belongs to the works through the doctrine of justification. It is in this effort to reinterpret and bring into consonance Paul’s statements about the Last Judgment according to one’s works (see Rom 2:5–6), meaning through the activity of human beings, with the doctrine of justification by faith.578 In this connection it is necessary and also useful to make a brief excursus on the development of the main interpretative concepts in this essential theological question as is understood in the field of protestant theology.579 2.4.1 Paul’s Concept of Justification in the Protestant Theological Context The interpretation of Paul’s concept of justification has developed in several directions and was a constitutive point of theological research with protestant theologians.580 Traditionally, Paul’s doctrine of justification was interpreted as anticipation of God’s emancipative verdict within the Last Judgment as a consequence of faith in deliverance and salvation, which are the results of Jesus’ death on the cross and his resurrection. Naturally, with this kind of interpretation comes the problem of how to appraise Paul’s statements about the Last Judgment according to the works, or rather, what is the function of the works – meaning to do good in accordance with God’s will within the Last Judgment. In this context, VanLandingham asks the following justifiable question: “If the acquittal is based on faith, how can it also be based on works, which for Paul stand in direct opposition to faith?”581 Answers to this question differ and have laid the foundation for a wide spectrum of attitudes, often reciprocally contradictory or not satisfactory in 577 This issue is also the principal goal of VanLandingham’s monograph, Judgment and Justification. 578 For the most important works on this issue, see in VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 9, n. 22. For previous approaches to the problem of the Last Judgment in Paul’s theology during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, including the key scholars and their works, see page 2, including nn. 3 and 4. 579 This discussion is adapted from my essay: F. Ábel, “The Concept regarding the Coming of the Messiah as a Basis for Understanding Romans 3:21–26,” in Justification according to Paul: Exegetical and Theological Perspective (ed. O. Prostredník; Bratislava: Comenius University in Bratislava, 2012), 23–54. 580 Most Roman Catholic scholars in the past have not had problems reconciling these two ideas because they were considered to be two unrelated and separate events. See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 10. 581 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 10.

200 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics all aspects.582 The most common attempts to solve the particular questions of Paul’s theology include the traditional concept that states Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith represents the proper formulation of Paul’s theological thinking and his interpretation of the history of salvation, with the notion of the Last Judgment according to works as only a relic of contemporary Jewish or early-Christian eschatological ideas that Paul did not remove completely from his own theological thinking.583 Again, another concept or idea considers both of the concepts – justification by faith and the Last Judgment according to those works while contradictory focusing on the tension between them.584 In this context it is appropriate to make a brief excursus on the best-known and groundbreaking approaches and hypotheses on this relationship by Christian scholars. A more popular attitude addressing this question comes from the presupposition that the judgment according to works is appointed for unbelievers (non-Christians, possibly apostates) and that justification is appointed for believers.585 In the second half of the twentieth century, several theses were brought forth that differed from the preceding, traditional patterns that strived to solve the problems of judgment and justification in Paul’s theology. Christoph Haufe presented a concept where both aspects of Paul’s theological thinking, God’s mercy and God’s reward, are regarded as compatible.586 It means that both mercy and reward are interconnected in the process whereby the mercy of God acts upon a believer, and as a result, the saving act of Jesus Christ makes that believer able to do so in a responsible manner. Baptism is a means of expression of God’s forensic act to declare the believer blameless, holy, and perfect. In the process, grace does not exclude moral behavior on the side of a believer nor assume the final reward (eternal life or damnation) as a solution of the problem of sin. Through this Paul develops the idea of faith and mercy on one side and 582 In the introduction to the basic concepts concerning Paul’s doctrine of justification, I primarily follow VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 9–15, including notes. 583 See, for example, N. M. Watson, “Justified by Faith: Judged by Works – An Antimony?,” NTS 29 (1983): 211, 220, n. 8. 584 For example H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul’s Conceptions of the Last Things (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1904), 201; W. Joest, Gesetz und Freiheit: Das Problem des tertius usus legis bei Luther und die neutestamentliche Parainese (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951), 177–85. 585 For example P. Stuhlmacher, Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 163, where author claims that final justification is promised to believers even in the case that their acts fail before God. 586 Ch. Haufe, Die sittliche Rechtfertigungslehre des Paulus (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1957).

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 201

reward and punishment on the other. The reward will be given on the basis of God’s grace, not God’s grace on the basis of reward.587 Karl Paul Donfried tries to solve the problems of understanding the meaning and role of the Last Judgment within the theology of the Apostle Paul on the basis of Ernst Käsemann’s analysis and interpretation of key terms in Paul’s theology of “justification” and “righteousness of God” (dikaiosu,nh Qeou/).588 The justification is understood as a gift of God’s grace and mercy, which makes the believer forensically righteous and simultaneously responsible for their behavior and actions. In the process, justification makes the believer able to do morally just actions. Those who refuse this gift are disobedient to God’s will and will be punished by God. Through this, Paul is grasping the good works in Rom 2:6–15 as related to Christ’s Lordship and the law as related to “the law of faith.” Therefore it does not mean that faith has to be followed or supplemented by ethically righteous action, which itself will be judged within the Last Judgment.589 Donfried understands the relationship between justification and Last Judgment as a three-phase process: justification, sanctification, salvation. Justification is the initiating event actualized in an individual and built upon through sanctification. Sanctification is a process that depends on justification and will have future implications, culminating in salvation, which is a future gift already anticipated and experienced through justification and sanctification and clearly dependent upon them.590 Essentially, in Paul’s thought the Christian could never confess, “I have been saved.” At most, the Christian can say that he or she is in the process of being saved. One who is justified yet their behavior proves a disobedience to God’s will, which means disparagement of God’s gift of justification, will receive God’s wrath in the Last Judgment. In Donfried’s argument, the criterion for the Last Judgment will not be an amount of one’s good works; they are irrelevant because the Spirit of God produced them. Therefore, the criterion

587

VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 11. K. P. Donfried, “Justification and Last Judgment in Paul,” Interpretation 30 (1976): 140–52, here 142. See also E. Käsemann, “The Righteousness of God in Paul,” in idem, New Testament Questions of Today (trans. W. J. Montague; NTL; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 168–82; idem, Commentary on Romans (trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 112; Campbell, The Deliverance of God, 188–92; idem, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3:21–26 (JSNTSup 65; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 144–47. 589 Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 58. Stated by VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 12. 590 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 13. 588

202 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics will be an evaluation of one’s life as it was oriented towards Christ in obedience to Christ.591 Karl Kertelge follows the interpretation of Käsemann and broadens its meaning.592 He too believes the theses that justification rests partly on the state characterized by freedom from sin and obedience to God’s will; God’s saving activity is successful only there where there is obedience. However, this obedience itself (without God’s grace) does not have a soteriological implication. Justification and Last Judgment exist close together and no tension exists between them, because for Paul, justification is part of the eschatological system “already – not yet.” Therefore, salvation is not completely in this age and needs to be fulfilled and consummated within the Last Judgment.593 Calvin Roetzel also picks up the threads of Käsemann’s interpretation of justification and arrives at his own solution for the issues of justification and Last Judgment.594 For him, all tendencies to solve the issues of the Last Judgment in relation to justification by faith were false. Roetzel believed that for Paul the thoughts related to the Last Judgment are parallel with thoughts on this issue in Jewish apocalyptic literature. Paul has integrated them into his own theological thinking by stating that it is impossible to think of this only as a relic of his former Pharisaic life. This fact points out that emphasizing the Last Judgment in Paul’s theological thinking is primarily not related to an individual, but rather to the community as a whole, just as it is in Jewish apocalyptic literature where righteousness has two sides: salvation and condemnation. Since Jewish literature has God’s righteousness interwoven with the idea of God’s justification (God who vindicates and justifies), there exists the close relationship with the idea of the Last Judgment according to the works. Roetzel found two themes that run through Paul’s debate about the Last Judgment. The first theme is church as a tool and, at the same time, the object of God’s judgment (specifically Rom 2:1–16; 3:6, 19–20; 14:10–12; 1 Cor 3:5–17; 4:1–5; 5:1–5; 6:2–3, 9– 10; 9:24–27; 11:27–32; 2 Cor 5:9–10; Gal 5:16–21; 6:7–9). The second is that this judgment incorporates a present and even future dimension, which 591

Karl Donfried is also known as the one who precipitated a sharp discussion about the provenance of Romans which led to many hypotheses concerning the composition of this letter of Paul’s and its proper meaning and goal within his mission. See K. P. Donfried, ed., The Romans Debate (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991 [1977]). Stated by Campbell, The Deliverance of God, 3, including n. 8. 592 K. Kertelge, Rechtfertigung bei Paulus (NTAbh Neue Folge 3; Münster: Aschendorff, 1967, 2nd ed. 1971). 593 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 12. 594 C. J. Roetzel, Judgement in the Community: A Study of the Relationship between Eschatology and Ecclesiology in Paul (Leiden: Brill, 1972).

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 203

Paul is interpreting as an existing tension between this present age and the age to come. For Christians it means to be awaiting the Last Judgment with confidence, however, it is still this judgment in which a final decision about the salvation or damnation of the Christian believer will be made.595 Following VanLandingham’s statement regarding the representatives of the traditional protestant approach to the interpretation of the relationship between the judgment according to the works and justification in Paul’s letters, the interpretation of Klyne R. Snodgrass comes to light.596 He tries to solve the issue from the point of view of interpreting the second chapter of Paul’s Letter to the Romans and its relation to the letter as a whole, including its meaning for contemporary Judaism. Just the theme of this chapter (vindication of God) is also the theme of the whole letter and, at the same time, is an important topic of Judaism in the first century CE. Thus it is tightly connected with the idea of the Last Judgment according to works. From this point of view, Snodgrass argues that Rom 2 presents the very essentials of the traditional Jewish view on the Last Judgment. God’s grace is active only during the life of the believer and not within the judgment itself. However, the intent of the believer to be obedient to the law (to be a part of covenantal relationship with God) alone does not suffice. Here Snodgrass argues against Sanders’s thesis where in the process of salvation there is God’s election, meaning efforts of a believer to remain within the covenant and to be obedient to God’s will is expressed in the law. Eternal life and condemnation both depend on the final judgment of a believer, which means from his or her works. However, it is not about “righteousness from the works.” Regardless, the results from the awareness of dependence on God’s grace and the works are therefore always, and only, the result of God’s activity in the event of Jesus Christ. God’s gift of eternal life depends on Christ’s redemptive act – his death and resurrection. It means that justification by faith presupposes judgment according to works.597 All these presented theses express the basic effort to bring into consonance the idea of God’s judgment according to the works and God’s justification of the believer, however, each one has its own shortcomings and unanswered questions. On this basis, VanLandingham begins to introduce his own thoroughly developed conception of solving this relation, whereby he explores the notion of God’s reward within the framework of God’s grace and mercy as they are understood in the Jewish literature of the 595

Stated by VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 13. K. R. Snodgrass, “Justification by Grace – To the Doers: An Analysis of the Place of Romans 2 in the Theology of Paul,” NTS 32 (1986): 72–93. 597 Stated by VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 14. 596

204 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics Second Temple era and in the Pauline letters.598 VanLandingham argues in favor of the thesis that a human’s eternal destiny (and it is the same in the announcement of the Apostle Paul and also in the majority of Jewish literatures of the Greco-Roman era) depends on the Last Judgment. The behavior of a human during his or her life thus prepares the criterion for the final evaluation and decision within the judgment. At the same time, a human has during one’s life the possibility to participate in God’s grace, which helps him or her in the daily struggle for right decisions and working/being in accordance with God’s will. The Final Judgment, however, comes within the final evaluation of the results of said particular life, which is on the basis of the works of a person. In this aspect, Paul is consistent with his Jewish contemporaries. What is new in Paul’s thought is that salvation is possible only on the basis of faith; the saved can only be one who is a believer. The question then remains as to what extent the final deliverance depends on God’s election and the covenantal relationship with God and to what extent it is dependent on a human’s actions and his or her works. Equally, it is a question as to what extent the election of Israel is the act of God’s grace and mercy or whether it is the reward for right conduct on the side of humanity. This also relates to the question as to what extent does the act of Israel’s election automatically presuppose the eternal destiny of every one of Jacob’s descendants. The very basis of the discussion as a whole, particularly what it means and what is connoted by the term “justification,” is connected with all of these questions. Is the intent of the term more about forgiveness as an emancipative judicial verdict regardless of the works of a human, which means the quality of one’s life? Or is it necessary to understand the term599 rather, and for that fact primarily, as a forgiveness of sins and making the believer free from the power of sin coming at the very beginning of a Christian’s existence (the life of a Christian believer) and not at the end? Naturally, by this we are not excluding the idea that this beginning does not effect what happens in the end within the Last Judgment, as VanLandingham notes: “With only a couple of exceptions, contemporary scholars 598

VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 15ff. There is an essential distance between biblical thought and word usage of the terms with the dikai-stem and the understanding of “righteousness” in Greco-Roman tradition. As Mark A. Seifrid rightly acknowledges, the concept of “righteousness” in GrecoRoman tradition “has its roots in the Platonic-Aristotelean concept of righteousness as an ‘ideal’ state of the po,lij and of the human soul. Here ‘justice’ (to. di,kaion) generally was understood as distributive (dianemetiko,n) or corrective, i.e., retributive (diorqwtiko,n).” See M. A. Seifrid, “Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language against Its Hellenistic Background,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul, 43. 599

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 205

impose a forensic interpretation on justification by faith in such a way that it refers to the verdict of acquittal a believer will receive at the Last Judgment.”600 I think that God’s forgiveness of sins is the first presupposition for the next process of deliverance and salvation. Therefore, of utmost importance is to be faithful to God’s purpose and God’s will to save human beings. Through the Torah, Israel has a complex system serving at her own disposal, as she would know how and what to do in the process of God’s forgiveness. Gentiles receive forgiveness in God’s actions through Christ. Therefore, they must trust in Torah to prove their faithfulness to God and God’s will to save them, as well as Israel. From both Israel and Gentiles, there must be a particular due and positive response in this process. It is the works in accordance with God’s will.601 After this short excursus, which mainly observes traditional approaches to the interpretation of Paul’s doctrine of justification and its connection with the Last Judgment as they were developing in the protestant theological provenience, we can now focus on the substantial aspects of the role of God’s justice and mercy in Paul’s theologizing. As in other Jewish literature of the Second Temple era, Paul’s message on the concept of God’s justice and mercy evolved from the meaning of the broadly used dikaigroup of terms. First of all, it is the concept of God’s righteousness and its manifestations in the world that is determinative in Paul’s theological thinking. It means, and at the same time proves, that Paul was part of a Jewish religious environment whereby he adapted and interpreted his belief about Jesus as the Messiah, who is sent to save not only Jews, but also Gentiles.602 The most decisive aspect of Paul’s theologizing is this unique

600 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 17 (including n. 49) in this connection remarks: “I contend that ‘justification’ is an improper translation and understanding. It describes what occurs at the beginning of one’s Christian existence, not at the end. The terms involved refer to righteousness as it describes the person forgiven of his or her sins and freed from the power of sin. Even though what occurs at the beginning (i.e., forgiveness and freedom) does necessarily have an impact on what occurs at the end (i.e., the judgment), the Greek terms are not forensic and do not refer to the Last Judgment.” VanLandingham pays attention to the analysis of the dikai-group of terms in chapter 4 of Judgment and Justification, 242–331. In line with scholarly convention, he employs the term “forensic” when referring to the dikai-group of terms, but prefers the term “judicial” when describing a context that refers to or implies a judgment. See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 245, n. 17. 601 See here Pamela Eisenbaum’s consideration concerning the Final Judgment and its implication for Paul from the perspective, so to speak, of “the new paradigm” in: Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 240–55. 602 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 175.

206 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics adaptation of the recent Jewish religious tradition contained within the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as a signal of the beginning of the messianic age. At the same time it means that in awaiting Christ’s Parousia, Paul did not look for the inauguration of the messianic age, but rather to the Last Judgment. The event of Jesus’ resurrection began the eschatological age where Christ’s present reigning from heaven as Lord is characterized as the age of righteousness. These notions, as Chris VanLandingham remarks, that the Messiah presently reigns and that the Last Judgment is imminent color the entirety of Paul’s theology.603 In Paul’s message of the gospel addressed to Gentiles, messianic ethics becomes the most important part for them. One’s own belief in God’s acting in Jesus Christ, which has the character of the propitiatory sacrifice brought by Godself as a unique expression of God’s mercy towards Gentiles with the aim to purify them from sins, serves as a starting point of their preparation for the Last Judgment. All of this has its basis in God’s righteousness, and in particular, the manifestation of God’s justice and mercy in the history of the world. Since Paul’s use of this term reflects similar usage as in other Jewish literature, we must take into account the variety of its meaning and functions. In regard to the noun dikaiosu,nh in the corpus of Paul’s letters, there is only one possible meaning, “righteousness.”604 However, it is a different situation in the case of the verbal form dikaio,w, which is important because even if the verb is in Jewish literature where it is often used forensically, its forensic use indicates a specific meaning concerning not only the status, but also the character or content of life.605 It means that the usage of the verb entails not only the forensic, but also an ethical sense.606 Moreover, the meaning of this term expresses the activity or participation of the justified subject in the process of justification. In other words, this status is rather achieved than received. The main point of departure is God and God’s righteousness that is acting towards the objects of God’s creational activity. God’s righteousness is both the very basis and the measure

603

VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 175. VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 271. 605 See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 256; N. M. Watson, “Some Observations on the Use of Dikaioo in the Septuagint,” JBL 79 (1960): 255. 606 J. A. Ziesler, Pauline Christianity (rev. ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 88, remarks in the context of Paul’s usage and meaning of this verb that “even if the legal background is pressed, the legal system in question was less concerned to pronounce innocent or guilty than to put wrongs right and to restore people to their proper place, no more and no less, in the covenant community.” 604

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 207

of the process of making someone or something righteous (to be made righteous).607 I agree with VanLandingham whose research on the usage of this verb by Paul and other Jewish and Christian writers proved that none of the terms of the dikai-group is intrinsically forensic.608 The analysis of Paul’s message shows that Paul also used this verb in a variety of ways, most often meaning “to be righteous,” or “to be proven righteous,” also “to be acquitted,” “to be made righteous (pure, free),” or “to have been made to appear righteous.”609 However, the various senses and functions of this verb as well as the necessity to distinguish among them must not leave our minds, so that we can correctly understand Paul and his theology. This is important in this context, as Chris VanLandingham’s survey demonstrates, when Paul used this verb in reference to what happened to believers coming to faith in Jesus Christ; the verb dikaio,w has the sense “to make righteous” (cf. Ps 72:13; Sir 18:22; 23:11; 26:29; T. Sim. 6:1; Luke 18:14; and Acts 13:38–39).610 Another important fact is that in Paul’s message the dikai-group of terms is only rarely used in the context of the Last Judgment. VanLandingham stated that of the 89 occurrences of these terms in Paul, they appear only four, or at the most five times in clear judicial settings (Rom 2:31 [2x]; 1 Cor 4:4; Phil 1:11; Gal 5:5). However, as VanLandingham stresses, “[e]ven in these occurrences nothing from the context suggests that these terms indicate that someone has righteousness only after judgment, not before.”611 From this statement, righteousness is a state of being one strives for to possess it before God at the judgment that follows. For Paul, as well as for the author of the Psalms of Solomon, God is the “God of righteousness” (cf. Pss. Sol. 8:26). It is an axiom that is a basis of Paul’s approach 607 Cf. Gen 38:26; 44:16; Exod 23:7; Deut 25:1; 1 Kgdms [LXX] 12:7; 2 Kgdms [LXX] 15:4; 3 Kgdms [LXX] 8:32; Job 33:32; Ps 18:10 [LXX]; 72:13 [LXX]; 81:3 [LXX]; Isa 1:17; 5:23; 43:9, 26; Jer 3:11; Ezek 21:17–18; 44:24; Mic 6:11; 7:9; Pss. Sol. 2:15; 3:3, 5; 4:8; 8:7, 23, 26; 9:2, etc. See in more detail VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 256–71. 608 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 271. VanLandingham adds in this context, referring to G. Schrenk, TDNT 2:179–80: “Even di,kh never was intrinsically forensic, but also means ‘way,’ ‘manner,’ or ‘custom’ as far back as Homer and Hesiod.” 609 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 271. 610 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 272, including n. 134, remarks that the verb dikaio,w most often means “make righteous” in the Apostolic Fathers (for example Barn. 15:7; Herm. Vis. 3.9.1; Mand. 5.1.7; Sim. 5.7.1; Diogn. 9:5 et al.). On these passages, see Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul, 214; T. F. Torrance, The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 133– 39. Stated by VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 272, n. 134. 611 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 272.

208 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics to the meaning of the term righteousness and its derivatives. The emphasis for both authors is on right behavior of human beings. Along with this, the other axiom goes hand in hand, which is that God is merciful. God’s righteousness and God’s mercy and grace have a common basis in God’s nature itself. It is well known that Paul’s theology is firmly connected with his doctrine of justification where the terms dikaio,w and dikaiosu,nh are interpreted as forensic, a gift of acquittal given in the Last Judgment by God to the believers in Jesus Christ. This acquittal is given not on the basis of works but on the basis of faith, which is also God’s gift.612 Today, there is a broad consensus among Protestant and Catholic scholars in this (or very similar) definition of justification.613 In discussions of this concept, more emphasis is placed on a relational reading of both terms with the forensic interpretation, while the ethical standpoint, meaning the ethical transformation or ability as a basic obligation on the side of the believers following from the very status of God who is the God of righteousness and mercy,

612

Important works (monographs and articles) on Paul’s doctrine of justification are: E. Kühl, Rechtfertigung auf Grund Glaubens und Gericht nach den Werken bei Paulus (Königsberg: Koch, 1904); G. P. Wetter, Der Vergeltungsgedanke bei Paulus: Eine Studie zur Religion des Apostels (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1912); H. Braun, Gerichtsgedanke und Rechtfertigungslehre bei Paulus (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1931); F. V. Filson, St. Paul’s Conception of Recompense (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1931); R. C. Devor, “The Concept of Judgment in the Epistles of Paul” (Ph.D. diss., Drew University, 1959); L. Mattern, Das Verständnis des Gerichtes bei Paulus (Zurich/Stuttgart: Zwingli, 1966); Roetzel, Judgement in the Community; E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977); E. Synofzik, Die Gerichts- und Vergeltungsaussagen bei Paulus: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (GTA 8; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977); S. H. Travis, Christ and the Judgment of God: Divine Retribution in the New Testament (Marshall Pickering: Basingstoke, 1986). As for the important articles, they are: K. Stendahl, “Justification and the Last Judgment,” Lutheran World 8 (1961): 1–7; E. Käsemann, “‘The Righteousness of God’ in Paul,” in idem, New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 168–82; K. P. Donfried, “Justification and Last Judgment in Paul,” Int 30 (1976): 140– 52; N. M. Watson, “Justified by Faith: Judged by Works – An Antinomy?,” NTS 29 (1983): 209–21; K. R. Snodgrass, “Justification by Grace – To the Doers: An Analysis of the Place of Romans 2 in the Theology of Paul,” NTS 32 (1986): 72–93. Stated by VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 9, n. 22. 613 This is proved in several places, including in the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification,” signed by the officials from the Lutheran World Federation and the Vatican in 1999. This declaration was published in book form: Lutheran World Federation, Roman Catholic Church, Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 209

passes unnoticed or is regarded as secondary as for its importance.614 I am aware that in this situation – in such an unequal proportion of powers – it is not easy to argue in favor of a different, non-forensic way of interpreting the concept of God’s justice (righteousness) and mercy in Paul’s message. Of course, when I speak about non-forensic, I do not want to exclude the judicial connotation of the term dikaio,w in the corpus of Paul’s letters. I only disagree with the interpretation of this term as an acquittal, disregarding its preconditions on the side of the believer. At the same time I have to add that speaking about the preconditions or criteria for receiving eternal life does not mean arguing in favor of the works as one’s own merit on the way of gaining salvation in the Last Judgment. Paul and other Jewish writers of the Second Temple era have emphasized that the criteria for eternal life are firmly joined with the context of the Deuteronomic formula for blessing and curses, reward and punishment, and the Last Judgment (cf. Deut 4:1; 5:33; 6:24–25; 8:1; 30:15–18).615 It means that one’s eternal destiny has to rely upon one’s behavior, which of course does not exclude God’s mercy as a necessary precondition. It seems clear that the messianic ethics has a decisive role in Paul’s theologizing, similarly as was the case of the author of the Psalms of Solomon. In this context I would especially like to refer to Chris VanLandingham’s monograph Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul, mentioned often above in particular chapters, which was for me a great inspiration in regard to the hypothesis that the Psalms of Solomon could be the background for the understanding of Paul’s doctrine of justification. VanLandingham has introduced a fresh and unique theological insight into Old and New Testament theology. Through intense analysis of Jewish literature of the Greek and early Roman periods, including the corpus of Paul’s letters, he comes to the conclusion that just as in the other Jewish texts, Paul’s message is no different where God’s justice at the Last Judgment is retributive. It means that the final result of the judgment, reward or punishment, respectively eternal life or damnation, depends not only on the sole faith of the believer, but also on one’s behavior. It means that the original truth and power of Paul’s gospel brings particular consequences for Christian life, not only theologically but also intrinsically social where the question of ethics and behavior must play a decisive role. 614

On this issue, see Campbell, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3:21–26, 27; VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 244–46. Stated by VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 244. 615 Similar passages can be found in Lev 18:5; Ezek 18:19; Neh 9:29, and also in sapiential literature. On this issue, see especially VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 66–174.

210 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics In regard to the Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s message, they both follow the Deuteronomic formula, a basic theological schema of Jewish religious tradition with Greek pervading Jewish literature of the Second Temple era. Axiomatic in the content of this schema is a God who renders judgment to each according to his or her deeds. Therefore, for most Jews of this era including Paul himself, the belief that behavior not only affects one’s eternal destiny, but forms the ultimate criterion for the final verdict at the Last Judgment, is forming an integral part of their theological thought. Within Paul’s letters, behavior and the Last Judgment – including its consequences – constitute the main parts of his teaching. Since Paul’s main emphasis was focused on the eschatological-apocalyptic climax of the present (old) age, the question of proper and right behavior concentrates on the messianic ethics. Particularly, Paul’s primary intent was not only to bring Gentiles to belief in the gospel but also – and primarily – to convince them that in this belief they receive God’s mercy expressing itself in their purification and preparation for the Last Judgment. Therefore, they need to remain in the state of holiness as a new being in Jesus Christ and live in accordance with God’s will until the last days being aware that their deeds will form the ultimate criterion for determining everyone’s eternal destiny. 2.4.2 God’s Justice (Righteousness) and Mercy in Light of the Judgment Passages I am in full agreement with Chris VanLandingham’s statement that the notions of justification by faith in Paul’s message also have to be understood in light of the judgment passages.616 Therefore, if we try to interpret the concept of God’s justice (righteousness), and mercy in Paul’s message, as well as the meaning of the dikai-group of terms used by him, it is necessary to mention the key judgment passages in his authentic letters.617 We find these crucial judgment passages in 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans (1 Cor 3:5–4:5; 5:1–5; 6:6–11; 10:1–12; 11:27–34; 2 Cor 5:10; Gal 5:16–6:10; Rom 1:5; 2:1–11, 12–16; 6:12–23; 8:1–14).618 616

VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 176. This is VanLandingham’s contention with which I am in full agreement. See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 188. 618 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 176–88, discusses key passages in Paul’s authentic letters that point to the Day of the Lord or the Parousia as the time of judgment in the context of his hope or expectation of the way in which his converts will appear before the judgment of God: 1 Thess 3:13; 5:23; 1 Cor 1:8; Phil 1:10; 2:15. The author adds to these texts also other passages that specifically mention judgment and the Last Judgment or allude to it, particularly: Rom 2:1–16; 3:6, 19–20; 12:19; 11:20–22; 617

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 211

Of course, Paul’s theologizing in regard to the concept of God’s justice (righteousness) and mercy reaches the climax in his Letter to the Romans, which as a whole can be termed after its central idea of “the righteousness of God.” In the last chapter, I will pay special attention to the central theme of this letter, which is known as the locus classicus of the doctrine of justification (Rom 3:21–26) in the context of the messianic notion of Pss. Sol. 17–18, especially Pss. Sol. 18:5. Just this passage in Paul’s message interpreted in the context of the Pss. Sol. 18:5 can help us better, and I think more properly, understand Paul’s usage of the motif of God’s justice (righteousness) and mercy in his message. Let us now focus on the key judgment passages in more detail and try to understand Paul’s usage of the terminology concerning God’s justice and righteousness.619 2.4.2.1 First and Second Corinthians The first judgment passage (1 Cor 3:5–4:5) lies within the larger section of the letter (1 Cor 1:10–4:21). Here, Paul defends the gospel and its content as well as his own apostleship from the negative effect of separatist tendencies within the Christian community in Corinth. It was manifested by forming certain groups within the congregation and dividing themselves under the boast (1 Cor 1:10–17). Beyond this separatist movement, some tension arose between Paul and the Corinthians which resulted in questioning Paul’s authority by some in the congregation. Paul tried to undermine these negative tendencies, and therefore he is showing on the proper content of the gospel on the one hand (1 Cor 1:18–2:16) and on the purpose and goal of the role of the apostle on the other (1 Cor 3:1–4:21). In opposing the Corinthians’ errors, Paul emphasizes the fact that each apostle will be held accountable for their labor on that “Day” (1 Cor 3:13–15).620 13

14 15

e`ka,s tou to. e;rgon fanero.n genh,s etai( h` ga.r h`me,ra dhlw,sei( o[ti evn puri. avpokalu,ptetai\ kai. e`ka,stou to. e;rgon o`poi/o ,n evs tin to. pu/r Îauvto.Ð dokima,seiÅ ei; tinoj to. e;rgon menei/ o] evpoikodo,mhsen( misqo.n lh,myetai\ ei; tinoj to. e;rgon katakah,setai( zhmiwqh,setai( auvto.j de. swqh,setai( ou[twj de. w`j dia. puro,jÅ

14:10–12; 1 Cor 3:5–17; 4:1–5; 5:1–5; 6:2–3, 9–10; 9:24–27; 11:27–32; 2 Cor 5:9–10; Gal 5:16–21; 6:7–9. 619 I follow in this part VanLandingham’s summary and analysis of these texts. See chapter 3 of VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 188–241. 620 Greek text of the New Testament is from NA (Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed.).

212 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics 13

14 15

The work of each builder will become visible, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done. If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward. If the work is burned up, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire.

This section, especially verse 15, is the key passage that VanLandingham cites in asserting, “for one view in the debate on how to reconcile justification by faith and judgment by deeds.”621 Conventional interpretation of this pericope is that salvation from God’s wrath is equivalent to justification, which also means that for those who are justified the Last Judgment determines only the rewards a believer will possess in the next life.622 The legitimacy of this understanding proves 1 Cor 5:1–5, where an example of how this is worked out is given.623 However, this kind of interpretation is in conflict with Paul’s statement in 3:16–17, which has in my opinion an eschatological connotation and a steady gaze into the future.624 16 17

16 17

Ouvk oi;date o[ti nao.j qeou/ evste kai. to. pneu/ma tou/ qeou/ oivkei/ evn u`mi/nÈ ei; tij to.n nao.n tou/ qeou/ fqei,rei( fqerei/ tou/ton o` qeo,j\ o` ga.r nao.j tou/ qeou/ a[gio,j evs tin( oi[tine,j evs te u`mei/jÅ Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.

621

VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 188. VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 188. In the context of this method of interpretation, VanLandingham refers to L. Morris, The Biblical Doctrine of Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 67; Kühl, Rechtfertigung auf Grund Glaubens und Gericht nach den Werken bei Paulus; Devor, “The Concept of Judgment in the Epistles of Paul”; Mattern, Das Verständnis des Gerichtes bei Paulus; E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 515–18; Travis, Christ and the Judgment of God; Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 491–92; H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (trans. J. W. Leitch; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 77. 623 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 188–89. VanLandingham here refers to the monograph of David W. Kuck, Judgment and Community Conflict: Paul’s Use of Apocalyptic Judgment Language in 1 Corinthians 3:5–4:5 (NovTSup 66; Leiden: Brill, 1992), who maintains, quoting Kuck, “that Paul in 1 Cor 3:5–4:5 assumes that he is dealing within the realm of salvation (3:15 and 4:5). The judgment determines only the individual reward and praise.” In Kuck, Judgment and Community Conflict, 221–22. Cited by VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 189. 624 It is supported also by manuscript evidence. VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 189, remarks here that despite the manuscript evidence as well as the logic, it is not necessarily relevant whether it is eschatological, because God can destroy here and now as easily as at the Last Judgment. 622

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 213

Paul describes here the real and present situation of the congregation and warns the Corinthians that their schisms, speaking in Paul’s words, are tantamount to “destroying God’s temple.” It means schisms among the Corinthians offend the holiness of the congregation, which Paul considers God’s temple.625 Despite that in that period of Judaism the presence of God within the temple was understood in a spiritual manner, to dwell in the sacred ground meant for the Israelites to be in an extreme degree of purity, the purpose of which was to reproduce as nearly as possible the heavenly condition of Yahweh’s abode in earthly residence (cf. Exod 25:8; Lev 16:16).626 To dwell in the place where God’s Spirit abides means to be and remain in the state of holiness, in other words, in a state of living owed to the Spirit as God’s new people, which also includes the ethical aspect of life. In the case of the Corinthians, it means that God’s Spirit lives in their midst. In Paul’s understanding it means that the church in Corinth is the corporate place of God’s dwelling, and gathering in Jesus’ name experiences the presence and power of the Lord Jesus in their midst (5:4–5).627 Moreover, by this comparison Paul stresses the continuity of the Christian congregation in Corinth with Jews, God’s chosen people, and also with God’s covenant with Israel. Therefore, Paul, who compares the present situation of the Christian believers metaphorically to the Temple (cf. 2 Cor 6:16), considers the situation that has arisen among the believers in Corinth as threatening the holiness of the congregation, which means that they “also threaten the continued presence of God’s Spirit among and within them.”628 The Corinthian Christians are set apart for God; thus, just as the sacred place was not to be desecrated in any way, so too the believers in Corinth have to stay and live in the state of holiness.629 Therefore, Paul’s address to the Corinthians are serious words that everyone who is destroying the holiness of the congregation – the status of purity gained 625 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 189, n. 45 stresses, while referring to M. Newton, The Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of Paul (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 56, that the serious tone of Paul’s language should indicate that Paul considered the church to be God’s temple and not a mere metaphor. See also Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 77. Stated by VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 189. 626 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 189, including n. 46, refers to the monograph of B. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel (SJLA 5; Leiden: Brill, 1974), 75, who’s description of the situation in the Temple, including its understanding, supports this opinion. 627 G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 147. 628 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 189. 629 Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 149.

214 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics as a result of God’s restoring through Jesus Christ on their behalf – will meet their self-destruction by God at the Last Judgment.630 From this context it can be drawn that Paul’s words in 3:15 (in the broader context of 1 Cor 3:5–15) should be understood as applying first of all to the apostles and their missionary work,631 while Paul’s warning in 3:17 is addressed generally to the Christians in Corinth, particularly their behavior causing negative consequences on the church. In the remaining part of this section (1 Cor 3:18–4:5) Paul pointed out the serious consequences of exalting a human wisdom, as well as certain leaders, among the Corinthian Christians for the integrity of the congregation. This kind of behavior caused the schism in Corinth and resulted, at least in part, in questioning Paul’s apostolic authority and his role in relation to the church. However, Paul is aware and sure that only God can determine Paul’s faithfulness to his divine calling.632 Paul concludes the apology of his apostolic authority as well as his mission in Corinth by the statement of God’s supreme and sole authority and competence to judge everyone’s intentions, thoughts, and deeds (1 Cor 4:4–5). 4

5

4

5

ouvde.n ga.r evmautw/| su,noida( avllV ouvk evn tou,tw| dedikai,wmai( o` de. avnakri,nwn me ku,rio,j evs tinÅ w[s te mh. pro. kairou/ ti kri,nete e[wj a'n e;lqh| o` ku,rioj( o]j kai. fwti,sei ta. krupta. tou/ sko,touj kai. fanerw,sei ta.j boula.j tw/n kardiw/n\ kai. to,te o` e;painoj genh,setai e`k a,stw| avpo. tou/ qeou/Å I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive commendation from God.

VanLandingham remarks that the issue in this passage is no different from the one in 3:13–15, which means that the context in which Paul discusses judgment relates specifically to the question of the faithfulness of Paul’s 630 Of course, this does not exclude the possibility that God could punishing him or her in the present. See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 189. 631 Or that 1 Cor 3:13–15 applies only to apostles, and the judgment described here covers only the work of the missionary, not the moral life of their converts. This view is expressed by VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 191; H. Räisänen, Paul and the Law (WUNT 29; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), 185, n. 116; Donfried, “Justification and the Last Judgment in Paul,” 106. The opposing view is held by E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1983), 109, who argues that what Paul says about the missionary work of himself and Apollos (1 Cor 3:5–15) applies to Christians in general. 632 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 192.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 215

stewardship in regard to his apostleship.633 Here, in verse 4, Paul is using one of the terms of the dikai-group (dedikai,wmai)634 in the context of the Last Judgment. Paul’s words are very important despite his own belief that he has been faithful in his stewardship; only God can finally judge and determine it. This understanding shows that Paul is well aware he is not proven righteous by his own belief or inner deep conviction about the nature and quality of his thinking and deeds in the context of his missionary activity in Corinth or elsewhere (cf. Luke 10:29; 16:15). Paul is not responding to his Corinthian critics but rather to his own positive assessment of himself, which is proved by the phrase evn tou,tw| (“by this”) preceding the verb.635 It however means that the translation of this verb as “acquitted” (as it is in NRSV)636 is not correct, or at least is misleading, irrespective of whether the verb dedikai,wmai is interpreted in passive or middle voice. If it should be interpreted as “acquitted,” we would expect in Paul’s argumentation the particular mention of the subject of Paul’s appraisal or acquittal, meaning the Lord, as Paul does in the second half of the verse (1 Cor 4:4b) where the verb avnakri,nein is used, and the context of which is the final and full exposition of a person’s character at the Last Judgment. This is confirmed also by the next fifth verse (1 Cor 4:5), where the term e;painoj (“praise”) points to reward or worthiness, not acquittal (cf. Rom 2:29; 13:3; 2 Cor 8:18; Phil 1:11).637 It means that the term dikaio,w points here to Paul’s character and to his own positive assessment of himself in regard to his own works in his apostolic mission. If he is really righteous, it will be clear at the time of the Lord’s Final Judgment where the issue centers on one’s moral state of being for final appraisal.638

633

VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 192, 273–74. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 162, n. 24, remarks that it is the first occurrence of this verb in the extant Pauline letters (its only other occurrence is in 1 Cor 6:11). 635 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 274. VanLandingham’s own translation is as follows: “For I am conscious of nothing against myself, but I have not been proven righteous by this. Rather, the one who examines me is the Lord.” 636 Since the acquittal is a judicial pronouncement expressing a response to an indictment or criminal charge, in the context of 1 Cor 4:1–5 as well as the preceding part 1 Cor 3:5–23, this kind of translation (“acquitted”) is not correct. See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 273–74. 637 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 274. 638 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 274, remarks here that Paul never employs the dikai-terms in a context that combines the Last Judgment with the effects of Jesus’ death for the believer. The same is found in Rom 2:13 and Phil 1:11. See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 274–77. 634

216 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics This way of interpretation, as Chris VanLandingham remarks, also proves to be accurate in the context of the next part of Paul’s argumentation in this letter, particularly in 1 Cor 5:1–5.639 1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

{Olwj avkou,e tai evn u`mi/n pornei,a( kai. toiau,th pornei,a h[tij ouvde. evn toi/j e;qnesin( w[s te gunai/ka, tina tou/ patro.j e;c einÅ kai. u`mei/j pefusiwme,noi evste. kai. ouvci. ma/llon evpenqh,sate( i[na avrqh/| evk me,sou u`mw/n o` to. e;rgon tou/to pra,xajÈ evgw. me.n ga,r( avpw.n tw/| sw,mati parw.n de. tw/| pneu,mati( h;dh ke,k rika w`j parw.n to.n ou[twj tou/to katergasa,menon\ evn tw/| ovno,mati tou/ kuri,o u Îh`mw/nÐ VIhsou/ sunacqe,ntwn u`mw/n kai. tou/ evmou/ pneu,matoj su.n th/| duna,mei tou/ kuri,o u h`mw/n VIhsou/( paradou/nai to.n toiou/ton tw/| satana/| eivj o;leqron th/j sarko,j( i[na to. pneu/ma swqh/| evn th/| h`me,ra| tou/ kuri,ouÅ It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Should you not rather have mourned, so that he who has done this would have been removed from among you? For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

This section focuses on a different issue concerning the judgment rather than the way it was in the previous part (1 Cor 3:13–14; 4:4–5). Paul discusses in chapter 5 the immoral behavior of one particular believer,640 which has a similar negative consequence on the church as a whole, particularly, the destruction of God’s temple spiritually present in the Christian congregation in Corinth. While in 1 Cor 3:5–4:7 the issue is the judgment over the apostles and their works in regard to the problems of schism in the Corinthian congregation, in 1 Cor 5:1–5 the issue is the judgment over the immoral believer, which is proven also in 5:12 where Paul tells the Corinthians to judge one another, contrary to 4:5, where he tells them not to judge (it means, the apostles). The content of this part supports the suggestion that behavior still has substantial importance in Paul’s message to the Corinthians, because Paul 639

VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 192–94. The opinion that this immoral person was not Christian is maintained, for example, by J. M. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance: Staying In and Falling Away (WUNT 2.37; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 113–20, but is untenable. 640

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 217

warns them not to lose salvation for moral failure.641 Paul stresses that this immoral man could be saved on the Day of the Lord only if he undergoes punishment (5:5). It is proved by the construal of the i]na clause that points out the purpose of the punishment and mentions salvation on the Day of the Lord. The problem of interpretation lies in the contrast between the terms “flesh” and “spirit,” which is for most commentators interpreted from an anthropological point of view.642 I think, this kind of phrasing is due to widespread usage of Hellenistic anthropology by the authors of the ancient Greco-Roman world, also including Jewish contemporary literature (L.A.B. 3:10; 15:5; 23:13; 51:5; 1 En. 22; Wis 3:1; 4 Ezra 7:79–80, 88; T. Ab. 1:7; 7:8, 12; 15:7; 16:15; 17:3; 20:9–15; Josephus, J.W. 3.372–375; 6.46–47; 7.185, 343–350).643 Even if the soul or spirit is considered a constituent part of the person seemingly separated from the body, I am convinced that it does not alter the fact that Paul is still considering the human being as a whole unit. It means Paul’s contrasting of the flesh and spirit does not separate these parts, as if the spirit could exist independently from the body, nor is it denying the notion of resurrection of the body. Paul refers here to the physical death of this immoral believer as a logical and unavoidable condition in order for the resurrection of the body to take place (cf. 1 Cor 15:38, 50).644 Paul’s pointing to the spirit shows that human beings have responsibility for their own behavior because humans are self-aware beings. Inside them acts not only vivacity or life-sustaining instincts, but also – and primarily – the spirit as God’s gift connecting them with their Creator and helping them not only to be able to distinguish between good and bad, but also to discipline them by their conscience, which is a part of the spirit holding humans responsible for their thoughts and deeds. As can be seen in this part, as well as in other paraenetical parts in Paul’s letters, ethics still plays a crucial role in one’s Christian life, and it is so despite of his or her belief in God’s saving act in Jesus Christ. God’s righteousness and mercy are expressed in the fact that Godself gives humans the possibility to participate in God’s own righteousness. God also gives them the free will to choose between two ways of life – life with or without God – that is a motif characteristic for Deuteronomic theology. 641

VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 193, remarks that 1 Cor 5:1–5 is often employed to support the view that 3:13–15 and 4:4–5 apply to all Christians and that Paul does not threaten the loss of salvation to Christians for moral failure. 642 To the particular stances and their proponents, see VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 193, n. 65. 643 The references to the particular texts are stated by VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 193, n. 65. 644 So also VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 193.

218 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics This participation is obligatory and means to live in accordance with God’s will while Godself prepared for humans the proper conditions from the beginning, leading up to the substantial point in God’s choice of Israel to be God’s people and making covenant with them. And now, also Gentiles are included into this covenant, as a result of God’s acting in Jesus Christ. This way of interpreting 1 Cor 5:1–5 is also supported by the following chapter (1 Cor 6:6–11) and even further, chapter 10 (1 Cor 10:1–12). 6 7

8 9

10

11

6 7

8 9

10

11

avlla. avdelfo.j meta. avdelfou/ kri,netai kai. tou/to evpi. avpi,s twnÈ :Hdh me.n Îou=nÐ o[lwj h[tthma u`mi/n evs tin o[ti kri,mata e;cete meqV e`a utw/nÅ dia. ti, ouvci. ma/llon avdikei/sqeÈ dia. ti, ouvci. ma/llon avposterei/sqeÈ avlla. u`mei/j avdikei/te kai. avposterei/te( kai. tou/to avdelfou,jÅ "H ouvk oi;date o[ti a;dikoi qeou/ basilei,a n ouv klhronomh,sousinÈ mh. plana/sqe\ ou;te po,rnoi ou;te eivdwlola,trai ou;te moicoi. ou;te malakoi. ou;te avrsenokoi/tai ou;te kle,ptai ou;te pleone,k tai( ouv me,qusoi( ouv loi,doroi( ouvc a[rpagej basilei,an qeou/ klhronomh,sousinÅ kai. tau/ta, tinej h=te\ avlla. avpelou,sasqe( avlla. h`gia,sqhte( avlla. evdikaiw,qhte evn tw/| ovno,mati tou/ kuri,ou VIhsou/ Cristou/ kai. evn tw pneu,mati tou/ qeou/ h`mw/nÅ But a believer goes to court against a believer – and before unbelievers at that? In fact, to have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud – and believers at that. Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers – none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

This passage shows the great emphasis Paul places on the messianic ethics of the community of believers, particularly in his admonition to not take their grievances with other members of the congregation to government courts. This practice is a mark of their pagan past and does not confess to their present status – to be and remain new beings in Jesus Christ, who have the obligation to live as believers purified by God’s actions in Jesus Christ as they could now participate in God’s (or Christ’s) righteousness in their daily life. Verse 9 is significant in this context where Paul warns the Corinthians to not be deceived, because wrongdoers cannot inherit the kingdom of God. The following catalogue of vices in verse 9 (1 Cor 6:9b–10) fits properly in the context of the previous chapter and proves that for Paul it is extremely important that the Corinthians understand and accept the necessity of remaining in the state of holiness. Paul groups the people into two

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 219

categories, “the saints” and “the unrighteous” (1 Cor 6:1). The Corinthians are designated as a[gioi (“the saints”), contrary to the group of unbelievers and wrongdoers who are designated as a;dikoi (“the unrighteous,” cf. 1 Cor 6:1, 9). Paul’s designation of the Corinthians as saints expresses their new status before God as a result of God’s actions in Jesus Christ and means for them the obligation to remain “pure,” or to live as new beings in Jesus Christ, which brings real consequences into their daily life, especially from a moral and ethical point of view. Paul’s words in verses 8–9 confirm that behavior determines one’s eternal destiny regardless of one’s status as a believer.645 Paul’s warning relates not only to the unbelievers, nor to those who are believers only superficially (cf. 1 Cor 5),646 but “Paul’s point in all this is to warn ‘the saints,’ not only the man who has wronged his brother, but the whole community, that if they persist in the same evils as ‘the wicked’ they are in the same danger of not inheriting the kingdom.”647 Paul also continues this argumentation in the tenth chapter (1 Cor 10:1–12). Here, Paul’s warning is clearly addressed to believers.648 Paul compares the situation in the Christian community in Corinth metaphorically to the Exodus generation (cf. Exod 13:21; 14:29; 16:4, 35; 17:6; 32:6; Num 11:4; 14:2, 22–23, 30, 32, 37; 21:5–6; 25:1, 9; Deut 32:4; Ps 78:13–20, 24–25). In the first part (vv. 1–5), Paul sets forth Israel as a warning example of those who despite having their own form of “baptism” and “Lord’s Supper” failed and God was displeased with most of them and they died in the wilderness:649 1

2 3 4

5

Ouv qe,lw ga.r u`ma/j avgnoei/n( avdelfoi,( o[ti oi` pate,rej h`mw/n pa,ntej u`po. th.n nefe,lhn h=san kai. pa,ntej dia. th/j qala,sshj dih/lqon kai. pa,ntej eivj to.n Mwu?sh/n evbapti,sqhsan evn th/| nefe,lh| kai. evn th/| qala,ssh| kai. pa,ntej to. auvto. pneumatiko.n brw/ma e;fagon kai. pa,ntej to. auvto. pneumatiko.n e;pion po,ma\ e;pinon ga.r evk pneumatikh/j avk olouqou,shj pe,traj( h` pe,tra de. h=n o` Cristo,jÅ VAllV ouvk evn toi/j plei,osin auvtw/n euvdo,k hsen o` qeo,j( katestrw,qhsan ga.r evn th/| evrh,mw|Å

645 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 194. So also Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 241–42. 646 So Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 132–41. 647 Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 242. 648 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 195. VanLandingham refers also to Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 165; C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (HNTC; New York: Harper and Row, 1968), 220. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 127, argues contrarily, particularly that Paul’s warning here is addressed towards non-Christians in the Corinthian church. This is however contradictory due to the context of verses 12 and 13. See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 195, n. 72. 649 Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 442.

220 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics 1

2 3 4

5

I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them, and they were struck down in the wilderness.

In the second section (1 Cor 10:6–12), Paul applies this example directly to the Corinthians: 6

7

8

9

10

11

12 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Tau/ta de. tu,poi h`mw/n evgenh,qhsan( eivj to. mh. ei=nai h`ma/j evpiqumhta.j kakw/n( kaqw.j kavkei/noi evpequ,mhsanÅ mhde. eivdwlola,trai gi,nesqe kaqw,j tinej auvtw/n( w[s per ge,graptai\ evka,qisen o` lao.j fagei/n kai. pei/n kai. avne,s thsan pai,zeinÅ mhde. porneu,wmen( kaqw,j tinej auvtw/n evpo,rneusan kai. e;pesan mia/| h`me,ra| ei;kosi trei/j cilia,dejÅ mhde. evkpeira,zwmen to.n Cristo,n( kaqw,j tinej auvtw/n evpei,rasan kai. u`po. tw/n o;fewn avpw,lluntoÅ mhde. goggu,zete( kaqa,per tine.j auvtw/n evgo,ggusan kai. avpw,lonto u`po. tou/ ovloqreutou/Å tau/ta de. tupikw/j sune,bainen evkei,noij( evgra,f h de. pro.j nouqesi,an h`mw/n( eivj ou]j ta. te,lh tw/n aivw,nwn kath,nthkenÅ {Wste o` dokw/n e`sta,nai blepe,tw mh. pe,sh|Å Now these things occurred as examples for us, so that we might not desire evil as they did. Do not become idolaters as some of them did; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and they rose up to play.” We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by serpents. And do not complain as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer. These things happened to them to serve as an example, and they were written down to instruct us, on whom the ends of the ages have come. So if you think you are standing, watch out that you do not fall.

First, through the four illustrations from the Exodus story, Paul explains why some of them were overthrown at various times (vv. 7–10) and then warns them as they draw a lesson from this and do not fall (vv. 11–12). Finally, Paul encourages those believers who experience true testing of their life, contrary to those who dare to test God (v. 13).650 650

Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 442.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 221

Paul mentions baptism and the Lord’s Supper, rites that were falsely understood by the Corinthian Christians clearly. Instead, they were seen in the manner of initial rituals as was in the popular mystery cults as well as the cultic meals in pagan temples.651 His warning clearly expresses that these rites are not magical sacraments, and as such cannot protect one from God’s destroying wrath if his or her way of life is contrary to God’s will.652 First, what Paul is pointing out in this chapter is the sin of idolatry (1 Cor 10:14–22), but it is not only idolatry to which Paul’s warning is directed. Yet the initial particle ga,r (“since”, “for”), which many commentators either ignore or minimize in meaning,653 connects this segment (1 Cor 10:1–13) with the exhortation and warning that just preceded.654 It means that in Paul’s argumentation in this letter the issue is broader than the specific problem of idolatry, which proves the statement concerning a believer’s liberty in Christ (1 Cor 6:12; 10:23) that can have negative consequences if it is falsely understood. Paul supports this in the content of chapters 5 and 6, where the issue is sexual sins concentrated not only on temple prostitution but also on other sexual matters.655 The problem of consummation of food sacrificed in the pagan temples could become the trigger for offending the fellow brother or sister in belief (see 1 Cor 10:23– 33). Therefore, Paul admonishes the Corinthians to self-control as he does in chapter 9 towards himself (see 1 Cor 9:25).656 The content of this passage and the general context of chapters 8–10 indicate that Paul’s concern is not only idolatry or apostasy but sin as a whole. Particularly, Paul in 1 Cor 10:1–12 warns the Corinthians that sin is ultimately leading to destruction, which is clear mark of his emphasis on right behavior as an inevitable condition for the salvation.657

651

62.

652

For exegesis of 1 Cor 10:1–13, see Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 441–

So also VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 196. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 165; Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 220. 654 Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 443; VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 196. 655 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 196. 656 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 196 rightly remarks that the athletic metaphor in 1 Cor 9:24–27 most probably points to the Last Judgment, which means that Paul’s statement in verse 27 expresses that he too has to be careful not to be rejected by God. See also Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 218; Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 440. 657 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 196 states that Paul said consistently in this passage that one’s deeds do affect one’s eternal destiny. 653

222 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics The other judgment passage of this letter that VanLandingham discusses in regard to the understanding of the meaning of the dikai-group of terms in Paul’s message is 1 Cor 11:27–34.658 27

28

29 30 31 32 33 34

27

28 29

30 31 32

33 34

{Wste o]j a'n evsqi,h| to.n a;rton h' pi,nh| to. poth,rion tou/ kuri,o u avnaxi,wj( e;nocoj e;s tai tou/ sw,matoj kai. tou/ ai[matoj tou/ kuri,o uÅ dokimaze,tw de. a;nqrwpoj e`a uto.n kai. ou[twj evk tou/ a;rtou evsqie,tw kai. evk tou/ pothri,ou pine,tw\ o` ga.r evsqi,wn kai. pi,nwn kri,ma e`autw/| evsqi,ei kai. pi,nei mh. diakri,nwn to. sw/maÅ dia. tou/to evn u`mi/n polloi. avsqenei/j kai. a;rrwstoi kai. koimw/ntai i`kanoi,Å eiv de. e`autou.j diekri,nomen( ouvk a'n evkrino,meqa\ krino,menoi de. u`po. Îtou/Ð kuri,ou paideuo,meqa( i[na mh. su.n tw/| ko,s mw| katakriqw/menÅ {Wste( avdelfoi, mou( sunerco,menoi eivj to. fagei/n avllh,louj evkde,cesqeÅ ei; tij peina/|( evn oi;k w| evsqie,tw( i[na mh. eivj kri,ma sune,rchsqeÅ ta. de. loipa. w`j a'n e;lqw diata,x omaiÅ Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If you are hungry, eat at home, so that when you come together, it will not be for your condemnation. About the other things I will give instructions when I come.

In this passage, the main point in the background of the abuse of the Lord’s Supper is the question of the relation between present discipline and the Last Judgment. Along with this, other questions come to the fore, the first of which is what is the purpose of discipline, and secondly what is the destiny of those who died as a result of God’s discipline?659 This pericope has had a long history of being read and interpreted often out of its context.660 In spite of all the interpretative difficulties, this passage is dominated by “judgment” motifs. Paul warns the Corinthians against “an unworthy manner” of eating the Lord’s Supper – it means do not discern the body, the church (cf. 1 Cor 10:16–17).661 Therefore, he gives them an order to examine themselves before eating (v. 28), so as to not come under divine judgment (v. 29). Paul connects the present situation in the congregation where some illnesses and deaths have occurred prophetically 658

VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 197–98. VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 197. 660 See Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 559. 661 Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 559. 659

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 223

with the present reality of God’s judgment brought about by their failure to discern the body. Then, Paul’s argument concludes in the verses 31–32 with the statement about judgment and discipline, essentially repeating the point of verses 28–30. Here, the present judgment can mean God’s disciplining them so they will not be condemned at the Final Judgment.662 The substantial question in this context is what Paul means principally by the words in verse 32. It is clear that the purpose clause refers to the future judgment, which means that God’s present discipline has a corrective function,663 and it is purposeful in enabling erring believers in Corinth to avoid condemnation at the Last Judgment.664 It does not mean full exemption from Final Judgment,665 but rather that God’s present punishment as a concrete manifestation of God’s discipline has a preventing purpose and averts the believers from future condemnation.666 This is similar to the meaning found in Pss. Sol. 10:1–3, where the psalmist states that the discipline of the Lord helps the pious to return to the proper way of life in accordance with God’s will, which means that God assists the pious in the process of rectification. VanLandingham asserts that when Paul says that Christians are disciplined to avoid condemnation, he shows that repentance, not atonement for sin, is the objective of the discipline.667 If it is so, and I think it is a correct interpretation, Paul’s emphasis on right and proper behavior of the believers has its basis in Jewish covenantal theology with the notion of the “Two Ways” concept of the life of human beings, where ethics plays a key role in Paul’s, as well as the author’s of the Psalms of Solomon case, messianic ethics. As we could observe in all of these judgment passages in 1 Corinthians, it is evident that Paul holds the possibility that believers could be rejected at the Last Judgment on the basis of their moral failure as a result of their wrong behavior (cf. 1 Cor 7:19).668 The characteristic judgment passage in Second Corinthians is 2 Cor 5:10. This passage is considered by the commentators as a part of the letter fragment usually identified as 2 Cor 2:14–7:4 with the central theme in defense 662 Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 559, interprets the present judgment as the act of God’s disciplining them so that they will not come under the Final “Judgment” – the condemnation of the world. 663 The basic meaning of the term paideu,w is “to treat as a child.” For the definition and meaning of the term, see G. Bertram, “paideu,w,” TDNT 5:596–625; BAGD, 603–604. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 566, n. 39, remarks that inherent in this usage is the idea of “correcting by discipline” (cf. 2 Cor 6:9). 664 So VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 197. See also Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 566. 665 So Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 106–107. 666 So E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 516. 667 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 198. 668 See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 198.

224 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics of Paul’s ministry.669 This particular verse, which is serving as a climax to the sequence of verses begun at 4:16, is connected with the previous verse and supplies the reason why believers have to strive “to please the Lord” (1 Cor 5:9).670 9 10

9 10

dio. kai. filotimou,meqa( ei;te evndhmou/ntej ei;te evkdhmou/ntej( euva,restoi auvtw/| ei=naiÅ tou.j ga.r pa,ntaj h`ma/j fanerwqh/nai dei/ e;mprosqen tou/ bh,matoj tou/ Cristou/( i[na komi,s htai e[kastoj ta. dia. tou/ sw,matoj pro.j a] e;praxen( ei;te avgaqo.n ei;te fau/lonÅ So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. For all of us must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive recompense for what has been done in the body, whether good or evil.

In this difficult situation where Paul has to defend his own apostolicity and mission among the Gentiles in Corinth, as well as the content of the gospel that was preached there in opposition to other apostles, he assures his readers that the present suffering of the apostle is the preparation for what awaits in the future, including the Final Judgment.671 The focus of this verse and of 1 Cor 4:14 is on the resurrection and the judgment of believers. The basic question among the commentators is how to translate the second half of the verse and interpret Paul’s words about the judgment, and particularly within the context of this verse, what the verb komi,zw means (in the middle voice the verb has the sense “to receive back”; in judicial context “to recompense”).672 In light of traditional protestant views on the believers, the judgment will not mean to receive punishment or to be rejected, even though their deeds will be considered at the Final Judgment as wrong or bad, but only the lack of faith in Jesus Christ could cause the final damnation at the Last Judgment.673 The text gives notice to the universality of the resurrection and 669 See P. Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 137–45. 670 Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 273. 671 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 199. 672 See BAGD, 442–43. 673 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 200–201, argues against this kind of interpretation. For this kind of interpretation, see, for example, Mattern, Das Verständnis des Gerichtes bei Paulus, 192–93; P. E. Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 181; J. Hering, The Second Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians (London: Epworth, 1967), 40; R. P. Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC; Waco: Word, 1986), 115; V. P. Furnish, II Corinthians: Translated with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (AB 32A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1984), 305; M. J. Harris, “2 Corinthians,” in EBC (12 vols.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976–92), 10:349. Cited by VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 201, n. 90.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 225

final judgment of all, including the believers. In this verse Paul speaks about God’s revelation of what had previously been hidden, meaning the things each has done through his body. Christians in Corinth not only have a divinely made appointment with Christ as judge (cf. John 5:22, 27; 9:39; Acts 10:42; 17:31), but it is one in which each will be carefully scrutinized and deeds revealed to him or her, the necessity of which is evidenced by the verb dei/ (“must”).674 Paul further says that each will receive back as their due the things each has done through the body during his or her lifetime. As is clear from Paul’s argument in this section of the letter, two characteristic positions of his theology – God’s promised and given salvation (see Rom 3:21–31; 5:1–11; Gal 5:4) and the judgment of each according to his or her works (see Rom 2:6–11; 14:10; 1 Cor 14:13) – have to be reconciled here. I think that Paul Barnett’s argument in regard to the universality of the judgment of believers as well as the necessity of the final appraisal of each life, one by one, in accordance with individual merit, is precise and correct in its content, but his conclusion concerning this reconciliation, particularly that believers do not face condemnation at Christ’s tribunal675 but rather evaluation with a view to the Master’s commendation given or withheld,676 is not convincing because of his partial downplaying of the importance of the Last Judgment.677 Rather, I agree with Chris VanLandingham’s argument concerning 2 Cor 5:10, which seems to be plausible and coherent, especially in the context of all available contemporary Jewish texts. VanLandingham argues in this connection that there is sufficient evidence that the Last Judgment as described in 2 Cor 5:10 means retributive adjudication according to one’s behavior determines one’s eternal destiny, which is the line of interpretation supported also by other passages in 2 Corinthians relating to judgment (6:1; 11:15; 13:5).678 The very context of 2 Cor 5:10 suggests that this judgment involves more than just reward or the lack thereof,679 which is the attitude held by those who argue Christians are guaranteed acceptance at the Last Judgment in spite of their behavior.680 Paul’s paraenesis as a whole is motivated by the threat of judgment (see vv. 9 and 10). Moreover, the suggestion that the determination of one’s eternal destiny as occurring at the Last Judgment is strengthened when we read 2 Cor 5:10 from the perspective of Rom 2:6–9, and this is so even for 674

So Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 274–75. In this context, Barnett refers to Rom 5:16, 18; 8:1. 676 In this context, Barnett refers to 1 Cor 3:10–15; 4:5; cf. Luke 12:42–48. 677 See Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 276–77. 678 See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 202–204. 679 So VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 202, who here refers to M. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 395. 680 So, for example, Mattern, Das Verständnis des Gerichtes bei Paulus, 192–93. 675

226 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics Christians.681 I think that Christ’s death on the cross interpreted as a propitiatory sacrifice given by Godself (see Rom 3:21–26) takes its meaning solely from the context of Paul’s mission among Gentiles. It means God’s sacrifice in Jesus Christ constitutes the starting point of the new life of the believers – from Gentiles – who are being purified in God’s act from the destructive effect of sin on their life so that they are prepared for the Last Judgment. This line of interpretation does not exclude the necessity to remain in a state of holiness, to live as a new being in Jesus Christ, until the time of Christ’s Parousia. I think that this kind of argument does not belittle the importance and principal of God’s mercy in this process. It is instead quite the opposite. All that is relating to the life of human beings is based solely on God’s mercy, from the beginning until the end. This fact is proved and confessed by the Two-Ways concept, which became common in later Jewish and Christian literature, for example, in the Qumran Scrolls (1QS 3–4; 4Q398 and 399), 4 Maccabees, the Testament of Asher (T. Ash.), the Didache (Did.), Barnabas (Barn.), 4 Ezra (cf. Mark 1:3). 2.4.2.2 Galatians The other judgment passage that can be helpful in the process of understanding Paul’s way of using the dikai-group of terms is Gal 5:13–6:10.682 In this passage, Paul brings together the central themes of the previous sections; the unifying theme of the gift of the Spirit as the basis for participation in God’s redemptive action in Jesus Christ (Gal 3:1–4:7) and the theme of dangers represented by the message and activities of the new preachers concerning the necessity of observing the law (Gal 4:8–5:12).683 The Letter to the Galatians, as VanLandingham states, “testifies unmistakably that Paul affirms the belief that one’s post-baptismal behav-ior has a role in the process of salvation, positively and negatively.”684 We can agree 681

VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 202. VanLandingham stresses here especially Gal 5:16–6:10. See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 205–10. 683 M. C. de Boer, Galatians: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 329. For a more detailed characterization as well as exegetical comments on this section, see pp. 329–92. 684 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 205, including nn. 106 and 107. The author remarks that this passage is integral to Paul’s argument that the law of Moses does not provide a viable way to eternal life and provides the final clue to piecing together his new and alternate soteriology. VanLandingham adds that his view in this matter is indebted to the article by G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Incarnation: Paul’s Solution to the Universal Human Predicament,” in The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of 682

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 227

in full with this statement, the evidence of which also brings the theme of the final importance of moral effort and conduct in accordance with God’s will (cf. Gal 5:6 with 1 Cor 7:19 and 13:2). Paul’s message in this letter is, as a whole, focused on soteriology. Paul tries to explain to the Galatians what it exactly means to be and remain in the new status of the believers in Jesus Christ that received it in the Gospel, and how one would escape God’s coming wrath and be saved for eternal life. Paul explains to them the reason and purpose of Jesus’ death (Gal 1:4). Since in Jesus’ sacrificial death they were appropriated God’s forgiveness for sins by faith (Gal 2:16), they became free from the present evil age and from the destructive power of demonic forces and are made righteous in the sense that they are now purified and capable of coming to God’s presence (cf. 1 Cor 3:17b; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:14–7:1). They receive God’s (Jesus’) Spirit (Gal 3:2, 14; cf. Rom 8:2–4) so they have the ability to be in obedience and do God’s will, and so could receive salvation (Gal 6:8–9; cf. Rom 8:4– 13).685 Jesus’ sacrifice redeems believers not only from the “present evil age” but also from the Law of Moses (Gal 3:13; see also 3:22–23; 4:21–5:1). Paul’s argument does not aim to detract the law from its importance in salvation history. For Paul it is undisputed that giving the law was God’s plan for the goodness and benefit of all humankind (Gal 3:22). However, Paul’s argumentation is focused and aimed to Gentiles where they received through Jesus’ sacrifice God’s promise of salvation; the gift of the Spirit that is identical to the blessing of Abraham (Gal 3:6–9, 14). This gift from God means for them the gift of righteousness and the inheritance (Gal 3:18) as well as adoption (Gal 4:5–7); in other words, they gained the status of “sons of God” (Gal 3:23–29). Since for Paul this age is coming to its climax, which is the Parousia, Gentiles as the believers and owners of the gift of Spirit are now made righteous by the Spirit. They are purified from the destructive influence of sins and are thus prepared for the Last Judgment. Therefore, they have to make an effort to remain in the state of righteousness and live in a manner acceptable by Godself, the ability of which they received internally from the Spirit of God (Jesus), not through the constraints of the law.686 Since Paul is well aware that in Jesus Christ God’s promises reach their fulfillment, he knows that the time of the last days of this age have begun. Paul also knows that in the time of these days all of God’s promises about Helmut Koester (ed. B. A. Pearson in collaboration with A. T. Kraabel, G. W. E. Nickelsburg, and N. R. Petersen; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 348–57. 685 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 207. 686 J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993), 296. See also VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 207–208.

228 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics universal acknowledgment of God’s rule over the world and universe, as well as the universal dimension of salvation of the righteous from Israel – but not excluding Gentiles, given before to Israel through God’s prophets – have yet to be fulfilled (see Isa 2:2–5; 56:1–8; 66:20; cf. 60:9). Therefore, Gentiles who are believers in God’s actions through Jesus Christ have to remain in the state of this belief that has particular consequences in their lives. They are to be and remain holy, pure, blameless, innocent, without blemish, and full of righteousness until the time of Christ’s Parousia. Gal 5:13–6:10 shows what the sowing of the Spirit means in Paul’s theological thinking. To be in this state does not mean one’s own power and merit, nor is it doing automatically. It requires God’s grace and divine inspiration of the believers. Paul calls this state a “walking by the Spirit” (Gal 5:16), “being led by the Spirit” (Gal 5:18), “living by and following the Spirit” (Gal 5:25).687 However, the believer has to participate in this process with his or her own effort, and at the same time they have to be careful as they, due to improper conduct, would not be excluded from the inheritance of the kingdom of God. This warning and its meaning comes to the fore especially in 5:19–21 and 6:7–10 where the specific issues of eternal destiny arises. 19 20 21

19 20 21

fanera. de, evstin ta. e;rga th/j sarko,j( a[tina, evstin pornei,a( avkaqarsi,a( avse,lgeia( eivdwlolatri,a( farmakei,a( e;cqrai( e;rij( zh/loj( qumoi,( evriqei/ai( dicostasi,ai( ai`re,seij( fqo,noi( me,qai( kw/moi kai. ta. o[moia tou,toij( a] prole,gw u`mi/n( kaqw.j proei/pon o[ti oi` ta. toiau/ta pra,ssontej basilei,an qeou/ ouv klhronomh,sousinÅ Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

From the content of this passage it is clear that one’s eternal destiny is still determined at the Last Judgment, and it is so despite the fact that the believers stay in their new status, which has been gained by their faith (cf. Gal 5:5–6). Catalogs of vices were common in Greek philosophical traditions, especially in Stoicism as well as in Hellenistic Judaism, including Philo.688 Paul has chosen to include the catalogs of vices into his letters to constitute an important part of his paraenesis (Rom 1:28–31; 1 Cor 5:9–11; 6:9–10; cf. 2 Cor 12:20–21; Rom 13:12–14).689 In the case of Galatians, Paul had 687

VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 209. See R. N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC 41; Mexico City: Thomas Nelson, 1990), 250–51; de Boer, Galatians, 355. 689 We also found these catalogs in the deutero-Pauline letters Eph 4:31; 5:3–4; Col 3:5–8; 1 Tim 1:9–10; 2 Tim 3:2–5. 688

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 229

to assume that the Galatians are familiar with some of those traditions. His purpose to use this catalog was however different. He puts it in the framework of an apocalyptic conflict between the Flesh and the Spirit, or the works of the Flesh and the fruit of the Spirit (following in the verses 22– 23), which is a typical part of Paul’s messianic ethics.690 This material in its content constitutes an apocalyptic adaptation of the historical Jewish tradition of the Two Ways of life, the way of the righteous and the way of the wicked (cf. Ps 1; T. Ash. 1–4; Barn. 19:1–2; Did. 1–2).691 The fact that the believers are now found in the new situation, since they are led by the Spirit and therefore not subject to the law, does not alter the other fact that the moral quality of their lives still has a determinative effect on their eternal destiny. Since the Spirit of Christ is an eschatological reality that has come into the old age from outside, the believer’s participation in this spiritual power has the obligatory character to remain holy and pure for the Last Judgment. The catalog of vices, called by Paul “the works of the Flesh” (ta. e;rga th/j sarko,j), are the deeds caused by the Flesh here conceived of as a malevolent cosmic power, which, apart from Christ and his Spirit, determines the course and character of human life in a negative way, and at the same time expresses humankind’s propensity to sin and humankind’s dependence on God’s mercy.692 Paul’s words are addressed not only to the unbelievers, 690

As de Boer, Galatians, 356, calls it while referring to J. L. Martyn, Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul (SNTW; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 534, “Paul’s apocalyptic ethics,” and remarks that the best parallel is provided by some material in the Community Rule of Qumran (1QS 4:9–11), called “the spirit of deceit,” which contends with “the spirit of truth” (1QS 4:2–6). 691 de Boer, Galatians, 356. 692 de Boer, Galatians, 357–58; de Boer in this connection remarks that the expression “the works of the Flesh” is reminiscent of the expression “works of the law,” used by Paul in Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10 – which means deeds required by the Mosaic Law – and that through this choice of words Paul initiates an unholy alliance between the flesh and the law. However, it must be noted, as Pamela Eisenbaum remarks, that Paul’s condemnatory remarks in relation to the law are understandable only in the context of his mission among Gentiles. On the one side, the law (Torah) is a witness to God’s plan and speaks to all the nations. But on the other hand, the law contains stipulations that pertain exclusively to Israel in her role as mediator between God and the nations. Paul was persuaded that with Christ’s resurrection the eschaton had begun and it was no longer necessary or appropriate for Gentiles to become Jews through conversion, which is expressed through a commitment to live according to Torah. See Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 170–71. James Dunn argues in the context of the role and meaning of the law in Paul’s message that the law as such is a neutral entity. It is therefore decisive for humans from which perspective we approach the law and which greater power controls the law. If humans are governed by the flesh, the law is for them a power of sin and death; if they are governed by the Spirit, the law is the power of God’s Spirit leading them to obedience to God’s will (cf. Rom 7–8). See Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 719–21.

230 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics but also, and primarily to the Galatian believers. In Paul’s theologizing it is an elementary reality where all humans are found in the same situation. They have to decide and choose between two ways or two spirits that will lead to a different level of quality of their lives. Paul supports this crucial idea of his paraenesis with an illustrative example of agricultural metaphors in 6:7–9, with the concluding exhortation flowing from verses 7–9. 7 8

9 10

7 8

9

10

Mh. plana/sqe( qeo.j ouv mukthri,zetaiÅ o] ga.r eva.n spei,rh| a;nqrwpoj( tou/to kai. qeri,sei\ o[ti o` spei,rwn eivj th.n sa,rka e`a utou/ evk th/j sarko.j qeri,sei fqora,n( o` de. spei,rwn eivj to. pneu/ma evk tou/ pneu,matoj qeri,sei zwh.n aivw,nionÅ to. de. kalo.n poiou/ntej mh. evgkakw/men( kairw/| ga.r ivdi,w| qeri,somen mh. evk luo,menoiÅ :Ara ou=n w`j kairo.n e;comen( evrgazw,meqa to. avgaqo.n pro.j pa,ntaj( ma,lista de. pro.j tou.j oivkei,ouj th/j pi,stewjÅ Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow. If you sow to your own flesh, you will reap corruption from the flesh; but if you sow to the Spirit, you will reap eternal life from the Spirit. So let us not grow weary in doing what is right, for we will reap at harvest time, if we do not give up. So then, whenever we have an opportunity, let us work for the good of all, and especially for those of the family of faith.

This part forms a unit and is characteristic of a summary of Gal 5:13– 6:10.693 Paul’s opening words “do not be deceived” confirms that the content of his warning is addressed not to unbelievers but to believing Christians (cf. 1 Cor 6:9; 15:33). Since the believers are living by the Spirit, they have to be much more aware of their responsibility for their new status received through God’s actions in Jesus Christ. Paul therefore highlights that living according to the Flesh has serious and far-reaching implications for them where God’s mercy is decisive and determinative in this process. God rectifies this ominous situation and in Jesus’ sacrificial death makes possible for humans to possess the Spirit and also to be and remain obedient, which is necessary for divine approval.694 Paul’s words in this part are plainly understandable. What will count “before God” on the Day of the Lord is obedience, and the state that obedience produces in the life of the believer. This is the basis upon which God will recompense everyone with either eternal life or death.695 2.4.2.3 Romans Despite the fact that, traditionally, Paul’s Letter to the Romans is considered above any other Pauline letter as principal evidence for the view that eternal 693

de Boer, Galatians, 386. VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 210. 695 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 210. 694

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 231

life is a free gift of God given graciously without any regard to one’s behavior, Paul continues in this letter to reflect on the traditional Jewish notion about the Last Judgment as final appraisal of the quality and character of one’s life with the final decision determining eternal destiny.696 For a better understanding of the meaning of the main theme of this letter, which is God’s righteousness as well as Paul’s argumentation concerning the Last Judgment, in this context it is necessary to explain the occasion and purpose of this letter, including the identity of the addressees.697 In this connection it must be emphasized that Paul’s letters are explicitly addressed to Gentiles.698 Only from this perspective can it be understood rightly and comprehensively with Paul’s polemics and critical comments about the law to Gentiles.699 There are more questions about the addressees, mainly whether Paul wrote this letter only to gentile believers in Rome (cf. Rom 1:10–15) or to Gentile as well as Jewish Christians (Rom 15:7–12), or if Paul supposed that the letter would be read also by non-believing Jews (cf. Rom 1:16– 4:25). Another question concerning the addressees is to whom in particular he writes. Is it one particular Christian community in Rome or more groups, and if this is the case, were there relations among the various Christian groups? A final question is whether chapter 16 is an original part of the letter or is part of another letter written earlier or later and even whether it was meant for another destination. It is not easy to find satisfactory answers to these questions, and commentators try to revise older stances to advance new arguments as to find a better answer for all of these questions.700 In regard to our task in this part of the book I focus only on the passages where Paul argues, similarly as he does in other cases of his letters, in favor of the traditional Jewish notion about the Last Judgment as a final and decisive event of the full appraisal of the quality and character of each 696

See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 211. This is stressed also by VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 211. 698 See Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 170, including n. 26. 699 For the most accessible argument for Paul’s critical comments about the law to Gentiles, Eisenbaum refers to J. G. Gager, Reinventing Paul (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000); L. Gaston, Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987); N. Elliott, The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and Paul’s Dialogue with Judaism (JSNTSup 45; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990); M. D. Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996); S. K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994). 700 For the introductory questions about the letter as well as the addressees see Dunn, Romans 1–8, xxxix–lxxii; Fitzmyer, Romans, 25–88; D. J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996), 1–32; W. Schmithals, Der Römerbrief als historisches Problem (SNT 9; Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1975), 9. 697

232 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics one’s life according to their deeds, and so determining the eternal destiny of everyone. I would like to stress again that it does not eliminate God’s mercy as a basic precondition in this process. God’s righteousness and mercy come first; it is the terminus a quo of each human life. Concerning the addressees of this letter, I am convinced that Paul as “apostle to the Gentiles” wrote this letter primarily, if no solely, to Gentile Christians in Rome (see Rom 1:6, 13; 11:13–32; 15:7–12, 15–16).701 There were three main purposes for writing this letter, missionary, apologetic, and pastoral purposes. Besides his missionary intent to move from the northeastern quadrant of the Mediterranean where he completed one phase of his missionary work to the northwestern quadrant of the Mediterranean (Rom 15:18–24, 28), Paul was trying to gain acceptance of his own understanding of the Gospel (1:1–6, 16–17) as well as his apostolicity among the believers in Rome (3:8) and to ease – before arriving in person – the tensions emerging within Christian communities in Rome due to the ethnic composition of the Christian groups in Rome. The tensions between Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome, between Gentile Christians and the entire Jewish community, was increasing and was exacerbated by the edict of Claudius (Suetonius, Claudii Vita 25.4; Cassius Dio, Roman History 60.6.6) and the consequences once it lapsed after Claudius’s death in 54 CE.702 Paul could see and seize the opportunity, given by his three month stay in Corinth at the end of his missionary work in this part of the Mediterranean (Rom 15:1, 23; cf. Acts 20:3), to craft for the Christians in Rome a very careful and well-worked statement of his gospel and faith, and included with this, to defend his mission as well as his own apostolicity.703 Of course, the presupposition that Paul wrote the letter for the gentile Christians in Rome does not exclude the possibility that the letter could also be read by other groups of Christians in Rome, or that the letter had been seen by the nonbelieving Jews. All parts of the letter that seemingly give the impression of non-Jewish addressees are in part due to Paul’s way of theologizing, particularly his using the diatribe method as an object of teaching. It is clear that in the letter the issue of Jew/Gentile relationships (1:16), the questions 701

See Dunn, Romans 1–8, xlv. How we understand the effect of the so-called edict of Claudius on the situation in Rome and for interpreting the Letter to the Romans is still debated among scholars. See Nanos, The Mystery of Romans, 19–20, 372–87, and Campbell, The Deliverance of God, 516, including n. 132. For the issue of the history of the Jewish community in Rome, see H. J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1960), 23–27, 135–70; Nanos, The Mystery of Romans, 41–84. For the origin and character of the Christian community in Rome as well as the references to other authors and literature, see Dunn, Romans 1–8, xliv–liv; Fitzmyer, Romans, 25–36. 703 See Dunn, Romans 1–8, lvi. 702

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 233

of identity (1:7; 2:25–29; 8:33; 9:6–13; 11:5–7, 28–32), and the understanding of the gospel as the universal entity (1:16–17; 15:8–12) no longer limited to Jews as such (chapters 2–5), but still remaining on the position of God’s election of Israel for the special purpose and goal dominate (3:1– 4; chapters 9–11).704 Paul’s theologizing in this crucial letter focuses on two substantial themes, both of which relate to God’s righteousness, which is the central motif of the letter (it dominates in 3:20–22, 24–26, 28, 30; 4:2–3, 5–6, 9, 11, 13, 22; 5:1, 7, 9, 17, 19, 21; 9:30–31; 10:3–6). The first is Paul’s proclamation of the gospel in 1:16–17 centered on the prophecy of the prophet Habakuk as a key statement about Paul’s own understanding of God’s righteousness and God’s mercy (cf. 3:21–26). The second important theme is faith (it dominates in 3:22, 25, 27–28, 30–31; 4:3, 5, 9, 11–14, 16–20; 5:1–2), especially its relation to obedience (cf. 1:5 and 15:18; 1:8 and 16:19; 10:16a and 10:16b; 11:23 and 11:31).705 I do not want to focus too much on the interpretation of these two themes, especially in the context of Paul’s doctrine of justification.706 I have introduced the basic approaches to this issue in subsection 2.4.1, and in regard to the passage 3:21–26, the comment will be made in the last chapter of the book in the context of the eschatological passage of the Psalms of Solomon in chapters 17 and 18 (especially the Pss. Sol. 18:5). Now it is sufficient to say that Paul gave to the Christian believers in Rome his own understanding of the gospel in terms of God’s merciful actions in the event of Jesus Christ as the propitiatory sacrifice in favor of all who have belief, and that God’s act makes them pure from their sins and righteous before God so as to be saved when the time of the end of this 704

Dunn, Romans 1–8, xlv. Many commentators, for example Dunn, Romans 1–8, 17; Fitzmyer, Romans, 137, 237; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 14; H. Schlier, Der Römerbrief (HTKNT 6; Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 29; C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 1:66; P. Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (trans. S. J. Hafemann; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 95; D. B. Garlington, Faith, Obedience, and Perseverance: Aspects of Paul’s Letter to the Romans (WUNT 79; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 24, and others, understand the relation between faith and obedience in this letter as identified in another, doing so on the basis of interpreting the genitive in 1:5 (eivj u`pakoh.n pi,stewj) as an appositional or epexegetical genitive, which has its implication in the reconciliation of the contradictory concepts of justification by faith and judgment by deeds in Paul’s message. In this regard Cranfield, Romans, 1:66, has attempted to illustrate the equivalence of these terms by comparing passages which appear to equate faith and obedience. See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 212–14. 706 For a closer introduction and analysis of the conventional reading of Rom 1–4, see Campbell, The Deliverance of God, 316–466. 705

234 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics age will come. God’s actions are understood by Paul as a climactic expression of God’s own righteousness, while in this context belief should be understood as the starting point for obedience to God’s will, which has to be expressed in real form in the daily life of believers individually and within the community as a whole.707 It also means that Paul could intentionally formulate his programmatic statement if the form is as found in 1:17b (o` de. di,kaioj evk pi,stewj zh,setai), which is a mildly different wording compared to the quotation of Hab 2:4b in the Septuagint 708 as well as to the next occurrence of this quotation in Heb 10:38a.709 I agree with James Dunn that Paul formulates this crucial statement intentionally ambiguously, following the various rules of interpretation known and used in Pharisaic circles at the time of Paul, which were designed to draw out as much meaning as possible from the text.710 In this case the fuller meaning would include the possibility of taking the words evk pi,stewj (“from faith” or “from faithfulness”) with both o` di,kaioj (“the righteous”) and zh,setai (“will live”).711 It means that “the one who is righteous from faith – will live” as well as “the righteous one will live from God’s faithfulness.” Of course, it must be stressed that the righteousness of a believer is bestowed upon him or her by God’s own righteousness and mercy, and on the side of believer it is received by his or her faith, and faith means first of all God’s faithfulness as the primary source of faith for believers. This faith of believers in its core expresses both wholehearted confidence 707

VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 213–14, argues very convincingly that Rom 1:5 should be interpreted as a genitive of source, which is confirmed also by all comparable passages of Romans where the terms “faith” and “obedience” occur. It follows that these two terms are not equivalents. They could express interrelated concepts in this letter, which would suggest other passages compared by Cranfield (cf. 1:8 and 16:19; 10:16a and 10:16b; 11:23 and 11:31). But, as VanLandingham remarks, the comparison of 1:5 to 15:8 clarifies the ambiguity of the phrase and shows that Paul’s ultimate concern pertains to what faith produces, not simply to faith itself (cf. Rom 6:17 and 1 Thess 1:3). Paul’s concern is primarily to stress the proper relation between faith and obedience, which means that faith, if it is authentic and real, has to produce obedience, or that, vice versa, obedience arises from faith, and moreover, obedience is impossible without belief. See also G. N. Davies, Faith and Obedience in Romans: A Study of Romans 1–4 (JSNTSup 39; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 26–28. 708 Hab 2:4b [LXX]: … o` de. di,kaioj evk pi,s tew,j mou zh,setai (… but the righteous will live by my [God’s] faithfulness [my translation]). 709 Heb 10:38a: o` de. di,kaio,j mou evk pi,stewj zh,setai … (But my righteous one will live by faith … [my translation]). 710 See Dunn, Romans 1–8, 44–46. For the rules of interpretation, particularly the “seven middoth of Hillel,” see H. L. Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (1931; reprint, New York: Harper Torch-books, 1965), 93–94. 711 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 45.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 235

in God, as well as full reliance on God. Therefore, faith has to bring its fruits – obedience to God’s will. This type of interpretation is congruent with the key recognition given to Hebrew ideas where terms based on the root qdc essentially express a concept of relationship, as I mentioned earlier.712 Therefore, in Paul’s message faith does not simply mean a mental assent or trust in a religious manner.713 Faith is not easily equivocated with obedience; faith should produce obedience. It has to be active and participating in God’s own righteousness, and it does not mean to supplement God’s righteousness. Rather, participation must be understood as an expectation of a faithful response to God’s own righteousness and mercy, since the Spirit of God gives to the believer the ability to accomplish this proper response. Faith thus enables the believer to be obedient to God’s will and remain in the state of sanctification. VanLandingham rightly remarks that the role of deeds or behavior should not be confused with the role of faith or believing. 714 Paul’s statements in Rom 1:5 and 15:18 show very clearly that his ultimate goal is to bring the nations to obedience to God, which does not decrease the role of faith, but instead shows that faith has to become the “medium to obedience,”715 since the Last Judgment will depend on one’s deeds. Therefore, I fully agree with VanLandingham’s interpretation of 1:5 and 15:18 and his emphasis that the comparison of the two passages proves that Paul’s objective in his ministry to the Gentiles goes beyond faith.716 The aforementioned clearly shows that, in this letter, Paul also emphasizes the role of proper behavior among believers in their new status gained through their faith in God’s actions in Jesus Christ. This especially has to be considered in the context of the judgment passages in chapters 2, 6 and 8, particularly Rom 2:1–16, then 6:12–23 (in the context of 6:6), and final712 It was the fundamental study of H. Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre im Zusammenhange ihrer geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen (2nd ed.; Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1900), 34–38. See also Dunn, Romans 1–8, 40–41; Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 252. 713 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:318; idem, “pisteu,w( k)t)l),” TDNT 6:197, 205–206, 217. 714 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 214. 715 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 214. 716 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 214, remarks that this meaning clearly indicates only Paul’s omission of the term “faith” in Rom 15:8, and in this regard he adds that the same meaning is found in 1:5, which is evident from the next verse (1:6). VanLandingham, referring to and quoting Davies, Faith and Obedience in Romans, 26– 27, explains: “If the phrase eivj u`pakoh.n pi,stewj means the obedience of believing in Jesus Christ, then why would Paul want ‘to elicit this response of faith from those who are already God’s beloved, called to be saints, and whose faith is proclaimed in all the world (1:7f)’?”

236 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics ly 8:1–14.717 Since Rom 2 represents the best example of how to understand the effect of one’s behavior in the process of the final appraisal of one’s life at the Last Judgment, even in the status of being a believer in Jesus Christ, we introduce this one particular passage in more detail, which can also be stated as an apt example of Paul’s theologizing in regard to the justification doctrine.718 This fact is emphasized even more by the contradiction between a key idea in chapter 2 and the essential theme in chapter 3, particularly the contradiction between Paul’s argumentation that God will consider human behavior and recompense life to those whose deeds are in accordance with God’s will (see 2:6), but then there is Paul’s statement in chapter 3 where no one will be justified by doing the works of the law (see 3:20).719 If, however, we follow VanLandingham’s suggestion that Paul’s phrase eivj u`pakoh.n pi,stewj in the salutation (1:5) and in the doxology (16:26) is interpreted as a genitive of source – belief leading to obedience – then this contradiction can be logically explained in a way that Paul in chapter 2 clearly defines what proper behavior means and how it effects one’s eternal destiny.720 That it is real and not hypothetical can be supported by the fact that Paul will return to the themes that are discussed in chapter 2, particularly the themes of judgment according to deeds iterated in Rom 14:10–12, obedience as a way leading to eternal life in Rom 8:13, disobedience resulting in damnation in Rom 6:16, fulfilling the law apart from being circumcised as part of chapters 8 and 13 (Rom 8:3–4; 13:10), doing what the law demands instinctively and being led by the Spirit of God reiterated in Rom 8:14, and finally the theme of the possibility to also be Jewish in the case of Gentiles in Rom 9:8, 24; 11:13–24.721 As I mentioned earlier, the argumentative body of the letter begins at 1:16–17, which is the thesis concerning the gospel. From verse 18, and throughout the whole first chapter (1:18–32), Paul argues that God judges sinners justly, and all are without excuse. It means that Paul’s view on sinfulness has a universal meaning, also and primarily including Gentiles. In the second chapter Paul focuses on the Jewish imaginary interlocutor, and in 717

I follow VanLandingham’s selection in his Judgment and Justification, 215–41. VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 188, 240, stresses that Rom 2 presents the strongest and clearest support for his thesis that one’s eternal destiny at the Last Judgment depends on one’s deeds, which also confirms that Paul is especially concerned about the moral state of believers. 719 VanLandingham notes that for a number of commentators this contradiction does not exist or they ignore this difficulty while others try to explain it away. For the explanation of the contradiction between Rom 2 and 3, see VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 215–17. See also Snodgrass, “Justification by Grace – To the Doers,” 72–73. 720 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 217. 721 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 215–16. 718

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 237

terms of style, his argumentation follows the typical way of diatribe. Even though the commentators intensively discuss whether the identity of Paul’s implied audience is at this point Jewish or gentile, Douglas Campbell stresses that is it more important to understand Paul’s argument itself and its function rather than focus on who the letter was written for.722 Campbell states: “The argument itself functions relatively simply as a universalization of the principle of judgment in accordance with desert, which is implicit within the preceding critique of pagan transgression. Anyone either making or endorsing criticisms of pagan sinfulness like those expressed in 1:18–32 is now forced to submit personally to its central principle of judgment.”723 In every respect, the interlocutor is an example of someone who judges himself superior to the pagans because of his people’s privileges.724 In these chapters, particularly in 1:18–3:20, Paul argues in the context of God’s impartiality at the judgment. In Rom 2, Paul continues in this train of thought from a Jewish stance and tries to overturn the presupposition that Jews are righteous only for their covenantal status, while Gentiles are sinners since they are not in the covenant, which would be understood falsely, because at the Last Judgment God will then spare Jews while Gentiles will be condemned (2:1–5).725 Here Paul uses the second person singular, and the content of his argumentation is not necessarily new. Stressing God’s impartiality at the judgment can also be found in other Jewish canonical and non-canonical literature (see Deut 10:17; 2 Chr 19:7; Jer 9:25; Ezek 33:13–16; or Pss. Sol. 15:8). It follows the traditional TwoWays theology, which is characteristic for Deuteronomic theology. Verse 4 is Paul’s argumentation against the Jewish emphasis on the covenant background. The influence of the book Wisdom of Solomon (Wis 15:1–6; cf. 3:9–10; 4:15; 11:9–10, 23; 12:8–11, 19–22; 16:9–10) is evident, and Paul intentionally weakens the traditional supposition that Jews, as covenant people, are freed from the consequences of the sins of Gentiles, as well as the opinion that the sins of Jews cannot disturb the privileged status of Israel as God’s chosen people;726 all have to be judged at the Last Judgment. VanLandingham’s theory that being a recipient of God’s kindness does not indicate whether one will be spared at the judgment, but rather how one responds to this kindness where repentance is its goal and God’s kindness is available only before the judgment and is presently active only

722

Campbell, The Deliverance of God, 318. Campbell, The Deliverance of God, 318 (emphases original). 724 See Fitzmyer, Romans, 297. 725 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 217. 726 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 82. See Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 132–34. 723

238 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics in order to make a favorable judgment possible.727 For scholars, this is overwhelmingly opposed due to the traditional interpretation of Paul’s doctrine of justification. However, we should not reject this opinion a priori. If God is really impartial, which is axiomatic in the context of contemporary Jewish religious notions, it has to be taken seriously in any case. It means that even the members of God’s covenant people are not guaranteed deliverance at the Last Judgment. The only way to achieve a favorable outcome at the Final Judgment is to obey the covenant requirements. VanLandingham therefore remarks that, otherwise, God’s judgment would not be impartial.728 In this connection, Douglas Moo notes that Jewish intertestamental literature, while consistently stressing the need for Jews to repent of sin, also tended to highlight Israel’s favored position before God, which causes its security in God’s judgment.729 In my opinion Moo’s reference to the Psalms of Solomon (Pss. Sol. 9–10) is neither an apt example (in this regard) nor accurate, because the content of these two chapters has to be considered within the hymnbook as a whole, which as a whole indicates very clearly that for the devout and righteous from Israel to repent of sin and to live in obedience to God’s will, as well as to the covenant stipulations, are conditio sine qua non of how to receive a favorable outcome at the Last Judgment. Moreover, the content of these two chapters does not exclude Gentiles from salvation a priori, nor guarantee the salvation of the Jew only on the basis of covenant status (Pss. Sol. 2:33–37; 4:1–25; 9:4–5; 10:1; 13:1–12; 17:34). Of course, this hymnbook is characteristic, to some extent, of Jewish particularism, but not extremely so. It is more often exactly the opposite, as the majority of Jewish literature of the Second Temple era, also the Psalms of Solomon, follows a categorization made by Terence L. Donaldson 730 where a clear example of the Jewish pattern of universalism, particularly the eschatological participation, is present.731 The next two sections of the chapter (2:6–11 and 12–16) show that Jews and Gentiles stand on the same basic ground concerning God’s judging activity. These two passages interrupt the second person style of accusation 727

VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 218. VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 218. 729 Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 133. 730 Donaldson deals with the pertinent texts of particular Jewish literatures of the Second Temple Jewish tradition and then synthesizes the findings of the analysis of the content of particular works by identifying four distinct patterns of universalism: sympathization, conversion, ethical monotheism, and eschatological participation. For the methodology as well as the explanatory notes on the term “universalism” used by the author in this book, see Donaldson, introduction to Judaism and the Gentiles, 1–13. 731 See Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 136–41. 728

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 239

(vv. 1–5). Now, Paul continues in the third person plural with an explanation of this indictment (vv. 6–16), and then returns again to the second person singular in 2:17–25 while the last four verses (vv. 26–29) are formulated in third person singular.732 The diatribe style that Paul uses in the second chapter shows and, at the same time, confirms the emphasis of Paul’s argumentation in regard to convincing the addressees of God’s impartiality. The culmination of Paul’s accusation in verses 1–5 is reached in verses 6–11. At the same time it is the corroboration of God’s impartiality and fairness concerning the judgment. 6 7

8

9

10

11 6 7

8

9

10

11

o]j avpodw,sei e`ka,s tw| kata. ta. e;rga auvtou/\ toi/j me.n kaqV u`pomonh.n e;rgou avgaqou/ do,xan kai. timh.n kai. avfqarsi,a n zhtou/sin zwh.n aivw,nion( toi/j de. evx evriqei,aj kai. avpeiqou/si th/| avlhqei,a| peiqome,noij de. th/| avdiki,a | ovrgh. kai. qumo,jÅ 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\ do,xa de. kai. timh. kai. eivrh,nh panti. tw/| evrgazome,nw| to. avgaqo,n( VIoudai,w| te prw/ton kai. {Ellhni\ ouv ga,r evs tin proswpolhmyi,a para. tw/| qew/|Å For he will repay according to each one’s deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.

Paul’s words correspond with the Hebrew Bible in regard to the Last Judgment and support the notion that the final judgment is based on one’s behavior.733 It is possible that Paul in verse 6 quotes from Ps 62:12 or Prov 24:12, or perhaps, as Douglas Campbell remarks in this connection, Sir 16:14.734 Structurally, this part forms a self-contained thought unit, which is demonstrated by its chiastic arrangement: A (v. 6), B (v. 7), C (v. 8), C’ (v. 9), B’ (v. 10), A’ (v. 11).735 Within this unit, the thought emphasis is placed at 732

See Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 127. VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 218. 734 Campbell, The Deliverance of God, 318, n. 6 (on p. 1011). 735 Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 135–36. In this regard, Moo refers to Grobel’s view that Paul has taken over a self-contained tradition here. See K. Grobel, “A Chiastic 733

240 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics the beginning and the end, meaning verse 6 and verse 11 both confirm and accentuate the idea of God’s impartiality, and Paul reinforced it by the citation of a Jewish theologoumenon (see Deut 10:17; cf. Gal 2:6).736 The verses between the main points expressed by these two verses illustrate the two possible effects of God’s judgment. Paul’s expression of God’s impartiality is clear and unambiguous. There are two possible outcomes. The first is expressed by the words of verse 7: “to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.”737 The second is expressed in verse 8: “while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.” I think that all attempts of scholars to neutralize this statement of Paul, which is in agreement with traditional Jewish notions about God’s impartiality (cf. Ps 62:12; Eccl 1:14; Hos 12:2) as I said above, are unconvincing. Some scholars have tried to analyze this unit very carefully by analysis of the sentence structure and have tried to reconcile Paul’s emphasis on God’s impartial judging of all humans – Jews as well as Gentiles – according the deeds at the Last Judgment with Paul’s seemingly contradictory insistence that no one will be justified by works of the law (cf. Rom 3:20).738 The basic question is whom Paul has in mind in verses 7 and 10 where he promises salvation to those who are trying to do good persistently, and then whom does Paul have in mind in verses 8 and 9 where he describes the Retribution-formula in Romans 2,” in Zeit und Geschichte: Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann zum 80. Geburtstag (ed. E. Dinkler; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1964), 255–61. 736 Campbell, The Deliverance of God, 318. See also Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 136, who remarks that unlike some chiastically structured paragraphs, the main point of this unit occurs not at the center but at the beginning and the end, meaning verses 6 and 11. 737 As Fitzmyer, Romans, 302, remarks, this is the first Pauline mention of “eternal life” – the life in the age to come – the idea derived from Jewish religious tradition (Dan 12:2; 2 Macc 7:9; 4 Macc 15:3; cf. 1QS 4:7). 738 For particular attempts of interpretation of this unit as well as descriptions of their proponents, see Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 139–42. See also VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 219–20, who refers to Kent Yinger’s work, Paul, Judaism, and Judgment according to Deeds (SNTSMS 105; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), and his attempt to interpret this part of Paul’s message by building on the earlier work of E. P. Sanders, and R. Heiligenthal, Werke als Zeichen: Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung der menschlichen Taten im Frühjudentum, Neuen Testament und Frühchristentum (WUNT 2.9; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983) with regard to his understanding of judgment in Judaism and Paul. Yinger thinks that “[d]eeds are not merits which gain entry into particular status with God: rather they reveal the status which one has already gained via election and covenant.” In Yinger, Paul, Judaism, and Judgment according to Deeds, 161. To Yinger’s argument as well as VanLandingham’s disproving it, see VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 219–20.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 241

opposite side. Douglas Moo introduces three categories of answers to this question according to the identification of those who are doing good.739 In the first category, those who are doing good are identified with faithful Jews and moral Gentiles before the coming of Christ.740 In the second category, which constitutes the argument of the majority of commentators with some differences of opinion, they are identified with any non-Christian. Some think that Paul speaks about a possibility of some people being saved through their deeds apart from faith in Christ, which is in irreconcilable tension with Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith alone.741 Others argue that God rewards eternal life to those who respond obediently to God’s merciful actions in Jesus Christ, which means that the works are regarded as being produced with the aid of God’s grace, and are therefore not in contradiction with Pauls’ doctrine of justification.742 Another variation holds that those who earnestly seek eternal peace are granted the faith that procures justification, and this faith secures them eternal life.743 For some commentators the principle of Paul’s argumentation is purely hypothetical and means that it would be the standard if Christ had not come so that the law could be fulfilled.744 The last variation of this kind of argumentation, stated by Douglas Moo, is the view that the promise of eternal life for those who do good is fully valid, but that the power of sin prevents anyone from doing so because the degree necessary to merit salvation is unattainable, meaning that no one is able to fulfill those conditions.745 In the third 739 By introducing these three categories, I follow Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 140–41. 740 This opinion was popular in the patristic period, for example in John Chrysostom. 741 Braun, Gerichtsgedanke und Rechtfertigungslehre bei Paulus (UNT 19; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1930), 90–99; Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 107; E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 123–35; R. Pregeant, “Grace and Recompense: Reflections on a Pauline Paradox,” JAAR 47 (1979): 73–96. See in more detail Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 140. 742 For Augustine, see Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 140, n. 25. Snodgrass, “Justification by Grace – To the Doers,” 72–93. 743 F. L. Godet, Commentary on Romans (1879; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977). Stated by Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 140, n. 26. 744 H. Lietzmann, An die Römer (HNT 8a; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1933). Stated by Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 140, n. 27. 745 P. Melanchthon, Apology for the Augsburg Confession, as referred to by Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 86, n. 34; C. Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (1886; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950); U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (3 vols.; EKKNT 6; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag/Zurich: Benziger, 1978–82); J. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (2 vols.; NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965), 1:78–79; Mattern, Das Verständnis des Gerichtes bei Paulus, 136–38; R. N. Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty (1964; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 116– 22; G. B. Stevens, The Pauline Theology: A Study of the Origin and Correlation of the

242 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics category, the people who are doing good are identified specifically with Christians, who through union with Christ, are able to produce works acceptable to God in the judgment.746 Joseph Fitzmyer argues similarly. He said that Paul’s speaking of “doing good” in verses 7 and 10 is an implicit reference to Christians, “whose conduct (good deeds) is to be understood as the fruit of their faith.”747 Moo himself holds the view that verses 7 and 10 set forth what is called in traditional theological language “the law.”748 He explains further: Paul sets forth the biblical conditions for attaining eternal life apart from Christ. Understood this way, Paul is not speaking hypothetically. But once his doctrine of universal human powerlessness under sin has been developed (cf. 3:9 especially), it becomes clear that the promise can, in fact, never become operative because the condition for its fulfillment – consistent, earnest seeking after good – can never be realized.749

For that fact, Douglas Moo further pronounces: Without becoming involved in the intricacies of theological nuance (and they are important here), we would follow those who maintain that justification by faith granted the believer in this life is the sufficient cause of those works that God takes into account at the time of the judgment. The initial declaration of the believer’s acquittal before the bar of heaven at the time of one’s justification is infallibly confirmed by the judgment according to works at the last assize.750

Doctrinal Teachings of the Apostle Paul (New York: Scribner’s, 1892), 179–82; G. Vos, “The Alleged Legalism in Paul’s Doctrine of Justification,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos (ed. R. B. Gaffin, Jr.; Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publication Co., 1980), 387–94; F. Thielman, From Plight to Solution: A Jewish Framework to Understanding Paul’s View of the Law in Galatians and Romans (NovTSup 61; Leiden: Brill, 1989), 92–96. Cited by Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 140, n. 28. 746 P. Althaus, Der Brief an die Römer: Übersetzt und erklärt (NTD 6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978); A. Viard, Saint Paul: Epître aux Romains (SB; Paris: Gabalda, 1975); M. Black, Romans (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1973); C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975, 1979); S. H. Travis, Christ and the Judgment of God (Basingstoke: Marshall Pickering, 1986), 58–64; F. Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach (SNTSMS 56; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 119–21; T. R. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 179–204. Similarly argues G. N. Davies, Paul and Obedience in Romans: A Study of Romans 1–4 (JSNTSup 39; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 54–57, for whom Paul’s reference is to the righteous before the coming of Christ. Cited by Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 140, n. 29. 747 Fitzmyer, Romans, 297. 748 Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 142. 749 Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 142. 750 Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 143.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 243

James Dunn argues here that Paul “expresses a broad principle which would gain wide acceptance among people with any moral sensibility.”751 Dunn says that Paul’s intention here is “to provide an expression of something which we could call ‘natural justice’ – the eschatological outworking of the earlier ‘natural theology’ of chapter 1 – the statement of a principle which anyone with a moral conception of God (or the good) would accept: the person who persists in doing good will receive honor.”752 However, for Paul the function of this kind of argumentation is “a critique of the narrower Jewish view which discounts the good done outside the covenant just as it discounts the unrighteousness committed by those within the covenant.”753 Charles Barrett tried to solve the difficulty that verse 7 presents in the way that he connects it somewhat psychologically. Barrett argues that God’s reward of eternal life “is promised to those who do not regard their good works as an end in themselves, but see them as marks not of human achievement but of hope in God.”754 It means that their trust is not in the good works, but only in Godself. This opinion was denied by Charles Cranfield because, as Cranfield stressed, Barrett’s translation and interpretation of this verse is contrary to the Greek as well as verse 6 where at the judgment God will repay according to each one’s deeds.755 For Cranfield, the issue in Rom 2:5–11 is not whether one can make a claim upon God. The difference between the good work and the evil work is the difference between the evidence of openness to God’s judgment and mercy, and evidence of the persistence of a gloating and stubborn self-righteousness. Therefore, the insistence on the necessity of the deeds “has nothing to do with the idea that one can be justified evx e;rgwn, that is, earn one’s justification by one’s works.”756 Chris VanLandingham objects to Barrett’s and Cranfield’s interpretation. In his first case he legitimately emphasized that there is nothing in the text stating what one thinks about their works or anything else, only what one does is addressed.757 In the second case, VanLandingham remarks that Cranfield’s interpretation is also problematic for several reasons. First, the verb avpodi,dwmi, in the context where it is used is a clear quid pro quo, that means “to render, reward, recompense,” which indicates that Paul’s state751

Dunn, Romans 1–8, 86. Dunn, Romans 1–8, 86. 753 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 86. 754 C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans (BNTC; London: A. and C. Black, 1991), 44–45. 755 Cranfield, Romans, 1:147. 756 Cranfield, Romans, 1:153. 757 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 221. 752

244 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics ment assumes a requital according to what one deserves.758 Secondly, Cranfield’s interpretation has no relationship to Rom 2:5–11, because Paul in the passage specifically identifies what God will recompense.759 VanLandingham stressed that the message of this text is clear: “God recompenses each one according to his or her deeds.” It is the only criterion mentioned. To those with good deeds, God recompenses eternal life, while to those with bad deeds, God recompenses punishment.760 As is evident in this broader spectrum, most commentators try to solve the tension between judgment and justification, which is understandable if we take into consideration Paul’s continuing argumentation in this letter, especially in Rom 3. I think, however, that for the addressees Paul’s words had to sound very clear. The readers of the letter probably did not have the personal agenda to analyze Paul’s words from all possible nuances and discuss their content from a broader theological and philosophical point of view. I am convinced that it was primarily the immediate impression which had a direct effect on the addressees when they could read Paul’s letter. This is especially so when Paul speaks about God’s judgment. I am persuaded, as I said earlier, that Paul’s words do not decrease the importance and primacy of God’s own righteousness and mercy in the process of judging and of the eternal destiny of humankind. Moreover, Paul uses here the traditional Jewish belief in judgment according to deeds with a particular intent and aim, which is to undermine any such claim on the side of a Jew who could regard the covenantal status as a substantial benefit allowing him to receive a favorable position at the judgment solely on the basis of the covenant relationship with God, regardless if the quality of their life was in accordance with God’s will.761 If Paul objected to the view that the possibility to be saved at the judgment is given only by virtue of being Jewish, yet at the same time stressed that it is only faith that decides in the process of justification and thus also at the judgment as the sole way each could gain salvation, it would be contradictory to Paul’s final statement about God’s impartiality (Rom 2:16). In such a case, the possibility to be saved from God’s wrath and given eternal life would be given only by virtue of being believer, and it should be the 758 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 221–22. Here VanLandingham refers to BAGD, 90; F. Büchsel, “avpodi,dwmi,” TDNT 2:167, as well as to the texts in the Septuagint: Job 34:11; Ps 61:13 (62:12 in Heb.); Prov 24:12; Isa 66:4; Jer 39:18, 19; Hos 12:3; Amos 2:6; Sir 11:26; 17:23; 29:6; 1 Macc 16:17, and in the New Testament: Matt 5:26; 6:4, 6, 18; 16:27; 18:25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 34; 20:8; Mark 12:17; Luke 12:59; 19:8; 20:25; 1 Cor 7:3; 1 Tim 5:4; 2 Tim 4:8; 1 Pet 3:9; Rev 18:6; 22:12. 759 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 222. 760 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 223. 761 So also VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 223.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 245

same presupposition as it is in the case of the covenant relationship. Chris VanLandingham remarks in this connection: Paul’s objection is much more specific than later Christian commentators recognize. Paul believes that Gentiles qua Gentiles can be obedient and acceptable to God. His argument for this position leads him to call into question the benefit of the covenant for the Jew who does not keep its stipulations. Paul’s Jewish interlocutor is just such a Jew, and it appears that this interlocutor is a stand-in for all (or most) Jews. Paul objects to the view that Jews and only Jews, by virtue of being Jews, will be saved from God’s wrath and given eternal life. This objection is not entirely clear in 2:1–11, but becomes the specific focus of chapters 3 and 4, which continue to be directed toward the Jewish interlocutor. In 2:1–11, Paul begins to undermine this position. God is impartial, and it does not matter whether one is a Jew or a Gentile. The criterion of judgment is deeds, and Paul already hints in verses 1–5 that by this criterion certain Gentiles will fare better than Jews. 762

These words from Paul, within the letter that was addressed to Gentile Christians in Rome, are focused against boasting in one’s exclusive relationship with God, or to be righteous before God as a result of doing the works of the law, understood primarily in the strict sense of emphasizing circumcision, the Sabbath and other feasts, and kashrut. It is clear that the central place in Paul’s argument has a “typical” Jew who has an unbelief in God’s work in Jesus Christ – from Paul’s perspective the best example is a Pharisee – with his religious boasting and chauvinistic rejection of Gentiles for the simple fact that they are Gentiles (cf. Rom 3:29).763 However, on the side of gentile believers there is the same jeopardy should they become proud on the grounds of their faith and are aware that their belief gives them privilege only by virtue of being a believer in Jesus Christ. Since Paul is well aware that nobody has sin in complete control, which at the same time means that nobody is able to fulfill perfectly the obligations of the law, his argumentation is logical because both the first and last belong to God’s righteousness and mercy. It does not mean that one’s behavior is indifferent, or that it will not have influence in regard to one’s eternal destiny, but rather quite the opposite. Seeking to do good and to live in accordance with God must not lead someone to boasting or trusting in one’s obedience, nor to the attitude where one can make a claim upon God for his or her deeds. That can be true only when the believer takes into account the basic fact that no one has sin in control. It means that everyone, Jew as well Gentile is always dependent on God’s mercy.764 762 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 223, including n. 163. VanLandingham adds that this is only because, from Paul’s point of view, the Gentiles come to faith in the gospel while the Jews do not (cf. Rom 9:30–10:4). 763 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 224. 764 See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 224.

246 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics In the next part of this passage (Rom 2:12–16), Paul shows that knowledge and possession of the Mosaic Law does not guarantee against the outpouring of God’s wrath.765 Paul afterwards continues with the announcement that the divine wrath will be manifested against both Jew and Gentile alike because of the way the Jews live (Rom 2:17–24), and then he concludes this section with the statement that circumcision cannot preserve the Jew before God’s wrath if one does not observe the law (Rom 2:25–29).766 In 2:12–16, Paul continues in describing God’s impartiality at the judgment. 12

13

14

15

16

12

13

14

15

16

{Osoi ga.r avno,mwj h[marton( avno,mwj kai. avpolou/ntai( kai. o[soi evn no,mw| h[marton( dia. no,mou kriqh,sontai\ ouv ga.r oi` avk roatai. no,mou di,kaioi para. Îtw/|Ð qew/|( avllV oi` poihtai. no,mou dikaiwqh,s ontaiÅ o[tan ga.r e;qnh ta. mh. no,mon e;conta fu,sei ta. tou/ no,mou poiw/sin( ou-toi no,mon mh. e;contej e`a utoi/j eivsin no,moj\ oi[tinej evndei,k nuntai to. e;rgon tou/ no,mou grapto.n evn tai/j kardi,aij auvtw/n( summarturou,shj auvtw/n th/j suneidh,sewj kai. metaxu. avllh,lwn tw/n logismw/n kathgorou,ntwn h' kai. avpologoume,nwn( evn h`me,ra| o[te kri,nei o` qeo.j ta. krupta. tw/n avnqrw,pwn kata. to. euvagge,lio,n mou dia. Cristou/ VIhsou/Å All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.767 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God's sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves.768 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all. 765

Fitzmyer, Romans, 296. Fitzmyer, Romans, 297. 767 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 237 n. 42, remarks, in regard to the NRSV translation, that while verse 13 is translated well, verse 12 is not faithful. She prefers the following translation: “Whosoever has sinned lawlessly will also perish lawlessly, and whosoever has sinned by the law will be judged by the law.” Eisenbaum translated the word “lawlessly” in place of “apart from the law,” following Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 138–42, because it is likely, as she said, “that in this passage Paul literally distinguishes between those who live in accord with God’s law, whether Jew or Gentile, and those who do not, whether Jew or Gentile.” 768 In this verse, there is a clear ambiguity in regard to the term fu,sei, particularly which part of the sentence it modifies, whether it is the verb poiw/sin or the phrase ta. mh. no,mon e;conta. For the particular proposals and their rationale, see Dunn, Romans 1–8, 98–99; Fitzmyer, Romans, 309–10; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 148–51; Cranfield, Romans, 1:157; VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 229–30. 766

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 247

Here, Paul explicitly states that the law per se, despite the fact that it distinguishes between Jews and Gentiles, is not a deciding factor at God’s judgment. The content of verse 16 confirms that this passage refers to the Last Judgment.769 It is so despite that God’s judgment is an ongoing process, and Paul clearly mentions the Last Judgment. Discussion proceeds about the interpretation of the words di,kaioj and dikaio,w in verse 13 within the context of this passage, and about the prospective contradiction between 2:13 and 3:20 where Paul states that: dio,ti evx e;rgwn no,mou ouv dikaiwqh,setai pa/sa sa.rx evnw,pion auvtou/( dia. ga.r no,mou evpi,gnwsij a`marti,aj (For “no human being will be justified in his sight by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin”).770 Since Paul’s argument is strictly eschatological here, the meaning of both the words relates to the event of the Last Judgment with its emphasis on the criterion at the judgment – the obedience of the believer towards God’s will as a proper response to God’s righteousness and mercy. It means that these two terms refer – just like verses 7 and 10 – to the moral righteousness of the person so described with the meaning: the doers of the law will be righteous before God at the Last Judgment, which at the same time implies that those who are the doers of the law are righteous (v. 13b).771 The contradiction with Paul’s statement in 3:20 is made harder by Paul’s words “for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.” Paul’s statement in 2:13 clearly stresses the moral state of those who are righteous due to their obedience to God’s will, since they are “doers of the law” (oi` poihtai. no,mou). In 3:20, Paul is speaking about something substantial whereby through works of the law (evx e;rgwn no,mou) no human being will be righteous before God. He bases this statement on a chain of Scripture quotations (Ps 5:9 [LXX 5:10]; 10:7 [LXX 9:28]; 14:1–3 [LXX 13:2–3]; 36:1 [LXX 35:2]; 53:2–3 [LXX 52:3–4]; 140:3 [LXX 139:4]; Eccl 7:20;

769 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 225, remarks here that “it is important to note that such legal terms as kathgore,w and avpologe,o mai even in a judicial context do not thereby dictate that the specific judicial context is the Last Judgment.” VanLandingham with this remark points out that, just as God’s judgment is an ongoing process (see for example Job 1–2; Zech 3:1–2), we can observe that Satan’s role as the accuser is also an ongoing one, not limited to the Last Judgment, considering other passages. 770 I think that the translation of NRSV should be adjusted concerning the phrase evx e;rgwn no,mou and should be translated consequently as “works of law,” since the meaning of these words is very important within the context of Second Temple Judaism. See Dunn, Romans 1–8, 98–99, 152–56; Fitzmyer, Romans, 309–10, 337–39; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 148–51, 206–17; VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 225–32. 771 So VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 226.

248 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics Isa 59:7–8) placed in verses 10–18.772 In this verse (Rom 3:20), Paul makes a clear allusion to Ps 143:2.773 The contradiction between 2:13 and 3:20 can be explained from the point of view of Paul’s intent in this part of the letter, which is his polemic with Jewish religious particularism, against what Paul himself considers on the side of the distinctive Jewish stance toward the law and his own religious tradition to be a misunderstanding of the way in which God’s righteousness is revealed in the world (see Rom 3:20, 27, 28; 4:2, 6; 9:12, 32; 11:6; Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10). In this context, the phrase “by works of the law” plays a key role. This phrase indicates the exclusiveness of the Jewish way to righteousness characterized primarily by the main identity markers like circumcision, Sabbath observance and kashrut, but for more scholars it has a broader meaning in regard to other regulations prescribed by the Mosaic Law.774 However, it is interesting that Paul used this phrase only eight times and always in a negative sense and in contrast to faith, God’s grace, or the Spirit (see Rom 3:20, 28; Gal 2:16 [3 times]; 3:2, 5, 10).775

772

VanLandingham considers the difference between these two phrases in 2:13 (oi` poihtai. no,mou) and 3:20 (evx e;rgwn no,mou) to be another reason why Rom 2 is not to be understood as hypothetical. He argues: “For if Paul’s point to the Jewish interlocutor had been that this is how God judged before the coming of Christ, or that ideally this is how the Last Judgment was intended to be, but because everyone is a sinner God had to provide an alternative means to eternal life, then Paul would have remained consistent and written evx e;rgwn no,mou as he does in Rom 3 and Gal 3. Of course in these places Paul does say that the law cannot be obeyed or obeyed entirely, therefore righteousness comes by faith (cf. Gal. 3:10–12 and 5:3 with 6:13). In this light this difference between 2:13 and 3:20 is significant. Thus if I am correct that Paul intentionally avoided evx e;rgwn no,mou in 2:13 then perhaps also what he means by oi` poihtai. no,mou is something like Gal 5:14, ‘For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”’” See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 226–27, n. 174. 773 LXX Ps 142:2: o[ti ouv dikaiwqh,setai evnw,pio,n sou pa/j zw/n. Paul uses this quotation also in Gal 2:16. 774 See J. A. Fitzmyer, According to Paul: Studies in the Theology of the Apostle (New York: Paulist Press, 1993), 18–20, and his comparison of this phrase in Paul’s usage with the meaning of this phrase in 4QMMT. See also Martin G. Abegg, “4QMMT C 27, 31 and ‘Works Righteousness,’” DSD 6 (1999): 139–47; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 152– 56; idem, The New Perspective on Paul (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 339– 45, 381–94; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 211–17; VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 227–28; H. Boers, Justification of the Gentiles: Paul’s Letters to the Galatians and Romans (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 101; E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 475–502. 775 See also Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 234.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 249

Many arguments and suggestions were put forth in this regard, but I think, if we want to understand correctly the meaning of this phrase, it is inevitable to still remain on the starting point of our approach to Paul’s message, which is Paul’s apocalyptic perspective. From this point of view it seems to me that the most fitting and appropriate suggestion is that by Pamela Eisenbaum who proposes that Paul by the phrase “works of the law” “does not speak of human activity, but of how the Torah affects Gentiles.”776 She thus says that to capture this meaning, this Greek phrase is probably best translated as “from the workings of the Torah” or even “from prescriptions of the Torah.” 777 Eisenbaum argues further: When Paul claims that justification cannot come from works of the law, it means that the Torah does not benefit Gentiles, at least not in the way it benefits Jews. Whereas once it surely would have been of benefit to them, that is no longer the case because the final judgment is imminent. Put in simple terms, it is too late. So that now, because Gentiles are outsiders to the Torah, it cannot provide the grace they need to stand before God, righteous, at the final judgment. 778

Since all people will need to give account for themselves and their failures before God at the judgment, they need to be prepared for this time to come. Therefore, Paul addresses to the Gentile Christians in Rome779 the significant message that they need in order to have faith in God’s actions in Jesus Christ, because this is the atoning sacrifice given to them for their benefit so they could be cleansed from sins and transgressions, and thus be prepared as saints of the Lord for the time of the Last Judgment. Paul’s statements in 3:10–18 are not literally and factually a description of humans’ hopeless depravity, meaning everything done by human is in essence bad and sinful. I agree with Pamela Eisenbaum that Paul is exaggerating the situation much as the psalmist did, whom Paul is actually quoting in this passage.780 Paul does it for rhetorical effect that confirms his sincere desire to bring as many Gentiles as possible to belief in the gospel in the time before the end of this age. If Paul was speaking here of the totality of human depravity without exception, then his latter speech to the Romans that “sin will have no dominion over you” and his encouraging them to 776

Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 234. Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 234. Here, she follows the suggestion of Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 100–106. 778 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 234. 779 The term e;qnh in 2:14 refers to gentile believers who are a part of Gentiles qua Gentiles. On the variety of interpretation of this term within the context of 2:14, see Cranfield, Romans, 1:156; E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 126; Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 1:133; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 98; VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 228–29. 780 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 235. See also 236–39. 777

250 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics become “slaves of righteousness,” should be invalid and a contradiction in terms.781 We still have to keep in mind that Paul does not write a philosophical-theological tractate, but a letter by which he aims to persuade the addressees about his heartfelt desire to introduce himself as well as the content and the goal of the gospel. As a devout Jew, on the whole Paul believes that Gentiles are depraved on account of idolatry (see 1:24, 28), which has its serious negative impact on the moral aspect of their life (1:29–32). It is clear that Paul’s perspective is typical of Hellenistic Jewish writers.782 Paul however knows that on both sides there are exceptions. Not all Gentiles live in total moral depravity, like not all Jews live exemplary lives in accordance with God’s will. Therefore, Paul can write that if some Gentiles observe the law, then they will judge those Jews who break the law despite the advantage of having possession of the law.783 This kind of argumentation also shows that in verse 14 it is better to regard the word fu,sei as the modifier of the participial phrase ta. mh. no,mon e;conta, with the function as a dative of reference, with the meaning of “Gentiles, who do not possess the law by nature.” 784 Paul in this line of argument was led by the perspective of the traditional Jewish differentiation between righteous and sinners, which is also one of the characteristic features of the Psalms of Solomon.785 The basic differentiation in terms of status is derived from covenantal theology. The righteous are Israel, God’s own possession who received the Torah and became a holy nation (Exod 19:5–6). Only inside Judaism was the privilege to be holy, which means that Gentiles were non-holy by their very nature, and therefore classified as sinners (cf. Pss. Sol. 7:2; 9:7–10; 17:24–25, 28).786 However, as Paul is aware, Jews also sin and therefore need to be disciplined. They willingly receive God’s discipline as a manifestation of God’s righteousness and mercy. They are faithful and devout Jews, oppo781

See Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 235–39. Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 236. 783 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 236–37. 784 So also VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 229, who refers in this connection to A. König, “Gentiles or Gentile Christians? On the Meaning of Romans 2:12–16,” JTSA 15 (1976): 58. Fitzmyer, Romans, 310, and Dunn, Romans 1–8, 98, maintain the opposite view, particularly that fu,sei modifies the verb poiw/sin and functions as an instrumental dative for reasons of syntax or balance. 785 This issue is elaborated upon by Mikael Winninge in his monograph Sinners and the Righteous: A Comparative Study of the Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Letters. See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 185–95. Here, I follow Winninge’s differentiation of the three views of the status of the righteous and sinners. 786 See Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (London: SPCK, 1990), 150–51. 782

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 251

site to those from Israel who sin deliberately and refuse to repent and thus are cut off from the covenantal sphere.787 Paul’s emphasis on the obedience to God’s will and its expression in the proper quality of life was therefore understandable. In regard to Gentiles, they could become righteous by means of proselytism, however for Paul, there was a not yet time for it since the eschaton had begun which is the most decisive in Paul’s statements in this passage where his emphasis is on ethics, particularly messianic ethics. For Paul the law remains the decisive base for knowledge of the right way of life in accordance with God’s will, and it carries weight on both sides for Jews as well as Gentiles. It is the only way to prove one’s righteousness. As Pamela Eisenbaum aptly remarks in this connection, if Paul’s point was that doing works is useless because of people’s hopeless sinfulness, why would Paul distinguish between those who do good works and those who do evil, as well as say that God rewards those who do good and punishes those who do evil?788 In regard to this seeming contradiction of this passage with Rom 3:20, Pamela Eisenbaum explains: If a person’s deeds matter, how do we account for Paul’s saying that one cannot be justified by “works of law”? The broad answer is that Paul thought about faith, works, and grace as part of an integrated theological vision for how one relates to God. Ancient Judaism typically combined the idea that one’s moral status before God derives from ethical behavior (which, according to Jewish tradition, means following the Torah) and that God judges people with grace and mercy. One is responsible and accountable to God for one’s own actions, but God is also merciful, gracious, and willing to overlook one’s sins … From the perspective of systematic theology, of course, this is problematic, but neither Paul nor other ancient Jewish writers were systematic theologians. Rather, Paul reflects the same covenantal theology we would expect of any other Jew of his day. The expectation is that individuals lead ethical lives, lives that are consistent with worship of the one, true, living God – one’s life should in fact be the way one worships God.789

Paul’s words in chapter 2 are thus clear and understandable concerning their form and content. It is clear that Paul’s statements in 2:12–16 refer to the Last Judgment. Therefore, it is equally clear that Paul’s words are addressed to gentile believers in Rome and are also related to Gentiles as a

787

Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 187. Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 237. Moreover, as Pamela Eisenbaum adds on this subject, in Rom 2 faith in Christ is nowhere in view, Jesus is only mentioned as judge in Rom 2:16. 789 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 237–38. She also introduces as an example of this view the statement of Rabbi Akiba: “All is foreseen, but freedom of choice is given; and the world is judged by grace” (m. ʾAbot 3:16). 788

252 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics whole.790 In 2:12–13, Paul focuses on those who live on one hand in accord with God’s law, but on the other do not, whether Jew or Gentile. This is a clear expression of the character of God’s impartiality, which is based on God’s righteousness and mercy. The faith and works in Paul’s message are not set in opposition. To have an authentic faith means to be obedient to God and God’s will. To be obedient to God’s will means to obviously manifest one’s own faith in real form within daily life and in one’s relationships to other people. In other words, the expression of one’s devotion to God is living one’s life in accord with God’s commandments (see 1 Cor 7:19; Rom 13:8–10).791 These relationships have their basis in a believer’s relationship with Godself through faith. It means that God’s own righteousness is the relational concept, which is per se the expression of God’s love of and mercy upon humankind. God acted in Jesus Christ primarily in favor of Gentiles who in this way have to receive and participate in God’s grace given earlier to Israel in God’s covenant with her. Of course this does not mean that God’s actions in Jesus Christ are irrelevant for Jews.792 I am in full agreement with Pamela Eisenbaum’s opinion that “Paul hoped his fellow Jews would eventually recognize the cosmic significance of Jesus as marking the beginning of the messianic age. But the significance was not that Jews needed to be saved from their sins. The efficacy of Jesus’ sacrificial death was for the forgiveness of the sins of the nations.”793 Christ’s own faithfulness to God’s will, even to the point of death on a cross (cf. Phil 2:5–8), requires him to make the sacrifice of himself for the benefit of all who have faith through the consequence of his faithfulness to God, becoming effectively an atonement and thus a means of achieving reconciliation between Gentiles and God that was envisioned by Israel’s prophets.794 Gentiles, if they have faith in this, now stand righteous before God and are ready to become the children of God. Their faith 790

I think that all scholarly discussions on the question of whom Paul has in mind by the term e;qnh in Rom 2:14 are not substantive and are irrelevant to the main point of his message in this passage as well as in the letter as a whole. For particular opinions in this regard, see VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 228–32. 791 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 238, n. 47, remarks on 1 Cor 7:19 that Paul in the first part of the verse does not undermine the commandment to circumcise, as would seem to be the case at first sight. Paul’s assumption is most likely that God commanded only Jews to circumcise, which means that when Jews circumcise, they are following the commandments, and when Gentiles do not, they are also following the commandments. 792 This is a very important fact, helpful in a proper understanding of Paul’s critical saying about Israel in Rom 9–11. See also Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 242– 49, 253–55. 793 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 242. 794 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 241–42.

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 253

in Jesus’ faithfulness enables them to become heirs to the Abrahamic promise (cf. Gal 3:14; 4:19), which means that they possess the same status as Israel has due to the merit of the fathers – Abraham and the patriarchs’ great acts of faithfulness (see Gen 15:6; cf. Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6).795 To receive God’s righteousness and mercy in Christ’s act of obedience and faithfulness to God also encompasses repentance and forgiveness, because – as Paul is aware – people are not perfect. In this regard, Paul is emphasizing God’s commandments that illustrate the way in which following the teaching of Torah means that one is acting in love toward another, which is fulfilling the law (Rom 13:8–10).796 The righteousness of God expressed in God’s promise to Abraham that in him (Abraham) all the nations would be blessed (Gen 15:6) is now fulfilled. Paul interpreted the Christ event eschatologically in the scope of Jewish eschatological notions about the ingathering of the nations with the Jewish people (Isa 2:2–5; 56:1–8; 60:3; 61:5, 9; 62:2; 66:19–20; Zech 8:23). The time of the Parousia is imminent. God’s kingdom and God’s justice are coming. This is what brings about the overturning of the Roman imperial order, and the Last Judgment will be the final appraisal of each life. Therefore, Paul stresses in his message that the faithful response to God’s activity in favor of the Gentiles has to be to act in accord with God’s will. “Just as the gift of Torah required a faithful response from Israel, the gift of Jesus required a faithful response from Gentiles.”797 It is therefore obvious that Rom 2:5–16, as stated by Chris VanLandingham, is “Paul’s most descriptive account regarding the Last Judgment,”798 and that Paul maintains the same substantial idea as we find in the literature of Second Temple Judaism, meaning that an individual’s eternal destiny depends on God’s righteousness and mercy and will be decided at the Last Judgment, adjudicated on the basis of his or her behavior, essentially upon the basis of their works (cf. Rom 14:10–12; 2 Cor 5:10; see also 1 Thess 3:5; 1 Cor 3:17; 6:9–10; 9:24–27; 10:1–12; 11:27–34; 2 Cor 6:1; 12:21; 13:5). It is at the same time a confirmation that Paul is not likely hypothetical here, but in full compliance with the theology of the Two795

Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 241, remarks that “[i]t was not Israel’s faith in Abraham that allowed her to enjoy God’s favor, but the faith of Abraham. The same kind of theological system is at work with Jesus and the Gentiles.” It means that “[t]he Pauline notion of justification by faith does not mean that one is justified by one’s faith in Jesus; rather, Jesus’ faithfulness puts right Gentiles and incorporates them into the family of God.” See also P. Eisenbaum, “Is Paul the Father of Misogyny and AntiSemitism?,” Cross Currents 50 (2000–2001): 506–24. 796 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 238–39. 797 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 241. 798 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 240.

254 The Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Message in the Context of Messianic Ethics Ways or Two-Spirit ideology, which characterizes Jewish basics regarding the kerygma of the Torah (Rom 6–8; cf. Gal 5–6).799 Moreover, as Chris VanLandingham remarks, this passage (Rom 2:5–16) clearly states Paul’s Christian belief, one that is supported by Paul’s paraenesis in the context of the Parousia (1 Thess 2:11–12; 3:13; 4–5; Phil 1:9–11; 2:12–16; 1 Cor 1:8–9).800 Paul’s concern in regard to Gentile Christians, here as well as elsewhere where he is focused on the Parousia and the Last Judgment, is to express the significance of their persistence in their new quality of life that results from God’s actions in Jesus Christ, which means that Christ’s own faithfulness and obedience to God’s will to the point of death (Phil 2:5–8) – seen as atonement – is able to achieve reconciliation with God for the Gentiles and incorporates them into God’s family.801 Gentile believers are now cleansed from their sins and therefore have to remain in the state of the saintly, since they will soon stand before God’s court. 2.4.3 Summary Summing up the subsection about the meaning of Paul’s usage of the concept of God’s justice, righteousness, and mercy, this concept relates, similarly as in the Psalms of Solomon, to all main themes of Jewish religious tradition based on the understanding of God’s righteousness and mercy, which is the theme of sinners and righteous, sin and atonement, and covenant and law, with concentration on the final climax in the event of the Last Judgment that in the context of Paul’s theological thinking is connected with the Parousia of Christ, the Davidic Messiah. Naturally, I only made a short overview of the selected passages expressing most of Paul’s intention and his own understanding of the concept. I think these parts are very characteristic, and their content shows clearly that Paul’s emphasis on the messianic ethics is logical, and in the case of the message of the community of devout and pious righteous behind the author of the Psalms of Solomon, it constitutes a natural climax of Paul’s message as a whole. In Paul’s message God’s righteousness and mercy show first God’s own righteousness and mercy, and in the context of the addressees of Paul’s message, it is manifested in his actions in Jesus Christ and through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ; in other words, “through the faithful act of Jesus that God’s righteousness has been made known.”802 Therefore, an implication of this approach to and interpretation of God’s righteousness is the interconnection of God’s righteousness and mercy with an individual’s 799

See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 240. VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 240. 801 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 241. 802 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 243. 800

2. God’s Justice and Mercy in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Message 255

obedience, as well as its particular manifestation in the lives of the believers. Obedience has to be proved by deeds, by proper behavior in accordance with God’s will. God’s justice, righteousness, and mercy are manifested in God’s judging of the world. Since Paul’s theological thinking is focused on Christ’s Parousia perceived as the Last Judgment, it is necessary in this regard to also mention the passages where Paul deals with the motif of preserving the right behavior of the believers in the context of the Last Judgment (1 Thess 2:10–13; 3:2–10; 4:1–8; 5:1–3, 23–24; 1 Cor 1:8–9; 3:16–17; 6:9–11; 9:24–27; 10:1–13; 11:27–34; Phil 1:6, 9–11; 2:12–16). This presupposition confirms the fact that Paul’s usage of the concept of God’s righteousness relates to the process of gaining the new status of Christian believers to be a new creation in Christ on account of God’s actions in Jesus Christ as the propitiatory sacrifice, which is the very and unique revelation of God’s righteousness and mercy towards Gentiles. At the same time it means that in Paul’s theology of justification – the righteousness of God to be understood as God’s merciful action on behalf of human beings – there is the dynamic interaction between God’s righteousness as God’s saving action for all who have faith in this, God’s activity and God’s righteousness as God’s faithfulness to Israel, the chosen people.803 However, we must not forget that on both sides there is an obligation – right behavior in accordance with God’s will as expressed in the Torah. Particularly in Paul’s message it confirms that Paul’s doctrine of justification speaks not about the promise of final acquittal solely on the basis of belief in Jesus but rather as the departure point for believers, cleansed and purified from sins and thus obligated to live as “new beings” preparing for Christ’s Parousia and Last Judgment.

803 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 344. Dunn calls this dynamic interaction the heart of Paul’s theology of justification.

Chapter 4

Paul’s Messianic Ethics Contextualized with the Psalms of Solomon In the previous chapter, I conducted an analysis of the Psalms of Solomon and of Paul’s message in the context of messianic ethics, focusing especially on the concept of God’s justice (righteousness) and mercy, which constitute a key presupposition as well as the very basis of the messianic ethics of both groups of writings. The main goal of this last chapter is to focus on Paul’s messianic ethics from the point of view of the leading messages of the Psalms of Solomon and to compare them, as well as to consider the role this hymnbook played in the process of forming and developing Paul’s theology. This should provide an argumentative basis for the relevance of my hypothesis as introduced in the previous chapters of this book. In terms of the results of the analysis and comparison of the selected parts of the Psalms of Solomon to Paul’s message, focusing on the messianic ethics, I will try to assess the function, influence, and meaning of the collection of psalms on Paul’s theological thinking and then will consider the prospective role of these psalms in forming and developing Paul’s messianic ethics. This role could be significant, especially from a semantic point of view, because the various words, clauses, sentences, and sequences can express the same meaning related to the main theological themes common to both, the collection of the psalms and Paul’s message. This fact can be observed in the process of the analysis of the particular parts of the hymnbook. My goal, however, is not to make extensive discourse on a variety of semantic notions and theories, nor to examine a particular linguistic variant or hypothetical source. The purpose is only to show that by forming and developing his messianic ethics, Paul – apart from the other Jewish literature, including the Hebrew Bible – could have been inspired by the Psalms of Solomon, either as a whole or by particular passages. Of course I am well aware that it is very difficult to maintain a relevant hypothesis that is based on the semantic function of one particular literary source in the process of formulating and expressing substantial theological thoughts, especially if we deal with Paul’s theological thinking and the

Paul’s Messianic Ethics Contextualized with the Psalms of Solomon

257

variety of hypotheses and interpretations of his theology in Pauline scholarship.1 The situation becomes more difficult if we take into consideration that fact of intertextuality. The fundamental and crucial theological thoughts based on the traditional religious notions of Second Temple Judaism, which in the course of time were more or less influenced by foreign religious and philosophical concepts, can correlate and be developed in various contexts and backgrounds. Therefore, it requires caution and a large degree of tolerance for other hypotheses to be attached to one particular context or background. Despite these difficulties, I suggest that Paul essentially follows the same points of departure and emphases as found in the Psalms of Solomon, particularly the formation and expression of all crucial theological concepts, such as God’s righteousness and mercy, eschatology and apocalyptic notions – including a messianology and ethics as well as the related concepts of the status of the righteous and sinners – and law and covenant. All of these concepts are formed by the Two-Ways theology, a basic and substantial theological idea of Second Temple Judaism. These crucial theological concepts are found in some form in most Jewish literature of the Second Temple era. However, only the Psalms of Solomon contain the messianic notion related to the Davidic Messiah (Pss. Sol. 17) that constitutes the climax of the whole hymnbook.2 This collection of psalms also includes other motifs characteristic of Judaism at the turn of the millennium, especially the long-term disappointment of the devout Jewish religious groups over the political and social situation of the Jewish nation now under the dominance of the Roman Empire, which brought negative consequences for Jewish religious and especially political independence. The discontent with this situation also included the behavior of some political and religious officials and leaders who justifiably came under criticism by the pious and devout religious groups within the Palestinian Jewry, which is a characteristic feature of the Pharisaic or Essene movement. This kind of disappointment and discontent is expressed in the psalms through the strong moral rigorism of the psalmist and his emphasis on scrupulous purity of life that makes the individual pleasing before God (Pss. Sol. 3:7–8; 1 Pamela Eisenbaum confirms these difficulties. In regard to making sense of Paul’s letters, she said that “Paul is complicated, and Pauline scholarship is even more complicated.” See Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 250. 2 This is the emphasis of Brad Embry, who argues very convincingly that the hymnbook presents a cohesive thesis within which the messianic motif functions in a particular role. As such, it is suggested that the messianic motif in Pss. Sol. is comprehensible only within the purview of this central thesis. See Embry, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 99.

258

Paul’s Messianic Ethics Contextualized with the Psalms of Solomon

9:6–7; 10:1; 13:7, 10).3 This approach by the psalmist and his expressing a strong contrast between the righteous and sinners could constitute the basis of Paul’s criticism of Jewish religious as well as ethnic exclusivity, emphasizing the “works of the law” (e;rga no,mou) as a sufficient and at the same time decisive criterion for receiving God’s mercy. This would include the ability to participate in God’s righteousness and thus to become righteous before God, which gives them an advantage at the Last Judgment. However, this kind of approach and interpretation of God’s will was also characteristic for Paul the Pharisee (cf. Gal 1:14; Phil 3:4–6). On the other hand, Paul never abandoned the Two-Ways theology of the law with its strong emphasis on ethics. In this way, Paul would have been aware that other nations can also be included in God’s covenant. But just like most of Paul’s Jewish contemporaries, he also suggested that the very fact that Gentiles do not profess the one real religion – the belief in only one God – they cannot gain the covenantal status because they are not morally “highminded” in regard to the obligations of the covenantal status. Therefore, for Paul the Pharisee, only one way can lead from the status of hopeless sinner to the status of becoming a member of God’s covenant: proselytism. However, as I mentioned repeatedly in previous chapters, Paul’s exercise with God’s revelation of the resurrected Christ (Gal 1:16) persuaded him that the eschaton had begun, which means that it is the time of the final fulfillment of God’s promises, including those promises that contain the spiritual incorporation of the nations into the covenantal promises (Isa 66:20; cf. 60:9).4 Since Gentiles who believe in God’s actions in Jesus Christ, the Davidic Messiah – interpreted by Paul as a sacrifice brought by Godself – have the opportunity to be cleansed from all their sins and by this receive spiritual incorporation into God’s covenant, Paul had to stress the obligation that from this new status an adherent must practice piety in everyday life since they are now “sinfully righteous,”5 and to be prepared for the final point of history – Christ’s Parousia and the Last Judgment6 where God’s divine plan in history would come to its end. Therefore, Paul’s message as a whole is constructed upon or follows the same theological framework as the Hebrew Scriptures, as is the case of the Psalms of Solomon, which follows the framework Brad Embry calls a “prophetic 3

R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” 645. See Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 139, including nn. 116, 117, and 118. 5 It is a designation of Winninge’s faithful and convincing characterization of the aspects of expressing the way in which the righteous person who commits sin remains righteous. See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 196–208. 6 On the issue of the status of the righteous and sinners, as well as how the righteous person remains righteous before God in the Psalms of Solomon, see Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 185–208. 4

Paul’s Messianic Ethics Contextualized with the Psalms of Solomon

259

paradigm” originating from the very basis of the author’s apologetic construct where the concept of punishment for sinfulness and redemption for the righteous who repented constitutes the theological trajectory of the writing.7 Therefore, just as in the Psalms of Solomon, in the case of Paul’s message it is the emphasis on everyday piety that allows believers to maintain the status of righteous before God. In other words, as Mikael Winninge remarks in his interpretation of the different ways the Psalms of Solomon state how to keep a righteous status, piety was to be transposed from the cultic sphere of the Temple to the sphere of the synagogue and everyday life, which as a whole can be interpreted as an expression of “covenantal nomism.”8 This kind of piety of the devout included a daily life of faith and commitment to the Lord as well as the teaching and learning of the Torah, which became the basic and at the same time the main source of faith and rule of life for devout and pious Jews (see Pss. Sol. 10:4; 14:2–3; cf. Lev 18:5). This attitude was common to many Jews of the time, including the Pharisees, meaning also to Paul himself, and is visible also in the Psalms of Solomon.9 Therefore, it is not surprising that Paul demanded this kind of life also from his converts, from the gentile believers. The most characteristic place in Paul’s message where the transposition of piety from cultic sphere to the sphere of daily life is manifested – particularly the concept of atonement from the cultic frame of Yom Kippur to the everyday life of believers – is Paul’s interpretation of God’s actions in Jesus Christ in Rom 3:24–26.10 However, Paul places all of this in the context of awaiting Christ’s imminent Parousia. Gentile believers have to remain pious and saintly, living during this period of waiting as a “new creation in Christ” (2 Cor 5:17; cf. Gal 6:15). Paul’s emphasis on the behavior of his converts 7 Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 1; idem, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 101, including n. 4. 8 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 200. The text par excellence in this regard, as Winninge remarks, is Pss. Sol. 3:6–8, according to which the devout search their houses in order to remove unintentional sins and atone for sins of expiatory function with fasting, which is a clear expression of the piety of everyday life. For the exegetical reflections and interpretation of Pss. Sol. 3, see Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 36–43, including the other cited titles. 9 See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 158–70; Lührmann, “Paul and the Pharisaic Tradition,” 75–94. M. A. Seifrid makes a remarkable assertion when he argues that in regard to the Psalms of Solomon, this pious attitude involves an ascription of saving significance to the behavior of the devout. This means that an emphasis on mercy in the Judaism of the Second Temple era did not necessarily exclude the idea that obedience was a prerequisite for salvation. See Seifrid, Justification by Faith, 85, 109–10, 131–32. Cited by Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 201. 10 See Lührmann, “Paul and the Pharisaic Tradition,” 85.

260

Paul’s Messianic Ethics Contextualized with the Psalms of Solomon

is similar to the tone of the psalms, as M. A. Seifrid stressed in his assertion apropos of the saving significance of the behavior of the devout in the Psalms of Solomon where, when Israel receives God’s mercy, she is treated as pious and not as rebellious, thus expressing the continual turning of Israel, the object of God’s mercy, to God in repentance.11 It shows that behavior expresses the continual dependence of the pious and righteous on God, and it is treated as a natural implication of this fact.12 Seifrid’s assertion that in the Psalms of Solomon the very concept of mercy “does not include mercy in the face of impiety, but mercy because of piety”13 fits Paul’s own emphasis on the necessity of Gentile Christian converts remaining in a state of moral purity and right behavior in accordance with God’s will (Rom 1:29–31; 12:1–13:14; 15:1–4; 1 Cor 1:7–8; 3:16; 5:1– 11:1; 2 Cor 5:9–10; 6:14–16; Gal 4:13–25; 6:7–10; Phil 1:12–16; 3:16–17; 1 Thess 4:1).14 Therefore, this is again the messianic ethics coming to the fore in Paul’s message – just as in the Psalms of Solomon within the “prophetic paradigm” of the Hebrew Bible upon which this hymnbook was modeled.15 To this concept also belongs the way of one’s remaining in a state of righteousness, and to be more precise, the “sinfully righteous,” that is, the concept of atonement. In the Psalms of Solomon there is the concept of God’s discipline (paidei,a-concept) as the most significant feature in regard to the way of atonement. God’s discipline is associated here primarily with painful expiatory discipline. Its main function is to cleanse the devout (see 11

Seifrid, Justification by Faith, 130–32. Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 201 n. 32 in this regard refers also to W. L. Lane, “Paul’s Legacy from Pharisaism: Light from the Psalms of Solomon,” CJ 8 (1982): 133 who stated: “The object of mercy is the righteous man who receives God’s mercy by virtue of his righteous deeds.” 13 Seifrid, Justification by Faith, 132–33. 14 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 201–202, says that the interpretation of Seifrid and those who argue very similarly to him, contains difficulties, particularly that repentance expressed through pious behavior interpreted in soteriological terms as a person who has committed sins is lost and has no part in salvation. This conviction is, as Winninge remarks, in contradiction with the notion that salvation is founded on a covenantal basis. It means that Winninge continues Seifrid’s suggestion in contradiction with his claim that, on the one hand, the covenant is the presupposition for salvation, and, on the other, obedience is regarded as a requirement for participation in the covenant. Winninge suggests that “it is more accurate to say that obedience is a necessary consequence of being within the sphere of salvation.” This suggestion is in my opinion right and proper. 15 This is a substantial suggestion of Brad Embry in regard to the interpretation of the Psalms of Solomon. See Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 1; idem, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 101, including n. 4. 12

Paul’s Messianic Ethics Contextualized with the Psalms of Solomon

261

Pss. Sol. 7:9; 8:26, 29; 10:1–2; 13:7–10; 16:4, 11–15; 18:4–5).16 Also in Paul’s message, the present sufferings of the believers (Rom 5:3; 8:17–18; 2 Cor 1:5–7; 4:7–18; 7:4; 12:1–10; 1 Thess 1:6) can be placed under the same concept, all within the context of God’s actions in Jesus Christ, understood and interpreted by Paul as a sacrifice of atonement accomplished by Godself (Rom 3:25). It is a characteristic feature of the eschatological tension between this age and the age to come. However, it is at the same time also a part of God’s discipline associated with the concept of atonement17 with the purpose of this discipline present on both sides, the Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s message to cleanse the devout (Pss. Sol. 10:1–2; 13:10; 18:4–5; Rom 12:2; 13:11–13; 1 Cor 1:8; Phil 1:10–11; 1 Thess 5:23). God’s discipline is related directly to an awareness of human sinfulness, which has universal characteristics. Within Paul’s message this feature is elaborated upon the most in the Letter to the Romans (Rom 1:18–3:20) and constitutes the basis of Paul’s theologizing in regard to the doctrine of justification (Rom 3:21–26). In the Psalms of Solomon, this motif occurs only implicitly in Pss. Sol. 9:2 (evn panti. e;qnei h` diaspora. tou/ VIsrah.l kata. to. r`h/ma tou/ qeou/\ i[na dikaiwqh/|j\ o` qeo,j\ evn th/| dikaiosu,nh| sou evn tai/j avnomi,aij h`mw/n\ o[ti su. krith.j di,kaioj evpi. pa,ntaj tou.j laou.j th/j gh/j).18 However, I think it is a sufficient argument for the development of the concept of universal sinfulness of human beings as we observe it within Paul’s message. This is especially so in the context of the last two chapters – 17 and 18 – where the hymnbook’s climax about the coming of the Davidic Messiah supports, and at the same time emphasizes, this substantial thesis (see Pss. Sol. 17:19, 36–37).19 I also think this is so for the simple fact that the psalmist does not exclude the nations from God’s salvation, referencing the Gentiles (Pss. Sol. 17:34), despite the psalmist’s attention being focused primarily on the devout and pious of Israel. This approach was also characteristic of Paul the Pharisee. In any case, all human beings 16

On this issue see especially Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 137–40, 205–206. On the issue of Christians’ sufferings see also Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 482–87. 18 So also Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 209. 19 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 209, considers that Pss. Sol. 17:19, 36 do not support the thesis. Winninge argues that in the case of Pss. Sol. 17:19 it cannot be used as an argument for universal sinfulness since it only refers to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In regard to Pss. Sol. 17:36 where he argues that these words refer to the coming Messiah, this argument is weak. I think however that in both cases there is support for the thesis of universal sinfulness due to the poetic character of these two chapters that constitute the very climax of the hymnbook. Chapters 17 and 18 offer a decisive and final answer as well as a solution to the prophetic paradigm on which the hymnbook as a whole is modeled. 17

262

Paul’s Messianic Ethics Contextualized with the Psalms of Solomon

are fully dependent on God’s mercy. Therefore, God’s discipline works as the means of cleansing the devout and pious, and it takes a lot of effort to remain in strong faith and trust to God (cf. Pss. Sol. 16:15). I think Paul has based his messianic ethics on the concept of God’s righteousness and mercy as constituted in the content of the Psalms of Solomon where it is modeled on the basis of the prophetic paradigm of the Hebrew Scriptures expressing the core of the Two-Ways theology (see especially Deut 32).20 Paul’s messianic ethics, similarly to the messianic ethics of the author of the Psalms of Solomon, bears witness to the imminence of the Last Judgment. Therefore, the communities of believers have to be prepared for this time and must remain in a state of being “sinfully righteous.”21 They must be cleansed and purified from the impurity of their sins. This state could be attained by fulfilling the obligations of Torah – sacrifices, especially Yom Kippur (cf. Pss. Sol. 3:6–8; Lev 16 and Rom 3:24–26)22 – which is possible only within the sphere of God’s covenant with Israel and therefore valid only for Jews. However, more significantly, this could also be achieved through piety in everyday life, including atonement as well as its consequences – the proper behavior of the believers.23 Attaining this state also involves suffering on the part of the believers, which is understood as a part of God’s discipline. All of this is focused on the near coming of the Davidic Messiah and the Last Judgment, and in Paul’s message it is the same. The only new aspect is constituted by Paul’s own experience of God’s revelation of the resurrected Christ, which is the decisive event that convinced him that the eschaton had begun and that the Last Judgment – connected in Paul’s message with Christ’s Parousia – is very near. Paul’s conviction is also supported by the very content of the Psalms of Solomon with their climax in the last two chapters (Pss. Sol. 17– 18), which as a whole confirm the psalmist’s emphasis on messianic ethics. Of course, I still follow the opinion supporting the Pharisaic origin of this collection of psalms24 and also the suggestion that Paul was familiar with this hymnbook. I am aware that there are strong counterarguments 20 As I mentioned previously, I am motivated here by Brad Embry’s “prophetic paradigm,” which explains the very basis of the psalmist’s apologetic construct, where the concept of punishment for sinfulness and redemption for the righteous who repented constitutes the theological trajectory of the writing. See Embry, “Psalms of Assurance,” 1; idem, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 101, including n. 4. 21 For this designation, its character and interpretation in the context of the Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s message, see Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 196–208. 22 See Lührmann, “Paul and the Pharisaic Tradition,” 75–94; Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 200–201. 23 See Seifrid, Justification by Faith, 85, 109–10, 131–32. 24 See especially Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 12–16, 158–70.

Paul’s Messianic Ethics Contextualized with the Psalms of Solomon

263

and differing opinions. However, the only direct and exact reference to the Davidic Messiah in the Psalms of Solomon and the eschatological-apocalyptic aims of the author are, in my opinion, strong enough arguments in favor of my thesis. One substantial aspect of Paul’s emphasis on messianic ethics now comes to the fore – the preparation of believers for the Last Judgment into a state of being blameless in holiness, or in other words, living a life worthy of God. Paul’s moral exhortations are consequential and sufficiently clear. Since, as I mentioned above, God’s actions in Jesus Christ – the Davidic Messiah, interpreted by Paul as a determinative sacrifice brought by Godself – also enabled Gentiles to attain the status of being cleansed of all previously committed sins (see Rom 3:21–26), and by this, they were able to receive spiritual incorporation into God’s covenant. Paul had to stress that the obligation followed from this new status, which is to perform the piety of everyday life, because they are now “sinfully righteous,” and they must be prepared for the final point of history – Christ’ Parousia and the Last Judgment (see 1 Thess 1:9–10; 2:11–12; 3:12–13; 4:1–8; 5:23; 1 Cor 1:8–9; Phil 1:9–11; 2:14–16). The determinative event in this regard is the Parousia with the Last Judgment, as it is in the Psalms of Solomon, with the event of the coming of the Davidic Messiah. Paul therefore stresses the necessity of being “the holy of God,” expressing it with the term oi` klhtoi, (Rom 1:6–7; 8:28; 1 Cor 1:2, 24) or oi` a[gioi (Rom 1:7; 15:25, 31; 16:15; 1 Cor 1:2; 6:2; 16:1, 15; 2 Cor 1:1; 8:4; 9:1; 13:12; Phil 1:1; 4:21–22; Phlm 5). In this regard, Paul does not explicitly use the term “the righteous” (oi` di,kaioi). But this is understandable given that the Gentiles, who are the addressees of his message, were not explicitly a part of God’s covenant with Israel, only implicitly (Gen 12:3; 18:18; cf. Gal 3:8). Therefore, they can gain this status only as a result of God’s first-hand intervention on their behalf. It means they can become “righteous of God” only as justified by God in God’s actions in Jesus Christ: dikaiou,menoi dwrea.n th/| auvtou/ ca,riti dia. th/j avpolutrw,sewj th/j evn Cristw/| VIhsou/ (Rom 3:24). Since the roots of the terms di,kaioj (right, righteous, just) and o[sioj (righteous, pious, devout, holy) are very similar in meaning,25 Paul could have in mind the same or a very similar meaning, as is seen in the Psalms of Solomon where the psalmist designates the pious and devout group in the background most often with the term oi` o[sioi (“the pious”; see Pss. Sol. 2:36; 4:1, 6, 8; 8:23, 34; 9:3; 10:6; 12:4, 6; 13:10, 12; 14:3, 10; 15:7; 25

It can be seen in the clearest way in the adverbial form o`si,wj and the verb a`gia,sai (see in the Septuagint Deut 32:4; 2 Sam 22:26; Ps 17:21–27; 31:6, 11; 36:28–30; 51:8, 11; 96:10–11; Prov 10:29–32; 17:26; 21:15; in the New Testament, Luke 1:75; Eph 4:24; Tit 1:8; Rev 16:5). See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 177.

264

Paul’s Messianic Ethics Contextualized with the Psalms of Solomon

17:16) or oi` di,kaioi (“the righteous”; see Pss. Sol. 2:34–35; 3:3–7, 11; 4:8; 9:7; 10:3; 13:6–9, 11; 14:9; 15:6–7; 16:15).26 Paul, however, wanted to express the difference between the two groups, Jews and Gentiles, from the point of view of their origin – ethnic Israel and spiritual Israel. Nevertheless, before God they all are God’s children with the same rights and duties following the same choice that is monotheism and its moral-ethical consequences. It is God’s Spirit, or in the case of Gentile Christian believers Christ’s Spirit, who connects both sides into one group of God’s children; therefore, Paul could use the comparison of Gentile believers to God’s temple (1 Cor 3:16–17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16). In Paul’s message the categories of temple, priesthood, and holiness and purity, which as a whole remained the focal points for the anthropological views of the author of the Psalms of Solomon (1:7; 2:3; 3:8; 8:11–13),27 thus still remain elements of his theologizing, even though they may be in a communalized or desacralized form (Rom 12:1; 15:16, 27; 2 Cor 9:12; Phil 2:25).28 The fact that Paul desacralizes and communalizes the temple holiness of the communities of Christian (gentile) believers can be explained by the fact that Paul believes that earthly structures and orders keep the difference between Jews and Gentiles yet at the same time express the spiritual communion of human beings due to God’s actions in Jesus Christ, which for Paul is a clear indication of the beginning of the eschaton. Paul’s intention to stress the necessity of being prepared for the time of Christ’s Parousia at the Last Judgment is much the same as what we can observe in the Psalms of Solomon in regard to the devout and pious Jews gathered around the psalmist. This aspect can especially be observed in the last two chapters of the hymnbook (Pss. Sol. 17–18), mostly in chapter 17 where the activity of the Messiah is the work of purifying the people, Jerusalem, and the nations (see Pss. Sol. 17:22, 26–32, 34; cf. Matt 3:2; 4:17; Mark 1:15).29 This purifying work is strongly connected with the right and proper behavior of the community or communities of believers. In Paul’s message, the emphasis on proper behavior, in other words the necessity to remain pure and holy before God, comes to the fore. As I mentioned at the end of the previous chapter, this is especially the case in the passages dealing with the motif of preserving the right behavior of the believers in the context of the Last Judgment (1 Thess 2:10–13; 3:2–10; 4:1–8; 5:1–3, 23–24; 1 Cor 1:8– 9; 3:16–17; 6:9–11; 9:24–27; 10:1–13; 11:27–34; Phil 1:6, 9–11; 2:12–16). 26

See in more detail Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 131–36. See Embry, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 100, n. 2. 28 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 543–48, 721. 29 See Embry, “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament,” 113. 27

1. Romans 3:21–26 in the Context of the Psalms of Solomon 17–18

265

From all of these passages, it is clear that Paul’s use of the concept of God’s righteousness relates to the process of gaining this new status before God, which means that Christian believers are becoming a new creation in Christ on account of God’s actions in Jesus Christ as the atoning sacrifice. God’s action here is regarded by Paul as a unique revelation of God’s righteousness and mercy towards Gentiles. It means that Paul’s doctrine of justification expresses the dynamic interaction between God’s righteousness as God’s saving action for all who have faith in this activity of God and in God’s righteousness as God’s faithfulness to Israel, the chosen people.30 It follows that on both sides there is the obligation to remain in the state of holiness and to behave in accordance with God’s will as expressed in the Torah. Particularly in Paul’s message it confirms that Paul’s doctrine of justification speaks not about the promise of final acquittal only on the basis of belief in Jesus but rather as a departure point of the believers just purified from sins. New believers are thus obligated to live as “new beings” preparing for Christ’s Parousia and the Last Judgment.

1. Romans 3:21–26 in the Context of Psalms of Solomon 17–18 1. Romans 3:21–26 in the Context of the Psalms of Solomon 17–18 Chapters 17 and 18 of the Psalms of Solomon can legitimately be placed among Jewish literature of the Second Temple era, anticipating the hope and blessing of the end of this age not only for the devout and pious Jews – the community of the psalmist comes first – but also, at least partially, for Gentiles (non-Jews). This is especially valid in chapter 17 whereupon Terence Donaldson expresses: Prompted by the glorification of Jerusalem, the Gentiles gather ‘from the ends of the earth’ to escort the returning exiles, to witness God’s glory, and to experience divine mercy. They are present in Jerusalem just as visitors; the land is reserved for Israel (v. 28). There is no suggestion that they become incorporated into Israel. To the extent that they benefit from the end-time rule of the messianic king, they do so as Gentiles.31

This is an important aspect of the eschatological notions of the Psalms of Solomon, which could also be instrumental in Paul’s eschatological thinking where the concept of the incorporation of Gentiles into Israel plays an important role (cf. Rom 11:13–24). Gentiles are not becoming proselytes. They are becoming a part of Israel spiritually. It means they are a part of 30

Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 344. Dunn calls this dynamic interaction the heart of Paul’s theology of justification. 31 Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 140–41.

266

Paul’s Messianic Ethics Contextualized with the Psalms of Solomon

God’s covenant with Israel but still remain Gentiles – nations. This all must happen in accordance with God’s promises about the eschatological time of the “Day of the Lord” when “all different peoples of the earth finally recognize the God of Israel.”32 It means that it is necessary for Gentiles to remain Gentiles at that time because it is part of God’s will fulfilled in the last days when the God of Israel will be recognized and acknowledged to be the only true and one God (cf. Isa 2:1–5; 49; 52:10, 13–15; 56:1–8).33 In this notion, particularly in Pss. Sol. 18:5 where the state of holiness and righteousness of Israel results from the Last Judgment, we can also find an interpretative basis for Paul’s messianic ethics.34 It is important to approach at least some possible outcomes of the meaning of the key terms in parts of the Letter to the Romans, particularly in Rom 3:21– 26 (dikaio,w; dikaiosu,nh). It is also important to review our interpretation of this very passage in the context of the eschatological notions of contemporary Jewry concerning the coming of the Messiah and the Last Judgment as a key event fulfilling the present age and establishing the age to come. In this regard, Paul’s key passage in Rom 3:21–26 can be interpreted in the context of the beginning of the messianic age and the preparation for the Last Judgment.35 Romans 3:21–26, known as the locus classicus of Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith, constitutes a central segment of Paul’s argumentation concerning the content and the meaning of God’s righteousness and of human faith in this (God’s) righteousness.36 This fact is confessed by repetition of the key terms dikaiosu,nh (3:21, 22, 25, 26) and pi,stij (3:22, 25,

32 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 219. See also Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 16. Eisenbaum refers to another accessible book that includes analysis and critique of the traditional view, N. Elliott, Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). 33 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 171. Author refers also to P. Fredriksen, “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2,” JTS 42 (1991): 532–64. 34 See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 139, including n. 249. 35 The following section is adapted from my essay, “The Concept regarding the Coming of the Messiah as a Basis for Understanding Romans 3:21–26,” 23–54. 36 Alan F. Segal argues that Paul, by using the language of justification, may not have meant to define a new kind of theology, rather “he was trying to define a new apocalyptic community.” Segal continues: “Although Paul’s use of the terminology of justification by faith is original, it is not unprecedented in first-century Judaism or Christianity. The precedents were not particularly evident until the Dead Sea Scrolls, the writings of the Essene community at Qumran, were read closely. A similar vocabulary of justification was used by the Qumran community in describing God’s justice for the believer and the coming apocalyptic end” (for example, 1QS 2). See in Segal, Paul the Convert, 174–83.

1. Romans 3:21–26 in the Context of the Psalms of Solomon 17–18

267

26, 27, 28, 30, 31).37 When we look at the comprehensive interpretation of these terms within Paul’s message, especially in the field of Protestant theology, they have a forensic meaning and are related exclusively to the Last Judgment. Through the use of these terms, Paul expresses the key message that God will give to the believer – through God’s actions in Jesus Christ – God’s grace (Rom 3:24). However, the consequence of this interpretation is a conflict with the meaning of multiple parts of Paul’s letters38 that very clearly express the message of the Last Judgment where God will reward obedience to God’s will by bestowing eternal life. Naturally, it is dependent on one’s behavior and one’s deeds. Of course, I am fully aware of the fact that this hypothesis is in direct contradiction with the traditional forensic interpretation of Paul’s doctrine of justification. As mentioned many times already, I was motivated to support this kind of interpretation primarily by Chris VanLandingham’s suggestion that the key to properly understand Rom 3:21–26 could be found in the context of Pss. Sol. 18:5,39 and in a broader context of the meaning, in chapters 17 and 18. However, it should also be added that this hypothesis is not very new. It is one among many that support the idea of the Last Judgment according to the deeds in Paul’s message as an essential act in salvation history and the act that will ultimately decide the eternal destiny of all. I suggest that this opinion can be supported because it comes from a presupposition supported by other theologians in which one of the substantial problems in the process of interpreting Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith as a forensic process of granting a pardon – to grant an acquittal to the believer as a result of one’s faith in Jesus Christ and so too all sorts of attempts to reconcile this doctrine with the idea of the Last Judgment – is an incorrect understanding of the meaning of the dikai-group of terms. The problem is a divergence in the interpretation of these terms within a traditional Jewish background and the Greco-Roman surroundings, especially to the extent that it is focused on the relation to God and God’s actions in history (dikaiosu,nh qeou/). In the Western surroundings of the Greco-Roman world, all of these terms lead us to the courtroom where the accused is

37

Dunn, Romans 1–8, 163. In the Pauline letters there are many texts that specifically mention judgment and the notion of the Last Judgment or allude to it in clear manner: Rom 2:1–16; 3:6, 19–20; 11:20–22; 12:19; 14:10–12; 1 Cor 3:5–17; 4:1–5; 5:1–5; 6:2–3, 9–10; 9:24–27; 11:27– 32; 2 Cor 5:9–10; Gal 5:16–21; 6:7–9. For an analysis and interpretation of these texts from this point of view, see VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 188–241. 39 See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 139, n. 249. For a selection of traditional interpretations of definitions of “justification by faith” in Paul’s theological thinking, see 242–44. 38

268

Paul’s Messianic Ethics Contextualized with the Psalms of Solomon

acquitted by the judge. In other words he is acquitted by the judge in a forensic way. In a traditional Jewish surrounding, however, the righteousness language does not have its basis in the idea of a legal acquittal that means receiving a great pardon on the Last Judgment. The idea simply doesn’t exist in covenantal ideas. As Mark A. Seifrid argues: In the first place we found reason to conclude that righteousness language in the Hebrew Scriptures (as in the Ancient Near East generally) has its basis in creational theology rather than in the framework of covenantal ideas. This assessment is especially relevant with respect to those passages that have to do with the administration of justice, and divine administration of justice in particular. It is these which serve as the background to Paul’s announcement of the revelation of God’s righteousness and his further statements on the justifying work of God in Christ. In such settings, God appears as the ruling king, who effects justice (or “righteousness”) in (and for) the world that he has made.40

Commenting on Rom 1:17, James Dunn points out this essential difference in the meaning of the term relative to God’s acting: dikaiosu,nh is a good example of the need to penetrate through Paul’s Greek language in order to understand it in the light of his Jewish background and training. The concept which emerged from the Greco-Roman tradition to dominate Western thought was of righteousness/justice as an ideal or absolute ethical norm against which particular claims and duties could be measured (cf. von Rad, 370–371; Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit, 103). But since the fundamental study of H. Cremer it has been recognized that in Hebrew thought qd,c,/hq'd'c. is essentially a concept of relation. Righteousness is not something which an individual has on his or her own, independently of anyone else; it is something which one has precisely in one’s relationships as a social being … So too when it is predicated of God – in this case the relationship being the covenant which God entered into with his people. 41 40 Seifrid, “Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language against Its Hellenistic Background,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul, 40. On the issue of righteousness language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism, see M. A. Seifrid, “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, 415–42, whose observations indicate that in early Judaism the usage of righteousness language involves the idea of retributive justice, and that there are reasons for supposing that Paul’s understanding of justification, too, involves notions of retributive justice. However, Mark A. Seifrid warns about the elementary difficulty in the process of interpretation of Paul’s statements concerning righteousness and justification, which lies between philology and theology, it means a common temptation to confuse the analysis of word-usage with theology. Therefore it is very hard to interpret the true meaning of these statements especially in the context of particular letters. See Seifrid, “Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language against Its Hellenistic Background,” 39–40. 41 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 40–41. The references to other authors and literature are cited by the author. However, see the comments of Mark A. Seifrid, who argues that to describe “righteousness” in Hebrew literature as a relational concept or involving merely fidelity to a relation is problematic insofar as it obscures the idea of normativity associated with

1. Romans 3:21–26 in the Context of the Psalms of Solomon 17–18

269

Just this difference in meaning is, in my opinion, substantial in the process of interpretation of the locus classicus of Paul’s doctrine of justification as the preparation of the devout and pious for the time of Parousia and the Last Judgment. If we follow the presupposition that “righteousness” connotes a relational and not an abstract thing, then we must ask whether Paul uses righteousness language as related only to the Last Judgment with a forensic meaning (the idea of acquittal), or vice versa, expressing a meaning and consequence of God’s redemptive act in Jesus Christ for the lives of the believers. In other words, we can justifiably ask the question to see if the righteousness language in this passage (Rom 3:21–26) points out the consequences of Christ’s sacrifice for the personal quality of the lives of the believers – first of all gentile believers who are the addressees of Paul’s message – as the event creating the basis for their lives as those who are now marked as “righteous” before God. It means they are purified from the impurity related to their former status as Gentiles (non-Jews) and are now able to enter into the covenantal relationship of God with Israel. These opinions are essentially related to the eschatological notions of contemporary Jewry, within which the present age is understood as “the present evil age,” where people are enslaved because of the sin by evil powers which often take on a personified form (Gal 4:3, 8–9).42 Jews have the word-group. Seifrid explains that “the application of righteousness terminology to various inanimate objects, its association with ‘uprightness’ and ‘truth,’ its connection with retribution in forensic settings, and its relation to parallel conceptions of ‘righteousness’ in other cultures in the Ancient Near East all render dubious any attempt to dissociate the terminology from the concept of a norm.” He too states that Hermann Cremer was probably the first to offer this interpretation of “righteousness” in response to Ritschl’s conception of it as “correspondence to the ideal of salvation.” See Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre im Zusammenhange ihrer geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen, 33–37. However, Seifrid also affirms that the Hebrew Scriptures speak of “norms in application,” and nowhere define “righteousness” in terms of an ideal. See Seifrid, “Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language against Its Hellenistic Background,” 43, including nn. 12, 13 and 14. 42 Jews and Gentiles both find themselves, as a consequence of sin in human lives, enslaved to the evil forces, demonic spirits, and astral powers hostile to humanity. It means that humanity is enslaved to the evil, personal forces. These facts were considered major problems in the ancient world as a whole, and the destructive impact of sin on humankind was also reflected in portions of the Hebrew Bible and a great number of post-biblical Jewish writings. In the Hebrew Bible these can be observed especially in Lev 26:14–17; Deut 4:25–31; 28:25, 36, 47–68; 29:10–30, also in the historical books (Judg 2:14; 3:8, 12–14; 4:2; 6:1; 10:7; 13:1; 1 Sam 7:13–14; 12:9; 1 Kgs 8:33–34, 46–53; 2 Kgs 13:3; 17:7–23; 18:9–12; 21:10–16; 1 Chr 9:1; 2 Chr 6:24–25, 36–42; Neh 9:26–31, and others), and the Prophets (Amos 2:13–16; 3:11; 5:3; Hos 1:2–5; 5:8–15, and others). In the deuterocanonical texts there are mainly the apocalypses (Dan 9:3–19; 4 Ezra 3:28– 36; 2 Bar. 1:10–3:8; Apoc. Ab. 25:1–31:1, and others) but also texts such as the Psalms of

270

Paul’s Messianic Ethics Contextualized with the Psalms of Solomon

the covenant with God who gave Israel the law so she could know the right way of life and have the ability to distinguish right from wrong, good from evil. If Israel will be obedient to God’s will, God will protect her from all evil powers and all destructive consequences of their sins. Gentiles who have trust and belief in God’s actions could also have this protection where God’s acts in Jesus Christ who offered himself for others, understood in the context of Paul’s theological thoughts. In Paul’s theological thinking, Christ’s redemptive sacrifice has substantial significance because it makes believers free from the destructive power of all those powers and the present evil age (Gal 1:4). As a result of Christ’s work, through the atonement believers receive the status as “the righteous” and are therefore the justified ones. However, it does not grant them a pardon in a forensic way for the Last Judgment. It does not imply the Last Judgment, the process of granting someone a pardon, at all but is rather about a present state of the one who believes in God’s actions in Christ in the meaning mentioned above – to be purified from the impurity of sin and so to be prepared for the Last Judgment in the new moral quality of life. Therefore, this state constitutes a basis of radical change in one’s life. It becomes a point of departure of metanoia and life in accordance with God’s will and by this also of one’s personal participation in God’s promises of salvation. Within the framework of Paul’s message, the dikai-group of terms then has a relation to faith that is not part of the process of the Last Judgment.43 Solomon (Pss. Sol. 1:1–2:22), Judith (Jdt 5:17–18), Tobit (Tob 3:2–5), 2 Maccabees (2 Macc 6:12–17; 7:18), Baruch (Bar 1:10–3:8). All of these texts reflect the idea that foreign hegemony results from the presence of national sin and God’s punishment of Israel. For the discussion of belief in demonic spirits and astral powers and their hostility to humanity within both, Jews and pagans, see H. D. Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Church in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 204– 205; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Abraham the Convert: A Jewish Tradition and Its Use by the Apostle Paul,” in Biblical Figures outside the Bible (ed. M. E. Stone and T. A. Bergen; Harrisburg: Trinity, 1998), 170–71. References to the particular texts are stated by VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 206, including n. 108. 43 See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 244–45, as well as his thoroughgoing comparative study of the dikai-group of terms in non-Pauline use on pp. 246–71. VanLandingham stresses that the results following this comparative analysis are that in Jewish literature of the Second Temple era (Septuagint, post-biblical Jewish texts written in Greek, and the New Testament) none of the terms of the dikai-group is intrinsically forensic. However, VanLandingham notes, in classical Greek, the verb is always forensic, but with the meaning “treat justly” or “give justice to” and most often with the sense to “condemn” or “punish.” VanLandingham further states that in Jewish and Christian literature the survey proved that there are thirteen different meanings of this verb, and in Pauline literature we can observe a few of them: to be righteous, to be proven righteous, to be acquitted, to be made righteous/pure/free, or less likely, to have been made to appear righteous. Concerning the noun, VanLandingham notes the only possible meaning of it,

1. Romans 3:21–26 in the Context of the Psalms of Solomon 17–18

271

The believers are purified from the destructive power of sin and are able to have a relationship with God (cf. 1 Cor 3:17b; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:14–7:1). They receive God’s/Christ’s Spirit (Gal 3:2, 14; cf. Rom 8:2–4) who gives them an ability to be obedient to God’s will leading them to eternal life (Gal 6:8–9; Rom 8:4–13). This new status, as a result of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, at the same time sets the gentile believers free from the law and its “curse,” which falls on everyone who transgresses its requirements (Gal 3:13).44 From this point of view, it is necessary to interpret a culmination of the first substantial part of Paul’s argumentation in the Letter to the Romans (Rom 1:18–3:21) in the context of eschatological notions of contemporary Jewry about the coming of the Messiah and the Last Judgment. 21

Nuni. de. cwri.j no,mou dikaiosu,nh qeou/ pefane,rwtai marturoume,nh u`po. tou/ no,mou kai. tw/n profhtw/n.

21

But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets.

The eschatological meaning of this part is furthermore affirmed by the opening verse 21. The adverbial phrase “but now” (nuni. de,) has a logical meaning and constitutes a significant expression of the contrast between the previous passage 1:18–3:20 and the following one. However, this is so not only from the point of view of a situation of an individual before and after conversion but generally in connection to the aeons (the old and the new aeon).45 The event of Jesus Christ forms a decisive kairos in history. Paul’s “but now” signifies the beginning of the eschatological redemption, thus, the kairos is when God introduces into history the events of a final purpose for Israel as well as the whole of humankind (cf. 2 Cor 6:2).46 which is “righteousness.” It means that the noun never means absolution, acquittal, or justification. And in regard to the adjective, the only meaning is “righteous.” The author thus argues that “[w]hatever the sense of the adjective in Matt 27:19 and Luke 23:47, di,kaioj cannot mean ‘innocent’ in Rom 5:19.” See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 271. Therefore, for general and contextual reasons, VanLandingham sees the need to reconsider the meaning of the terms especially in the context of the Last Judgment. On the issue of reconsidering the meaning of this group of terms, see VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 272–332. See also Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 79–94. 44 In Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, in chapters 3–5, Paul compares submitting oneself to the law to being enslaved to demonic spirits. See Betz, Galatians, 217. 45 So also Dunn, Romans 1–8, 164. 46 This is also verified by Paul using the perfect tense of the verb, which means something different than the present tense in 1:17 and which indicates that “the new state of affairs was introduced by a decisive act in the past whose effect still remains in force.” In Dunn, Romans 1–8, 176.

272

Paul’s Messianic Ethics Contextualized with the Psalms of Solomon

The “seeming” paradox in regard to the revelation of God’s righteousness expressed by way of the phrase cwri.j no,mou – marturoume,nh u`po. tou/ no,mou kai. tw/n profhtw/n can be understood from the point of view of the main subject of God’s redemptive act, Jesus Christ.47 Christ’s death on the cross and the resurrection are two essential aspects of this paradox. The first points to a domain apart from the law (Deut 21:23; cf. Gal 3:13–14), and the second has as its goal God’s acting within history – to redeem humankind. Here is where salvation has a universal dimension, where it crosses the borders of the one people, God’s chosen nation Israel.48 This universal dimension is established by the testimony of Jewish religious tradition, meaning by the Scriptures. Here we encounter a positive role for the law understood as an oracular witness.49 Paul maintains that despite the fact that God’s righteousness was revealed apart from the law, which means through and in Jesus Christ, it is after all confirmed by the testimony of the law and the prophets. Particularly, Paul has in mind Psalm 142 (LXX),

47 The fact that the “the righteousness of God” is revealed “without the law” would be stunning to many Jews, because within Judaism, the law and God’s righteousness were two closely related terms (cf. Isa 51:5–6, 8 and Dan 9:16). See Dunn, Romans 1–8, 165. 48 James D. G. Dunn argues that, in regard to the meaning of the phrase cwri.j no,mou there is a close parallel of thought between verses 21–22 and 27–28. The phrase is obviously synonymous with cwri.j e;rgwn no,mou (v. 28); also cwri.j e;rgwn (4:6) which means that Paul thinks about the law as a boundary marker “(‘those within the law’), where ‘works of the law’ is the distinctive pattern of religion and lifestyle demanded of those set apart by the law. ‘Without the law’ then means outside the national and religious parameters set by the law, without reference to the normal Jewish hallmarks.” See Dunn, Romans 1–8, 165. However, Simon J. Gathercole in this regard opposes this suggestion and argues that: “However in Romans 3:19–22, Paul makes a series of contrasts which show that he is equally concerned with the salvation of Israel. It is by no means the intention here to argue that Israel is the exclusive focus in 3:21–22, rather that the righteousness of God to Israel is a crucial component. … But the contrast here is not between ‘those within the law’ (3:19) and ‘outside the law’ in 3:21. The phrase ‘those within the law’ defined those who were addressed by the word of the Law. In 3:20–21, Paul’s contrast is between two ways of receiving the righteousness of God, one real and one imagined.” See S. J. Gathercole, “Justified by Faith, Justified by His Blood: The Evidence of Romans 3:21–4:25,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul, 151. 49 This is the third role of the law in Rom 3–4 as defined by Richard B. Hays. In these chapters there are three passages in the text that suggest this function. The law as an oracular witness has a distinguishable role from the other two functions we might consider: “defining a way of life for the Jewish people and pronouncing judgment on the world.” See R. B. Hays, “Three Dramatic Roles: The Law in Romans 3–4,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law (ed. J. D. G. Dunn; Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2001), 158.

1. Romans 3:21–26 in the Context of the Psalms of Solomon 17–18

273

which he cites in Rom 3:20.50 Besides this passage, there are other references to passages of Jewish Scripture: Ps 97:2–3 (LXX) as well as Isa 51:4– 5, including the seminal prophetic statement of Hab 2:4. In this regard it is necessary to note that the law (Scriptures) does not give evidence only about God’s righteousness but also about the gospel (Rom 1:1–3).51 Here (Rom 3:21) it is important and equally crucial that the explication of a testimony of the law and the prophets, particularly the participial phrase marturoume,nh u`po. tou/ no,mou kai. tw/n profhtw/n, does not come about in its entirety in the following verse 22. However, it can be a key focus of the hermeneutical substructure, which is fundamental for Paul’s interpretation of the law.52 In my opinion, this is indicated in Rom 10:4 where Paul calls Christ the te,loj of the law, which does not mean the end or nullification of the law but the fulfillment of the law. In this way, the Scriptures themselves become a testimony – Paul will develop this idea further in chapters 4 and 9–11 – to the continuity in the character of God’s redemptive purpose realized in history through Israel, a purpose that should not be confused with a national or ethnic continuity.53 22

23 22

23

dikaiosu,nh de. qeou/ dia. pi,s tewj VIhsou/ Cristou/ eivj pa,ntaj tou.j pisteu,ontajÅ ouv ga,r evs tin diastolh,( pa,ntej ga.r h[marton kai. u`s terou/ntai th/j do,xhj tou/ qeou/. … the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

50 Richard B. Hays remarks that Ps 142:11b (LXX) is especially noteworthy, providing a metaleptic link between the plight evoked in 3:20 and the solution proclaimed in 3:21. See Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 51–53. Stated by Hays, “Three Dramatic Roles: The Law in Romans 3–4,” 159, including n. 20. 51 For the function of the law in Paul’s understanding, see D.-A. Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus (BHTh 69; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986). Richard B. Hays points out that the English translation of the text of Rom 1:1–3 “usually treat the prepositional phrase peri. tou/ ui`o u/ auvtou/ as a modifier of euva gge,lion, but this is an artificial expedient designed to spare Paul the embarrassment of having claimed that the Scriptures are ‘about’ Jesus Christ. In fact, however, anyone hearing Paul’s sentence read aloud in Greek would naturally hear peri. tou/ ui`o u/ auvtou/ as modifying grafai/j a`gi,aij. Hence: ‘holy scriptures concerning his Son …’.” Despite the fact that the formula could be prePauline, we can agree with Hays that “there is no reason to suppose that Paul did not believe, along with other early Christians, that the Old Testament pointed to Jesus.” See Hays, “Three Dramatic Roles: The Law in Romans 3–4,” 160, including n. 22. 52 See Hays, “Three Dramatic Roles: The Law in Romans 3–4,” 160. 53 See Dunn, Romans 1–8, 166.

274

Paul’s Messianic Ethics Contextualized with the Psalms of Solomon

James Dunn remarks that the absence of a verb in verse 22, which includes a repetition of the phrase by the particle de,, indicates in part a fuller definition of the key phrase (particularly in 9:30 and 1 Cor 2:6) but also expresses a dynamic of the concept of “God’s justice and righteousness” as an activity of God in favor of those to whom God has committed Godself.54 Exegesis of this verse shows that, in most places, it is devoted to the meaning of the genitive phrase dia. pi,stewj VIhsou/ Cristou/. So the question becomes whether it is a subjective or objective genitive. I will not pursue this question in more detail,55 because on both sides the advocates of these two variants have convincing arguments, and so we should find a solution in another place. Despite this particular conundrum, I think that the meaning of the genitive phrase is “Christ’s own faithfulness,” meaning Christ’s obedience to God’s will. This kind of interpretation is in full agreement with Pamela Eisenbaum’s supposition that the efficacy of Jesus’ sacrificial death came through forgiveness of the sins of the nations.56 On this account, Gentiles, if they have faith in God’s actions, now stand righteous before God and are ready to become the children of God. Their faith in Jesus’ faithfulness enables them to become heirs to the Abrahamic promise (cf. Gal 3:14; 4:19), which means that they possess the same status as Israel due to the merit of the fathers – Abraham and the patriarch’s great acts of faithfulness (see Gen 15:6; cf. Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6).57 To receive God’s righteousness and mercy through Christ’s act of obedience and faithfulness 54

Kertlege, Stuhlmacher, and Williams have to supply the verb “to be” in the interest of defending the interpretation of God’s righteousness as “an aspect of his nature.” See Kertelge, “Rechtfertigung” bei Paulus, 75; Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus, 87; S. K. Williams, “The ‘Righteousness of God’ in Romans,” JBL 99 (1980): 272. Stated by Dunn, Romans 1–8, 166. 55 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 166, noted here that this question can scarcely be solved on only syntactical ground. 56 It means, as I mentioned earlier in chapter 3 (section 2.4.2.3), that Christ’s own faithfulness to God’s will, even to the point of death on a cross (cf. Phil 2:5–8), requires him to sacrifice himself for the benefit of all who have faith in the effect of his faithfulness to God, effectively becoming atonement, and thereby the means of achieving reconciliation between Gentiles and God that was envisioned by Israel’s prophets. See Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 241–42. 57 As I mentioned in the previous chapter (section 2.4.2.3), Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 241, remarks that “[i]t was not Israel’s faith in Abraham that allowed her to enjoy God’s favor, but the faith of Abraham. The same kind of theological system is at work with Jesus and the Gentiles.” It means that “[t]he Pauline notion of justification by faith does not mean that one is justified by one’s faith in Jesus; rather, Jesus’ faithfulness puts right Gentiles and incorporates them into the family of God.” See also P. Eisenbaum, “Is Paul the Father of Misogyny and Anti-Semitism?,” Cross Currents 50 (2000– 2001): 506–24.

1. Romans 3:21–26 in the Context of the Psalms of Solomon 17–18

275

to God also encompasses repentance and forgiveness, because, as Paul well knows, people are not perfect. Despite my own conviction about whether it is a subjective or objective genitive, both of these variants are relevant and neither eliminates the other. Faith in Jesus Christ confirms that God’s righteousness has been revealed in history in a paradoxical way – apart from the law, though the law and the prophets bear witness to it. At the same time, it means that faith in Jesus Christ expresses itself through faith in God’s actions in Jesus Christ. It is about God’s universal purpose to save humans. On the other side, the work of Jesus Christ, which Paul describes as an atoning sacrifice (i`lasth,rion in verse 25),58 expresses the character of this sacrifice as Christ’s own faithfulness to God and God’s will, to the point where it was death on the cross (see Phil 2:8; cf. Heb 5:8; 12:2). As a consequence of this, I see the emphasis lying on the universal dimension of God’s righteousness demonstrated through this (eivj pa,ntaj tou.j pisteu,ontajÅ ouv ga,r evstin diastolh,( pa,ntej ga.r h[marton kai. u`sterou/ntai th/j do,xhj tou/ qeou/), but in another way, as the final goal of God’s righteousness (vv. 25–26). Through this, believers become purified by the blood of Jesus Christ. God made them righteous and able to enter into relationship with God. Thus they are able, as a result of the activity of God’s Spirit, to fight with the power of sin, which is still a part of this present age. However, the power of sin does not yet have a destructive might. God’s Spirit enables them to 58 For the discussion about the analysis and meaning of the term i`lasth,rion in the context of Paul’s theological thinking in Rom 3:21–26 and other Jewish writings, also in the context with the common cognate verb i`la,skesqai, see Campbell, The Deliverance of God, 640–47, including the references to other authors, for example: W. Kraus, Der Tod Jesu als Heiligtumsweihe: Eine Untersuchung zum Umfeld der Sühnevorstellung in Römer 3,25–26a (WMANT 66; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991); D. P. Bailey, “Jesus as the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul’s Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1999); C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1935); D. A. Campbell, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3:21–26, especially 107–13, 130–37; S. Finlan, The Background and Content of Paul’s Cultic Atonement Metaphors (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 284–88; P. Stuhlmacher, Reconciliation, Law, and Righteousness: Essays in Biblical Theology (trans. E. Kalin; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), especially the part “Recent Exegesis on Romans 3.24–26,” on pp. 94–109; idem, Der Brief an die Römer (NTD 6; Göttingen/Zürich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989); idem, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Vol. 1: Grundlegung: Von Jesus zu Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991); B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher, eds., The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources (trans. D. P. Bailey; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004 [1996]); B. S. Childs, “Reconciliation with God,” in idem, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (London: SCM, 1992), 485–529. Cited by Campbell, The Deliverance of God, 640, including n. 2 (on pp. 1098–99).

276

Paul’s Messianic Ethics Contextualized with the Psalms of Solomon

live justly and within the Last Judgment to receive the reward of eternal life (cf. Rom 2:5–6). The decisive factor here is faith, because the state of separation of humankind (pa,ntej ga.r h[marton kai. u`sterou/ntai th/j do,xhj tou/ qeou/) without exception (ouv ga,r evstin diastolh,) is a universal reality of human being before God.59 24

25

24

25

dikaiou,menoi dwrea.n th/| auvtou/ ca,riti dia. th/j avpolutrw,sewj th/j evn Cristw/| VIhsou/\ o]n proe,qeto o` qeo.j i`lasth,rion dia. Îth/jÐ pi,s tewj evn tw/| auvtou/ ai[mati eivj e;ndeixin th/j dikaiosu,nhj auvtou/ dia. th.n pa,resin tw/n progegono,twn a`marthma,twn. … they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed.

In these two verses Paul uses a traditional Jewish eschatological concept but improvises upon it. The new element is constituted by the identification of the means of God’s purpose realized in history. It means that through God’s actions in Jesus Christ, Christ’s own faithfulness to God’s will creates a basis for interpreting it as a sacrificial death with a redemptive character, primarily in relation to gentile believers. The passive participial of the verb dikaio,w is sufficient evidence to prove that God is the subject of rendering righteousness to the believers. Again, the present tense of the verb bridges the time gap between two decisive kairoi in salvation history; Christ’s atoning death on one side (v. 25) and the Last Judgment on the other (v. 20).60 It is the act of the sovereign God’s grace, which Paul compares with ransom money for liberation from slavery (avpolu,trwsij), a term Paul probably uses deliberately. One basic reason for this could be the well-known Old Testament motif of the deliverance of Israel from slavery in Egypt (Deut 7:8; 9:26; 13:5 [LXX 6]; 15:15; 21:8; 24:18; Ps 25[LXX 24]:22; 26[LXX 25]:11; 31:5 [LXX 30:6]; Isa 41:14; 43:1, 14; 44:22–24, etc.). The word used by Paul in the context of God’s actions in Jesus Christ includes the process of deliverance, not just the very event of the crucifixion, and in Paul’s message it expresses the same meaning as we find in the term dikaio,w – a continually present

59 The aorist can be used here with two meanings which do not contradict one another. It could be the perspective of the Final Judgment (like in 2:12) or a decisive and universal character of man’s fall (see further 5:12). For a more detailed interpretation of Rom 3:23, see Dunn, Romans 1–8, 167–68. See also Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 226–27. 60 See Dunn, Romans 1–8, 168. See also Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 227.

1. Romans 3:21–26 in the Context of the Psalms of Solomon 17–18

277

tension between the two aeons (the eschatological system “already – not yet”; see Rom 8:23; 1 Cor 1:30).61 As for the discussion about the meaning of the term i`lasth,rion (“the mercy seat”; “the place of expiation”; “means of expiation” [especially in the context of 4 Macc 17:22]), it extends beyond the framework of this study, and I will not engage it in more detail. I personally agree with the suggestion of James Dunn and others that Paul has in mind, first of all, a sacrificial cult, particularly the act of making sacrifices for sin, especially on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16) but also referencing the martyred death of the Maccabees as presented in 4 Macc 17.62 Basically, we should consider all the important aspects of Jewish religious traditions of the Second Temple era related to the sacrificial cult, including the sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22, Isaiah 53, and other martyrological concepts. Here, Paul again emphatically adds the words “by faith,” which should be understood parenthetically, not as a connection to the following verse evn tw/| auvtou/ ai[mati.63 In this way, it is likely that Paul again stresses the key idea that God’s actions actually give humans their faith in God, and their ability to be faithful to God, who in this way acts in favor of humankind as a whole but primarily – from Paul’s perspective – in favor of the Gentiles. As for the mention of “bloodshed,” the primary meaning in this place could be the essential meaning of blood as “life bearer,” the life force or principle of life, where the term “bloodshed” is pointing to life in an expiatory sense (see Lev 17:10–16).64 Christ’s death on the cross is interpreted by Paul as a “cultic sacrifice”65 and is here a “manifestation” of God’s own righteousness (e;ndeixij th/j dikaiosu,nhj auvtou/). It is God’s doing in favor of those to whom it has been promised. Ignominious death on the cross in this way becomes the expression of God’s saving grace and salvation as “a classic example of the gospel’s transformation of normal human values.“66 26

evn th/| avnoch/| tou/ qeou/( pro.j th.n e;ndeixin th/j dikaiosu,nhj auvtou/ evn tw/| nu/n kairw/|( eivj to. ei=nai auvto.n di,kaion kai. dikaiou/nta to.n evk pi,stewj VIhsou/Å

26

It was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus. (Or who has the faith of Jesus) 61

So Dunn, Romans 1–8, 169. For this discussion and for a description of protagonists of various opinions, see Dunn, Romans 1–8, 170–72. See also Campbell, The Deliverance of God, 640–47, including the notes. 63 For the arguments around this issue, see Dunn, Romans 1–8, 172. 64 Campbell, The Deliverance of God, 641. 65 For the significance of Christ’s death as a sacrifice for sin, see Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 212–18. 66 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 173. See also Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 240–43. 62

278

Paul’s Messianic Ethics Contextualized with the Psalms of Solomon

The words of verse 26 confirm that in offering Christ, God shows and affirms God’s own righteousness in favor of human beings, while the manifestation of God’s righteousness extends beyond the borders of culture or ethnic particularities. God affirms and confirms God’s own righteousness not by doing in accordance with some kind of abstract ideal of justice (righteousness) but rather by acting in accordance with the obligation freely taken upon Godself by making a covenant with Israel. It can be said that the sacrificial death of Jesus was God’s effective way of dealing with the sin of the people.67 These words also point to how Paul himself understands Christ’s resurrection. As I mentioned several times earlier, Christ’s resurrection means for Paul the beginning of the messianic age, the age of righteousness that also becomes effective for Gentiles if they have faith in this great paradox through God’s actions in Jesus Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice. This makes them capable of living a proper way of life within the ever-present tension between this age and the age to come, that is, in accordance with God’s will. Of course, this capability also positively affects the quality of the life of the believers. In other words, God in this way prepared humans for this new quality of life as the “sinfully righteous”68 before God. In other words, despite Paul’s (as well as Paul’s Jewish contemporaries’) conviction of universal sinfulness,69 God makes humans righteous to give them a new quality of life to be free from the destructive power of sin and death (see Rom 6:6–7). Parousia, however, means the event of the Last Judgment as the final evaluation of the lives of the believers. Decisive in Paul’s words is the fact that Gentiles can attain this initial position through faith and trust in God – as an expression of God’s righteousness and grace. Paul thus expresses here the idea of preparation of the believers for the Last Judgment. Faith procures them purification and makes them free from the destructive power of sin. They become “sinfully righteous,” but it does not yet mean salvation but only the promise of salvation. Otherwise, the Last Judgment would not have any meaning. However, in Paul’s theologizing the Last Judgment also means the eventuality that God will refuse the believer because of moral failure since his or her life was contrary to God’s will, meaning a denial of the believer’s actual faith. God’s justice 67

Dunn, Romans 1–8, 175. See also the comments on Rom 1:17 on pp. 40–46. The definition was used by Mikael Winninge in his classification of the categories of righteous and sinners in his comparative study of the Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s letters. See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 185–208. 69 See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 212; H. Räisänen, Paul and the Law (2nd ed.; WUNT 29; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 120; R. C. Cover and E. P. Sanders, “Sin, Sinners,” ABD 6:31–47. Cited by Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 212, including n. 23. 68

1. Romans 3:21–26 in the Context of the Psalms of Solomon 17–18

279

and righteousness, since they are relational, have to be transferred on the basis of faith in the value and significance of Christ’s offering upon the cross to the level of a reciprocal relationship (see Rom 12:1). It has to be visible in the manifestation of Christian love, which in Paul’s thinking is the expression of the fullness of the law (Rom 13:8–10).70 1.1 Rom 3:21–26 in the Context of Pss. Sol. 18:5 I suggest that we can legitimately ask about the relevance of the very basis of Paul’s theological argumentation in the given passage, and for most scholars this is the key passage of the whole Letter to the Romans. Could Paul’s thoughts be founded on traditional notions of contemporary Judaism concerning the coming of “the Day of Messiah” and the Last Judgment that are found in the last two chapters of Psalms of Solomon (Pss. Sol. 17–18), especially in Pss. Sol. 18:5, or other Jewish writings of the Second Temple era (mainly Daniel, Jubilees, 1 Enoch, Qumran Scrolls, 2 Maccabees, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, Testament of Abraham)? Paul was and remained, without a doubt, firmly rooted in Jewish religious traditions. Paul verifiably had a liking for these writings including the Psalms of Solomon.71 Since Paul’s message focuses on the Parousia of the Davidic Messiah – Jesus Christ – and since with this focus the messianic ethics inevitably comes to the fore, I suggest that these psalms played an special key role in Paul’s formulation of the key theological concepts regarding gentile believers.

70 Here James D. G. Dunn comments that “[t]he triple emphasis on love is matched by a triple emphasis on love of neighbor as the fulfillment and summation of the law … These are the first references to the law since the somewhat dismissive statements of 10:4–5; and indeed, as his readers would soon realize, these are the last references to the law in the letter as a whole. They therefore fulfill a crucial role: they would reassure that Paul’s gospel was not antinomian – on the contrary, he counts fulfillment of the law as something important.” See J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16 (WBC 38B; Dallas: Word, 1991), 782. For the interpretation of Rom 3:21–26 in the context of Jewish eschatological conceptions focusing on the notion of the Last Judgment, especially in regard to Paul’s use of the terms of the dikai-group, see also VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 319–26. 71 In regard to the Psalms of Solomon, in authentic Pauline letters we find direct analogies to this hymnbook only in Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Pss. Sol. 4:25 in Rom 8:28; Pss. Sol. 8:28 in Rom 3:3; Pss. Sol. 9:5 in Rom 2:5; Pss. Sol. 14:2 in Rom 7:10; Pss. Sol. 15:8 in Rom 2:3; Pss. Sol. 17:1 in Rom 2:17), which is, in my opinion, especially significant in regard to the formulation of Paul’s key theological thoughts. For the analogies between the Pauline letters and other deuterocanonical literature, see NA, 800–806.

280

Paul’s Messianic Ethics Contextualized with the Psalms of Solomon

The words of the psalmist in Pss. Sol. 18:5 are primarily the prayer addressed to God for purifying Israel for “the day of mercy in blessing,” for “the day of election, when Messiah will come and reign.”72 5

Kaqari,sai o` qeo.j VIsrah.l eivj h`me,ran evle,ouj evn euvlogi,a |\ eivj h`me,ran evk logh/j evn avna,xei cristou/ auvtou/\

5

May God cleanse Israel for the blessed day of mercy, the appointed day for the appearance of his Messiah.

This verse focusing on the Last Judgment is characteristic of giving an account of the decisive role of the right and proper behavior of the devout and pious before God and the Messiah. Chris VanLandingham remarks: This state of holiness and righteousness results from the Last Judgment. Both wicked Jews and Gentiles are removed in judgment from Israel. The process of judgment or distillation leaves only a purified Israel. The judgment upon the Gentiles takes place in battle. As a result, the remaining Gentiles are subject to Israel. 73

As I said above, VanLandingham stresses that only this idea can be in the background for understanding this particular part of Paul’s Letter to the Romans (3:21–26). The key elements of this passage are the terms related to God’s justice and righteousness. Besides these, it is also the relation of God’s righteousness to the law as well as the task of the righteousness within the Last Judgment. If we understand the passage of the Psalms of Solomon as a prayer for purification, meaning the preparation of the psalmist’s community of devout and pious Jews on the Day of Messiah for the coming of the Last Judgment,74 it follows that the context clearly points out (cf. 18:1) that psalms 17 and 18 speak about the Messiah in relation to the deliverance of Israel. Yet the question remains whether this notion could also be considered as a basis for understanding the key passage of Paul’s Letter to the Romans, the locus classicus of Paul’s doctrine of justification. Interpretation of the key terms that Paul used in Rom 3:21–26 as well as the understanding of Israel as an entity, which constitutes a unique subject of the process of realization of God’s saving purpose in history, give this presupposition a strong foundation. Paul uniquely expresses a continuity of the realization of God’s righteousness through Israel with a universal impact, the fulfilling of God’s original purpose to save human beings. It also includes the spiritual incorporation of the nations into the covenantal 72

On the interpretation of this verse see also chapter 3, section 2.3.16. VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 139. 74 This verse attests to the notion of the Day of Messiah as directly connected with the Last Judgment, directly with the blessing, directly with the asserting of election of Israel. 73

1. Romans 3:21–26 in the Context of the Psalms of Solomon 17–18

281

promises (Isa 2:1–5; 49; 52:10, 13–15; 56:1–8; 66:20; cf. 60:9). Christ is therefore rightly called the telos of the law (Rom 10:4). Paul defines God’s righteousness in Rom 3:25–26; it is God who makes a believer righteous. In the negative sense it means a forgiveness of sins, and in the positive sense it refers to deliverance from sin as a destructive power (Rom 6:6– 7).75 This state of moral purity enables believers to stand the test of the final appraisal in the Last Judgment and remain righteous before God, because they gain in their life a new quality as a new being in Christ, and this is on account of the Parousia that in Paul’s mind means the Last Judgment. It is God’s Spirit who gives believers the strength and ability to participate in God’s righteousness as well as to be disciplined by God and still remain in this new position. Believers become and must remain the “sinfully righteous,” or in other words, devout and pious Christians, which at the same time means they are no longer slaves to sin. God’s Spirit makes believers strong in faith and open to the paradox of God’s action in Jesus Christ, the Davidic Messiah in whose life God revealed God’s own righteousness by way of making Jesus the Messiah of Israel. Jesus is also the Messiah for gentile believers, and he is their means of joining God’s covenant with Israel (cf. Rom 10:1–4). In this way, the promise given to Abraham comes to its fulfillment (Gen 12:3; 22:16–18; Rom 4:13; Gal 3:16–18).76 Even though the author of the Psalms of Solomon stresses the uniqueness of the status of Israel in salvation history, nevertheless he is aware of the consequences of sin in the lives of all. Therefore, the psalmist emphasizes the believer’s dependence on God’s grace and mercy, the result of which is the fact that, basically, no Gentiles are excluded from salvation. The psalmist’s main intent is to express the necessity of preparation of the devout and pious of Israel for the final manifestation and revelation of God’s justice and righteousness through the work of the Davidic Messiah,

75

VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 320. In regard to the strong in faith, Mark D. Nanos argues: “The ‘strong/able’ are Christians. They include Jews, like Paul and a small group of Christian Jews in Rome; and gentiles, like the majority of the audience he is addressing in Rome, that ‘follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham’ (4:12) in that they believe (are ‘able’ and ‘strengthened’ to recognize) that Jesus, by his resurrection from the dead, has been demonstrated to be the promised ‘seed,’ the Christ of Israel and the Savior of the world (1:4, 16; 3:21–26).” See Nanos, The Mystery of Romans, 144. For the issue of the strong and weak in faith within Paul’s Letter to the Romans, see Nanos, The Mystery of Romans, 119–65. 76

282

Paul’s Messianic Ethics Contextualized with the Psalms of Solomon

which is to purify Israel and establish the kingdom of God (cf. Mk 1:15; Mt 3:2; 4:17).77 Important in this process is God’s impartiality (Pss. Sol. 2:18), because God judges everyone (Pss. Sol. 9:5). God justly condemns sinners and does not allow them to be counted among the “righteous” (Pss. Sol. 2:16; 17:8–10). However, God does justice for the “righteous,” when he relays their sin into corrective punishment – God’s discipline – and leads them to restoration (Pss. Sol. 3:5; 10:5; 18:7). God’s discipline is therefore also the expression of God’s grace, because everyone who is righteous (sinfully righteous) is in this way saved from the destiny of sinners (Pss. Sol. 16:3, 6). God is described as one who’s punishing of Israel has a corrective function (Pss. Sol. 9:2) and who also in this way renders God’s own mercy to Israel (Pss. Sol. 11:1, 7–9; 17:45; 18:1–5). This feature is especially observable in the passages where Israel represents the covenantal nation in general or the purified nation of the messianic age.78 In the Psalms of Solomon there are clear connections in themes, intentions, and the meaning of key theological terms, which all can be laid, at least semantically, as a basis for the interpretation of Paul’s doctrine of justification. The main point of this is not constituted by a forensic principle of God’s granting pardon, an acquittal for the believer as a result of one’s faith in Jesus Christ but by stressing the substantial role of ethics in the context of the main purpose of Paul’s mission, the messianic ethics given to believers – Gentile Christians – purified and made righteous by God’s acting in Jesus Christ, to remain the “sinfully righteous.” Thus, in this new quality of life they are to await the Day of Messiah and be prepared for the final point of history, meaning Christ’s Parousia and the Last Judgment (see 1 Thess 1:9–10; 2:11–12; 3:12–13; 4:1–8; 5:23; 1 Cor 1:8– 9; Phil 1:9–11; 2:14–16). Despite the explicit hostile bias of the author of the Psalms of Solomon against Gentiles, the psalmist does not hand down a final judgment over Gentiles – the damnation of Gentiles as a whole, whether on the basis of their sinfulness or on covenantal nomism. The psalmist focuses primarily on the idea of preparation of the devout and pious in the coming messianic age, and by this, also the time of completion of salvation history within the Last Judgment. Despite the psalmist’s natural hostility towards Gentiles qua

77 The dik-root verbs (translating the Hebrew qdc root) are used only for the community’s declaring God’s judgments just (Pss. Sol. 2:15; 3:3, 5; 4:8; 8:7, 23, 26; 9:2). God’s judgments are the means of displaying his righteousness (dikaiosu,nh; cf. Pss. Sol. 2:10, 18, 32; 4:24; 5:1; 9:5; 10:5; 17:29; 18:7). See Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 39–40. 78 Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 40.

1. Romans 3:21–26 in the Context of the Psalms of Solomon 17–18

283

Gentiles following primarily his devoutness and obedience to the Torah and its interpretation, he emphasizes the principle of covenantal nomism, which was the same in the case of Paul the Pharisee (Gal 1:14, 23; Phil 3:3–6; cf. Rom 2:29; 11:1; 2 Cor 11:22). He does not deny them a priori the chance to be saved (Pss. Sol. 17:34).79 The psalmist is aware of the decisive fact that everyone must answer to God for their own life, but from the very beginning up to the very end, he or she is and remains fully dependent on God’s grace and mercy, which does not exclude Gentiles if their quality of life is in accordance with the standards of Torah. Through this they become a part of God’s covenant with Israel (Pss. Sol. 17:30–32, 34; cf. Rom 2:25–29). This is the basic idea following the Two-Ways theology, expressing the covenantal principle. This constitutes the point of departure of theologizing for both the psalmist and Paul the Apostle. Only Godself in the work of the Messiah can “purify” human beings effectively and completely, making them “righteous” before God.80 So, God enables believers to participate in God’s righteousness within the relationships in a particular community, and in this way they become prepared for the Last Judgment. In this way, the main emphases of the Psalms of Solomon – i.e., the effort of the psalmist’s community to remain righteous despite committing sin, which besides the sacrificial cult in Jerusalem’s Temple can be realized through repentance and by living a life of faith and commitment to the Lord, including the teaching and learning of the Torah (see Pss. Sol. 10:4; 14:2–3; cf. Lev 18:5) as well as the preparation of the community for the Day of Messiah and the Last Judgment – can both be found in Paul’s message, but in reverse order. Here, the concept of purification of the community of believers symbolizes and effectively fulfills God’s sacrifice in Jesus Christ. For the gentile believers it is the point of departure in the process of purification and preparation for the Parousia with the Last Judg79 Remember here that the psalmist’s hostility was turned – and also influenced – towards particular Gentiles, at first the Romans. 80 In the Psalms of Solomon they are designated as oi` o[sioi (“the pious”; see Pss. Sol. 2:36; 4:1, 6, 8; 8:23, 34; 9:3; 10:6; 12:4, 6; 13:10, 12; 14:3, 10; 15:7; 17:16) or oi` di,kaioi (“the righteous”; see Pss. Sol. 2:34–35; 3:3–7, 11; 4:8; 9:7; 10:3; 13:6–9, 11; 14:9; 15:6–7; 16:15), while within Paul’s message they are designated as oi` klhtoi, (Rom 1:6–7; 8:28; 1 Cor 1:2, 24) or oi` a[gioi (Rom 1:7; 15:25, 31; 16:15; 1 Cor 1:2; 6:2; 16:1, 15; 2 Cor 1:1; 8:4; 9:1; 13:12; Phil 1:1; 4:21–22; Phlm 5). In this context it has to be noted that the roots of the terms di,kaioj (right, righteous, just) and o[sioj (righteous, pious, devout, holy) are very similar in meaning, which is also the case of the adverbial form o`si,wj and the verb a`gia,sai (for a`gia,sai, see above n. 25). In this connection see also Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 131–36; VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 177.

284

Paul’s Messianic Ethics Contextualized with the Psalms of Solomon

ment, which requires that one remain in the state of holiness up to the end. Therefore, in both the Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s message, the main emphasis is laid on ethics, and since their theologies are motivated strictly by eschatological concerns, the messianic ethics based on God’s righteousness and mercy is the very core of Jewish religious tradition in the Second Temple era.

Conclusion To summarize the results of the thesis I stated in the beginning of this work, it is necessary first to state that my goal was not to make a claim for resolving all the questions about Paul’s doctrine of justification, though this is still a very important topic in Paul’s theology.1 I am also well aware of the fact that to introduce something very new into the field of Paul’s theology is really an uphill battle and rather risky, thus eliciting mostly negative responses within theological discussions on the topic. I have tried only to take a stand with the thesis that Paul’s theological thinking, especially his doctrine of justification, can be more comprehensible for us and understandable if we approach it from the point of view of traditional eschatological concepts of Second Temple Judaism, particularly notions about the coming of the Messiah and the Last Judgment, as well as following the traditional Jewish understanding of the meaning and consequences of God’s justice and righteousness, grace and mercy manifested in history, and specifically in God’s covenant with Israel. These are substantial questions, and we can observe them in most of the Jewish literature of the Second Temple era, for example Daniel, Jubilees, 1 Enoch, the Qumran Scrolls, 2 Maccabees, Psalms of Solomon, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, or the Testament of Abraham. In my opinion, we can argue that Paul, a Hellenistic Jew and a Pharisee, was himself shaped and influenced first by these notions and that they were determinative in the process of formulating his theological thought. This is confirmed by the terms Paul used in crucial parts of his message, especially in his doctrine of justification. Therefore, Paul’s way of theologizing points to his own Jewish background more than to a new eschatological teaching or conception.2 Naturally, a particular passage in the 1

On the general reflections and character of Paul’s theology including the development of the understanding of Paul and certain essential issues of his theologizing, see a brief excursus made by Mikael Winninge in his work Sinners and the Righteous, 213–40. 2 VanLandingham’s analysis of the use of all the terms of the dikai-group in biblical and other post-biblical literature, including Paul’s letters, creates well-founded conditions for the contention that in Paul’s theological thinking there is no place for the concept of justification by faith – justification as a forensic term and a judicial concept. On the

286

Conclusion

Psalms of Solomon, the sole particular writing, cannot offer exhaustive answers to all questions on such an extensive and complex topic as Paul’s theology. On the other hand, Paul’s message and the theology of the Psalms of Solomon are related by way of expressing the same crucial theological themes, particularly the idea of the coming of the messianic age including the concept of a Davidic Messiah and a Last Judgment according to deeds, where God’s righteousness, grace, and mercy are manifested in their entirety and where the universal nature of God’s purpose in salvation history – the salvation of “righteous” Jews and Gentiles – is realized.3 It means that in both cases, messianic ethics comes to the fore and becomes the decisive criterion in one’s life. Of course, Paul’s theological model, compared to traditional ones known from Jewish literature of the Second Temple era, is substantially different.4 First, Paul identifies the awaiting of a Davidic Messiah with Jesus of Nazareth. However, we must not neglect the fact that Paul did so on the basis of accepting the older Jewish Christian tradition about Jesus’ Davidic offspring (see 1 Cor 15:3; Rom 1:3–4). Furthermore, Paul interprets God’s actions in Jesus Christ as God’s offering salvation to the Gentiles on the basis of the proclaimed gospel about the Messiah and Lord Jesus. Therefore, Paul appeals, in some measure, to a reassessment of traditional, primarily Pharisaic understandings of Mosaic legislation and the religious cult. However, at the same time we must realize that contemporary Judaism was far from having general agreement concerning messianic notions, including the Last Judgment. Paul thus relied on the foundations of contemporary Judaism, particularly on Pharisaic tradition, and considered himself to be an advocate and follower of the faith and religious tradition of his ancestors. In his own perception and theological reflection of historical events, the messianic age has begun in the event of the resurrection of Christ. Parousia will signify the Last Judgment and by this also the consummation of God’s purpose in the history of humankind to save and deliver humanity – Jews and nonJews – for eternal life, if their life corresponds to the criteria of God’s will. Thus God’s purpose has a universal dimension. contrary, none of the terms of the dikai-group are intrinsically forensic. VanLandingham himself, on the basis of the findings, says that “justification by faith” is a mistranslated phrase and misunderstood concept.” See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 242–331. 3 Paul is stating this key universalistic thought in Rom 1:16: Ouv ga.r evpaiscu,nomai to. euva gge,lion( du,namij ga.r qeou/ evstin eivj swthri,a n panti. tw/| pisteu,onti( VIoudai,w| te prw/ton kai. {EllhniÅ (For I am not ashamed of the gospel; because it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.) 4 See E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 543; VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 333–35.

Conclusion

287

Although Paul has transformed the traditional eschatological schemes of contemporary Judaism from the viewpoint of faith in the crucified and resurrected Christ, and gave them, or rather, emphasized a universal dimension of God’s salvific purpose within history, he still remained in the same position as a Jewish believer. At the same time it means that Paul remained on the foundations of the eschatological concept of God’s righteousness and mercy, which makes the believer (the faithful) righteous, and by this prepares him or her for the event of the Last Judgment. With regard to what God requires from a human being for his or her approbation at the Last Judgment, Paul does not differ from other Jewish writers of that time more than they differ from one another.5 From the point of view of all that was said and argued for throughout this study, we can say that in Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Paul’s main emphasis lies not on the doctrine of justification but rather on the argumentation in favor of a universal dimension of God’s grace and salvation – for Jews as well as Gentiles. Therefore, it is legitimate to state, as Pamela Eisenbaum remarks, that the most important passage in Paul’s letters as well as for understanding Paul’s message to the Gentiles is Rom 3:21–30.6 The reason is, first of all, that Paul’s message in this letter as well as in all his authentic letters is targeted specifically to Gentiles. It means that Gentiles, who are in need of justification by God to be prepared for the Last Judgment as the sinfully righteous before God,7 receive in God’s action through Jesus a gift, which is God’s sacrificial victim that enables Gentiles to experience the same grace Jews already enjoyed due to the status of Israel and the role of Torah.8 Here, Paul describes in a unique way the process of the ingathering of the nations at the culmination of history and assures his 5

VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 334. VanLandingham remarks: “Where he differs is one of the ways that distinguishes him as a Christian, yet he differs in aspects typical of a Jewish sect, best defined as what we find evident in the Qumran texts. Both for Paul and Qumran, forgiveness, purity, righteousness, and obedience are not possible outside of their community.” Despite many differences concerning the specifics of particular Jewish religious groups or factions, we should define “the pattern of religion” by emphasizing not the beginning point (i.e., baptism/faith in Jesus for Paul or orders of 1QS 1–3 for Qumran), but its end point (i.e., approbation at the Last Judgment as according to deeds). As VanLandingham remarks, “Paulinism is better described as one spoke among many on the wheel that is Judaism.” See VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 334–35, including n. 4. 6 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 248–49. 7 This designation expresses well the eschatological tension between the two aeons, the old age and the new one. 8 As I mentioned earlier, this suggestion follows the argument that the “faithfulness of Christ” and “the righteousness of God” are subjective genitives. See Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 248–49.

288

Conclusion

gentile audience that they will be part of redemption, while clarifying for them the ongoing function of Jews in this same redemption.9 Paul understood the process of salvation alone as one that begins with faith in God’s redemptive action through Christ towards the Gentiles. This time of faith makes the gentile believer “righteous” before God, since their sins are forgiven. It means that the believers are purified from guilt and impurity and become free from the destructive power of sin, which means that this state has to be unimpaired. In other words, the moral character of believers who were made righteous hangs in the balance. They must remain – up to the end – the “saints” who are to be “blameless in holiness” before God (1 Thess 3:13; see also 4:1–8). Likewise in the Psalms of Solomon, the devout and pious are designated as righteous, which can be understood as the sinfully righteous, since they are purified from their sins by way of the atonement, including God’s discipline that leads them to a new quality of life in accordance with God’s will. In both cases it is the coming of the Davidic Messiah, the eschatological consummation of history, that introduces the final gathering of the devout and pious, or saints in Paul’s terms, since they could be acknowledged as those who will enter the kingdom of God. Since Paul was convinced that this era had already begun, the leitmotiv of the Psalms of Solomon could now be fulfilled in regard to the Gentiles, whose faith is founded on Christ’s own faithfulness as a decisive manifestation and expression of God’s righteousness and allowed them to gain the same status as the devout and pious Jews. God’s action through Jesus Christ gives the believer the ability to live in obedience to God’s will, which means participation in God’s own righteousness. Therefore, in Paul’s message addressed primarily to gentile believers, the emphasis is laid on messianic ethics as the means of effective preparation for Christ’s Parousia. It will be the Last Judgment itself that finally and completely measures the quality of each individual’s decision to hold firmly to the blessings received firstly from God in Christ’s sacrificial death.10 If this is so, then the promise of salvation is effective. Otherwise, the final destiny is damnation. So for Paul salvation did not mean something the believer receives automatically. Paul warns believers and stresses the fact that eternal life is bound to personal effort and willingness to live in accordance with God’s will (Gal 4:17–6:10; Rom 2:1–11; 1 Cor 9

Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 249. Pamela Eisenbaum calls that offer and orientation toward Paul and his message a radical new perspective, a new paradigm, and refers to other scholars who have most influenced her work, such as Krister Stendahl, Lloyd Gaston, John Gager, Stanley Stowers, Neil Elliott, and Mark Nanos. See Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 250. 10 See also VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 334.

Conclusion

289

6:9–11). The psalmist also expresses the idea that God’s covenant with Israel, although only seldomly mentioned explicitly but clearly the “underlying presupposition of this community’s self-perception,”11 cannot per se be a guarantee of salvation if contractual obligations on the side of the members of this contract are not fulfilled. It is therefore understandable that the psalmist considers the afflictions experienced by the community at the hands of Romans, or retrospectively other foreign nations in the past, as the consequence of transgressions of God’s covenant (see Lev 26; Deut 28), and the hardship itself could be regarded as God’s discipline with the intention to turn the people back to God (see Lev 26:40–45; Deut 30:1–5; cf. Pss. Sol. 7:3; 8:29; 13:7–10).12 This discipline is therefore a central concept in the Psalms of Solomon as an essential concept of atonement, and its main function is to cleanse the devout and pious in preparation for the Day of the Davidic Messiah (Pss. Sol. 10:1–2; 18:4–5).13 Naturally, Paul knows that human life as a whole and eternal destiny depend always and under any circumstance upon God. Paul therefore does not refuse the role which places God’s grace and mercy in this process. It is possible to live according to the Spirit, “walking by the Spirit” (Gal 5:16, 25) and “being led by the Spirit” (Gal 5:18). It is a new quality of human life that Paul expressed in the phrase “Christ living in me” (Gal 2:20).14 God gives believers God’s mercy and God’s Spirit in order that they could bear “the fruit of the Spirit” up to the end. Therefore, on the side of gentile believers faith is a decisive basis because God’s grace shown in this way is realized paradoxically, a fact that inevitably demands full trust on the side of the Gentiles. God’s purpose to save human beings, realized universally, goes beyond the borders of Israel as the covenantal nation (covenantal nomism). God’s justice, righteousness as well as mercy and grace, become involved and reach all spheres of human society (Gal 3:6–9, 26–29).15 The faith which makes even Gentiles “righteous” and 11 Pss. Sol. 9:8–11; 10:4; 17:15 (cf. 11:7; 17:4–5, 23). See Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 50. 12 See Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 50. 13 See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 139. 14 VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification, 209. 15 Here Mark D. Nanos argues: “Paul is not arguing, on my reading, that the boundary has collapsed so that there is no longer Jew or Gentile, circumcised or uncircumcised, any more than he is arguing that the social boundary of difference between male and female or slave and free has been eliminated; both kinds still exist, and they are different with respect to one another. These Gentiles have not become Jewish proselytes but fellow heirs of Abraham while remaining members of the nations. For Paul, the differences of identity remain, but the discrimination that accompanies such roles in the present ‘evil’ age does and must not remain, for those in Christ, those of the age to come (cf. 3:26–4:7). They

290

Conclusion

allows them to be placed under the power of Christ – Davidic Messiah – as the “new being” (kainh. kti,sij), integrates them at the same time into the blessings of Israel (Rom 2:25–29; cf. 11:24, 26). It is no longer exclusively grounded in the “boundary markers” of the ethnically understood religion or other particularities but in the work of the Spirit of God, which turns the particular into the universal and moves the history of salvation to a higher level of fulfillment of the law and its main purpose: to save human beings for the kingdom of God. It is a great paradox which can scarcely be explained in any satisfactory way. However, God’s work is the paradox from the very beginning up to the end. This paradox is based on the ageold issue of God’s desire to save human beings, including the spiritual incorporation of the nations into the covenantal promises (Isa 2:1–5; 49; 52:10, 13–15; 56:1–8; 66:20; cf. 60:9). As such, the paradox follows God’s promises to Abraham and Israel, emphasizing Israel and remaining with her through the message of the prophets of Israel. We can thus summarize Paul’s message of the gospel – addressed to gentile believers who have faith in God’s actions in Jesus Christ allowing them to be cleansed from sins and prepared for the Parousia and the Last Judgment – firstly as Paul’s own expression of a particular Jewish eschatological notion about the coming of the messianic age and the preparation of the believers – the “sinfully righteous,” who are devout and pious. This is especially clear in the case of the locus classicus of Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith in Rom 3:21–26 (respectively 3:21–30), which for most scholars still is the very core of Paul’s theology. Paul found the basis of this concept first in the Torah and other biblical writings, mainly in the message of Isaiah as mentioned above. But as a Pharisee he was especially motivated and influenced by the formulation and interpretation of this eschatological concept in the Psalms of Solomon with the main emphasis on the right and proper behavior of the pious and devout of Israel for the coming Davidic Messiah who in his work purifies the people, Jerusalem, and the nations (see Pss. Sol. 17:22, 26–32, 34). Paul and the author of the Psalms of Solomon based their theological interpretation on the history of the traditional Two-Ways theology characteristic of Deuteronomic theology. They both lived in times of deep disappointment and conflicts related to the dominance of the Roman Empire, which is directly connected to the intensive awaiting of the coming of have become the equivalents of proselytes – righteous ones of God though not of Israel, of a new community creation consisting of Israel and the nations worshipping together – by the act of God in Christ. This is how he now calls them to live.” See M. D. Nanos, The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 99–100, including nn. 28, 29.

Conclusion

291

God’s Messiah from David’s offspring. Both Paul and the Psalms of Solomon expressed the fact that there is an essential difference between Jews and Gentiles when it comes to God’s covenant with Israel (see 1 Thess 4:5; Rom 9:30; Gal 2:15; Pss. Sol. 1:1; 2:1; 7:2; 9:8–10).16 However, Paul knows that in God’s work in Jesus Christ, Christian believers are incorporated (spiritually) into the covenant through Jesus’ sacrifice (1 Cor 12:2), which itself demands an obligation to live morally and ethically as the righteous in accordance with God’s will (1 Thess 4:5). Paul as well as the author of the Psalms of Solomon also know that all humankind is buried in its sinfulness (Rom 1:16–5:21; 11:25–32; Pss. Sol. 7:9; 8:8–13; 9:1–11; 10:1–4; 14:1–3; 17:36),17 which also means that not all who belong to Israel via covenantal status will be saved in the time of the Last Judgment (Rom 2:9–10, 24; 9:6; Pss. Sol. 2:16; 8:13; 17:5, 15, 22, 27, 36). Only faithful Jews, doers of the law, will be justified (Rom 2:13; see also 11:13– 24, 25–36), including Gentile Christians (1 Cor 5:1–5; Rom 2:9–10).18 This perspective as a whole is characteristic for the Pharisees, which supports the presupposition that the Psalms of Solomon are of Pharisaic origin and that Paul still was a Pharisee.19 The awareness of these facts means that they both know that righteous believers are in fact the sinfully righteous, which is the status necessary to live in repentance and atonement (2 Cor 12:20–13:6; Pss. Sol. 9:6–10). This state could be attained by fulfilling the obligations of the Torah, foremost by sacrifices, especially Yom Kippur (Lev 16; cf. Rom 3:24–26). However, it can be kept also through everyday piety (Pss. Sol. 3:6–8; 7:9; 8:29; 10:1–4; 14:1– 3; cf. Gal 3:24),20 including God’s discipline (Pss. Sol. 7:9; 8:26–33; 10:1– 2; 13:7–10; 16:1–4, 7–8, 11–15; 18:4–5; Rom 5:3; 8:17–18; 2 Cor 1:5–7; 4:7–18; 7:4; 12:1–10; 1 Thess 1:6). As mentioned above, the purpose of this discipline in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s message is to purify the devout and pious believers (Pss. Sol. 10:1–2; 13:10; 18:4–5; Rom 12:2; 13:11–13; 1 Cor 1:8; Phil 1:10–11; 1 Thess 5:23). For Paul and his missionary goal, it was thus the messianic ethics following the Two-Ways theology of Judaism in the Second Temple era which played a decisive role in his theologizing, stressing behavior and personal effort on behalf of the believers to live in obedience to God’s will. I am fully aware that in the theology of Paul’s message and the Psalms of Solomon there remain differences, and many questions and issues remain 16

See in more detail Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 241–54. See in more detail Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 209–12, 264–313, 333–34. 18 See in more detail Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 254–63. 19 See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 263. 20 See in this connection Seifrid, Justification by Faith, 85, 109–10, 131–32. 17

292

Conclusion

open for further discussion, which means that the hypothesis I have presented here can be barely proved fully and without objection. Despite this, I am persuaded that the similarities of the theological interpretation between Paul and the psalmist are substantial and overpower the differences. I think that the motif of the coming messianic age and the work of the Davidic Messiah in chapters 17–18 of the Psalms of Solomon – the very climax of the previous content concentrated on the radical difference between righteous and sinners and as a whole focusing on the necessity of the righteous to be purified for the end of this age – can serve not only as a common theme of both Paul’s message and the psalmist’s but also as the point of departure for explaining the main differences between them. As for the common background and origins of Paul and the psalmist, they hold primarily the same views in regard to understanding God’s justice and righteousness as well as grace and mercy. Likewise, they have the same approach and solutions to the relation between the status of the righteous and sinners and the dynamics through which the “sinfully righteous” could still maintain the status of righteous before God. At the same time this explains the reason for emphasizing the messianic ethics on both sides, in Paul’s message and in the hymnbook. As for the differences, it is the eschatological framework itself which offers an explanation. First, Paul was aware that Gentiles, even though they lived righteously and might live up to Jewish moral standards, still remained sinners due to the covenantal sphere.21 Therefore, the continuous participation of Gentile Christian believers in Christ was necessary as “a transfer from the sphere of sin to the sphere of righteousness.”22 In this context, Mikael Winninge, whose comprehensive study on the classification and description of sinners and the righteous in the Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s letters rightly remarks that Martin Luther’s view “simul justus et peccator” cannot be applied to Paul, at least not on a terminological level.23 Paul’s theological thoughts characterized an “either-or” conception instead of the

21 I am almost in full agreement with Mikael Winninge’s thesis. I differ only with the opinion about Paul’s realization that the Parousia was delayed, a suggestion based on passages like 1 Cor 15:51–52; Phil 1:21–26; 3:20–21. I think these passages are not about the delaying of the Parousia but are only the expression of Paul’s sufferings in regard to his missionary activities through apocalyptic-mystical language, showing the fact that Paul’s thoughts were motivated by mysticism and apocalypticism (cf. 1 Cor 15:51–52 with 1 Thess 4:5). See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 322, 331–32. 22 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 333. I am also in full agreement with Mikael Winninge. For the issue of the transfer as part of Paul’s paradigm of dynamics in his theological thought, see Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 321–32. 23 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 331–32.

Conclusion

293

simultaneousness of righteous and sinner.24 This fact points out the importance of behavior in accordance with God’s will, continually and up to the end. For Paul, it was the event of Christ that constituted the decisive point of moving forward. God’s revelation of the resurrected Christ was for Paul a decisive event in the process of fulfilling God’s promises about the coming messianic age and the Last Judgment. Therefore, all who by means of piety in the sphere of daily life as well as by divine discipline realize this transfer from the status of sinner to the status of righteous are obligated to remain constantly ready for the Last Judgment. It is the same in the Psalms of Solomon (Pss. Sol. 3:6–8) as well as in other contemporary Jewish literature. Since Paul’s message of the gospel is addressed firstly (or only) to Gentiles,25 it means that for Christian believers continual atonement is necessary to account for postbaptismal sins, and as such, it has to become a characteristic aspect of the life of those who are called oi` klhtoi, (Rom 1:6–7; 8:28; 1 Cor 1:2, 24) or oi` a[gioi (Rom 1:7; 15:25, 31; 16:15; 1 Cor 1:2; 6:2; 16:1, 15; 2 Cor 1:1; 8:4; 9:1; 13:12; Phil 1:1; 4:21–22; Phlm 5). This is the goal of Paul’s theologizing in regard to the process of justification that has to be understood as the process of making Christian believers righteous with consequential sanctification, which means a continuous participation in God’s righteousness (Rom 1:17). This is from beginning to end an act of God’s own sovereign will and initiative and therefore always made dependent on God’s grace and mercy. As such it must be understood as God’s divine and graceful gift, just as redemption and election are understood within Judaism.26 This approach to God’s righteousness and mercy and their expression in the life of Christian believers is inherently the same as in the community of the pious and devout behind the Psalms of Solomon. Paul in his message 24

Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 332. Here is where continued discussion is needed. Particularly, it is the crucial question whether Paul was really convinced that the justification through Jesus Christ, or the transfer as Winninge designates it, from the sphere of sin to the sphere of righteousness through participation in Christ was the only way to salvation for both Jews and Gentiles, or only for Gentiles who are the main addressees of his letters, which constitutes a radical new perspective on Paul, or in other words, the new paradigm with the main question of “Two-Ways salvation,” Torah for Jews, Jesus for Gentiles. See in more detail Eisenbaum, 240–49, 249–55. See also Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 333. 26 With Mikael Winninge saying Paul’s usage of the verb dikaiou/n in the present tense “refers to a process of justification in continuous participation, where God and the Christian ‘cooperate’ in a progressive dialectic between divine sanctifying justification and human cleansing of postbaptismal sins, constantly aiming at ethical progress.” For Winninge therefore, justification in Paul’s theological reflection is, first of all, a “transfer,” i.e. an establishment of relationship, which is possible because of God’s initiative “while we were still sinners” (Rom 5:8). See Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 334. 25

294

Conclusion

realizes the positive Pharisaic conception of a pious life, ultimately aiming at final vindication and salvation at the Last Judgment. It means that obedience to God’s will and righteous conduct is necessary (see Rom 6:13, 19; 12:1) because it is a proper and at the same time necessary response of human faith to God’s own faithfulness (Rom 1:17).27 Through the action of Jesus Christ, the Messiah from David’s offspring, God establishes a relationship with the nations so they could be incorporated into God’s covenant with Israel and its blessings. Therefore, on the side of the Gentiles, the mystical participation in Christ has covenantal connotations and ethical implications (1 Cor 6:19).28 Only God can make human beings ultimately and finally righteous. Only God can give them final vindication and salvation (Rom 3:24–25; 5:19; cf. Isa 53:11). This is however a part of God’s judgment, realized in terms of reward and punishment and thus pointing to the substantial importance of right behavior for all who are made righteous before God. As such, they must remain in a purified state until the Last Judgment (Rom 2:5–6, 13, 16; 14:10–12; 2 Cor 5:10; cf. 1 Thess 1:9–10; 2:11–12; 3:12–13; 4:1–8; 5:23; 1 Cor 1:8–9; 4:5; Phil 1:9–11; 2:14–16). For Paul, the time of coming for the Davidic Messiah was fulfilled. For Paul, Christ’s resurrection was a clear mark of the beginning of the eschaton, and so the preparation for the Last Judgment connected with Christ’s Parousia. The basic theological conception of the Psalms of Solomon climaxing in the last two chapters (Pss. Sol. 17–18) proved to be truthful and real. God’s Messiah came, and in his work began the time of preparation for the final manifestation and revelation of God’s justice and righteousness in this age. This will mean the purification of Israel and establishment of the kingdom of God where the hope of all the righteous of God – Jews as well as the nations – will be fulfilled in its entirety. Paul’s mission among the Gentiles is realized in this eschatological tension – and was motivated from the beginning to the end by this leading idea – to bring the as many people from the nations as possible to the belief that God’s actions in Jesus Christ are the decisive work so that they could be saved and rejoice in God’s “house of prayer” forever. As God’s word says in the Book of the prophet Isaiah: for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples (Isa 56:7b).

27 28

Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 334. Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 334.

Bibliography Abegg, Martin G. Jr. “4QMMT C 27, 31 and ‘Works Righteousness.’” DSD 6 (1999): 139–47. Ábel, František. “Paradoxy apoštola Pavla.” Pages 93–121 in Univerzalizmus a prekonávanie náboženských rozdielov v Pavlových textoch. Edited by František Ábel. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, 2011. –. “The Concept regarding the Coming of the Messiah as a Basis for Understanding Romans 3:21–26.” Pages 23–54 in Justification according to Paul: Exegetical and Theological Perspectives. Edited by Ondrej Prostredník. Bratislava: Comenius University in Bratislava, 2012. Achtemeier, Elizabeth R. “Righteousness in the OT.” Pages 80–85 in vol. 4 of IDB. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. 4 vols. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962. Alpe, Andreas ab. “Christologia in Psalmis Salomonis.” VD 11.2–4 (1931): 56–59, 84– 88, 110–20. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Poetry. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1984. Althaus, Paul. Der Brief an die Römer: Übersetzt und erklärt. NTD 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Amir, Yehoshua. Die hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums bei Philon von Alexandrien. FJCD 5. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983. [Pseudo-]Athanasius, “Synopsis Sanctae Scripturae.” Column 432 in vol. 28 of Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris: Migne, 1857. Atkinson, Kenneth. “Herod the Great, Sosius, and the Siege of Jerusalem (37 B.C.E.) in Psalm of Solomon 17.” NovT 38 (1996): 313–22. –. “Toward a Redating of the Psalms of Solomon: Implications for Understanding the Sitz im Leben of an Unknown Jewish Sect.” JSP 17 (1998): 95–112. –. “On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumran: New Light from Psalm of Solomon 17.” JBL 118.3 (1999): 435–60. –. An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon: Pseudepigrapha. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 49. Lewinston/Queenston/Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2001. –. I Cried to the Lord: A Study of the Psalms of Solomon’s Historical Background and Social Setting. JSJSup 84. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Attridge, Harold W. “Historiography.” Pages 157–84 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by Michael E. Stone. CRINT 2.2. Assen: Van Gorcum/Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Austin, Michel M. The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

296

Bibliography

Avemarie, Friedrich. Tora und Leben: Untersuchungen zur Heilsbedeutung der Tora in der frühen rabbinischen Literatur. TSAJ 55. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Aziza, Claude. “L’Utilisation polémique du récit de l’Exode chez les écrivains alexandrins (IVème siècle av. J.-C.–Ier siècle ap. J.-C.)” ANRW II.20.1 (1987): 41–65. Baars, Willem. “Psalms of Solomon.” Pages 1–27 in The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version. Vol. 4, pt. 6. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Backhaus, Knut. “Evangelium als Lebensraum: Christologie und Ethik bei Paulus.” Pages 9–31 in Paulinische Christologie: Exegetische Beiträge; Hans Hübner zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Udo Schnelle et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Bailey, Daniel P. “Jesus as the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul’s Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25.” [Dissertation] University of Cambridge, 1999. Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE). Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. Barnett, Paul. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Barrett, Charles K. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. HNTC. New York: Harper and Row, 1968. –. The Epistle to the Romans. BNTC. London: A. and C. Black, 1991. Bartlett, John R. Josephus, Aristeas, the Sibylline Oracles, Eupolemus. Vol. 1.1 of Jews in the Hellenistic World. CCWJCW. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Ben-Dov, Meir. In the Shadow of the Temple: The Discovery of Ancient Jerusalem. Philadelphia: Harper and Row, 1985. Bengel, Ernst Gottlieb. D. Ernesti Theoph. De Bengeli Opuscula Academica. Edited by Johann Gottfried Pressel. Hamburg: Apud Fridericum Perthes, 1834. Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Church in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Black, Matthew. Romans. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1973. Blackburn, Rollin J. “Hebrew Poetic Devices in the Greek Text of the Psalms of Solomon.” [Dissertation] Temple University, 1998. Blischke, Folker. Die Begründung und die Durchsetzung der Ethik bei Paulus. ABG 25. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007. Boccaccini, Gabriele. Middle Judaism: Jewish Thought, 300 B.C.E. to 200 C.E. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Bockmuehl, Markus. This Man Jesus: Martyr, Lord, Messiah. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994. Boer, Martinus C. de. Galatians: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011. Boers, Hendrikus. Justification of the Gentiles: Paul’s Letters to the Galatians and Romans. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994. Bohak, Gideon. Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis. SBLEJL 10. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Boor, Karl (Carolus) de (ed.). Nicephori Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani Opuscula Historica. BSGRT. Leipzig: Teubner, 1880. Bowker, John. The Religious Imagination and the Sense of God. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978. Braun, Herbert. Gerichtsgedanke und Rechtfertigungslehre bei Paulus. UNT. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1930.

Bibliography

297

–. “Vom Erbarmen Gottes über den Gerechten: Zur Theologie der Psalmen Salomos.” ZNW 43 (1950–1951): 1–54; repr., pages 8–69 in idem, Gesammelte Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1967. –. Spätjüdisch-häretischer und frühchristlicher Radikalismus. 2 vols. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1969. Brierre-Narbonne, Jean-Joseph. Exégèse apocryphe des prophéties messianiques. Paris: P. Geuthner, 1937. Buchanan, George W. The Consequences of the Covenant. NovTSup 20. Leiden: Brill, 1970. –. Biblical and Theological Insights from Ancient and Modern Civil Law. Lewiston/ Queenston/Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1992. –. New Testament Eschatology: Historical and Cultural Background. Lewiston/Queenston Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1993. –. The Book of Daniel. Lewinston/Queenston/Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1999. Büchler, Adolf. Types of Jewish Palestinian Piety from 70 B.C.E. to 70 C.E. New York: Ktav, 1922. Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. 2 vols. London: SCM/New York: Scribner, 1952. Burchard, Christoph. Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Aseneth. WUNT 8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1965. –. “Zum Text von ‘Joseph und Aseneth.’” JSJ 1 (1970): 3–34. –. “Ein vorläufiger griechischer Text von Joseph und Aseneth.” DBAT 14 (1979): 2–53. –. Joseph und Aseneth. JSHRZ 2.4. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1983. –. “Joseph and Aseneth.” Pages 177–247 in vol. 2 of OTP. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2010 (1983). Campbell, Douglas Atchison. The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3:21–26. JSNTSup 65. Sheffield: JSOT Press/Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. –. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009. Carson, Donald A., Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (eds.). Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. WUNT 2.140. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. – (eds.). Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul. WUNT 2.181. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Cavallin, Hans C. C. Life after Death: Paul’s Argument for the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Cor 15. Part 1: An Enquiry into the Jewish Background. ConBNT 7. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1974. Charlesworth, James H. “The Concept of the Messiah in the Pseudepigrapha.” ANRW II.19.1 (1979): 188–218. –. The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research: With a Supplement. SBLSCS 7. Chico: Scholars Press, 1981. – (ed.). Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2010 (1983). – (ed.). The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. –. “From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects.” Pages 3–35 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Chesnutt, Randall D. From Death to Life: Conversion in Joseph and Aseneth. JSPSup 16. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.

298

Bibliography

Childs, Brevard S. “Reconciliation with God.” Pages 485–529 in idem, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible. London: SCM, 1992. Cohen, Shaye J. D. “Religion, Ethnicity and ‘Hellenism’ in the Emergence of Jewish Identity in Maccabean Palestine.” Pages 204–23 in Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom. Edited by Per Bilde, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Lisse Hannestad, and Jan Zahle. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1990. –. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 1999. Collins, Adela Yarbro. Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism. JSJSup 50. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Collins, John J. “Apocalyptic Eschatology as the Transcendence of Death.” CBQ 36 (1974): 21–43. –. “Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre.” Pages 1–19 in Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre. Edited by John J. Collins. Semeia 14. Chico: Scholars Press, 1979. –. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity. New York: Crossroad, 1984. –. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. –. The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1995. –. Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Routledge, 1997. –. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. –. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. 2nd ed. BRS. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000. –. “Messianism and Exegetical Tradition: The Evidence of the LXX Pentateuch.” Pages 58–81 in Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Culture. Edited by John J. Collins. JSJSup 100. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Conzelmann, Hans. An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM/New York: Harper and Row, 1969. –. 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Translated by James W. Leitch. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Cotelier, Jean-Baptiste. SS. patrum qui temporibus apostolicis floruerunt, Barnabae, Clementis, Hermae, Ignatii, Polycarpi Opera, vera, et suppositicia unà cum Clementis, Ignatii, Policarpi actis atque martyriis. 2 vols. Antwerp: Clericus, 1700. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Wetstenios, 1724. Cover, Robin C., and Ed Parish Sanders. “Sin, Sinners.” Pages 31–47 in vol. 6 of ABD. Edited by David N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Cranfield, Charles E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975, 1979. Cremer, Hermann. Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre im Zusammenhange ihrer geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen. 2nd ed. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1900. Cross, Frank M., Jr. The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies. Rev. ed. Garden City: Doubleday, 1961. Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1991. Dalbert, Peter. Die Theologie der hellenistisch-jüdischen Missionsliteratur unter Ausschluß von Philo und Josephus. Hamburg: Reich, 1954.

Bibliography

299

Daniel, Jerry L. “Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic Roman Period.” JBL 98 (1979): 45–65. Davenport, Gene L. “The ‘Anointed of the Lord’ in Psalms of Solomon 17.” Pages 67–92 in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms. Edited by John J. Collins and George W. Nickelsburg. SBLSCS 12. Chicago: Scholars Press, 1980. Davies, Glenn N. Faith and Obedience in Romans: A Study of Romans 1–4. JSNTSup 39. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Deissmann, Gustaf A. Paulus. Eine kultur- und religionsgeschichtliche Skizze. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1911. 2nd ed. 1925 (English Translation of 1st German ed., 1912. English Translation of 2nd German ed. revised and enlarged, St. Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1926). Delcor, Mathias. “Psaumes de Salomon.” Pages 214–45 in vol. 9 of DBSupp. Edited by Louis Pirot and André Robert. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1979. Delitzsch, Franz Julius. Commentar über den Psalter. Vol. 2. Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1860. Deming, Will. Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Devor, Richard Campbell. “The Concept of Judgment in the Epistles of Paul.” [Dissertation] Drew University, 1959. Dexinger, Ferdinand. “Die Entwicklung des jüdisch-christlichen Messianismus.” BL 47 (1974): 5–31, 239–66. Dijk, Teun A. van. “Discourse Semantics and Ideology.” Discourse and Society 6.2 (1995): 243–89. Dimant, Devorah. “A Cultic Term in the Psalms of Solomon in the Light of Septuagint.” Textus 9 (1981): 28–51 (in Hebrew). Dio Cassius. Roman History. Translated and edited by Earnest Cary. 9 vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press, 1914–27. Dodd, Charles H. The Bible and the Greeks. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1935. Donaldson, Terence L. Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (To 135 CE). Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007. Donfried, Karl P. “Justification and Last Judgment in Paul.” Int 30 (1976): 140–52. Dunn, James D. G. “The New Perspective on Paul.” BJRL 65 (1983): 95–122. –. Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. London: SPCK, 1990. –. Romans 1–8. WBC 38A. Dallas: Word, 1991 (1988). –. Romans 9–16. WBC 38B. Dallas: Word, 1991 (1988). –. The Epistle to the Galatians. BNTC. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993. –. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. –. The New Perspective on Paul. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Dupont-Sommer, André. Les écrits esséniens découverts près de la Mer Morte. Paris: Payot, 1959. –. The Essene Writings from Qumran. Oxford: Blackwell, 1961. Efron, Joshua. “The Psalms of Solomon.” Pages 219–86 in idem, Studies on the Hasmonean Period. SJLA 39. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Eisenbaum, Pamela. “Is Paul the Father of Misogyny and Anti-Semitism?” Cross Currents 50 (2000–2001): 506–24. –. Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle. New York: HarperOne, 2009. Eissfeldt, Otto. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Translated by Peter R. Ackroyd. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965. Elliott, Neil. The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and Paul’s Dialogue with Judaism. JSNTSup 45. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990.

300

Bibliography

–. Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Embry, Bradley Jason. “The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament: Intertextuality and the Need for a Re-Evaluation.” JSP 13.2 (2002): 99–136. –. “Psalms of Assurance: An Analysis of the Formation and Function of Psalms of Solomon in Second Temple Judaism.” [Dissertation] Durham University, 2005. Ewald, Georg Heinrich August von. Geschichte des Volkes Israel. 3rd ed. 7 vols. Göttingen: Dieterich, 1864–68; ET: The History of Israel. Translated by Russell Martineau, J. Estlin Carpenter, and J. Frederick Smith. 8 vols. 2nd ed. London: Longmans, Green, 1869–86. Falk, Daniel K. “4Q393: A Communal Confession.” JJS 45 (1994): 199–207. –. “Psalms and Prayers.” Pages 7–56 in Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Donald A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. WUNT 2.140. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Feldman, Louis H. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Festinger, Leon. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston/White Plains: Row, Peterson and Co., 1957. Filson, Floyd V. St. Paul’s Conception of Recompense. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1931. Finlan, Stephen. The Background and Content of Paul’s Cultic Atonement Metaphors. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 33. New York: Doubleday, 1992. –. According to Paul: Studies in the Theology of the Apostle. New York: Paulist Press, 1993. Flusser, David. “Psalms, Hymns and Prayer,” Pages 551–77 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by Michael E. Stone. CRINT 2.2. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984. Fohrer, Georg. Messiasfrage und Bibelverständnis. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957. Forschner, Maximilian. Die stoische Ethik: Über den Zusammenhang von Natur-, Sprach- und Moralphilosophie im altstoischen System. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1981. Frankena, Rintje. “The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy.” OTS 14 (1965): 122–54. Frankenberg, Wilhelm. Die Datierung der Psalmen Salomos: Ein Beitrag zur jüdischen Geschichte. BZAW 1. Giessen: J. Ricke, 1896. Franklyn, Paul N. “The Cultic and Pious Climax of Eschatology in the Psalms of Solomon.” JSJ 18 (1987): 1–17. Fraser, Peter M. Ptolemaic Alexandria. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. Fredriksen, Paula. “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2.” JTS 42 (1991): 532–64. Friedländer, Moriz. Geschichte der jüdischen Apologetik. Zurich: Schmidt, 1903. Fujita, Shozo. “The Metaphor of Plant in Jewish Literature of the Intertestamental Period.” JSJ 7 (1976): 30–45. Furnish, Victor Paul. II Corinthians: Translated with Introduction, Notes and Commentary. AB 32A. Garden City: Doubleday, 1984. Gabba, Emilio. “The Growth of Anti-Judaism or the Greek Attitude towards Jews.” Pages 614–56 in The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age.

Bibliography

301

Edited by W. D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Gager, John G. The Origins of Anti-Semitism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983. –. Reinventing Paul. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Garlington, Don B. Faith, Obedience, and Perseverance: Aspects of Paul’s Letter to the Romans. WUNT 79. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Garnet, Paul. Salvation and Atonement in the Qumran Scrolls. WUNT 2.3. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1977. Gaston, Lloyd. Paul and the Torah. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987. Gathercole, Simon J. “Justified by Faith, Justified by His Blood: The Evidence of Romans 3:21–4:25.” Pages 147–84 in Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul. Edited by Donald A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. WUNT 2.181. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Gebhardt, Oscar von. Die Psalmen Salomos: Zum 1. Male mit Benutzung der Athoshandschriften und des Codex Casanatensis. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1895. Geiger, P. Edward Ephraem. Der Psalter Salomo’s, herausgegeben und erklärt. Augsburg: J. Wolff, 1871. Georgi, Dieter. The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Godet, Frederick Louis. Commentary on Romans. 1879. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977. Goldenberg, Robert. The Nations That Know Thee Not: Ancient Jewish Attitudes towards Other Religions. The Biblical Seminar 52. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1998. Goldstein, Jonathan A. “The Message of Aristeas to Philokrates.” Pages 1–23 in vol. 1 of Eretz Israel, Israel, and the Jewish Diaspora: Mutual Relations. Edited by Menahem Mor. SJC 1. Lanham: University Press of America, 1991. Goodman, Martin. “Apologetics: The Literary Opponents.” Pages 594–609 in vol. 3 of Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. – A.D. 135). Revised by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973–87. –. “Jewish Proselytizing in the First Century.” Pages 53–78 in The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire. Edited by Judith Lieu, John North, and Tessa Rajak. London: Routledge, 1992. –. Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing in the Religious History of the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Goppelt, Leonhard. Theology of the New Testament. Vol. 2: The Variety and Unity of the Apostolic Witness to Christ. Translated by John E. Alsup. Edited by Jürgen Roloff. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Gray, George Buchanan. “The Psalms of Solomon.” Pages 625–52 in vol. 2 of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Edited by Robert Henry Charles. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. Green, Peter. Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Age. London: Orion Books, 2007. Gressmann, Hugo. Der Messias. FRLANT 26. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1929. Grobel, Kendrick. “A Chiastic Retribution-formula in Romans 2.” Pages 255–61 in Zeit und Geschichte: Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann zum 80. Geburtstag. Edited by Erich Dinkler. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1964. Gruen, Erich S. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley/ Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 1998.

302

Bibliography

Gundry Volf, Judith M. Paul and Perseverance: Staying In and Falling Away. WUNT 2.37. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. Hadas, Moses. Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas). New York: Harper, 1951. Hann, Robert R. “Christos Kyrios in Ps Sol 17.32: ‘The Lord’s Anointed’ Reconsidered.” NTS 31 (1985): 620–27. –. “The Community of the Pious: The Social Setting of the Psalms of Solomon.” Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses 17.2 (1988): 169–89. Harris, Murray J. “2 Corinthians.” Pages 299–406 in vol. 10 of EBC. Edited by Frank Ely Gaebelein. 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976. Haufe, Christoph. Die sittliche Rechtfertigungslehre des Paulus. Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1957. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. –. “The Role of Scripture in Paul’s Ethics.” Pages 30–47 in Theology and Ethics in Paul and His Interpreters: Essays in Honor of Victor Paul Furnish. Edited by Eugene H. Lovering, Jr. and Jerry L. Sumney. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996. –. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation; A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996/ Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. –. “Three Dramatic Roles: The Law in Romans 3–4.” Pages 151–64 in Paul and the Mosaic Law. Edited by James D. G. Dunn. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2001. Heiligenthal, Roman. Werke als Zeichen: Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung der menschlichen Taten im Frühjudentum, Neuen Testament und Frühchristentum. WUNT 2.9. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Hellholm, David (ed.). Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. –. Juden, Griechen und Barbaren: Aspekte der Hellenisierung des Judentums in vorchristlicher Zeit. SBS 76. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1976. Hering, Jean. The Second Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians. London: Epworth, 1967. Herrmann, Siegfried. Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alten Testament: Ursprung und Gestaltwandel. BWANT 85. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1965. Hilgenfeld, Adolf. “Die Psalmen Salomo’s und die Himmelfahrt des Moses, griechisch hergestellt und erklärt.” ZWT 11 (1868): 133–68. Hill, David. Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Himmelfarb, Martha. Tours of Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and Christian Literature. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983. –. Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Hitzig, Ferdinand. Geschichte des Volkes Israel von Anbeginn bis zur Eroberung Masada’s im Jahre 72 nach Christus. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1869. Hodge, Charles. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 1886. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950. Holladay, Carl R. Historians. Vol. 1 of idem, ed., Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Texts and Translations 20. Chico: Scholars Press, 1983. –. Poets. Vol. 2 of idem, ed., Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Texts and Translations 30. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.

Bibliography

303

–. Aristobulus. Vol. 3 of idem, ed., Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Texts and Translations 39. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. –. Orphica. Vol. 4 of idem, ed., Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Texts and Translations 40. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Holm-Nielsen, Svend. “Erwägungen zu dem Verhältnis zwischen den Hodajot und den Psalmen Salomos.” Pages 112–31 in Bibel und Qumran: Beiträge zur Erforschung der Beziehungen zwischen Bibel- und Qumranwissenschaft. Edited by Siegfried Wagner. Berlin: Evangelische Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft, 1968. –. “Salomos Salmer.” Pages 548–95 in vol. 2 of GTP. Edited by Erling Hammershaimb, et al. Copenhagen: Gad, 1970. –. Die Psalmen Salomos. Pages 51–112 in JSHRZ 4.2. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1977. Horbury, William. Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ. London: SCM, 1998. –. Messianism among Jews and Christians. London/New York: T&T Clark – Continuum, 2003. –. “Messianism in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.” Pages 35–64 in Messianism among Jews and Christians: Twelve Biblical and Historical Studies. Edited by William Horbury. London/New York: T&T Clark – Continuum, 2003. Hughes, Philip E. Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962. Humphrey, Edith M. The Ladies and the Cities: Transformation and Apocalyptic Identity in Joseph and Aseneth, 4 Ezra, the Apocalypse and the Shepherd of Hermas. JSPSup 17. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. –. Joseph and Aseneth. GAP. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Janowski, Bernd, and Peter Stuhlmacher (eds.). The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources. Translated by Daniel P. Bailey. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004 (1996). Jaubert, Anni. La notion d’alliance dans le judaïsme aux abords l’ère chrétienne. Patristica Sorboniensia 6. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1963. Jellicoe, Sidney (ed.). The Septuagint and Modern Study. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. –. Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations: Selected Essays, with a Prolegomenon. LBS. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1974. Joest, Wilfried. Gesetz und Freiheit: Das Problem des tertius usus legis bei Luther und die neutestamentliche Parainese. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951. Jonge, Henk Jan de. “The Historical Jesus’ View of Himself and His Mission.” Pages 65– 82 in From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour of Martinus de Jonge. Edited by Martinus C. de Boer. JSNTSup 84. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Jonge, Martinus de. Jesus, the Servant-Messiah. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991. Josephus. Works. Translated by Henry St. John Trackeray, et al. 10 vols. LCL. New York: G. P. Putnam/Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926–65. –. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Translated by William Whiston. New Updated Edition. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988. Käsemann, Ernst. “The Righteousness of God in Paul,” Pages 168–82 in idem, New Testament Questions of Today. Translated by W. J. Montague. NTL. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969. –. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Kee, Howard C. “The Socio-Cultural Setting of Joseph and Aseneth.” NTS 29 (1983): 394–413.

304

Bibliography

Keim, (Karl) Theodor. Geschichte Jesu von Nazara in ihrer Verkettung mit dem Gesamtleben seines Volkes. Zurich: Orell & Füßli, 1867. Kennedy, Harry A. A. St. Paul’s Conceptions of the Last Things. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1904. Kertelge, Karl. Rechtfertigung bei Paulus. NTAbh Neue Folge 3. Münster: Aschendorff, 1967, 21971. Klausner, Joseph. The Messianic Idea in Israel: From Its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah. New York: Macmillan, 1955. Klein, Michael L. Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch according to Their Extant Sources. Vol. 2. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980. Koch, Dietrich-Alex. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. BHTh 69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. König, Adrio. “Gentiles or Gentile Christians? On the Meaning of Romans 2:12–16.” JTSA 15 (1976): 53–60. Kraemer, Ross S. When Aseneth Met Joseph: A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and His Egyptian Wife, Reconsidered. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Kraus, Wolfgang. Der Tod Jesu als Heiligtumsweihe: Eine Untersuchung zum Umfeld der Sühnevorstellung in Römer 3,25–26a. WMANT 66. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991. –. Das Volk Gottes: Zur Grundlegung der Ekklesiologie bei Paulus. WUNT 85. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Kroeker, P. Travis. “Is a Messianic Political Ethic Possible? Recent Work by and about John Howard Yoder.” JRE 33 (2005): 141–74. Kuck, David W. Judgment and Community Conflict: Paul’s Use of Apocalyptic Judgment Language in 1 Corinthians 3:5–4:5. NovTSup 66. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Kugel, James L. The Bible as It Was. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997. Kühl, Ernst. Rechtfertigung auf Grund Glaubens und Gericht nach den Werken bei Paulus. Königsberg: Koch, 1904. Kuhn, Karl Georg. Die älteste Textgestalt der Psalmen Salomos insbesondere auf Grund der syrischen Übersetzung neu untersucht, mit einer Bearbeitung und Übersetzung der Psalmen Salomos 13–17. BWANT 73. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1937. Lane, William L. “Paul’s Legacy from Pharisaism: Light from the Psalms of Solomon” CJ 8 (1982): 130–38. Laperrousaz, Ernest-Marie. “Hérode le Grand est-il «l’ennemi (qui) a agi en étranger», des Psaumes de Salomon?” Pages 29–32 in Politique et religion dans le judaïsme ancien et médiéval. Edited by Daniel Tollet. Relais: Études 7. Paris: Desclée, 1989. Le Moyne, Jean. Les Sadducéens. Paris: Lecoffre, 1972. Leon, Harry J. The Jews of Ancient Rome. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1960. Levine, Baruch. In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel. SJLA 5. Leiden: Brill, 1974. Lichtenberger, Hermann. “Atonement and Sacrifice in the Qumran Community.” Pages 159–71 in vol. 2 of Approaches to Ancient Judaism. Edited by William S. Green. BJS 9. Chico: Scholars Press, 1980. –. “The Understanding of the Torah in the Judaism of Paul’s Day.” Pages 7–23 in Paul and the Mosaic Law. Edited by James D. G. Dunn. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2001 (1996). Lietzmann, Hans. An die Römer. HNT 8a. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1933.

Bibliography

305

Limbeck, Meinrad. Die Ordnung des Heils: Untersuchungen zum Gesetzesverständnis des Frühjudentums. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1971. Liver, Jacob. Toldot bet David mi-hurban mamlekhet Yehudah ve-ad le-ahar hurban haBayit ha-Sheni (= The House of David from the Fall of the Kingdom of Judah until the Destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem). Jerusalem: Magnes and Hebrew University, 1959. Lohse, Eduard (ed. and trans.). Die Texte aus Qumran. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964, 1971. Longenecker, Richard N. Paul, Apostle of Liberty. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976 (1964). –. Galatians. WBC 41. Mexico City: Thomas Nelson, 1990. Lührmann, Dieter. “Paul and the Pharisaic Tradition.” JSNT 36 (1989): 75–94. MacMullen, Ramsay. Roman Social Relations, 50 B.C. to A.D. 284. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. Maier, Gerhard. Mensch und freier Wille: Nach den jüdischen Religionsparteien zwischen Ben Sira und Paulus. WUNT 12. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971. Maier, Johann. “Die messianische Erwartung im Judentum seit der talmudischen Zeit.” Judaica 20 (1964): 23–58, 90–120, 156–83, 213–36. –. The Temple Scroll. JSOTSup 34. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Martin, Ralph P. 2 Corinthians. WBC. Waco: Word, 1986. Martin-Achard, Robert. “Resurrection (Old Testament).” Pages 680–84 in vol. 5 of ABD. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Martyn, J. Louis. Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul. SNTW. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. Mathews, Shailer. “Psalms of the Pharisees.” Pages 96–98 in idem, A History of New Testament Times in Palestine. New York: MacMillan, 1899, 1918. Mattern, Lieselotte. Das Verständnis des Gerichtes bei Paulus. ATANT 47. Zurich/Stuttgart: Zwingli, 1966. McCarthy, Dennis J. Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963. McGrath, Alister E. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. McKenzie, Steven L. Covenant. Understanding Biblical Themes series. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2000. McKnight, Scot. A Light among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity during the Second Temple Period. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Mendenhall, George E. “Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law.” BA 17 (1954): 26–46. –. “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition.” BA 17 (1954): 50–76. Mendenhall, George E., and Gary A. Herion. “Covenant.” Pages 1179–1202 in vol. 1 of ABD. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings. ConBOT 8. Lund: Gleerup, 1976. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Minear, Paul Sevier. The Obedience of Faith: The Purposes of Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. Naperville: Allenson, 1971. Momigliano, Arnaldo. Alien Wisdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996.

306

Bibliography

Morawe, Günter. “Vergleich des Aufbaus der Danklieder und hymnischen Bekenntnislieder (1QH) von Qumran mit dem Aufbau der Psalmen in Alten Testament und im Spätjudentum.” RevQ 4 (1963): 233–54. Movers, Franz Karl C. “Apokryphen-Literatur.” Pages 334–55 in vol. 1 of KirchenLexikon, oder Encyklopädie der katholischen Theologie und ihrer Hilfswissenschaften. Edited by Heinrich Joseph Wetzer and Benedikt Welte. 2nd ed. 12 vols. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1882–1901. Mowinckel, Sigmund. He That Cometh: The Messianic Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism. Translated by George W. Anderson. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1959. Mras, Karl (ed.). Eusebius’ Werke 8: Die Praeparatio Evangelica. 2 vols. GCS 43. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1954. Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965. Nanos, Mark D. The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. –. The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Neusner, Jacob. Formative Judaism: Religious, Historical, and Literary Studies. Third Series: Torah, Pharisees, and Rabbis. BJS 46. Chico: Scholars Press, 1983. – (trans.). Sifre to Deuteronomy: An Analytical Translation. Vol. 2: Pisqaot One Hundred Forty-Four through Three Hundred Fifty-Seven: Shofetim Ki Tese. Ki Tabo, Nesabim, Ha’azinu, Zot Habberakkah. Edited by Jacob Neusner et al. BJS 101. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Neusner, Jacob, William S. Green, and Ernest S. Frerichs (eds.). Judaisms and Their Messiahs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Newsom, Carol A. “Kenneth Burke Meets the Teacher of Righteousness: Rhetorical Strategies in the Hodayot and the Serek Ha-Yahad.” Pages 121–31 in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins, and Thomas H. Tobin. College Theology Society Resources in Religion 5. Lanham: University Press of America, 1990. Newton, Michael. The Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of Paul. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Nicephorus, Chronographikon syntomon. Pages 286–414 in Patriarchae Constantinopolitani Breviarium Historicum. Paris: S. Chappelet, 1616. Nickelsburg George W. E. Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972. –. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. –. “The Incarnation: Paul’s Solution to the Universal Human Predicament.” Pages 348– 57 in The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester. Edited by Birger A. Pearson in collaboration with A. Thomas Kraabel, George W. E. Nickelsburg, and Norman R. Petersen. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. –. “Resurrection (Early Judaism and Christianity).” Pages 684–91 in vol. 5 of ABD. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. –. “Abraham the Convert: A Jewish Tradition and Its Use by the Apostle Paul.” Pages 151–75 in Biblical Figures outside the Bible. Edited by Michael E. Stone and Theodore A. Bergen. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998.

Bibliography

307

O’Dell, Jerry. “The Religious Background of the Psalms of Solomon Reevaluated in the Light of the Qumran Texts.” RevQ 3 (1961): 241–57. Oehler, Gustav Friedrich. “Messias.” Columns 641–56 in vol. 9 of RE. 2nd ed. Edited by Johann Jakob Herzog, Gustav Leopold Plitt, and Albert Hauck. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1881. Olley, John W. “Righteousness” in the Septuagint of Isaiah: A Contextual Study. SBLSCS 8. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979. Overman, Andrew J. “The God-Fearers: Some Neglected Features.” JSNT 32 (1988): 17– 26. Payne, Thomas E. Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge/ New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Payne Smith, Jessie. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1903 (reprint, 1957). Pervo, Richard I. “Aseneth and Her Sisters: Women in Jewish Narrative and in the Greek Novels.” Pages 145–60 in “Women Like This”: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World. Edited by Amy-Jill Levine. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. Philo. Works: In Ten Volumes. Translated and edited by Francis Henry Colson and George Herbert Whitaker. LCL. Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press, 1929–62. Philonenko, Marc. Joseph et Aseneth: Introduction, texte critique et notes. StPB 13. Leiden: Brill, 1968. Plutarch. Lives: In Eleven Volumes. Translated and edited by Bernadotte Perrin. LCL. Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press, 1914–26. Pokorný, Petr. Řecké dědictví v Orientu (Helénismus v Egyptě a Sýrii). Prague: Oikoumene, 1993. Pomykala, Kenneth E. The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism. SBLEJL 7. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Pregeant, Russell. “Grace and Recompense: Reflections on a Pauline Paradox.” JAAR 47 (1979): 73–96. Prigent, Pierre. “Psaumes de Salomon.” Pages 945–92 in La Bible: Écrits intertestamentaires. Edited by André Dupont-Sommer and Marc Philonenko. Paris: Gallimard, 1987. Qimron, Elisha, and John Strugnell. Qumran Cave 4. Vol. 5: Miqsat Ma‘ase ha-Torah. DJD 10. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Rad, Gerhard von. Old Testament Theology. Translated by David M. G. Stalker. 2 vols. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962. Rahlfs, Alfred (ed.). Septuaginta. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979. Räisänen, Heikki. Paul and the Law. WUNT 29. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. 2nd ed. 1987. Reinhartz, Adele. “The Meaning of nomos in Philo’s Exposition of the Law.” SR 15 (1986): 337–45. Reumann, John. Righteousness in the New Testament: “Justification” in the United States Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. Roetzel, Calvin J. Judgement in the Community: A Study of the Relationship between Eschatology and Ecclesiology in Paul. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Rooke, Deborah. Zadok’s Heirs. OTM. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Rosen, Debra, and Alison Salvesen. “A Note on the Qumran Temple Scroll 56:15–18 and Psalm of Solomon 17:33.” JJS 38 (1987): 99–101. Rosner, Brian. “Paul’s Ethics.” Pages 212–23 in The Cambridge Companion to St Paul. Edited by James D. G. Dunn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

308

Bibliography

Rüsen, Jörn. “Historische Methode und religiöser Sinn.” Pages 9–41 in Geschichte im Kulturprozeß. Edited by Jörn Rüsen. Cologne: Böhlau, 2002. Ryle, Herbert Edward, and Montague Rhodes James. Psalmoi Solomontos = Psalms of the Pharisees, Commonly Called the Psalms of Solomon: The Text Newly Revised from All the Mss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891. Saller, Richard P. “Poverty, Honor and Obligation in Imperial Rome.” Criterion 37.2 (1998): 12–20. Sanders, Ed P. “Patterns of Religion in Paul and Rabbinic Judaism.” HTR 66 (1973): 455–78. –. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. –. Paul, the Law and the Jewish People. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Sanders, James A. “Adaptable for Life: The Nature and Function of Canon.” Pages 531– 60 in Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archeology in Memory of G. E. Wright. Edited by Frank M. Cross, Werner E. Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller. New York: Doubleday, 1976. Schäfer, Peter. “Die messianischen Hoffnungen des rabbinischen Judentums zwischen Naherwartung und religiösem Pragmatismus.” Pages 214–43 in idem, Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums. AGJU 15. Leiden: Brill, 1978. –. Judeophobia. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997. Schaper, Joachim. Eschatology in the Greek Psalter. WUNT 2.76. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Schlier, Heinrich. Der Römerbrief. HTKNT 6. Freiburg: Herder, 1977. Schmithals, Walter. Der Römerbrief als historisches Problem. SNT 9. Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1975. Schnelle, Udo. Theology of the New Testament. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. Schniedewind, William M. Society and the Promise to David: The Reception History of 2 Samuel 7:1–11. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Scholem, Gershom G. Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition. 2nd ed. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1960 (1965). Schreiner, Thomas R. The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993. Schubert, Kurt. Židovské náboženství v proměnách věků. Translated by Jindřich Slabý. Prague: Vyšehrad, 1999. –. “Die Entwicklung der eschatologischen Naherwartung im Frühjudentum.” Pages 1–54 in Vom Messias zum Christus. Edited by Kurt Schubert. Vienna/Freiburg/Basle: Herder, 1964. Schüpphaus, Joachim. Die Psalmen Salomos: Ein Zeugnis Jerusalemer Theologie und Frömmigkeit in der Mitte des vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts. ALGHJ 7. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.– A.D. 135). Revised by Matthew Black, Martin Goodman, Fergus Millar, and Geza Vermes. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973–87. Schwartz, Daniel R. Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. WUNT 60. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Schweitzer, Albert. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. Translated by William Montgomery. New York: Seabury, 1968 (1931). Segal, Alan F. “Torah and nomos in Recent Scholarly Discussion.” SR 13 (1984): 19–27.

Bibliography

309

–. Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990. 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.” Pages 415–42 in Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Donald A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. WUNT 2.140. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. –. “Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language Against Its Hellenistic Background.” Pages 39–74 in Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul. Edited by Donald A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. WUNT 2.181. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Sevenster, Jan N. The Roots of Pagan Anti-Semitism in the Ancient World. NovTSup 41. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Snodgrass, Klyne R. “Justification by Grace – To the Doers: An Analysis of the Place of Romans 2 in the Theology of Paul.” NTS 32 (1986): 72–93. Speidel, Michael P. “Eagle-Bearer and Trumpeter.” Pages 123–63 in Bonner Jahrbücher 176. Bonn: Rheinisches Landesmuseum, 1976. Standhartinger, Angela. Das Frauenbild im Judentum der hellenistischen Zeit: Ein Beitrag anhand von ‘Joseph und Aseneth.’ AGJU 26. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Stein, Menachem. “Mizmoray Shlomo” = “The Psalms of Solomon.” Pages 431–62 in vol. 1 of Ha-Sefarim ha-hitzonim. Edited by Abraham Kahana. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Makor, 1969/70. Stemberger, Günter. Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes. Translated by Allan W. Mahnke. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Stendahl, Krister. “Justification and the Last Judgment.” Lutheran World 8 (1961): 1–7. Sterling, Gregory E. “‘Thus are Israel’: Jewish Self-Definition in Alexandria.” The Studia Philonica Annual 7 (1995): 1–18. Stern, Menahem. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974–84. –. “The Jews in Greek and Latin Literature.” Pages 1101–59 in The Jewish People in the First Century. Edited by Shemuel Safrai and Menahem Stern. CRINT 1.2. Assen: Van Gorcum/Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Stevens, George Barker. The Pauline Theology: A Study of the Origin and Correlation of the Doctrinal Teachings of the Apostle Paul. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1892. Stone, Michael E. “The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.” No pages. Cited 28 November 2012. Online: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html. Stowers, Stanley K. A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994. Strack, Hermann L. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1965 (1931). Stuhlmacher, Peter. Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus. FRLANT 87. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968. –. Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981; ET: Reconciliation, Law, and Righteousness: Essays in Biblical Theology. Translated by Everett R. Kalin. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. –. Der Brief an die Römer. NTD 6. Göttingen/Zurich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. ET: Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Translated by Scott J. Hafemann. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994.

310

Bibliography

–. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testament. Vol. 1: Grundlegung: Von Jesus zu Paulus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Suggs, Jack M. “The Christian Two Ways Tradition: Its Antiquity, Form, and Function.” Pages 60–74 in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen P. Wikgren. Edited by David Edward Aune. NovTSup 33. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Synofzik, Ernst. Die Gerichts- und Vergeltungsaussagen bei Paulus: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. GTA 8. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Concepts of Māšîaḥ and Messianism in Early Judaism.” Pages 79–115 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Tcherikover, Victor. “Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered.” Eos 48 (1956): 169– 93. –. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. New York: Atheneum, 1970. –. “The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas” (1958). Pages 181–207 in Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations: Selected Essays, with a Prolegomenon. Edited by Sydney Jellicoe. LBS. New York: Ktav, 1974. Thielman, Frank. From Plight to Solution: A Jewish Framework to Understanding Paul’s View of the Law in Galatians and Romans. NovTSup 61. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Tigay, Jeffrey H. The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Torrance, Thomas F. The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959. Trafton, Joseph L. The Syriac Version of the Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Evaluation. SBLSCS 11. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. –. “The Psalms of Solomon in Recent Research.” JSP 12 (1994): 3–19. Travis, Stephen H. Christ and the Judgment of God: Divine Retribution in the New Testament. Foundations for Faith. Marshall Pickering: Basingstoke, UK, 1986. Tromp, Johannes. “The Sinners and the Lawless in Psalm of Solomon 17.” NovT 35.4 (1993): 344–61. Urbach, Efraim Elimelech. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987. VanderKam, James C., and William Adler (eds.). The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. VanLandingham, Chris. Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006. Vermes, Geza (trans.). The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975. Veyne, Paul (ed.). A History of Private Life: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium. Vol. 1. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1987. Via, Dan O., Jr. The Ethics of Mark’s Gospel – In the Middle of Time. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Viard, André. Saint Paul: Epître aux Romains. SB. Paris: Gabalda, 1975. Viteau, Joseph. Les Psaumes de Salomon: Introduction, texte grec et traduction, avec les principales variantes de la version Syriaque par François Martin. Documents pour 1’étude de la Bible. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1911. Vos, Geerhardus. “The Alleged Legalism in Paul’s Doctrine of Justification.” Pages 387– 94 in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos. Edited by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publication Co., 1980 (reprint from Princeton Theological Review 1 [1903]).

Bibliography

311

Walter, Nikolaus. “Jüdisch-hellenistische Literatur vor Philon von Alexandrien (unter Ausschluss der Historiker).” ANRW II.20.1 (1987): 67–120. Ward, Grant. “The Psalms of Solomon: The Philological Analysis of the Greek and the Syriac Texts.” [Dissertation] Temple University, 1996. Watson, Francis. Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach. SNTSMS 56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Watson, Nigel M. “Some Observations on the Use of Dikaioo in the Septuagint,” JBL 79 (1960): 255–66. –. “Justified by Faith: Judged by Works – An Antimony?” NTS 29 (1983): 209–21. Weinfeld, Moshe. “Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and Its Influence on the West.” JAOS 93 (1973): 190–99. Wellhausen, Julius. Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer. Greifswald: L. Bamberg, 1874. Werline, Rodney A. “The Psalms of Solomon and the Ideology of Rule.” Pages 69–87 in Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism. Edited by Benjamin G. Wright III and Lawrence M. Wills. SBLSymS 35. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Westcott, Brooke F. A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament. Cambridge: Macmillan, 1889. Westerholm, Stephen. “The ‘New Perspective’ at Twenty-Five.” Pages 1–38 in Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul. Edited by Donald A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. WUNT 2.181. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Wetter, Gillis P. Der Vergeltungsgedanke bei Paulus: Eine Studie zur Religion des Apostels. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1912. Whiston, William (trans.). The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Translated by William Whiston. New Updated Edition. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988. Whittaker, Molly. Jews and Christians: Greco-Roman Views. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Römer. 3 vols. EKKNT 6.1–3. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag/Zurich: Benziger, 1978, 1980, 1982. Williams, Sam K. “The ‘Righteousness of God’ in Romans.” JBL 99 (1980): 241–90. Wills, Lawrence M. The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995. Wilson, Robert R. “The Problems of Describing and Defining Apocalyptic Discourse.” Pages 133–36 in Anthropological Perspectives on Old Testament Prophecy. Edited by Robert C. Culley and Thomas W. Overholt. Semeia 21. Chico: Scholars Press, 1982. Windisch, Hans. “Das Problem des paulinischen Imperativs.” ZNW 23 (1924): 265–81. Winninge, Mikael. Sinners and the Righteous: A Comparative Study of the Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Letters. ConBNT 26. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1995. Wise, Michael. The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered. London/New York: Element Books, 1992. Wolfson, Harry A. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1948. Woude, Adam Simon van der. Die messianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von Qumran. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1957. Wright III, Benjamin G., and Lawrence M. Wills (eds.). Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism. SBLSymS 35. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Wright, David P. “Day of Atonement.” Pages 72–76 in vol. 2 of ABD. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

312

Bibliography

Wright, Robert B. “The Psalms of Solomon: A New Translation and Introduction.” Pages 639–70 in vol. 2 of OTP. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010 (1983). – (ed.). The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text. JCT 1. London: T&T Clark International, 2007. Wyse, Marion. Variations on the Messianic Theme: A Case Study of Interfaith Dialogue. Judaism and Jewish Life. Brighton: Academic Studies Press, 2009. Yavetz, Zvi. “Judeophobia in Classical Antiquity: A Different Approach.” JJS 44 (1993): 1–22. Yinger, Kent I. Paul, Judaism, and Judgment according to Deeds. SNTSMS 105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Zahn, Theodor. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. Vol. 2. Erlangen: A. Deichert, 1890. Ziesler, John A. The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Enquiry. SNTSMS 20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. –. Pauline Christianity. Rev. ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Zuntz, Günther. “Aristeas Studies II: Aristeas on the Translation of the Torah.” Pages 208–25 in Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations: Selected Essays, with a Prolegomenon. Edited by Sydney Jellicoe. LBS. New York: Ktav, 1974.

Index of Sources A. Hebrew Bible and Septuagint Parallels Genesis 1:14–19 2 2:5 3 3:22 4:15 12:3 15:6 15:18 17:1–2 18:18 21:1 21:10, 12 22:16–18 28:15 38:26 44:16 49 49:10 50:24–25

192 167 127 n254 167 165 n429 168 and n438 263, 281 253, 274 144 190 263 122 86 281 142 n325 98, 207 n607 98, 207 n607 51 46 122

Exodus 3:16 4:31 9:27 11:1–10 12:29–36 13:21 14:29 15:1 15:18 15:20–21 16:4, 35 17:6 19:5 19:5–6 19:6

122 122 97 132 n274 132 n274 219 219 117 175, 188 117 219 219 77, 107, 146 81, 250 16, 157

22:26–27 22:28–29 23:3 23:7 23:7–8 23:9 23:10–11 23:25–26 25:8 28:4 28:41 29:1 30:30 32:6 32:26–29 36:1 Leviticus 4–5 4:1–2 4:3 4:27 5:6 5:17 5:17–19 5:18 7:35–36 10:7 14:21 15:29 16 16:16 16:29 16:29–30 16:31 16:34 17:10–16

128 105 n146 154 98, 207 n607 97 154 130, 157 105 213 157 45 157 45 219 159 104 n145

120 120 45 118 n206 105 n146 120, 122 120 119 n213 45 45 128 105 n146 120 and n218, 262, 277, 291 213 119 n213 120, 120 n216 121 120 277

314 18 18:5

Index of Sources

18:27 19:8 19:9–10 19:10 19:18 19:18b 20:26 23:22 23:29, 32 25:1–7 25:4–6 25:9–10 25:35–38 26 26:14–17 26:25 26:36 26:40–45 26:44 27:14–25 27:30 27:30–33 29:9–10

56 15, 162 n413, 166, 167, 195 n558, 209 n615, 259, 283 107 105 n145 128 154 17, 87 79 11 128, 154 119 n213 157 128 156 n391, 157 128 56, 289 269 n42 132 n274 168 n438 61, 62, 101, 140, 289 131 157 105 n146 105 n146 159

Numbers 3:3 6:10 11:4 14:2, 22–23 14:30, 32, 37 21:5–6 24 24:17 25:1, 9 31:6 36:4

45 105 n146 219 219 219 219 51 46 219 156 n391 157

Deuteronomy 4–33 4:1 4:25–31 4:31 4:32 4:32–40 5:10

106 195 n558, 209 269 n42 154 135 197 125, 160 n403

5:33 6:6–7 6:10–12 6:17 6:20–23 6:24 6:24–25 7:6 7:6–8 7:8 7:12–13 7:13 8:1 8:5 9:26 10:8–9 10:12–13 10:17 12:11 13:5 13:6 14:2 15:7–11 15:11 15:12–13 15:12–18 15:15 15:18 16:6 16:20 17:7b 18:15 18:18 21:8 21:23 23:24–25 24:18 24:19–22 25:1 25:4 26:11 26:17 28 28:25, 36, 47–68 28:49–52 29:10–30 29:23 30:1–5 30:1–10

162 n413, 191, 195 n558, 209 162 n413 197 162 n413 197 162 n413 195 n558, 209 77, 107, 146 197 276 104 n140, 105 104 195 n558, 209 159 and n401 139, 276 157 162 n413 237, 240 132 276 279 77, 107, 146 154 127 n254, 128, 129 157 157 276 157 132 154 79 48 49 276 272 128 276 128 97, 98, 207 n607 86 105 n146, 107 162 n413 56, 70, 139, 289 269 n42 93 269 n42 93 61, 289 101, 140

315

Index of Sources 30:11–20 30:12 30:15–18 32

32:1 32:3 32:4 32:4–5 32:7–9 32:9 32:10 32:12 32:24–25 32:34 32:35 33

140, 141 n320 107 195 n558, 209 53 n118, 56, 57 and n138, 62, 70, 93, 94, 111, 138 n303, 139, 141, 181 n506, 188, 262 111 n173 184 n516 110, 219, 263 n25 108 184 n516 163 n421 138 184 n516 130 141 n320 181 n506 51

Joshua 22:5

162 n413

Judges 2:14 3:8, 12–14 4:2 6:1 8:34 10:7 13:1

269 n42 269 n42 269 n42 269 n42 163 n421 269 n42 269 n42

1 Samuel (LXX 1 Kingdoms) 2:10 (LXX) 97 7:13–14 269 n42 8:7 179 10:1 45 12:7 (LXX) 98, 207 n607 12:9 269 n42 15:26 179 16:1, 13 45 24:17 96 24:18 (LXX) 97 24:21 55 2 Samuel (LXX 2 Kingdoms) 2:4 a 45 5:3 45 6:5 (LXX) 168 n437 7 45, 46, 57, 177

7:11–16 7:12 7:12–16 7:13 7:16 8:15 (LXX) 15:4 (LXX) 22 22:4 (LXX) 22:7 22:26 23:5 24:10–16

46, 106 55 181 158 181 97 98, 207 n607 103 139 168 263 n25 106 132 n274

1 Kings (LXX 3 Kingdoms) 1:32–40 45 3:14 162 n413 3:16–28 184 4:32–34 37 8:13 158 8:22–53 101, 140 8:32 (LXX) 97, 98, 146, 207 n607 8:33–34, 46–53 269 n42 12:14 150 n360 19:15–16 45 2 Kings (LXX 4 Kingdoms) 13:3 269 n42 17:7–23 269 n42 17:34, 40 (LXX) 20 18:9–12 269 n42 21:10–16 269 n42 1 Chronicles 9:1 16:17–18 17:11 17:14 21:15 21:26 29:13

269 n42 163 n417 46 57 132 n274 103 156 n386

2 Chronicles 5:6 6:24–25, 36–42 7:13 13:5, 8 13:12 14:11

20 n44 269 n42 132 n274 179 156 n391 132

316

Index of Sources

19:7 20:9

237 168 n438

Ezra 9:6–15

101

Nehemiah 9:6–37 9:7 9:26–31 9:29 9:35

101 142 n324 269 n42 195 n558, 209 n615 127 n254

Esther 8:16–17

20

Job 1–2 4:20 5:17 5:20–22 9:4 11:14 (LXX) 22:23 23:2 30:20 31 31:6 32:2 33:7 33:32 34:11 38:17 38:25–27 (LXX)

247 n269 168 118, 127 n255, 150 n359, 152 n376 168 n438 168 n437 118 n206 118 n206 127 n253 127 n252 97 127 n251 135 129 98, 207 n607 244 n258 171 n451 127 n254

Psalms 1 1:1 1:2–3 1:3 1:4 2:7 2:9 2:10 4:2 5:9 7:6 7:8 7:11

229 150 n363, 162 n413 163 n416 163 163 nn417 and 421 46 168 n438, 182 115 103 107, 247 168 184 125

7:12 8:4 9:1 9:6 9:8 9:9 9:14 9:18 9:19 10:6 10:7 11:7 14:1–3 17:6 17:21–27 18:6–7 18:37 23:1 24:8 25:22 26:11 29:10 31:1 31:5 31:6, 11 31:19 31:22 32:4 33:21 34:9 34:14 35:24 36:1 36:28–30 37:8 37:16 37:18 37:23 37:24 37:34 38:22 40:3 40:11 40:17 42:5–6 44:4 44:8 44:22 44:23 50:6

192 192 171 159 n402 97, 141 n317 171, 172 171 n451 127 n254 168, 190 139 107, 247 154 107, 247 103 263 n25 103 168 187, 190 168 n437 276 276 174, 175, 179, 188 71 276 263 n25 127 n254 127 n252 127 and n252 117 127 171 71 107, 247 263 n25 171 130 152 n376 171 118, 127 n253 122 171 117 171 n453 127 n254 127 n250 174 97 n106 164 117 184

Index of Sources 50:23 51:1 51:3 51:4 51:6 51:8, 11 51:14 53:2–3 58:11 62:9 62:12 65:5 65:6 69:30 71:2 71:15 72:2 72:12–13 72:13 72:19 73:2 74:12 74:14 74:21 78:4 78:13–20 78:21 78:24–25 80:7 82:8 86:1 86:15 89 89:3–4 89:8, 13 89:27 89:30–31 89:36 89:49 90:13 93:1 94:12 94:14 95:13 96:10 96:10–11 96:13 97:1

97 n106 142 n326, 156 n386 144, 172 112 n175, 117, 138, 141 n317 113 n180 263 n25 71, 197 107, 247 137, 141 n317 127 n251 239, 240, 244 n758 197 71 127 n250 71 71, 197 184 127 n254 207 156 n386 171 n451 174 109 127 n254 191 219 163 219 127 n253 115 127 n254 154 45 174 168 n437 191 162 n413 111 n169 174 142 n323 184 150 nn359–360, 171 n454 163 97 184 263 n25 184 174, 175, 184, 188

98:2 98:9 99:1 101:1 102:17 103:8 103:13 103:17 104:19 104:27–28 104:33 105 105:7 105:8–9 105:11 105:44–45 106:21 107:6 107:9 111:4 112:2–3 115:11 116:5 118:4 118:19–20 118:23 119 119:1 119:7 119:52 119:68 119:75 119:137 120:1 121:1 123:3 127:3 132 132:4 132:11 135:1 135:20 136:14 136:25 136:26 140:3 143:2 143:11 145:2

317 71 112, 117, 141 n320 174, 175, 188 117 127 n252 154 168 160 n403 192 127 n254, 129 117 57, 94 190 142 n325 163 n421 103 163 n421 103 127 n254 154 104 and n140 20 n44 154 20 n44 161 127 n254 117 103 112 n175 135 148 112, 127 n250 139 168 118 n206 142 n326, 156 n386, 172 104 45 171 n451 174 127 n250 20 n44 156 n385 127 n254 171 n452 107, 247 248 71 127 n250

318 145:8 145:9 145:13 145:15–16 145:17 147:4 147:8–9 148:5 148:11 148:13 148:14 Psalms (LXX) 3:9 5:10 9:27 9:28 13:2–3 13:4 18:10 24:22 25:11 28:1–2 30:6 30:16 31:10 32:5 34:13 35:2 35:13 39:12 43:24 50:6 52:3–4 61:13 65:20 67:30 68:11 72:13 75:12 76:8 81:3 85:5 85:13 88:36 95:7–8 97:2–3 103:14 104:7 106:18

Index of Sources 154 148, 190 174 127 n254 153 n377 192 127 n254 127 n250 127 n254 127 n250 127

139 107, 248 168 n437 107, 248 107, 248 132 98, 207 n607 276 276 105 n146 276 175, 188 150 n359 127, 129 119 n213, 120 107, 248 121 n219 142 n323 142 n324 113 n180 107, 248 244 n758 127 n252 105 n146 119 n213, 120 98, 207 n607 105 n146 142 n324 98, 207 n607 127 n254, 129 168 n439, 171 n451 111 n169 105 n146 273 127 n254 190 171 n451

107:2 113:19 117:4 118:28 134:20 139:4 142 142:11 144:17

117 20 n44 20 n44 171 n451 20 n44 107, 248 272–273 273 n50 153 n377

Proverbs 2:7 (LXX) 2:20 3:6 3:11 3:11 (LXX) 3:11–12 3:11–13 3:18 4:19 5:12 (LXX) 6:4 6:24–25 (LXX) 7:5 (LXX) 10:22 10:29–32 11:5 11:21 12:1 12:1 (LXX) 13:1 13:6 13:21 14:34 15:6 15:9 15:16 15:29 16:9 (LXX) 16:11 16:12 16:18 17:26 18:10 18:20 (LXX) 19:29 (LXX) 20:24 (LXX) 21:15 24:12 24:16

141 162 150 162, 171 150 117–118 152 163, 165 164 150 171 171 171 127 263 97, 150 97 161, 171 150 191 97 168 97 97, 118 97 130 97 171, 191 127 97 130 263 n25 168 168 150 171, 191 263 n25 239, 244 118

Index of Sources 24:33 25:21–22 26:3 (LXX) 29:15 (LXX) 30:8

171 86 171 150 118, 125

Ecclesiastes 1:14 7:20 12:11

137 107, 247 171

Isaiah 1–11 1:17 2:2–5 5:23 8:15 9:18 10 10:34 11:1–12 11:4 11:12 11:12 (LXX) 14:9 (LXX) 14:11–15 14:32 24:23 25:4 26:9 26:19 27:12–13 27:13 28:2 30:1 30:14 30:30 31:5 38:10 (LXX) 40–66 40:3–4 40:3–4 (LXX) 40:9 40:11 (LXX) 40:26 41:8–9 41:14 42:10–12 42:16

57, 94 207 n607 70, 84, 228, 253, 266, 281, 290 207 n607 118 156 n385 109 n160 156 n385 182 182 184 141 n317 168 n439 107 172 184 172 190 117 157 156 n391 168 n437 118 n206 182 168 n437 159 n402 171 n451 156 n389, 157 156 150 n363 156 n391 187 192 138 276 63 156

43:1 43:3–9 43:9 43:14 43:16–21 43:25 43:26 44:22–24 45:2 45:13 45:22 46:13 49 49:1–6 49:6 49:24 (LXX) 50:6 50:6 (LXX) 51:1–8 51:4–5 51:5–6 51:5–8 51:8 51:9 51:19 52:1 52:7 52:10 52:13–15 53:11 53:12 54:1 54:15 56:1–8 56:7 59:7–8 59:20–21 59:7–8 60:3 60:9 60:22 61:1 61:5 61:6 61:8 61:9 61:10

319 276 138 207 n607 276 47 159 n402 207 n607 276 156 150 63 197 84, 266, 281, 290 138 63, 77, 107, 146 127 n251 152 n376 150 n360 138 273 272 n47 197 272 117 168 n438 156 155 n384, 157, 184 63, 84, 266, 281, 290 84, 266, 281, 290 294 171 104 n140 20 70, 84, 228, 253, 266, 281, 290 294 107, 248 147 248 253 65, 70, 228, 258, 281, 290 175 45 253 157 97 n106 253 156

320 62:1–2 62:2 63:14 65:17 66:4 66:8 66:18 66:19–20 66:20 66:22 Jeremiah 1:19 3:11 3:12 3:12–13 4:5 , 21 5:7 5:28 7:1–15 7:15 7:23 7:25–26 7:28 9:25 10:24–25 (LXX) 11:19–20 (LXX) 14:12–13 (LXX) 14:20–21 15:20 16:18 19:11 20:11 21:6 22:3 23:4 23:5 24:6 24:10 (LXX) 27:8, 13 29:18 30:8–9 31:18 31:31–34 31:32 31:33, 34 32:36 33:26

Index of Sources 197 253 156 n386 84 244 n758 111 n169 63 253 65, 70, 228, 258, 281, 290 84

132 207 n607 131 101, 140 156 n391 106 105 n146 93 139 162 n413 93 150 n360, 162 n413, 171 n454 237 150 n360, 171 n454 137 168 n438 101, 140 132 157 182 132 132 n274 97 n106 187 181 163 n416 168 n438 168 n438 168 n438 181 150 n360, 171 n454 106, 147 142 n325 147 168 n438 190

34:17 38:2 39:18–19 42:10 44:3 46:16 51:9 51:27 51:34

168 n438 168 n438 344 n758 163 n416 137 118 104 n141, 107 156 n391 109

Lamentations 1 1–2 1:18 2:18 3:8 3:31 4:20 (LXX) 5:21

103 93 112 and n175, 139 103 127 n252 142 n324 44 n84 127 n253

Ezekiel 3:12 3:20 5:11 6:11 (LXX) 6:12 7:15 (LXX) 9:4 9:6 12:16 14:17 14:19 14:21 (LXX) 15 16:49 16:60 17:24 18 18:19 18:20, 24, 26 20:5 (LXX) 20:34 21:17–18 22:1–16 22:8 23:38 25:3 29:3ff 30:5 30:10–19

127, 139 97 n106 104 n145 168 n438 132 n274 168 n438 168 and n438 111 n169, 168 n438 132 n274, 168 n438 168 n438 132 n274 168 n438 93 127 n254 151 and n365 175 97 195 n558, 209 n615 97 n106 132 138 207 n607 93 137 104 n145 104 n145 109 176 n479 140

321

Index of Sources 30:10–20 31:8 32:2ff 32:5 33:13–16 33:21–22 34:15 34:23 34:23–24 37:25 39:23 39:25 39:28 43:8–9 44:24

101 163 n416 109 109 n162 237 93 187 187 181 181 139 142 nn325–326, 156 n386, 191 155 n384 171 n454 112, 207 n607

Daniel 2:47 3:28–29 4:34–37 6:25–27 7:9–14 7:21 (LXX) 8:10 9:1–19 9:3–19 9:4–19 9:16 9:18 9:24–26 12:2 12:3

20 20 20 20 49 132 104 n141 141 269 n42 101 272 n47 102 93 122, 240 n737 122

Hosea 1:2 1:2–5 2 5:8–15 5:15 7:14 9:1–9 10 12:2 12:3 14:3 14:9

106 269 n42 93 269 n42 103 103 93 93 240 244 n758 168 n437 150 n363

Joel 1:19

103

2:1 (LXX) 2:1–2 2:13 2:26

156 n391 157 154 127 n250

Amos 2:4–16 2:6 2:13–16 3:11 4:10 5:3 5:18 9:11 9:11–12 9:15

110 244 n758 269 n42 269 n42 132 n274 269 n42 168 n439, 169 182 20 163 n416

Obadiah 17

163

Jonah 4:2

154

Micah 5:4 (LXX)

188

Nahum 1:15

155 n384

Habakkuk 2:4 (LXX)

234 and n708, 273

Zephaniah 1:14 1:18 3:15

168 n439, 169 58 184

Zechariah 3:1–2 4:1 8:23

247 n769 117 253

Malachi 2:11 3:1–3 3:16 3:23 4:1–3 4:5 4:5 (LXX)

104 n145 91 20 n44 38 58 91 48

322

Index of Sources

B. Septuagint Baruch 1:10–3:8 1:15–3:8 2:19, 27 2:34 2:35 3:2, 7 4:6 4:36–5:9 4:37 5 5:2 , 4, 9

270 n42 101–102 102 127 n251 151 n365 102 131 156 n389 157 34 71

Greek Additions to Daniel Bel and the Dragon 28 20 Prayer of Azariah 1:3–22 101 1:11–13, 19–20 102 4 117 n203 2 Esdras 3:34

127 n251

Additions to Esther 16:15–16 20 Judith 4:9 5:17–18 7:30 8:33 14:10

119 n213 270 n42 138 122 20

1 Maccabees 1:3 1:12 16:17

14 n28 104 n145 244 n758

2 Maccabees 3:1–3, 12, 33–39 5:16 6:12–17 7:9 7:18 9:11–18

20 20 270 n42 240 n737 270 n42 20

13:23

20

3 Maccabees 1:9 6:33

20 20

4 Maccabees 4:11–12 15:3 17 17:22

20 240 n737 277 277

Psalms of Solomon 1 30, 103 and n137, 104, 107 and n151, 108, 173, 189 1–2 62 1:1 103, 106, 109, 193, 291 1:1–4 107 1:1–8 60, 104 n144, 193 1:1–2:22 270 n42 1:2 100 1:3 100, 103, 156 1:3–5 104 1:4 104 n143 1:5–8 107 1:6 165 1:6–8 104 1:7 103, 264 1:7–8 56, 106 1:8 31 n24, 61, 106, 108 2 29, 106, 107, 108, 109 nn159 and 161, 110 n167, 133, 134 and n285, 136, 155, 173, 176, 177 2:1 193, 291 2:1–2 61 2:1–6 108 2:2 55 2:3 31 n24, 106, 112, 134 n285, 264 2:3–5 61 2:3–13 109 2:3–21 193 2:6 134 n285

Index of Sources 2:7 2:7–8 2:8 2:9 2:9–10 2:10

2:11–13 2:11–14 2:11–24 2:12 2:15

2:16 2:16–17 2:17 2:17–18 2:18

2:18–21 2:19–25 2:22–25 2:25–30 2:26 2:26–27 2:26–31 2:28 2:30 2:32 2:32–35 2:32–36 2:33

2:33–37 2:34 2:34–35 2:34–36 2:35 2:36 2:37

106 112 100, 110, 112 106, 134 n285 111 n173 60, 100, 110, 113, 125, 184 n517, 189 n539, 193, 282 n77 112 61 109 106 60, 93, 100, 101, 110, 112, 113, 116, 193, 195, 282 n77 60, 100, 101, 196, 282, 291 106, 112 113, 134 n285 68 60, 61, 100, 110, 113, 116, 125, 184 n517, 192, 193, 282 and n77 109 30 n13 109 109 35 28 109 93 30 n15 60, 100, 110, 113, 184, 193, 282 n77 110 109, 110, 114, 134, 142 65 n172, 100, 113, 114, 116, 136, 193 n548 30 n15, 238 37, 59, 60, 100, 193 60, 116, 193, 196, 264, 283 n80 116 60, 100, 116, 193 100, 116, 193, 283 n80 109

3

3:1 3:1–2 3:3 3:3–5 3:3–7 3:3–8 3:4 3:5

3:5–12 3:6 3:6–8 3:7 3:7–8 3:8 3:9 3:9–10 3:9–12 3:11 3:12 4 4:1 4:1–8 4:1–25 4:2–3 4:3 4:4–5 4:5 4:6 4:6–8 4:8

4:8–9

323 30, 117, 120 and n218, 121, 123, 150, 160, 168, 173, 259 n8 100 30 n15 100, 112, 116, 184 n517, 282 n77 119 193, 264, 283 n80 42 100, 138, 160 n408, 194 60, 100, 101, 112 n175, 113, 116, 193, 195, 282 and n77 56 100, 118 n206 194, 259 n8, 262, 291, 293 100, 118 n206, 160 61, 119, 257 120 n216, 161, 189 n539, 193, 264 60 193 42 37, 59, 60, 100, 193, 264, 283 n80 28, 60, 123, 193 n548 29, 30, 107, 123, 151, 155 125, 126 n244, 193, 283 n80 61 193, 238 126 125, 126 n244 61, 126 56, 126 n244 126, 283 n80 68 60, 100, 101, 112 and n175, 126, 184 n517, 193, 195, 264, 282 n77, 283 n80 126 n244

324 4:9–13 4:10 4:10–11 4:11–12 4:12 4:12–13 4:19 4:20 4:21 4:22–23 4:23 4:23–24 4:23–25 4:24

4:25 5 5:1 5:1–2 5:2 5:5–7 5:6–7 5:8 5:11–12 5:12 5:14–15 5:15 5:16–17 5:17 5:18 6 6:5 6:6 7 7:1 7:1–10 7:2 7:2–3 7:3

7:4–6 7:5 7:6

Index of Sources 61 126 126 126 n244 65 n172, 126 126 126 n244 126 65 n172, 125 126 65 n172, 126 n244, 193 n548 60 196 60, 100, 101, 126, 184 n517, 192, 193, 195, 282 n77 100, 193 n548, 279 n71 29, 126, 130, 173, 190 60, 100, 125, 128, 184 n517, 193, 282 n77 127 100, 189 n539 42 193 127 n254 189 n539 100 189 n539 100 127 n255 100, 129 65 n172, 189 n539, 193 n548 30 65 n172, 193 n548, 194 100, 125, 193 n548 29 and n13, 106, 107, 130, 133 and n281 131 61 250, 291 131 130–131, 133 n280, 138, 160 n408, 194, 289 131 100, 101, 130, 133 n280 100, 130, 133 n280

7:7–8 7:8 7:8–9 7:8–10 7:9

7:9–10 7:10 8

8:1 8:1–4 8:1–13 8:5 8:6 8:7

8:7–8 8:8

8:8–13 8:9 8:9–10 8:11–13 8:12 8:12–13 8:13 8:14–21 8:16–19 8:18 8:20–22 8:21 8:22 8:22–34 8:23

8:23–24 8:23–26 8:23–28 8:24 8:25 8:25–28 8:25–29 8:25–33

131 40, 101 66 106 130–131, 133 n280, 138, 152, 160 n408, 167, 194, 291 131 58, 100, 130, 133 n280 29, 62, 106, 107, 133, 134 and n285, 136, 173, 177 41, 157 30 n14 103 65 n172 100 100, 112 and n175, 113, 134, 135, 282 n77 60, 101, 193, 195 100, 106, 134 and n285, 135, 189 n539, 193 291 56 61 31 n24, 61, 264 134 n285 60, 106 106, 134 n285, 291 136 61 184 n517 31 n24 134 n285 106 30 n13 100, 101, 136, 137, 193, 282 n77, 283 n80 134 60, 134, 193, 195 135 100, 137, 184 n517 100, 137 137 61 113, 142

Index of Sources 8:26

8:26–28 8:26–33 8:27 8:27–28 8:28 8:29 8:29–34 8:32 8:34 9 9–10 9:1 9:1–3 9:1–11 9:2

9:3 9:4 9:4–5 9:5

9:6 9:6–7 9:6–8 9:6–10 9:7 9:7–10 9:8 9:8–10 9:8–11 9:9 9:9–10 9:10 9:11

40, 100, 112 and n175, 113, 134, 136, 137, 160 n408, 207, 282 n77 136 291 100, 137 101 100, 134, 137, 279 n71 136, 160 n408, 289, 291 139 60, 100 n118, 136 40, 60, 100 n118, 134, 193, 283 n80 29, 30, 139, 147, 160 238 146 62 291 60, 61, 100, 112 n175, 125, 141, 143, 146, 184 n517, 192, 193, 195, 261, 282 and n77 100, 130, 143, 193, 283 n80 60, 100, 141, 143, 146, 195 238 60, 61, 100, 125, 141, 143, 146, 184 n517, 193, 194, 196, 279 n71, 282 and n77 143, 194, 196 61, 146, 147, 196, 257–258 61, 101 291 100, 143, 193, 264, 283 n80 250 100, 141, 143, 147 113 and n184, 134, 146, 291 66, 106, 117, 145 and n342, 194, 289 n11 143, 189 n539 67, 145 143 40, 100, 141, 143, 165

10 10:1 10:1–2 10:1–3 10:1–4 10:2 10:2–3 10:2–4 10:3

10:3–4 10:4

10:5

10:5–8 10:6 10:6–7 10:7 10:8 11 11:1 11:2 11:6–9 11:7 11:7–9 11:9 12 12:4 12:6 13

13:1 13:1–4 13:1–12 13:2

325 30, 106, 148, 149 n353 61, 238, 257–258 148, 194, 261, 289, 291 223 152, 167, 195, 291 160 n408, 162 138 61, 101, 196 100, 125, 160 n408, 193 and n548, 264, 283 n80 148 66, 67, 100 and n121, 106, 152, 194, 259, 283, 289 n11 60, 100, 101, 125, 148, 153, 184 n517, 193, 195, 282 and n77 40 100, 101, 129, 148, 153, 193, 283 n80 61 41, 100, 101, 148 148, 154, 165 29, 34, 58, 155, 156 n388 61, 100, 101, 107, 156, 282 111 n169 156 66, 289 n11 61, 101, 106, 107, 157, 282 100, 156, 165 29, 61, 62, 173 65 n172, 193 and n548, 283 n80 37, 59, 165, 193, 283 n80 29, 30, 106, 158, 160 n403, 161 n409, 173 100, 138, 158 158 238 159

326 13:3–5 13:5 13:5–6 13:6 13:6–9 13:7

13:7–10 13:7–11 13:8 13:8–10 13:8–12 13:9 13:10

13:10–11 13:11 13:12

14 14:1

14:1–2 14:1–3 14:2 14:2–3 14:3 14:3–4 14:5 14:6 14:6–7 14:7–8 14:8 14:8–10 14:9

14:10 15

Index of Sources 158 158 n397, 159, 160 159 100 193, 264, 283 n80 61, 100, 159, 160 and n408, 161, 189 n539, 194, 257–258 61, 138, 160, 195, 289, 291 61, 101 100, 159, 160 n408 162 196 100, 159, 160 n408, 189 n539 61, 160 and n408, 193, 194, 257–258, 261, 283 n80, 291 159 37, 59, 100, 193, 264, 283 n80 61, 65 n172, 100, 101, 160, 193 and n548, 283 n80 30, 31, 162, 164 n423 61, 101, 125, 150, 160 n408, 193 n548, 194 162 166, 291 67, 100, 130, 163, 167, 279 n71 194, 259, 283 67, 165 n429, 166, 193, 283 n80 163, 165 66, 106, 162 n15, 163 193 163 173 56, 162 n15, 164 59, 196 37, 59, 61, 62, 100, 101, 162 n15, 164, 193, 264, 283 n80 164, 193 29, 31, 107, 167, 169 n445, 170, 172 n455, 173

15:1 15:1–6 15:2 15:2–4 15:3 15:4 15:5 15:5–7 15:6 15:6–7 15:6–13 15:7 15:7–9 15:8 15:9 15:10 15:10–12 15:10–13 15:12 15:12–13 15:13 16 16:1 16:1–2 16:1–4 16:1–5 16:2 16:3 16:3–4 16:4 16:5 16:6 16:6–8 17:6–9 16:6–15 16:7–8 16:7–11 16:9, 10 16:11 16:11–13 16:11–15 16:12–15 16:13 16:13–14

129, 168 30 n14 168 n437 168 100, 168 n437, 193 168 n437 168 n438 168 100, 168 and n438 264, 283 n80 42 38, 100, 168 n438, 193, 263, 283 n80 62 168, 237, 279 n71 168 168 n439 168 37, 59, 196 58, 122, 168 n439 116 61, 65 n172, 100, 101, 168, 193 n548 30, 31, 55 n126, 67, 160, 171, 173 171 n451 171 291 30 n14 171 n451 61, 100, 101, 107, 171 n452, 172, 282 171 171 n452 150, 165, 171 61, 100, 101, 107, 165, 172, 282 171 176 n478 30 n13 61, 291 138 171 160 n408, 171 n454 171 291 55 n126 138, 160 n408, 171 n454 130

Index of Sources 16:13–15 16:14 16:15

17

17–18 17:1 17:1–3 17:3 17:4 17:4–5 17:4–8 17:5

17:5–6 17:5–9 17:5–10 17:5–20 17:6 17:7 17:7–8 17:7–9 17:7–10 17:8 17:8–10 17:9 17:9–14 17:9–20 17:10 17:11 17:11–12 17:11–20 17:12 17:12–14 17:13

61 171 100, 101, 172 and n459, 193, 194, 196, 262, 264, 283 n80 29, 30, 35, 37, 45, 54 n124, 55, 58, 106, 107, 160, 174, 180, 188 and n531, 189 n535, 257 67, 174, 262, 264, 279, 294 56, 175 and n747, 177 and n487, 279 n71 174 61, 100, 136, 176 n474, 177 and n487 62, 66, 106, 176 n474, 177 n487 177 n487, 289 n11 174, 176, 179 and n494 62, 175 and n467, 176 and nn474 and 478, 291 60, 62 193 61, 62 181 40 62, 176 n474, 177 and n487, 193 36 177 n487 62 60, 196 100, 282 36 175 175 177 n487, 178, 184 n517 36, 176 n474 and n480, 177 n484 176 n480 62 176 and n478 177 n484 101, 176 n474, 177 nn484 and 487, 193

17:15

17:15–16 17:15–18 17:15–20 17:16 17:16–17 17:16–18 17:17 17:17–20 17:18 17:19 17:19–20 17:20 17:21 17:21–25 17:21–44 17:21–45 17:21–46 17:22 17:23

17:23–24 17:24, 25 17:24–25 17:26

17:26–27 17:26–32 17:26–44 17:27 17:28 17:29

17:30 17:30–31 17:30–32 17:31–32 17:31–34 17:32

327 66, 100, 106, 176 and nn478 and 480, 193, 289 n11, 291 176 n480 67 176 31, 41, 59, 176 n474, 193, 283 n80 67, 176 175 176 n474 106 176 n480 100, 176 n478, 261 and n19 176 n480 176 and n480 28, 36, 44, 62, 63, 176 n474, 177, 178 175 181 180 59, 196 56, 264, 290, 291 60, 100, 176 n478, 180, 183, 195, 289 n11 193 176 n478 250 56, 100, 176 n474, 177 n487, 178, 180, 183 194, 177 n487 264, 290 175, 189 n539 176 nn474 and 478, 291 250 41, 60, 100, 101, 180, 193, 195, 282 n77 56, 63, 194 178 60, 177 n487, 283 177 n487 63 28, 36, 44, 58, 63, 64, 100, 176, 177, 178, 180, 193, 194

328 17:34

17:34–35 17:35 17:36 17:36–37 17:37 17:37–38 17:38–40 17:39 17:40

17:42 17:43 17:44 17:44–45 17:44–46 17:45

17:45–46 17:46 18 18:1 18:1–3 18:1–4 18:1–5 18:2 18:3 18:4 18:4–5 18:5

18:5–9

Index of Sources 56, 58, 60, 64, 84, 100 and n120, 107, 177 and n487, 178, 180, 238, 261, 264, 283, 290 177 n487 176 n474 176 and nn474 and 478, 261 n19, 291 261 100, 177 n487, 180, 187 177 177 n487 178 65 n172, 100, 176 n474, 177 n487, 180, 187 160 n408, 176 n474, 177and n487, 178 176 n474 175, 176 n474, 178, 189 n539 177 n487 175 31 n24, 61, 100, 101, 107, 176 nn474 and 478, 180, 193, 282 176 n474, 177 n487, 187 56, 175, 177 and n487, 178 30, 45, 103, 108, 189 and n539, 190 n542 100, 189 n539, 190, 192 190 107 61, 101, 107, 282 129, 190 67, 100, 116, 189 n539, 190 160 n408, 191, 194 189 n539, 195, 196, 261, 289, 291 58, 66 and n176, 67, 84, 100, 174, 191, 194, 211, 233, 266, 267, 279, 280 189 n539

18:5–12 18:6 18:6–10 18:7

18:7–8 18:7–9 18:8 18:9 18:9–12

107 189 n539, 191 58 60, 100, 101, 138, 160 n408, 193, 282 and n77 191 65 n172 100 41, 100 192

Sirach 5:5 7:23 9:2–3, 8 10:19–22 11:25 11:26 16:14 17:22 17:23 18:2 18:6 18:14 18:22 23:2 23:2–3 23:4–5 23:11 25:16, 21 26:29 29:6 34:26 46:14 48:10–11 50:27

118 n206 161 171 n453 20 127 n255 244 n758 239 144 n335 244 n758 113 n180 127 n251 150 n360 207 150 n359 152 n376, 161 125 207 171 n453 207 244 n758 120 122 91 161

Tobit 1:8 3:2–5 4:7–11 4:9 12:8–10 13:11–14 14:5–7

20 270 n42 144 n335 141 n320 130 20 20

Wisdom of Solomon 1:1–2 20 2:9 127 n251

329

Index of Sources 3:1 5:15 6:9–11 11:9

217 144 n335 20 161

11:20 11:23 12:22 15:1–6

127 n251 146 161 237

C. New Testament Matthew 3:2 4:17 5:26 5:44 6:1–4 6:4 , 6, 18 6:19–21 11:5 11:23 16:13–14 16:27 18:25, 26, 28, 29 18:30, 34 20:8 24:31 27:19

264 264 244 n758 87 144 n335 244 n758 144 n335 158 166 n432 49 244 n758 244 n758 244 n758 244 n758 158 97, 271 n43

Mark 1:3 1:15 6:15 7:15 8:27–28 8:28 9:11–12 9:50 12:17

151 n364 264 91 87 49 91 91 87 244 n758

Luke 1:75 4:18–19 6:27–28 7:29 10:29 12:42–48 12:59 16:15 18:14 19:8 19:18

263 n25 158 87 112 215 225 n676 244 n758 215 207 244 n758 49

20:25 23:47

244 n758 97, 271 n43

John 1:21 5:22, 27 9:39

91 255 255

Acts 3:25 10:2 10:42 13:38–39 13:43 17:30–31 17:31 20:3

176 n479 20 225 207 20 97 225 232

Romans 1 1–8 1:1–3 1:3–4 1:5 1:6 1:6–7 1:7 1:8 1:10–15 1:13 1:16 1:16–17 1:16–4:25 1:16–5:21 1:17 1:18 1:18–32 1:18–3:20

86, 170 8 n10 273 and n51 89, 286 83 n55, 210, 233, 234 n707, 235 232 263, 283 n80, 293 233, 263, 283 n80, 293 233 231 232 232, 286 n3 197, 233, 236 231 291 197 n568, 268, 278 n67, 293, 294 198 147, 236 261, 237

330 1:18–3:21 1:18–3:31 1:19–20 1:20 1:28–31 1:29–31 1:32 2 2–3 2:1–5 2:1–11 2:1–16 2:3 2:5 2:5–6 2:5–11 2:5–16 2:6 2:6–9 2:6–11 2:9–10 2:11 2:12–16 2:12–29 2:13 2:14 2:14–15 2:16 2:17 2:17–23 2:17–24 2:20 2:24 2:25–29 2:26 2:29 2:31 3 3:1–4 3:3 3:4 3:5

Index of Sources 271 161 186 16 228 80, 260 198 n570 236 and n719, 237, 248 n772 77 126, 237 147, 153, 167, 210, 288 167, 202, 210 n618, 235, 267 n38 70, 279 and n71 70, 198 n572, 199, 279 and n71 276, 294 144 n335, 243, 244 253, 254 84 225 225 291 77 210, 246 147 197 n569, 215 n638, 248 n772, 291, 294 252 n790 80 167, 244, 251 n788, 294 70, 279 and n71 126 246 77 87, 291 233, 246, 283, 290 198 n570 215, 283 207 236 n719, 244, 248 n772 233 70, 279 and n71 197 n569 197 n568

3:6 3:9–11 3:9–20 3:15–17 3:19–20 3:20

3:20–22 3:21 3:21–26

3:21–30 3:21–31 3:22 3:23 3:24 3:24–25 3:24–26 3:25 3:25–26 3:26 3:27 3:28 3:29 3:30 3:31 4:1–3 4:2 4:3 4:5 4:6 4:9 4:11 4:11–12 4:11–14 4:12–13 4:13 4:15

202, 210 n618, 267 n38 133 107 87 167, 202, 210 n618, 267 n38 83, 197 n569, 240, 247, 248 and n772, 251, 273 233 197 n568, 273 56 n131, 66 n176, 72 and n8, 155, 197, 198, 211, 226, 233, 261, 263, 266, 267, 269, 276 n58, 279 and n70, 280, 290 90, 287, 290 133, 139, 189, 225 197 n568, 233 143, 276 n59 197 n569, 263, 267 294 233, 259, 262, 291 88, 123, 197 n568, 233, 261 281 146, 197 n568, 197 n569 248, 233 83, 197 n569, 233, 248 245 197 n569, 233 162, 167, 233 87 197 n569, 233, 248 197 n568, 233, 253, 274 197 nn568–569, 233 197 n568, 233, 248 87, 197 n568, 233 197 n568, 233 139 233 87 197 n568, 233, 281 83

Index of Sources 4:16 4:16–20 4:22 4:25 5:1 5:1–2 5:1–5 5:1–11 5:3 5:7 5:8–11 5:8 5:9 5:13 5:16 5:17 5:18 5:19 5:20 5:21 6–8 6:4 6:6 6:6–7 6:7 6:12–23 6:13 6:14–15 6:16 6:17 6:18 6:19 6:20 7–8 7:1–6 7:10 7:10–11 8:1 8:1–11 8:1–14 8:2–4 8:3–4 8:4 8:4–13 8:10 8:13, 14 8:17–18 8:19 8:19–21

87 233 197 n568, 233 198 n571 197 n569, 233 233 161 225 261, 291 233 83 293 n26 197 n569, 233 83 198 n570, 225 n675 197 n568, 233 198 n570, 198 n571 225 n675 271 n43, 233, 294 83 197 n568, 233 254 79 235 278, 281 197 n569 162, 210, 235 197 n568, 294 83 197 n568, 236 234 n707 197 n568 197 n568, 294 197 n568 229 n692 83 70, 279 and n71 167 225 n675 174 210, 236 227, 271 236 198 n570 227, 271 197 n568 236 261, 291 91 170

8:23 8:25 8:28

8:28–30 8:29–30 8:30 8:33 8:38–39 9–11 9:6 9:6–13 9:7 9:8 9:12 9:24 9:27–29 9:30 9:30–31 9:30–10:42 9:31 9:32 9:32–33 10:1–4 10:3 10:3–6 10:4 10:5, 6, 10 10:11 10:12 10:15–16 10:16 10:20–21 11:1 11:1–12 11:5–7 11:6 11:8 11:13–24 11:13–32 11:20–22 11:23 11:24 11:25–27 11:25–32 11:25–36 11:26 11:26–27

331 91, 277 91 70, 173, 263, 279 and n71, 283 n80, 293 147 170 197 n569 197 n569, 233 90, 173 252 n792 291 147, 233 87 236 248 139, 236 87 197 n568, 291 233 45 n762 197 n568 248 87 281 197 n568, 198 233 83, 197 n568, 273, 281 197 n568 87 139 87 233 87 87, 283 147 233 248 87 66, 236, 265, 291 232 210 n618, 267 n38 233 290 147 291 291 290 87

332 11:28–32 11:31 11:33–34 12:1 12:1–8 12:1–13:14 12:2 12:9–10 12:14, 17 12:19 12:20–21 13:3 13:7 13:8–10 13:9–10 13:10 13:11–12 13:11–13 13:12–14 14:1–4, 5 14:10 14:10–12

Index of Sources

14:11, 13–14 14:14 14:15 14:17 14:20 15:1 15:1–3 15:1–4 15:7–12 15:8 15:8–12 15:12 15:15–16 15:16 15:18 15:18–24 15:21 15:25 15:27 15:28 15:31 16:15 16:19 16:26

233 233 87 264, 279, 294 89 86, 260 261, 291 79 87 167, 210 n618, 267 n38 86 215 87 83, 86, 252, 253, 279 79 83, 236 88 261, 291 228 83 225 202, 211 n618, 236, 253, 267 n38, 294 87 83, 87 79 197 n568 83 232 89 260 231, 232 79, 235 n716 233 87 232 264 83 n55, 233, 235 232 87 263, 283 n80, 293 264 232 263, 283 n80, 293 263, 283 n80, 293 233 236

1 Corinthians 1:2

263, 283 n80, 293

1:7 1:7–8 1:8 1:8–9 1:10–17 1:10–4:21 1:18–2:16 1:19–20 1:24 1:30 2:6 2:9 2:16 3:1–4:21 3:5–15 3:5–17 3:5–23 3:5–4:5 3:5–4:7 3:10–15 3:13 3:13–14 3:13–15 3:16 3:16–17 3:17 3:18–4:5 4:1–5 4:4 4:4–5 4:5 4:14 5 5:1–5

5:1–11 5:1–11:1 5:7 5:9 5:9–10 5:9–11 5:10–11

91 170, 260 174, 210 n618, 261, 291 254, 255, 263, 264, 282, 294 211 211 211 87 263, 283 n80, 293 277 90, 274 87 87, 170 211 214, 214 n631 303, 210 n618, 267 n38 215 n635 210, 211 216 167, 225 n676 167 216 211, 214 n631, 217 n241 260 255, 264 227, 253, 271 214 202, 210 n618, 215 n635, 267 n38 207, 215 167, 170, 214, 216, 217 n241 215, 216, 225 n676, 294 224 219 202, 210 and n618, 212, 216, 217 n241, 218, 267 n38, 291 86 82, 260 78 224 170 228 80

Index of Sources 5:12 5:13b 6:1 6:1–11 6:2 6:2–3 6:6–11 6:9 6:9–10 6:9–11 6:11 6:12 6:19 7 7:3 7:10–11 7:17–20 7:19 8:1 9:9 9:9–10 9:14 9:20 9:24–27

9:25 10 10:1–12 10:1–13 10:6–12 10:11 10:14–22 10:16–17 10:23 10:23–33 11:2–14:40 11:23–25 11:27–32 11:27–34 11:28–30 11:31–32 11:32

216 79 219 79 263, 283 n80, 293 202, 210 n618, 267 n38 210, 218 219, 230 80, 202, 210 n618, 218, 228, 253, 267 n38 255, 264, 288–289 215 n634 221 227, 264, 271, 294 79 244 n758 87 83 83, 223, 227, 252 and n791 79 80 n36 86 87 83 167, 202, 210 n618, 221 n656, 253, 255, 264, 267 n38 221 86 210, 218, 219, 221, 253 221 and n651, 255, 264 220 80 n36 221 222 221 221 82 87 202, 210 n618, 267 n38 210, 222, 253, 255, 264 223 223 161

12–14 12:2 13 13:2 14:13 15:3 15:3b–5 15:23 15:32 15:33 15:38, 50 15:51–52 15:58 16 16:1 16:10 16:15 16:22 2 Corinthians 1:1 1:3–11 1:5–7 2:14–7:4 3:1–18 3:6 4:7–11 4:7–18 4:16–17 5:7 5:9–10 5:10 5:15 5:17 5:21 6:1 6:2 6:4–6 6:9 6:14–16 6:14–7:1 6:16 6:17 7:4 8:4 8:7–15 8:15 8:18

333 89 291 79 87, 227 225 286 45 n86 90, 170 87 230 217 292 n21 83 87 263, 283 n80, 293 83 263, 283 n80, 293 91

263, 283 n80, 293 162 261, 291 223 147 83 162 261, 291 162 79 202, 210 n618, 260, 267 n38 167, 210, 223, 225, 253, 294 45 n86 170, 174, 259 198 225, 253 87, 271 162 161 and n411, 223 n663 260 227, 271 213, 264 87 261, 291 263, 283 n80, 293 86 79 215

334 9:1 9:12 11:15 11:22 12:1–10 12:3–4 12:20–21 12:20–13:6 12:21 13:5 13:12 Galatians 1:4 1:14 1:15–16 1:16 1:23 2–3 2:6 2:10 2:15 2:16

2:17 2:20 3 3:1–4:7 3:2 3:3 3:5 3:6 3:6–9 3:8 3:10 3:11 3:11–12 3:11–13 3:12 3:13 3:13–14 3:14 3:16 3:16–18 3:18 3:21 3:21–25

Index of Sources 263, 283 n80, 293 264 225 87, 283 261, 291 167 80, 228 291 253 225, 253 263, 283 n80, 293

227, 270 258, 283 84 258 283 8 n10 240 128, 130 291 83, 197 n569, 227, 229 n692, 248 and n773 197 n569 289 248 n772 226 79, 227, 229 n692, 248, 271 79, 170 229 n692, 248 253, 274 87, 227, 289 139, 263 229 n692, 248 197 n569 167 83 167 227, 271 272 87, 227, 253, 271, 274 87 281 87, 227 167 152

3:22 3:22–23 3:23–25 3:23–29 3:24 3:26–29 3:29 4:3 4:4–5 4:5–7 4:8–9 4:8–5:12 4:9–11 4:13–25 4:17–6:10 4:19 4:21–5:1 4:22, 27 4:30 5–6 5:1 5:2–6 5:4 5:5 5:5–6 5:6 5:13–25 5:13–6:10 5:14 5:16 5:16–21 5:16–6:10 5:18 5:19–21 5:19–23 5:21 5:22 5:22–23 5:25 6:4 6:7–8 6:7–9 6:7–10 6:8–9 6:15

227 227 83 227 162, 197 n569, 291 289 87 269 83 227 269 226 83 260 288 253, 274 227 87 86 162, 227, 254 78 83 197 n569, 225 91, 207 228 79 162 226, 228, 230 248 n772 228, 289 202, 211 n218, 267 n38 210, 226 n682 79, 228, 289 86, 228 80 83 79 80 78, 228, 289 83 167 202, 211 n218, 267 n38 228, 260 227, 271 259

Ephesians 4:24 4:31 5:3–4

263 n25 228 n689 228 n689

Philippians 1:1 1:6 1:9–11 1:10 1:10–11 1:11 1:12–16 1:21–26 2:1–13 2:5–8 2:5–11 2:6 2:6–11 2:8 2:12 2:12–16 2:14–16 2:15 2:16 2:25 3:3–6 3:4–6 3:5 3:9 3:12 3:12–14 3:16–17 3:20 3:20–21 4:21–22 5:2

Index of Sources

335

3:13

5:23–24

170, 210 n618, 254, 288 254, 291 260 255, 263, 264, 282, 288, 294 81 79 167 170 158 255, 264 87, 170 87 170, 210 n618, 261, 263, 282, 291, 294 255, 264

1 Timothy 1:9–10 5:4

228 n689 244 n758

2 Timothy 3:2–5 4:8

228 n689 244 n758

Titus 1:8

263 n25

Philemon 1–2 5

89 263, 283 n80, 293

Hebrews 5:8 5:12–14 10:38 12:2

275 37 234 and n709 275

1 Peter 3:9

244 n258

1 John 3:7

97

Revelation 16:5 18:6 22:11 22:12

263 n25 244 n758 97 244 n758

263, 283 n80, 293 90, 170, 255, 264 254, 255, 263, 264, 282, 294 170, 210 n618 261, 291 207, 215 and n638 260 292 n21 89 252, 254, 274 n56 88 79 89, 90 275 83 254, 255, 264 282, 294 210 n618 170 264 283 95, 258 8 198 170 167 260 91 292 n21 283 n80, 293 170

Colossians 3:5–8

228 n689

1 Thessalonians 1:3 1:6 1:9 1:9–10 2:10–13 2:11–12 2:18 2:19 3:2–10 3:5 3:12–13

234 n707 261, 291 81 263, 282, 294 255, 264 254, 263, 282, 294 111 n169 170 255, 264 253 263, 282, 294

4–5 4:1 4:1–8 4:3–5 4:3–8 4:6 4:15 4:16 5:1–3 5:2 5:4 , 13, 15 5:23

336

Index of Sources

D. Apocrypha Apocalypse of Abraham 25:1–31:12 69 n42

Jubilees 23:22

Apocalypse of Moses 20:1 71

Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 3:10 217 15:5 217 23:13 217 51:5 217

2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch) 1:10–3:8 269 n42 78:5 112 1 Enoch 20:7 22 48:10 52:4 71:14 90:10 90:31 91:16–17 4 Ezra 3:28–36 6:26 7:22–24 7:79–80, 88 8:36 12:32 13

166 n432 217 45 45 71 122 91 84

122

Odes of Solomon 11:18

165

Sibylline Oracles 3.335 13.1–13

62 n159 62 n159

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Testament of Asher 1–4 229 Testament of Simeon 6:1 207

269 n42 91 107 217 71 45 45

Testament of Abraham 1:7 217 7:8 , 12 217 15:7 217 16:15 217 17:3 217 20:9–15 217

E. Philo Legum allegoriae 3.105

94 n95

De posteritate Caini 167 94 n95

De vita Mosis 2.17–27

80

De somniis 2.191

94 n95

De mutatione nominum 182 94 n95

De specialibus legibus 1.51 80

De plantatione 59

De virtutibus 72

94 n95

94 n95

337

Index of Sources

F. Josephus Contra Apionem 1.75–90 1.209–212, 228 1.232–250 1.288–320 1.304–311 2.1–7 2.40 2.79, 92–96 2.112–114 2.121–123 2.147–148 2:210 2.221–231 2.228 2.280–284

12 12 12 12 12 12 24 12 12 80, 81 12 80, 81 80 24 80

Antiquitates Judaicae 3.1.4 24 12.1.1 12 13.5.9 38 13.10.5–6 38 13.11.1 175 n467 13.13.5 38, 124 13.14.1–2 38 13.14.2 124

13.15.5 13.16.2, 3, 5 13.16.6 14 14.1.2 14.3.1 14.4.3–4 14.4.5 14.9.4 14.11.4 16.2.3 20.2.4

124 124 38, 135 31 n22 124 133 159 175 n468 124 124 24 24

Bellum Judaicum 1 1.70 1.88–92, 96–98 1.131–158 1.150–151 1.157–158 1.210–211 3.372–375 4.582–584 6.46–47 7.47 7.185, 343–350

31 n22 175 n467 124 133–134 159 175 n468 124 217 157 217 14 n28 217

G. Qumran Hodayot (1QH) 4:37 5:16, 18, 22 11:17–18, 30–31

71 130 n267 71

Milḥamah (1QM) 11:9, 13 13:14

130 n267 130 n267

Serek Hayaḥad (1QS) 1–3 287 n5 2 266 n36 3–4 6 n4, 226 4:2–6 229 n690 4:7 240 n737 4:9–11 229 n690

5:11–12 8:14 9:9–11 9:11 10–11 11:2–5, 12–15

25 151 n364 45 48 6 n4 71

Damascus Document (CD) 2:12 45 3:10, 13–16 25 5:13–17 107 12:23 45 14:19 45 19:10–11 45 20:1 45 20:14 48

338

Index of Sources 4Q398 14–17, ii

226 27

4Q44 (=4QDeutq) 94 and n95

4Q399

226

4QTest (4Q175) 5–8

48

4Q285

169 n444

4Q504 1–2 1–2 v–vii

102 102

4Q393

102 and n127

4QMMT

26, 248 n774

4Q394–399

26 n63

1QSa 2:11–12

45

H. Greek and Latin Literary Sources Cassius Dio Historia Romana 37 37.16 42 42.4–5 60.6.6

31 n22 134 31 n22 109 n161 232

45 77–80 79

134 31 n22 109 n161

Suetonius Vita Claudii 25.4

232

Plutarch Vitae Pompeii et Agesilai 39 134

I. Early Christian Literature Barnabas 15:7 18–20

Doctrina Apostolorum 1–5 195 n558

207 n610 195 n558

Didache 1–2 1–6

229 195 n558

Diognetus 9:5

207 n610

Shepherd of Hermas Vision 3.9.1 207 n610 Mandate 5.1.7 207 n610 Similitude 5.7.1 207 n610

J. Rabbinic Literature Mishnah Avot 3:16

147, 251 n789

Index of Authors Abegg, M. G. 248 n774 Ábel, F. 15 n30, 199 n579, 266 n35 Achtemeier, R. R. 96 n103 Adler, W. 171 n450 Agatharchides of Cnidus 12 Alexander Polyhistor of Miletus 23 Alpe, A. ab 38 n51 Alter, R. 53 n119 Althaus, P. 242 n746 Amir, Y. 24 n59 Anastasius Sinaita 33 Apion 12 Apollonius Molon 12 Aristeas the Exegete 23 Aristobulos 10 n14 Artapanus 10 n14, 23 Atkinson, K. 31 n23, 35 n40, 40, 57 n136, 70, 74, 75 n19, 92 n91, 103 nn132–135 and 137, 104 nn138 and 144, 105 n146, 106 nn148 and 150, 107, 108 nn152–155, 109 n159, 110 nn164 and 167, 112 n174, 115, 117 nn201 and 203, 118–124, 125 n240, 126 n249, 127 n250, 128 nn260–262, 129 n263, 131 n270, 132 nn273–276, 133 nn277–278, 134 n284, 138 n305, 139 n307, 142 nn324–325, 144 nn332–333, 145 n340, 146, 147 nn346 and 348, 148 nn351–352, 149 n353, 150 n362, 151 n364, 153 n379, 154 nn380–381, 155 nn383 and 389, 157, 158 n397, 159 nn398 and 401, 160 n403, 161 n410, 162, 163 nn418–419, 164 nn423 and 426, 165 nn429, 166 nn430 and 433, 168 nn442–443, 169 n444, 169 nn445 and 447, 170, 171 n450, 172 n455, 173 n460, 174 nn463–464, 175 n472, 176 nn476 and 481, 177 n486, 178, 179 nn495–496, 180 n497, 181 n505, 182 nn509–510, 183 nn511–512,

186 n526, 188 nn531–532, 189 nn535–536 and 538–539, 190 nn540 and 542 Attridge, H. W. 23 n57 Augustine 241 n742 Austin, M. M. 6 n5 Avemarie, F. 16 n34 Aziza, C. 12 n23 Baars, W. 28 n1 Backhaus, K. 76 n21 Bailey, D. P. 275 n58 Barclay, J. M. G. 21 n48 Barnett, P. 224 nn669–670, 225 Barrett, C. K. 219 n648, 221 nn653 and 656, 243 Bartlett, J. R. 21 n48 Ben-Dov, M. 157 n393 Bengel, E. 35 n39 Bertram, G. 223 n663 Betz, H. D. 270 n42, 271 n44 Billerbeck, P. 15 n31 Black, M. 242 n746 Blackburn, R. J. 36 n43 Blischke, F. 76 n21 Boccaccini, G. 21 n48 Bockmuehl, M. 45 n87 Boer, M. C. de 226 n683, 228 n688, 229 n690–692, 230 n693 Boers, H. 248 n774 Bohak, G. 22 n53 Bousset, W. 15 n31 Bowker, J. 12 n21 Braun, H. 26 n65, 42–43, 60 n152, 144 n334, 161 n409, 208 n612, 241 n741 Brierre-Narbonne, J. 32 n29 Buchanan, G. W. 123 n231, 144 n332, 169 n444, 178 n490 Büchler, A. 43 Büchsel, F. 244 n758

340

Index of Authors

Bultmann, R. 15 n31, 96 n103, 98 n115, 235 n713 Campbell, D. A. 209 n614, 232 n702, 233 n706, 237, 239, 240 n736, 275 n58, 277 nn62 and 64 Cassius Dio 31 n22 Cavallin, H. C. C. 122 n230, 123 Chaeremon of Alexandria 12 Charlesworth, J. H. 3 n6, 28 n2, 29 nn4 and 9, 32 n27, 50 n108, 51 n109, 58 n139, 68 n184 Chesnutt, R. D. 22 n53 Childs, B. S. 275 n58 Chrysostom, J. 241 n740 Cicero 12 Clearchus of Soli 12 Clement of Alexandria 23 Cleodemus 23 Cohen, S. J. D. 7 n8, 13 n26, 18 n37 Collins, A. Y. 165 n429 Collins, J. J. 6 n7, 9 n12, 12 nn21–22 and 24, 13 nn25 and 27, 14 n29, 18 n35, 19 nn39–41, 21 n48, 22– 23 nn53–56, 24 n58, 25 nn61–62, 47 n93 56 nn133–134, 57 n135, 74 n17, 85 n63, 123 n231, 165 n429, 166 n432, 169 n444, 183 n510 Conzelmann, H. 96 n103, 212 n622, 213 n625, 221 n653 Cotelier, J. 33 n34 Cover, R. C. 278 n69 Cranfield, C. E. B. 233 n705, 234 n707, 242 n746, 243–244, 246 n768, 249 n779 Cremer, H. 235 n712, 268 Cross, F. M. 151 n364 Crossan, J. D. 45 n89 Dalbert, P. 9 n13 Daniel, J. L. 12 n23 Davenport, G. L. 182 n510 Davies, G. N. 234 n707, 235 n716, 242 n746 Deissmann, G. A. 8 n10 Delcor, M. 122 n230 Delitzsch, F. J. 34 n39 Demetrius the Chronographer 23 Deming, W. 79 n34 Devor, R. C. 208 n612, 212 n622

Dexinger, F. 46 n90 Dimant, D. 40 n59 Dodd, C. H. 97 n105, 275 n58 Donaldson, T. L. 6 nn4 and 6, 9 n11, 10 n16, 11 nn19–20, 20 nn44–45, 21 nn46, 48, and 49, 22 nn51–53, 39 nn53 and 57, 40, 60 n148, 63 n165, 64–65, 70 n4, 238, 258 n4, 265 Donfried, K. P. 201, 202 n591, 208 n612, 214 n631 Dositheus son of Drimylus 14 n28 Droysen, J. G. 6 n5 Dunn, J. D. G. 6 n3, 8 n9, 18 n35, 71 n6, 76 n20, 78 n29, 87 n70, 89 n79, 90 nn81 and 83, 91, 96 nn101–103, 167 n435, 170, 197, 198 nn573–576, 212 n622, 227 n686, 229 n692, 231 n700, 232 nn701–702, 233 nn704–705, 234, 235 n712, 237 n726, 243, 246 n768, 247 n770, 248 n774, 249 n779, 250 nn784 and 786, 255 n803, 261 n17, 264 n28, 265 n30, 267 n37, 268, 271– 272 nn45–48, 273 n53, 274 n55, 276 nn59–60, 277, 278 n67, 279 n70 Dupont-Sommer, A. 39 n58, 71 n6 Efron, J. 40 n63 Eisenbaum, P. 18 n35, 77, 80 nn38–39, 81–83, 84 nn57–59, 85 n64, 86, 88 nn73–75, 89 n80, 90, 91 n84, 146 n345, 205 n601, 229 n692, 231 nn698–699, 235 n712, 246 n767, 249–253, 257 n1, 266 nn32–33, 274, 287, 288 n9, 293 n25 Eissfeldt, O. 36 n44 Elliott, N. 18 n35, 84 n58, 231 n699, 266 n32, 288 n9 Embry, B. 43 n85, 52 n117, 53 nn118– 119, 54 nn122–124, 55–57, 58 n141, 71, 73–74, 92–94, 103 n132, 105 n146, 108 n156, 109 n157, 110, 111 n173, 120 n218, 121, 137 n300, 138, 139 n306, 145 n340, 181, 184 n516, 188 nn533–534, 257 n1, 258, 259 n7, 260 n15, 262 n20, 264 nn27–28 Eupolemus 23 Eusebius of Caesarea 23

Index of Authors Ewald, G. H. A. von 34 n39, 108 n153 Ezekiel the Tragedian 23 Falk, D. 29 nn6 and 8, 29 n10, 31 n23, 32, 36 n45, 40–44, 60 n149, 61 and nn155–157, 62 n158, 66 n177, 67, 68 n184, 75 n18, 92 n88, 100–102, 117 n200, 119 n211, 121, 140, 193 nn547–549, 194 nn551–552, 196 n560, 282 nn77–78, 289 nn11–12 Fee, G. D. 213 n627, 219 nn645, 647, and 649, 220 n650, 221 nn651, 654, and 656, 222 nn660–661, 223 nn662– 663 Feldman, L. H. 12 n23 Festinger L. 14 n29 Filson, F. V. 208 n612 Finlan, S. 275 n58 Fitzmyer, J. A. 231 n700, 232 n702, 233 n705, 237 n724, 240 n737, 242, 246 nn765–766, 247 n770, 248 n774, 250 n784 Flusser, D. 40 n59 Fohrer, G. 46 n90, 47 n94 Forschner, M. 78 n29 Frankena, R. 106 n147 Frankenberg, W. 109 n161, 134 n282 Franklyn, P. N. 103 n135 Fraser, P. M. 18 n38 Fredriksen, P. 84 n59, 266 n33 Frerichs, E. S. 51 n110 Friedländer, M. 9 n13 Fujita, S. 40 n59 Furnish, V. P. 224 n673 Gager, J. G. 12 nn21 and 24, 18 n35, 231 n699, 251, 254, 288 n9 Garlington, D. B. 233 n705 Garnet, P. 121 n219 Gaston, L. 18 n35, 84 n58, 266 n32, 288 n9 Gathercole, S. J. 272 n48 Gebhardt, O. von 103 n137, 158 n397 Geiger, P. E. E. 163 n418 Georgi, D. 9 n13 Godet, F. L. 241 n743 Goldenberg, R. 22 n53 Goldstein, J. A. 21 n48 Goodman, M. 9 n13, 12 n23 Goppelt, L. 96 n103

341

Gray, G. B. 37 nn49–50, 65 n172, 152, 159 n400, 175 n466 Green, P. 6 n5 Green, W. S. 51 n110 Gressmann, H. 46 n90 Grobel, K. 239 n735 Gruen, E. S. 7 n7, 9 n12, 21 n48, 22 n53 Gundry Volf, J. M. 216 n640, 219, nn646 and 648, 223 n665 Gutbrod, W. 7 n8 Hann R. R. 31 n24, 39 n58 Harris, M. J. 224 n673 Haufe, Ch. 200 Hays, R. B. 70 n4, 86 n66, 87 nn69 and 72, 272 n48, 279 nn50–52 Hecataeus of Abdera 12 Heiligenthal, R. 240 n738 Hengel, M. 23 n57, 25 n61, 85 n61 Hering, J. 224 n673 Herion, G. A. 106 n147 Herrmann, S. 46 n90 Hilgenfeld, A. 175 n466, 177 n485 Hill, D. 97 n105 Himmelfarb, M. 166 n434 Hitzig, F. 40 n62 Hodge, C. 241 n745 Holladay, C. R. 23 n55 Holm-Nielsen, S. 29–30 nn13–15, 40 n59, 41 n64, 65 n172, 70, 103 n137, 109 n160, 110 n165, 114 n186, 115 n195, 122 n228, 124 nn235 and 237, 130 n265, 134 n284, 141, 159 n400 Horace 12 Horbury, W. 51, 56 n134 Hughes, P. E. 224 n673 Humphrey, E. M. 22 n53 James, M. R. 37 n48, 114 n186, 115 n193, 122 n230, 124 n235, 130 n265, 132 n274, 134 n283–284, 140, 159 n400, 163 n418, 166 n433, 175 n466 and 471, 177 n485, 189 n539 Jason of Cyrene 23 Jaubert, A. 39–40 Jellicoe, S. 18 n38, 21 n 48 Joest, W. 200 n584

342

Index of Authors

Jonge, H. J. de 54 n124 Josephus 9, 13, 23, 24, 31 n22, 81, 94 n95 Justus of Tiberias 24 Käsemann, E. 201–202, 208 n612, 233 n705 Kee, H. C. 23 n53 Keim, K. Th. 34 n39 Kennedy, H. A. A. 200 n584 Kertelge, K. 96 n103, 202, 274 n54 Klausner, J. 46 n90 Klein, M. L. 111 n173 Koch, D.-A. 279 n51 König, A. 250 n784 Kraemer, R. S. 23 n53 Kraus, W. 21 n 48, 23 n53, 275 n58 Kroeker, P. T. 89 n78 Kuck, D. W. 212 n623 Kugel, J. L. 19 n39 Kühl, E. 208 n612, 212 n622 Kuhn, K. G. 163 n418 Lane, W. L. 260 n12 Laperrousaz, E. M. 34 n39 Leon, H. J. 232 n702 Levine, B. 213 n626 Lichtenberger, H. 15 nn31 and 32, 21 n48, 22 n50, 24 n59, 25 n60, 26 nn64 and 65, 27 n67, 121 n219 Lietzmann, H. 241 n744 Limbeck, M. 26 n65 List, E. 2 n4 Liver, J. 32 n29 Lohse, E. 71 n6 Longenecker, R. N. 228 n688, 242 n745 Lührmann, D. 116 n199, 120 n216, 121 n219, 259 nn9 and 10, 262 n22 Luther, M. 292 Lysimachus 12 MacMullen, R. 129 n263 Maier, G. 59 n146 Maier, J. 46 n90, 71 n6 Manetho 12 Mars, K. 23 n55 Martin, R. P. 224 n673 Martin-Achard, R. 123 n231 Martyn, J. K. 229 n690

Mathews, S. 37 n50 Mattern, L. 208 n612, 212 n622, 224 n673, 225 n680, 241 n745 McCarthy, D. J. 106 n147 McGrath, A. E. 96 n103 McKenzie, S. L. 58 n140 McKnight, S. 9 n13 Megasthenes 12 Melanchthon, P. 241 n745 Mendenhall, G. E. 106 n147 Mettinger, T. N. D. 179 n496 Milgrom, J. 120 n214 Minear, P. S. 83 n55 Mnaseas 12 Momigliano, A. 19 n42 Moo, D. J. 231 n700, 237 n726, 238, 239 nn732 and 735, 240 nn736 and 738, 241–242, 246 n768, 247 n770, 248 n774, 271 n43, 276 nn59–60, 277 n66 Morawe, G. 40 n59 Morris, L. 212 n622 Movers, F. K. 34 n39 Mowinckel, S. 47–48, 50 Murray, J. 241 n745 Nanos, M. D. 18 n35, 231 n699, 232 n702, 281 n76, 288 n9, 289 n15 Neusner, J. 50, 51 n110, 111 n173 Newsom, C. A. 42 n71 Newton, M. 213 n625 Nicephorus 34 Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 30, 36 n45, 37 n51, 57 n138, 93 n93, 103 n137, 123 n231, 126 n245, 151 n364, 152 n376, 161 n409, 168 n442, 170 n448, 175 n466, 183 n510, 226 n684, 270 n42 O’Dell, J. 39 n53, 40 n59 Oehler, G. F. 34 n39 Olley, J. W. 97 n105, 98 n112 Overman, A. J. 20 n44 Payne, T. E. 2 n3 Payne Smith, J. 160 n404 Pervo, R. I. 23 n53 Philo of Alexandria 9, 13, 19, 24, 80– 81, 94 n95, 228 Philo the Epic 23 Philonenko, M. 23 n53

Index of Authors Plutarch 31 n 22 Pokorný, P. 6 n5 Pomykala, K. E. 37 n50, 57 n136 Posidonius of Apamea 12 Pregeant, R. 241 n741 Prigent, P. 122 n230, 130 n265, 144 n337, 151–152, 154 n381, 175 n466 Pseudo-Athanasius 33 Pseudo-Phocylides 10 n14 Qimron, E. 26 n63 Rad, G. von 96 n103, 268 Rahlfs, A. 28 n1, 62 n161, 63 n166, 158 n397 Räisänen, H. 214 n631, 241 n741, 278 n69 Reinhartz, A. 24 n59 Reumann, J. 97 n105, 197 Roetzel, C. 202, 208 n612 Rosen, D. 40 n59 Rosner, B. 78 nn28–29, 80 n36, 82, 86 and n67, 87, 88 n76, 89 n77 Rüsen, J. 2 n4 Ryle, H. E. 37 n48, 114 n186, 115 n193, 122 n230, 124 n235, 130 n265, 132 n274, 134 nn283–284, 140, 159 n400, 163 n418, 166 n433, 175 nn466 and 471, 177 n485, 189 n539 Safrai, S. 12 n23 Saller, R. P. 129 n263 Salvesen, A. 40 n59 Sanders, E. P. 6 n3, 8 n9, 15, 16 n34, 18 n35, 19 n41, 39 n56, 43, 60 n152, 76 n22, 99, 103 n137, 119 n211, 140, 144 n334, 166, 208 n612, 214 n631, 223 n666, 240 n738, 241 n741, 248 n774, 249 n779, 278 n69, 286 n4 Schäfer, P. 12 nn23–24, 46 n90 Schaper, J. 54 n121 Schlier, H. 233 n705 Schmithals, W. 231 n700 Schnelle, U. 2 n4, 45 nn86 and 88, 76 n21, 78 nn28–29, 79–80 nn35–37 Schniedewind, W. M. 57 nn135–136 Scholem, G. G. 166 n434 Schreiner, T. R. 242 n746 Schrenk, G. 97 n105

343

Schubert, K. 46 nn90–92 Schüpphaus, J. 37 n50, 41 n64, 43, 70, 109 nn158–159, 115 nn193 and 195, 119 n211, 124 nn234 and 237, 125 n240, 133, 134 n284, 144 n334, 149 n353, 160 n403, 164 n423, 169 n445, 172 n455, 174 n463 and 465, 175 nn466 and 471, 177 n485 Schürer, E. 15 n31, 21 n48, 23 n53, 29 n10, 37 n50 Schwartz, D. R. 179 n494 Schwartz, V. 58 n142, 66 n177 Schweitzer, A. 8 n10 Segal, A. F. 8 n10, 23 n53, 24 n59, 166 n434, 266 n36 Seifrid, M. A. 41 n64, 42, 60 n152, 70, 140, 144 n334, 204 n599, 259 n9, 260, 262 n23, 268, 291 n20 Sevenster, J. N. 12 n21 Snodgrass, K. R. 203, 208 n612, 241 n742 Speidel, M. P. 157 n393 Standhartinger, A. 23 n53 Stein, M. 33 n29 Stemberger, G. 39 n54 Stendahl, K. 208 n612, 288 n9 Sterling, G. E. 14 n29 Stern, M. 12 nn23–24 Stevens, G. B. 241 n745 Stowers, S. 18 n35, 231 n699, 288 n9 Strack, H. L. 234 n710 Strugnell, J. 26 n63 Stuhlmacher, P. 197, 200 n585, 233 n705, 268, 274 n54, 275 n58 Suggs, J. M. 151 n364, 195 n558 Synofzik, E. 208 n612 Talmon, S. 49 n102 Tcherikover, V. 9 n13, 12 n24, 19 n42, 21 n48, 25 n61 Thackeray, H. St. J. 94 n95 Theophrastus of Eresos 12 Thielman, F. 242 n745 Thucydides 115 n196 Tiberius Julius Alexander 14 n28 Tigay, J. 94 n95 Torrance, T. F. 195 n558, 207 n610 Trafton, J. L. 68 n185 Travis, S. H. 208 n612, 212 n622, 242 n746

344

Index of Authors

Tromp, J. 59 n143, 175 n466 Urbach, E. E. 147 n348 VanderKam, J. C. 171 n450 van Dijk, T. A. 94 n99, 95 VanLandingham, Ch. 1 n1, 6, 37 n46, 56 n131, 59–60 nn144–147 and 151, 61 n154, 62, 66 n176, 72 n8, 96 n104, 97 nn105–109, 98–99, 102, 112 n177, 137, 146 n344, 164 n427, 165 n428, 194 n553, 195 n558, 199, 200 n582, 201 nn587 and 590, 202 n593, 203–207, 209–217, 219 nn645 and 648, 222 and nn658– 659, 223–226, 227 n685, 228 n687, 230–231 nn694–697, 234 n707, 235– 238, 239 n733, 243–245, 247 nn769– 771, 248 nn772 and 774, 249 n779, 250 n784, 251 n787, 252 n790, 253– 254, 263 n25, 266 n34, 267, 270– 271 nn42–43, 279 n70, 280, 281 n75, 283 n80, 285 n2, 286 n4, 287 n5, 288 n10, 289 n14 Vermes, G. 71 n6 Veyne, P. 129 n263 Via, D. O. 84 n60 Viard, A. 242 n746 Viteau, J. 33–34 n34, 64 n169, 103 n137, 130 n265, 133 n278, 159 n400, 174 n465, 177 n485 Vos, G. 242 n745 Walter, N. 21 n47 Ward, G. 29 n9, 159 n400, 74, 119 n211, 160 n404 Watson, F. 242 n746 Watson, N. M. 200 n583, 206 n605, 208 n612 Weber, F. 15 n31 Weinfeld, M. 106 n147 Wellhausen, J. 15 n31, 37 n50, 42, 124 n235, 158 n397, 163 n418, 175 n466 Westcott, B. F. 34 n35 Westerholm, S. 8 n9, 15 n32 Wetter, G. P. 208 n612 Whittaker, M. 12 n23 Wilckens, U. 241 n745, 249 n779 Williams, S. K. 274 n54

Wills, L. M. 23 n53 Wilson, R. R. 74 n17 Windisch, H. 76 n21 Winninge, M. 29, 30, 31 n 22, 37 n50, 41 n64, 43, 63 n163, 65 n172, 70, 72–73, 94 n96, 103 nn135 and 137, 104 n143, 108 n153, 109 nn158–163, 110 and n165, 112 n176, 113–114 and nn186–187, 115, 116 nn197–199, 117 nn201–202, 119 n211, 120 nn214–217, 121 nn219 and 223, 122 nn224, 227, and 230, 123, 124 nn234 and 238, 125 nn239–240 and 243, 126, 129 n265, 130 and nn266, 268, and 269, 132–134, 135 n288, 136 n295, 137 n296, 138 and n301, 140–141, 142 n328, 143– 146, 147 nn346–347, 148 n350, 150 nn361–362, 151–152, 153 n378, 155 n382, 156 n387, 157 n392, 158 n397, 159 nn398–399, 160 nn403 and 407, 161, 164 n423, 166, 167 n435, 168 nn441–443, 169 n445, 172 nn455 and 459, 173 nn461–462, 174 nn463, 465, and 467–471, 176, 177 nn483 and 486, 178 n488, 179 n494, 182 nn507–508, 184 n515, 189 n539, 190 n542, 191 n543, 193 nn544–546, 194, 195 nn556–557, 196 n559, 250 n785, 258 nn5–6, 259, 260 nn12 and 14, 261 nn16, 18, and 19, 262 nn21–22 and 24, 264 n26, 278 nn68–69, 283 n80, 285 n1, 289 n13, 291 nn16–19, 292, 293 nn23–26, 294 nn27–28 Wolfson, H. A. 19 n40 Wright, N. T. 18 n35 Wright, R. B. 3 n5, 28 n1, 29 nn5 and 7, 30 nn13–19, 31 n23, 32–39, 41, 44 n84, 58 n139 and 142, 61 n153, 62 n161, 64 n166, 65 n172, 66 n177, 67 n181, 68 n185, 70, 74, 100 nn119– 121, 103–104 nn136–140, 105 n146, 111 n169, 112 n175, 113 n178, 114 nn188–190, 118 n207, 119 n212, 122 n230, 125 n240, 127 n256, 129 n264, 131 n270, 132 n274, 135 n289, 136 n294, 138 n303, 142 n327, 149 n353, 152, 156 nn388 and 389, 159 n399, 160 nn403–404, 164 n423, 169 n445,

Index of Authors 172 n455, 175 n466, 178 n491–493, 180 nn498–499, 181 nn500–501, 183 nn513–514, 185 nn518 and 520– 522, 186 nn523–524, 187 nn527 and 529, 189 n537, 190 n541, 194 n550, 258 n3 Wyse, M. 45 n87, 47 n97, 48–51, 52 nn115 and 116

345

Yavetz, Y. 12 n21 Yinger, K. 240 n738 Zahn, T. 33 n34, 34 n35 Ziesler, J. A. 96 n103, 97 n105, 206 n606, 207 n610 Zuntz, G. 21 n48

Index of Subjects Abraham 67, 88, 101, 117, 143, 145, 190, 195, 197, 227, 253 and n795, 274 and n57, 281, 289 n15, 290 Alexander the Great 85 Apocalyptic (apocalypticism) 10, 18, 30 and n18, 43, 49, 60, 69, 74–75 n17, 78, 79 n34, 84, 85, 86, 89, 92 n88, 93, 94, 108, 116, 144, 153, 154, 169, 170, 182, 183, 188, 190, 202, 210, 229 Atone, atonement 44, 60, 61, 75, 77, 88, 92, 95, 118, 119, 120 and n218, 121 and n219, 123, 132, 147, 157, 161, 173, 177, 191, 193, 195, 196, 223, 252, 254, 259 and n8, 260, 261, 262, 265, 270, 274 n56, 277, 288, 289, 291, 293 Boundary markers 272 n48, 290 Christianity – Christian era 20 – Christian literature 69, 144, 151 n364, 166 and n432, 226, 270 n43 – Christian movement (communities, congregations), origins 3 and n6, 5 n1, 8, 9, 15, 31, 37, 40, 45 and n86, 48 n98, 49, 71, 76, 78, 79 and n34, 80 n36, 82, 86–90, 130, 147, 148, 162, 165 n429, 167, 173, 174, 195 n558, 201–204, 205 n600, 209, 211, 213, 214 and n631, 216 and n641, 219, 220, 223–225, 230, 231, 232 and n702, 233, 242, 245, 249, 254, 255, 260, 264, 265, 266 n36, 273 n51, 281 and n76, 282, 287 n5, 291–294 – Christology 2, 10 n15, 39 n51, 73 and n11 – koinonia 89 – “new being” in Christ 76, 78, 79, 91, 170, 174, 210, 218, 219, 226, 255, 265, 281, 290

Commandments – of God 16, 17, 24, 25, 26, 67, 83, 105 n146, 143, 146, 162, 163, 165, 167, 173, 180, 184, 194, 248 n772, 252 and n791, 253 Condemnation 69, 72, 101, 138, 174, 179, 184, 196, 202, 203, 223 and n662, 225 Covenant – Arc of Covenant on Mount Zion 46 – covenant blessings 88, 104, 177 – covenant from Sinai 67 – covenant grace 71 – covenant promises 67, 77, 105, 106, 107, 133, 134, 177, 178, 258, 280– 281, 290 – covenant theology 66, 76, 83, 138, 139, 164, 223, 250, 251 – covenantal language 113, 134, 142, 143 – covenantal obligations 144, 145, 147, 161, 197, 238 – covenantal status 161, 237, 240 n738, 244, 258, 291 – covenantal warnings 61, 62, 101, 140 – Davidic 55, 67 – God’s covenant with Israel 8 and n9, 25, 26, 43, 44, 60, 61, 62, 66, 67, 71, 72, 75, 76 n22, 77, 83, 84, 89, 92 and n88, 94, 95, 101, 102, 106, 107, 111 n173, 113 and n184, 120, 132, 133, 140, 141, 144–147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 154 and n381, 155, 161– 165, 173, 183, 190, 193–197, 203, 204, 213, 218, 237, 238, 243, 244, 245, 252, 254, 257, 258, 260 n14, 262, 263, 266, 268, 269, 270, 278, 281, 282, 283, 285, 289, 291, 294 – Mosaic 55, 159 n401 – new covenant 147 – with Abraham 67, 117, 190

Index of Subjects Covenantal nomism 6 n3, 8 n9, 43, 60, 76 n22, 140, 159 n401, 259, 282, 283, 289 David – as person (ruler, king) 37, 46, 56, 57, 62, 77, 101, 132 n274, 158, 174, 177, 178, 179 – Davidic dynasty (lineage) 36, 47, 57 n136, 182 – Davidic king (adopted son of Yahweh) 46, 47, 56 – Davidic regnal (royal) ideology 46, 57 Decalogue 21, 146 Deliverance 51, 52, 60, 63, 103, 105, 106–109, 130, 133, 134, 161, 199, 204, 205, 238, 276, 280, 281 Deuteronomistic theology 58, 62, 72, 93, 142, 195, 196, 209, 210, 217, 237, 290 Discipline – of God (of the Lord) 55 n126, 61, 62, 71, 101, 106, 107, 110, 116, 117, 119, 121, 130, 131, 132, 133 n280, 136– 139, 148, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 159, 160, 161 and n410, 162, 163, 165, 167, 171, 172 and n459, 173, 184, 191, 193–196, 217, 222, 223, 251, 260, 261, 262, 281, 282, 288, 289, 291, 293 Election 16, 17, 43, 62, 71, 77, 81, 93, 102, 107, 146, 147, 197, 203, 204, 233, 240 n738, 280 and n74, 293 Eschatology – Day of (Last) Judgment 58, 59, 66 and n176, 115, 116, 168, 169, 170, 196, 283 – Day(s) of Messiah 37, 59, 67, 72, 84, 90, 91, 101, 110, 117, 123, 130, 146, 174, 175, 191, 279, 280 and n74, 282, 283, 289 – Day of the Lord 84, 88, 164 n427, 168, 169, 174, 210 n618, 216, 217, 230, 266 – Day of Yahweh 57, 194 – end of the world (this age) 10, 48, 52, 63, 65, 77, 84, 85, 88, 91, 117, 158, 189, 195, 234, 250, 265, 292

347

– eschatological age (period, times) 47 n93, 62, 65, 84, 88, 181, 189, 206, 266 – eschatological blessings 66 – eschatological participation 10, 238 and n730 – eschatological prophet 48, 49 – eschaton 76, 84, 88, 90 – Israel’s eschatological hopes 30, 47 – Jewish eschatological concept(s) and notions 1, 17, 30, 36, 44–54, 56, 57, 58, 60, 63, 65, 66, 68, 69, 72, 73, 78, 79 n34, 84, 85, 87, 88–91, 94, 95, 98, 108, 167, 171, 183, 188, 200, 202, 253, 257, 266, 271, 276, 279 n70 – old age, new age to come (new creation) 79, 84, 85, 86 n65, 90, 183, 189, 190, 202, 210, 229, 240 n737, 261, 265, 266, 269, 270, 275, 278, 287 n7, 289 n15, 290, 292, 294 – Parousia 88, 90 and n83, 91, 158, 170, 189, 206, 210 n618, 226, 227, 228, 253, 254, 255, 258, 259, 262– 265, 269, 278, 279, 281, 282, 284 – salvation history 26, 65, 227, 267, 276, 281, 282, 286 Ethics – ethical interpretations, regulations and standards 7 n8, 14, 16–19, 21, 24, 75, 78 n29, 79, 80, 81, 87, 82, 91, 96, 116, 117, 138, 148, 186, 223, 251, 257, 264, 268, 284, 291, 292 – ethical monotheism 10 and n16, 20, 22, 238 n730 – indicative and imperative 76, 78 – messianic ethics 1, 2 and n3, 3, 4, 44, 45, 52, 58, 66, 69, 73–76, 86, 89, 91, 92, 102, 110, 130, 138, 144, 146, 154, 167, 171, 174, 184, 189, 195, 196, 206, 209, 210, 218, 223, 229, 251, 254, 256, 260, 262, 266, 279, 282, 286, 288, 291, 292 – Paul’s ethics 1, 2 and n3, 3, 4, 44, 45, 52, 66, 69, 73–76, 78, 79–80 and nn34–35, 81, 82, 84, 86 and n66, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 94, 170, 171, 174, 206, 208, 209, 210, 217, 218, 223, 229, 251, 254, 256, 258, 260, 262, 266, 279, 282, 284, 286, 288, 291, 292

348

Index of Subjects

Exilic and post-exilic period(s) 11, 12 n21, 17, 18, 50, 51, 85 Faith 1, 7 n8, 21, 24, 64, 72, 80, 82, 83, 92, 102, 115, 125, 127, 130, 133, 139, 148, 158, 161, 165, 168, 170, 191, 192, 195, 198–205, 207–210, 212, 224, 227, 228, 232, 233 and n705, 234 and n707, 235 and n716, 241, 242, 245 and n762, 248 n772, 249, 251 and n788, 252, 253 n795, 255, 259, 262, 265, 266 and n36, 267, 270, 274 and nn56–57, 275–279, 281 and n76, 282, 283, 286, 287 n5, 288, 289, 290, 294 Faithful, faithfulness 18 n37, 25, 36, 51, 54, 58, 68, 80, 83, 84, 88, 89, 106, 107, 116, 130, 132, 133, 139, 141, 145, 148, 155, 161, 164, 170, 197, 205, 214, 215, 234 and n708, 241, 246 n767, 251, 252, 253 and n795, 254, 255, 258 n5, 265, 274 and nn56 and 57, 275, 276, 277, 287 and n8, 288, 291, 294 Forensic context, interpretation 8 n10, 97 and n109, 98, 200, 201, 205 and n600, 206, 207 and n608, 208, 209, 267, 268–269 and n41, 270 and n43, 282, 285 n2 Forgiveness 83, 140, 145, 146, 196, 204, 205 and n600, 227, 252, 253, 274, 275, 281, 287 n5, 288 Gentile(s) – as “God-fearing” devout pagans 20 – as nations (non-Jews) 1, 9 and nn12– 13, 12 and n21, 13 and n26, 19–20 and nn42 and 44, 22, 43, 45, 55, 58, 59, 60, 62–67 and nn169 and 172, 69, 70, 72, 76, 77, 78, 80–85 and n57, 87– 91, 92 n88, 93, 101, 105, 106, 107, 108 n155, 109, 111, 115, 116, 123, 130, 131, 133, 134, 135, 136 and n294, 139, 140 n314, 144, 145 and n342, 155, 160 n406, 161, 162, 167, 170, 173, 176–180, 182, 183, 184, 185 n519, 186, 188, 189, 193, 194, 198, 205, 206, 210, 218, 224, 226, 227, 228, 229 n692, 231 and n699, 232, 235–238, 240, 241, 245 and n762, 246 and n767, 247, 249 and

n779, 250–255 and nn791 and 795, 258–261, 263–266, 269 and n42, 270, 271, 274 and nn56–57, 276–281 and n76, 282, 283 and n79, 286–289 and n15, 290–293 and n25, 294 Glory 16, 63, 64, 65, 108, 114, 127, 132, 156, 182, 185 n522, 186, 240, 265 Gospel 9, 19, 48 n98, 76, 195 n558, 197, 198, 206, 209, 210, 211, 224, 227, 232, 233, 236, 245 n762, 249, 250, 273, 277, 279 n70, 286, 290, 293 Grace – of God 60, 65, 76, 88, 89, 90, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 140, 144, 145, 146, 148, 150, 151, 153, 161, 164, 170, 173, 197, 200–204, 208, 228, 241, 249, 251, 252, 267, 276, 277, 278, 281, 282, 283, 285, 286, 287, 289, 292, 293 – terminology and its meaning 98–99 and n116 Greco-Roman world 6, 7, 8, 9, 19, 81, 82, 96, 204 n599, 217, 267, 268 Greek historians, philosophers (philosophical traditions) 6, 12, 13, 17, 20, 24, 78, 79, 85, 228 Group(s) of sinners (lawless, wicked) 31, 32, 36, 37, 38, 43, 44, 54, 55, 58, 59 and n143, 60, 61, 62 and n159, 66– 67 and n177, 69, 72, 73 n10, 75, 92 and n88, 95, 99, 101, 106, 108 n155, 109, 110, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122 and n224, 123–124 and n234, 125, 126 and n244, 133–137, 143, 144, 145, 150, 158–160 and n406, 161–164, 166 and n432, 167, 168 and n443, 169 and n444, 170, 173, 174, 175 n466, 176 and n478, 177, 178, 183, 193 and n546, 194, 196, 219, 229, 236, 237, 240, 250 and n785, 254, 257, 258 and n6, 278 n68, 280, 282, 292 Group(s) of the devout (pious) 20, 22, 31, 32, 36, 38, 41–42 and nn68 and 70, 43, 54, 55 and n126, 57–60, 62, 65 n172, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72, 75, 84, 85, 90, 91, 92 n88, 102, 106, 108, 110, 112, 113, 116, 117, 119, 121, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129–132 and n274, 134, 136–139, 141, 143, 144, 145,

Index of Subjects 148, 150, 152–155, 158 and nn398– 399, 159 and n401, 160 and n405, 161, 162–164, 165 and n429, 166 and n433, 167–170, 174–177, 179, 188, 189, 191–196, 223, 238, 250, 251, 254 Group(s) of the righteous 31, 36, 37, 38, 42, 43, 44, 58–62, 67, 69, 70–73 and n10, 75, 77, 81, 84, 90, 91, 92, 95, 101, 107, 108, 113, 115 and n195, 116, 117 and n202, 118, 119 and n212, 120 and n218, 121, 122 and n224, 123–124 and n234, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130–135, 137, 143, 145, 148, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155, 158–163 and nn415 and 418, 164, 165, 166, 168 and n443, 169, 171, 172 and n459, 173–176 and n474, 180, 186, 191, 192, 193 and n546, 194, 195, 196, 228, 229, 233, 238, 247, 250, 251, 252, 254, 257–260, 262 and n20, 263, 264, 269, 270, 274, 275, 278 and n68, 281, 282, 283, 286–290 and n15, 291–294 Ha’azinu 93, 181 n506, 184 n516 Halacha 21, 26, 39 Hasmonean dynasty 32, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 42, 58, 59, 61, 62, 72, 124, 125, 174–177, 179 and n494 Hebrew Bible 7 n8, 30, 38 n51, 49 n102, 53 and n118, 56, 57, 58, 69, 70, 92, 94, 109, 113 and n180, 138, 152 n376, 154, 165 n429, 182, 188, 239, 256, 260, 269 n42, 273 Hellenism, Hellenistic 6 and n5, 7 and n7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 and n29, 16, 17, 18 n37, 23, 24, 25 and n61, 51, 79 and n34, 80, 85 and n61, 217, 228, 250, 285 Herod the Great 31 and n23, 33, 34 and n39, 35, 36, 41 n68, 124, 177 Holiness (holy) 1, 11, 16, 17, 24, 26, 32, 36, 50, 59, 66, 72, 82, 104, 108, 148, 150, 153, 155, 157, 176, 178, 183, 184, 186, 194, 200, 210, 213, 218, 226, 228, 229, 250, 263–266, 280, 283 n80, 284 Hope 30, 36, 45, 47, 51, 55, 56, 63, 65, 67, 92, 118, 125, 127, 138, 141, 146,

349

155, 159, 161, 162, 169, 170, 179, 182, 189, 210 n618, 243, 265, 294 Humankind, human being(s) 1, 7, 13 n26, 16, 17, 18, 22, 24, 27, 60, 66, 77, 79 and n34, 80–84 and n57, 85, 89, 90, 91, 95, 96, 99, 111, 112, 113 and n180, 115, 116, 117, 125, 126, 129, 133, 137, 140, 144, 146, 147, 148, 153, 154, 160, 162, 164, 165, 170, 173, 182, 186, 193, 194, 197, 198, 199, 204, 205, 208, 217, 223, 226, 227, 229 and n692, 230, 232, 240, 244, 247, 248, 249, 252, 255, 261, 264, 269–270 n42, 271, 272, 275, 276, 277, 278, 280, 283, 286, 287, 289, 290, 291, 294 Humbleness, humility 17, 38, 56, 61, 62, 67, 71, 119, 120 n216, 127, 133, 190 Idolatry 22, 81, 83, 84 n57, 221, 250 Intra- and intertextuality 2, 53, 69, 70, 73 n11, 75 and n19, 107, 108, 155 n383, 157, 162, 165 n429, 182 n510, 188, 189 n535, 257 Jerusalem Temple and cult 5 n2, 11 n19, 26, 32, 35, 41 n68, 46, 55–59, 61, 72, 93, 120 n218, 121 and n219, 123, 157, 158, 188, 213 and n626, 259, 264, 283 Jesus of Nazareth (Jesus Christ) 10 n15, 19, 28, 29, 45 n86, 48 n98, 49, 54 n124, 64, 76, 78, 79, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 and n73, 89 and n79, 89 and n79, 90 and nn81 and 83, 91, 114 n190, 123, 133, 158, 162, 170, 173, 189, 198 and n576, 199, 200, 202, 203, 205–208, 210, 213, 215 n638, 217, 218, 219, 221, 224, 225–230, 233, 235 and n716, 236, 241, 242, 245, 248 n772, 249, 251 n788, 252–253 and n795, 254, 255, 258, 259, 261–265, 267–273 and n51, 274 and nn56–57, 275, 276, 277 and n65, 278, 279, 281 and n76, 282, 283, 286–290 and n15, 291, 292, 293 and n25, 294 Jewish literature – deuterocanonical 5 and n1, 10 and n15, 27, 28, 34, 71, 75, 123 n231, 152 n376, 237, 269 n42, 279 n71

350

Index of Subjects

– written during Greek and Roman period (Second Temple period) 1, 4, 5 and nn1–2, 6, 7, 9 and nn11–12, 10 and n15, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 and n42, 20, 22, 23, 25 and n62, 27, 29 and n9, 44, 47, 49, 52, 53, 57, 65, 66 n176, 69, 70, 73, 75, 80, 85 n63, 95, 98, 108, 151 n364, 161 and n410, 166 and n432, 170, 195, 198, 202– 206, 209, 210, 217, 225, 226, 237, 238, 257, 265, 266 n36, 269 n42, 270 n43, 273, 275 n58, 279, 285, 286, 293 Jewish poetry – apocalyptic and prophetic psalms 30 and n18, 43, 60, 74–75 n17, 92 n88, 93, 116, 153, 154, 169, 183, 189, 263 – biblical Psalms (Psalter) 3, 33, 35, 36, 41, 154 – complaint psalms 29 – Davidic psalter 29 – didactic poems 30 n 15, 36 – hymnbook(s) 28, 29, 30, 32, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41–44, 52, 54, 57, 59, 61 n155, 66, 67, 70, 72–75 and n17, 101, 102, 103, 111 n173, 113, 121, 123, 133, 136 n295, 138, 146, 150, 157, 170, 171, 173, 174, 178, 180, 181, 184, 188, 189, 238, 256, 257 and n2, 260, 261 and n19, 262, 264, 279 n71, 292 – lamentations of community 36 – lamentations of the individual 36 – prayer(s) 36, 41, 42, 43, 61, 71, 101, 102, 109, 117 n203, 124, 125, 127, 131, 133, 134, 138, 140, 156, 157, 158, 173, 174, 175, 179, 280 – psalms of the nation 30 – psalms of the righteous and pious 31 – songs of thanksgiving 36 Judaism – as the ethnic-religious culture of the Jewish nation 7 and n8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 22, 24, 56, 59, 76 n22, 82, 85, 129, 181, 250, 251 – Chasidim 38, 39 – Essenes 3, 18, 25, 26, 31, 38, 39, 40, 130, 144 n337 – Hellenistic (Hellenized) 7, 8, 10 n14, 12, 13, 14 and n29, 16, 18 n37, 23, 25, 27, 79, 80, 228

– Jewish diaspora 6, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 85 n61, 104 n143, 136 n294, 141 n318, 143, 155, 157 – Jewish monotheism 10 and n16, 11, 20, 22, 80 and n38, 81, 238 n730, 264 – Jewish patterns of universalism 9 n11, 10 and n16, 16, 17, 20, 59 n144, 60, 80, 238 and n730 – Jewish proselytizing propaganda (proselytism) 9, 251, 258 – Jewish religious tradition(s) 7, 8, 9, 10 and nn16–17, 11, 13 and n26, 14, 15, 17, 20, 22, 24, 27, 28, 31, 37, 71, 79, 83, 87, 91, 95, 105 n146, 112, 120, 157, 161, 165 and n429, 169, 183, 184, 189 n535, 200, 203, 205, 206, 210, 229, 231, 238 and n730, 240 and n737, 244, 248, 251, 253, 254, 257, 258, 272, 277, 279, 284, 286 – Jewishness, Jews 3, 4, 6–7 and n7, 8, 9, 10 and n17, 11 and n19, 12 and n21, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 and n37, 19– 24, 25 and n61, 27, 28, 31, 32, 34, 36, 41, 49 and n100, 50, 51, 58, 59, 60, 62, 67, 69, 72, 73, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 and n62, 88, 89, 91, 93, 95, 122, 128, 147, 189, 195, 237, 248, 250, 253, 257, 266–269, 271, 272 n47, 286, 287 and n5, 289 n15, 290, 291, 292, 293 n25, 294 – Palestinian 6, 8, 13, 14, 25, 27, 36, 41, 59, 85, 91, 257 – Pharisees (Pharisaism) 3, 7, 8, 13, 26 and n64, 31–32 and n24, 37, 38 and n51, 39 and n53, 70, 72, 73, 91, 95, 114 n186, 121, 123, 124 n235, 135, 171, 175, 176, 179 n494, 188, 189, 202, 234, 245, 257, 258, 259, 261, 262, 283, 285, 286, 290, 291, 294 – Rabbinic Judaism 5–6 n3, 15, 16 n34, 27, 120 n216 – Sadducees 3, 13, 38, 39, 40, 124 n235, 125, 126 n246 – Second Temple (Era) Judaism 3, 4, 5 and nn2–3, 6, 7, 8 and n9, 10, 11, 15 and n31, 16, 18 and nn35–36, 44, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 61, 68, 69, 71, 72, 74 and n15, 80, 81, 85, 87, 90, 91, 94, 105, 128, 183, 203, 209, 213,

Index of Subjects 247 n770, 253, 257, 259 n9, 266 n36, 268 n40, 279, 285, 286, 291, 293 Judgment(s) – by deeds (works), behavior 60, 61, 84, 196, 200, 201, 203, 212, 233 n705, 236, 237, 243, 244, 245, 267, 286, 287 n5, 293, 294 – Final (Last) 1, 27, 37 and n46, 38, 56 n132, 57, 58, 59 and n144, 60, 61, 62, 66, 68, 69, 72, 90 and n82, 91, 98, 116, 122, 123, 125, 133, 151, 152, 153, 155, 162, 164–170, 181, 186, 189, 191, 194, 195, 196, 198–204, 205 and nn600–601, 206–210 and n618, 212 and n624, 213, 215 and n638, 222, 223 and n662, 224–229, 231, 235, 236 and n718, 237–240, 247 and n769, 248 n772, 249, 251, 253, 254, 255, 258, 262–267 and n38, 268–271 and n43, 276 and n59, 278, 279 and n70, 280 and n74, 281–287 and n5, 288, 290, 291, 293, 294 – individual post-mortem 37 n46, 60 – of God 37, 43, 58–61 and n157, 62 and n172, 65, 67, 68, 69, 82, 85, 90, 96, 97, 100 and n118, 101, 102, 106, 107, 109, 110, 112, 113, 115 and n195, 116, 117, 125, 126, 129, 135– 140 and n313, 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 153, 155, 164, 167, 168, 169, 178, 179, 180, 184, 186, 190, 192, 193, 195, 196, 202, 203, 210 and n618, 214, 215, 222, 236–240, 242– 247 and n769, 248 n772, 249, 251, 255, 282 and n77, 294 Justice – of God 44, 61 nn155 and 157, 74–75 and n17, 92, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105–112, 116, 117, 123, 125, 126, 135, 140 and n313, 141, 142, 146, 147, 149, 153, 154, 155, 161, 174, 184, 191–198 and n576, 205, 206, 209, 210, 211, 253–256, 266 n36, 268, 274, 278, 280, 281, 282, 285, 289, 292, 294 – of Messiah 45, 184 – terminology and its meaning 96–98 Justification – by faith 83, 98, 198, 199, 200, 202, 203, 205, 210, 212, 233 n705, 241,

– –

–

–

351

242, 243, 253 n795, 266 and n36, 267 and n39, 285–286 n2, 274 n57, 285– 286 n2 by works 240, 243, 249, 251 Paul’s concept (doctrine, teaching) of justification 1, 3–4, 72, 83, 143, 147, 155, 189, 199, 200 and n582, 201– 206, 208 and n612, 209, 210, 211, 233 and n705, 236, 238, 241, 255, 261, 265 and n30, 267, 269, 280, 282, 285 and n2, 287, 290, 293 n26 through Jesus Christ 76, 88 n73, 89, 91, 198 and n576, 253 n795, 263, 268 and n40, 270, 293 and nn25–26 justify (justification as a process) 76, 89, 96, 98, 113, 134, 162, 166, 198, 236, 268 n40, 271 n43, 285 n2, 287, 291, 293 and n26, 240, 244, 245, 293 and nn25–26

Kingdom – Davidic kingdom (monarchy) 46, 177, 179 – messianic kingdom 58, 182, 183 – of God 46, 47, 56, 88, 127, 179, 183, 184, 218, 228, 253, 282, 288, 290, 294 – of Israel 46, 57, 59, 85, 194 Legalism (legalistic) 15, 26, 42 Literary form and genres 30 and n18, 36, 74–75 n17, 93, 94, 101, 140 Love – of believers 17, 59, 80, 82, 83, 89, 125, 151, 196, 253, 279 and n70 – of Christ 79, 89 – of God 16, 18, 66, 117, 153, 159, 173, 190, 191, 192, 195, 196, 197, 235 n716, 252 Mercy – of God 1, 15, 18, 42, 43, 44, 55, 60, 61 and n157, 65 n172, 66, 67, 69, 72, 75, 76, 77, 89, 92 and n88, 95, 98– 103, 106, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 115 and n195, 116, 117, 121, 123, 125– 133 and n280, 134–142, 144–157, 160, 161, 164–166, 168, 169, 171– 174, 176, 178, 179, 180, 184, 185, 188, 190–194, 196, 197, 198, 200, 201, 203–206, 208–211, 217, 226,

352

Index of Subjects

229, 230, 232–235, 243, 244–247, 250–255, 256, 257, 258, 259 n9, 260 and n12, 262, 265, 274, 280–284, 285, 286, 287, 289, 292, 293, 294 – of Messiah 65, 100, 187 – terminology and its meaning 98–99 Messiah (messianism) – Anointed one, Yahweh’s (God’s) anointed 32, 44 n84, 47, 49 n102, 52, 69, 178, 188, 191 – Davidic messianic concept 3 and n6, 28, 32, 36, 39, 44, 47, 54 n124, 55, 62, 72, 91, 162, 169 n444, 171, 174, 177, 178, 180–184, 186–189, 191, 195, 196, 254, 257, 258, 261, 262, 263, 279, 281, 286, 288–292, 294 – in general 1, 3 and n6, 30, 32, 36, 37, 38 n51, 44–59, 61, 62, 64, 65 and n172, 67, 68, 69, 73 and n11, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 95, 100, 107, 114 n190, 138, 139, 144, 154, 155, 157, 165, 166, 167, 170, 173, 175, 176, 178, 181 n506, 183–189 and n535, 190, 192, 194, 205, 206, 211, 257 and n2, 261 n19, 264, 266, 271, 280, 281, 283, 285, 294 – messianic age (period) 61, 63, 64, 67, 206, 252, 266, 278, 282, 286, 290, 292, 293 – messianic king 63, 66, 187, 265 – messianic prophet 45, 48, 49 n100 Moses 24, 48 Narrative 2, 11 n19, 22, 52, 53 and n119, 55, 69, 70, 86, 108, 119, 125 New Testament (canon, scholarship) 2 n4, 3, 33, 38–39 and n51, 44, 45, 53 and n120, 71, 73, 74, 89, 197 nn568– 569, 198 nn570–572, 209, 270 n43 Obedience 16, 25, 27, 31–32 and n24, 42, 70, 76, 83, 88, 89, 90, 104 and n140, 163, 192, 195, 202, 203, 227, 229 n692, 230, 233 and n705, 234 and n707, 235 and n716, 236, 238, 241, 245, 246, 247, 251–255, 259 n9, 260 n14, 267, 270, 271, 274, 283, 287 n5, 288, 291, 294 Oikoumene 81

Old Testament (canon, scholarship) 38 n51, 45, 75, 113, 114 n186, 122, 209, 273 n51, 276 Pagan(s) (Pagan world) 9, 17, 20, 22, 79, 218, 221, 237, 270 n42 Paul – as Hellenistic Jew and Pharisee 1, 7, 8, 73, 80, 95, 258, 261, 283, 285, 291 – his apocalypticism and mysticism 8 and n10, 10, 74 n17, 78, 79 n34, 84– 87, 210, 228–229, 249, 257, 266 n36, 292 n21, 294 – his writings 1, 4, 5, 69, 70, 72, 74 n17, 75, 76, 81, 82, 86, 96, 99, 130, 189, 195, 197 and nn568–569, 198 and nn570–572, 203–206, 209, 210 and n618, 215 n634, 215 n634, 217, 228 n689, 230, 257 n1, 267 and n38, 279 n71, 280, 285 n2, 287, 292 – new (radical new) perspective on Paul 5 n3, 18 n35, 288 n9, 293 n25 – Paul the Apostle 2 n3, 3, 8, 15, 24, 44, 52, 54, 58, 68, 69, 71, 72, 74, 77, 139, 143, 147, 170, 173, 196, 201, 204, 211, 224, 283 – Pauline scholarship 1, 5 and n3, 37, 76, 83, 98, 195 and n558, 198, 199 and nn578 and 580, 200–205, 257 and n1, 270 n43 Pentateuch 14, 15, 18 and n37, 51, 107, 138 n303 Piety 31–32 and n24, 36, 41 n68, 42, 43, 120, 121, 123, 139, 173, 258, 259 and n8, 260, 262, 263, 291, 293 Politeia 81 Pompey (Roman general) 28, 31–36, 54, 61, 109 and nn161–162, 115 n193, 133, 134 n283, 159, 177 and n485 Promises of God 57, 63, 65, 71, 77, 85, 87, 88, 93, 101, 102, 107, 132, 133, 156, 157, 158, 165, 174, 178, 182, 182, 197, 225, 227, 243, 253, 258, 266, 270, 274, 277, 281 and n76, 290, 293 Prophetic paradigm 53, 57, 71, 92, 93, 94, 111 n173, 137, 139, 143, 181 n506, 188, 258–259, 260, 261 n19, 262 and n20

Index of Subjects Punish, punishment 42, 54 and n122, 55, 62, 70, 72, 74–75 n17, 93, 98, 106, 108, 109, 110 and n166, 112, 116, 122, 124, 126, 131, 132 and n274, 135, 136 n294, 137, 146, 148, 150, 151, 155, 159, 164, 166 and n432, 181, 193, 201, 209, 214 n630, 217, 223, 224, 244, 251, 259, 262 n20, 270 nn42–43, 282, 294 Pure, purity 31 n24, 54 and 122, 56, 58, 61, 98 and n113, 99, 182, 207, 213, 219, 228, 229, 233, 257, 260, 264, 271 n43, 281, 287 n5 Purify, purification, purge 54 n122, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 66, 67, 72, 84, 91, 101, 110, 112, 148, 154, 155, 162, 165, 174, 184, 185, 186, 189, 191, 194, 195, 196, 206, 210, 218, 226, 227, 255, 262, 264, 265, 269, 270, 275, 278, 280, 282, 283, 284, 288, 290, 291, 292, 294 Qumran – community 18, 25 and n62, 26 and n64, 27, 31 n24, 39 n58, 40, 41, 130 n267, 151 n370, 266 n36, 287 n5 – sectarian writings 1, 25, 26 and nn63–64, 27, 32, 39, 40, 41, 47, 48, 50, 51, 62 n159, 86, 94, 121, 151 n364, 226, 229 n690, 266 n36, 279, 285, 287 n5 Redemption 10 n15, 20, 47, 54 and n122, 55, 71, 74–75 n17, 76, 77, 90, 93, 137, 146, 185, 203, 226, 259, 262 n20, 269–273, 276, 288, 293 Repent, repentance 61, 62, 67, 71, 83, 102, 137, 139, 143, 146, 161, 184, 223, 237, 238, 251, 253, 259, 260 and n14, 262 n20, 275, 283, 291 Restoration 36, 57, 61, 62, 64, 74–75 n17, 85, 101, 132, 138, 178, 182, 282 Resurrection 3, 28, 38, 45 n86, 64, 76, 78, 84, 85, 86, 89, 90, 91, 114 n186, 118, 120, 122 and n230, 123 and n231, 154, 162, 166 and n433, 168, 169, 199, 203, 206, 217, 224, 229 n692, 258, 262, 272, 278, 281 n76, 286, 287, 293, 294

353

Revelation of God 84–87, 177, 224, 255, 258, 262, 265, 268, 272, 281, 293, 294 Reward 1, 27, 42, 43, 70, 72, 99, 104 and n140, 164, 166, 200, 201, 203, 204, 209, 212 and n623, 215, 225, 241, 243, 244, 251, 267, 276, 294 Righteousness – gained by works 15, 42, 43, 121, 144, 161 n409, 166, 203 – in Greco-Roman tradition 204 n599, 268–269 and nn40–41 – of God 1, 18, 31, 36, 43, 60, 61, 67, 71, 75, 89, 90, 92 n88, 95–100, 102, 105, 107, 108, 110 and n166, 111, 112, 113, 116, 117, 119, 123, 125, 127, 128, 129, 133–137, 139, 141, 142, 146, 147, 148, 149, 153, 154, 155, 161, 162, 173, 174, 177, 178, 184, 186, 187, 188, 192–197 and n562, 198 and n576, 201, 202, 205 and n600, 206–211, 217, 218, 227, 231–235, 244, 245, 247, 250–255, 256, 257, 258, 262, 265, 266, 268, 272 and nn47–48, 273–281, 282 n77, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287 and nn5 and 8, 288, 289, 292, 293 and n25, 294 – of Israel 59, 66, 67, 248 and n772, 266, 270, 290 – of men (believers) 43, 67, 96, 97, 100, 104, 105, 116, 117, 119, 127, 129–130, 140, 141, 144, 146, 151, 155, 161, 191, 194, 195, 227, 228, 234, 247, 248 and n772, 250, 251, 257, 258 and nn5–6, 259, 260, 262 and n20, 263, 264, 269 and n41, 270– 271 and n43, 274 and nn54 and 57, 278 and n68, 280, 281, 282, 283 and n80, 286, 287 and nn5 and 8, 288, 289–290 and n15, 291, 292, 293 and n25, 294 – of Messiah 100, 180, 182, 183, 184, 187, 191, 218 – sinfully righteous 143, 160, 161, 173, 194, 258, 260, 262, 263, 278, 281, 282, 287, 288, 290, 291, 292 – Teacher of Righteousness 26, 48 – terminology and its meaning 96–98

354

Index of Subjects

Roman Empire (and its dominion) 7, 9, 17, 28, 31, 36, 58, 71, 72, 93, 129, 138, 158, 159 n398, 253, 257, 290 Sacrifice (sacrificial death/offerings) 41 n68, 88, 90, 104–105 nn145–146, 120, 121 and n219, 123, 198 and n576, 206, 221, 226, 227, 230, 233, 249, 252, 255, 258, 261, 262, 263, 265, 269, 270, 271, 274 and n56, 275, 276, 277 and n65, 278, 283, 287, 288, 291 Salvation 1, 16, 22, 24, 26, 27, 32, 36, 58, 63, 64, 65, 69, 70, 71, 72, 84 and n57, 85, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94, 99, 107, 118, 119, 122, 125, 137, 144, 148, 154, 155, 162, 164 and n427, 165, 166, 168, 178, 186, 190, 192, 193, 196, 198– 205, 209, 212 and n623, 216 and n641, 217, 221, 225–228, 238, 240, 241, 245, 259 n9, 260 n14, 261, 267, 268–269 n41, 270, 272 and n48, 276, 277, 278, 281, 282, 286–290, 293 n25, 294 Savior 119, 121, 137, 139, 173, 177, 179, 281 n76 Semantic(s) 1, 2 and n3, 73, 75, 94–95 and n99, 99, 115, 116, 122 and n225, 123, 158, 170, 171, 174, 188, 256, 282 Septuagint 9, 18 and nn37–38, 19, 20, 21, 33, 51, 105 n146, 132 n274, 138 n303, 270 n43 Simul justus et peccator 292 Sin, sinful, sinfulness 24, 32, 36, 41 n68, 44, 47, 52, 55, 56, 60, 61 and n157, 62, 67, 71, 75, 77, 78, 90, 92, 93, 95, 97, 101, 102, 104–109, 111, 112, 116–121 and n219, 122 n224, 127, 129, 130, 134, 135, 137, 139, 124, 125, 132 and n274, 135, 137, 139, 140 and n313, 141, 143, 145– 148, 154, 155, 159 and n399, 160, 161, 163, 167, 168, 171–174, 176, 177, 180, 181, 182, 184, 191, 193, 194, 196, 198 and n576, 200, 202, 204, 205 and n600, 206, 221, 223, 226, 227, 229 and n692, 233, 236, 237, 238, 241, 242, 245, 246, 247, 249, 251, 252, 254, 255, 258 and n5, 259 n8, 260 n14, 262, 263, 265, 269 and n42, 270 and n42, 274, 275, 277

and n65, 278, 281, 282, 283, 288, 290, 292, 293 and nn25–26 Solomon 33, 35, 37, 158 Son of David 32, 44, 54 n124, 62, 178, 181, 182, 188 Son of Man 48, 49, 91 Sosius (Roman general) 31, 35, 36 Soteriology 42, 60, 61 n155, 87, 88, 92 and n88, 94, 101, 226 n684, 227 Spirit – demonic, evil 166 n432, 229 n690, 269–270 n42, 271 n44 – from anthropological point of view 19, 51, 52, 64, 85, 120 n218, 166 n432, 183, 213, 216, 217, 229, 258, 263, 264, 265, 280, 290, 291 – of God (of Jesus, Holy Spirit) 79, 162, 174, 187, 201, 213, 226–229 and nn690 and 692, 230, 235, 236, 249, 264, 271, 275, 281, 289, 290 – spirit of truth 229 n690 Synagogue(s), synagogal 14, 41 and n68, 70, 94, 103, 153, 154 and n380, 259 Torah, the law (the Law of Moses) 7, 14, 16 and n34, 17–21, 24–27, 31 n24, 44, 52, 66, 67, 69, 76, 77, 79–80 and n35, 81–84, 86, 88, 89, 95, 104 n140, 106, 107, 110, 112, 126 n246, 138, 146, 148, 151–154, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 205, 229 n692, 249, 250, 251, 253, 254, 255, 259, 262, 265, 283, 287, 290, 291, 293 n25 Two Ways, two-Spirit(s) ideology 195 and n558, 230, 254 Universalism 9 n11, 10 and nn15–16, 11 and n19, 14, 16, 17, 20, 56, 59 n144, 60, 63, 64, 65, 70, 80, 144, 145, 182, 224, 225, 227, 228, 233, 236, 237, 238 and n730, 242, 272, 275, 276 and n59, 278, 280, 286 and n3, 287, 289, 290 Western thought and culture 6, 7, 267, 268 Will – free will of human beings 111, 144, 146, 147, 217

Index of Subjects – of God 17, 25, 27, 52, 70, 76, 77, 79, 83, 84, 88–91, 105 n146, 107, 110, 112, 126, 138, 146, 148, 153, 154, 161, 163, 165, 167, 173, 178, 179, 182, 184, 192, 194, 199, 201–205, 210, 217, 221, 223, 227, 229 n692, 234, 235, 236, 238, 244, 247, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 258, 260, 265, 266

355

Works – good works 72, 82, 83, 98, 198, 201, 243, 251 – of the law 26, 27, 88, 121, 229 n692, 236, 240, 245, 247 n770, 248, 249, 251, 258, 272 n48 Wrath of God 77, 196, 198, 201, 212, 221, 227, 245, 246